Well, he would then be almost as good as Derek Anderson!

---- David Shlapak <dashlapak@...> wrote:
> I'm wondering what Brady Quinn might be capable of if (a) he wasn't
> running for his life on nearly every play, (2) he was permitted to
> throw the ball further than eight yards downfield, and (iii) he had
> receivers who could actually catch the ball.
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:54 , Erich Varnes wrote:
>
> > [E]very component of the offense is below average, sometimes
> > significantly so.  There are individual good players (Thomas,
> > Steinbach, maybe Mack, and maybe Massaquoi can become one) but no
> > unit that as a whole is respectable.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

This Browns' season definitely gets a big fat FAIL

On Nov 17, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Steve Buffum wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM, David Shlapak <dashlapak@...> wrote:

>
>
> "...king of this new medium" or "of these new media." No cheezburger
> for you, says grammur kitteh.
>

More the purview of FailBlog, yes?

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM, David Shlapak <dashlapak@...> wrote:

>
>
> "...king of this new medium" or "of these new media." No cheezburger
> for you, says grammur kitteh.
>


More the purview of FailBlog, yes?

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"...king of this new medium" or "of these new media." No cheezburger
for you, says grammur kitteh.


On Nov 17, 2009, at 16:20 , Todd Sawicki wrote:

> It would take a while...
>
>
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/i_can_haz_cheezburger_tops_one_billion_\
views_names_new_exec.html
>
> todd



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It would take a while...

http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/i_can_haz_cheezburger_tops_one_billion_\
views_names_new_exec.html

todd

On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Steve Buffum wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Todd Sawicki
<todd.sawicki@...>wrote:

> Now before everyone throws Mangini under the bus - that last reception
> allowed me to win my fantasy fb game this week.
>
> Remember it's all about me.
>
> - todd
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Steve Buffum wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Todd Sawicki
> <todd.sawicki@...>wrote:
>
> > potential concussion
> >
>
> I hate Eric Mangini.
>

I hate Todd Sawicki. He should have his play-calling duties removed
immediately.

Caveat: if he promises to grow his hair out Rex Ryan style, I will
recant.

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Todd Sawicki
<todd.sawicki@...>wrote:

> Now before everyone throws Mangini under the bus - that last reception
> allowed me to win my fantasy fb game this week.
>
> Remember it's all about me.
>
> - todd
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Steve Buffum wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Todd Sawicki
> <todd.sawicki@...>wrote:
>
> > potential concussion
> >
>
> I hate Eric Mangini.
>


I hate Todd Sawicki.  He should have his play-calling duties removed
immediately.

Caveat: if he promises to grow his hair out Rex Ryan style, I will
recant.

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now before everyone throws Mangini under the bus - that last reception allowed
me to win my fantasy fb game this week.

Remember it's all about me.

- todd

On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Steve Buffum wrote:

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Todd Sawicki
<todd.sawicki@...>wrote:

> potential concussion
>

I hate Eric Mangini.

What were they going to do, score a extra-secret Double Touchdown?

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Todd Sawicki
<todd.sawicki@...>wrote:

> potential concussion
>

I hate Eric Mangini.

What were they going to do, score a extra-secret Double Touchdown?

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Todd Sawicki
<todd.sawicki@...>wrote:

> I think most of us would fire mangini, name ryan the interim coach and hire
> holmgreen in a second.  The defense looked like it actually used the bye
> week to get better.
>

I'm on board with this, as long as Daboll gets the wazoo first.
Very first.  The order matters to me.


>
> On the offense I would personally bench Brady and name Cribbs the starter
> (assuming he's a go) - seriously run the wildcat 100% of the team.
>
Keep Brady, tell him to throw it down the field.  If he fails, he fails.
You're telling me we'll score fewer points than zero?  Let me see
once and for all if he can plausibly develop this skill.  If not, we
release him.  If he can, then there is hope.  Either way, I must
know.  Evaluating him based entirely on horseshit offense calls
is complete nonsense.

I have no real attachment to Quinn past the fanly wish that he be
successful because he is a Cleveland Brown.  I want Cleveland
Browns players to perform very well.  I have seen enough of Derek
Anderson to form a reasonable opinion that he is not going to perform
very well.  Give me that opportunity with Quinn, and I will be first in
line to wave farewell at the bus station if he shows he cannot hack it.
Until then, I want to SEE it.

Also, there is no such thing as a "Brett Ratliff."  He is a ruse.
If he existed, he would have taken a snap by now.  Ergo, he is
a urban legend, a hoax, a sham.  I am ashamed I was fooled
so easily.

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

potential concussion

On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Mickey Ferguson wrote:

I saw the end of the game, where they wheeled Cribbs off the field after
the final play. What's his status? I haven't heard anyone mention
anything about him here, so it must not be serious.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I saw the end of the game, where they wheeled Cribbs off the field after
the final play.  What's his status?  I haven't heard anyone mention
anything about him here, so it must not be serious.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think most of us would fire mangini, name ryan the interim coach and hire
holmgreen in a second.  The defense looked like it actually used the bye week to
get better.

On the offense I would personally bench Brady and name Cribbs the starter
(assuming he's a go) - seriously run the wildcat 100% of the team.

todd

On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Michael Godlewski wrote:

I do not think that is a fair assessment of the defense. They played to a 0-0
tie at the half against a team everyone picked to slaughter us. They made two
mental errors in giving up the long pass and then the 10 men on the field
fiasco, but overall they played well.

The offense ran 61 plays for an average of 2.6 YPP. How long was the defense
supposed to hold them back?

I think the blame has to be in the O coordinator and Mangina. Get a little more
creative than fake reverse...draw up the middle. They have to get someone in
there that can run a route consistently. I thnk if they would have stuck with
Brady from the beginning of the season the rhythm on offense would have been
less offensive. I do not think that Brady has the arm to get the job done. I saw
Flacco firing darts when he was on the run and Brady's passes floating out of
the backfield under pressure. Not sure if that is because he just does not have
the confidence to throw with authority yet or if his strength is not up to game
conditions yet.

----------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and
confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s)named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Further, if you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.

________________________________
From: Nancy Koebel <nlkoebel43420@...>
To: clesports@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 12:00:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CSML] So very bad

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Hubbard" <sfhubbard@cox. net>
To: <clesports@yahoogrou ps.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 09:24 AM
Subject: Re: [CSML] So very bad

> This is worse than any of that.

I thought the 1999 team was bad, but they actually had SOME talent then,
just not enough. This team has NONE offensively, and not enough defensively
to play 4 quarters (especially when they're on the field 90% of the game).
>
>
>
>
> Somehow firing the GM didn't fix all of these problems. How can that be
> I wonder? Wasn't George Kokinis calling the offensive plays? Wasn't
> George Kokinis responsible for writing the playbook? Wasn't George
> Kokinis the guy who was preparing the team each week? How is it
> possible that getting rid of the GM didn't improve the performance and
> preparedness of the team on the field? And here I thought firing the
> invisible man amounted to cleaning house and all would be right.

There is now speculation based on a lawsuit by Kokinis that Mangini was
behind the firing, not Lerner. I now believe this. Kokinis was on the
verge of letting it be known his contact was bogus and they found a way to
remove him. Randy Lerner should be furious about this. I certainly hope
this ends the "Belicheck tree."
>
>
> I was late to the Fire Wedge bandwagon . . . didn't join until "I
> thought Jake deserved a chance to finish the game".
> I was late to the Fire Romeo bandwagon . . . didn't join until his team
> left the field with time left in the first half and he didn't have
> enough guys to run the kneel-down play.
> I may be late to the Fire Mangini bandwagon . . . the players are bad.
> No doubt about that. But man oh man . . . do they even have a purpose
> when they run a play?
The only member of the coaching staff I'd keep is Rob Ryan.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I do not think that is a fair assessment of the defense. They played to a 0-0
tie at the half against a team everyone picked to slaughter us. They made two
mental errors in giving up the long pass and then the 10 men on the field
fiasco, but overall they played well.

The offense ran 61 plays for an average of 2.6 YPP. How long was the defense
supposed to hold them back?

I think the blame has to be in the O coordinator and Mangina. Get a little more
creative than fake reverse...draw up the middle. They have to get someone in
there that can run a route consistently. I thnk if they would have stuck with
Brady from the beginning of the season the rhythm on offense would have been
less offensive. I do not think that Brady has the arm to get the job done. I saw
Flacco firing darts when he was on the run and Brady's passes floating out of
the backfield under pressure. Not sure if that is because he just does not have
the  confidence to throw with authority yet or if his strength is not up to game
conditions yet.



  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and
confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s)named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Further, if you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.




________________________________
From: Nancy Koebel <nlkoebel43420@...>
To: clesports@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 12:00:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CSML] So very bad



----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Hubbard" <sfhubbard@cox. net>
To: <clesports@yahoogrou ps.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 09:24 AM
Subject: Re: [CSML] So very bad

> This is worse than any of that.

I thought the 1999 team was bad, but they actually had SOME talent then,
just not enough.  This team has NONE offensively, and not enough defensively
to play 4 quarters (especially when they're on the field 90% of the game).
>
>
>
>
> Somehow firing the GM didn't fix all of these problems.  How can that be
> I wonder?  Wasn't George Kokinis calling the offensive plays?  Wasn't
> George Kokinis responsible for writing the playbook?  Wasn't George
> Kokinis the guy who was preparing the team each week?   How is it
> possible that getting rid of the GM didn't improve the performance and
> preparedness of the team on the field?   And here I thought firing the
> invisible man amounted to cleaning house and all would be right.

There is now speculation based on a lawsuit by Kokinis that Mangini was
behind the firing, not Lerner.  I now believe this.  Kokinis was on the
verge of letting it be known his contact was bogus and they found a way to
remove him.  Randy Lerner should be furious about this.  I certainly hope
this ends the "Belicheck tree."
>
>
> I was late to the Fire Wedge bandwagon . . . didn't join until "I
> thought Jake deserved a chance to finish the game".
> I was late to the Fire Romeo bandwagon . . . didn't join until his team
> left the field with time left in the first half and he didn't have
> enough guys to run the kneel-down play.
> I may be late to the Fire Mangini bandwagon . . . the players are bad.
> No doubt about that.  But man oh man . . . do they even have a purpose
> when they run a play?
The only member of the coaching staff I'd keep is Rob Ryan.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As bad as I think the team is and as much as I've jumped on the Mangini must go
bangwagon (ala Wedge) - FBOutsiders says the browns are only the 3rd worse team
in FB!

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

Statistically at least we're better then DET and OAK.  Those last few weeks of
the season are going to be priceless (KC/OAK)

Please hire Holmgreen as the GM.  Please....

As a Seattle guy - Holmgreen's awesome.  Ironically his team - the one that went
to the SB - was all selected by him.  Since he was replaced as GM the Hawks have
been worse every year.  Also it will be great to run into the Browns GM in the
summer at the Seattle zoo during the summer (i've run into him and his grandkids
a few times)

- Todd

On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:05 AM, David Shlapak wrote:

Yup. Yup, Yup. It's the dreaded Positive Feedback Death Spiral of
Infinite Suck(tm). Few survive. Prognosis negative.

If we ask really, really nice, do you think the NFL would let us trade
in this franchise for another expansion team? Third time maybe the
charm?

On Nov 17, 2009, at 13:22 , Steven Hubbard wrote:

> So the cycle continues.
>
> Let's say you allow Quinn to throw the ball more than 8 yards
> downfield.
>
> Now . . . your (a) gets in the way due to the fact that he's running
> for
> his life.
>
> Now . . . your (iii) gets in the way. . . to whom shall he throw it??
>
> You also have to account for the fact this mythical receiver who can
> catch the ball needs to be open . . . and they NEVER are. NEVER. EVER.
>
> Once you've identified Thomas, Steinbach, and maybe Mack as competent
> offensive players, why is the QB running for his life all the time
> especially given how often they are in max-protect?
>
> I'm sure they are searching for something to build around. But there
> is
> nothing.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM, David Shlapak wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering what Brady Quinn might be capable of if (a) he wasn't
>> running for his life on nearly every play, (2) he was permitted to
>> throw the ball further than eight yards downfield, and (iii) he had
>> receivers who could actually catch the ball.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:54 , Erich Varnes wrote:
>>
>>> [E]very component of the offense is below average, sometimes
>>> significantly so. There are individual good players (Thomas,
>>> Steinbach, maybe Mack, and maybe Massaquoi can become one) but no
>>> unit that as a whole is respectable.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yup. Yup, Yup. It's the dreaded Positive Feedback Death Spiral of
Infinite Suck(tm). Few survive. Prognosis negative.

If we ask really, really nice, do you think the NFL would let us trade
in this franchise for another expansion team? Third time maybe the
charm?

On Nov 17, 2009, at 13:22 , Steven Hubbard wrote:

> So the cycle continues.
>
> Let's say you allow Quinn to throw the ball more than 8 yards
> downfield.
>
> Now . . . your (a) gets in the way due to the fact that he's running
> for
> his life.
>
> Now . . . your (iii) gets in the way. . . to whom shall he throw it??
>
> You also have to account for the fact this mythical receiver who can
> catch the ball needs to be open . . . and they NEVER are. NEVER. EVER.
>
> Once you've identified Thomas, Steinbach, and maybe Mack as competent
> offensive players, why is the QB running for his life all the time
> especially given how often they are in max-protect?
>
> I'm sure they are searching for something to build around. But there
> is
> nothing.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM, David Shlapak wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering what Brady Quinn might be capable of if (a) he wasn't
> > running for his life on nearly every play, (2) he was permitted to
> > throw the ball further than eight yards downfield, and (iii) he had
> > receivers who could actually catch the ball.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:54 , Erich Varnes wrote:
> >
> >> [E]very component of the offense is below average, sometimes
> >> significantly so. There are individual good players (Thomas,
> >> Steinbach, maybe Mack, and maybe Massaquoi can become one) but no
> >> unit that as a whole is respectable.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Hubbard" <sfhubbard@...>
To: <clesports@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 09:24 AM
Subject: Re: [CSML] So very bad


> This is worse than any of that.

I thought the 1999 team was bad, but they actually had SOME talent then,
just not enough.  This team has NONE offensively, and not enough defensively
to play 4 quarters (especially when they're on the field 90% of the game).
>
>
>
>
> Somehow firing the GM didn't fix all of these problems.  How can that be
> I wonder?  Wasn't George Kokinis calling the offensive plays?  Wasn't
> George Kokinis responsible for writing the playbook?  Wasn't George
> Kokinis the guy who was preparing the team each week?   How is it
> possible that getting rid of the GM didn't improve the performance and
> preparedness of the team on the field?   And here I thought firing the
> invisible man amounted to cleaning house and all would be right.

There is now speculation based on a lawsuit by Kokinis that Mangini was
behind the firing, not Lerner.  I now believe this.  Kokinis was on the
verge of letting it be known his contact was bogus and they found a way to
remove him.  Randy Lerner should be furious about this.  I certainly hope
this ends the "Belicheck tree."
>
>
> I was late to the Fire Wedge bandwagon . . . didn't join until "I
> thought Jake deserved a chance to finish the game".
> I was late to the Fire Romeo bandwagon . . . didn't join until his team
> left the field with time left in the first half and he didn't have
> enough guys to run the kneel-down play.
> I may be late to the Fire Mangini bandwagon . . . the players are bad.
> No doubt about that.  But man oh man . . . do they even have a purpose
> when they run a play?
The only member of the coaching staff I'd keep is Rob Ryan.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Buffum" <steve.buffum@...>
To: <clesports@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:15 PM
Subject: [CSML] So very bad


>I have not gotten to watch the Browns much this year, so this is probably
>no
> earth-shattering observation, but ...
>
> ... the Browns offense is so, so very bad, and it isn't Brady Quinn
> (although he isn't very good).

I never thought I'd say this, but Brad Daboll has to be a worse offensive
coordinator than Maurice Carthon.  However, it is also evident that we just
don't have the offensive personell (tight ends, recievers, and more than 1
running back) to sustain a drive down the field.   It doesn't matter whether
they  hand off or pass, it eventually stalls.  Also, the Ravens eventually
figured they could exploit the right side of the line and did, thus the
pathetic second half.
>
Unimaginative play calling + lack of talent = one very bad team.

The defense was the only unit that showed up, and kept the team in the game
until they got tired in the second half.

>
> --
> Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
> Austin, TX 78704
> The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
> Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

So the cycle continues.

Let's say you allow Quinn to throw the ball more than 8 yards downfield.

Now . . . your (a) gets in the way due to the fact that he's running for
his life.

Now . . . your (iii) gets in the way. . .  to whom shall he throw it??

You also have to account for the fact this mythical receiver who can
catch the ball needs to be open . . . and they NEVER are.  NEVER.  EVER.


Once you've identified Thomas, Steinbach, and maybe Mack as competent
offensive players, why is the QB running for his life all the time
especially given how often they are in max-protect?

I'm sure they are searching for something to build around.  But there is
nothing.



On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM, David Shlapak wrote:

> I'm wondering what Brady Quinn might be capable of if (a) he wasn't
> running for his life on nearly every play, (2) he was permitted to
> throw the ball further than eight yards downfield, and (iii) he had
> receivers who could actually catch the ball.
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:54 , Erich Varnes wrote:
>
>> [E]very component of the offense is below average, sometimes
>> significantly so.  There are individual good players (Thomas,
>> Steinbach, maybe Mack, and maybe Massaquoi can become one) but no
>> unit that as a whole is respectable.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm wondering what Brady Quinn might be capable of if (a) he wasn't
running for his life on nearly every play, (2) he was permitted to
throw the ball further than eight yards downfield, and (iii) he had
receivers who could actually catch the ball.


On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:54 , Erich Varnes wrote:

> [E]very component of the offense is below average, sometimes
> significantly so.  There are individual good players (Thomas,
> Steinbach, maybe Mack, and maybe Massaquoi can become one) but no
> unit that as a whole is respectable.
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seriously?  This is a team that's scored 5 touchdowns in the past 15 games or
so and you were expecting only *plain* bad?  When the announcers say things
like "not since the 1933 Cincinnati Reds has a offense been so unproductive"
it's far beyond plain bad (especially considering that the rules have been
constantly adjusted since 1933 to make scoring points easier).
As to why it's so bad, historically bad, the most likely answer is that every
component of the offense is below average, sometimes significantly so.  There
are individual good players (Thomas, Steinbach, maybe Mack, and maybe Massaquoi
can become one) but no unit that as a whole is respectable.  The coaching and
preparation are also likely below average.  Add it all up and you get a perfect
storm of bad.
All that said, I found the game to be less painful to watch than the handful of
games I saw last year, primarily because it appeared that the defense was
playing like an actual NFL defense, composed of players who actually wanted to
do things like tackle someone.  Now they just need to get to the next level
where they force some turnovers and score some points, because the offense sure
won't be doing that anytime soon.

--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Steve Buffum <steve.buffum@...> wrote:

From: Steve Buffum <steve.buffum@...>
Subject: [CSML] So very bad
To: clesports@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 9:15 PM
















 









       I have not gotten to watch the Browns much this year, so this is probably
no

earth-shattering observation, but ...



... the Browns offense is so, so very bad, and it isn't Brady Quinn

(although he isn't very good).



It isn't Derek Anderson (although he isn't good, either).



It isn't Jamal Lewis, or Steve Heiden, or Braylon Edwards, or Mo Massaquoi.



It is the fact that the opponent can play 9 in the box, because we never,

ever, ever throw a vertical passing route.  And by "vertical," I mean "a

pass that travels more than 8 yards past the line of scrimmage."



Do we HAVE these PLAYS?  I really don't think it's Quinn or the wideouts or

the offensive line: I literally did not see us call any pass play down the

field before my wife chased me away from the television because I am

upsetting her, my son, and the cat.



Also, I think we should stop giving the cornerbacks a Rohypnol and Oxycontin

cocktail before they cover a wideout on a simple out pattern.  I am also a

fan of 11 men on the field, many of whom are actually in position before the

play, but really now, the defense has done some good things in this game.

The offense has been simply unworkable, and I think nine-tenths of this is

by "design."



The personnel may be wrong.  They may have shortcomings that are impossible

to overcome.  But this game does not help me evaluate this, because the game

plan and playcalling are so universally and inexorably atrocious.



I desperately need a tape of the Chiefs game, though.  Joe Posnanski makes

the Chiefs sound hilariously inept, and I don't think they can out-do the

Browns in the hilarious ineptitude department.  That should be a Game for

the Ages, and I want a tape.  Or a clay tablet with cuneiform.  Something.



SO very bad.  So, so, so, so, so very bad.  I thought it was just

*plain*bad.  I was wrong.



--

Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@ gmail.com)

Austin, TX 78704

The B-List: http://www.thecleve landfan.com/ authors.php? artId=17

Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

These are hard things to admit.

If you saw the Ted Stepien era.

If you were excited that Jack Perconte and Mike Fischlin were the "new"
Tom Veryzer and Duane Kuiper.

If you truly believed that Paul McDonald was better than Brian Sipe.


This is worse than any of that.


I missed most all of the game last night.  I turned it on early in the
3rd quarter.  Ravens had the ball and calmly walked to the line at the
Browns 10 yard line.  Browns players were running everywhere.  I think
most of them were still moving when the Ravens snapped the ball.  Some
of the Browns were (and may still be) unaware that the play had started.


I saw Robert Royal run a quick out and not look back for a poorly thrown
pass that he wouldn't have caught even if it were on target.

I saw Brady Quinn complete a pass from a hashmark to the far sideline
for a 4 yard gain.  What is the point of that play?

I saw Quinn read the blitz and deliver a pass to Furrey who of course
did not catch it.

I turned it off.

Somehow firing the GM didn't fix all of these problems.  How can that be
I wonder?  Wasn't George Kokinis calling the offensive plays?  Wasn't
George Kokinis responsible for writing the playbook?  Wasn't George
Kokinis the guy who was preparing the team each week?   How is it
possible that getting rid of the GM didn't improve the performance and
preparedness of the team on the field?   And here I thought firing the
invisible man amounted to cleaning house and all would be right.


I was late to the Fire Wedge bandwagon . . . didn't join until "I
thought Jake deserved a chance to finish the game".
I was late to the Fire Romeo bandwagon . . . didn't join until his team
left the field with time left in the first half and he didn't have
enough guys to run the kneel-down play.
I may be late to the Fire Mangini bandwagon . . . the players are bad.
No doubt about that.  But man oh man . . . do they even have a purpose
when they run a play?

Make a statement.  Fire him now.   Some will ask "Who will replace
him?".   The answer is "I don't care".  After the last two years with
this team, I'm not sure the head coach has anything to do on game day
and it doesn't appear that they really do anything during the week
either.  I don't think it would be any different if he were fired.
Right now.  Today.


I like Ohio State.  I like Jim Tressel.  Sometimes he makes mistakes . .
. he even admits them sometimes.  But every play has a purpose and that
is to maximize the team's chances of having more points than their
opponent at the end of the game.   Whether or not you think he calls the
right plays, every play he calls is with this purpose in mind.  When he
strays from it (like he did against Navy and in the first half against
USC), he either loses or almost loses.

The Browns don't seem to have a purpose.  Sometimes they don't even seem
to have a play.  There are just some guys running around out there.



On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM, David Shlapak wrote:

> Bad, bad, bad. So very, very bad.
>
> This is no longer about winning and losing, or even being embarrassed;
> it is oh, so much more than that.
>
> I've been a Cleveland sports fan for 40 muther-luvin' years. So when I
> say that thus degree of sucktitude is unparalled in my experience,
> that's saying something.
>
> Egad.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 23:15, Steve Buffum <steve.buffum@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I have not gotten to watch the Browns much this year, so this is
>> probably no
>> earth-shattering observation, but ...
>>
>> ... the Browns offense is so, so very bad, and it isn't Brady Quinn
>> (although he isn't very good).
>>
>> It isn't Derek Anderson (although he isn't good, either).
>>
>> It isn't Jamal Lewis, or Steve Heiden, or Braylon Edwards, or Mo
>> Massaquoi.
>>
>> It is the fact that the opponent can play 9 in the box, because we
>> never,
>> ever, ever throw a vertical passing route. And by "vertical," I mean
>> "a
>> pass that travels more than 8 yards past the line of scrimmage."
>>
>> Do we HAVE these PLAYS? I really don't think it's Quinn or the
>> wideouts or
>> the offensive line: I literally did not see us call any pass play
>> down the
>> field before my wife chased me away from the television because I am
>> upsetting her, my son, and the cat.
>>
>> Also, I think we should stop giving the cornerbacks a Rohypnol and
>> Oxycontin
>> cocktail before they cover a wideout on a simple out pattern. I am
>> also a
>> fan of 11 men on the field, many of whom are actually in position
>> before the
>> play, but really now, the defense has done some good things in this
>> game.
>> The offense has been simply unworkable, and I think nine-tenths of
>> this is
>> by "design."
>>
>> The personnel may be wrong. They may have shortcomings that are
>> impossible
>> to overcome. But this game does not help me evaluate this, because
>> the game
>> plan and playcalling are so universally and inexorably atrocious.
>>
>> I desperately need a tape of the Chiefs game, though. Joe Posnanski
>> makes
>> the Chiefs sound hilariously inept, and I don't think they can out-
>> do the
>> Browns in the hilarious ineptitude department. That should be a Game
>> for
>> the Ages, and I want a tape. Or a clay tablet with cuneiform.
>> Something.
>>
>> SO very bad. So, so, so, so, so very bad. I thought it was just
>> *plain*bad. I was wrong.
>>
>> --
>> Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
>> Austin, TX 78704
>> The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
>> Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bad, bad, bad. So very, very bad.

This is no longer about winning and losing, or even being embarrassed;
it is oh, so much more than that.

I've been a Cleveland sports fan for 40 muther-luvin' years. So when I
say that thus degree of sucktitude is unparalled in my experience,
that's saying something.

Egad.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 16, 2009, at 23:15, Steve Buffum <steve.buffum@...> wrote:

> I have not gotten to watch the Browns much this year, so this is
> probably no
> earth-shattering observation, but ...
>
> ... the Browns offense is so, so very bad, and it isn't Brady Quinn
> (although he isn't very good).
>
> It isn't Derek Anderson (although he isn't good, either).
>
> It isn't Jamal Lewis, or Steve Heiden, or Braylon Edwards, or Mo
> Massaquoi.
>
> It is the fact that the opponent can play 9 in the box, because we
> never,
> ever, ever throw a vertical passing route. And by "vertical," I mean
> "a
> pass that travels more than 8 yards past the line of scrimmage."
>
> Do we HAVE these PLAYS? I really don't think it's Quinn or the
> wideouts or
> the offensive line: I literally did not see us call any pass play
> down the
> field before my wife chased me away from the television because I am
> upsetting her, my son, and the cat.
>
> Also, I think we should stop giving the cornerbacks a Rohypnol and
> Oxycontin
> cocktail before they cover a wideout on a simple out pattern. I am
> also a
> fan of 11 men on the field, many of whom are actually in position
> before the
> play, but really now, the defense has done some good things in this
> game.
> The offense has been simply unworkable, and I think nine-tenths of
> this is
> by "design."
>
> The personnel may be wrong. They may have shortcomings that are
> impossible
> to overcome. But this game does not help me evaluate this, because
> the game
> plan and playcalling are so universally and inexorably atrocious.
>
> I desperately need a tape of the Chiefs game, though. Joe Posnanski
> makes
> the Chiefs sound hilariously inept, and I don't think they can out-
> do the
> Browns in the hilarious ineptitude department. That should be a Game
> for
> the Ages, and I want a tape. Or a clay tablet with cuneiform.
> Something.
>
> SO very bad. So, so, so, so, so very bad. I thought it was just
> *plain*bad. I was wrong.
>
> --
> Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
> Austin, TX 78704
> The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
> Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have not gotten to watch the Browns much this year, so this is probably no
earth-shattering observation, but ...

... the Browns offense is so, so very bad, and it isn't Brady Quinn
(although he isn't very good).

It isn't Derek Anderson (although he isn't good, either).

It isn't Jamal Lewis, or Steve Heiden, or Braylon Edwards, or Mo Massaquoi.

It is the fact that the opponent can play 9 in the box, because we never,
ever, ever throw a vertical passing route.  And by "vertical," I mean "a
pass that travels more than 8 yards past the line of scrimmage."

Do we HAVE these PLAYS?  I really don't think it's Quinn or the wideouts or
the offensive line: I literally did not see us call any pass play down the
field before my wife chased me away from the television because I am
upsetting her, my son, and the cat.

Also, I think we should stop giving the cornerbacks a Rohypnol and Oxycontin
cocktail before they cover a wideout on a simple out pattern.  I am also a
fan of 11 men on the field, many of whom are actually in position before the
play, but really now, the defense has done some good things in this game.
The offense has been simply unworkable, and I think nine-tenths of this is
by "design."

The personnel may be wrong.  They may have shortcomings that are impossible
to overcome.  But this game does not help me evaluate this, because the game
plan and playcalling are so universally and inexorably atrocious.

I desperately need a tape of the Chiefs game, though.  Joe Posnanski makes
the Chiefs sound hilariously inept, and I don't think they can out-do the
Browns in the hilarious ineptitude department.  That should be a Game for
the Ages, and I want a tape.  Or a clay tablet with cuneiform.  Something.

SO very bad.  So, so, so, so, so very bad.  I thought it was just
*plain*bad.  I was wrong.

--
Steve Buffum (steve.buffum@...)
Austin, TX 78704
The B-List: http://www.theclevelandfan.com/authors.php?artId=17
Freed from the corrosive presence of Juan Rincon!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <sanok29@...>
To: <clesports@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 07:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CSML] Tribe


>> Steven Hubbard wrote:
>>> So I saw in the paper where the Indians are considering
>>> the free agent market.  The PD specifically says that
>>> one of the most "intriguing" possibilities is signing
>>> Carl Pavano.
>
> All I can do is shake my head.  What would be the point?
> Save the money and pay one of the young guys to stay another
> year.
>
You're close.  Signing Pavano at another budget deal incentive laden like
the last one keeps someone like Hector Rondon from getting called up and
using one of those valuable years before free agency.  They could sign
Pavano, trade him in July like they did this year, and then call up Rondon
so he doesn't get a full year of credit.

> Steven Hubbard wrote:
>> So I saw in the paper where the Indians are considering
>> the free agent market.  The PD specifically says that
>> one of the most "intriguing" possibilities is signing
>> Carl Pavano.

All I can do is shake my head.  What would be the point?
Save the money and pay one of the young guys to stay another
year.

Steven Hubbard wrote:
> So I saw in the paper where the Indians are considering the free
> agent market.  The PD specifically says that one of the most
> "intriguing" possibilities is signing Carl Pavano.
>
> I suppose if my goal was to win 40-45% of the games I played, I'd be
> intrigued by Carl Pavano too.
>
>

You've gotta be f*cking kidding me.  SHA-PI-RO out!  SHA-PI-RO out!
SHA-PI-RO out!

Jeez... don't these people learn anything?  Un-frigging-believable.

>I may be alone in this thought but I'd rather see the younger guys than
Westbrook and Pavano.

I certainly don't agree with that perspective Re: Westbrook.  The year before he
got hurt he was really good, as I recall.  And he wasn't too bad until he
started having the elbow troubles, and then boom!  I'm not at all ready to give
up on him.  If healthy, and if he returned to his pre-injury form, he would be
the best starter on the team.  Granted, it's a HUGE 'if'.  But I'm just
sayin'...

Now as for Pavano, he's capable of eating innings at a replacement value level,
for two-thirds of the season.  Certainly not worth spending any money at all on
him, nor taking away from any possible yoot growth.  Thanks, but no way Jose.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I may be alone in this thought but I'd rather see the younger guys than
Westbrook and Pavano.




________________________________
From: Steven Hubbard <sfhubbard@...>
To: clesports <clesports@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 1:54:42 PM
Subject: [CSML] Tribe

 
So I saw in the paper where the Indians are considering the free agent market.
The PD specifically says that one of the most "intriguing" possibilities is
signing Carl Pavano.

I suppose if my goal was to win 40-45% of the games I played, I'd be intrigued
by Carl Pavano too.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So I saw in the paper where the Indians are considering the free agent market. 
The PD specifically says that one of the most "intriguing" possibilities is
signing Carl Pavano.

I suppose if my goal was to win 40-45% of the games I played, I'd be intrigued
by Carl Pavano too.

Nah.  Mangenious only had to enough gas in the tank to run the bus over One of
his boys this week.  The OC must have been a faster runner than Kokinis.




________________________________
From: David Shlapak <dashlapak@...>
To: clesports@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 10:45:35 AM
Subject: Re: [CSML] Larry Johnson anyone?

 
Speaking of which, Tony Dungy last night apparently listed Cleveland
as among the teams that might be interested in Michael Vic if the
Iggles don't pick up his 2010 option. Cool; we could pair him with
Stallworth as a joint candidate for the Mr Good Guy award...

BTW, is anyone else surprised that Kokinis was the only bye week
victim? I though that for sure the OC would walk the plank.

On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:40 , Steve Buffum wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Rick Miller <riclm9@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > IF the Chiefs release Larry Johnson today as is being reported,
> should the
> > Browns attempt to sign him?
>
> Heavens no. The Toast Factor is sky high, and the Raging Dick Factor
> is off the charts.
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]