Fan Expertise

I got lucky here in Columbus.  Found a bar run by a Browns fan.  I checked it out last night and will watch the game there today.

Thing is, in as many sentences, he came out with three or four things I disagreed with.  I know a lot of fans share his opinions, so I will here attempt once again to enlighten the reactionary:

1: Colt McCoy could have won the Philly game.

I agree.

2: Weeden should have been yanked from the game.

Wrong.  Right here, after game one, I personally expected Weeden to fail and be replaced by McCoy after a few more games.  But I understood management's commitment to give the TWENTY EIGHT YEAR OLD rookie as much real experience as possible before pulling the plug on him.

This is not about finishing third instead of fourth in the AFC North this season.  This is about contending for the Superbowl next season.  No, not two seasons from now.  Next season.

They believe that because of Weeden's stronger arm and performances against the best college teams, he can do more than Colt McCoy.  We may or may not agree, but this is why you don't put a short leash on Weeden.

3: McCoy has great accuracy on deep passes and excels when throwing on the run.  Weeden is inaccurate and made some of the same mistakes in game two as in game one.

Now here, this guy sounds like an Obamabot.  He's seeing what he wants to see.  Like me, he started out as a big McCoy fan.  Unlike me, he committed to him and stopped really thinking.

McCoy can't throw low-trajectory darts into small windows like Weeden can.  On these throws, his balls get to the reciever faster than Colt's.  The defensive backs have less time to react and close on the reciever, so the reciever has a better chance of making catches without interference, and going somewhere with the ball.

McCoy in season one excelled while scrambling, but, for whatever reason, did badly while scrambling last season.  It seemed to me like he couldn't find an open reciever, and when he did, he missed.

I repeat that with all the drops, Hillis, Momass, and Watson down more than up...and Little dropping every fifth pass--Colt's "regression" had more to do with the new system and literally everybody else than with him.  I repeat that McCoy IS (not just can be but IS) a good starting quarterback with upside left.

But Weeden threatens every part of the field, and DOES have a much stronger arm than McCoy does.

3: It was idotic to dump Hillis.

I sort of agree, but don't know the whole story.  The notion that it was because he didn't show up and give the rest of his team the flue when he was puking his guts out and would have sucked, or even that he got married on a wednesday, had much to do with it.  Soap Opera and "Survivor" fans just shouldn't watch or report on football.

One legitimate issue with Hillis was that he was getting hurt a lot.  As awesome as the guy was, the fact is that the only way defenders could get him down was to attack his legs.

I myself loved the guy, and felt that they certainly should have added a few bucks to the KC offer, BUT fully expected him to be injured, again and again.  And then, the fumbles.  Really, some people go overboard with that, but he did fumble more than he should have.

Finally, he could make some pretty big plays, but wasn't a home-run hitter.

4: They're using Richardson wrong.  They should get him the ball outside.

Right/wrong.  The Browns rebuilding hasn't been (read couldn't be in the real world) perfect.  Mack is a better drive-blocker than most centers, but isn't as good in space.  Pinkston, despite trimming down to 305, remains more of a right guard than a left guard--he's not really quick enough to pull to the outside.

The Browns are working with what they have in a man-blocking scheme.  Richardson is quick to the hole and can break tackles, and the offensive line is better at just ramming defenders back than at getting cute, and they certainly should be able to get tough inside yards with Richardson.

Moreover, inside runs wear a defense down.  They let the linemen be the aggressors and force the defenders to react.

This offense must threaten the inside run.  If Richardson didn't go up the gut at least half the time, the defense could blanket the intermediate middle of the field and stop the slants and crosses.  Play-action could never work.  Defensive tackles could sell out and shoot gaps, rather than worrying about Richardson sneaking around them.

The guy didn't mention this, but I will--(and thank you Terry Pluto for digging the useful stats up): Shurmer has been running on first down at least three out of four times.  Predictably.  This is GOOD.

In the first game, it rarely worked.  In game two, it worked well.  The Bengals were looking for it, but it didn't matter.  Richardson got some yards, and I think the worst result was second and eight or nine.  More often, it was second and five or six.  The defense had no way of knowing what came next.

Smashmouth wears a defense down, and think about it: If you're a defender and you know and prepare to stop what's coming, and still fail, what does it do to you?  If you lose your battle when it's just plain brute force, how do you feel about that?

Ok I think the Browns will beat Buffalo, and have updated my win/loss prediction to 14-2.