@wargograw said:

No he actually had a really bad day, and he would tell you so.

I'll let you know when I concede something, Chachi.

Zombo

I don't only defend Browns. Back to that objectivity thing. Have a good day.

What am I conceding, that you really didnt say that in a 20-3 loss the quarterback played "very well" and that the performance was completely the fault of the other 10 players, and that you base this on the fact that he had "good technique"?

No, you said it and I may just laugh myself to sleep over it tonight.

But turn the corner, dude, it isn't even about a Brown, it's ok that I called you on the floor for your statements. You owned it, and that's enough for me.

Z

Zombo said:

Wait ... Manziel's the starter now?

Zombo

According to Pettine in his presser yesterday, yes. And even if he wasn't, you implied that everyone above high school level has great technique, so it really doesn't matter.

@wargograw said:

Wait ... Manziel's the starter now?

Zombo

I was talking about Johnny. Unless he has good technique now? Your call.

Maybe not, but you did harp on a fairly normal comment from Pettine for two weeks (only to see your crying proven completely unnecessary). I'd say it was pretty schoolgirl-esque.

The number of quarterbacks that threw 0 TDs last weekend goes a lot longer than Teddy. Off the top of my head, both Mannings didn't throw any.

What's ironic is that you apparently don't realize that it is Bridgewater's scrambling that brings the YPC number into respectability. Well, that and second half runs after SF had let up. It's hilarious that the terrible run game is now Teddy's fault too. I haven't seen spin this good since Jay Carney. I can guarantee that pretty close to 100% of articles discussing Peterson today are discussing the pistol/shotgun sets they ran him out of (and Couch made the same comment on this thread so surely you've seen it), and NOT Teddy's audibles.

Would "most NFL observers" tell me that 20% of sacks are caused by your own offensive tackle? Give me a break. He is a good scrambler (although judging by your denial of facts and reality so far in this thread, I'm assuming you won't even grant me that), so I highly doubt more than half were his fault. Maybe two tops.

The drive he threw a catchable ball to Cordarelle Patterson on only to see him drop it? Yeah, that's really the one you want to cite.

After that embarrassing performance Sunday it's safe to say they will play better.

@wargograw said:

First of all, just lose the "great technique". It sounded silly when you said it, it's totally subjective and no one knows what you are talking about.

So our starting QB is one of ten starters without "great technique"? You mean McCown? What's wrong with his technique? Not planting the back foot? a hitch in the follow-through? Did you check with the Russian judge?

This ...("he's "handling a ball'!!!! What a loser!") ... I have no idea. Did I call someone a "loser" and add a bunch of schoolgirl exclamation marks? I better check the password on my laptop.

Bridgewater threw for 70% ... That's a nice number. O Tds, 1 Int and 3 points ... that's reality.

the run game sucks ... If only they could find a playmaker at that position. They did average 4.2 yards per carry, but I'd say they didn't run enough. Maybe the quarterback should have audibled a few more runs when the Niners were keying on the pass and sacking him 5 times.

he was sacked a lot. ... Yes he was. That is generally not something for QBs to brag about. Most NFL observers will tell you that more than half of sacks are on the QB.

You have no good points here ... You didn't like my one about his sputtering start after the special teams gave him the ball in scoring position? Deep inside you went: "Well, that's true."

chain-smoking hobo off the street ... Anti-Hoboite

Zombo

--9 out of 10 hobos surveyed said "Three points ... that sucks"

(the tenth was more of a soccer-loving hobo)

@miktoxic said:

Correction Mik- the Browns opening day record IS now officially. THE WORST EVER. Eleven in a row, and counting. 16 out of 17.

You have no good points here but I do like it when you post with a level of class somewhere above the level of chain-smoking hobo off the street.

@wargograw said:

Since you get flustered by the personal stuff, here is my above response with all the meanie stuff removed. You can even read it in a gentlemanly English accent if you prefer. I own it:

How about you fucking say something intelligent for once in your life. Hi there, dear chap.

I watched the game. I watched the offense struggle. Bridgewater is the play caller, he's responsible for them to get on the scoreboard.

For you to say that he solely played well and it was the 10 ten guys fault is fully Retarded. something I must take umbrage with.

You gotta score more than 3 to win in this league. They failed to do that. He is the leader of the offense, it's on him.

I know you think it is a lot of points, because that is what Johnny got in his two starts last year ... but it's not. Surely you agree that 3 points is not a lot.

Bridgewater was horribly inaccurate on their first drive, where the offense was handed the ball in scoring position and failed to score. Never seized that opportunity, and then paid for it. Offense was bumbling all night.

"Showed good technique" ... this isn't high school. Not to be rude, but your analysis sounds to me like you are scouting a player at a lower level, I'm afraid.

He's a starting quarterback in the NFL, he better fucking show good technique. Fundamentals aside, he'll need better production than he had last night to meet most observers' threshold for "playing very well".

Zombo Kindley yours, Sir Zombster of Rottendale

Maybe not all 10 guys' fault. I'm sure there was a good performance or two in there somewhere. But it wasn't Teddy's fault.

You have to own saying a 70%, 5 sacked QB is responsible for a loss. Or why there are double standards for posting rules.

@wargograw said:

Don't get hung up on the personal stuff.

You made the statement that Bridgewater "played very well". And then agreed to a statement that it was the other 10 guy's fault entirely that they only scored 3 points.

Now you have to own it.

Zombo

@mddawg said:

No, you're the dumbass. Atlanta had one of the worst defences in the NFL last year and Dan Quinn beats the Eagles "high powered offense" in his first game. We let journeyman Fitzpatrick and Chris Ivory look like Pro bowlers in the second year of our system and drop 31 to the Jets with a first time coach.

Finally Bridgewater looked awful yesterday, you keep looking at his stats while SanFran walked away with the win.

Ah, yes. Number two on today's list of "how Browns Board posters evaluate quarterbacks": if you don't win, you "look awful."

We will revisit the "smartness" of this thread when Atlanta loses to a bad team, which they will.

@miktoxic said:

Farmer is a nincompoop!

@wargograw said:

No, you're the dumbass. Atlanta had one of the worst defences in the NFL last year and Dan Quinn beats the Eagles "high powered offense" in his first game. We let journeyman Fitzpatrick and Chris Ivory look like Pro bowlers in the second year of our system and drop 31 to the Jets with a first time coach.

Finally Bridgewater looked awful yesterday, you keep looking at his stats while SanFran walked away with the win.

I love how I'm the worked up one but you have to resort to words like "reta rded" (which you led the charge against using on this board and apparently only you are allowed to say) and "say something fucking intelligent for once in your life." Take your afternoon meds, Z.

@wargograw said:

None of this makes any sense. Are you just all worked up or something?

Zombo

The OP of this thread far exceeds the dumbness of any post I've ever made so you're wrong again.

I'm not oversimplifying. You said they put up only 3 points therefore he must have sucked. Period. No caveats. Don't try to backtrack and add them now. By your logic, we can trot Tom Brady out with George Morris High's JV offense against NFL teams and if they can't score, it must be because Brady's not great. You shouldn't talk about dumb posts from your glass house.

@wargograw said:

Oversimplifying again. No loss is ever the QB's entire fault.

But for you to say he looked really good and it was entirely the other 10 guys fault, is so laughable it shouldn't go unpunished.

You made the dumbest post of the night last night, and then backed it up today ... just can't let it slide.

Why are you defending him anyway? Did he take a shit in College Station once?

Zombo

He was sacked 5x, including once by his own OL. I'm sure his OL can pass block through right?

Charles Johnson is ok. Past that it's a thin receiving corps. Ours is better.

@wargograw said:

Can't speak for Z, but I do