This goes back to reading comprehension. The starting rotation is/was very talented. Take ONE away and there was nothing behind them to take their place. Over the course of the season the following missed significant time: Myles Garrett Emmanuel Ogbah Jamie Collins Jamie Meder Corey Coleman Josh Gordon Ibraheim Campbell Tank Carder Garrett, Ogbah, Collins, Coleman and Campbell were slated to be major contributors to this team. None of their positions had any semblence of quality backups in case of injury. Not to mention when they are healthy, getting a rotation going for many of the positions like WR, DL and LB that expend an exorbitant amount of energy on each play...It played a major role in going 1-31 over the past two seasons. Obviously the QB play was also a major contributor, but the overall roster was insignificant compared to other rosters. It was barren of veterans. Regardless, had they stayed healthy and won 5 games, that would still be a strong indicator as not having ENOUGH talent overall.
This is the NFL....EVERY team has injuries...Luck didnt play a single snap, they lost Hooker after 7 games, starting center Kelly 7 games and many more injuries and still managed 4 wins....eventually the excuses have to stop...you mentioned guys like Tank Carder and Campbell lol...hell look at Balt...that team lost about 10 players before the year started
I wish I had the clip of one of the Former NFL Players (maybe Ryan Clark?) on ESPN last year saying the Browns have a TOP 15 roster in the league that the issue is not the players. I still believe the issue was not the players. Hue was completely over-whelmed as a HC/OC and was either too proud or ignorant to do anything about it. As for the D, Williams stated that he didn't have the players to play his D and tried to make something work with the weak corners he had. He took his most athletic guy and tried to use him as an "angel" which was nothing like anything the guy was used to playing. I would have hoped/thought Jabrill would have been able to acclimate a little bit, but it didn't really happen. The D was completely together for the Detroit game, and before Collins got hurt, the kitties were just baffled. Now the secondary actually looks respectable, there looks to be a little depth in the front 7, added a special teams ace in Jannis, got an upgrade in the backfield, an upgrade at WR, a QB who at worst is top half of the league. This was at least a 4 win team with just an average QB inserted, easily stretched to 5-6 if you consider coaching blunders not associated directly with poor ability by the QB. Objectively I really don't think it is necessary to continue to rehash this. I am sure we will get the usual "so you think the Browns are the only team that got better in the off-season" line. The answer is no. Don't be a twat. Of course every team made moves and improved. The Browns were close last year (in spite of 0-16, see explanation above), and have made greater strides towards improvement, thus giving them the edge.
Okay, Einstein . . . Would you not agree that an NFL roster includes players in back-up roles and special teams players? That would be either a "yes" or "no" answer.
You can't possibly be that stupid. The point is: When the Colts and Ravens (your examples - not mine) had starters go down to injury, their back-up players performed better than did the back-up players for the Browns when a Browns starter went down to injury. And in some cases, they played better than a Browns' starter (ie: Andrew Luck's back-up). So, using your contention that even the Browns' starters were devoid of talent, then the back-ups were even worse. Thus, you can improve a roster without replacing starters simply by getting better back-ups. And that, Einstein, is how you can improve a roster.
Ya Jacoby Brissett is a star, can you name the safety that replaced Hooker? Tell that to ID or TD, but the excuses are flowing early this morning
As much as it pains me to say it, I gotta side with @showstoppe here. This was an 0-16 team in 2016... that was by design and part of The Plan. They went 1-15 due to sheer luck (fluke play by Meder to block a field goal). This was a 4-to-7 win team in 2017... they ended up 0-16 and it was 10,000 percent on the coaches. Even if we want to (incorrectly) bury Sashi Brown for the QB room, a running game and defense with the roster they'd put together should have toughed out 3-4 wins. Even below-average QB play coupled with that could have gotten us to 6-10 or 7-9 on the season. Looking at the roster today, this is a 10 (or better) win team and I'm not using hyperbole. We have every bit of talent as a team like Buffalo did last season (especially since we stole their QB) who went 9-7 and pissed one game away by benching said QB for a woefully ill-prepared rookie. Whether or not the coaches get that out of them will determine the final win total. How Greggggggg Williams will choose to use his secondary, call blitz schemes, and leave cornerbacks in off coverage on third-and-short will determine a ton of the success this season. Hue abdicated his duties to Haley should result in an almost immediate +5 win total since Hue is objectively the worst coach in Browns history and Haley has a proven track record as a very good coordinator. Barring a playoff run, if this team can find upgrades to DC and HC next offseason, I pray they do.
If you thought for a second that the 2017 Browns were a 4 to 7 win team, then you're even more jaded than I thought you were.
Glover Quin: "Browns have Top 10 talent." He wasn't the only one... plenty of folks - players, personnel guys, and analysts alike all agreed the Browns didn't play up to the level of their talent in 2017. Should they have won 10 games? No. Should they have gone 0-16? Also, no. Only the Browns' own coaches skewered the talent on the roster and lamented the players they had to work with. Which was, as you might have guessed, not a good look.
The Browns over the 2016-2017 seasons were the number one team in the NFL at converting short yardage runs, the most effective running offense, and the second-highest total yards per carry team in the NFL. Only the Lions had fewer rushing attempts over those two seasons (713 to 734) and they had a Top 10 quarterback throw for almost 9,000 yards during that span. The Bills, a team objectively less-talented than Cleveland, went .500 over that same time frame because they played good defense and ran the ball more than all but four other teams.
To wit... With Jared Goff and Case Keenum sucking out loud in 2016, they still went 4-12. Todd Gurley was ill-used and ineffective, so they didn't even have a good running game. And even their Gregggggg Williams led defense was just average, despite talented players. It is almost impossible in today's NFL to go 0-16.
Two can play the bias confirmation game. How many turnovers did the Bills and/or Lions have compared to the Browns?
Two can play the confirmation bias game if both are willing to look up their own stats. DeShone Kizer had more turnovers himself than most teams do in a season. Who's decision was it to draft him? Play him? Start him? Build a gameplan to feature him throwing more than almost any other team in the NFL while completely ignoring the running game?
Sashi Brown Hue Jackson...who else was going to start after Sashi got rid of Osweiler? Are you going to argue cutting Osweiler loose was a good move with that QB room last year?
The general consensus at the time of the pick was that he needed to sit. The odd thing was that it was a stretch for some, but good value to others. Could have been good value if he was afforded the opportunity by Hue to sit.
I agree. But Hue wasn't given the opportunity to sit him. Why? Because Kizer was the best QB provided by . . . Sashi Brown.
Me, talking about former Browns' QBs when we've got the best vet and best prospect we've had since the re-Birth: The Browns led the NFL in turnovers, and DeShone Kizer led the NFL individually in turnovers, because Hue Jackson built a gameplan around a 21-year old raw, inconsistent quarterback throwing the football a staggering amount of times. My initial premise remains the same: if Hue Jackson wasn't a crap OC (limiting the exposure of a historically bad QB and leaning extensively on the running game, a strength of the team) and Gregg Williams wasn't a crap DC (6-8 yards off man in third-and-short, more blitzes than any team in the NFL, the whole notion of an "Angel" position) then we wouldn't have gone 0-16. It was nearly statistically impossible to go 0-16. It turns out that was a blessing in disguise because we got Baker Mayfield, John Dorsey, Tyrod Taylor, and a lot of other cool stuff that should immediately make a team that would have gone 4-7 wins with good coaching a team that can go 8 or 9 wins and the *only* thing that could hold them back would be those same coaches - one of which was abdicated his duties.
