Text Size

Cleveland Browns & The NFL

CHUD watch

Talk Browns football and discuss the NFL here.

Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:26 pm

mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:This Hoyer conversation is silly.


So is Mike Lombardi as GM. Just because it's fucking ridiculous doesn't mean it's not true. Word coming out is that the FO was not in agreement with Chud's player eval. We've all wondered how Hoyer went from inactive #3 to starting after Weeden went down, jumping right over the guy who was and had been #2.

Not beyond the realm of possibility that Lombardi simply told him who to play.


Could very well be.

Doesn't mean that speculating that Chud should've started Hoyer from Week 1 isn't silly.

And if Chud was acting as Lombardi's monkey boy by Week 3, not sure how that would help lead to his demise.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:45 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:This Hoyer conversation is silly.


So is Mike Lombardi as GM. Just because it's fucking ridiculous doesn't mean it's not true. Word coming out is that the FO was not in agreement with Chud's player eval. We've all wondered how Hoyer went from inactive #3 to starting after Weeden went down, jumping right over the guy who was and had been #2.

Not beyond the realm of possibility that Lombardi simply told him who to play.


Could very well be.

Doesn't mean that speculating that Chud should've started Hoyer from Week 1 isn't silly.

And if Chud was acting as Lombardi's monkey boy by Week 3, not sure how that would help lead to his demise.


I'm not saying that I believed Hoyer should have started. Just reading the FO felt Weeds would never be the answer and wanted Hoyer from the jump.

Who knows, maybe it's just an excuse to cover up their gross incompetence. Banner and Lombardi are both such pathological lying cocksuckers it's impossible to know what to believe.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Triple-S » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:56 pm

if the Browns hire JOSH FUCKING MCDANIELS, not only will the team not get "better" in the short term, but the team will surely get WORSE.

I can guarantee that if we sign him as a HC, the following people will be gone in two years:
-Josh Gordon
-Alex Mack
-D'Qwell Jackson
-Joe Thomas
-Josh McDaniels HIMSELF
-Joe Banner
-Lombardi
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.


Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
User avatar
Triple-S
All-time leader in moral victories
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Kent-Green, Ohio
Favorite Player: Yuengling
Least Favorite Player: Nati Light.

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:11 pm

mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:This Hoyer conversation is silly.


So is Mike Lombardi as GM. Just because it's fucking ridiculous doesn't mean it's not true. Word coming out is that the FO was not in agreement with Chud's player eval. We've all wondered how Hoyer went from inactive #3 to starting after Weeden went down, jumping right over the guy who was and had been #2.

Not beyond the realm of possibility that Lombardi simply told him who to play.


Could very well be.

Doesn't mean that speculating that Chud should've started Hoyer from Week 1 isn't silly.

And if Chud was acting as Lombardi's monkey boy by Week 3, not sure how that would help lead to his demise.


I'm not saying that I believed Hoyer should have started. Just reading the FO felt Weeds would never be the answer and wanted Hoyer from the jump.

Who knows, maybe it's just an excuse to cover up their gross incompetence. Banner and Lombardi are both such pathological lying cocksuckers it's impossible to know what to believe.


If the FO claimed that, I would say they are indeed lying cocksuckers. No FO in the universe picks up a scrap heap QB off the waiver wire, throws him directly into TC, and reasonably expects him to emerge the starter (especially when his TC and Preseason play was hardly noteworthy). It's the kind of face-saving after the fact shit that douchebags let "slip" into the media during PR crises.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Spin » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:56 pm

Larvell Blanks wrote:
Spin wrote:I wasn't the only one who said it, but I caught a lot of hell here for posting it here.

And nobody said he was "destined for greatness". Just that he looked better than the other two. typical straw man fallacy...



Wasn't Chud undefeated when he had a REAL fuckin NFL quarterback???


your quote, correct?


Sorry if I misinterpreted REAL NFL QB with better than the other two.


What have you seen that proves to you he's NOT an NFL quarterback and needs to be released?
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby leadpipe » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:02 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:This Hoyer conversation is silly.


So is Mike Lombardi as GM. Just because it's fucking ridiculous doesn't mean it's not true. Word coming out is that the FO was not in agreement with Chud's player eval. We've all wondered how Hoyer went from inactive #3 to starting after Weeden went down, jumping right over the guy who was and had been #2.

Not beyond the realm of possibility that Lombardi simply told him who to play.


Could very well be.

Doesn't mean that speculating that Chud should've started Hoyer from Week 1 isn't silly.

And if Chud was acting as Lombardi's monkey boy by Week 3, not sure how that would help lead to his demise.


I'm not saying that I believed Hoyer should have started. Just reading the FO felt Weeds would never be the answer and wanted Hoyer from the jump.

Who knows, maybe it's just an excuse to cover up their gross incompetence. Banner and Lombardi are both such pathological lying cocksuckers it's impossible to know what to believe.


If the FO claimed that, I would say they are indeed lying cocksuckers. No FO in the universe picks up a scrap heap QB off the waiver wire, throws him directly into TC, and reasonably expects him to emerge the starter (especially when his TC and Preseason play was hardly noteworthy). It's the kind of face-saving after the fact shit that douchebags let "slip" into the media during PR crises.


I'm not sure what pull Lombardi has down there, hell, I'm not sure what he does. I don't like the guy, and not too many people do, however, pertaining to this conversation - Anyone who listened and/or read Lombardi in 2012 understood two things prety clearly 1. He LOVED Brian Hoyer and 2. He felt Brandon Weeden was a joke.

Again, hard to tell which way is up over there, but in regards to this subject I think it's safe to say that conventional thinking might not get us an answer here.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Spin » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:04 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
Spin wrote:I wasn't the only one who said it, but I caught a lot of hell here for posting it here.

And nobody said he was "destined for greatness". Just that he looked better than the other two. typical straw man fallacy...


Let's be clear here - did you say "Hoyer looked good", or did you advocate that Hoyer should start against the Dolphins in Week One of the Regular Season based on his performance against 3rd stringers in Preseason Games?


If he played better than the other two, led the offense better, went through his progressions better, made better decisions, and got the ball out quicker, why the fuck wouldn't you start him over Weeden? You guys act like he is a rookie out of college and that he needs to hold a clipboard until he's quote "ready".

Edit - Stating "Hoyer looked better than the other two" is fairly meaningless and hardly impetus to go starting him prior to where they did, since even if he DID look better than the other two (he didn't), it was against scrubs. He would have to get starter snaps and still look better than the other two to even consider it.


Weeden was the only player who got meaningful playing time in the preseason. They were obviously set on sticking with him through thick and thin, and it turned out being thin and thinner.


Now let me ask you a couple questions.

Did what you see in the regular season lead you to think Hoyer was a better QB?

If all three were healthy today, would you start Hoyer?
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Spin » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:29 pm

leadpipe wrote:I'm not sure what pull Lombardi has down there, hell, I'm not sure what he does. I don't like the guy, and not too many people do, however, pertaining to this conversation - Anyone who listened and/or read Lombardi in 2012 understood two things prety clearly 1. He LOVED Brian Hoyer and 2. He felt Brandon Weeden was a joke.

Again, hard to tell which way is up over there, but in regards to this subject I think it's safe to say that conventional thinking might not get us an answer here.


I thought of that scenario. They did bring in Hoyer for a reason, quite possibly it was because they already knew he was better than the Yankee pitcher.

Without looking at the video on both players, lets take a quick look at the pre-2013 regular season stats.

Weeden 57.4% completions, 14 TD's, 17 INT's, 3 fumbles (20 turnovers in 15 games)
Hoyer 59.4% completions, 2 TD's, 3 INT's, 1 fumble (4 turnovers in 15 games)

Why these guys act so surprised that Hoyer looked better, when they would start him in a heartbeat today if given a choice, is beyond me. Other than they can't admit they were caught off guard.
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:39 pm

JFC. Why is everyone trying to make points and counterpoints as if you were on your HS debate team?

This is Joe Banner. This is Mike Lombardi. This makes all of the previous dysfunction seem like a Swiss fucking watch.

I long for the days of George Kokinis.

I get that everyone feels this is simply another reboot, false start, hiccup on the road to the Super Bowl..........

This is not. It is a complete and utter clusterfuck on a scale not previously known in C Town.

Ted Stepien, anyone?
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby YahooFanChicago » Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:17 pm

^^^ very good points.

'Ol Jimmy heard first hand during the presser how much negative goodwill they have with the media and fans. You can tell he really wants to improve things but him and Banner have no idea how to do it.
____________________________________________________________________________

Gee Miss Crabtree, you're even pretier 'n Miss McGuilacutty...
YahooFanChicago
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:22 pm
Favorite Player: Miss Crabtree
Least Favorite Player: Chubsy Wubsy

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby 1Perry » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:28 pm

Nearly everyone knew from well before he was drafted that Weedon wasn't a valid NFL quarterback. Even he knew that which is why he tried out baseball. That the front office still picked him shows that is where the real problem is.

Chud did a poor job this year even considering the injuries. How many times on 4th down in the red zone in a row can you go to the Gordon in the corner and fail at it before everyone in the stadium knows what play is being called. Chud should be fired for the simple reason that he went to it again late in the Steelers game.

All the same, there is no hope of doing better. There are so many openings this year that the best picks are going to jump at them long before the Browns. Obviously the front office gave this no long term thought or plan.
User avatar
1Perry
The Shapiro of Posters
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:56 pm

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:31 pm

mattvan1 wrote:JFC. Why is everyone trying to make points and counterpoints as if you were on your HS debate team?

This is Joe Banner. This is Mike Lombardi. This makes all of the previous dysfunction seem like a Swiss fucking watch.

I long for the days of George Kokinis.

I get that everyone feels this is simply another reboot, false start, hiccup on the road to the Super Bowl..........

This is not. It is a complete and utter clusterfuck on a scale not previously known in C Town.

Ted Stepien, anyone?


Well that's not very optimistic.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:34 pm

1Perry wrote:Nearly everyone knew from well before he was drafted that Weedon wasn't a valid NFL quarterback. Even he knew that which is why he tried out baseball. That the front office still picked him shows that is where the real problem is.


This front office didn't pick him.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:39 pm

motherscratcher wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:JFC. Why is everyone trying to make points and counterpoints as if you were on your HS debate team?

This is Joe Banner. This is Mike Lombardi. This makes all of the previous dysfunction seem like a Swiss fucking watch.

I long for the days of George Kokinis.

I get that everyone feels this is simply another reboot, false start, hiccup on the road to the Super Bowl..........

This is not. It is a complete and utter clusterfuck on a scale not previously known in C Town.

Ted Stepien, anyone?


Well that's not very optimistic.


Image
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby justmebd » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:46 pm

Home from a long, long day of selling booze. And tomorrow is even longer.

Fuck Josh McDaniels, he'll be Mangini 2.0.

Banner and Lombardi are fucktards.

Banner was chased out of Phili because they were sick of his shit and they had no Superbowls to show for it, and Lombardi is the source of all of Sunday's "leaks" to the NFL network. Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out.

If your front office makes your firing the Twitter event of the week, take the buyout money and run.

This front office is just as deluded and self-centered as the last few iterations. Winning is not the agenda. The Agenda of self-promotion is the agenda. Take credit for all the good, shit on someone else for all the bad.

Haslem may be a meddlesome owner for all we know, but this front office didn't stand up for anybody, so they're just as guilty of tomfuckerey as the owner.

So if next year's coach goes 4-12 (or worse), don't they HAVE to fire him at that point. The precedent now has been set.
User avatar
justmebd
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: Youngstown, OH
Favorite Player: Gary Gygax
Least Favorite Player: Heinz Field Occupant

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:51 pm

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Lubber » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:20 pm

Triple-S wrote:if the Browns hire JOSH FUCKING MCDANIELS, not only will the team not get "better" in the short term, but the team will surely get WORSE.

I can guarantee that if we sign him as a HC, the following people will be gone in two years:
-Josh Gordon
-Alex Mack
-D'Qwell Jackson
-Joe Thomas
-Josh McDaniels HIMSELF
-Joe Banner
-Lombardi


I will take that bet for $50.
User avatar
Lubber
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: London Fletcher
Least Favorite Player: LeBron James

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:36 pm

Lubber wrote:
Triple-S wrote:if the Browns hire JOSH FUCKING MCDANIELS, not only will the team not get "better" in the short term, but the team will surely get WORSE.

I can guarantee that if we sign him as a HC, the following people will be gone in two years:
-Josh Gordon
-Alex Mack
-D'Qwell Jackson
-Joe Thomas
-Josh McDaniels HIMSELF
-Joe Banner
-Lombardi


I will take that bet for $50.


It's kind of a weird random list.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby antikryct » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:49 pm

justmebd wrote:Haslem may be a meddlesome owner for all we know, but this front office didn't stand up for anybody, so they're just as guilty of tomfuckerey as the owner.


If I were to place a bet anywhere, this would be it. I think it started with the loss at home to Jacksonville and got worse and worse each week. The play in the Steelers game was the straw that broke the camels back. Had they won that game, he may still be here. For the team to play the way they did, turning the ball over on downs over and over made me sick as well. After the years and years of suck I found myself wishing they would actually kick a 46 yard field goal and put some god damned points on the board.

Chud's a nice guy, but he didn't do enough...and the team looked indifferent under him.
User avatar
antikryct
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Round Rock, TX / Painesville, OH

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Spin » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:10 am

The play in the Steelers game was the straw that broke the camels back. Had they won that game, he may still be here.


The decision was made Saturday after being discussed all week.
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby andrew6586 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:35 am

Serious question. Is there realistically anyone who would be better than McDaniels. Yes Lovie or Wisenhunt would be better, but is there a chance they would come here? Not in my opinion. Anyone who has had success will pick teams like Houston or Detroit. They are ready to win now and just need a couple pieces.

McDaniels may not be the best coach to have, but he's not the worst either. I don't see a Tebow like draft if he's the guy either. No way Banner lets anyone else control the draft... Which could be a hole other problem in itself.
Once a fan, always a fan.
On Twitter @apac6586
User avatar
andrew6586
Church of Asdrubal
 
Posts: 1222
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: Canton, Ohio
Favorite Player: Kenny Lofton
Least Favorite Player: Mark Shapiro

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:39 am

Spin wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
Spin wrote:I wasn't the only one who said it, but I caught a lot of hell here for posting it here.

And nobody said he was "destined for greatness". Just that he looked better than the other two. typical straw man fallacy...


Let's be clear here - did you say "Hoyer looked good", or did you advocate that Hoyer should start against the Dolphins in Week One of the Regular Season based on his performance against 3rd stringers in Preseason Games?


If he played better than the other two, led the offense better, went through his progressions better, made better decisions, and got the ball out quicker, why the fuck wouldn't you start him over Weeden? You guys act like he is a rookie out of college and that he needs to hold a clipboard until he's quote "ready".


All I saw of Hoyer prior to Week 3 was the Preseason games, and, to me, in those, he appeared to be noticeably the worst of the 3, and that was against 3rd stringers. His physical limitations were in stark contrast to the other 2.

There is no way in any fantasy world that he somehow earned the starting job from the cheap seats of 3rd string during TC.

Spin wrote:
Edit - Stating "Hoyer looked better than the other two" is fairly meaningless and hardly impetus to go starting him prior to where they did, since even if he DID look better than the other two (he didn't), it was against scrubs. He would have to get starter snaps and still look better than the other two to even consider it.


Weeden was the only player who got meaningful playing time in the preseason. They were obviously set on sticking with him through thick and thin, and it turned out being thin and thinner.

Now let me ask you a couple questions.

Did what you see in the regular season lead you to think Hoyer was a better QB?

If all three were healthy today, would you start Hoyer?


Did I think he was a better QB in the regular season? Of course. He only played two games and the quality of his starts is WAY overblown, but he wins by default of the other two being complete crap.

So yes, if he were healthy today and those 3 were my only options, yes, I would start him. Not because I think he's good or has a bunch of potential, but because he was the only one that doesn't suck out loud. (God forbid I ever have to watch another Browns team where those are my 3 options.)

But I would have started the season with a 2nd year guy like Weeden with much better physical skills who cost the team a 1st rounder just last year who was the starter last year and given him a chance to show that he had improved (which he appeared to have done to a small extent from TC and Preseason). In real time, everyone would have. NO ONE was clamoring "Hey, we really need to get this Hoyer guy into a starting role" as the regular season rolled around.

The QB deemed most likely to be the starter always gets the lion's share of the snaps in preseason. That's how football works.

There are situations where the 3rd string QB rises up and seizes the starting role by clearly outplaying his competition (Russell Wilson). And then there's a QB that looks just ah-ight that has to wait around for the guys ahead of him to either get hurt or suck their way to the bench. The fact that he made his way to the starting role as soon as Week 3 is almost a miracle in itself. Most coaches would've had him riding pine until midseason since they wouldn't have skipped their #2. Hell, most other teams in the league weren't even interested in having him on their roster at all.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby leadpipe » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:52 am

Hikohadon wrote:
Spin wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
Spin wrote:I wasn't the only one who said it, but I caught a lot of hell here for posting it here.

And nobody said he was "destined for greatness". Just that he looked better than the other two. typical straw man fallacy...


Let's be clear here - did you say "Hoyer looked good", or did you advocate that Hoyer should start against the Dolphins in Week One of the Regular Season based on his performance against 3rd stringers in Preseason Games?


If he played better than the other two, led the offense better, went through his progressions better, made better decisions, and got the ball out quicker, why the fuck wouldn't you start him over Weeden? You guys act like he is a rookie out of college and that he needs to hold a clipboard until he's quote "ready".


All I saw of Hoyer prior to Week 3 was the Preseason games, and, to me, in those, he appeared to be noticeably the worst of the 3, and that was against 3rd stringers. His physical limitations were in stark contrast to the other 2.

There is no way in any fantasy world that he somehow earned the starting job from the cheap seats of 3rd string during TC.

Spin wrote:
Edit - Stating "Hoyer looked better than the other two" is fairly meaningless and hardly impetus to go starting him prior to where they did, since even if he DID look better than the other two (he didn't), it was against scrubs. He would have to get starter snaps and still look better than the other two to even consider it.


Weeden was the only player who got meaningful playing time in the preseason. They were obviously set on sticking with him through thick and thin, and it turned out being thin and thinner.

Now let me ask you a couple questions.

Did what you see in the regular season lead you to think Hoyer was a better QB?

If all three were healthy today, would you start Hoyer?


Did I think he was a better QB in the regular season? Of course. He only played two games and the quality of his starts is WAY overblown, but he wins by default of the other two being complete crap.

So yes, if he were healthy today and those 3 were my only options, yes, I would start him. Not because I think he's good or has a bunch of potential, but because he was the only one that doesn't suck out loud. (God forbid I ever have to watch another Browns team where those are my 3 options.)

But I would have started the season with a 2nd year guy like Weeden with much better physical skills who cost the team a 1st rounder just last year who was the starter last year and given him a chance to show that he had improved (which he appeared to have done to a small extent from TC and Preseason). In real time, everyone would have. NO ONE was clamoring "Hey, we really need to get this Hoyer guy into a starting role" as the regular season rolled around.

The QB deemed most likely to be the starter always gets the lion's share of the snaps in preseason. That's how football works.

There are situations where the 3rd string QB rises up and seizes the starting role by clearly outplaying his competition (Russell Wilson). And then there's a QB that looks just ah-ight that has to wait around for the guys ahead of him to either get hurt or suck their way to the bench. The fact that he made his way to the starting role as soon as Week 3 is almost a miracle in itself. Most coaches would've had him riding pine until midseason since they wouldn't have skipped their #2. Hell, most other teams in the league weren't even interested in having him on their roster at all.


I would also add to this the reason Hoyer jumped Jason Campbell - and it had little to do with training camp, pre-season, or the 10 GD snaps the 2nd and 3rd stringer get a week during in season practices. It had to do with not letting Jason Campbell get his hands on 13 games, thus meeting a ton of incentives and costing the team a huge amount of money. A common NFL contract for these veteran back-ups has a low base, and only costs you millions if the guy hits numbers.

Good ole' Jimmy ain't in the business of giving up cash in the short term, hell, the money he owes Randy....if legal troubles weren't rearing their ugly head the pressure to pay off wouldn't be that great - now that Randy sees his debtor in trouble, as soon as that date comes up, it's "Where's my fuckin' money?"
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Lubber » Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:50 am

mattvan1 wrote:What decent coach who has any type of viable alternative will be willing to come here and work within an org this dysfunctional ?

No one.


At the top of the list would be Josh. He got his feet wet in Denver and I think he is ready to make the move back to the head coaching ranks. Also, his offensive mind will be able to elevate our playmakers on offense and take them to the next level.
User avatar
Lubber
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:42 am
Favorite Player: London Fletcher
Least Favorite Player: LeBron James

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Larvell Blanks » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:30 am

Spin wrote:
Larvell Blanks wrote:
Spin wrote:I wasn't the only one who said it, but I caught a lot of hell here for posting it here.

And nobody said he was "destined for greatness". Just that he looked better than the other two. typical straw man fallacy...



Wasn't Chud undefeated when he had a REAL fuckin NFL quarterback???


your quote, correct?


Sorry if I misinterpreted REAL NFL QB with better than the other two.


What have you seen that proves to you he's NOT an NFL quarterback and needs to be released?



My whole point in this discussion is that 9 quarters of football with this team still left a ton of questions. That small sample size couldn't tell anybody whether he's a legit starter or Ken Dorsey.

No where in my posts did I suggest he be released.
Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB
User avatar
Larvell Blanks
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Medina, Ohio
Favorite Player: Foots Walker
Least Favorite Player: un named sources

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:48 am

Spin wrote:
Larvell Blanks wrote:
Spin wrote:I wasn't the only one who said it, but I caught a lot of hell here for posting it here.

And nobody said he was "destined for greatness". Just that he looked better than the other two. typical straw man fallacy...



Wasn't Chud undefeated when he had a REAL fuckin NFL quarterback???


your quote, correct?


Sorry if I misinterpreted REAL NFL QB with better than the other two.


What have you seen that proves to you he's NOT an NFL quarterback and needs to be released?


What have you seen that proves to you that JB is NOT an NFL QB?

There is still a chance Hoyer could become a legit NFL starter in the right circumstances. There's still a chance Weeden/Campbell could become a legit NFL starter in the right circumstances. The odds are low on either of them being particularly effective (almost nil for Weeds/Camps).
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:40 pm

Hiko, is there anyone in this draft you like better than Hoyer, taking into account probable draft position?

I mean, would you rather go with Boris next year than Hoyer? Even if we have to burn a #4 pick on him?
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:46 pm

Can we put this entire Belichik tree thing to rest once and for all? I'm not saying any of his assistants will NEVER have significant success, but there is no track record of such success to offer any of "his" guys anything more than a token interview at most?

McDaniels name has obviously come up often so far this week, um, OK, who cares, why is he anybody worth looking at, b/c of the Pats offense? Pfft, b/c he has local ties, b/c he was into football when really young, b/c the Pats offense is consistently good? B/C he'll bring that Belichik style of discipline and approach? Ever notice how the Pats have not missed a beat when they lose an assistant, ever notice that the Pats haven't missed a beat since Tom Brady entrenched himself as the guy, ever notice that over the top disciplined approach has not worked in many if any other places except NE?

It's Brady, not to say Belichik isn't a very good coach, but Belichik has never won squat w/o Brady. If McDaniels or super trendy coordinator guy doesn't bring a legit established QB with them why is there any reason to buy into them as being the fix?
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13357
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:52 pm

motherscratcher wrote:Hiko, is there anyone in this draft you like better than Hoyer, taking into account probable draft position?

I mean, would you rather go with Boris next year than Hoyer? Even if we have to burn a #4 pick on him?


There are many players I like in this draft more than Hoyer. Maybe 10. Probably not right away (a few of them might be better right away), but down the road. Problem is can the Browns acquire them in a slot that is commensurate with their value within the draft itself.

There's decent depth in this draft, decent QB prospects that could be had into the 3rd, maybe even 4th round, but the danger of waiting and letting the players come to you is that someone jumps you and you end up with no QB prospect.

Then you just have to pray that Hoyer is good enough to manufacture quality/functional play (is your QB version of DQ) and wait another year to start developing a potential long term answer.

In order to bemoan that, though, you have to assume that your coach will be competent and the FO will draft players that will build the team to the point where developing a young QB can actually proceed, and that be a tall tall order with the Stooges and their Monkey Boy.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby leadpipe » Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:29 pm

FUDU wrote:Can we put this entire Belichik tree thing to rest once and for all? I'm not saying any of his assistants will NEVER have significant success, but there is no track record of such success to offer any of "his" guys anything more than a token interview at most?

McDaniels name has obviously come up often so far this week, um, OK, who cares, why is he anybody worth looking at, b/c of the Pats offense? Pfft, b/c he has local ties, b/c he was into football when really young, b/c the Pats offense is consistently good? B/C he'll bring that Belichik style of discipline and approach? Ever notice how the Pats have not missed a beat when they lose an assistant, ever notice that the Pats haven't missed a beat since Tom Brady entrenched himself as the guy, ever notice that over the top disciplined approach has not worked in many if any other places except NE?

It's Brady, not to say Belichik isn't a very good coach, but Belichik has never won squat w/o Brady. If McDaniels or super trendy coordinator guy doesn't bring a legit established QB with them why is there any reason to buy into them as being the fix?


While I would agree there isn't much worth in chasing the Belichik tree, it's not because Belichik has Brady - it's cause they ain't Belichik.

Certainly, a HOF QB is gonna assist any coach. But Christ, if you look at Beli's career minus Brady, you got him taking a team here w/ a lotta garbage to 10 wins and the playoffs before the year before they left, which was an unsalvageable circumstance. He had already started to show his cap/draft pick genius, leaving Baltimore in shape for their first two drafts, including their first, netting Ogden and Lewis in the first. And his years here were his first as a head coach, which for anyone, you're probably not gonna handle everything as well as you will later.

And with each game we watch Matt Cassell attempt to be even a half decent QB, we wonder how the hell anyone won 11 games with that clown.

Which brings us to this season, losing Welker, Hernandez and Gronk before the season, and losing arguably YOUR TOP 5 PLAYERS OUTSIDE OF BRADY during the season, and still getting a first round bye.

There ain't anyone in the league CLOSE to that guy.

It's not an over the top discliplined approach. Belichik gets that respect not from being heavy handed, he gets it because the players understand he does one thing better than anyone in football - that is, putting them in the best possible position to excel. Your best players are often your smartest. When these guys realize how he's putting them in the best possible place to succeed, everything else falls in line.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:12 pm

Belichik was not a bad coach pre-Brady, but the fact remains he made one post season appearance without Brady in his life. My point being the one thing Belichik has in common with his assistants is the benefit of having Brady as the starting QB.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13357
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby leadpipe » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:18 pm

FUDU wrote:Belichik was not a bad coach pre-Brady, but the fact remains he made one post season appearance without Brady in his life. My point being the one thing Belichik has in common with his assistants is the benefit of having Brady as the starting QB.


How fair is that fact?

Outside of here, he only had one year without Brady - and won 11 games. It's not like the guy floundered a for a dozen years without him. He hasn't had that chance.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:52 pm

I feel it is pretty fair, considering all coaches get graded on W-L and championships and QB is viewed as the key ingredient to such (and most coaches don't sniff a Brady type for even a few years let alone a decade long run).
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13357
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby justmebd » Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:54 am

FUDU wrote:I feel it is pretty fair, considering all coaches get graded on W-L and championships and QB is viewed as the key ingredient to such (and most coaches don't sniff a Brady type for even a few years let alone a decade long run).

In today's NFL, this absolutely is fair. More than ever, it's fair.
User avatar
justmebd
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: Youngstown, OH
Favorite Player: Gary Gygax
Least Favorite Player: Heinz Field Occupant

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby pup » Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:09 am

I mean, who would Paul Brown be today without Otto Graham?
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:07 am

This whole thing is ridiculous. Belichick was made by Tom Brady? What your argument is really boiling down to is this: there are no good football coaches and even if there were it would be impossible to know.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby leadpipe » Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:28 pm

justmebd wrote:
FUDU wrote:I feel it is pretty fair, considering all coaches get graded on W-L and championships and QB is viewed as the key ingredient to such (and most coaches don't sniff a Brady type for even a few years let alone a decade long run).

In today's NFL, this absolutely is fair. More than ever, it's fair.


It's as fair as saying Chuck Pagano can't win a game without Andrew Luck.

And there's enough he's done in the NFL mutually exclusive of Brady that would put him in the Hall.

At the time of his appointment as head coach he was arguably the best D coordinator of all time, and UNIVERSALLY would have been pointed to as #1 in the league.

How he worked the cap and draft, jettisoning late 1st rounders for early second rounders in order to save a ton of cash, cap space and adding draft picks...pretty much the goal of every team now, but he was pulling it over on dopey teams for 5 years before they caught on.

Just like the "Brady is the greatest QB sneaker ever" garbage. No, really. How bout the fact the Patriots spread the field 4 wide and snap it early. What EVERY team should be doing if they were paying attention. But sure enough, in round one of the playoffs Marvin Lewis will go for a critical 4th and one from a bunch formation and get stuffed - if he doesn't punt on 4th and 1.

While every other team is grounding the ball on the 50 at the end of the half with 1:30 to play, the Patriots are running plays.

An what makes him extremely unlikeable is one thing that makes him great - he could give a fuck what people think. A few weeks back when he took the wind instead of the ball. By pretty much all accounts it was a 50-50 decision, so he shouldn't get too much credit for the choice. but it shows big picture, that is, if it was truly 50-50 you'd have 10 -15 NFL coaches that deep down woulda taken the wind as well. But only one would have done it, cause the rest would be worried about backlash should they have lost the game. His choice in gonna be far superior to some hump reporter or fan, he knows it, and he makes it without worrying about it.

While every team is panicking to deal with the Jimmy Graham's of the league because they don't have a safety or LB that can cover him, the Pats simply put their best cover man on him. Again, the rest of the NFL SLOWLY catches on over the course of about 3 years.

Not sure how anyone watching the Patriots this season cannot be astonished by how good a job he's done. Again, if you count Welker and Hernandez, they lost 7 of their best 8 from the end of last season. And as much as I'm pro "QB is about the whole game" take Aaron's or Drews or Russells best 7 away and see if your season ain't over. Coach of the year, NFL genius. Period.

And one more thing from the "Dumbest argument in the world" column. "He hasn't won anything since spygate" No, really humps, the guy went 18-1 the very next season. And you do realize whether a ball sticks to Tyree's helmet or not, that's still the same team. Right? You guys do get that?
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:13 pm

OK, new plan. Bill makes $7.5 per. Float him the idea of a 10 year $200 mil contract with complete control. No more need for Banner. Lombardi can stay on to fetch coffee. Franchise is in good hands while Jimmy is in the pokey.

Not my money. Foolproof.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Spin » Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:12 pm

FUDU wrote:It's Brady, not to say Belichik isn't a very good coach, but Belichik has never won squat w/o Brady. If McDaniels or super trendy coordinator guy doesn't bring a legit established QB with them why is there any reason to buy into them as being the fix?


I think the same thing about Adam Gase, for that matter.

The Browns want to talk to him, but really, do they think he calls the plays????He's only been in that position 11 1/2 months and The Brain and future HOF'er) has been his QB the whole time. He's never sniffed a HC job.
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby FUDU » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:18 pm

motherscratcher wrote:This whole thing is ridiculous. Belichick was made by Tom Brady? What your argument is really boiling down to is this: there are no good football coaches and even if there were it would be impossible to know.


It's not unreasonable to suggest Bill doesn't have one SB ring without Brady's emergence. Now the first SB they won was much more Bill and his doings (his D as well) than Brady. But Bill set that up situation up that year for a competent, healthy, smart game manager to handle. There's no guarantee just any game manager gets it done for him that year either. Not to mention the tuck play that year, that's a different discussion in itself. It's also not unreasonable to say Brady's career never takes off if not for Belichik. The fact is they've never not had each other for the most part, and when Bill didn't have Brady Bill was just a good NFL coach by NFL coaching standards. There was nothing to suggest he was better than the rest of the league or about to emerge as one of the top coaches.

...and yes you can make this argument for many coaches that have had success in this league, especially recently.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13357
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby FUDU » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:21 pm

Spin wrote:
FUDU wrote:It's Brady, not to say Belichik isn't a very good coach, but Belichik has never won squat w/o Brady. If McDaniels or super trendy coordinator guy doesn't bring a legit established QB with them why is there any reason to buy into them as being the fix?


I think the same thing about Adam Gase, for that matter.

The Browns want to talk to him, but really, do they think he calls the plays????He's only been in that position 11 1/2 months and The Brain and future HOF'er) has been his QB the whole time. He's never sniffed a HC job.


Absolutely agree.

It doesn't mean the guy isn't a good OC or would not be a decent HC, but what we have to go on from his resume (esp. the past 12 months) doesn't warrant ANY high praise or unreal and out of whack comparison or excitement. I'd actually be more pissed if he was our main guy than McDaniels.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13357
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby FUDU » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:23 pm

...and leave it to Lead to play it off as I'm calling Belichik a bum, Christ.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13357
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby leadpipe » Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:18 pm

FUDU wrote:...and leave it to Lead to play it off as I'm calling Belichik a bum, Christ.


...and leave it to you not to comprehend, Christ.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:32 pm

Ok, so it's Grossi who has had an anti-Lombardi agenda for the last 25 years or so. Nevertheless

The QB in the middle: Hoyer, in my opinion, is a major figure in this tangled web.

Everyone knows that Lombardi was a famously enthusiastic advocate of Hoyer while biding his NFL purgatory with the NFL Network.

When Lombardi successfully acquired Hoyer in May, Rob Chudzinski and Norv Turner already had pretty much committed the entire offseason to readying Brandon Weeden as the starter for the season and Jason Campbell as the fallback option.

In training camp, Hoyer was cast aside by the coaches as the third quarterback. On occasion, Hoyer was banished to a faraway field to throw to the rookie free agents. In my opinion, that cavalier attitude toward Hoyer – not taking him seriously as a viable starting option, ostensibly because he was Lombardi’s “boy” -- was a crucial error in judgment by Chudzinski and Turner.

From that point on, the only thing that would save them was a good year, meaning a good enough record to avoid any sane reasoning for dismissal.

As it happened, circumstances put Hoyer in the lineup in Game 3 – first game after the locker room-deflating trade of Trent Richardson. When Hoyer sparked the team and beat the Vikings, and then followed with a victory over Cincinnati the next week, the stakes rose immensely for the coaches.

Hoyer’s resurgence – as brief as it was – affected many things.

First, it saved face for Banner and Lombardi on the Richardson trade. The spark lit by Hoyer focused attention away from the trade and on winning. Had the team not won immediately, players would have fallen victim to the obvious feeling outside the locker room that the front office had tanked the season to set up 2014. Hoyer played a monumental role in keeping together the room.

Second, Hoyer’s stellar play legitimized Lombardi’s “genius” with Banner, and more importantly, with Haslam, who had his doubts.

Third, Hoyer’s spark hurt the credibility of Chudzinski and Turner with their bosses. A couple weeks after Hoyer’s season ended with an ACL tear, Turner reflected, “Brian’s production really surprised us.”

What I would give to be a fly in the owner’s box when Lombardi discussed that comment with Banner and Haslam as the coaches kept trotting Weeden and then Campbell out there, game after miserable game.

One question always baffled me: Why did it take so long for the Browns to bring in another quarterback after Hoyer went down? My conclusion: Banner and Lombardi must have looked at the coaches and shrugged: “You guys had Hoyer No. 3. Now go ahead and win with your No. 1 and No. 2.”

When I asked about the coaches’ handling of the quarterbacks, Haslam chuckled and turned to Banner. Banner’s response strained credibility. “I don’t have any second guessing of their utilization and teaching of the quarterbacks and the order that they played them in,” he said.

Now, does anybody believe that Haslam and Banner would trust the coaches further on franchise-changing quarterback decisions after whiffing on Hoyer? Not with Lombardi reminding them of it.



http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=27061
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby motherscratcher » Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:30 pm

Did Hoyer really have 2 "steller" games?

I don't dislike Hoyer. I'm not convinced that he can't play in the league, but he's far from a sure thing. We just don't know with the current data. I'm in favor, actually, of going into next season with him as the starter, but that's mainly becuase I just don't see a better option. None of the potential draft picks are very exciting.

But to have Chud lose the gig because Lombardi brought in Hoyer late and the coaches treated him like the 3rd stringer that everyone else on GGE thought he was...I have no words for that.

Eh...if nothing else, maybe the Lombardi love for Hoyer will save them from bringing in Mallet or reaching early in the draft.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:18 pm

mattvan1 wrote:Ok, so it's Grossi who has had an anti-Lombardi agenda for the last 25 years or so. Nevertheless

The QB in the middle: Hoyer, in my opinion, is a major figure in this tangled web.

Everyone knows that Lombardi was a famously enthusiastic advocate of Hoyer while biding his NFL purgatory with the NFL Network.

When Lombardi successfully acquired Hoyer in May, Rob Chudzinski and Norv Turner already had pretty much committed the entire offseason to readying Brandon Weeden as the starter for the season and Jason Campbell as the fallback option.

In training camp, Hoyer was cast aside by the coaches as the third quarterback. On occasion, Hoyer was banished to a faraway field to throw to the rookie free agents. In my opinion, that cavalier attitude toward Hoyer – not taking him seriously as a viable starting option, ostensibly because he was Lombardi’s “boy” -- was a crucial error in judgment by Chudzinski and Turner.

From that point on, the only thing that would save them was a good year, meaning a good enough record to avoid any sane reasoning for dismissal.

As it happened, circumstances put Hoyer in the lineup in Game 3 – first game after the locker room-deflating trade of Trent Richardson. When Hoyer sparked the team and beat the Vikings, and then followed with a victory over Cincinnati the next week, the stakes rose immensely for the coaches.

Hoyer’s resurgence – as brief as it was – affected many things.

First, it saved face for Banner and Lombardi on the Richardson trade. The spark lit by Hoyer focused attention away from the trade and on winning. Had the team not won immediately, players would have fallen victim to the obvious feeling outside the locker room that the front office had tanked the season to set up 2014. Hoyer played a monumental role in keeping together the room.

Second, Hoyer’s stellar play legitimized Lombardi’s “genius” with Banner, and more importantly, with Haslam, who had his doubts.

Third, Hoyer’s spark hurt the credibility of Chudzinski and Turner with their bosses. A couple weeks after Hoyer’s season ended with an ACL tear, Turner reflected, “Brian’s production really surprised us.”

What I would give to be a fly in the owner’s box when Lombardi discussed that comment with Banner and Haslam as the coaches kept trotting Weeden and then Campbell out there, game after miserable game.

One question always baffled me: Why did it take so long for the Browns to bring in another quarterback after Hoyer went down? My conclusion: Banner and Lombardi must have looked at the coaches and shrugged: “You guys had Hoyer No. 3. Now go ahead and win with your No. 1 and No. 2.”

When I asked about the coaches’ handling of the quarterbacks, Haslam chuckled and turned to Banner. Banner’s response strained credibility. “I don’t have any second guessing of their utilization and teaching of the quarterbacks and the order that they played them in,” he said.

Now, does anybody believe that Haslam and Banner would trust the coaches further on franchise-changing quarterback decisions after whiffing on Hoyer? Not with Lombardi reminding them of it.



http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=27061


Lombardi may indeed have been miffed that the coaches didn't give Hoyer more attention, but it's not like Hoyer was even impressive enough against 3rd stringers that anyone was screaming "Man, we gotta get this guy more reps!"

It was only after Weeden played like shit and Hoyer came in and was just mediocre enough to beat the immortal Vikings and a Bengal team that scored 6 points (which I guess passes for "stellar" in Cleveland) that this question was even raised. It's hindsight criticism by Lombardi. I highly doubt that before the Dolphins game he was in Banner's office stomping his giant ballerina shoes and crying "Why isn't he starting Hoyer? WHYYYYYYYYYY?"

Regardless, is Chud not starting Hoyer for those first 2 games REALLY why they decided to fire him? Really? I can't imagine even those tools are that petty.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:01 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Regardless, is Chud not starting Hoyer for those first 2 games REALLY why they decided to fire him? Really? I can't imagine even those tools are that petty.


No. I don't think even Grosi is thinking that way and I'm certainly not. But it's pretty easy to envision how Banner and Lombardi could undermine Chud while Jimmy was off fighting the Feds. Late season conversation between Jimmy the Hick and BumbleFuck 1 and BumbleFuck 2 might go something along the lines of Chud not taking input from the FO with Hoyer as one example. So it's not just the lack of improvement and losing but in addition there's a lack of alignment on talent evaluation.

BF1: we provided our input but the staff continued to play their guys
JH: example?
BF2: I said all along that Hoyer was the guy and investing further reps in Weeden was a waste of time
JH: when that Hoyer guy started we ended up winning all 3 games?
BF1, BF2 in unison: Yessir!

And it's not about them being petty. It's about Haslam having an aneurysm over the shit season and Banner and Lombardi throwing Chud straight under the bus to save their sorry asses.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:16 pm

mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Regardless, is Chud not starting Hoyer for those first 2 games REALLY why they decided to fire him? Really? I can't imagine even those tools are that petty.


No. I don't think even Grosi is thinking that way and I'm certainly not. But it's pretty easy to envision how Banner and Lombardi could undermine Chud while Jimmy was off fighting the Feds. Late season conversation between Jimmy the Hick and BumbleFuck 1 and BumbleFuck 2 might go something along the lines of Chud not taking input from the FO with Hoyer as one example. So it's not just the lack of improvement and losing but in addition there's a lack of alignment on talent evaluation.

BF1: we provided our input but the staff continued to play their guys
JH: example?
BF2: I said all along that Hoyer was the guy and investing further reps in Weeden was a waste of time
JH: when that Hoyer guy started we ended up winning all 3 games?
BF1, BF2 in unison: Yessir!

And it's not about them being petty. It's about Haslam having an aneurysm over the shit season and Banner and Lombardi throwing Chud straight under the bus to save their sorry asses.


Laughing and saying "ugh" at the same time while reading that.

One could argue that it is petty to throw someone under the bus to CYA, but maybe that's not quite the right adjective. Slimy? Cowardly?

I guess all I'm saying is that BF1 and BF2 weren't saying shit at the time. There's all sortsa shit anyone can throw anyone else under a bus for post-occurrence (I knew they shouldn't have drafted Richardson, I just didn't say so at the time cuz I didn't want to offend anyone!)

And if they weren't saying it at the time, seems slimy/cowardly to blame him for doing what every coach in the league would've done. This wasn't choosing between Couch/Holcomb, this was "Do I elevate the 3rd stringer to starter based on a handful or so-so performances against scrubs? Hmmmmm... tough one."
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby mattvan1 » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:31 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Regardless, is Chud not starting Hoyer for those first 2 games REALLY why they decided to fire him? Really? I can't imagine even those tools are that petty.


No. I don't think even Grosi is thinking that way and I'm certainly not. But it's pretty easy to envision how Banner and Lombardi could undermine Chud while Jimmy was off fighting the Feds. Late season conversation between Jimmy the Hick and BumbleFuck 1 and BumbleFuck 2 might go something along the lines of Chud not taking input from the FO with Hoyer as one example. So it's not just the lack of improvement and losing but in addition there's a lack of alignment on talent evaluation.

BF1: we provided our input but the staff continued to play their guys
JH: example?
BF2: I said all along that Hoyer was the guy and investing further reps in Weeden was a waste of time
JH: when that Hoyer guy started we ended up winning all 3 games?
BF1, BF2 in unison: Yessir!

And it's not about them being petty. It's about Haslam having an aneurysm over the shit season and Banner and Lombardi throwing Chud straight under the bus to save their sorry asses.


Laughing and saying "ugh" at the same time while reading that.

One could argue that it is petty to throw someone under the bus to CYA, but maybe that's not quite the right adjective. Slimy? Cowardly?

I guess all I'm saying is that BF1 and BF2 weren't saying shit at the time. There's all sortsa shit anyone can throw anyone else under a bus for post-occurrence (I knew they shouldn't have drafted Richardson, I just didn't say so at the time cuz I didn't want to offend anyone!)

And if they weren't saying it at the time, seems slimy/cowardly to blame him for doing what every coach in the league would've done. This wasn't choosing between Couch/Holcomb, this was "Do I elevate the 3rd stringer to starter based on a handful or so-so performances against scrubs? Hmmmmm... tough one."


Well, the good news is that Banner has used his mulligan. As slimy as he is, Jimmy is every bit as ruthless if not more so. Banner has one more chance to get it right before Jimmy cost pluses him him right out of the league.

This isn't Randy letting Walrus steal $50 mil. By all accounts Haslam is fucking pissed and wanted someone's ass. Chud was the initial sacrifice.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: CHUD watch

Unread postby Hikohadon » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:52 am

mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:
Regardless, is Chud not starting Hoyer for those first 2 games REALLY why they decided to fire him? Really? I can't imagine even those tools are that petty.


No. I don't think even Grosi is thinking that way and I'm certainly not. But it's pretty easy to envision how Banner and Lombardi could undermine Chud while Jimmy was off fighting the Feds. Late season conversation between Jimmy the Hick and BumbleFuck 1 and BumbleFuck 2 might go something along the lines of Chud not taking input from the FO with Hoyer as one example. So it's not just the lack of improvement and losing but in addition there's a lack of alignment on talent evaluation.

BF1: we provided our input but the staff continued to play their guys
JH: example?
BF2: I said all along that Hoyer was the guy and investing further reps in Weeden was a waste of time
JH: when that Hoyer guy started we ended up winning all 3 games?
BF1, BF2 in unison: Yessir!

And it's not about them being petty. It's about Haslam having an aneurysm over the shit season and Banner and Lombardi throwing Chud straight under the bus to save their sorry asses.


Laughing and saying "ugh" at the same time while reading that.

One could argue that it is petty to throw someone under the bus to CYA, but maybe that's not quite the right adjective. Slimy? Cowardly?

I guess all I'm saying is that BF1 and BF2 weren't saying shit at the time. There's all sortsa shit anyone can throw anyone else under a bus for post-occurrence (I knew they shouldn't have drafted Richardson, I just didn't say so at the time cuz I didn't want to offend anyone!)

And if they weren't saying it at the time, seems slimy/cowardly to blame him for doing what every coach in the league would've done. This wasn't choosing between Couch/Holcomb, this was "Do I elevate the 3rd stringer to starter based on a handful or so-so performances against scrubs? Hmmmmm... tough one."


Well, the good news is that Banner has used his mulligan. As slimy as he is, Jimmy is every bit as ruthless if not more so. Banner has one more chance to get it right before Jimmy cost pluses him him right out of the league.

This isn't Randy letting Walrus steal $50 mil. By all accounts Haslam is fucking pissed and wanted someone's ass. Chud was the initial sacrifice.


I think we can all agree on that.

Firing Banner and Lombardi has been a GREAT IDEA from the very start. Sadly, since every business decision Haslam has made since he came into my periphery has been for shit....
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

PreviousNext

Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests