Looking to see improvement in the secondary, play calling, and blocking - whether that be individually or schematically.

We CAN win this game, but I don't think we will see enough improvement to pull off an away game, against the defending champs, after they got annihilated on national TV. Expecting a good game from Richardson and Cameron (again), and it will be exciting to see Mingo (however limited). Should still be a good one. 27-20 Ravens

...not after this game... Their run on us ends today!

Zombo

did most of the work winning football games.

Tom Brady struggled in that last game. WR's not open, dropping passes, having throw too quickly.

Barely half of his passes were completed.

Without the right people around a qb, the qb will suck.

Weeden will succeed or fail, but without the right people in the lineup yet... we'll just have to wait and see

in a few weeks if it's on Weeden...or not.

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/09/12/browns-ceo-joe-banner-says-depth-is-not-a-concern-when-team-is-in-building-mode/

This Interview pretty much confirms my thinking (and why I'm waiting for game three to see what we're really about this Season), in that we're playing our third string OL at RG (who is really a OT backup) and we're missing our star WR (Gordon).

Week 3, we should have both our starting RG and #1 WR back, at that point, I think we'll really see what this Team is going to be like this year.

All that said, I'm afraid I don't see us winning this next game unless Cousins really steps up his game (not likely), but if we do shore up our right side it should be one heck of game.

@tour2ma said:

yup,yup!

@nickers said:

Not to mention actually hitting QB's...

@slowburn said:

Earlier the discussion was centering on comparing YPG passing. My point is that the number of total plays as well as the percentage of pass attempts are both higher now. And thus the passing yardage is higher now than it was in the 80's.

@slowburn said:

Db's Mugging receivers back then...touching the QB after the throw that always gets called now..head slapping by Dlinemen...cant do that anymore...

@tour2ma said:

actually, that's how I determined the ratio : total pass attempts per game

total attempt pass + total rushing attempt = %of pass plays per game

@nickers said:

obstacles? like mine fields?

@slowburn said:

In addition to the ratio you also have to look at the number of plays per game. Well higher in this era without a doubt. I would bet a small sum that the percentage higher the play is now would be very

close to the percentage increase on yards today.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Yeah, playing against 4-3 defenses and not having 6'6 280 lb defensive ends than run 4.4 40's are huge obstacles that Marino et. al had to face. Throwing the ball in the running era was such a huge disadvantage...

All sarcasm aside, it's a valid point.

The QB's of old don't hold a candle to the QB's of today. It's not their fault, it's just the evolution of the sport.

The former greats paved the way and are rightfully deserving of their place among the football gods, but it's just not the same.

These guys today are throwing the ball 50-60 times a game throughout JV, Varsity and NCAA ball. They're throwing hundreds of passes a day at practice and in the offseason they are attending youth camps put on by the former greats at that position.

These are amenities that the older generation didn't have.

So yes, this era of QB's is by far better. But that doesn't mean the last era wasn't also great.

They were great in the way that the steam engine locomotive was great. It's sure as shit not going to beat the trains of today, but it's leaps and bounds better than what the alternative was back then.

Leave the sarcasm out altogether... will make any point even more valid.

QB's of old? Geez... not like we're going back to the Sonny Jurgensen era. The days of the pot-belled ball slingers were long gone by the time the earlier group being discused here came around. I don't think the current crop of greats rate significantly higher than the Kelly-Marino-etc. era. Just my opinion... and it is based in no small part on the earlier era names actually calling plays

I'd also argue that you are making a case for more for thrower/ atheletes, developing throwing muscle and muscle memory, than you are QB's. Today's college QB's get plays AND audibles from the sideline. It actually saddens me. The current era of top NFL QB's may be the last capable of recognizing a defense and even calling the ocassional play.

The 80's QB's were definitely not passing in a "run era". The 80's was a transition decade culminating in pass oriented innovations like the Houston Cougars' Run & Shoot. Coincidentally radios were put in NFL QB helmets in 1989... and the pace of the game has quickened ever since.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

its better in terms of stats...not in terms of longevity and wins...I mean...does anyone think manning(s) and brady are moble?...Montana a cunningham were mobile...Steve Young was mobile...And I think they would do well today and probably even better...helll..Corners use to mug receivers 25 years ago..DLmen could head slap you 30 years ago...I doubt some of these entitled pussies could make it back then...hell..they cant make it now with the injuries there are and how often they occur...

@nickers said:

I cant even see how this debatable when your talking about QB's in vastly different era's where the game has been made to help QB's excel without the obstacles Marino,Elway and Montana had...

@the-gipper said:

Well, yea. My point exactly. I am saying that Marino/Elway/Montana etc. are every bit as good as those guys playing now....they just played under different circumstances.

Given the same circumstances those guys could/would be putting up the same numbers as Brady/Mannings/Brees/Rodgers etc.

Yeah, playing against 4-3 defenses and not having 6'6 280 lb defensive ends than run 4.4 40's are huge obstacles that Marino et. al had to face. Throwing the ball in the running era was such a huge disadvantage...

All sarcasm aside, it's a valid point.

The QB's of old don't hold a candle to the QB's of today. It's not their fault, it's just the evolution of the sport.

The former greats paved the way and are rightfully deserving of their place among the football gods, but it's just not the same.

These guys today are throwing the ball 50-60 times a game throughout JV, Varsity and NCAA ball. They're throwing hundreds of passes a day at practice and in the offseason they are attending youth camps put on by the former greats at that position.

These are amenities that the older generation didn't have.

So yes, this era of QB's is by far better. But that doesn't mean the last era wasn't also great.

They were great in the way that the steam engine locomotive was great. It's sure as shit not going to beat the trains of today, but it's leaps and bounds better than what the alternative was back then.

@nickers said:

Well, yea. My point exactly. I am saying that Marino/Elway/Montana etc. are every bit as good as those guys playing now....they just played under different circumstances.

Given the same circumstances those guys could/would be putting up the same numbers as Brady/Mannings/Brees/Rodgers etc.

@the-gipper said:

I cant even see how this debatable when your talking about QB's in vastly different era's where the game has been made to help QB's excel without the obstacles Marino,Elway and Montana had...

@slowburn said:

I dunno. The point is, its debatable.

I guess if you just took the top 5 from each era and compare, say:

Then: Montana/Elway/Marino/Fouts/Moon vs.

Now: Brady/Manning/Brees/BR/Rodgers

Its an awfully close issue.

Hopefully Mingo is a great addition to the pass rush. When is Rubin expected back?

@shep said:

the days of a trent dilfer leading the troops to a Super Bowl victory are long gone.

(BTW, this kid Geno for the Jets is not looking bad early on)

Few of the top RBs of the last decade (Peterson, Jackson, MJD, Chris Johnson, etc.) have even been to a Super Bowl. For a stretch of five years, there were no 1,000 yard rushers (broken last year).

Just enough to keep'em honest. But it won't bail you out of anything. You can win without a great running back but it's almost impossible to win without a great quarterback. Been that way for about a decade now.

Zombo said:

We are one of the 28 teams that need to run well.

Z

@shep said:

It's certainly never so clearly been a passing league. Man, one back had 100 yards last week and it was the star of "Roots." I'm not sure Manning, Brady, Rodgers, or Brees know the name of the guy they hand off to half the time. They probably refer to him as "guy who lines up behind me."

We are one of the 28 teams that need to run well.

Z