Just Checkin' in

Some guy on ESPN predicted that the Browns would go 4-12 again.

OK, well, I'm often accused of being a "homer" because I spend so much time debating against dumb predictions like this--which are always, always negative.  I don't care.  Irrational is irrational.

Why will the Browns not improve any whatsoever this season?

What it can't be:

1: The second year in new offensive and defensive systems, with new coaches.
2: The first full off-season.
3: Many young core players entering their second and third seasons (the majority of the starters.)
4: Trent Richardson.
5: The running back, offensive line, tight end, secondary, or defensive line position groups.
Heading kneejerk negative responses to number five off at the pass: They lost Taylor for most of the season, but solidified defensive end with Rucker and an edge-rusher.  Last season's defensive line was one of the better 4-3 lines in the NFL, Taylor wore down at the end, Sheard enters his second season, and Jauron always knows how to best use his talent.
Facts.  Just facts.
Both first-year inexperienced starting guards are now veterans.  Pinkston, in particular, should make a big jump, as he attended LeCharles Bentley-de Sade's offensive line boot-camp in the offseason.
Upon further examination, Scwartze was the best available insta-right tackle available, and this was the line's biggest weak spot.  This will be a very good offensive line.
Truth.  Deal with it.

What it could be:
1: A rookie quarterback.
2: Bad wide recievers.
3: Tough schedule

Well yeah, okay.  I couldn't make myself read another irrational and/or poorly-researched transcript, but I'm sure that these were mentioned.

One can't help but be concerned about Brandon Weeden the rookie, despite his emotional maturity and physical tools.  He's absolutely going to screw up (duh!).
But isn't it common sense to remember how much better the offense was when Peyton Hillis played, and admit that Richardson will have a similar impact as a reciever, runner, and blocker?

No help from the recievers?  If you insist on ignoring Richardson and the tight ends as recievers, ass ume that Little is another Braylon Edwards perma-bonehead, ignore the good stuff Jordan Norwood did, I suppose you could say that.

But isn't that a whole lot of assuming and ignoring?

Little is another of the second-year players that too many analysts discount.  Despite his fourteen drops, he was the favorite target last season, because he seemed to always be open.

In a recent excellent analysis I read, most of Little's drops were the result of concentration lapses--namely looking upfield before he had secured the ball.  His hands are fine, and this kid stuff is the easiest thing to correct.

Nor is he a "possession" reciever, nor his his size and strength his only asset.  He can go DEEP.

Labels confuse shallow people.  A wing tight end is really just a huge wide reciever, and the Browns have two of them, even excluding Ben Watson.  They're trying to turn Cameron into another Watson, who can block in-line as well, but he's already a wide reciever.

The Browns can mix-and-match all of these players as recievers, including Norwood and now Benjamin--both of whome can make huge plays in a broken field or go deep.

Here again, the ass umptions are universally negative.  That Little won't this time catch the majority of the passes he dropped last season.  That Massequoi's injuries and absence had nothing to do with the decline in his production.  That Benjamin is nothing.  Mitchell doesn't even exist.  Norwood didn't catch everything thrown to him.

That the quarterback won't have more time to throw, the Browns won't be run-oriented in the first place, that Weeden's tight spiral and deep accuracy won't help any...

All of which presupposes that young players don't just naturally grow and improve with experience.

The schedule is a good point, but isn't it each and every year that several of the elite teams decline, just as several of the weak teams get better?

4-12?  Man, if this guy had said 6-10, I might have respected his opinion.  I personally think 7-9 or even 8-8, but I can see where a rookie QB could screw a team up for awhile.  But 4-12?  That's just dumb.