The Gipper

I don’t see that is chasing a ring I see it is chasing the money

You may be talking about specific plays. I am talking about games. You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses, but it still a simple sort of arrangement: The more the Browns gave up in running yards, the more likely they were to lose. Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing. I am not going to overthink that fact. You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games. But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing: They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards.

Could there be a possible switch of QBs between Dallas and Seattle? Rumblings are that Wilson may want out of Seattle, and would accept a trade to Dallas. Would Jerry Jones drop his interest in Dak like a rock if he thinks he could get Wilson? https://www.si.com/nfl/cowboys/news/florio-seahawks-qb-russell-wilson-has-eye-on-dallas-cowboys

Well, that was a farce. I am sure it was a great album, but they were progressive, not heavy metal. But I guess it is fair to say that the Grammy committee is as clueless as the RRHOF committee. Why didn't they just have a "progressive rock" category? There are/were as many or more acts doing progressive rock as did heavy metal. (and it is by far better music IMO) I mean, Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, ELP, Tull, Procul Harum, Rush I believe is considered prog rock. The Moody Blues, Kansas, ELO, Roxy Music, Uriah Heep, The Strawbs, Brian Eno (Ambient Music is an offshoot of Prog rock, fair to say?), Tangerine Dream, Vangelis... Todd Rundgren certainly had his prog rock renderings (Utopia) , Allan Parsons, Argent BeBop Deluxe....a lot of Bowie certainly, Blue Oyster Cult, Golden Earring, Journey I think is considered "progressive rock" , Manfred Mann, Phish? Queen...by all means, Al Stewart, Styx, Supertramp Tears for Fears, Asia, Toto, Tool, Traffic, The Tubes, Zappa and even some stuff by both Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin could fall into "progressive". The progenitors of "progressive rock"...as they were for so much is probably The Beatles. Sgt. Pepper? The White Album? Absolutely. And with them were the Yardbirds.

I nominate you, unless you can hornswoggle someone else. I cannot. I expect to be on the road a couple of times between now and then and it is impossible to moderate this thing from the road. Besides, I did it last year. It takes some work as we both know. But, I will take a couple of teams. As usual...he who moderates gets to take the Browns. I won't be getting the Browns.

Fair enough. I could never tell, back in the early 70s, if something was considered "heavy metal" (probably still cannot). I had even at one point thought of Alice Cooper, ZZ Top and Foghat as "heavy metal". Don't necessarily think they fit there now. By the way....what is "heavy metal" if it is not "hard rock"?

Did you ever listen to Pete Franklin?

I keep hearing where the show has been canceled. Is that true?

OK: Mike Hilton. Tell us about him, and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.

Devo is from Akron. They had always been considered Avant Garde, more or less the progenitors of certain Punk, New Wave and Alternative styles of rock. Ergo, though you may call them a "one hit wonder"....their influence has gone far beyond that nomenclature as it applies to those particular genres. . If the Rock Hall is to include "influencers", then Devo is a fair candidate for inclusion. Not being a heavy metal guy....is Iron Maiden the most iconic band ever of heavy metal/death metal? One of, maybe? , Do they surpass the likes of Black Sabbath or Metallica, and......I don't know, Led Zeppelin, if you wish to include LZ in that grouping. Just asking as clearly you seem to be far more of a devotee of the style than I.

Of course, but, note, as I said before.....when the Browns got off to those big, big leads, that negates the opponents run game. E.g. Against the Titans and Henry, the Browns had a 38-7 lead at the half. So they were going to be chucking the ball all over the yard, not handing it off to Henry. Naturally, to me anyway, that IS the way I want to control the other team's run game. Love those 38-7 halftime leads. Or the 41-14 lead the Browns had after 3 quarters vs. Dallas. Or 28-0 first quarter leads like over Pittsburgh.

And, I don't know if you want to call this Ironic, but the top 5 games in which the Browns gave up the fewest passing yards are as follows: 100 yards Lost Raiders 148 yards Lost Steelers first game 153 yards Won Texans 154 yards Lost Ravens second game 202 yards Lost Jets On the other hand, here are the 5 games in which the Browns defense gave up the most passing yards: 501 Won Steelers playoff game 481 Won Cowboys 387 Won Bengals second game 369 Won Titans 315 Lost Chiefs game.

As I said, the "trend" was that their regular season losses were the games in which they surrendered the most rushing yards. In fact, here are the stats re the highest run yards given up in order, and the result of the game 231 yards Lost 2d Ravens game 209 lost Raiders 140 won (2 pt win over Jags) 131 lost Jets 129 lost 1st Steelers game 123 lost (Chiefs postseason 111 lost 1st Ravens game 106 won Eagles 103 won Washington All other games they gave up less than 100 yards rushing. All were wins. So, it seems to me that if the Browns could have kept the opponents to around 100 yards or less running...they win. ALL of their losses came when they gave up mor than 106 yards. So, while absolutely the pass defense needs help, I just think there should be a bit of a higher priority on getting help for the run defense. If that means getting quality LBs, better DL, or a run stuffing SS....so be it.