\ said:

your boy Savage is the real problem not Crennel..............you can only do so much with average............and average is what Phil has provided.......or worse

Rogers is at least one piece that is more than average. RAC is who wants the 3-4 scheme, which you know is far harder to fill than a 4-3. Savage deserves blame, but RAC deserves more. He is the guy coaching these guys. I know you can only coach up so much, but I've seen more with less on other teams D's.

\ said:

We were #4 going into this week....and this week we posted a 16.6 rating...which would still be 7th in the league. As opposed to the Stoolers who are ranked 9th (16.16)...so just go away now while we discuss the Browns...

We don't mind you piping in when we discuss your shitzburg team...or have somthing to add, but this sniping is not going to be tolerated. Fair warning.

Only stat that matters to me and should matter to you in reality is the Browns already have as many losses as the Steelers have wins after only 9 games...That cant be a good thing can it???

your boy Savage is the real problem not Crennel..............you can only do so much with average............and average is what Phil has provided.......or worse

\ said:

\ said:

So, if we both give up 315 yds, the steelers give up 21 pts....and we give up 16 or so.

It's a BS stat, plain and simple. Should be called Breakability, because that's what is happening. Oh, and the Steelers are 6-3 because they sack the shit out of teams. They lead the league with 32 and we don't have 1/2 that many @ 14.

Plus we avg slightly less per game in points given up (19 vs 22) than Pitt, but avg 145 rush yds vs thier 3rd ranking 79 per game.

Our defense cannot play consistently game in and game out. Some genius RAC turned out to be. We need to change course next year, because if he cannot create a dominating D what good is he?

The Steelers record is 6-2 buddy not 6-3...The only stat that matters are wins and losses in the end....

\ said:

It's a BS stat, plain and simple. Should be called Breakability, because that's what is happening. Oh, and the Steelers are 6-3 because they sack the shit out of teams. They lead the league with 32 and we don't have 1/2 that many @ 14.

Plus we avg slightly less per game in points given up (19 vs 22) than Pitt, but avg 145 rush yds vs thier 3rd ranking 79 per game.

Our defense cannot play consistently game in and game out. Some genius RAC turned out to be. We need to change course next year, because if he cannot create a dominating D what good is he?

The D needs a leader on the field, just like the O does (which I think they have now). But I don't see anyone on the field or the bench that will fill that roll for the D.

The theory is get tough in the red zone and let your offense get enough points to win handily

This was the successful strategy of the Browns in 50's and 60's............which included eight world Championship games and four wins

We were #4 going into this week....and this week we posted a 16.6 rating...which would still be 7th in the league. As opposed to the Stoolers who are ranked 9th (16.16)...so just go away now while we discuss the Browns...

We don't mind you piping in when we discuss your shitzburg team...or have somthing to add, but this sniping is not going to be tolerated. Fair warning.

\ said:

The Bendability Index is the first and only stat on Planet Pigskin to quantify the phenomenon of the "bend but don't break" defense. But as we've long noted, it is not a measure purely of defensive efficiency. Instead, with a very simple figure, it takes into consideration many, many team-wide factors, including special teams proficiency, turnover differential, red zone defense and a variety of other factors, and tells you which teams force opponents to work the hardest to score points.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...lity_Index.html

The Titans are #1, Browns #2, Ravens #10, Steelers # 13

Basically, it means teams have to WORK HARD to score points!

I wonder what the Browns are ranked on this thing after Jay Cutler torched their secondary for 450 yards passing with a 90 yard TD included...Cant be too good Im guessing...

\ said:

Short answer, yes.......... Kissing KW

\ said:

\ said:

D'Qwell can ball.

Like Rogers, I'm hoping that D'Qwell can play all 16 regular season games. He missed multiple games each of his first two seasons, but I'm hoping that having Big Baby in front of him will help keep him healthy.

\ said:

Sean Jones pissed me off more on that play. He got i WAY early, and instead of jamming the block up and turning that play inside, he (I think) attempted to roll block and possibly cause a pile-up but it went down as a cowardly attempt and they converted. I was screaming!

\ said:

\ said:

You're reading those stats unrealistically, John. Bendability doesn't mean it "takes a team" X amount of yards to score a touchdown. It means we're giving up yards/field position in between giving up touchdowns. That's a more realistic look at it. And I'd be willing to bet if you took the teams with the lower "number of yards it takes to get a TD" they'd all be the HIGHER ranked defenses in the NFL. Because they don't give up a ton of yards and do get 3 and outs.

the bottom 10 are:

Lions

Colts

Rams

Cardinals

Jets

Cowboys

Bengals

Texans

Vikings

49ers

Please, show me the GOOD defense!!! The Vikes are the only top 10 in yards (#8) and the Cowboys are the best in scoring (#17).

John, if you go back and read my post I edited it to say "at a given PPG allowed." Which does make a big difference, I bet.

Though, somebody else noted that giving up field position only means the opposition has less to go the next time they score. Which pretty much blows my theory out of the water. So, props for this stat. IT is a good thing.

I think we got lucky in Jacksonville. Those dumbasses tried to run smack dab right through Rogers. WTF, were they thinking? I'd spread our day-late and a dollar-short LB's out and put up seven a crack through their arm tackles and game of chase, but no way would I attempt to run directly up the middle with Rogers in there.

I wasn't to pleased with our soft secondary coverage last week. Why in the hell can't we line-up off the line consistiently from one game to the next. I hate them 15-25 yards off the ball formations, and on our heels too!

Speaking of stats, i noticed that we have the NFL's 4th best turnover differential. That's one that i do understand.

I disagree with the giving up of field position. If you give up field position, that means that next time the opponent's offense needs fewer yards to score, so the yards required per touchdown would even out.

\ said:

the bottom 10 are:

Lions

Colts

Rams

Cardinals

Jets

Cowboys

Bengals

Texans

Vikings

49ers

Please, show me the GOOD defense!!! The Vikes are the only top 10 in yards (#8) and the Cowboys are the best in scoring (#17).

I'd rather give up yards than TDs, I understand that. I guess all I'm trying to say is, this is not necessarily a positive statistic to be ranked highly in.

\ said:

I'd rather be less bendable than more bendable given a certain PPG allowance. So what is this stat really saying?

The stat is basically saying teams have to work REALLY HARD and go a LOT OF YARDS to score on the Browns Defense. It basically means that offenses are more than likely going to have to go the entire length of the field to get a score on us.

With our stats, it takes an average of 134 yds to get a TD against us.

With the steelers, it takes an average of 105 yds to get a TD.

So, if we both give up 315 yds, the steelers give up 21 pts....and we give up 16 or so.

That's all.