Skip to content

18-38.......

The Browns Board
81 21 2.2k
  • News to you, Taco -

    all fumbles are not the qb's fault. When a wr or rb, say,... catches a pass and takes off running downfield....

    and gets hit and looses the ball out of their grip

    and it gets recovered by the other team....

    the qb did not make it happen.

    @calfoxwc said:

    News to you, Taco -

    all fumbles are not the qb's fault. When a wr or rb, say,... catches a pass and takes off running downfield....

    and gets hit and looses the ball out of their grip

    and it gets recovered by the other team....

    the qb did not make it happen.

    excellent point...we always seem to have these little dweeb rb's or wr's who are weak...gabriel, hawkins, etc etc...i could go on throughout the yrs.. they get squashed like a waterbug. This is now a league where you need the strong tall wideouts ala jefferies, gronk, bryant, etc.

  • Johnny Manziel has won 33% of the games he's started. McCown has won 47%.

    I don't think you needed to create another Manziel thread. We know you love him, he's all you talk about, all you dream about. We get it.

    @bbedward said:

    Johnny Manziel has won 33% of the games he's started. McCown has won 47%.

    I don't think you needed to create another Manziel thread. We know you love him, he's all you talk about, all you dream about. We get it.

    I think you need to go back to school and learn how to calculate simple percentages. You don't divide 18/38.. you divide 18/(38+18) which gives you a career winning percentage of.... 32.1%.

    And that is the guy you want leading the Browns. Mr 32%.

  • @bbedward said:

    Johnny Manziel has won 33% of the games he's started. McCown has won 47%.

    I don't think you needed to create another Manziel thread. We know you love him, he's all you talk about, all you dream about. We get it.

    I think you need to go back to school and learn how to calculate simple percentages. You don't divide 18/38.. you divide 18/(38+18) which gives you a career winning percentage of.... 32.1%.

    And that is the guy you want leading the Browns. Mr 32%.

    @blowe said:

    I think you need to go back to school and learn how to calculate simple percentages. You don't divide 18/38.. you divide 18/(38+18) which gives you a career winning percentage of.... 32.1%.

    And that is the guy you want leading the Browns. Mr 32%.

    I like Cleveland Browns who were associated with 32:

    jim-brown.jpg

  • @bbedward said:

    Johnny Manziel has won 33% of the games he's started. McCown has won 47%.

    I don't think you needed to create another Manziel thread. We know you love him, he's all you talk about, all you dream about. We get it.

    I think you need to go back to school and learn how to calculate simple percentages. You don't divide 18/38.. you divide 18/(38+18) which gives you a career winning percentage of.... 32.1%.

    And that is the guy you want leading the Browns. Mr 32%.

    @blowe said:

    I think you need to go back to school and learn how to calculate simple percentages. You don't divide 18/38.. you divide 18/(38+18) which gives you a career winning percentage of.... 32.1%.

    And that is the guy you want leading the Browns. Mr 32%.

    Just the other day I was accused of being a Manziel fanboy. I really can't win on here. Mr 25% is the alternative then.

    It's Monday and I was operating hungover from first season Christmas ale - cut me some slack I'm actually really proficient at mathematics (graduated with an engineering degree)

    I've generally been agreeing that I'd prefer Manziel to start, but McCown hasn't had that bad of a season so far and he's been playing his balls off for us which I respect - while Johnny couldn't care less he'd rather be having a drink and swerving through traffic.

  • Austin Davis had a career 3-5 win pct. .375. And that was all just last year with those same Rams we just played.

    With 12 TDs and 9 Ints. in those 8 games.

  • no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.

    It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.

    This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.

  • no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.

    It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.

    This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.

    @tacosman said:

    This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.

    I understand you're only here because of Johnny and not really a Browns fan, but why don't you stop hurling the personal insults.

    What do you do all day, flip burgers and use the left over grease to wank it to the Johnny posters throughout your house?

  • If he's Taco's man ... I feel sorry for Taco.

    Z

  • no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.

    It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.

    This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.

    @tacosman said:

    no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.

    It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.

    This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.

    Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.

    If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.

    Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.

  • @tacosman said:

    no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.

    It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.

    This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.

    Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.

    If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.

    Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.

    If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.

    Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.

    I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.

  • @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.

    If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.

    Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.

    I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.

    @mark-o said:

    I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.

    That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.

  • @mark-o said:

    I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.

    That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.

    And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.

  • medicineman- that's a silly attitude to take. The nfl is not college football- there is no reason that we cant be winning shortly. Because of the draft and the MASSIVE player turnover in this league(and the small talent diff from team to team to begin with), a losing team can become a winning team in short time.

    @tacosman said:

    medicineman- that's a silly attitude to take. The nfl is not college football- there is no reason that we cant be winning shortly. Because of the draft and the MASSIVE player turnover in this league(and the small talent diff from team to team to begin with), a losing team can become a winning team in short time.

    His is not a silly attitude, it's a justified one. You've been saying since '99 that "there's no reason we can't be winning shortly"...to continue saying that going on 17 seasons is what's silly.

    As far as McCown, had you known preseason that your QB through 6 games would throw for 8 TD's, 1,686 YDS., 96.1 RTG, and only 3 INT's, you would have takin it in a heartbeat.

    McClown sucks because every team he has been on sucked. The browns O line were pushed around by the Rams front like a bunch of sissies. That's not McCowns fault.

  • @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.

    And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.

    @mark-o said:

    And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.

    Tacosman is not exactly the most objective person when it comes to discussing the QB position.

    McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.

  • @mark-o said:

    And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.

    Tacosman is not exactly the most objective person when it comes to discussing the QB position.

    McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.

    @bbedward said:

    McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.

    is "little person" more PC or are we still ok calling him a midget and an elf?

  • @bbedward said:

    McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.

    is "little person" more PC or are we still ok calling him a midget and an elf?

    @mark-o said:

    is "little person" more PC or are we still ok calling him a midget and an elf?

    I think little person is the correct term for PC purposes, I'm OK with midget but I didn't want to offend tacosman.

  • @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.

    And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.

    @mark-o said:

    And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.

    Id go so far to say he's probably the best thing we have going for us thus far.

    I'd put him even higher than Barnidge or Benjamin, solely because of how little many expected of him.

  • @mark-o said:

    is "little person" more PC or are we still ok calling him a midget and an elf?

    I think little person is the correct term for PC purposes, I'm OK with midget but I didn't want to offend tacosman.

    @bbedward said:

    I think little person is the correct term for PC purposes, I'm OK with midget but I didn't want to offend tacosman.

    well for fucks sake we are certainly not PC around here....so lets go with midget from now on.

  • Ok Taco's are not for everyone but Tacosman is for no one on Browns QB's. Josh Mc Cown is absolutely not the problem on this Team or Offense. Yes he holds the ball to long but explain his great numbers. It is what surrounds him in the huddle that is fragile than falls apart all together. Find him some talent than discipline & WR size support besides Benji & Barney, Turpin & Duke. Than quit your passion on haten Mc Cown after every gameday. Do us all a favor, work on fixing this defense. O'Neil loves Tacos Man!!

  • huh? 47%? Is this that new math? 18-37 or 18-38(two different sources have different numbers) is 32%. My niece in 5th grade would instantly know that an 18-37 record doesn't come to a 47% winning percentage. Did you actually divide 18 into 37 to get that? Bwahahahaha(hint: the denom should be the total number of games started, not total losses). That's over > 50 starts....so again, of qbs that have that volume of starts he is the ABSOLUTE WORST.

    As for johnny, as I said I don't know now if he's good or not. Or will be. What I do know is that Josh Mccown is a proven L-O-S-E-R and teams that are going nowhere this season don't have any reason to keep starting 36 year old proven losers. If they don't want to put johnny out there, put some other young guy in there...the davis kid or whatever.

    @tacosman said:

    huh? 47%? Is this that new math? 18-37 or 18-38(two different sources have different numbers) is 32%. My niece in 5th grade would instantly know that an 18-37 record doesn't come to a 47% winning percentage. Did you actually divide 18 into 37 to get that? Bwahahahaha(hint: the denom should be the total number of games started, not total losses). That's over > 50 starts....so again, of qbs that have that volume of starts he is the ABSOLUTE WORST.

    As for johnny, as I said I don't know now if he's good or not. Or will be. What I do know is that Josh Mccown is a proven L-O-S-E-R and teams that are going nowhere this season don't have any reason to keep starting 36 year old proven losers. If they don't want to put johnny out there, put some other young guy in there...the davis kid or whatever.

    Does your 5th grade niece also understand the dynamics of a team sport? You obviously don't.