NO! How dumb are you to ask that question!?
The black helicopters are circling, and there's this "tank" theory to which even smart people I respect ascribe. They want the best QB in the draft, period, so they don't mind losing.
Ok I get it. If I were a GM it's something I might do, while lying to all you unwarshed masses about it.
Trading Josh Gordon would pretty much guarantee a very high draft pick, despite a strong defense.
They should teach critical thinking in gradeschool...read this slowly; pay attention:
This regime wants to build a dynasty, right? They want to be like the Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, right? So you can readily understand the turning of fourth and fifth round picks in the last draft into 3rd and 4th rounders in '14 (especially since they knew the venerable Steelers would suck). You get trading TRich for even a no doubt low first rounder in '14, right?
So far, so good. The Browns need a Big Ben, Flacco, or Rogers/Luck/Brees/Manning, and they're maneuvering to get him. You get that. Check the record, and you see that that special, franchise QB is THE most important part of every Superbowl team since Dilfer's Ravens.
And those guys don't grow on trees. Bash Holmgren all you want, but he offered about as much for #2 overall in an effort to get RG3 as the the deal the Redskins offered, and if you believe him now, he offered ALL of his draft picks the same year trying to land Luck.
Here's what you're missing: Guys like Josh Gordon are even more rare than franchise quarterbacks. There haven't ever been more than five guys like him in the NFL, and usually fewer.
I'm telling you now, Daunte Culpepper was never a great quarterback. Randy Moss made him look better than he was. And even past his prime, Randy made the difference for Tom Brady.
And here, with Norv Turner and Chud, Josh Gordon is more valuable. Possibly even more valuable than the quarterback, since he can make even an average QB look great, and (try to follow me) an average running back get 3.6 YPC and a guy like Cameron--well you know.
Sure, if he tests bad again it's a year off, and his history sucks. But that's not enough to dump him! He's not a freaking addict!
I play poker, and traded stocks, options, and commodities. I understand leverage, and risk/reward ratios.
I would trade Josh Gordon. For somebody else's entire draft. But only if they drafted pretty high. And Joe Banner, even if he hopes to lose games and draft higher, won't trade this rare, rare 22 year old commodity for anything less.
Now: As you know I'm a big Peter Smith fan, but he's just out of hand on the QB position. To illustrate, I will set up a hypothetical interview with him.
Let's pretend in my bizarro world things just sort of cooincide time-wise and place-wise:
ME: So Peter, the Browns need a quarterback. What should they do?
Peter: They'll need to move up as far as they can in the draft, and get him there. It won't be cheap.
ME: What about Brian Sipe? He's looked really good in preseason.
Peter: He doesn't have an NFL arm, and he's too short to see the field. I'm surprised you even asked about him.
ME: Kelly Holcomb? He backed up Manning all that time. He's taller, with a decent arm.
Peter: Carreer backup. Atrocious in spot-duty.
ME: Atrocious? Do you always have to go overboard? Will "mediocre" work for you, in the interest of accuracy?
Peter: Terrible. That's my final offer.
ME: What about Montana?
Peter: Again, no arm. He's also too slight to be a starter. But he's smart and accurate, and should eventually become a solid backup.
Ok look: I'm just not willing to write Hoyer off yet. Nor even Weeden. I know that this regime will draft a new QB high no matter what, but unlike Peter am not positive that our franchise QB isn't already here.
Go, Hoyer! The Bungles DB's are beat to hell, and even if Hall plays hurt, Gordon will eat his lunch.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
What Real Experts Say About the Browns
I have to start with former Giants WR Armani Tumor, who responded to a question about a potential Josh Gordon trade something like this...(after Gordon caught ten passes for over 140 yards and a TD):
"He's supposed to be coming back from his suspension pretty soon. Is it--what next week?"
You need to take some of the stuff these guys say with a grain of salt. Armani is an extreme example. I think he's the only one that doesn't at least check out the week's top performances before he goes to work talking about football.
Phil Simms, Rich Gannon, Jim Miller, and Trent Dilfer all really like Hoyer. For your reference, Jim Miller is diligent in his research, and actually pays attention to all the teams, including the boring ones. The others can be trusted to actually study a quarterback before they talk about him.
Especially Phil Simms. Per an earlier article by Mary Kay Cabot, Phil didn't even criticize his arm-strength, which is amazing.
Notable is the fact that none of these guys ever expressed similar support for Weeden. While they talked about his upside and "flashes", they always put a question mark at the end of every remark on Weeden.
Of course, except for Phil, all these guys were underdogs themselves at some point, and they'd naturally want to back up a "carreer backup" who showed "moxy". Weeds was a first round pick, so a good analyst factors in where these guys are coming from.
But here are some good examples of underdogs who came through (can you say Brian Sipe by the way?):
Gannon was drafted low because he refused to convert to safety. He was regarded as a "carreer backup" for most of his career. Miller was a low pick who Bill Cowher had backing up Cordell Stewart! He kicked butt every chance he got--but inexplicably didn't get many chances. Dilfer was up-and-down, and even winning a Superbowl was called a "game manager".
Simms was different. He was always a star. And he loves Hoyer too. If he didn't, better believe he'd say so, too.
Pat Kirwan thinks he might have learned something in his SIX years (yawn).
Gannon, by the way, called the game, so he has actually finally checked out the team.
As I write, he's kind of raving about the defense and (again) Hoyer--and Gordon.
They're universally picking Cinci over the Browns this weekend, but Gannon said it wouldn't be easy.
If I were them, I'd pick Cinci too, but being me I can't. I guess I can predict a tie...
Cinci really doesn't have any weaknesses, and can do literally anything they want offensively. Our Browns just aren't there yet. Aside from Gordon the recievers don't look so great. Running backs so-so. Great tight end, but big problem at right guard. Hoyer's second start.
One thing I noticed last week was that Buster Skrine is much better now. They avoid Joe Haden (oh yeah Armani Tumor again: "Can you name a shut-down corner in the AFC? Revis, maybe...but who else? There just aren't any.")
They target Skrine, but now he's really giving them hell. He might not be giving that job up anytime soon.
Oh yeah! A new guy on NFL Radio I really like is Booger McFarland (not sure of spelling). HE understood that TRich wasn't as important in the Turner offense, and thought they made a smart trade. HE gets it! And he does his homework--he knows about the Browns, and the other "boring" teams that the other guys just gloss over (or--in Armani's case--utterly ignore.)
I predict that the Browns will beat Cinci if they return an interception and a punt and a kickoff for touchdowns. There, I said it.
"He's supposed to be coming back from his suspension pretty soon. Is it--what next week?"
You need to take some of the stuff these guys say with a grain of salt. Armani is an extreme example. I think he's the only one that doesn't at least check out the week's top performances before he goes to work talking about football.
Phil Simms, Rich Gannon, Jim Miller, and Trent Dilfer all really like Hoyer. For your reference, Jim Miller is diligent in his research, and actually pays attention to all the teams, including the boring ones. The others can be trusted to actually study a quarterback before they talk about him.
Especially Phil Simms. Per an earlier article by Mary Kay Cabot, Phil didn't even criticize his arm-strength, which is amazing.
Notable is the fact that none of these guys ever expressed similar support for Weeden. While they talked about his upside and "flashes", they always put a question mark at the end of every remark on Weeden.
Of course, except for Phil, all these guys were underdogs themselves at some point, and they'd naturally want to back up a "carreer backup" who showed "moxy". Weeds was a first round pick, so a good analyst factors in where these guys are coming from.
But here are some good examples of underdogs who came through (can you say Brian Sipe by the way?):
Gannon was drafted low because he refused to convert to safety. He was regarded as a "carreer backup" for most of his career. Miller was a low pick who Bill Cowher had backing up Cordell Stewart! He kicked butt every chance he got--but inexplicably didn't get many chances. Dilfer was up-and-down, and even winning a Superbowl was called a "game manager".
Simms was different. He was always a star. And he loves Hoyer too. If he didn't, better believe he'd say so, too.
Pat Kirwan thinks he might have learned something in his SIX years (yawn).
Gannon, by the way, called the game, so he has actually finally checked out the team.
As I write, he's kind of raving about the defense and (again) Hoyer--and Gordon.
They're universally picking Cinci over the Browns this weekend, but Gannon said it wouldn't be easy.
If I were them, I'd pick Cinci too, but being me I can't. I guess I can predict a tie...
Cinci really doesn't have any weaknesses, and can do literally anything they want offensively. Our Browns just aren't there yet. Aside from Gordon the recievers don't look so great. Running backs so-so. Great tight end, but big problem at right guard. Hoyer's second start.
One thing I noticed last week was that Buster Skrine is much better now. They avoid Joe Haden (oh yeah Armani Tumor again: "Can you name a shut-down corner in the AFC? Revis, maybe...but who else? There just aren't any.")
They target Skrine, but now he's really giving them hell. He might not be giving that job up anytime soon.
Oh yeah! A new guy on NFL Radio I really like is Booger McFarland (not sure of spelling). HE understood that TRich wasn't as important in the Turner offense, and thought they made a smart trade. HE gets it! And he does his homework--he knows about the Browns, and the other "boring" teams that the other guys just gloss over (or--in Armani's case--utterly ignore.)
I predict that the Browns will beat Cinci if they return an interception and a punt and a kickoff for touchdowns. There, I said it.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Labels
Third string quarterback, first round draft pick. Because if these labels, everybody on NFL Radio and everywhere else said the Browns had no chance to win vs. the 0-2 Vikings.
I was also hearing things like "The Browns offense doesn't have a lot of weapons." (Chuckle) "That's an understatement" (snicker).
I heard this, and wondered what Cameron and Gordon are...or when they went to heaven or the cornfield or wherever.
Campbell was signed before Hoyer, and called the second QB. Then Hoyer was signed, and they didn't bother changing it. It didn't shock me when Hoyer was named the starter for this game--second string and third string are just labels.
Hoyer throws a more accurate deep ball and fits Turner's offense better than Campbell--what's the big deal? Can't people think anymore?
It was downright ignorant to think that trading TRich was suicide in Turner/Chud's system. It was lazy and negligent for all those pundits to speak of Gordon's return so dismissively, and ignore Cameron completely.
I suppose I can cut them slack for expecting Hoyer to suck, but not to be so certain of it.
Now that they beat the Vikings, the talk on NFL Radio won't be about the Browns, but about how crappy the Vikings are, to allow this horrible team to knock them off in their house. Hoyer will still be a "third string quarterback", they will be a team with "no running back", which scored only 16 points in it's first two games.
Well, team two was the Ravens, who I believe just hammered the Texans, and team one was the Dolphins, who subsequently beat Indianapolis--as if anybody would notice that in this context. Really good teams, ok?
During the game, some nimrod on the Bleacher Report threw a tantrum over Banner and company "tearing down" the team.
Don't believe everything you read. Adam Schefter, who is usually correct and one of my top sources, said that the Browns really wanted this Tate guy as a running back, and had Little and Gordon on the block.
I choked on the Gordon part, and am pretty confident that Adam tossed him in because the rumor mill has turned the Richardson trade into a fire sale and a surrender...LABELS.
This clown read that crap and swallowed it hook/line/sinker and made a fool of himself with that tantrum.
BEFORE his 10 catches for 146 yards, trading Gordon would have been utterly, completely insane. He's 21 years old, and THE second-most important piece of this offense. He's a scary, scary number one deep threat, and those are about as common as Joe Thomasses.
But maybe this guy is in love with Little, too. I myself just can't write the guy off. I mean, I've seen him make almost every catch over the last eleven games of last season, so I know he can be reliable.
However, if I can get a second rounder or something for him, I'll do it because he still scares me; you just can't count on that. Braylon Edwards wound up probably losing more games than he won for the Browns.
They've got Cameron and Gordon, and there is some young talent in the wings, so this is a trade that would not hurt the team much.
Oh God no not the labels again! THEY didn't draft him in the second round! To them he's more valuable as a high draft pick! Where he was drafted doesn't matter!
Speaking of draft picks, I was unable to watch the game, but Hoyer sounded pretty good. I know that one interception was tipped, and another happened when he was hit while throwing. And boy, wow--he sure as hell came through at crunch-time!
Now, Chud pretty much has to keep him in the starting role to see if he can keep it up; and progresses, as he should, with game experience. I like that, because he's a local guy with a lot of tread left on his tires.
Unfortunately, Weeden is screwed for now. As I said before, Gordon made the difference here, and Weeden might have done just as well. The offense broke loose with the touchdown bomb, just the way Turner intended.
They still weren't able to run effectively until the fourth quarter, but Turner got by that with Infantian dumpoffs to the backs, which were effective because of Gordon and Cameron running around deep.
Up next, the Bengals. This is in reality the best team in the Division; better than the Ravens. I can't make myself too optimistic. It's too soon. The Browns are too young, and have gaps here and there (especially at right guard hurry up guys get healthy!!)
But if I were writing a book about a home town longshot shocking the world...
Anyway it would be great if Hoyer keeps it up and turns out to be a franchise quarterback. That last drive, with the Vikings ears pinned back and the team on his shoulders, was a really positive sign. This is exactly what separates franchise guys from just real good guys.
But yeah it's early. And anyway, they'll probably draft a quarterback high anyway, even if he's a backup for awhile.
Go Brian!
I was also hearing things like "The Browns offense doesn't have a lot of weapons." (Chuckle) "That's an understatement" (snicker).
I heard this, and wondered what Cameron and Gordon are...or when they went to heaven or the cornfield or wherever.
Campbell was signed before Hoyer, and called the second QB. Then Hoyer was signed, and they didn't bother changing it. It didn't shock me when Hoyer was named the starter for this game--second string and third string are just labels.
Hoyer throws a more accurate deep ball and fits Turner's offense better than Campbell--what's the big deal? Can't people think anymore?
It was downright ignorant to think that trading TRich was suicide in Turner/Chud's system. It was lazy and negligent for all those pundits to speak of Gordon's return so dismissively, and ignore Cameron completely.
I suppose I can cut them slack for expecting Hoyer to suck, but not to be so certain of it.
Now that they beat the Vikings, the talk on NFL Radio won't be about the Browns, but about how crappy the Vikings are, to allow this horrible team to knock them off in their house. Hoyer will still be a "third string quarterback", they will be a team with "no running back", which scored only 16 points in it's first two games.
Well, team two was the Ravens, who I believe just hammered the Texans, and team one was the Dolphins, who subsequently beat Indianapolis--as if anybody would notice that in this context. Really good teams, ok?
During the game, some nimrod on the Bleacher Report threw a tantrum over Banner and company "tearing down" the team.
Don't believe everything you read. Adam Schefter, who is usually correct and one of my top sources, said that the Browns really wanted this Tate guy as a running back, and had Little and Gordon on the block.
I choked on the Gordon part, and am pretty confident that Adam tossed him in because the rumor mill has turned the Richardson trade into a fire sale and a surrender...LABELS.
This clown read that crap and swallowed it hook/line/sinker and made a fool of himself with that tantrum.
BEFORE his 10 catches for 146 yards, trading Gordon would have been utterly, completely insane. He's 21 years old, and THE second-most important piece of this offense. He's a scary, scary number one deep threat, and those are about as common as Joe Thomasses.
But maybe this guy is in love with Little, too. I myself just can't write the guy off. I mean, I've seen him make almost every catch over the last eleven games of last season, so I know he can be reliable.
However, if I can get a second rounder or something for him, I'll do it because he still scares me; you just can't count on that. Braylon Edwards wound up probably losing more games than he won for the Browns.
They've got Cameron and Gordon, and there is some young talent in the wings, so this is a trade that would not hurt the team much.
Oh God no not the labels again! THEY didn't draft him in the second round! To them he's more valuable as a high draft pick! Where he was drafted doesn't matter!
Speaking of draft picks, I was unable to watch the game, but Hoyer sounded pretty good. I know that one interception was tipped, and another happened when he was hit while throwing. And boy, wow--he sure as hell came through at crunch-time!
Now, Chud pretty much has to keep him in the starting role to see if he can keep it up; and progresses, as he should, with game experience. I like that, because he's a local guy with a lot of tread left on his tires.
Unfortunately, Weeden is screwed for now. As I said before, Gordon made the difference here, and Weeden might have done just as well. The offense broke loose with the touchdown bomb, just the way Turner intended.
They still weren't able to run effectively until the fourth quarter, but Turner got by that with Infantian dumpoffs to the backs, which were effective because of Gordon and Cameron running around deep.
Up next, the Bengals. This is in reality the best team in the Division; better than the Ravens. I can't make myself too optimistic. It's too soon. The Browns are too young, and have gaps here and there (especially at right guard hurry up guys get healthy!!)
But if I were writing a book about a home town longshot shocking the world...
Anyway it would be great if Hoyer keeps it up and turns out to be a franchise quarterback. That last drive, with the Vikings ears pinned back and the team on his shoulders, was a really positive sign. This is exactly what separates franchise guys from just real good guys.
But yeah it's early. And anyway, they'll probably draft a quarterback high anyway, even if he's a backup for awhile.
Go Brian!
Kolonich Goes Bonkers on Banner
Dave Kolonich was uncharacteristically illogical in his hit-piece on Joe Banner and the organization on general. Most irksome in this article was his assertion that Banner is a miser for not having spent up to the salary cap.
He intimates that the front office doesn't like any of the players they inherited from Tom Heckert and company, including Alex Mack and...I can't believe he said this...Josh Gordon.
Dave is normally just an excellent X's and O's guy, and I'm almost certain that he understands the Turner offense and Gordon's critical role in it.
I've come to respect Dave a lot over the years, and just have to assume he stopped at the tavern and got surrounded by a lynch mob of the out of work NFL GM's and Head Coaches that Cleveland is full of.
I've been pretty surprised by Joe Banner's honesty since he's been here. He's not a politician, and as an analyst I now actually listen to what he says:
He says you don't spend money unless it's an upgrade. You don't get older guys until you're contending. You extend and re-sign current players before you look elsewhere. He's saving some money in order to keep guys like Alex Mack.
Peter Smith, after a reactionary article of his own, came back to reality strong with a great article about how this one trade doesn't equal a roster "blow-up".
I kind of think Peter is reading my blog and not giving me credit.
Anyway, he's still unreasonable on the quarterbacks. He says none of the guys on the current roster "can play". Peter feels that Campbell and Hoyer suck too bad to even be backups.
Well that's wrong, but I'm tired of restating it. He's absolutely right in re-stating what I said about Trent Richardson, or any one running back, being a very important part of this offense, and the franchise quarterback being priority one.
There may be several of these in the upcoming draft, but also several other teams competing for them, so the extra first round pick, even if it's in the twenties as I think it will be, may be needed.
But for right now, I'm looking foreward to seeing what Brian Hoyer can do. Unlike Peter, I'm willing to give him a chance to show what he's learned from Tom and Bill in the four years he's been in the NFL.
Unlike Peter, I can't definitively label Hoyer as a loser until I see it. I remember when the Browns signed Kelly Holcomb to back up Tim Couch. It was a yawner. Holcomb was a "carreer backup" for Peyton Manning who had barely played, and played badly when he did.
I'm positive that Peter Smith would have said Holcomb "can't play".
I truly hope that Minnesota is as smart as most of the fans here in Cleveland and lets the great first round cornerback Zavier Rhodes cover Josh Gordon without help.
I mean, he was a first round pick, and Gordon was merely a second round pick, so that should be no problem!
But it's too bad that the Browns traded their third overall running back before this game, since McGahee was drafted lower and the other guys were undrafted, meaning the Browns don't have any running backs any more, and shouldn't bother trying to run at all.
You people.
He intimates that the front office doesn't like any of the players they inherited from Tom Heckert and company, including Alex Mack and...I can't believe he said this...Josh Gordon.
Dave is normally just an excellent X's and O's guy, and I'm almost certain that he understands the Turner offense and Gordon's critical role in it.
I've come to respect Dave a lot over the years, and just have to assume he stopped at the tavern and got surrounded by a lynch mob of the out of work NFL GM's and Head Coaches that Cleveland is full of.
I've been pretty surprised by Joe Banner's honesty since he's been here. He's not a politician, and as an analyst I now actually listen to what he says:
He says you don't spend money unless it's an upgrade. You don't get older guys until you're contending. You extend and re-sign current players before you look elsewhere. He's saving some money in order to keep guys like Alex Mack.
Peter Smith, after a reactionary article of his own, came back to reality strong with a great article about how this one trade doesn't equal a roster "blow-up".
I kind of think Peter is reading my blog and not giving me credit.
Anyway, he's still unreasonable on the quarterbacks. He says none of the guys on the current roster "can play". Peter feels that Campbell and Hoyer suck too bad to even be backups.
Well that's wrong, but I'm tired of restating it. He's absolutely right in re-stating what I said about Trent Richardson, or any one running back, being a very important part of this offense, and the franchise quarterback being priority one.
There may be several of these in the upcoming draft, but also several other teams competing for them, so the extra first round pick, even if it's in the twenties as I think it will be, may be needed.
But for right now, I'm looking foreward to seeing what Brian Hoyer can do. Unlike Peter, I'm willing to give him a chance to show what he's learned from Tom and Bill in the four years he's been in the NFL.
Unlike Peter, I can't definitively label Hoyer as a loser until I see it. I remember when the Browns signed Kelly Holcomb to back up Tim Couch. It was a yawner. Holcomb was a "carreer backup" for Peyton Manning who had barely played, and played badly when he did.
I'm positive that Peter Smith would have said Holcomb "can't play".
I truly hope that Minnesota is as smart as most of the fans here in Cleveland and lets the great first round cornerback Zavier Rhodes cover Josh Gordon without help.
I mean, he was a first round pick, and Gordon was merely a second round pick, so that should be no problem!
But it's too bad that the Browns traded their third overall running back before this game, since McGahee was drafted lower and the other guys were undrafted, meaning the Browns don't have any running backs any more, and shouldn't bother trying to run at all.
You people.
Friday, September 20, 2013
The Richardson Trade: No Bigee
Joe Lull of CBS Cleveland wrote a truly outstanding article about the TRich trade. I've found another guy who thinks with his brain! He says the Browns aren't any worse without TRich.
He does a great job of making his own case for this (for anybody with an open mind), but I can add a few things:
Norv Turner is from the Don "Air" Coryell coaching tree, and uses his own version of the same principles.
Because Turner had Emmitt Smith early, and Ladanian Tomlinson late, it came to be percieved that a great running back was important for his scheme to work.
Bullcrap. A number one, consistant deep threat reciever is (except for the quarterback) the most important piece.
The running back has more success because of this scary coverage-commanding reciever.
Though it's more pronounced in the Turner offense, this isn't unique to his system. It's a well-known "duh" principle applicable to every scheme.
This season, we see Ray Rice being stifled like TRich was, because the Ravens lost their deep threat. Pittsburgh doesn't really have very good backs, but they're good enough--if Big Ben had a deep threat.
Those of you who thought that Norv Turner was in Nirvana about Trent Richardson were delusional. He was really happy about Josh Gordon, though! With Josh Gordon and a good deep passer, he can take an average running back and get at least 3.5 yards per-carry.
Without Gordon, Richardson got stuffed. Not his fault.
Trent Richardson is a great talent. He would probably get an extra half yard per carry, or something...which isn't important.
NFL Radio has turned into Black Helicopter central. Boy, the whole team must be thinking "maybe I'm next", and "How can we win without Trent?"
Listen: If a player thinks a running back was that important, he's not smart enough for this team anyway. D'Qwell Jackson might sweat a little, but only because he's past 30. Greg Little? Oh you know he's nervous!
Well, one guy who isn't worrying about that is Jordon Cameron. He's the second most important part of the Turner offense. The deep threat (Gordon) goes deep outside, and the slot or wing TE (Cameron) runs intermediate-to-deep between the hash marks.
The TE takes bigger would-be run-stoppers with him, and the combination sometimes forces soft umbrella coverage. Gordon will open the deep middle up for Cameron, who will create more running lanes and space for the running backs.
Cinci vs. Pitt: Cinci runs a West Coast, but this is still instructive. Pitt's corners were woefully overmatched by AJ Green, so they sort of conceded. They played five to seven yards back, to make sure he couldn't blow their doors off vertically.
Dalton and Green took it, all day. Dalton kept hitting Green for six to nine yards. It was second and three or four all day, but the Steelers still couldn't count on a run, and Green was still there, keeping a cornerback deep and hesitant.
Without Green or somebody like him, they couldn't be nearly as effective DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
This is why if Brian Hoyer can just get close with Gordon early in the Vikings game, the Browns' running back committee will run all over them.
Everybody everywhere has written Hoyer off. Well, he was a terrific college quarterback, but as Gil Brandt said, "sometimes he's throw just the craziest passes...to nobody. To the other team."
What if he doesn't do that any more, after all this time in the NFL, especially with Belichick and Brady? It's downright ignorant to make declarative statements about any quarterback who hasn't seen real action and has been learning for some time.
You never know. I'll bet on him...just, you know--I need 7:2 odds, ok?
By the way, Adrian Peterson is the new Jim Brown. He's really just all that.
So where's the Superbowl ring?
He does a great job of making his own case for this (for anybody with an open mind), but I can add a few things:
Norv Turner is from the Don "Air" Coryell coaching tree, and uses his own version of the same principles.
Because Turner had Emmitt Smith early, and Ladanian Tomlinson late, it came to be percieved that a great running back was important for his scheme to work.
Bullcrap. A number one, consistant deep threat reciever is (except for the quarterback) the most important piece.
The running back has more success because of this scary coverage-commanding reciever.
Though it's more pronounced in the Turner offense, this isn't unique to his system. It's a well-known "duh" principle applicable to every scheme.
This season, we see Ray Rice being stifled like TRich was, because the Ravens lost their deep threat. Pittsburgh doesn't really have very good backs, but they're good enough--if Big Ben had a deep threat.
Those of you who thought that Norv Turner was in Nirvana about Trent Richardson were delusional. He was really happy about Josh Gordon, though! With Josh Gordon and a good deep passer, he can take an average running back and get at least 3.5 yards per-carry.
Without Gordon, Richardson got stuffed. Not his fault.
Trent Richardson is a great talent. He would probably get an extra half yard per carry, or something...which isn't important.
NFL Radio has turned into Black Helicopter central. Boy, the whole team must be thinking "maybe I'm next", and "How can we win without Trent?"
Listen: If a player thinks a running back was that important, he's not smart enough for this team anyway. D'Qwell Jackson might sweat a little, but only because he's past 30. Greg Little? Oh you know he's nervous!
Well, one guy who isn't worrying about that is Jordon Cameron. He's the second most important part of the Turner offense. The deep threat (Gordon) goes deep outside, and the slot or wing TE (Cameron) runs intermediate-to-deep between the hash marks.
The TE takes bigger would-be run-stoppers with him, and the combination sometimes forces soft umbrella coverage. Gordon will open the deep middle up for Cameron, who will create more running lanes and space for the running backs.
Cinci vs. Pitt: Cinci runs a West Coast, but this is still instructive. Pitt's corners were woefully overmatched by AJ Green, so they sort of conceded. They played five to seven yards back, to make sure he couldn't blow their doors off vertically.
Dalton and Green took it, all day. Dalton kept hitting Green for six to nine yards. It was second and three or four all day, but the Steelers still couldn't count on a run, and Green was still there, keeping a cornerback deep and hesitant.
Without Green or somebody like him, they couldn't be nearly as effective DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
This is why if Brian Hoyer can just get close with Gordon early in the Vikings game, the Browns' running back committee will run all over them.
Everybody everywhere has written Hoyer off. Well, he was a terrific college quarterback, but as Gil Brandt said, "sometimes he's throw just the craziest passes...to nobody. To the other team."
What if he doesn't do that any more, after all this time in the NFL, especially with Belichick and Brady? It's downright ignorant to make declarative statements about any quarterback who hasn't seen real action and has been learning for some time.
You never know. I'll bet on him...just, you know--I need 7:2 odds, ok?
By the way, Adrian Peterson is the new Jim Brown. He's really just all that.
So where's the Superbowl ring?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Browns in Second Place, Steelers Last
Did you see it? Big Ben lost his deep threat in the offseason. Cinci was able to stack the front and attack. Same as Flacco. Same as Weeden. None of them looked very good. None of them could run the ball DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
After listening to the guys discuss how gypsy curses, biorythms, and sunspots caused the awesomely great Steelers' loss to the so-so Bengals, they interviewed head Enabler Mike Tomlin.
The Steelers were unable to convert on third down. Because they were always in third and long. Because they kept trying to run the ball and getting stuffed on first and second downs are you paying attention?
Tomlin was asked if he would try passing on first and second down more and he said "Absolutely. Whatever works."
What ever WORKS DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D?
Now (this just in) the Browns traded TRich to the Colts for their first round draft choice. Before I go on, let us take a moment out for prayer:
Dear Lord, please take good care of TRich in the future after this season. Please protect all NFL players from injury. But if it be thy will that some players must miss the 2013 season, please let Andrew Luck be one of them. OK-ok I'm not praying for Andrew Luck to get injured or anything. It's just that every year you let a bunch of guys get hurt, so just sort of put Andrew at the top of that list, is all I'm sayin. And please put TRich on the list too. Anyway if he doesn't play he won't get wear and tear on him and can have a longer carreer, so really that's just for his own good, ya know? Just sayin. For thine is the kingdom and stuff amen.
Joe Banner said that the Browns couldn't realistically expect to contend in 2013. He was trying very hard to manage your expectations. For awhile, it seemed almost as if some of you comprehended that he was telling the truth.
But now that they've traded this guy they didn't draft for a first round draft pick, you've lost your damn minds again.
Bill Polian, former GM of the Bills and Colts, didn't like this move himself, but I have to give him a lot of credit for his objectivity in trying to explain it from the Browns' perspective:
Durability was one factor. Money was irrelevant. They don't seem to have their franchise quarterback. TRich was a major asset as a player, but for an offense to work you need 3.4-plus yards per carry, and Trent could certainly do that, but so could a couple other guys once Gordon is out there to open things up, and they get healthy on the offensive line.
Two first round picks now gives them the ammo they will need to move up in the draft for a quarterback if neccessary.
Polian points out that there's no guarantee they can get the ONE quarterback they want, but if they have two or three guys in mind, they could now make sure to get a quarterback in the 2014 draft, and it's even possible that one will slide to them, and they could use the extra pick on an elite running back (or whatever).
They said from the start that they want to build a perennial contender like the Ravens, Steelers, etc. That's why they haven't signed a bunch of overprirced senior citezens. That's why they're saving their money to re-sign guys like Alex Mack, and will look for another Kruger next off season.
That's why they've now traded somebody else's first round draft pick.
If McGahee is healthy, they'll rent him for one season. Not to carry the load; at this stage he's a journeyman. But they can run a committee with Rainey/Obgannaya/McGahee, and run the ball ok with Gordon and Cameron on the field. They're not tanking.
A lot of pundits overvalued TRich from the beginning, saying that without him the offense couldn't work. That was rediculous. Gordon is more important than any running back. Any average back can get 3.5 yards per carry with improved blocking. 3.5 YPC is sufficient for play action to work.
Now, it's Hoyer. I'm glad. They want to see what he can do, since they already know what Jason Campbell can do. Campbell is not as good a fit in this system as Hoyer is. Hoyer's deep ball is more accurate; Campbell is better on crossing routes.
Hoyer is younger, and they no doubt have their fingers crossed that he could be another Kelly Holcomb. Holcomb understudied Peyton Manning for years in Indianapolis. In very brief playing time, his stats were pretty bad.
Then he passes for over 400 yards vs. Pittsburgh, and remained a very good starter until injuries knocked him down. I have no idea whether Hoyer will do this, fall on his face, or just be a guy, but maybe, just maybe...
The sad thing is that the threat of Josh Gordon, not to mention any actual long bombs he hauls in, will make Hoyer look better than he would without him. If Hoyer does kick butt, the ignorant masses will decide that he is superior to Weeden.
The fact is that with Josh Gordon, the Browns are probably 2-0 right now, and whatever Hoyer does, Weeden might have done and more.
Fortunately, the Lombardi-haters (I'm not a fan myself) have already decided that Hoyer is a loser simply because Lombardi likes him, and nothing he does will change their minds. They're like Obama-care defenders.
That's a possiblility: Ugly duckling Hoyer emerges as a beautiful swan, and now they can use two first round picks on studs elsewhere. (I can dream, can't I?)
Another possibility is Cam Newton, who could get the boot. He started out great with Chud as his rookie offensive coordinator, then sputtered in his second season. He's not doing really well right now, either.
We see in Josh Freeman another guy going the same way. How can they start out so great, and then get worse?
I won't try to answer that. But Newton is younger, and his case isn't closed by any means. I haven't looked into it: Does he have a deep threat, a running game, an offensive line? Is it all him, or mostly him? Is Mike Shula really all that?
Who knows? But he might be an option, and we'll just see what Chud and the rest think of him.
The guys on NFL Radio all think that the Vikings will kill T-Richless, third string quarterbacked Browns.
I say that the Browns will be able to run the ball and pass the ball, because that one guy, Gordon, is back. He was the missing piece. I say the Browns defense hasn't been as good as it will be, and Peterson can't beat it by himself.
I say the Browns will win this one. Although I just checked out Teddy Bridgewater, and I won't whine much if they don't.
After listening to the guys discuss how gypsy curses, biorythms, and sunspots caused the awesomely great Steelers' loss to the so-so Bengals, they interviewed head Enabler Mike Tomlin.
The Steelers were unable to convert on third down. Because they were always in third and long. Because they kept trying to run the ball and getting stuffed on first and second downs are you paying attention?
Tomlin was asked if he would try passing on first and second down more and he said "Absolutely. Whatever works."
What ever WORKS DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D?
Now (this just in) the Browns traded TRich to the Colts for their first round draft choice. Before I go on, let us take a moment out for prayer:
Dear Lord, please take good care of TRich in the future after this season. Please protect all NFL players from injury. But if it be thy will that some players must miss the 2013 season, please let Andrew Luck be one of them. OK-ok I'm not praying for Andrew Luck to get injured or anything. It's just that every year you let a bunch of guys get hurt, so just sort of put Andrew at the top of that list, is all I'm sayin. And please put TRich on the list too. Anyway if he doesn't play he won't get wear and tear on him and can have a longer carreer, so really that's just for his own good, ya know? Just sayin. For thine is the kingdom and stuff amen.
Joe Banner said that the Browns couldn't realistically expect to contend in 2013. He was trying very hard to manage your expectations. For awhile, it seemed almost as if some of you comprehended that he was telling the truth.
But now that they've traded this guy they didn't draft for a first round draft pick, you've lost your damn minds again.
Bill Polian, former GM of the Bills and Colts, didn't like this move himself, but I have to give him a lot of credit for his objectivity in trying to explain it from the Browns' perspective:
Durability was one factor. Money was irrelevant. They don't seem to have their franchise quarterback. TRich was a major asset as a player, but for an offense to work you need 3.4-plus yards per carry, and Trent could certainly do that, but so could a couple other guys once Gordon is out there to open things up, and they get healthy on the offensive line.
Two first round picks now gives them the ammo they will need to move up in the draft for a quarterback if neccessary.
Polian points out that there's no guarantee they can get the ONE quarterback they want, but if they have two or three guys in mind, they could now make sure to get a quarterback in the 2014 draft, and it's even possible that one will slide to them, and they could use the extra pick on an elite running back (or whatever).
They said from the start that they want to build a perennial contender like the Ravens, Steelers, etc. That's why they haven't signed a bunch of overprirced senior citezens. That's why they're saving their money to re-sign guys like Alex Mack, and will look for another Kruger next off season.
That's why they've now traded somebody else's first round draft pick.
If McGahee is healthy, they'll rent him for one season. Not to carry the load; at this stage he's a journeyman. But they can run a committee with Rainey/Obgannaya/McGahee, and run the ball ok with Gordon and Cameron on the field. They're not tanking.
A lot of pundits overvalued TRich from the beginning, saying that without him the offense couldn't work. That was rediculous. Gordon is more important than any running back. Any average back can get 3.5 yards per carry with improved blocking. 3.5 YPC is sufficient for play action to work.
Now, it's Hoyer. I'm glad. They want to see what he can do, since they already know what Jason Campbell can do. Campbell is not as good a fit in this system as Hoyer is. Hoyer's deep ball is more accurate; Campbell is better on crossing routes.
Hoyer is younger, and they no doubt have their fingers crossed that he could be another Kelly Holcomb. Holcomb understudied Peyton Manning for years in Indianapolis. In very brief playing time, his stats were pretty bad.
Then he passes for over 400 yards vs. Pittsburgh, and remained a very good starter until injuries knocked him down. I have no idea whether Hoyer will do this, fall on his face, or just be a guy, but maybe, just maybe...
The sad thing is that the threat of Josh Gordon, not to mention any actual long bombs he hauls in, will make Hoyer look better than he would without him. If Hoyer does kick butt, the ignorant masses will decide that he is superior to Weeden.
The fact is that with Josh Gordon, the Browns are probably 2-0 right now, and whatever Hoyer does, Weeden might have done and more.
Fortunately, the Lombardi-haters (I'm not a fan myself) have already decided that Hoyer is a loser simply because Lombardi likes him, and nothing he does will change their minds. They're like Obama-care defenders.
That's a possiblility: Ugly duckling Hoyer emerges as a beautiful swan, and now they can use two first round picks on studs elsewhere. (I can dream, can't I?)
Another possibility is Cam Newton, who could get the boot. He started out great with Chud as his rookie offensive coordinator, then sputtered in his second season. He's not doing really well right now, either.
We see in Josh Freeman another guy going the same way. How can they start out so great, and then get worse?
I won't try to answer that. But Newton is younger, and his case isn't closed by any means. I haven't looked into it: Does he have a deep threat, a running game, an offensive line? Is it all him, or mostly him? Is Mike Shula really all that?
Who knows? But he might be an option, and we'll just see what Chud and the rest think of him.
The guys on NFL Radio all think that the Vikings will kill T-Richless, third string quarterbacked Browns.
I say that the Browns will be able to run the ball and pass the ball, because that one guy, Gordon, is back. He was the missing piece. I say the Browns defense hasn't been as good as it will be, and Peterson can't beat it by himself.
I say the Browns will win this one. Although I just checked out Teddy Bridgewater, and I won't whine much if they don't.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Reality
I was just listening to Greg Brinda on the radio for the first time in a long time. He never seems to learn a damn thing.
Brandon Weeden and Joe Flacco made a few bad throws. They also made some good throws at critical times. The difference was that Joe Flacco wasn't throwing to Greg Little.
Don't blame Weeden for this. Quit lumping everybody in when you throw your tantrums. Weeden did enough to win. By a LOT.
Quit bashing the game-plan. Turner kept hammering with Richardson until the Browns were ten points down and time was running out.
It was disappointing when the Browns lost to the 'fins, yes. But if you think the Browns suck because they lost to the Baltimore Ravens, there's something wrong with you. The Ravens aren't a young, unproven team. Brinda and everybody else had this one pencilled in as a loss a minute after the schedule came out.
So why now is everybody having a kniption fit?
Tony Grossi and Terry Pluto are looking smarter with their 7-9 predictions now, and that was deemed acceptable by most rational beings. Remember when Banner came out and said that the Browns can't realistically plan on winning the division this season?
I do. And I remember a lot of people saying that this would be okay as long as they show progress.
Weeden is better now than he was last season. That goes for the Dolphins game, too. Quit blaming him for getting sacked and having no time. Quit blaming him for drops and deflections. Look at the game again. Try seeing where the ball actually went. Think about what would have happened if the reciever had caught the damn thing.
The Browns would have won both games!
Little. Here I've been defending the guy for all this time. I mean, he really DID drop fewer than one out of ten passes for over two thirds of last season.
Like Edwards! That one season he caught everything thrown to him, and we thought that finally, he was who he was supposed to be. And then?
How can Little spend all that time on the jugs machine and work so hard, and regress like that?
No, I don't hate the guy. Do you think he drops them on purpose?
It's just sad. Gordon comes back next week, and that will help a lot. But there's really nobody to replace Little. He'll be number two--we can hope that shorter passes will help him out.
Brinda as usual has a very shallow opinion devoid of real insight. He talked about how defenses would just put an extra guy on Gordon and Weeden would have to throw to Little anyway.
I take you back to Weeden's first interception vs. Miami. He threw that pass partly because he threw it to Gordon in practice and it worked. Gordon would have caught that ball, right between two defenders. Weeden will sometimes throw to Gordon, and he will catch it, despite double coverage.
Also that coverage pulls a tackler off the line and helps the running game: A fact which eludes premature expostulator Brinda and his ilk.
Little knows what happened. Nothing we say can make him feel worse.
So I'll be different: Greg, I know how hard you've worked, and how bad you want it. Maybe you're trying too hard or something! Maybe when the ball is in the air, on it's way to you, you should pretend it's the playground, and just be a kid again.
And I won't hate you, Greg. I know you're not Braylon Edwards. Braylon was a flake-you're a man. Good luck, man!
Brandon Weeden and Joe Flacco made a few bad throws. They also made some good throws at critical times. The difference was that Joe Flacco wasn't throwing to Greg Little.
Don't blame Weeden for this. Quit lumping everybody in when you throw your tantrums. Weeden did enough to win. By a LOT.
Quit bashing the game-plan. Turner kept hammering with Richardson until the Browns were ten points down and time was running out.
It was disappointing when the Browns lost to the 'fins, yes. But if you think the Browns suck because they lost to the Baltimore Ravens, there's something wrong with you. The Ravens aren't a young, unproven team. Brinda and everybody else had this one pencilled in as a loss a minute after the schedule came out.
So why now is everybody having a kniption fit?
Tony Grossi and Terry Pluto are looking smarter with their 7-9 predictions now, and that was deemed acceptable by most rational beings. Remember when Banner came out and said that the Browns can't realistically plan on winning the division this season?
I do. And I remember a lot of people saying that this would be okay as long as they show progress.
Weeden is better now than he was last season. That goes for the Dolphins game, too. Quit blaming him for getting sacked and having no time. Quit blaming him for drops and deflections. Look at the game again. Try seeing where the ball actually went. Think about what would have happened if the reciever had caught the damn thing.
The Browns would have won both games!
Little. Here I've been defending the guy for all this time. I mean, he really DID drop fewer than one out of ten passes for over two thirds of last season.
Like Edwards! That one season he caught everything thrown to him, and we thought that finally, he was who he was supposed to be. And then?
How can Little spend all that time on the jugs machine and work so hard, and regress like that?
No, I don't hate the guy. Do you think he drops them on purpose?
It's just sad. Gordon comes back next week, and that will help a lot. But there's really nobody to replace Little. He'll be number two--we can hope that shorter passes will help him out.
Brinda as usual has a very shallow opinion devoid of real insight. He talked about how defenses would just put an extra guy on Gordon and Weeden would have to throw to Little anyway.
I take you back to Weeden's first interception vs. Miami. He threw that pass partly because he threw it to Gordon in practice and it worked. Gordon would have caught that ball, right between two defenders. Weeden will sometimes throw to Gordon, and he will catch it, despite double coverage.
Also that coverage pulls a tackler off the line and helps the running game: A fact which eludes premature expostulator Brinda and his ilk.
Little knows what happened. Nothing we say can make him feel worse.
So I'll be different: Greg, I know how hard you've worked, and how bad you want it. Maybe you're trying too hard or something! Maybe when the ball is in the air, on it's way to you, you should pretend it's the playground, and just be a kid again.
And I won't hate you, Greg. I know you're not Braylon Edwards. Braylon was a flake-you're a man. Good luck, man!
Monday, September 9, 2013
The Sky is Falling Again.
This time I'm writing before I read anything anyone else wrote. This is what really happened:
Weeden started out shaky. He screwed up with the first interception. This was a pass that he would throw with his coach's approval had Gordon been the reciever. Yes, into double coverage. Gordon would have had it, probably for a touchdown.
He'd been throwing it in practice, and probably couldn't help trying it with Benjamin. He lofted the ball and dropped it right in the middle of the bracket, exactly where Gordon would have reached up and grabbed it.
Except it was to a guy who is a full half a foot shorter.
Still, Solomon Wilcotts criticized Benjamin for not fighting for the ball. He felt that even though he's a shrimp, he could have jumped and got a hand on the ball to prevent the interception.
Solly is an ex-safety, you know.
Weeden started out shaky. That was a mistake--due to who the target was. Perfect, perfect throw--but a mistake.
Then he threw behind Cameron. It went off Cameron's hands for a pick. That was a bad throw. Not because it was too hard, for crying out loud, but because it was behind him. It was inaccuracy, not touch. Weeden has great touch.
By design, that's a hard pass because it's meant to reach Cameron before the defenders can react to it; so that he gets it with room to turn upfield and run a few yards before they can close on him.
Yeah, Weeden blew that one, too. Okay. And then he got behind and started getting creamed. But this is where I sat up and noticed: He was scrambling around, throwing it away, but--
He completed one pass off his back foot. Then he threw another that somebody dropped while he was running for the sidelines. He couldn't do that stuff last season! If his feet weren't planted, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! Turner (or somebody) has taught him how to walk and chew gum at the same time!
He was fighting through it, delivering under pressure and after being sacked and beat up. Except nobody was there to recieve the package. That is, they dropped it. Everybody dropped passes.
But listen to me! Watch the game again! I'm telling you, okay the first quarter or so was on Weeden. Okay he was screwing up again. But then he got better. HE was doing as well as anybody could with the heat he was taking, but now his teammates were letting him down.
Another interception. Perfect pass! Dead on! Deflected by the reciever and I'm hearing people bashing Weeden for it!
That's what really happened. I still can't say that Weeden will be Da Man, but I saw smart throws and accuracy. He did NOT wilt under pressure! It was NOT his fault!
So I do feel better about him. Astronomically better about him than about the right guard. Could Gilkey do worse? I doubt it! Give the kid a chance, Chud!
So they didn't run later. As Bernie Kosar explained in the simplest words he could use, and talking real slow, they were putting eight men in the box and the Browns were now behind. They needed to pass.
The Browns don't have a powerful offensive line. It's normally better in pass-protection, and the run-blocking is more finesse than power. This team can't run against eight man fronts unless it uses two tight ends and blocks with both of them.
The stacked front opened up passing lanes as it was supposed to, but they threw the kitchen sink into the backfield, and recievers started dropping balls.
Schwartze is a really good right tackle, but was overmatched here, just like every other right tackle in the NFL. That damn right guard might as well not have been on the damn field, so he had zero help.
Barnidge screwed up more than once, not bothering to chip the DE before going out for a pass.
You know when a tackle expects somebody to bump a guy toward the inside, he sets up for it so he can hammer him and make him stand still. When the chip doesn't happen, the guy runs right around him. He has to dive at him and maybe try to get away with holding him, because he's already lost a step against a guy that can run circles around him. Literally.
When he does this, he opens up a huge, gaping gap beween himself and the (bad) right guard, just too good for the linebacker or safety to resist shooting through.
^(*)&^T$!!!it was the right side of the offensive line, Weeden early and the recievers late, and they had to pass more as the game progressed, they got behind, and they found the freaking Wall of China in front of them!
Say they sucked. Say they're bad. But just please, please, if you have no idea why, just stop talking after you say it.
Weeden started out shaky. He screwed up with the first interception. This was a pass that he would throw with his coach's approval had Gordon been the reciever. Yes, into double coverage. Gordon would have had it, probably for a touchdown.
He'd been throwing it in practice, and probably couldn't help trying it with Benjamin. He lofted the ball and dropped it right in the middle of the bracket, exactly where Gordon would have reached up and grabbed it.
Except it was to a guy who is a full half a foot shorter.
Still, Solomon Wilcotts criticized Benjamin for not fighting for the ball. He felt that even though he's a shrimp, he could have jumped and got a hand on the ball to prevent the interception.
Solly is an ex-safety, you know.
Weeden started out shaky. That was a mistake--due to who the target was. Perfect, perfect throw--but a mistake.
Then he threw behind Cameron. It went off Cameron's hands for a pick. That was a bad throw. Not because it was too hard, for crying out loud, but because it was behind him. It was inaccuracy, not touch. Weeden has great touch.
By design, that's a hard pass because it's meant to reach Cameron before the defenders can react to it; so that he gets it with room to turn upfield and run a few yards before they can close on him.
Yeah, Weeden blew that one, too. Okay. And then he got behind and started getting creamed. But this is where I sat up and noticed: He was scrambling around, throwing it away, but--
He completed one pass off his back foot. Then he threw another that somebody dropped while he was running for the sidelines. He couldn't do that stuff last season! If his feet weren't planted, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! Turner (or somebody) has taught him how to walk and chew gum at the same time!
He was fighting through it, delivering under pressure and after being sacked and beat up. Except nobody was there to recieve the package. That is, they dropped it. Everybody dropped passes.
But listen to me! Watch the game again! I'm telling you, okay the first quarter or so was on Weeden. Okay he was screwing up again. But then he got better. HE was doing as well as anybody could with the heat he was taking, but now his teammates were letting him down.
Another interception. Perfect pass! Dead on! Deflected by the reciever and I'm hearing people bashing Weeden for it!
That's what really happened. I still can't say that Weeden will be Da Man, but I saw smart throws and accuracy. He did NOT wilt under pressure! It was NOT his fault!
So I do feel better about him. Astronomically better about him than about the right guard. Could Gilkey do worse? I doubt it! Give the kid a chance, Chud!
So they didn't run later. As Bernie Kosar explained in the simplest words he could use, and talking real slow, they were putting eight men in the box and the Browns were now behind. They needed to pass.
The Browns don't have a powerful offensive line. It's normally better in pass-protection, and the run-blocking is more finesse than power. This team can't run against eight man fronts unless it uses two tight ends and blocks with both of them.
The stacked front opened up passing lanes as it was supposed to, but they threw the kitchen sink into the backfield, and recievers started dropping balls.
Schwartze is a really good right tackle, but was overmatched here, just like every other right tackle in the NFL. That damn right guard might as well not have been on the damn field, so he had zero help.
Barnidge screwed up more than once, not bothering to chip the DE before going out for a pass.
You know when a tackle expects somebody to bump a guy toward the inside, he sets up for it so he can hammer him and make him stand still. When the chip doesn't happen, the guy runs right around him. He has to dive at him and maybe try to get away with holding him, because he's already lost a step against a guy that can run circles around him. Literally.
When he does this, he opens up a huge, gaping gap beween himself and the (bad) right guard, just too good for the linebacker or safety to resist shooting through.
^(*)&^T$!!!it was the right side of the offensive line, Weeden early and the recievers late, and they had to pass more as the game progressed, they got behind, and they found the freaking Wall of China in front of them!
Say they sucked. Say they're bad. But just please, please, if you have no idea why, just stop talking after you say it.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Will the Browns Be Good Mudders?
Before I get started, Peter Smith of Dawg Pound Daily has written the most in-depth and insightful analysis of individual matchups for Browns vs. Dolphins that I've read. No bias whatsoever. It's not for everybody.
Second year right tackle Mitchell Schwartze stands out in this one. Cameron Wake is a great passrusher, and Schwartze will really be challenged. This matchup is magnified by the situation at right guard right next to him, because Miami will probably stunt and Wake will try to cross Schwartze's face inside.
Also, just refer to my ealrier blog in re Terry Pluto's 6-10 prediction. Most of the undrafted free agents won't play much this season, and the Green Bay Packers have four UFA's as starters. Most of the starters and key contributors have at least one or two years in the league, and players make their biggest "jumps" going into year two, so I hear the agonized screams of tortured logic coming from their basements here.
Anyway it might rain today, and this made me wonder if that would be good or bad for the Browns.
I think back on the best mud-running tailbacks the Browns have had, and Leroy Kelly and Jamaal White stand out. Both were pretty small, and Kelly was a college track star and former kick-returner. Much was said of Kelly's "flat-footed" running style.
You'd think that bigger power backs would like mud better, but somehow that doesn't seem to help a whole lot.
I do know that it's much harder to make hard cuts on a wet field. I believe straight-line "track" speed becomes much more important when others have to change directions or even reverse themselves in order to intercept or pursue you.
What about Trent Richardson, then? Well, he's ten pounds lighter now, and before this slim-down had good (not great) speed. He normally relies heavily on very hard cuts, which a wet field will take away from him.
BUT, he should still be able to change directions better than most other guys, because he gets extremely low when he cuts. I think. Maybe.
I think TRich will be a good mudder. On a wet field, he can rely more on track-speed and because everybody else is slipping and sliding won't have to make many hard cuts. Richardson also is an expert at translating speed to power at the end of runs, as he drops low and slams through tiny gaps or into defenders.
He should, in fact, be able to break more tackles and keep going more often on mud than on a firm surface.
What about the offensive line? Well, in pass protection, I believe it helps a lot vs, outside speed rushers that need to go around the tackles, and to lean hard to run in arcs, and get low for leverage. The Browns' tackles aren't very susceptable to bull rushes either, so mud would seem to neutralize these guys.
The guards and centers might have more trouble. I kind of think they could handle the bull-rushers, but the explosive penetrators might have an edge on them. The guards and center are not especially big, and would need to move right and left to get in front of these guys. That's sideways off a plant-leg, vs. the rusher charging foreward, low to the ground, off two planted feet.
It would help them in run-blocking somewhat. True, they'd get stood up by big guys, but linebackers would find it almost impossible to elude them in space without falling down. (Remember, the blocker knows where the running back is supposed to go, and the defender has to go where the ball is, period. You can't fake it. If you get cute the runner is gone).
I believe that mud would help this defensive line a LOT, because they're all big, powerful, and remarkably fast for their size. They excel AFTER contact, from a dead stop, but on slick surfaces Horton would probably have them attack gaps more anyway.
They don't rely on change-of-direction that much, and their weight drives their cleats deeper. If offensive linemen have to chase them, that's trouble.
Browns inside linebackers probably get smashed a lot in mud, but at least they can get outside to turn outside runs in (apologies for the homerism, but TRich won't be trying to turn the corner on a wet field ok? If he's outside he'll start there with a dumpoff.)
This secondary relies heavily on man coverage, and that could get very bad for them in mud. Horton's not a blockhead so he'd probably run more zone, but zones make quick passes work better, which would render the pass-rush less effective.
The Browns tight ends and wide recievers should benefit from mud, including Benjamin, due to his world class track speed. Bess probably wouldn't be as effective since he's not heavy and relies on jukes and hard cuts, but the others are bigger and don't need so much niftiness.
Gordon, especially, will be awesome on mud, because he's a natural long-striding glider. Cameron should just love playing in the mud, especially with little people.
So the offense ought to be better overall in the mud, but the defense a little worse, especially depending on matchups.
Just a theory. I've done zero research and have been full of it before. I'd thought Jamaal White would suck in the mud, for example. And Marty ran man coverage with Frank and Hanford in the mud and that worked out okay too.
However, I do hope it rains today, because that's a West Coast with a super slot-reciever and a converted wide reciever at quarterback.
...Oh crap straight-line speed so if Tannehill turns upfield...
Ok but it would help Schwartze against Wake...but also their tackles against our OLB's...
TRich! That's it! 1:30 to game-time starting my rain dance now
Second year right tackle Mitchell Schwartze stands out in this one. Cameron Wake is a great passrusher, and Schwartze will really be challenged. This matchup is magnified by the situation at right guard right next to him, because Miami will probably stunt and Wake will try to cross Schwartze's face inside.
Also, just refer to my ealrier blog in re Terry Pluto's 6-10 prediction. Most of the undrafted free agents won't play much this season, and the Green Bay Packers have four UFA's as starters. Most of the starters and key contributors have at least one or two years in the league, and players make their biggest "jumps" going into year two, so I hear the agonized screams of tortured logic coming from their basements here.
Anyway it might rain today, and this made me wonder if that would be good or bad for the Browns.
I think back on the best mud-running tailbacks the Browns have had, and Leroy Kelly and Jamaal White stand out. Both were pretty small, and Kelly was a college track star and former kick-returner. Much was said of Kelly's "flat-footed" running style.
You'd think that bigger power backs would like mud better, but somehow that doesn't seem to help a whole lot.
I do know that it's much harder to make hard cuts on a wet field. I believe straight-line "track" speed becomes much more important when others have to change directions or even reverse themselves in order to intercept or pursue you.
What about Trent Richardson, then? Well, he's ten pounds lighter now, and before this slim-down had good (not great) speed. He normally relies heavily on very hard cuts, which a wet field will take away from him.
BUT, he should still be able to change directions better than most other guys, because he gets extremely low when he cuts. I think. Maybe.
I think TRich will be a good mudder. On a wet field, he can rely more on track-speed and because everybody else is slipping and sliding won't have to make many hard cuts. Richardson also is an expert at translating speed to power at the end of runs, as he drops low and slams through tiny gaps or into defenders.
He should, in fact, be able to break more tackles and keep going more often on mud than on a firm surface.
What about the offensive line? Well, in pass protection, I believe it helps a lot vs, outside speed rushers that need to go around the tackles, and to lean hard to run in arcs, and get low for leverage. The Browns' tackles aren't very susceptable to bull rushes either, so mud would seem to neutralize these guys.
The guards and centers might have more trouble. I kind of think they could handle the bull-rushers, but the explosive penetrators might have an edge on them. The guards and center are not especially big, and would need to move right and left to get in front of these guys. That's sideways off a plant-leg, vs. the rusher charging foreward, low to the ground, off two planted feet.
It would help them in run-blocking somewhat. True, they'd get stood up by big guys, but linebackers would find it almost impossible to elude them in space without falling down. (Remember, the blocker knows where the running back is supposed to go, and the defender has to go where the ball is, period. You can't fake it. If you get cute the runner is gone).
I believe that mud would help this defensive line a LOT, because they're all big, powerful, and remarkably fast for their size. They excel AFTER contact, from a dead stop, but on slick surfaces Horton would probably have them attack gaps more anyway.
They don't rely on change-of-direction that much, and their weight drives their cleats deeper. If offensive linemen have to chase them, that's trouble.
Browns inside linebackers probably get smashed a lot in mud, but at least they can get outside to turn outside runs in (apologies for the homerism, but TRich won't be trying to turn the corner on a wet field ok? If he's outside he'll start there with a dumpoff.)
This secondary relies heavily on man coverage, and that could get very bad for them in mud. Horton's not a blockhead so he'd probably run more zone, but zones make quick passes work better, which would render the pass-rush less effective.
The Browns tight ends and wide recievers should benefit from mud, including Benjamin, due to his world class track speed. Bess probably wouldn't be as effective since he's not heavy and relies on jukes and hard cuts, but the others are bigger and don't need so much niftiness.
Gordon, especially, will be awesome on mud, because he's a natural long-striding glider. Cameron should just love playing in the mud, especially with little people.
So the offense ought to be better overall in the mud, but the defense a little worse, especially depending on matchups.
Just a theory. I've done zero research and have been full of it before. I'd thought Jamaal White would suck in the mud, for example. And Marty ran man coverage with Frank and Hanford in the mud and that worked out okay too.
However, I do hope it rains today, because that's a West Coast with a super slot-reciever and a converted wide reciever at quarterback.
...Oh crap straight-line speed so if Tannehill turns upfield...
Ok but it would help Schwartze against Wake...but also their tackles against our OLB's...
TRich! That's it! 1:30 to game-time starting my rain dance now
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Peter Smith of Dawg Pound Daily Corrected!
At last I have you, PT! Ever since you asked for new writers for Dawg Pound Daily and ignored my submissions, I've been waiting for this!
I knew that I could never blow you out of the water as I can everybody else except Pluto, but I've been waiting for you to make more than one mistake in the same submission for several months now, and finally I have you!
It's irrelevant to me that much of this will sail over ignorant heads. I aint going for the dumbass vote here:
Peter's Browns' Season Prediction was WAY, WAY smarter and insightful than any I've read anywhere to date, and I'm in no way bashing anybody here. It's just that Peter implicitly rejected me more than once, so I have an axe to grind is all.
Anyway, as usual Peter is objective and insightful, and (see previous blog) makes Grossi look sick in comparison.
But here's where in my humble Da Vinci-like opinion I feel Mr. Smith was wrong:
1: While Trent Richardson is certainly a keystone component to this offense, his loss to injury is NOT neccessarily the doomsday disaster which Peter describes.
While he's right about a serious run threat (and balance in general) being critical for a Turner/Chud offense, I feel that Peter undervalues blocking, short passes, and a very real deep threat.
If it's Rainey or Johnson instead of Saint TRich, Peter is wrong in thinking that a defense will focus much more on disrupting Weeden or putting more people in coverage. If they do, Rainey and/or Johnson will make them pay.
Peter, I agree with you that a healthy Trent Richardson is exceptional, and can turn little plays into big plays by breaking tackles and running away from people. I agree with you that Rainey/Johnson/Obgannaya just aren't as good as he is.
But I can't agree with you that the other guys can't make a defense pay dearly for ignoring the run to stop the pass via pressure or coverage, and I feel you've insulted this offensive line.
This offense can be great with a healthy YRich, but can function well without him.
2: Stopping the run is not critical for this defense. While you're right about forcing offenses to pass on second and third downs is ideal, it's not a deal-killer of they don't.
The fact is that modern offenses don't use the run to set up the pass as they have in the past. They're as likely to pass on first down as they are to run, and to field three or more recievers on first down too.
You're right that the run, screen passes, and dumpoffs will be the best ways to attack this defense, but you overlook a few things:
A: The blitzes come from inside as well as the edges, and will blow up run plays in the backfield, or force them wide laterally, allowing the whole defense to converge before they can turn downfield.
B: It doesn't matter if a running back rips off 11 yards on one play, then 7 yards an the next, then another five yards if, on the next first down, he takes a two yard loss and the offense is first and twelve. It looks like hell statistically, but in reality, vs. this front seven, this is an offense in a jam.
C: It doesn't matter if a back runs for 16 yards if, out of five, his other runs are for two, three, minus three, and zero. Even if he isn't stripped of the ball.
Peter's win/loss estimate in this article is by far the most detailed and realistic one I've read, and in my opinion just about on the money.
It's just that I'm used to him being at least 90% right about everything, and not being able to find anything to pick on him for...
But while I'm at it, he also underestimates Barnidge and Gilkey.
NOTE: New rookie FA acquistion Gray, MarQueis is listed as a RUNNING BACK, not a tight end, on the depth chart.
I can't take this too seriously, but it has to mean something. In the rare scouting reports I've been able to dig up, he's been projected as a wide reciever--NOT a tight end.
Just sayin...his 4.73 40 time and size say tight end, but these coaches don't like labels or boxes, and might well have something unexpected in mind for this guy--I mean over and above the wildcat QB stuff.
In conclusion, Peter Smith is almost as good as me.
I knew that I could never blow you out of the water as I can everybody else except Pluto, but I've been waiting for you to make more than one mistake in the same submission for several months now, and finally I have you!
It's irrelevant to me that much of this will sail over ignorant heads. I aint going for the dumbass vote here:
Peter's Browns' Season Prediction was WAY, WAY smarter and insightful than any I've read anywhere to date, and I'm in no way bashing anybody here. It's just that Peter implicitly rejected me more than once, so I have an axe to grind is all.
Anyway, as usual Peter is objective and insightful, and (see previous blog) makes Grossi look sick in comparison.
But here's where in my humble Da Vinci-like opinion I feel Mr. Smith was wrong:
1: While Trent Richardson is certainly a keystone component to this offense, his loss to injury is NOT neccessarily the doomsday disaster which Peter describes.
While he's right about a serious run threat (and balance in general) being critical for a Turner/Chud offense, I feel that Peter undervalues blocking, short passes, and a very real deep threat.
If it's Rainey or Johnson instead of Saint TRich, Peter is wrong in thinking that a defense will focus much more on disrupting Weeden or putting more people in coverage. If they do, Rainey and/or Johnson will make them pay.
Peter, I agree with you that a healthy Trent Richardson is exceptional, and can turn little plays into big plays by breaking tackles and running away from people. I agree with you that Rainey/Johnson/Obgannaya just aren't as good as he is.
But I can't agree with you that the other guys can't make a defense pay dearly for ignoring the run to stop the pass via pressure or coverage, and I feel you've insulted this offensive line.
This offense can be great with a healthy YRich, but can function well without him.
2: Stopping the run is not critical for this defense. While you're right about forcing offenses to pass on second and third downs is ideal, it's not a deal-killer of they don't.
The fact is that modern offenses don't use the run to set up the pass as they have in the past. They're as likely to pass on first down as they are to run, and to field three or more recievers on first down too.
You're right that the run, screen passes, and dumpoffs will be the best ways to attack this defense, but you overlook a few things:
A: The blitzes come from inside as well as the edges, and will blow up run plays in the backfield, or force them wide laterally, allowing the whole defense to converge before they can turn downfield.
B: It doesn't matter if a running back rips off 11 yards on one play, then 7 yards an the next, then another five yards if, on the next first down, he takes a two yard loss and the offense is first and twelve. It looks like hell statistically, but in reality, vs. this front seven, this is an offense in a jam.
C: It doesn't matter if a back runs for 16 yards if, out of five, his other runs are for two, three, minus three, and zero. Even if he isn't stripped of the ball.
Peter's win/loss estimate in this article is by far the most detailed and realistic one I've read, and in my opinion just about on the money.
It's just that I'm used to him being at least 90% right about everything, and not being able to find anything to pick on him for...
But while I'm at it, he also underestimates Barnidge and Gilkey.
NOTE: New rookie FA acquistion Gray, MarQueis is listed as a RUNNING BACK, not a tight end, on the depth chart.
I can't take this too seriously, but it has to mean something. In the rare scouting reports I've been able to dig up, he's been projected as a wide reciever--NOT a tight end.
Just sayin...his 4.73 40 time and size say tight end, but these coaches don't like labels or boxes, and might well have something unexpected in mind for this guy--I mean over and above the wildcat QB stuff.
In conclusion, Peter Smith is almost as good as me.
Hey Tony
I come here not to bury Tony Grossi. Unlike a lot of fans who read the post from him to follow, I don't believe he has an anti-Browns agenda. I've found his columns fairly objective. They tend toward the negative, but this is not the result of an agenda or bitterness.
The Browns say they are building for sustainable success. It looks more like sustainable mediocrity.
And he's pretty good, actually.
The following is what he posted on a forum a little while ago, together with my analysis of same:
Despite an uncommonly poor draft that reeked of “wait ‘til next year,” I
maintained a positive vibe on the Browns through the offseason OTAs, minicamps
and summer training camp.
Well, Tony, I know that you don't believe that Mingo will be all that, but this is an opinion with which many smart people disagree. Nor was it the new regime's fault that they can't claim credit for a second round pick. I'm sorry you've got Jenkins, McFadden, Slaughter, Gilkey and Bryant scratching at the inside of their coffins already.
But really, you have to be fair and include Gordon, rather than bashing the new regime for a gaping hole in their draft.
The final roster cutdown was a cold towel slap in the face, followed by a second day of random waiver pickups. It’s still not over, but as I write this, the Browns have nine undrafted rookies – plus four picks from their inglorious draft -- and another eight undrafted players entering their second season. That’s 21 of 53 without much experience or pedigree.
The final roster cutdown was a cold towel slap in the face, followed by a second day of random waiver pickups. It’s still not over, but as I write this, the Browns have nine undrafted rookies – plus four picks from their inglorious draft -- and another eight undrafted players entering their second season. That’s 21 of 53 without much experience or pedigree.
The pickups were not random, and several of the players they replaced were themselves undrafted free agents. Not one but two running backs had to be replaced, and rookie running backs can play immediately.
And you ignore the fact that many of the players without "much experience" are entering their second seasons, where players tend to make the biggest strides. These include starting ILB Craig Robertson, Gordon, Winn, Hughes, and Gipson. This is positive, not negative.
And the hell with pedigree, Tony! Talent is talent. James Micheal Johnson is a good player. An undrafted free agent is better.
The Browns say they are building for sustainable success. It looks more like sustainable mediocrity.
The sustainable part is the core which includes two first and a second round starter on the offensive line, Gordon, Little, Benjamin, Richardson, Cameron, Taylor, Bryant, Jackson, Haden, Ward--all except Jackson young and improving players.
The sustainable part is the guys like Gipson and Robertson without "pedigree" that come out of nowhere; digging their way out of the graves you put them in based on their undrafted status, and others like McFadden and Slaughter who were hurt and are still healing.
Still, everything rides on Brandon Weeden. If he pulls out a season like that of Derek Anderson, 2007, the points and wins will follow. But the palpable vibe is that not everybody in the building believes in him. There is negative energy there. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hope not.
I see the Browns going 6-10. If that happens, Weeden will be replaced and the Browns will pat themselves on the back for forsaking this year’s draft for next year’s. And everyone will be starting over again.
Still, everything rides on Brandon Weeden. If he pulls out a season like that of Derek Anderson, 2007, the points and wins will follow. But the palpable vibe is that not everybody in the building believes in him. There is negative energy there. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hope not.
I see the Browns going 6-10. If that happens, Weeden will be replaced and the Browns will pat themselves on the back for forsaking this year’s draft for next year’s. And everyone will be starting over again.
They'll look to draft a quarterback regardless of how well Weeden does due to his age. Nor would he neccessarily be released since he doesn't make a lot of money and could be a back up.
It's possible your prediction is right, but the reasons you cite aren't quite rational:
The offensive line has an issue at guard for now, but even as-is it's one of the better units in the league, with a veteran core. While you were sleeping, Greg Little became a seasoned veteran, they added veteran reciever Devone Bess, Gordon and Benjamin got a year of experience, Cameron has been developing for two seasons, and this list goes on and on throughout the whole team.
The starters are all at least second year players, and probably average around 3.5 years experience. Only the top two draft picks should be counted on for heavy contributions as rookies, unless the third rounder is a running back or offensive lineman or something. It's massively presumptuous to dismiss two injured players from those rounds in their first seasons (and you know that, T-man).
You may be right about the divided opinions on Weeden, but since you're talking about "vibes" that's iffy. I've known you to take "He has things he needs to work on" as condemnation.
Assuming you're correct, what has this to do with his de facto performance, and who says those who believe in him aren't right? Digging down a little deeper, isn't Lombardi the dissenter? Huh? When did you start listening to him again?
You got one thing right: As Weeden goes, so goes the team. That's why if he falls on his face you could get lucky with your 6-10. But it will be Weeden, not the team as a whole.
We'll see, Tony.
Running Back Rocket Science
Andrea Hangst of the Bleacher Report wrote an article about the running back situation that missed. She's concerned about the new guys' lack of experience.
Safeties, cornerbacks, quarterbacks, etc. tend to need time to learn the pro ropes before they can stop thinking and be consistant players. They need to read opposing players, deployments, etc.
Running back, however, is THE most instinctive position in football. Rookie running backs must often learn to read pressures to block the right person, and to tighten up their route-running as recievers, but a talented running back can step right off a college football field onto an NFL field and run the ball, period.
If he has already learned to block and catch, so much the better.
Moving in one direction, forcing defenders to run at top speed, then changing directions to get behind them. Running right at a guy like you mean to run him over, then darting sideways when he anchors. Spinning into a different trajectory even as the defenders arms surround you. These are all instinctive, automatic skills for a Rainey or Johnson type running back.
This is why every season we see several rookie running backs tearing up the NFL; guys like Alfred Morris. It's not rocket science for a running back.
Ask the coaches. They'll tell you: I can tell him to commit to the hole faster and quit dancing in the backfield. I can make him block the right guy, and show him how to do that right. I can yell at him for a sloppy pass-route. But I can't teach him diddly about running with the ball. He can or he can't. That's all.
Rainey and Johnson aren't here to sit on the bench with little notebooks, studying Trent Richardson to learn how to be running backs. One or the other will be used to spell TRich, more and more often as the season progresses.
Will Burge wrote a better article about ten things we learned from preseason. As I said, it was a good article, but not perfect.
On the money about Weeden. He looks better overall, despite the Indi game--but we can't be count on anything yet. This system is much, much better for him, and gives him his best chance to succeed.
Gordon's suspension will definitely hurt. Gordon is a rare talent.
Benjamin is more than a speedster. But as Will fills this out, I disagreed with a few things. First, not many knowlegable people had him labelled as a track athlete who couldn't run routes. Benjamin could always get separation laterally as well as vertically, and was always elusive with the ball. He always had moves. The only concern with him was his size and durability.
The defense will be feast or famine. Good for Will here. Horton's defense is high risk. He's traded some muscle for speed, especially at ILB. The intent is to blow up more plays and get more turnovers than they give up in strafing yards and long runs.
As the Steelers' demonstrate, it is possible for an aggressive 3-4 with smaller ILB's to stop the run, but it takes a lot of time playing together as a unit. This year's Horton defense will get stung some. It should also score a few touchdowns, force a lot of 3-and-outs, and swipe a lot of balls.
Will astutely singles out TJ Ward as a critical piece. He's in the Polumalu role here. He has been injured too much, and it's doubtful that any replacement can be as effective. The SS here will have much to do with stopping the run, and neutralizing outlet recievers and screen passes. (Opposing offenses will try to beat pressure this way).
Craig Robertson may indeed be a star in the making. Another Heckert undrafted free agent. He's almost like a safety, excellent in coverage, and all over the field. Indeed, Jackson might be the guy that gets to take on the guards.
Although I spend a lot of time defending Tom Heckert, I can't refute anything Will said about his poor later-round draft picks. Truth is truth.
I must say a few things about this, however: James Micheal Johnson will end up playing somewhere in the NFL, and probably starting eventually. Emmanuel Acho remains a player. Trevin Wade probably will also; Wade was a dice-role move based on potential, and you take these risks later in the draft trying to find high round talent low.
I haven't done any research about this, but Will could probably have said the same thing about Bill Belichick's lower-round picks.
Will has the bar set a little high here. I would say that Heckert did about as well as any given personnel guy in the later rounds. Even without a regime and system change, guys you take a flyer on don't pan out, or are replaced by better players. Some guys down there are drafted more for special teams than for any other reason.
The real test of Tom Heckert's lower round draft picks will be how many of them remain in the NFL, and by that standard he's done pretty well. Check again in a couple years. You'll see.
Tom did exceptionally well with undrafted free agents. Does anybody expect LJ Fort to be stacking boxes? Josh Cooper just knocked Nelson off this roster. Gipson projects to be the starter, and I believe will be pretty good.
Schwartze is already a top ten right tackle. Yep. Deal with it.
Haslam not a distraction check.
You go, Will! No, here on this planet the front office isn't planning on instant playoffs in this tough division, with now perhaps the youngest team in the NFL, and with new offensive and defensive systems and a second-year quarterback.
...and so far weakness in the secondary and an issue at right guard...
People bashing the Browns for not spending every dime of their money on big-name aging veterans just can't comprehend this, and probably put cookies and milk out for Santa Claus every Xmas.
Last season they crawled, this season they walk, and next season they run for it. Duh.
I love that Joe Banner actually even comes out and admits it, rather than acting like a politician and promising a chicken in every pot and an end to poverty and crime.
Despite the little thing about Benjamin's scouting reports and the bigger thing about Heckert's calculated risk lower-round draft picks, I think this was a great article by a real smart guy.
Safeties, cornerbacks, quarterbacks, etc. tend to need time to learn the pro ropes before they can stop thinking and be consistant players. They need to read opposing players, deployments, etc.
Running back, however, is THE most instinctive position in football. Rookie running backs must often learn to read pressures to block the right person, and to tighten up their route-running as recievers, but a talented running back can step right off a college football field onto an NFL field and run the ball, period.
If he has already learned to block and catch, so much the better.
Moving in one direction, forcing defenders to run at top speed, then changing directions to get behind them. Running right at a guy like you mean to run him over, then darting sideways when he anchors. Spinning into a different trajectory even as the defenders arms surround you. These are all instinctive, automatic skills for a Rainey or Johnson type running back.
This is why every season we see several rookie running backs tearing up the NFL; guys like Alfred Morris. It's not rocket science for a running back.
Ask the coaches. They'll tell you: I can tell him to commit to the hole faster and quit dancing in the backfield. I can make him block the right guy, and show him how to do that right. I can yell at him for a sloppy pass-route. But I can't teach him diddly about running with the ball. He can or he can't. That's all.
Rainey and Johnson aren't here to sit on the bench with little notebooks, studying Trent Richardson to learn how to be running backs. One or the other will be used to spell TRich, more and more often as the season progresses.
Will Burge wrote a better article about ten things we learned from preseason. As I said, it was a good article, but not perfect.
On the money about Weeden. He looks better overall, despite the Indi game--but we can't be count on anything yet. This system is much, much better for him, and gives him his best chance to succeed.
Gordon's suspension will definitely hurt. Gordon is a rare talent.
Benjamin is more than a speedster. But as Will fills this out, I disagreed with a few things. First, not many knowlegable people had him labelled as a track athlete who couldn't run routes. Benjamin could always get separation laterally as well as vertically, and was always elusive with the ball. He always had moves. The only concern with him was his size and durability.
The defense will be feast or famine. Good for Will here. Horton's defense is high risk. He's traded some muscle for speed, especially at ILB. The intent is to blow up more plays and get more turnovers than they give up in strafing yards and long runs.
As the Steelers' demonstrate, it is possible for an aggressive 3-4 with smaller ILB's to stop the run, but it takes a lot of time playing together as a unit. This year's Horton defense will get stung some. It should also score a few touchdowns, force a lot of 3-and-outs, and swipe a lot of balls.
Will astutely singles out TJ Ward as a critical piece. He's in the Polumalu role here. He has been injured too much, and it's doubtful that any replacement can be as effective. The SS here will have much to do with stopping the run, and neutralizing outlet recievers and screen passes. (Opposing offenses will try to beat pressure this way).
Craig Robertson may indeed be a star in the making. Another Heckert undrafted free agent. He's almost like a safety, excellent in coverage, and all over the field. Indeed, Jackson might be the guy that gets to take on the guards.
Although I spend a lot of time defending Tom Heckert, I can't refute anything Will said about his poor later-round draft picks. Truth is truth.
I must say a few things about this, however: James Micheal Johnson will end up playing somewhere in the NFL, and probably starting eventually. Emmanuel Acho remains a player. Trevin Wade probably will also; Wade was a dice-role move based on potential, and you take these risks later in the draft trying to find high round talent low.
I haven't done any research about this, but Will could probably have said the same thing about Bill Belichick's lower-round picks.
Will has the bar set a little high here. I would say that Heckert did about as well as any given personnel guy in the later rounds. Even without a regime and system change, guys you take a flyer on don't pan out, or are replaced by better players. Some guys down there are drafted more for special teams than for any other reason.
The real test of Tom Heckert's lower round draft picks will be how many of them remain in the NFL, and by that standard he's done pretty well. Check again in a couple years. You'll see.
Tom did exceptionally well with undrafted free agents. Does anybody expect LJ Fort to be stacking boxes? Josh Cooper just knocked Nelson off this roster. Gipson projects to be the starter, and I believe will be pretty good.
Schwartze is already a top ten right tackle. Yep. Deal with it.
Haslam not a distraction check.
You go, Will! No, here on this planet the front office isn't planning on instant playoffs in this tough division, with now perhaps the youngest team in the NFL, and with new offensive and defensive systems and a second-year quarterback.
...and so far weakness in the secondary and an issue at right guard...
People bashing the Browns for not spending every dime of their money on big-name aging veterans just can't comprehend this, and probably put cookies and milk out for Santa Claus every Xmas.
Last season they crawled, this season they walk, and next season they run for it. Duh.
I love that Joe Banner actually even comes out and admits it, rather than acting like a politician and promising a chicken in every pot and an end to poverty and crime.
Despite the little thing about Benjamin's scouting reports and the bigger thing about Heckert's calculated risk lower-round draft picks, I think this was a great article by a real smart guy.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Browns Post-FA Flea Market Analysis Analysis
Tom Reed of the PD wrote a pretty good article on the Browns' free agency moves and how precarious the secondary now looks. I can't criticize the article, as it came right on the heels of twelve roster moves, and Tom was in a kind of race with everybody else to publish something.
He should have been reading this blog. If he had, then he'd remember that Aubrey and Bademosi were cornerbacks last season, and can cover wide recievers in sub defenses. Especially the bigger ones, leaving the smaller, quicker ones to the three cornerbacks.
This is about boxes and labels again, see? Can Bademosi and Aubrey cover wide recievers? They can and did. The "S" next to their names didn't take away that skill.
But Tom's right about cornerback being thin. Buster Skrine scares the hell out of me, and Aubrey and Bademosi will be backing up the two safety slots, so if there are injuries, the secondary could get in trouble quickly.
Overall, however, I love how the front office is working this. Certainly there were other cornerbacks they could have signed, but none appeared better than those on the roster now.
They do this from top to bottom. If the free agent isn't (in their opinion) better than the lowest-ranked player at a given position, they pass, period.
I can't care much about the kicker or punter. These guys don't need playbooks, and could be signed the day OF a game and do their jobs.
While conventional wisdom says that the best ones are all gone by now, it's still possible that the Browns will pick up a younger guy that nobody else wants to give a fair shot.
I miss Dawson too, but don't second-guess that decision. He wanted too much money, and they're building for the long term.
Keavon Milton is thought to be the replacement for Kellen Davis as a blocker, and for this season that might be the case. But for the long term, its's quite possible that he'll be turned into a left tackle.
You heard that here first.
I've got to give credit to The Dawg Pound Daily's Peter Smith again for nailing the Rainey AND Dennis Johnson as potential Browns before those players were signed. That dude is good.
THIS JUST IN: Thanks to SB Nation I not only know that the Browns signed seven players to their practice squad, but even who TF they are!
FOUR are defensive backs. One is called a cornerback, but has tackle and sack stats like a (real scary) passrusher. It would be awesome if the guy could cover too--I have no idea.
Another one is called a safety but is about as big as the linebacker they just signed from Dallas.
These guys are on the practice squad for now, where I'm sure they'll be looked at hard. Barring further FA signings, one or more will most likely be activated soon.
Remember that this is a predominantly man coverage scheme, which is far less complex than zones, so that if a guy has the physical tools and instincts, he only needs to be taught the dirty tricks.
I doubt that anybody but me will tell you this, until they read it and pretend they thought of it themselves, but anyway you heard that here first too.
He should have been reading this blog. If he had, then he'd remember that Aubrey and Bademosi were cornerbacks last season, and can cover wide recievers in sub defenses. Especially the bigger ones, leaving the smaller, quicker ones to the three cornerbacks.
This is about boxes and labels again, see? Can Bademosi and Aubrey cover wide recievers? They can and did. The "S" next to their names didn't take away that skill.
But Tom's right about cornerback being thin. Buster Skrine scares the hell out of me, and Aubrey and Bademosi will be backing up the two safety slots, so if there are injuries, the secondary could get in trouble quickly.
Overall, however, I love how the front office is working this. Certainly there were other cornerbacks they could have signed, but none appeared better than those on the roster now.
They do this from top to bottom. If the free agent isn't (in their opinion) better than the lowest-ranked player at a given position, they pass, period.
I can't care much about the kicker or punter. These guys don't need playbooks, and could be signed the day OF a game and do their jobs.
While conventional wisdom says that the best ones are all gone by now, it's still possible that the Browns will pick up a younger guy that nobody else wants to give a fair shot.
I miss Dawson too, but don't second-guess that decision. He wanted too much money, and they're building for the long term.
Keavon Milton is thought to be the replacement for Kellen Davis as a blocker, and for this season that might be the case. But for the long term, its's quite possible that he'll be turned into a left tackle.
You heard that here first.
I've got to give credit to The Dawg Pound Daily's Peter Smith again for nailing the Rainey AND Dennis Johnson as potential Browns before those players were signed. That dude is good.
THIS JUST IN: Thanks to SB Nation I not only know that the Browns signed seven players to their practice squad, but even who TF they are!
FOUR are defensive backs. One is called a cornerback, but has tackle and sack stats like a (real scary) passrusher. It would be awesome if the guy could cover too--I have no idea.
Another one is called a safety but is about as big as the linebacker they just signed from Dallas.
These guys are on the practice squad for now, where I'm sure they'll be looked at hard. Barring further FA signings, one or more will most likely be activated soon.
Remember that this is a predominantly man coverage scheme, which is far less complex than zones, so that if a guy has the physical tools and instincts, he only needs to be taught the dirty tricks.
I doubt that anybody but me will tell you this, until they read it and pretend they thought of it themselves, but anyway you heard that here first too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)