Colt is looking like the starter against the Pats
-
Sounds like he's done pretty well against 2 very tough defenses. Belichick will take away the couple most important weapons which look to be Watson and Cribbs, and force the Browns to beat us with the rest of what he has to work with. Looks like it should be a great game and not an easy win for either team.
-
Hi Pats fan here.
Haven't seen McCoy play and don't know much about him. I can say that rookie QBs usually do awful against a Belichick defense the first time they face it. And you can bet since you guys have Mangini that BB will pull out all the stops and toss all kinds of things at McCoy that he probably hasn't seen before.
Our Dline and run D have been good, and the secondary has played much better the last couple games. This should be a tough game for the Browns but also a trap game for the Pats.
Hi Pats fan here.
hi Pats fan. nice screen name.Haven't seen McCoy play and don't know much about him. I can say that rookie QBs usually do awful against a Belichick defense the first time they face it. And you can bet since you guys have Mangini that BB will pull out all the stops and toss all kinds of things at McCoy that he probably hasn't seen before.
Our Dline and run D have been good, and the secondary has played much better the last couple games. This should be a tough game for the Browns but also a trap game for the Pats.
regardless of who starts, it definitely helps them they practice against a Rob Ryan 3-4 defense every day. that's pretty huge, and if it's Colt it will make a significant difference for him vs comparison to other rookies starting against the Pats.
Colt admitted recently he loves road games. not sure whether he also loves games at home, but it will help manage the pressure some at least.
fwiw if Jake's healthy i give him the nod, and believe EM will too...but i don't think he is. as much as i want to see Colt and like playing the current hot hand, he'll survive being benched>>>i give SW the start.
season Colt a bit longer and keep Seneca's pride in check, as we evaluate him against a top tier team. lots of ?'s on this team, no need to focus only on the sexy ones and ignore others also important to the Browns future.
-
Hi Pats fan here.
hi Pats fan. nice screen name.Haven't seen McCoy play and don't know much about him. I can say that rookie QBs usually do awful against a Belichick defense the first time they face it. And you can bet since you guys have Mangini that BB will pull out all the stops and toss all kinds of things at McCoy that he probably hasn't seen before.
Our Dline and run D have been good, and the secondary has played much better the last couple games. This should be a tough game for the Browns but also a trap game for the Pats.
regardless of who starts, it definitely helps them they practice against a Rob Ryan 3-4 defense every day. that's pretty huge, and if it's Colt it will make a significant difference for him vs comparison to other rookies starting against the Pats.
Colt admitted recently he loves road games. not sure whether he also loves games at home, but it will help manage the pressure some at least.
fwiw if Jake's healthy i give him the nod, and believe EM will too...but i don't think he is. as much as i want to see Colt and like playing the current hot hand, he'll survive being benched>>>i give SW the start.
season Colt a bit longer and keep Seneca's pride in check, as we evaluate him against a top tier team. lots of ?'s on this team, no need to focus only on the sexy ones and ignore others also important to the Browns future.
hi Pats fan. nice screen name.
regardless of who starts, it definitely helps them they practice against a Rob Ryan 3-4 defense every day. that's pretty huge, and if it's Colt it will make a significant difference for him vs comparison to other rookies starting against the Pats.
Colt admitted recently he loves road games. not sure whether he also loves games at home, but it will help manage the pressure some at least.
fwiw if Jake's healthy i give him the nod, and believe EM will too...but i don't think he is. as much as i want to see Colt and like playing the current hot hand, he'll survive being benched>>>i give SW the start.
season Colt a bit longer and keep Seneca's pride in check, as we evaluate him against a top tier team. lots of ?'s on this team, no need to focus only on the sexy ones and ignore others also important to the Browns future.
AHHH!!! Not Delhomme. If we start him, we're pretty much conceding the game. He's junk and too washed up. He hasn't been practicing for a long time now and he just needs to stay on the sidelines as a mentor. He can teach Colt that it's not too bad in Ohio vs Texas...
-
Gotta think anybody who wants to start Delhomme now, next year, or ever is just cutting against the grain. Makes zero sense for a team trying to round into playoff shape for 2011 and 2012. He's old, he's injury-prone, he got cut for Matt Moore, nobody else wanted him, and his good years are getting really small in the rearview mirror.
I just don't know what the point would be. Wallace is better right now and McCoy has more upside than either. Wouldn't you like McCoy to go into the offseason with 11 straight starts under his belt and for once have a clear-cut #1? I sure as hell would.
Right now, I set the odds for Delhomme being on the team next year at about one in 50 and headed downward. If we stayed in this offense, I could buy him as a backup/mentor for McCoy, because they like each other... but I really think we're headed for a WCO, which Delhomme has never played. Wallace has a ton of experience in Holmgren's WCO.
If McCoy starts and Wallace backs up, I won't be shocked to see a much younger #3, someone with some upside. It's something Holmgren likes to do.
BTW, it's officially McCoy this Sunday. Wallace was ruled out. After three straight starts and a bye week, McCoy probably knows the offense better than Delhomme.
-
Gotta think anybody who wants to start Delhomme now, next year, or ever is just cutting against the grain. Makes zero sense for a team trying to round into playoff shape for 2011 and 2012. He's old, he's injury-prone, he got cut for Matt Moore, nobody else wanted him, and his good years are getting really small in the rearview mirror.
I just don't know what the point would be. Wallace is better right now and McCoy has more upside than either. Wouldn't you like McCoy to go into the offseason with 11 straight starts under his belt and for once have a clear-cut #1? I sure as hell would.
Right now, I set the odds for Delhomme being on the team next year at about one in 50 and headed downward. If we stayed in this offense, I could buy him as a backup/mentor for McCoy, because they like each other... but I really think we're headed for a WCO, which Delhomme has never played. Wallace has a ton of experience in Holmgren's WCO.
If McCoy starts and Wallace backs up, I won't be shocked to see a much younger #3, someone with some upside. It's something Holmgren likes to do.
BTW, it's officially McCoy this Sunday. Wallace was ruled out. After three straight starts and a bye week, McCoy probably knows the offense better than Delhomme.
Gotta think anybody who wants to start Delhomme now, next year, or ever is just cutting against the grain. Makes zero sense for a team trying to round into playoff shape for 2011 and 2012. He's old, he's injury-prone, he got cut for Matt Moore, nobody else wanted him, and his good years are getting really small in the rearview mirror.
I just don't know what the point would be. Wallace is better right now and McCoy has more upside than either. Wouldn't you like McCoy to go into the offseason with 11 straight starts under his belt and for once have a clear-cut #1? I sure as hell would.
Right now, I set the odds for Delhomme being on the team next year at about one in 50 and headed downward. If we stayed in this offense, I could buy him as a backup/mentor for McCoy, because they like each other... but I really think we're headed for a WCO, which Delhomme has never played. Wallace has a ton of experience in Holmgren's WCO.
If McCoy starts and Wallace backs up, I won't be shocked to see a much younger #3, someone with some upside. It's something Holmgren likes to do.
BTW, it's officially McCoy this Sunday. Wallace was ruled out. After three straight starts and a bye week, McCoy probably knows the offense better than Delhomme.
Exactly.
-
Delhomme had a great preseason, was voted captain by his peers, and is getting paid 7 mil...it's his job to lose. imo, he hasn't lost it yet.
if Jake's healthy and it's McCoy, there's no turning back, so i would agree Jake is a duster. if he's not, that still gives them an out re: McCoy.
i want to see McCoy play Sunday as much as anyone but we can't get anxious with this. he can afford to season a bit more, and a hungrier McCoy can't be a bad thing.
if it's McCoy and SW feels like he's healthy...it could get pretty messy. we'll have to see how it plays out (if EM allows us to see, that is).
-
Delhomme isn't good enough these days to have a lock on a job for any NFL team. He isn't Hasselbeck, let alone Brady. His job entitlement is zilch. We don't have "that guy" and shouldn't pretend we do.
Screw the 7 million. It was a national joke anyway. There's just no point to starting Delhomme now that we're halfway through the season, 2-5, he's played one half, and he isn't expected to be healthy until week 10.
Makes zero sense.
-
Why I'm optimistic: With our schedule, it feels like every game we go into, I expect the Browns to look overmatched. I think the other team expects it.
Then you get in 1.5 quarters and you say, "You know, for a team supposedly lacking in any discernable talent... we look just as good as (Ravens, Steelers, Saints, etc.)."
I honestly think there's more talent on this team than people acknowledge... or know yet. I think we have a Top 10 OL, a Top 10 set of TEs, and a very good bruiser tailback. I think we have lots of talent on defense: Rubin, Coleman, Schaefering, Fujita, Gocong, Benard, Haden, and Ward are really legit players. I think Elam is adequate and Wright is an upper-bracket talent coming out of a weird slump.
If we just added a #1 WR and a very serious DE while keeping Roth and DQJ (who will be a bargain)? I think this team would be very, very good next season. Also throw in another pass rusher and a new OC and it's 10 wins.
-
Why I'm optimistic: With our schedule, it feels like every game we go into, I expect the Browns to look overmatched. I think the other team expects it.
Then you get in 1.5 quarters and you say, "You know, for a team supposedly lacking in any discernable talent... we look just as good as (Ravens, Steelers, Saints, etc.)."
I honestly think there's more talent on this team than people acknowledge... or know yet. I think we have a Top 10 OL, a Top 10 set of TEs, and a very good bruiser tailback. I think we have lots of talent on defense: Rubin, Coleman, Schaefering, Fujita, Gocong, Benard, Haden, and Ward are really legit players. I think Elam is adequate and Wright is an upper-bracket talent coming out of a weird slump.
If we just added a #1 WR and a very serious DE while keeping Roth and DQJ (who will be a bargain)? I think this team would be very, very good next season. Also throw in another pass rusher and a new OC and it's 10 wins.
Why I'm optimistic: With our schedule, it feels like every game we go into, I expect the Browns to look overmatched. I think the other team expects it.
Then you get in 1.5 quarters and you say, "You know, for a team supposedly lacking in any discernable talent... we look just as good as (Ravens, Steelers, Saints, etc.)."
I honestly think there's more talent on this team than people acknowledge... or know yet. I think we have a Top 10 OL, a Top 10 set of TEs, and a very good bruiser tailback. I think we have lots of talent on defense: Rubin, Coleman, Schaefering, Fujita, Gocong, Benard, Haden, and Ward are really legit players. I think Elam is adequate and Wright is an upper-bracket talent coming out of a weird slump.
If we just added a #1 WR and a very serious DE while keeping Roth and DQJ (who will be a bargain)? I think this team would be very, very good next season. Also throw in another pass rusher and a new OC and it's 10 wins.
shep,
the problem is that no one in the national media watches this team. They see the record of 2-5 and they figure the Browns are a pushover. No one bothers to do the homework. They read the Cliffs Notes version. Yes, this team needs more pieces but this IS the NFL where guys are paid to execute and most of all, have pride. If you think that the Cleveland Browns or the Detroit Lions are going to roll over because the Pats and Jets are rolling into their respective towns this weekend...you're mistaken. You can't just roll the helmet out on to the field and expect to win. Why do teams get trapped in trap games? Because they don't put in the work or the attitude because they never had to in high school and college. The margins are so much narrower at the pro level. The difference between winning and losing is so tight....that you can't honestly expect anything but parity most of the time.
-
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/106799093.html
Browns' McCoy embraces chance to play Patriots
By Nate Ulrich
Beacon Journal sports writer
POSTED: 08:00 p.m. EDT, Nov 05, 2010
BEREA: First the Pittsburgh Steelers, then the New Orleans Saints and now the New England Patriots. Yes, rookie Colt McCoy will continue to run the gantlet Sunday at Cleveland Browns Stadium.
''I embrace it,'' McCoy said Friday after he was named the Browns' starting quarterback for their upcoming game against the Patriots. ''I really think it's cool to play my first three games against six Super Bowl [wins] combined with all of the quarterbacks: Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Tom Brady.
''The cool thing is that those guys had to do exactly what I'm doing. They were rookies once, too. They played in these games, and for me, I see it as 'What an opportunity.' Let's go out there and play. I want to go out there and play the best I can for this team.''
Quarterbacks Seneca Wallace and Jake Delhomme did not practice this week because of their high-ankle sprains and are listed as questionable and doubtful, respectively, on the team's injury report. Browns coach Eric Mangini said Wallace still has ''an outside chance'' of being active Sunday, but he won't be the team's starter.
Instead, McCoy will start at home in a regular-season game for the first time. His first couple of starts took place in two of the NFL's most hostile environments — Heinz Field and the Superdome — but he didn't react like a deer in headlights.
''For a young guy, I've been pleased with his poise, I've been pleased with his approach and I've been pleased with his confidence,'' Mangini said of McCoy. ''It's not that false bravado that someone has to try to make those around them feel better about the fact that they're playing. It's legitimate. This is his third shot, and I feel good about him going into this game.''
McCoy has completed 32-of-49 passes (65.3 percent) for 355 yards and a touchdown with two interceptions for a passer rating of 76.5. The Browns (2-5) are 1-1 since he became their starter, and he's shown improvement in each practice.
''He has the right attitude,'' wide receiver Chansi Stuckey said. ''He has the moxie that a quarterback needs, his leadership and things like that. I think he's getting comfortable using the system in the game, making checks, recognizing blitz, recognizing coverage, getting us in the right run checks. I think that's the part where he's grown a lot.''
If there is any coach who could formulate a plan to derail a 24-year-old quarterback's progress, it's the Patriots' Bill Belichick, whom McCoy called a ''genius.''
Browns offensive coordinator Brian Daboll knows he must pay close attention to McCoy's mental preparation for the Patriots (6-1).
''You try to break down all the plays and simplify certain things that he can take from each scheme that they play, and you can't overwhelm him with things,'' Daboll said. ''That's one thing I've tried not to do the last two weeks with him is just kind of take little bits and pieces of each defensive scheme and maybe try to find some sort of tendency for him where it triggers because the game happens so fast, particularly for a young quarterback.''
After McCoy's first start, a 28-10 loss to the Steelers, Daboll stressed the importance of pocket presence. McCoy listened. He was sacked five times against the Steelers but only once in the Browns' 30-17 win over the Saints. He also threw two interceptions against the Steelers but none against the Saints.
''Getting hit by those big guys are a little bit different than the college guys, and he did a good job of standing in [the pocket] and moving when he needed to move,'' Daboll said. ''I thought it was better than the week before, and that's what you're looking for from young guys is to improve each game. Again, he hadn't had a ton of reps. He's kind of learning on the fly right here. In training camp, it was all Jake and Seneca for the most part.''
The Browns are a veteran team — they have 16 players who are 30 or older on their 53-man roster. McCoy, however, has not had a problem commanding respect from his elders.
''When he came in in the beginning, he was calm, cool, collected,'' tight end Benjamin Watson said. ''He kind of did what the coaches had planned for him to do, and he kind of took control from the get-go.''
McCoy has earned his teammates' trust in part because he's a perfectionist. McCoy said he treats practices as if they're games, and Daboll said McCoy becomes aggravated if one of his passes is about 6 inches off target.
''He's not arrogant or cocky or anything like that,'' Daboll said. ''He's competitive. He wants to do well so bad.''
-
Why I'm optimistic: With our schedule, it feels like every game we go into, I expect the Browns to look overmatched. I think the other team expects it.
Then you get in 1.5 quarters and you say, "You know, for a team supposedly lacking in any discernable talent... we look just as good as (Ravens, Steelers, Saints, etc.)."
I honestly think there's more talent on this team than people acknowledge... or know yet. I think we have a Top 10 OL, a Top 10 set of TEs, and a very good bruiser tailback. I think we have lots of talent on defense: Rubin, Coleman, Schaefering, Fujita, Gocong, Benard, Haden, and Ward are really legit players. I think Elam is adequate and Wright is an upper-bracket talent coming out of a weird slump.
If we just added a #1 WR and a very serious DE while keeping Roth and DQJ (who will be a bargain)? I think this team would be very, very good next season. Also throw in another pass rusher and a new OC and it's 10 wins.
shep,
the problem is that no one in the national media watches this team. They see the record of 2-5 and they figure the Browns are a pushover. No one bothers to do the homework. They read the Cliffs Notes version. Yes, this team needs more pieces but this IS the NFL where guys are paid to execute and most of all, have pride. If you think that the Cleveland Browns or the Detroit Lions are going to roll over because the Pats and Jets are rolling into their respective towns this weekend...you're mistaken. You can't just roll the helmet out on to the field and expect to win. Why do teams get trapped in trap games? Because they don't put in the work or the attitude because they never had to in high school and college. The margins are so much narrower at the pro level. The difference between winning and losing is so tight....that you can't honestly expect anything but parity most of the time.
shep,
the problem is that no one in the national media watches this team. They see the record of 2-5 and they figure the Browns are a pushover. No one bothers to do the homework. They read the Cliffs Notes version. Yes, this team needs more pieces but this IS the NFL where guys are paid to execute and most of all, have pride. If you think that the Cleveland Browns or the Detroit Lions are going to roll over because the Pats and Jets are rolling into their respective towns this weekend...you're mistaken. You can't just roll the helmet out on to the field and expect to win. Why do teams get trapped in trap games? Because they don't put in the work or the attitude because they never had to in high school and college. The margins are so much narrower at the pro level. The difference between winning and losing is so tight....that you can't honestly expect anything but parity most of the time.
I agree. I don't recall an NFL season with the parity as seen this year. With few exceptions any team can beat another on a given Sunday. There have been a ton of close games.
It makes for a great league and season.
-
Delhomme isn't good enough these days to have a lock on a job for any NFL team. He isn't Hasselbeck, let alone Brady. His job entitlement is zilch. We don't have "that guy" and shouldn't pretend we do.
Screw the 7 million. It was a national joke anyway. There's just no point to starting Delhomme now that we're halfway through the season, 2-5, he's played one half, and he isn't expected to be healthy until week 10.
Makes zero sense.
Delhomme isn't good enough these days to have a lock on a job for any NFL team. He isn't Hasselbeck, let alone Brady. His job entitlement is zilch. We don't have "that guy" and shouldn't pretend we do.
without having all the info it stands to reason it would make little sense to you. you have a fan perspective...and in my view prove it constantly.Screw the 7 million. It was a national joke anyway. There's just no point to starting Delhomme now that we're halfway through the season, 2-5, he's played one half, and he isn't expected to be healthy until week 10.
Makes zero sense.
you also have a serious axe to grind with Delhomme. your response, if anything, is consistent and predictable. i occasionally read both boards...and there's nothing new here.
you are entitled to your opinion, as am i. mine just happens to be the same as many of the players. like JC for ex.
not a nock against Colt, but the gameplan is watered down when he's in there, and rightly so--he's seeing things for the very first time. they face the Pats Sunday, not the Rams or Bills...or even the Packers or Chargers. the Pats. you play to win TODAY, not to determine next year's draft chart. Jake has the tools and the experience. although his arm isn't as sharp as it once was, he has proven in the past that he can take over games. again, not a nock on the rookie, who up til now has merely shown he can manage games. enormous difference there.
it's all moot now because Colt has been confirmed as the starter. regardless, all signs point to how a healthy Jake would be starting tomorrow, whether any of us like it or not.
-
Delhomme isn't good enough these days to have a lock on a job for any NFL team. He isn't Hasselbeck, let alone Brady. His job entitlement is zilch. We don't have "that guy" and shouldn't pretend we do.
without having all the info it stands to reason it would make little sense to you. you have a fan perspective...and in my view prove it constantly.Screw the 7 million. It was a national joke anyway. There's just no point to starting Delhomme now that we're halfway through the season, 2-5, he's played one half, and he isn't expected to be healthy until week 10.
Makes zero sense.
you also have a serious axe to grind with Delhomme. your response, if anything, is consistent and predictable. i occasionally read both boards...and there's nothing new here.
you are entitled to your opinion, as am i. mine just happens to be the same as many of the players. like JC for ex.
not a nock against Colt, but the gameplan is watered down when he's in there, and rightly so--he's seeing things for the very first time. they face the Pats Sunday, not the Rams or Bills...or even the Packers or Chargers. the Pats. you play to win TODAY, not to determine next year's draft chart. Jake has the tools and the experience. although his arm isn't as sharp as it once was, he has proven in the past that he can take over games. again, not a nock on the rookie, who up til now has merely shown he can manage games. enormous difference there.
it's all moot now because Colt has been confirmed as the starter. regardless, all signs point to how a healthy Jake would be starting tomorrow, whether any of us like it or not.
without having all the info it stands to reason it would make little sense to you. you have a fan perspective...and in my view prove it constantly.
you also have a serious axe to grind with Delhomme. your response, if anything, is consistent and predictable. i occasionally read both boards...and there's nothing new here.
you are entitled to your opinion, as am i. mine just happens to be the same as many of the players. like JC for ex.
not a nock against Colt, but the gameplan is watered down when he's in there, and rightly so--he's seeing things for the very first time. they face the Pats Sunday, not the Rams or Bills...or even the Packers or Chargers. the Pats. you play to win TODAY, not to determine next year's draft chart. Jake has the tools and the experience. although his arm isn't as sharp as it once was, he has proven in the past that he can take over games. again, not a nock on the rookie, who up til now has merely shown he can manage games. enormous difference there.
it's all moot now because Colt has been confirmed as the starter. regardless, all signs point to how a healthy Jake would be starting tomorrow, whether any of us like it or not.
So? He played the Steelers and the Saints, in away games and played damn good for a rookie. What's your point again? Oh, he's playing the "Pats"?
-
my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,
HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.
and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?
-
my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,
HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.
and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?
my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,
HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.
and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?
Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.
Keep the saddle on the Colt.
-
I say ride the hot horse
-
my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,
HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.
and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?
Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.
Keep the saddle on the Colt.
Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.
not even granny smith to red delicious. true, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Colt did awesome in his first starts as a rookie but arguably, he did not outplay JD or SW. without being a member of the Browns coaching staff or being privy to the gameplan we cannot say Colt played better than Jake (or SW), because we have no clue what was expected of both. in a vacuum, i guess i can see where you are coming from, but to think Jake couldn't have performed the role that was expected of Colt is pretty naive USF.Keep the saddle on the Colt.
a rookie may have been rattled playing away in the harsh environments both games displayed...but not our vets, they would have had similar poise as well. i give Colt his props for sure...but in the saints game give Jake (or Seneca for that matter) awesome field position from Specials and a Hodges run (to the 10 yard line was it?), no RB or receiver fumbles all game with few mistakes or penalties either, on top of two pick sixes(!) and two other INTs (could have been 7 or 8 in reality) and even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off. once behind, the saints were forced to abandon the run game>>>allowing Ryan to predict Brees would pass and neutralize him.
again, not to minimize what Colt did, but without using every gadget in the book and getting the early lead which forced Brees to pass to try to come from behind, where would Colt have stood then? we will never know, but don't deny that it was the perfect storm, or that JD or SW couldn't have managed that game as well.
-
my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,
HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.
and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?
Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.
Keep the saddle on the Colt.
Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.
Keep the saddle on the Colt.
+1.
I think this needs clarification. Many people in the media love to throw around the ol' "Don't lose your job due to injury" cliche but that simply isn't the case. It's like a half-truth. The actual truth is that you don't lose your job to injury if you were firmly established beforehand. If you were NOT so, then a hot-hand could unseat you. So, using this logic:
1) Peyton Manning won't lose his job ever
2) Matt Cassel got shipped out of town
3) Mike Vick and Kevin Kolb will continue to be in the news the whole season
4) Colt McCoy could win the job by lighting it up against the best teams in the NFL
5) Seneca Wallace should be very nervous. Yes, he's been somewhat outspoken about naming a starter but I think he's just worried that Colt will seize the opportunity and bury him on the bench
6) Jake doesn't have a firm claim on the job based on what limited performance we've seen. True, his stint against Atlanta was probably hampered by injury but I don't think that the coaches are going to care given that he was making miscues from the neck up
This is the NFL follks. Guys lose their job every day. Why do you think some guys try to hide their injuries? Because they know that the "next man up" might come in and they'll never see that starting job again. On the other hand the NFL is also home to some guys fitting the opposite description. They fake or embellish injury to NOT see the field. Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps James Davis and James Harrison were soft? We always bitched about them not seeing the field but how much of that was their not being 100% and thus not giving 100%. Didn't Harrison have a habit of disappearing against the Ravens and the Steelers (the more physical teams)? I don't know this for a fact but I have heard grumblings from people who would know.
-
Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.
not even granny smith to red delicious. true, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Colt did awesome in his first starts as a rookie but arguably, he did not outplay JD or SW. without being a member of the Browns coaching staff or being privy to the gameplan we cannot say Colt played better than Jake (or SW), because we have no clue what was expected of both. in a vacuum, i guess i can see where you are coming from, but to think Jake couldn't have performed the role that was expected of Colt is pretty naive USF.Keep the saddle on the Colt.
a rookie may have been rattled playing away in the harsh environments both games displayed...but not our vets, they would have had similar poise as well. i give Colt his props for sure...but in the saints game give Jake (or Seneca for that matter) awesome field position from Specials and a Hodges run (to the 10 yard line was it?), no RB or receiver fumbles all game with few mistakes or penalties either, on top of two pick sixes(!) and two other INTs (could have been 7 or 8 in reality) and even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off. once behind, the saints were forced to abandon the run game>>>allowing Ryan to predict Brees would pass and neutralize him.
again, not to minimize what Colt did, but without using every gadget in the book and getting the early lead which forced Brees to pass to try to come from behind, where would Colt have stood then? we will never know, but don't deny that it was the perfect storm, or that JD or SW couldn't have managed that game as well.
not even granny smith to red delicious. true, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Colt did awesome in his first starts as a rookie but arguably, he did not outplay JD or SW. without being a member of the Browns coaching staff or being privy to the gameplan we cannot say Colt played better than Jake (or SW), because we have no clue what was expected of both. in a vacuum, i guess i can see where you are coming from, but to think Jake couldn't have performed the role that was expected of Colt is pretty naive USF.
a rookie may have been rattled playing away in the harsh environments both games displayed...but not our vets, they would have had similar poise as well. i give Colt his props for sure...but in the saints game give Jake (or Seneca for that matter) awesome field position from Specials and a Hodges run (to the 10 yard line was it?), no RB or receiver fumbles all game with few mistakes or penalties either, on top of two pick sixes(!) and two other INTs (could have been 7 or 8 in reality) and even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off. once behind, the saints were forced to abandon the run game>>>allowing Ryan to predict Brees would pass and neutralize him.
again, not to minimize what Colt did, but without using every gadget in the book and getting the early lead which forced Brees to pass to try to come from behind, where would Colt have stood then? we will never know, but don't deny that it was the perfect storm, or that JD or SW couldn't have managed that game as well.
sisky...I love you kid but I am going to disagree on a couple of points.
1. While we don't have enough info to say that Colt definitely outplayed the other two, he did do two things that the others did not. First he was more accurate (including downfield) than Wallace or Jake. Second, he was far better than either in selling play action and screens. You can minimize that if you want but he had defenses guessing by his body language and athleticism.
2. Poise is relative. I think Seneca would have been poised as well. Jake has a propensity to happy feet and a lack of poise.
3. Don't apologize for the fact that we made the Saints one dimensional. We won on first down consistently. Did you really think they weren't going to be a "pass first" offense? The Browns earned that defensive performance
4. "even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off". Absolutely not. Let's not kid ourselves. This year we're completing 61.7% of our passes (13th in the league). Last year we were stuggling to get to 49% (which was dead last). Not even Macouns to Fuji.
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