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.
No comments:
Post a Comment