the browns plan at QB going forward.

[hoorta]

23 minutes ago, Zombo said:

Unlikely win over the Chargers??

We are a better team. Am I the only one watching us?

I'm a sunshine pumper for saying Baker will do what he always does ... rebound big time.

You negative fucks need to go root for Jacksonville or something,  you are too used to losing, can't handle a winning qb on a winning team.

Z

We are evenly balanced Z. Negative? Just realistic...  BTW, the Vegas guys happen to like the Chargers, and their homerism = ZERO.  Really- just because some of us aren't 100% in the sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows crowd 100% of the time doesn't make us any less fans.  

1) As I always say- past performance is no guarantee of future results. BUT historically the Browns have played like crap on the west coast. 

2) Bosa cancels out Garret. 

3) A healthy Herbert is better than a dinged Baker. 

4) I can handle reality Z- you should know better than that. You're wishing' and a hoping' Baker can overcome an injury and two consecutive shitty outings. As they say in Missouri "SHOW ME". 

 

 

[Zombo]

5 hours ago, hoorta said:

We are evenly balanced Z. Negative? Just realistic...  BTW, the Vegas guys happen to like the Chargers, and their homerism = ZERO.  Really- just because some of us aren't 100% in the sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows crowd 100% of the time doesn't make us any less fans.  

1) As I always say- past performance is no guarantee of future results. BUT historically the Browns have played like crap on the west coast. 

2) Bosa cancels out Garret. 

3) A healthy Herbert is better than a dinged Baker. 

4) I can handle reality Z- you should know better than that. You're wishing' and a hoping' Baker can overcome an injury and two consecutive shitty outings. As they say in Missouri "SHOW ME". 

 

 

He'll show you ... Question is: How many fucking times does he have to show you?

Z

-- BTW, Vegas has this game a push... YOU'RE the one that says a win is unlikely. Neutral Vegas has more faith in them than you.

[tiamat63]

It's a sucker's bet taking the Browns on the west coast with Baker hurt.  Not saying the defense and running game can't keep it close,  they could win it themselves if the Bolts allow us.  But I'd to think decent coaches would see our lack of ability at QB right now and load up fronts.  

Heart always says the Brownies, head says Bolts on the ML.

 

Edit: ML and Bolts to cover.   Herbert can negate pressure a bit better than Baker can at this time. Plus our Oline is playing hurt. While the chargers oline isn't great, I just can't expect another defensive carry in back to back games.

[jrb12711]

46 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

It's a sucker's bet taking the Browns on the west coast with Baker hurt.  Not saying the defense and running game can't keep it close,  they could win it themselves if the Bolts allow us.  But I'd to think decent coaches would see our lack of ability at QB right now and load up fronts.  

Heart always says the Brownies, head says Bolts on the ML.

 

Edit: ML and Bolts to cover.   Herbert can negate pressure a bit better than Baker can at this time. Plus our Oline is playing hurt. While the chargers oline isn't great, I just can't expect another defensive carry in back to back games.

I got Titans -3.5 that we talked about in another thread and the Browns +2.5 this week. Want to make a fun gentlemen's bet on you taking the opposite? Perhaps a Venmo for the cost of a 6 pack?

[tiamat63]

Just now, jrb12711 said:

I got Titans -3.5 that we talked about in another thread and the Browns +2.5 this week. Want to make a fun gentlemen's bet on you taking the opposite? Perhaps a Venmo for the cost of a 6 pack?

Don't have any money apps. 

Perhaps I can mail you a lovely Christmas card? 

[Zombo]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

It's a sucker's bet taking the Browns on the west coast with Baker hurt.  Not saying the defense and running game can't keep it close,  they could win it themselves if the Bolts allow us.  But I'd to think decent coaches would see our lack of ability at QB right now and load up fronts.  

Heart always says the Brownies, head says Bolts on the ML.

 

Edit: ML and Bolts to cover.   Herbert can negate pressure a bit better than Baker can at this time. Plus our Oline is playing hurt. While the chargers oline isn't great, I just can't expect another defensive carry in back to back games.

Chargers are #29 against the run, and the Browns have the best rushing attack in the NFL.

Our defense is better than theirs,  and if you don't think Baker is not going to bounce back in a big way, you haven't followed his career.

Bet the house on the Browns.

Z

[SdBacker80]

I’m taking the Browns ML.

Lots of Charger respect on this forum and I get it.  Herbert operates in that offense well makes the short and intermediate throws decisively and on the money.  Their new HC can do no wrong.  Their Defense is finally healthy.  They run the screen game well with Eckler (thank god for the work we had prepping against another screen team the Vikes)…But They’ve given up yardage on the ground to teams that don’t run it as well as us.  We aren’t used to playing the upstart teams because we were the new flavor last year and the Chargers while having some impressive wins this season are still learning and they have some guys (lots actually) that aren’t used to this kind of success on this level.  They say You gotta crawl before you ball.

Baker stunk last weekend.  He’s been hearing it all weekend.  The chip is back on the shoulder.  And I think the Chargers may come out and dare the Browns to throw it.  That’s a dangerous proposition because our line while banged up a little can give us time to do that and is it within the realm of possibility that Baker can hit on a couple long passes (he was 0 for 6 last week).  Might be all it take to soften the defense and The Chargers need a safety with a nose in the backfield.

When the schedule came out I didn’t like the Browns on the west coast angle…but the flip side we play a team coming off two emotional division games on a Short week. Let down here for LA Chargers?  I think so.  I worry about the Browns more at home and as a comfortable favorite against a dangerous team in a letdown factor.  The Chargers have our attention and we have a guy looking to bounce back in a major way 

 

[jrb12711]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

Don't have any money apps. 

Perhaps I can mail you a lovely Christmas card? 

You sir, have a virtual handshake deal. Just to be sure, my daughter loves snowmen thanks to Olaf.

[tiamat63]

1 hour ago, Zombo said:

Chargers are #29 against the run, and the Browns have the best rushing attack in the NFL.

Our defense is better than theirs,  and if you don't think Baker is not going to bounce back in a big way, you haven't followed his career.

Bet the house on the Browns.

Z

Chargers are weak against the run by design. If you play 2 deep, and those 2 deep are 15 yards, then your 7 need to hold up.  If the Bolts drop a + body down low,  which they would be stupid not to, then the running game, along with a gimpy Oline could be an issue.

You're also treating Baker having a down game as just a singular case and not considering the fact that he is noticeably hurt. 

[tiamat63]

59 minutes ago, jrb12711 said:

You sir, have a virtual handshake deal. Just to be sure, my daughter loves snowmen thanks to Olaf.

I was thinking an 8×10 and wallet sized pictures of me in my Christmas sweater.   But, yeah sure, Snowmen. We can make that happen.

[Zombo]

38 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Chargers are weak against the run by design. If you play 2 deep, and those 2 deep are 15 yards, then your 7 need to hold up.  If the Bolts drop a + body down low,  which they would be stupid not to, then the running game, along with a gimpy Oline could be an issue.

You're also treating Baker having a down game as just a singular case and not considering the fact that he is noticeably hurt. 

I just know how he'll respond. He'll adjust. He lives off of doubt, obstacles and tough circumstances. 

No one is weak against the run by design. If they have to bring a man up to try and contain our backs then they are going to be vulnerable to the play action and guys like O'Dell and Schwartzie running past them.

The failed logic in this thread is that Baker's passes are going to sail on him like they did last week. He won't allow that, I'm telling you right  now.

Z

[tiamat63]

18 minutes ago, Zombo said:

I just know how he'll respond. He'll adjust. He lives off of doubt, obstacles and tough circumstances. 

No one is weak against the run by design. If they have to bring a man up to try and contain our backs then they are going to be vulnerable to the play action and guys like O'Dell and Schwartzie running past them.

The failed logic in this thread is that Baker's passes are going to sail on him like they did last week. He won't allow that, I'm telling you right  now.

Z

Wait, what?  By design a 2 high removes an extra defender from the box. That is why it's literally called a box count - numbers.   The commitment to the running game tends to force the additional body to help limit damage.  Yes, this opens things up vertically in different ways across the field. 

Odell and Schwartz can run past anyone they wish, if Baker can't reliably get them the ball (because he is in fact injured and you refuse to acknowledge that reality) then we have a serious issue.

There is no failure of logic on my part. I've detailed this rather plainly. So now you're just bordering on insults.    

It isn't that hard to say "I disagree and we'll see how this plays out". Which is where I think we'll leave this for now.

[Silver slayer]

They are 29th against the run

5th against the pass

9th overall defense in yards per game 

We're 2nd overall

3rd against the pass

3rd against the run 

 

We're #2 at not giving up 1st downs (60)

They are 20th (86)

[hoorta]

38 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Wait, what?  By design a 2 high removes an extra defender from the box. That is why it's literally called a box count - numbers.   The commitment to the running game tends to force the additional body to help limit damage.  Yes, this opens things up vertically in different ways across the field. 

Odell and Schwartz can run past anyone they wish, if Baker can't reliably get them the ball (because he is in fact injured and you refuse to acknowledge that reality) then we have a serious issue.

There is no failure of logic on my part. I've detailed this rather plainly. So now you're just bordering on insults.    

It isn't that hard to say "I disagree and we'll see how this plays out". Which is where I think we'll leave this for now.

Yeah, a 100% healthy Baker, I'd be more confident that he's due to have a rebound game. But he's not 100% healthy.  A torn labrum takes time to heal. Z saying "I just know he's going to have a great game" is just hoping he will. For the record so do I. As the Boomer says "that's why they play the game". 

[hoorta]

55 minutes ago, Zombo said:

The failed logic in this thread is that Baker's passes are going to sail on him like they did last week. He won't allow that, I'm telling you right  now.

Z

If anyone's logic is failing, it's probably yours. Just might happen Baker's mind will tell him "I can do it", but his body won't. 

[Zombo]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

Wait, what?  By design a 2 high removes an extra defender from the box. That is why it's literally called a box count - numbers.   The commitment to the running game tends to force the additional body to help limit damage.  Yes, this opens things up vertically in different ways across the field. 

Odell and Schwartz can run past anyone they wish, if Baker can't reliably get them the ball (because he is in fact injured and you refuse to acknowledge that reality) then we have a serious issue.

There is no failure of logic on my part. I've detailed this rather plainly. So now you're just bordering on insults.    

It isn't that hard to say "I disagree and we'll see how this plays out". Which is where I think we'll leave this for now.

The insulting part is that you assume I don't understand defenses. I'm the one that had to bring you back to reality when you thought Andrew Billings was going to be the anchor of our defense, remember?

The Chargers defense is most certainly not "designed to be weak against the run". No one wants to be weak against the run. In fact, Brandon Staley is one of the most innovative defensive minds in the game ... and he's not #29 against the run because he wants to be. He WILL have to force an additional body and this WILL open up the top of the defense for us. You seem to understand the concept ... but not the part where that is an advantage for us, not them.

As for Baker, that's where your logic fails you. You assume since Baker was inconsistent last week, he will be inconsistent this week, because he's injured.

Knowing Baker as I do, and as I thought we all did, I know that he will figure out how to perform, and he will NOT repeat last week's performance. There is no chance of it.

You, and your misguided buddies, are treating Baker's Week 4 like a "Trend", when you should be treating it like an "Outlier".

Quite frankly, I'm surprised you haven't figured this out about Baker yet ... He will figure out a way to defeat his injury, and his opponent. It's not his throwing arm. He will figure out how to manage the injured left shoulder and throw with accuracy. I am 100% certain.

Therefore,  you should look at this game as if Baker had his usual game last week... 70% , 250 yds, 1 TD ... and a 27-7 win over the Vikings on the road, instead of 14-7. And THEN pick the winner.

You are betting on an outlier as if it were a trend. There is no way Baker repeats that performance, no way.

Hopefully he gains your respect this week.

Z

[SdBacker80]

37 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Yeah, a 100% healthy Baker, I'd be more confident that he's due to have a rebound game. But he's not 100% healthy.  A torn labrum takes time to heal. Z saying "I just know he's going to have a great game" is just hoping he will. For the record so do I. As the Boomer says "that's why they play the game". 

I don’t think anyone is denying he is hurt and the injury is likely contributing to his accuracy issues.  He will adapt this year with the injury.

I counted six passes last week four of which had TD potential the other two were set for 25-30 plus yard gains.  0 for 6 in those spots.  He hits on two of those we win 28-7 against a playoff caliber opponent in their building (a team we dominated in all other facets but QB play).  
 

If I had to think about this week I’d definitely say that Baker misses on a  few again…but 0 for 6?  
 

I love the Chargers safeties.  Nasir Adderely is an emerging Pro Bowl talent.  We know about Derwin James.  They will March up to the line of scrimmage if we don’t hit a couple and if we go 0 for 6 again - we will likely lose…but I think a few of us on here are betting against that.  
 

Edit: I watched some of the Vikings game…wow the Vikings back 7 tackled really well. The Chargers better do the same we were a couple shoe string partial turf Monster assists from breaking big ones
 

 

 

 

[SdBacker80]

45 minutes ago, Silver slayer said:

They are 29th against the run

5th against the pass

9th overall defense in yards per game 

We're 2nd overall

3rd against the pass

3rd against the run 

 

We're #2 at not giving up 1st downs (60)

They are 20th (86)

29th against the run and one of the games was the Chiefs.  Anyone remember what the Chiefs run game looked like against the Browns?  Zeke and his backup did a number against them too.
 

The Test will be this week for them and the following week against the Ravens.  

[Unsympathetic]

3 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

a 2 high removes an extra defender from the box

Counting the box, yes.. OSU [now] has its CB's come down in run-support once run is identified..

Helps out by forcing a cut towards the center of the field on jet sweeps and the far-outside pitches.

[tiamat63]

1 minute ago, Unsympathetic said:

Counting the box, yes.. OSU [now] has its CB's come down in run-support once run is identified.. Helps out on jet sweeps and the far-outside pitches..

CB's are always in the run fits when they're flat/cloud defenders.  Even then, when you're in a deep 1/3 you still have to get downhill and limit runs that might beat the spill & run force.

[tiamat63]

2 hours ago, Zombo said:

The insulting part is that you assume I don't understand defenses. I'm the one that had to bring you back to reality when you thought Andrew Billings was going to be the anchor of our defense, remember?

 

Me:

"I think you might be too quick to dismiss Billings earning another contract with the Browns should his level of play from the 2019 season carry over to 2021."

 

You

"Yes we have his rights for a year, him playing himself into another contract is one scenario. Point it is, its a position that needs addressed as we move forward". 

- April 18th

 

The man was a top 10 IDL in terms of run stop percentage when he was with his best years in Cincy.   There was no "reality" you brought me back to.   Malik McDowell however, IS the outlier.   That just rarely happens.

 

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, Zombo said:

You are betting on an outlier as if it were a trend. There is no way Baker repeats that performance, no way.

Hopefully he gains your respect this week.

Z

Sorry Z I worked in Laboratory Medicine for 40 years. 60% < 70% against the Bears is your outlier...  45% is definitely < 70%. You can call it whatever you like- I'll call that a trend. 

OK, great- Baker goes back to his 70% completion percentage against the Chargers, you can come back here Sunday evening and tell me- and everyone else "TOLD YA SO"....  I'll bet you a six pack of Joe Thomas Great Lakes he won't. 

 

 

  

[nickers]

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

Sorry Z I worked in Laboratory Medicine for 40 years. 60% < 70% against the Bears is your outlier...  45% is definitely < 70%. You can call it whatever you like- I'll call that a trend. 

OK, great- Baker goes back to his 70% completion percentage against the Chargers, you can come back here Sunday evening and tell me- and everyone else "TOLD YA SO"....  I'll bet you a six pack of Joe Thomas Great Lakes he won't. 

 

 

  

So you admit you're a "Lab Rat" 😂

[calfoxwc]

meanwhile, Garrett is "questionable" vs the Chargers (Cleveland.com) but is fully expecting to play.

Chris Hubbard is RULE OUT.

So, if Wills can't go.....

Hudson at LT ?

Nick Harris is now on injured reserve.... hope Tretter doesn't have to leave the game.

The Browns will have a tough game, but I still believe they win.

The Chargers might stop the run for a little while, then they rampage all over them, and the Browns will run more screens with Hunt, Felton and Schwartz. The latter will have his biggest game yet, I think.

and Baker not have the same bad game two games in a row. bank on it. He's proven it his entire life.

My concern is at LT - and Baker gets a big hit again on that shoulder, could be Keenum steps up. The Browns will still win.

[Dutch Oven]

16 hours ago, hoorta said:

3) A healthy Herbert is better than a dinged Baker.

An argument can be made that a healthy Herbert is better than a healthy Baker. 

[Zombo]

3 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

 

Me:

"I think you might be too quick to dismiss Billings earning another contract with the Browns should his level of play from the 2019 season carry over to 2021."

 

You

"Yes we have his rights for a year, him playing himself into another contract is one scenario. Point it is, its a position that needs addressed as we move forward". 

- April 18th

 

The man was a top 10 IDL in terms of run stop percentage when he was with his best years in Cincy.   There was no "reality" you brought me back to.   Malik McDowell however, IS the outlier.   That just rarely happens.

 

Oh, I can find example after example of you talking about how important Billings was, and me telling you to chill on that guy. 

You were an arrogant fuck then too, acting like you needed to explain defenses to me.

I was telling you that Billings was just a guy long before we found a better guy.

Z

[tiamat63]

6 hours ago, Zombo said:

Oh, I can find example after example of you talking about how important Billings was, and me telling you to chill on that guy. 

You were an arrogant fuck then too, acting like you needed to explain defenses to me.

I was telling you that Billings was just a guy long before we found a better guy.

Z

Billings position was/is important.  

You telling me to "chill" on him is  more of an understanding that Richardson and Jackson wouldn't get it done alone.  

McDowell coming out of nowhere was damn near a minor miracle.  Again, him taking that much time off just doesn't happen. 

So I place my belief in proven NFL players of Billings caliber until they demonstrate they Can't be effective. That's hardly arrogant, that's actually pragmatic. 

[hoorta]

9 hours ago, nickers said:

So you admit you're a "Lab Rat" 😂

Hospitals don't keep rats in their labs anymore.  I will say the level of sophistication between the 1970s and now is stunning. I've been retired going on 5 years, and my wife took me on a tour of their core lab that services multiple hospitals. Unless it's some weird specialty test it's hands off. You just put a bar coded tube on a rack and it's off to grand prix land.  Follows a track around the lab and stops at the instruments that know what tests to run on it. 

FWIW, my specialty was Transfusion Medicine  (Blood Banking). In Dayton's Reference Lab. When hospitals had a problem they couldn't solve, they'd send it to us. QC on products we were sending out to the hospitals.  And dealing with folks with super rare blood types. In our line of work, AB negative 1:167 is as common as dirt. We had one guy with a very uncommon flavor of Rh negative blood- and with some other funky antibodies, he was a 1:50,000 character. Like only seven other known folks in the country who could safely donate blood for him. 

 

[ballpeen]

Either way it is bound to be a close game, and was bound to be so before the baker news.

 

My feeling is if Stefanski plays Baker, then he is good to go.  If he plays a obviously injured player and has ignored a poor weeks worth of observation during practice, then Stefanski needs to be fired.  Stefanski is always talking about putting the players, and thus the team, in to the best position to succeed.  If starting Keenum is the best thig to do, he will, or should do that.  At minimum make a change in the 2nd qtr.

I am with Z on this one.  If he is starting, he will be fine.  As to winning the game, I'll stay out of that one because this has always been a losable game.  If we lose and Baker is obviously sailing the ball time and time again, it isn't on baker.  it's on a coach who can't make a hard decision.

 

I have been a solid supporter of Stefanski, and still am, but last week I did see some goofy calls that seemed ego based that weren't sound football decisions.   I don't have a vast array of stats and data to support this statement, but after years of watching football if seems to me that not getting 3 points early in a game come back to hurt you more often than gaining an extra 4 helps.  

How many times have we missed a field goals at some point in a game and we end up to lose by 1-2 points and we blame the kicker for the loss?  Had we tried to kick the field goal on that first drive and missed, how many people would have been bitching and moaning all game long about how that was going to end up costing us the game?

[nickers]

6 hours ago, hoorta said:

Hospitals don't keep rats in their labs anymore.  I will say the level of sophistication between the 1970s and now is stunning. I've been retired going on 5 years, and my wife took me on a tour of their core lab that services multiple hospitals. Unless it's some weird specialty test it's hands off. You just put a bar coded tube on a rack and it's off to grand prix land.  Follows a track around the lab and stops at the instruments that know what tests to run on it. 

FWIW, my specialty was Transfusion Medicine  (Blood Banking). In Dayton's Reference Lab. When hospitals had a problem they couldn't solve, they'd send it to us. QC on products we were sending out to the hospitals.  And dealing with folks with super rare blood types. In our line of work, AB negative 1:167 is as common as dirt. We had one guy with a very uncommon flavor of Rh negative blood- and with some other funky antibodies, he was a 1:50,000 character. Like only seven other known folks in the country who could safely donate blood for him. 

 

Yeah... I still can't get an honest answer to what exactly my blood type is... I have some unusual things like running an abnormal high red blood cell count.. So every couple of months or so.. I have to go to phlebotomy and "Let blood" as it were.. it's the only thing thats worked so far to stabilize my blood..