As my crickets know, I like and learn a lot from NFL Radio analysts Tim Ryan and Pat Kirwin. But here we go again with these guys being too bored and cynical about a 4-12 team to do pay any attention to them...or even think about them.
In response to a caller question, Pat Ryan said he thought that the the Browns trade of a second round 2013 pick for Josh Gordon in the supplemental draft was a "panic" move.
Oh please! They first saw him when they scouted Phil Taylor. They know of him through Jordon Norwood's father, and they've been checking him out for over two years.
I'm not done. It's a 2013 pick, and they don't worry about whether or not he'll do much in 2012.
Later, Pat Kirwin, valiantly trying to snap himself out of the doze brought on by the subject of the Browns, did acknowlege that if Heckert and company had agreed with others that WR was an urgent need, they could have signed the venerable and stately Plaxico Burress, or another veteran free agent.
While Pat went back to sleep until the Browns talk was over, Ryan went on to some more analysis of the Browns prospects.
He said that it remained to be seen how Brian Weeden would react to getting the crap beat out of him by the Stoolers, Ratbirds, and (yes) Bungles defenses. Weeden didn't take much heat during his college carreer, and this is a whole different ballgame.
Fair enough, but here again, another ex-player erred on the glass half-empty side because he didn't want to think about it.
1: The two college coaches who described how they beat Brian Weeden's team by getting in his face failed to mention that he threw for around 900 yards in the two losses. I kind of hope the aforementioned AFC North teams have similar success against him.
2: This offense will be run-oriented and center on Trent Richardson, not Weeden. Weeden's college offense was all Weeden.
3: This is a timing offense that will get the ball out of Weeden's hands quickly, and Weeden is well-suited to it.
4: This offense will probably go shotgun on most probable passing downs.
5: This offensive line and these tight ends will be among the best in the NFL.
So while Tim makes a valid point about Weeden getting knocked around by his AFC North rivals, he seemed to expect failure--because he didn't want to think about all those other factors.
I understand cynicism about the Browns from the fans, who apparantly don't know Tom Heckert from Butch Davis, or Pat Shurmer from Eric Mangini. But it really ticks me off when these smart, insightful, legitimate experts act just as ignorant.
They also stated flatly that the Browns don't have a number one reciever. I'm telling you and them now that Gregg Little can be a number one. He's as a fast as Braylon Edwards, is actually trying, and he didn't have a strong-armed quarterback to hit him deep in 2011.
This is MM stuff. Guy converts from running back, doesn't play a year in college, comes in raw with no offseason and catches 62 passes, and these guys yawn.
Anyway, even if Little's speed weren't massively underrated, and the Browns don't have a number one...do you mean that between Mitchell and Gordon they won't have one?
No--they haven't thought that far ahead. They don't care. When can we change the subject? How bout them Cardinals?
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Memorex Morons
Former star NY Giant wide reciever Armani Tumor was a great player, and is now starting a new carreer as an analyst on Sirius/XM NFL Radio.
Recently, when answering the question about which quarterback he would choose if building a franchise from scratch, this favorite target of Eli Manning pointed out that statisticly, Tony Romo would be a good candidate.
He then backed it up, as well as any lawyer could, with records and statistics. This guy had to know that the majority of Dallas fans would call him an idiot, that scaffolds with ropes would be built in New York with his name on them, and that Eli would feel hurt. But he said it anyway.
I respect the hell out of that! It's rare that any guy in that profession will tell the truth as he sees it, and damn the torpedos.
HOWEVER, like Rich Gannon when he started as an analyst (and to this day to a lesser degree), Armani is lazy.
Any idiot can focus on the best teams from the previous season. They're the ones being talked about by everybody. We have in our reptilian brains the instinct to chase winners, which is why some frontrunners grew up in Cleveland and became Steeler fans because that's who won the first Superbowl they watched.
It's a mindless instnct, which fortunately most of us override as our cerebral cortex gets more involved and we start actually thinking.
Armani doesn't know about any of the teams that won fewer than six or so games last season (unless they have a star quarterback, of course). Maybe he thinks it's just too boring to do any research on them whatsoever, or too early to force himself into that agonizing task. I mean, there are 32 whole teams, man! What is the guy supposed to do, read about all of them, or something?
Jim Miller, Armani's broadcast partner, asked Armani what he thought of the Browns' trading their '13 second round pick to draft Josh Gordon in the supplemental draft.
Armani started this "I don't know--" stuff, and rambling into how the Browns don't have anybody who could scare a defense into keeping a safety back.
Miller is sharp, and threw Armani a rope. He sort of restated the question, but mentioned Weeden, and then started providing Armani with names like Little, Cribbs, Massequoi. Miller paused here to say that Massequoi was beat up last season, and he didn't know if he was more than a possession reciever---
Armani siezed on this to escape, saying that recievers all really hated to be called "possession" guys. He was on his way to getting away from the conversation entirely, but Miller persisted.
Armani repeated the no deep threat stuff, and said that defenses would use man coverage on them a lot, which as a reciever you want, but, but, but, but........
Miller mentioned Weeden for a reason. Weeden can and will stab deeper than McCoy did. He mentioned Gordon in the first place because Gordon is a deep threat. He didn't get around to Norwood or Benjamin, but they are deep threats. I doubt Miller pays much attention to Mitchell, but there's another deep threat.
Armani kept digging. He pointed out that normally when you build a team the wide recievers come last, and are sort of the icing on the cake. You get the offensive line (check) first, then the running backs (check), then the tight ends (check), and then..."I just don't know if these recievers are going to do anything anytime soon", and I'm wondering why he said all that stuff.
Not really. When you now nothing about something, you change the subject, and get general, and say as little as possible, using as many words as possible.
And no, Armani never said anything at all about Josh Gordon, because he knew absolutely nothing about him, too.
When Jim Brown said he thought Trent Richardson was "ordinary", I thought it was insane, but was sure that JB wouldn't say such a thing unless he'd watched him on tape. That's cool. But Armani just sort of brushed the Cleveland Browns off without a trial.
Armani, next time just say "The dog ate my homework", ok?
But it went on! Now Miller and Tumor are trying to name ten potential breakout recievers, and Gregg Little was never mentioned. (Well, Miller did mention him. They mentioned another reciever who had had some drops, and Miller asked Tumor if the dropsies couldn't be fixed--mentioning Little in this context).
Armani said yes absolutely, just extra time on the jugs machine. I was thinking that now that Little's name had come up, he couldn't be overlooked, but I was wrong.
Now listen: Armani had said that the Browns' recievers would see a lot of man coverage, without safety support. Miller had mentioned Brandon Weeden. Last season with a weak running game and McCoy at quarterback, and as a raw rookie, Little caught one fewer pass than AJ Green, and ranked high in total yardage.
This season defenses will have to face Trent Richardson, Little has lost eleven pounds, Weeden can put the ball anywhere, and Armani himself had said that dropped passes can be fixed.
It seems rediculous not to include Gregg Little near the TOP of any list of potential breakout wide recievers.
I think that if Jim Miller read this, he'd say "wow--good points!", and might well decide to list him. I think if Armani read this, he'd say "I don't know. It's just that--it's like-----"
Well, I don't hate these guys at all. Rich Gannon always catches up to the bad teams by preseason, and I hope Armani will too.
But the Little thing--now that's just plain ignorant.
Recently, when answering the question about which quarterback he would choose if building a franchise from scratch, this favorite target of Eli Manning pointed out that statisticly, Tony Romo would be a good candidate.
He then backed it up, as well as any lawyer could, with records and statistics. This guy had to know that the majority of Dallas fans would call him an idiot, that scaffolds with ropes would be built in New York with his name on them, and that Eli would feel hurt. But he said it anyway.
I respect the hell out of that! It's rare that any guy in that profession will tell the truth as he sees it, and damn the torpedos.
HOWEVER, like Rich Gannon when he started as an analyst (and to this day to a lesser degree), Armani is lazy.
Any idiot can focus on the best teams from the previous season. They're the ones being talked about by everybody. We have in our reptilian brains the instinct to chase winners, which is why some frontrunners grew up in Cleveland and became Steeler fans because that's who won the first Superbowl they watched.
It's a mindless instnct, which fortunately most of us override as our cerebral cortex gets more involved and we start actually thinking.
Armani doesn't know about any of the teams that won fewer than six or so games last season (unless they have a star quarterback, of course). Maybe he thinks it's just too boring to do any research on them whatsoever, or too early to force himself into that agonizing task. I mean, there are 32 whole teams, man! What is the guy supposed to do, read about all of them, or something?
Jim Miller, Armani's broadcast partner, asked Armani what he thought of the Browns' trading their '13 second round pick to draft Josh Gordon in the supplemental draft.
Armani started this "I don't know--" stuff, and rambling into how the Browns don't have anybody who could scare a defense into keeping a safety back.
Miller is sharp, and threw Armani a rope. He sort of restated the question, but mentioned Weeden, and then started providing Armani with names like Little, Cribbs, Massequoi. Miller paused here to say that Massequoi was beat up last season, and he didn't know if he was more than a possession reciever---
Armani siezed on this to escape, saying that recievers all really hated to be called "possession" guys. He was on his way to getting away from the conversation entirely, but Miller persisted.
Armani repeated the no deep threat stuff, and said that defenses would use man coverage on them a lot, which as a reciever you want, but, but, but, but........
Miller mentioned Weeden for a reason. Weeden can and will stab deeper than McCoy did. He mentioned Gordon in the first place because Gordon is a deep threat. He didn't get around to Norwood or Benjamin, but they are deep threats. I doubt Miller pays much attention to Mitchell, but there's another deep threat.
Armani kept digging. He pointed out that normally when you build a team the wide recievers come last, and are sort of the icing on the cake. You get the offensive line (check) first, then the running backs (check), then the tight ends (check), and then..."I just don't know if these recievers are going to do anything anytime soon", and I'm wondering why he said all that stuff.
Not really. When you now nothing about something, you change the subject, and get general, and say as little as possible, using as many words as possible.
And no, Armani never said anything at all about Josh Gordon, because he knew absolutely nothing about him, too.
When Jim Brown said he thought Trent Richardson was "ordinary", I thought it was insane, but was sure that JB wouldn't say such a thing unless he'd watched him on tape. That's cool. But Armani just sort of brushed the Cleveland Browns off without a trial.
Armani, next time just say "The dog ate my homework", ok?
But it went on! Now Miller and Tumor are trying to name ten potential breakout recievers, and Gregg Little was never mentioned. (Well, Miller did mention him. They mentioned another reciever who had had some drops, and Miller asked Tumor if the dropsies couldn't be fixed--mentioning Little in this context).
Armani said yes absolutely, just extra time on the jugs machine. I was thinking that now that Little's name had come up, he couldn't be overlooked, but I was wrong.
Now listen: Armani had said that the Browns' recievers would see a lot of man coverage, without safety support. Miller had mentioned Brandon Weeden. Last season with a weak running game and McCoy at quarterback, and as a raw rookie, Little caught one fewer pass than AJ Green, and ranked high in total yardage.
This season defenses will have to face Trent Richardson, Little has lost eleven pounds, Weeden can put the ball anywhere, and Armani himself had said that dropped passes can be fixed.
It seems rediculous not to include Gregg Little near the TOP of any list of potential breakout wide recievers.
I think that if Jim Miller read this, he'd say "wow--good points!", and might well decide to list him. I think if Armani read this, he'd say "I don't know. It's just that--it's like-----"
Well, I don't hate these guys at all. Rich Gannon always catches up to the bad teams by preseason, and I hope Armani will too.
But the Little thing--now that's just plain ignorant.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Josh Gordon
I'm glad I didn't have time to blog heading into the supplemental draft, because I would have said...err ehh....that they would use a second round pick to nab Josh Gordon! Yeah, that's the ticket!
And....and that Gordon was WORTH a 2013 second-round pick! Yeah, that's what I would have said!
Nah. Ok but now that it's done, I'm bothered by a lot of the comments I read. "Great move!" "Finally, a wide reciever!"
NONE of these people knows anything ABOUT Josh Gordon!
I'm not saying the guy won't be great. I still have faith in Heckert and company, and their judgement. You can't teach big hands, speed, or size, and this dude sure has those. So did Mitchell...except Mitchell wasn't a Heckert pick, and was even more raw.
Gordon is indeed raw, but after his solid season with RG3 at Baylor, he did practice the whole season with Utah. This means he's been running routes vs. defensive backs. He's now worked in two different systems.
Sure, he'll immediately challenge to start opposite Little, but probably won't. He hasn't been here for anything yet. Hasn't even seen the playbook yet. Maybe never heard of a West Coast route tree. The West Coast is the most complex system for a wide reciever to learn. No ad-libbing; there's only one correct read, and if you blow it there's a good chance it's a pick, because the ball was in the air before you made the wrong move, or didn't make the right one.
If you expect him to come right in and change everything in 2012, you should wake up. This was a longer-term move. He may be worked in gradually through the season, playing more and more, and might even be making a splash in the second half--or not.
Even if Mitchell emerges, along with one or two of the other non-Little guys, and push Gordon off the active roster in 2012, it hardly matters (if they're right).
He wouldn't have been drafted until 2013 anyway, and most legit experts agree that he'd have a good shot at being the first or second wide reciever drafted, maybe high in the first round.
Heckert just put the same guy on this NFL team, in this offensive system, a year early. In 2013, he'll be better than he would have been after another season in college! AND, on a second-round contract!!!
I've only been able to see Gordon make two plays on film. One was a little insta-dumpoff to him at the line of scrimmage that he took 97 yards for a TD. What shocked me about that is that he was pulling away from all the defenders with each stride. His 40 time is good for his size, but I'll bet his 100-time is microscopic.
DB's in the NFL are faster, of course, but I really doubt that many could catch him if he got behind them. I mean, their legs are simply too short.
The other touchdown was a bomb from RG3. Here, he was around three yards ahead of the DB, who had no shot.
Mitchell never had a season like this guy had with Baylor and RG3. The year before last, Gordon really proved something against elite competition, and now he's practiced with Utah for another season, so he's not at all as raw and unproven as Mitchell was when he was drafted (not by Heckert).
He also sounds pretty smart in his interviews. And the mary jane stuff? Big deal!
And hey, of he steps right in and surprises me by making an impact right away, that's great! I mean, they can instantly use him situationally and say "just go to that corner of the end zone period". Just scare this free safety and pull this cornerback over there so they stay out of the way.
I'm not counting Mitchell out, either. This doesn't mean there's not room for two of those guys.
Hell, now they've got TOO many wide recievers!
Wow.
And....and that Gordon was WORTH a 2013 second-round pick! Yeah, that's what I would have said!
Nah. Ok but now that it's done, I'm bothered by a lot of the comments I read. "Great move!" "Finally, a wide reciever!"
NONE of these people knows anything ABOUT Josh Gordon!
I'm not saying the guy won't be great. I still have faith in Heckert and company, and their judgement. You can't teach big hands, speed, or size, and this dude sure has those. So did Mitchell...except Mitchell wasn't a Heckert pick, and was even more raw.
Gordon is indeed raw, but after his solid season with RG3 at Baylor, he did practice the whole season with Utah. This means he's been running routes vs. defensive backs. He's now worked in two different systems.
Sure, he'll immediately challenge to start opposite Little, but probably won't. He hasn't been here for anything yet. Hasn't even seen the playbook yet. Maybe never heard of a West Coast route tree. The West Coast is the most complex system for a wide reciever to learn. No ad-libbing; there's only one correct read, and if you blow it there's a good chance it's a pick, because the ball was in the air before you made the wrong move, or didn't make the right one.
If you expect him to come right in and change everything in 2012, you should wake up. This was a longer-term move. He may be worked in gradually through the season, playing more and more, and might even be making a splash in the second half--or not.
Even if Mitchell emerges, along with one or two of the other non-Little guys, and push Gordon off the active roster in 2012, it hardly matters (if they're right).
He wouldn't have been drafted until 2013 anyway, and most legit experts agree that he'd have a good shot at being the first or second wide reciever drafted, maybe high in the first round.
Heckert just put the same guy on this NFL team, in this offensive system, a year early. In 2013, he'll be better than he would have been after another season in college! AND, on a second-round contract!!!
I've only been able to see Gordon make two plays on film. One was a little insta-dumpoff to him at the line of scrimmage that he took 97 yards for a TD. What shocked me about that is that he was pulling away from all the defenders with each stride. His 40 time is good for his size, but I'll bet his 100-time is microscopic.
DB's in the NFL are faster, of course, but I really doubt that many could catch him if he got behind them. I mean, their legs are simply too short.
The other touchdown was a bomb from RG3. Here, he was around three yards ahead of the DB, who had no shot.
Mitchell never had a season like this guy had with Baylor and RG3. The year before last, Gordon really proved something against elite competition, and now he's practiced with Utah for another season, so he's not at all as raw and unproven as Mitchell was when he was drafted (not by Heckert).
He also sounds pretty smart in his interviews. And the mary jane stuff? Big deal!
And hey, of he steps right in and surprises me by making an impact right away, that's great! I mean, they can instantly use him situationally and say "just go to that corner of the end zone period". Just scare this free safety and pull this cornerback over there so they stay out of the way.
I'm not counting Mitchell out, either. This doesn't mean there's not room for two of those guys.
Hell, now they've got TOO many wide recievers!
Wow.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Young Cleveland Browns Who Could Shock and Astonish Oblivions and Make a Big Difference on Offense
I was greatly encouraged by Tony Grossi articles (and only his) mentioning Carlton Mitchell, and suggesting that he was looking pretty good.
Grossi is not my favorite analyst, but aint bad, niether. I was bothered by his harsh analyses of Colt McCoy (arm strength), but have to admit now that some of that was right...although he still never considers Montana, Sipe, Pennington, Ryan, Nelson, etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, the Mitchell references were encouraging to me. Grossi does look a little deeper than most analysts, and does get on the sidelines AMAP. It's easy to look at stats and count catches. I believe that Grossi is looking for how often he gets OPEN, regardless of whether or not a pass comes his way.
I try not to let my emotions color my own analysis, but in view of Mitchell's potential and the fact that he's been gestating for two NFL seasons, Grossi's positive mentions carry weight with me.
Now, IF IF IF Mitchell emerges (predictably/on schedule) as 3/4 the WR he was projected to be, he can claim the WR slot opposite Gregg Little.
This would be scary for enema defenses, as Mitchell is a big target and a deep threat. In reality, he's no faster than Little, but has a little more reach. If IF IF Little predictably emerges in his second season as a true number one reciever, these two guys could really be formidable together.
In reality, Little can make sharper cuts and get better separation. He can break more tackles, and be the primary target--assuming he can CATCH THE DAMN BALL. In THIS WEST COAST system, he defaults to the X reciever slot.
Mitchell is more of a "glider"; not as quick, nor with the running back elusiveness or strength of Little. But he is a little taller, and can use his mass and reach as well or better to make catches even when covered. If IF IF Mitchell emerges, in this offense featuring scary tight ends and Richardson he will NEVER be double-covered.
Here, the Browns would (again: in reality) feature TWO starting big-play wide recievers. Two big guys who overpower and out-reach cornerbacks, and can go to the house at any time.
Then there's that Weeden favorite undrafted Josh Cooper. Small and slow, but sure-handed and (at least in camp) always open. I wouldn't even count this guy out for making a surprise impact in this (listen carefully) WEST COAST timing offense.
Travis Benjamin will be one of the fastest players in the NFL. Came from Miami U.
Reports of his bad routes are being misunderstood: He makes sharp, sudden cuts, and can separate, but (big surprise coming), he misreads coverages and zigs when he's supposed to zag.
He's a R O O K I E DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D? Give him a couple weeks, for cryin' out loud! This waterbug might be awesome! (or not: so stipulated shut up Yoda).
Sticking with people who catch passes (and again let's drop labels), how 'bout Cameron Jordan? Why do Browns fans discard middle-round rookies when they don't make instant impacts?
His college football history was even more limitted than Little's. Little switched positions, then got suspended. Cameron was a highschool wide reciever and basketball player who went to college on a basketball scholarship. He played some at wide reciever, and was switched to tight end after that. He was very raw.
Heckert and company knew he needed a lot of work, and the Browns were neck-deep in tight ends. He was never intended to get more than a little taste in his inaugural season, but this is year two.
He's bigger and stronger, and might well challenge for time in Watson's place as an in-line tight end (who can block defensive ends and stuff).
Do you understand that the main reason Moore didn't play much last season is because Smith and Watson were needed next to the right tackle to help block? That's also why Watson wasn't very productive--he was pass-blocking.
Cameron, like Watson, has the potential to play both conventional and wing-tight end, and if he's made enough progress, could blow up this season! Especially since RT Mitchell Schwartze won't need help!
Richardson (duh). Weeden probably, mainly because he can attack everywhere. We'll leave them out of this.
If I were telling you that all four of these recievers would emerge as stars this season, it would be fair to call me a homer, dreamer, or moron, as some of you will anyway.
But I'm telling you that it's likely that all of them will improve at least a little, and two (half) of them will be at least above average. That's just kindergarten statistical analysis.
Things are looking up. Deal with it.
Grossi is not my favorite analyst, but aint bad, niether. I was bothered by his harsh analyses of Colt McCoy (arm strength), but have to admit now that some of that was right...although he still never considers Montana, Sipe, Pennington, Ryan, Nelson, etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, the Mitchell references were encouraging to me. Grossi does look a little deeper than most analysts, and does get on the sidelines AMAP. It's easy to look at stats and count catches. I believe that Grossi is looking for how often he gets OPEN, regardless of whether or not a pass comes his way.
I try not to let my emotions color my own analysis, but in view of Mitchell's potential and the fact that he's been gestating for two NFL seasons, Grossi's positive mentions carry weight with me.
Now, IF IF IF Mitchell emerges (predictably/on schedule) as 3/4 the WR he was projected to be, he can claim the WR slot opposite Gregg Little.
This would be scary for enema defenses, as Mitchell is a big target and a deep threat. In reality, he's no faster than Little, but has a little more reach. If IF IF Little predictably emerges in his second season as a true number one reciever, these two guys could really be formidable together.
In reality, Little can make sharper cuts and get better separation. He can break more tackles, and be the primary target--assuming he can CATCH THE DAMN BALL. In THIS WEST COAST system, he defaults to the X reciever slot.
Mitchell is more of a "glider"; not as quick, nor with the running back elusiveness or strength of Little. But he is a little taller, and can use his mass and reach as well or better to make catches even when covered. If IF IF Mitchell emerges, in this offense featuring scary tight ends and Richardson he will NEVER be double-covered.
Here, the Browns would (again: in reality) feature TWO starting big-play wide recievers. Two big guys who overpower and out-reach cornerbacks, and can go to the house at any time.
Then there's that Weeden favorite undrafted Josh Cooper. Small and slow, but sure-handed and (at least in camp) always open. I wouldn't even count this guy out for making a surprise impact in this (listen carefully) WEST COAST timing offense.
Travis Benjamin will be one of the fastest players in the NFL. Came from Miami U.
Reports of his bad routes are being misunderstood: He makes sharp, sudden cuts, and can separate, but (big surprise coming), he misreads coverages and zigs when he's supposed to zag.
He's a R O O K I E DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D? Give him a couple weeks, for cryin' out loud! This waterbug might be awesome! (or not: so stipulated shut up Yoda).
Sticking with people who catch passes (and again let's drop labels), how 'bout Cameron Jordan? Why do Browns fans discard middle-round rookies when they don't make instant impacts?
His college football history was even more limitted than Little's. Little switched positions, then got suspended. Cameron was a highschool wide reciever and basketball player who went to college on a basketball scholarship. He played some at wide reciever, and was switched to tight end after that. He was very raw.
Heckert and company knew he needed a lot of work, and the Browns were neck-deep in tight ends. He was never intended to get more than a little taste in his inaugural season, but this is year two.
He's bigger and stronger, and might well challenge for time in Watson's place as an in-line tight end (who can block defensive ends and stuff).
Do you understand that the main reason Moore didn't play much last season is because Smith and Watson were needed next to the right tackle to help block? That's also why Watson wasn't very productive--he was pass-blocking.
Cameron, like Watson, has the potential to play both conventional and wing-tight end, and if he's made enough progress, could blow up this season! Especially since RT Mitchell Schwartze won't need help!
Richardson (duh). Weeden probably, mainly because he can attack everywhere. We'll leave them out of this.
If I were telling you that all four of these recievers would emerge as stars this season, it would be fair to call me a homer, dreamer, or moron, as some of you will anyway.
But I'm telling you that it's likely that all of them will improve at least a little, and two (half) of them will be at least above average. That's just kindergarten statistical analysis.
Things are looking up. Deal with it.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Slow News Month
Fred Greetham wrote one of the best pieces I've read in awhile in "Browns Big on Little". It had everything: Logic, facts, intelligence...he sounded a lot like my humble self.
For all the caterwalling (about 70% of it repeated as a chant, sans original thought or insight) about how terrible the recieving corps is (not was--IS), Little's very real prospects for emerging as an elite reciever are being ignored.
How many wide recievers in a base offense? TWO.
Do the Browns have slot recievers? YES. In fact, they have too many. Norwood did a fine job last season, as he learned along with Little. Benjamin is a strong candidate to unseat him, and this Josh kid from Weeden's team is tearing up practices. Jordan and Norwood have big-play speed, too.
Do the Browns have tight ends who can line up outside? YES. THREE of them.
If Little is the default X, the Z is covered, and you have those fast wing tight ends, what is the big issue here?
It hardly even matters if I am wrong about Massequoi not being anywhere near as bad as the rest of the universe thinks he is, when Childress and Shurmer can just sort of use Moore or Cameron or Watson opposite Little, and even have them run the same routes?
Quit with the labels. Labels simplify things for lazy or simple minds. Drop the "wide" out of wide reciever and see what you get. ...okay, reciever jeez. The slot opposite Little is tailor-made for these three big recievers who are labelled as tight ends.
Here I'm making a leap of faith on Cameron's emergence this season, of course.
What was really missing last season, according the the ex-quarterbacks I listen to, was the one guy who could "take the top off" a defense, and prevent them from stacking the front and flooding the backfield.
Well, maybe it's not missing at all. Little may well be that scary big dude, and now Benjamin and Jordon will compete for the scary little dude.
"Slot" is another convenient label. If Jordan, Benjamin, or even Cooper line up five yards off the tackle, and one of the wing-T's are outside of them, you could call that the slot.
In reality, it aint so, because the defense will put their second-best cornerback on the "slot" guy, and a hybrid linebacker or big safety on the huge "Y". But it could work extremely well.
That good cornerback on the little inside guy can't use inside leverage and body him toward the sidelines. There's too much space, and if the waterbug just takes what he's given, he can beat the cornerback and go vertical. The corner almost has to play "off-man" or zone--backed up a few steps.
So now you have one of your run-stoppers lined up way outside, and a little guy that Richardson can steamroll closer in and backed off.
If Little emerges, as his 60-plus receptions last season indicate he will, then even if you write off MoMass, there are no fewer than FIVE other pass-catchers to exploit any attempt at double-covering him.
But I digress. Let's see what the peanut gallery had to say about Greetham's article about Greg Little:
You are joking right???? He did not have Pro bowl type numbers. Not even close.
Neither did Green or Jones.
I think you are going to be way more disappointed this year than ever before. I will go on record now saying they will be lucky to win more than 6 games. The defense led by one of the weakest LB corps in football. Will totally collapse if and when the offense actually scores an average of 14 points per game. We were 30th against the run and 6th against the pass because no one had to score many points against us to win. If and when the offense actually looks like a professonal team. Then you will see the smoke and mirrors defense we truely have. Any thing less than 9 - 7 is what's called losing football. Then the excuses will fly again which is Cleveland Browns football since the reestablishment of this franchise.
Ah! There's an excellent example of emotional thinking! He ignores D'Qwell Jackson and the two linebackers who were just drafted. In asserting that the defense would collapse, he ignores the four new defensive linemen and the much deeper rotation.
Hagg, too: If he can stave off Usama Young for the free safety slot, this guy is an excellent run-stopper. He's got unusual football intelligence and diagnoses very quickly. Ignores the fact that Ward missed much of the season.
He completely ignores the fact that last year was the first year in a whole new scheme, and that even without changes, it would automaticly improve in year two.
Ignores Jauron's record and reputation.
But he does go on record, which is very bold of him.
Pretty ignorant, huh?
For all the caterwalling (about 70% of it repeated as a chant, sans original thought or insight) about how terrible the recieving corps is (not was--IS), Little's very real prospects for emerging as an elite reciever are being ignored.
How many wide recievers in a base offense? TWO.
Do the Browns have slot recievers? YES. In fact, they have too many. Norwood did a fine job last season, as he learned along with Little. Benjamin is a strong candidate to unseat him, and this Josh kid from Weeden's team is tearing up practices. Jordan and Norwood have big-play speed, too.
Do the Browns have tight ends who can line up outside? YES. THREE of them.
If Little is the default X, the Z is covered, and you have those fast wing tight ends, what is the big issue here?
It hardly even matters if I am wrong about Massequoi not being anywhere near as bad as the rest of the universe thinks he is, when Childress and Shurmer can just sort of use Moore or Cameron or Watson opposite Little, and even have them run the same routes?
Quit with the labels. Labels simplify things for lazy or simple minds. Drop the "wide" out of wide reciever and see what you get. ...okay, reciever jeez. The slot opposite Little is tailor-made for these three big recievers who are labelled as tight ends.
Here I'm making a leap of faith on Cameron's emergence this season, of course.
What was really missing last season, according the the ex-quarterbacks I listen to, was the one guy who could "take the top off" a defense, and prevent them from stacking the front and flooding the backfield.
Well, maybe it's not missing at all. Little may well be that scary big dude, and now Benjamin and Jordon will compete for the scary little dude.
"Slot" is another convenient label. If Jordan, Benjamin, or even Cooper line up five yards off the tackle, and one of the wing-T's are outside of them, you could call that the slot.
In reality, it aint so, because the defense will put their second-best cornerback on the "slot" guy, and a hybrid linebacker or big safety on the huge "Y". But it could work extremely well.
That good cornerback on the little inside guy can't use inside leverage and body him toward the sidelines. There's too much space, and if the waterbug just takes what he's given, he can beat the cornerback and go vertical. The corner almost has to play "off-man" or zone--backed up a few steps.
So now you have one of your run-stoppers lined up way outside, and a little guy that Richardson can steamroll closer in and backed off.
If Little emerges, as his 60-plus receptions last season indicate he will, then even if you write off MoMass, there are no fewer than FIVE other pass-catchers to exploit any attempt at double-covering him.
But I digress. Let's see what the peanut gallery had to say about Greetham's article about Greg Little:
You are joking right???? He did not have Pro bowl type numbers. Not even close.
Neither did Green or Jones.
I think you are going to be way more disappointed this year than ever before. I will go on record now saying they will be lucky to win more than 6 games. The defense led by one of the weakest LB corps in football. Will totally collapse if and when the offense actually scores an average of 14 points per game. We were 30th against the run and 6th against the pass because no one had to score many points against us to win. If and when the offense actually looks like a professonal team. Then you will see the smoke and mirrors defense we truely have. Any thing less than 9 - 7 is what's called losing football. Then the excuses will fly again which is Cleveland Browns football since the reestablishment of this franchise.
Ah! There's an excellent example of emotional thinking! He ignores D'Qwell Jackson and the two linebackers who were just drafted. In asserting that the defense would collapse, he ignores the four new defensive linemen and the much deeper rotation.
Hagg, too: If he can stave off Usama Young for the free safety slot, this guy is an excellent run-stopper. He's got unusual football intelligence and diagnoses very quickly. Ignores the fact that Ward missed much of the season.
He completely ignores the fact that last year was the first year in a whole new scheme, and that even without changes, it would automaticly improve in year two.
Ignores Jauron's record and reputation.
But he does go on record, which is very bold of him.
Pretty ignorant, huh?
Friday, June 22, 2012
Miscellaneous
First, in previous posts I overlooked Josh Cooper at WR. Really, some people are comparing him to Wes Welker?
Jordan Norwood and Travis Benjamin are both much faster, and it's too early to speculate with much accuracy.
I remember Brian Brennan. One particularly bad analyst called him "overrated".
Brennan was small and not very fast. For these reasons, he was a third reciever, who rarely started. He was used in the slot! He played with Ozzie Newsome, and mostly in a two-back base offense.
They brought him in on obvious passing downs-especially third down, because he was so reliable and made the clutch catch. Brennan was a sort of specialist, just as slot recievers are today--only in run-oriented offenses that broke his glass only in emergencies.
These factors all eluded the alleged analyst, who said he was inconsistant, and never made a ton of catches. I think the alleged analyst is overrated.
I also missed something: Greg Little's clock-times were faster than Braylon Edwards', and he can do everything Edwards' did-meaning that he can take the top off a defense...and, I know, drop passes too. But Little is a real football player making a real effort to improve.
Phil Taylor was rated pretty high in his draft class, but he, too, was called a "reach" by Tom Heckert. He also drafted Sheard higher than he "should have gone". Before you start bashing his selection of John Hughes, you need to remember--he's already outsmarted you twice drafting defensive linemen.
Even analysts I respect have said of Hughes "He's nothing special except against the run". I blink and read it again. I wonder when it was that defensive tackles had to get sacks.
In a 4-3 defense, the defensive tackle stops the run first and foremost. He uses leverage and power more than anything else. Warren Sapp, Micheal Dean Perry--these were mutants and exceptions to the rule. If a defensive tackle gets 50 tackles and two sacks in a whole season, he's pretty damn good.
I also have to tentatively admit a mistake I made. Too many insiders, including coaches, are saying that Frostee Rucker is a good passrusher. Considering his lackluster history with Cincinnati, and his numbers, I sure wasn't expecting that.
But it's good, isn't it?
Billy Winn is a different sort of defensive tackle. He's faster, and has more range. Nice rotational player, at least. IF Hughes merely does his job as a run-stuffer, here's the totals for the d-line offseason:
Minus Phil Taylor for awhile, plus Winn, Hughes, Parker, and Rucker, and the defensive line should improve against both the pass and the run. There is more depth and a deeper rotation. When Taylor comes back, it could be very special.
...okbye.
Jordan Norwood and Travis Benjamin are both much faster, and it's too early to speculate with much accuracy.
I remember Brian Brennan. One particularly bad analyst called him "overrated".
Brennan was small and not very fast. For these reasons, he was a third reciever, who rarely started. He was used in the slot! He played with Ozzie Newsome, and mostly in a two-back base offense.
They brought him in on obvious passing downs-especially third down, because he was so reliable and made the clutch catch. Brennan was a sort of specialist, just as slot recievers are today--only in run-oriented offenses that broke his glass only in emergencies.
These factors all eluded the alleged analyst, who said he was inconsistant, and never made a ton of catches. I think the alleged analyst is overrated.
I also missed something: Greg Little's clock-times were faster than Braylon Edwards', and he can do everything Edwards' did-meaning that he can take the top off a defense...and, I know, drop passes too. But Little is a real football player making a real effort to improve.
Phil Taylor was rated pretty high in his draft class, but he, too, was called a "reach" by Tom Heckert. He also drafted Sheard higher than he "should have gone". Before you start bashing his selection of John Hughes, you need to remember--he's already outsmarted you twice drafting defensive linemen.
Even analysts I respect have said of Hughes "He's nothing special except against the run". I blink and read it again. I wonder when it was that defensive tackles had to get sacks.
In a 4-3 defense, the defensive tackle stops the run first and foremost. He uses leverage and power more than anything else. Warren Sapp, Micheal Dean Perry--these were mutants and exceptions to the rule. If a defensive tackle gets 50 tackles and two sacks in a whole season, he's pretty damn good.
I also have to tentatively admit a mistake I made. Too many insiders, including coaches, are saying that Frostee Rucker is a good passrusher. Considering his lackluster history with Cincinnati, and his numbers, I sure wasn't expecting that.
But it's good, isn't it?
Billy Winn is a different sort of defensive tackle. He's faster, and has more range. Nice rotational player, at least. IF Hughes merely does his job as a run-stuffer, here's the totals for the d-line offseason:
Minus Phil Taylor for awhile, plus Winn, Hughes, Parker, and Rucker, and the defensive line should improve against both the pass and the run. There is more depth and a deeper rotation. When Taylor comes back, it could be very special.
...okbye.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Just Checkin' in
Some guy on ESPN predicted that the Browns would go 4-12 again.
OK, well, I'm often accused of being a "homer" because I spend so much time debating against dumb predictions like this--which are always, always negative. I don't care. Irrational is irrational.
Why will the Browns not improve any whatsoever this season?
What it can't be:
1: The second year in new offensive and defensive systems, with new coaches.
2: The first full off-season.
3: Many young core players entering their second and third seasons (the majority of the starters.)
4: Trent Richardson.
5: The running back, offensive line, tight end, secondary, or defensive line position groups.
Heading kneejerk negative responses to number five off at the pass: They lost Taylor for most of the season, but solidified defensive end with Rucker and an edge-rusher. Last season's defensive line was one of the better 4-3 lines in the NFL, Taylor wore down at the end, Sheard enters his second season, and Jauron always knows how to best use his talent.
Facts. Just facts.
Both first-year inexperienced starting guards are now veterans. Pinkston, in particular, should make a big jump, as he attended LeCharles Bentley-de Sade's offensive line boot-camp in the offseason.
Upon further examination, Scwartze was the best available insta-right tackle available, and this was the line's biggest weak spot. This will be a very good offensive line.
Truth. Deal with it.
What it could be:
1: A rookie quarterback.
2: Bad wide recievers.
3: Tough schedule
Well yeah, okay. I couldn't make myself read another irrational and/or poorly-researched transcript, but I'm sure that these were mentioned.
One can't help but be concerned about Brandon Weeden the rookie, despite his emotional maturity and physical tools. He's absolutely going to screw up (duh!).
But isn't it common sense to remember how much better the offense was when Peyton Hillis played, and admit that Richardson will have a similar impact as a reciever, runner, and blocker?
No help from the recievers? If you insist on ignoring Richardson and the tight ends as recievers, ass ume that Little is another Braylon Edwards perma-bonehead, ignore the good stuff Jordan Norwood did, I suppose you could say that.
But isn't that a whole lot of assuming and ignoring?
Little is another of the second-year players that too many analysts discount. Despite his fourteen drops, he was the favorite target last season, because he seemed to always be open.
In a recent excellent analysis I read, most of Little's drops were the result of concentration lapses--namely looking upfield before he had secured the ball. His hands are fine, and this kid stuff is the easiest thing to correct.
Nor is he a "possession" reciever, nor his his size and strength his only asset. He can go DEEP.
Labels confuse shallow people. A wing tight end is really just a huge wide reciever, and the Browns have two of them, even excluding Ben Watson. They're trying to turn Cameron into another Watson, who can block in-line as well, but he's already a wide reciever.
The Browns can mix-and-match all of these players as recievers, including Norwood and now Benjamin--both of whome can make huge plays in a broken field or go deep.
Here again, the ass umptions are universally negative. That Little won't this time catch the majority of the passes he dropped last season. That Massequoi's injuries and absence had nothing to do with the decline in his production. That Benjamin is nothing. Mitchell doesn't even exist. Norwood didn't catch everything thrown to him.
That the quarterback won't have more time to throw, the Browns won't be run-oriented in the first place, that Weeden's tight spiral and deep accuracy won't help any...
All of which presupposes that young players don't just naturally grow and improve with experience.
The schedule is a good point, but isn't it each and every year that several of the elite teams decline, just as several of the weak teams get better?
4-12? Man, if this guy had said 6-10, I might have respected his opinion. I personally think 7-9 or even 8-8, but I can see where a rookie QB could screw a team up for awhile. But 4-12? That's just dumb.
OK, well, I'm often accused of being a "homer" because I spend so much time debating against dumb predictions like this--which are always, always negative. I don't care. Irrational is irrational.
Why will the Browns not improve any whatsoever this season?
What it can't be:
1: The second year in new offensive and defensive systems, with new coaches.
2: The first full off-season.
3: Many young core players entering their second and third seasons (the majority of the starters.)
4: Trent Richardson.
5: The running back, offensive line, tight end, secondary, or defensive line position groups.
Heading kneejerk negative responses to number five off at the pass: They lost Taylor for most of the season, but solidified defensive end with Rucker and an edge-rusher. Last season's defensive line was one of the better 4-3 lines in the NFL, Taylor wore down at the end, Sheard enters his second season, and Jauron always knows how to best use his talent.
Facts. Just facts.
Both first-year inexperienced starting guards are now veterans. Pinkston, in particular, should make a big jump, as he attended LeCharles Bentley-de Sade's offensive line boot-camp in the offseason.
Upon further examination, Scwartze was the best available insta-right tackle available, and this was the line's biggest weak spot. This will be a very good offensive line.
Truth. Deal with it.
What it could be:
1: A rookie quarterback.
2: Bad wide recievers.
3: Tough schedule
Well yeah, okay. I couldn't make myself read another irrational and/or poorly-researched transcript, but I'm sure that these were mentioned.
One can't help but be concerned about Brandon Weeden the rookie, despite his emotional maturity and physical tools. He's absolutely going to screw up (duh!).
But isn't it common sense to remember how much better the offense was when Peyton Hillis played, and admit that Richardson will have a similar impact as a reciever, runner, and blocker?
No help from the recievers? If you insist on ignoring Richardson and the tight ends as recievers, ass ume that Little is another Braylon Edwards perma-bonehead, ignore the good stuff Jordan Norwood did, I suppose you could say that.
But isn't that a whole lot of assuming and ignoring?
Little is another of the second-year players that too many analysts discount. Despite his fourteen drops, he was the favorite target last season, because he seemed to always be open.
In a recent excellent analysis I read, most of Little's drops were the result of concentration lapses--namely looking upfield before he had secured the ball. His hands are fine, and this kid stuff is the easiest thing to correct.
Nor is he a "possession" reciever, nor his his size and strength his only asset. He can go DEEP.
Labels confuse shallow people. A wing tight end is really just a huge wide reciever, and the Browns have two of them, even excluding Ben Watson. They're trying to turn Cameron into another Watson, who can block in-line as well, but he's already a wide reciever.
The Browns can mix-and-match all of these players as recievers, including Norwood and now Benjamin--both of whome can make huge plays in a broken field or go deep.
Here again, the ass umptions are universally negative. That Little won't this time catch the majority of the passes he dropped last season. That Massequoi's injuries and absence had nothing to do with the decline in his production. That Benjamin is nothing. Mitchell doesn't even exist. Norwood didn't catch everything thrown to him.
That the quarterback won't have more time to throw, the Browns won't be run-oriented in the first place, that Weeden's tight spiral and deep accuracy won't help any...
All of which presupposes that young players don't just naturally grow and improve with experience.
The schedule is a good point, but isn't it each and every year that several of the elite teams decline, just as several of the weak teams get better?
4-12? Man, if this guy had said 6-10, I might have respected his opinion. I personally think 7-9 or even 8-8, but I can see where a rookie QB could screw a team up for awhile. But 4-12? That's just dumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)