|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
9/13 Vikings 12-4 Playoffs / 2nd best in NFC
9/20 Broncos 8-8 Started hot and collapsed as schedule got tougher
9/27 Ravens 9-7 Wildcard Playoff team
10/4 Bengals 10-6 Wildcard Playoff team
10/11 Bills 6-10 Browns squeeze past a bad team
10/18 Steelers 9-7
10/25 Packers 11-5 Wildcard Playoff team
11/1 Bears 7-9
11/16 Ravens 9-7 Wildcard Playoff
11/22 Lions 2-14 Almost unforgivable loss
11/29 Bengals 10-6 Wildcard Playoff team
12/6 Chargers 13-3 Playoffs / 2nd best record in AFC
12/10 Steelers 9-7
12/20 Chiefs 4-12
12/27 Raiders 5-11
1/3 Jaguars 7-9
The 2009 Browns played seven games against Playoff teams.
They lost only two games to sub-.500 teams (Bears & Lions)
They beat four sub-.500 teams and split with the Steelers.
Looking back it turned out to be a pretty rough schedule in that we played SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks of the season. That would be a lot for the Colts to deal with let alone a team that was hoping to get to .500.
In contrast the Colts only played two playoff teams in their first twelve weeks (and only three on the year). The Eagles only played three playoff teams in the first twelve weeks (and four on the season). The Vikings face 3 playoff teams in the first twelve weeks and five overall. The Cowboys faced 2 and a total of five.
That means that the 2009 Browns faced as many playoff teams in the first twelve weeks as the Colts, Cowboys, and Vikings COMBINED.
I think that's kind of shocking when you look back and consider it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 512
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 512 |
interesting, definately something to think about when someone says "you are what your record says you are" 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Also goes to show how "far away" any team really ISN'T in the NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,952 Likes: 30
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,952 Likes: 30 |
I prefer to look at what a teams record was when we played them rather than how they finish the season. Anything can happen, as is evident by our winning streak at the end, and just because a team makes the playoffs doesn't mean they are all that good (the Bengals come to mind here).
Also, given our learning "process" through 3/4 of the season, I think we could have lost to the crappy teams just as easily.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
In contrast the Colts only played two playoff teams in their first twelve weeks (and only three on the year).
Gift horse...I'm not sure what your trying to say but your assumption on the Colts vs playoff competition is off a little off. IMO, the Colts played a pretty tough schedule. Also, if you check out the division** the Colts play in, the AFC South, it's one of the toughest in the NFL, based on W-L records....**posted below the schedule
Colts schedule
1. Jacksonville..7-9
2. Miami...7-9
3. Arizona...10-6..playoffs
4. Seattle...5-11
5. Tenn...8-8
6. Bye
7. St Louis...1-15
8. SF...8-8
9. Houston...9-7
10. N.E....10-6..playoffs
11. Balt...9-7..playoffs
12. Houston...9-7
13. Tenn...8-8
14. Denver...8-8
15. Jackson...7-9
16. N.Y. Jets...9-7..playoffs
17. Buff...6-10
**AFC SOUTH
Indy........14-2
Houston...9-7
Tenn........8-8
Jackson...7-9
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
I'm saying that the Colts are WAY better than us and I think we played a tougher schedule overall. I'm also trying to highlight that our first twelve weeks was among the toughest in the NFL.
A lot of bad karma developed between EM and the fans those first twelve weeks - in part due to the tough schedule and the loses. Maybe a good portion of that was unfair.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38 |
I kind of thought the same thing a couple of years ago in Romeo's last year. But to be fair, the 10-6 season we played a weaker schedule. All said, you can't control who you play, and how they are doing. We know we have 6 games in the division, and if you build a team to win in your division, then you will probably have a team that wins outside of your division. 1-5 in our division is a tough pill to swallow. However, as badly as I was against Mangini, if you add Holmgren and a good gm, I'm not feeling as bad about Mangini. I don't believe in one person having total control. Butch proved that, and mangini was doing the same. The more football minds you have atop an organization, the better the way I see it.
The best thing about having a guy like holmgren as president is the fact that the power struggles will come to a halt, because Holmgren is the man. People answer to him. If Lerner is smart, that is the way it will stay. He'll keep his office in Berea, and use it about as much as Tony Soprano used his office Barone Sanitation, and let the football men run his football operation.
Finally, The Maskedman has come back, to the true Cleveland Browns Message Board.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
The 2009 Browns played seven games against Playoff teams.
They lost only two games to sub-.500 teams (Bears & Lions)
They beat four sub-.500 teams and split with the Steelers.
I don't think it matters how you stacked our schedule, we weren't going to be very good.. but, BUT... if we could have had a couple games in those first four like the Chiefs and Raiders instead of 3 playoff teams and a 4th team that was playing as well as anybody at the time it would have given this team a chance to build some confidence and it would have taken a lot of the heat off of Mangini and the team in general... Like I said, I don't think it would have equated to a bunch more wins, but possibly a couple... given the sports I played at my level and the more I hear pros talk about it the more I am convinced that CONFIDANCE can be a huge thing and this team had every ounce of it's confidance sucked out in the first 4 weeks.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Confidence,...definitely one of those things that has nothing to do with pure athletic talent, and is truly a coachable aspect.
I don't buy into "talent level differences" as much as I would leadership and coaching philosophies. Not saying the Browns are as physically football talented as anyone else in the League, that of course is not true. I just think at this level, after all of the funnelling and weeding out that is done from Pee-Wee through College ball, the mental things are half the battle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Absolutely... you look at a team like the Colts or the Patriots or even the Steelers (possibly up until this year)... and if it was a close game in the final few minutes, they just looked like they were going to win. they layed with a level of confidence that you thought they couldn't lose... compared to teams like the Browns, put in the same situation they play like they are afraid to lose...
That is another thing that made that 4th quarter drive against the Jags so impressive, the Browns, for the first time in forever, actually looked like a team that was not going to lose.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
131-125 SOS schedule = average, we went 5-11 = bad with an average schedule....doesn't get much easier in the NFL Nice try but this year's schedule was much easier than last years and we haven't improved in relation to the SOS...pretty much the bottom line or should I call it "Parcells result" of what I saw...no improvement from a bad team Mangini inherited. Took a bad team, made it unwatchable and then back to 1 trick pony bad which was good enough against some dead teams at the end of the season = we're still there where he picked this mess up We still need a WR and ILB although he spent 3 1st day picks and several FAs on those positions (and by need I mean MAJOR needs)....we need a S more than ever although he brought in Elam, Ventrone and (dare I say it) Furrey (another MAJOR need)....we need a RG and RT...a TE...a OLB pass rusher....a CB...although...FA...you get the drift He made this roster much older....and outside of Mack we have no players he brought in that any of us would want starting 2 years from now (Massa is debatable...but you guys know what I think of him) Some backup/developmental players (Benard, Moore) and lots of ST (Trusnik, Ventrone, Costanzo etc) and has beens or better: never beens (Womack, StClair, Royal, Poteat, Barton, Furrey) Look at who were our key players and/or improved the most: Thomas, Cribbs, Harrison, Wright and Rubin....then Mack.....1 Mangini guy after turning over 50% of the roster Yeah, let's keep him 
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
Quote:
The 2009 Browns played seven games against Playoff teams.
They lost only two games to sub-.500 teams (Bears & Lions)
They beat four sub-.500 teams and split with the Steelers.
I don't think it matters how you stacked our schedule, we weren't going to be very good.. but, BUT... if we could have had a couple games in those first four like the Chiefs and Raiders instead of 3 playoff teams and a 4th team that was playing as well as anybody at the time it would have given this team a chance to build some confidence and it would have taken a lot of the heat off of Mangini and the team in general... Like I said, I don't think it would have equated to a bunch more wins, but possibly a couple... given the sports I played at my level and the more I hear pros talk about it the more I am convinced that CONFIDANCE can be a huge thing and this team had every ounce of it's confidance sucked out in the first 4 weeks.
I agree with you that it wouldn't have made a huge difference in total wins, it just might have made the first part of the season more fun.
And confidence is what this team has been lacking since it's return. Someone else mentioned that the Jags game had a feeling to it where the Browns just weren't going to accept anything less than a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
doesn't get much easier in the NFL
SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks and it doesn't get much easier. 
Who's going to buy that?  Some of the stuff you say just cracks me up. Do you really believe that there are people gullible enough to buy that??
Please post the list of all the teams that faced SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks....
average  too funny...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
This thread is exactly why I never buy into preseason ratings if schedules. SOS at the beginning of the year is BS. I heard a Pittsburgh talking head say that last year the Steelers played one of the toughest schedules in history.....what a freaking joke. They beat a 9-7 team in San Diego in the playoffs. Then they beat the Ravens, who weren't bad. Then went to the super bowl against a team that finished 9-7.
If you look back, there season wasn't any harder than ours. You could also make a point about them playing us so that makes it easier. My point is, last year was last year, and to believe otherwise is nonsense.
Django is a stat freak, so I can see him using preseason SOS in his favor. But at the end of the year is the only way to see how strong a schedule really was.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,277 Likes: 169
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,277 Likes: 169 |
Part of the reason that the Ravens and Cincy are in the playoffs are that they both beat the Browns twice, If the Browns had split against them, we may be looking at different playoff teams, altogether. Houston and Jacksonville could have made the playoffs, then the premise of the argument would fall apart completely.
It can be hard to make superficial judgments based on statistics alone, The Browns were last in the NFL in offense, but 8th in rushing offense, If Harrision and Jennings had played all year, the Browns would probably still had been near the bottom, but with more victories.
For various reasons, down, distance, time of possession, 150 yards rushing a game, is the same as passing for 270.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks and it doesn't get much easier.
Who's going to buy that? Some of the stuff you say just cracks me up. Do you really believe that there are people gullible enough to buy that??
Please post the list of all the teams that faced SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks....
average too funny...
Funny dude....but pretty clueless...we faced 7 PO teams in 16 games...I don't care WHEN we faced them....7 games against PO teams is, AGAIN, pretty average by math since 12 out of 32 team ARE int he POs, you know
Also, going 1-11 in this stretch doesn't make things really better....and SOS is SOS, there's just no way around it...ours was 131-125, that's again by math pretty average...there ARE enough teams out there that faced opponents with more wins...you do know that, do you?
We had an average schedule....compare it to last season's schedule
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 Likes: 83 |
As for finding an easier schedule, They didn't beat the DETROIT LIONS.
If the Browns had won all of their games, then their opponents who beat them would all have one more loss, and then might not make the playoffs.
So I don't buy that argument. Espcially after the schedule last year which was even tougher in my opinion.
A Browns fanbase shouldn't make excuses, it is unbecoming!
Browns fans are supposed to be the best, most knowledgable, loyal, die hard, Rabid, informed and able to recognize good football, in the NFL.
Otherwise they might as well just be fans of some other team. It is not alright to "SPIN" this that the Browns need an easier schedule.
What are you prepared to settle for?
This is the NFL, we are supposed to be watching the best football on the planet earth.
That is why winning means so much.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
Quote:
SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks and it doesn't get much easier.
Who's going to buy that? Some of the stuff you say just cracks me up. Do you really believe that there are people gullible enough to buy that??
Please post the list of all the teams that faced SEVEN playoff teams in the first twelve weeks....
average too funny...
Funny dude....but pretty clueless...we faced 7 PO teams in 16 games...I don't care WHEN we faced them....7 games against PO teams is, AGAIN, pretty average by math since 12 out of 32 team ARE int he POs, you know
Also, going 1-11 in this stretch doesn't make things really better....and SOS is SOS, there's just no way around it...ours was 131-125, that's again by math pretty average...there ARE enough teams out there that faced opponents with more wins...you do know that, do you?
We had an average schedule....compare it to last season's schedule
I'll keep it short in hopes of you "getting it".
Our year-end-total SOS was average. Our first twelve games SOS was brutal. Our last four games SOS was below average - which has a direct connection to a four game win streak. Likewise, the brutal 12 has a direct relationship to our terrible start. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
I honestly wonder what our record would have been if we had Matt Roth the whole year, Marcus Benard on the active roster all year instead of Alex Hall, and Harrison starting all year.
While I don't think it's a winning record through 12 games, it's not 1-11, my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Our year-end-total SOS was average. Our first twelve games SOS was brutal. Our last four games SOS was below average - which has a direct connection to a four game win streak. Likewise, the brutal 12 has a direct relationship to our terrible start.
So, where's your problem with my post? All I said was based on the WHOLE season...I don't care for streaks or SOS in certain months....we had an average SOS and a bad record....that's what you laughed at me and now acknowledge...
case closed
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,257 Likes: 597
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,257 Likes: 597 |
You say you don't care about "certain months", but the certain months he's talking about was the first 3/4 of the season.
That's a lot.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum A Look Back at the 2009 Schedule
|
|
