DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2018 NFL Season Looking Back: Browns 42 Raiders 45 Postgame thoughts

Yup totally agree. Seeing our offense put up 40+ is what I’m taking away. Moving on.

Bone I am not quoting you to go at you, or Dc for that matter. Please don't take it that way.

I am quoting you so people can see what I was talking about with my brother the day -

The fanbase is getting itchy. We are getting tired, and we are getting demoralized.

Yes, it has happened before - but idk if its been like this. You see, last year and the year prior, the majority of us knew we stunk. We had little talent and little expectations. This year, we have talent. We have expectations, but similar end results so far. You can see it to the way we are posting to each other, we are cutthroat right now. Frustration is seeping in. If its happening to us, its going to happen to the locker room. And when it does - watch out. Because sooner or later, someone is going to have to take responsibility for these constant losses in the last minute of games.

j/c

I read the entire first page and actually managed to get through it!



I didn't bother with the rest because it looked like our fans wished to blame everyone but the players for not executing, turnovers and general sloppy play.

Were there bad calls? There sure were. But the refs didn't allow the Raiders to make that drive to tie the game. Nor did they let the Raiders complete a two point conversion. The refs didn't let the Raiders make that drive that led to the winning FG either.

Let's face it, this loss was a team loss. Baker showed us signs of hope mixed with what you see from rookies in their first start which isn't so good. The mixed bag many warned this fan base about. Baker has a lot of potential, but also a lot of things he needs to work on. Maybe that's why the coaching staff would have preferred to wait longer for him to start?

Injuries in the secondary are going to make wins a lot tougher now. Hopefully with some practice our players will be able to pick up zone coverage a little better or we're in for a hard time.

I guess I'm not as frustrated as some fans are from what I'm reading. I was fully aware that injuries in the secondary would most likely come and most likely be devastating. I understood that Baker would have flashes of greatness mixed in with flashes of a struggling rookie.

Sometimes viewing things from a realistic viewpoint helps temper unrealistic expectations.

Who got injured in the secondary? I guess I missed that.

Agree, 40 points + with all the drops....I'm pleased with O potential....JMHO, I blame the loss on Hugh Jackson along with players.....we were not stopping them in second half, he had an inch to make, chose to punt and again, we didn't stop them....give the ball to Hyde again....Doug Peterson would have AND we've lost so many games, why not GO for the WIN....GO Browns!!!

I haven't been following this thread much and mainly noticed the hate (warranted) towards the refs. But has their been discussion about not going for it on 4th and inches?

WRONG .. it was 24 points ..

Pick 6 TD
Fumble .. 7 yard drive
Fumble .. 20 yard drive ...

Oh wait ... my bad it was only 21 .... there was another 3 on the punt return to our 30 where the D had the audacity to hold them right there with a 3 and out ...

Actually, they did. If they didn't reverse the call - then oak doesn't tie it or make the 2pt conversion.

I have brought that up, but I just get told I hate hue and to be quite.

I set the refs aside, but believe we got hosed two or three times. We still had plenty of snaps to win it. This is simple-minded, but I still remain convinced that if you manage to put up over 40 points, then you ought to win all games. Defense gave up some gouges too often. Tackling. Wow.

They executed, refs set the table, but they took a win away. I hate moral victories. Still, it was exciting.

Of course!

I keep hearing this, but at what point do you think we are just now seeing the effects of YEARS of rule changes to benefit offenses.

Lets face it, look all over the league, teams are scoring 40 every week - and multiple teams each week. The league wants that. So no, I don't agree with that line anymore. I actually give the defense the benefit of the doubt - they are not allowed to hit, they are not allwed to sack the qb, they are not allowed to jam receievers, or be in the receivers way, or have a hand on them, etc.

40 points is not going to be enough anymore in todays NFL. Heck, scored 42 and 37 against jax and kc at home and lost both.

Valid point , Now keep quite

one of my thoughts exactly. Easy to say in 20/20 Hindsight, but I would have liked to see us go for it. just a few inches to claim the momentum of the final minutes and ride out the clock.
but to be fair to coaching staff thats a hard call to make. we were in a bad bad spot if we didnt convert. it begs the question of confidence... are we better off punting and relying on our D to get a stop or better off trusting our O to get a few inches and run out the clock?

ya know statistically both those odds are probably in our favor. but the browns are familiar with the ugly side of stats. soon as we punted the ball I had this familiar taste... like when u puke just a lil from a burp and know more is coming lolol. I knew with all my certainty that the RAiders were gonna march up the field score a touchdown and get the 2pt conversion. there was no doubt in my mind and thats exactly what happened. I know I couldn't have been the only one who felt no shock whatsoever when watching that train-wreck unfold

Fate and luck are not real things.

wheres Eotabs "what did you see thread?"
he was fast to put his thread up after the Jets game?

Neither is absolute certainty over things you can't prove.

I heard on the radio that success rate for going for it on 4th-and-1 is 88% (Dustin Fox on Bull and Fox). And that's 4th-and-1 YARD; I imagine its higher for 4th-and-inches, over 90% I'd guess.

I never said anything about absolute certainty. I just wish our coach was smarter.

We may wish he would have gone for it, but he made the right call. Too bad our D couldn't stop them, but it was the right call. Too bad the refs #@%$'d us, but it was the right call. Had they not #@%$'d us, he wouldn't have needed to make the call. But it was the right call. IMHO

I don't know if it was the right call or the wrong call. If Hue Jackson is making his decision based on luck and fate, then he is a worse coach than anyone ever thought.

If Hue had said something like Mayfield is still a work in progress working under Center, and we had already had a fumbled snap earlier ... I would get it and allow that it was a decision based on something other than "his gut". As it is, he comes across like Romeo saying he'd flip a coin to decide who's starting between Anderson and Quinn. You're worried we used up all of our "allotment of luck"? Ridiculous.

It's less likely he's consulting tarot cards or reading tea leaves and more likely he was using a turn of phase to answer a stupid question about why he didn't go for it. He could have just as easily said, "Because we were at mid-field and I didn't want to risk turning the ball over there. I felt our D was playing well enough to stop them. It just didn't work out as I hoped." Then we wouldn't be discussing luck or fate. If he made a mistake, it was choosing his words. But the man's not stupid, and is in fact a very good coach. It's time to own up to the fact that we've got the best FO/Coaching staff since the return. And quite possibly, long before.

Front office? Maybe. Head coach? Absurd.

He says dumb stuff. A lot.

I disagree with nearly your entire post. It's not worth discussing because our opinions differ so much.

I'm a fan, I have all week to blame the refs.. I don't have to worry about being a better fan... or preparing my fandom for next weeks game. I'll be ready when it gets here.

If I was a player or a coach, I'd already be about the business of preparing for next week, not playing what-ifs like if we had a kicker in the first couple weeks.. or if we had started baker from week 1.. or if the refs didn't blow..

That's the luxury of being a fan and a not a person who actually has any responsibility to coach or play next week.

Agree with everything.. but we were on our own 18...

Really? Hm, I thought we were closer to the 50. Well, in that case, even more so... LOL.

I think we had a 4th and short in OT near midfield

18 yard line

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24863251/nfl-explains-replay-reversal-cleveland-browns-1st-down

The NFL is supporting a decision to reverse a key first-down measurement Sunday in the Oakland Raiders' 45-42 victory over the Cleveland Browns.
Editor's Picks

Gruden earns first NFL win in nearly 10 years

It took more than four games and almost 10 years, but Jon Gruden has his first victory since his return to the NFL as Oakland Raiders coach.
Mayfield on Browns' loss in OT: 'It's on me'

Baker Mayfield had two touchdown passes in his first start for the Browns and got them out to an early lead. He was also responsible for four turnovers and couldn't get a first down in overtime as Cleveland fell to the Raiders.

The play occurred as the Browns held a 42-34 lead with 1 minute, 38 seconds remaining in regulation. Referee Walt Anderson's crew originally credited running back Carlos Hyde with a 2-yard gain to the Browns' 19-yard line. A measurement confirmed a first down that would have allowed the Browns to run out the clock and, barring a turnover, win the game.

But the NFL's central replay command in New York called for a review of the measurement, as it is authorized to do when the game clock is under two minutes of either half. After a delay, Anderson said Hyde's "elbow was down short of the 19-yard line." Anderson spotted the ball at the 18-yard line and signaled fourth down.

Former NFL officiating chief Dean Blandino, contributing to the Fox Sports broadcast, said: "I don't see any way they could change this call on the field."

Although no angle offered a full view of the ball's location once Hyde was down, an NFL spokesman said the league pieced together two angles to clarify that Hyde's wrist and elbow hit the ground before the ball reached the 19.

"From the line feed, you can see the line to gain is just past the 19-yard line," the spokesman said. "One replay angle shows [Hyde's] wrist and the elbow hit the ground simultaneously. Then when you go back to the line feed, you see the wrist hit the ground and you know the elbow is down. At that point, you are able to clearly see that the ball is short of the line to gain."

The NFL rule book limits reversals to instances where the reason for a change is "clear and obvious." That standard came under scrutiny last season, the first in which the league's officiating office -- led by senior vice president Al Riveron -- had final authority over replay decisions. In 2017, the league set a record with 195 replay reversals.

Sunday's turnabout was particularly significant to the outcome of the game. Instead of running out the clock, the Browns were forced to punt. The Raiders tied the game on quarterback Derek Carr's 7-yard touchdown pass to tight end Jared Cook, followed by Carr's two-point conversion throw to receiver Jordy Nelson. Raiders place-kicker Matt McCrane's 29-yard field goal won the game in overtime.

They need to release the video.

Had Hue gone for it and failed handing them the ball on the 18 yard line you guys would be lampooning him as the stupidest coach ever, you do enough of that already. We were up 8 they needed a touchdown and a two point conversion. It was the right call, our defense didn't stop them.

If we had gone for it I would have supported him 100% whether we got it or not. Teams should go for it way more on fourth down than they currently do, especially in situations where you win the game if you get the first down.

With that said, I don't mind punting either. It was a really tough call and our defense should be able to stop a team like the Raiders from driving the field like they did (poor tackling was the main culprit).

The thing that bugs me more than anything is the explanation given as to why we didn't go for it. With that said, the explanation doesn't actually matter that much. I just wish our head coach was more thoughtful at times.

There is a point where his elbow and wrist are parallel to the ground I think that is what they are referring to the only problem is it was parallel to the ground it was not touching the ground it was 6" above the ground. I believe they thought the elbow and wrist hit at that point it did not. I am pretty sure this is what they thought they saw. Its just not what happened.

release the tape!