Analysis: The State of The Browns
by Brandon on Oct 22, 2009 7:15 AM CDT
in Analysis
57 comments
Looking ahead to the Green Bay Packers next opponent: the Cleveland Browns. How badly has the 2009 season gone for them?
- Their record is 1-5, and they've been outscored by 79 points in 6 games.
- Their patience on the QB Brady Quinn era lasted 10 quarters.
- The discussion has begun whether Eric Mangini is the worst head coaching hire in the last 25 years.
- They just traded away their former star WR Braylon Edwards for a couple of backups, and mid-round draft choices.
- They just lost their best linebacker, and defensive captain, to a season ending shoulder injury.
- And 20% of their team has the flu. It's affected 5 starters and they've trimmed back practice times to rest players.
Here are the team rankings, according to Football Outsiders:
| Pass Offense | Run Offense | Pass Defense | Run Defense | Special Teams |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | 19 | 23 | 31 | 1 |
Thanks in large part to WR/QB/KR Josh Cribbs, they are the best in the league on special teams. So, of course, they had been trying to trade him before the deadline.
And this week they play the Packers, a team that shut them out during the preseason 17-0.
0 recs |
57 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Hrm
So what you’re trying to say is that the Packers are going to give up 7 sacks and barely eek out a win ehh? Well, at least we have a chance…
Bah, I’m not that down about the team. I know it sounds stupid, but the next couple games are crucial to the success of the team. If we don’t beat the browns and get out of the game without any injuries, then there’s no way we’re going to be able to match up against the vikes. If we loose to the vikes, I don’t see us getting a head up in the division and I think the only way to get into the playoffs is winning the division.
It comes down to how we’ve been playing. We beat teams we should beat, we even beat an even matched team (Chi) and we’re close to good teams (Cin, Min). Those close games weren’t as close as they seemed though, both hinging on onside kicks and going down to the last second. We didn’t loose those games in the fourth, we lost them in the first or second.
How nuts is it that it’s week 7 and I’m already thinking “How can we get into the playoffs?”
by Smeefers on Oct 22, 2009 7:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank goodness for the soft schedule
We are in the soft part of our schedule right now. In a lot of ways, this is a “no-win” sort of game. The Packers should blow the Browns out, just like they should have blown the Lions out, and anything less than a dominant victory might be viewed as inadequate.
Packers should win by 10 or more, but they should use this game as an opportunity to work on some things that have been problematic. I’d like to see 30 running plays, and it might not be a bad idea to switch into a 4-3 a few times, just to see if we can adjust.
by ktenreb on Oct 22, 2009 7:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
4-3?
I’m not sure about that. I’m all for throwing different looks at someone, and this is the perfect game to do it. Use some base 3-4, use some Big Okie packages, etc. And if Capers thinks a snap here and there in the 4-3 will work, then by all means, he has my support.
But are you talking about starting a transition back to the 4-3? Because that’s the worst thing that we could do for the confidence of this defense. We’ve struggled a little bit transitioning to the 3-4, but that happens with every team that makes the switch. Working the 4-3 back in is like going back to your crazy ex-girlfriend because you had one fight with your new lady who has a ton of potential.
But I hope I misunderstood your point, as I agree with the rest of your comments. I think we should definitely win this game comfortably and work on the running game.
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets." - Bob Uecker
by texwestern on Oct 22, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
My bad. I am not advocating a transition back to the 4-3, not at this point in the season. The roster isn’t constructed for that. Instead, I don’t see why we can’t go that route for a series here and there, just as a different look. Heck, when we’re in nickel and dime we have four down linemen half the time anyway.
by ktenreb on Oct 22, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I find myself thinking the same thing every time I see us in a 2-4-5. There was so much talk about how we would still be in the 4-3 a lot because of Capers “hybrid” defense but I have yet to see it. But the main reason I want to see some of this is for Kampman, and Capers did in fact let Kampman play as a down lineman much more last week.
by packallday555 on Oct 22, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Capers never said they would use a 4-3 alignment...
he said they would mix in 4-3 concepts when they made sense. Some of the nickel fronts we saw last week, with two DTs, Kampman in closer than a LOLB (a traditional DE alignment), and Matthews mirroring him on the right, were 4-man front concepts. The remaining 3 LBs in the 2-5-4 form the rest of it. I don’t think he meant anything more than that.
They could move a little closer to a stereotypical 4-3 front by subbing Matthews for a bigger, more DE-type player. But if he’s getting a good pass rush, there’s no point.
by RobertArthur on Oct 22, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know what
packallday is saying about the hybrid though. Capers has spoken about 43 concepts but he has also had a hybrid defense on a couple of different teams he has coordinated successfully in the past. A lot of people thought Capers would at least transition with that hybrid defense he had in the past since the Packers have guys like Kampman who fit the 43 better, but he has done nothing but 34. I thought from the get go Capers should have done what he did in Jacksonville when he ran the hybrid type defense and they finished 14-2 with the best defense in the league.
by GGGamer on Oct 22, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't paying attention to Jacksonville when Capers was there...
what the heck does a hybrid between a 4-3 and 3-4 look like? Was it situational? Do you have ideas of how they would do something similar in GB?
Capers has been doing different things almost every week, so maybe he’s waiting to do more overt 4-3 concepts down the road.
I think if they had problems installing the 3-4 this summer, they might have gone in a different direction. But the defensive staff seemed to think the personnel fit the 3-4 just fine. If there have been problems thus far, they’ve been injury-based not schematic. The loss of Bigby was huge, judging by last week. We’ll see.
by RobertArthur on Oct 22, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically
As a coordinator with some of the 4-3 teams he took over in the past, he would have them play base 4-3 and 3-4, and he did a lot of what he did against Detroit with having a guy like Kampman basically play defensive end in the nickel package. Like you said, not much different than what he did last Sunday but he also used a 4-3 base to go along with the 3-4 base transition. I think a lot of Packer fans would just like to see a d-line a few times a game with Kampman, Raji/Jolly, Pickett, and Jenkins, and we hadn’t seen anything like that until Sunday. Those four guys could dominate the Vikings o-line IMO and than Matthews could play SLB with the possibility of blitzing.
by GGGamer on Oct 22, 2009 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a lot of Packer fans would just like to see a d-line a few times a game with Kampman, Raji/Jolly, Pickett, and Jenkins, and we hadn’t seen anything like that until Sunday. Those four guys could dominate the Vikings o-line IMO and than Matthews could play SLB with the possibility of blitzing.
Yes, I was hoping we would see more of this.
by packallday555 on Oct 23, 2009 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Injuries
Things have been looking different every week.
It’s getting a little clearer since they aren’t rotating Hawk/Barnett and Matthews/Poppinga anymore, and Barnett and Matthews are playing the entire game, since they feel Barnett is all the way back from his ACL injury, and Matthews is over his bad hamstring from training camp.
by Brandon on Oct 22, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if they had problems installing the 3-4 this summer, they might have gone in a different direction. But the defensive staff seemed to think the personnel fit the 3-4 just fine. If there have been problems thus far, they’ve been injury-based not schematic. The loss of Bigby was huge, judging by last week. We’ll see.
Right, and I also assume this is why we haven’t seen much of these 4-3 alignments that many had thought we would.
by packallday555 on Oct 23, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
This is what I was talking about. I read many places that Capers would run this same “hybrid” defense that he had been able to apply in the past with us. Mostly because the 3-4 is typically difficult to transition too, and our organization felt we were a good team that had the ability to win now. So it was thought that we would still run some 4-3 alignments or concepts to kind of ease our transition to the 3-4. And we have ran the 2-4-5 quite a bit, but prior to last week Kampman had for the most part been standing up in it.
by packallday555 on Oct 23, 2009 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea
And the fact of the matter is that any good coach will put his players in their best position to succeed so Capers needs to start doing that more. I don’t care if having Kampman come off of the edge in a 3 or 4 point stance takes away the confusion element of whose coming and whose dropping back.
If Kampman comes off that edge how he’s used to, Jenkins pushes up the pocket, and Matthews gets his pressure from the stand up, will that element of suprise of having Kampman standing up matter if they’re to the QB in less than 2.5 seconds? The reason the Giants and Vikings are so successful is because they get to the QB within 3 seconds everytime with just their front 4. They don’t have to blitz to get pressure. The Packers could be that same way with Kampman, Raji/Jolly, Jenkins, and Matthews so why don’t they use that option more.
I think if there’s 60 defensive snaps in the game Kampman can stand up for 20 of them and be the LDE for the other 40. In the 20 times he stands up he can drop 10 and rush 10 so the defense doesn’t know. In the 40 times he’s at DE he can rush almost everytime but if they zone drop him back 4 or 5 times from his stance at DE, the offense still has to account for that. I personally think that would be the best way to get Kampman back in his element but also allow Capers his confusion scheme that he loves so much since Kamp would still drop back 20-25% of the time.
by GGGamer on Oct 23, 2009 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
We really do have the front 7 to rush the passer and be able to get consistent pressure. We know what Kampman can do as a down lineman. Jenkins has picked up right where he left off in 07’, and has been great for us so far. And Matthews has proven that he has the ability to get good pressure on the Qb standing up. And when Raji gets back to 100%, he will likely be just as effective as Jenkins, if not more so.
The reason the Giants and Vikings are so successful is because they get to the QB within 3 seconds everytime with just their front 4.
And this is why our defense was 6th in scoring in 07’. With Kampman and Jenkins on the edges we were able to get good, consistent pressure rushing only 4 guys and playing bump n’ run on the outsides. This didn’t work in 08’ due to Jenkins injuries and as a result our defense suffered.
I agree with your assessment of how Capers should use Kampman and I think he will indeed use him in a way very similar to the one you suggested.
by packallday555 on Oct 23, 2009 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I agree with your assessment of how Capers should use Kampman and I think he will indeed use him in a way very similar to the one you suggested.”
I hope so but even against Detroit, Kampman was only in a 3 or 4 point stance about 8 times. That means he was standing up almost the entire game again. He was more effective rushing in those limited times in a stance than he was standing up the entire game so I really hope you’re right and Capers figures that out.
by GGGamer on Oct 23, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference between rushing from a standup position...
and a 3-point stance is getting overblown a bit. There are differences, of course, but a player can have an effective pass rush from either stance.
With Kampman, I think the difference is in his head. That’s still a real difference; I’m not claiming he is making it up or faking. But rushing from a standup position is new to him, and he hasn’t had success with it. I think that affects his confidence with it, and that can make a difference in getting to the QB.
Whatever gets him going is fine with me. If putting his hand on the ground in some situations does it, great. But he’s not a defensive end anymore. He’s a linebacker, and linebackers need to be more versatile than ends. He needs to keep his head up on run plays, for example, so he can make adjustments.
As he gets more comfortable, I think he will be able to rush from either stance and have success at his former level.
by RobertArthur on Oct 23, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trap Game
Everything in the world points to this being an easy win, which is why it makes me nervous. I’m worried that the Pack might be looking ahead to the Vikings the following week. Good teams beat bad teams like the Browns 99 out of 100 times. If the Packers are legit, they need to win this one easily.
As for the Browns, they are injured and have a lot of things going wrong, and this would be the time to play a tough scrappy game with their backs against the wall.
I’ll settle for any win that leaves the team healthy going into the Minnesota game. A bonus would be signs of life from the O-line and running game.
by grant76 on Oct 22, 2009 9:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
teams don't look ahead...
That is a media thing…you honestly think a 3-2 team that is 2.5 games back is going to not plan for a team? I Think that is complete media garbage.
The normal browns are a trap game but the missing 15 players browns won’t be.
by TrevorR on Oct 22, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Buffalo was looking ahead,
But remember, Cleveland’s only victory this year came when they completed just two passes. Still, I agree with this sentiment. Don’t look ahead to your next opponent, and forget about the one you’re playing now.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup!
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 22, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trap Game?
I don’t see this as a trap game whatsoever. The Packers know they didn’t put it to the Lions like they should have so I think it’s doubtful that they don’t take the Browns seriously. To go along with that, the Browns have a ton of starters sick or hurt and they aren’t a good team with a completely healthy roster anyways. My concerns are any more injuries that come out of this game for the Packers do deal with come the Vikings next week and what everyone is talking about with the flu.
by GGGamer on Oct 22, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
worried...
not about losing but about our players getting this from the “healthy” guys that are playing. Anyone else have a concern about this flu getting passed on?
by TrevorR on Oct 22, 2009 9:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually, that was the first thing I thought.
Given the Browns history of having a clean locker room area (How many staph infections are they up to now?) If so, it’s likely you’d be hobbled for next week. And then the Vikings would be hobbled for the week after that.
Thankfully, that is a bye week, so the chain would hopefully be broken at that point, unless it keeps bouncing back and forth between teammates, which would get really bad, causing teams to be infectious for multiple weeks.
Yeesh, freaking strong flu strains.
When you go to somebody's house, you don't crap on their floor. Being a fan of one team does NOT give you license to be a dick to fans of another.
Corollary: When people are visiting your house and behaving themselves, them being a fan of a different team is NOT a reason for you to piss in their beer.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
by Robert Rence on Oct 22, 2009 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it may be a battle of who is less sick
Currently, Ward and Polomalu are on the injury list for non-injury reasons. Given that they played the Browns last week, it’s possible both of our teams are going to go into Nov 1st’s game with a bunch of players on the sick list. That’s not how I want to see the divisional rematch.
When you go to somebody's house, you don't crap on their floor. Being a fan of one team does NOT give you license to be a dick to fans of another.
Corollary: When people are visiting your house and behaving themselves, them being a fan of a different team is NOT a reason for you to piss in their beer.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
by Robert Rence on Oct 22, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am,
what’s the gestation period for the flu?
will the packers be sick when they play the vikes?
will the vikes get sick afterwards , where does it stop?
this is a contact game, and correct me if I’m wrong,
that’s how you spread the flu……contact .
take a kid fishing, it's good for the soul. not only yours, but the child's as well !
by whanabarf on Oct 22, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I am concerned.
Health care worker here, we have seen many cases of regular flu and H1N1 flu at the hospital I work at.
I sure hope that no one on Green Bay gets ill from the flu the Browns have. If so, do we have a plan to deal with the holes that would open up?
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup!
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Oct 22, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The league has plans to deal with any flu outbreak.
I’ve seen talk of roster exemptions and things like that. There was an article this week in one of the Packer publications that discussed it. The team has contingency plans for filling roster spots due to illness.
This is the same league that filled rosters with replacement players during the strike year, remember. They will figure a way to make the show go on, regardless of a virus.
by RobertArthur on Oct 22, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swine flu exemption
It looks like the NFL will give each team up to 8 roster exemptions for a flu outbreak.
by Brandon on Oct 22, 2009 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I'd like to see...
Is the O-Line get their heads out of their butts. We’ve got solid players making elementary school mistakes. The run game has been virtually non-existent although R-Grant showed some burst and power last week similar to his breakout ‘07 campaign, and with their best player and middle linebacker Jackson out, we should try and establish a solid ground game to open up that deadly play action we’ve come to know and love. A-Rod has been one of the better quarterbacks this year even under all that pressure, it will be scary to see what he can do when he has time.
by ilovethegbpackers on Oct 22, 2009 1:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Update on Browns players
Looks like Shuan Rogers is back at practice along with one other of the 12. No other players have been sent home yet. 2 tested positive for Influenza A which is related to Swine flu. Sounds like they could end up closer to full power than we thought.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4585269&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines
by TrevorR on Oct 22, 2009 2:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully it'll run through by Sunday
Don’t want that stuff spreading more than possible.
When you go to somebody's house, you don't crap on their floor. Being a fan of one team does NOT give you license to be a dick to fans of another.
Corollary: When people are visiting your house and behaving themselves, them being a fan of a different team is NOT a reason for you to piss in their beer.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
by Robert Rence on Oct 22, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only 3 more easy games
The Packers are not a good team. Admit it. You may not want to, but it is true. There are three more easy games remaining on the Packers schedule. The Browns is one of those easy games. GB should win this easily. Yet when the Vikings come to visit, do not expect a win. The Packers are an average team. They have a good QB (not great…not yet) and some receivers. Sadly, the weaknesses are too hard to ignore. That will lead to several losses this year and the Packers will repeat what they did last year. They will not make the playoffs.
Who is responsible? That is easy. Just look at who makes the decisions for the team. Get rid of those guys. It is long overdue.
In any case, it should be fun to watch a blowout win over the Browns. Enjoy it while we can. The fun will not last long for the rest of the season.
by starmark on Oct 22, 2009 7:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Enough
With the Thompson/McCarthy comments every freakin post. NO one cares about your dislike for them, you tell us every time. The Packers aren’t a good team? Every position on the Packers is better than average except for the o-line and the running backs. Secondary = Great, Receivers = Great, Front 7 = Pretty Good, Tight Ends = Pretty Good, Fullbacks = Pretty Good, QB = Really Good. I understand you hate the Packers coaching and management but to say they aren’t a good talented team is ridiculous. I’m not saying they’re where they need to be because they’re not, but if the offensive line comes together at all they could be a top team.
And only three easy games: 1. Cleveland 2. Tampa Bay 3. Detroit 4. Seattle at Lambeau 5. Dallas at Lambeau should be a win. Three of the Packers four hardest games from here on out are at Lambeau. They should go at least 10-6 IMO. How is that a bad team? Go become a Vikings fan, it fits you well.
by GGGamer on Oct 22, 2009 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You fight with everyone
Please limit the personal attacks on my college roommate starmark.
by ktenreb on Oct 23, 2009 4:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
please limit stupidity
There was no personal attack. All we want is a post with analysis that doesn’t end with “fire TT and MM” can we just get it once and a while. This is stale and its starting to ruin a good site by Brandon and the guys.
by TrevorR on Oct 23, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mitchell
I made a promise to not comment to ktenreb for a while because everytime I do and we get into an argument, you tell ME to stop. Could you please for once email HIM or do whatever you have to do to get HIM to stop for once? He’s a grumpy unhappy old man whose really just turning myself and other people off to this site. I obviously know one person who stopped posting on here because of him. Please tell him to shut it finally. I’ve had a few others defend me on occasion because of his stupidity but it seems like i’m continually the only one asked to stop…
by GGGamer on Oct 23, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
I wouldn’t say we are going to lose to the vikings yet
Kind of a shame the Rockies aren't around to win it for Balloon Boy
-billyok
by blackoutsox on Oct 22, 2009 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh...Really?
Really, so the only good positions we have on this team are our Qb who IS great and our great wr corps? Our defense is 8th in league in total yards and 9th in scoring, and that is despite us having 3 horrible guys fill in for Bigby when he was hurt. With Bigby in the lineup we held a good Bears offense (which has avergaged 23 points a game this year) to 15 points, and that was despite losing Bigby for the 2nd half. And in Bigby’s second game we held the Lions to 0 points! Now I know you’ll say well they didn’t have Stafford or CJ, but the reality is they didn’t have either of those guys last week against Pittsburgh and they managed to score 20 points.
Not too mention we’ve also forced the 3rd most TOs in the league. This defense is good, and likely will only get better as Matthews is finally starting, Kampman is now allowed the freedom to get down in a 3 point stance whenever he would like, and now that Bigby is back and healthy. Oh and the defense as a whole will continue to improve as the year goes on and they become more and more accustomed to the scheme.
by packallday555 on Oct 23, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forced the 3rd most turnovers in the league in 5 games as well.
by GGGamer on Oct 23, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What? You used stats to back your point? That should be illegal. You can only use old, biased and untrue rhetoric in arguments!!
by TrevorR on Oct 23, 2009 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brown Sack Haiku
Which number higher:
Brown sacks on Aaron Rodgers
Or on Browns fans’ heads?
http://PackerHaiku.com
Clark Osborn - PackerHaiku.com | FavreHaiku.com | BadgerHaiku.com
by PackerHaiku on Oct 22, 2009 7:58 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Nice one
FIRE BRUCE BOCHY NOW!!!!!!
AND TAKE BRIAN SABEAN WITH HIM!!!!!
by 49er16 on Oct 22, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way Mangini is worst
The discussion has begun whether Eric Mangini is the worst head coaching hire in the last 25 years.
He’s got two more wins as HC of the Browns than Raheem Morris has as HC of the Buccaneers and Steve Spagnuolo has as HC of the Rams combined (that would be zero).
Also, I’ll put the O/U on the number of sacks the Browns get on Rodgers at 4½
by DaveInTucson on Oct 22, 2009 8:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ooops...
/me checks standings
I could’ve sworn the Browns had 2 wins…
by DaveInTucson on Oct 22, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Browns
Have one win and it was one of the ugliest games in NFL history against a team just as bad; the Bills. Anderson completed 2 of 17 passes if my memory serves me. There are a lot of worst coach candidates this season and Mangini is definitely on that list.
I think as knowing his stuff goes, Mangini isn’t that bad, but he treats his players like little kids and they have no respect for him. That’s why he might be the worst. The players on the Jets hated him and now the guys in Cleveland want to be traded. He fined one of his players $1,701 for having a $3 bottle of water at the hotel. That’s not gonna help your player relations. Mangini will never win anything as a Head Coach until he changes his approach so the Browns hiring him was a terrible decision. I would much rather have Raheem Morris.
by GGGamer on Oct 23, 2009 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
4 and a half sacks?
maybe if we we’re facing the Kamerion Wimbley of 2006. That dude seems to have regressed every year since. He has serious below average pass rush burst.
Or maybe the pass rush will come from a lazy, overpaid ex-packer whose miscast in Mangini’s 3-4?
Nah, I think this is the week the offensive line plays a good game against a seriously overmatched Cleveland squad. Not that I don’t think they won’t be back to their old tricks against Minnesota, but this is the week were they put some positives on the field. With or without Chad Clifton.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Oct 23, 2009 1:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
4.5 Sacks
this is the week the offensive line plays a good game against a seriously overmatched Cleveland squad
I hope you’re right. But… the Lions had 10 sacks in 5 games (2/game) before they played the Packers, and got 5 sacks. The Browns have 12 sacks in 6 games (2/game) with the weekend’s matchup pending.
At some point, the O-line has to figure out how to block, right? But so far… well, this comment I saw on IRC last weekend seems about right:
The Packers are a 12-4 team with a 4-12 O-line
:-(
by DaveInTucson on Oct 23, 2009 3:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That last comment is actually very, very true haha.
by packallday555 on Oct 23, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is IRC?
The glass is more than half-full.
by NorthStarr on Oct 23, 2009 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat
Back before you kids had your Facebook, Test Messages, Instant Messages, etc., that’s how we all talked.
(Of course, I’m in my late 20’s, so it feels ironic to call someone a kid)
by Danwood on Oct 24, 2009 6:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Especially when the ‘kid’ in question is over 50 and doesn’t have (or want) a cell phone and has never used facebook, doesn’t test text message and instant messages only when somebody else starts it.
The closest I come to any of that stuff is opining here and on newspaper forums (better than letters to the editor).
But, thanks.
I at least knew what those other things are, even if I hadn’t used them; never heard of IRC before.
The glass is more than half-full.
by NorthStarr on Oct 24, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure we thought the O-Line would crush Detroit, too
I’m already marking Cleveland down for 4 sacks
by Danwood on Oct 23, 2009 5:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn't surprise me
Clearly some of the blame goes to the Oline, some to Rodgers, and even some to the WRs who need to be looking in right away in their short routes.
by TrevorR on Oct 23, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The browns have fallen even further now than they were last year. He’s jettisoned their most talented players, benched their “qb of the future” and lost some VERY ugly games. They made a HUGE mistake in hiring this Jets castoff…he’s a terrible coach.
by TrevorR on Oct 23, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mangini is just trying to make a point
That not all that Belichick sh*ts is gold. The only spinoff that has had success is McDaniels, and he’s only gone 6 games. Weis? Crennell? Mangini? Craptacular at best.
by Danwood on Oct 23, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
