For a moment I suspected that everybody was reading this blog, but no...I'm still kind of like the AMWAY Browns analyst--trying to get my family to read my blog.
I've stopped trying to get a gig with the Bleacher Report and Dawg Pound Daily. They have to admit that I know my stuff, but being as abrasive--nay, acidic and offensive as I am, they probably got to the first insult and skipped to the next submission. Might have got through two sentences.
But you know, I'm old enough to remember Pete "Why don't you gargle with a pack of razor blades?" Franklin. Very popular. What about Greetham and Sobo on Scout.com? Sometimes they get ticked off by the same inanities and mindlessness I do, and rant about it too.
I'm a niche guy, I guess. A very tiny, very private, niche guy who would make a lousy politician. Sometimes the truth is that somebody is a dumbass, and I say so. And you know what else? Dumbasses shouldn't be allowed to vote, either--how 'bout that?
Anyway, Travis Wakeman on the Bleacher Report was a pleasant surprise this week. I only check the Bleacher Report occasionally, because some of the writers are...wrong. (see? No insult! That took a real effort! I think I hurt myself!)
But Wakeman listed five veterans who might not make the roster, and before that, five unknown longshots who might. His analysis was logical and thoughtful, and, (try as I might) I couldn't find fault with it.
Nor is he parroting others, as so many do. He's an original thinker. Kellen Davis was one of the players he saw as a potential cut, owing to undrafted FA Travis Tannahill. Nobody else except Peter Smith on Dawg Pound Daily said anything like that. Barnrdge was also one of his players to watch.
It's sad that he's also right about Jordan Norwood. That kid is damn good, but the numbers may have overtaken him. It's amazing, though, that this team will have to release some players who will last about ten seconds on waivers because it has too much talent.
Bob Fisher on Dawg Pound Daily's breakdown of some of the Turner offense was educational and deep. Bob uses game photos with telestrator-like arrows, circles, etc. to illustrate various plays as they unfold, and explains the principles at work.
I don't remember if it was Bob, but a couple weeks ago I read another article using similar illustrations which explained some of the Ray Horton defense. That one wasn't fluff: along with the good stuff, it pointed out the flaws in Arizona; namely the fact that that defense was sometimes gashed severely by the run.
It's true: An aggressive, high-pressure defense which relies on man coverage is always trading punches. To knock somebody out, it has to get close and take some shots.
Marty Schottenheimer once said that "statistics are for losers". Expressed more diplomatically, the only stat that really matters is wins and losses. I'm sure that he is as sick of fans' obsession with run defense as I am, and this is why:
A defense can surrender 130 yards on the ground. That sucks, right? Not neccessarily. Not when one out of five run attempts are blown up in the backfield for a loss, four out of five gain under 3.3 yards, it forces two fumbles, gets four sacks and two interceptions.
The hell with the 4.3 yards per-carry or whatever if they're taking the ball back by force, and forcing second and third and longs leading to punts.
For that matter, when your offense doesn't score points and you're playing from behind, other teams try to protect their lead and play it safe by running at you, and the way to attack a blitzing defense is to run and use screens.
Ray Horton knows this. He knows that he'll give up some long runs here and there. It's just that the setbacks, turnovers, panic, and confusion he causes makes that a fair trade.
Yes, the Steelers defense has been ranked near the top in run defense for years. That's true, but it's partly because of Troy Polumalu and the fact that they've been together in this system for a long time, so they don't make mistakes.
And those long runs are always either a mistake or one guy getting beaten one-on-one, because in theory every hole created by a blitze is covered by design.
The 2013 Browns are still very young, and they will make mistakes and give up some long runs. But it doesn't mean the sky is falling.
Comments on camp observations:
As I predicted, Mingo is not here exclusively to rush the passer, but also to cover. This is how they've used him for the first couple days, and the early results are naturally as I had predicted. He has not just the speed, but the hips and the quickness to stay with most big recievers in man coverage all over the field, and will be a big part of the Browns' answer to the "new" NFL tight end.
This was obvious to me because I think. Jackson and (especially) Robertson can cover, and TJ Ward can cover big people, but they're physically overmatched by 6'5" tight ends. They can stay with them, but can't do anything but make the tackle on a well-thrown ball they can't reach.
Opposing offenses will rely heavily on tight ends to exploit this defense in particular. This is where it's most vulnerable in the passing game.
Mingo is here partly for that, and before long every NFL team will want a Mingo of their own.
Not every team has a super-tight end like Cameron will be if he remains healthy. Those teams are on MORE trouble, because he'll blitze them more.
Somebody else wrote an article about how these questions about Mingo's weight are getting rediculous. The writer suggested that the Browns should have security people escort the next person who asks that question out, and he bets the other reporters would applaud. Bet it was Greetham.
What I wrote before is partly why Horton isn't worried about it: The most important thing for Mingo, in the real role he'll fill, is that he remain as quick and fast as he is now.
At the end of 2013, he might not have more than 5 sacks, but he'll also have an interception or two, along with several breakups. And when a real analyst looks at stats, the conclusion will be: "Opposing offenses tight ends did not do well against the Browns."
No comments:
Post a Comment