ballpeen

The list includes some guys who were never going to be long term players....all teams have those, and a guy like Lee? He punted here 1 season, then went on to play maybe another 5 or so elsewhere. He may have punted in the NFL 18 years. Up until he passed away 2 months ago, why not call Jim Brown a free agent? Also, as the article indicated, some guys just sit back and wait. Clowney has done that for a while now. A few of those guys will be on rosters soon enough.

No doubt. If I was lucky I might have gotten 1 game a year. No internet, so BNI was the fix. I had good idea when I should be getting my next issue, so I would eagerly come home to find out if my copy arrived. Once it was maybe 2 days later than expected, I would start cussing to my wife that some SOB down at the post office was a Browns fan and swiped my issue. LOL You had that dead period where you didn't get an issue for about 3 months. I would gather all my old issues and reread them 4-5 times each. It was like Christmas in July when I would finally get a training camp issue. I'd huddle away in my office for 2 hours with that thing. It was like a study session.

On a trip up to a browns game a few years ago, we stopped at the Warther Museum in Dover, Ohio. It was fantastic. He was maybe the worlds best wood carver. His specialty was carving trains. All to scale. I also picked up a really dandy kitchen knife set which they make on site. If you have a little time, make the trip to Dover. You won't be disappointed. https://thewarthermuseum.com/

That is better. If the rest of the team plays poorly, we are sunk. I was thinking you might have meant us looking like asse if Watson doesn't play well. The underlying point being Houston holds our 1st pick. The worse we finish, the higher the pick they receive. I hope they get the last or even the next to last pick.

I don't understand that comment? How is Watson playing well going to make us look like asses?

Come on Nick. Of course it will hurt if Watsons gets hurt. If he gets hurt in game 2, I seriously doubt we can lean on the running game to produce 10 more wins. Be real here. This dovetails with a comment by Flugs: I don't know how to look this up, even if it can, but I'd bet more QB's over the last 10 years have been seriously hurt behind the LOS rather than past the LOS. The pocket can be a death trap. Even in the last 3-4 years. Any half way decent coach tells the QB that unless it is a do or die type situation in a do or die type a game at a do or die moment, don't try to milk the last 2-3 yards. Just give it up. If they do stupid shit like a few of our's did and think they could run, well ok, that isn't good. Watson isn't like those guys, he can run. I don't want to see him triple flipping towards the end zone and getting hurt like McGown or like Baker running and think he was a power runner.

Funny pic, but I don't see how that applies to DePodesta? In the beginning the plan was to get rid of players from a team that won 1 game over 2 seasons, build some assets, and go from there. What we are seeing now is the result of the plan. We will soon find out if the plan pays dividends. Seems the pics are reversed.

Were the increased picks a result of the system or the fact he threw more passes? I mean, if you played a game with zero passing attempts, you wouldn't have any picks, right? Now to be on point, I am not saying we are going to be 0 backs a huge amount of the time. We will just see more. Chubb is still going to get his carries. They may go down some, but nothing drastic. As players age, it is normal for a coach to try to save a star player from excess wear. Without looking up the numbers, Chubb has been getting around 280-300 carries a year, and most of those were in 3 qtrs a game. It seemed that Hunt got a big portion of the 3rd qtr carries. I'd still expect Chubb to get 250ish carries. I am just not sure that Ford is going to get Hunts carries. He will get some. So will Watson. Moore will probably get the other plays that a back would have gotten. On some he may line up in the backfield, but i doubt he gets many as a straight handoff. As long as we are gaining yards and winning games it doesn't matter how we get them. Right?

I don't think you are a dick. Asshole probably, but hey, so am I

Thanks....I agree on the retooling part, and have said so myself. We will be in some form of the gun a large majority of the time. I see more empty backfield sets as well. All of that plays in to a more vertical game

Even better, lets hope we can rush Ford and whoever in the 2nd half of games.

Thanks for the Sunday read. 17. The Browns are working with Watson and the line to help with blocking coverage. A QB who scrambles a lot can “run into sacks.” That means the linemen are blocking defenders in a certain direction, and then the QB scrambles right into a tackle. The Browns are trying to accelerate the rate of Watson and his blockers becoming used to each other. I am not sure how that happens? It seems to me that once Watson scrambles, something in the blocking has broken down to some degree. Blockers then have to ride the defender out of the play, either in or out. Once a O lineman is beaten to some degree I think they can only block what they can block. To me the only teaching point is to hold your block 1 second longer than the defender is trying to make a push. Or maybe to have tackles drilled not to get beat outside. If you are going to lose position, lose it inside to allow watson an outside chance. If Watson runs in to a sack, that is on him, if you can even say it is on anybody.

While Jim was alive, his spirit was with him. Now that the spirit has been freed from the body his spirt can take to the field to help out.

I think the time of year has something to do with staying on topic. With no camp, draft, games etc. it is pretty easy to stray off a topic. That said, we don't need to use that as an excuse to push grudge stuff to the forefront.

No doubt. Where I think he can shine is on special teams. He better if he wants to make the team. If he can do that, then he will have the time to improve in other areas...if he can.

I think LBs started to be diminished past the 80's. I just pointed out the 80's since it was still a top position on D. You still had plenty of teams still playing a 3-4 base. I don't think anybody has played that as a base in quite a few years. It just became a tweener position. As O's started to go pass heavy, backs became diminished as did the need for linebackers. Teams either wanted more size and pass rush from the front 4 and wanted to have more DBs on the field.

It had to have been 1955 since it was Otto Graham's last season.. A friend of my Dads had to cancel at the last moment, so dad took me. We played the Eagles. We won, but don't remember the score. I have slept a few times since then. I remember the weather being decent, so it had to be early fall. Maybe October. I was young enough that the game was more secondary to being there with my Dad and inside a huge, full stadium of people. I do remember not liking the mustard....a bit spicy for a 6-7 year old.

In the sense of the D, LB is a "get later" position. I think 10 LBs were drafted in the first 3 rounds this past draft. Basically 10% of all drafted players in those rounds. In the NFL of today, LB just isn't a marquee position anymore as it was in the 60's. Even the 80's. I can't think of any defensive formation where a team brings in more linebackers. Can you? They start pulling them off the field in favor of faster coverage guys or more beef along the line in a goal line deal.

That is a different issue. To be honest, I don't know one way or the other, so I suppose there is no choice but to trust them. I can suspect all I want, but until there is actual proof, what are you going to do?

Look at the goons they elect. Fetterman shows up at an event wearing basketball shorts and tee shirt. Not sure what that was about. It probably makes it easier for his caregiver to change his diaper when needed. I don't blame the politicians. I blame the simpletons who elect them.

I am glad to hear it as well. I don't know if I like the guy so much, but my liking him doesn't matter. I think he can be a pretty good player, BUT, he has to grow up and quit being an egghead. His actions have him in a position where he isn't a 100% lock to make the team. In years past he was a 100% lock. It's pretty rare, for any team to cut a fairly high draft choice after 1 year. That could happen to the guy this year. He doesn't need to give the staff an extra reason to drop him. He is already in a position where the coaches are going to be debating "do we keep this guy or that guy". He best do what Schwartz and his defensive line coach want him to do without constant "playground" distractions. The line between "tough love" and "screw you" can be pretty thin.

Myles is at a crossroads of sorts. Before he has had coordinators he could blame to some degree, or at least he so thought and people went along with that. Schwartz is different. He is highly qualified and has had great success with his defensive lines.

No doubt. That is why I said you have to keep it in perspective. Also, the reports seem to be wide ranging, so I don't think it is all through the team mouthpiece. No matter. The reports are good. Now we will see how all of that transitions to training camp next month.

It does tell you something. Like I said before, you have to keep it in the perspective of what it is and what it is for. Being good at the end is the result of being good along the way. Camp is a step by step process just as the season is a 17 step process.

Like I said, when they are on the road the rules are different because the employer is paying. I am sure employers can't mandate an employee be in by 9PM. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the thought. I just know from a legal standpoint, they can't, and I do agree with that. If the team wants to mandate all players stay in a team hotel and pay for meals during these camps, they could do that and set a curfew.