Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Steelers "Cleaner" Exposed


Zombo

Recommended Posts

 

So it's fair to say that you made it as far as you did because of Bell? Sounds like you need depth in the position then, as we openly admit we need on o-line, as proof shows when Mack went down. Had you lost Bell in that same game, your season may have gone 7-9 and not been to the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

Makes you wonder what could be buried even deeper. This could be just the tip of the iceberg...or would that be the tip of the Pittsburg? hardy har.

I believe had bell been injured sooner we would have had a backup in place capable of carrying the load in the playoffs. No I don't believe we would have finished anywhere close to 7-9 because our offense was still clicking and Archer or Harris would have been getting more carries. We had blount obviously but he quickly became a malcontnent when he realized he was going to be playing second fiddle to Bell who clearly had a break out. However the uncertainty with our HB depth is undeniable which is why I'd love to see Tate stick around if he's willing to take a back up roll. I just don't think he is unless he was really that unhappy with the Browns.

 

As far as the cleaner is concerned I am not shocked he exists because I believe that type of person exists with every NFL team under the radar. The Rooney's aren't going to allow a bunch of behind the scene bs. We sent Holmes packing for a 5th. Why not clean that up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I believe had bell been injured sooner we would have had a backup in place capable of carrying the load in the playoffs. No I don't believe we would have finished anywhere close to 7-9 because our offense was still clicking and Archer or Harris would have been getting more carries. We had blount obviously but he quickly became a malcontnent when he realized he was going to be playing second fiddle to Bell who clearly had a break out. However the uncertainty with our HB depth is undeniable which is why I'd love to see Tate stick around if he's willing to take a back up roll. I just don't think he is unless he was really that unhappy with the Browns.

Except Tate was also unhappy/useless to the Vikings....who cut him....and who were in serious need of a RB because of AP's situation.

Sometimes you are a complete knucklehead......"Oh, if we lose our best player....we will just put in so and so and we will be just as good". Not. While I don't think you win that game vs. the Raturds....I do think Bell would have given you a better chance.

Tate will replace Bell

Butler will replace LeBeau

And I suppose in your opinion you would suffer no downgrade if you put Gradkowski in for BR.....I mean, after all, at one time he was simply the Browns 4th string QB.....but in your world he becomes the second coming of Joe Montana.

Don't be such a Pollyana.

 

As far as the cleaner is concerned I am not shocked he exists because I believe that type of person exists with every NFL team under these radar. The Rooney's aren't going to allow a bunch of behind the second bs. We sent Holmes packing for a 5th. Why not clean that up?

I suspect you are right about every team having a "cleaner".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe had bell been injured sooner we would have had a backup in place capable of carrying the load in the playoffs. No I don't believe we would have finished anywhere close to 7-9 because our offense was still clicking and Archer or Harris would have been getting more carries. We had blount obviously but he quickly became a malcontnent when he realized he was going to be playing second fiddle to Bell who clearly had a break out. However the uncertainty with our HB depth is undeniable which is why I'd love to see Tate stick around if he's willing to take a back up roll. I just don't think he is unless he was really that unhappy with the Browns.

Except Tate was also unhappy/useless to the Vikings....who cut him....and who were in serious need of a RB because of AP's situation.

Sometimes you are a complete knucklehead......"Oh, if we lose our best player....we will just put in so and so and we will be just as good". Not. While I don't think you win that game vs. the Raturds....I do think Bell would have given you a better chance.

Tate will replace Bell

Butler will replace LeBeau

And I suppose in your opinion you would suffer no downgrade if you put Gradkowski in for BR.....I mean, after all, at one time he was simply the Browns 4th string QB.....but in your world he becomes the second coming of Joe Montana.

Don't be such a Pollyana.

 

As far as the cleaner is concerned I am not shocked he exists because I believe that type of person exists with every NFL team under these radar. The Rooney's aren't going to allow a bunch of behind the second bs. We sent Holmes packing for a 5th. Why not clean that up?

I suspect you are right about every team having a "cleaner".

Gipper Ben and the receivers were tearing it up a majority of the season. We just needed a guy that could step in and carry the load enough to keep defenses honest. We had that guy in blount but he got disgruntled when he wasn't getting the carries. I don't expect anyone in the league to just fill in for Bell as I think he's now the best HB in the league. He's certainly the most complete BUT the steelers have had as much success as they've had over the years because of the next man up approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot Blount was in Pittsburgh. So I'd agree that Blount would still be a Steeler and filling that void adequately if Bell went down earlier. But still not as good as Bell, so it's reasonable to think Steelers would've more likely finished less than 11-5, rather than the same or better.

 

I can't help but think Blount is one of those situations where acting like a douchebag paid off. He's done well in New England and now going to a Super Bowl with them, with a decent chance for a ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself was kind of curious what Pittsburgh would look like if they had the injury bug that the Brownies had this season.

I feel that's a more interesting comparison then just one playoff game without Bell.

 

 

For comparative reference, the Steelers would have to replace for the bulk of their season something along the lines of their Cleveland counterparts -

 

Pouncy: (Mack)

Heyward: (Big Phil)

Keisel: (Monty)

Antonio Brown (Gordon - although suspended, I count this because until someone points to me otherwise, is our best and most talented receiver)

 

Then alternate time in missing periodically throughout the season, again - in comparison to their Cleveland counterparts.

 

Timmons (Dansby)

Heath (Cameron)

Mitchell (Gipson)

??Whomever their 2nd string Center is (McDonald)

Tuitt (Hughes)

Cortez (Haden)

 

 

This is the only thing that catches my attention. One player for one game be damned. Pittsburgh doesn't go to the playoffs with a similar injury list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gipper Ben and the receivers were tearing it up a majority of the season. We just needed a guy that could step in and carry the load enough to keep defenses honest. We had that guy in blount but he got disgruntled when he wasn't getting the carries. I don't expect anyone in the league to just fill in for Bell as I think he's now the best HB in the league. He's certainly the most complete BUT the steelers have had as much success as they've had over the years because of the next man up approach.

Well.....apparently, according to you, their "next man up approach" didn't work against the Ravens. Not Tate, not Archer, not whomever. And don't tell that the next man up approach would have worked if Bell had gone down earlier. The next man up asks that that next man step up when he is called upon....not 2-3 games later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself was kind of curious what Pittsburgh would look like if they had the injury bug that the Brownies had this season.

I feel that's a more interesting comparison then just one playoff game without Bell.

 

 

For comparative reference, the Steelers would have to replace for the bulk of their season something along the lines of their Cleveland counterparts -

 

Pouncy: (Mack)

Heyward: (Big Phil)

Keisel: (Monty)

Antonio Brown (Gordon - although suspended, I count this because until someone points to me otherwise, is our best and most talented receiver)

 

Then alternate time in missing periodically throughout the season, again - in comparison to their Cleveland counterparts.

 

Timmons (Dansby)

Heath (Cameron)

Mitchell (Gipson)

??Whomever their 2nd string Center is (McDonald)

Tuitt (Hughes)

Cortez (Haden)

 

 

This is the only thing that catches my attention. One player for one game be damned. Pittsburgh doesn't go to the playoffs with a similar injury list.

Oh....but all their backups would have stepped up.

Still.....the guy that really matters for them that didn't lose time was BR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.....apparently, according to you, their "next man up approach" didn't work against the Ravens. Not Tate, not Archer, not whomever. And don't tell that the next man up approach would have worked if Bell had gone down earlier. The next man up asks that that next man step up when he is called upon....not 2-3 games later.

We had blount but cut him, a fact I wouldn't expect you to know anyway. The season didn't go perfectly and we lost in the first round. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you and the peanut gallery predicting sub .500?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had blount but cut him, a fact I wouldn't expect you to know anyway. The season didn't go perfectly and we lost in the first round. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you and the peanut gallery predicting sub .500?

Of course I knew you cut Blount. What fucking planet were you living on.

I predicted about .500......and that is what your team is....about a .500 team......but they got on a roll and won a couple of games they probably should not have.

Overall....not that good. Having a great QB matters a lot. Why do you think the two teams that are in the Super Bowl are there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I knew you cut Blount. What fucking planet were you living on.

I predicted about .500......and that is what your team is....about a .500 team......but they got on a roll and won a couple of games they probably should not have.

Overall....not that good. Having a great QB matters a lot. Why do you think the two teams that are in the Super Bowl are there?

 

One is because of defense the other because they have a great all around team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you're saying that without the Seattle defense being the best in the biz, Russell Wilson would be leading the Hawks to the SuperBowl?

 

 

...who is your weed guy again?

No, I am saying that Wilson....along with the defense were major factors for them. If the 'hawks had say....Brian Hoyer at QB, no, I don't think they make it. Not really.\

Now, a team with a great defense can indeed win a SB.....the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, and 2005 Steelers proved that. But in this case I do believe that Wilson was critical for them the past two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...