If Colt Started This Season, The Browns Would At Least Have A Win.
-
Couch is your benchmark and you don't understand how folks can be dissatisfied...
Kinda says it all...
-
Period
That is right. You must be having Periods, else you wont be saying this. Now take some Advil for the PMS and relax.
-
So...two terrible INT's aren't his fault? Both ended up as points.
Cribbs' fumble was terrible.
Offense only got 15 first downs, went 3-12 on 3rd down. We lost the time of possession battle by 10.5 minutes.
But it's not our offense's fault at all, I guess.
Seattle had 17 first downs and won.
Miami and 15 first downs and won.
Baltimore had 15 first downs and won.
St. Louis had 12 first downs and won.
You know what the difference is? Their defenses didn't give up 41 points.
You can't expect an offense with 3-4 rookies starting on it to keep up with the Super Bowl winning offense of the season before. The defense has to help the offense, and they most certainly did not help today.
Cribbs fumble (I'm not sure how you can attribute that to Weeden) can be negated by Bradshaw's fumble. One Weeden interception can be negated by one Eli Manning interception.
Take those away, and there was only one turnover that led to points. So Weeden was responsible for 6 NYG points. The rest of the points are squarely on the defensive side.
For you to pin the blame on Weeden without acknowledging the poor play of the defense either shows you are biased or you are stupid. Take your pick.
You can't expect an offense with 3-4 rookies starting on it to keep up with the Super Bowl winning offense of the season before. The defense has to help the offense, and they most certainly did not help today.
Yet you can expect a D that due to injuries ended up playing 3 rookies most of the game, with an added pair of sophomore players, to hold a SB offense in check?
C'mon man...
Cribbs fumble (I'm not sure how you can attribute that to Weeden) can be negated by Bradshaw's fumble.
Reasonable trade off as they were both in roughly the same area of the field...
... and I'll take a shot at your bonus point...
If Wheeeeeeden had gotten the ball to Cribbs early, he would have had a better feel for the game and not fumbled... 🥷
One Weeden interception can be negated by one Eli Manning interception.
Not a true trade off based on field position and psychological impacts...
Ignoring the fact that Brown interfered with Cruz, Manning's only INT was on a deep ball thrown from his own end of the field. Young made a good return of what was essentially a punt.
Wheeezies' 1st Int was a momentum killer, deep in Giants' territory after a pretty decent looking drive... plus it was a back foot, fade away pass... only sailed about 5' over Gordon's head... and was returned fairly deep into our territory giving our D a short field to defend.
Wheeezer's 2nd was an even worse gut punch... deep in NYG territroy... intercepted in the end zone. I have absolutely no idea what he saw that told him Watson was open... the LB was dead between Wheezie and Watson...
Take those away, and there was only one turnover that led to points. So Weeden was responsible for 6 NYG points. The rest of the points are squarely on the defensive side.
False premise... false conclusion...
For you to pin the blame on Weeden without acknowledging the poor play of the defense either shows you are biased or you are stupid. Take your pick.
OK, TCPL... I pick "you are biased"... cause I really don't think you are stupid...
-
everyone is biased in one way or another on every subject.
our defense has sooo many holes that could have been addressed in this draft, basically completing jauron's dream team. it was heavy on defense. instead of doing that and waiting until next year to draft our spectacular qb and rb of the future we mortgaged it all on 2 guys that will be lucky to last 5 years in the league. that's why this franchise will never gain any ground.
this way, then that way. back and forth, instead of straight ahead.
-
Wasn't Cribbs fumble on a kick return? Therefore having nothing to do with Weeden whatsoever. Quit reaching.
As for "psychological impacts", you cannot quantify that. From a statistical standpoint, what I said was and is completely true.
And in your eyes the defense gets a pass because they are young, beat up and inexperienced.
But our (relatively) young and inexperienced is expected to perform flawlessly.
Got it.
-
Wasn't Cribbs fumble on a kick return? Therefore having nothing to do with Weeden whatsoever. Quit reaching.
As for "psychological impacts", you cannot quantify that. From a statistical standpoint, what I said was and is completely true.
And in your eyes the defense gets a pass because they are young, beat up and inexperienced.
But our (relatively) young and inexperienced is expected to perform flawlessly.
Got it.
Wasn't Cribbs fumble on a kick return? Therefore having nothing to do with Weeden whatsoever. Quit reaching.
As for "psychological impacts", you cannot quantify that. From a statistical standpoint, what I said was and is completely true.
And in your eyes the defense gets a pass because they are young, beat up and inexperienced.
But our (relatively) young and inexperienced is expected to perform flawlessly.
Got it.
Yes, it was a kick return... and my reply was a joke... an intentional joke unlike the humor in your posts...
You claim to "have played the game" or at least damn others for apparently not having played, yet you dismiss psychological impacts... This calls your game participation/ understanding into serious question.
You presented no substantial statistics, other than subtracting fumbles and INT's, so it's hard to accept the truth of your so-called statistical argument. That you glommed onto the my psychological comment and completely ignored my field position comment reveals much about the depth of your "analysis".
Finally, for the 2nd time, I ask you to quit inferring what I am saying and instead read my posts through... and if you move your lips while reading, that's fine. I neither excused our defense nor assailed your precious offense.
All the above said, I'll continue to withhold the stupid label you are working so hard to earn for now. Instead I'll simply add "myopic" to the previously selected "biased" designation...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
I don't care about wins, we just should've picked a 1st round talent with our 22nd pick.
Colt would've just been a filler until we spent a high pick on a QB with a real ceiling.
Yeah, absolutely. Not saying he is our guy but I am saying he wasn't the weakest piece that needed to be replaced.
It is too late for that though. This is just confirming that I was right and Weeden would bust.
Yeah, absolutely. Not saying he is our guy but I am saying he wasn't the weakest piece that needed to be replaced.
It is too late for that though. This is just confirming that I was right and Weeden would bust.
LOL......some conclusion.
He are the facts. You don't know we would have won a game, and you don't know that Weeden will bust.
-
Wasn't Cribbs fumble on a kick return? Therefore having nothing to do with Weeden whatsoever. Quit reaching.
As for "psychological impacts", you cannot quantify that. From a statistical standpoint, what I said was and is completely true.
And in your eyes the defense gets a pass because they are young, beat up and inexperienced.
But our (relatively) young and inexperienced is expected to perform flawlessly.
Got it.
Yes, it was a kick return... and my reply was a joke... an intentional joke unlike the humor in your posts...
You claim to "have played the game" or at least damn others for apparently not having played, yet you dismiss psychological impacts... This calls your game participation/ understanding into serious question.
You presented no substantial statistics, other than subtracting fumbles and INT's, so it's hard to accept the truth of your so-called statistical argument. That you glommed onto the my psychological comment and completely ignored my field position comment reveals much about the depth of your "analysis".
Finally, for the 2nd time, I ask you to quit inferring what I am saying and instead read my posts through... and if you move your lips while reading, that's fine. I neither excused our defense nor assailed your precious offense.
All the above said, I'll continue to withhold the stupid label you are working so hard to earn for now. Instead I'll simply add "myopic" to the previously selected "biased" designation...
Yes, it was a kick return... and my reply was a joke... an intentional joke unlike the humor in your posts...
You claim to "have played the game" or at least damn others for apparently not having played, yet you dismiss psychological impacts... This calls your game participation/ understanding into serious question.
You presented no substantial statistics, other than subtracting fumbles and INT's, so it's hard to accept the truth of your so-called statistical argument. That you glommed onto the my psychological comment and completely ignored my field position comment reveals much about the depth of your "analysis".
Finally, for the 2nd time, I ask you to quit inferring what I am saying and instead read my posts through... and if you move your lips while reading, that's fine. I neither excused our defense nor assailed your precious offense.
All the above said, I'll continue to withhold the stupid label you are working so hard to earn for now. Instead I'll simply add "myopic" to the previously selected "biased" designation...
I have and still do play, and I was not dismissing "psychological impacts" from the game, only from the argument. As I said before, you cannot quantify it so it has no place in a logic based argument.
If you're going to piggyback on an argument, I'm going to assume that you share the views of the person with whom I am arguing. Especially when you haven't explicitly stated how you feel, other than you don't think Weeden is a bust because it's too early to tell.
You have yet to disprove anything I've said. The defense was still responsible for giving up more points than the offense scored, which is indisputable.
-
Weeden 2nd all time in passing yrds thru 5 games as a rookie. um and remember what team he plays on. he is taking on a bigger load than colt will ever have or has ever had.
"We are Americans. We don't quit doing something because it's wrong. We just keep doing the wrong thing till it turns out right." Browns maybe the most American Football team ever. -
Weeden 2nd all time in passing yrds thru 5 games as a rookie. um and remember what team he plays on. he is taking on a bigger load than colt will ever have or has ever had.
-
Weeden 2nd all time in passing yrds thru 5 games as a rookie. um and remember what team he plays on. he is taking on a bigger load than colt will ever have or has ever had.
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