First of all, my bad for not being around for a week. I was able to finish the Cavs season preview but couldn't gather enough will in this universe to put together a Browns Report Card these last 2 weeks. In compensation for my laziness errrr time away I give you this:
Here you go Nation, a picture with the Dos Equis guy on it. I'm sure the wait was worth it.
Now since the Browns decided to shed the rest of the Cleveland's Football dignity, I won't put up this week's Report Card. You can't pretty much answer that for yourself.
So instead, dropping an F filled and F Bomb filled report card for this week, what I will do is ask 3 Key Questions. The questions will be in the same vein as "why the hell didn't we do this?" and "what can can we improve, using this NFL Europe (RIP) roster?"
Here we go.
Q #1: Did the Wildcats go extinct against GB?
A: The reason why the wildcat works is that you don't need a QB for the hand off, so there's an extra blocker available. +1
We have a guy that runs it well, can throw it if called upon, and can break plays. +3
It takes pressure off the traditional run game, and the pass game. +2
So why not run this thing against the Packers after having decent success against the Steelers? -6,0000
It's mystifying.
The Stat line:
|
| CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LG | |
| J. Lewis | 15 | 47 | 3.1 | 0 | 16 |
Seriously, couldn't an NFL coaching staff tell we needed a change of pace?
It's not as if the Wildcat is particularly complex or unsafe. What it does do is provide a mix up game, something that the New Browns have never had, and add something to the run game. (If not be our entire running game.)
And so what if the Packers game planned against it? I bet the Packers game planned against the Jamal Lewis Halfback plunge dive thing, but we run that thing 58454 times a game.
Go ahead and post one downside to running the Wildcat, say 10 times+? Name it.
By the way, Josh Cribbs covered the Bills Simmons' +3.5 spread... That's sad...
Q #2: Should the Browns sit DA and bring in Brady Quinn?
A: I asked this question in a live game thread: "If there is no one to see there to see the end of the game, does it mean it never happened?"
That's how bad it was at the end of the 3rd. The score was 30someting to 3. I forget exactly, I was probably incapacitated from inferior play.
What more perfect of an opportunity to bring in Brady Quinn, and see if he could sling it?
Let me say this: There wasn't any pressure of a comeback like when DA was brought in against the Ravens, this game was DONE. And they could have brought in Brady without needing a cemented QB switch.
Unfortunately Anderception was on the top of his game against the Packers.
It would have been a perfect time give Brady time on the field, and get another look, even for a quarter. No risk, no mess. Let's see what Brady could do.
We already knew what DA could bring 50% completions and below average decision making to the table, so what exactly was the loss there?
It would have been like pulling a starting pitcher (I would have named an Indians guy but I don't know any of their names) and bringing in a relief guy when down 10-1. If anything it would have been good for DA to let BQ finish that game.
As for picking a starting QB going forward, I answered that here. I chose Brady to start, from the start, and actually gave props to Mangini for sticking with the guy he chose initially (oops).
Brady was, is, and will be my answer.
And I'm not trying to say right I'm for that, because honestly I don't know if there's any right answers in this mess.
Q #3: Why is Jamal Lewises' corpse still a feature back in an NFL offense? And what can we do?
A: Yeah, Jamal Lewis is not very good.
I posted this in the Buffalo Report Card post found here:
"Taking out Jamal's run of 18 yards and Cribbs 31 yard gadget run, the Browns run game did this:Jamal's stat line today.And not only that, Jamal brought the full post 2006 bag of tricks which included the choppy steps, the lack of speed, average power, and the inability to run in a straight line, something that still confuses me. So don't be fooled into thinking that we are capable or average just yet."
- Browns: 122 yards on 39 carries for 3.1 yards
- Jamal Lewis (w/o 18 yard rush): 99 yards on 30 carries for 3.3 yards
| J. Lewis | Car 15 | Yds 47 | Avg 3.1 | Fum 0 | Long 16 |
Not much of a difference huh, but the perception is that Jamal had a very good game against Buffalo as opposed to GB, even though he runs the same way and puts up the same average.
An Aside: And when I saw that toss sweep to Jamal and the inevitable 3 yard loss, I knew we had entered a place beyond the Browns Screen zone. If the Browns Screen Zone was the 5th Level of Hell of football play calls, the '3 years past his prime power back toss play' is at the 12th.
This is one of the few places in this offense where Eric Mangini and Terrell DaBoll (our heroic offensive coordinator) has OPTIONS.
Definition of Option: Having an Option means that you can do different stuff and doing different stuff is awesome. (as per Cleveland Sports Nation Dictionary)
Option 1: Throw in some Wildcat plays. (stated above in Q1)
Option 2: Let Jerome Harrison become a part of this offense.
Jerome Harrison is exactly what Jamal Lewis isn't. He can run faster then Jamal, has the ability to cut, has elusiveness, has the ability to move east to west, and can run in a straight line.
And by no means am I crowning Jerome Harrison as the savior either, but he can provide some homerun ability and a completely different look for a defense. If Jerome even got the ball 30 or 40 percent of the time, the Browns, would be better for it.
A running game that featured 60/40 Jamal and Jerome with the wildcat mixed in, sounds hell of a lot more formidable then a Jamal HB Suicide Dive.
So why are we letting these options go to waste? In an effort to prove what?
Posts
