Duke Johnson - "Making the Leap"
-
Don't know Kirby Wilson to well. But I do know Ernest Byner real well & he will be at camp. With the finish Duke had last season Byner will teach him to absorb tackles & keep his head out of contact areas. Just like Zeke & Henry will learn. These guys now get paid big bucks on defense to take you out..
-
we haven't been able to run the ball for years, but now that hue is here it will make all the difference?
uhhh......
-
Our ability to run the ball will have a lot to do with our defense. If we're down 3 scores at halftime, then I have a feeling we'll abandon the run like always, and we'll have stats like "15 rushes for 43 yards" again.
Hue Jackson likes to run the ball, and it's obvious that he likes the backs on our team. If we can keep the game close, I have a feeling our running game will be much improved. I truly believe that we have "real NFL coaches" leading our team, and the results may be vast and immediate. I'm not saying we're going to take the league by storm, but we may notice an immediate difference in things like play-calling, clock management, and proper scheming. That may not equate to more WINS, but it doesn't have to right away. We need improvements on so many levels to be COMPETITIVE, and I'm hoping we'll at least see them this year.
-
I think that's true - and that when the wrs addition to the offense,
Hue and co. will start fooling the defense, and the switch will
flip and the offense will take off.
The lack of wr threat left defenses to double cover Barnidge, put a
solid cb on Benji downfield, and just shut down the run, imho.
The lack of wr's downfield threats made it easy on opposing defenses,
and all too often, they left the field before the Browns defense had
to go right back out there again.
Right there is a defense killer, and we've all covered how the previous fools
kept running dl's on and off the field in "sprints" so often.
I honestly believe the Browns are going to surprise their division in a Huege way.
-
I think that's true - and that when the wrs addition to the offense,
Hue and co. will start fooling the defense, and the switch will
flip and the offense will take off.
The lack of wr threat left defenses to double cover Barnidge, put a
solid cb on Benji downfield, and just shut down the run, imho.
The lack of wr's downfield threats made it easy on opposing defenses,
and all too often, they left the field before the Browns defense had
to go right back out there again.
Right there is a defense killer, and we've all covered how the previous fools
kept running dl's on and off the field in "sprints" so often.
I honestly believe the Browns are going to surprise their division in a Huege way.
Hue and co. will start fooling the defense, and the switch will flip and the offense will take off.
Stop talking like the politicians that just left Cleveland. This means absolutely nothing.
1) Hue doesn't have a "co"
2) How, exactly, will NFL-caliber WR "fool" an NFL-caliber defense?
3) What, PRECISELY, is this switch that you plan to flip? How will you know when it has flipped? What is the observation by which you're saying that now it hasn't flipped?
4) What does "take off" mean? How will we know when it has happened? What exactly didn't happen last year?
Could the offense take off without the switch flipping? Could the switch flip and yet the offense doesn't take off?
-
1) Hue doesn't have a "co"
***************************
"co." stands for "company". as in, the rest of the coaches.
****************************
2) How, exactly, will NFL-caliber WR "fool" an NFL-caliber defense?
****************************
Never said that - with the addition of a dynamic wr or two, the offense
will have the ability to run anything in the playbook. that's where you have
so many choices to fool a defense.
****************************
3) What, PRECISELY, is this switch that you plan to flip? How will you know when it has flipped?
What is the observation by which you're saying that now it hasn't flipped?
*****************************
Well, previous coaching staffs have been in the dark. SO, when the little switchie goes
flippity-flippity, you then have the lightsies go on. Then, defenses see that they
have to be ready for anything and everything, and the offense can do them really well.
*****************************
4) What does "take off" mean? How will we know when it has happened? What exactly didn't happen last year?
******************************
"take off" means to get going and soar. We will know when the switch is flipped, when the offense
can pass at will, run at will, fool and antagonize and confuse defenses often.
What didn't happen last year, is the blocking and playcalling and personnel packages
were predictable, and the lack of a couple of dynamic wr's limited the options on top of that.
Barnidge bailed out the passing offense as much as a te could, like Gronk does the same
for the Patriots -
-
I been watching WR's run wide open, with no QB who could find them(or hit em) for years.....better hope all these new WR's have a good QB who can anticipate them getting open and then get em the ball(on time)....or....its just more of the same.....
-
You haven't named any observable metrics, you've described things you "feel" just must be true.
1) Exactly how many yards rushing and passing per game define the flip of that switch? Why do these numbers define a switch flipping and not athletes doing.. what they do?
2)You haven't defined how "often" defenses need to be "fooled" - twice per game? Twice per play? - and you have not defined what within the play earns a check in the box confirming that "The Defense Was Fooled."
10 players on defense could be fooled but Josh Norman could make a great play, lay out and cause an INC.. and the result is still no gain on the stat sheet.. so it can't be the outcome of the play
3) "previous coaching staffs have been in the dark" - What, precisely, defines a coaching staff being in the dark? The coaching staff could very well be fine but the RB could miss an assignment.. how are you abstracting the coaching staff from the play on the field?
The chief issue is that you've described things that you want to see, and then described results after some "switch" does something. But you haven't described anything confirming that the switch is or isn't there in the first place! You're taking it as an article of faith that "of course" it's a thing... but I [and Tour, above] simply do not accept that assertion.
Most clearly: What numerical items show that these positive outcomes could NOT exist without the switch flipping?
-
You haven't named any observable metrics, you've described things you "feel" just must be true.
1) Exactly how many yards rushing and passing per game define the flip of that switch? Why do these numbers define a switch flipping and not athletes doing.. what they do?
2)You haven't defined how "often" defenses need to be "fooled" - twice per game? Twice per play? - and you have not defined what within the play earns a check in the box confirming that "The Defense Was Fooled."
10 players on defense could be fooled but Josh Norman could make a great play, lay out and cause an INC.. and the result is still no gain on the stat sheet.. so it can't be the outcome of the play
3) "previous coaching staffs have been in the dark" - What, precisely, defines a coaching staff being in the dark? The coaching staff could very well be fine but the RB could miss an assignment.. how are you abstracting the coaching staff from the play on the field?
The chief issue is that you've described things that you want to see, and then described results after some "switch" does something. But you haven't described anything confirming that the switch is or isn't there in the first place! You're taking it as an article of faith that "of course" it's a thing... but I [and Tour, above] simply do not accept that assertion.
Most clearly: What numerical items show that these positive outcomes could NOT exist without the switch flipping?
You haven't named any observable metrics, you've described things you "feel" just must be true.
1) Exactly how many yards rushing and passing per game define the flip of that switch? Why do these numbers define a switch flipping and not athletes doing.. what they do?
2)You haven't defined how "often" defenses need to be "fooled" - twice per game? Twice per play? - and you have not defined what within the play earns a check in the box confirming that "The Defense Was Fooled."
10 players on defense could be fooled but Josh Norman could make a great play, lay out and cause an INC.. and the result is still no gain on the stat sheet.. so it can't be the outcome of the play
3) "previous coaching staffs have been in the dark" - What, precisely, defines a coaching staff being in the dark? The coaching staff could very well be fine but the RB could miss an assignment.. how are you abstracting the coaching staff from the play on the field?
The chief issue is that you've described things that you want to see, and then described results after some "switch" does something. But you haven't described anything confirming that the switch is or isn't there in the first place! You're taking it as an article of faith that "of course" it's a thing... but I [and Tour, above] simply do not accept that assertion.
Most clearly: What numerical items show that these positive outcomes could NOT exist without the switch flipping?
Our head coach, starting QB, and whole WR corp are "in the dark" now. Why does it matter.
-
You haven't named any observable metrics, you've described things you "feel" just must be true.
1) Exactly how many yards rushing and passing per game define the flip of that switch? Why do these numbers define a switch flipping and not athletes doing.. what they do?
2)You haven't defined how "often" defenses need to be "fooled" - twice per game? Twice per play? - and you have not defined what within the play earns a check in the box confirming that "The Defense Was Fooled."
10 players on defense could be fooled but Josh Norman could make a great play, lay out and cause an INC.. and the result is still no gain on the stat sheet.. so it can't be the outcome of the play
3) "previous coaching staffs have been in the dark" - What, precisely, defines a coaching staff being in the dark? The coaching staff could very well be fine but the RB could miss an assignment.. how are you abstracting the coaching staff from the play on the field?
The chief issue is that you've described things that you want to see, and then described results after some "switch" does something. But you haven't described anything confirming that the switch is or isn't there in the first place! You're taking it as an article of faith that "of course" it's a thing... but I [and Tour, above] simply do not accept that assertion.
Most clearly: What numerical items show that these positive outcomes could NOT exist without the switch flipping?
Our head coach, starting QB, and whole WR corp are "in the dark" now. Why does it matter.
Our head coach, starting QB, and whole WR corp are "in the dark" now. Why does it matter.
RACIST!!!
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