Week 1: Browns vs Eagles

[peeker643]

Doesn't the running game sucking impact Wheeden's ability to succeed, similar to said running game sucking impeding McCoy's ability to ultimately succeed?

Probably something that should have been discussed and acknowledged by the people who put the team together before spending precious assets on a player (any player, be it Cuddles or Bleedin' or anyone else) who needed a running game to be successful. And who needed receivers to be successful.

I don't know, I just don't get the mix of revisionist history and double standards so many fans have in reviewing the play of our QBs and offense, every game, every season. Plenty of us are guilty of it, you and me him and her, I just don't get it.

Revising my arse. I'm revising nothing. This regime did Cuddles nor Bleedin' any favors by drafting them and hoping for the best. Big Ben, Brady, Brees, et al couldn't survive the lack of protection, running game or WR 'talent' here. They'd be better than the shite here, but they wouldn't win at the highest levels with the help around them.

That doesn't even begin to get into the organizational issues themselves; owner down to philosophies and revolving door of coaches and coordinators.

[peeker643]

Again, it cannot be over stated, Mike Holmgren is the most significant reason that the Browns drafted Wheeden.

Now, if your point is that Holmgren got himself into that hole by drafting McCoy and starting him, then valid.

I believe that was sole and entire point.

Yes, Holmgren is responsible for the Colt fiasco, damn you Walrus, stupid stupid mistake, I spit in your moustache. Almost as stupid as wasting a year on Mangini. Or Shurmur. That may be the stupidest.

Now get in your time machine and fix this shit!

No need to fix it when you can just ignore the fact that the people who made the original mistakes are the ones who will lead us out of it.

What's gone wrong since Mangini and Cuddles were together? It's been a seamless trip to Bliss City. The extensive and exhaustive coaching search, the new/rookie HC w/o OTAs also handling the OC job, Concussionville, Hillistown... all of it. I'm pretty sure they're on track now though.

They got this. They can and should get every benefit of the doubt. They've earned that.

[FUDU]

OK, fine, but I could have sworn last year I was hearing how just having above mentioned QBs would have made a world of difference here, with same supporting cast.

Meanwhile, Peyton is Peyton. It's kind of annoying.

[Hikohadon]

Doesn't the running game sucking impact Wheeden's ability to succeed, similar to said running game sucking impeding McCoy's ability to ultimately succeed?

I don't know, I just don't get the mix of revisionist history and double standards so many fans have in reviewing the play of our QBs and offense, every game, every season. Plenty of us are guilty of it, you and me him and her, I just don't get it.

Yes, but Weeden's inability to succeed also had an impact on the running game sucking.

You can't run when they've got 10 men 3 yards from the LOS.

Teams last year did the same thing to Colt. "Beat us, chump!" the teams yelled at Colt, and he couldn't do it. "Beat us, chump!" the Eagles yelled at Weeden, and he couldn't do it.

Some of that has to do with the Receivers. Some has to do with the O Line. Some has to do with the RB's. Some has to do with the play calling and coaching.

Some has to do with the QB.

It was his first game, and hardly surprising that he sucked (although a little surprising he sucked THAT much). But he's gonna have to throw his way out of it to make it go away, which means he will need to make quicker decisions, better decisions, better throws... so Weeden is responsible for his own fate.

Like all the Browns QB's that came before him, if he fails, a lot of the fault will be his.

[Hikohadon]

Again, it cannot be over stated, Mike Holmgren is the most significant reason that the Browns drafted Wheeden.

Now, if your point is that Holmgren got himself into that hole by drafting McCoy and starting him, then valid.

I believe that was sole and entire point.

Yes, Holmgren is responsible for the Colt fiasco, damn you Walrus, stupid stupid mistake, I spit in your moustache. Almost as stupid as wasting a year on Mangini. Or Shurmur. That may be the stupidest.

Now get in your time machine and fix this shit!

No need to fix it when you can just ignore the fact that the people who made the original mistakes are the ones who will lead us out of it.

What's gone wrong since Mangini and Cuddles were together? It's been a seamless trip to Bliss City. The extensive and exhaustive coaching search, the new/rookie HC w/o OTAs also handling the OC job, Concussionville, Hillistown... all of it. I'm pretty sure they're on track now though.

They got this. They can and should get every benefit of the doubt. They've earned that.

Don't be naive. You know perfectly well those people who made the original mistakes are walking dead.

[peeker643]

OK, fine, but I could have sworn last year I was hearing how just having above mentioned QBs would have made a world of difference here, with same supporting cast.

Meanwhile, Peyton is Peyton. It's kind of annoying.

It would make a world of difference. Just not close to Lombardi Trophy world of difference.

[FUDU]

2-3 wins are what I would call a continent's worth of difference at best.

[Hikohadon]

OK, fine, but I could have sworn last year I was hearing how just having above mentioned QBs would have made a world of difference here, with same supporting cast.

Meanwhile, Peyton is Peyton. It's kind of annoying.

It would make a world of difference. Just not close to Lombardi Trophy world of difference.

Lest we forget how shitty GB's Defense and Running game are... Put Aaron Rodgers on this team and they're probably above .500. Put Aaron Rodgers and (insert good NFL coach name here) on this team and they're a dangerous playoff opponent.

Lombardi? Probably not.

[pod2dawg]

Is it Hope & Change......or Change & Hope?

[leadpipe]

Doesn't the running game sucking impact Wheeden's ability to succeed, similar to said running game sucking impeding McCoy's ability to ultimately succeed?

Probably something that should have been discussed and acknowledged by the people who put the team together before spending precious assets on a player (any player, be it Cuddles or Bleedin' or anyone else) who needed a running game to be successful. And who needed receivers to be successful.

I don't know, I just don't get the mix of revisionist history and double standards so many fans have in reviewing the play of our QBs and offense, every game, every season. Plenty of us are guilty of it, you and me him and her, I just don't get it.

Revising my arse. I'm revising nothing. This regime did Cuddles nor Bleedin' any favors by drafting them and hoping for the best. Big Ben, Brady, Brees, et al couldn't survive the lack of protection, running game or WR 'talent' here. They'd be better than the shite here, but they wouldn't win at the highest levels with the help around them.

That doesn't even begin to get into the organizational issues themselves; owner down to philosophies and revolving door of coaches and coordinators.

But they solved the running game problem with the #4 overll pick.....

No, in 2012 the running game means about jack-shit. It's why the worst running team in the league won the bowl last year vs. a team who picks guys like Antowain Smith, Ellis-whatever, a 55 year old 3rd down back and the little white guy to play in that game at the end of the year. And it's why a team with no running game went 15-1 last year.

The run to set up the pass ship has sailed.

The new recipe is get yourself a playa and throw the ball.

Here's the deal, I wanted Quinn over Anderson - cause I could se Anderson sucked. Then I wanted McCoy, cause I could see Quinn sucked. Than I wanted Weeden, cause I could see McCoy sucked.

And now I get to see Weeden. My guess as to how I think it'll turn out is in other threads.

Anyway, is it on me for bitching about the QB's, or is it on a team that can't put someone in front of me that doesn't suck.

And there's no magic dust....no "running game" to put a shine on some hump, no miracle play calling. You can play. Or you can't.

So I'm more than OK with Weeds getting his chance. And it'll work itself out cause he's getting 16 games. But trust me, running game...play calling....you're gonna know whether he's a plya or not no matter what the hell else is going on.

[peeker643]

Again, it cannot be over stated, Mike Holmgren is the most significant reason that the Browns drafted Wheeden.

Now, if your point is that Holmgren got himself into that hole by drafting McCoy and starting him, then valid.

I believe that was sole and entire point.

Yes, Holmgren is responsible for the Colt fiasco, damn you Walrus, stupid stupid mistake, I spit in your moustache. Almost as stupid as wasting a year on Mangini. Or Shurmur. That may be the stupidest.

Now get in your time machine and fix this shit!

No need to fix it when you can just ignore the fact that the people who made the original mistakes are the ones who will lead us out of it.

What's gone wrong since Mangini and Cuddles were together? It's been a seamless trip to Bliss City. The extensive and exhaustive coaching search, the new/rookie HC w/o OTAs also handling the OC job, Concussionville, Hillistown... all of it. I'm pretty sure they're on track now though.

They got this. They can and should get every benefit of the doubt. They've earned that.

Don't be naive. You know perfectly well those people who made the original mistakes are walking dead.

Because of what? Will their personnel decisions be held against them? Their decision-making in general? Their inability to address weaknesses that were weaknesses when they got here? Will the entire roster be primae fascie evidence?

[Hikohadon]

Doesn't the running game sucking impact Wheeden's ability to succeed, similar to said running game sucking impeding McCoy's ability to ultimately succeed?

Probably something that should have been discussed and acknowledged by the people who put the team together before spending precious assets on a player (any player, be it Cuddles or Bleedin' or anyone else) who needed a running game to be successful. And who needed receivers to be successful.

I don't know, I just don't get the mix of revisionist history and double standards so many fans have in reviewing the play of our QBs and offense, every game, every season. Plenty of us are guilty of it, you and me him and her, I just don't get it.

Revising my arse. I'm revising nothing. This regime did Cuddles nor Bleedin' any favors by drafting them and hoping for the best. Big Ben, Brady, Brees, et al couldn't survive the lack of protection, running game or WR 'talent' here. They'd be better than the shite here, but they wouldn't win at the highest levels with the help around them.

That doesn't even begin to get into the organizational issues themselves; owner down to philosophies and revolving door of coaches and coordinators.

But they solved the running game problem with the #4 overll pick.....

No, in 2012 the running game means about jack-shit. It's why the worst running team in the league won the bowl last year vs. a team who picks guys like Antowain Smith, Ellis-whatever, a 55 year old 3rd down back and the little white guy to play in that game at the end of the year. And it's why a team with no running game went 15-1 last year.

The run to set up the pass ship has sailed.

The new recipe is get yourself a playa and throw the ball.

Here's the deal, I wanted Quinn over Anderson - cause I could se Anderson sucked. Then I wanted McCoy, cause I could see Quinn sucked. Than I wanted Weeden, cause I could see McCoy sucked.

And now I get to see Weeden. My guess as to how I think it'll turn out is in other threads.

Anyway, is it on me for bitching about the QB's, or is it on a team that can't put someone in front of me that doesn't suck.

And there's no magic dust....no "running game" to put a shine on some hump, no miracle play calling. You can play. Or you can't.

So I'm more than OK with Weeds getting his chance. And it'll work itself out cause he's getting 16 games. But trust me, running game...play calling....you're gonna know whether he's a plya or not no matter what the hell else is going on.

There will be no running game until teams respect the passing game.

[FUDU]

Is it time yet for Metcalf highlights or replays of Kosar comebacks?

Next week works for me.

[Pabo]

The Steelers just scored a touchdown with 14:11 left in the 4th quarter to take a five-point lead. Guess what they did? They went for two. I wonder why they would do such a thing.

[Hikohadon]

Refs reviewing a play after another play has been run. Get your bottles ready, Denver fans.

[comish]

/\ damn you, beat me to it. Imagine that, up 5, 4th quarter, go for TWO. They whiffed but who cares...still need the TD either way

What a colossal dumb ****

Weeds.....SMH

Sigh

[FUDU]

Refs reviewing a play after another play has been run. Get your bottles ready, Denver fans.

A play that won't sniff a reversal at that, couldn't happen to a better group of hillbillies.

[mattvan1]

Again, it cannot be over stated, Mike Holmgren is the most significant reason that the Browns drafted Wheeden.

Now, if your point is that Holmgren got himself into that hole by drafting McCoy and starting him, then valid.

I believe that was sole and entire point.

Yes, Holmgren is responsible for the Colt fiasco, damn you Walrus, stupid stupid mistake, I spit in your moustache. Almost as stupid as wasting a year on Mangini. Or Shurmur. That may be the stupidest.

Now get in your time machine and fix this shit!

My only point was to FUDU - silly to blame McCoy as the reason the Browns picked the Weedman at #22. Not as if McCoy drafted himself to the Browns. Holmgren has been unable to fill the QB position since he got to Berea. Not much more to say on that topic. It is what it is.

Actually, no one has been able to fill the QB position since Acorsi. So we have that going for us, which is nice.

[FUDU]

Well the fact remains the 3rd year Colt McCoy couldn't beat out the rookie Weeden, so I guess we can say Colt has something to do with it.

All points are valid though.

[Hikohadon]

Again, it cannot be over stated, Mike Holmgren is the most significant reason that the Browns drafted Wheeden.

Now, if your point is that Holmgren got himself into that hole by drafting McCoy and starting him, then valid.

I believe that was sole and entire point.

Yes, Holmgren is responsible for the Colt fiasco, damn you Walrus, stupid stupid mistake, I spit in your moustache. Almost as stupid as wasting a year on Mangini. Or Shurmur. That may be the stupidest.

Now get in your time machine and fix this shit!

My only point was to FUDU - silly to blame McCoy as the reason the Browns picked the Weedman at #22. Not as if McCoy drafted himself to the Browns. Holmgrem has been unable to fill the QB position since he got to Berea. Not much more to say on that topic. It is what it is.

There is clearly some evil tiki idol involved with the position.

[LakeErieWarriors]

The Steelers just scored a touchdown with 14:11 left in the 4th quarter to take a five-point lead. Guess what they did? They went for two. I wonder why they would do such a thing.

Worst thing about it is that Pat Shurmurs hot seat is currently Lava Hot, and he still finds a way to make ridiculous mistakes like that. As a HC, how do you not make it part of your 4th quarter system to address the point situation after scoring?

The only way he stays is if he wins a few more games than anyone outside of Lars would expect him to win. Win games, that's it. He could fuck up a cup of coffee.

[leadpipe]

Doesn't the running game sucking impact Wheeden's ability to succeed, similar to said running game sucking impeding McCoy's ability to ultimately succeed?

Probably something that should have been discussed and acknowledged by the people who put the team together before spending precious assets on a player (any player, be it Cuddles or Bleedin' or anyone else) who needed a running game to be successful. And who needed receivers to be successful.

I don't know, I just don't get the mix of revisionist history and double standards so many fans have in reviewing the play of our QBs and offense, every game, every season. Plenty of us are guilty of it, you and me him and her, I just don't get it.

Revising my arse. I'm revising nothing. This regime did Cuddles nor Bleedin' any favors by drafting them and hoping for the best. Big Ben, Brady, Brees, et al couldn't survive the lack of protection, running game or WR 'talent' here. They'd be better than the shite here, but they wouldn't win at the highest levels with the help around them.

That doesn't even begin to get into the organizational issues themselves; owner down to philosophies and revolving door of coaches and coordinators.

But they solved the running game problem with the #4 overll pick.....

No, in 2012 the running game means about jack-shit. It's why the worst running team in the league won the bowl last year vs. a team who picks guys like Antowain Smith, Ellis-whatever, a 55 year old 3rd down back and the little white guy to play in that game at the end of the year. And it's why a team with no running game went 15-1 last year.

The run to set up the pass ship has sailed.

The new recipe is get yourself a playa and throw the ball.

Here's the deal, I wanted Quinn over Anderson - cause I could se Anderson sucked. Then I wanted McCoy, cause I could see Quinn sucked. Than I wanted Weeden, cause I could see McCoy sucked.

And now I get to see Weeden. My guess as to how I think it'll turn out is in other threads.

Anyway, is it on me for bitching about the QB's, or is it on a team that can't put someone in front of me that doesn't suck.

And there's no magic dust....no "running game" to put a shine on some hump, no miracle play calling. You can play. Or you can't.

So I'm more than OK with Weeds getting his chance. And it'll work itself out cause he's getting 16 games. But trust me, running game...play calling....you're gonna know whether he's a plya or not no matter what the hell else is going on.

There will be no running game until teams respect the passing game.

That's to my point of why I hated this first round, cause if ya gotta good passing game, you don't need #4 in the draft to run it.

For proof see about everyone who scores a lot of points.

So if running doesn't help set up the pass, which it doesn't anymore, and if you can pass it well you don't need a premier back....

[motherscratcher]

Surmur's biggest mistake?

Not giving Weeden playing time in game 4 in the preseason.
I mean seriously, did he really think the kid (lol, can you really call a 28 year old 'kid') was ready?
He is clearly ef'd in the head, and has as much a clue as Mangidiot did.

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile the fact that I absolutely agree with this 100%, and at the same time I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

[trsteve1]

The good news is he will be 30 next year, and most of the better QBs in the NFL are 30+, Manning, Manning, Brees, Brady, Romo, Schaub, and Roethlisberger are all older than 30, so there must be a correlation.

I expect good things out of this Weeden guy, clearly the numbers are in his favor!

So if running doesn't help set up the pass, which it doesn't anymore, and if you can pass it well you don't need a premier back....

The myth of the run setting up the pass has been debunked a long time ago by the football prospectus team. Passing has won football games for 20+ years, but sports casters were too stuck in the 1950s to admit/realize it and have been announcing it wrong for years.

Teams pass to win and run to protect a lead and run the clock down.
RB is an overrated and often unnecessary luxury. Sure, they can make things happen, and when they can catch the ball out of the backfield, it's a HUGE bonus, but the must be able to block, or they are useless. A select few can elevate a team (A.Peterson, B.Sanders, T.Davis) but a team must be solid on defense if it wants to run to win. All you need is a passing game to be a contender, everything else after that is gravy to make the trip go more smoothly.

Surmur's biggest mistake?

Not giving Weeden playing time in game 4 in the preseason.
I mean seriously, did he really think the kid (lol, can you really call a 28 year old 'kid') was ready?
He is clearly ef'd in the head, and has as much a clue as Mangidiot did.

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile the fact that I absolutely agree with this 100%, and at the same time I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

Absolutely, positively true. All the same, he should have played that 4th preseason game. It was idiotic and further shows Shurmur to be unable as a HC.

[TouchEmAllTime]

Well the fact remains the 3rd year Colt McCoy couldn't beat out the rookie Wheeden, so I guess we can say Colt has something to do with it.

All points are valid though.

Didn't Weed-INT win the job on draft night though?

[trsteve1]

The Steelers just scored a touchdown with 14:11 left in the 4th quarter to take a five-point lead. Guess what they did? They went for two. I wonder why they would do such a thing.

Because Mike Tomlin is a good coach.

Turns out good coaches (generally) make good decisions.

[justmebd]

Again, it cannot be over stated, Mike Holmgren is the most significant reason that the Browns drafted Wheeden.

This

It also could be said James Harrison is the reason we drafted Weeden since the Browns all but said at one point they wanted a QB who could take a hit from Harrison and get back up. But that's another discussion.

When the dust settles on this year and Holmgren is gone, we better pray Weeden has a steep learning curve, otherwise this team WILL be drafting another QB next year since Holmgren won't be here to defend his boy.

[peeker643]

Doesn't the running game sucking impact Wheeden's ability to succeed, similar to said running game sucking impeding McCoy's ability to ultimately succeed?

Probably something that should have been discussed and acknowledged by the people who put the team together before spending precious assets on a player (any player, be it Cuddles or Bleedin' or anyone else) who needed a running game to be successful. And who needed receivers to be successful.

I don't know, I just don't get the mix of revisionist history and double standards so many fans have in reviewing the play of our QBs and offense, every game, every season. Plenty of us are guilty of it, you and me him and her, I just don't get it.

Revising my arse. I'm revising nothing. This regime did Cuddles nor Bleedin' any favors by drafting them and hoping for the best. Big Ben, Brady, Brees, et al couldn't survive the lack of protection, running game or WR 'talent' here. They'd be better than the shite here, but they wouldn't win at the highest levels with the help around them.

That doesn't even begin to get into the organizational issues themselves; owner down to philosophies and revolving door of coaches and coordinators.

But they solved the running game problem with the #4 overll pick.....

No, in 2012 the running game means about jack-shit. It's why the worst running team in the league won the bowl last year vs. a team who picks guys like Antowain Smith, Ellis-whatever, a 55 year old 3rd down back and the little white guy to play in that game at the end of the year. And it's why a team with no running game went 15-1 last year.

The run to set up the pass ship has sailed.

The new recipe is get yourself a playa and throw the ball.

Here's the deal, I wanted Quinn over Anderson - cause I could se Anderson sucked. Then I wanted McCoy, cause I could see Quinn sucked. Than I wanted Weeden, cause I could see McCoy sucked.

And now I get to see Weeden. My guess as to how I think it'll turn out is in other threads.

Anyway, is it on me for bitching about the QB's, or is it on a team that can't put someone in front of me that doesn't suck.

And there's no magic dust....no "running game" to put a shine on some hump, no miracle play calling. You can play. Or you can't.

So I'm more than OK with Weeds getting his chance. And it'll work itself out cause he's getting 16 games. But trust me, running game...play calling....you're gonna know whether he's a plya or not no matter what the hell else is going on.

There will be no running game until teams respect the passing game.

That's to my point of why I hated this first round, cause if ya gotta good passing game, you don't need #4 in the draft to run it.

For proof see about everyone who scores a lot of points.

So if running doesn't help set up the pass, which it doesn't anymore, and if you can pass it well you don't need a premier back....

At least they didn't trade up a spot to get that guy though. And at least the guy they didn't trade up to get a guy who didn't have more surgeries since his last college game than preseason carries.

No worries.

[FUDU]

Surmur's biggest mistake?

Not giving Weeden playing time in game 4 in the preseason.
I mean seriously, did he really think the kid (lol, can you really call a 28 year old 'kid') was ready?
He is clearly ef'd in the head, and has as much a clue as Mangidiot did.

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile the fact that I absolutely agree with this 100%, and at the same time I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

It wouldn't have a made a bit of difference, AND it was a defensible move made by Shur in the sense that the Bears weren't putting many of their starters out there on D (IIRC it was mentioned before the game). So the extra reps for Weeden would have been against 2nd and 3rd string guys. But honestly how would it have made a difference for game 1.

As far as the 2 pt conv., there was too much time left on the clock bringing too many scenarios into play moving forward in the quarter. Taking the 1 pt was not a bad move in that spot. We had more than our chance to tack on even just another FG, to stretch it to 9pt lead.

[peeker643]

Surmur's biggest mistake?

Not giving Weeden playing time in game 4 in the preseason.
I mean seriously, did he really think the kid (lol, can you really call a 28 year old 'kid') was ready?
He is clearly ef'd in the head, and has as much a clue as Mangidiot did.

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile the fact that I absolutely agree with this 100%, and at the same time I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

It wouldn't have a made a bit of difference, AND it was a defensible move made by Shur in the sense that the Bears weren't putting many of their starters out there on D (IIRC it was mentioned before the game). So the extra reps for Wheeden would have been against 2nd and 3rd string guys. But honestly how would it have made a difference for game 1.

As far as the 2 pt conv., there was too much time left on the clock bringing too many scenarios into play moving forward in the quarter. Taking the 1 pt was not a bad move in that spot. We had more than our chance to tack on even just another FG, to stretch it to 9pt lead.

You lose that chance to tack on another FG if you go for two there?

Indefensible and flat out bad move by Shurmur.

I wish some of y'all were Marines. Or maybe you were. Just defend without another thought that which you've been taught to defend.

[swerb]

As mentioned upthread, the Steelers were in the EXACT same position last night. They scored with 14 min left in the game to go up five. Tomlin shot his two fingers up in the air so quick he almost threw his arm out of its socket.

[peeker643]

Browns-Eagles Minutiae

Weeden's 12 completions traveled total of 30 yards (past line of scrimmage).

2.5 yards per completion there from the Red Rocket.

[Prosecutor]

I was actually encouraged. I expected to get blown out, not lose the game by a point in the final two minutes. Buffalo, Miami, Indy, and Tennessee lost by 20 points yesterday.

Weeden admitted he was "amped up". He missed two wide open receivers in the end zone. He won't keep missing them the rest of his career. He'll settle down and start hitting those passes. He completed 71% of his throws in college.

Richardson was rusty and is still not 100%. I still wouldn't want to be the next safety who gets in front of him with a loose chin strap.

What concerns me is the O-line. They didn't open one decent hole all day. TR was hit as soon as he took the handoff almost every time. It was like watching William Green in the playoffs against the Steelers.

Schwartz was no match for Jason Babin, and the guards just suck. This will be an issue all year, and I can see the Browns going the Steelers route next year and drafting offensive linemen with their first two picks. If Weeds is to have any chance he needs a strong running game like DA had in '07 and time to throw from the pocket.

Massaquoi looked good and should have finished with 5 catches for over 100 yards and a TD, but Weeden missed him twice. Gordon looked very athletic and a load to bring down on his two catches. Little still can't catch the ball and I expect him to finish the season below Gordon, MoMass, Benjamin and Cribbs on the depth chart.

This year is all about getting experience for Weeds, TR, Schwartz, Gordon, Cameron, and Benjamin. Next spring they go out and get two decent guards in FA or the draft and we're in business.

They had a chance to steal a win from a far superior team thanks to the Eagles refusal to run the ball, a rusty Michael Vick, a rash of penalties by the Eagles, and some very nice defensive scheming. It's probably better that they lost for draft positioning, but it would have been nice if Fort hangs on to that ball.

The Steelers lost and Ben got sacked five times. The day wasn't a total loss.

Now they get the Bengals on a short week. Hopefully the Ravens will beat them up pretty bad tonight.

[JCoz]

Browns-Eagles Minutiae

Weeden's 12 completions traveled total of 30 yards (past line of scrimmage).

2.5 yards per completion there from the Red Rocket.

Yah but I think his completions to Iggles totaled like 300 yards....so we got that going for us.

[Kingpin74]

As mentioned upthread, the Steelers were in the EXACT same position last night. They scored with 14 min left in the game to go up five. Tomlin shot his two fingers up in the air so quick he almost threw his arm out of its socket.

In all fairness, the Browns weren't making it anyway.

[scrambler]

So many genius' so little time! So what is the magical time when you score a touchdown and go up 5 to go for two?? Is it with 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter?? 11 minutes left in the second quarter?? 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? Obviously 14 and a half minutes left in the 4th quarter you have crossed that magical barrier you must go for two with a 5 point lead barrier as many have pointed out. So the magical barrier must come before that. Is it with 1 minute left in the third quarter?? Is it with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? IF this was such a clear cut decision all the genius' here must have that mark printed somewhere as to what point in the game when you magically must go for 2 when taking a 5 point lead. Is it simply the 15 minute mark of the 4th quarter where that magic barrier is met?? AS someone else said if they went for two and missed it and Henery made a 55 yard field goal on the last play to win it for Philly 16-15 a much different attitude would be taken is my thought process. of all the issues with the Cleveland Browns kicking that extra point seems to me to be a non-entity in the discussion. I seriously think at that point in the game you can make legit arguments for going for one or two.

[FUDU]

Surmur's biggest mistake?

Not giving Weeden playing time in game 4 in the preseason.
I mean seriously, did he really think the kid (lol, can you really call a 28 year old 'kid') was ready?
He is clearly ef'd in the head, and has as much a clue as Mangidiot did.

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile the fact that I absolutely agree with this 100%, and at the same time I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

It wouldn't have a made a bit of difference, AND it was a defensible move made by Shur in the sense that the Bears weren't putting many of their starters out there on D (IIRC it was mentioned before the game). So the extra reps for Wheeden would have been against 2nd and 3rd string guys. But honestly how would it have made a difference for game 1.

As far as the 2 pt conv., there was too much time left on the clock bringing too many scenarios into play moving forward in the quarter. Taking the 1 pt was not a bad move in that spot. We had more than our chance to tack on even just another FG, to stretch it to 9pt lead.

You lose that chance to tack on another FG if you go for two there?

Indefensible and flat out bad move by Shurmur.

I wish some of y'all were Marines. Or maybe you were. Just defend without another thought that which you've been taught to defend.

FTR I have no issues with Shurmur if he did go for 2, but I am just saying that there were plenty of scenarios to consider to justify not doing it, and in general, across the board his NOT going for it was consistent with the vast majority of NFL HCs decisions in those spots. Remember the vast majority of NFL HCs are better than Shurmur too. The general rule of thumb is you don't go for 2 unless there are few to no other options, IOW until you HAVE to.

Frankly I would have liked Pat to go for the 2 just for the sake of showing me he has some guts and trust in his guys, but THAT is pretty far down the list of gripes we should have with Pat on this fine Monday morning. 2nd & 10 play calling (after 1st down incompletions) is way higher on that list.

[Brandon Weeden]

I knew it was a bad omen when I got trapped under the American flag during the pregame warmups.

Be patient with me everyone. No one told me how much better the defenses were in the NFL as compared to the Big 12! Coach Pat thinks I played solid, and that's enough for me. At my advanced age I know not to get too high or too low. And most importantly, to keep gunnin'!

Yee-haw!

[scrambler]

In the end when a NFL team forces 5 turnovers, 6 punts, scores a defensive touchdown and fails to win the game, it's not a good future. If this team is able to win 4 or 5 games this year I'll be pleasantly shocked.

[mattvan1]

So many genius' so little time! So what is the magical time when you score a touchdown and go up 5 to go for two?? Is it with 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter?? 11 minutes left in the second quarter?? 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? Obviously 14 and a half minutes left in the 4th quarter you have crossed that magical barrier you must go for two with a 5 point lead barrier as many have pointed out. So the magical barrier must come before that. Is it with 1 minute left in the third quarter?? Is it with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? IF this was such a clear cut decision all the genius' here must have that mark printed somewhere as to what point in the game when you magically must go for 2 when taking a 5 point lead. Is it simply the 15 minute mark of the 4th quarter where that magic barrier is met?? AS someone else said if they went for two and missed it and Henery made a 55 yard field goal on the last play to win it for Philly 16-15 a much different attitude would be taken is my thought process. of all the issues with the Cleveland Browns kicking that extra point seems to me to be a non-entity in the discussion. I seriously think at that point in the game you can make legit arguments for going for one or two.

I would respond to your post but first I have to go out and score some acid, drop it, and then attempt to understand what you wrote.

Just bear with me for a day or so.

[peeker643]

I knew it was a bad omen when I got trapped under the American flag during the pregame warmups.

Be patient with me everyone. No one told me how much better the defenses were in the NFL as compared to the Big 12! Coach Pat thinks I played solid, and that's enough for me. At my advanced age I know not to get too high or too low. And most importantly, to keep gunnin'!

Yee-haw!

Awesome.

Shoulda commented on the fact dude couldn't get out of the way of a stationary freaking, gigantic flag. Really had no chance against people actually trying to smother him.

Sure that Shurmur is working on the 'Getting out from under the flag' thing today. Maybe tomorrow after he watches enough tape.

[mattvan1]

I knew it was a bad omen when I got trapped under the American flag during the pregame warmups.

Be patient with me everyone. No one told me how much better the defenses were in the NFL as compared to the Big 12! Coach Pat thinks I played solid, and that's enough for me. At my advanced age I know not to get too high or too low. And most importantly, to keep gunnin'!

Yee-haw!

Nice. But shouldn't the tag line under your avatar read

Ready, Fire, Aim?

[scrambler]

Surmur's biggest mistake?


FTR I have no issues with Shurmur if he did go for 2, but I am just saying that there were plenty of scenarios to consider to justify not doing it, and in general, across the board his NOT going for it was consistent with the vast majority of NFL HCs decisions in those spots. Remember the vast majority of NFL HCs are better than Shurmur too. The general rule of thumb is you don't go for 2 unless there are few to no other options, IOW until you HAVE to.

Frankly I would have liked Pat to go for the 2 just for the sake of showing me he has some guts and trust in his guys, but THAT is pretty far down the list of gripes we should have with Pat on this fine Monday morning. 2nd & 10 play calling (after 1st down incompletions) is way higher on that list.

I agree. I can't believe he is being criticized for that decision. My magical marker as to when to go for two with a 5 point lead is much later than the 14 minute mark in the 4th quarter. With the offensive execution yesterday I believe the chances of the Browns getting 3 yards on a two point attempt was close to zero percent. Shurmur played percentages early in the 4th. Ooooh, Tomlin. Whatever.

[scrambler]

So many genius' so little time! So what is the magical time when you score a touchdown and go up 5 to go for two?? Is it with 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter?? 11 minutes left in the second quarter?? 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? Obviously 14 and a half minutes left in the 4th quarter you have crossed that magical barrier you must go for two with a 5 point lead barrier as many have pointed out. So the magical barrier must come before that. Is it with 1 minute left in the third quarter?? Is it with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? IF this was such a clear cut decision all the genius' here must have that mark printed somewhere as to what point in the game when you magically must go for 2 when taking a 5 point lead. Is it simply the 15 minute mark of the 4th quarter where that magic barrier is met?? AS someone else said if they went for two and missed it and Henery made a 55 yard field goal on the last play to win it for Philly 16-15 a much different attitude would be taken is my thought process. of all the issues with the Cleveland Browns kicking that extra point seems to me to be a non-entity in the discussion. I seriously think at that point in the game you can make legit arguments for going for one or two.

I would respond to your post but first I have to go out and score some acid, drop it, and then attempt to understand what you wrote.

Just bear with me for a day or so.

When do you go for two with a 5 point lead is the short translation?? What point in the game to you cross that magical barrier??

[peeker643]

I knew it was a bad omen when I got trapped under the American flag during the pregame warmups.

Be patient with me everyone. No one told me how much better the defenses were in the NFL as compared to the Big 12! Coach Pat thinks I played solid, and that's enough for me. At my advanced age I know not to get too high or too low. And most importantly, to keep gunnin'!

Yee-haw!

Nice. But shouldn't the tag line under your avatar read

Ready, Fire, Aim?

I'd argue that 'Ready' isn't appropriate either.

I suggest "Poised, Polished and Precise" as another tag line to avoid.

[justmebd]

So many genius' so little time! So what is the magical time when you score a touchdown and go up 5 to go for two?? Is it with 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter?? 11 minutes left in the second quarter?? 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? Obviously 14 and a half minutes left in the 4th quarter you have crossed that magical barrier you must go for two with a 5 point lead barrier as many have pointed out. So the magical barrier must come before that. Is it with 1 minute left in the third quarter?? Is it with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? IF this was such a clear cut decision all the genius' here must have that mark printed somewhere as to what point in the game when you magically must go for 2 when taking a 5 point lead. Is it simply the 15 minute mark of the 4th quarter where that magic barrier is met?? AS someone else said if they went for two and missed it and Henery made a 55 yard field goal on the last play to win it for Philly 16-15 a much different attitude would be taken is my thought process. of all the issues with the Cleveland Browns kicking that extra point seems to me to be a non-entity in the discussion. I seriously think at that point in the game you can make legit arguments for going for one or two.

No. Here's why. From Grantland and Bill Barnwell

Thank You for Not Coaching

It's pretty easy to pick on Browns coach Pat Shurmur this morning, so let's spare him the cheap jokes and get to the facts. When D'Qwell Jackson picked Michael Vick off and took the return back to the house for a 27-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter of Sunday's game, the Browns took a 15-10 lead before attempting the conversion. Shurmur sent his kicking team out there and picked up an extra point to go up 16-10. On their final meaningful drive, though, the Eagles scored a touchdown and picked up the deciding score on the extra point, winning 17-16 after Brandon Weeden threw his fourth pick of the day.

This isn't an egregious decision because it came back to haunt the Browns; it's a critical failure because Shurmur chose the option that added virtually nothing to his team's chances of winning.2 Kicking the extra point gave the Browns a 16-10 lead with 14 minutes to go; the only advantage it gave them was having the ability to tie if Philadelphia kicked two field goals. That's far less likely to occur than the Eagles scoring one touchdown. The value added by a successful two-point conversion is significantly greater, more than enough to justify the risk of going for two. The footballcommentary.com two-point chart suggests that the Browns should have gone for two unless their chances of converting were below 24 percent, a conversion rate that even the league's worst rushing attack would find attainable.

Furthermore, it's an awful decision because it employs exactly zero foresight. You don't need to be thinking about win probability models or game theory to realize that going from a five-point lead to a six-point one in the fourth quarter is basically worthless. Coaches have charts that tell them when they should kick or choose to go for a two-pointer, but a second-generation coach like Shurmur should have easy decisions like this instilled in his DNA. There are some two-point decisions that require a closer consideration of the variables than the simple numbers indicate. This wasn't one of them.

Often, these sorts of scenarios end up being theoretical exercises because, eventually, the game situation after the decision morphs into something totally different, rendering the conversion decision mostly irrelevant in the bigger picture of the game. This was the rare example of a poor coaching decision that seemed ill-advised on the surface and immediately came back to bite the team in question. Situational play-calling tends to be overrated in terms of judging a coach's total effectiveness, but Shurmur's decision was so bad that it raises fundamental questions about his core competency.

[peeker643]

So many genius' so little time! So what is the magical time when you score a touchdown and go up 5 to go for two?? Is it with 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter?? 11 minutes left in the second quarter?? 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? Obviously 14 and a half minutes left in the 4th quarter you have crossed that magical barrier you must go for two with a 5 point lead barrier as many have pointed out. So the magical barrier must come before that. Is it with 1 minute left in the third quarter?? Is it with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? IF this was such a clear cut decision all the genius' here must have that mark printed somewhere as to what point in the game when you magically must go for 2 when taking a 5 point lead. Is it simply the 15 minute mark of the 4th quarter where that magic barrier is met?? AS someone else said if they went for two and missed it and Henery made a 55 yard field goal on the last play to win it for Philly 16-15 a much different attitude would be taken is my thought process. of all the issues with the Cleveland Browns kicking that extra point seems to me to be a non-entity in the discussion. I seriously think at that point in the game you can make legit arguments for going for one or two.

I would respond to your post but first I have to go out and score some acid, drop it, and then attempt to understand what you wrote.

Just bear with me for a day or so.

When do you go for two with a 5 point lead is the short translation?? What point in the game to you cross that magical barrier??

When a TD puts you up 5 in the 4th quarter there really isn't much question.

[scrambler]

Thanks, when the 3rd quarter ends is when you go for two with a 5 point lead. You can see the silly game never ending however, why not with 2 minutes left in the 3rd go for two?? Can't you see the game? You muddle through the 4th quarter, you missed the two and with 3:24 left the opposing team gets a field goal and cuts it to 15-13. Then you get to the last play of the game for another field goal attempt. Can you not see the legitimate argument for kicking the extra point in that scenario??

[scrambler]

So many genius' so little time! So what is the magical time when you score a touchdown and go up 5 to go for two?? Is it with 4 minutes left in the 1st quarter?? 11 minutes left in the second quarter?? 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? Obviously 14 and a half minutes left in the 4th quarter you have crossed that magical barrier you must go for two with a 5 point lead barrier as many have pointed out. So the magical barrier must come before that. Is it with 1 minute left in the third quarter?? Is it with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter?? IF this was such a clear cut decision all the genius' here must have that mark printed somewhere as to what point in the game when you magically must go for 2 when taking a 5 point lead. Is it simply the 15 minute mark of the 4th quarter where that magic barrier is met?? AS someone else said if they went for two and missed it and Henery made a 55 yard field goal on the last play to win it for Philly 16-15 a much different attitude would be taken is my thought process. of all the issues with the Cleveland Browns kicking that extra point seems to me to be a non-entity in the discussion. I seriously think at that point in the game you can make legit arguments for going for one or two.

No. Here's why. From Grantland and Bill Barnwell

Thank You for Not Coaching

It's pretty easy to pick on Browns coach Pat Shurmur this morning, so let's spare him the cheap jokes and get to the facts. When D'Qwell Jackson picked Michael Vick off and took the return back to the house for a 27-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter of Sunday's game, the Browns took a 15-10 lead before attempting the conversion. Shurmur sent his kicking team out there and picked up an extra point to go up 16-10. On their final meaningful drive, though, the Eagles scored a touchdown and picked up the deciding score on the extra point, winning 17-16 after Brandon Weeden threw his fourth pick of the day.

This isn't an egregious decision because it came back to haunt the Browns; it's a critical failure because Shurmur chose the option that added virtually nothing to his team's chances of winning.2 Kicking the extra point gave the Browns a 16-10 lead with 14 minutes to go; the only advantage it gave them was having the ability to tie if Philadelphia kicked two field goals. That's far less likely to occur than the Eagles scoring one touchdown. The value added by a successful two-point conversion is significantly greater, more than enough to justify the risk of going for two. The footballcommentary.com two-point chart suggests that the Browns should have gone for two unless their chances of converting were below 24 percent, a conversion rate that even the league's worst rushing attack would find attainable.

Furthermore, it's an awful decision because it employs exactly zero foresight. You don't need to be thinking about win probability models or game theory to realize that going from a five-point lead to a six-point one in the fourth quarter is basically worthless. Coaches have charts that tell them when they should kick or choose to go for a two-pointer, but a second-generation coach like Shurmur should have easy decisions like this instilled in his DNA. There are some two-point decisions that require a closer consideration of the variables than the simple numbers indicate. This wasn't one of them.

Often, these sorts of scenarios end up being theoretical exercises because, eventually, the game situation after the decision morphs into something totally different, rendering the conversion decision mostly irrelevant in the bigger picture of the game. This was the rare example of a poor coaching decision that seemed ill-advised on the surface and immediately came back to bite the team in question. Situational play-calling tends to be overrated in terms of judging a coach's total effectiveness, but Shurmur's decision was so bad that it raises fundamental questions about his core competency.

Why would you ever at any point in the game kick an extra point?? Unless you're down 6 and score a touchdown? Going from a 5 point lead to a 6 point lead in the 4th is worthless they say. Is it worthless in the 3rd to go from a 5 point lead to 6 point lead and why not?? 15 minutes left in the game makes it worthless, is it worthless with 17 minutes left in the game?? And why not?

[scrambler]

justmebd...what I'm saying is isn't it always more likely to score 1 touchdown than two field goals?? Or is there a point in the game where you reach that point. Obviously with 14 minutes left this is the case you state. Is it the case with 20 minutes left?? with 24 minutes left?? AT the start of the game with 60 minutes left is it more likely for a team to score 1 touchdown or kick two field goals??