Skip to content

Be honest, How does everybody feel about Brock as a starter

The Browns Board
120 37 3.9k
  • @jcam222 said:

    Right on the money. I feel like Kizer earned next weeks start. He held the ball a few times but overall seems to have it.

    Right on your mother cunt. Dude, what yu mean to say is..... GHOOLIE WAS RIGHT................... HUE WAS WRONG.

    Ohhh Oooohh Ooooooooooh. now Kize earned he start

    WHAT KIND OF AN DUMB COCKSUCKER MORTHERFUCKER even wastes time with Ass Oiler?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #39

    @ghoolie said:

    Right on your mother cunt. Dude, what yu mean to say is..... GHOOLIE WAS RIGHT................... HUE WAS WRONG.

    Ohhh Oooohh Ooooooooooh. now Kize earned he start

    WHAT KIND OF AN DUMB COCKSUCKER MORTHERFUCKER even wastes time with Ass Oiler?

    Well....when you give 5 different opinions about the same subject, you may have a chance of being right on one of them.

    I mean, its like laying down a 2 dollar bet on every single horse in a race and then saying: see, I was right, I won!

  • @the-gipper said:

    Lots of QBs got traded, let go etc. and did well after not being so great the first time around. Ever hear of Brett Favre? Len Dawson? Jim Plunkett? Ron Jaworski? John Unitas? Sonny Jurgenson? Tobin Rote? Fran Tarkenton? Drew Brees? Brad Johnson? Steve Young? --it happens.

    What about Doug Williams?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #40

    @opal312 said:

    What about Doug Williams?

    Doug Williams was pretty darn good his first time around with Tampa Bay. He got his team to the NFC title game...just a few years after they were 0-26.

  • hish747H hish747 wrote on last edited by hish747
    #41

    Brock looked uncomfortable like he was struggling with decisions and plays. I'm not encouraged by what I saw of him last night. I also don't see much that a young QB should be learning from. Kizer looked like the starter to me.

  • Canton DawgC Canton Dawg wrote on last edited by
    #42

    None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

  • AxeA Axe wrote on last edited by
    #43

    Honestly, I look at Brock as a waste of time.. He's not the answer

  • runyon27R runyon27 wrote on last edited by
    #44

    I thought all the QBs were OK, there were drops that muted all the QBs performances. Brock should have had a TD, I believe he also had another well thrown ball dropped. Kessler had a ball dropped by Hall at the end of half that would have put them in FG position. It was a well thrown ball too. I liked the way Kizer moved in the pocket on a couple of his throws and like the pump fakes too. Also the penalties to me killed some of the drives and forced them into some predictable pass situations.

  • W Westside Steve wrote on last edited by Westside Steve
    #45

    He might look better if Joe Thomas plays instead of our O line mistake Cam Erving.

    Sabotage?

    WSS

  • He might look better if Joe Thomas plays instead of our O line mistake Cam Erving.

    Sabotage?

    WSS

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #46

    @westside-steve said:

    He might look better if Joe Thomas plays instead of our O line mistake Cam Erving.

    Sabotage?

    WSS

    Boy, that was an NSS statement out of WSS.

    (Sabotage? That could make Cam Erving the star of an Alfred Hitchcock thriller, no?)

  • Brock looked uncomfortable like he was struggling with decisions and plays. I'm not encouraged by what I saw of him last night. I also don't see much that a young QB should be learning from. Kizer looked like the starter to me.

    sydS syd wrote on last edited by
    #47

    @hish747 said:

    Brock looked uncomfortable like he was struggling with decisions and plays. I'm not encouraged by what I saw of him last night. I also don't see much that a young QB should be learning from. Kizer looked like the starter to me.

    not defending but brock only had 2 practices with the ones

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #48

    and when person says he'll bet the farm that osweiler throws int in first drive and someone calls him on it dude is quiet a church mouse.

    nobody is any good. i'm hoping they get to a 5 win season so ghoolie owes me a bottle of rum.

    other than that another year of shit.

  • None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

    TopDawg31T TopDawg31 wrote on last edited by
    #49

    @canton-dawg said:

    None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

    You are not alone, I had the Chicago game on my phone while I was at the Browns game just so I could see what we will regret in not doing. Not drafting Trubisky will turn this fan base against the morons that decided to pass on him at #1. Won't take long.

  • LBC mikeL LBC mike wrote on last edited by
    #50

    So limp biscuit played good against 2nd d. So did Kiser. Kiserplaying more in college. Time will tell who will be better. Lets see them against starters to judge.

  • None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

    Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out wrote on last edited by
    #51

    @canton-dawg said:

    None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

    No, because he doesn't matter.

    If you don't think any QB's looked good, you mustn't have been watching.

  • @canton-dawg said:

    None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

    No, because he doesn't matter.

    If you don't think any QB's looked good, you mustn't have been watching.

    miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #52

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    No, because he doesn't matter.

    If you don't think any QB's looked good, you mustn't have been watching.

    good in preseason against bums. hell tim couch looked liked the second coming of roger staubach in the HOF game his rookie season.

    then they played for real and his soul and shoulders are still being looked for somewhere around midfield.

    great offensive line? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  • @canton-dawg said:

    None of the Brown's QB's looked impressive last night, but it IS just preseason.

    At the risk of sounding like a fisherman (you know the one that got away) did anyone besides myself, keep an eye on how Mitch played last night?

    You are not alone, I had the Chicago game on my phone while I was at the Browns game just so I could see what we will regret in not doing. Not drafting Trubisky will turn this fan base against the morons that decided to pass on him at #1. Won't take long.

    T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by
    #53

    @topdawg31 said:

    You are not alone, I had the Chicago game on my phone while I was at the Browns game just so I could see what we will regret in not doing. Not drafting Trubisky will turn this fan base against the morons that decided to pass on him at #1. Won't take long.

    Unless of course the improved Browns D with an all pro in MG sets up the O multiple times per game. All depends what kind of football you like best. I prefer great defenses and just better than average offenses when forced too chose.

  • @topdawg31 said:

    You are not alone, I had the Chicago game on my phone while I was at the Browns game just so I could see what we will regret in not doing. Not drafting Trubisky will turn this fan base against the morons that decided to pass on him at #1. Won't take long.

    Unless of course the improved Browns D with an all pro in MG sets up the O multiple times per game. All depends what kind of football you like best. I prefer great defenses and just better than average offenses when forced too chose.

    Canton DawgC Canton Dawg wrote on last edited by
    #54

    @texasag1969 said:

    Unless of course the improved Browns D with an all pro in MG sets up the O multiple times per game. All depends what kind of football you like best. I prefer great defenses and just better than average offenses when forced too chose.

    It's risk vs reward.

    I believe any GM would pick a franchise QB over a stud DL 10 out of 10 times.

  • @topdawg31 said:

    You are not alone, I had the Chicago game on my phone while I was at the Browns game just so I could see what we will regret in not doing. Not drafting Trubisky will turn this fan base against the morons that decided to pass on him at #1. Won't take long.

    Unless of course the improved Browns D with an all pro in MG sets up the O multiple times per game. All depends what kind of football you like best. I prefer great defenses and just better than average offenses when forced too chose.

    MudflyM Mudfly wrote on last edited by Mudfly
    #55

    @texasag1969 said:

    Unless of course the improved Browns D with an all pro in MG sets up the O multiple times per game. All depends what kind of football you like best. I prefer great defenses and just better than average offenses when forced too chose.

    Eggsactly.....lets be honest.....The O failed to get into the end zone on one series and ended up handing the ball over on the goal line.....THEN the D got it back at the 20, allowing us to score our first TD......cause then the O only had to go 20 to score....

    Last year(and the year before) our O could not sustain drives and regularly gave the ball back, well before the D got rested. This continuously resulted in the D getting worn down and then failing....and we lost TOP every. single. game.....Which gave our D a much worse look than they deserved. Thursdays game was different....why?....because we won TOP. And the reason is NOT because our O held the ball and chewed up clock(cause they didnt)....the reason is because our D stopped the other team, got the ball back....and gave the O extra opportunities(which they needed).....

    Plain and simple.....D make the O better, by giving them opportunities.....(and a shorter ladder to climb) to outscore the other team....We only scored 20 points(which is below average), but won because the other team only scored 14.....had we allowed the other team to just score the average 24 pts, then woulda lost......and probably wouldnt have even gotten 20, cause the other team woulda scored on a few drives that we had stopped.....

  • gumby73G gumby73 wrote on last edited by gumby73
    #56

    Outstanding Post Mud^^Williams D could win us 1or 2 games, but how many games our offense wins off our defense is the true test for a even better season

  • U Unsympathetic wrote on last edited by
    #57

    Remember Kizer was playing against the 3's and Brock played against the 1's. It's nice to dream, but Kizer didn't "look like the starter" because he was playing against essentially DB's who wouldn't start at Ohio State.

  • A Alkid3 wrote on last edited by
    #58

    Mccants Drango Fabiano O'Brein and Sterup were his O line...