I feel like Mike Holmgren needs to offer Eric Mangini an ultimatum: deal with a new offensive coordinator next season, or get out. Against a Buffalo Bills team that was the worst team in the league at defending the run, Brian Daboll's offensive gameplan made it look like he was completely unprepared. On the first drive, the Browns had some nice bursts from Peyton Hillis but failed to punch the ball in for a touchdown. Hillis' fumble on the next drive was certainly costly and momentum-shifting, but the offensive gameplan after that was baffling.
Jake Delhomme did not have a good day by any stretch of the imagination, but there were a lot of times you could tell he was frustrated with the play calls he had to work with. First of all, Daboll did us the same favor Miami did last week on 3rd-and-4, it was always a pass play. Not only was it a pass play, the design or execution of the routes were terrible. Two receivers would be right next to each other short on the sideline. Hillis would be standing right next to an offensive tackle. One receiver would streak up the sideline, but it was such a delay that by then pressure would be at Delhomme already.
Now we see why Colt McCoy scrambled so often -- he was given the same poor play calls, but he has the advantage over Delhomme to use his mobility to move the chains.
The Bills kept it simple with their offense. They ran the ball right at the Browns, and when Ryan Fitzpatrick needed to, he made a few completions beyond the first down marker with his arm, or used his mobility to get first downs.
There's just no excuse for every passing play involving one-yard routes. Our only successful passing plays of the game came on a long pass to Mohamed Massaquoi and a deep comeback route to Brian Robiskie. Do you think we could have seen some of those routes again? Was Ben Watson targeted more than once today? Did it make sense to use the Cyclone formation once only to never bring it out the rest of the way?
Nothing made sense, and I blame Daboll for that. It didn't help that Cleveland does not seem to thrive in terms of execution when it is raining, but more of the problem still falls back on Daboll for me.
1 recs | 937 comments
i hated how it seemed like daboll was afraid to run after the fumbles
macdowellm03 - December 12, 2010
Daboll, needs to be fired right now! It gets worse every week, most of the time the play calling sucks, a monkey could call a better game.
dawginhouston - December 13, 2010
I agree with the ultimatum.
I’m really starting to wonder, though, if a 6-10 season is going to be enough to keep Mangini here.
Did Mangini insist on keeping Daboll this year? If so, that doesn’t bode well for him at all.
emily522 - December 12, 2010
I say 6-10 because that’s my prediction. But we could lose out too.
emily522 - December 12, 2010
Hush you!
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
for me I would make 7-9 the limit and Daboll goes regardless.
johnnyphoenix - December 12, 2010
Completely agree Daboll definitely should be fired and though it wasn’t completely his fault bench Delhomme and start McCoy when he is healthy and use more of your most dynamic player CRIBBS.
Luke C - December 12, 2010
Cribbs is hurt and even when he was healthy he didn’t look good.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
The one bright spot last year was run backs and field possession. Kicking away from him or not, he is not having the impact he had last year.
kingcrimson2 - December 12, 2010
I think he played pretty well when healthy – no return TDs, but his receiving has gotten a lot better.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
I don’t think the trade off is worth it.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
I think Cribbs needs to sit until he is healthy.
If that means IR, then so be it. He needs to be healthy.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
rec
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Sadly, I think I agree with this. If he needs to take the rest of the year, then so be it.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 13, 2010
Agreed. He clearly is not himself.
Western Reserve - December 13, 2010
I need some booze.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Daboll has consistently shown (besides a handful of flashes of being decent) that he cannot coordinate an offense. He has also proven consistently that he cannot adjust to defenses once they figure out his inital game plan. Fire his ass! Period
Kimble_79 - December 12, 2010
The Saints game was called perfectly. Just… why can’t he do that consistently.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
No, the offense was terrible in the NO game as well.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Won’t even bother.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
Because you know it was. You may be thinking of the Pats game. NO saw some bad Browns offense. We won by trickery.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
the trick punt was cool.
discoinferno083 - December 12, 2010
That’s not offense.
TheDriveStillHurts - December 12, 2010 via mobile
That’s special teams, though.
Adrock2099 - December 12, 2010
i didn’t see any of the buffalo game, but i’d disagree that daboll has been consistently bad. the NO and NYJ games were good, the CAR game was good, the first CIN game was good … and that’s just off the top of my head. he’s shown some ability, but just has been extremely inconsisent.
and i go back to the weapons … he has hillis. period. can’t expect a lot out of an o-coord w/ a single weapon.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
The CAR game was awful from what I remember.
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2010
as mentioned below, 21 points in the first half, and an evan moore fumble on the 2 away from 28 first half points. that is a far cry from awful.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Being hot in the first half doesn’t make a game great. Just look at last year against Detroit. You have to hold that momentum through a full 4 quarters.
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2010
but you said it was awful. it was not awful. at all.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
NO game was bad.
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
meant to say NE … sorry.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I figured. I was kinda scratching my head at first why you included NO and not NE, but then I just assumed it was an honest mistake.
But on the point you were making with NCF, I do agree with you somewhat. the offensive gameplan actually seemed decent. Not great, but decent. It also didn’t help that JD threw 2 picks in 2 straight attempts which meant that Daboll probably had less confidence in him.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
great point. after, effectively, scoring 28 points in the first half by mostly pounding hillis, delhomme throws 2 picks on the first 2 plays of the second … no one should be surprised that the turtle’s head went back in the shell.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
haha. I love that analogy.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
Carolina he was average. Cincy he was maybe a tick or two above average. I wouldn’t call those consistently good. I do disagree too that he hasn’t been consistently bad. he has shown flashes of being good, but the bad still outweighs the good. You have to take the whole season into perspective and if you do that, he is IMO a bit below average at best.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
Exactly what I meant by flashes. I think there has been much more bad calls than good however. As I said below also, and many other times this year, he doesn’t seem to be able to make adjustments either. I understand the lack of weapons, but that was a team that is now ranked 27th in pts/game, 23rd in yds/game, and dead last in rushing yards surrendered/game and they completely shut our offense down outside of that first drive.
Just saying there is something to be said for that when we are held to 86yds passing and 116yds rushing total offense.
Kimble_79 - December 14, 2010
its hard to judge Daboll now because when the QB is playing so awful(7ints to 2 tds) what plays can you call?
also, there are no receivers to throw to either.
we need a big time reciever before we’ll know.
how about josh mcdanials as OC next year, he ‘s lookin’ for work!
allsides - December 14, 2010
Also, we need Fujita back. Our run defense has declined since he’s been gone.
emily522 - December 12, 2010
I AGREE! Sorry didn’t mean to shout.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
Agreed.
kingcrimson2 - December 12, 2010
Run D was ok, not bad. A lot of yards were QB scramble which is not really a run defense problem.
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
I didn’t understand why we didn’t ever have a QB spy.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
b/c it’s ryan freaking fitzpatrick.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Ryan freaking Fitzpatrick had 49 yards on us and has 236 on the season. A spy would have likely prevented his 12.3 yards per carry.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
you’ll notice that hindsight is almost always 20/20 …
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Obviously. Which is why you put a spy out there when you see a guy that can run on defenses. It was on film before they played us, then he ran on us in game. I don’t recall seeing a single play with a spy though.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
If memory serves, we were discussing a spy midway through the game thread. Half time adjustment anyone?
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 14, 2010
I definitely mentioned it in the game thread.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Yeah, I think one would reasonably expect the defense to make a play rather than having to allot valuable and scarce resources to spy on uber-scrambler Fitzpatrick.
Western Reserve - December 14, 2010
Disagree. Fitz is far from an uber-scrambler and allotting too many resourcing to that threat would be a terrible decision.
However, as he showed, his running can be effective. So having a single defender blitz (a defender that would be blitzing anyway) not over commit, but rather spy, then make the call when to sell out and hit, could have stopped its effectiveness without using resources that were drastically needed elsewhere.
Your idea is a terrible one.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
you’re misunderstanding WR.
what you describe here is not a spy. the spy idea is terrible.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I had a response typed out and accidentally hit CANCEL instead of POST… so I’m going to try to remember what I wrote.
It was my understanding that Wester Reserve was trying to be sarcastic, so I responded to the sarcasm with more sarcasm, as if I was taking his comment literally.
Also, there are different ways to try and stop a scrambling QB. I’m not trying to say that we should run plays like we’re facing Mike Vick, i.e. NOT a play with two ends on contain, two LBs spying on opposite sides of the line of scrimmage, man coverage elsewhere.
I was suggesting, 1 guy, preferably someone that would have been blitzing anyway, who’s sole job it is to watch Fitz and not over commit allowing Fitz to have the open field.
There are virtually endless possible plays with spies designed to make scrambling less effective, and Rob Ryan is certainly capable of that. He chose not to and the end result was Fitz 12.3 yards per carry.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
I think you crossed the streams.
What DCMJ said.
Western Reserve - December 14, 2010
Huh?
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Which part?
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
The disagreeing part. I think WR was saying not to allocate a ton of resources, so i think you to agreed on that point.
Villeslgr - December 15, 2010
this is not a spy.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
I’ve always thought of a QB spy as a player, who’s job it was to follow the quarterback in order to keep them from getting away and scrambling for a gain.
You have a different idea of what a spy is?
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
A spy doesn’t blitz. A spy hangs out a couple yards back and shadows the QB.
notthatnoise - December 15, 2010
And follows his eyes for potential INT’s
Kimble_79 - December 15, 2010
Blitz was a poor choice of word there, what I meant was a QB spy assignment that would be more fitting to Fitz type rather than Mike Vick.
I’m not saying we need a DE Contain play. I’m just talking about assigning 1 guy to the QB, and at some point they need to make a move to tackle, unless the QB does a quick dump off. What I was referring to above was a spy that is edging in on the QB without committing.
Simmsinns - December 15, 2010
Exactly. I really think that the issue of him scrambling was that our pass rushers were giving him all day. this buffalo Offensive line is supposed to be not that good before the injuries. With our pass rush, Fitzpatrick should have had less time to throw (at least that was the theory). the pass rush didn’t get there however.
However much I blame the pass rush, I also have to commend the Bills and how their rag-tag line performed.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
I think Fitz looked pretty good in the pocket, not saying he’s some stud or something, but he seemed to be very aware of the pressure regardless of where it was coming from. I haven’t rewatched the game, but from what I remember he created a lot of his time with timely scrambles.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
you have a good point about that. He definitely looked comfortable out there handling the pressure. Even if we put on more pressure, he still might have had a good scramble or two.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
I am going to say right now that I am not a fan of Delhomme, but I can’t really blame him for this loss. I still think he makes some really poor decisions when he’s being rushed, but Daboll did not give him calls he needed to even come close to succeeding.
I also agree with Kimbie_79, who posted while I typed this. He never seems to make appropriate adjustments. If anything he has a tendency to shy away from plays that have actually worked during the game.
A frustrating game, but I still think we are two or three players (and maybe a couple coaches) away from being an elite team. I am a licensed optimist.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
I continue to support Daboll.
1. The offense looked good when we had McCoy under center.
2. Daboll didn’t sign Delhomme.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Both points are true, the lack of runs when you have Hillis and are facing the worst run defense in the league, just makes no sense.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Fumble, fumble, fumble…. Had we had any other option, I doubt he sees the ball again after two fumbles in three plays.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
I think with an offense this bad, we’re forced to trust Hillis despite the one lossed fumble, other fumble recovered for no loss, and fumble forced by the ground.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
I also can’t recall a single outside run being called after Buffalo decided to stack the box. No screens and no sweeps.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
a screen pass or two would have been nice.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
Pfft. Too simple for Daboll.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Lack of runs? We ran 25 times and passed 20, and much of the passing plays were on the last two drives when we needed to move the ball quickly. I don’t think we had a lack of running plays today. I think we had too many fumbles and not enough big gains on those running plays.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
Yes, lack of runs.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
mccoy can scramble, jake cant
macdowellm03 - December 12, 2010
Yeah, as stated above, a lot of McCoy’s scrambles bailed out Daboll.
Chris Pokorny - December 12, 2010
I think the offense is design for a more mobile quarterback. THat is not to say scrambling for one’s life is by plan, but I think it helps with the play calling when we have a more mobile quarterback. THE RECEIVERS the Browns have are not working in a drop back and form a pocket type of offense. The receivers are part of the problem, Delhomme is still more of it.
champion64 - December 12, 2010
Chris explained why it looked good with McCoy.
I don’t understand the Delhomme line. What did he do wrong?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
In my opinion I dont think they are able to run the full offense with just a drop back quarterback. Delhomme is not very mobile. That being said I dont think that we have the receivers for a drop back passing pocket passing game. The quarteback needs to be more mobile to move the pocket and designed roll outs. McCoy to me fits that type of offense better. Delhomme doesn’t so the offense is limited. That is all I am saying.
champion64 - December 13, 2010
Just spent the past three weeks in Argentina and Uruguay and THIS is what I come back to? What an ugly, uninspired performance. That whiff by Royal on a key third down made me really miss Evan Moore . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
it was a very difficult catch to make
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
You think so? For me, yes a tough grab, but for an NFL receiver that has to be caught. But yes, Royal IS a blocking TE so maybe I am just grumpy . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
Hope you liked my country. Man, this was an awful game.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
Loved BA and really, really dug Bariloche. Just had to get used to the accent . . . and the fact that wearing a River Plate jersey can bring insults in San Telmo
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
You picked the best one out of the two. But it’s like rooting for the Cowboys… they have no soul.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
Wanted a San Lorenzo jersey but couldnt with the big WAL MART logo on the front . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
I’m an Independiente fan and yeah, that Wal Mart thing is ironic. Long story.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
Yeah, we’ve known that Royal has stone hands for a while so that catch was a little much to ask of him
Adrock2099 - December 12, 2010
Then he needs to find a new job. Tight Ends need to be able to catch the ball too otherwise we could just stick another Tackle on the end
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Have you never heard of a blocking tight end? He’s a really good run blocker.
Adrock2099 - December 12, 2010
Yes, pretty pointless to have them run routes if they can’t catch.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
its pointless to play them at all if the other team knows they’ll never be thrown a ball.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
Yes, quite a catch-22, which is why I wouldn’t have TEs that can’t catch.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Evan Moore makes that catch. A guy who has solid hands and jumping ability makes that catch. However, that guys is not robert royal and royal should not be running that pattern except to be a decoy to bait the safeties. It was horribly overthrown to and a bad overall decision to throw to him.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Royal made the adjustment to go upfield since Delhomme was rolling out of a busted play. Royal made a good read to go up the field, I just wish he could’ve held on to the ball.
Chris Pokorny - December 12, 2010
I didn’t know that. Thats a good read then by a veteran player, but the guy just can’t catch.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Yeah, watching the replay Royal almost made an awesome play, but he couldn’t adjust to a high pass.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
If the pass wasn’t high, it would have been an int
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Yes, there was a defender in front of royal, but he could have thrown that lower and it still not been a turnover.
So what you are saying anyways (lets assume it would be an INT) is that either its an overthrow or a pick. If that is the case, then why throw it??? I don’t think the ball should have been thrown in the first place, so all you are doing is supporting that assertion.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Royal was the only person who got open (that I saw). Jake made a good play to avoid the rush and made a nice throw to Royal in the only place he could have thrown it. It would have been a tough catch but a better TE catches that pass. You can’t blame Delhomme for that play.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
the throw was almost an overthrow. Plus, on the replay, I saw MoMass just as open 5 yards downfield (and it was a 3rd and 4).
bross09 - December 12, 2010
It hit him in the hands, didn’t it?
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Yes, it did.
Western Reserve - December 12, 2010
he had to jump for it.
Plus, it didn’t hit him squarely in the hands and got a lot of finger/fingertip.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I didn’t mean it like he shouldn’t have thrown it that high, just that Royal couldn’t make the adjustment.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
not sure but i believe that pass was a bit high
macdowellm03 - December 12, 2010
How was the trip?
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Absolutely great. But the thought that I was on a beach in Uruguay just a few short days ago coupled with todays game is making me, well, just plain sad . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
It could be worse, I’m stuck in a blizzard.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Same
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Not a blizzard, but its been a gray nasty rainy day here in NYC
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
yes. Vacation hangover sucks, especially if your team loses right after.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Wow, people are so fickle. One loss and suddenly we’re going to lose out?
I’d be mad that this game cost the Browns the playoffs but after this performance they don’t deserve to make the playoffs.
King Tony - December 12, 2010
I second that emotion . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
I got depressed, and then I realized that in the long view we are still a team on the rise. When we really get going, these long hard seasons will just make our success more enjoyable.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
We have the Bengals, Ravens, and Steelers left.
I thought we were going to beat the Bills, we didn’t. I think we’ll beat the Bengals, who knows? I don’t see us beating the Steelers or Ravens.
So yeah, losing out is not out of the question.
emily522 - December 12, 2010
I see us beating the steelers and the ravens. Mostly because I can’t see it any other way.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
possibility of steelers sitting starters?
macdowellm03 - December 12, 2010
I’d hate to beat the Steeler backups. I want to play their starters and kick the crap out of them.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
i’d rather get a W…
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Given how we tend to rise (and unfortunately descend) to the occasion, I say we take at least one of our last two games. But as you say, who knows?
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
One loss?
Hey, the fans might be running hot and cold, but this team’s performance isn’t exactly consistent either.
dgcambridge - December 12, 2010
well, i think it was always a stretch for us to beat pitt and balt, so i wouldn’t call that being fickle
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
If we play like we did on Sunday, then those two games will be very ugly. However, we do tend to play up or down to opponents, but a stretch to say the least for sure.
Kimble_79 - December 14, 2010
Not sure if this has already been brought up for discussion in the wake of this terrible loss but I would think that Mangini is gone after the season . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
I did slightly in the game thread. It’s sad, but I agree.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
people bring this up every time the team loses, and then after they beat someone like the patriots people say there’s no way they fire him. I don’t think anyone who matters is looking to evaluate that until after the season is over.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
NTN, come on though. We played like crap against Carolina, Miami and we lost to the Bills.
It looks terrible for Mangini.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
And we played great against the Pats, Saints, and Jets.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
Then someone explain to me why this happens.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Delhomme seems to me the factor. Pats, Saints, Jets = McCoy and the offense did ok, Carolina, Miami, Bills = Delhomme (First half of Carolina, they played well , the other 10 quarters, nothing). It seems to explain a big part of it to me. Pats, Saints, and Jets, much better than Carolina , Miami and the Bills.
champion64 - December 13, 2010
The defense was pretty solid throughout. The offense had the ups and downs and was inconsistent.
champion64 - December 13, 2010
Is playing well half of the time acceptable?
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
Is playing bad a few games and having a few bad losses enough to fire a coach about? This is about firing mangini and its the whole body of work and the body of work does not look like Mangini deserves to be fired at this point.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I’m not saying he does deserve to be fired; I’m not going to make that judgement either way until the season is over. But my point was that saying we played a few good games doesn’t excuse the games we played terrible in.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
I agree. I wasn’t sure what exactly you are saying. I will not judge till the end of the season. Every game has meaning, and we should discount none.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Miami is a damn good team. they are top 10 in points allowed, and they are up 10-0 right now on a 9-3 team.
Carolina we did play crap against, but a lot of that was the picks by delhomme.
We went to OT against the 9-3 Jets, played the 9-3 Ravens tough, and won 3 games against teams .500 or better.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
We didn’t play poorly against the Dolphins. Look at what they are doing to the Jets.
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
Transitive property.Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Miami D is good. They have held one of best teams in league to 3 points. The BRowns beat this good team on the road. We played well
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
Miami plays tough. They play a lot of good teams close. they almost beat the Steelers. their D is very solid.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Jets offense is overrated. Sanchez is being exposed right now. He is not the superstar they said he was (atleast not yet)
champion64 - December 13, 2010
I think he still has a pretty good chance to stay if we beat Cinci and play Baltimore and Pittsburgh competitively.
Adrock2099 - December 12, 2010
I just don’t see him getting fired. Since he took over the team has steadily improved. I think I would be sad to see him leave. Daboll, however, I think I would feel completely ambivalent if he lost his job. I don’t think he has made a convincing argument to keep his job.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
This. Today doesn’t diminish the improvements the team has made; it just further diminishes an already awful OC.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010 via mobile
Thirded.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
Fourthed.
discoinferno083 - December 12, 2010
5th-ed.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
BTW DN, hope you enjoyed the game despite the outcome!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
Yeah, it was fun being there. Live games are rare for me, so that was nice. The rain actually didn’t bother me much. The downer is that my presence always causes them to lose. I’m the fly in the Browns’ ointment.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010 via mobile
Glad you still enjoyed it. Keep trying, they’ll bring home a win for you one of these games.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this over the years, but just about everything causes the Browns to lose. Don’t beat yourself up about it.
Chemo - December 12, 2010
good point. thanks for the encouragement.
Dawg Nuts - December 13, 2010
and an awful backup QB. People do realize we have our 2nd string guy in right?
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
This. I’ve seen enough of Delhomme for a lifetime. At this point I’d prefer Wallace over Delhomme in the 2nd spot.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
Yes and yes, not to beat a dead horse or anything.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 13, 2010
If we do this, I think there shouldn’t be any issue with Mangini’s job.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
If Mangini is fired after this season, In Holmgren I no longer trust.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
ditto.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
As long as he doesn’t hire McDaniels, I won’t give up quite yet.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Call me crazy, but I think McDaniels will make a nice offensive coordinator for somebody. He can make quarterbacks look really good.
Chemo - December 12, 2010
You mean the guy who was the offensive coordinator to the team that set every passing record on the books?
CRAZY!
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
and he made Kyle Orton look just apeshit awesome this year — quite a feat. Not to mention he likes to spread the field; a notion after my own heart.
Lets just hope his firing popped his ego-balloon for awhile.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Good fantasy numbers does not equal “apeshit awesome” quarterback. Orton has been good, but hardly top of the league QB.
TheDriveStillHurts - December 13, 2010
Orton is not good. Watch yesterday’s game as proof.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
which actually makes his numbers under mcdaniels even more impressive.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
You mean the guy that refused to give the ball to Peyton Hillis one time already?
Why would you want him back on a team that has Peyton Hillis.
He runs passing offenses, we don’t have any good WRs.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
McDaniels is an awful fit for the Browns.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Like B19K said, plenty of bad HCs were, and become again, great DC/OCs
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
He might be great for team that fits his style of offense, that isn’t us, at all.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Well I’m not so sure that isn’t us. You need to have a good passing attack to win SBs in this era
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
You need a running attack too. We happen to have the RB that McDaniels traded away, and also never utilized while he had him.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
McDaniels ran the ball just fine in NE and has had no problem giving the ball to Knowshon Moreno when he has been healthy.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
You definitely need a running attack and can you imagine what Hillis would be like with a strong passing game? Defenses would be completely off-balance. I don’t know why he got rid of Hillis or why he drafted Tebow in the first round. He obviously is not a good HC, but he could be, or may have already been, an awesome OC.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
I don’t know for sure, but maybe McDaniels doesn’t like fumbling.
I’m not trying to be an smart a*s, but if a guy keeps putting the ball on the ground, some coaches won’t play them. Maybe McDaniels saw that in practice and decided it wasn’t worth it. I’m not saying it was smart, but it’s possible.
I don’t believe the whole wife thing, that is just to TMZ for me to give credibility to.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
It’s fun to joke about, but I’m right there with you. In fact, your guess here seems much more plausible.
But the truth is, it’s a terrible decision. Just as it would have been to bench AP for his fumbling problems.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
None of us knows the whole McDaniels-hillis story. Maybe he just saw Hillis as more of an H-back and didn’t think the guy would really cut it as a feature back as well as he has, I mean none of us saw this coming either (except me, I picked him up as a FA in week 1 of fantasy) Then again, maybe HIllis made a pass at his old lady.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I think it was probably something more than on the field stuff. However, I think Simms is blowing the situation a bit out of proportion.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
wut?
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
the whole thing about how McD shouldn’t come here because hillis will suck, we won’t run, yadda yadda yadda. It seems like you have said that like 5 times just on this thread.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
Ah yes, I do feel strongly about that. I thought maybe you meant the fumbling / benching.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Simms agreed.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
McDaniels had way too much responsibility in Denver. Its been repeatedly proven that you can’t be both the HC and GM successfully. If his responsibilities were scaled back its pretty hard to argue with his success and enthusiasm.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
I don’t want a guy that would put lesser players on the field because he can’t differentiate talent.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
Exactly.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I’m not sure how you can say that. We’ve looked bad in our last three games. If we lose out to finish 6-10 then I think he’d probably be justified in firing Mangini. Of course, this is all speculation based on what happens over the last three games, but I wouldn’t lose faith in Holmgren just because he fired Mangini if we ended the season playing really poorly.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
Also, lets not forget that H&H can draft really well! That alone is great to have and allows for me to trust them.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Very good point.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
Well, I can very easily say that, as I just did. All joking aside, we are a team that has steadily improved since hiring Mangini. Firing him would be blowing up the organization and starting another rebuild. If Holmgren goes that route he would be going against his own evaluations, which has to make you question his evaluation skills. The last thing this team, this city, and these fans need is another rebuild. Especially when we have been improving steadily each season under a coach who everybody had written off.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
I don’t see it as blowing it up.
We would keep the same front office, and I assume the same defensive scheme.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
I’m hoping these terrible defenses scare teams away from Rob.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
I don’t see us keeping the same D scheme if mangini is gone though.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Based on…?
I think H&H are smart enough to realize that the Browns have been drafting 3-4 players for 6-7 years now.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
OT.- every now and then I look over at the avatar and go WTF???Oh yeah…. and even in my despair, it makes me smile.
greatest. bet. lost. ever.
doggrad87 - December 12, 2010
I’m glad it brings someone joy.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Every time I see it I laugh.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
I don’t have anything to base it on except an irrational suspicion it will happen.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I’m with you as far as getting rid of or demoting brian daboll, but frankly i love mangini’s coaching. I mean think back to what it was like under romeo crennel: Bonehead clock management, a bad record on video challenges, very undisciplined football, wildly inconsistent play, and never any aggressive coaching calls with a sense of urgency.
Think back to that new orleans game, mangini fired with both barrels and those aggressive calls really put us over the top. I also gotta give mangini credit for assembling a pretty good defensive staff. I hear nothing but great things about Rob Ryan, Jerome Henderson, Brian Cox etc. He might need some more time with holmgren to really come around offensively though. The same career arc seemed to work out for Bill Belicheck.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I totally agree with this. I think sometimes its tempting to always want immediate results, but rebuilding a franchise that’s been as messed up as the Browns takes time. We are steadily getting better and that makes me hopeful, even when we play terrible like today.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
I don’t see firing Mangini and hiring a new coach as a total rebuild. We already have a lot of young players which we’ve aquired through the draft which we can build with. We’re not going to get rid of any of them if we hire a new coach.
Teams hire new coaches all the time without doing a total rebuild. There is no reason to think that firiing Mangini will lead to a total rebuild of the organization.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
The New York Jets did it with out a total rebuild. In fact, they made it to the conference championship the very next year (2009).
Coincidently, the coach they fired was Eric Mangini.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
the jets didn’t have to do a total rebuild because eric mangini had already built a good team (one with 7 pro bowlers in 2008). the browns aren’t there yet.
davus - December 12, 2010
But we have the foundation for a good team. We’re not going to do a total rebuild if we bring in a new head coach.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
Yeah, we’ve gotta let Mangini build us into a contender for another year or two before we dump him on the street.
Chemo - December 13, 2010
6-10 teams don’t
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Not true. In 2007 the Ravens went 5-11 under Billick. The following year they went 11-5 under Harbaugh with mostly the same team (although they did draft Flacco). Also in 2007, the Falcons went 4-12 under Petrino (and an interim) then went 11-5 the next year under Mike Smith (although they also drafted a QB, Ryan). The Saints went from 3-13 in 2005 under Haslett to 10-6 in 2006 under Payton (with the addition of Brees). Those are just three recent examples I found but I’m sure there are many more.
The fact is that teams can turn around very quickly in the NFL these days with the right coaching staff and good player aquisitions (speficially a QB, as shown above). Our front office has shown the ability to add impact players in the draft last year and we can expect them to do the same next year, so if Mangini does get fired — not saying that he will or should — then there is every reason to believe that a new coach can take over and improve the team without doing a total rebuild. It happens all the time in the NFL. Getting a solid QB is key, of course, and hopefully a full year of McCoy next year will be a big improvement in that area.
Buckeye Brad - December 14, 2010
Ravens had TONS of injuries in 2007
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
You admit as much, but those are some big time acquisitions.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2010
And hopefully a full season of McCoy at QB next year will also be a big time acquisition.
But the point is that a bad/mediocre team who hires a new head coach doesn’t mean they’re doing a total rebuild. So there is no reason to think that firing Mangini and hiring someone else will set us back 2 or 3 years in our “plan” while we rebuild our roster. All we need to do is add some key pieces to what we already have, and it’s been shown many times in the NFL that it’s possible to do that in one year.
Buckeye Brad - December 15, 2010
I would drive Bernie’s car into Holmgren’s office.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
I would pull the rickshaw with Bernie in the back.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
FASTER!
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Didn’t there used to be an inside joke about all of us punching your neighbor in the face?
That poor guy is probably shaking knowing I just reminded everyone.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
That poor SOB moved after the Tampa game.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Smart call on his part.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
I don’t see Mangini ever being a Super Bowl winning coach. He is not inspirational at all and depends too much on underachievers. He’s a mediocre leader at best. Eventually we need to have a coach who can lead studs too. There are way too many good coaching possibilities (Gruden, Dungy, Harbaugh) to keep a middle of the road guy.
The other option would be to get Bill Callahan, or another offensive wizard as OC and pray the McCoy stays healthy and wasn’t just a flash in the pan.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
you can argue that Gruden only won a SB because of the system that Dungy set up in Tampa and then never had the same success again.
I don’t think dungy wants to coach again, and I would want a guy with NFL HC experience. I take mangini over harbaugh.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Look at Indy now.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
yep. I was not sold on Caldwell. Dungy though builds a solid D and a very good team and Polian is a good GM.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
well they got a lot of injuries. Tom Moore retired, too. The team doesn’t look terrible and undisciplined or anything like that. I think it just is a case of water rising to its own level: Peyton Manning and the colts can’t go 14-2 every single year.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Gruden built a SB team in Oakland though also. I know Tampa fell apart but they also lost their GM and others as well. He is clearly a good coach. I would definitely take Harbaugh in an instant. Saying you want someone with NFL HC experience is ridiculous. Take a look around the league at how many good teams have first time HCs and then tell me if its really that important. What’s important is being a strong leader. You don’t have to be a rah-rah guy, but Mangini is too much like droopy dog for my liking.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
yes, he built a team there and I like him as a coach, but I dunno if he is as amazing as people make him out to be…I mean he is good, but some here talk about him (when he comes up as a possible future HC) as if he is a deity.
Tom Cable, Jim Caldwell, Josh McDaniels (oh wait, he got fired)…you get the picture. there are definitely some first time HCs that turn out well, but they are definitely a mixed bag. It is even riskier to take guys who have pretty much a College background.
The guys that have extensive experience as being an NFL assistant generally turn out better than the guys who come from being a college HC. John Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, Mike Smith. All of these guys had around a decade of experience being coordinator/position coach under good coaches. Harbaugh’s NFL experience is extremely limited.
There is no 100% flawless formula, but guys who have the experience of a Tomlin or a Mike Smith generally have good success whereas guys coming out of college tend to have the least success when it comes to 1st time HCs.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Fair enough, though a lot of people have Harbaugh projecting as a good NFL HC because Standford has a pro style offense, among other things. Plus it would nice to have another dimension to Balt. rivalry.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want them to fire Mangini and get someone like Norv Turner – it would have to be a really good pickup for it to be worth it.
I would be more happy if they just hired Bill Callahan as OC
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
I agree with Callahan as an OC. I mean, he has HC experience, but I would rather keep mangini than get most of the guys out there.
I think Harbaugh could be a decent NFL HC, but I really don’t have a lot to base that on.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I think part of it is that the best college coaches are often the best recruiters with a pretty good gameplan. Meanwhile the best nfl coaches are the best man-managers and micro-managers who are good at scheming intricate pressure packages and pass protections (because you generally don’t want to run the lead option with your $50 million quarterback).
I read somewhere that an NFL coach spends something like 80% of his gameplanning time looking at the opponents’ pass rush and designing pass protection stuff. Meanwhile a college coach spends less than 20% on this because of various factors (mobile quarterbacks, less practice time, spread/option/screen offenses keeping the pressure down)
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I think you put too much emphasis on his press interviews. Bill Belicheck is limp and emotionless in the pressers too, but he tends to get more animated on the sidelines. Its just a school of though born from Belicheck’s paranoia that keeping a poker face in front of the media will keep you from giving away a competitive edge. I mean the guy spends like two hours to plan out and write down everything he wants to say in a 20 minute presser.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
key phrase. i’m not trying to be dickish in saying this, but you really have absolutely no clue how rah-rah or strong mangini is as a leader. last year’s team won 4 games in a row when they were sitting at 1-11 … to me, that is indicative of good leadership from somewhere.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
We looked good against Miami
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
I completely disagree and I don’t know how you can even say that at this point in the season. What if the Browns lose out? Will you feel the same? Has Mangini earned his right to coach next year with 5 wins two of which were gifts from the other team? I see improvement but I don’t thing we have seen enough improvement. I think the Browns could be better than they are now. To me, it depends on who else we can get. If it is Chucky I say why not? McDaniels… no thank you.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
Every time we get a new coach I feel like we have to wait two or three seasons until their plans, coaching style, or whatever you want to call it really starts having an impact. It always feels like we take two steps forward and then three back. Unless we play terribly the last few games, I don’t its bad enough to get rid of Mangini.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
I feel the same way BB but I think with a firm hand at the helm in the form of a president I think a coaching change will not have the same effect as it has in the past. We have had the situation where when the coach changes it is like you are changing the whole front office too… and that usually leads to getting rid of all decent players, etc. With a firm hand and good football mind in the president’s office and an experienced coach on the same page, I don’t think a coaching change will be as bad as it has been in the past for the Browns.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
That’s definitely a good point and if Mangini does go I hope its right.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
Exactly right.
johnnyphoenix - December 12, 2010
Butch Davis got 3+ years and made less improvements IMO in those 3+ years than mangini has in less than 2. IMO, he has made the most overall improvements to the team identity, team personality, and team mentality of any coach we have had…in the least amount of time of all coaches since 99 (excluding interim guys)
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Every coach we’ve had has almost made the playoffs in their second year, but I somewhat agree with you.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Palmer wasn’t even close, Davis made the playoffs in year two, and Romeo wasn’t close.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Romeo had a 10 win season in year 2 where a lot of people felt we got screwed for not getting in and Davis’ season was probably the best Browns team we’ve fielded since the expansion.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Romeo had 4 wins in year two.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
i disagree; this year’s team is the best since the expansion.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
I’m just afraid that in 3 years with Mangini we could be looking at a team that, while getting better, is still barely missing the playoffs. Saying that, I’m not totally against Mangini but I think he has shown exceedingly bad judgment by putting in Daboll and sticking with him. I’m ready for a change at OC.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
I’ll give you that. I don’t typically bitch and moan for coaching changes, but I’ve seen absolutely all I can handle of Daboll’s cluelessness.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
Then can daboll, and saddle mangini with a Holmgren-approved™ offensive co-ordinator. Let the real walsh / parcells shotgun wedding happen in earnest. If the browns fall flat on their faces next year, we can all point at mangini like the evil monkey from famly guy.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Ive got to agree, our record doesn’t show it but I think weve played a tough schedule, dealt with a lot of injuries, and really look more consistently competitive, like we might be competitive again next year instead of a huge question mark.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
exactly right. well said.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
there is a difference between almost making the playoffs and making improvements. Butch Davis had a good year when we got a couple good bounces against bad teams. I would take this team for sure over Davis’ playoff team, because if you want to evaluate the teams, this team has a lot more promise and a lot less problems than that one.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Wasn’t Davis the coach when we lost to KC because was his name took his helmet off too early? I wouldn’t call that a break in our favor. They were a good team.
Again, I said I agreed with you, however I don’t think our improvement is as vast as everyone thinks. Hillis’ pickup was huge, but losing close isn’t a sign of improvement – lots of bad teams lose close ones and they look like they’re getting better only to perennially lose 10+ games.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
because one bad break means a team was getting bad breaks all season. our SoS that season wasn’t too hard. I think we ranked around 20th-21st. The team also won a lot of close games, including 1-2 on last second scores. that team always seemed to get a play when they needed it. the average record of teams we beat that year was 6.4-9.6. whereas the average record of teams we beat this year are 8-8.
Plus, I will always stick by my statment that this team overall looks better and has more promise (the starters average age is a year younger, I think our younger players have more upside than some of those guys really ever had, no huge O-Line problems, we can run the ball, etc…)
and lots of teams face a pretty easy SoS one year and win a lot of close ones but then lose 10+ games the next year. the 2002 browns fit that mold, the 2007 Browns fit that mold, and Mangini’s first year in New York. A team this year that could fit the mold would be the Chiefs. they are a decent team, but they also have the 32nd ranked SoS…and next year they play the NFC North and the AFC east and won’t play the NFC west
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Did you really calculate the average starters’ age for both seasons? Or is that information available online somewhere?
Chemo - December 13, 2010
football reference has all the starters and I figured out the average ages. by adding them up and dividing by the # of players. It took 3-4 minutes.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
That’s what separates playoff teams from us.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
First you learn to compete (first half of 2009)
Then you learn how to win (last half of 2009 and into weeks 9-10 of 2010)
Then you learn how to win consistently (ongoing, began week 9, 2010)
Perennial playoff teams like the ravens and steelers have figured this last bit out and that is why they “always seem to get a play when they need it” Butch davis’ browns were awfully lucky the one year, and they never were able to duplicate their success.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
the saints game, maybe. but the pats game? no way they’d fall into a trap. belichick-coached teams don’t do that.
davus - December 12, 2010
No, Carolina.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
oh, oops. i feel dumb.
davus - December 12, 2010
So even if they go winless from now on you are convinced Mangini is the guy?
johnnyphoenix - December 12, 2010
agreed
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I said last week that just like in any other 4 game stretch – we’ll probably beat one team we shouldn’t a lose to one team we shouldn’t. If we lose to the Bengals next week…..
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
I’m wet. I’m cold. I’m irritated. F@*# my life.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010 via mobile
Oh God, you were there…
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Uh huh. The Browns record in games I’ve attended is now 0-3. Clearly I’m bad luck.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010 via mobile
look, I know this hurts, but take your ticket money and just invest it in a flatscreen.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I’m sure my thoughts will change after the sting wears off, but at this point I don’t plan on ever attending another Browns game. TV from here to eternity.
Dawg Nuts - December 13, 2010
wow, I’m sorry.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 12, 2010
I know this feeling. Sorry, man.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
my thoughts exactly…
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
That sucks. Wish it’d been better game for your sake!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
yep, bad game plan. where did that come from? what was the plan? how many broken plays by our offense?
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
Lots of blame to go around. It’s not all his fault today, but I have seen enough of Delhomme. And we better draft or sign 3 WRs next year that have some speed or can create some separation.
kingcrimson2 - December 12, 2010
a good throw puts MoMass in the end zone on that deep ball. Robi was wide open on the passes he caught.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
do you think colt would have fared better with this gameplan?
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
I honestly do. Not because I’m a huge Delhomme hater or anything either. I just think Colt’s scrambling ability or the ability to roll out and extend the play may have loosened up the secondary and made the defense play off the line a little.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
and a more solid plan of what to do, i don’t know, they took a step back today, all the way around
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
I think it would have been a different gameplan.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
i’ve said this before….
a lot of the fumbles, miscues simply DIDN;T happen last year when Mangini ran a tight ship. i think we’re missing out on that discipline.
Hope either the ultimatum is given or Daboll is canned.
I feel the media coverage (given that we were “on the rise”) will make tolerance of him inexcusable.
discoinferno083 - December 12, 2010
I’d love to see Daboll forced to walk home from Buffalo and Gil Haskell running the Offense starting tomorrow.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
The same Gil Haskell who thought signing Delhomme was a good idea?
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
where is haskell?
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
BEHIND YOU!
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
This made me laugh.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
hello mrs. cleaver, is wally home? your hair looks great!
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
works even better with his avatar being what it is…
johnnyphoenix - December 12, 2010
Haha, yes it does.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
….and Holmgren thought it was a good idea to sign Haskell and Delhomme. Does that make Holmgren bad at this point too?
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
i’m not saying that, but where was the plan today? we looked lost
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
I also kind find any specific evidence that Haskell was instrumental in signing Delhomme. I’d believe he was more in favor of Wallace, having been the OC in Seattle for 8 seasons.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
actually, this simply isn’t true.
Last year, we had 31 Turnovers, including 13 fumbles. we were 22nd in turnovers on O and 26th in fumbles. going into this game, we had 19 turnovers and 8 fumbles lost, ranking 13th and 16th respectively in those categories. I mean we are committing a few more penalties, but as a team, penalties generally haven’t been hurting us.
I agree daboll should be gone, not because this team keeps turning the ball over.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
perhaps i was thinking in terms of penalties.
discoinferno083 - December 12, 2010
we are 12th or 13th in the nfl now. we were 8th in penalty yards last year. at this pace, we will get barely more penalty yards than last year.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I don’t see any reason to think that Mangini is running less of a “tight ship” than last season.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
well he doesn’t have that first year coach “i gotta go out and show-em who is boss” thing, and he doesn’t have that “i have got to get rid of team cancer braylon edwards” thing. But, I agree with you BB, it doesn’t seem like any less of a “tight ship” in any other respect.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
He got crap for that last year. Also, he got rid of the problem children last year.
This team has played hard, and owned up to their mistakes. Look at Wright who has taken alot of crap for his poor play this year, He didn’t turn around and blame anyone or avoid his responsibility, he owned up to and took his demotion with out whining to the press. Mangini is leading these guys and I believe he’s going to get atleast another year and that if we can be in legit playoff contention next year(with some strong moves and good decisions from the FO), he’ll be looking at a new deal.
We’ve played this year with three different QBs and the one we have been left with, although he’s not making the big mistakes is basically playing brady quinn ball. Cribbs might as well have just sat this year out, and our best offensive assest has had some fumbling issues at key moments.
/rambling post over; sorry jaws that wasn’t directed at you
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Wow it is snowing in Chicago!
emily522 - December 12, 2010
And it’s on it’s way here!
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
This was the worst Browns performance of the year. How could they possibly look this bad against a team that has only won 2 games? This team does have the ability to win and against tougher competition. So is it completely coaching? Hard to say but it looks like it at this point as the team did not seem ready to play. And what is with Cribbs? He looks “thick” and slow. Very sad game.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
We looked just as bad against Carolina.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
Yeah, pretty much. But somehow I felt worse after this game. It is like we were never in it. I felt like we could legitimately beat Carolina at various points in the game.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
Of course you feel worse- we did win the Carolina game (even if it didn’t feel like it)
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Heh… true but I’m just saying that we were never in this game at all and we should have blown them out. Buffalo is a bad team that will pick ahead of us in the draft.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
false. 21 point in the first half is not “bad”. the tackling on the final carolina drive was about all that looked “bad” in the carolina game.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I think part of it is that the bills are just a little bit better than we were giving them credit. They suck on defense but their offense isn’t that bad. They had some fight, too. They definitely weren’t ready to roll over and play dead like the jags were last year as soon as they felt how cold it was down by the lake.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
One point that they made during the game. there was nothing from the Flash/Cyclone playbook. I know both cribbs and seneca are supposedly hurt, but this just added to the predictability. We had 1 trick play, and it was completely botched.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
No, we did run the cyclone once.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
I didn’t see it.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
The announcers didn’t even notice Wallace was in the game… they said something after the play.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
Which was funny because the camera guy followed Wallace from the sideline all the way to the huddle.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
I’ve given up on the Flash \ Cyclone, injuries or not. We talk about it endlessly but I just don’t think we really want to run it enough to be really effective.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
…Daboll…
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Indeed.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 12, 2010
I think that most teams have figured out that “Wildcat”-type plays aren’t as effective as they were a couple years ago because defenses have been preparing for them and figured them out. I’m not sure it’s really the fault of Daboll specifically.
Plus, with the injuries to both Cribbs and Wallace there really hasn’t been many opportunities to use it.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
It’s really only worked for us once — the Pittsburgh game last year. When we’ve used it this year, it’s been mostly as a drive killer.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
It was big in beating NE.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Refresh my memory.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Wildcat play, Cribbs handing it off to Stuckey, got us a HUGE touchdown, allowing us to go up 17 to 7.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Now I remember. That was a huge play. That’s one positive from the wildcat this year.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Might be the only one that was big in a game (this season).
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
hard to count that as wildcat, even, though. cribbs took the snap from under center and, essentially, fumble-rooskied it to stuckey, who was stationed behind an offensive line that was all standing upright. more of a trick play than a wildcat.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Perhaps, I’m probably the most wildcat purist on here, but I thought the general public as well as most on DBN were basically calling every snap to Cribbs some form of wildcat/cyclone, so I cited it.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
You gotta have a threat of throwing the ball. Wallace’s package might still be reasonably effective if there is the threat of the pass. Also you never know until you try it. Then again daboll probably thinks that anything too outlandish will get him fired.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
yep, you took the words right off of my keyboard
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
cribbs has one foot. wallace missed 147 games w/ an ankle injury. but obviously it’s daboll…
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
my point was it was a sign of a general lack of creativity.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
wow, remember the halcyon days of well timed trick plays (New Orleans to name just one) that would catch opposing defenses off guard? Sure, the weather makes it more difficult to a certain extent to be crafty but you would think that Daboll could have at least run a screen or a draw today . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
or a play action…I only remember one PA pass. whenever we would pass, it seemed like it was out of the shotgun.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Okay, deep breaths. This team is better than last year’s team and will get even better next year. The 5 wins are against a very tough schedule. The Bills are not as bad as their record indicated because they staying in a bunch of close games. Look forward to our division games and forget this crapfest of a game.
elsandito - December 12, 2010
Thank you for the voice of reason.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
yep
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
That was nice. I tend to be a pessimistic pain in the ass (esp. for my wife) after a Browns loss and have to be force fed reasons for optimism. So thanks . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
Gee we’ve said this how many times this year? It’s getting old
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
No, I’m done with that excuse. There is no reason we should lose to the Bills. None.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
There was no reason the saints or patriots should lose to the Browns, but it still happens from time to time. Yay parity in the NFL.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
The Bills are not the Panthers. They are better than their record indicates. Boy we’ve heard that before haven’t we?
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
i’m sick of all this bs-y loser mentality.
the bills WERE the lesser team going into today and we should have beat them.
end of story.
discoinferno083 - December 12, 2010
so, then what did the pats game mean? we WERE the lesser team going into that game, and they should have beaten us…
it cuts both ways, and it’s NEVER simple in the NFL … especially not on the road.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
don’t get stuck in the mud
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
You can say “we are better than last year” and “we’ll be better” all you want but you cannot deny that today’s game (and even the last 2 games) were steps backwards. I just can’t get behind the idea that we are going to have to take 2 steps back for every 2 steps forward. I do see improvement from last year but that bar is about as low as it can be. We do have to realize that having Delhomme in the game is crippling. The options are greatly reduced with him in the game no doubt.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
The Miami game was not a step backward.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
I don’t have to remind you that the world doesn’t proceed in a straight line. Sometimes you take 4 steps backwards before it allows you to take another stop forward. Progress can be hard to see or measure.
Look, I realize that a lot of this is venting because the Browns just blew Sunday. And maybe that’s all we should be doing here in order to allow for our mental health. It’s funny to me that if we win a couple games people are seriously talking playoffs and then we stink and we aren’t even making progress. It’s more evidence that fan opinion is way more volatile than it needs to be.
elsandito - December 13, 2010
Completely agree with this.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
jaws. - December 13, 2010
THIS… well said dude.
Every team has stinkers, I mean all we need to do is ask the Saints and Patriots about that sort of thing.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
This just in: Tom Brady is the best QB in the league.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
How many rings would he have if every game were played in the snow? I’d guess eight or nine.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
He is the very definition of a HOF QB.
burntorangeandbrown - December 12, 2010
Brady is a work of art.
195 yards passing / 2 TDs / 0 ints.
In the first half.
At Chicago in the driving snow.
Pats 33 Chicago 0 at half time.
Just awesome.
burntorangeandbrown - December 12, 2010
Wow. Knox was soooo down on that play and the refs still get it wrong with the help of replay.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
Nah, that was a fumble.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
and NE D has 19 points…
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Add to that…
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
yeah, right as I said that they forced another fumble. now its 22 and I am up by 15. I feel good about this since I still have Eli Manning, and another half of football from my top 2 RBs and my #1 WR. Its all moot if Stonehands loses, but that matchup is close.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
If it had been called down on the field it wouldn’t have been overturned. Just one of those close plays. I think they should have never have called it a fumble on the field.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
His butt was on the ground and he was being touched by a defender before the ball came out. I can’t see why that wouldn’t have been “down by contact”
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
His butt was on the defender’s shoe. He wasn’t down.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
Troy Smith – injured or benched?
dgcambridge - December 12, 2010
Benched.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Yet another “iffy” decision by Singeltary.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
27-7 Niners. Looking like a pretty good choice so far . . .
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
good night, go browns!
athensdawg - December 12, 2010
This offense gives up on the run so quickly. When you have 8 mins in the 4th you don’t to pass 3 straight times on two consecutive possessions when you’re only down a TD. We could have easily kept running the ball. But we played like there was less than 2 mins with no time outs. Jake looks horrible out there. He just looks like he has zero confidence.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Where was Ben Watson? And no Evan Moore.
Grockcubs - December 12, 2010
Moore was out.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Thanks
Grockcubs - December 12, 2010
Things could have been worse today, I guess. We could have been Green Bay or Chicago fans with big expectations and games with playoff implications. Ouch!
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
If the weather was such an issue to the Browns, they had better damn get used to it. We play in Cleveland, a frozen metropolis ranked first in brutal winters last year.
Heavysoviet - December 12, 2010
I dont want Brian Daboll to mess McCoy up because he doent know what he is doing. I also think that Hologram feels the same way.
The Brown Note - December 12, 2010
I hope he feels similarly.
I can’t think of any reason at all to keep him at this point.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
so… chances Daboll gets fired before the end of the season?
i say 30%.
discoinferno083 - December 12, 2010
Nah. I think he stays until after the season.
johnnyphoenix - December 12, 2010
I’m done with football for the day. Stupid ass CBS switched to the Jets game. I was enjoying the Pats / Bears game! Time to watch Firefly.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Never a bad call.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Why the hell did they do that!?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Blowout.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
So?!
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
You asked “Why the hell did they do that!?”
What I did was answer that question.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Isn’t that kinda odd? I came back in the room wondering what happened? I can’t recall a network just deciding to switch games like that recently.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
I’m glad — wish they would do it more often. I’d rather watch a close game than a blowout if my team isn’t involved.
Buckeye Brad - December 12, 2010
I’d rather watch that than a Jets suckfess.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
I enjoyed watching the Jets lose to the team we beat last week
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
the only reason I would have kept on watching the pats game is because
A) Tom Brady is awesome
B) I had New England as my fantasy D and at the time I was fighting for my life in the matchup in the UDBN league. I still need a miracle to make the playoffs.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
They definitely switch them quite a bit, when the game becomes non-competitive like that.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Put in a parlay bet for the second half Jet/Dolphin game: the under (19) and the Dolphins +3. need something to distract me from my recent memories today.
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
Anyone else see the Jets bench just trip a Dolphin player during a punt?
What a punk ass move.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
On Nolan Carroll, nonetheless . . . Our buddy who dropped Jake’s usual pick six pass last week in OT!
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
THOUGHTS ON NEW OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR?
ANY exciting candidates? Thoughts?
champion64 - December 12, 2010
What’s Rob Chudzinski up to?
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 12, 2010
Ha!
champion64 - December 12, 2010
They want Bill Callahan, former Raiders OC and HC, Conhusker HC (which was an obvious disaster from the start) who is now the OL coach for the Jets. We wanted him before Daboll but the stupid Jets wouldn’t release him. You’ld think for all Mangini gave them when he was in his breakup phase with them that they could give him to us. At least Elam has been awesome lately.
If we can get him, he would be a really good fit I feel.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
WHO JUST SAW THE CAMERAMAN AT EH JETS=DOLPHINS GAME WEARING A BROWNS HAT!?
Mindf*&k.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Wow, The Jets-Dolphins game*
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
I missed it, damn.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
No one can convince me that Sanchez is anything more than average.
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
Wait, he’s average?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Average at best
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
I’m still thinking that his inner USC will come out and he’ll suck*ss.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
77 QB rating. I would consider just purely by QB rating that is average at best.
Since week 4, his QB rating is 67 and he has more TDs than INTs and less than a 54 comp %. So he got hot really early then cooled off (except for one game against houston whose pass D is atrocious). In fact, since week for, discluding the Houston game, he has been worse than last year (1/2 TD/INT ratio, 53 comp %, 62.6 QB rating).
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Consider his supporting cast as well.
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
exactly why average at best. What could colt do if he had Santonio, a decent right side of the O-Line, and just other solid overall weapons (Braylon, Brad Smith, etc…)
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Flag for referring to Braylon as a solid weapon.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
haha. from what the jets fans have been saying, he is more than solid….but i couldn’t call him “good”
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Also Jets O is worse than last year. They lost their identity and are going to have to rely on Sanchez making passes in the playoffs. Not happening
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
I dont think Sanchez looks of the safety and he throw into alot of coverages.
champion64 - December 12, 2010
Try that again. I dont think Sanchez looks off the safety at all, and if you notice he seems to throw into alot of coverages. I am not sold on him at all.
champion64 - December 12, 2010
He’s not Tom Brady but he is above average. His team has 9 wins and their D isn’t as smothering as last year.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
He is nowhere near above average. No way.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
This wont get you far here
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
Trent Dilfer won a Super bowl and 12 regular season wins (actually, I just checked, and he was 7-1 in the regular season as a starter). He was average that year at best.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I’m now of the belief that you are a computer. I dare you to respond with something that isn’t stat-driven.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
trent dilfer sucks…that is emotionally driven.
Is it a crime to use statistics??
I knew the ravens went 12-4 that year, but was curious of Dilfer’s QB rating and stats…though including them would have been unnecessary.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
thank you. well stated.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
oh, and baltimore sucks too. they won that SB illigitimately b/c should have been on trial for theft of a team…
bross09 - December 12, 2010
He is average but in a very inconsistent and streaky way. The game against us he looked like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning’s love child. Then last monday against the patriots he looked like JaMarcus Russel and Jeff George’s love child.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
he may be average now, but i think he’s going to be a star.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Dabboll and Delhomme both need a bus ticket out of town. Delhomme did not win the last few games. Defense and special teams carried those days in spite of him, who nearly handed the game to Miami had a rookie not had a case of stone hands.
I don’t want Mangini to go(unless he’s a package with Daboll), but how do you put Delhomme in there today and think you’ve put the best team on the field that you can? Seneca Wallace isn’t perfect, but in a game where conditions suspect to begin with in terms of being able to pass, how do you not at least go with the QB that can make plays with his feet? I thought I was going to lose my mind when I saw Delhomme take the first snaps in the second half instead of riding the bench.
ouched - December 12, 2010
2 TDs/7 INTs vs. 4 TDs/2 INTs
Gee, you would think its a no-brainer, but this coaching staff is stubborn and old fashioned 90% of the time.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
as it happens, they also actually go to practice everyday, so they’ve got more than just the td/int ratio to base their decision on.
now, i’m anti-delhomme, i’d much rather see seneca, but my point is we must be missing something that the coaches are seeing. they want to win, too.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I really don’t think Wallace knows the offense as well. As evidence, I give the complete and utter lack of audibles.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
supposedly there is a theory that seneca’s comments about how he should start when healthy (this was earlier in the season) are why he isn’t starting. In that, he is healthy, but mangini supposedly is cutting of his nose to spite his face. I personally don’t buy it, because yeah they want to win too, especially with their job possibly on the line.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
Not saying you’re promoting this, but I love how there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding Mangini’s motives and his decisions.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
When in reality, it’s the guy who brings in the most Girl Scout Cookies who gets the start. (I hear Mangini loves the Thin Mints.)
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
THIN MINTS!?!! FIRE MANGEENI SAMOAS ARE THE BEEST1!!!!!!
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I agree. Its a little ridiculous. they were talking about it on the radio yesterday when I was driving from work. the local cleveland sports talking heads (reghi and roda) were talking about hwo this might be a factor. MKC was on the phone (phone interview) and she called them out on their shit saying Mangini would likely care more about keeping his job than stupid stuff like this.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
Right. This isn’t junior high school. Coaches will do whatever they think is best to win the game; they’re not worried about petty stuff like that.
Stupid theories like that from idiot radio show hosts aren’t even worth repeating.
Buckeye Brad - December 14, 2010
the last part probably is true. I also saw this theory repeated on the OBR. Still, just talking heads. thankfully, Cabot has some sense.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
I’m not endorsing any of the conspiracy theories above, nor do I think there’s any problem in Cleveland, but sometimes you have to wonder if there isn’t some extenuating circumstance.
For example, earlier this year when Redskins’ Mike Shanahan benched McNabb on the final drive in Detroit for Rex Grossman (who promptly fumbled on the first play). Shanahan claimed it was because McNabb didn’t know the two minute offense (that he ran that very game to close out the first half). It was completely embarrassing that the veteran McNabb got benched, and you have wonder, with all the ego swirling there (mostly with Haynesworth — deservedly so) and everything else that there was more than meets the eye.
Anyway, that’s merely one example; there’re probably more. But, again, not trying to endorse any of the theories about our QB situation.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2010
well eric mangini is not mike shanahan and whatever you want to say about his tenure here, he has not proven to have an ego like Shanahan.
bross09 - December 15, 2010
Yeah, well, that’s kind of why I went out of my way to exclude the Cleveland Browns.
Western Reserve - December 15, 2010
I’d like to see the Jets lose.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Terry Pluto talked today about Delhomme and the play calling and I agree with him. Basically, he said the playcalling is very vanilla and very safe, and that is an extension of how much trust the coaches have in Delhomme. If this is the case, then why is he still playing and not Wallace?
Browns town - December 12, 2010
You don’t know if it’s the case. And who says they have more trust in Wallace?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Fair point. They might not, but if they still trust Delhomme more at this point, why is Seneca Wallace even on this roster? I will be watching who gets reps this week with great interest. Hopefully McCoy is ready to go again and this is a non-issue.
ouched - December 12, 2010
I have been on Delhomme’s case all year, but there must be something they see or he would not be in there. I think we all agree even though he is a rookie, McCoy gives us the best chance for winning football games
champion64 - December 12, 2010
uh, to be the backup to the guy whom they trust more.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Time to get Ratliff out of golan’s trunk.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 14, 2010
Well they should – Wallace has outperformed Delhomme in the games he’s played in.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
I disagree.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
Then you’re not watching the games
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
I’ve been over this argument a million times. suffice it to say, people on your side of the argument are generally just pissed because they never wanted Jake in the first place. Objectively, Wallace is just as bad.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
Objectively? I don’t think you know what that word means. The stats – which are the only “objective” way to view this clearly favor Wallace in everything from TD/Int, QB rating, and everything else. The only category that Delhomme may lead in is wins which is because Wallace played 2 division leaders, while Delhomme played a couple of games against the worst teams in the league.
Subjectively, you believe Wallace is as bad as Delhomme, but you would be wrong
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
That’s your opinion. How good can he really be if the coaching staff thinks Delhomme is the better option? Each has his ups and his downs. Wallace is a career backup for a reason and Delhomme is over the hill. One thing I think we can all agree on is that next year will be better.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
You sort of make my point – Wallace is a career backup because while he is not spectacular, he can come in and do a solid job managing a game and make a few plays. On the other hand, Delhomme has lost whatever made his a starter and he appears to not have the physical ability or the mental confidence to play well.
As far as the coaching staff – lol, coaches are wrong all the time.
I hope we are better next year, too.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
fixed
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I don’t think that is fair.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Why not? The only case I have seen for Wallace over Delhomme is by the fans. The professionals, including the QB expert, have bene fine with Delhomme playing over Wallace.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
I think the biggest case would be TD/Int ratio plus some added athleticism.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
This is a little misleading, I think. The national media, like the fans, has been all over Delhomme.
Hard to know exactly what the options are each week, because of the injuries.
dgcambridge - December 13, 2010
Is the national media a viable opinion? Also does the national media rush to suggest Wallace as the answer?
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
I think it is. Not infallible obviously, but otherwise it leads to the suggestion that whatever the team decides must be right, because they’re the pros and we’re just fans. National observers are a check on that.
2nd question: No, I don’t think they have. It will be interesting (to me) to see how it plays out if McCoy can’t go. But I understand that no one really cares at this point. I think it’s an easy question, but it’s also a tiny one. We’re bad, and as you say, probably not changing the offense anyway.
dgcambridge - December 13, 2010
Wasn’t it reported that Wallace was healthy before Delhomme?
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
No, the opposite. Wallace was still healing at Delhomme’s start against Carolina.
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
I think at some point it was mentioned that Wallace was healthy, I think he was even listed as thebackup, but then in the next weeks, he somehow became injured and Jake was the healthy one.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
I really don’t feel like doing it again. They both suck, but it different ways. It all comes down to your risk/reward tolerance, and frankly even then it’s hard to tell a difference.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
The question is do they have any confidence in Wallace? It would be the same offense
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
I can’t imagine Wallace being worse than Delhomme, but I don’t know for sure.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Jake last two years: 10 TD’s and 25 picks, I don’t know how worse you can get.
Grockcubs - December 12, 2010
That’s barely worse than DA.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
When you’re looking at a sputtering offense, I bet on the better athlete. And I didn’t see Delhomme make one throw today that I’m convinced Wallace could not have. Mobility helps from time to time too.
ouched - December 12, 2010
as bad as that 35 yard pass was, Wallace has proven he couldn’t do that.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
That’s not true at all. He completed several deep passes given the opportunity (but yes I know he missed a lot of them too, he also has a lot less practice and game time)
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
he completed one deep pass to cribbs. if you can show me another I’ll admit I was wrong.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
I don’t care about the offense.
I think Wallace has a better chance of not doing something to cripple this team.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Yeah. Delhomme is a liability, Wallace is less of a one.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
quick fix
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Why? He’s thrown a pick six. He loses yardage. I think they’re pretty equal.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
I’m tired of hearing about Seneca Wallace “losing yardage”.
I have seen him run OOB maybe three times this season. That is a weak ass cop-out to try and convince ourselves that Seneca Wallace somehow isn’t any good. Unless we are talking about the 6 sacks he has taken in five games.
I’m not saying Wallace is great, or even all that good, but let’s not manufacture things to complain about.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
Not being smart enough to throw the ball away instead of running out of bounds behind the LoS is a pretty serious flaw for a QB in my opinion.
JustBob - December 13, 2010
also not being smart enough to take a sack and throwing a pick 6 is also a serious flaw. And Seneca has run out of bounds about as many times as JD has thrown pick 6s.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
He threw 1 bad pick 6 in his first start, since then he was pretty solid and one of the better backups in the league.
I like Wallace because he’s very even tempered, knows what his job is and does it. He’s not spectacular, but he is solid and that’s what you really want in a #2.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
Or in my case, your #1 if your only other “viable” option is Jake Delhomme.
ouched - December 13, 2010
Right, I meant #2 to Colt
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
He throws more checkdowns than Delhomme, fails to get WRs involved at all, and can’t go deep. as far as he only threw one pick six in his first start, didn’t he only start two games? so it’s a 50/50 shot he screws us over?
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
Seneca started four games. KC, Baltimore, Cinci & Atlanta.
TheDriveStillHurts - December 13, 2010
correct you are! previous statement retracted.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
Seneca has 2 picks and 1 pick 6. Delhomme has 7 picks and 3 pick 6s. If you look at JD before the miami game, when he and Seneca were neck in neck in attempts, JD had 3 times as many picks and 3 times as many pick 6s. so to that point, he was 3 times as likely to throw a pick. Jake clearly throws more picks and the few times Seneca has lost yardage doesn’t make up for the picks.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
I’m not saying this makes up for the interceptions, but there are other factors at play. Delhomme is capable of calling an audible, Delhomme throws to WRs, etc.
I’m not saying Delhomme is good or Seneca is bad, I just think the people clamoring for Wallace are seeing greener grass where there is none.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
Agreed. McCoy is the greener grass, not Wallace.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
I agree. But just in the realm of picks (what SB was talking about), i give Seneca the advantage.
I agree that delhomme has other advantages that wallace doesn’t
bross09 - December 13, 2010
well said. wallace and delhomme are essentially two sides of the same suck coin. people want wallace b/c since eric zeier the most popular player on the browns has been the backup qb.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I want wallace because i would like to see if he’s worth keeping around next year.
I don’t think we have any surprises left to find about jake (cue DG). I think Jake has started to take less chances (pick 6s will do that to you) and because of that he has started to look less confident when he takes the snap and is in the pocket. It seems that as soon as he gets the ball he’s looking for the “closest” player to get rid of it to regardless of the situation. At some times, it looks like he only has or knows one or two reads and when he has that extra time in the pocket he’s trying to remember what it is his receivers are doing.
Wallace probably won’t be any better in terms of giving us a chance to not lose, but hopefully only of these two will be here next year, and would be nice to know if we could resign Wallace for cheaper.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
I think Wallace is perfectly capable of calling an audible to dump off to hillis
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
his play this year proves otherwise. you may believe he’s capable of that, but I also believe he’s capable of throwing the ball away. so far he hasn’t done either.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
A: they are paying him starter money, they might as well get the use out of it
B: they want to lose because they want to be a few spots higher in the draft.
C: Lol im super serial.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I don’t care how much money we are paying JD, we’re paying him money regardless, and I don’t care to get any use out of that money, because we’re paying Wallace money as well.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
yeah, at a certain point that money is a sunk cost.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
No D.A. = 43 pts. for Arizona. Unreal.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
0.o wut?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Are you still drinking, cause I thought my post was pretty clear?
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
I don’t drink.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Who started for them?
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Skelton. He only completed like 40%… no TDs or INTs.
emily522 - December 12, 2010
I thought Skelton was the Browns QBOTF prior to he draft.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
I’m not a huge college football fan, so I don’t know anything about him. Seems like relative unknown though – what would make you think that the Browns would go after him?
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
Tall, strong, strong armed, mobile, always looking down field. If you look at his film, he just looks like a pro QB (more so than any of the other mid-round guys from last year’s draft).
And I didn’t think that the Browns would take him, I hoped that they’d take him. I’m glad we have Colt, but I think Skelton has a much higher ceiling.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
I don’t know what D.A.‘s contract status is, but after this season you have to like Skelton’s chances for the immediate future, for sure.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
Just curious – why do you think Skelton “has a much higher ceiling” than McCoy?
(or maybe the better question is, what do you mean by “much higher ceiling”?)
burntorangeandbrown - December 12, 2010
He is 6’5’’, he is also athletic but has a thick body for a QB. in this way he is a lot like big ben. Similar athleticism in the pocket and measurables. Skelton also has a very good arm and can make all the throws. Like Roethlisberger, did not play top competition, though there is a difference between the Patriot League and the MAC.
He is very raw but has the size and skills that he could be good. He showed good accuracy in college, but not yet against top competition.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
This, though I’d say his frame and athleticism compares better to Culpepper or Freeman than to Roethlisberger.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Yeah, the frame look a little more freeman than Roethlisberger (though I think he looks bigger than Freeman, but smaller than ben). Culpepper is a good example b/c I think he is somewhere in the middle too (in terms of frame). In terms of measured athleticism, I am surprised but Freeman has less than Big Ben. Skelton is a bit better (in terms of workouts) than freeman and a bit worse than Ben. I didn’t see much of him in college though.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
dude, josh freeman is quietly having a really damn good year. I mean he is my #1 fantasy quarterback and he is good for 20 points every week.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Freeman is proving me wrong. When he came out, I was not overly impressed with his accuracy or decision making but he is proving me wrong and good for him.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
might be the most consistent and predictable player in fantasy right now.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I don’t know that much about Skelton, but just looking at his resume (college / competition he played against / stats, etc.), I’ll go out on a limb and say it is a very long shot to say he has greater potential than McCoy.
I’m not going to go into a long debate, I think we all know how it will play out.
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
re: not going to go into a long debate…
(not to mention everyone knows and I’ve admitted my obvious bias toward McCoy…)
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
For the record, despite 43 points from Arizona, Skelton didn’t play well.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Yeah, that’s a given when you only complete 40% of your passes.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Jay Feely.
Joking of course, but he was responsible for their first 22 points, and got another 3 extra points after that.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Hahahaha.
emily522 - December 12, 2010
I realize that Skelton had a D.A. like day, but it’s just ironic that he doesn’t play and they blow up the scoreboard. It’s like points are allergic to the guy.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
Denver lost by 30, but Knowshon Moreno still got 17 Fantasy points.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I couldn’t be more aware. He’s assisting in killing my playoff hopes.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
ah. In what league?
bross09 - December 12, 2010
(just wondering if we are playing in UDBN)
bross09 - December 12, 2010
Nope, I’m in a Yahoo 12 man league (for the last 9 years). I’m in second at 8-5 and playing the guy in 3rd at 8-5. He’s winning and there’s 4 teams right on our heels at 7-6. I may still back in though. Keepin my fingers crossed!
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
This is the first year in a long time that I wasn’t in a 12 man Yahoo league.
North Coast Flea - December 12, 2010
I really like their “StatTracker”. Best site for FFB, in my opinion.
DaveDawg09 - December 12, 2010
ahh…
I am 8-5 and playing someone who is 8-5.
bross09 - December 12, 2010
I wonder what it is that the Browns’ brain trust sees in Delhomme or does not see in Wallace. If Wallace is still hurt, then that’s it. But if he is not, what is it?
JamesPowell - December 12, 2010
It is a mystery to me why Delhomme wasn’t pulled after the end of the first half of the Panthers game.
What I saw at the end of that half was a QB way past his prime who had aged 10 years in 20 minutes.
I believe Wallace was healthy / ready to go for that game. Some speculated “he must not be quite 100% yet, etc”. I never bought it. There was something else going on – either a stubborn headed loyalty to their initial depth chart (or to Delhomme??), or maybe Wallace was sent to the dog house after his comments to the press about not getting the nod.
Regardless, in my opinion Delhomme should have been replaced by Wallace starting at the beginning of the 2nd half of the Panthers game and barring a meltdown Wallace should still have been the starter today.
Delhomme has zero mobility, and the mistakes he makes have the look of a guy who has lost his touch and lost his edge – both mentally and physically.
burntorangeandbrown - December 12, 2010
What did Wallace say? I missed that, but you are right. This coaching staff (well, Mangini) would rather field a lesser team out of stubbornness or trying to make a point than do the best thing for the team’s chance to win. I’ve also heard rumors about escalators in Wallace’s contract if he takes so many snaps. There were rumors of the same thing happening when Quinn was sat last year. If that’s true, that is sickening. Also no FAs will ever want to play for a team that would do that. Personally, anyone out of the Belichick coaching tree has suspect integrity anyway.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
before this game, we were still in playoff contention, even if only remotely. I highly doubt contract escalators had anything to do with the decision.
the bottom line is that we are a team without a franchise QB. It looks like Colt may become one, but he’s out right now; therefore we have a collection of average fill-ins. I fail to see how one is that much better or worse than the other.
my big problem with today’s game was the shitty playcalling, regardless of who would have been in at QB.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
2 TDs/7 ints vs. 4 TDs/2 ints says it all for me. Mangini is very stubborn and if not out of necessity, we still wouldn’t know what we have in McCoy. He bases everything on practice, but some guys may be good in practice and suck in the real game, and more importantly – guys who may be average in practice have the intangibles that show up on game day. I’ve seen Carlton Mitchell involved in 1 play – a reverse where he lowered his head and pounded the defender for a couple of more yards – that’s stuff that you can’t do in practice, I would like to see more of him. I know Evan Moore is hurt now, but when he wasn’t he was in games for only a few plays? What’s with that? These guys just seem to find ways not to field the best team possible.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Holmgren was the one that said McCoy wouldn’t play at all this year. Don’t go hanging that one on Mangini.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
I have a hard time believing anyone outside of the coaching staff determines who starts or not, but whatever the actual situation, Mangini probably wouldn’t have started him, regardless of what Holmgren wanted.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Based on what evidence?
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
His own.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Because he’s a Belichick disciple
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Not giving him reps was on Mangini.
realmccoy - December 13, 2010
No it wasn’t.
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
He’s the coach – who else would make this decision?
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
Holmgren owns Mangini’s ass. Holmgren definitely has a large pull in some things. He was the one who had Haskell mentor Daboll right? Mangini didn’t do that on his own.
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
i promise … PROMISE … zero qb decisions get made in berea without passing over holmgren’s desk first.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
so he should give reps to his third string guy over his top two guys who are also trying to learn a new system? I think your bias is showing.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
I’ve said this before too.
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2010
Not giving him reps is on McCoy being the third string rookie who the top guy said should not play this year.
How come no one complained about Ratliff’s lack of reps? Because he was the 3rd guy.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
you cannot seriously believe this. honestly. this is such a bogus, ridiculous claim.
the job of the coaching staff (and mangini) is to win football games. there is no way they are dumb enough to purposefully field a lesser team. that makes no sense at all.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
We replaced DA and BQ with 2 QBs that other teams didn’t want. What can you expect from this kind of desperation move? It screams “be patient”. This is not our team of the future. These are not our QBs of the future. Attempting to analyze, dissect or otherwise strategize using these guys as board pieces can only lead to a dead end. Relax and enjoy the young players that have shown promise and,hopefully, this off season we’ll accumulate more talent.
elsandito - December 12, 2010
I appreciate your point of view, but I do believe right now Wallace is a better QB than Delhomme.
Watching Delhomme is just depressing.
He reminds me of Kerry Collins. Two years ago, Collins was still an excellent veteran QB with the Titans. Last year he was a disaster, and this year is the same story as he is forced to fight for his life now as VY’s replacement. Its amazing how quickly the athletic prowess and playing level of an NFL QB can suddenly go downhill once they reach their mid 30s.
burntorangeandbrown - December 12, 2010
you my hero.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I agree with you, but apparently neither Mangini nor Holmgren agree with us. I am certain that Holmgren’s feeling on the QB are known to and valued by Mangini. It’s got to be a collective judgment. And, I am sure, there are reasons that make sense to them. I just do not know what they could be.
JamesPowell - December 12, 2010
If you put Delhomme’s stats from last year with this year’s they are totally consistent. I think it is pretty clear that Delhomme is done. For what ever reason he is a turnover machine. I don’t really care to see him again this year regardless of who we put in.
Brownsyup - December 12, 2010
I thik maybe they just like delhomme’s “mental” stuff like what mangini was saying about calling for that quick snap last week when the dolphins had 12 men on the field. Mangini probably wants to just get through the rest of the year and it helps to get one or two of those plays in the game and of course it helps to have them on the tape for colt mccoy.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Horribly frustrating game. I’m 50/50 on Mangini right now. We’re playing better football now against better teams than last year 4-game winning streak. This is arguably the best Browns defense we’ve put on the field in a decade and Mangini’s following the Belichick method of building the front seven on both sides before going after the “big play” skill players.
However, there’s no excuse for this offensive futility. Colt McCoy’s looked good in spite of shoddy playcalling during his limited time under center, not because of it. While I hate to point the finger at one guy, I’d really like to see a new OC next year. You can argue lack of talent, but I’ve seen teams get more out of less. Holmgren drafted mostly for the defense in this past year’s draft with fairly successively results (Haden & Ward will anchor our secondary for years to come) and I’m interested to see who we take on the offensive side of the ball this April, but the best players in the world won’t flourish if the system isn’t worth a damn.
So yeah, I think I’m on the Fire Daboll side of the fence now. The best I can say for the offense this year is we’re less sloppy (fewer penalties and bad turnovers). We’re certainly not better.
Having said all that, I’m still holding out hope that we win at least one, if not two, of our next three.
If Mangini were to get canned, I’d like to see Rob Ryan get a shot or maybe Marty Morninhenweg (sp?), the Philly OC.
Michael Jay - December 12, 2010
Marty Morninhenweg
oh god jesus no…
johnnyphoenix - December 13, 2010
The only way i’d be relatively okay with mangini getting fired is if rob ryan got the job. Despite the fact that we might finish with the same record as last year this team is vastly better and we need to have coaching continuity – we can’t start rebuilding every two years. If next year we don’t show improvement then i’d consider firing mangini but he needs at least another offseason to try to flesh out this roster
sww2109 - December 13, 2010
The thing that concerns me about this game, other than what Daboll was doing (or not doing) was the complete lack of offensive cohesiveness with Delhomme behind center. There were plays today in which the backs were running into JD on fake handoffs. One time could be said it was the back, but 3 times is too much. Most frustrating game of the year
Cant_buy_a_run - December 12, 2010
Delomme has been staring down his short routes to Stuckey and Hillis so that the safeties and LBs have plenty of time to move up the field and can tackle them as soon as the ball is delivered.
It’s really obvious even on TV – is it really that hard to look/pump fake deep, then come back underneath?
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
How long must we wait? I’m not trying to be melodramatic but we have certainly been willing to endure the worst of what this organization has put together. At some point we need a return on our loyalty.
Being a fan, especially of the Browns, is an emotional investment. Every Sunday is exhausting – win or lose.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
OK, there are over 300 comments on here and hopefully it’s not a sin, but I didn’t read through them all :) So let me know if this is something we’ve already talked about on here…
How much responsibility should be on Mangini’s head here? I know Chris said (in effect) that it’s time for Daboll to go… But how much responsibility for it does Mangini deserve? I know Daboll is calling the shots, but is it a case where the head coach is ultimately responsible?
I guess ultimately what I’m asking is do we can Daboll or both Daboll and Mangini?
shep615 - December 12, 2010
I agree with the ultimatum. keep mangini if possible, but make it clear to him that it has to be without Daboll. no room to negotiate.
Dawg Nuts - December 12, 2010
I agree with it as well. I suspect McCoy’s particular skills happen to complement Daboll’s lame playcalling in a way that makes Daboll seem better than he is, so I don’t think that makes any difference.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 13, 2010
I don’t think we can either of them. Daboll wasn’t a problem when we had McCoy under center.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
You said this earlier. Do you not believe in what Chris said?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
No, I don’t agree with what Chris wrote. We are being extra conservative in the passing game. This is a good thing given Delhomme’s diminished skill set. Delhomme is frustrated. He has been for a few weeks (see his ‘Charlie Checkdown’ comment of a few weeks ago — most saw it as a shot at McCoy, when clearly it was a shot at the coaches who were taking the offense away from him). Delhomme’s frustration isn’t a symptom of poor coaching, but a result of a good coaching decision. They shortened the offense and forced Delhomme to play the short game in order to minimize the number of balls Delhomme throws up for grabs in a game.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
This supposed “good” coaching decision couldn’t help put the ball in the endzone vs. the league’s worst defense.
It’s not all on the weather.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
It also didn’t turn the ball over and kept us in the game to the very end. If Hillis doesn’t fumble and we turn that early turnover into a TD, we win. The coaches are betting on our defense to make plays, and I think that’s the safe bet given our personnel.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
No, our defense kept us in the game to the very end. A good coaching decision would have been to run the ball with Vickers lead blocking on one of those three 3rd-and-3’s, rather than the repeatedly failed passing calls. That was a three drives that were entirely killed.
We should have gone for it at the goalline as well. Even if we don’t get it (which is less likely), we’d still have them at the goalline which is perfectly acceptable. It was a win-win.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Exactly – like Chris said, we did exactly what Miami did for us last week – ruin 2 good running plays by throwing away a chance for a first down on 3rd and short.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Precisely.
No one knows what could have happened on those 3 drives, but I like our chances running the ball, at least way more than a pass attempt.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
I liked our chances on running the ball in the red zone but they didn’t pan out now did they?
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
We were in there red zone of a total of three times,
1st: Ran they ball, did pan out, probably could have scored a TD, but chose to kick
2nd: First play, hurdle attempt, Byrd goes for nice tackle, helmet hits ball, fumble
3rd: Running is panning out, on the 12, Daboll kills drive with 2 passes on 2nd and 3rd, FG
Rushing in the red zone was just fine, outside of one hurdle fumble that came on the first play off the drive, just after the Bills fumble.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I was speaking of the 1st drive where Hillis couldn’t find the endzone.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
I think Hillis probably could have found it with one last try, or we could have even called the QB sneak. Either way, despite 2 plays for 1 yd gain, I still think you’ve got to go for it. Even you don’t get it, you have them pinned at the goalline. Set up a safety or deep punt, because it’s rare to see a team drive 99 yards for a TD on
their openingany drive.Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
They drove 90 for a TD at one point. No matter, I think you take the points there. Hillis had three chances inside the 5 and didn’t get it. Take three and move on.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
I strongly disagree.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
At the start of the game against a team most felt we would handle easily? Why would you pass up the 3 points?
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Because we could have had either a touchdown or them at the goalline. Plus it was the start of the game vs. a team most felt we would handle easily.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Unless a FG will tie the game, or win the game, you should always go for the TD on your opponents one yard line.
Worse case scenario, the field position flip should be worth 3 points alone.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2010
Well that’s a different debate. Although I might agree with that, that’s not normal operating procedure in the NFL. Not saying that’s the way it should be, but if we go for it on 4th the howling would have been even louder.
Also at the beginning of the game, the FG will win or tie the game, I believe that’s the logic behind not going for two until the 4th quarter.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
whoops, go for it on 4th and get stopped
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Whaaaaaaa..?
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
I’m of the belief that you get your points when you can, you don’t risk going for the TD there (and yes it’s a risk, because they just stoned us 3 times) because then you aren’t just not getting a td you’re also losing 3 points (i have faith in P Diddy from that distance).
Over and over people will complain about how a team lost a game because of a missed kick (see the complaints on PD earlier in the season).
Well i believe that early in the game, going for it and not getting it is the same as missing a kick.
You can’t assume that it’s better to risk it for 7 instead of taking the 3 because you could wind up needing that 3 at the end of the game.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
But my belief is that if you don’t get it, the field position flip is worth three points alone.
That is if you don’t get the TD.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2010
I like to think of it as a win-win.
Simmsinns - December 15, 2010
I like to think a playaction pass to the TE in that goal line series would have scored.
Kimble_79 - December 15, 2010
i quite literally think teams should run 3 straight play action passes to TEs inside the 5. it’s like fool proof (no sarc, i’m serious)
DontCallMeJoey - December 15, 2010
I don’t know what the conversion rate is on those, but it seems like it would be a pretty high number to me. I’m a big fan of it….but I like to run that play on 1st or 2nd down, not wait until 3rd when its a little more expected.
Kimble_79 - December 15, 2010
I completely agree with this.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Absolutely
dgcambridge - December 15, 2010
So if we’re going to handle them easily take the 3 and come back and get the 7 next time. Point being if you’re so confident you’re going to easily handle a team you should be desperate to get the extra 4 points in that situation.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
you shouldn’t be
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Yeah, unless it’s the Browns D. But I’m sure when we have a little more talent on the team we’ll go for it in that situation. It’s akin to that fumble recovery (by Barton? maybe Bowens?) where everyone said he should have gotten up and ran with it. We’re still a “new team” and need to focus on the fundamentals first before we can get ballsy.
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2010
That is horrible coaching. Even with his shortened playbook he still threw a pick and had a fumble.
If this is true, I don’t blame Delhomme anymore – this is all on the coaches for limiting him. Ints and fumbles are going to happen but you don’t negate those by then installing a high school offensive scheme. Good teams overcome their turnovers, not play scared of making them.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
And if they don’t shorten the offense and Delhomme goes out and throws another pick six, you’d be calling for their heads anyway.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
With Delhomme, it’s a lose-lose.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Something we can all agree on.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
And that being the case, I think it’s short sighted to be calling for the OCs head given the lose-lose situation at QB.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
I’m calling for his head for reason’s somewhat unrelated to Delhomme. (see reply above)
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Delhomme isn’t great, but he doesn’t completely suck either, but the guy is a veteran and despite being an int machine, you still have to give him the opportunity to make a play, otherwise just start Wallace.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
actually, delhomme does completely suck.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Haha. Yes.
And, you know, with all these questions that are starting to swirl about Mangini’s job — well, with all due respect, Mr. Holmgren, but Delhomme is on you.
Western Reserve - December 14, 2010
let’s not underestimate that point. holmgren is well aware that he handed mangini the dookie-platter of qb’s that is delhomme/wallace. holmgren’ll certainly be mindful of that in evaluating this coaching staff.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
This is why I am not outright calling for Daboll’s head. I don’t blame him for Quinn/Anderson last year and I it’s too tough for me to tell with Delhomme in there now (even though Delhomme is a slight improvement over those last 2 bums.)
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
I thought this at first, but lately JD has shown some Quinn tendencies (as golan said might be due to a shortened playbook), and he has at times shown the ability to be DAesque. I’m not sure what type of QB JD is right now, but it’s obvious either our playcalling isn’t working for him or he isn’t working for a our playcalling.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Daboll has never gotten anything out of this offense, outside of the win against New England.
I look around the league and I see teams getting points from bad situations. Hell, the Bills can score the football. The Cardinals put up 43 points today with a rookie under center.
The Browns have never had a “HOLY COW” game with our offense. I understand we suck at QB and suck at WR, but that hasn’t stopped other coaches from figuring out a way to get something done.
Daboll isn’t getting the most out of his players. Changing the players won’t change that.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
I support this statement. Please order me a Tshirt
Kimble_79 - December 12, 2010
Totally agree, and based on some other information, he will never get max performance from his players.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
I have gotten to the point where i dont think daboll was ready to be an OC when mangini hired him and now he just has never really had a handle on the job. Its time for him to go becuase im pretty damn sure that a solid OC could be getting more out of our current personnel.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Name another team with a competent QB and crappy WR’s that has had a dominating offensive showing this year.
Even look at Arizona. They scored 42 today but without the 22 from the kicker and a pick 6 they suck as usual.
Daboll is getting the best from his players. Theoretically this team should be blown out every week, but they’re not. The offense doesn’t work like defense where you can overwhelm an offense with scrub players.
The Licensed Pessimist - December 13, 2010
I think you’ve got it backward. The players aren’t that bad. Robo and Massaquoi both had decent grades from quite a few different scouts, neither of those picks was viewed as a “Darrius Heyward-Bey”-level blunder. Likewise, compared to many teams in the NFL (like say the bears) we have a pretty good offensive line.
if you ask me, this offense should be producing more than it has. Maybe you can say that momass and robo aren’t done transitioning to the NFL (look at a guy like steve johnson, found the right system in year 3 and took off). Maybe you can blame the fickle ankles of our three quarterbacks and maybe you can blame Daboll’s ineptitude, but just saying that the team has no talent and should easily be 2-11 or some such seems inaccurate.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
He was a blunder because of where he was drafted and why he was drafted there.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Jacksonville scores points with a mediocre QB and middling WR’s.
Buffalo has a career back-up QB and decent WR’s yet scores plenty.
Tampa Bay is scoring points with 2 rookie WR’s and a second year QB.
St. Louis is doing quite well with a rookie QB and a bunch of no ones at WR.
Seattle has the corpse of Matt Hasselbeck and castaway WR’s, yet are scoring.
The Tennessee Titans have had garbage at QB and have missed Kenny Britt, yet still score.
Spare me the BS that we haven’t scored because of our roster.
I’m not asking for the 2000 St, Louis Rams, I am asking for an offense, with a potent rushing attack, to be higher than 30th in the NFL at scoring.
For all the laughing we do at Derek Anderson and the Arizona Cardinals, they are outscoring us this season.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
Give us a NFC West schedule, and we’ll make up the 6/10 of a point per game that we’re trailing St. Louis and Arizona by. There’s only two teams there that aren’t in he bottom third in scoring. We’re talking a point or two per game for most on the list. A couple of TDs over the course of 13 games. Let’s not pretend like we’re trailing the entire league by an insurmountable number of points. Hillis punches it in on our first drive and doesn’t fumble on our second drive yesterday and we’re ahead of half the teams you list.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
People hate the schedule excuse, but it’s very legitimate for comparisons purposes. No one can tell me Arizona would outscore us with our schedule this year.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
Please, are we really using the “TD here and a TD there” excuse? I am sure that those other teams have left TD’s on the field as well.
You want to use the schedule excuse, go for it. But we played the worst defense in the NFL yesterday and got damn near skunked.
Outside of Hillis, and to a small extent Watson, this offense has been pathetic.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
The Browns have put up 15.1 ppg with Delhomme and Wallace under center; 22.8 ppg with McCoy under center. That’s more than a touchdown difference per game.
That 22.8 that we put up with McCoy under center (against some of the best teams in the league) would be good enough for 11th in the league.
Our problems on offense are clearly a function of poor quarterback play and not poor coaching or game planning. Delhomme is awful and Wallace is right there with him. The gameplanning is just fine when we have a semi-competent QB taking the snaps.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
I am right with you on Delhomme, that’s no secret.
As for the PPG under McCoy, we scored 1 offensive TD against Pittsburgh, 1 offensive TD against New Orleans, 4 against NE and 1 against Jacksonville.
7 offensive TD’s in four games isn’t very good.
I love what Colt McCoy brings to this team, I just want someone who is better equipped to use offensive players to be in charge.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
7 offensive TDs in 4 games against 4 very good defenses is not bad.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
It’s actually 9 over 5 games. We hung two on the Jets with McCoy under center.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
My bad, your correct.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
With Delhomme under center, we have scored 1 offensive TD in the last 2 games. Those colt #s are definitely skewed with a few pick 6s, but they are definitely better than Delhomme’s.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
Not skewed. I didn’t count defensive scores.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
I didn’t know that. I guess I just assumed you did. that makes the difference even more impressive.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
Actually, scratch that. I think I did include Bowens in the final tally.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
yeah. Without bowens, its down to 20. However, the offensive point production is significantly the bet under colt and significantly the worst under JD.
those JD/Seneca #s are highly skewed too b/c Delhomme has so bad (seneca isn’t too bad). under JD, our offensive production only doesn’t finish last in the NFL because the panthers have been awful.
To put it this way, this is where our offensive point production would rank (per game) in the NFL with each QB.
JD: 13.3 (31st)
Seneca: 17.8 (29th)
Colt: 20 (T-22nd and 1 point away from 21st)
bross09 - December 14, 2010
have we subtracted the points that jake donates to the other team from his numbers??
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
haha. I didn’t consider the pick 6s he throws. this is just the points he scores for us.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
WTF are you talking about. Garrard is a very good QB who although may not be Manning, gives his team a chance almost every sunday. They have a true #1 WR and one of the most productive RB’s in the league. Plus they aren’t exactly an offensive powerhouse
Stevie Johnson is one of the most productive WR’s in the league, they have a really good RB along with Fitz who is as he proved yesterday can dominate at times.
Tampa has a true #1 and #2 WR, and a QB who is better than the ones we have.
The rest of this is just you trailing off without point nor direction. All of these teams have more offensive talents than the browns. And all of these teams have a good QB to balance their bad WR’s, or the opposite. The browns are the only team in the league without a playmaking QB or WR, and the only one who depends on a RB to run their offense. Even Tennessee has more offensive variety than the browns.
You should be comparing the Browns to Carolina, or Arizona, rather than those teams.
The Licensed Pessimist - December 13, 2010
I would gladly trade JD and Wallace for Garrard. I would also probably take their receivers for ours.
Fitz is mobile, which we had hoped Wallace would be and we have no one who can get behind a defense like Johnson.
That second year QB has proven himself to be pretty darn good and I’d take him over both of our vets.
Bradford for JD and Wallace? Sign me up
Seattle well i’ll pass on them, and the Titans have the threat of CJ.
Also as much as I like Hillis, our rushing attack isn’t that potent. We’re right in the middle of the league. Also DA and the Cardinals have receivers, DA has proven even a crap QB can find the end zone every now and again.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
so? the way you say it, it makes it seem like the kicker got 22 points. when a kicker kicks a FG, should that not count as “offensive production?” I mean, they got him into range. Plus, who moved the ball before feeley’s run? the offense. the offense accounted for 357 yards…and this is with a rookie making his 1st start.
you’re moving the goalposts. NO ONE said that a Daboll offense should be dominant. However, one would hope with one of the leagues better running backs (easily top 10 in the league in terms of play this year) should finish hither than 26th in Points for. One would hope a team #4 in the NFL in takeaways would have more points to show from it. Dominating? no, we don’t need to be that. Competent on offense and the ability to turn TOs into points? a decent OC SHOULD be able to do that with our Running game and turnovers.
I don’t see how any team 4th in takeaways and 7th in TO differential should get blown out every week.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
I just can’t buy into a coach not to lose decision. Yes Jake’s pick 6s are infuriating, especially in situations where we should be running more anyway, but if you’re going to start the guy, you have to give him a chance to win or lose the game.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
The not to lose strategy is good when you have Jake/Quinn/Anderson playing QB. We were much more aggressive when Colt was in at QB.
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
Probably good in terms of a coach keeping his job. Not good for long term development of your team.
dgcambridge - December 13, 2010
Yea, the long term development is stymied by the fact that you have to play the scrubs at QB. That is not a coaching problem, that is a personnel problem. Get a better QB and your offense will function better.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
Neither of those plays were his fault.
notthatnoise - December 12, 2010
How was his fumble not his fault? But Hillis’ was his own fault?
They both are responsible for their own fumbles.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Not really. A running back is more responsible for a fumble than a blind side strip sack. It’s not even close actually.
Roger Dorn - December 12, 2010
Then that one is on Thomas or who ever blew it on the blindside because Delhomme didn’t have enough awareness in the pocket to tuck it down.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Thomas was pretty manhandled today.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Well if Joe Thomas is going down hill we’re all going to hell. F***
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
No he wasn’t.
The life of an offensive lineman. Make one poor play and you got “manhandled”.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
No, it was happening a lot during the game, the guy just never reached Delhomme in time.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Joe T was getting beat all day.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
Yes.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
he should have eyes in the back of his head, you’re right.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
No, that one is on Thomas or who ever blew it on the blindside because Delhomme didn’t have enough awareness in the pocket to tuck it down, I’m right.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
that sentence doesn’t make any sense. you’re saying “It’s Thomas’ fault because it’s Delhomme’s fault.”
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
What I’m reading is that one is on Thomas or who ever blew it on the blindside because Delhomme didn’t have enough awareness in the pocket to tuck it down.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
you’re saying it’s their fault, because Delhomme wasn’t good enough. you don’t see how that’s confusing?
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
Maybe it’s their fault despite Delhomme being terrible or it’s their fault for not protecting better, knowing Delhomme is terrible.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
you’ve completely lost me. are you being sarcastic? I don’t know how you can say a guy getting to the QB from the blind side that quickly is the QB’s fault at all.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
I had been just repeating myself, the last one was just a joke though, yes.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
I really think our WRs really, really suck and are the worst in the NFL. Robiskie is the very definition of a spare. Brings no explosiveness, no physicality, but will catch the ball. MoMass is our number 1 and would be the 3rd or 4th WR on some really good WR corps in the NFL – and most teams would have 2 better WRs.
realmccoy - December 13, 2010
the counter argument is that they just look worse than they are because Daboll can’t deploy them properly and/or the quarterbacks can’t get them the ball.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
it’s going to shock some of you to hear this, but i completely agree w/ this statement.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
3rd.
kingcrimson2 - December 14, 2010
I’m seeing the same thing as you, though I’m not sure i’m willing to call it a good coaching decision, as I think it might be the coaching staff hoping they can get by with less against “weaker teams” and still pull out a victory. Basically I see it as playing to lose, although letting JD loose might be seen as playing to lose as well.
My hope is that this stretch doesn’t cost Mangini his job.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
I normally agree with you Golan, but i think he has sucked in 90% of his games. He can’t adjust to the defense either. He has had two years now. He isn’t working out any longer as OC
Kimble_79 - December 12, 2010
Yup.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
It is a problem of talent on the field – we simply don’t have any many players on offense that can break a big play.
Most importantly, however, is that the Browns need to start expecting to win. Even with their limited potential, they need to start playing in these type of games (at least) as if they are the team to beat.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
I disagree with this somewhat. I think we have guys who can, we just don’t have schemes that open up the players.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
JC is right that this team is devoid of any kind of threats.
We don’t have anyone who is a threat pass 15 yards. Didn’t anyone else notice how often Donte Whitner was in the Browns backfield? He didn’t have to worry about anyone going deep. We don’t have a player to make a safety think “Whoa, I better not creep up, player X could blow by me”.
Why not run Carlton Mitchell out there and throw one deep pass. At least make the defense wonder if we will throw deep? Who gives a sh*t if it is caught or not.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Completely agree with this, MoMass can be a deep threat too, but Delhomme’s laser focus on the underneath route gives Whitner no reason not to creep up. Not sure anymore though if this is Delhomme or Dabolls fault
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
you are definitely the first person to accuse delhomme of a “laser focus” on underneath routes.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Mass was a deep threat last year. Why can’t he be one this year?
StuckInPa - December 13, 2010
I need to see more than 34 catches to convince me. I’m starting to side with Ryan on this one.
MoMass has been a massive disappointment for me this year.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
He’s a number 2 currently playing with a bad QB again. Not sure what expectations should be for a number 2 with a bad QB.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
He has been invisible this year. Some of the blame is on him.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
He’s played about 10 games (excluding Pitt in which he got hurt early) and has 408 yards. Not exactly sure what your expectations are for "an adequate 2, but 40 yards per game is not much below what I would expect from what I called an adequate 2 especially in a run-first offense with no other real WR threat.
He’s not amazing, he’s not even good, but that’s not what I have been arguing.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
My original comment is that MoMass isn’t a deep threat. Stand by it.
If you think MoMass has been adequate, then we are expecting different things from our WR’s. I recognize that part of the issue is the situation that this passing offense is in, but at some point in time, he needs to start making some plays. Many keep believing that he is going to “break-out” but we are almost 30 games into his career. I got a sneaky feeling that it isn’t coming, hopefully I’m wrong.
We are 14 weeks (as you said he has played 10) into this season and his best game is 5 catches for 81 yards. What am I missing?
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
I think until we have a coherent offensive strategy and game plan, and a serious threat at QB in place its hard to settle this debate.
That said I think MoMass has shown flashes of excellence as a receiver.
I also agree with BK that the Browns need to acquire a true deep threat though. Someone who can streak on a deep route and stretch the field on occasion and MoMass hasn’t shown he can fill that role. Our offense remains stuck in a rut at the line of scrimmage. Every team we’ve faced has figured out they can just stack the line and presto, our offense is neutralized.
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
you’re yanking my chain, right?
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
As a matter of fact, yes.
I woke up this morning and the first thing that came to mind was
“I have this insane urge to yank Joey’s chain today”.
Consider it yanked.
burntorangeandbrown - December 14, 2010
Don’t call him Joey.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2010
Well he might not mind, if you yank his chain.
Villeslgr - December 15, 2010
This made me laugh.
North Coast Flea - December 15, 2010
I think he actually enjoys it to tell you the truth.
(having his chain yanked, not being called Joey)
burntorangeandbrown - December 15, 2010
Wideouts break out at different times in their careers. Momass or robo either or both could explode next year and have a 500-800 yard season. I think they aren’t being tutored and utilized as well as they could. Only one thing is really certain: neither of these guys is a generational talent like Randy moss or Calvin Johnson that can just dominate from day 1, but nobody ever thought they were.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
If 500-800 yards is the benchmark for a breakout season, MoMass brokeout in year one.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
Off Topic: just learned that MoMass’ middle name is Jah. I really want to start calling him Jah from now on, but doubt that anyone would know who the hell I’m talking about.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
I will try to remember that because that is a pretty sweet nickname.
I can agree with you on the comment above. you also have to consider that he was a rookie WR, starting in an offense that was 30th in pass attempts and 31st in completions (and 32nd in yards). Plus, in the 2nd half of the season, when he had more experience, we passed less.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
This Meme shall be completed.
MoJahMass?
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
I’ll second that one.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 14, 2010
JahMassaquoi.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
Vertical Inanity.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
I love that video.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
500-800 is about the range I am expecting from Mass.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
outside of dwayne bowe, name me a guy who is an offense that doesn’t pass that is tearing it up. I don’t think MoMass will ever be a true deep threat, but he hasn’t been terrible. I am honestly not sure if I would call it adequate, but what other team has passed so little these last 2 years?
bross09 - December 13, 2010
I am saying I don’t think he will break out. He is a 2, he won’t be a 1. He will put up serviceable 2 numbers, which I think is probably only a bit more than he is doing now.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
Hillis is a “kind of threat”
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
In the passing game, I’ll agree.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I think we could do this with momass or brobiski, we just don’t. And therefore nobody is afraid of it. Do we ever use double moves? do we ever run simple pass concepts like corner/flats and the ‘stick’ route? I don’t tape the games and watch again academically so I really don’t know. Rufio, do a post on why our passing game is so shitty?
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I’ll chip in on Rufio’s bar tab for this one.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 13, 2010
Mangini has definitely done enough to stay. More than enough in my book, even if we lose out and finish 5-11. THough I really don’t see us losing to the bengals coming off of this performance.
On the other hand, I think it might be time we just part ways with daboll or remove him of OC responsibility and find someone else. Whether it be Josh McDaniels or someone else from the Holmgren camp. This team has enough talent on offense to be better than it is.
jaws. - December 12, 2010
If our season has proved anything thus far, it is that we can win or lose any game in front of us. Thus, I can totally see us losing to the Bungles.
This coming from someone who was extremely confident 12 hours ago.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Unfortunately, I kinda agree with this. We seem to play to the level of our opponents, so one week we come out and manhandle the Patriots and the next we almost loose to the Panthers. Sometimes I feel like Daboll has over planned for games, trying to make a specific strategy for a team when we should just say “We are the Browns, the Browns run over you.”
I don’t know though, that’s just a feeling and not based on anything to concrete.
BiggieBrown - December 12, 2010
This team has very little talent (relavent to what exists in the NFL) on the field at the skill positions. They have the right coaching but don’t have the players who can truly take the coaches’ gameplan and put a consistent product on the field.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
The Bungles?
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Both – but I was talking about the Browns, Unfortunately.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
Nevermind – the Bangles have a lot of talent at the skill positions they just can’t put it together. Thank God.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
Then I disagree completely with your previous comment.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Fair enough – but let me ask you this: which of our skill players on offense do you think would be sought after by the NFL if let go by the Browns?
I know that Cribbs might come to mind but let’s be honest, he has done very little this year in terms of production on offense (or special teams for that matter.) He has, thus far, shown himself to be a special teams player, which is important but not enough.
Hillis is the one guy. He rushed for over 100 today but it wasn’t enough without a passing game.
Simply, we need receivers.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
Well if you’re willing to dwindle “skill positions on offense” to just three positions: QB, WR, RB, than I’d say Hillis and McCoy (obviously the guy is injured).
But in non-“skill positions on offense”, we have Thomas, Steinbach, Mack, Ward, Haden, Rubin, Fujita (i), Rodgers
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
QB, RB, and WR are traditionally thought of as the skill positions. We can argue semantics but I think you understand my basic sentiment regarding their lack of talent at these positions and the result on the field.
I
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
I also don’t buy this at all. I think Daboll’s playcalling is just awful, and he definitely sucks if he can’t make a gameplan that would utilize what skill we do have.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
We could run Hillis 40 or 50 times a game (because he’s the only quality skill player we have) but then everyone would be pissed that they used up Hillis in a single year. Lose-lose.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
He’d also have a ridiculous amount of fumbles. This is a very bad problem he must assess.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Haven’t you heard? The fumbles are all on Daboll as well.
golanbatrac - December 12, 2010
Of course. The play call must’ve been Red Right 88.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
The joke being that it’s a play of infamy, not that I didn’t understand it was a pass play.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
“Red Right 88” is just a generic playcall the coaches use when they want to give the ball to the other team.
Chemo - December 13, 2010
Good coaching can help cure fumbleItis.
That said, obviously this year its too early to hang that on Daboll.
Its going to take time. Lets just hope that in a year or so Hillis’ fumbeItis can be cured with some determined coaching and lots of practice.
I still say enough with the hurdling act. Its just not necessary.
Hillis needs to understand he can and will be a hero without necessarily being a human highlight reel week in and week out.
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
It is something he needs to improve on, but he hadn’t fumbled in the past 65 carries over the last three games.
1) it was extremely wet, and cold
2) one fumble was on a hurdle where Byrd made a nice *ss helmet pop to the ball
3) the next one didn’t affect the drive at all
4) the next one was forced by the ground (he landed on his forearm), no one reviewed, because it to had no affect on the drive
That said, he still needs to work on it.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
It’s also something that can be a MAJOR issue and entirely fixed: case in point, Adrian Peterson
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Peterson:
08: 7 fumbles
09: 9 fumbles
10: 0 fumbles
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
What about Peterson’s total yards in those seasons?
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
08: 363 for 1760
09: 314 for 1383
10: 233 for 1123
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
For more Peterson stats via Yahoo! Sports.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Aha! My point exactly
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
As was mine. Ah thank you.
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
You lost me. I scrolled up didn’t see any point from you in this discussion.
In other AP stats via Yahoo! Sports, games played (thus far)
08: 16
09: 16
10: 12
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Confused me as well with his response?
Kimble_79 - December 14, 2010
26 yards yesterday.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
Add that to the total.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
if you are inferring that his yardage is down each year due to not fumbling, then I think your wrong. Notice the number of carries dropped by 50-70 per year, thus the change in yardage.
If I’m taking that wrong, then I apologize.
Kimble_79 - December 14, 2010
My theory is that a runner like Hillis and Peterson get the extra yardage by running recklessly which also leads to more fumbles. It’s a tough conundrum because you don’t want Hillis to sacrifice the extra effort just to hold onto the ball at times.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
While I can understand the theory, (and you may have something there) I don’t think this really shows it that well. The thing I see that sticks out more is the carries being drastically reduced each year for the yardage disparity.
Kimble_79 - December 14, 2010
Why didn’t you say that? Unless I just missed that comment above…?
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
2008: 4.8 yoc
2010: 4.7 ypc.
2009: 4.4 ypc
Yes, there was a dip in 2009, but I don’t see him as being not as effective.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
Speaking of big dips in 2009....
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
He has 9 fumbles.
I dont give a crap about the conditions or what he did to do it. That’s insanely bad.
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
That’s all I needed to hear. If you want to hold this “9” number so strongly, but ignore the conditions in which the occurred, or in at least on instance, didn’t actually occur, then there is no real reason to have this discussion.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
So tell me why Jackson didn’t fumble today. Or Spiller. Or Bell.
I’ll wait. I mean, they ran in the same conditions right buddy?
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
Hillis’ fumbling problem, (and if you’d read you’ll see I said he needs to work on it), is clearly worsened in the conditions.
As for your question, I’d say they didn’t fumble because that’s not a problem for them.
How is this an excuse to ignore the conditions and cry out especially today because the box score shows 3 fumbles. It was the same level of an issue as it was yesterday.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Hillis does carry the ball away from his body, and he swings it a lot. Ask Tiki Barber where you are supposed to carry the football: “High and tight, always high and tight.”
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Im sorry, today you might be able to place some of the blame on the weather, though the hurdle fumble was clearly on Hillis, but Hillis has had trouble holding on to the ball this season.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Dude, this is like the third time today you have popped off on someone.
We are all going to disagree, and that is fine, but tone down the attitude.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
well, Fred Jackson generally secures the ball very well.
Spiller did have a fumble and he only had 8 carries (plus, with his style he gets hit less)
Bell had 2? 3? carries
bross09 - December 13, 2010
“And boom goes the dynamite”
Where have I heard that one before?
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I dunno. I have been saying it for like 5 years but I just realized last week it is actually an internet meme dating back to 2005. Its possible I either started saying it independently, or somehow picked up the phrase and forgot it, but it was lodged in my subconscious.
HOLY SHIT!! did someone incept my mind??
bross09 - December 13, 2010
I mentioned it because SB uses it often here.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I say it from time to time. I got it from Family Guy though.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
The phrase “boom goes the dynamite” comes from this guy who used it while doing sports for some news station in Indiana. He wasn’t the usual sports anchor and didn’t know what he was talking about, so it got fame on YouTube for his horrible performance and use of the phrase boom goes the dynamite. The phrase got parodied on SNL and many other places.
Ironically, I just found out last week that the guy in the video is from Milan, near my hometown of Norwalk, and went to Edison High School with my sister-in-law. He was good friends with their family growing up so she was telling us all about the fame he recieved from that video (not all of it good, obviously).
Buckeye Brad - December 13, 2010
Fun fact, he now works for a TV station in Alexandria, MN.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
You’re from Norwalk? I used to live a little ways down the road in Willard. There were some pretty nice contests between St. Paul and Willard High School if I remember correctly.
shep615 - December 13, 2010
I went to St. Paul but we never really played Willard. Norwalk and Willard were both in the NOL so those two teams played frequently, but not St. Paul and Willard (that I remember) — maybe in basketball but never in football.
Buckeye Brad - December 13, 2010
Haha, that video was amusing, and almost unbearable at the same time.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Milan – birthplace of Thomas Edison.
I have a lot of family that went to Edison.
browndawgbacker - December 14, 2010
He also needs to cool it on the hurdles. He could have completely trucked that guy instead and he’s going to get hurt if he keeps it up with the hurdling.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
I agree. I mentioned in the first game thread, the reason he made the bad call to hurdle is that it is instinctual for him, just the way he plays. He’s quoted saying this as well as that he thinks he couldn’t stop doing it even if he tried.
Hopefully he can break the habit, and use it intelligently. Then truck the tiny DBs when necessary.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Agreed. I’ve said it already in this thread above.
Hillis needs to understand he doesn’t need to be a human highlight reel and that he does plenty of damage for the Browns offense without the hurdling act. Its just not necessary and they need to coach that out of him.
He needs to adjust his style from “wreckless abandon” to “wrecking ball”.
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
1) 2 hands
2) hillis tried to hurdle byrd as byrd was STANDING STRAIGHT UPRIGHT! that was a stupid, horrible play by hillis
3) irrelevant whether it affected anything or not. a fumble sucks, a priori
4) i’ll take your word for it
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Completely agree.
On #1, the only time i recall seeing Hillis putting 2 hands on the ball was when he first took the handoff, once he gets going i don’t recall seeing him reaching to cover the ball with his off hand
On # 2, I think I read somewhere Hillis started hurdling to counteract dbs trying to take him out by going low, but when you see a guy in front of you waiting for the hurdle, tuck your head and run his ass over.
That said I still like Hillis, but no one is beyond reproach when you’re trying to improve your team. Except for Joe T and that’s only on the internet.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Byrd said after the game that they were prepared for Hillis’ hurdling and thought they could get him to fumble when doing it. He said that he baited Hillis in to thinking he was going down so he’d jump and then he could pop the ball out, and it worked.
Hillis needs to know this is happening and make adjustments. As you said, just knock them over when they’re expecting him to hurdle.
Buckeye Brad - December 14, 2010
This isn’t true. I’ve watched the replay about 100 times now, frame by frame, real time, they all show the exact same thing. Byrd brilliantly stops, stutter steps, almost faking like he’s going to go low, (something I’m sure Hillis has seen countless times), then when Hillis goes for the hurdle, Byrd launches himself into the now airborne Hillis from a squatting position. Byrd’s helmet place was spot on as it drilled the ball and got it to pop out right into another Bills’ hands.
The hurdle was as dumb as any of his hurdles though. He should be trucking this tiny DBs. Ball security It’s something he absolutely needs to work on. It’s vital to our teams success.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
This is the best counter argument I’ve read all day, but I’m not asking for 40 to 50 runs a game. Just more run calls on the critical downs, such as third and short.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Pretty simple – you do what’s successful until they stop you from doing it. Even Mike Bell made positive yards today, so you could have mixed him in more against the worst rush D in the league.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
you think teams in the NFL wouldn’t sign Massaquoi? or Ben Watson?
bross09 - December 13, 2010
I was focusing on our really great players. In terms of any player that another team would sign, the list would be huge.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
very true. I didn’t read through every single player, we definitely have some significant pieces that if we waived, teams would be scrambling to get.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
The overall talent and depth desparity in the NFL is large enough that all of our starters and some of our bench would get claimed.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
disparity
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I dunno if our backups would get claimed. would Titus Brown or Ventron get claimed? But definitely our starters.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
this team is bottom quartile in the nfl as far as quality of talent. there’s just no disputing that. including mccoy (which, today, is a stretch), you named 10 players who are “quality”. out of 53. that sucks.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Frankly, I think this team has more talent than we give them credit for. Massaquoi and Robiskie certainly could be more involved. I can’t help but think that our WRs just can’t be as bad as their stat lines seem to be, I think the gameplan must get better. Even if Massaquoi, Robiskie and Chansi Stuckey seem to not have problems dropping the ball. Even if they have poor seperation skills It seems like a coach should be able to get the ball into their hands at least 3 or 4 times a game. Evan Moore also seems under-utilized.
While I still rue the right side of the offensive line, and injuries are really hurting us, especially at quarterback, I think this offense definitely should move the ball more consistently than it does based on the players we’ve got.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I disagree – the WRs are that bad.
realmccoy - December 13, 2010
Robiskie is bad. Massaquoi is an adequate 2. Stuckey is probably a slightly below average possession receiver. Watson is a good receiving tight end. The bigger problem is Delhomme and the coach’s gameplan that comes with Delhomme.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
I’ll agree, that is the bigger problem.
But all of it combined = a loss to the Bills.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
even if you accept the premise (which i don’t) that massaquoi is an adequate number 2, the fact is he’s the browns’ #1. that means the browns’ wide receivers suck.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Massaquoi is our best wideout and in my opinion a 2. So yes, we lack a number 1 or anything approaching a 1. We also don’t really have much outside of Massaquoi. SO no top WR and no depth, would probably put us in the bottom 3 in terms of WR corps.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2010
agree to agree
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
I think Stuckey becomes a better possession receiver when we better receivers around him. Heck Mass is our #1 and Stuckey, Watson, and Hillis are all battling it out for 2. I know the if we had better receivers, so and so would look better gets beat down alot, but heck, i think it carries weight. Daggummit.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
If we finish 5-11, Mangini is gone.
Bernie19Kosar - December 12, 2010
Probably 6-10 as well.
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
I have mixed emotions on this. The team is improving alot. I just don’t know if its enough. I’m glad I’m not Holmgren having to make that decision.
Kimble_79 - December 12, 2010
I have no qualms with removing Mangini and company if they go 6-10, especially after the Panthers and Buffalo games.
Plenty of marginal coaches have been ousted after putting up better records. Bottom line is the team has put up a couple of stinker games with terrible execution and questionable play calling, and they are not a playoff calber team at this point by any stretch, and the buck stops with the coaching staff.
Holmgren needs to do what’s best for the organization.
I want him to do what it takes to take the Browns to the Super Bowl. Period.
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
This really shouldn’t be the case, if holmgren is true to his word from earlier where he said you have to show progress and you have to look at whole body of work. Nobody thought this was a playoff team going into the year. People were predicting 8-8 and thinking that that was an extreme reach. Between that and injuries and the fact that the team has really fought hard and been in every game I feel like you’ve got to go with consistency for at least one more year.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
No one seems to remember that statement from Holmgren.
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
And he should be.
BuenosAires_Dawg - December 13, 2010
Not sure I agree, but want to see hwo the last 3 games go.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
This.
Hopefully we have at least squashed the thought that a new hire is a TOTAL REBUILD!!1
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I’m of the opinion that any discussion like this is pointless until you have the whole body of work. especially so the monday after a bad loss.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2010
incorrect.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Very.
North Coast Flea - December 15, 2010
If we beat the Bengals, and play better (hopefully with Colt at the helm) in our last two games I think he stays.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
I wish I was as easily impressed as you.
At the most basic level, to me Mangini absolutely has to beat Cincinnati and at least split he last 2 games. Daboll goes regardless after the season.
johnnyphoenix - December 13, 2010
Just think back to last year. We started 1-11 and we were well out of tons of games. Our average margin of defeat was double digits. Our one win was against a completely pathetic bills team with a lame duck coach. This year we played an incredibly tough schedule and were in basically every single game. This is our first real dissappointing loss as far as im concerned and our average margin of defeat is like 3 points coming into today.
The team is disciplined. there is harmony in the locker room. the players play hard every single game. The offensive gameplans might be pretty weak, but we make aggressive calls, we manage the clock well. We don’t make bonehead challenges. We don’t burn timeouts at the worst possible times. I just can’t pin our record on mangini. I can’t point to one thing or another and say ‘this is why mangini needs to go.’
If I’m Holmgren i find the best god damn offensive cordinator in the universe. I don’t care if its Gil Haskell or Gus Malzahn or Josh McDaniels or whoever you think is the internet Jesus of offensive football. I feel like if you give Mangini a chance with the right guy in that job, it could turn out like the Sean Payton / Gregg Williams partnership in New Orleans: really successful.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I like the idea of McDaniels for OC. I think he and McCoy could do great things.
StuckInPa - December 12, 2010
Think I beat you tonight?
SpecialBrownie - December 12, 2010
Most likely. My team has sucked tonight.
StuckInPa - December 12, 2010
Take him down SB! We want him going into the playoffs with his head down in shame! Although he had a heck of a tough schedule for his starters this week.
Kimble_79 - December 12, 2010
This week was an illusion my friend.
StuckInPa - December 12, 2010
If it makes you feel better, myself and doggrad had a pretty low scoring game also. I still got 3 playing tomorrow, but I don’t expect to break 90pts
Kimble_79 - December 12, 2010
McDaniels is from Northeast Ohio and that is a plus for me. I would love to have someone who is actually a Browns fan (not by contract) involved with the organization.
I know I am presuming he loves the Browns but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
This is one of the reasons I hated Mangini in year 1 – he seemed to still be pinning for the Jets and didn’t seem to understand the great Cleveland history or its awesome fans, etc. This year I feel he has seemed like he’s gotten over the Jets and is now a Cleveland guy. I didn’t know that about McDaniels. I thought he was a complete moron as Denvers HC, which I enjoyed, but if he is a bright young OC who is a Brownie at heart that would be awesome.
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Tons of great coordinators were comeplete morons as head coaches (Norv Turner, Wade Phillips, Romeo Crennel, etc.)
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
Especially with Mangini being a defensive guy, we really need a strong OC – one with previous head coaching experience would be great and let Mangini and Ryan focus on building a lock down defense
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
I don’t see how HC experience would help our OC. I definitely think the guy needs to have been the playcaller in the coaching staff at some point.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
It helps, maybe because they see what being an HC is all about and learn a little more than they would have as a coordinator, maybe because the step backwards motivates them, I’m not really sure, but if you look at the successful teams in this leagues, they have coordinators who were previously HCs
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
I guess I can see how its possible it could help. I guess it can’t hurt unless you consider the guy will be itching more for a HC job when one comes around. I would rather have a guy though that had called plays before with some success than someone who didn’t.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
McD is such a douche, he’s probably a closet Squealer fan.
J. W. - December 13, 2010
the fact that he grew up in NE OH should matter exactly zero.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
No way. The guy runs passing offenses and we need to be a running offense.
We have no good WRs and an amazing RB.
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Why do we “need to be a running offense”? We only have 5-8 record with a running offense (which we are, without a question.)
I’m not saying that a running offense is a bad thing or that it is not succesfull but it certainly has not given us a winning record.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
How is that not exactly what you are saying?
Simmsinns - December 12, 2010
Because it may be succesfull and it may be a good thing but it doesn’t mean that they are the culprit for a losing record or the lone reason for a winning record.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
Then what is your point here exactly?
I’m just saying we need to be run offense because, like you mention above, we lack a good (healthy) QB and good WRs, but have an awesome RB.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Colt is back next year. It’s looking like we might get a nice draft pick. AJ Green?
Just wishful thinking…
StuckInPa - December 13, 2010
If we lose Rob Ryan, we might want to go with a play making pass rusher.
I say that because Rob generally gets creates pressure through creative defenses, as well as getting the players to play up to their opponents.
If he is gone, I’d like to have someone that can get to the quarterback consistently, for years to come.
Then trade up for Julio Jones? This is just wishful thinking.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
As much as I have been opposed, I think Robert Quinn could end up being special.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
Opposed to what specifically?
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I have a hard time using a first round pick on a guy who didn’t play football this season.
Who knows what he has been up to, working with, taking, etc.
But as pass rushers go, he looks freaking legit. He isn’t the strongest against the run, but he is probably the best OLB/DE tweener out there.
Bernie19Kosar - December 13, 2010
I see. I didn’t even realize, but seems reasonable. I haven’t done much look into draft specific possibilities yet outside of Julio Jones and AJ Green.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
I agree, I don’t like using a high pick on a guy who is a conversion DE → OLB either. Seems like they are hard to scout, and the patriots always seem to have no trouble finding them lower in the draft. Then again: Clay Matthews.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Don’t get me started. Matthews, Cushing, Loadholt – that would have been a great 09 draft. Defense taken care of, and O line taken care of, and then add in our 10 draft to that revised mix. We’d be much better, but our lack of an organized front office came into play.
J. W. - December 13, 2010
I like alex mack…
Plus, we didn’t have 2 first round picks
Also, Cushing really isn’t too good of a fit for a 3-4 and Loadholt isn’t all that great at this point.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
yeah but, matthews and cushing both went in the first round, ahead of where we took alex mack (who has turned out to be a very good pick). Loadholt is a nice player but he had some questions over effort and football intellegence and that really isn’t the kind of guy mangini was seeking.
You can look back and say “well we could have had this guy” but you are just being a captain hindsight. The draft isn’t a sure thing.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I was just replying on the comment that you made that we “need to be a running offense.” I don’t believe that there is some divine command or at the very least a pragmatic reason for the Browns to continue to focus on being a running offense. (Keep in mind that the discussion was about a future offensive coordinator so I figured that we were talking about the future direction of the Browns)
Johannes Climacus - December 13, 2010
I’m saying that the reason is our offensive personal fits a running offense about 100000x better.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
How do we know that without any legitimate threats at the receiver position?
Johannes Climacus - December 13, 2010
This is my point.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Then we agree that it can’t be pinned on the coaches?
Johannes Climacus - December 13, 2010
No, Daboll sucks.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
When your offense is forced to be one dimensional because of a lack of skill and therefore effectiveness in the passing game it is very difficult for me to simply say that it is all the OC’s fault.
I would love to use him as a scapegoat but he is not the sole problem with the Browns’s offensive problems
Johannes Climacus - December 13, 2010
I’ve mention at least a few times why I dislike Daboll (not in this specific discussion). Essentially it’s about several awful drive killing playcalls, and a lot less about out talent level.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
This game was the icing on the cake for me in regards to Daboll. The Bills have one of the worst defenses in the NFL. We shoul dhave scored 30 + points and rushed for 200 yards. Any capable OC would have accomplished that today with our team. His beyond horrific calls on 3rd down after 3rd down with 3 yard routes on 3rd and 8, REFUSING to allow Delhomme to throw to Watson (to be tricky?), not running outside once, no screens at all (even though we’ve had success with them) and on and on.
mgtbfb - December 13, 2010
Yup, good points.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Daboll, sucks! He ruined the whole season, with his, stupid play calling. GET RID OF HIM NOW!
dawginhouston - December 14, 2010
I hope this is a joke.
Buckeye Brad - December 14, 2010
Agree 100%.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
You have to be a good passing team to win SBs. No running team has won a SB in 30 years. Even the Ravens and Bucs were efficient passers when they made their SB run (in addition to having awesome Ds)
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
having a good running game should make it easier to pass the ball. Having a good passing game would help our good running back find more space. Football isn’t about running or passing or whatever anymore, its about getting the ball in the hands of your playmakers. Its all synergy.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
We don’t need to be a running offense. We need to have talented offensive players and go from there. As impressed by Hillis as I am, he’s been far from amazing down the stretch. As our talent improves, our offensive schemes will change. Right now we are a running team because that’s all we can do.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Very interesting idea!
HenryDawg - December 12, 2010
Because it may be succesfull and it may be a good thing but it doesn’t mean that they are the culprit for a losing record or the lone reason for a winning record.
Johannes Climacus - December 12, 2010
How do we know that without any legitimate threats at the receiver position?
Johannes Climacus - December 13, 2010
Until we have some A-rated receivers (at least one ) we are going to be stuck in at .500 for years if we are lucky.
Karen Marie - December 13, 2010
Man, one loss to the Bills and you’d think we’re sitting at 2 and 11, after reading this thread. Talking about coaching change and how bad we are everywhere…
I’m as guilty as anyone.
On a positive note: AT LEAST WE AREN’T THE BUNGLES!
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
…who are sitting at 2-11.
Man, remember when these guys were considered legitimate super bowl contenders? the preseason SB contenders of Dallas and Cincy will be battling it out for a chance at a top 3-5 pick.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
Yeah, remember last year when we actually were 2-11 and everyone was fairly hog certain that Mangini would get canned?
North Coast Flea - December 13, 2010
DBN theme for the week:
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
This is actually a Cleveland fan problem in general. Very counterproductive.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
Funny thing is, if we beat the Bungles next week, we are back to giddy children on Christmas morning.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
While I’ll be happy if we win next week I’m still going to be very concerned if we again look pathetic on offense and only manage a win because Cinci plays even worse.
Win or lose I’m not going to be happy if the coaching staff insists on running Delhomme out there again, calls nothing but between the guard running plays every 1st and 2nd down, 3 yard curls to Chanci Stuckey on 3rd and 9 and we end up with 178 yards of offense and only win because Cinci turns it over 5 times to our 3.
mgtbfb - December 13, 2010
Delhomme, doesn’t call the plays,Daboll, is the problem.
dawginhouston - December 14, 2010
you know both can be part of the problem too. Even with Daboll calling the plays, we seemed to have more offensive success overall with Seneca or Colt under center (seneca though is a bit more debatable).
as Golan pointed out, we scored 22 ppg with colt under center (discounting Defensive TDs) and 15.1 points with Seneca/Jake under center. also, in seneca’s 3 starts that he finished, the Offense averaged 18 ppg. I believe the TD in the Falcons game was also before he got hurt (he didn’t finish that game though). I in fact isolated times that JD played, and his ppg numbers come out to 13.33.
So, While seneca isn’t anything special, its clear the offense tends to do a lot less with jake under center.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
My operating theory right now is that Jake’s lack of mobility just makes a very poor combination with Daboll’s playcalling. Seneca and Colt have more scrambling action, which just works out better with what we’re trying to pull off offensively. (Whether that’s just because they’re covering for Daboll’s ineptitude with those skills is an open question.) Who knows, maybe in a different scheme with better WRs and\or better protection, Jake does just fine.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 14, 2010
I agree with this. I think it seems like plays have a tendency to break down and the pass blocking hasn’t been consistent. that doesn’t work well with a mobile QB. Honestly, I am the least impressed with JDs ability to make a play when a play breaks down, even if you disregard mobility.
bross09 - December 14, 2010
yeah really. We are dumb huh?
jaws. - December 13, 2010
This is sort of a crappy thing to say. Where do you know that fans aren’t fickle?
Also, as said below, there is a difference between frustration and panic. If you’d like to come up with a checklist of 50 excuses why we lost to Buffalo, be my guest. But at least give a few frustrated fans a little slack. Broad generalizations about Cleveland fans aren’t especially productive either.
Western Reserve - December 13, 2010
I could give specific examples where fan outcry has had a negative impact on the organization. I would argue the whole Collins/Savage fiasco is a good example.
Bottom line is I don’t want the organization to fire Daboll or Mangini just because of what the fans perceive is the problem. If Holmgren decides they are problems as well in his best football judgment, then so be it. I trust he doesn’t care what the fans think, other than the fact that they want a winner. I am not sure this was the case with prior regimes.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
This is a good point. The difference in the organization now is that we have Holmgren on top of the pyramid making these sorts of decisions instead of Randy Lerner. In the past randy has listened to fan outcry and reads Grossi’s drivel that isn’t fit to line my birdcage. Holmgren knows better than to do any of that.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
Disagree with this. Being pissed and frustrated is not the same as panicking.
HenryDawg - December 13, 2010
Not the same thing, but often looks the same, at least appears that way in this thread.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Ha. I posted that in the game thread too.
emily522 - December 13, 2010
You did? Great minds….
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
…but if we play like we did yesterday, the Bungles are going to hand us our ass next Sunday.
steviepat - December 13, 2010
this isn’t one game Delhomme with our offensse has looked horrible all season. Those trick plays against NO is not really offense. Thats called luck, those plays could of gone either way. The reason were close to winning all our game is cuz our defense is pretty great. Yea theres always one play that we go “Tackle the guy you Idiot” but overall when the defense is out there that much that stuff will happen. Btw anyone notice that since Eric Wright got injured our secondary has looked awesome. Do you know how annoying it is when announcers say every game “look for teams to challenge Eric Wright.” The only reason he was taken out was cuz of injury. Someone please tell me what we see in him.
Nathan Harrison - December 13, 2010
Mooncamping is probably a cover for whoever keeps an eye on the fans for the powers that be in the NFL. The games are probably all fixed (in order to make money off of gambling) and there is some guy scrolling down this thread under the mooncamping moniker just laughing his ass off at how much me micro-analyze a rigged game.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
until he reads this post and flags it for the death-squads.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I concede defeat and the season.
Now what do we do? Salvage the roster?
mooncamping - December 13, 2010
I was happy to see a homer (Bills WR David Nelson) do well but not against my browns. He’s not the best WR out there but he’s always found a way to get open. Shavodrick will probably try to come out next year, but his days as a QB are over, more like a young Cribbs.
J. W. - December 13, 2010
Didn’t get to see the game (listened to Donovan and Deiken on my Ipod) and apparently I was lucky.
I’ve been a supporter of this coaching staff but there is no way I can support bringing Daboll back next year. I can’t stand it when people say “I coulda called/coached a better game than him” but…… I coulda called a better game than he did. Did we throw to Watson more than once? Did we run a route past the sticks one time on third down? We ran extremely well on the first drive yet went away from it. I understand Hillis fumbled three times so put Bell in, even for a series. He is on the roster for a reason. Use him. We should have ran the ball 40 times.
Still like Mangini and Ryan, however, Mangini needs to sit Delhomme. If he sees the field again then Holmgren needs to step in. The guy is finished. If they start Delhomme/Mo Mass and Robiskie again next year I’m finished with this team. I just can’t take any more. It’s just too painful.
Lets hope Colt is back next week and we beat the Bungles and play the Steelers and Ratbirds tough. I don’t want to see an entirely new coaching staff and be 3 – 5 years away again.
mgtbfb - December 13, 2010
i know i’ve said this elsewhere … but sitting delhomme is more than just a mangini call. i guarantee (well, i don’t guarantee b/c i have no knowledge, but i feel like it has to be the case) that mangini and holmgren are in almost constant communication re: quarterbacking.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
The Browns have looked sloppy offensively the previous two weeks – remember they barely beat lowly Carolina by one point at home and their defense won the game for them in Miami along with the Dolphins shooting themselves in the foot. Their defense has kept them in the games all season. Its a combination of poor coaching (Daboll and Mangini for ALLOWING Daboll and Delhomme to work their black magic) and lack of offensive talent. They need to draft a quality receiver and promote Ryan to head coach before another team offers him a job, and then go out and hire an offensive coordinator who will throw the ball downfield. The Browns hopefully will have Colt back next week against the Bengals – if he isn’t I don’t think we have any chance of beating the Bungles. Suddenly, 5-11 looks more possible than 9-7 or 8-8.
steviepat - December 13, 2010
My take is that we are playing right about our talent level. We do not have the talent to seperate from even the worst of teams, so this is what we get, one week a lucky bounce vs. a chitty team goes our way and the next week it goes the other. Believe it or not – my biggest disappointment was that first drive. With those weather conditions I just felt that trapping them down there was almost as good as a FG.
realmccoy - December 13, 2010
I agree with you. One of our few strengths is the “supposed” ability to line up and pound the ball with a strong O line and 500 lb backfield. Sometimes strategy has to go out the window and you have to be able to line up and kick the other guys a$$. If I would have been an O lineman, Hillis or Vickers I would have been upset at the call.
And like you said, even if we don’t score, they are on the one yard line. As frustrating as the D was at times Sunday, they held Buffalo to 13 points.
mgtbfb - December 14, 2010
this is extremely accurate. forgetting against whom the particular results have come, i think 5-8 is about right for where this browns team is this year. for better or worse.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
Dear Santa -
Eff the I pad – I want -
1. AJ Green
2. A Right side of the offensive line
3 Joe Haden´s twin brother
4. A young stud on the DL in the 2nd round
I have been exeptionally good this year – but if your prefer – I can find you someone that will be very very bad for you.
realmccoy - December 13, 2010
you bring up a good point: at this point we are now officially out of the playoff picture, and so we shouldn’t really worry about losing. In the draft, we need to go BPA: be it AJ green, Patrick Petersen, Prince Amukamura or a pass rusher (Quinn, Bowers). I’m very excited by the upcoming offseason.
jaws. - December 13, 2010
I guess I undersold my Bills run D a little. They did a pretty good job against Hillis especially after the first drive.
Good luck the rest of the way, guys.
MattRichWarren - December 13, 2010
We had three third and three’s in which our offensive coordinator chose to pass the ball, essentially killing each of those drives…
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
What? a 1 yard route to a WR that runs a 4.8 40 is money there.
mgtbfb - December 13, 2010
The Bills passed on 3rd and 1 and 3rd and two at least two or three times. It gives Fitzpatrick option to run, too.
MattRichWarren - December 13, 2010
yeah. fitzpatrick is very solid because he can scramble in that situation. sadly, delhomme is kinda immobile and Colt is injured. I think they are actually similar players (fitz and colt) except fitzpatrick may have a slightly better arm and is an inch taller.
bross09 - December 13, 2010
Congrats on the win, the Bills clearly wanted it more and played like it. This was one of the worst executed and played offensive games I’ve ever seen from the Browns and that is covering a lot of pathetic ground. I’m curious to see what your front office does with Fitzpatrick. I thought he played well. Think he’s done well enough for you guys to forego drafting a QB high?
mgtbfb - December 13, 2010
No. He’s an adequate starter. I don’t think he’s a Super Bowl winning QB. If your goal is playoffs he could probably do it.
MattRichWarren - December 13, 2010
If Dilfer can do it, Ryan Fitz could be a Super Bowl winning QB, of course he Fitz doesn’t have the team that surrounding him that Dilfer did, not even close really, just sayin’
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
You cited the one example of a mediocre QB winning. Now look at the other years in the last decade.
Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Bress, etc.
MattRichWarren - December 14, 2010
Valid point. Just saying with a good enough team, even the most mediocre of quarterbacks can win a Super Bowl. But, as we both know, that’s not the Bills, so Fitz won’t be winning a Super Bowl anytime soon, so I suppose your original point stands, as does mine.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
I think the first drive was a sign of things to come and is further evidence of questionable coaching decisions.
1. The play on 2nd down (Hillis for 1 yard to the 1) is forgivable, I guess, because they had momentum.
2. The play on 3rd down (Hills up the middle/right guard for no gain) was a dud. This has been the story of the Browns season for the offense, predictable calls and very little creativity.
3. Mangini should have gone for the TD on 4th down instead of the field goal. From the 1 yard line you need to get 7 points if you are the Browns. You have to assume the other team is going to put some points on the board.
There is just no “killer instinct” to our offensive game plan and play calling.
burntorangeandbrown - December 13, 2010
Hey, at least we didn’t have the refs giving the other team a free 5th down like in the Tampa/Washington game.
mgtbfb - December 13, 2010
That was a scoreboard issue. The officials were correct.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2010
I don’t think he got the first down. He was a yard short at least. Regardless, what a clusterf$$$.
mgtbfb - December 14, 2010
Strikes me that our coaching is a bit unbalanced- we have a defensively minded HC, a DC who could be HC material, but is certainly one of the better DCs in the league (I’d argue well into the top ten, borderline top 5?) and an OC who is if nothing else definitely very inexperienced.
We need our better coordinator to be on the offesnive side of the ball!
LondonBrown - December 13, 2010
Exactly. If you have a defensive minded HC then you need a strong OC, or vice versa, preferably a former HC. We have the exact opposite.
HenryDawg - December 14, 2010 via mobile
I think the Browns this year are good enough to make the playoffs. There are just a couple things holding them back.
1. OC Daboll
2. Delhomme(he just doens’t have it anymore)
Now i think Mangini has done a good job at building this team, but if he doesn’t win the rest of the year because he keeps their OC he should get fired. This proves he is oblivious to whats wrong with his team. Delhomme hasn’t had a good game. The one game in Miami he through a game ending interception, luckily it was dropped. How many interceptions to lose games does he need to throw to replace him. I understand it happens sometimes, but when his best throw is a 1 yard pass check down. Cmon Man. Secondly how do you go from complete domination on the first drive to starting pass on first down run on second forced to pass on third. Yea Hillis had a few fumbles. I love the guy i’m going to be naive and say the rain had a lot to do with it. Also when you run up the middle so many times it happens. How about some pitches or screens. Not one screen the whole game.
Nathan Harrison - December 13, 2010
I agrre about Daboll and Delhomme, but not about Mangini. Mangini should be fired at the end of the year, period. There is no excuse for Daboll and no excuse for starting Delhomme. Mangini seems to think that Delhomme is better than Seneca Wallace, really? How many pick 6’s has Wallace thrown this year compared to Delhomme? Wallace is hands down better than Delhomme, as a matter of fact so are the losers we got rid of from last year. I was a Mangini supporter until this debacle at Buffalo. Why wasn’t Delhomme benched after the first half? Actually why is he even starting at all? If Mangini is so high on Delhomme and Daboll, good bye and don’t come back!
Jchapman18 - December 14, 2010
you were a mangini supporter until a single game changed your mind? gimme a break.
to say that mangini is “high” on delhomme is a joke. the options for qb this week were delhomme (tweedle-suck), and wallace (tweedle-stink). rock and a hard place, dude.
DontCallMeJoey - December 14, 2010
There is a whole lot wrong with this post but I’m just going to pick on one:
It’s a wash. Even if you consider Wallace better it is most definitely NOT hands down.
North Coast Flea - December 15, 2010
I’d really like to see more Seneca over more Jake, and even I admit that it’s a very debatable decision.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 15, 2010
Stat of the day: Browns are 0-3 in games Golan has been unable to watch this season and games Dawg Nuts has seen live in his lifetime.
Feels bad, man.
SpecialBrownie - December 13, 2010
I watched this one.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2010
Eh, streaming doesn’t count.
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
I am now the very proud owner of a #40 Hillis Authentic Browns Home Jersey, autographed by the Juggernaut himself. Also shook his hand, it was as satisfying as a handshake can be.
Quick poll: Where it or frame it?
Simmsinns - December 13, 2010
Wear it, man. It may become valuable, but in year’s to come, it’ll be so much more satisfying to see it tattered in your fav. clothes drawer, than sitting on the wall forever.
How was Hillis acting? Ask him anything or have a conversation?
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
You’re right, I think I’ll wear it. Plus, really nice jersey framing runs $200-400.
He seemed very quick not conversational, understandably so because the line was massive and the guys running it were very pushy, but you could tell he was very down to earth. I saw Eric Wright last spring, also very nice, but showed up in his best dressed casual, yet designer clothes, Hillis showed up in jeans, camo coat, and regular old Cabela’s cap. Hillis was also awesome with the kids though, willing to go a bit extra for pictures and whatnot. Didn’t mind dipping through the whole thing too, had his spit bottle under the table. Seemed like a nice blue collar guy from Arkansas.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
It was very tempting to try to actually ask something worth while, but I was about 13th in line and there were several hundred ancy people waiting behind me, all while we were getting pushed along by the guys running the show.
My mom managed to have a decent conversations with Beanie Wells and Brian Hartline during a signing last year though. Depends on the people pulling the stings.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
I love the guy that Hillis is in IRL. I love how he walks into a press conference in camo and shows himself and everything. While I’m not fond of him promoting chew in front of the public, I respect the fact that he isn’t trying to hide who he is and respects the people who respect him.
Woulda loved to have met him myself.
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
The guy in front of me was like, “If my chick ever complains about my chew again, I’m using the Hillis excuse.”
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Haha.
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
It can be much cheaper.
This is what I used for my Kosar jersey.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2010
The one I got my JC in is even cheaper. haha
North Coast Flea - December 15, 2010
frame it and buy another one.
jaws. - December 14, 2010
If it’s autographed for the love of god frame it. I wouldn’t dream of wearing my autographed JC jersey.
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2010
This has gone through my head a lot, but I liked SB’s point, it’ll mean much more to me wearing it a lot through the years. Also, resale is not a concern at all.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Cut out a square around the autograph, frame that, and patch the hole in the jersey. That way you save the autograph and get to wear the jersey.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
I’m assuming this is a joke, but the autograph is on the back #0.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Even better. If you wear a jacket over it, you don’t even have to bother with patching the jersey!
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
Killing the point of wearing the jersey in the first place? Brilliant!
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
But then the autograph will fade. Buy another jersey and frame that one. The JC hanging on my wall means a hell of a lot more to me than the raggedy Spielman in my dresser.
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2010
Nice! Hillis seems like a nice guy. You’re very lucky!
emily522 - December 14, 2010
You didn’t take your girlfriend with you did you?
Kimble_79 - December 14, 2010
Frame it. Get a replica to wear.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2010
OT but Cleveland related: Lee went back to the Phillies. I hate how this guy has been thrown around like a rag doll. Baseball is ridiculous.
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
Any place but the Yankees sounded just fine to me.
ouched - December 14, 2010
Cleveland would have been nice. Oh wait…
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Okay, fine. Any place but the Yankees that could have remotely hoped to afford him.
ouched - December 14, 2010
I can agree with that, also hating the Yankees, but reading this statement reminds me why I hate MLB.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
The Yanks offered him 135mill. over 6 years and then were beaten out by the Phillies.
MLB is so stupid, it’s ridiculous. I mean, really? Those are crazy ass $$ signs.
SpecialBrownie - December 14, 2010
Fully agree. Hate MLB off seasons. They serve as a constant reminder that the MLB is nothing more than an aristocracy, protected by the league, where the small markets spend years developing a talent base just to have a shot of winning if they can time it just right, only to see it evaporate after their stars hit 6 years of service.
But hey, who cares at the league, right? If every other team folds when the fans can no longer stomach this sham, then the Yankees and Red Sox can just play each other 162 times.
ouched - December 14, 2010
yeah i’m sick of baseball too. The owners of the big market teams constantly block the notion of a salary cap and such.
jaws. - December 14, 2010
I like watching the Indians, but I just hate the system of baseball. It makes it less enjoyable to watch.
emily522 - December 14, 2010
Ha!
5 years/120 million. Ridiculous amount of money. I don’t care how good you are.
At least he’s not going to the Yankees. I am happy about that. But: Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Hamels… yikes.
emily522 - December 14, 2010
I hope they lose, I love when stacked teams that dish out a crap ton of money lose. Just don’t lose to the Yankees.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Same here.
emily522 - December 14, 2010
Yep, just glad the Yankees didn’t get him, although the Phillys are turning into the NL’s version of the Yanks. I’ll always be an Indians fan but I’ve lost any emotional attachment to them or MLB. It’s not a level playing field no matter how people want to spin it. Carmona, Santana, Choo, etc… will all soon be gone and we will get nothing for them and be told that “we need to be patient because of the economic realities of MBL, Indians leadership has a plan in place and we will contend in 2017 at which time we will sign Walt Weiss and Manny Mota, you are welcome”.
Good God, if the Phillies and Yankees don’t make it to the WS I’m going to laugh my ass off.
mgtbfb - December 14, 2010
Perfectly said.
I’m on the other side though. I hope the Yankees/Red Sox and Phillies meet in the World Series every season. Only then we people want a change to a insane system. For all the bitching people do about the BCS, baseball is much worse.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2010
Yay for him telling the yankees to go root for buffalo.
jaws. - December 14, 2010
I’m glad he’s in Philly. Now that the Reds are on the cusp of being legit contenders, I want as much talent as possible to migrate to the NL.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
why is that? wouldn’t you want it moving to the AL?
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
Nope. As much as I want the Browns to win a SuperBowl, I’d rather they not win it in a down year for the Ravens or Steelers. The tougher the competition, the sweeter the victory.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
that’s what I figured.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
You obviously don’t know many Cub fans. Winning one will be winning one.
Villeslgr - December 14, 2010
Yeah, despite the last decade, I’ve been spoiled by multiple championships in my lifetime.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2010
How is he getting thrown around? It was his choice to go there. He couldve just as easily stayed in Texas
HenryDawg - December 14, 2010 via mobile
Colt may be ready to go this week!!!!
emily522 - December 14, 2010
Link?
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Look on Rotoworld on the homepage.
emily522 - December 14, 2010
Found one: Here, Plain Dealer, Cleveland.com
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Cue the choir on angels!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 14, 2010
Or the choir of angels, if you prefer literacy. Oops.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 14, 2010
You know what’s fun to think about, what this season could have been with:
1) Haden starting over Wright from the start of the season
2) McCoy starting over Delhomme and Wallace from the start of the season
3) No Daboll
Just makes me really excited for next season. Plus another draft and off-season to rebuild.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
fix:
Not rebuild, just build on top off.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
Wow, I suck at typing.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
I don’t know if Colt would have been as good from the start.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2010
Either way, it makes me excited for next season.
Simmsinns - December 14, 2010
You just described next year. Hopefully!
HenryDawg - December 14, 2010 via mobile
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.