DA forced zero punts
-
Face it everyone. We'd be going to the Super Bowl this year if Brady Quinn was starting. Why do you hate Cleveland Mangini!?!?! Why!?!?!
-
i outlasted most Browns fans and left with less than 9:00 to play. As of then, DA had forced GB to punt zero times: he provided no pass rush, no pass coverage, and he couldn't stop the run. No matter what he did, GB trounced right through him. The Packers marched the ball right down his throat. That guy needs to learn how to tackle.
BTW, it was great to see Kath at the tailgate. She is prettier than when i met her in 1999. i wish we had more time to talk.
i outlasted most Browns fans and left with less than 9:00 to play. As of then, DA had forced GB to punt zero times: he provided no pass rush, no pass coverage, and he couldn't stop the run. No matter what he did, GB trounced right through him. The Packers marched the ball right down his throat. That guy needs to learn how to tackle.
BTW, it was great to see Kath at the tailgate. She is prettier than when i met her in 1999. i wish we had more time to talk.
I agree that the defense needs some serious help. But, the the offense needs to step up. The defense was on the field for more than 35 minutes! Against a team that has a quick-strike offense that doesn't normally eat up a lot of the clock! That is a very tired defensive unit by halftime...if not by the end of the first quarter! DA is a huge joke! His numbers are pathetic. And 75% of the passes he is throwing are not even remotely close to being catchable! I tell my wife every week that I won't watch or listen to the next game. But I always bring myself back for more punishment. I know what is going to happen. It is inevitable. Daboll's game plan reads..."run, run, pass, punt" on every drive. With DA in there, he gets to spare Zastudil occasionally with the run, run, pass/pick! Mangini is quickly losing any credibility he still has by continuing to play DA after yanking Quinn for him. Quinn's completion rate for the season is around 20 points higher than DA's. And he was yanked after 10 quarters of play? We've since had to endure 18 quarters of Dumb-Ass?! FOR WHAT REASON! Get BQ back in there, get Ratliff in there, get Cribbs in there (Don't even get me started on the wildcatless.). Mankok has got to do something...NOW!
-
roach, I agree that the D was putrid but I don't see why you'd try to justify one aspect of putrid with the other.
If you agree DA is putrid, then we're on the same page. But if you're saying DA gets -- ANOTHER -- pass because the D was putrid, well, I don't get that at all.
The fact is that putrid begets putrid and competence begets competence.
I say we start with the coaches and then the QB and then the RB and then the D.
Fix the top and the rest will get better.
Put another way: DA getting better would help the D. The D getting better doesn't help DA.
I believe he is only trying to bring attention to the defensive problem. If the thread was titled 'Defense should shoulder some blame', no one would read it because BQ or DA ain't in the title.
That's all he's attempting to do ... let's not read too much more into it. There are plenty of BQ & DA threads out there, this one is one of the few trying to shed some light on a real dark problem that no one discusses at the Southern Californian rainbow parties, and that is our defense sucks.
I believe he is only trying to bring attention to the defensive problem. If the thread was titled 'Defense should shoulder some blame', no one would read it because BQ or DA ain't in the title.
That's all he's attempting to do ... let's not read too much more into it. There are plenty of BQ & DA threads out there, this one is one of the few trying to shed some light on a real dark problem that no one discusses at the Southern Californian rainbow parties, and that is our defense sucks.
Um...huh?
I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.
And I didn't say a word about BQ. You did.
Anyway, my question stands and since you're speaking for roach here, you can answer it too:
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
You can leave the QB out, if it makes you feel better. I think it's a legit question in a thread about the D, don't you?
-
I believe he is only trying to bring attention to the defensive problem. If the thread was titled 'Defense should shoulder some blame', no one would read it because BQ or DA ain't in the title.
That's all he's attempting to do ... let's not read too much more into it. There are plenty of BQ & DA threads out there, this one is one of the few trying to shed some light on a real dark problem that no one discusses at the Southern Californian rainbow parties, and that is our defense sucks.
Um...huh?
I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.
And I didn't say a word about BQ. You did.
Anyway, my question stands and since you're speaking for roach here, you can answer it too:
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
You can leave the QB out, if it makes you feel better. I think it's a legit question in a thread about the D, don't you?
Um...huh?
I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.
And I didn't say a word about BQ. You did.
Anyway, my question stands and since you're speaking for roach here, you can answer it too:
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
You can leave the QB out, if it makes you feel better. I think it's a legit question in a thread about the D, don't you?
Dak my Croation brother! How goes it?
-
I believe he is only trying to bring attention to the defensive problem. If the thread was titled 'Defense should shoulder some blame', no one would read it because BQ or DA ain't in the title.
That's all he's attempting to do ... let's not read too much more into it. There are plenty of BQ & DA threads out there, this one is one of the few trying to shed some light on a real dark problem that no one discusses at the Southern Californian rainbow parties, and that is our defense sucks.
Um...huh?
I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.
And I didn't say a word about BQ. You did.
Anyway, my question stands and since you're speaking for roach here, you can answer it too:
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
You can leave the QB out, if it makes you feel better. I think it's a legit question in a thread about the D, don't you?
Um...huh?
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
I'd say Defense helps the Offense more.
A good defense keeps the score low and also gives your own offense a chance to fail (not play uptight) without getting into dire straits. With a good defense, also comes takeaways, and field position, giving your offense better opportunities to score. Great defenses also find a way to score themselves.
On the flip side, if you have a great offense with a lacking Defense, your Offense may play tight not wanting to turn the ball over for fear it will result into points. Scoring 'too fast', becomes a problem at times. You'll have to win shoot-outs at times, and that ain't necessarily being dominate, such was usually comes with being a great defensive team.
Defense wins championships. Not all the time, there are exceptions, just not enough to erase the old saying.
Could also matter if your offensive team is dominate in the run or the pass or both.
Then there are special teams, which can't be over-looked.
Overall, It's the greatest team game .... which brings us to this silly point of even applying any of these factors to the current Cleveland Browns, who ain't neither a decent offensive or defensive team, so the word 'help' can't even be applied.
BTW, I also did not bring up DA or BQ other than to inform you properly that this ain't a QB thread, it's about Defense.
... but I'll let Ed speak for himself now about what this thread was really about.
-
i outlasted most Browns fans and left with less than 9:00 to play. As of then, DA had forced GB to punt zero times: he provided no pass rush, no pass coverage, and he couldn't stop the run. No matter what he did, GB trounced right through him. The Packers marched the ball right down his throat. That guy needs to learn how to tackle.
BTW, it was great to see Kath at the tailgate. She is prettier than when i met her in 1999. i wish we had more time to talk.
i outlasted most Browns fans and left with less than 9:00 to play. As of then, DA had forced GB to punt zero times: he provided no pass rush, no pass coverage, and he couldn't stop the run. No matter what he did, GB trounced right through him. The Packers marched the ball right down his throat. That guy needs to learn how to tackle.
BTW, it was great to see Kath at the tailgate. She is prettier than when i met her in 1999. i wish we had more time to talk.
I think you're brilliant!! Especially that BTW part.
You looked great too and ditto on the more time to talk. -
I believe he is only trying to bring attention to the defensive problem. If the thread was titled 'Defense should shoulder some blame', no one would read it because BQ or DA ain't in the title.
That's all he's attempting to do ... let's not read too much more into it. There are plenty of BQ & DA threads out there, this one is one of the few trying to shed some light on a real dark problem that no one discusses at the Southern Californian rainbow parties, and that is our defense sucks.
Um...huh?
I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.
And I didn't say a word about BQ. You did.
Anyway, my question stands and since you're speaking for roach here, you can answer it too:
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
You can leave the QB out, if it makes you feel better. I think it's a legit question in a thread about the D, don't you?
-
-
Um...huh?
Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?
I'd say Defense helps the Offense more.
A good defense keeps the score low and also gives your own offense a chance to fail (not play uptight) without getting into dire straits. With a good defense, also comes takeaways, and field position, giving your offense better opportunities to score. Great defenses also find a way to score themselves.
On the flip side, if you have a great offense with a lacking Defense, your Offense may play tight not wanting to turn the ball over for fear it will result into points. Scoring 'too fast', becomes a problem at times. You'll have to win shoot-outs at times, and that ain't necessarily being dominate, such was usually comes with being a great defensive team.
Defense wins championships. Not all the time, there are exceptions, just not enough to erase the old saying.
Could also matter if your offensive team is dominate in the run or the pass or both.
Then there are special teams, which can't be over-looked.
Overall, It's the greatest team game .... which brings us to this silly point of even applying any of these factors to the current Cleveland Browns, who ain't neither a decent offensive or defensive team, so the word 'help' can't even be applied.
BTW, I also did not bring up DA or BQ other than to inform you properly that this ain't a QB thread, it's about Defense.
... but I'll let Ed speak for himself now about what this thread was really about.
I'd say Defense helps the Offense more.
Thanks for answering my question, Ate, and I disagree totally with you.
I think points on the board make everyone better. The name of the game is to outscore the opponent, after all. And the unit responsible for points is the offense.
Defense wins championships, I agree, but only if there are points on the board to allow a win to occur. 3-0 is nice but dangerous living. 27-14 is better and 34-31 is just as good as either of them.
It's about points. It's ALWAYS about points.
You really disagree with me? Just look at two games I watched this weekend: ours and the Bears-Bungles.
The Packers scored quick and easy, going up big and allowing their D to attack and play loose, feeling good that if they happened to let up some points, the O could get 'em back. Of course, they didn't need the O to score more than the first TD but I'm sure they didn't mind the cushion.
Then check out what the Bungles did to the Bears. Four possessions, four scores, 24 points. Forced an already DA-like Cutler to have to try to pass his team back into it; guess what? It didn't work. 3 picks and a fumble guaranteed the Bungles win.
Would you say that the Bungles D won that game? Of course not. Palmer torched the crumbling Bears D and showed what a real QB does for a team. He makes it look easy. He inspires confidence. HE PUTS POINTS ON THE BOARD.
Oh, there's that pesky QB mention again. Hmm...why does that keep happening? Maybe because in both the games I just mentioned, two legit QBs destroyed the opposing D's and effectively decided the contests in the first quarter.
You can try to argue that the defenses weren't good enough and that it's about as chicken-or-egg as it gets but I'd simply say:
Which QB would you rather have had this weekend, in either of those games, regardless of the defense?
I rest my case.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login