Andrea Hangst of the Bleacher Report zeroed in on Josh Gordon as a premier wide reciever now, in his second season. As the sentient adults among us search for reasons to feel good about the future, Gordon is indeed the biggest.
In fact, Gordon could thwart my own hopes of the Browns losing a bunch and setting themselves up for an awesome draft.
Peter Smith (Dawg Pound Daily) deserves a leaping high five for his answer to another "NOW NOW NOW" temper tantrum by a frustrated writer.
This is nothing I haven't repeated over and over, and I still suspect that when I sent him this link in an effort to write for him, he saved it, and now checks it for unattributed stuff he can rewrite and put his name on...
But he's really really smart without my help, so for my weekly audience of about five readers (including him I think) I just try to be honorable myself.
At any rate, we're right again: Prior to the last game, a bunch of us had caught the playoff bug and felt that the Browns actually had a chance to make it sooner than expected.
Sooner than EXPECTED. When the new regime NEW regime came in to install their new offensive and defensive systems they were very honest in not promising an instant turnaround. Banner in particular spelled it out: This front office meant to build a strong perennial contender from the ground up, and fans should not expect instant gratification in 2013.
While the frustrated children started throwing tantrums immediately, the majority of us accepted this. After all, the Browns are in the very same division as the Ravens and the Steelers, and want the Browns to be like them.
These two teams--even in this season as the one ages and both have lost talent--seem insinkable.
This front office is using the same model as these teams and the Patriots, and 2013 is the first year of that project.
But then along comes Hoyer, looking almost like his old mentor Tom Brady. Then here comes Campbell, looking like I always knew he'd look (at least I'm right about something), and the Browns won games they weren't expected to win.
I have to mention this to Peter, who remains wrong about Campbell: I do believe that his ribs were hurting him a lot, and his health was the main reason he played badly more recently.
When they lost to Cinci, especially since they did a lot of that to themselves, it shouldn't have surprised us as much as it did. The Bengals are stacked with talent from top to bottom, and are well-set in their systems.
When they lost to the Steelers--that sucked. OK, now we know. We got our hopes up, but now we see that there is still work to do. Just like Joe Banner said when he first came here.
For me, it was going from hoping they wouldn't improve too much too fast and screw up their draft status, to hoping they would win and make the playoffs, and then back to plan A.
One commenter said they should win now, even if they had no shot at the playoffs. He mentioned a winning culture.
I can't bash that. The habit of winning is very important. I just feel that it's not as important as talent, and that each new season cleans the slate.
The team Joe Banner and Chud inherited wasn't perfect, but did have a whole lot of young talent. They wisely didn't automatically get rid of it before they saw how the guys looked in their systems.
This really boosted my own confidence in them, because it showed me that they were thinking with their brains, and not their egos. This is why, when rumors circulated about trading Josh Gordon, I thought that was sad, funny, and rediculous.
Weaknesses are now being exposed. Hoyer and the healthy Campbell showed us what the most important weakness was, as they won with the team as-is. But the injured Campbell, and now the troubled Brandon Weeden (We Done haha) brought us back to 2013 reality.
Peter did a great job of drilling down into this, including why they didn't sign a third quarterback.
Unfortunately, Weeden knows he's fighting for his very career, and the Jaguars, despite their recent success, are a bad team, so the Browns will probably beat them.
But then the Browns hit a meatgrinder of top contenders. Although they are more talented than the Steelers and might beat them, there's a good chance they can lose the rest and finish 6-10...
I'm feeling good about the Browns highest first rounder being somewhere in the top ten. Only now that I've said that, naturally Weeden will suddenly look great and Campbell will heal up fast and resume kicking butt and the Browns will finish strong and then watch the playoffs on TV.
I don't share Peter's low opinion of Campbell, but he's getting up there and is not the future. I'd love to have him stick around as a backup. I'm higher on Hoyer than some people are.
In his brief stint, he rallied the team from deficits late, when the bad guys knew that he had to pass, and focused on stopping that. He learned under Tom Brady, and he looked and acted like Brady. Now he has that real game experience under his belt to digest as he heals.
The Browns will still need to draft a quarterback high, as Campbell ages and as Hoyer could yet stumble, or prove injury-prone. Quarterback is the most important position in football, and this upcoming draft is probably the last chance they'll have to draft a real stud without coughing up their whole draft.
With Hoyer/Campbell, upgrades at guard and right tackle (I believe Mitchell Schwartze belongs at guard), better backs (who may well already be on the roster), an upgrade at reciever, etc. etc. etc. they will win consistantly, and draft lower and lower.
Alex Tanney (article by Grossi--see I attribute) is regarded by most as a novelty, but I'm not sure why. He's looked good in preseason (except for the 1:2 TD-to-pick ratio), now has an NFL year under his belt, and has all the physical tools.
He's taking a big step up from Division 1AAA to be sure, and a QB needs to read, decide, face the rush, etc. so he has a lot to prove, but as I've said many times:
For a quarterback, level of competition in college means much less than it does for other positions. The talent surrounding him is on par with the talent he faces. He still faces a passrush, still has to find open recievers, and all that.
Tanney is also a pocket passer. If he were an athletic running quarterback, the level of competition would mean more, as defenders in the NFL could slow or stop that part of his game.
As-is, Tanney set all sorts of records by standing and delivering.
I have no idea what he will become with more NFL experience, but I think a whole lot of people are foolish to just write him off.
Well it's time to take my shower and get ready for my niece to pick me up for T-Day.
I am thankful for a smart front office and great coaches.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
The View from Tank Town
Ok I said the Browns might lose, but it wouldn't be Campbell's fault. I was about 60% wrong. I said the Browns might be the best team in the division. Oops.
I said the Squealers were done. Oh well.
But I agree with Will Burge of the Bleacher Report.
After reading some of the comments his article caused, I want to clarify: Will didn't say that the Browns should lose on purpose. He just said that with the latest injuries, especially at QB, it becomes much more likely that they'll lose more games.
He also said that this would not suck. That's where he got in trouble with his readers: thinking again.
Having a crappy record would give the Browns a top 7-8 pick to go with their Indianapolis first rounder. This is being called a deep, talented QB class, and the team would have a great chance to draft THE quarterback of Turner's dreams.
More myopia in the comments: Hoyer will still be here, and probably start, and maybe never give the kid a chance. That's good, not bad. Recently quarterbacks have been thrown in the fire of neccessity. Luck worked out. RG3 was great, but is having a sophomore slump now. Wilson? He's just a mutant.
The ideal way to raise a QB is still to give him a clipboard and let him watch. It's not a wasted pick. It's a quarterback. Quarterback is different, okay?
Nor does the team suck. Will mentioned "rebuilding", but the rebuild is mostly done. The Browns don't need much on defense, and are 2-4 players away from domination on offense. One stud guard or RT (move Schwartze inside ya know/) might fix the line. One wide reciever maybe. A running back maybe, if the injured guys aren't it. And a stud QB...
A real fullback, maybe? I don't know.
But I think Will just misspoke, because he mentioned 25 mil in cap space:
He's right: Even if the Browns do unintentionally tank 2013, their young corps is ready, and they'll be willing to make stronger moves in free agency. They'll be ready to contend, so they can try to fill every remaining gap with at least a solid veteran.
Oddly enough, losing most of the remaining games this season could enable them to win the North next season.
Personally, I'll just watch the young guys like Gordon and Cameron...watch them grow. My life won't end if the Browns lose. I grew up a long time ago. I can wait one more season.
I said the Squealers were done. Oh well.
But I agree with Will Burge of the Bleacher Report.
After reading some of the comments his article caused, I want to clarify: Will didn't say that the Browns should lose on purpose. He just said that with the latest injuries, especially at QB, it becomes much more likely that they'll lose more games.
He also said that this would not suck. That's where he got in trouble with his readers: thinking again.
Having a crappy record would give the Browns a top 7-8 pick to go with their Indianapolis first rounder. This is being called a deep, talented QB class, and the team would have a great chance to draft THE quarterback of Turner's dreams.
More myopia in the comments: Hoyer will still be here, and probably start, and maybe never give the kid a chance. That's good, not bad. Recently quarterbacks have been thrown in the fire of neccessity. Luck worked out. RG3 was great, but is having a sophomore slump now. Wilson? He's just a mutant.
The ideal way to raise a QB is still to give him a clipboard and let him watch. It's not a wasted pick. It's a quarterback. Quarterback is different, okay?
Nor does the team suck. Will mentioned "rebuilding", but the rebuild is mostly done. The Browns don't need much on defense, and are 2-4 players away from domination on offense. One stud guard or RT (move Schwartze inside ya know/) might fix the line. One wide reciever maybe. A running back maybe, if the injured guys aren't it. And a stud QB...
A real fullback, maybe? I don't know.
But I think Will just misspoke, because he mentioned 25 mil in cap space:
He's right: Even if the Browns do unintentionally tank 2013, their young corps is ready, and they'll be willing to make stronger moves in free agency. They'll be ready to contend, so they can try to fill every remaining gap with at least a solid veteran.
Oddly enough, losing most of the remaining games this season could enable them to win the North next season.
Personally, I'll just watch the young guys like Gordon and Cameron...watch them grow. My life won't end if the Browns lose. I grew up a long time ago. I can wait one more season.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Battle of Ohio
I've got to start with this clown who proposed to Tony Grossi that it would be a great idea for the Browns to trade their second first round pick to Pittsburgh for Big Ben.
Tony showed remarkable restraint in his predictable reply, but I can't: What kind of idiot are you? The guy is around 32 going on 40. Hoyer and Campbell outside the hype-zone are each better than he is. Why don't you ask Joe Thomas for some input?
"What, I got blamed for Weeden taking seven second sacks and now I'll get blamed for Ben doing it? Can't we keep the guys that get rid of the ball?"
You want Pittsburgh to have two first round picks? They suck this year, but they draft well, and as it is they're libel to be back in contention next season.
Yeah that's exactly how to build a dynasty: Trade a first round pick for a QB close to retirement, bench--I'm sorry I can't keep going.
Anyway this time the Bengals will probably move Green around more trying to avoid Joe Haden, and that's a frightening prospect. Skrine has become one of the better corners in the league, and I believe Horton will seek to put him on Green when it's not Joe, and use the slot corner elsewhere.
The way to slow Green down is to give up a cushion and make sure he can't run by you for the big play. He has to break off his route in under ten yards, and he'll make some catches, but that's the least of all evils.
This is how Joe has contained him in the past. Skrine can do this too. Skrine is actually faster than Joe and can run with Green, but he'll still get punked in a footrace due to his lack of height. Plus, the referees will allow Green to push off against any Browns cornerback all day. I've been trying to find that rules change...
Speaking of which, I remind everybody that for the Browns, press coverage is now illegal. You can tell, because they get flagged for interference when they bump recievers within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage, or otherwise touch them with fingertips.
The rule on hitting quarterbacks has also been changed for the Browns, as helmet-to-helmet contact has been redefined as both helmets being in the same camera frame. Conversely, the helmet-to-helmet rule has been waived when the QB is a Brown.
Pass-blocking for Browns' offensive lineman is also now illegal. More precisely, that's now called "holding".
Despite this, the Browns have a great chance to upset the Bengals.
Among the factors being ignored is Jason Pinkston, who may start and is a better guard than Luavao (sp?) He upgrades pass-protection. Rey Malaluaga (sp?) probably won't play for the Bengals, and the new changes, combined with Obie hopefully getting more opportunities to run the ball, might shake the run-game loose a little.
I don't really understand why Obgannaya hasn't had more carries, but this is Norv Turner, and I'm not egomanaiacal enough to second-guess him.
This former wide reciever should be factor as a short reciever today as well.
Rich Gannon told one Cincinnati fan that if Dalton doesn't throw inteceptions today, the Bengals will win. Since Rich has now actually watched and even called some Browns' games, I have to respect this as an honest opinion rather than an uninformed assumption.
But I do think he's wrong. As mentioned before, in game one, the Browns' were still learning the new systems. Who was playing right guard? Rey was playing mlb. The Bengals best defenders are MIA.
This Browns' team is more confident, proficient, and talented than the team that knocked off the Bengals in game one. This Bengals' team is about the same as the one that lost last time.
I think I get Rich. He still thinks Campbell isn't another "him". He talked about Campbell being "up and down".
But here, I know he hasn't done his homework, because since going to Oakland, he's been "up" (except for his one horrible start in Chicago). Nor was he ever "up and down" in the way Gannon means it.
He was LIKE Gannon statistically, in fact. Through all the system/coaching changes and poor supporting talent, he always played smart. He played from behind often and had to force balls late in games (risk it or lose for sure), but despite that, he graded out as above average over his whole career, even before Oakland.
Campbell is better than Dalton. For that matter, he's better than Big Ben. He won't fall in his face, and if the Browns should lose, he won't be the reason why.
This just in: Bad weather favors the Bengals and their shorter passes, stronger run game. This could be almost as significant as the anti-Browns rules and referees.
I still feel the Browns will win due to better coaching. (Ooo I forgot Marvin Lewis is...am I in trouble now?)
Tony showed remarkable restraint in his predictable reply, but I can't: What kind of idiot are you? The guy is around 32 going on 40. Hoyer and Campbell outside the hype-zone are each better than he is. Why don't you ask Joe Thomas for some input?
"What, I got blamed for Weeden taking seven second sacks and now I'll get blamed for Ben doing it? Can't we keep the guys that get rid of the ball?"
You want Pittsburgh to have two first round picks? They suck this year, but they draft well, and as it is they're libel to be back in contention next season.
Yeah that's exactly how to build a dynasty: Trade a first round pick for a QB close to retirement, bench--I'm sorry I can't keep going.
Anyway this time the Bengals will probably move Green around more trying to avoid Joe Haden, and that's a frightening prospect. Skrine has become one of the better corners in the league, and I believe Horton will seek to put him on Green when it's not Joe, and use the slot corner elsewhere.
The way to slow Green down is to give up a cushion and make sure he can't run by you for the big play. He has to break off his route in under ten yards, and he'll make some catches, but that's the least of all evils.
This is how Joe has contained him in the past. Skrine can do this too. Skrine is actually faster than Joe and can run with Green, but he'll still get punked in a footrace due to his lack of height. Plus, the referees will allow Green to push off against any Browns cornerback all day. I've been trying to find that rules change...
Speaking of which, I remind everybody that for the Browns, press coverage is now illegal. You can tell, because they get flagged for interference when they bump recievers within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage, or otherwise touch them with fingertips.
The rule on hitting quarterbacks has also been changed for the Browns, as helmet-to-helmet contact has been redefined as both helmets being in the same camera frame. Conversely, the helmet-to-helmet rule has been waived when the QB is a Brown.
Pass-blocking for Browns' offensive lineman is also now illegal. More precisely, that's now called "holding".
Despite this, the Browns have a great chance to upset the Bengals.
Among the factors being ignored is Jason Pinkston, who may start and is a better guard than Luavao (sp?) He upgrades pass-protection. Rey Malaluaga (sp?) probably won't play for the Bengals, and the new changes, combined with Obie hopefully getting more opportunities to run the ball, might shake the run-game loose a little.
I don't really understand why Obgannaya hasn't had more carries, but this is Norv Turner, and I'm not egomanaiacal enough to second-guess him.
This former wide reciever should be factor as a short reciever today as well.
Rich Gannon told one Cincinnati fan that if Dalton doesn't throw inteceptions today, the Bengals will win. Since Rich has now actually watched and even called some Browns' games, I have to respect this as an honest opinion rather than an uninformed assumption.
But I do think he's wrong. As mentioned before, in game one, the Browns' were still learning the new systems. Who was playing right guard? Rey was playing mlb. The Bengals best defenders are MIA.
This Browns' team is more confident, proficient, and talented than the team that knocked off the Bengals in game one. This Bengals' team is about the same as the one that lost last time.
I think I get Rich. He still thinks Campbell isn't another "him". He talked about Campbell being "up and down".
But here, I know he hasn't done his homework, because since going to Oakland, he's been "up" (except for his one horrible start in Chicago). Nor was he ever "up and down" in the way Gannon means it.
He was LIKE Gannon statistically, in fact. Through all the system/coaching changes and poor supporting talent, he always played smart. He played from behind often and had to force balls late in games (risk it or lose for sure), but despite that, he graded out as above average over his whole career, even before Oakland.
Campbell is better than Dalton. For that matter, he's better than Big Ben. He won't fall in his face, and if the Browns should lose, he won't be the reason why.
This just in: Bad weather favors the Bengals and their shorter passes, stronger run game. This could be almost as significant as the anti-Browns rules and referees.
I still feel the Browns will win due to better coaching. (Ooo I forgot Marvin Lewis is...am I in trouble now?)
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Cleveland Browns: You Should Only Go By What You See
Mary Kay Cabot boldly wrote an article asserting that the Browns were the best team in the AFC North, and that Jason Campbell was an elite quarterback.
I scrupulously avoided the the comments part after the article, because I'm sick of masogonist cretins bashing her for relaying what a coach or GM told her, or saying anything positive whatsoever about any part of this team.
Really, she's right. It kind of snuck up on even me. I was selling them short myself. If you go position-by-position, as she did, it's hard to find anybody on the Bengals who is better than his Browns counterpart! And this includes A J Green vs Josh Gordon.
My own analysis was contaminated, as I've been swimming in this pool of pessimism surrounding the team, regardless of a whole new owner and staff. That's downright ignorant! I'm embarrassed by this. I've got to take a shower and get the cooties off me.
It was also social pressure. I'm the guy that lets everybody else do the bashing, because there's such an abundant supply of stupidity and absurdity in there for me to tear apart. It's more fun to defend something than it is to attack it, at least for me.
As a result, Permabasher Judge Mental calls he a shill and a homer. ( That's how it started, by the way: Judge Mental said something like Clay Matthews sucked, and it was on.)
So I've been paranoid of being a shill, so much so that Mary Kay beat me to this conclusion: The 2013 Cleveland Browns are indeed the best team in the AFC North.
And Mary Kay doesn't dare say this, since it's politically incorrect, but I will: Marvin Lewis is the most overrated Head Coach in the history of football. The Browns coaches are better than their Bengals counterparts too.
This goes further: The Bengals are one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and when Mary Kay and I say that the Browns are better than them...see where I'm going with this?
What Andy Reid has done with the Chiefs is simply amazing, and maybe unprecedented. But what Chud and company have done in their first year isn't far behind. In a way, it's more impressive, because for the Browns it's still an uphill fight.
If Andy and Chud had switched starting quarterbacks before the first game, guess what. But now the Browns have that missing piece--finally!
Campbell's QB rating will probably go down a little as defensive coordinators update and contextualize their books on him, but it's no mirage. The guy always had this ability, just like Alex Smith.
Mary Kay is right to blame his constant shifting from one coach and system to another, but there's more to it than that. He's never been surrounded by this much talent before, and has had limited opportunities in this specific system, which is the best one for him.
When the Browns signed him this offseason and everybody else was writing him off as a failed starter but a good backup, I was there to correct them. I said that for all we knew, he was another Rich Gannon.
That was optimistic at the time, but now...?
This is perfect. It would be even more perfect if the Ravens upset the Bengals today. This Browns team is more accustomed to it's systems, and deeper, than the one that beat the Bengals in game 3. The Bengals have had the same systems and personnel in place for years.
The Browns are still improving. The Bengals were already pretty much peaked in the first matchup.
It will be tough. I'm not sure. But the Browns should beat them.
Peter Smith of the Dawg Pound Daily wrote an article about third round pick Leon McFadden getting a bigger role, now that he's healthy and has had some time to acclimate to the NFL.
McFadden was a very good college cornerback, and there's no reason to doubt that he'll be at least a solid starter in the NFL. If this pans out, the Browns will have three starting calibre cornerbacks, and be better-equipped to handle spread offenses.
As Peter knows, that's more important than casual fans think. Against most quarterbacks, defenses can sort of mask or help out weak links. But against the best ones (including Alex Smith, by the way), the so-so cornerback will be in for a long day.
This is especially true of there's a Josh Gordon or AJ Green in there.
It's also especially true in the Ray Horton pressure defense. To send more than four guys after the quarterback, he must take somebody out of coverage, and the quarterback's best move is to get rid of the ball quickly to the hole this creates.
Ideally, Horton wants three cornerbacks who can press cover, or at least stay very close, for at least four seconds after the snap. If he doesn't have those people, and he has to use zone coverage, then at least one short reciever is always open.
He has to hope that the corner can break it up, or stop it cold, or that the quarterback has to move and make an inaccurate throw, or that he's Brandon Weeden.
When the Browns played the Bengals earlier, Joe Haden stayed ahead of Green, because if Green got by him, he couldn't catch him. Dalton took advantage of this, as Green stopped short and caught 5-7 yard passes. It worked out for the Browns, as it's just not possible to complete all of those, and because Haden could sometimes anticipate the throw and beat the ball to Green.
But with a third starting cornerback, it might be possible for the Haden to cover Green tighter, as the free safety, Gipson, could back him up against a footrace. As it is, Gipson has to keep an eye on the slot reciever.
I'm just guessing. I don't know. Ray might laugh at me for saying this stuff.
But I am sure that three cornerbacks are way better than two, ok?
Finally, a prediction: the Browns can't lose today.
I scrupulously avoided the the comments part after the article, because I'm sick of masogonist cretins bashing her for relaying what a coach or GM told her, or saying anything positive whatsoever about any part of this team.
Really, she's right. It kind of snuck up on even me. I was selling them short myself. If you go position-by-position, as she did, it's hard to find anybody on the Bengals who is better than his Browns counterpart! And this includes A J Green vs Josh Gordon.
My own analysis was contaminated, as I've been swimming in this pool of pessimism surrounding the team, regardless of a whole new owner and staff. That's downright ignorant! I'm embarrassed by this. I've got to take a shower and get the cooties off me.
It was also social pressure. I'm the guy that lets everybody else do the bashing, because there's such an abundant supply of stupidity and absurdity in there for me to tear apart. It's more fun to defend something than it is to attack it, at least for me.
As a result, Permabasher Judge Mental calls he a shill and a homer. ( That's how it started, by the way: Judge Mental said something like Clay Matthews sucked, and it was on.)
So I've been paranoid of being a shill, so much so that Mary Kay beat me to this conclusion: The 2013 Cleveland Browns are indeed the best team in the AFC North.
And Mary Kay doesn't dare say this, since it's politically incorrect, but I will: Marvin Lewis is the most overrated Head Coach in the history of football. The Browns coaches are better than their Bengals counterparts too.
This goes further: The Bengals are one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and when Mary Kay and I say that the Browns are better than them...see where I'm going with this?
What Andy Reid has done with the Chiefs is simply amazing, and maybe unprecedented. But what Chud and company have done in their first year isn't far behind. In a way, it's more impressive, because for the Browns it's still an uphill fight.
If Andy and Chud had switched starting quarterbacks before the first game, guess what. But now the Browns have that missing piece--finally!
Campbell's QB rating will probably go down a little as defensive coordinators update and contextualize their books on him, but it's no mirage. The guy always had this ability, just like Alex Smith.
Mary Kay is right to blame his constant shifting from one coach and system to another, but there's more to it than that. He's never been surrounded by this much talent before, and has had limited opportunities in this specific system, which is the best one for him.
When the Browns signed him this offseason and everybody else was writing him off as a failed starter but a good backup, I was there to correct them. I said that for all we knew, he was another Rich Gannon.
That was optimistic at the time, but now...?
This is perfect. It would be even more perfect if the Ravens upset the Bengals today. This Browns team is more accustomed to it's systems, and deeper, than the one that beat the Bengals in game 3. The Bengals have had the same systems and personnel in place for years.
The Browns are still improving. The Bengals were already pretty much peaked in the first matchup.
It will be tough. I'm not sure. But the Browns should beat them.
Peter Smith of the Dawg Pound Daily wrote an article about third round pick Leon McFadden getting a bigger role, now that he's healthy and has had some time to acclimate to the NFL.
McFadden was a very good college cornerback, and there's no reason to doubt that he'll be at least a solid starter in the NFL. If this pans out, the Browns will have three starting calibre cornerbacks, and be better-equipped to handle spread offenses.
As Peter knows, that's more important than casual fans think. Against most quarterbacks, defenses can sort of mask or help out weak links. But against the best ones (including Alex Smith, by the way), the so-so cornerback will be in for a long day.
This is especially true of there's a Josh Gordon or AJ Green in there.
It's also especially true in the Ray Horton pressure defense. To send more than four guys after the quarterback, he must take somebody out of coverage, and the quarterback's best move is to get rid of the ball quickly to the hole this creates.
Ideally, Horton wants three cornerbacks who can press cover, or at least stay very close, for at least four seconds after the snap. If he doesn't have those people, and he has to use zone coverage, then at least one short reciever is always open.
He has to hope that the corner can break it up, or stop it cold, or that the quarterback has to move and make an inaccurate throw, or that he's Brandon Weeden.
When the Browns played the Bengals earlier, Joe Haden stayed ahead of Green, because if Green got by him, he couldn't catch him. Dalton took advantage of this, as Green stopped short and caught 5-7 yard passes. It worked out for the Browns, as it's just not possible to complete all of those, and because Haden could sometimes anticipate the throw and beat the ball to Green.
But with a third starting cornerback, it might be possible for the Haden to cover Green tighter, as the free safety, Gipson, could back him up against a footrace. As it is, Gipson has to keep an eye on the slot reciever.
I'm just guessing. I don't know. Ray might laugh at me for saying this stuff.
But I am sure that three cornerbacks are way better than two, ok?
Finally, a prediction: the Browns can't lose today.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Browns Quarterbacks
Andera Hangst isn't exactly atop my source list, but her latest analysis is truly exceptional.
I hadn't realized that Campbell vs. KC actually held the ball slightly longer than Weeden does! She really did her home-work! My guess is that he has a better sense for the rush and shifts around better while keeping his feet under him.
Some fans tend to forget that this is a timing offense, though, and averages can be decieving. The quarterback is supposed to throw the ball in under three seconds.
Weeden did that quite a bit, and was much quicker on dumpoffs. But there were too many times when the clock kept ticking past that mark, and there Weeden was, still window-shopping because he just couldn't make himself throw to the left or right of a reciever's back.
These plays often resulted in sacks or interceptions--and you only need one or three of them in a game.
Campbell trusted the system and his recievers. I believe he was cooler than Weeden too, so that he never rushed a throw unless a real (as in not imagined) passrusher was on top of him.
Another thing: Campbell throws better when he's flushed and moving.
It was some of the comments after Andrea's article that I found interesting:
1) Bench Little
2) Bench Bess
3) Keep Weeden on the bench
What has Little done recently to justify benching him? Here's another goober who remembers stuff that happened four of five games ago and is too dumb or lazy to change his mind.
Devone Bess was Mister Third Down for most of his carreer, and his wheels only came off the past two weeks. I can't figure out why this happened, but he's proven, over a long period of time, that he has great hands and can catch everything thrown to him.
And who does this clown think will replace these guys?
It's a bit of a reach here I guess, but I can tell you that each quarterback throws a different ball. It spins at different rates, some wobble more, and a Weeden might throw a little lower and harder, while Hoyer might put more air under it, and Campbell might throw the same pass in between those two.
At any rate, they won't be benching Bess or Little unless Little starts dropping balls again or Bess continues it.
What makes me nervous about the Ravens game isn't the Ravens. It's the referees. Beginning in the Lions game, the referees began smearing our secondary. They started flagging normal press coverage as interference. Now they have a "reputation", and the refs in the Ravens game will be eager to invent their own interference calls.
Joe Thomas--yeah maybe he was holding all along, ya know? I'll bet he holds Terrell Suggs! I'll keep my flag half-way out so I can have it ready...
I'm just too disgusted to keep writing about it.
Here's another comment from Andrea's article:
Oops it's too long, but was pretty intelligent. This commenter congratulated the front office for not panicking and making a stupid trade (I assume he meant Gordon) in order to set up a quarterback trade in the '14 draft.
He feels that Campbell should simply be retained and possibly extended as a veteran backup, and Hoyer should be considered the starter.
It's so good to read smart thoughts in comments! But this is a bit of a gamble. It's still possible that Hoyer could fail in the long run. I personally don't think so, but it's a real possibility.
Next, if the Browns do begin contending next season (with Hoyer), they'll remain competitive for a long time, and draft low for several years. Hoyer will be 28, then 29, and he's a smaller quarterback who could get hurt again. Campbell will get older and older.
For insurance, and for the future, the Browns will have to look hard at the four or five quarterbacks in this draft with franchise potential (in their opinions). The top guys are all sophomores with limited experience, but in this case there would be no need to throw them in the fire immediately.
The guy who wrote this comment might well be right in guessing that the Browns might end up drafting 16th or lower, but underestimated this class:
He's thinking of the Luck/RG3 draft in which Washington matched the Browns massive offer for RG3 and lost the bidding war anyway. Wilson was a third round afterthought, and then Weeden and Tannehill were overdrafted.
This draft isn't the same. None of these guys are as NFL-ready as Luck was, and the other 3-4 guys besides Bridgewater appear to be better than Tannehill and Weeden.
While none of these guys might "fall to" the Browns, they could certainly be in range to nab one of them in the top ten without trading away their entire draft.
Of course, they'll be doing their own scouting and analysis, and these guys might not rate them the same as the "gurus" do.
I just saw some Johnny Manziel highlights. The guy is amazing. But because he's as short as Wilson/Brees, and because he's done some immature stuff and might be too egotistical, he could slide.
Wilson and Brees are very studious, dedicated, and smart. It's a leap to compare Manziel to them. (I don't know--I've done zero research on the kid.) Just saying, what if he has the smarts and will work that hard?
In fact, he could be the Browns pick, because they have Hoyer, Campbell, Turner, and Chud (remember Cam Newton?) to coach him up, and I've seen the kid projected all the way into the third round.
That's rediculous, of course. First round for sure. But maybe at 16...
Manziel is a superior athlete who could run the read-option offense and has the arm for Turner's version of Air Coryall. Physically, the only thing wrong with him is his height.
Mentally, he'd have to be able to accept a real competition and probably starting out on the bench. If Chud/Turner determine that he'll be a pain in the ass...nevermind.
For now, though, the Browns with Campbell should have the firepower to knock off the Ratbirds/referees.
I was impressed by how the Ravens handled the mass-email of a Browns' player's comments about the Ravens not being the same team that has dominated the Browns for several years.
I have a feeling that the Steelers would have been all insulted and banging their heads into lockers and stuff, but the Ravens just sort of yawned and agreed.
The comments weren't insulting or disrespectful. The Browns' roster has changed a lot, and so has the Ravens'.
I feel embarrassed for the person who sent the email.
Go new Browns.
I hadn't realized that Campbell vs. KC actually held the ball slightly longer than Weeden does! She really did her home-work! My guess is that he has a better sense for the rush and shifts around better while keeping his feet under him.
Some fans tend to forget that this is a timing offense, though, and averages can be decieving. The quarterback is supposed to throw the ball in under three seconds.
Weeden did that quite a bit, and was much quicker on dumpoffs. But there were too many times when the clock kept ticking past that mark, and there Weeden was, still window-shopping because he just couldn't make himself throw to the left or right of a reciever's back.
These plays often resulted in sacks or interceptions--and you only need one or three of them in a game.
Campbell trusted the system and his recievers. I believe he was cooler than Weeden too, so that he never rushed a throw unless a real (as in not imagined) passrusher was on top of him.
Another thing: Campbell throws better when he's flushed and moving.
It was some of the comments after Andrea's article that I found interesting:
1) Bench Little
2) Bench Bess
3) Keep Weeden on the bench
What has Little done recently to justify benching him? Here's another goober who remembers stuff that happened four of five games ago and is too dumb or lazy to change his mind.
Devone Bess was Mister Third Down for most of his carreer, and his wheels only came off the past two weeks. I can't figure out why this happened, but he's proven, over a long period of time, that he has great hands and can catch everything thrown to him.
And who does this clown think will replace these guys?
It's a bit of a reach here I guess, but I can tell you that each quarterback throws a different ball. It spins at different rates, some wobble more, and a Weeden might throw a little lower and harder, while Hoyer might put more air under it, and Campbell might throw the same pass in between those two.
At any rate, they won't be benching Bess or Little unless Little starts dropping balls again or Bess continues it.
What makes me nervous about the Ravens game isn't the Ravens. It's the referees. Beginning in the Lions game, the referees began smearing our secondary. They started flagging normal press coverage as interference. Now they have a "reputation", and the refs in the Ravens game will be eager to invent their own interference calls.
Joe Thomas--yeah maybe he was holding all along, ya know? I'll bet he holds Terrell Suggs! I'll keep my flag half-way out so I can have it ready...
I'm just too disgusted to keep writing about it.
Here's another comment from Andrea's article:
Oops it's too long, but was pretty intelligent. This commenter congratulated the front office for not panicking and making a stupid trade (I assume he meant Gordon) in order to set up a quarterback trade in the '14 draft.
He feels that Campbell should simply be retained and possibly extended as a veteran backup, and Hoyer should be considered the starter.
It's so good to read smart thoughts in comments! But this is a bit of a gamble. It's still possible that Hoyer could fail in the long run. I personally don't think so, but it's a real possibility.
Next, if the Browns do begin contending next season (with Hoyer), they'll remain competitive for a long time, and draft low for several years. Hoyer will be 28, then 29, and he's a smaller quarterback who could get hurt again. Campbell will get older and older.
For insurance, and for the future, the Browns will have to look hard at the four or five quarterbacks in this draft with franchise potential (in their opinions). The top guys are all sophomores with limited experience, but in this case there would be no need to throw them in the fire immediately.
The guy who wrote this comment might well be right in guessing that the Browns might end up drafting 16th or lower, but underestimated this class:
He's thinking of the Luck/RG3 draft in which Washington matched the Browns massive offer for RG3 and lost the bidding war anyway. Wilson was a third round afterthought, and then Weeden and Tannehill were overdrafted.
This draft isn't the same. None of these guys are as NFL-ready as Luck was, and the other 3-4 guys besides Bridgewater appear to be better than Tannehill and Weeden.
While none of these guys might "fall to" the Browns, they could certainly be in range to nab one of them in the top ten without trading away their entire draft.
Of course, they'll be doing their own scouting and analysis, and these guys might not rate them the same as the "gurus" do.
I just saw some Johnny Manziel highlights. The guy is amazing. But because he's as short as Wilson/Brees, and because he's done some immature stuff and might be too egotistical, he could slide.
Wilson and Brees are very studious, dedicated, and smart. It's a leap to compare Manziel to them. (I don't know--I've done zero research on the kid.) Just saying, what if he has the smarts and will work that hard?
In fact, he could be the Browns pick, because they have Hoyer, Campbell, Turner, and Chud (remember Cam Newton?) to coach him up, and I've seen the kid projected all the way into the third round.
That's rediculous, of course. First round for sure. But maybe at 16...
Manziel is a superior athlete who could run the read-option offense and has the arm for Turner's version of Air Coryall. Physically, the only thing wrong with him is his height.
Mentally, he'd have to be able to accept a real competition and probably starting out on the bench. If Chud/Turner determine that he'll be a pain in the ass...nevermind.
For now, though, the Browns with Campbell should have the firepower to knock off the Ratbirds/referees.
I was impressed by how the Ravens handled the mass-email of a Browns' player's comments about the Ravens not being the same team that has dominated the Browns for several years.
I have a feeling that the Steelers would have been all insulted and banging their heads into lockers and stuff, but the Ravens just sort of yawned and agreed.
The comments weren't insulting or disrespectful. The Browns' roster has changed a lot, and so has the Ravens'.
I feel embarrassed for the person who sent the email.
Go new Browns.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Referees' Game Ball
The elephant in the room here is that in both the Lions and the KC game, the referees mugged the Browns. After the two early bullcrap interference calls on Haden and Skrine, the referees last week were itching to see them actually press cover somebody so they could flag it.
Now, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as our defenders have a "rap sheet".
And they haven't done a damn thing wrong, and I'm sick of it.
Marty Schottenheimer, in one of his many attempts to sound deep and profound, once said that the referees can't change the outcome of a game. Yes, there's a mystical sort of fate kinda thing sorta which, you know, if you work harder, you know, you just overcome all the bad calls and win, kinda like.
Marty knows better.
The Lions outplayed the Browns and probably deserved to win. The Packers beat them fair and square. But the Browns beat the Chiefs. They just couldn't beat the referees too.
I told you Jason Campbell was a decent quarterback, and his performance shouldn't suprise anyone who knows what he did with the Raiders. He was actually a little better here, because he has better talent around him. In fact it's possible that he has never in his carreer played with this much talent around him.
Peter Smith mentioned that the Ravens will now have some game tape in Campbell. Well, Peter dismissed Campbell as even a competant quarterback early on, and might feel a tad embarrassed.
The Chiefs had abundant tape on Campbell from his Raiders days, and some of the defenders had played against him. Granted, this is a different scheme, but tendancies are built into a player.
I don't know what Campbell's specific tendancies are, but these are examples:
1: A quarterback might not be able to hit the broad side of a barn if forced to run left.
2: A quarterback's ball might tend to sail/overshoot if he's moving to his right.
3: A Brandon Weeden might tend to lock onto recievers, hesitate, wait to confirm a break before throwing--blowing timing to hell.
The Ravens aren't as good as KC, the Lions, the Packers, or the Browns. I'm grateful for not hearing this mystical, worshipful crap about them that I hear about the Steelers on NFL Radio. I'm not the only one who knows that these Browns and Jason Campbell should beat them.
And you know, these guys all know lots more about football than I do. So does Peter Smith, and even some of the guys on Bleacher Report. But they're often influenced by emotion.
The Ravens won the Superbowl and have Harbaugh and Newsome. These are powerful facts. And just when you thought Newsome's cupboard was cleaned out and his team was gutted, there he goes grabbing Dummerville, a left tackle, and several other bargain free agents!
That's a fact. But it's also a fact that they have no consistant deep threat. Ed Reed was old, but still an elite player. Lewis's replacement is an upgrade over the shadow of himself he was, but it's not the same team anymore.
If, talent-wise, the Ravens were a nine last season, they're a 7.5 this season. If the Cleveland Browns were a 6 last season, they're a 7.5 this season.
This was obvious to me. That's why I said Cameron should explode this season, Gordon would be even better, Skrine had a shot to be much better, Gipson was massively underrated, Campbell was a good quarterback, etc.
It's not rocket science. Young players tend to get better. Old players tend to get worse.
Right now, this is the Bengals' Division. But listen to me: The Steelers are the worst team in the AFC North, and it's because they lack talent. It's not because Tomlin suddenly sucks, or Mercury aligns with Mars, or they're just not inspired enough.
The Ravens are still competitive, but the Browns are overtaking them, and are nipping at Cinci's heels.
I personally don't mind them losing this season, because this looks like a bumper crop for quarterbacks in the draft. Objectively, it's better to lose one more year and get a stud quarterback than to do well, not make the playoffs, and miss that chance.
But also obectively, I'm afraid the Browns with Jason Campbell will sweep the Steelers, beat the Ravens, and could even upset the Bengals again...and go 8-8 or 9-7...and NOT make the playoffs anyway.
...and draft maybe 18th and 26th overall, and get screwed out of a quarterback again.
I repeat that I love Hoyer even more than most other people. I feel quite confident that he'll continue to kick ass after defenses get film on him and start messing with him. I see him getting better, and not worse. I think Hoyer could be a Pro-Bowl, franchise guy, absolutely.
...but I'm not positively sure, and what if I'm wrong, or he gets maimed again?
The cycle continues. That's what.
But what the hell--go Browns beat dem Ratbirds!
Oh yeah...the referees...
Now, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as our defenders have a "rap sheet".
And they haven't done a damn thing wrong, and I'm sick of it.
Marty Schottenheimer, in one of his many attempts to sound deep and profound, once said that the referees can't change the outcome of a game. Yes, there's a mystical sort of fate kinda thing sorta which, you know, if you work harder, you know, you just overcome all the bad calls and win, kinda like.
Marty knows better.
The Lions outplayed the Browns and probably deserved to win. The Packers beat them fair and square. But the Browns beat the Chiefs. They just couldn't beat the referees too.
I told you Jason Campbell was a decent quarterback, and his performance shouldn't suprise anyone who knows what he did with the Raiders. He was actually a little better here, because he has better talent around him. In fact it's possible that he has never in his carreer played with this much talent around him.
Peter Smith mentioned that the Ravens will now have some game tape in Campbell. Well, Peter dismissed Campbell as even a competant quarterback early on, and might feel a tad embarrassed.
The Chiefs had abundant tape on Campbell from his Raiders days, and some of the defenders had played against him. Granted, this is a different scheme, but tendancies are built into a player.
I don't know what Campbell's specific tendancies are, but these are examples:
1: A quarterback might not be able to hit the broad side of a barn if forced to run left.
2: A quarterback's ball might tend to sail/overshoot if he's moving to his right.
3: A Brandon Weeden might tend to lock onto recievers, hesitate, wait to confirm a break before throwing--blowing timing to hell.
The Ravens aren't as good as KC, the Lions, the Packers, or the Browns. I'm grateful for not hearing this mystical, worshipful crap about them that I hear about the Steelers on NFL Radio. I'm not the only one who knows that these Browns and Jason Campbell should beat them.
And you know, these guys all know lots more about football than I do. So does Peter Smith, and even some of the guys on Bleacher Report. But they're often influenced by emotion.
The Ravens won the Superbowl and have Harbaugh and Newsome. These are powerful facts. And just when you thought Newsome's cupboard was cleaned out and his team was gutted, there he goes grabbing Dummerville, a left tackle, and several other bargain free agents!
That's a fact. But it's also a fact that they have no consistant deep threat. Ed Reed was old, but still an elite player. Lewis's replacement is an upgrade over the shadow of himself he was, but it's not the same team anymore.
If, talent-wise, the Ravens were a nine last season, they're a 7.5 this season. If the Cleveland Browns were a 6 last season, they're a 7.5 this season.
This was obvious to me. That's why I said Cameron should explode this season, Gordon would be even better, Skrine had a shot to be much better, Gipson was massively underrated, Campbell was a good quarterback, etc.
It's not rocket science. Young players tend to get better. Old players tend to get worse.
Right now, this is the Bengals' Division. But listen to me: The Steelers are the worst team in the AFC North, and it's because they lack talent. It's not because Tomlin suddenly sucks, or Mercury aligns with Mars, or they're just not inspired enough.
The Ravens are still competitive, but the Browns are overtaking them, and are nipping at Cinci's heels.
I personally don't mind them losing this season, because this looks like a bumper crop for quarterbacks in the draft. Objectively, it's better to lose one more year and get a stud quarterback than to do well, not make the playoffs, and miss that chance.
But also obectively, I'm afraid the Browns with Jason Campbell will sweep the Steelers, beat the Ravens, and could even upset the Bengals again...and go 8-8 or 9-7...and NOT make the playoffs anyway.
...and draft maybe 18th and 26th overall, and get screwed out of a quarterback again.
I repeat that I love Hoyer even more than most other people. I feel quite confident that he'll continue to kick ass after defenses get film on him and start messing with him. I see him getting better, and not worse. I think Hoyer could be a Pro-Bowl, franchise guy, absolutely.
...but I'm not positively sure, and what if I'm wrong, or he gets maimed again?
The cycle continues. That's what.
But what the hell--go Browns beat dem Ratbirds!
Oh yeah...the referees...
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Weeden Had his Shot
I kept faith with Weeden until now. Unlike others, I know the difference between a dropped pass and a bad throw, and where to place the blame for a loss.
Still, here comes Hoyer and lights it up--there you go. Well, not really. Weeden didn't have that dee-lux deep threat, Josh Gordon, to loosen things up, as well as to make actual big plays for him.
So I said let's see what he does with Gordon.
He failed. Not all of it was his fault, but now I've seen enough to pretty much give up on Weeden.
I believe part of it is his age. When you're 22-23, it's easier for you to learn and adapt. At 29-30, you're much more hard-wired. Weeden was wired for focus and tunnel vision as a pitcher. It didn't hurt him much as a college QB, but now he's 29, and it seems too late for him.
It's still classless and embarrassing to hear the guy get bood before he's thrown his first pass. Boobirds in general irk me, because every player is trying; nobody is screwing up on purpose. It's sadistic to take a guy who's already humiliated and hurting, and kick him when he's down.
Except Braylon Edwards, or somebody like that--ok he's not trying so boo him.
Anyway, now it's Jason Campbell. Much is made of the fact that they skipped over him and put Hoyer in when Weeden got hurt. Then, of the fact that Weeden returned when Hoyer went down.
Well yeah, they thought Hoyer was a better fit for this offense, because he's more accurate on deep passes. And then, they knew about Campbell, but needed to give Hoyer his chance so that they could find out what he had to offer.
It was a calculated risk. If Hoyer had stunk up the joint, it would have been Campbell time.
But as usual, the conclusion-leapers overshot. It meant they really hate Campbell and he sucks and stuff. Not at all.
Cherry-pickers want to focus solely on his brief, putrid performance with the Bears the season before he was signed here, and ignore what he was doing with the Raiders before he was injured.
He was winning games with a crappy team. I'm not sure what happened in Chicago, and you can't just ignore it. But with Campbell or anyone else, you need to look at his overall history--except perhaps his rookie season.
Jim Zorn was his coach in Washington. Armani Tumor points out that Zorn's offense was all about short, quick passes, and didn't allow Campbell to use his big arm.
In fact, Armani picked the Browns to upset KC today! When I regained consciousness, I recalled that he cited this fact, and stated his personal opinion that this former first round pick was always a good QB, and got blamed for bad teams.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
I'm not kidding myself. Campbell is no long-term answer, even if he does well. Contrary to current mythology, he's shown that he's above average and a competant starter, which is positive. Not negative.
Hoyer, I believe, is better. He's also younger, with more upside. And regardless of how much Norv and Chud like Hoyer, they'll still draft a quarterback to compete with/learn from him next season.
But for now, Campbell is a decent QB who will give the Browns a chance to win every game. He is NOT a bad quarterback.
As for the draft crop, I've heard a lot of irrational theories about this or that guy "falling" to them. That won't happen unless they draft at least in the top 5.
Bridgewater is probably off the table to begin with, and several other teams will try to trade ahead of the Browns for the others. Because teams in need of a quarterback tend to draft in the top third, the teams ahead of them might well need a QB, and those a few slots behind them will have the ammo to make moves.
Before the rookie salary cap, this happened. With the cap, it will happen in every draft, as teams will take more chances on players who won't cost them 25% of their salary cap.
HOWEVER, the idea of trading Josh Gordon is still rediculous. Gordon and Cameron are THE two guys who could help Hoyer or a rookie quarterback succeed. You take Gordon out of it, and they're all over Cameron and playing downhill to hammer to the quarterback and stuff the run.
Gordons don't grow on trees! Why can't some people not GET this? You just watch what happens to the Bengals if Green gets hurt! Check out the Steelers without Wallace (and Wallace can't carry Gordon's jock)!
As for the KC game, Armani's prediction and my higher opinion of Campbell have given me some hope. While I was also bothered by the defense looking bad the last two weeks, the matchups here are interesting.
Alex Smith is relying almost exclusively on short passes. I don't know if he's gone deep even once this whole season. With the emergence of Skrine, the Browns have the secondary to mix zone with man and jump those routes.
This includes both Roberts and Jackson.
The Chiefs unsung heros are the defenders. They've been very stingy, and this is where the Browns could have a bigger problem.
I'm afraid this feels like a loss to me...but maybe I don't mind that much, since I'd really like to get a stud quarterback (not that Hoyer can't be that, ok?)
One point on that: Level of competition doesn't mean as much for a quarterback, ok? This is common sense. His recievers, protectors, and ball carriers are all presumably at the same level as the opponent, and he still has to be smart and accurate, period.
YOU STAND CORRECTED
Oh! I forgot the referees! They'll probably make sure...
Still, here comes Hoyer and lights it up--there you go. Well, not really. Weeden didn't have that dee-lux deep threat, Josh Gordon, to loosen things up, as well as to make actual big plays for him.
So I said let's see what he does with Gordon.
He failed. Not all of it was his fault, but now I've seen enough to pretty much give up on Weeden.
I believe part of it is his age. When you're 22-23, it's easier for you to learn and adapt. At 29-30, you're much more hard-wired. Weeden was wired for focus and tunnel vision as a pitcher. It didn't hurt him much as a college QB, but now he's 29, and it seems too late for him.
It's still classless and embarrassing to hear the guy get bood before he's thrown his first pass. Boobirds in general irk me, because every player is trying; nobody is screwing up on purpose. It's sadistic to take a guy who's already humiliated and hurting, and kick him when he's down.
Except Braylon Edwards, or somebody like that--ok he's not trying so boo him.
Anyway, now it's Jason Campbell. Much is made of the fact that they skipped over him and put Hoyer in when Weeden got hurt. Then, of the fact that Weeden returned when Hoyer went down.
Well yeah, they thought Hoyer was a better fit for this offense, because he's more accurate on deep passes. And then, they knew about Campbell, but needed to give Hoyer his chance so that they could find out what he had to offer.
It was a calculated risk. If Hoyer had stunk up the joint, it would have been Campbell time.
But as usual, the conclusion-leapers overshot. It meant they really hate Campbell and he sucks and stuff. Not at all.
Cherry-pickers want to focus solely on his brief, putrid performance with the Bears the season before he was signed here, and ignore what he was doing with the Raiders before he was injured.
He was winning games with a crappy team. I'm not sure what happened in Chicago, and you can't just ignore it. But with Campbell or anyone else, you need to look at his overall history--except perhaps his rookie season.
Jim Zorn was his coach in Washington. Armani Tumor points out that Zorn's offense was all about short, quick passes, and didn't allow Campbell to use his big arm.
In fact, Armani picked the Browns to upset KC today! When I regained consciousness, I recalled that he cited this fact, and stated his personal opinion that this former first round pick was always a good QB, and got blamed for bad teams.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
I'm not kidding myself. Campbell is no long-term answer, even if he does well. Contrary to current mythology, he's shown that he's above average and a competant starter, which is positive. Not negative.
Hoyer, I believe, is better. He's also younger, with more upside. And regardless of how much Norv and Chud like Hoyer, they'll still draft a quarterback to compete with/learn from him next season.
But for now, Campbell is a decent QB who will give the Browns a chance to win every game. He is NOT a bad quarterback.
As for the draft crop, I've heard a lot of irrational theories about this or that guy "falling" to them. That won't happen unless they draft at least in the top 5.
Bridgewater is probably off the table to begin with, and several other teams will try to trade ahead of the Browns for the others. Because teams in need of a quarterback tend to draft in the top third, the teams ahead of them might well need a QB, and those a few slots behind them will have the ammo to make moves.
Before the rookie salary cap, this happened. With the cap, it will happen in every draft, as teams will take more chances on players who won't cost them 25% of their salary cap.
HOWEVER, the idea of trading Josh Gordon is still rediculous. Gordon and Cameron are THE two guys who could help Hoyer or a rookie quarterback succeed. You take Gordon out of it, and they're all over Cameron and playing downhill to hammer to the quarterback and stuff the run.
Gordons don't grow on trees! Why can't some people not GET this? You just watch what happens to the Bengals if Green gets hurt! Check out the Steelers without Wallace (and Wallace can't carry Gordon's jock)!
As for the KC game, Armani's prediction and my higher opinion of Campbell have given me some hope. While I was also bothered by the defense looking bad the last two weeks, the matchups here are interesting.
Alex Smith is relying almost exclusively on short passes. I don't know if he's gone deep even once this whole season. With the emergence of Skrine, the Browns have the secondary to mix zone with man and jump those routes.
This includes both Roberts and Jackson.
The Chiefs unsung heros are the defenders. They've been very stingy, and this is where the Browns could have a bigger problem.
I'm afraid this feels like a loss to me...but maybe I don't mind that much, since I'd really like to get a stud quarterback (not that Hoyer can't be that, ok?)
One point on that: Level of competition doesn't mean as much for a quarterback, ok? This is common sense. His recievers, protectors, and ball carriers are all presumably at the same level as the opponent, and he still has to be smart and accurate, period.
YOU STAND CORRECTED
Oh! I forgot the referees! They'll probably make sure...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)