Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. ***Official Browns Vs. Vikings In London, England, UK, Game Night Thread***

***Official Browns Vs. Vikings In London, England, UK, Game Night Thread***

The Browns Board
210 40 4.1k
  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #123

    Most teams seem to come together more when the season goes by, Not us, we get worse.  Does Sashi not see we don't have a deep threat wide out? Or a kicker? a RB who just loves to miss the hole and fumble and miss pitches, We are the joke of the NFL and now London sees it  first hand

  • B BaconHound

    @dawg2fan said:

    He stinks because the defender got his hands between him and the ball?  Wow!

    No he stinks because he is a first round project who doesn't win 50/50 battles or make routine catches.

    dawg2fanD dawg2fan wrote on
    #124

    @baconhound said:

    No he stinks because he is a first round project who doesn't win 50/50 battles or make routine catches.

    Disagree.  The defender just had a great play.  Njoku will win the majority of those plays.

    B 1 Reply
  • dawg2fanD dawg2fan

    @canton-dawg said:

    You mean Cody Parkey, kicking for the Fins?

    Yeah, he’s currently 8 out 9 on FG’s on the year.

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #125

    @dawg2fan said:

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    We have to give a kicker more time? He has 1 job to do, Kicking is his job, If you are a kicker, you have it or you don't, and he does not have it.

    dawg2fanD 1 Reply
  • dawg2fanD dawg2fan

    @canton-dawg said:

    You mean Cody Parkey, kicking for the Fins?

    Yeah, he’s currently 8 out 9 on FG’s on the year.

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    Canton DawgC Canton Dawg wrote on
    #126

    @dawg2fan said:

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    Time?? Kickers are a dime a dozen.

    We obviously got rid of the wrong guy...again.

    Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney
  • jrb12711J jrb12711

    @tacosman said:

    *if* the ball is in the air. It wasn't.  you are making rules up.  It cant be pass interference because the ball wasnt thrown yet.  Thats where you 'impedes' argument comes in.  You can't call PI on a ball that hasnt been thrown.  And it cant be illegal contact(what I guess you are arguing for) because the contact was within 5 yards.   And it can't be defensive holding because there was no hold.  Please show me this rule about 'impedes ability to catch the ball' before the ball is thrown because it doesnt exist and thats why you can't cite it.

    The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.

    Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation 

    T Tacosman wrote on
    #127

    @jrb12711 said:

    The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.

    Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation 

    lmao...  Now  we are 4 posts in and you are shifting the goal posts.  Your first three posts didnt argue with my point about how the ball was not in the air and instead your argument was that "you can't impede the contact blah blah".  I pointed out that, yes, you can in fact impede contact within 5 yards if the ball is not in the air and it's not holding.  You just doubled down on the 'impede contact' part and didn't argue with the ball not being in the air.  

    Now I guess you actually took the time and read the rules and realized that, yes I was right and you can 'impede' the reciever under certain circumstances.

    *IF* the ball was in the air it is a penalty.  I dont think it was.  If you do fine. But  In that case there is nothing to discuss because there is no disagreement on the rule.  But that wasnt our argument at first because if it was you would have initially disagreed with me about the ball not being in the air....not waiting until this point in the argument when you now realize I was right about the rule.  

    jrb12711J 1 Reply
  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #128

    It should not matter if a kicker is a rookie or not, Kicking does not change from NCAA to Pro. I am over Zane, he needs to go

  • medicinemanM medicineman

    @dawg2fan said:

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    We have to give a kicker more time? He has 1 job to do, Kicking is his job, If you are a kicker, you have it or you don't, and he does not have it.

    dawg2fanD dawg2fan wrote on
    #129

    @medicineman said:

    We have to give a kicker more time? He has 1 job to do, Kicking is his job, If you are a kicker, you have it or you don't, and he does not have it.

    So why was Cody so bad with us and then turned out so good with the Fins?  And don't tell me it was coaching.  

    T 1 Reply
  • dawg2fanD dawg2fan

    @canton-dawg said:

    You mean Cody Parkey, kicking for the Fins?

    Yeah, he’s currently 8 out 9 on FG’s on the year.

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    T Tacosman wrote on
    #130

    @dawg2fan said:

    Which is precisely what I was saying in another thread when talking about Gonzales.  We need to give him time.  He's a rookie.

    are you serious?  you give position players 'more time' if there is some underlying talent that may come out with development.....you dont give a freaking nfl kicker 'more time' 

    👍
  • dawg2fanD dawg2fan

    @baconhound said:

    No he stinks because he is a first round project who doesn't win 50/50 battles or make routine catches.

    Disagree.  The defender just had a great play.  Njoku will win the majority of those plays.

    B BaconHound wrote on
    #131

    @dawg2fan said:

    Disagree.  The defender just had a great play.  Njoku will win the majority of those plays.

    He has been a red zone target because there are no other decent receivers on this team.  If he was any good Seth Devalve would be a blocker only.

    dawg2fanD 1 Reply
  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #132

    WTF was that

  • Browns1216B Browns1216

    now we see what the Browns are made of, plenty of time on the clock to get 2 TDs for any decent NFL team.  Why does scoring 2 TDs seem so insurmountable for the Browns?

    Mark OM Mark O wrote on
    #133

    @browns1216 said:

    now we see what the Browns are made of, plenty of time on the clock to get 2 TDs for any decent NFL team.  Why does scoring 2 TDs seem so insurmountable for the Browns?

    Because we have no receivers who are ever open.   Kizer isn't great but the receivers are almost always trying to make catches with defenders all over them or they drop the ones that hit them in the hands.

    thenew23T 1 Reply
    👍
  • dawg2fanD dawg2fan

    @medicineman said:

    We have to give a kicker more time? He has 1 job to do, Kicking is his job, If you are a kicker, you have it or you don't, and he does not have it.

    So why was Cody so bad with us and then turned out so good with the Fins?  And don't tell me it was coaching.  

    T Tacosman wrote on
    #134

    @dawg2fan said:

    So why was Cody so bad with us and then turned out so good with the Fins? 

    because it's the highly variable nature of kicking......I've posted on that before.

    but zane clearly doesnt have an nfl leg.  That part is not variable.  that 54 yarder he kicked(the way he kicked it) looked like it was unnatural for him to attempt from that distance.....from 63 thats fine.  From 54 in todays nfl?  Nope....

  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #135

    we have 2 yards this quarter? 2? what a joke. I am to the point at getting rid of the coach and the players, finish with scabs

  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #136

    Good ole Jimmy gave up a home game for this garbage as well, Sheet I say play 3 of them home games in London next year, nobody wants to watch us any how

    DieHardBrownsFanD 1 Reply
  • B BaconHound wrote on
    #137

    Just update to we are an 0-8 team

    😂
  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #138

    Does it matter if he catches it or not? They will score this drive any how. I hate my life, least you guys make me smile even when we lose

  • T Tacosman

    @jrb12711 said:

    The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.

    Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation 

    lmao...  Now  we are 4 posts in and you are shifting the goal posts.  Your first three posts didnt argue with my point about how the ball was not in the air and instead your argument was that "you can't impede the contact blah blah".  I pointed out that, yes, you can in fact impede contact within 5 yards if the ball is not in the air and it's not holding.  You just doubled down on the 'impede contact' part and didn't argue with the ball not being in the air.  

    Now I guess you actually took the time and read the rules and realized that, yes I was right and you can 'impede' the reciever under certain circumstances.

    *IF* the ball was in the air it is a penalty.  I dont think it was.  If you do fine. But  In that case there is nothing to discuss because there is no disagreement on the rule.  But that wasnt our argument at first because if it was you would have initially disagreed with me about the ball not being in the air....not waiting until this point in the argument when you now realize I was right about the rule.  

    jrb12711J jrb12711 wrote on
    #139

    @tacosman said:

    lmao...  Now  we are 4 posts in and you are shifting the goal posts.  Your first three posts didnt argue with my point about how the ball was not in the air and instead your argument was that "you can't impede the contact blah blah".  I pointed out that, yes, you can in fact impede contact within 5 yards if the ball is not in the air and it's not holding.  You just doubled down on the 'impede contact' part and didn't argue with the ball not being in the air.  

    Now I guess you actually took the time and read the rules and realized that, yes I was right and you can 'impede' the reciever under certain circumstances.

    *IF* the ball was in the air it is a penalty.  I dont think it was.  If you do fine. But  In that case there is nothing to discuss because there is no disagreement on the rule.  But that wasnt our argument at first because if it was you would have initially disagreed with me about the ball not being in the air....not waiting until this point in the argument when you now realize I was right about the rule.  

    kindly quote any response I made that stated what you said isn't a rule in the NFL (news flash, I didn't.)

    I've made the same point each post, that if a receiver is impeded to make catch it's pass interference. You're original post is objectively wrong, and will be reviewed and confirmed as a incorrect call. 

    T 1 Reply
  • B BaconHound

    @dawg2fan said:

    Disagree.  The defender just had a great play.  Njoku will win the majority of those plays.

    He has been a red zone target because there are no other decent receivers on this team.  If he was any good Seth Devalve would be a blocker only.

    dawg2fanD dawg2fan wrote on
    #140

    @baconhound said:

    He has been a red zone target because there are no other decent receivers on this team.  If he was any good Seth Devalve would be a blocker only.

    I'd partially agree with you.  I agree with you that he's a good receiver, but we have no other good receivers.  All of our receivers are rejects from other teams.  Treggs, Coates, Williams.  Then other receivers that we drafted (Louis, Louis).  

    B 1 Reply
  • jrb12711J jrb12711

    @tacosman said:

    *if* the ball is in the air. It wasn't.  you are making rules up.  It cant be pass interference because the ball wasnt thrown yet.  Thats where you 'impedes' argument comes in.  You can't call PI on a ball that hasnt been thrown.  And it cant be illegal contact(what I guess you are arguing for) because the contact was within 5 yards.   And it can't be defensive holding because there was no hold.  Please show me this rule about 'impedes ability to catch the ball' before the ball is thrown because it doesnt exist and thats why you can't cite it.

    The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.

    Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation 

    T Tacosman wrote on
    #141

    @jrb12711 said:

    The ball was literally going over the head of the guys when we ran into him. Are you watching the game? Trent green said that was a missed call, because it was.

    Here you go: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference go ahead and take time to read it. Or do you need more citation 

    another quick point- if the ball was literally 'going over the head of the guys when we ran into him'(which wasnt the point of our rules argument anyways but whatever), it would not have been a catchable ball because the ball lands literally 10 yards past where contact occurs.  And thus there would have been no PI because it would have been ruled uncatchable.  

  • medicinemanM medicineman wrote on
    #142

    well that was a great throw, rolls eyes

Log in to reply