Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. The Good News and The Bad News

The Good News and The Bad News

The Browns Board
25 8 791
  • GhoolieG Ghoolie

    @the-gipper said:

    Then maybe instead of Vegas you should move to Utah. They don't gamble there.

    Not the reason I am moving to Vegas. You keep bringing up gambling. Vegas offers far more than that, especially to a man of science, and music.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #21

    @ghoolie said:

    Not the reason I am moving to Vegas. You keep bringing up gambling. Vegas offers far more than that, especially to a man of science, and music.

    I know it does....its just that Nevada, I believe, is the only state in the nation that allows sports gambling.

    And you ARE the one that started a thread about how you were going to be betting the under on the number of games the Browns win.

    So..if that is not gambling, what is it?

  • GhoolieG Ghoolie

    @the-gipper said:

    You need both.

    Look at the Colts. They have the best young QB that has supposedly come around in a decade. They have outstanding WRs....and supposedly decent RBs...with Frank Gore...a proven commodity and others.

    What happened? They had such a lousy offensive line that every one of their skill players like went on the IR with bad injuries. The team could not do bo diddley.

    So, yes, the offense revolves around the abilities of the skill players...until such time that those skill players can't function because they are having their asses handed to them because no on can block for them.

    Now...do the Browns have both commodities? Both the skill players and the OL to allow to do their thing?

    Certainly not. But as limited perhaps as our skill players may be....I would still like to have a quality OL that will allow them to show that skill...at whatever level it may be.

    YOU wanted skill players....and from what I can see, the Browns have attempted...somewhat to give us those. QBs in the 2d and 3rd round the last two years...plus a trade for another.

    A TE drafted in round one. 4 WRs taken last year...another picked up as a FA. A tandem or RBs they seem to have faith in.

    Do WE have total faith in this group of skill players? Absolutely not.

    But, at least, as I said, it seems to be the case that they will have a decent OL in front of them so that they can TRY at least to deliver their best.

    Would I have like the last couple of drafts to go differently? You know it. I was all on Bosa and Trubisky's jocks. I think those would have been better choices for this team.

    But I gotta to with what I got and only hope for the best with what is on the roster.

    I never said you don't need both. But the foundation starts with the QB. You build a team around the QB, NOT the other way around.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #22

    @ghoolie said:

    I never said you don't need both. But the foundation starts with the QB. You build a team around the QB, NOT the other way around.

    Fair statement.....but then, as I said....the team you apparently admire so much did exactly the opposite. Before 2004 the Steelers built up their defense...and their OL...and their running backs.....and they plopped on Ben R. as the cherry on top of that....and in a year won the SB (with perhaps the worst performance ever by a Super Bowl winning QB).

    Now...they may have needed BR to win....but he was by no means the "foundation" of their 2005 SB winning team. He was the topper, like a weathervane on a barn.

    U 1 Reply
  • IbleedbrownI Ibleedbrown wrote on
    #23

    I actually didn't think our RBs were all that bad. Playing from behind so much they don't get the chance to impact a game as much as they otherwise could. Crow had a 4.8 y/c average behind a questionable line and came close to 1,000 yds for the season.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @ghoolie said:

    I never said you don't need both. But the foundation starts with the QB. You build a team around the QB, NOT the other way around.

    Fair statement.....but then, as I said....the team you apparently admire so much did exactly the opposite. Before 2004 the Steelers built up their defense...and their OL...and their running backs.....and they plopped on Ben R. as the cherry on top of that....and in a year won the SB (with perhaps the worst performance ever by a Super Bowl winning QB).

    Now...they may have needed BR to win....but he was by no means the "foundation" of their 2005 SB winning team. He was the topper, like a weathervane on a barn.

    U Unsympathetic wrote on
    #24

    @the-gipper said:

    he was by no means the "foundation" of their 2005 SB winning team. He was the topper, like a weathervane on a barn.

    And if you take a half a step back, they were constantly building each position on their team as best they could as it came available - and added the QB when they could without sacrificing future picks which would also be needed then.

    You know, like today's Browns.

    "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown
  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #25

    @boo-fagley said:

    I heard they have good trivia and paint gun fights there.

    And whorehouses.

Log in to reply