|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,530
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,530 |
Quote:
Not really, I was hoping that Brandon Weeden would suck so that they could replace him with someone better. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.
I didn't like the pick, but I was hoping it would work out. It's the only logical thing to do.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317 |
Quote:
Not really, I was hoping that Brandon Weeden would suck so that they could replace him with someone better. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.
It's my fault, but once again we return to the inescapable meme of "how to be a fan." I regret mentioning the "silliness" of actively wanting a Browns' player to fail. It's so obviously counterintuitive, IMO. I want every player to succeed until his play shows that he can't. I don't care if it's Cousins, McFadden or choose one. There are obviously as many points-of-view on this as there are fans. It's just a head scratcher to me.
I'm really more interested in finding out if Lewis' game can fit the new offense. I hope it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
Not really, I was hoping that Brandon Weeden would suck so that they could replace him with someone better. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.
He did suck and I really question what he was demonstrating in practice infront of Chud and Shurmur's eyes to grant him the title of starter.  90% of other coaches I think would have replaced him, yet we hired the lesser percent dumb enough not to!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not really, I was hoping that Brandon Weeden would suck so that they could replace him with someone better. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.
He did suck and I really question what he was demonstrating in practice infront of Chud and Shurmur's eyes to grant him the title of starter. 90% of other coaches I think would have replaced him, yet we hired the lesser percent dumb enough not to!
Replaced him with whom? Not like we are/were swimming in stud quarterbacks.
#BlackLivesMatter #StopAsianHate
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
When you're playing like Brandon was and to answer your question of "replace with who" - FREAKING ANYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wallace, Campbell, Colt, anyone that doesn't have the name Weeden on the back, horribly inaccurate, horrible field vision and doesn't have the flipper pass in their chosen arsenal. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,931
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,931 |
kinda confused by this. Dont get me wrong i understand not only has tate had trouble staying healthy and his contract is cap friendly, but doesnt shannanhan usually want a featured back in his offense or am i wrong? Personally i would much rather have one back who gets 15-20 carries a game. problem with the committee approach is its hard for a rb to warm up and get in a rhythm.
" Now here you are running these dirty old streets tattoo on your neck fake gold on your teeth, got the hood here snowed but you can't fool me, we both know who you are"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Considering there should be about 30 carries a game, having one guy get 15-20 is half or a bit more than half the carries. That seems to be a feature back these days. There was a time when a feature RB would get nearly all the carries except for a few 3rd down touches but not so much any more.
So having Tate, or whomever, be the feature back still leaves half or nearly half of the carries for the rest of the "committee".
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,242
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,242 |
Quote:
kinda confused by this. Dont get me wrong i understand not only has tate had trouble staying healthy and his contract is cap friendly, but doesnt shannanhan usually want a featured back in his offense or am i wrong? Personally i would much rather have one back who gets 15-20 carries a game. problem with the committee approach is its hard for a rb to warm up and get in a rhythm.
The question I have is if Ben is having a good game and gaining lots of yards, will he be pulled for fresher legs? I want to see how Pettine will use the RB by committee approach before being critical.
I will say this however, RB by committee usually means there is no clear cut choice for a #1 starting RB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,242
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,242 |
Quote:
Considering there should be about 30 carries a game, having one guy get 15-20 is half or a bit more than half the carries. That seems to be a feature back these days. There was a time when a feature RB would get nearly all the carries except for a few 3rd down touches but not so much any more.
So having Tate, or whomever, be the feature back still leaves half or nearly half of the carries for the rest of the "committee".
Yes teams are doing this more but it's usually with the starter and back up RB. I'm having a problem with the word "committee". What does that mean? Are the Browns going to use 3 or 4 RBs a game?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Pettine: Browns will use RB by
committee approach
