Colt is looking like the starter against the Pats

[sisky fringo]

my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,

 

HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.

 

and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?

[USFBrown]

my point Die Hard, since after quoting the page and still missing it, is that regardless of the outcome of the last two games,

 

HE'S STILL A ROOKIE.

 

and you don't lose your position simply due to injury, if injured while in the line of duty of course. being a Navy guy, i'd expect that would be something you could relate to, no?

 

Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.

 

Keep the saddle on the Colt.

[NewEraDawg]

I say ride the hot horse

[sisky fringo]

Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.

 

Keep the saddle on the Colt.

not even granny smith to red delicious. true, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Colt did awesome in his first starts as a rookie but arguably, he did not outplay JD or SW. without being a member of the Browns coaching staff or being privy to the gameplan we cannot say Colt played better than Jake (or SW), because we have no clue what was expected of both. in a vacuum, i guess i can see where you are coming from, but to think Jake couldn't have performed the role that was expected of Colt is pretty naive USF.

 

a rookie may have been rattled playing away in the harsh environments both games displayed...but not our vets, they would have had similar poise as well. i give Colt his props for sure...but in the saints game give Jake (or Seneca for that matter) awesome field position from Specials and a Hodges run (to the 10 yard line was it?), no RB or receiver fumbles all game with few mistakes or penalties either, on top of two pick sixes(!) and two other INTs (could have been 7 or 8 in reality) and even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off. once behind, the saints were forced to abandon the run game>>>allowing Ryan to predict Brees would pass and neutralize him.

 

again, not to minimize what Colt did, but without using every gadget in the book and getting the early lead which forced Brees to pass to try to come from behind, where would Colt have stood then? we will never know, but don't deny that it was the perfect storm, or that JD or SW couldn't have managed that game as well.

[Earl34]

Yes, you do lose your position over injury. Its football not feel-good ball. Tom Brady is a great example. Brady played better than Bledsole and thus kept the job.

 

Keep the saddle on the Colt.

 

+1.

 

I think this needs clarification. Many people in the media love to throw around the ol' "Don't lose your job due to injury" cliche but that simply isn't the case. It's like a half-truth. The actual truth is that you don't lose your job to injury if you were firmly established beforehand. If you were NOT so, then a hot-hand could unseat you. So, using this logic:

 

1) Peyton Manning won't lose his job ever

2) Matt Cassel got shipped out of town

3) Mike Vick and Kevin Kolb will continue to be in the news the whole season

4) Colt McCoy could win the job by lighting it up against the best teams in the NFL

5) Seneca Wallace should be very nervous. Yes, he's been somewhat outspoken about naming a starter but I think he's just worried that Colt will seize the opportunity and bury him on the bench

6) Jake doesn't have a firm claim on the job based on what limited performance we've seen. True, his stint against Atlanta was probably hampered by injury but I don't think that the coaches are going to care given that he was making miscues from the neck up

 

This is the NFL follks. Guys lose their job every day. Why do you think some guys try to hide their injuries? Because they know that the "next man up" might come in and they'll never see that starting job again. On the other hand the NFL is also home to some guys fitting the opposite description. They fake or embellish injury to NOT see the field. Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps James Davis and James Harrison were soft? We always bitched about them not seeing the field but how much of that was their not being 100% and thus not giving 100%. Didn't Harrison have a habit of disappearing against the Ravens and the Steelers (the more physical teams)? I don't know this for a fact but I have heard grumblings from people who would know.

 

[Earl34]

not even granny smith to red delicious. true, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Colt did awesome in his first starts as a rookie but arguably, he did not outplay JD or SW. without being a member of the Browns coaching staff or being privy to the gameplan we cannot say Colt played better than Jake (or SW), because we have no clue what was expected of both. in a vacuum, i guess i can see where you are coming from, but to think Jake couldn't have performed the role that was expected of Colt is pretty naive USF.

 

a rookie may have been rattled playing away in the harsh environments both games displayed...but not our vets, they would have had similar poise as well. i give Colt his props for sure...but in the saints game give Jake (or Seneca for that matter) awesome field position from Specials and a Hodges run (to the 10 yard line was it?), no RB or receiver fumbles all game with few mistakes or penalties either, on top of two pick sixes(!) and two other INTs (could have been 7 or 8 in reality) and even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off. once behind, the saints were forced to abandon the run game>>>allowing Ryan to predict Brees would pass and neutralize him.

 

again, not to minimize what Colt did, but without using every gadget in the book and getting the early lead which forced Brees to pass to try to come from behind, where would Colt have stood then? we will never know, but don't deny that it was the perfect storm, or that JD or SW couldn't have managed that game as well.

 

sisky...I love you kid but I am going to disagree on a couple of points.

 

1. While we don't have enough info to say that Colt definitely outplayed the other two, he did do two things that the others did not. First he was more accurate (including downfield) than Wallace or Jake. Second, he was far better than either in selling play action and screens. You can minimize that if you want but he had defenses guessing by his body language and athleticism.

 

2. Poise is relative. I think Seneca would have been poised as well. Jake has a propensity to happy feet and a lack of poise.

 

3. Don't apologize for the fact that we made the Saints one dimensional. We won on first down consistently. Did you really think they weren't going to be a "pass first" offense? The Browns earned that defensive performance

 

4. "even BQ or DA could have pulled that win off". Absolutely not. Let's not kid ourselves. This year we're completing 61.7% of our passes (13th in the league). Last year we were stuggling to get to 49% (which was dead last). Not even Macouns to Fuji.

 

[sisky fringo]

i'll gladly grant you the accuracy point but am standing firm that with the gadget and pick six advantages others could have done as well.

 

second, maybe it's Colt selling the play-action well, maybe it's the opponents unfamiliarity with him. i'll meet you in the middle that his mystery is an asset, if you'll take it.

 

he does execute a nice screen as well. but keep in mind, Jake's live by the pass/die by the pass achilles never comes into play as a game manager with a 2 score lead.

[Earl34]

i'll gladly grant you the accuracy point but am standing firm that with the gadget and pick six advantages others could have done as well.

 

second, maybe it's Colt selling the play-action well, maybe it's the opponents unfamiliarity with him. i'll meet you in the middle that his mystery is an asset, if you'll take it.

 

he does execute a nice screen as well. but keep in mind, Jake's live by the pass/die by the pass achilles never comes into play as a game manager with a 2 score lead.

 

You've got a deal.

[sisky fringo]

i can't WAIT for today's game. it's all soda, all day.

 

headin out to fly the colors, see you guys on the flip side!!

 

GO BROWNS!!

[shepwrite]

You can't rewind, SF. At the top of the season, the Browns wanted to start a veteran for a year while McCoy watched. Delhomme was healthy. Hope sprung eternal.

 

Now the season is almost half over, Delhomme has played about one game with a QBR in the 50s (same as last year) and nothing we've seen leads us to believe we're better off with Delhomme than with McCoy or Wallace.

 

Most importantly, we're 2-5 and absolutely a large portion of this season is about next season... and playing Delhomme even one snap does nothing for the long view of this team. And we have to take a long view. With a paycheck of 4 mill next season, I don't even Jake thinks he's going to be on this team after December.

 

Sisk, it's not "a bone to pick." I just think signing Delhomme was a very bad move. I'm even more certain of it now. I don't dislike him on any personal level. I've just watched him play a lot the last few years and figured he'd be a backup for somebody in 2010 and 2011 and then become an announcer (he's funny). I never dreamt anybody would sign Delhomme to start... and I agree with the 31 teams who didn't.

 

I liked the Wallace signing and hated the McCoy pick. Now I love it. I'm always eager and ready to change my mind.

 

Right now, I'm more psyched to watch the Browns than I have been since about the last game of 2007.

[rich4eagle]

Why I'm optimistic: With our schedule, it feels like every game we go into, I expect the Browns to look overmatched. I think the other team expects it.

 

Then you get in 1.5 quarters and you say, "You know, for a team supposedly lacking in any discernable talent... we look just as good as (Ravens, Steelers, Saints, etc.)."

 

I honestly think there's more talent on this team than people acknowledge... or know yet. I think we have a Top 10 OL, a Top 10 set of TEs, and a very good bruiser tailback. I think we have lots of talent on defense: Rubin, Coleman, Schaefering, Fujita, Gocong, Benard, Haden, and Ward are really legit players. I think Elam is adequate and Wright is an upper-bracket talent coming out of a weird slump.

 

If we just added a #1 WR and a very serious DE while keeping Roth and DQJ (who will be a bargain)? I think this team would be very, very good next season. Also throw in another pass rusher and a new OC and it's 10 wins.

 

Whoa Bubba, good to see you here. I made claims about Colt when we drafted him. Let him play, I think he will get better much better. I like what I see so far. BTW, I am wearing my 1986 Browns hat I bought in Hawaii which I wore every Sunday until 2003 and quit wearing until the Browns removed all the crap they had in management. I like what's happening, in coaching, in talent selection, and everywhere. GO BROWNS

[shepwrite]

Good to see you, Rich.

[grimmreaper3]

Yeah, Colt's definitely earning some baller points today.