PDA

View Full Version : Browns vs Steelers



Degenerate39
11-11-2007, 04:42 PM
I hope the Browns can win this game so bad. I loathe the Steelers.

That was a nice Kick off Return by the Browns to get a touchdown and the lead back.

Degenerate39
11-11-2007, 04:55 PM
Was that Marvin Lewis challenging that play?

blumj
11-11-2007, 05:20 PM
Was that Marvin Lewis challenging that play?
Did he really use a timeout, and then challenge the play, wasting 2 timeouts? Seriously?

Degenerate39
11-11-2007, 05:43 PM
Did he really use a timeout, and then challenge the play, wasting 2 timeouts? Seriously?

I couldn't believe it. Awful coaching right there.

GAC
11-11-2007, 10:09 PM
Did he really use a timeout, and then challenge the play, wasting 2 timeouts? Seriously?

Yep. Dumb blunder. But he made an excellent challenge in the first half on the Edward's TD catch.

Anderson did one heck of job in the first half (QB Rating 114.6), but was simply atrocious in the second half.

Cribbs is an animal. 204 total yds in kickoff returns (longest was for 100).

Jamal Lewis losing that one fumble by trying to get the extra yd and being stood up and stripped was plain dumb.

But the biggest idiotic blunder was Dinkin's holding call on that last punt return that would have gave the Browns the ball on the Pitt 38 yd line; but instead, ut the ball back on their own 33. From there they moved the ball, but missed a 53 yd FG attempt to send the game into O.T.

But the Brown's defense, even though they did a better job today of putting pressure on Ben, still is the worst in the NFL. When it came down to it, Ben led them to victory.

And while I didn't expect it to be a blowout like that first game, with Frye at QB, I didn't think the game would be as close as it was.

The reason the Browns were 5-3 going into this game is because their offense, which is top 5 overall in the NFL, has been able to compensate for such a sad defense. But it keeps catching up to them.

Screwball
11-12-2007, 12:16 AM
...their offense, which is top 5 overall in the NFL, has been able to compensate for such a sad defense. But it keeps catching up to them.

Hmmm, sounds like another football team from Ohio.

It's pretty striking how similar the two teams are. On offense, the Bengals are 8th in YPG, the Browns are 11th. The Bengals are 9th in PPG, the Browns are 5th.

But on defense, the Bengals are 31st in YPGA, the Browns are 32nd. The Bengals have allowed the 3rd most PPG, the Browns have allowed the most.

My guess is the difference in records comes from turnovers. I'm not sure how Cleveland has done this season, but the Bengals have been pretty far in the red (~-7) against all teams not named Baltimore. We could very well see another shootout when they meet again in Cincy.

SteelSD
11-12-2007, 02:25 AM
Yep. Dumb blunder. But he made an excellent challenge in the first half on the Edward's TD catch.

Anderson did one heck of job in the first half (QB Rating 114.6), but was simply atrocious in the second half.

Cribbs is an animal. 204 total yds in kickoff returns (longest was for 100).

Jamal Lewis losing that one fumble by trying to get the extra yd and being stood up and stripped was plain dumb.

But the biggest idiotic blunder was Dinkin's holding call on that last punt return that would have gave the Browns the ball on the Pitt 38 yd line; but instead, ut the ball back on their own 33. From there they moved the ball, but missed a 53 yd FG attempt to send the game into O.T.

Overall, it was an exciting game, GAC. The holding on the last punt return was a huge blunder, but the double-burn of the two Time Outs on the challenge was inexcusable. Even with the hold on the return, the Browns were able to drive deep enough to get a tying field goal IF they would have had one of those TO's left rather than having to burn two downs during the final four plays with spikes to stop the clock. That TD catch wasn't going to be overturned. Everyone but Crennel seemed to know it and even if it was reversed by some act of referee stupidity, the Steelers still had a third-and-goal from the 2 at worst.

I can maybe understand the first Time Out in order to get a better look at it, but Crennel would have been better served to just close his eyes and throw the red flag prior to that. Yeah, he was money on his first challenge, but that last challenge was akin to throwing good money after bad.

And yes, Cribbs was a monster. The guy can flat out fly, but I was even more impressed by his vision. Cribbs just seems to anticipate lanes opening for him. That's a gift and should the Browns play well enough to grab a playoff spot, Cribbs is the kind of player who can help an underdog steal a postseason win. He was disruptive when fielding kicks today and he completely messed with Pittsburgh's kicking game as the Browns had solid field position all day long even when trying to pooch a kick away from him.

On the other hand, I was not impressed with Kellen Winslow Jr. The guy has immense talent, but he seemed soft over the middle today. He looked like he had alligator arms and the footsteps he heard distrupted him. And exactly where was Braylon Edwards? His one catch was a beaut, but one catch?

And I know Pitt got better pressure on Anderson during the second half, but no sacks. There's something to be said for hurries, but prior to the final drive Anderson was 3 for 9 for 11 yards passing in the second half. Jamal Lewis was awful again, sporting a 2.19 YPC average with almost a third of his yards gained on an 11 yard run. With a 21-9 lead, it appears that Lewis got only four carries in the second half (3 yards) and fumbled on his longest 2nd-half carry (4 yards). At every turn, I was expecting a death strike to Edwards from Cleveland's offense in the second half. Either that, or a grinding game dedicated to take time off the clock with Lewis, but the Browns did neither.


But the Brown's defense, even though they did a better job today of putting pressure on Ben, still is the worst in the NFL. When it came down to it, Ben led them to victory.

And while I didn't expect it to be a blowout like that first game, with Frye at QB, I didn't think the game would be as close as it was.

The reason the Browns were 5-3 going into this game is because their offense, which is top 5 overall in the NFL, has been able to compensate for such a sad defense. But it keeps catching up to them.

The Browns defense did a pretty good job of "bend-don't-break" in the first half today. But in the second half, they broke. Pittsburgh's pass blocking has been an issue all year (as has their pass rush and special teams) and if not for Roethisberger's ability to avoid takedowns, the Browns' 4 sacks might have been enough. I have no idea how Roethisberger was able to break a 30-yard TD run, but that guy won the game for Pittsburgh today with the ball in his hands. Hopefully, folks will begin putting the "Ben sucks" baby to bed.

But overall, the Browns impressed me today. They played with a ton of heart. They've got a good offense, even if it is a bit inconsistent, and their return game is one of the best- if not the best in the AFC. Should they produce something akin to a 1st or 2nd-tier defense, they'll be even tougher. And frankly, looking at the Browns' schedule, they have a decent shot at making the playoffs this season.

GAC
11-12-2007, 09:20 AM
Overall, it was an exciting game, GAC.

Yes it was. But even when the Browns were rolling in the 1st half, while the Steelers were kinda not hitting on all cylinders, in the back of my mind I kept telling myself the Steelers were going to come back. Why? Again - see Brown's defense. ;)

Their defense put up their best showing yesterday (and that ain't saying much).


The holding on the last punt return was a huge blunder, but the double-burn of the two Time Outs on the challenge was inexcusable. Even with the hold on the return, the Browns were able to drive deep enough to get a tying field goal IF they would have had one of those TO's left rather than having to burn two downs during the final four plays with spikes to stop the clock. That TD catch wasn't going to be overturned. Everyone but Crennel seemed to know it and even if it was reversed by some act of referee stupidity....

I can maybe understand the first Time Out in order to get a better look at it, but Crennel would have been better served to just close his eyes and throw the red flag prior to that.

Yep. You don't waste a T.O. to think about whether or not to throw a red flag. And that was a perfect example of why not.... it cost us us TWO time outs.


On the other hand, I was not impressed with Kellen Winslow Jr. The guy has immense talent, but he seemed soft over the middle today. He looked like he had alligator arms and the footsteps he heard distrupted him. And exactly where was Braylon Edwards? His one catch was a beaut, but one catch?

Kellen is banged up. I read a good article on him last week, and the guy plays with such emotion and heart, and wants so much to win, that he's starting to suffer some of the physical consequences of playing. He definitely had an off day.


And I know Pitt got better pressure on Anderson during the second half, but no sacks. There's something to be said for hurries, but prior to the final drive Anderson was 3 for 9 for 11 yards passing in the second half.

I tried to find Anderson's QB Ranking for the 2nd half, but I know it had to be downright terrible. Anderson (and this offense) takes the pressure somewhat (or compensates to a degree) for the defense. They didn't do that in the second half, and gthis defense can only hold out for so long.

But overall I am impressed with Derek. He was a good QB at Oregon State. Last yearwas basically his rookie year. He started in 3 games and against three defensive-minded teams in Pitt, Baltimore, and TB. He did good except in the TB game where he stunk it up pretty bad. But again - the kid was a inexperienced rookie behind an atrocious offensive line riddled with injuries.


Jamal Lewis was awful again, sporting a 2.19 YPC average with almost a third of his yards gained on an 11 yard run. With a 21-9 lead, it appears that Lewis got only four carries in the second half (3 yards) and fumbled on his longest 2nd-half carry (4 yards).

He's not awful...... HE SUCKS! He no longer has the speed to get around the outside, and is strictly a power back with old legs who has lost some of his UMMMPH.


At every turn, I was expecting a death strike to Edwards from Cleveland's offense in the second half. Either that, or a grinding game dedicated to take time off the clock with Lewis, but the Browns did neither.

In last year's draft I was hoping they would have taken Peterson from Oklahoma. But what good is having a RB if your O-line still sucks? And Joe Thomas has done an excellent job, along with the free agent acquistion of Steinbach. So we addressed the most important issue first.

But we need a RB.

And also some LBers. McGhinest is the pits. Ben made him look terrible a few times yesterday. Very Geritol. ;)




Hopefully, folks will begin putting the "Ben sucks" baby to bed.

The only people that complain and say he sucks, are the ones whose team he continues to beat. I think there is a jealousy factor.


But overall, the Browns impressed me today. They played with a ton of heart. They've got a good offense, even if it is a bit inconsistent, and their return game is one of the best- if not the best in the AFC. Should they produce something akin to a 1st or 2nd-tier defense, they'll be even tougher. And frankly, looking at the Browns' schedule, they have a decent shot at making the playoffs this season.

I stated before the season that we would be much improved simply because we have the talent, but before, had no offensive line. The "heart" of a team flows through that offensive line. We have addressed that.

We gotta fix our defense. Especially in the LBing corp. If you are going to use a 3-4 defense then get the personnel to do it. And that is what pees me off about Crennel. He came, like Marvin Lewis,from a defensive background. Both earned their head coaches jobs because of their defensive resumes.

And look at their respective defenses? Embarassing.

Sea Ray
11-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Overall, it was an exciting game, GAC. The holding on the last punt return was a huge blunder, but the double-burn of the two Time Outs on the challenge was inexcusable. Even with the hold on the return, the Browns were able to drive deep enough to get a tying field goal IF they would have had one of those TO's left rather than having to burn two downs during the final four plays with spikes to stop the clock. That TD catch wasn't going to be overturned. Everyone but Crennel seemed to know it and even if it was reversed by some act of referee stupidity, the Steelers still had a third-and-goal from the 2 at worst.

I can maybe understand the first Time Out in order to get a better look at it, but Crennel would have been better served to just close his eyes and throw the red flag prior to that. Yeah, he was money on his first challenge, but that last challenge was akin to throwing good money after bad.



No doubt that Crennel blew that challenge but it does go to the idiocy of the replay rule in the NFL. So often it comes down to getting a look at a decent replay before the offense quick snaps the ball on the next play. That's not what NFL football is about and I don't see why the NFL doesn't change it because its the coaches that look bad in this system and it's mainly coaches on the competition committee.

BoydsOfSummer
11-12-2007, 10:30 PM
He's not awful...... HE SUCKS! He no longer has the speed to get around the outside, and is strictly a power back with old legs who has lost some of his UMMMPH.

Jason Wright is the best back we have. He should be getting 15 carries a game, at least. Harrison might even be better than Jamal at this point. He's slippery and quick as hell.

SteelSD
11-13-2007, 01:41 AM
No doubt that Crennel blew that challenge but it does go to the idiocy of the replay rule in the NFL. So often it comes down to getting a look at a decent replay before the offense quick snaps the ball on the next play. That's not what NFL football is about and I don't see why the NFL doesn't change it because its the coaches that look bad in this system and it's mainly coaches on the competition committee.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, Ray. I personally don't think any coach has a right to view a single replay prior to throwing the challenge flag. IMHO, the system (with a few exceptions) is doing what it's supposed to- minimizing bad calls by the refs.

If I had my druthers, no one would be able to run a replay on the jumbotron or in a coaches booth until after the next play is snapped. That way a coach would have to rely on the word of his player(s) involved in the play. But that's only a minor issue for me. Maybe that's what you're saying and, if so, I agree 100%.

traderumor
11-13-2007, 11:42 AM
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, Ray. I personally don't think any coach has a right to view a single replay prior to throwing the challenge flag. IMHO, the system (with a few exceptions) is doing what it's supposed to- minimizing bad calls by the refs.

If I had my druthers, no one would be able to run a replay on the jumbotron or in a coaches booth until after the next play is snapped. That way a coach would have to rely on the word of his player(s) involved in the play. But that's only a minor issue for me. Maybe that's what you're saying and, if so, I agree 100%.Yea, I like instant replay, but they have some serious administration issues in both college and pros. I agree with you on the above, there is also the issue of teams trying to get the play run real quick on a close call. Why have the system if you leave a loophole like quick snapping the next play?

Sea Ray
11-13-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, Ray. I personally don't think any coach has a right to view a single replay prior to throwing the challenge flag. IMHO, the system (with a few exceptions) is doing what it's supposed to- minimizing bad calls by the refs.

If I had my druthers, no one would be able to run a replay on the jumbotron or in a coaches booth until after the next play is snapped. That way a coach would have to rely on the word of his player(s) involved in the play. But that's only a minor issue for me. Maybe that's what you're saying and, if so, I agree 100%.

I guess we don't agree. The coach is generally not in a good position to see whether a call is bad while coaching from the sideline. If he doesn't get a chance to see a decent replay then how is he supposed to prudently challenge a call? I also agree with Traderumor as to the loophole of a quick snap.

I think the college system is best:


...a replay official in the press box would review all plays on the field and stop the game for review if a call was in question.

But a coach also could request a review by calling timeout. If his challenge overturned the call, the coach would retain the right to challenge later and not lose a timeout. The coach would keep the right to continue challenging as long as he kept winning challenges, said Ty Halpin, the NCAA's associate director for playing rules administration.

"(The challenges) are unlimited," Halpin said. "But (continuing to win them) is probably not going to happen."


If the challenged call is upheld by review, the team would be charged a timeout and the coach couldn't challenge again.

This seems to work efficiently and largely takes the coach out of the replay business, yet he still retains his right so the onus isn't entirely on the boothe.

The NFL handles it one way during the game and another way with 2 mins left and OT. That is nuts too. Pick a system and use it regardless of the time on the clock. Rules should be uniform throughout the game IMO.

GAC
11-13-2007, 06:54 PM
Jason Wright is the best back we have. He should be getting 15 carries a game, at least. Harrison might even be better than Jamal at this point. He's slippery and quick as hell.

Thank God we only have Jamal signed for this year because he ain't making it!

GAC
11-13-2007, 07:12 PM
We fans have such a huge advantage. We sit in our comfy living rooms (or local pub), watching on a big screen TV, with all types of technology at our disposal. We got the TV announcers, with the aid of the technicians in the booth, showng us a particular play over and over again and from every different angle and viewpoint. We got our DVRs (Tivo) that allow us to consistently review a play.

So by the time we're done, we can come to a pretty sure conclusion whether the right call was or wasn't made, or whether a coach should/shouldn't have throw the red flag.

So they are consistently under our "microscope".

Those field refs or sideline coaches don't have that to their advantage, so I try to cut them some slack unless it is really obvious. It's a tough job that is moving at a pretty fast pace.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with some of the improvements they have made in the game. I just think, sometimes, they are striving to hard to achieve some sort of "perfection", via technology, that may not be able to be achieved without really slowing the game down even more.

BoydsOfSummer
11-14-2007, 12:19 AM
Yeah, GAC, but has Romeo ever won a challenge? I swear I don't recall one! :lol:

SteelSD
11-14-2007, 12:08 PM
Yea, I like instant replay, but they have some serious administration issues in both college and pros. I agree with you on the above, there is also the issue of teams trying to get the play run real quick on a close call. Why have the system if you leave a loophole like quick snapping the next play?

I think the only way to "fix" that might be having the replay official in the booth automatically review all TD scoring plays; meaning that the scoring team wouldn't be allowed to "quick snap" the extra point. But I don't see any realistic way for that to happen for all non-scoring plays (outside of the last 2 minutes of each half) without slowing the game down to a crawl because the NFL would be virtually mandating that a team couldn't snap the ball for a certain time frame after the ball is set by the official. IMHO, the games are already long enough.


The NFL handles it one way during the game and another way with 2 mins left and OT. That is nuts too. Pick a system and use it regardless of the time on the clock. Rules should be uniform throughout the game IMO.

I don't see an issue there. During the last two minutes of each half, the offensive unit is more likely to be running a no-huddle offense due to time constraints. That means quick snaps on virtually every play so I think it's wise for the officials to take the replay decision out of the coaches hands. Ditto for sudden-death overtime.

And the "no-huddle" offense brings up what I consider to be an interesting point. Outside of the last two minutes of a half, some teams may run a no-huddle strategically in an effort to throw a defense off its game and to limit defensive substitutions. Mandating instant replay from the booth outside of the current scenarios might go a long way toward killing the no-huddle as an effective strategic option.

GAC
11-14-2007, 09:42 PM
Yeah, GAC, but has Romeo ever won a challenge? I swear I don't recall one! :lol:

Didn't watch the game this past Sunday huh? He won that challenge in the first half on Edward's TD. When the ref called him out I came off the couch screaming he dragged his foot, he was in!- "Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou Romeo? Throw the flag!" :D

Sea Ray
11-14-2007, 09:51 PM
I don't see an issue there. During the last two minutes of each half, the offensive unit is more likely to be running a no-huddle offense due to time constraints. That means quick snaps on virtually every play so I think it's wise for the officials to take the replay decision out of the coaches hands. Ditto for sudden-death overtime.

And the "no-huddle" offense brings up what I consider to be an interesting point. Outside of the last two minutes of a half, some teams may run a no-huddle strategically in an effort to throw a defense off its game and to limit defensive substitutions. Mandating instant replay from the booth outside of the current scenarios might go a long way toward killing the no-huddle as an effective strategic option.

I rarely see a no huddle in OT. There's no rush. You've got 15 mins and all you have to do is get into FG range. There's no more reason to run a no huddle in OT than in any other quarter.

Boothe replays would have precious little effect on no huddle offenses IMO. Most of the plays are cut and dried with no reason for replays. It would be rare for a boothe review to halt play on the field.

SteelSD
11-14-2007, 11:41 PM
I rarely see a no huddle in OT. There's no rush. You've got 15 mins and all you have to do is get into FG range. There's no more reason to run a no huddle in OT than in any other quarter.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't talking about no-huddle offenses in OT and I firmly support the use of booth-driven instant replay in OT.


Boothe replays would have precious little effect on no huddle offenses IMO. Most of the plays are cut and dried with no reason for replays. It would be rare for a boothe review to halt play on the field.

I've seen it happen enough in the last two minutes of a half that I'd have to disagree with you there. From a strategic standpoint, having a replay official in the booth randomly stop play could be a death knell for a no-huddle strategy. At minimum, we might see officials taking longer to position the ball when an offense goes no-huddle to allow the the replay booth official to get a better look at a play. At minimum, we already have enough time stops during an NFL football game regardless of offensive set and strategy. We simply don't need more.

The rule was designed to allow head coaches to stop play via challenge with limited information (consisting mainly of feedback from players). I don't see any reason to change the system while also slowing down the game and potentially busting up a viable offensive strategy prior to the last two minutes of a half.

Sea Ray
11-15-2007, 10:49 AM
The rule was designed to allow head coaches to stop play via challenge with limited information (consisting mainly of feedback from players). I don't see any reason to change the system while also slowing down the game and potentially busting up a viable offensive strategy prior to the last two minutes of a half.

Fair enough, but do you really believe the rule was designed to stop play based upon feedback from players on the field? I've never gotten that impression. I've heard color commentators say that the coach is dependent on one of his staff "upstairs" to advise him whether to challenge.

Have you seen the HD commercial, run during many football games, where the guy in the boothe is looking at a replay on his crystal clear TV set which shows a receiver getting both feet down in bounds? Upon seeing that he calls down to the head coach and says, "challenge it." I think such a commercial has its basis on the fact that most coaches form their opinion on whether to challenge or not on that that sort of scenario.

SteelSD
11-16-2007, 12:40 AM
Fair enough, but do you really believe the rule was designed to stop play based upon feedback from players on the field? I've never gotten that impression. I've heard color commentators say that the coach is dependent on one of his staff "upstairs" to advise him whether to challenge.

Have you seen the HD commercial, run during many football games, where the guy in the boothe is looking at a replay on his crystal clear TV set which shows a receiver getting both feet down in bounds? Upon seeing that he calls down to the head coach and says, "challenge it." I think such a commercial has its basis on the fact that most coaches form their opinion on whether to challenge or not on that that sort of scenario.

Oh, I hear ya'. IMHO, that's what the replay rule has evolved into. I'd suggest that a coach (or staff) really shouldn't have the expectation of viewing X number of replays prior to throwing the challenge flag. From my perspective, the coach who's questioning the call should realize that the other team can get to the line as quickly as they want to after the refs set the ball. They have X amount of time. If the coach in the booth can't get clear visual evidence to overturn in that amount of time, then I really have little sympathy. Double that for a first down play that requires a lot of player movement upfield or a Touchdown where players celebrate after scoring. There's enough time.

Now, I like the Samsung HD commercial. Heck, I own a 1080p Samsung HDTV. But there's a big difference between seeing a clear first angle and needing to see another three or four angles prior to communicating a "challenge it" recommendation to a head coach.

I understand that you're looking to change the rule to match up with what coaches want. But I think that the coaches can easily work within the current rules with proper gameplanning.