The Official Browns vs Vikings Game 5 Thread
-
Again no problem with the timeouts if we would held them to a field goal (most thought we would) we could have had time to win the game instead of getting the ball with very little time. I’d argue the time was more important than the timeouts.
But I hate trying to run into 9/10 man boxes in a four minute offense to try to kill the other teams timeouts. Getting a first down and possessing the ball is more important than the opposing team having 3 minutes left and no timeouts. Some coaches do it and some don’t.
I thought the Vikings called an amazing game offensively. Carson Wentz played out of his mind.
I expected Myles and Co to win a lot of battles today though.
Our WRs didn’t win many battles either
Again no problem with the timeouts if we would held them to a field goal (most thought we would) we could have had time to win the game instead of getting the ball with very little time. I’d argue the time was more important than the timeouts.
But I hate trying to run into 9/10 man boxes in a four minute offense to try to kill the other teams timeouts. Getting a first down and possessing the ball is more important than the opposing team having 3 minutes left and no timeouts. Some coaches do it and some don’t.
I thought the Vikings called an amazing game offensively. Carson Wentz played out of his mind.
I expected Myles and Co to win a lot of battles today though.
Our WRs didn’t win many battles either
Our WRs didn’t win any battles either FIFY
-
OK, I don't usually have negative to say about Stef's game management...but I wouldn't have been using the time outs towards the end of the game. And just before the TO barrage I didn't like the idea of running Judkins up the gut twice in a row. I would've tried to win the game while possessing the ball.
I understand what he was trying to do. He was trying to get a win with his rookie QB without letting said QB blow things at the end. He played not to lose, and put the game into the hands of his D. But his D didn't get any rest...and the rest is history.
Really good game by Judkins. That effin' guy works hard for his yards. Congrats on his 1st 100 game in the NFL.
Gabriel didn't do badly...but he's still a smurf.
I had hooped that our DL would destroy the Vikings very injured OL. We needed more destruction.
Next week's game against the Steelers is quite important. The division title is within reach if we can get our shit together and beat them.
OK, I don't usually have negative to say about Stef's game management...but I wouldn't have been using the time outs towards the end of the game.
The first timeout he used was when the clock was stopped after the big play to Jefferson down the sideline and was to give the defense a breather. The 2nd timeout was when it was going to be 3rd and 4 from the browns 21 with :59 sseconds left. This also avoided a 10 second runoff. The line of thinking there is if the defense gets the stop you conserve 50+ seconds to give your offense a chance to get in field goal range to win the game in a tie ball game if the vikings made the field goal resulting from the stop. If they missed you just come out in victory formation as there is not enough time/timeouts for the Vikings to get the ball back. Then the final timeout was taken @:54 seconds after they converted the 3rd down and 4 to get the 17 yard line. The last one is legitimately the only one I could see someone taking issue with but with 54 seconds at the 17 and timeout on offense they could have ran as many plays as they wanted so taking the timeout didn't give them extra time in my opinion. They scored 2 plays after that timeout. I really don't like Stefanski at all but it is honestly blowing my mind that so many people have issues with taking the timeouts at the end. Maybe I'm the crazy one lol.
-
OK, I don't usually have negative to say about Stef's game management...but I wouldn't have been using the time outs towards the end of the game.
The first timeout he used was when the clock was stopped after the big play to Jefferson down the sideline and was to give the defense a breather. The 2nd timeout was when it was going to be 3rd and 4 from the browns 21 with :59 sseconds left. This also avoided a 10 second runoff. The line of thinking there is if the defense gets the stop you conserve 50+ seconds to give your offense a chance to get in field goal range to win the game in a tie ball game if the vikings made the field goal resulting from the stop. If they missed you just come out in victory formation as there is not enough time/timeouts for the Vikings to get the ball back. Then the final timeout was taken @:54 seconds after they converted the 3rd down and 4 to get the 17 yard line. The last one is legitimately the only one I could see someone taking issue with but with 54 seconds at the 17 and timeout on offense they could have ran as many plays as they wanted so taking the timeout didn't give them extra time in my opinion. They scored 2 plays after that timeout. I really don't like Stefanski at all but it is honestly blowing my mind that so many people have issues with taking the timeouts at the end. Maybe I'm the crazy one lol.
The first timeout he used was when the clock was stopped after the big play to Jefferson down the sideline and was to give the defense a breather. The 2nd timeout was when it was going to be 3rd and 4 from the browns 21 with :59 sseconds left. This also avoided a 10 second runoff. The line of thinking there is if the defense gets the stop you conserve 50+ seconds to give your offense a chance to get in field goal range to win the game in a tie ball game if the vikings made the field goal resulting from the stop. If they missed you just come out in victory formation as there is not enough time/timeouts for the Vikings to get the ball back. Then the final timeout was taken @:54 seconds after they converted the 3rd down and 4 to get the 17 yard line. The last one is legitimately the only one I could see someone taking issue with but with 54 seconds at the 17 and timeout on offense they could have ran as many plays as they wanted so taking the timeout didn't give them extra time in my opinion. They scored 2 plays after that timeout. I really don't like Stefanski at all but it is honestly blowing my mind that so many people have issues with taking the timeouts at the end. Maybe I'm the crazy one lol.
Excellent write-up. My problem is; the series before we went ultra conservative to use up their TO's. And then after we punt to them we start calling TO's for them. Once they got the ball I wanted the clock to run out before they could reach the end zone. If you have to give up a FG then you're tied and not behind. We gave them the time to get all the way to the end zone.
-
Recorded the game and watched it this afternoon when I got home from Erie.
1. This is the type of game I kind of expected the Browns to try to play this season. Don't make mistakes on offense, spread the ball around, lean on your running backs and tight ends. Gabriel did a solid job managing the offense. No turnovers, which was refreshing. Brian Flores is a DCoordinator who is known for making life a living hell for young QBs, but I thought DG did a very nice job not looking overwhelmed. That's the plus of drafting a QB with a ton of college experience.
2. My dog, our left tackle situation is an absolute dumpster fire. As I wrote this, whoever is playing LT at this moment just committed another penalty. With the college QB class looking less than stellar, Left Tackle could very well be the Browns #1 pick next April.
3. Judkins is an absolute stud, and gives the offense a nasty demeanor. Njoku and Fannin are going to have a great rest of the season if DG remains the QB.
4. Our DLine is finally more than "Myles Garrett and some other guys". Not only is the starting four talented across the line, the DLine is deep. Carson Schwesinger drilled Wentz twice today, and continues to be perhaps the Browns best draft pick. When messaging with a buddy of mine a game or two ago I tried to spell his name but mangled it, and told him I had no idea how to spell his name. He responded with "Krautbacker". I retorted with "Crackerbacker". Feel free to use either.
-
Agree Vilma seemed to think with a minute left and 20 yards to go the Vikings needed timeouts.
And then we heard Vilma say at least five times we messed up by not running it a third time because we didn’t run three straight times in a 10 man box which we did the last two drives
Yeah vilma was atrocious and a very hard listen. Once they got to our 20 yard line with a minute left time remaining no longer became the limiting factor for them scoring. I'm disappointed but like some of the positives we're seeing. I really wanted this one because we have some very winnable games coming up.
Also I really hope Gabriel (or Sanders) is the answer at qb because there certainly doesn't look to be a can't miss qb in this college season as of yet and arch looks like he would be lucky to be a 5th round pick.
Yeah vilma was atrocious and a very hard listen. Once they got to our 20 yard line with a minute left time remaining no longer became the limiting factor for them scoring. I'm disappointed but like some of the positives we're seeing. I really wanted this one because we have some very winnable games coming up.
Also I really hope Gabriel (or Sanders) is the answer at qb because there certainly doesn't look to be a can't miss qb in this college season as of yet and arch looks like he would be lucky to be a 5th round pick.
Totally agree with you. Vilma is bad.
I've been a Stefanski supporter but I didn't like the last 3 minutes of the game either. It wasn't his finest coaching day.
Should have been a victory.
-
I’m not talking hypothetically, Kevin stopped the clock 3 times with less than a minute left.
Let me ask you a question, is it easier for an offense to have a timeout between plays?
Sometimes it is easier on the offense to have more time sometimes it is more advantageous to have less time. Hence why no huddle offenses seem to have success. I don't know if you're an Ohio state fan but fans are often clamoring for them to go more up tempo because the success they have when doing so.
Sharp football quit tracking it in 2021 unfortunately but in that season Minnesota had a higher percentage of successful plays when running no huddle vs huddling. My whole point is that it's not black and white. Again I'm not judging the result (which obviously is a negative) I'm judging the decision.
Sometimes it is easier on the offense to have more time sometimes it is more advantageous to have less time. Hence why no huddle offenses seem to have success. I don't know if you're an Ohio state fan but fans are often clamoring for them to go more up tempo because the success they have when doing so.
Sharp football quit tracking it in 2021 unfortunately but in that season Minnesota had a higher percentage of successful plays when running no huddle vs huddling. My whole point is that it's not black and white. Again I'm not judging the result (which obviously is a negative) I'm judging the decision.
There’s nothing wrong running an up tempo offense when the clock isn’t an issue.
You’re not taking into account the offensive plays that don’t get out of bounds, and the offense must clock the ball essentially losing a down.
-
Bills doing the same strategy taking timeouts to preserve time for their offense
-
Overall not a bad game. Gabriel did the best he could. Classic Browns losing to a bum backup. Not to mention we were finally +2 in turnovers.
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me, especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
And my god we seemed to be 1st&15 or 1st&20 on every fucking series because of dumb penalties.
Gabriel was a good game manager today. Not many deep shots, I'm not sure if that was by Kevy's design or the pocket was collapsing quickly. No turnovers was huge. Didn't shit the bad against a very good defense in a Europe game.
Judkins is a beast. In every way. Speed, power, breaks tackles, turns nothing into something, long plays. What a monster.
The rookies are such a bright spot for this team.
-
Overall not a bad game. Gabriel did the best he could. Classic Browns losing to a bum backup. Not to mention we were finally +2 in turnovers.
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me, especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
And my god we seemed to be 1st&15 or 1st&20 on every fucking series because of dumb penalties.
Gabriel was a good game manager today. Not many deep shots, I'm not sure if that was by Kevy's design or the pocket was collapsing quickly. No turnovers was huge. Didn't shit the bad against a very good defense in a Europe game.
Judkins is a beast. In every way. Speed, power, breaks tackles, turns nothing into something, long plays. What a monster.
The rookies are such a bright spot for this team.
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me, especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
Are you saying the Viks FO actually had competent backup O Linemen? How could that be? That's no way to run a football team unless you are in tankathon mode.
-
Overall not a bad game. Gabriel did the best he could. Classic Browns losing to a bum backup. Not to mention we were finally +2 in turnovers.
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me, especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
And my god we seemed to be 1st&15 or 1st&20 on every fucking series because of dumb penalties.
Gabriel was a good game manager today. Not many deep shots, I'm not sure if that was by Kevy's design or the pocket was collapsing quickly. No turnovers was huge. Didn't shit the bad against a very good defense in a Europe game.
Judkins is a beast. In every way. Speed, power, breaks tackles, turns nothing into something, long plays. What a monster.
The rookies are such a bright spot for this team.
Overall not a bad game. Gabriel did the best he could. Classic Browns losing to a bum backup. Not to mention we were finally +2 in turnovers.
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me,
We must have been watching two different games then. For 3.75 quarters the entire vikes strategy was to go 6-7 man protections to help limit pressure.
That's winning the numbers game on the backend when you force opponents to keep backs and TEs in to deal with pass pro.
especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
So having an unrealistic expectation netting disappointing results? I'm shocked.
Myles had multiple pressures and multiple stops. Would have had a sack if Wentz was a yard or two shorter from scrambling on one play. But it isn't like the man had a bad game. He commands a ton of attention and still produces pressures.
-
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me, especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
Are you saying the Viks FO actually had competent backup O Linemen? How could that be? That's no way to run a football team unless you are in tankathon mode.
Are you saying the Viks FO actually had competent backup O Linemen? How could that be? That's no way to run a football team unless you are in tankathon mode.
I think the difference is the Browns have actually had Bitonio, Pocic and Teller starting every game (or close to it this year) - it's just the lack of planning for the oft-injured OTs. If you fail to prepare; then, prepare to fail. That simple...
When our tankathon doesn't research a QB prospect like Patrick Mahomes after 1-15 football - it makes it tough to get excited about the next one with this owner. FWIW, the answer to all their prayers (Watson) was in that same draft before he got into any trouble - and the rookie salary cap would have made him more affordable (without needing to give up 3 first round picks and 2 second round picks, etc). I can't promise they would have designed the right offense for either of those QBs. We're damn lucky this Owner & FO knew enough to draft Myles Garrett!
When it comes to fixing a passing game - I think this Owner & FO continues to lose the confidence of a fanbase with countless reasons to do so...
-
Overall not a bad game. Gabriel did the best he could. Classic Browns losing to a bum backup. Not to mention we were finally +2 in turnovers.
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me,
We must have been watching two different games then. For 3.75 quarters the entire vikes strategy was to go 6-7 man protections to help limit pressure.
That's winning the numbers game on the backend when you force opponents to keep backs and TEs in to deal with pass pro.
especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
So having an unrealistic expectation netting disappointing results? I'm shocked.
Myles had multiple pressures and multiple stops. Would have had a sack if Wentz was a yard or two shorter from scrambling on one play. But it isn't like the man had a bad game. He commands a ton of attention and still produces pressures.
We must have been watching two different games then. For 3.75 quarters the entire vikes strategy was to go 6-7 man protections to help limit pressure.
That's winning the numbers game on the backend when you force opponents to keep backs and TEs in to deal with pass pro.
So having an unrealistic expectation netting disappointing results? I'm shocked.
Myles had multiple pressures and multiple stops. Would have had a sack if Wentz was a yard or two shorter from scrambling on one play. But it isn't like the man had a bad game. He commands a ton of attention and still produces pressures.
Cope with it however you want. It's not unrealistic to think the Browns could beat Carson Wentz with four backup o-linemen. I didn't say the defense was bad, they could have played better. Blame it on Schwartz if you want for not scheming and adjusting in game.
I think you have what is called Stockholm Syndrome. That means you sympathize with your abuser (the Browns) and try to justify what they are doing. The Browns are abusing you tia and have been for a long time.
-
There were four starters out on the Vikings o-line and we did nothing with that. Our defensive front didn't get much pressure in passing plays, that was the biggest disappointment for me, especially Myles. I thought we would get 6-8 sacks (Wentz weaseled his way out of some).
Are you saying the Viks FO actually had competent backup O Linemen? How could that be? That's no way to run a football team unless you are in tankathon mode.
Are you saying the Viks FO actually had competent backup O Linemen? How could that be? That's no way to run a football team unless you are in tankathon mode.
Haha. If we have an injury at any position except maybe TE this year, we have Arena Football League caliber backups. We haven't had depth on our roster since ???? 1980's?
-
We must have been watching two different games then. For 3.75 quarters the entire vikes strategy was to go 6-7 man protections to help limit pressure.
That's winning the numbers game on the backend when you force opponents to keep backs and TEs in to deal with pass pro.
So having an unrealistic expectation netting disappointing results? I'm shocked.
Myles had multiple pressures and multiple stops. Would have had a sack if Wentz was a yard or two shorter from scrambling on one play. But it isn't like the man had a bad game. He commands a ton of attention and still produces pressures.
Cope with it however you want. It's not unrealistic to think the Browns could beat Carson Wentz with four backup o-linemen. I didn't say the defense was bad, they could have played better. Blame it on Schwartz if you want for not scheming and adjusting in game.
I think you have what is called Stockholm Syndrome. That means you sympathize with your abuser (the Browns) and try to justify what they are doing. The Browns are abusing you tia and have been for a long time.
Cope with it however you want. It's not unrealistic to think the Browns could beat Carson Wentz with four backup o-linemen. I didn't say the defense was bad, they could have played better. Blame it on Schwartz if you want for not scheming and adjusting in game.
I think you have what is called Stockholm Syndrome. That means you sympathize with your abuser (the Browns) and try to justify what they are doing. The Browns are abusing you tia and have been for a long time.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what "cope" is. I have explanations and understandings of why wins and losses happen. Cope would also imply I'm suffering from the Browns loss. I'm not - I took them +4.5 and expected a close game one way or the other.
I'm also accutely aware of the adjustments made drive by drive from Schwartz and the defensive staff. One's that were working early and often against the vikes offense. Only those adjustments were answered at the end of the game by the Vikes offense along with some mental lapses by the DBs at the worst time(s) Those I understand as well.
But just saying "adjustments" like that's some magic word to stonewalling your opponent isn't an accurate reflection of reality
It wasn't unrealistic to believe the Browns could win. But it wasnt isn't unrealistic to see how they could lose either. Much like the Vikes, the Browns are a team with a severe imbalance between their offense and defense.
The Vikes also had the more veteran and physically capable QB on their side along with the best WR in football. David can win some games. But in reality, the majority of times Goliath comes out on top.
Minnesota hung around and made just enough plays to give them a chance at the end. The same was said for the Browns, just in the 1st half. They punched early and made some plays then faded down the stretch.
It is what it is. Would have been nice to see the win, but we didn't get it.
And bubs, I was born and raised into being a Browns fan. I've known nothing else but Stockholm Syndrome lol
-
Cope with it however you want. It's not unrealistic to think the Browns could beat Carson Wentz with four backup o-linemen. I didn't say the defense was bad, they could have played better. Blame it on Schwartz if you want for not scheming and adjusting in game.
I think you have what is called Stockholm Syndrome. That means you sympathize with your abuser (the Browns) and try to justify what they are doing. The Browns are abusing you tia and have been for a long time.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what "cope" is. I have explanations and understandings of why wins and losses happen. Cope would also imply I'm suffering from the Browns loss. I'm not - I took them +4.5 and expected a close game one way or the other.
I'm also accutely aware of the adjustments made drive by drive from Schwartz and the defensive staff. One's that were working early and often against the vikes offense. Only those adjustments were answered at the end of the game by the Vikes offense along with some mental lapses by the DBs at the worst time(s) Those I understand as well.
But just saying "adjustments" like that's some magic word to stonewalling your opponent isn't an accurate reflection of reality
It wasn't unrealistic to believe the Browns could win. But it wasnt isn't unrealistic to see how they could lose either. Much like the Vikes, the Browns are a team with a severe imbalance between their offense and defense.
The Vikes also had the more veteran and physically capable QB on their side along with the best WR in football. David can win some games. But in reality, the majority of times Goliath comes out on top.
Minnesota hung around and made just enough plays to give them a chance at the end. The same was said for the Browns, just in the 1st half. They punched early and made some plays then faded down the stretch.
It is what it is. Would have been nice to see the win, but we didn't get it.
And bubs, I was born and raised into being a Browns fan. I've known nothing else but Stockholm Syndrome lol
I think you have a misunderstanding of what "cope" is. I have explanations and understandings of why wins and losses happen. Cope would also imply I'm suffering from the Browns loss. I'm not - I took them +4.5 and expected a close game one way or the other.
I'm also accutely aware of the adjustments made drive by drive from Schwartz and the defensive staff. One's that were working early and often against the vikes offense. Only those adjustments were answered at the end of the game by the Vikes offense along with some mental lapses by the DBs at the worst time(s) Those I understand as well.
But just saying "adjustments" like that's some magic word to stonewalling your opponent isn't an accurate reflection of reality
It wasn't unrealistic to believe the Browns could win. But it wasnt isn't unrealistic to see how they could lose either. Much like the Vikes, the Browns are a team with a severe imbalance between their offense and defense.
The Vikes also had the more veteran and physically capable QB on their side along with the best WR in football. David can win some games. But in reality, the majority of times Goliath comes out on top.
Minnesota hung around and made just enough plays to give them a chance at the end. The same was said for the Browns, just in the 1st half. They punched early and made some plays then faded down the stretch.
It is what it is. Would have been nice to see the win, but we didn't get it.
And bubs, I was born and raised into being a Browns fan. I've known nothing else but Stockholm Syndrome lol
I'm not reading your incoherent babble about how you correctly predicted every single play and correctly made a fortune off the over/under. That was a winnable game and the defense could have played better, be an asshole about it or don't. We have some retards on this board, but you take the cake for "I'm always the smartest guy in the room and I smell my own farts" award.
I'll just leave you with this
-
I completely forgot we had an ignore feature.
Now I'll never have to read another post with tia's "expert" breakdown analysis and gamefilm study. Yay me!
-
I think you have a misunderstanding of what "cope" is. I have explanations and understandings of why wins and losses happen. Cope would also imply I'm suffering from the Browns loss. I'm not - I took them +4.5 and expected a close game one way or the other.
I'm also accutely aware of the adjustments made drive by drive from Schwartz and the defensive staff. One's that were working early and often against the vikes offense. Only those adjustments were answered at the end of the game by the Vikes offense along with some mental lapses by the DBs at the worst time(s) Those I understand as well.
But just saying "adjustments" like that's some magic word to stonewalling your opponent isn't an accurate reflection of reality
It wasn't unrealistic to believe the Browns could win. But it wasnt isn't unrealistic to see how they could lose either. Much like the Vikes, the Browns are a team with a severe imbalance between their offense and defense.
The Vikes also had the more veteran and physically capable QB on their side along with the best WR in football. David can win some games. But in reality, the majority of times Goliath comes out on top.
Minnesota hung around and made just enough plays to give them a chance at the end. The same was said for the Browns, just in the 1st half. They punched early and made some plays then faded down the stretch.
It is what it is. Would have been nice to see the win, but we didn't get it.
And bubs, I was born and raised into being a Browns fan. I've known nothing else but Stockholm Syndrome lol
I'm not reading your incoherent babble about how you correctly predicted every single play and correctly made a fortune off the over/under. That was a winnable game and the defense could have played better, be an asshole about it or don't. We have some retards on this board, but you take the cake for "I'm always the smartest guy in the room and I smell my own farts" award.
I'll just leave you with this
I'm not reading your incoherent babble about how you correctly predicted every single play and correctly made a fortune off the over/under. That was a winnable game and the defense could have played better, be an asshole about it or don't. We have some retards on this board, but you take the cake for "I'm always the smartest guy in the room and I smell my own farts" award.
I'll just leave you with this
Yeah, your response is completely uncalled for. I'm calmly explaining that this was a 50/50 game the whole way.
Browns made some plays early, Vikes made some plays late.
My tone was direct but friendly, even called you 'buddy' in a non ironic way and joked about how were all under the spell of Stockholm growing up a Browns fans.
I hope everyone reads this exchange, because you only reaffirm why you can't really talk to 70% of fans.
- concession is not in their vocabulary
- everytime we lose coaches have to be fired
- there are no professionals on the other side and they aren't allowed to make plays. You can't compliment or acknowledge a great gameplan or plays from the opposition. Somehow that doesnt exist.
- the hypothetical "other play" is undefeated.
- nobody can explain in detail what "adjustments" need to be made or how they're done... but damn, do they really call for them.
- you said "cope" as a thinly veiled insult and I responded by saying my expectations for this team, including where my hard earned money are put, were in check with reality. A reality that the Browns were likely going to be in a tight game win or lose. Which, by the way, you or anyone else are welcomed to follow my picks and profit.
But that's the bother here. I see your points and rebuttal kindly. But like most fanatics (which fan is short for) you don't want logical, you don't want rational. What you want are emotional responses that affirm what you're saying. Anything else, no matter how sound, is to be met with the hostility you've just shown.
Yeah, sorry. That ain't me.
This team is an odd mix of aging, decayed vets, inexperienced youth,a dash of injuries where they can least afford them, and desperately working to build cohesion and chemistry.
The fact they played hard and didn't embarrass themselves is a solid testament.
If you or anyone else watches this squad and expects otherwise, even in close game, then I don't know what to tell you...
Now, for the usual whiny suspects to upvote your post because it affirms their emotional responses.
-
When asked about his teammate’s performance, Browns star Myles Garrett was blunt and straightforward:
“[Gabriel] looked like he usually does. Composed, making the plays that we know he can make,” defensive end Myles Garrett said. “He put us in position to win. We’ve got to help ourselves out.”
---------
I noticed that he missed quite high on a few throws. Not sure if he expected the receiver(s) to be deeper...or if, like Baker, he launches it higher to try to keep it above the DLinemen.
BEING A BROWNS FAN IS A TEST TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAKE -
I completely forgot we had an ignore feature.
Now I'll never have to read another post with tia's "expert" breakdown analysis and gamefilm study. Yay me!
I completely forgot we had an ignore feature.
Now I'll never have to read another post with tia's "expert" breakdown analysis and gamefilm study. Yay me!
Feel free to add me to your ignore list too.
I find your tantrums when someone dares to disagree with you tiring.
-
When asked about his teammate’s performance, Browns star Myles Garrett was blunt and straightforward:
“[Gabriel] looked like he usually does. Composed, making the plays that we know he can make,” defensive end Myles Garrett said. “He put us in position to win. We’ve got to help ourselves out.”
---------
I noticed that he missed quite high on a few throws. Not sure if he expected the receiver(s) to be deeper...or if, like Baker, he launches it higher to try to keep it above the DLinemen.
When asked about his teammate’s performance, Browns star Myles Garrett was blunt and straightforward:
“[Gabriel] looked like he usually does. Composed, making the plays that we know he can make,” defensive end Myles Garrett said. “He put us in position to win. We’ve got to help ourselves out.”
---------
I noticed that he missed quite high on a few throws. Not sure if he expected the receiver(s) to be deeper...or if, like Baker, he launches it higher to try to keep it above the DLinemen.
I literally thought that exact thing during the game that he misses high like The Cheesecake Factory Kid did here because of their lack of height.
And Baker is a power forward in comparison to Gabriel.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login