Nothing can be worse than the Browns. The name is the color of shit....probably because that's how the city smells. We might suck....but at least we don't have to live in the mistake by the lake.
The last time the Browns were relevant.... Man hadn't landed on the moon yet. Buffalo wings weren't invented yet. Some people still didn't know smoking was unhealthy. 8-tracks were cool and cutting edge. So yeah......
I love a Fox insult as much as the next guy, more actually. But a HC who kicks a FG on 2nd down doesn't get to be complimented in that or any other way. Even re Fox. I always used to enjoy reading their write-ups on teams each year, including the Bears cos i think a bit of self-depreciating humour is good for the soul. But i don't think i can read it this year. Its not funny anymore, its factual, and thats just sad.
I love a Fox insult as much as the next guy, more actually. But a HC who kicks a FG on 2nd down doesn't get to be complimented in that or any other way. Even re Fox. I always used to enjoy reading their write-ups on teams each year, including the Bears cos i think a bit of self-depreciating humour is good for the soul. But i don't think i can read it this year. Its not funny anymore, its factual, and thats just sad.
I'll just let you all enjoy your bashing of other teams, while the walls around you are crumbling..I wish you all the luck in the world this season, and I mean that sincerely.
IMO an open competition for starting QB would not be in the best interest for Trubisky. You would be setting him up to fail. Naming Glennon the starter is the smart move. Pressure is on him to keep the job. Let Trubisky earn the number 2 job through hard work instead of a lost competition.
As bad as the Bears were last season they were still better than the Browns in every meaningful statistic. What improvements have the Browns made that would make you think they have any worse chance at landing the #1 pick in the 2018 draft?
How can you not be a troll when you actually type something like "the Browns are getting better"? I'm wondering if there's a little butthurt in Clevelnad these days because the Bears stole your QB? But no worries, you got a ND QB. He should be at least as good as the last ND QB you guys drafted, right? Don't kid yourself, the Browns will be in the hunt for #1 overall again. It's "their thing."
Is this a legitimate question? I will answer it if you are serious, but I really am not coming back on here to cause any drama.
I think it's a good question. If we're being honest, in 2016, the Browns had 14 - FOURTEEN draft picks. The only one I can name is Kessler. And only because he's the butt of many jokes. After adding 14 draft picks, the team went out and won 1 game. Was that because you brought in a baseball guy to to run the team? Who knows. Regardless, 1 win. And, honestly, if the Chargers don't miss a chip shot FG at the end of the game, you likely lose and go 0-16. Hard to do worse than a 1-15 team that really deserved to be 0-16. So, yea, you maybe got better. You got Myles Garett. Congrats. You got better at 1 position. Otherwise, you're still in discussions for worst team in football - ever.
Bears are just hitting rock bottom and we know that because we are now being compared to the Browns. So you are saying the Pushing Browns are better. What is that, 3 or 4 wins (still a stretch in my opinion)? Is that really something to be proud of and troll other boards?
Well, that certainly is part of the one win answer...the Browns had over 1,000 more snaps by rookies than the second closest team.. Browns had 4,390 snaps made by rookies Colts had 3,342 snaps made by rookies. Because some may be curious..Bears had 3,214 snaps So, yes, having 14 rookies does not go well for the win column, however, they got a lot of experience, which is one reason they are set to make a leap this year. Other notable rookies Mongo: Emmanuel Ogbah, second half of the season was one of the most productive defensive players in the league, including 3.5 sacks in a single game against the Bengals. Why the second half of the season? Because they finally let him play with his hand in the dirt instead of on his feet...guess what he is doing in 2017? you made fun of, er mentioned Kessler: Seems pretty promising to me... Nope, 2016 saw an injury to Joel Bitonio who is considered a premier left guard in the NFL, he returns healthy in 2017 Add to Bitonio and perennial All Pro Joe Thomas, signed Kevin Zeitler and JC Tretter to shore up a miserable offensive line, to now make it a strength of the team. Jamie Collins not only had an offseason with the team but will be there for 16 games instead of only the last 8 of 2016 It wasn't just about the 14 draft picks of 2016, they added 5 of the top 64 rookies in 2017, including (3) first rounders. Despite Kessler's strengths in 2016, their "Notre Dame" QB (I believe is how you put it) is looking more like a pro starter every day. I can't remember the last time we had to start the lessor of crappy QBs (including last years debacle of the RGIII/ Josh McCown debacle)..Now we have Kessler, who was one of the most efficient QBs in the entire NFL last year (his big issue was his two concussions), Kizer, who looks like the real deal (albeit in shorts and not live action) and Osweiler who has actually made to and won playoff games in recent memory. No that the QB situation is ideal, but it is CERTAINLY a huge jump over what we planned on using this time last year. Kessler had exactly ZERO snaps with the first or second team offense in the off season, they had no intention of him taking a snap in 2016. We had a starting RB who was top ten in yards per attempt, problem is he was 20th in attempts...that was behind a crap O-line Who did the Browns lose? RGIII - actually a gain McCown - actually a gain Terrelle Pryor - replaced by a player that actually performed at a higher level in Kenny Britt That's it... What did they gain? Rookie snaps = experience Jamie Collins Kevin Zeitler JC Tretter Myles Garrett David Njoku Jabrill Peppers Oh yeah and Gregg Williams, don't underestimate the power of a great coach And it doesn't stop in 2017, we have (5) draft picks in the first two rounds of 2018 as well... That is why I believe the Browns have made big strides in 2017.. Now, you can come back with.."yeah but they have always sucked...so"
It is a legit question. I thank you for answering even if I don't agree with most of it. In order to make a leap you need a good start. You came onto this board to argue why the Browns will be better than the Bears. Using the 2016 draft class is not a smart way to do that. Any reasonable football fan can see that the Bears rookie class this past season far outplayed the Browns. Floyd would have lead your team in sacks, Whitehair is a stud Center and Howard finished second in the league in rushing making a pro bowl as an alternate even though he sure as hell deserved to make it outright. My phone is acting up so I'm not going to be able to use quotes. On Kessler you can't be serious. Your going to put him and his 195 pass attempts up against Wentz and his 600? Stop! The Browns were 0-8 in games that Kessler started. The Bears one 3 games with 3 different QB's. Your comments on the O line scream PFF fan. I give you Thomas as a stud LT but other than that I would argue the Bears are better at every other position on the o line. The Browns had 5 of the top 64 picks in the draft. That doesn't mean they will turn out to be 5 of the top 64 players from that draft. 2016 draft proves that. I know you have a huge hard on for Kiezer. Save it. Most knowledgeable football fans will agree that Trubisky is the better prospect. Especially the Browns brass. We will see who turns out to be the better pro but to think Kiezer gives the Browns an advantage over the Bears with Trubisky at this point is laughable. Your running game blows until it can prove it doesn't. Howard has a legit shot at a rushing title. I'm going to stop here. I think you get my point. The Browns and the Bears have a lot to prove before anybody is going to take them seriously. To think the Browns have put themselves in a better position to succeed going forward is just false.
I don't really think he's trolling buddy, he's not being nearly a$$hole enough. But i am a little surprised at getting his back up about the original description by bww. The Browns have been bad so long that its common now for fanbases of bad teams to say "we're the Browns". Its meant more as a descriptive term tbh rather than an insult. And its accurate. If irishdawg doesn't like it he must spend a lot of time on other teams message boards.... Well, that certainly is part of the one win answer...the Browns had over 1,000 more snaps by rookies than the second closest team.. Browns had 4,390 snaps made by rookies Colts had 3,342 snaps made by rookies. Because some may be curious..Bears had 3,214 snaps That is actually an interesting stat. 1,000 snaps more is a lot. Interesting also that the Bears were up there too. Although in our case injuries almost certainly played a big part in that. I don't deny the Browns have one or two things going for them. I liked their OL signings in FA this year. And personally i thought Kessler showed potential last year. At least from what i saw....which wasn't a ton. I've seen a lot worse rookies get a lot more positive coverage from the media in the past put it that way. I think Kessler is good enough that it at least makes the decision harder going forward. Contrary to a few reports i read, i still don't believe the Browns were ever seriously in for Trubisky, that was just the Bears getting humped by Lynch. Pass rush might be good for the Browns next season too, we'll see. The problem the Browns have is there are still holes all over the roster and they obviously haven't drafted very well cos they can't fill them despite having a thousand draft picks in recent years. The "we have all these picks next draft" excuse just doesn't hold water at this point. Oh and one more thing, when exactly did Kenny Britt perform at a higher level than Pryor? Do you seriously think Britt is the better option at this point? Cos if so, oh boy are you gonna be disappointed this season.
I don't necessarily think he is a better option, but last year he did outperform him. Pryor: Year Age Team Pos # G GS TGT Rec Yds Y/R Lng Y/G Ctc% 2016 27 CLE WR 11 16 15 140 77 1007 13.1 54 62.9 55.0% Britt: 2016 28 LAR WR 18 15 15 111 68 1002 14.7 66 66.8 61.3% Look, I loved Pryor, but no one loved Pryor more than Pryor.. He had some detrimental drops that cost us some major gains in games. I can't say they cost us the games, there are too many factors that go into wins and losses, but he contributed. Do I believe Britt is better, for one reason, no...that is because Britt has been doing it his entire career and Pryor has only been a receiver full time for 2 years, last year was his first as a starter. Do I think Pryor is going to move onto a HOF type career moving forward? No one knows any future answers, we are all along for he ride.
Seems pretty promising to me... The delusion is strong with this one... For the record, you thought you got stronger when you took Manziel? How about Quinn?
