Browns Draft Needs
-
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
-
a couple random thoughts on the two pages of post
-The Browns often times and with great effectiveness ran the ball and it set up the pass. We got so good as the season went on opposing teams tried to take it away at the start and it forced Stefanski and company to open it up downfield and we came back to pounding the rock after the Saftey and LBs started drifting back in coverage
-Gilmore for Njoku absolutely.
-The Raider game while a small sample of the entire season magnified our lack of running stuffing capability. It was Man Ball against helpless victims.
-the second Raven game was a flawed gameplan. The Back 7 dropping and Turning their backs to Lamar and way too much reliance on man coverage. Lamar had the yards but the backs if recall also had their output whenever they needed a run.
-To be fair, something worked (we committed to stopping the run) in Tenn. because D Henry was going backwards in the first half.
-Quite honestly, we had offensive coordinators redesigning game plans to exploit our secondary play or guys out in our secondary. And Coupled with some circumstantial points that redirected/avoided focus on running against us- Although we were Top 10 We were paper tigers in this area.
-
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
You are actively trying to have it both ways, which as I said hurts credibility (and I am sure you don't care, but it goes to the reason you are called out, when coupled with the fact that you even jokingly try to sound superior).
When the question was posed by someone about what games we lost because we couldn't stop the run...
You didn't try to justify your stance, you simply named those 5 games. By only answering those teams, you appear (whether incidentally or not) to be saying that those games were lost being the main cause as rush defense. And when questioned about it,, instead of clarification on your stance, you double down.You don't seem to want to qualify cause and effect, just want to use one basic data point to substantiate your belief. And whether you know it or not, that is absolutely fools gold in analysis. Again, you are the one who always wants to appear so in the know and using databases to back up whatever you are trying to argue.
Case in point, and I absolutely knew you would use some situational Stat for Jim Brown, which is the exact reason why I used that. You are ONLY using total rushing yards to try and bolster your point on the initial issue, not a thing more, not even a secondary rush Stat. Yet by that metric, JB isn't close. You see, you use different standards depending on your views.
You see, what I have noticed with you is when you need to you will try to say that you were misunderstood (very well could be true from your initial perspective). But in that, you expect that you were misinterpreted by the other person, not because you were confusing which led to the misunderstanding.
You see, just by answering the initial question without clarification, "rush defense" can be replaced with anything. Quarterback, rush offense, pass defense, etc.
And even though I believe I already did, I will ask again in even simpler terms:
1. In the 1st Ravens game, the blowout, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (as your 1st comments showed) was the MAIN culprit (at least defensively) that the Browns lost?
2. In the playoff loss to the Chiefs, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (again as you said the Browns lost because of) was the MAIN culprit for the loss?
3. By your OWN logic here, if those were losses because of RUSH DEFENSE, then are you also giving the Lions share of win against Titans to the RUSH DEFENSE?
Again, ALL of this could be avoided by simply clarifying a position or even just saying "I see how that was misunderstood."
-
You are actively trying to have it both ways, which as I said hurts credibility (and I am sure you don't care, but it goes to the reason you are called out, when coupled with the fact that you even jokingly try to sound superior).
When the question was posed by someone about what games we lost because we couldn't stop the run...
You didn't try to justify your stance, you simply named those 5 games. By only answering those teams, you appear (whether incidentally or not) to be saying that those games were lost being the main cause as rush defense. And when questioned about it,, instead of clarification on your stance, you double down.You don't seem to want to qualify cause and effect, just want to use one basic data point to substantiate your belief. And whether you know it or not, that is absolutely fools gold in analysis. Again, you are the one who always wants to appear so in the know and using databases to back up whatever you are trying to argue.
Case in point, and I absolutely knew you would use some situational Stat for Jim Brown, which is the exact reason why I used that. You are ONLY using total rushing yards to try and bolster your point on the initial issue, not a thing more, not even a secondary rush Stat. Yet by that metric, JB isn't close. You see, you use different standards depending on your views.
You see, what I have noticed with you is when you need to you will try to say that you were misunderstood (very well could be true from your initial perspective). But in that, you expect that you were misinterpreted by the other person, not because you were confusing which led to the misunderstanding.
You see, just by answering the initial question without clarification, "rush defense" can be replaced with anything. Quarterback, rush offense, pass defense, etc.
And even though I believe I already did, I will ask again in even simpler terms:
1. In the 1st Ravens game, the blowout, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (as your 1st comments showed) was the MAIN culprit (at least defensively) that the Browns lost?
2. In the playoff loss to the Chiefs, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (again as you said the Browns lost because of) was the MAIN culprit for the loss?
3. By your OWN logic here, if those were losses because of RUSH DEFENSE, then are you also giving the Lions share of win against Titans to the RUSH DEFENSE?
Again, ALL of this could be avoided by simply clarifying a position or even just saying "I see how that was misunderstood."
If there are other factors at play, so be it
Yes, and those other factors are.. more important than rush yards.
So...it is just highly coincidental that the games the Browns gave up the most rushing yards are the games the lost?
You are actively trying to have it both ways, which as I said hurts credibility (and I am sure you don't care, but it goes to the reason you are called out, when coupled with the fact that you even jokingly try to sound superior).
When the question was posed by someone about what games we lost because we couldn't stop the run...
You didn't try to justify your stance, you simply named those 5 games.
They speak for themselves.
By only answering those teams, you appear (whether incidentally or not) to be saying that those games were lost being the main cause as rush defense. And when questioned about it,, instead of clarification on your stance, you double down.You don't seem to want to qualify cause and effect, just want to use one basic data point to substantiate your belief. And whether you know it or not, that is absolutely fools gold in analysis. Again, you are the one who always wants to appear so in the know and using databases to back up whatever you are trying to argue.
Just the facts, ma'am.
Case in point, and I absolutely knew you would use some situational Stat for Jim Brown, which is the exact reason why I used that. You are ONLY using total rushing yards to try and bolster your point on the initial issue, not a thing more, not even a secondary rush Stat. Yet by that metric, JB isn't close. You see, you use different standards depending on your views.
I don't use different standards....I am just telling you the facts.
You see, what I have noticed with you is when you need to you will try to say that you were misunderstood (very well could be true from your initial perspective). But in that, you expect that you were misinterpreted by the other person, not because you were confusing which led to the misunderstanding.
No, I don't overthink these things the way you do...the way you just did.
You see, just by answering the initial question without clarification, "rush defense" can be replaced with anything. Quarterback, rush offense, pass defense, etc.
And even though I believe I already did, I will ask again in even simpler terms:
1. In the 1st Ravens game, the blowout, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (as your 1st comments showed) was the MAIN culprit (at least defensively) that the Browns lost?
Partly I suspect, it didn't help
2. In the playoff loss to the Chiefs, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (again as you said the Browns lost because of) was the MAIN culprit for the loss?
Partly I suspect. It didn't help
3. By your OWN logic here, if those were losses because of RUSH DEFENSE, then are you also giving the Lions share of win against Titans to the RUSH DEFENSE?
Partly I suspect, it helped. Though that was not MY logic in that situation....that is just your mistake surmise of what my logic is. My logic was that in that, and other games where the Browns had huge leads, those leads led to the opposing team abandoning the run game.
Again, ALL of this could be avoided by simply clarifying a position or even just saying "I see how that was misunderstood."
I don't know how, or if it was misunderstood. I don't know what you understand or what you misunderstand. I wouldn't even think of trying to get into your thought processes. I am just saying that in the Browns 6 losses, those were 6 of the 7 games in which they gave up the most rushing yards. I don't think it is coincidental, but you are free to draw whatever conclusion you wish from that fact.
-
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.
Fair point.
The question is: should we now make LB an "investable position" in our FA/Draft process forthcoming.
-
a couple random thoughts on the two pages of post
-The Browns often times and with great effectiveness ran the ball and it set up the pass. We got so good as the season went on opposing teams tried to take it away at the start and it forced Stefanski and company to open it up downfield and we came back to pounding the rock after the Saftey and LBs started drifting back in coverage
-Gilmore for Njoku absolutely.
-The Raider game while a small sample of the entire season magnified our lack of running stuffing capability. It was Man Ball against helpless victims.
-the second Raven game was a flawed gameplan. The Back 7 dropping and Turning their backs to Lamar and way too much reliance on man coverage. Lamar had the yards but the backs if recall also had their output whenever they needed a run.
-To be fair, something worked (we committed to stopping the run) in Tenn. because D Henry was going backwards in the first half.
-Quite honestly, we had offensive coordinators redesigning game plans to exploit our secondary play or guys out in our secondary. And Coupled with some circumstantial points that redirected/avoided focus on running against us- Although we were Top 10 We were paper tigers in this area.
-The Raider game while a small sample of the entire season magnified our lack of running stuffing capability. It was Man Ball against helpless victims.
It was a horrible thing to watch. WE knew they were going to run. THEY knew that WE knew they were going to run. They ran anyway. And they bowled right over us. - Having said that, our secondary was a mess and we couldn't stop the pass. You can't throw a dart at our defensive dart board and miss a spot that needs a player.
-
a couple random thoughts on the two pages of post
-The Browns often times and with great effectiveness ran the ball and it set up the pass. We got so good as the season went on opposing teams tried to take it away at the start and it forced Stefanski and company to open it up downfield and we came back to pounding the rock after the Saftey and LBs started drifting back in coverage
-Gilmore for Njoku absolutely.
-The Raider game while a small sample of the entire season magnified our lack of running stuffing capability. It was Man Ball against helpless victims.
-the second Raven game was a flawed gameplan. The Back 7 dropping and Turning their backs to Lamar and way too much reliance on man coverage. Lamar had the yards but the backs if recall also had their output whenever they needed a run.
-To be fair, something worked (we committed to stopping the run) in Tenn. because D Henry was going backwards in the first half.
-Quite honestly, we had offensive coordinators redesigning game plans to exploit our secondary play or guys out in our secondary. And Coupled with some circumstantial points that redirected/avoided focus on running against us- Although we were Top 10 We were paper tigers in this area.
The Browns often times and with great effectiveness ran the ball and it set up the pass.
Yup.... When your pass attack is as heavily Play-action dependent as ours/Stef's is, then you have to be able to run the ball.
If you run a spread/RPO, then not so much...
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