Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Referees, not Patriots, Beat Browns

I knew it would be like this after the game.

Look, Chud and the players have to take the blame for this loss.  They must continue striving for perfection, and can't allow themselves to accept an imperfect performance as good enough.

They must also focus on controlling what they can control, since dwelling on THREE horrible bullcrap calls is counterproductive.

But when columnists and fans parrot all that stuff, it's pretty disgusting.

Look: You get paid daily for making widgets.  You get paid per widget.  So ok, you go to work early and have a record run of widgets.  It would have been even more, but you didn't catch a miscalibration in time and had to scrap a run of bad widgets, which came out of your pay.

But you work 12 hours and then come home with your bag of money.  While you're taking a shower, a guy in a striped shirt breaks in and steals it.

Following the logic of all these people, the bad run of widgets cost you your money.  Bullcrap.

When a quarterback is outside the tackle box, he can throw it anywhere he wants.  Intentional grounding is not even possible.  A shoulder-to-shoulder hit is legal anywhere on the field.  And interference is--well just interference--not touching, or going for the ball!

Had the game been properly officiated, the Browns probably would have won, and they earned it.

Mysticism--preconcieved notions: well Josh Gordon is "obviously no Calvin Johnson".  No, because he gets more yards per-catch, has more yards overall in two fewer games, and did it with three different quarterbacks, one of which is a bust.

He's the best reciever in the NFL, period.  Get used to it.

The offensive line did a great job, but the biggest reason Campbell was as good as he was in his first two games was because his ribs weren't killing him when he threw.  A healthy Campbell always plays above average.

I'm confiscating "desperately".  I just read this Bleacher Report analysis of the Browns' needs.

In fairness, it was pretty logical, although it inflated what really is a "could use an upgrade" to a "need" for a wide reciever opposite Gordon, and there was that word: "desperate".  The Browns also "desperately" need a couple more things, apparently. 

You need to save these adjectives for when they really apply.  "Desperate" means something, and maybe you should look it up in your Funk&Wagnal so you know that.

Aside from this annoying tendancy of the writer to overstate everything, the article didn't really suck.  Guard could use an upgrade, and the two he named looked pretty good.  Some of his proposed free agents look to be very expensive, but none were over the hill.

One commenter did take him to task: Golden Tate is overrated, and Eric Decker aint all that without Manning throwing to him.  The commenter has an anger management issue, but these were interesting points.  Decker in particular--he'll cost an arm and a leg, and how much of his big numbers are Peyton Manning, and how much him?

Ben Tate is only 25, and (despite what the commenter said) could be available.  There will be a bidding war for him, though.  I'd love to have him here as the running back.

Ask Tony: Tony Grossi says that the only big name running back to make a big impact with a new team is Micheal Turner.  He favors finding a running back to compete with Owens in the middle rounds, and using free agency to get a battering-ram fullback instead.

That does seem to make more sense.

A little later, a guy asked Tony about the offensive line pass-protecting.  Tony said:

Hey Jerry: Is the Browns’ O-line an impenetrable wall of protection? No. Is it the worst I’ve seen? Not at all. I recognize there have been breakdowns from all sides at various times. But more often than not I find myself screaming, “Get rid of the ball!” The quarterback has to make a decision within three seconds. After that, bad things usually occur.

What HE said!

The Browns desperate need to fill this cavernously humungus gaping hole is urgent.

No comments: