How does an Orchard treat QBs?
-
You can look at all those times (and I think it was twice anyway). Gipper went off about the A&M-Texas rivalry. Previously, Woody went on some anti-SEC rant. You will not see me openly initiating college football talk on this board, despite your preconceived notions.
Now if we can stick to the topic instead of the ad-hominem attacks....
You said "Tell you what - I would have loved to see you telling any line coach I ever played for "yeah it's okay I gave up a sack off the blind side because it was a coverage sack." I would have paid money to see it."
So JT's performance isn't really relevant by that standard. And even so, you're talking about the best LT in a GENERATION and his Pro Bowl sheet that has not been matched by any other OT in NFL history. You also cited Orlando Pace and Walter Jones, two likely first-ballot Hall of Famers. Sorry, but no one is drafting guys "expecting" careers similar to the ones those guys have turned in.
I agree anyone who gets worked like Peat did by a guy with a second round grade like Orchard probably shouldn't go 13th. Not quibbling with that. Just pushing back on the notion that coverage sacks aren't a legitimate thing. Hopefully your next response includes some civility. Won't hold my breath.
Not going to take the time to go back and read the argument, but it seems like the main point Flugs was trying to highlight is that a player justifying a sack to a coach is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound - it's not going to do much to keep you alive.
Regardless of the type of sack or the extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, a sack is a sack is a sack.
Coverage sacks are just as worrisome as any other sack if they become commonplace, because it then highlights a lack of assignment knowledge and/or a lack of defensive recognition.
Don't know how that fits in, just figured I'd toss in my two cents...since I played OL at a competitive level.
Not going to take the time to go back and read the argument, but it seems like the main point Flugs was trying to highlight is that a player justifying a sack to a coach is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound - it's not going to do much to keep you alive.
Regardless of the type of sack or the extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, a sack is a sack is a sack.
Coverage sacks are just as worrisome as any other sack if they become commonplace, because it then highlights a lack of assignment knowledge and/or a lack of defensive recognition.
Don't know how that fits in, just figured I'd toss in my two cents...since I played OL at a competitive level.
Thanks Couch! Most of the time in here it doesn't matter if one played football or not in order to get their pov respected.
In this particular discussion, it's very helpful to get input from another guy that played oline at a competitive level in terms of communicating the necessary mindset of a lineman in the trenches and from the coaches he has to answer to. My very first reply to Tour acknowledges Qbs like Frye and Quinn held onto the ball too long. That said, there's no certainty that was always from great coverage which might explain why they didn't start very long.
Bigger point in the bigger picture I continue to repeat is what bad QB here since 2007 has spiked the volume of sacks Joe has given up? Because of Joe's mindset driving his standard of excellence at LT - I haven't seen our LT needing to hide behind coverage sack excuses very often, if ever.
-
Flug, I didn't realize you were addressing why we didn't take Peat. I thought you were trying to give Orchard more credit for a sack that was classified as a "coverage sack" by stating those don't exist. If this was just an analysis on why we didn't take Peat, then I'm good. Like I said, giving up three sacks in your draft year is definitely a good reason not to take him.
I will say this, to your point: at a minimum (at least in college where you don't see refined edge rushers most of the time), if you do lose control of the DE as an OT, it should be later than the rest of the OL does (if you're an elite prospect), which would mean the QB is already sacked by the time your guy gets by you.
Flug, I didn't realize you were addressing why we didn't take Peat. I thought you were trying to give Orchard more credit for a sack that was classified as a "coverage sack" by stating those don't exist. If this was just an analysis on why we didn't take Peat, then I'm good. Like I said, giving up three sacks in your draft year is definitely a good reason not to take him.
I will say this, to your point: at a minimum (at least in college where you don't see refined edge rushers most of the time), if you do lose control of the DE as an OT, it should be later than the rest of the OL does (if you're an elite prospect), which would mean the QB is already sacked by the time your guy gets by you.
Okay. I gotchya. I started this thread because I was impressed with Orchard. I was coming at it from what I heard Jim O'Neil said about our 2 oline coaches telling him Orchard's film was destroying the chances of several top oline prospects coming here.
I played oline and there wasn't a single play I ever remembered worrying about howlongmy QB was going to hold onto the ball in 9 years. It was out of my control. Not to speak for Couch, but I'd be surprised if he wasted any time worrying about how long his Qb was going to hold onto the ball any time he left an offensive huddle.
Can you imagine this?
"Anyone want to tell me why our QB is unconscious and our opponent has the ball?" - Oline Coach
"Don't worry about it Coach. It was just a coverage sack. Just give our QB a couple smelling salts and he should remember his name again by tomorrow." - Jonathan Martin
There's 32 NFL teams so I'm pretty happy we're the one with Joe Thomas
-
Don't know how this will end up but you guys need to keep this going so I can see every color of the spectrum in your replies.
-
It's not a back pocket excuse. It's awareness of limitations and expectations.
Knowing you can't do something that's impossible doesn't constitute having a back pocket excuse.
As I've said about 835,926,926,639 times, I've been a Browns fan my whole life. Father is from Cleveland. Both parents graduated from Lake Erie College. I joined the board in February. If I were only here because of Johnny wouldn't I have joined the board 10 months earlier? But thanks for the snide remark anyway.
Okay so you are telling me at least 835,926,926,639 Browns fans before me think you're full of shit. Judging by the ones you continue to piss off in here- your priority remains to argue about college football and opponents on A&M's schedule even in a subject heading about Cleveland's hated rival in Pittsburgh.
BTW, don't try to speak for me when you can't even speak for yourself like you attempted to do in your last reply to me. QBs that hold onto the ball too long isn't always from great coverage in our history so they often get replaced as soon as possible.
The reality is Peat was drafted at #13 overall when we held the 12th pick overall when we discuss Nate Orchard overwhelming Stanford's pass protection on film. Our DC Jim O'Neil that everyone in here seems to know about except you - was the guy who felt compelled to say our 2 oline coaches mentioned how much Nate Orchard changed the intrigue toward several top oline prospects. Keep in mind how much the top rated OT prospect comes into play when he's still available when we're picking 12th. Also keep in mind that that Orlando Paces, Walter Jones, Joe Thomas, Jon Ogdens, Anthony Munoz weren't giving up 3 sacks a game to anyone to explain why they weren't falling as low as #13 overall as a top tackle prospect... Munoz could have had Paul McDonald as his college QB and coverage sacks would have been a non issue. Promise.
As I said, our 2 oline coaches weren't looking for alibis why Peat gave up 3 sacks vrs Orchard. That was because they are already coaching Joe Thomas that never gives that up in 1 game or in an entire season whether his QB was Charlie Frye, Brady Quinn or countless other inadequate QBs that held onto the ball too long in our pocket. Stop me when this gets too difficult. My argument here stands on 8 Pro Bowls from our LT regardless of how many substandard QBs that could never increase his sack volume. In the program best known for sending a soft tackle like Jonathan Martin into the NFL - I'm pretty freakin happy our 2 oline coaches noticed Orchard tossing Peat like a salad when the QB couldn't get scapegoated.
. Judging by the ones you continue to piss off in here- your priority remains to argue
Yep......
Now if we can stick to the topic instead of the ad-hominem attacks....
Says the king of creating points to argue, while completely changing the subject.......Thats why Steelers threads turn into SEC threads and Johnny threads become Jersey threads....and, now, Nate Orchard threads become OT threads.....
Because the MAIN points are always ignored to argue semantics........
Flug, I didn't realize you were addressing why we didn't take Peat.
Exactly!!!.....of course you didnt......you would have had to actually read the posts and you were too busy creating your argument....at least it only took you 5 posts, instead of 5 pages of posts to figure out the topic this time.....
-
No, it isn't "shit"....it's priceless good funny stuff.
Not in this case... at least not "funny" in the usual sense. Although claiming that "coverage sacks" cease to exist at elite levels is "funny".
war... don't fret. Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making.
"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 -
Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
1. The really funny play on words was "Wattshisname.". I think that is great, a funny
play on words. That was the funny part.
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick: -
Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
1. The really funny play on words was "Wattshisname.". I think that is great, a funny
play on words. That was the funny part.
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick:Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
1. The really funny play on words was "Wattshisname.". I think that is great, a funny
play on words. That was the funny part.
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick:Cal, you are the man! Thanks for finding the party that wanted to start kiddie stuff drama again and calling it out. I already told that party if I made him that nervous he needed to put me on ignore. Not that I wasn't flattered by how often he needed to drop into whatever football conversation I was enjoying to give me his latest unprovoked insults or sarcasm. That's a guy keeping score and unhappy with what the scoreboard is telling him. I don't take little Yorkshire Terriers yapping at my ankles very seriously though. I guess if the only thing sitting in my trophy case was the game winning adjective against St Joe's Catholic High School in the Big Debate - maybe I'd be nervous a former offensive lineman was threatening my smartest guy in the room territory if that was the reason I needed to be here. He loves doing plastic surgery on everything I write so it looks exactly like he needs it to. The bigger picture is there's a lot of great fans in here like you and others that just want to talk football. That's all I want to do and I'm having a blast.
I also want to thank Couch for his help getting the discussion back to the appropriate context. He knew exactly where I was going because there isn't an offensive line coach in the country that wants to hear "it was a coverage sack." As much as Frye and Quinn seemed liked good kids, they were far too slow reading through their progressions for me to give a secondary credit for that. 2 separate entities or our 2007 season doesn't take the drastic turn it took as early was week 2 en route to 10 wins over the next 15 games. I'd love to see a guy that never wore a football uniform acting like he's the smartest guy in the room looking down his nose at an NFL oline coach and telling him: "you DO understand that was a coverage sack don't you?" I'd pay money to see it.
Thank you too Mud! To be honest, I thought War manned up. It's all good.
Let's FREAKIN talk football!!!!!
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
From what I remember as a kid this is what thanksgiving was like....watching loved ones rip each other to shreds over such great topics as you`re a lazy bum alcoholic to she`s a floozie.
What I wanna know is who sits at the kiddie table?
-
No, it isn't "shit"....it's priceless good funny stuff.
Not in this case... at least not "funny" in the usual sense. Although claiming that "coverage sacks" cease to exist at elite levels is "funny".
war... don't fret. Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making.
Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making.
I better get this back to its pre-surgery context. Those without agendas in here understand we drafted an Offensive Lineman in round 1. Consequently, they were much more willing to accept Jim O'Neil's comment about our 2 oline coaches saying Orchard was destroying chances of several top oline prospects from coming here. If somebody took Shelton before us, they had to be weighing oline choices for 12 so I see why you're having a hard time with O'Neil's comments.
Peat was your top rated tackle and if Orchard had 3 sacks against Stanford - somebody better find himself a coverage sack alibi for at least one of them in this thread. Did our 2 oline coaches talking to Jimmy O'Neil agree with your "coverage sacks" mentality in the trenches or did they help narrow down the choices at #12? I'm glad they're used to the Joe Thomas standard. We don't need 3 alibis per game from our blindside tackle.
Now that we drafted Cam Erving who has played Tackle AND Center - guess who's been most critical and parked on wait and see mode?
-
Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
1. The really funny play on words was "Wattshisname.". I think that is great, a funny
play on words. That was the funny part.
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick:Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
http://dawgpounddaily.com/2015/01/16/andrus-peat-browns-draft-profile/
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick:
http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2015/01/22/2015-nfl-draft-cleveland-browns-seven-round-mock-1-0/
Pompous? Moi? Is that the same as elitist? Label away... It's something I rarely do. As for sour... so long as I stay away from the Politics forum my demeanor stays pretty upbeat.
Objectively speaking coverage sacks exist. I found it funny that someone said they did not... under any circumstance. I've seen Joe Thomas give up coverage sacks and I consider him great... as do you. Even Munoz, the heretofore unmentioned, greatest OT of all (IMO) gave up sacks of the coverage variety.
As for Peat... no one was making the case for our drafting him here... in this thread. But thanks for finding references that supported my opinion of him as a high pick. I still have him as the top OL prospect in the draft. Will that opinion hold? No idea...
But Flugs clearly liked your post... so good job.
-
Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
1. The really funny play on words was "Wattshisname.". I think that is great, a funny
play on words. That was the funny part.
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick:Cal, you are the man! Thanks for finding the party that wanted to start kiddie stuff drama again and calling it out. I already told that party if I made him that nervous he needed to put me on ignore. Not that I wasn't flattered by how often he needed to drop into whatever football conversation I was enjoying to give me his latest unprovoked insults or sarcasm. That's a guy keeping score and unhappy with what the scoreboard is telling him. I don't take little Yorkshire Terriers yapping at my ankles very seriously though. I guess if the only thing sitting in my trophy case was the game winning adjective against St Joe's Catholic High School in the Big Debate - maybe I'd be nervous a former offensive lineman was threatening my smartest guy in the room territory if that was the reason I needed to be here. He loves doing plastic surgery on everything I write so it looks exactly like he needs it to. The bigger picture is there's a lot of great fans in here like you and others that just want to talk football. That's all I want to do and I'm having a blast.
I also want to thank Couch for his help getting the discussion back to the appropriate context. He knew exactly where I was going because there isn't an offensive line coach in the country that wants to hear "it was a coverage sack." As much as Frye and Quinn seemed liked good kids, they were far too slow reading through their progressions for me to give a secondary credit for that. 2 separate entities or our 2007 season doesn't take the drastic turn it took as early was week 2 en route to 10 wins over the next 15 games. I'd love to see a guy that never wore a football uniform acting like he's the smartest guy in the room looking down his nose at an NFL oline coach and telling him: "you DO understand that was a coverage sack don't you?" I'd pay money to see it.
Thank you too Mud! To be honest, I thought War manned up. It's all good.
Let's FREAKIN talk football!!!!!
Cal, you are the man! Thanks for finding the party that wanted to start kiddie stuff drama again and calling it out. I already told that party if I made him that nervous he needed to put me on ignore. Not that I wasn't flattered by how often he needed to drop into whatever football conversation I was enjoying to give me his latest unprovoked insults or sarcasm. That's a guy keeping score and unhappy with what the scoreboard is telling him. I don't take little Yorkshire Terriers yapping at my ankles very seriously though. I guess if the only thing sitting in my trophy case was the game winning adjective against St Joe's Catholic High School in the Big Debate - maybe I'd be nervous a former offensive lineman was threatening my smartest guy in the room territory if that was the reason I needed to be here. He loves doing plastic surgery on everything I write so it looks exactly like he needs it to. The bigger picture is there's a lot of great fans in here like you and others that just want to talk football. That's all I want to do and I'm having a blast.
Let's FREAKIN talk football!!!!!
Talk football is all I do... except for having fun it's why I am here. Most folks here get that. A few don't. Congrats for making it to the top of the "don't" list.
We agree at times and I say so. We disagree at times and I say so. It's really that simple.
Your skin is just too thin. I tried tiptoeing around you for weeks and it's just not worth it because you are now predisposed to looking for "the insult" in my posts... and find ones that never were. Like apparently on Orchard having a coverage sack... which in case you are interested happened against Stanford's right tackle... not Peat. Did you even watch the Scout video I posted?
For someone who does not bother you I seem to draw a lot of fire... or at least words. But then you are the typing king... the original "insult".
I put your PMs on "Ignore"... they were too sad to read.
And I quit debate to play football...
Now let's talk football... if not immediately, then after your next indignant reply.
-
Then you are back to being your dour, sour, pompous self. Mixin it up, are ya?
1. The really funny play on words was "Wattshisname.". I think that is great, a funny
play on words. That was the funny part.
2. Flugels said this:
"There is no such thing as a coverage sack for this type of tackle striving to be the next Walter Jones or Joe Thomas for that matter. "
Great LT's don't give up sacks simply because the coverage was excellent. They still shut out their
opponents. And the Browns didn't have any kind of great cast of wr's, either, and btw, look
at the secondaries of the defenses they face, in their division..
Then you said this:
"Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making. "
Then you should read this:
and this, in particular, Peat for the 12th pick:Cal, you are the man! Thanks for finding the party that wanted to start kiddie stuff drama again and calling it out. I already told that party if I made him that nervous he needed to put me on ignore. Not that I wasn't flattered by how often he needed to drop into whatever football conversation I was enjoying to give me his latest unprovoked insults or sarcasm. That's a guy keeping score and unhappy with what the scoreboard is telling him. I don't take little Yorkshire Terriers yapping at my ankles very seriously though. I guess if the only thing sitting in my trophy case was the game winning adjective against St Joe's Catholic High School in the Big Debate - maybe I'd be nervous a former offensive lineman was threatening my smartest guy in the room territory if that was the reason I needed to be here. He loves doing plastic surgery on everything I write so it looks exactly like he needs it to. The bigger picture is there's a lot of great fans in here like you and others that just want to talk football. That's all I want to do and I'm having a blast.
I also want to thank Couch for his help getting the discussion back to the appropriate context. He knew exactly where I was going because there isn't an offensive line coach in the country that wants to hear "it was a coverage sack." As much as Frye and Quinn seemed liked good kids, they were far too slow reading through their progressions for me to give a secondary credit for that. 2 separate entities or our 2007 season doesn't take the drastic turn it took as early was week 2 en route to 10 wins over the next 15 games. I'd love to see a guy that never wore a football uniform acting like he's the smartest guy in the room looking down his nose at an NFL oline coach and telling him: "you DO understand that was a coverage sack don't you?" I'd pay money to see it.
Thank you too Mud! To be honest, I thought War manned up. It's all good.
Let's FREAKIN talk football!!!!!
Let's FREAKIN talk football!!!!!
That is getting harder and harder to do....though I do try.....Dont honestly believe everyone is here to talk football tho.....so many post nothing but barbs....no football posts.....no football points to be made....no quality info to share.....no opinion except to say your opinion is wrong...
And when you do take the time and do some research.....it's considered being a know it all...or elitist....etc.....
It's exhausting to wade through....
Talk football is all I do... except for having fun it's why I am here. Most folks here get that. A few don't.
We agree at times and I say so. We disagree at times and I say so. It's really that simple..
I usually try to only talk football too.....though it's gotten to be almost impossible to get through a thread here w/o some type of personal attack or argument starting and completely derailing the discussion.....
Pragmatism apparently has no place on this board........
-
There is a lot of good football information on this board. Excellent in fact. There are some who post on here I would rather read than any sports writer. It gets bogged down sometimes in arguing a silly point IMO. Still a great board I recommend to all my fellow Browns fans in this part of Ohio (who usually are about 24 hours late on finding out about any breaking story with the Browns which I usually find out about right away here).
-
Let's FREAKIN talk football!!!!!
That is getting harder and harder to do....though I do try.....Dont honestly believe everyone is here to talk football tho.....so many post nothing but barbs....no football posts.....no football points to be made....no quality info to share.....no opinion except to say your opinion is wrong...
And when you do take the time and do some research.....it's considered being a know it all...or elitist....etc.....
It's exhausting to wade through....
Talk football is all I do... except for having fun it's why I am here. Most folks here get that. A few don't.
We agree at times and I say so. We disagree at times and I say so. It's really that simple..
I usually try to only talk football too.....though it's gotten to be almost impossible to get through a thread here w/o some type of personal attack or argument starting and completely derailing the discussion.....
Pragmatism apparently has no place on this board........
That is getting harder and harder to do....though I do try.....Dont honestly believe everyone is here to talk football tho.....so many post nothing but barbs....no football posts.....no football points to be made....no quality info to share.....no opinion except to say your opinion is wrong...
And when you do take the time and do some research.....it's considered being a know it all...or elitist....etc.....
It's exhausting to wade through....
Mud, you're exactly the kind of fan I enjoy talking football with.
1) You show up to threads that interest you.
2) You understand the value of reading posts in their proper sequence.
3) You actually read the posts you're replying to.
4) You're ready to put your game face on at any time.
5) When you notice somebody puts considerable thought and time into a post - you're appreciative enough of that to give respectful feedback.
6) You're always well informed which makes your posts interesting to read.
Certain times of the year can drag and that's when you tend to see good discussions turning into a college football argument or something else. That's not exclusive to just this board by any means. This part of the year I get pressed for time so I look for topic headings that interest me. Late Spring/Early Summer tends to be that way for a lot of people. I'm surprised I even went into the Manziel thread and posted because we've been on information overload with that guy.
The draft was refreshing because it got us thinking about where our team needed help. God Bless that Farmer getting us a volume of 12 draft picks. We should still have some fun stuff to talk about between now and Training Camp in Late July. I tend to find more time to post on the weekends. Hang in there man!
-
There is a lot of good football information on this board. Excellent in fact. There are some who post on here I would rather read than any sports writer. It gets bogged down sometimes in arguing a silly point IMO. Still a great board I recommend to all my fellow Browns fans in this part of Ohio (who usually are about 24 hours late on finding out about any breaking story with the Browns which I usually find out about right away here).
There is a lot of good football information on this board. Excellent in fact. There are some who post on here I would rather read than any sports writer. It gets bogged down sometimes in arguing a silly point IMO. Still a great board I recommend to all my fellow Browns fans in this part of Ohio (who usually are about 24 hours late on finding out about any breaking story with the Browns which I usually find out about right away here).
Glad to see you in the mix posting. We're gonna have a fun year.
-
Thanks Flugel. Pettine and Farmer are building a team here. The way both Farmer and Pettine spoke so highly about McCown makes me believe he was exactly the qb they were looking for to fit in their plans this year. By all accounts we had a great draft. This is a solid club that is continually improving their roster.
-
How come pre-draft it was "no way we actually come away with 10 picks. We will trade some away." to "I'm so glad we have 12 picks."? Not trolling. Just making sure it's not a result of homerism.
-
No, it isn't "shit"....it's priceless good funny stuff.
Not in this case... at least not "funny" in the usual sense. Although claiming that "coverage sacks" cease to exist at elite levels is "funny".
war... don't fret. Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making.
Not in this case... at least not "funny" in the usual sense. Although claiming that "coverage sacks" cease to exist at elite levels is "funny".
war... don't fret. Flugs can be incredibly difficult to follow at times as was the case here in refuting a case to draft Peat at 12 which no one was making.
Again, great job exposing the sore and sour Cal!
Memory lane:
Flugel starts football thread about Edge Rusher Cleveland drafted with a link of highlights.
Tour is more concerned about Andrus Peat's reputation so he provides links more about that with an undertone that a Stanford QB can get coverage sacked. Shame on me for remembering our inventory of coverage sacks on John Elway in all of our 3 AFC Championship Games back when we had our best tandem of corners.
Since we drafted Cam Erving at #19 - who can play Tackle or Center, I'm more intrigued with what he can do especially in threads about offensive line. Thankfully, so is both of our oline coaches. The good news is Joe Thomas rarely ever gives up 3 sacks a season despite all the substandard QBs he's had to protect in the last 8 years.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
How come pre-draft it was "no way we actually come away with 10 picks. We will trade some away." to "I'm so glad we have 12 picks."? Not trolling. Just making sure it's not a result of homerism.
How come pre-draft it was "no way we actually come away with 10 picks. We will trade some away." to "I'm so glad we have 12 picks."? Not trolling. Just making sure it's not a result of homerism.
Who is this unknown soldier you are refusing a cut and paste courtesy with?
-
Those were both statements thrown all around the board.
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