The "Luxury of Depth"...
-
Really good read from Tom Reed that reflects the corner many if us think we are turning.
Good use of Desir and our Secondary as leading example and Cam and our O-line as follow through.
On Pierre Desir and the Cleveland Browns' rare luxury of time and depth: Tom Reed
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2015/06/on_pierre_desir_and_the_clevel.html
-
Good article, but I LOL when I saw "The older guys like Whit and Haden are pushing us because they want to be the best," ...Haden, OLDER? haha. I just can't picture 26 years old as "older", but then Haden IS an experienced, successful vet.
Good stuff taking place along the lake.
Mike
-
Xmas is coming in August this year.
-
Good read. Work on LB corps next
-
"The Browns won't win consistently until they find a dependable quarterback. That's reality in the NFL today. But defending the pass, as the Browns did well with regularity last season, keeps you in a lot of games."
********************************************************************************************************************************************************
It's going to be an interesting season. If McCown does start how well does he perform surrounded by some great talent particularly on the O line? McCown is not the long term answer but he might be the short term one. It is going to be interesting to see how Manziel does this year. On defense O'Neil has emphatically stated they will stop the run this season. They have brought in some people like Shelton who can do it up front. If defending the pass keeps you in a lot of games then defending the pass and rush will keep us in more. It may be that our offense will not have to light up the scoreboard to win games. Can't wait for the season to start.
-
"The Browns won't win consistently until they find a dependable quarterback. That's reality in the NFL today. But defending the pass, as the Browns did well with regularity last season, keeps you in a lot of games."
********************************************************************************************************************************************************
It's going to be an interesting season. If McCown does start how well does he perform surrounded by some great talent particularly on the O line? McCown is not the long term answer but he might be the short term one. It is going to be interesting to see how Manziel does this year. On defense O'Neil has emphatically stated they will stop the run this season. They have brought in some people like Shelton who can do it up front. If defending the pass keeps you in a lot of games then defending the pass and rush will keep us in more. It may be that our offense will not have to light up the scoreboard to win games. Can't wait for the season to start.
"The Browns won't win consistently until they find a dependable quarterback. That's reality in the NFL today. But defending the pass, as the Browns did well with regularity last season, keeps you in a lot of games."
********************************************************************************************************************************************************
It's going to be an interesting season. If McCown does start how well does he perform surrounded by some great talent particularly on the O line? McCown is not the long term answer but he might be the short term one. It is going to be interesting to see how Manziel does this year. On defense O'Neil has emphatically stated they will stop the run this season. They have brought in some people like Shelton who can do it up front. If defending the pass keeps you in a lot of games then defending the pass and rush will keep us in more. It may be that our offense will not have to light up the scoreboard to win games. Can't wait for the season to start.
If we can keep opponents under 20 points (on average) then we have a great chance to win plenty of games.
-
"The Browns won't win consistently until they find a dependable quarterback. That's reality in the NFL today. But defending the pass, as the Browns did well with regularity last season, keeps you in a lot of games."
********************************************************************************************************************************************************
It's going to be an interesting season. If McCown does start how well does he perform surrounded by some great talent particularly on the O line? McCown is not the long term answer but he might be the short term one. It is going to be interesting to see how Manziel does this year. On defense O'Neil has emphatically stated they will stop the run this season. They have brought in some people like Shelton who can do it up front. If defending the pass keeps you in a lot of games then defending the pass and rush will keep us in more. It may be that our offense will not have to light up the scoreboard to win games. Can't wait for the season to start.
If we can keep opponents under 20 points (on average) then we have a great chance to win plenty of games.
If we can keep opponents under 20 points (on average) then we have a great chance to win plenty of games.
8 teams did that last year... our D was ranked 9th in scoring (21.1 PPG)... I'd say, if we can be a top 3 D and keep them under 18, then we're talking (Seattle was best at 15.9 PPG)...
Our offense averaged 18.7 PPG last year (ranked 27th), so in order to have a positive point differntial we would need to be:
2 points better on offense (20.7 PPG would've ranked us 20th in 2014) and 1 point better on defense (20.1 PPG would've kept us ranked 9th); or
1 point better on offense (19.7 PPG would've ranked 24th) and 2 points better on defense (19.1 PPG would've ranked 7th)
16 teams had positive point differentials last year... the top 7 all made the playoffs and 11 of 12 playoff teams were in that group (Carolina shouldn't even count)...
To be in that top 7, we would need to outscore opponents 5.5 PPG (FYI New England won by 9.7 PPG on average), which means we would need to be:
7 points better on offense (25.7; ranked 8th) and 1 point better on D
6 points better on offense (24.7; ranked 10th) and 2 points better on D
5 points better on offense (23.7; ranked 14th) and 3 points better on D (18.1 PPG; ranked 3rd)
4 points better on offense (22.7; ranked 16th) and 4 points better on D (17.1 PPG; ranked 2nd)
3 points better on offense (21.7; ranked 18th) and 5 points better on D (16.1 PPG; ranked 2nd) or
2 points better on offense and 6 points better on D (15.1 PPG; ranked 1st)
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
#Justsayin' -
If we can keep opponents under 20 points (on average) then we have a great chance to win plenty of games.
8 teams did that last year... our D was ranked 9th in scoring (21.1 PPG)... I'd say, if we can be a top 3 D and keep them under 18, then we're talking (Seattle was best at 15.9 PPG)...
Our offense averaged 18.7 PPG last year (ranked 27th), so in order to have a positive point differntial we would need to be:
2 points better on offense (20.7 PPG would've ranked us 20th in 2014) and 1 point better on defense (20.1 PPG would've kept us ranked 9th); or
1 point better on offense (19.7 PPG would've ranked 24th) and 2 points better on defense (19.1 PPG would've ranked 7th)
16 teams had positive point differentials last year... the top 7 all made the playoffs and 11 of 12 playoff teams were in that group (Carolina shouldn't even count)...
To be in that top 7, we would need to outscore opponents 5.5 PPG (FYI New England won by 9.7 PPG on average), which means we would need to be:
7 points better on offense (25.7; ranked 8th) and 1 point better on D
6 points better on offense (24.7; ranked 10th) and 2 points better on D
5 points better on offense (23.7; ranked 14th) and 3 points better on D (18.1 PPG; ranked 3rd)
4 points better on offense (22.7; ranked 16th) and 4 points better on D (17.1 PPG; ranked 2nd)
3 points better on offense (21.7; ranked 18th) and 5 points better on D (16.1 PPG; ranked 2nd) or
2 points better on offense and 6 points better on D (15.1 PPG; ranked 1st)
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
Yeah...they seem realistic to me.....(and, actually, seem likely)
Youd think it all works together...... a better Defense will add offensive opportunities for your team, so without even improving the O, you should have more scoring Opps......
And, IF we've improved the O.....then we're scoring even more.....
Last year, we scored over 21ppg through week 13......meaning those last 3 miserable games brought our scoring down huge.....so Im hoping(expecting) we are much better than that with an improved D, repaired O-line and enhanced running game.....
-
If we can keep opponents under 20 points (on average) then we have a great chance to win plenty of games.
8 teams did that last year... our D was ranked 9th in scoring (21.1 PPG)... I'd say, if we can be a top 3 D and keep them under 18, then we're talking (Seattle was best at 15.9 PPG)...
Our offense averaged 18.7 PPG last year (ranked 27th), so in order to have a positive point differntial we would need to be:
2 points better on offense (20.7 PPG would've ranked us 20th in 2014) and 1 point better on defense (20.1 PPG would've kept us ranked 9th); or
1 point better on offense (19.7 PPG would've ranked 24th) and 2 points better on defense (19.1 PPG would've ranked 7th)
16 teams had positive point differentials last year... the top 7 all made the playoffs and 11 of 12 playoff teams were in that group (Carolina shouldn't even count)...
To be in that top 7, we would need to outscore opponents 5.5 PPG (FYI New England won by 9.7 PPG on average), which means we would need to be:
7 points better on offense (25.7; ranked 8th) and 1 point better on D
6 points better on offense (24.7; ranked 10th) and 2 points better on D
5 points better on offense (23.7; ranked 14th) and 3 points better on D (18.1 PPG; ranked 3rd)
4 points better on offense (22.7; ranked 16th) and 4 points better on D (17.1 PPG; ranked 2nd)
3 points better on offense (21.7; ranked 18th) and 5 points better on D (16.1 PPG; ranked 2nd) or
2 points better on offense and 6 points better on D (15.1 PPG; ranked 1st)
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
8 teams did that last year... our D was ranked 9th in scoring (21.1 PPG)... I'd say, if we can be a top 3 D and keep them under 18, then we're talking (Seattle was best at 15.9 PPG)...
Our offense averaged 18.7 PPG last year (ranked 27th), so in order to have a positive point differntial we would need to be:
2 points better on offense (20.7 PPG would've ranked us 20th in 2014) and 1 point better on defense (20.1 PPG would've kept us ranked 9th); or
1 point better on offense (19.7 PPG would've ranked 24th) and 2 points better on defense (19.1 PPG would've ranked 7th)
16 teams had positive point differentials last year... the top 7 all made the playoffs and 11 of 12 playoff teams were in that group (Carolina shouldn't even count)...
To be in that top 7, we would need to outscore opponents 5.5 PPG (FYI New England won by 9.7 PPG on average), which means we would need to be:
7 points better on offense (25.7; ranked 8th) and 1 point better on D
6 points better on offense (24.7; ranked 10th) and 2 points better on D
5 points better on offense (23.7; ranked 14th) and 3 points better on D (18.1 PPG; ranked 3rd)
4 points better on offense (22.7; ranked 16th) and 4 points better on D (17.1 PPG; ranked 2nd)
3 points better on offense (21.7; ranked 18th) and 5 points better on D (16.1 PPG; ranked 2nd) or
2 points better on offense and 6 points better on D (15.1 PPG; ranked 1st)
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
Whatever few points we need....more on offense, fewer on defense, I expect this team to be able to accomplish that.
-
If we can keep opponents under 20 points (on average) then we have a great chance to win plenty of games.
8 teams did that last year... our D was ranked 9th in scoring (21.1 PPG)... I'd say, if we can be a top 3 D and keep them under 18, then we're talking (Seattle was best at 15.9 PPG)...
Our offense averaged 18.7 PPG last year (ranked 27th), so in order to have a positive point differntial we would need to be:
2 points better on offense (20.7 PPG would've ranked us 20th in 2014) and 1 point better on defense (20.1 PPG would've kept us ranked 9th); or
1 point better on offense (19.7 PPG would've ranked 24th) and 2 points better on defense (19.1 PPG would've ranked 7th)
16 teams had positive point differentials last year... the top 7 all made the playoffs and 11 of 12 playoff teams were in that group (Carolina shouldn't even count)...
To be in that top 7, we would need to outscore opponents 5.5 PPG (FYI New England won by 9.7 PPG on average), which means we would need to be:
7 points better on offense (25.7; ranked 8th) and 1 point better on D
6 points better on offense (24.7; ranked 10th) and 2 points better on D
5 points better on offense (23.7; ranked 14th) and 3 points better on D (18.1 PPG; ranked 3rd)
4 points better on offense (22.7; ranked 16th) and 4 points better on D (17.1 PPG; ranked 2nd)
3 points better on offense (21.7; ranked 18th) and 5 points better on D (16.1 PPG; ranked 2nd) or
2 points better on offense and 6 points better on D (15.1 PPG; ranked 1st)
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
Our offense averaged 18.7 PPG last year (ranked 27th)...
To be in that top 7, we would need to outscore opponents 5.5 PPG (FYI New England won by 9.7 PPG on average), which means we would need to be:
7 points better on offense (25.7; ranked 8th) and 1 point better on D
6 points better on offense (24.7; ranked 10th) and 2 points better on D
5 points better on offense (23.7; ranked 14th) and 3 points better on D (18.1 PPG; ranked 3rd)
4 points better on offense (22.7; ranked 16th) and 4 points better on D (17.1 PPG; ranked 2nd)
3 points better on offense (21.7; ranked 18th) and 5 points better on D (16.1 PPG; ranked 2nd) or
2 points better on offense and 6 points better on D (15.1 PPG; ranked 1st)
One way or another, we need to start scoring points on offense. Do any of those options seem realistic?
Disclaimer: I waste too much time in the offseason trying to find something interesting to post
Well.... somebody needs to dig deep as we are now in the "dead zone"...
Call me delusional, but I look at our early consistency from last year and see that even with the JAX debacle we averaged close to 22 ppg. Look at only the Mack games and it was closer to 27. I fully expect us to be in that range in 2015. Split the difference and say 24.5...
That pegs your D improvement at 2 ppg. Seems very doable...
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