Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Browns -10

Browns -10

The Browns Board
16 9 485
  • I Icecube

    The line should be higher. 

    @icecube said:

    The line should be higher. 

    No.  
     

    Has anything been easy for this Browns team?  Go back each game- we’ve had a few sprinkles of comfort but everything has been a battle.

    The Steelers are formidable even with Mason. They are less formidable with a few of those key cogs out on the defense- do we know who that will be?  I hate to alarm people but we’ve had trouble with their defensive scheme for decades and guys have shuffled in and out...retired...etc.  We have work cut out if it’s Alex Highsmith and a DoorDash driver on other side. 

    We aren’t even playing with a full deck and have no idea how this covid mess will shake out with us. 

  • I won't be touching this game let alone the line.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @texasag1969 said:

    If I had a betting account I'd take the Stealers all day long. They are deeper than we are and it looks like that is what will play out with so many of ours out from COVID. If that remains the case by Sunday, we are goners.

    Are they?  Where?  Other than Linebacker? 

    I mean in general.....not including  people sitting down with Covid.

    @the-gipper said:

    Are they?  Where?  Other than Linebacker? 

    I mean in general.....not including  people sitting down with Covid.

    Actually that was my point. IF we have all those people down again with COVID,  Pitt is deeper than we are with second stringers to beat that team we saw out there against the hapless Jets.

  • T TexasAg1969

    @the-gipper said:

    Are they?  Where?  Other than Linebacker? 

    I mean in general.....not including  people sitting down with Covid.

    Actually that was my point. IF we have all those people down again with COVID,  Pitt is deeper than we are with second stringers to beat that team we saw out there against the hapless Jets.

    @texasag1969 said:

    Actually that was my point. IF we have all those people down again with COVID,  Pitt is deeper than we are with second stringers to beat that team we saw out there against the hapless Jets.

    Well, you didn't make your point clear. 

    And I still don't buy it that they are deeper than us with 2d stringers.  

    Do you think  Mason Rudolph is better than Case Keenum?   Do you think their backup RBs are better than our backup RBs?   I don't think their starting RBs are as good as our backup RBs.

    Do you think their backup OL are better than our backup OL?   Their backup  DL better than our backup DL....their backup DBs better than our backup DBs?   Hell, we have been playing with our backup DBs practically the entire season.

    Their backup LBs are probably better than our starters.....so I give you that one. 

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @texasag1969 said:

    Actually that was my point. IF we have all those people down again with COVID,  Pitt is deeper than we are with second stringers to beat that team we saw out there against the hapless Jets.

    Well, you didn't make your point clear. 

    And I still don't buy it that they are deeper than us with 2d stringers.  

    Do you think  Mason Rudolph is better than Case Keenum?   Do you think their backup RBs are better than our backup RBs?   I don't think their starting RBs are as good as our backup RBs.

    Do you think their backup OL are better than our backup OL?   Their backup  DL better than our backup DL....their backup DBs better than our backup DBs?   Hell, we have been playing with our backup DBs practically the entire season.

    Their backup LBs are probably better than our starters.....so I give you that one. 

    @the-gipper said:

    Well, you didn't make your point clear. 

    And I still don't buy it that they are deeper than us with 2d stringers.  

    Do you think  Mason Rudolph is better than Case Keenum?   Do you think their backup RBs are better than our backup RBs?   I don't think their starting RBs are as good as our backup RBs.

    Do you think their backup OL are better than our backup OL?   Their backup  DL better than our backup DL....their backup DBs better than our backup DBs?   Hell, we have been playing with our backup DBs practically the entire season.

    Their backup LBs are probably better than our starters.....so I give you that one. 

    Well since the way we got beaten was to stack against the run because we had two PS WRs, it seems to me those LBs of theirs will come in handy. They're 2nd stringers are better than Jets 1st stringers.

  • T TexasAg1969

    @the-gipper said:

    Well, you didn't make your point clear. 

    And I still don't buy it that they are deeper than us with 2d stringers.  

    Do you think  Mason Rudolph is better than Case Keenum?   Do you think their backup RBs are better than our backup RBs?   I don't think their starting RBs are as good as our backup RBs.

    Do you think their backup OL are better than our backup OL?   Their backup  DL better than our backup DL....their backup DBs better than our backup DBs?   Hell, we have been playing with our backup DBs practically the entire season.

    Their backup LBs are probably better than our starters.....so I give you that one. 

    Well since the way we got beaten was to stack against the run because we had two PS WRs, it seems to me those LBs of theirs will come in handy. They're 2nd stringers are better than Jets 1st stringers.

    @texasag1969 said:

    Well since the way we got beaten was to stack against the run because we had two PS WRs, it seems to me those LBs of theirs will come in handy. They're 2nd stringers are better than Jets 1st stringers.

    Well, then, their first stringers must be worse than the Bengals 3rd stringers, because the Bengals beat them with a 3rd string QB and a bunch of other backups. 

    So much for that theory. 

    hoortaH 1 Reply

  • This article says back in the day, it was 10, but this game the Browns are favored by seven....

    but not much difference...

    https://www.brownsnation.com/browns-have-largest-point-spread-against-steelers-since-1989/

    "In the early odds, the Browns have opened as a seven-point favorite.

    The Week 17 Sunday game between the Steelers and Browns could mark the first time since 1989 that Cleveland has been a favorite of seven or more points since Oct 15, 1989. The Browns were 10-point favorites over the Steelers in that game in Cleveland. The #Steelers won 17-7."

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @texasag1969 said:

    Well since the way we got beaten was to stack against the run because we had two PS WRs, it seems to me those LBs of theirs will come in handy. They're 2nd stringers are better than Jets 1st stringers.

    Well, then, their first stringers must be worse than the Bengals 3rd stringers, because the Bengals beat them with a 3rd string QB and a bunch of other backups. 

    So much for that theory. 

    @the-gipper said:

    Well, then, their first stringers must be worse than the Bengals 3rd stringers, because the Bengals beat them with a 3rd string QB and a bunch of other backups. 

    So much for that theory. 

    Well, your theory mostly sucks. Let me enlighten you as to HOW the lowly Bengals managed to beat the Steelers. As I like to say, I'd rather be lucky than good. Cincinnati got gifted two fumbles and an interception that put them up 17-0 at the half and managed to hang on to win. Think we can beat the Steelers if Baker completes 7 passes for 80 yards like Finley did? 

    I'll give you the theory of "on any given Sunday ". By all rights the Jets should never have beaten the Rams. Have an off game, like the Steelers had against the Bengals, and you lose. 

    The GipperT Tour2maT 2 Replies
    ❤
  • hoortaH hoorta

    @the-gipper said:

    Well, then, their first stringers must be worse than the Bengals 3rd stringers, because the Bengals beat them with a 3rd string QB and a bunch of other backups. 

    So much for that theory. 

    Well, your theory mostly sucks. Let me enlighten you as to HOW the lowly Bengals managed to beat the Steelers. As I like to say, I'd rather be lucky than good. Cincinnati got gifted two fumbles and an interception that put them up 17-0 at the half and managed to hang on to win. Think we can beat the Steelers if Baker completes 7 passes for 80 yards like Finley did? 

    I'll give you the theory of "on any given Sunday ". By all rights the Jets should never have beaten the Rams. Have an off game, like the Steelers had against the Bengals, and you lose. 

    @hoorta said:

    Well, your theory mostly sucks. Let me enlighten you as to HOW the lowly Bengals managed to beat the Steelers. As I like to say, I'd rather be lucky than good. Cincinnati got gifted two fumbles and an interception that put them up 17-0 at the half and managed to hang on to win. Think we can beat the Steelers if Baker completes 7 passes for 80 yards like Finley did? 

    I'll give you the theory of "on any given Sunday ". By all rights the Jets should never have beaten the Rams. Have an off game, like the Steelers had against the Bengals, and you lose. 

    My point was the latter.  Surely you don't think that I think that the Bengals  third stringers are better than the Steelers starters, do you?   And yes, I called you Shirley. 

    And are you buying Tex's theory that the Spermsucker's  2d stringers are so much better than the Browns?  

  • hoortaH hoorta

    @the-gipper said:

    Well, then, their first stringers must be worse than the Bengals 3rd stringers, because the Bengals beat them with a 3rd string QB and a bunch of other backups. 

    So much for that theory. 

    Well, your theory mostly sucks. Let me enlighten you as to HOW the lowly Bengals managed to beat the Steelers. As I like to say, I'd rather be lucky than good. Cincinnati got gifted two fumbles and an interception that put them up 17-0 at the half and managed to hang on to win. Think we can beat the Steelers if Baker completes 7 passes for 80 yards like Finley did? 

    I'll give you the theory of "on any given Sunday ". By all rights the Jets should never have beaten the Rams. Have an off game, like the Steelers had against the Bengals, and you lose. 

    @hoorta said:

    Well, your theory mostly sucks.

    You say that as if this "theory" should be any different.

    Honestly it's it's an insult to Einstein to call this or any other half-baked, first-thought, designed-to-prompt-a-reply-so-that-I-can-argue thing the guy posts a "theory".

    "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
    👍
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    @hoorta said:

    Well, your theory mostly sucks.

    You say that as if this "theory" should be any different.

    Honestly it's it's an insult to Einstein to call this or any other half-baked, first-thought, designed-to-prompt-a-reply-so-that-I-can-argue thing the guy posts a "theory".

    @tour2ma said:

    You say that as if this "theory" should be any different.

    Honestly it's it's an insult to Einstein to call this or any other half-baked, first-thought, designed-to-prompt-a-reply-so-that-I-can-argue thing the guy posts a "theory".

    And by this statement are you acknowledging that YOU were too stupid to recognize that it was a joke?   Or, did you really think that the statement that the Bengals third stringers were better than the Steelers starters was in fact a serious statement?  

Log in to reply