Cleveland Browns & The NFL

by **noles1** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:01 pm

Cam too.

I'm not even sure I understand what is fully being discussed at this point but I remember '07 Manning those last 5-6 games and I have seen Colt McCoy. You can pull up any numbers you want but I know what I saw and Colt McCot more Jared Lorenzen than Eli Manning in 2007.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:10 pm

HoodooMan wrote:1. You're confusing 2011 Eli Manning with 2007 Eli Manning. 2007 Eli Manning was kind of garbage. That isn't playing with numbers; it's troof.

2. To your "safe bet" stance in your previous post, Peyton Manning appears to be dead, Tom Brady is 34, Drew Brees is 32. To me, that doesn't add up to a safe bet going forward.

3. But maybe you're right, and the way the NFL is right now is the way it's going to be for the next decade+. Just probably not.

He wasn't garbage in the playoffs. Again, Colt McCoy or Trent Dilfer don't win that SB for the Giants.

I agree that the trend may be different in 10 years, but that would require some technology that allows D players to hit QB's again and some rule changes for contact on receivers. If I could anticipate what the NFL will be like in 10 years, I'd build a team for that. Since I can't, I'd build my team for the climate currently in place.

Rodgers will continue on for a while, Brees has years left, Brady will probably play another 4, Rivers, Eli, Stafford's looking like he might put up some big numbers as he goes, Newton just set the rookie passing mark... the NFL will have no shortage of passers on a go forward.

I guess I'm just not getting your point here... is it that Colt McCoy might be good enough to win a Lombardi?

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:11 pm

DooDoo thinks the NFL is cyclical and that the QB trend is nothing more than the Ravens and Bucs D trend of yesteryear.

I think, due to rule changes and how the game is officiated this new NFL is here to stay, for good.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:16 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:DooDoo thinks the NFL is cyclical and that the QB trend is nothing more than the Ravens and Bucs D trend of yesteryear.

I think, due to rule changes and how the game is officiated this new NFL is here to stay, for good.

I'm not absolutely convinced of that, but they'll have to massively advance the helmet technology before the QB rules get loosened. Or just have players start signing the waivers that soldiers sign.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:16 pm

Honestly, after Manning cried enough about not being able to beat the Pats and the NFL decided you can no longer cover WRs the change within the league was cemented into eternity.

by **noles1** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:18 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:DooDoo thinks the NFL is cyclical and that the QB trend is nothing more than the Ravens and Bucs D trend of yesteryear.

I think, due to rule changes and how the game is officiated this new NFL is here to stay, for good.

SF is about to prove out whether there is the possibility for a Baltimore or Bucs type team winning again. To me you have to be able to throw the ball and rush the passer, at the very least situationally in today's game. (And agree this is likely to stay the same for some years to come)

Note: I don't think SF has a chance in hell of winning the Super Bowl this year.

by **HoodooMan** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:27 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:DooDoo thinks the NFL is cyclical and that the QB trend is nothing more than the Ravens and Bucs D trend of yesteryear.

Not cyclical so much as it's constantly changing & evolving, and hardly in foreseeable directions--"I agree! In five years, QBs will probably dominate the league EVEN MORE!!!" isn't what I'm talking about.

"This is how it is, this is how it's going to be, you have to have this, not that" <--heard it too many times.

by **HoodooMan** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:30 pm

noles1 wrote:SF is about to prove out whether there is the possibility for a Baltimore or Bucs type team winning again.

Just SMH.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:36 pm

^ treats the NFL far too kindly. Ratings + fantasy stats + becoming bigger than Catholicism => little to no incentive to adjust

by **HoodooMan** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:37 pm

Hikohadon wrote:I guess I'm just not getting your point here... is it that Colt McCoy might be good enough to win a Lombardi?

My only point to start with was that one piece of your post on the last page was wrong. And it is!

Big picture point: just try to be really good at something, anything, and maybe you'll have a chance to define the next five years instead of chasing the last five.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:39 pm

^ IDEALIST!

by **FUDU** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:57 pm

Hiko I think you discount the poor play of our Oline way too much. Colt has had to run the moment he has received the snap way too many times this year. Does he account for a number of his sacks by holding on to the ball to long, sure he does. But watching teams like NE and GB you can easily see that they have more time in the pocket from start to finish of every game, it is ridiculous how obvious it is. When they get rushed are they better than Colt, well of course, but that is not what we're talking about here in terms of pressure. Colt consistently has less time than they do to set up and make a read.

My biggest contention is that if Colt was consistently given more time, with just slightly better WRS he would look significantly better. Good enough to label franchise elite SB winning QB to build around, IMO no, but good enough to not risk a whole draft on another guy when we have the state of the team we have now.

As I've said before this whole elite SB winning QB status has gotten out of hand b/c what comes first the SB or the elite status? Eli Manning is a good example b/c he is not upper echelon in this league. Yet he has that SB ring right in the middle of the elite QB dominant era. If Brees and Rogers didn't have a ring right now are they elite or are they just good enough to get you close but not good enough to win a ring, since they wouldn't have one?

Anyway the OP I am replying to has gotten lost in all this, in RE: to Luck stepping in this week.

If it is necessary to spin my thoughts as a defense of Colt being the man feel free (not necessarily you Hiko), but I've never stated that one time.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:57 pm

HoodooMan wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:I guess I'm just not getting your point here... is it that Colt McCoy might be good enough to win a Lombardi?

My only point to start with was that one piece of your post on the last page was wrong. And it is!

Big picture point: just try to be really good at something, anything, and maybe you'll have a chance to define the next five years instead of chasing the last five.

I stand by the statement that it will take elite QB play - at least from the start of the playoffs on - to win a ring these days. And I stand by the statement that it's far easier to get elite QB play from an elite QB.

As I said before, there are no absolutes. But there are incredibly high probabilities.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:37 pm

FUDU wrote:Hiko I think you discount the poor play of our Oline way too much. Colt has had to run the moment he has received the snap way too many times this year. Does he account for a number of his sacks by holding on to the ball to long, sure he does. But watching teams like NE and GB you can easily see that they have more time in the pocket from start to finish of every game, it is ridiculous how obvious it is. When they get rushed are they better than Colt, well of course, but that is not what we're talking about here in terms of pressure. Colt consistently has less time than they do to set up and make a read.

My biggest contention is that if Colt was consistently given more time, with just slightly better WRS he would look significantly better. Good enough to label franchise elite SB winning QB to build around, IMO no, but good enough to not risk a whole draft on another guy when we have the state of the team we have now.

As I've said before this whole elite SB winning QB status has gotten out of hand b/c what comes first the SB or the elite status? Eli Manning is a good example b/c he is not upper echelon in this league. Yet he has that SB ring right in the middle of the elite QB dominant era. If Brees and Rogers didn't have a ring right now are they elite or are they just good enough to get you close but not good enough to win a ring, since they wouldn't have one?

Anyway the OP I am replying to has gotten lost in all this, in RE: to Luck stepping in this week.

If it is necessary to spin my thoughts as a defense of Colt being the man feel free (not necessarily you Hiko), but I've never stated that one time.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, since I'm convinced that Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady would look just as good if the Packers or Pats swapped O Lines with the Browns. Defenses don't load the line and blitz every play against Rodgers and Brady b/c those guys can make them pay.

I'm not saying that the O Line is fine and doesn't need upgrading - it's just not an excuse for poor QB play.

I personally do include Eli in that elite-ish status. He's certainly in the Top 15, probably Top 10. There's certain elite, close to elite, could be elite if they were more consistent, and everyone else. Eli's in my close to elite category. Colt is part of that everyone else.

I just don't understand how if everyone agrees that we can't win a ring with Colt why anyone would be fine with going forward with him at QB any more than going forward with Pashos at RT (which I'm definitely not fine with). Colt is to QB-ing what Pashos is to RT, yet I don't see posts saying "We can't accurately judge Tony Pashos while he has that terrible QB playing behind him."

The truth is that neither guy is "terrible", but neither guy is good enough to remain as starter next year. At least not on a winning team.

I can certainly see your reservations about mortgaging the whole draft to move up to get Luck or RG3. But if those guys do turn out to be Peyton Manning/Aaron Rodgers/Tom Brady, isn't it worth it? Especially when the alternative is going into another season with Colteca McWallace playing mediocre-to-bad QB?

We've been down so long that competent looks damn good right now, but we have to remember that greatness is the true goal. I think we'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't think that would be much easier to achieve with at least at Top 10 QB.

by **noles1** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:59 pm

What is the definition of elite?

I would consider 3 guys elite right now. Rodgers, Brady and Brees.

Even there, Brees has a gap.

The group right behind that. Eli Manning is in with Roethlisberger and definitely in the Top 10. Watch the last 2 minutes of a game or half.

Why the hell is he being degrading by even being compared to Colt McCoy or being critiqued? This argument is a nuisance to the actual discussion.

by **Gradysmanldy** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:24 pm

WTF do you mean, Brees has a gap? He may be doing it differently, but there is little to no difference between him and Rodgers this year, IMO.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:27 pm

Gradysmanldy wrote:WTF do you mean, Brees has a gap? He may be doing it differently, but there is little to no difference between him and Rodgers this year, IMO.

Brees turns the ball over a lot, has much lower yards per attempt and chucks the ball 60 times a game.

by **noles1** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:36 pm

^This.

I love Brees, put him in the group but there are differences between him, Rodgers and Peyton when he's right.

by **Gradysmanldy** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:42 pm

Still has better numbers on the year than Brady, who has 5 less td's and 1 more turnover....less yards, basically same YPA.

Essentially, Brees has had 2 bad games this year (vs. TB and STL, where he completely shit the bed (Also funny, being as how both of those shit-the-bed games would be epic performances from our QB's) Brady has had one (vs. Buff) and Rodgers hasn't had one.

I'll give you that Rodgers is the creme of the crop, but I wouldn't put much of a gap between him and Brees, and certainly not one between Brady and Brees. They've all played at such a ridiculously high level this year that to argue the merits of why one is better than the other is like trying to argue why you'd rather have Mila Kunis, Emannuelle Chiqri, or Jessica Alba. They're all SO MUCH better than any option we have on a weekly basis that i'm just lumping them in one big pile of sexy quarterbacking.

by **Gradysmanldy** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:44 pm

Also, gets me thinking......pretty remarkable how crappy all three of those teams have gotten on defense.

by **peeker643** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:46 pm

Anyone see Flacco and Ryan in a similar vein as E Manning? Personally, I do. Meaning they're not consistently elite but any of the three can probably carry a team for three games at a time should they get into the playoffs.

I know that destroys some theories on having to have an uber-elite QB to win (and FTR I put Ben in the elite class or so close he can see it from where he is) but...ahh..eff it... the Browns need a QB at least in the vicinity of those guys.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:46 pm

noles1 wrote:What is the definition of elite?

I would consider 3 guys elite right now. Rodgers, Brady and Brees.

Even there, Brees has a gap.

The group right behind that. Eli Manning is in with Roethlisberger and definitely in the Top 10. Watch the last 2 minutes of a game or half.

Why the hell is he being degrading by even being compared to Colt McCoy or being critiqued? This argument is a nuisance to the actual discussion.

This is a good question and maybe will help define what I'm trying to say.

Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning when healthy - those guys are the super elite.

But there are a whole bunch of guys that I think are just behind them, franchise guys, certainly good enough to win the Super Bowl, guys like Eli and POS and Rivers. Then there are a bunch of guys that we could argue about, but are definitely their team's franchise QB and are talented enough to maybe take their team all the way if they play good ball at the right time and have some decent talent around them, like Matt Ryan, Stafford, Newton, etc.

Then there's the Guys We Don't Know About Yet and the Guys That Will Never Be Good Enough, which comprises like half the league.

If I thought that Colt could even be Matt Ryan, I'd be all for keeping him. Ryan is inconsistent, but can sometimes be brilliant. Colt's much more consistent - he consistently sucks. Physically, Colt is starting this race a mile behind Ryan, he's smaller, has a much weaker arm, he's tough but the hits take more of a toll... and then there's the accuracy, the experience, the leadership ability, the confidence (both the team has in the QB and the QB has in himself)...

If you surround Colt with talent and he plays 90% of his capabilities, he can take you to the playoffs. If you surround Ryan with talent and he plays 90% of his capabilities, he can take you to (and maybe win) a SB.

50% of the league thinks Ryan is good enough to win a ring, 50% thinks not. But I'd guess that 95% of the people around the league think Colt can't.

So when I pine for an elite QB, yeah, I WANT a Brady/Rodgers/Brees (and I think Luck and RG3 both have chances to be in that mix). But I'd gladly SETTLE for Matt Stafford or Matt Ryan or even a Joe Flacco. That's not what we should AIM for, but if we aim for elite and end up with just Top 15, then it's still far and away the best QB situation we've had here since the first Bush was in office.

My opinion - if you take a Luck or RG3 and miss, they end up being Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco. If you take a Landry Jones or Ryan Tannehill and miss, they end up being Mark Sanchez or Chad Henne.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:51 pm

peeker643 wrote:Anyone see Flacco and Ryan in a similar vein as E Manning? Personally, I do. Meaning they're not consistently elite but any of the three can probably carry a team for three games at a time should they get into the playoffs.

I know that destroys some theories on having to have an uber-elite QB to win (and FTR I put Ben in the elite class or so close he can see it from where he is) but...ahh..eff it... the Browns need a QB at least in the vicinity of those guys.

Ha, read this right after I posted pretty much the same thing...

Obviously, I do. My definition of "elite QB" is perhaps looser than other people's. Elite to me is a franchise QB that can win a SB. Brees/Rodgers/Brady are in a class by themselves, but I don't think you need a Top 5 QB to win it all. It sure makes it easier, but I think you can get it done with a Top 15 QB too.

Even with my definition of "Elite" being "Top 15", Colt McCoy will never get it done.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:52 pm

Gradysmanldy wrote:They've all played at such a ridiculously high level this year that to argue the merits of why one is better than the other is like trying to argue why you'd rather have Mila Kunis, Emannuelle Chiqri, or Jessica Alba. They're all SO MUCH better than any option we have on a weekly basis that i'm just lumping them in one big pile of sexy quarterbacking.

This.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:53 pm

Grady, Brady gets the lifetime achievement award, if he throws more picks than Brees this year I don't care.

And Brees has a career of being turnover heavy. I wouldn't put a gap, but I clearly see Rogers - Brady - Brees in that order.

Plus christ, Brady is playing on a team with pretty much one actual WR on the roster.

by **FUDU** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:05 pm

peeker643 wrote:Anyone see Flacco and Ryan in a similar vein as E Manning? Personally, I do. Meaning they're not consistently elite but any of the three can probably carry a team for three games at a time should they get into the playoffs.

I know that destroys some theories on having to have an uber-elite QB to win (and FTR I put Ben in the elite class or so close he can see it from where he is) but...ahh..eff it... the Browns need a QB at least in the vicinity of those guys.

I can agree with this, although one of the two of them are going to need to get it done sooner than later to stay in that group.

Hiko wrote:This is a good question and maybe will help define what I'm trying to say.

Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning when healthy - those guys are the super elite.

But there are a whole bunch of guys that I think are just behind them, franchise guys, certainly good enough to win the Super Bowl, guys like Eli and POS and Rivers. Then there are a bunch of guys that we could argue about, but are definitely their team's franchise QB and are talented enough to maybe take their team all the way if they play good ball at the right time and have some decent talent around them, like Matt Ryan, Stafford, Newton, etc.

This is what I'm talking about, you obviously see Rivers as being good (I do too) but you see him as being good enough to win a SB and on that cusp of the elite group, in which I kind of do kind of don't. But where I get confused in all this is how inconsistent &/or double standardish people get with these takes (in general not pointing at you Hiko). I mean Rivers has been playing at a good level for a 6 years a very good level for the past 4, yet he has squat to show for it. So how does that not equate to a guy who can't get it done AND frankly him not being "The Guy", when we judge a good number of other QBs by ultimately winning?

I just think at some point we get so caught up in the SB trophy outweighing a good player being a good player regardless of circumstances that play into said players ultimate success in terms of rings. Marino was a better QB than everybody mentioned in this thread w/exception to Peyton, Brady and most likely Rogers/Brees (assuming their bodies of work continue on the track they're on now), but Marino is w/o ring.

FTR IMO Colt w/ more help > Flacco.

EOD I'd scrap this draft to get Luck and Luck only, but that isn't going to happen. I'd take RG3 if he was there at our pick but be cautious as to how much I'd give up for RG3 if he doesn't fall to us.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:06 pm

"FTR IMO Colt w/ more help > Flacco"

ASDFJHQ#%()&!@()%&!()&%_(&!@#IPJSDLVKD )_!@_*!!154654861351!!!

by **FUDU** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:08 pm

You should watch Browns games, it would make it easier (for you) to take part in these threads.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:08 pm

I've seen Colt play more than enough, including the entire Thanksgiving debacle.

He's fucking terrible.

by **FUDU** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:11 pm

You don't watch Browns games, you stated it dozens of times over a couple years, so you're either lying or full of horse crap.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:14 pm

Fact, I've stated dozens of times I give the Browns a shot at the begining of the year until they fall flat on their faces and are no longer worth watching (gave them four games this year).

Fact, I was in Ohio for Thanksgiving and watched with my family.

Fact, they recently played on a Thursday night where I had a vested interest in Antonio Brown's performance.

Fact, I also watched the Texans game where I had a vested interest in Arian Foster's performance.

I watch football for fantasy reasons and to make money. It is what it is. Not my fault you just said one of the dumbest things you've ever come up with re: Colt.

by **Hikohadon** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:16 pm

Having a Top 15/Elite QB doesn't guarantee you a SB win. It just gives your team a shot.

Not having a Top 15/Elite QB pretty much guarantees you have no chance at the SB. Or anything other than the rare early-exit playoff appearance.

I don't really know where you're coming from with Colt > Flacco, but you're entitled to your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, even with all things being equal Colt starts the race with Flacco a mile back b/c Flacco is bigger, has a stronger arm, and is probably more durable, not to mention the experience and the actual existence of big games on his resume. This isn't to say that I'm a big Flacco fan, just how far I think Colt would need to grow as a QB to even BE AS GOOD AS Joe freakin' Flacco, how low Colt's ceiling is, and how if someone offered me Flacco for Colt I couldn't take that deal fast enough.

by **FUDU** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:18 pm

Fact, I've stated dozens of times I give the Browns a shot at the begining of the year until they fall flat on their faces and are no longer worth watching (gave them four games this year).

Fact, I was in Ohio for Thanksgiving and watched with my family.

Fact, they recently played on a Thursday night where I had a vested interest in Antonio Brown's performance.

Fact, I also watched the Texans game where I had a vested interest in Arian Foster's performance.

I watch football for fantasy reasons and to make money. It is what it is. Not my fault you just said one of the dumbest things you've ever come up with re: Colt.

Exactly, you watch them for roughly 3-4 games a year and continue to comment on them all season long. Fact.

As for the rest I could give two shits, smart money says you watch the bottom line for fantasy numbers at best.

Now chop chop, Lubber is posting somewhere and you best get busy on trolling him for the next 2 years, which shouldn't interfere with your Browns viewing habits whatsoever.

by **noles1** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:27 pm

Who cares what he watched....

He watched enough. . I watched every offensive Colt down and sat in the stands there is nothing he has missed on in this case. Honestly, he saw Colt's one major bright spot... the Miami game. Where for 55 minutes he was meh.

I've wanted Colt to succeed as much as the next guy but we are desperate if we think he can be a Super Bowl type QB with "all the right pieces". He cannot handle blitzes. He rarely saw them at Texas and instead threw it to wide open guys rather than read defenses and show NFL-type skill set. The hope was he would develop but every time he makes a throw that catches your eye, he comes back and makes 2 throws that are awful.

If we had it the way of others on here we give Colt another year, which if we do then I have seen nothing to think (and coaching would seem to agree) that we won't be sitting in the same spot next year.

And Hiko's Flacco vs. Colt x 1,000 here. Spot on.

by **e0y2e3** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:39 pm

If you can't take the start of the season, a game in the middle of the season and then two recent games and draw the conclusion that Colt sucks you are an idiot.

It's fucking clear as day.

by **pup** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:19 am

Not a stats guy at all.

But wanted to see if anyone was trying to qualify o-line play. And these idiots must be really bored, but they are:

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

And it looks to me like they rate the Browns as being middle of the pack for o-line. And better than GB in both run blocking and pass protection.

Take it for whatever it is worth to you.

by **swerb** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:34 am

Browns OL is far from one of the worst in the league. Pro Bowler LT that is one of the best pass blockers in recent NFL history. Pro Bowl caliber C. Two most important spots on the line.

Its an average OL. Made to look shitty by a skittish smallish QB with a popcorn arm, a running game crippled by injuries to our only legit RB, and CFL WRs that can't get open.

by **leadpipe** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:29 am

swerb wrote:Browns OL is far from one of the worst in the league. Pro Bowler LT that is one of the best pass blockers in recent NFL history. Pro Bowl caliber C. Two most important spots on the line.

Its an average OL. Made to look shitty by a skittish smallish QB with a popcorn arm, a running game crippled by injuries to our only legit RB, and CFL WRs that can't get open.

Some people aren't understanding that this is another way the game has changed. Because you can't touch receivers anymore the universal thought by defenses on how to slow teams down is by pressure. Pressure, pressure and more pressure. There's no other way to play without getting carved up.

So if you're gonna take snaps, you're gonna get a decent amount of pressure - no matter what line you're playing behind. If you can't perform/deal with that situation, you are of very little use in today's NFL. This is why today's best QB's have either A. Tremendous athletic ability to go along with their skills or B. Uncanny feel in the pocket along with their skills.

Said this a couple weeks ago, but it's to the point here, when Aaron Rodgers is chased from the pocket (And he's been chased MORE than Colt this year) he still has a significant amount of the field open to him. As evidenced by the plays. When Colt is in the same situation he has very little of the field available to him - as evidenced by the plays.

Colt supporters seem to be asking the Browns to put him in a perfect situation, when the reality is, the lousy franchise can't even get above sucking, let alone getting an excellent defense, a great offensive line, and tremendous skill players.

by **Lubber** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:13 am

e0y2e3 wrote:Grady, Brady gets the lifetime achievement award, if he throws more picks than Brees this year I don't care.

And Brees has a career of being turnover heavy. I wouldn't put a gap, but I clearly see Rogers - Brady - Brees in that order.

Plus christ, Brady is playing on a team with pretty much one actual WR on the roster.

Brees interception ratio is 2.7
Brady's is 2.2

Only five tenths difference. I would not call that a huge gap between the two.

by **JCoz** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:42 am

swerb wrote:Browns OL is far from one of the worst in the league. Pro Bowler LT that is one of the best pass blockers in recent NFL history. Pro Bowl caliber C. Two most important spots on the line.

Its an average OL. Made to look shitty by a skittish smallish QB with a popcorn arm, a running game crippled by injuries to our only legit RB, and CFL WRs that can't get open.

I dont think you can call the Browns offensive line average with the right side in the shape its in. Forget colt or the uniform colors, not about defending the home team/player, but a leak is a leak. Our Oline was effectively only 3 players on the left side and a couple tackling dummies on the right end.

I dont care if we have two quality players in important positions if the right side has free spinning turnstiles. Chain is as strong as its weakest link, or in this case maybe your weakest Center or Tackle. If we had "average" at RT I could see an average Oline. But the fact that we were TERRIBLE there gives this oline a criical flaw. JT and Mack can't do shit about what's happening over there.

I see Lead's points too and they are valid I agree, but the Browns Oline is still not average, pressure may be a given in todays NFL, but having a terrible tackle just makes that even worse. I dont care who is under center that needs to be fixed before this Oline can be called average.

by **FUDU** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Coz you make a good point, JT & Mack are good but even their play does suffer at times due to the swiss cheeseon the right side. While Lead is correct about apllying pressure these days that just reiterates the fact olines still remain inherently important to increasing the chances of good QB play and overall success of the offense.

by **Hikohadon** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:36 am

Ah, the beauty of message boards.

Characterizing the right side as "tackling dummies" and "turnstiles" is a massive oversimplification. That would be like me saying "Colt can't throw the ball more than 10 yards" or "Colt has never thrown a good pass in his life" - clearly untrue, but tweaking reality does help support my point, which is the lawyerly thing to do.

(Or maybe I really believe what I say about Colt and am just flat-out mistaken.)

Reality would be more like "Colt doesn't throw many good passes of more than 10 yards" or "Colt hasn't thrown many good passes since entering the NFL", but that doesn't make my point nearly as much as taking the extreme position.

EDIT - I completely acknowledge that Pashos is sub-par and must be replaced. This is in no way me saying that Pashos' bad play is Colt's fault, the way some have blamed Colt's bad play on Pashos. Both guys need replaced.

by **e0y2e3** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:45 am

How many NFL offensive lines don't have a player that sucks these days. Talent is watered down, it's kind of the new reality.

by **JCoz** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:58 am

Hiko, yeah that's a bit of an oversimplification or exaggeration, but again, forget about colt. Has nothin to do with him. I'm all for replacing colt. But that right side has been awful, not subpar. The line has not been average is my point. If we had Rodgers or Brady we'd still be talking about how shitty the right side is. You don't have to be defending colt to point that out.

by **Lubber** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:22 pm

[quote="leadpipe
Said this a couple weeks ago, but it's to the point here, when Aaron Rodgers is chased from the pocket (And he's been chased MORE than Colt this year) he still has a significant amount of the field open to him. As evidenced by the plays. When Colt is in the same situation he has very little of the field available to him - as evidenced by the plays.
[/quote]

This is what separates those elite and almost elite QBs from the others. Prety much any QB in the league can do well when they have time in the pocket and their #1 read is open. Once the pocket breaks down or #1 is covered, that is where the elite/almost elite QB's step up their game and are able to move on to read #2, 3, etc all the while adjusting to the quickly closing pocket.

by **Hikohadon** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:44 pm

JCoz wrote:Hiko, yeah that's a bit of an oversimplification or exaggeration, but again, forget about colt. Has nothin to do with him. I'm all for replacing colt. But that right side has been awful, not subpar. The line has not been average is my point. If we had Rodgers or Brady we'd still be talking about how shitty the right side is. You don't have to be defending colt to point that out.

Awful would imply that the right side was getting beat on every single play, which simply isn't the case. Probably not even 50% of the time. The fact that if someone gets beat on the O Line it always seems to be Pashos gives people the impression that he gets beat every down, which is just not true.

But we're quibbling over semantics. Pashos is clearly sub-par to bad and must be replaced. Lauvao has been inconsistent. Mack is decent to good. Pinkston seemed to improve as the year went on, and Steinbach is coming back next year. Thomas is elite for his position.

Do you not think that pretty much every team in the NFL has at least one guy they really need to upgrade? I bet if we spent time on the message boards for other NFL teams, 25 of the 32 would have fans claiming their team had the "worst O Line in football".

Thus my assertion that the line as a whole is probably fairly average (whatever average is these days). It's really hard to tell with an O Line when you have an ineffective QB and 3rd string RB's, but you know how I feel about excuses, and in the end you are what you are, and you can't be blaming other players for your lack of execution.

In the end, we're arguing the same thing - Colt needs replaced, Pashos needs replaced. Even if I think the Browns O Line isn't nearly as bad as some would like to believe, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Colt's probably not as bad as some would like to believe, yet he needs upgraded too.

In a perfect world, I'd have a new QB, RT, RG, RB, FB, WR, TE, OLB, OLB, RDE, CB, S. Probably only 4 (at most) of those positions can be filled by the 2012 draft, and there aren't a ton of viable starters out there in FA.

But every team - every team - has holes.

by **Hikohadon** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:52 pm

BTW - Nice new pic, there, Lub, although I doubt anyone's shocked that Timmy's moved from ladies to boys. ;-) ;) :wink:

by **JCoz** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:08 pm

Right Hiko, it is semantics. I dont think any Pro gets beat every single play, if they did they wouldn't be pro's. Even the worst starters in CFB dont get beat every single play, so I don't really see how saying awful in relation to a pro football player would imply that at all.

All I was really pointing out that when you have a Tackle as bad as Pashos, particularly on a team with our skill position players, that's a drive killing play waiting to happen. He doesn't have to get beat every play, or 50% of the plays. One terrible play per drive is enough to turn 7pts into 3, 3pts to 0, or a punt into a TO. Guards can be compensated for a little easier than Tackles IMO.

In the end maybe you (and others in this thread) are right that a sub-par offensive line is the median in the NFL.

We should replace Colt and Pashos and a whole host of other starters. I put Pashos way up there in need but obviously not as high as QB. We are arguing about very little here.

by **FUDU** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:35 pm

BTW Hiko I'm not trying to paint your stance into the corner of extreme.

by **Hikohadon** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:57 pm

FUDU wrote:BTW Hiko I'm not trying to paint your stance into the corner of extreme.

Didn't think you were.

Besides, every stance I take is the soul of evenhanded objectivity.

:cheers:

Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Who is online

Who is online