DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Johnny Manziel...continued

So another question, even though this is a Manziel thread...

Do you guys think Hoyer will beat out Mallett? The tie to O'Brien might give Hoyer the edge?

j/c

I have been hard on Manziel and it looks like he's proving me wrong. I hope so, we'll see.

im a big fan of self help and personal growth books and such.

one of the many things that has stuck out to me is something tony robbins said. basically, if you want to do something, say quitting cigs, or in manziels case what ever chemical dependency he has/had-- tell people about it.

go around and tell all of your friends, your family, co workers, etc, that you are going to quit smoking. all of a sudden you are surrounded by people you dont want to show failure to. youre around them all the time, as they are who i just mentioned, so slipping up will be seen, no matter what. it gives you extra incentive/pressure to stay on board.


i imagine that knowing you cant go anywhere and slip up without some one noticing, makes it a bit easier to stay on the wagon. its embarrassing and you feel ashamed when you fail. having eyes everywhere keeps you from slipping up, i would think.


hope it works out that way for him (as well as im sure the other obvious things he has learned during treatment)

If Hoyer beats out Mallett, it will say more about Mallett than it does about Hoyer. I don't see anyway Hoyer beats him out.

I agree with that, too.

I'm not convinced it's the most likely or even the plan, but it would definitely be the best result (unless we get into really crazy scenarios).

I respect that Hoyer helped us win games last year, and the year before.

He really helped win 2 games in 2013, as he left with the team down 10-0 in the Bills game, when he got hurt. He did, however, help us win 2 games that year. I think that it was more a sense of stability than anything else that he brought that helped the team win than anything he, specifically, did.

Coming into year 2, he looked like he has some magic around him. The Steelers game looked really promising for the future ... not the 1st half, but the comeback certainly did. The run game had a lot to do with that game as well though. Actually, Hoyer was very good early on, and when the team's plan was completely intact. However, he got worse as the year went along. Once the run game had got going to full speed, he was unable to consistently hit the wide open deep receivers who would have turned in huge plays. How many times did we see receivers running so wide open, and Hoyer unable to hit them?

I respect that Hoyer was able to bring confidence back to the offense, and in fact, I think that was his biggest contribution. He helped an offense, in 2013, that lacked weapons play at a higher level than many expected. However, in 2014, we had weapons. Our receivers were much better than most expected. Our run game was much better than most expected. Our OL was spectacular until Mack got hurt. That led to the need for Hoyer to step his game up even more.

I almost feel like he was comfortable being the best player on a bad offense, but as the rest of the offense improved, he failed to feel up. He was good when expectations were lowest, but as expectations rose, he seemed unable to handle them. In retrospect, training camp should have been a warning sign, though at that point, it was too late to do much about things.

In the end, Hoyer did a nice job on a bad team in 2013, and we won a couple of games with him, He wasn't perfect in those games, but he did enough to win, and he gave the team stability. (until he got hurt)

Last year, do we give most of the credit to the plan the Browns had ..... improving the receiver corps, improving the RB corps, and so on .... and playing more of a run heavy offense ..... or do we give most of the credit to Hoyer ..... Or, do we say that the Browns had a good plan, Hoyer played well within that plan at times last year, but in the end did not do enough to keep his job? Do we say that Hoyer did a good job when people did not have a bok on him, but once there was a book on him, teams figured him out, and the Browns were worried abotu that going forward?

The biggest problem we have as fans is that we have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes. We can guess, and read reports online and in the newspapers, but we have no first hand knowledge. We all guess, but we don't know.

It seems strange that the Browns would take a guy who did lead them to 7 wins last year and show him the door rather unceremoniously, unless there was some reason for them doing so. That much is obvious. Even on a team with a strong defense and run game, you still need a capable QB. As much as you try to limit their impact on the game, they are always going to have an impact anyway.

If Manziel had shown much last year and/or if he had not imploded in the off-season and checked into rehab, I could see an argument for saying that the Browns had decided to move on to Manziel, and wanted a mentor for him. However, given that Manziel is even less of a sure thing at this point, that seems unlikely. The other options are that the Browns want to stink this year so they can draft a QB high next year .... even though there are really no sure things at QB at this point ..... or that they believe that McCown better fits what they want to do, and that they will structure an offense in which he can succeed, and in which he will do a better job, long term, than Hoyer would have. The only other option that makes any sense is that Hoyer's team told the Browns that he would not re-sign with the team under any circumstances, or that Hoyer did something(s) that the Browns did not like, or want to continue.

What other realistic possibilities can you think of?

I think they put Hoyer in a bad spot by not supporting him, ever.

When the run game wasn't working they didn't abandon it which was good and bad. When you put QB's in general in 3rd and longs the success rate drops for all QB's, its the by product of a poor run game, and especially so when that is the foundation your team is built on.

We never changed up the game plans to let Hoyer throw on early downs early in games to set up the run, there were lots of things that went wrong but not just Hoyer, although he gets part of the blame along with game plans and a poor running game. We did what we did even when it didn't work we never bucked our tendencies and teams game planned accordingly. That is the lesson I took from last season.

It's so easy to blame one guy and not see all the other things going on around that player that contribute to failure.

The receivers we have did exceed expectations but they aren't all that good either. We really lacked a go to guy although at times Miles filled that roll. I think the Hoyer missed open receivers card is way over played. Did he miss open receivers? Yes he did but to hear it told here thats all he ever did and that just isn't so.

Bottom line is no matter the roll be it starter or backup the Browns were a better team with Hoyer then without, but that doesn't fit the plan. That being come Sept we find out once and for all about JF and should he fail and we go to McCown the losing will continue to the point we are at the head of the draft class. That is the plan like it or NOT.

Man, I have to disagree with this. Hoyer was supported like no QB I can recall, except for DA. He had a very good OL, even with Mack out. He had quality receivers. We managed to run the ball to some extent. Obviously it wasn't the same as it was with Mack in the lineup, but it was still useful in many games. The Head Coach was solidly behind him until he completely imploded.

As far as throwing on 1st down, do you know on which down Hoyer threw most often?

Yep, first down.

1st down: 85/152 55.9% 1244 yards, 4 TD 6 INT
2nd down: 86/140 61.4% 1198 yards, 5 TD 4 INT
3rd down: 70/139 80.4% 874 yards, 3 TD 3 INT
4th down: 1/7 14.3% 10 yards, 9 TD 0 INT

His pass attempts were actually pretty nicely spread out between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down.

Now we were a team that ran more heavily on 1st and 2nd down, as is to be expected.

On 1st down: 270 runs, for 3.3 yards/attempt, and 25 1st downs.
2nd down: 167 runs for 4.4 yards/attempt, and 47 1st downs.
3rd down: 94 times for 2.6 yards/attempt and 13 1st downs.
4th down: 4 runs for 5 yards, only 1.3 yards/attempt, but 3 first downs.

So, on 1st down we ran 270 times, and threw 152 times. That is not horribly skewed for a running team.

One thing that kind of surprised me is this: We did not run one single time against the blitz. Zero times. We also rarely used motion in our offense last year. Only 8 rushes were on plays on which we ran motion. We only ran motion on 6 pass plays as well.

One other thing: Hoyer had the ability to change plays at the LOS. He did so a number of times last year, and there are multiple references to images and such from last year where Hoyer is changing the play at the LOS.

As far as Hoyer missing open receivers, it wasn't just that he missed them, but rather that there there some times where he didn't even seem to see them running wide open, and he sometimes did appear to see them, and disregarded them as an option. One play where Gabriel was running about 15 yards open comes to mind, where Hoyer appeared to look at him once, twice, and then checked the ball down. There were so many times where we had one or more receivers running wide open, and they were ignored. I will never forget the throw to Gabriel, that was thrown like a punt ..... Gabriel was so wide open that he had time to stand still and wait for the pass to finally come down. A fair throw and that's an easy TD. It wasn't even a TD. We missed a ton of such plays last year. Vers probably wears people out talking about Shanahan's play designs, but he is right. Shanahan had some beautiful play designs, and we had receivers running wide open quite frequently. I think that this might have been the biggest reason that the coaches felt that Hoyer was expendable. For all that Hoyer did right last year, this was a huge failing on his part. We missed a ton of big plays in the passing game. I would bet that Hoyer could have had 25 TD if he only would have seen and connected on half of them. That sounds like an exaggeration, but I don't think it is. I truly think that Hoyer could have had 25 TD last year if he only would have seen the guys who were running wide open, and hit them with decent passes. I can remember a couple of times hearing announcers talking about this very thing ..... how you only get so many of those opportunities per game, and you have to see them, and take advantage of them. Hoyer did/could not.

It makes life so much easier when you can make the "easy" big plays. For all of their faults, that is what Weeden and Campbell were able to do in 2013 in hitting Gordon for all of those big strikes. Gotta have those as an offense, because you only get so many chances at those "big chunk" plays.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth.

I think it's a generational thing. When I went through Netiquette (Internet+etiquette), we were taught that all caps was impolite and basically yelling. Bold type or underlining were for emphasis. I understand that tech classes are relatively new, and some of the more long term fans didn't have such training. It can be hard to grasp that when you are staring at words on a page and not the actual person. When I don't think about it, I suppose that I basically assume the person on the other side of the screen is much the same as me.

Back to football-
As far as Hoyer having good qualities, this is true. He is the best QB we've had since the return. However, once he started to struggle things seemed to snowball on him and at the end of the year he was playing quite poorly. Since that is the most recent memory people have, it is easy to lump him into the bad category. While he did have his good times, I don't see him as a player who is irreplaceable. If his plans and desires for compensation and guarantees didn't gel with the team's, I can see why they let him go.
With respect to Hoyer struggling when the running game struggled, it's a two way street. If you are in 3rd and long from ineffective runs, it does make throwing harder. On the other hand, if opponents are stacking the box because your passing game has been ineffective, the running game will suffer.
Hopefully next year with some hard work and some luck with injuries, we can have both facets working.

"why is this about McCown vs Hoyer again"
=====================================================

Agreed. Hoyer is no longer a Cleveland Brown.

Right now it is all about Manziel.

Unless McCown becomes something he has never been. McCown has to be clearly the best quarterback on the roster to play. He as to win and look good doing it.

For me I want to see Manziel. I want to know without question that he can contribute to the Browns as a player not a celebrity.

At this point I want the best that he has. Hopefully he can take a leadership role and win games.

Nothing would please me more than for him to prove me wrong and justify his selection in the draft.

If Manzeil becomes the QB he was thought to be coming out of Texas A&M this team will be better than good ... JMHO

There you go with "IF" again.

Thanks Grimm! But I'm sure that you really meant 'old'...

I agree but to put Manziel out there when he's not ready would be disastrous like last year. I'm glad they did though because he would've probably never entered rehab if he hadn't fell flat on his face. I hope he succeeds too but I would be absolutely shocked if he is ready to take the reigns comes September. McCown, a career back up is probably our best chance. I agree that Hoyer fell off last season. It was obvious but to not pursue the best QB on our roster(Hoyer) who did win over 60% of his starts here in an era where we've won about 35% of our games was mind boggling.

For once I agree with your viewpoint.

We've been an "IF" team since our return. If this, if that. It seems every conversation or discussion has to include either "if" as a disclaimer or "if" as a prediction of potential.

It's because we never have anything last long enough to know what we have. We do have some players now who are not "if's". Joe, Mack, Haden, you know the list, and it's become substantial. But together they still have to be considered "ifs" since we can't keep a regime together long enough to feel confident in what we have as a team.

"If" is used to describe potential. Potential of players, coaches and FO's. Most of them, with the exception of a few quality players, never last long enough to prove they can move out of the "if" category. And those who replace them become instant "ifs".

Frankly I'm sick of it.

"If" is also used to describe our luck. As in, "if" we stay healthy. "If" so-and-so or the OL or the DL or any other unit stays healthy we should be able to compete. "If" plays it's part in the health of the team because of all the regime change-overs we're usually left with only one player at each position, (and some of them shouldn't be starting), and we suffer dearly from a lack of depth. So, "if", (fill-in-the-blank), stays healthy we'll be alright.

Frankly I'm getting sick of that too.

"If" we could just keep the same regime long enough for them to build a team of starters and fill-in the depth with quality a lot of those "ifs" could turn into solid "hope". "Hope" for the players, "hope" for the coaching, "hope" for the FO and "hope" for some success.

"Hope" is better than "if". "Hope" means you have something to look forward to.

"If" merely means you don't yet have any "hope".

Frankly I'm getting sick of all of it. The solutions seem so simple from where I stand. Just give people a chance to finish what they started.

Good 1st post.

Welcome to the board.

The need for FO/coaching continuity is what I have been arguing...maybe not as eloquently.

Part of me still wouldn't mind getting Glennon or Mettenberger, but I guess we can't just make too big of a mess at QB. Gotta see what Johnny can do.

Great stats.

Where is the stat for ran on 1st down got 1 yard ran on second down got one yard now its 3rd and 8 and we now throw the ball.

Its one of those this is what I saw do they have a stat for third and longs?

The fact that we ran nearly 50% more on 1st down tells you that we oft times when the run game wasn't working put the QB in 2nd and 3rd and longs, but the stats don't tell us that do they????

Stats are great they just don't tell the whole story....

Yup it sure is and trying to tell folks there is no difference between 1-10 and 7-6 is boggling too.

Nice post welcome to the boards....

The straw that broke the camel's back.

*IGNORE*

You know, I was pretty harsh on Hoyer towards the end of the year, but seeing this changed my mind. On 4th down, he got 9 TDs on 1 completion. That is some QBing there.

Really Cap, I could see 5 or 6 but 9!? That's off the charts......

7-6

Oh man .... typing while beat is not a good idea, yet I do irt time after time anyway.

Those wanting JF to be starter day one on account of "just seeing what we have" is likely one of the bigger contributors to why Chud lost his job.

You put the best player who provides the greatest chance of victory out there. Sick of seeing unprepared messes out there cause we play them as we have no other option or "to see what we got".

This big reason why I love Pettine. You gotta earn your spot, nothing handed to you regardless where you was drafted and etc.

JMO

Plus if he is unable to beat out McCown... then we know what we have in JM... a player that cant be out McCown...'nuf said and move on

I agree with you both, I'm just saying that 'd prefer to see JFF because it would mean he out-earned McCown for the job.

That wouldn't be a high bar to jump over, but would at least give me some short-term hope in our QB outlook. because McCown doesn't inspire much

Thats a great theory LB so how can you or anyone explain why JF was played last year. If your theory is to be believed shouldn't have Shaw been the starter when Hoyer faltered??

No man I don't buy it.

JF had some reps in practice with the number ones since pretty much day one. Shaw has ran the second team since day one and that never changed (outside of being prepped to start that last game there) so it's clear the staff thought JF was better than Shaw and maybe Shaw didn't do enough in practice.

I'll give it to you though, Shaw outplayed Manziel on the game field and looked like it wasn't his first game out there. There's no magic wand or crystal ball to predict or see into the future. But whatever theory, I'd suspect McCown to be starter day one and noone able to beat out the veteran. JMO

j/c:

I love how some people are using stats to support why we are better off w/out Hoyer, but ignore the most important stat of all.........wins and losses.

Weird.

You know what would be even better? If McCown Did a great job in camp and preseason and JM still beat him out. Now that's saying something..

I don't know if we're better off without Hoyer or not. My brain says we aren't, my heart says we are (since I'm a Manziel "fan boy").

I would argue that Derek Anderson statistically is the best QB we've had since our return. In a single season he went 10-6, threw for 3800 yards, 29 TDs and 19 INTs.

I love when people ANNOUNCE that they are going to ignore a poster. LMAO.......what is the point?

You don't think enough of a poster to even read his material, yet you ANNOUNCE that you are no longer reading him.

Very weird.

I think it is just an ill-disguised attempt at insulting a poster and hoping others read your post and will insult him, too.

How freaking gutty.

Btw------------I doubt if Bone is losing any sleep over a poster like cfrs ignoring him. If anything, he might be celebrating that fact.

We don't yet know how we'll do without him from a wins and losses aspect yet.

Hoyer 10-6 for 2 seasons equates to 2 losing seasons.

A winning season is the more important stat.

Vers...The straw that broke the camel's back AGAIN!

*IGNORE*





jk.....

Sad so many posters get into petty typing arguments over their opinions, guess that's what makes world go round....Hope Johnny gets his act together, college career was outstanding, but with big boys he was grossly overmatched, JMHO, he thought he could come in and do what he did in college, what a rude education....hope he controls the person faults, love the fact he's stayed out of the limelight so far and seems to be busting his butt....off Johnny, our old QB had good run, but when Mack went down, he couldn't handle the additional pressure....AND there were lots of plays where his throws weren't on time and cost us potential TDs...comparing his record and McCown's record is comparing apples and oranges....different teams, situations, capabilities.....hope McCown works out and helps all our QBs succeed.....Go Browns!!!!

Amen!

Well said.