"It's a passing league"
-
This whole "passing league" bs is predicated on the notion that you can actually protect your qb. Year after year after year since 99 I've watched the Browns draft 1 qb after another, and with the exception of 2012 season....we've never really been able to protect our qb. There's zero point in drafting a high level qb that we can watch run for his life for 2 seasons. Then after that 2nd season, we get to watch an ESPN segment on how a once promising career died in Cleveland. And then we have to watch them rattle off the list of past promising young qb's who amounted to nothing in Cleveland. Qb's like Hoyer work here in Cleveland cause they've been in the game awhile and know what to mitigate a porous o line. Manziel will be a world class sprinter by season 2 if he stays even moderately healthy.
-
I THINK WE SHOULD KILL IT>
Don't fall down the well lassie
-
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
-
Really? You don't think anyone has supported the idea that getting an amazing QB and throwing like crazy is the only way to find success in the NFL? Maybe I'm hearing it all wrong. The Browns didn't even have a good QB this year and people STILL defended the decisions to throw more passes than any other team in the league.
-
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
At no point has anyone said that.
As a matter of fact, I've said the opposite. It's no coincidence that two of the three quarterbacks with the highest pass attempts per game average both went down with season injuries.
The thing is, having a QB that defenses will have to respect will open up running lanes.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
-
Thank you, Mike H! I get the feeling not everyone agrees with us. Also, I'm not sure what the division of responsibility was for the offense, but I feel like Chud bears some responsibility for the inappropriate passing, too. When I brought this up during the Chud discussions, I was met with "It's a passing league!"
My thing is, if you know you don't have a good QB, and you're going to use that as your excuse for why you can't win, you definitely don't throw the ball more than the team that has Peyton Manning. And you certainly don't do it late in the game when you're ahead. That's just bad coaching.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
I think people mis-understand the passing league thing. Its being said because, rule changes have made throwing easier than ever and teams are passing way more than they used to. I dont think anyone ever said you dont need a good run game to win. Good QB play will lead you farther than a good ground game for sure though.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
-
Right, DaBuckeye, and I agree with all that. I'm not talking about the reasonable folks. I'm talking about the folks who, when I ask, "Why are the Browns not making any attempt to run time off the clock when they are ahead in the 4th quarter?!", respond with "It's a passing league!"
In my mind, one-dimensional is not the way to go regardless of whether it is run or pass (unless you have someone like a Manning, Brees, or Brady). But it seems like every time I mention the Browns paying a little more attention to running needs, I'm told that passing is all that matters.
Oh, and I'm SURE people said you don't need a running game to win. I know this was said directly (if not verbatim) during the Trent Richardson discussions.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
We also need some bruiser OGs to open up lanes for the RBs.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
When we had hoyer we still couldn't run the ball.
-
We also need some bruiser OGs to open up lanes for the RBs.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
When we had hoyer we still couldn't run the ball.
-
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
-
Well, I started the thread, so I'll answer that. The answer is: "kind of". Someone hit the nail on the head earlier when they pointed out that it depends on what people mean when they say it. If a person means that "the rules of the league benefit the passing game", or if they mean that "the majority of the league prefers a passing offense to a rushing offense", then I don't think there's room for much debate about that. What I was actually arguing against was the group that exists (at least in my mind?) that seems to believe that a nearly purely vertical offense is the ONLY means of finding success in the league.
I think most of us have come to the agreement now that the first version (the rule and teams favor passing) is basically true, that a good QB is definitely beneficial to the success of a team, and that the last version (only passing is the only answer) is a little extreme.
-
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
Without Brady, the Pats don't make it to any Super Bowl in the last 10 years.
Nobody is arguing that it's not about balance. But a team devoid of a franchise quarterback is a hell of a lot less likely to make the postseason than one devoid of a franchise runningback.
Gore had less than 15 rushing yards yesterday and the 49ers were still only one play away from winning. They're not relying on him by any means.
A team can get by with a mediocre runningback more than they can a mediocre quarterback. Look at the Patriots. Blount had 6 games this season where he recorded less than 15 yards. 1/5 of his season totals came from last weeks playoff game. But he has one good game and now the Patriots successes are because of him?
Blount was undrafted. Gore was a third round pick. Lynch was a very mediocre first round pick in Buffalo. Moreno hasn't lived up to his first round billing, either.
The league is becoming a passing league. The rules favor QB's and WR's. The NFL is trying to trend away from contact and toward flat out speed, similar to college. We're seeing more spread sets and offenses are featuring more mobile quartebacks running read-option plays than ever before. Its not to say there isn't any value in grinding the defense down by pounding the rock, but big backs are slowly being phased out by rule changes. The traditional fullback position is disappearing. Smaller, zone blocking guards are being sought after and quarterbacks are throwing 35-40 times a game. It's not to say that's theore successful way, but that is the way things are currently heading, it seems.
Are you suggesting we take a runningback in the first round?
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
#Justsayin' -
While I agree its a passing league...what the Browns lack is a true mudder like OJ anderson who can pound the rock consistently and run down the clock...not the fastest guy. But he was a bull late in his career and was used by Parcells noriously to run down the clock.
-
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
I already told you- only if you see a guy @ #4 that's actually worth drafting at #4. Just because he happens to be a quarterback doesn't automatically mean he's worth it. Reaching for a qb because you happen to need one will get you a Gabbert or Ponder (or worse, Jamarcus Russell) more often than not. I'm yet to be convinced there's "the guy" at the top of round one this year. Gip pointed out in another thread players you'd consider "franchise quarterbacks" don't happen every draft.
-
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
I already told you- only if you see a guy @ #4 that's actually worth drafting at #4. Just because he happens to be a quarterback doesn't automatically mean he's worth it. Reaching for a qb because you happen to need one will get you a Gabbert or Ponder (or worse, Jamarcus Russell) more often than not. I'm yet to be convinced there's "the guy" at the top of round one this year. Gip pointed out in another thread players you'd consider "franchise quarterbacks" don't happen every draft.
I already told you- only if you see a guy @ #4 that's actually worth drafting at #4. Just because he happens to be a quarterback doesn't automatically mean he's worth it. Reaching for a qb because you happen to need one will get you a Gabbert or Ponder (or worse, Jamarcus Russell) more often than not. I'm yet to be convinced there's "the guy" at the top of round one this year. Gip pointed out in another thread players you'd consider "franchise quarterbacks" don't happen every draft.
I'd be happy with any of the top three qbs at #4. These guys aren't perfect but they each have the potential to be really good QBs.
Remember when everyone said that Cam Newton would bust because of how simple the Auburn offense was?
It seems that people are still stuck in the Couch mindset, but in reality, we have a more than competent team for a rookie qb to work with.
Couch, like Carr, was put in a terrible situation and had the misfortune of playing behind a historically bad offensive line.
Our line is a lot better than some people are willing to admit, we undoubtedly have better offensive weapons and with a little diligence can find a back who can turn the run game situation around.
While comparing the current Brown's roster to some of the teams fielded in the past one has to admit that the team, from a personnel stand point, is far better than it has been.
I was an advocate of building up the team to a point where we could plug in a QB and expect immediate success.
In my opinion, that's where we are right now. The Browns need to stop taking shots on bargain basement QBs. One good QB can take this team to the playoffs.
After the seasons we have endured, aren't you ready to take a chance? Bridgewater has a slight build and Manziel is a scrambler and Carr doesn't have the brain power and Bortles' last name sounds like a Pokemon.
No one is perfect, but if this FO can find a QB who can play well enough and afford his HC enough time to set up a culture of winning I'll be a happy dude.
All this money and all these draft picks?! We can afford to take a chance on a QB at #4 as well as one in the third round (I'm liking the idea of Garoppolo more and more as the days pass).
the WRs will be there, the O-line guys will be there, the CBs will be there, the linebackers will be there. Find a guy who can be a top 15 QB his rookie year and this franchise will do a 180.
At this point, I fear muddling around in mediocrity due to poor qb play way more than I fear a QB bust.
-
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be happy ecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.
The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
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