Just 3-4 players off
-
Disagree with the entire notion of this thread.. We need talent at nearly all positions. We need an overhaul of the defensive backfield.. I wouldn't be unhappy if we drafted 4. We need one more talented LB. We need 1-2 more DL. We need 1-2 more OL. We need a TE who's as good as average at blocking. And we need a QB.
Culture is simply the byproduct of winning- period. It's not ephemeral.
Disagree with the entire notion of this thread.. We need talent at nearly all positions. We need an overhaul of the defensive backfield.. I wouldn't be unhappy if we drafted 4. We need one more talented LB. We need 1-2 more DL. We need 1-2 more OL. We need a TE who's as good as average at blocking. And we need a QB.
Culture is simply the byproduct of winning- period. It's not ephemeral.
Winning is ephemeral for some. Take the Arizona Cardinals. One year up, several years down. Even winning in the short term has not really changed that team's culture.
And as we have seen, certainly for the Cleveland Browns, losing is NOT ephemeral. It may indeed be cultural.
-
Talk about Dumb and Dumber! The two of you couldn't fill a thimble full of common sense if you were given a shovel! It's a waste of words on the two of you but what the hell, remove the B's and then compare position by position and the Steelers are still a quality team. There may not be a single position where the Browns would be better.....even without the three B's
But guess what you two geniuses.......The Steelers DO have the three B's
And that's it.
Joe Thomas and Joel Bitonio are both better than any linemen you have.
Barnidge is as good or better than your TE.
Kirksey has been every bit as productive in his career as Shazier.
You WOULD start Shelton on your DL.
Jamie Collins, if he decides to play is probably as good as any of your LBs.
You have no DB as good as Joe Haden (if he is healthy...which he has not been)
Overall, sure, the Steelers have more. But to say that the Steelers are better at every single position than the Browns is as ignorant as ignorant can be.
(and yes, if you take the 3 Bs off Pissburgh and put them on the Browns....the situations are reversed.
Of course, as the old adage goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. for some reason the Browns are less than the sum of their parts.
And that's it.
Joe Thomas and Joel Bitonio are both better than any linemen you have. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Barnidge is as good or better than your TE. Nice player but on a team with talent he becomes far less impactful. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Kirksey has been every bit as productive in his career as Shazier. You're a gluehead!
You WOULD start Shelton on your DL. Nice player but on a team with talent he becomes far less impactful. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Jamie Collins, if he decides to play is probably as good as any of your LBs. You're a gluehead!
You have no DB as good as Joe Haden (if he is healthy...which he has not been) Put a fork in him!
Overall, sure, the Steelers have more. But to say that the Steelers are better at every single position than the Browns is as ignorant as ignorant can be.
(and yes, if you take the 3 Bs off Pissburgh and put them on the Browns....the situations are reversed. NOT EVEN CLOSE.....and anyone with a brain would know it.
Of course, as the old adage goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. for some reason the Browns are less than the sum of their parts.
The thing your tiny little football mind prevents you from seeing is that on a barren desert plain, a five foot tall tree stands out, in a forest full of big trees, you won't see it.
-
Talk about Dumb and Dumber! The two of you couldn't fill a thimble full of common sense if you were given a shovel! It's a waste of words on the two of you but what the hell, remove the B's and then compare position by position and the Steelers are still a quality team. There may not be a single position where the Browns would be better.....even without the three B's
But guess what you two geniuses.......The Steelers DO have the three B's
And that's it.
Joe Thomas and Joel Bitonio are both better than any linemen you have.
Barnidge is as good or better than your TE.
Kirksey has been every bit as productive in his career as Shazier.
You WOULD start Shelton on your DL.
Jamie Collins, if he decides to play is probably as good as any of your LBs.
You have no DB as good as Joe Haden (if he is healthy...which he has not been)
Overall, sure, the Steelers have more. But to say that the Steelers are better at every single position than the Browns is as ignorant as ignorant can be.
(and yes, if you take the 3 Bs off Pissburgh and put them on the Browns....the situations are reversed.
Of course, as the old adage goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. for some reason the Browns are less than the sum of their parts.
And that's it.
Joe Thomas and Joel Bitonio are both better than any linemen you have. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Really? Joe Thomas is a no doubt HOFer. Bitonio is as good as any OL you have. He and DeCastro may be about on par.
The rest of the Browns OL...maybe not so much.
But your ignorance is palpable.
Barnidge is as good or better than your TE. Nice player but on a team with talent he becomes far less impactful. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Your ignorance is palpable. On a better team, he would have even more impact. If he had BR instead of our numbnuts throwing to he would be much better.
Kirksey has been every bit as productive in his career as Shazier. You're a gluehead!
Per PFR here are the career productions of each player: Kirksey 174 tackles, 8.0 sacks. Shazier 137 tackles 7.0 sacks. Kirksey has been better so far.
You WOULD start Shelton on your DL. Nice player but on a team with talent he becomes far less impactful. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Your ignorance is palpable. If he played on your team you would be clamoring to have him enshrined already.
Jamie Collins, if he decides to play is probably as good as any of your LBs. You're a gluehead!
You would drool to have him. Your ignorance is palpable.
You have no DB as good as Joe Haden (if he is healthy...which he has not been) Put a fork in him!
Maybe the only thing close to accurate you have said....but even over the hill...he is still better than any DB on the Steelers.
Overall, sure, the Steelers have more. But to say that the Steelers are better at every single position than the Browns is as ignorant as ignorant can be.
(and yes, if you take the 3 Bs off Pissburgh and put them on the Browns....the situations are reversed. NOT EVEN CLOSE.....and anyone with a brain would know it.
Sure, go ahead. Without the 3 Bs, the Browns should have handed the Steelers their ass. Only their own massive fuckups prevented it.
Now go ahead and take what you saw there, but give the Browns those 3 guys.
Yea. You know what would happen.
If not, you are even more ignorant than a snail.
Of course, as the old adage goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. for some reason the Browns are less than the sum of their parts.
The thing your tiny little football mind prevents you from seeing is that on a barren desert plain, a five foot tall tree stands out, in a forest full of big trees, you won't see it.
Your forest has 3 Big trees. Without them, you got tundra.
-
And that's it.
Joe Thomas and Joel Bitonio are both better than any linemen you have. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Really? Joe Thomas is a no doubt HOFer. Bitonio is as good as any OL you have. He and DeCastro may be about on par.
The rest of the Browns OL...maybe not so much.
But your ignorance is palpable.
Barnidge is as good or better than your TE. Nice player but on a team with talent he becomes far less impactful. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Your ignorance is palpable. On a better team, he would have even more impact. If he had BR instead of our numbnuts throwing to he would be much better.
Kirksey has been every bit as productive in his career as Shazier. You're a gluehead!
Per PFR here are the career productions of each player: Kirksey 174 tackles, 8.0 sacks. Shazier 137 tackles 7.0 sacks. Kirksey has been better so far.
You WOULD start Shelton on your DL. Nice player but on a team with talent he becomes far less impactful. Foolish fan hyperbole!
Your ignorance is palpable. If he played on your team you would be clamoring to have him enshrined already.
Jamie Collins, if he decides to play is probably as good as any of your LBs. You're a gluehead!
You would drool to have him. Your ignorance is palpable.
You have no DB as good as Joe Haden (if he is healthy...which he has not been) Put a fork in him!
Maybe the only thing close to accurate you have said....but even over the hill...he is still better than any DB on the Steelers.
Overall, sure, the Steelers have more. But to say that the Steelers are better at every single position than the Browns is as ignorant as ignorant can be.
(and yes, if you take the 3 Bs off Pissburgh and put them on the Browns....the situations are reversed. NOT EVEN CLOSE.....and anyone with a brain would know it.
Sure, go ahead. Without the 3 Bs, the Browns should have handed the Steelers their ass. Only their own massive fuckups prevented it.
Now go ahead and take what you saw there, but give the Browns those 3 guys.
Yea. You know what would happen.
If not, you are even more ignorant than a snail.
Of course, as the old adage goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. for some reason the Browns are less than the sum of their parts.
The thing your tiny little football mind prevents you from seeing is that on a barren desert plain, a five foot tall tree stands out, in a forest full of big trees, you won't see it.
Your forest has 3 Big trees. Without them, you got tundra.
The thing your tiny little football mind prevents you from seeing is that on a barren desert plain, a five foot tall tree stands out, in a forest full of big trees, you won't see it.
Your forest has 3 Big trees. Without them, you got tundra.
I would defy you to float that stupid shit anywhere other than in Cleveland and see if you don't end up in a straight jacket.
-
The thing your tiny little football mind prevents you from seeing is that on a barren desert plain, a five foot tall tree stands out, in a forest full of big trees, you won't see it.
Your forest has 3 Big trees. Without them, you got tundra.
I would defy you to float that stupid shit anywhere other than in Cleveland and see if you don't end up in a straight jacket.
I would defy you to float that stupid shit anywhere other than in Cleveland and see if you don't end up in a straight jacket.
Everybody knows it. Kansas City knows it. New England knows it. Baltimore knows it. Cincinnati knows it.
The ONLY place it wouldn't "float" is in myopic Pittsburgh.
-
There are some excellent words used in this thread. Words rarely seen in an internet pissing match
-
Two RBs blended can't match one player with a wider skill set. You swap and the D says, "Here comes the guy that does Y vs. the starter that does X." And that's ignoring the fact that neither individually can match Bell in speed or elusiveness.
Not sure I agree there. And the answer to the "here comes guy Y is: put them both in the backfield at the same time. What is wrong with that? It worked with Mack/Byner, Csonka/Kiick/Morris Pruitt and Pruitt. It can be done....its just that coaches don't want to play that game anymore....having two good RBs in at the same time. They want 5 WR sets etc. Maybe the Browns should play some old school ball. It wouldn't hurt.
Culture change isn't that hard to figure out. It is hard to implement, but only because it takes consistent application of established standards over time... AKA continuity.
Well, if it was so fucking easy, why didn't the Browns just do that. Maybe we should have just kept Chris Palmer on as HC....hell, if we had just done that we would have had the next Bill Belichick on our hands. Continuity for continuity sakes is no virtue.
Two RBs blended can't match one player with a wider skill set. You swap and the D says, "Here comes the guy that does Y vs. the starter that does X." And that's ignoring the fact that neither individually can match Bell in speed or elusiveness.
Not sure I agree there. And the answer to the "here comes guy Y is: put them both in the backfield at the same time. What is wrong with that? It worked with Mack/Byner, Csonka/Kiick/Morris Pruitt and Pruitt. It can be done....its just that coaches don't want to play that game anymore....having two good RBs in at the same time. They want 5 WR sets etc. Maybe the Browns should play some old school ball. It wouldn't hurt.
Culture change isn't that hard to figure out. It is hard to implement, but only because it takes consistent application of established standards over time... AKA continuity.
Well, if it was so fucking easy, why didn't the Browns just do that. Maybe we should have just kept Chris Palmer on as HC....hell, if we had just done that we would have had the next Bill Belichick on our hands. Continuity for continuity sakes is no virtue.
Putting both Crow and Duke in the backfield limits your lead blocking ability and I can only think of a small handfull of plays where you wouldn't ask either of them to lead up into a hole.
-
Yeah, I'm actually right there with you on this, BUT the severe problem is, the "3-4 players" we need just happen to be some of the most difficult positions to fill. We need a QB (duh...), and it's not like we haven't been trying for 15 years. We need a dominant edge rusher. Those are the two most difficult positions to nail in the draft or otherwise, and they could both drastically alter the trajectory of our team.
Yeah, I'm actually right there with you on this, BUT the severe problem is, the "3-4 players" we need just happen to be some of the most difficult positions to fill. We need a QB (duh...), and it's not like we haven't been trying for 15 years. We need a dominant edge rusher. Those are the two most difficult positions to nail in the draft or otherwise, and they could both drastically alter the trajectory of our team.
Right. And this year we have a edge rusher who is about as sure a bet as can be had when drafting players, or QBs who all have question marks.
I think all of the QBs in this class are highly inflated. I am not saying they aren't or can't be good. I am just saying it would be a mistake to gamble with that first pick. We can't blow it, and we really need some immediate impact.
-
Yeah, I'm actually right there with you on this, BUT the severe problem is, the "3-4 players" we need just happen to be some of the most difficult positions to fill. We need a QB (duh...), and it's not like we haven't been trying for 15 years. We need a dominant edge rusher. Those are the two most difficult positions to nail in the draft or otherwise, and they could both drastically alter the trajectory of our team.
Right. And this year we have a edge rusher who is about as sure a bet as can be had when drafting players, or QBs who all have question marks.
I think all of the QBs in this class are highly inflated. I am not saying they aren't or can't be good. I am just saying it would be a mistake to gamble with that first pick. We can't blow it, and we really need some immediate impact.
Right. And this year we have a edge rusher who is about as sure a bet as can be had when drafting players, or QBs who all have question marks.
I think all of the QBs in this class are highly inflated. I am not saying they aren't or can't be good. I am just saying it would be a mistake to gamble with that first pick. We can't blow it, and we really need some immediate impact.
I don't think you get an excellent QB if you don't gamble. Every player you take is a gamble. Too often the Browns have lost those bets. Sure Trubisky could be Joey Harrington...or he could be Aaron Rodgers. And sure, Garrett could be Lawrence Taylor...or he could be Aundray Bruce.
And there can be no more immediate impact on a team than a QB.
-
Right. And this year we have a edge rusher who is about as sure a bet as can be had when drafting players, or QBs who all have question marks.
I think all of the QBs in this class are highly inflated. I am not saying they aren't or can't be good. I am just saying it would be a mistake to gamble with that first pick. We can't blow it, and we really need some immediate impact.
I don't think you get an excellent QB if you don't gamble. Every player you take is a gamble. Too often the Browns have lost those bets. Sure Trubisky could be Joey Harrington...or he could be Aaron Rodgers. And sure, Garrett could be Lawrence Taylor...or he could be Aundray Bruce.
And there can be no more immediate impact on a team than a QB.
I don't think you get an excellent QB if you don't gamble. Every player you take is a gamble. Too often the Browns have lost those bets. Sure Trubisky could be Joey Harrington...or he could be Aaron Rodgers. And sure, Garrett could be Lawrence Taylor...or he could be Aundray Bruce.
And there can be no more immediate impact on a team than a QB.
Nothing against Mitch trubisky but I don't agree with that. Many positions are able to start and make a difference right off the bat. Usually quarterbacks take a little bit of time.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Agreed we are just 3 -4 players off ...... come on down Bell, Brown, Berry and Cousins
-
I don't think you get an excellent QB if you don't gamble. Every player you take is a gamble. Too often the Browns have lost those bets. Sure Trubisky could be Joey Harrington...or he could be Aaron Rodgers. And sure, Garrett could be Lawrence Taylor...or he could be Aundray Bruce.
And there can be no more immediate impact on a team than a QB.
Nothing against Mitch trubisky but I don't agree with that. Many positions are able to start and make a difference right off the bat. Usually quarterbacks take a little bit of time.
WSS
Nothing against Mitch trubisky but I don't agree with that. Many positions are able to start and make a difference right off the bat. Usually quarterbacks take a little bit of time.
WSS
I understand and agree. But I am saying is that finally when that QB gets his chance, that more than anything else has greater impact on a team.
-
Agreed we are just 3 -4 players off ...... come on down Bell, Brown, Berry and Cousins
Are these guys Free agents after this year? Berry is I know. Cousins, I would not want so much....though....getting him for nothing other than money may be better than trading real assets for Garropolo. And honestly, Cousins is more proven. (so...RG would lose his job to him again? how ironic).
-
Lots of reports saying we have an interest in Tyrod Taylor....not really an upgrade on RG3
-
Lots of reports saying we have an interest in Tyrod Taylor....not really an upgrade on RG3
Lots of reports saying we have an interest in Tyrod Taylor....not really an upgrade on RG3
Precisely. For the life of me I don't know why we would have much interest in him....unless, the Browns ditch both McCown and Griffin, keeping Kessler, Taylor at backup, and draft a guy.
Then, maybe.
-
Disagree with the entire notion of this thread.. We need talent at nearly all positions. We need an overhaul of the defensive backfield.. I wouldn't be unhappy if we drafted 4. We need one more talented LB. We need 1-2 more DL. We need 1-2 more OL. We need a TE who's as good as average at blocking. And we need a QB.
Culture is simply the byproduct of winning- period. It's not ephemeral.
Winning is ephemeral for some. Take the Arizona Cardinals. One year up, several years down. Even winning in the short term has not really changed that team's culture.
And as we have seen, certainly for the Cleveland Browns, losing is NOT ephemeral. It may indeed be cultural.
Winning is ephemeral for some. Take the Arizona Cardinals. One year up, several years down. Even winning in the short term has not really changed that team's culture.
And as we have seen, certainly for the Cleveland Browns, losing is NOT ephemeral. It may indeed be cultural.
Or, it may not. Frankly, I care more what the Browns players themselves actually think - since they're the ones who would experience whatever you're asserting.
No surprise - they agree with me, and not you.
But keep moving those goalposts!
-
Winning is ephemeral for some. Take the Arizona Cardinals. One year up, several years down. Even winning in the short term has not really changed that team's culture.
And as we have seen, certainly for the Cleveland Browns, losing is NOT ephemeral. It may indeed be cultural.
Or, it may not. Frankly, I care more what the Browns players themselves actually think - since they're the ones who would experience whatever you're asserting.
No surprise - they agree with me, and not you.
But keep moving those goalposts!
Or, it may not. Frankly, I care more what the Browns players themselves actually think - since they're the ones who would experience whatever you're asserting.
No surprise - they agree with me, and not you.
But keep moving those goalposts!
I hope you are right. I hope these guys think of themselves as winners. But 1-15, 3-13, etc. kind of contradicts that.
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