***Official Browns Vs. Vikings In London, England, UK, Game Night Thread***
-
WTF was that
-
now we see what the Browns are made of, plenty of time on the clock to get 2 TDs for any decent NFL team. Why does scoring 2 TDs seem so insurmountable for the Browns?
now we see what the Browns are made of, plenty of time on the clock to get 2 TDs for any decent NFL team. Why does scoring 2 TDs seem so insurmountable for the Browns?
Because we have no receivers who are ever open. Kizer isn't great but the receivers are almost always trying to make catches with defenders all over them or they drop the ones that hit them in the hands.
-
We have to give a kicker more time? He has 1 job to do, Kicking is his job, If you are a kicker, you have it or you don't, and he does not have it.
So why was Cody so bad with us and then turned out so good with the Fins? And don't tell me it was coaching.
So why was Cody so bad with us and then turned out so good with the Fins?
because it's the highly variable nature of kicking......I've posted on that before.
but zane clearly doesnt have an nfl leg. That part is not variable. that 54 yarder he kicked(the way he kicked it) looked like it was unnatural for him to attempt from that distance.....from 63 thats fine. From 54 in todays nfl? Nope....
-
we have 2 yards this quarter? 2? what a joke. I am to the point at getting rid of the coach and the players, finish with scabs
-
Good ole Jimmy gave up a home game for this garbage as well, Sheet I say play 3 of them home games in London next year, nobody wants to watch us any how
-
-
Does it matter if he catches it or not? They will score this drive any how. I hate my life, least you guys make me smile even when we lose
-
The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.
Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation
lmao... Now we are 4 posts in and you are shifting the goal posts. Your first three posts didnt argue with my point about how the ball was not in the air and instead your argument was that "you can't impede the contact blah blah". I pointed out that, yes, you can in fact impede contact within 5 yards if the ball is not in the air and it's not holding. You just doubled down on the 'impede contact' part and didn't argue with the ball not being in the air.
Now I guess you actually took the time and read the rules and realized that, yes I was right and you can 'impede' the reciever under certain circumstances.
*IF* the ball was in the air it is a penalty. I dont think it was. If you do fine. But In that case there is nothing to discuss because there is no disagreement on the rule. But that wasnt our argument at first because if it was you would have initially disagreed with me about the ball not being in the air....not waiting until this point in the argument when you now realize I was right about the rule.
lmao... Now we are 4 posts in and you are shifting the goal posts. Your first three posts didnt argue with my point about how the ball was not in the air and instead your argument was that "you can't impede the contact blah blah". I pointed out that, yes, you can in fact impede contact within 5 yards if the ball is not in the air and it's not holding. You just doubled down on the 'impede contact' part and didn't argue with the ball not being in the air.
Now I guess you actually took the time and read the rules and realized that, yes I was right and you can 'impede' the reciever under certain circumstances.
*IF* the ball was in the air it is a penalty. I dont think it was. If you do fine. But In that case there is nothing to discuss because there is no disagreement on the rule. But that wasnt our argument at first because if it was you would have initially disagreed with me about the ball not being in the air....not waiting until this point in the argument when you now realize I was right about the rule.
kindly quote any response I made that stated what you said isn't a rule in the NFL (news flash, I didn't.)
I've made the same point each post, that if a receiver is impeded to make catch it's pass interference. You're original post is objectively wrong, and will be reviewed and confirmed as a incorrect call.
-
He has been a red zone target because there are no other decent receivers on this team. If he was any good Seth Devalve would be a blocker only.
I'd partially agree with you. I agree with you that he's a good receiver, but we have no other good receivers. All of our receivers are rejects from other teams. Treggs, Coates, Williams. Then other receivers that we drafted (Louis, Louis).
-
*if* the ball is in the air. It wasn't. you are making rules up. It cant be pass interference because the ball wasnt thrown yet. Thats where you 'impedes' argument comes in. You can't call PI on a ball that hasnt been thrown. And it cant be illegal contact(what I guess you are arguing for) because the contact was within 5 yards. And it can't be defensive holding because there was no hold. Please show me this rule about 'impedes ability to catch the ball' before the ball is thrown because it doesnt exist and thats why you can't cite it.
The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.
Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation
The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.
Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation
another quick point- if the ball was literally 'going over the head of the guys when we ran into him'(which wasnt the point of our rules argument anyways but whatever), it would not have been a catchable ball because the ball lands literally 10 yards past where contact occurs. And thus there would have been no PI because it would have been ruled uncatchable.
-
well that was a great throw, rolls eyes
-
now we see what the Browns are made of, plenty of time on the clock to get 2 TDs for any decent NFL team. Why does scoring 2 TDs seem so insurmountable for the Browns?
Because we have no receivers who are ever open. Kizer isn't great but the receivers are almost always trying to make catches with defenders all over them or they drop the ones that hit them in the hands.
Because we have no receivers who are ever open. Kizer isn't great but the receivers are almost always trying to make catches with defenders all over them or they drop the ones that hit them in the hands.
A lot of the time that's bc Kizer waits too long to throw it. He doesnt anticipate or throw to the open space, he always waits until he sees the receiver open. On comebacks, outs, slants, and other routes, that gives dbs too much time to react
#Justsayin' -
He has been a red zone target because there are no other decent receivers on this team. If he was any good Seth Devalve would be a blocker only.
I'd partially agree with you. I agree with you that he's a good receiver, but we have no other good receivers. All of our receivers are rejects from other teams. Treggs, Coates, Williams. Then other receivers that we drafted (Louis, Louis).
I'd partially agree with you. I agree with you that he's a good receiver, but we have no other good receivers. All of our receivers are rejects from other teams. Treggs, Coates, Williams. Then other receivers that we drafted (Louis, Louis).
Solid PI call. I shouldn't have said he stinks, fanatic overreaction, but he doesn't look like the guy who you draft in the first round
-
Over paid garbage.
-
Because we have no receivers who are ever open. Kizer isn't great but the receivers are almost always trying to make catches with defenders all over them or they drop the ones that hit them in the hands.
A lot of the time that's bc Kizer waits too long to throw it. He doesnt anticipate or throw to the open space, he always waits until he sees the receiver open. On comebacks, outs, slants, and other routes, that gives dbs too much time to react
A lot of the time that's bc Kizer waits too long to throw it. He doesnt anticipate or throw to the open space, he always waits until he sees the receiver open. On comebacks, outs, slants, and other routes, that gives dbs too much time to react
Sure...some of the time...but even on the slants or other things when he throws quick, there is no one ever open.
-
well a least we wont lose next week, I think it is safe to say, Hue and Zane are both gone before our next game
-
Kicking a field goal up 2 TDS with 1:14 left??? Classy.
-
lmao... Now we are 4 posts in and you are shifting the goal posts. Your first three posts didnt argue with my point about how the ball was not in the air and instead your argument was that "you can't impede the contact blah blah". I pointed out that, yes, you can in fact impede contact within 5 yards if the ball is not in the air and it's not holding. You just doubled down on the 'impede contact' part and didn't argue with the ball not being in the air.
Now I guess you actually took the time and read the rules and realized that, yes I was right and you can 'impede' the reciever under certain circumstances.
*IF* the ball was in the air it is a penalty. I dont think it was. If you do fine. But In that case there is nothing to discuss because there is no disagreement on the rule. But that wasnt our argument at first because if it was you would have initially disagreed with me about the ball not being in the air....not waiting until this point in the argument when you now realize I was right about the rule.
kindly quote any response I made that stated what you said isn't a rule in the NFL (news flash, I didn't.)
I've made the same point each post, that if a receiver is impeded to make catch it's pass interference. You're original post is objectively wrong, and will be reviewed and confirmed as a incorrect call.
kindly quote any response I made that stated what you said isn't a rule in the NFL (news flash, I didn't.)
I've made the same point each post, that if a receiver is impeded to make catch it's pass interference. You're original post is objectively wrong, and will be reviewed and confirmed as a incorrect call.
it wasn't clear to me that your use of that phrase meant you believed the ball had been thrown or not when contact was made. I agreed that he was 'impeded to make the catch', but my initial argument was that the ball hadn't been thrown yet. You can be impeded from making a catch even before the ball is thrown. If the entire point of your argument was you felt the ball had been thrown, anyone with reading comprehension would have simply stated "no, the ball had been thrown and thats why it should have been a penalty" in your first reply and there would be no argument on the rules(just a disagreement about when the ball was thrown).
-
I'm sorry to say at this point this organization has no right expecting their fans to support the team they are putting out there. I don't see much in the way of rebuilding when year after year, coach after coach the same crap is thrown out there. One week we have a great defense, the next week they look like high school players. Just about every week the offense is sub par.
Don't want to rehash this, but I just don't see Kizer as the "guy". I enjoyed watching Kessler last week even with the loss.
-
The Browns have the worst WR Corp in the NFL.
Thats where Sashi and company have failed miserably.
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