It's the first day of June meaning we're just a month away from the half-way point of the year. With minicamp set to begin in a few weeks, the Cleveland Browns news is about to pick up.
In today's edition of Around the Pound, we take a look at Tony Grossi playing a Devil's Advocate of sorts when it comes to the usage of the Wildcat formation, a nugget on FB Peyton Hillis, and news on where one of our former general managers has ended up.
The Plain Dealer's Tony Grossi questions whether the hype that the Cleveland Browns will run a lot of Wildcat plays this year might be a bit overblown.
Doesn't it appear the Browns are going out of their way to publicize the use of Josh Cribbs and Seneca Wallace in zany Wildcat plays?
It sounds more sensible that if they truly intended to incorporate the pair of all-purpose players into the mainstream of their offense, they would keep the plays under wraps and downplay them when asked.
Instead, coach Eric Mangini has talked them up enthusiastically and displayed the Wildcat in front of the media in organized team activities practices. He's never that open about strategies.
So what's going on?
Grossi then goes on to suggest that while the Browns might continue to run a lot of plays in training camp and the preseason, he'd expect the plays to be limited come the regular season, and saved for only rare occassions.
For the most part, I think I have to disagree with Grossi's points. If the Browns are going to spend so much time practicing the Wildcat formation, then why would we not utilize it often during a game? It would be a waste of not only practice time, but of talent as well. Couple that with the thought of frustrating fans beyond belief, and things just wouldn't add up. I think the front office is trying to take the opposite approach to what Eric Mangini did last year when he tried to keep our starting quarterback in Week 1 a secret in order to gain a competitive advantage.
The Plain Dealer's Mary Kay Cabot had a lengthy interview with FB/RB Peyton Hillis last week during OTA's. Here's an excerpt:
"I want to show the coaches they got a big steal," Hillis said during organized team activities last week. "That's just the way I think and work. I feel like I can do just about anything really well, whether it's running or blocking or catching the ball out of the backfield."
Former Browns general manager George Kokinis is back with the Baltimore Ravens, this time serving as a senior personal assistant.
"It's good to have George back," general manager Ozzie Newsome said in a statement released by the team. "He will help evaluate college and pro players, plus work with Pat [Moriarty], the Ravens' vice president of football [administration].
Another GM to sweep under the rug, eh?
From the Akron Beacon Journal:
''That would be great if that happens,'' Rubin said of possibly starting alongside Rogers. ''I just can't really worry about that too much. I just come out and practice and try to show Mangini that if he does give me the chance, I can make the best of it.''
0 recs | 163 comments
The Hillis article was pretty good. It sounds like he left on amicable terms with McDaniels, even with rumors to the contrary floating around.
gahnki - June 1, 2010
I choose to believe the rumors.
golanbatrac - June 1, 2010
McDaniels is a disaster.
Roger Dorn - June 1, 2010
If Tebow doesn’t work out, I think he will be gone by next year.
Kimble_79 - June 1, 2010
I doubt that. The Broncos’ owner knows that Tebow is going to be need more than one year to prove himself in the NFL, so I don’t think they would judge the Tebow pick after only one year.
Buckeye Brad - June 1, 2010
maybe your right. I’m just assuming (yeah I know what that means) he had a hand in bringing in Tebow. If the team flounders after trading away their star power on top of Tebow not developing. Maybe I should say if Tebow doesn’t show much development at all this year. I think he’ll be gone. Just my opinion though.
Kimble_79 - June 1, 2010
I thought he meant McDaniels would be gone by next year, which I can believe.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
Maybe he will be, but it won’t be because of how Tebow performs in his first year. The team won’t judge McDaniels on that pick after only one year.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
Right right
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
Especially when the whole organization was in on the pick. It’s not like mcdaniels ran through card up without anyone knowing..lol
The naome40 - June 3, 2010 via mobile
I can see that as being a huge possibility actually. How do you know the whole organization was behind it? McDaniels comes from the Brainwashing system that is Bill Billicheck’s. Those coaches know how to force their hand at their FO.
SpecialBrownie - June 3, 2010
That is what I meant, but I used Tebow in there as well. Just didn’t like the pick
Kimble_79 - June 3, 2010
He seemed like a good coach but he is terrible with getting the right players.
TheRealSlimShady - June 2, 2010
I would have said good coach, but he is petulant, benches talented players and brings in guys who will do whatever he wants even if they are less talented.
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
Well the Tebow pick-up is a bit weird. Why draft an extra quarterback.
I´m pretty sure McDaniels is looking to work with Brady Quinn. I´m not quite sure how he functions, I think he needs a tasty decoy for the fans, and needs to find some kind of rationale to do what he wants to do, which is start Quinn.
From a Broncos standpoint Cutler and Quinn went toe to toe in that one Monday Nightgame, when Shanahan was still there. I liked what I saw from Quinn, and I´m pretty sure some fans around Denver were impressed by him as well.
He is their man, you´ll see.
mooncamping - June 2, 2010
As a Cutler fan like yourself though, you can’t think that McDaniels shipping him off was a good move?
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
I’m totally on board with moving Cutler. Mechanically, he’s a mess, and he’s at the point where he’s so talented that he feels he can get away with terrible mechanics.
Football Outsiders has him ranked 36th in DYAR, and while that stat has its limits, it’s another strike against him.
Every time I’ve seen him play I’ve been amazed at the offense’s inefficiency. Everything runs through his arm and he throws too many interceptions too make that worthwhile.
gahnki - June 2, 2010
I am a fan of Cutler, don’t really blame him for the offensive mess in Chicago last year given his surroundings. He has a lot of improvements to make still, but he is a talented player.
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
Exactly.
Chicago couldn’t run the ball last season and had one of the worst OLines in the NFL. Plus he was throwing to a CB and rookies.
I personally am still a huge fan of Cutler.
Bernie19Kosar - June 2, 2010
I’m not a fan of Cutler, but he does have talent. There shouldn’t be much of an excuse for him to not succeed this year with Matz as his coordinator. We’ll see how effective he really is.
dawgtribe - June 3, 2010
the best coordinator in the world can’t make a CB a #1 receiver.
notthatnoise - June 3, 2010
or that sorry offensive line block
Roger Dorn - June 3, 2010
I meant ‘Martz’. Sorry about the typo.
dawgtribe - June 3, 2010
If it had been into my care, and when my expansion team rolls around, it would have been the best thing ever. For his sake however, and it surprised the heck out of me, at the time, Chicago was a good place to land. Lovie is cool and Jerry Angelo is cool, Chicago football is cool usually, so good for Jay. He was made to fail last year as stooge pocket monkey, his receivers simply refused him, he had no help in the offensive backfield, Forte would make a decent tailback, but as a single back he is absolutely lost.
Consequentially it definately feels like take your hat and on to greener pastures, but as a consultant I have to advise him to stick it out. The Bears haven´t had a decent quarterback since Jim McMahon and they´re even all suave about it. For his legacies sake, he is staying and starting for the next 10 years, do your intuitive math in regards to trophies in their case. Martz was brought in as a handler, I have no doubts or qualms about it, but Super Bowl ring or not, Greatest Show on Turf, especially the term show in a Bears context, is just ridiculous, they keep it real. So now we need to work through the Martz predicament, but trust me Jay Cutler will play Cutler ball eventually. They can make it hard, and we can make it easy, you decide what will happen, but trust me again Jay Cutler comes unchained next year, not because of Martz, but despite Martz.
mooncamping - June 3, 2010
rcced for stooge pocket monkey
North Coast Flea - June 4, 2010
The google pacman game was great fun.
golanbatrac - June 1, 2010
Still is:
www.google.com/pacman/
Western Reserve - June 3, 2010
Grossi:
Anyone familiar with that rule? It’s a new one to me.* What is the rationale? I am not really seeing it. And scope (e.g., what if the 3rd QB is inserted at another position)?
*Never ceases to amaze me how often I learn for the first time of rules in the NFL.
TheDriveStillHurts - June 1, 2010
That’s been the rule for as long as I can remember. The benefit is that teams that carry a third QB aren’t penalized a roster spot on gameday.
golanbatrac - June 1, 2010
Like I said, it never ceases to amaze me that I learn of at least one new NFL rule every year. . . . It’s better when it is playing rules though, like five or so years ago when I learned about the Fair Catch Kick.
TheDriveStillHurts - June 2, 2010
And when I say “new NFL rule” — I mean “new” to me. Some of these rules are real old, and that is why it is interesting that they are new to me. It’s part of the beauty of the sport.
TheDriveStillHurts - June 2, 2010
Sorry for chiming in, but I’m curious now….what exactly is the “fair catch kick” you speak of?
Kimble_79 - June 2, 2010
If you make a fair catch at the end of the game with no time left, you are allowed to attempt a field goal. No matter where you are on the field.
Not sure if the same rule applies for halftime too, but that’s my understanding of it.
Brownie's Year - June 2, 2010
John Madden use to talk about the rule every single MNF or SNF game, but the team would never go through with doing it.
Chris Pokorny - June 2, 2010
Actually, it applies at anytime in the game — it would only make sense, however, at the end of the game or end of the half. A team can get a free kick after a fair catch, and if it’s a placekick and goes through the upright, it is a score. The players line up like a kick-off (or free kick after safety), but a tee cannot be used. So there is no rush on the kicker.
The last time it was converted was in the 1970s, and the last attempt was a few years ago for like a 70 yard field goal or something. Here is a good site with stats and history of the rule and its use.
TheDriveStillHurts - June 2, 2010
I did not know that. Interesting.
Kimble_79 - June 3, 2010
As golan stated, the rule has been around. It is designed to allow you to carry 1 extra player on gameday so you don’t waste it on the seldom used 3rd QB. A team can choose to activate 3 QBs before the game though and would not be penalized for using any of them in any order.
Chris Pokorny - June 1, 2010 via mobile
So in all reality, teams carry 54 QBs on gameday, unless they want to use QB 3 without being forced to due to injury or poor play or the first two which would call for an actual 53 roster on gameday.
SpecialBrownie - June 1, 2010
Wouldn’t that be the fifty-third QB rule?
Villeslgr - June 1, 2010
For every 5 3rd string QBs, only 3 can vote?
Seems a little discriminatory.
SpecialBrownie - June 1, 2010
But really I don’t believe in suffrage for 3rd string QBs anyway
Villeslgr - June 1, 2010
When the 3rd-string QB plays, the sufferage is all ours.
JustBob - June 2, 2010
It’s relatively easy to circumvent- just put a possible third quarterback at another position on the depth chart, like wide receiver.
gahnki - June 1, 2010
Ala Josh Cribbs.
SpecialBrownie - June 1, 2010
There is no reason to do that. If a team wants to have 3 QB’s on the active roster they’re allowed to do that and the 3rd QB can play any time he wants. The rule only applies if the 3rd QB isn’t on the active roster for the game (as Chris said above).
Buckeye Brad - June 1, 2010
If the team does not want to activate the 3rd quarterback, and have a roster spot dedicated to him for the entire season, then there is a reason to do that for roster versatility purposes. Or, in the Browns case, having a fourth quarterback on the roster can be negotiated through manipulation of the depth chart. Seneca Wallace could be classified as a wide receiver if the Browns want to keep both Ratliff and McCoy on the active roster, while reaping Wallace’s benefits as a Wildcat quarterback.
gahnki - June 1, 2010
Yeah, they could list Wallace as a WR, but then they’d lose a real WR or a player at another position. So it really doesn’t matter if you list your third QB as a QB or as a WR of any other position as long as he’s on the active roster. That still gives you the same number of players to play with one game day.
Buckeye Brad - June 1, 2010
It’d definitely be unorthodox.
gahnki - June 2, 2010
It might be unorthodox but it wouldn’t be circumventing the rules. Teams have 53 players on the active roster regardless of their position, so if a team wants to have 3 QB’s on the active roster then they’re going to be short one player at another position. That’s why most teams only have 2 active QB’s and one “emergency” QB.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
It’d be circumventing the rule that you cannot place a non-active quarterback in the game without incurring the penalty.
gahnki - June 2, 2010
Well, you have to explain yourself more because I’m not sure what you mean. What would be circumventing the rule?
There isn’t a rule that you can’t have three active QB’s on the roster, which means you could play any of them at any time. But that would just give a team one less position player to play with which is why most teams don’t do that.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
As in, avoid having to carry 3 active QBs on the roster while maintaining Wildcat or other positional value. Say the Browns carry Delhomme, Wallace, and McCoy on the roster, but they value McCoy as a true quarterback in event of an injury to Delhomme more than they value Wallace as a true quarterback. But Wallace represents Wildcat and possible wide receiver value. The Browns are not a great example because they’ve shown a willingness to dress 3 QBs under Mangini, and the odds of Wallace playing wide receiver are low, although not unheard of.
A better example would be the Dolphins with Pat White, who was acquired solely for the Wildcat package. They can keep their two primary quarterbacks active, or even three with Tyler Thigpen, and then utilize White as wide receiver depth and Wildcat quarterback without having to designate him as a true quarterback.
gahnki - June 2, 2010
But I still don’t understand how any of that circumvents the rules. Why does it matter if Wallace is “listed” as a WR or QB — either way, he’s taking up a position on the active roster. If they have Delhomme, Wallace, and McCoy on the active roster then there are only 50 players for other positions on the roster. Why does it matter what position one of them is “listed” under? (By the way, do teams even given an official position for players on their active roster before the game? I don’t think so. I mean, they obviously do to the media, but is it something official with the referees?)
What I’m saying is that the Browns will have the same number of players eligible to play in the game whether Wallace is “listed” as a WR or a QB, so why does it matter? How is putting Wallace at WR circumventing the rules? That implies the Browns would have some sort of advantage that they’re not supposed to have, and I just don’t see it.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
It actually works against us to use Wallace as a WR because he wouldn’t actually be playing much WR and we’d essentially be using 4 spots on QBs which would be kind of dumb in my opinion. Unless we realllllllly want to keep Ratliff.
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
Putting Wallace at WR isn’t circumventing the rules, it would just potentially be smart about using roster spots and the clause about activating the 3rd QB shutting down the first two QBs.
Say we have Delhomme, McCoy, Wallace, and Ratliff on the final roster. McCoy is designated the emergency QB for week one, as we want him on the bench for as long as possible. Delhomme and Ratliff are 1 and 2 on the depth chart, Wallace listed at WR. If Delhomme goes down with an injury, we can still have both a traditional QB and Wallace (whom we could use as a wildcat specialist) active.
If we were to cut Ratliff and list Wallace as the #2 QB, we would be stuck choosing between having Wallace as the full-time QB or shutting him down entirely for the game and activating McCoy. It would be either/or between Wallace and a traditional QB as opposed to having both available.
Yes, we would be trading an extra QB for a player at another position both on the roster and active roster. I don’t know this specific part of the rule, but we may just be able to have McCoy and Delhomme active as QBs, have Wallace active wherever we want, and not have a 3rd inactive “QB”. This would allow us the 54-man roster flexibility of not keeping Ratliff, but not the 45-man roster.
rufio - June 3, 2010
As I said above, I’m pretty sure that teams can have 3 QB’s active and play any of them at any time they want, so there is no reason to “list” Wallace as a WR. The rule about playing the 3rd QB before the 4th quarter only works if he’s not on the active roster but listed as the “emergency QB” (as far as I know). So if the Browns want to have Delhomme, Wallace, and McCoy active then they’re allowed to do that without any sort of trickery. The problem with that, as I said above and you also said, is that you’d be losing another position player who could play on special teams, and coaches don’t like to lose those guys.
Buckeye Brad - June 3, 2010
The Eagles went with 3 active QB’s this entire season.
It is rare, but it does happen.
Bernie19Kosar - June 3, 2010
Did they have a 4th inactive QB?
rufio - June 3, 2010
I believe they went with Kolb, McNabb and Vick alone.
Bernie19Kosar - June 3, 2010
Right, that´s what I thought. You could have the real quarterback in the shotgun with the two runningbacks to the left and right of him, and then you just snap it to whoever the ball is intended for. Anyone in the offensive backfield is eligible to throw the ball.
mooncamping - June 2, 2010
This is all irrelevant; McCoy is the 3rd QB. Wallace would be our 2nd string QB anyway, so there would be no penalty for bringing him into the game at any time.
rebuilding year - June 2, 2010
Ah. This is very true.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
No, it’s not irrelevant. Grossi’s point is that if Wallace is the #2 QB and he gets injured on a Wildcat play then the Browns are down to only two QB’s, so they’d be one bad hit on Delhomme away from having to bring McCoy in the game. And if they have to bring in the 3rd string QB before the 4th quarter — assuming he’s not on the active roster — then the other two QB’s can’t go back in the game. So if Delhomme takes a bad hit and has to come out for only one or two plays, as sometimes happens in a game, then the Browns would have to put in McCoy and Delhomme can’t return.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
Nope, Josh Cribbs can fill the void, negating the 3rd QB rule.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
Possibly, but I doubt the team wants Cribbs to play QB for more than a few plays. I mean, I love Cribbs and all, but he’s not an NFL quarterback.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
He was still a College QB who allows to keep the Browns’ options open.
Dellcome comment:
Cribbs comment:
He fits your description perfectly then BB.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
I think BB believes we would put McCoy in to play QB before we would put Cribbs in. Which I would imagine would be the case unless of course they really do think Delhomme is only going to be out for a few plays
Villeslgr - June 2, 2010
In the situation that McCoy was the “emergency” QB, putting him in would prevent us from bringing Seneca or Delhomme back into the game (if the this occurred before the 4th quarter).
Seneca tweaks an ankle, Delhomme gets his bell rung, and all of a sudden we’re playing with Colt as the QB for the rest of the game.
rufio - June 3, 2010
That’s the sort of thing any team should be willing to live with. You get 2 different QBs hurt in one game, then you will probably have to play your rookie QB for a bit. That game is probably lost either way.
Roger Dorn - June 3, 2010
But the point is that if Wallace is in for some plays at another position, as this article is suggesting, then that greatly increases his chance of getting hurt, moreso than if he was just the backup QB who only came in when the starter was hurt.
Buckeye Brad - June 3, 2010
Yeah, I guess, but let’s not worry too much about this kind of thing. You can’t play scared when you have as little talent as we do. Take your best shot, if we get unlucky, so be it. We’ll play McCoy for part of a game. Maybe we have to pick up a Gradkowski type with two injured starters. Wouldn’t be the first time.
danvail - June 3, 2010
Right. I don’t think we should be sacrificing a probably Special teams spot because we are afraid that Wallace will get hurt running the wildcat and Dellhome will get hurt in the same game.
Roger Dorn - June 3, 2010
*probable
Roger Dorn - June 3, 2010
Holmgren said something a while back about being afraid to put Wallace in at WR too often for fear of getting his #2 hurt (talking about his time in Seattle), but that Mangini isn’t nearly as cautious and that we could see Wallace play everywhere and often.
golanbatrac - June 3, 2010
Well, except for the fact that when a QB gets hurt the team doesn’t know how long he’s going to be out until the evaluate him. So they’re not going to put in Cribbs and let him run the offense while they hope that Delhomme would be out only a few plays. What if he needs a whole series off, or two, but then he can come back in?
The comment I gave above was just as an example, not to be taken that literally. Obviously there are many other situations that can happen besides that one example.
Buckeye Brad - June 2, 2010
If that many QBs get hurt in one game, we should expect to lose that game anyway. It’s an extreme scenario and not something to make roster decisions on.
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
I would make 45-man roster decisions based on this.
rufio - June 3, 2010
Right. Something like that happens more than you think — especially if we have Wallace playing on Wildcat plays — so it’s definitely a situation that you need to be prepared for. And we know NFL coaches don’t like to be left in a bad situation with their roster.
And I disagree that if it happens we’d lose the game anyways. Let’s say that Wallace hurts his ankle on a running play in the first quarter then Delhomme gets knocked in the head in the second quarter and has to come out of the game to get checked up. If McCoy was on the active roster and not the emergency QB then he could come in to play for a few series until Delhomme got checked out. Maybe he’s better after halftime and can come back in the game in the second half. If McCoy was the emergency QB then when he came in Delhomme or Wallace couldn’t play again even if they were able to. That would be a problem.
Buckeye Brad - June 3, 2010
I guess I just don’t see the issue with letting McCoy play a half in a dire circumstance.
Roger Dorn - June 3, 2010
I think it would be fine if it were the second half of this season. I don’t think I want him on the field before then—probably not even if he proves he has what it takes in practice.
rufio - June 3, 2010
Saying so doesn´t make it so in Cleveland anymore.
mooncamping - June 3, 2010
The spirit regarding Colt McCoy is bad. I intend he should call his Longhorn lawyers now.
mooncamping - June 3, 2010
Here is what I assume happened here. Mike Holmgren came in with the best spirit he could muster, then he had to realize that to make sense in Cleveland you have to be insensitive. In that filibuster of a confused state he started groping at straws, lotting us the most undoubtable personages at quarterback he could muster. Delhomme served to spring the entity of Anderson and Wallace served to spring the entity of Quinn. I don´t think McCoy was his primary choice, but a bird in the hand is worth ten more in the bush with the Browns, so what the heck?
I would give Tim Hiller a call, he´s in Indianapolis.
mooncamping - June 4, 2010
I meant to be sensible in Cleveland you have to be insensitive.
mooncamping - June 4, 2010
Since this seems to be the designated weekly off-topic thread, I will bring this up here: has anyone witnessed this supposedly growing trend. Has anyone been “iced?”
gahnki - June 1, 2010
any trend involving smirnoff ice is no trend at all, but an indictment of our society
Villeslgr - June 1, 2010
This really should be green.
golanbatrac - June 2, 2010
I have unfortunately, the rules seem a little too easy to be iced though.
Roger Dorn - June 1, 2010
So it’s real?
gahnki - June 1, 2010
Yea, I suppose. I didn’t know what was going on when it happened to me, so it was a bit unfair.
Roger Dorn - June 1, 2010
ha, that is the first I’ve heard of that
Kimble_79 - June 1, 2010
I have to think it was cooked up by the Smirnoff marketing guys.
gahnki - June 2, 2010
That’s what I had said to my friends, that they were falling victim to marketing. How else to get men interested in this product?
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
Smirnoff Ice is to right now what Zima was to 1993.
golanbatrac - June 2, 2010
wow, is smirnoff ice really that bad?
Dawg Nuts - June 2, 2010
Teen pregnancy in a bottle.
golanbatrac - June 2, 2010
I think it tastes like 7-Up.
Brownie's Year - June 2, 2010
ditto, and if you drink more than 2 it gives you some terrible heartburn.
Kimble_79 - June 3, 2010
FLAG for drinking one followed by a 2nd.
Brownie's Year - June 3, 2010
its a girl drink, it tastes like sugar
notthatnoise - June 2, 2010
Kool-Aid tastes like sugar. I drink that all the time. I’m also a dude.
shep615 - June 2, 2010
I like red drink personally. Or green.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
Why you hatin on blue and orange?
North Coast Flea - June 2, 2010
Grape drink + Vodka is goood.
Brownie's Year - June 2, 2010
what is this Grape you speak of? All I know of is purple.
Kool – aid is flavored by color.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
What happens when you encounter blue drink that isn’t the blue drink you were expecting? Do you say screw it and just drink it because it’s blue? That’s pretty normal, SB.
I like to know what it is before I ingest it. I like red, but hate Cherry. I gotta know.
Brownie's Year - June 2, 2010
He better avoid Windex.
Bernie19Kosar - June 3, 2010
That’s carbonated blue drink.
Brownie's Year - June 3, 2010
That’s red and dark red respectively.
SpecialBrownie - June 3, 2010
I’m a big fan of green myself
Kimble_79 - June 3, 2010
For those that do drink, if you want to try something that will seat you (or worse), southern comfort (higher proof) and red koolaid.
That, my friends, is a drink of celebration.
Socaid with me if it’s socaid with you.
danvail - June 3, 2010
southern comfort is always good.
bross09 - June 3, 2010
Sugar free Kool-Aid is the sheeot.
Bernie19Kosar - June 2, 2010
I wonder what Zima tasted like. Never had one.
Brownie's Year - June 2, 2010
medicinal sprite. not good. i remember it was the trend for awhile to put jolly rancher candies in them to flavor them. awful.
Dawg Nuts - June 2, 2010
Haha. I forgot about the Jolly Ranchers.
golanbatrac - June 2, 2010
that deserves a rec. hilarious reference and very true.
bross09 - June 2, 2010
How old were you in 93?
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
In 93, he was in danger of dying a horrible death in his daddy’s right hand after daddy watched a bit of porn . . .
TheDriveStillHurts - June 2, 2010
FYI, I think the webpage you linked to in your sig was getting too many hits, so the Browns people had it expunged from the record.
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
Cached!
golanbatrac - June 2, 2010
Nice!
North Coast Flea - June 2, 2010
Then the VCR jammed and Bross was saved.
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
ha. That was good.
bross09 - June 2, 2010
hahahahaha….nice
Kimble_79 - June 3, 2010
about 3-4…I know what zima is and I know that is when it came out…but good one.
bross09 - June 2, 2010
So you still can’t buy either of them? Not that you should, of course.
Brownie's Year - June 2, 2010
true…true…
bross09 - June 2, 2010
First I’ve heard of it. Sounds funny if it were a comedy bit, but it seems it is not :-O
Chris Pokorny - June 1, 2010
I just heard of it this past weekend, its real
notthatnoise - June 2, 2010
This happened to one of my bros on Monday night. He took it like a champ.
joeee - June 2, 2010
OT, but that dog has some good owners. Who else would give their dog such a lavish extension?
SpecialBrownie - June 1, 2010
TJ Surgery has a year+ recovery time. I wouldn’t be surprised if Delhomme is healthier and better this year.
joeee - June 1, 2010
Hope you are right. My goal is for the team to not let him force some of the throws he always tried to make in Carolina, let him trust more in his run game.
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
The Seahawks picked up Stanback, so much for my lobbying for mooncamping´s patented rocket pocket.
mooncamping - June 2, 2010
Sock puppet
HenryDawg - June 2, 2010 via mobile
Red rocket.
danvail - June 2, 2010
Gross!
SpecialBrownie - June 2, 2010
pocket pool.
Dawg Nuts - June 2, 2010
Red Rocket. Sparky!
bross09 - June 2, 2010
Don’t be sad; he’s going home again.
gahnki - June 2, 2010
Wildcat = wildcard (at best). Its not a real offensive philosophy that can last, its a nice stopgap measure for teams who are too inept to even make a consistent handoff. Its fine occasionally, like the reverse, but please let’s hope we’re not building our team around it.
HenryDawg - June 2, 2010 via mobile
I wouldn’t build a team around it, but I think it is more than just a trend.
notthatnoise - June 3, 2010
When done “properly”, the wildcat uses sound offensive blocking concepts that are exactly the same for the OL as regular running plays, and actually pretty traditional offensive concepts. It is absolutely a legitimate offense.
When done poorly, it resorts to gimmickery. We need to avoid this.
rufio - June 3, 2010
Kokinis is back where he belongs. Cleveland nearly ran his career into the ground.
Mr MaLoR - June 2, 2010
Yeah, that’s what happened…
golanbatrac - June 2, 2010
What was it again? Kokinis in the closet with the teenage girl?
Roger Dorn - June 2, 2010
George Kokonis with the Babysitter in the Janitor’s Closet.
I love Clue.
golanbatrac - June 3, 2010
Right?
danvail - June 3, 2010
Left? What?
golanbatrac - June 3, 2010
All he did was sit on his asshole surfing the internet.
Brownie's Year - June 3, 2010
I wonder if he trolled other teams websites too…..
North Coast Flea - June 3, 2010
No, he just threw a hissyfit when he realized he didn’t actually have control of the roster.
rufio - June 3, 2010
So my job is to sit in the background at press conferences and play solitaire all day? AND I get an intern? Sold!
danvail - June 3, 2010
I don’t troll, I verbally explore.
Mr MaLoR - June 3, 2010
… We don’t have microphones you dumbass but talk to yourself all you want.
SpecialBrownie - June 3, 2010
right, with the other unscrupulous morons.
Dawg Nuts - June 3, 2010
Rec. Well played, sir.
drjeo - June 3, 2010
Those morons know how to put together a playoff winning team. How’s your front office doing?
Mr MaLoR - June 3, 2010
pretty well so far, but its hard to tell until the season starts. thanks for asking.
notthatnoise - June 3, 2010
keep chirping all you want dude, i’m done. better things to do than argue with a low-brow troll.
i’d also suggest, once again, you worry about your own site and not ours. you never see us going over there and shooting off like a buffoon.
Dawg Nuts - June 3, 2010
That’s because we have class.
golanbatrac - June 3, 2010
perhaps you should further explain class, i’m sure he knows nothing of it.
Dawg Nuts - June 4, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.