Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The other strange thing about ball control is that usually these teams have outstanding defenses and TOP leaves them fresh in the second half. BAL and TEN want a close game at halftime then they beat a tired defense with their running game. CLE's defense can't reliably make stops. What we saw in NYJ and BAL and I suspect it's what we'll see Sunday is CLE fall behind early. Unlike BAL and TEN, CLE has the offensive firepower to catch up. But their second half defense doesn't make stops whether they're protecting the lead or catching up. And that's gotta be CLE's biggest concerns. Even if they manage to keep it close by halftime, their defense can't close.
i wouldn't really call the browns ball control. they have scored 30+ points in 9 games just like the chiefs also 40+ 4 times while the chiefs have 1.
i would guess its going to be a shootout. The browns defense banks on turnovers they don't really stop anyone. they just give the ball to the browns offense so they can score more points. [Reply]
For me, it's really a matter of hyperbole. If you want to come here and discuss the actual strengths and weaknesses of the Browns vs. the Chiefs, we're capable of acknowledging that "any given Sunday" applies and that the Browns have a very real chance of beating us.
But come in here spouting nonsense about how Mahomes is overrated and how the Chiefs are gonna get stomped (ahem...Bills fans), and you're gonna get a lot of hyperbole thrown right back at you. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I think what we're talking about, at least I know I am, is that CLE doesn't seem to put both Chubb and Hunt on the field at the same time. Chubb in the backfield, Hunt split out (or vice versa), which I felt like would be a very dangerous scheme since they acquired Hunt.
But for whatever reason I haven't seen that in the CLE games I've watched.
We've seen it more over the back half of the season. Usually both in the backfield and Hunt splitting out. So much of our scheme involves two, sometimes even three TEs, they've come a long way in their blocking assignments and execution -- which is probably much more responsible to our success on the ground than trying to make anyone play a guessing game with both backs behind center.
I'd expect a few wrinkles Sunday. We've been pretty vanilla down the stretch... and kept any creativity under wraps against the Steelers. Didn't need to pull any rabbits from the hat against the Steelers once Pig Pen started handing out game balls to the wrong team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
They DO have a ton of misdirection plays. They run the Shanahan/Kubiak WCO. There's not a ton of MOTION but there's absolutely misdirection. They also don't run the same blocking scheme from play to play - sometimes it's inside zone, sometimes it's stretch zone, some times it's power.
Does this not describe every team in the league?
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
If they do something more than any other team in the league or do something no other teams do, that's the DEFINITION of "unconventional".
You guys know that, right?
No, not at all. Running a two or three TE set and/or using a FB is conventional! Lol. The fact that they do that frequently is exactly what makes them conventional.
Standard, regular, ordinary, orthodox, traditional- those are all synonyms for conventional and they all describe the Browns rushing attack. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Does this not describe every team in the league?
No, not at all. Running a two or three TE set and/or using a FB is conventional! Lol. The fact that they do that frequently is exactly what makes them conventional.
Standard, regular, ordinary, orthodox, traditional- those are all synonyms for conventional and they all describe the Browns rushing attack.
No. Look at the eagles for example. I am still scratching my head about why they didn't design ways to get Wentz out of the pocket where he started to become a sitting duck. The way they use baker reminds me a lot of how Shanahan used to use Jake plummer except baker has much more talent. You can roll him left of right and he throws a pretty good ball in either direction. As I've said before, I feel like baker has mostly thrived under Stefanski off that script or improvising on the scramble drill. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Does this not describe every team in the league?
No. It actually doesn't.
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
No, not at all. Running a two or three TE set and/or using a FB is conventional! Lol. The fact that they do that frequently is exactly what makes them conventional.
Standard, regular, ordinary, orthodox, traditional- those are all synonyms for conventional and they all describe the Browns rushing attack.
Definition of conventional
- according with, sanctioned by, or based on convention
- lacking originality or individuality
- ORDINARY, COMMONPLACE
The Cleveland Browns running game is NONE of those things. Their running game is unlike all but 3 or 4 other teams in the league. You see "running game" and think conventional. It isn't. You're wrong. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DawgDays:
We've seen it more over the back half of the season. Usually both in the backfield and Hunt splitting out. So much of our scheme involves two, sometimes even three TEs, they've come a long way in their blocking assignments and execution -- which is probably much more responsible to our success on the ground than trying to make anyone play a guessing game with both backs behind center.
I'd expect a few wrinkles Sunday. We've been pretty vanilla down the stretch... and kept any creativity under wraps against the Steelers. Didn't need to pull any rabbits from the hat against the Steelers once Pig Pen started handing out game balls to the wrong team.
Well at least they started doing it then. I saw (probably plenty of people did) the potential of having Hunt split out with Chubb in the backfield pretty much from Day 1. So it was puzzling to not to see it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
No. Look at the eagles for example. I am still scratching my head about why they didn't design ways to get Wentz out of the pocket where he started to become a sitting duck. The way they use baker reminds me a lot of how Shanahan used to use Jake plummer except baker has much more talent. You can roll him left of right and he throws a pretty good ball in either direction. As I've said before, I feel like baker has mostly thrived under Stefanski off that script or improvising on the scramble drill.
It looks like Shanahan's offense because it largely is. Shanahan's offense was innovative in the mid-90's, had some success, became more accepted and then fell out of favor. There's only a few teams that still run it the way the Browns do, like the 49ers and Vikings. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
For me, it's really a matter of hyperbole. If you want to come here and discuss the actual strengths and weaknesses of the Browns vs. the Chiefs, we're capable of acknowledging that "any given Sunday" applies and that the Browns have a very real chance of beating us.
But come in here spouting nonsense about how Mahomes is overrated and how the Chiefs are gonna get stomped (ahem...Bills fans), and you're gonna get a lot of hyperbole thrown right back at you.
i think browns fans are just happy to be here with a shot. the last 3 weeks have been terrible. with most of the coaching staff and 15+ players getting covid.
the browns are a year a way from being a real contender. the whole starting secondary has been injured or out most of the year it should be greedy williams, denzel ward, grant delpit and ronnie harrison.
they have been playing backups and practice squad players back there most of the year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Tonka83:
I read Andys quote in the voice of a parent telling their child that they did a very good job keeping inside the lines while using their cryaons.
Andy: "you did very well Kareem that is a great drawing of a green cat"
I don't recall if KC had some pull and sway on where he went, but if they did this is Andy saying he should shut the fuck up and be grateful, asshole. [Reply]
