Browns Draft Needs
-
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!
...
We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?
Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!
Not at everything...at the position they play. Yes, players should be good at the functions of their positions.
...
We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?
Partly, yes. The Raiders completely controlled the ball and sure, our offense didn't have a good day, but they had limited opportunities.
Note the time of possession:
Time of Possession Raiders 37:43 Browns 22.17 That was accomplished by running the ball down our throats.
-
How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run?
And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?
And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets
-
Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020
If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season. Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.
If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets.
Sure, the pass defense also left a lot to be desired. But 3 of their 5 losses were games in which they gave up the most rushing yards.
Something that "helped" our run defense is the fact that in several games the Browns got huge leads...Dallas, Steeler playoff game and a few others, so the other team was forced to throw the ball all over the yard.
And just because the Ravens did have a good run game does not mean that the Browns could not have put up a better fight there. 231 yards was the nadir of their performance in the late game against the Ratfuckers. Our overall offense actually fairly well outperformed the Raves, Gaining 493 total yards compared to 385 for them. That, in a 5 point loss.
-
Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020
If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season. Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.
If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.
Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020
If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season. Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.
If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.
As I said, the "trend" was that their regular season losses were the games in which they surrendered the most rushing yards. In fact, here are the stats re the highest run yards given up in order, and the result of the game
231 yards Lost 2d Ravens game
209 lost Raiders
140 won (2 pt win over Jags)
131 lost Jets
129 lost 1st Steelers game
123 lost (Chiefs postseason
111 lost 1st Ravens game
106 won Eagles
103 won Washington
All other games they gave up less than 100 yards rushing. All were wins.
So, it seems to me that if the Browns could have kept the opponents to around 100 yards or less running...they win. ALL of their losses came when they gave up mor than 106 yards.
So, while absolutely the pass defense needs help, I just think there should be a bit of a higher priority on getting help for the run defense. If that means getting quality LBs, better DL, or a run stuffing SS....so be it.
-
And, I don't know if you want to call this Ironic, but the top 5 games in which the Browns gave up the fewest passing yards are as follows:
100 yards Lost Raiders
148 yards Lost Steelers first game
153 yards Won Texans
154 yards Lost Ravens second game
202 yards Lost Jets
On the other hand, here are the 5 games in which the Browns defense gave up the most passing yards:
501 Won Steelers playoff game
481 Won Cowboys
387 Won Bengals second game
369 Won Titans
315 Lost Chiefs game.
-
Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.
Cmon, man..
-
Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.
Cmon, man..
Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.
Cmon, man..
Of course, but, note, as I said before.....when the Browns got off to those big, big leads, that negates the opponents run game. E.g. Against the Titans and Henry, the Browns had a 38-7 lead at the half. So they were going to be chucking the ball all over the yard, not handing it off to Henry.
Naturally, to me anyway, that IS the way I want to control the other team's run game. Love those 38-7 halftime leads. Or the 41-14 lead the Browns had after 3 quarters vs. Dallas. Or 28-0 first quarter leads like over Pittsburgh.
-
Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB.
Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.
Regarding the list, DT is a need too.
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
Think Mike Hilton.
-
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
Think Mike Hilton.
Think Mike Hilton.
OK: Mike Hilton. Tell us about him, and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.
-
OK: Mike Hilton. Tell us about him, and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.
Well...for starters Paris' highlights video is far more impressive than Mike's.
-
So, OK, explain this comment from above to me:
Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.
So WTF is that all about? Why would analytics say "don't invest in LBs".
So, OK, explain this comment from above to me:
Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.
So WTF is that all about? Why would analytics say "don't invest in LBs".
In a nut shell, speed and size. They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.
When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers. People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.
-
I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending
My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3.. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/ Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen ?️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris ?
Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends Team Brotherhood-"It's not about You,Me or I. It's about building We"..Hue Jackson -
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets.
Sure, the pass defense also left a lot to be desired. But 3 of their 5 losses were games in which they gave up the most rushing yards.
Something that "helped" our run defense is the fact that in several games the Browns got huge leads...Dallas, Steeler playoff game and a few others, so the other team was forced to throw the ball all over the yard.
And just because the Ravens did have a good run game does not mean that the Browns could not have put up a better fight there. 231 yards was the nadir of their performance in the late game against the Ratfuckers. Our overall offense actually fairly well outperformed the Raves, Gaining 493 total yards compared to 385 for them. That, in a 5 point loss.
You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.
But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.
And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.
But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.
You mentioned BOTH Ravens games.
Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.
And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in.
So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.
To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters.
Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.
-
I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending
My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3.. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/ Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen ?️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris ?
I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending
My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3.. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/ Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen ?️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris ?
Kind of quiet on the Mitchell front but I’d argue he might be the most important FA we have. He put together a nice season and Greedy is a question mark at this level and his health is also a question mark. If you take a look at the number of quality and middle of the road type DBs hitting free agency this year. I’m confident the Browns can get something done without overpaying.
-
You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.
But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.
And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.
But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.
You mentioned BOTH Ravens games.
Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.
And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in.
So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.
To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters.
Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.
You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.
But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.
And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.
But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.
You mentioned BOTH Ravens games.
Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.
And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in.
So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.
To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters.
Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.
You may be talking about specific plays. I am talking about games.
You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses, but it still a simple sort of arrangement: The more the Browns gave up in running yards, the more likely they were to lose. Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing. I am not going to overthink that fact.
You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games. But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing: They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards.
-
So, OK, explain this comment from above to me:
Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.
So WTF is that all about? Why would analytics say "don't invest in LBs".
In a nut shell, speed and size. They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.
When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers. People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.
In a nut shell, speed and size. They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.
When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers. People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.
Exactly, Peppers excels now and he did well for us when he was closer to the LOS. Covering the flat, jumping a TE curl route, blitzing and stuffing a run or chasing a QB. The Center field coverage stuff part was his demise.
We brought in Karl Joseph to fill that role. And he did decently well close to LOS...it was the center field stuff that our D coordinator put him in that kind of flopped.
I think you can make a strong argument that Peppers and Joseph play the New LB role or even LB better than Mack Wilson.
Peppers is no longer on the team, Joseph may no longer be on team and if you are finding the next guy in line you need a center field coverage type complement with them. Maybe it’s Ronnie Harrison?
So we have two maybe three holes depending on how you view Ronnie Harrison.
-
You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.
But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.
And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.
But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.
You mentioned BOTH Ravens games.
Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.
And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in.
So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.
To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters.
Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.
You may be talking about specific plays. I am talking about games.
You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses, but it still a simple sort of arrangement: The more the Browns gave up in running yards, the more likely they were to lose. Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing. I am not going to overthink that fact.
You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games. But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing: They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards.
You may be talking about specific plays. I am talking about games.
You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses, but it still a simple sort of arrangement: The more the Browns gave up in running yards, the more likely they were to lose. Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing. I am not going to overthink that fact.
You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games. But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing: They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards.
There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument.
In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games:
1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average.
So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game?
2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games.
3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation. But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62.
4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year.
Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under
Tenn- 2 Way under
PHI-9 Under
IND-11 Under
LV-14 Way Over
DAL- 17 Under
NYG-19 Under
NYJ-23 Over
CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice
WASH-26 Slightly over
JAX-29 Over
HOU- 31 Slightly Under
PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under
Chiefs-16 10 yards over
Every team from Washington up averaged 100+.
So in 18 games, compared to the teams average:
Over: 8
Under: 10
So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)?
Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games.
So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again.
The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game.
Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.)
But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility.
A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion.
-
You may be talking about specific plays. I am talking about games.
You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses, but it still a simple sort of arrangement: The more the Browns gave up in running yards, the more likely they were to lose. Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing. I am not going to overthink that fact.
You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games. But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing: They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards.
There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument.
In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games:
1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average.
So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game?
2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games.
3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation. But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62.
4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year.
Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under
Tenn- 2 Way under
PHI-9 Under
IND-11 Under
LV-14 Way Over
DAL- 17 Under
NYG-19 Under
NYJ-23 Over
CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice
WASH-26 Slightly over
JAX-29 Over
HOU- 31 Slightly Under
PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under
Chiefs-16 10 yards over
Every team from Washington up averaged 100+.
So in 18 games, compared to the teams average:
Over: 8
Under: 10
So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)?
Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games.
So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again.
The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game.
Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.)
But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility.
A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion.
There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument.
In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games:
1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average.
So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game?
Again, I am only pointing out that the games they gave up the most rushing are the games they lost. If there are other factors at play, so be it. It is still a glaring statistic.
2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games.
3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation.
Actually, I said exactly that: that the big leads the Browns had in some games deterred the other teams from utilizing their run game. How did you miss that?
But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62.
Sure, it helped some. But the above comment was a more primary factor,
4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year.
Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under
Tenn- 2 Way under
PHI-9 Under
IND-11 Under
LV-14 Way Over
DAL- 17 Under
NYG-19 Under
NYJ-23 Over
CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice
WASH-26 Slightly over
JAX-29 Over
HOU- 31 Slightly Under
PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under
Chiefs-16 10 yards over
Every team from Washington up averaged 100+.
So in 18 games, compared to the teams average:
Over: 8
Under: 10
So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)?
Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games.
So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again.
The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game.
Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.)
But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility.
No, I just, again, think that you are overthinking it. Bottom line, we need LBs to perform better....even IF we are only going to use 2 of them. In fact, it is even more critical if we just use that number. W draft them or pick up FAs.
A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion.
Actually, I think the numbers may support the conclusion that JB is the best RB ever: I believe he still holds the NFL record for both Most average yards per rush and per game,. and he leads in most time leading the league in rushing in a season
-
There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument.
In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games:
1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average.
So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game?
Again, I am only pointing out that the games they gave up the most rushing are the games they lost. If there are other factors at play, so be it. It is still a glaring statistic.
2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games.
3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation.
Actually, I said exactly that: that the big leads the Browns had in some games deterred the other teams from utilizing their run game. How did you miss that?
But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62.
Sure, it helped some. But the above comment was a more primary factor,
4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year.
Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under
Tenn- 2 Way under
PHI-9 Under
IND-11 Under
LV-14 Way Over
DAL- 17 Under
NYG-19 Under
NYJ-23 Over
CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice
WASH-26 Slightly over
JAX-29 Over
HOU- 31 Slightly Under
PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under
Chiefs-16 10 yards over
Every team from Washington up averaged 100+.
So in 18 games, compared to the teams average:
Over: 8
Under: 10
So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)?
Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games.
So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again.
The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game.
Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.)
But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility.
No, I just, again, think that you are overthinking it. Bottom line, we need LBs to perform better....even IF we are only going to use 2 of them. In fact, it is even more critical if we just use that number. W draft them or pick up FAs.
A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion.
Actually, I think the numbers may support the conclusion that JB is the best RB ever: I believe he still holds the NFL record for both Most average yards per rush and per game,. and he leads in most time leading the league in rushing in a season
Teams don't run to set up the pass.. they pass, period, and the rushing is an amusing aftereffect of the passing. The Chiefs game gave up lots of run yards because they had a big lead and were busy icing it.. AND because mahomes got knocked out. We'd have a lot more pass yards against the Browns on the final stat sheet if neither of those two things were the case.
In 2020, 41% of the plays against our D were run; 59% were pass. 69% of the yards our D gave up were through the air; 31% were from a run.
Stopping the pass is job #1 and #2 - first stop the thing they do more often and cause greater damage with.
If there are other factors at play, so be it
Yes, and those other factors are.. more important than rush yards.
This really should be separated from a thread about draft needs.. LB is a weakness but it looks like we've picked DL, OL, QB, WR and DB as our investable positions with LB and the non-top-tier starters being rookies on a first deal or identified middle-priced vet FA's.
Njoku for Gilmore? I'll take it.. one explanation for Gilmore's "struggle" in 2020
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