5 Or 6 Plays
-
The more I watch football (going on 35 years now), the more I realize that the old saying is true: the difference between a win & a loss often comes down to 5 or 6 plays. The Browns' 2011/12 season is an excellent example of this. Let's take a look:
Cincinnati #1: obviously, the quick snap & throw to AJ Green
Seattle: 2 (or was it 3) blocked field goals
Oakland: punt return & fake punt resulting in a touchdown
St. Louis: bad snap/missed field goal
Jacksonville: obviously, the missed throws by Jax @ the end of the game
Cincinnati #2: dropped passes late in the game & AJ Green's catch & run
My point is this: there's not a lot of difference between 60-70% of the teams in the NFL (GB is above this norm, while I'd say Indy is below), & a team's success or failure can often come down to these 5 or 6 plays in a game. One team can be bad one year, have success the next, then return to being mediocre the year after (witness KC & SF this year as opposed to last - not a lot of change in personnel, although you could say that Jim Harbaugh has had a huge effect). The Browns, really, could be anywhere from 2-9 to 7-4 depending on how a few plays in each game turned out.
I don't think they're that far away from the rest of the league - I really don't. A few key additions in the offseason could be all that's needed here, along with a little bit of luck (which I think we can all agree is overdue around here). They have to find a way, however, to do what good teams do on a regular basis - find ways to win.
-
I don't think it is 5-6 plays in a game. For the Browns, it is 5-6 plays for the ENTIRE SEASON so far that have made the difference between a 2-9 or 9-2 record....OK, make that 7 plays. One for each game.
-
i am still trying to recover from having my emotional guts ripped out in the St Louis Debacle. (feeling some better after watching the Buck cagers rock Duke last night)
The who pretty much define my life of rootin' for the Browns:
-
I hate Shurmur more than anything. I think he's a lame duck coach, just keeping the seat warm for Holmgren's inevitable return to coaching. This system he's implementing has been bland, and that's an understatement. But these last couple weeks we've seen a few more plays integrated into the system, shotgun used a little more, and different receivers getting targets, namely Jordan Norwood.
There's a very, very, very faint bright spot, but it's something an eternal optimist like myself can grasp onto.
Wer'e showing...improvement might be a strong word, but maybe adaptation? Shurmur is showing that he has the ability to adapt, however so slightly, and he may actually have the knowledge to change his system which has obviously been coming up short this season. I suppose we'll see how it goes for the rest of the season, but I'd say our week 11 team is leaps and bounds ahead of our week 1 team, at least offensively.
On another note, less statistical and more...whatever:
There's similarities between Cleveland and Denver. Denver started the year off like us, with a new coach, a new offense and a switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3. They've shown progression throughout the season, but a noticeable jump in performance with Tebow at the helm. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Tebow himself is the reason. Von Miller is playing out of his mind and their entire defense is working together very well. Tebow's more of a catalyst.
He brings a winning mentality to the team, but more than anything he makes those around him play better. The reports out of the Denver locker room are the proof that lies in the pudding: he's constantly hyping and reinforcing his teammates, singing their praises and not calling them out. And that is what makes the difference in a win and a loss.
Like you said, each game can be attributed to a couple of plays. Those plays turn out differently, the momentum shifts and it's a completely different ball game. I believe that's where the "Tebow factor" (for lack of a better term) comes in. You get your guys to play at a level above their natural talent, to play their hardest until the final whistle, and that's where the wins come from. From those 5 or 6 plays that should have gone the other way, but didn't. From a nickelback who makes a completely uncharacteristic diving pass deflection on a critical third down pass. Or a 4th WR who has been lulling his defender to sleep only to catch a long bomb down the sideline.
That's where you start to grind out your wins.
All the great teams are the teams that win those 5 or 6 plays. You think the sheer level of talent is that much of a difference between Pittsburgh and Cleveland? Don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh has a whole stable of extremely talented players at the top end of their roster that Cleveland doesn't have. But I'm talking about those other guys, the other 40 or so players that make up the active roster, suit up for Pittsburgh and play on Sundays. There's not much difference in those guys compared to our guys. The only difference is that Pittsburgh's "other guys", or Denver's "other guys", or Green Bay's "other guys" play a hell of a lot harder than our "other guys". And that's because somebody instilled in them that they are just as good as anybody else in the league.
The St. Louis game, the Oakland game, the San Fran game, both Cincinnati games- they've all shown Cleveland doesn't quite know how to grind out those ugly wins.
You want to be a champion, you have to start by winning ugly.
-
To me its obvious we don't have the talent yet to over come mistakes. I'm not even talking turn overs, but blown coverages or missing an open guy down field.
As much as we could have beat the bengals and rams we could have lost against the jags, dolphins, colts and seattle.
We have had an easy schedule so far. I hate everthing about the front office and the direction they are going.
But I want to be wrong, I would like to see them compete against the ravens and steelers
-
Fact: 85% of NFL football games are are won or lose by 7 points or less
-
Just got done watching the game again....
As much as I dislike the FO/coaching staff, we have some good young players. Raw, but talented. Little, Titus brown, English, paxson, pinky, Norwood, obi.....they'll be goood starters and rotational guys. If we stay the course, I'm hopeful. Holes will be filled, game plans will be expanded. The last 3 games are a stark contrast to the first 8.
Colt will be sufficient for this team to succeed. Build the O next draft, skip FA one more year and we'll be a perennial playoff team starting in 2013. Its not as bad as it seems.
-
Lets hope Baltimore makes all 6 bad plays this weekend
-
Ghoolie he realizes that, don't ignore the part where he said they can be anywhere from 2-9 to 7-4.
I think the best teams don't have to rely on those funky plays, although I think last year if DeSean Jackson didn't have that amazing return vs the Giants(when the punter was supposed to kick it out of bounds), the Packers wouldn't have even gotten in the playoffs? and they ended up being the champs.
-
Most of the 'best' teams in the NFL have one thing in common... The same QB and the same Coach for more than 3 years. Once we get to that point and the win/loss record has gone above .500 it will be a sign that we are on the verge.
Until that point, we are constantly going to be in a status of 'building', not 'rebuilding'. The only thing we have rebuilt is mediocrity.
There are a few potential free agents coming after this season and I am hoping Desean Jackson is one of them. He was drafted by Heckert and lets face it, we need that talent at WR, even if it is between moments of Retarded antics. At least he can catch.
-
No they don't!!!@king-ghoolie-lives said:
We have the weakest schedule in the NFL.....
-
No they don't!!!@king-ghoolie-lives said:
We have the weakest schedule in the NFL.....
-
Colts, Rams, Dolphins, Titans... Takes quite a bit away from even our 6 tough Division Games.
Considering they'll have played (in all likelihood) playoff teams in the Bengals, Ravens, Steelers (all twice), 49ers, Texans & Raiders, that's 9 games out of 16 against top-shelf competition. Of the remaining 7, they've beat who they should've save for the Rams, which would've been a win except for, dare I say it, 1 play (the botched field goal). I don't get where some are saying it's an easy schedule.
I do like the point about the 5 or 6 plays not even having to happen to your own team - the example being the Jackson punt return vs. the Giants last year, or the non-catch by Kellen Winslow @ the end of the Cardinals game in 2007 which would've put the Browns in the playoffs. Very astute...
My pick for the 2011 version of the 2010 Chiefs (worst to first to worst)is the 49ers - a few key injuries or substandard play by no more than 3 or 4 guys turns the team from 12 wins to 6.
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