HurricanE Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dab7291993 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I don't care about wins, we just should've picked a 1st round talent with our 22nd pick. Colt would've just been a filler until we spent a high pick on a QB with a real ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricanE Posted October 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I don't care about wins, we just should've picked a 1st round talent with our 22nd pick. Colt would've just been a filler until we spent a high pick on a QB with a real ceiling. Yeah, absolutely. Not saying he is our guy but I am saying he wasn't the weakest piece that needed to be replaced. It is too late for that though. This is just confirming that I was right and Weeden would bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dab7291993 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Weeden will have 1 good drive in the 2nd half and everyone will say they see a glimmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Yeah, absolutely. Not saying he is our guy but I am saying he wasn't the weakest piece that needed to be replaced. It is too late for that though. This is just confirming that I was right and Weeden would bust. Agree on pick, but not on bust... too early... Colt is more NFL ready at present, and yes, I think we'd be 2 - 2 now at worst... but Wheeeeeeden is developing... Way too early to call him a bust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadNewsBrowns Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Maybe the Eagles game but that's it, Colt fuckin sucks get it through your skulls people. Joe fuckin Montana could be our QB with Pat god damn Shurmur as our couch we're gonna lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dab7291993 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Maybe the Eagles game but that's it, Colt fuckin sucks get it through your skulls people. Joe fuckin Montana could be our QB with Pat god damn Shurmur as our couch we're gonna lose. It doesn't matter that Colt sucks we replaced him with a QB that sucks too and that's how a team stays bad for decades, we've perfected that art. We should've let Colt's contract run out and picked a real QB. But it's too late, we have to cut ties with management and all their bad decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Maybe the Eagles game but that's it, Colt fuckin sucks get it through your skulls people. Joe fuckin Montana could be our QB with Pat god damn Shurmur as our couch we're gonna lose. so you just contradicted yourself, i think. colt sucks. weeden sucks and even joe montana would suck if shurmur was the coach? so under your argument how is colt mccoy and joe montana any different? think before you speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadNewsBrowns Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Did I say Joe Montana would suck? No I'm just saying that's how horrible Shurmur is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Can't blame this one on Weeden. 41 points against us... I think we know where the blame can lay. Our offense is improving greatly each week, but our D is regressing greatly each week. If Shurmur would call some f'n smart plays we'd have a chance, but not until our D can stop somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dab7291993 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Can't blame this one on Weeden. 41 points against us... I think we know where the blame can lay. Our offense is improving greatly each week, but our D is regressing greatly each week. If Shurmur would call some f'n smart plays we'd have a chance, but not until our D can stop somebody. So...two terrible INT's aren't his fault? Both ended up as points. Cribbs' fumble was terrible. Offense only got 15 first downs, went 3-12 on 3rd down. We lost the time of possession battle by 10.5 minutes. But it's not our offense's fault at all, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Period Prove it. Back up your opinion with stats or GTFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 So...two terrible INT's aren't his fault? Both ended up as points. Cribbs' fumble was terrible. Offense only got 15 first downs, went 3-12 on 3rd down. We lost the time of possession battle by 10.5 minutes. But it's not our offense's fault at all, I guess. Seattle had 17 first downs and won. Miami and 15 first downs and won. Baltimore had 15 first downs and won. St. Louis had 12 first downs and won. You know what the difference is? Their defenses didn't give up 41 points. You can't expect an offense with 3-4 rookies starting on it to keep up with the Super Bowl winning offense of the season before. The defense has to help the offense, and they most certainly did not help today. Cribbs fumble (I'm not sure how you can attribute that to Weeden) can be negated by Bradshaw's fumble. One Weeden interception can be negated by one Eli Manning interception. Take those away, and there was only one turnover that led to points. So Weeden was responsible for 6 NYG points. The rest of the points are squarely on the defensive side. For you to pin the blame on Weeden without acknowledging the poor play of the defense either shows you are biased or you are stupid. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I think the first interception while a terrible pass was just as equally bad of a play call. Running back averaging 5 yards a carry and it's 3rd and 1 with all the momentum on our side and we take our best offensive player off the field so we can try a bootleg pass. Run the damn ball with Richardson...that's why he was drafted 3rd overall for gods sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimdawg Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I just dont get all the Weeden bashing. If you cant see that hes the best QB prospect that we've had since Couch, your either biased against him personally or your just flat out blind or Retarded. Sure he threw 2 picks HE IS A ROOKIE!! His ability to read a pro defense and his decision making will improve as he gains experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Couch is your benchmark and you don't understand how folks can be dissatisfied... Kinda says it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 everyone is biased in one way or another on every subject. our defense has sooo many holes that could have been addressed in this draft, basically completing jauron's dream team. it was heavy on defense. instead of doing that and waiting until next year to draft our spectacular qb and rb of the future we mortgaged it all on 2 guys that will be lucky to last 5 years in the league. that's why this franchise will never gain any ground. this way, then that way. back and forth, instead of straight ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimdawg Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Couch is your benchmark and you don't understand how folks can be dissatisfied... Kinda says it all... Yea Couch was a good QB, just played on some really really crappy teams. Either way neither of them are Charlie Frye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Period That is right. You must be having Periods, else you wont be saying this. Now take some Advil for the PMS and relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 You can't expect an offense with 3-4 rookies starting on it to keep up with the Super Bowl winning offense of the season before. The defense has to help the offense, and they most certainly did not help today. Yet you can expect a D that due to injuries ended up playing 3 rookies most of the game, with an added pair of sophomore players, to hold a SB offense in check? C'mon man... Cribbs fumble (I'm not sure how you can attribute that to Weeden) can be negated by Bradshaw's fumble. Reasonable trade off as they were both in roughly the same area of the field... ... and I'll take a shot at your bonus point... If Wheeeeeeden had gotten the ball to Cribbs early, he would have had a better feel for the game and not fumbled... One Weeden interception can be negated by one Eli Manning interception. Not a true trade off based on field position and psychological impacts... Ignoring the fact that Brown interfered with Cruz, Manning's only INT was on a deep ball thrown from his own end of the field. Young made a good return of what was essentially a punt. Wheeezies' 1st Int was a momentum killer, deep in Giants' territory after a pretty decent looking drive... plus it was a back foot, fade away pass... only sailed about 5' over Gordon's head... and was returned fairly deep into our territory giving our D a short field to defend. Wheeezer's 2nd was an even worse gut punch... deep in NYG territroy... intercepted in the end zone. I have absolutely no idea what he saw that told him Watson was open... the LB was dead between Wheezie and Watson... Take those away, and there was only one turnover that led to points. So Weeden was responsible for 6 NYG points. The rest of the points are squarely on the defensive side. False premise... false conclusion... For you to pin the blame on Weeden without acknowledging the poor play of the defense either shows you are biased or you are stupid. Take your pick. OK, TCPL... I pick "you are biased"... cause I really don't think you are stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 everyone is biased in one way or another on every subject. Shit... mik... I thought you and I were the only two totally objective posters here... So you mean I am all alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Wasn't Cribbs fumble on a kick return? Therefore having nothing to do with Weeden whatsoever. Quit reaching. As for "psychological impacts", you cannot quantify that. From a statistical standpoint, what I said was and is completely true. And in your eyes the defense gets a pass because they are young, beat up and inexperienced. But our (relatively) young and inexperienced is expected to perform flawlessly. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Wasn't Cribbs fumble on a kick return? Therefore having nothing to do with Weeden whatsoever. Quit reaching. As for "psychological impacts", you cannot quantify that. From a statistical standpoint, what I said was and is completely true. And in your eyes the defense gets a pass because they are young, beat up and inexperienced. But our (relatively) young and inexperienced is expected to perform flawlessly. Got it. Yes, it was a kick return... and my reply was a joke... an intentional joke unlike the humor in your posts... You claim to "have played the game" or at least damn others for apparently not having played, yet you dismiss psychological impacts... This calls your game participation/ understanding into serious question. You presented no substantial statistics, other than subtracting fumbles and INT's, so it's hard to accept the truth of your so-called statistical argument. That you glommed onto the my psychological comment and completely ignored my field position comment reveals much about the depth of your "analysis". Finally, for the 2nd time, I ask you to quit inferring what I am saying and instead read my posts through... and if you move your lips while reading, that's fine. I neither excused our defense nor assailed your precious offense. All the above said, I'll continue to withhold the stupid label you are working so hard to earn for now. Instead I'll simply add "myopic" to the previously selected "biased" designation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Yeah, absolutely. Not saying he is our guy but I am saying he wasn't the weakest piece that needed to be replaced. It is too late for that though. This is just confirming that I was right and Weeden would bust. LOL......some conclusion. He are the facts. You don't know we would have won a game, and you don't know that Weeden will bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Yes, it was a kick return... and my reply was a joke... an intentional joke unlike the humor in your posts... You claim to "have played the game" or at least damn others for apparently not having played, yet you dismiss psychological impacts... This calls your game participation/ understanding into serious question. You presented no substantial statistics, other than subtracting fumbles and INT's, so it's hard to accept the truth of your so-called statistical argument. That you glommed onto the my psychological comment and completely ignored my field position comment reveals much about the depth of your "analysis". Finally, for the 2nd time, I ask you to quit inferring what I am saying and instead read my posts through... and if you move your lips while reading, that's fine. I neither excused our defense nor assailed your precious offense. All the above said, I'll continue to withhold the stupid label you are working so hard to earn for now. Instead I'll simply add "myopic" to the previously selected "biased" designation... I have and still do play, and I was not dismissing "psychological impacts" from the game, only from the argument. As I said before, you cannot quantify it so it has no place in a logic based argument. If you're going to piggyback on an argument, I'm going to assume that you share the views of the person with whom I am arguing. Especially when you haven't explicitly stated how you feel, other than you don't think Weeden is a bust because it's too early to tell. You have yet to disprove anything I've said. The defense was still responsible for giving up more points than the offense scored, which is indisputable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdl15 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Weeden 2nd all time in passing yrds thru 5 games as a rookie. um and remember what team he plays on. he is taking on a bigger load than colt will ever have or has ever had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Weeden 2nd all time in passing yrds thru 5 games as a rookie. um and remember what team he plays on. he is taking on a bigger load than colt will ever have or has ever had. Colt's probably taken some pretty big loads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dab7291993 Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Weeden 2nd all time in passing yrds thru 5 games as a rookie. um and remember what team he plays on. he is taking on a bigger load than colt will ever have or has ever had. How does he rank in INT's all time thru 5 games? OR QB Rating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.