I've read Terry Pluto's post-game analysis of the Browns loss to the Texans, and it was pretty good.
Terry overstated how slow the defense looked in a dome on turf. They were simply caught out of position and missed some tackles.
The Texans defense accounted for one touchdown, and the short fields Baker Mayfield gave their offense hurt a lot as well.
When Denzel Ward left with a concussion, Philip Gaines (mainly a special teamer) replaced him...the Browns cornerbacks have been annihilated by injuries.
We can cross our fingers about Ward, and Terrence Mitchell is (so far) is on schedule to return in time for (sigh) Cam Newton, Chris McCaffery...
The Browns' offense was actually pretty good, except for those interceptions.
That was all Baker, and Terry et al are kind of broad-brushing the Browns offense vs the Texans defense.
I was clearly wrong a few posts ago when I said that opposing teams collecting film on Baker wouldn't help them much.
Clearly, as Terry pointed out, the Texans decided to cover with seven guys and clog up all the short and intermediate routes, but it was deeper than that:
The Texans used zone coverage to bait traps for Baker, as they knew where he would want to throw, based on the route combinations they saw.
On two of those interceptions, the defender seemed to make his move before Baker threw; he knew where it would go, and undercut the route.
We don't like giving opposing teams any credit around here, especially when their defensive coordinator (Romeo Crennell) once coached for the Browns.
But that impressive defense took our rookie to school.
There's nothing for it but for Mayfield to see how they suckered him, and not fall for it in the future.
Terry is right that other teams will try to do what the Texans did to him, but most won't be able to. The Texans secondary is exceptional, and their linebackers can cover as well...and of course they can generate a pass rush and get penetration with four big guys.
There were a lot of positives here:
1: Baker Mayfield DID have "all day" all day long. The Browns didn't use two tight ends as often as they have been, so the pass-protection vs this nasty crew was impressive.
2: Baker was much more effective after halftime. Yes, the Texans had a comfortable lead and were in "umbrella coverage" and stuff, but he still tore them up pretty good (close to 400 yards).
But here again, the Texans stopped him when they needed to.
I was getting overly optimistic heading into this game--couldn't help myself. But I'm not bummed out over this, because:
1: This was probably the worst anybody will ever make Baker Mayfield look.
2: The Texans' defense is a veteran unit, as stacked as any defense ever. They can mess anybody up. (I want to see them vs Tom Brady).
3: The time Baker had to throw vs Watt, Clowney, Mercillus and company.
4: How effective Nick Chubb was, despite the lopsided score taking him off the field.
I can't feel very confident about the Browns vs Panthers, but still...remember this?: I won't count them out.
Whippersnappers won't remember this, but Brian Sipe was like Baker Mayfield (except smaller, with a popgun arm). Sipe pulled victory out of the jaws of defeat over and over again, and was THE reason that team was called the Kardiac Kidz.
Sipe spent several years on the Cab squad, then as a backup, so they're different in that respect: Mayfield got all the hoopla and started almost immediately.
But they're still very similar, between their ears. Baker can hit tighter windows (due to his arm) than Sipe could, and his upside is much higher.
Carolina's defense is good, but not as good as the Texans' defense. They really can't screw Baker Mayfield up the way the Texans did.
But their offense is scarier, so...
Now that Karim Hunt is a cut, naturally everybody thinks the guy who drafted him (Dorsey) will try to sign him (Nick who?).
And now that Mike McCarthy has been fired by the Packers, many pundits assume that he will elbow aside Gregg Williams (and probably Freddie Kitchens) to hire his old poker-buddy (no matter what Gregg/Freddie do).
1: Have you seen that Hunt video? You know it happened IN Cleveland, right?
2: Is Hunt better than Nick Chubb? That's debatable.
I suppose if you ignore the character issues and politics, having Hunt here dirt-cheap AND Chubb/Duke would be awesome.
It's kind of a non-starter, though: he assaulted this woman in Cleveland. I'll be shocked if Dorsey makes this move.
3: McCarthy is not only persona non-grata in Green Bay, but among a few legitimate experts who think that he hasn't "kept up" with modern defenses, and lacks creativity.
I'm not qualified to judge the man, and I do know that hyperbole often overwhelms reality.
Lots of people think Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback in history. Better than Brady, Brees, Peyton Manning!?!
Anyway, I know that a bunch of disgruntled Green Bay fans blame McCarthy for not winning with the greatest quarterback ever to play.
I hope Dorsey thinks with his brain here. I don't think Mike McCarthy is "all that". Rodgers did win a lot of games that Mike would have lost with 27 other quarterbacks.
This just in: Terrence Mitchell is back! But now Ward probably won't be. Figgers, no?
Dan Labbe wrote a nice article on the current "state of the Browns", and touched on McCarthy; the SAFE (Martonian) pick.
Remember Marty Schottenheimer? That's McCarthy. What will Mike do with Mayfield that he didn't do with Rodgers? Huh? Huh?
Dan also reminds me that the Panthers have lost four straight games. I hadn't paid attention to that, or all the coaches they've just fired, because I tend to fixate on talent.
Maybe the Browns have a real shot at beating these guys! I'll look into it and get back to you.
As Dan says, there's maybe a one percent chance for the Browns making the playoffs if they win all their remaining games, but he's right about winning games meaning more than getting higher draft picks.
Thanks to Todd Haley, the Browns are probably out of contention for 2018, but they can build a winning culture and momentum heading into 2019.
Marty said "winning is a habit", and he was right.
John Dorsey is here now, and the Browns don't need a quarterback. Dorsey has piled up extra fifth and seventh round picks to peddle, and (thanks to Rodney Brownfield), still has massive cap-space, and a solid core of talent entering it's peak years.
Heading into 2019, if Dorsey drafts 15th or lower it won't matter that much. He has his stud running back, quarterback, cornerback, edge-rusher etc already.
Greg Robinson has performed well so far, but has yet to redeem himself long-term as a left tackle. Desmond Harrison has even more physical talent than Joe Thomas had, but you can't take potential to the bank.
It gets complicated: with a Baker Mayfield, that left tackle isn't as important in pass-protection.
Lots of fans and pundits want a stud wide receiver in the first round. I think they're fulla beans, because Dameion Ratley is already here (and Bill might give Gordon back next season rather than re-sign him).
Callaway isn't a classic X-receiver at 6' tall, but with a quarterback as accurate as Mayfield, he can definitely fill that slot.
Mayfield is like Aaron Rodgers: He doesn't need a "go-to" crutch receiver, see? You blockheads seem to think all quarterbacks are alike, and they all need a crutch.
Well, Tom Brady does fine without Gronk and/or Edelman, hasn't noticed Randy Moss's departure, and treats Josh Gordon like "a guy".
Drew Brees? What happened to Micheal Thomas? Nothing, except defenses are zeroing in on him more than ever, so Drew is hitting like eight or nine other guys underneath!
The best quarterbacks spread the ball around. I remember the Culpepper-to-Moss connection in Minnesota. Moss left the team, and Culpepper fell off the map.
The best quarterbacks don't NEED a super-fast mutant with a massive catch-radius (although that's always nice to have). The best quarterbacks can hit a Callaway-sized bucket 40 yards downfield, see?
Drafting near the middle of the first round in 2019, John Dorsey can go best available, period. He can move up (or down) a little if he feels that somebody is exceptional, or there's a lot of depth.
He will have exploited the veteran free agent market by then...
This is another reason why winning now is more important than a higher draft pick. Veteran free agents want to go to winning teams, or at least teams that have proven they're "on their way".
Forget left tackle in free agency. Nobody lets those guys go. But everybody else? The Browns are now a good place to hire on, and Dorsey won't need to overpay anybody, and can again mix short-term geezers with longer-term guys under 27.
You can't "buy" a team. You do need to build it through the draft. But look at what Dorsey did with the secondary here ahead of the 2018 draft:
He signed free agents TJ Carey, EJ Gaines, and Terrence Mitchell. Then he traded Kizer for Damarius Randall, planning to return him to free safety.
This was impressive as hell, kids! Long before John Dorsey drafted Denzel Ward, he nailed down FOUR proven NFL back-end starters and created massive competition among them!
He did this when nobody wanted to go to the winless Browns. What will he do with veteran free agents ahead of the 2019 draft?
...especially after they sweep the Ravens and Bengals (which they will). Yes they will.
What do the Browns need? Nothing.
What could they use? Everything. Every single one of the 22 starting positions could be upgraded. This is true for at least 20 other NFL teams, and that's subjective:
Is Gurley better than McCaffery? Is Beckham better than Jones? Is Goff better than Ben/Drew/Aaron?
Nevermind the Browns urgently need a left tackle, edge-rusher, X-receiver, and (oh yeah) everything else...
Here on this planet, Superbowl teams scrape by without Pro Bowl rosters.
Steelers? You're in trouble in 2019. Bengals/Ravens? You're fried.
No comments:
Post a Comment