Searching for Signs of Intelligent Life in Sports Media

La Canfora sort of reminds me of his pal Lombardi when he, too, was an alleged analyst.  Let's go hunting with hand grenades.  Let's go fishing with dynamite.  The guy just doesn't seem to care about collateral damage.

Maybe he's like a lot of college professors.  The reality is that when you say outrageous stuff, a lot of people think that makes you a genius.  

Here's a copy/paste comment from one of these:

Rose-colored glasses? I can understand. Browns fans have had to use them for quite a long time. Always looking for something where it doesn't really exist.
I know the pain. I know the reality. 58 years worth of being a fan. But.....it continues......reality is what it is.....

Interesting philosophical question here: Do TRich's healed ribs really exist?  Did Gordon really catch over 50 passes as a rookie after a year out of football?  Did Greg Little really drop a total of four passes in his last eleven games?  If a tree falls in the forest, could this guy please be under it?

I'm even a little disappointed with Grossi.  No, you DON'T judge a GM by a team's win/loss record in his first three seasons when that involves a rebuild and coach/system change.  Not when the team is the youngest in the NFL.

Fortunately, the vast majority of analysts agree that the Browns have a LOT of talent, and that Tom Heckert did that.  That is real, and you can see it when you take off your excrement-colored glasses.

Bill Ayers recently said that every American President this century should have gone to prison for mass-murder.  Another gaping rectum called the 911 victims "Little Eichmans".  I think they both got a raise and maybe a book deal.  I think La Canfora is the sports' world's version of that.  "Oh wow nobody else talks like dat, darefore dis guy must be a geenyuss!"

Warren Sapp isn't one of those.  He's just extremely lazy.  A couple weeks ago, while analyzing the three teams he's seen more than a couple clips of from last season, and being forced to include the Browns because they're in the AFC North too, he showed it.

He said that the way to attack the Steelers' and Ravens defenses was to spread them out.  Then he asked which offenses could do that.  He prefunctorally said he KNEW the BROWNS couldn't.

Devone Bess can play outside, but is primarily a slot reciever.  Slot guys only play in a 3 or 4-wide set.  Turner's offenses use a lot of that, and by design spread defenses out both horizontally and vertically; often also splitting a tight end out.  Both Cameron and the massively underrated Barnridge can do a lot of damage in this offense in the intermediate and deep middle.

Warren appears to be oblivious to Bess AND Turner.  All he knows is they run this old West Coast thing with this Weeden guy who was bad last year next topic please.

Now that Adam Scheinn has left NFL Radio (thank you God), most of those guys seem to make an actual effort to know what they're talking about, (even about teams that sucked last season.)

Rich Gannon remains kind of sketchy on the Browns, but is Einstein compared to Sapp and La Canfora.  At least, being a quarterback himself, he's automatically checked Weeden and the other quarterbacks out, and gives an objective, insightful, and reasoned assessment.

He's not sure if Weeden can become a franchise guy quickly either, but regards it as a foregone conclusion that in his second season, in Turner's offense, he'll be better.  That's all I ask for from an analyst.  Common sense.

And some of the same fans who parrot what they heard others say about the criticality of the quarterback position bash the whole team, when Weeden was THE problem with the offense last season.  (Well, he and Square-Peg Shurmer's offense).

No, it wasn't the recievers, or the line, or the tight ends.  ALL of them were above average!  Even TRich vs. stacked fronts with broken ribs didn't suck!

Weeden held the ball too long, took unneccessary sacks, tried to throw without his feet set,   and had a lot of bat-downs because he was being forced to throw short and to the middle.

It doesn't mean he sucks, either.  He was a rookie in a complex system that didn't make the most of his unique skill-set.

I now have one more reason to root for Weeden this this season:  If he fails, some of that crap La Canfora threw at the wall will have stuck, and he will have accidentally been right about something.  Darwin would be spinning in his grave.

Browns Guards

NFL personnel people and coaches, unlike many Browns' fans, have a healthy respect for the Cleveland Browns' guards.  Perhaps they should agree to disagree, and that the fans are wrong.

Statisticly Luavao last season was dowright bad.  But the others, including Pinkston who has returned, were average at worst.  More young potential guards have been added through the draft and free agency, and Luavao is in his third season (injured as a rookie).

As Tony Grossi has pointed out a lot, the issue with these new/improving guards is that they're not very mobile.  None of them appear to be pulling guards who can get outside ahead of the running back.

It's sort of a trade-off, though.  Whichever two end up starting will be strong drive-blockers, good pass-protectors, and capable of reaching linebackers in space ahead of them (so they're not completely lead-footed.)

This would seem to mandate a 250 lb. blocking fullback, but instead, the Browns have stockpiled running backs.  So they don't know what they're doing, right?

Instead of trying to run the team, why not try to figure out why Norv Turner and company do what they do?  Because, you know what?  They know a little more about football than you do.

As Joe Thomas has tried to tell you, the deep passes in this offense pull defenders away from the line of scrimmage.  That's a clue.

Most of the offensive sets mandate nickel or dime defenses.  And since that's based on matchups and tendancies more than how the players are labelled, in some cases this even applies to two-backs or two tight end sets.  In general, the defenses will want to attack on neutral downs and risk getting stung by the run.

Weeden isn't a threat to run, so containment is not an issue, and they'll seek inside penetration to deprive him of a pocket and make him scramble.  Improved footwork should make him more accurate as he moves, but he'll never be as effective outside the pocket.

The outside rushers won't worry about opening a gap for Weeden to run for yards, and generally do have to commit to attacking him, which (more often than not) means trying to get around the tackles.

So with all those gaps, why would the running back need a lead-blocking fullback?  Especially a back who can run over half of the defenders?  

Of course, obvious run downs, and late in games when the run is the best way to drain the clock and protect a lead, are different.  Here, the fact that a blocking fullback is useful to the defense as a key doesn't matter so much.  They pretty much expect the run and can key the running back anyway.

Here you might see a big running back or tight end at fullback, or offset as an H-back or something.

This offense is much different than Square-Peg Shurmer's in that it spreads the defense out verticly as well as laterally, and mandates blitzes.  It's also far more important for the interior linemen to be stout and physical than to be athletic.

Vs. the West Coast, more defenders could be closer to the line and between the tackles because the recievers slant and cross the short and intermediate areas of the field--between the tackles.  Vs. this offense, it will be very, very hard to stack the box.

You need a blocking fullback or a pulling guard against seven or eight guys.  Not against five.

In a perfect world, the left guard would be Alan Fanika, but those guys are rare, and it's not at all realistic to expect perfection.

As Tony points out, they've invested heavily in the center and two tackles, and this will be one of the best offensive lines in the NFL overall.

Last week, I read another analysis that pointed out that Gil Brandt cited the prevalence of two tight end sets featuring te/wr hybrid "wing" tight ends in the NFL as a strong and growing trend.  That's true.

But the article went on to conclude that the Browns might or might not have the depth at TE to run it.  The implied premis is based on sheepthink.  The assumption is that Chud and Norv are obliged to stick with the flock.

Why?  They're the ones who come up with stuff like this.  Everybody else copies them.

Plus, like I said before, it's an arms race.  Just as the two tight end sets are becoming more prevalent, defenses are being built to stop them.  The smartest coaches don't want to be like everybody else.  If this defense is built to stop two tight ends, it's better of my offense uses something different DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

This is one of the reasons I think they might be setting up for a lot of two-back (with two running backs).  The guy they got to match up to that wing tight end doesn't match up so well with a quick/fast running back.

But it's deeper than that: You see, Jordan Cameron IS that tight end, so in a 21 grouping (two backs, one tight end) they still probably need to use that guy.  So who's got the other running back, who might line up in the slot?  

Further, everybody seems to think that Jordan will only line up split out.  Buy a clue.  He wasn't a great in-line blocker when he was drafted (but in reality was ok), and he was chosen mainly for his potential as a reciever, but you will see a complete tight end who can line up next to the tackle and take on defensive ends.  And this makes the guy who's supposed to cover him a liability against the run, because Cameron can smash him, and he's not built to stop the run.

Different defenses come up with different answers.  More often than not, they hope they have an extra safety they can use for the second running back.  It might look like a conventional front seven, but it's not, because one of the "linebackers" is a safety.

It's a lighter front which will attack the backfield, and the running backs can block blitzers or safeties downfield.

Just a theory.  But the main point is, don't think like a sheep.