Whipjacka

Its not that they're going to lose it's that they're trying to lose. There is a distinction. And, these guys don't have a great resume, banner didn't run football operations for the eagles, lombardi didn't run player acquisition anywhere, and chud is a first time head coach. So, I have no blind faith. I also don't think this is a bad longterm move, but jesus, there are four months of this season left and it is unfair to judge the offense without gordon or guards.

Except you want watchable football. And the browns, at an organisational level, have decided to tank the season after the second week. I can't remember seen something like this in the NFL. There are ticket holders who have paid for the privilege of watching fourteen games of a team who is trying to lose.

http://www.wkyc.com/company/bios/meyer.aspx

The Browns scored 10 points & 6 points in their first two games, with Richardson supposedly drawing attention from opposing Defenses. If Hoyer & RB "X" can score more than 10 points a game, that's an upgrade. if...

Why Trent Richardson’s 3.6 YPC average does not matter http://www.footballperspective.com/why-trent-richardsons-3-6-ypc-average-does-not-matter/ if you can remove your bias, pleas explain how is hoyer not a downgrade?

its bothersome because the browns have obviously given up on this season; not just from a winning perspective, but also a watchable football perspective. They're going to dust of the carcass of mcGahee and play a third string quarterback. The question becomes whether the browns are tanking two weeks into the season.

It also wouldn't surprise me if gets a hundred yards a game with a real passing threat and offensive line to back him up.

Wasn't it a great episode? I was rocking a half-chub the whole time.

They have completely retooled the defense, which is actually good this year. I don't think you can overstate how much the injured offensive line has hurt the team. little will be better as a 2 with bess in the slot. Also, if the oline cant get weeden any time, how can they open holes for richardson?

you have a very complex fandom.

you like the indians after they sucked for forty years, why so violently oppose the browns?

don't even suggest that the indians won't win the division around here. we need detroit to lose so we can overtake the tigers, right?

or we can have highschool counselors, who shove college down everyones throats, start talking about trade school as something that isn't shameful.

I wouldn't go so far as to say hero

i was thinking the same about the prepared foods

its like I speak and the world responds.

nobody likes a gloater...but, if you'll notice, i posted this as well.

i know someone who works at heinens and she said that Heinens is definitely going into the rotunda. for whatever that's worth

I guess, but for a dissenting view: The Cleveland Indians have a reputation for losing that I'm not sure they necessarily deserve. They have a lifetime winning percentage of .509, eighth in baseball history. They've won five pennants and two World Series, and they have been to the playoffs seven times in the last 20 years. Only four teams -- the Yankees, Cardinals, Red Sox and Braves -- have made the playoffs more often in that time. They've retired six players' numbers. They gave us Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome and Albert Belle. (Those mid-'90s teams were fantastic.) The Indians might not have won a title in nearly 70 years, sure, but this is not a historically incompetent franchise devoid of hope, where nothing has ever gone right. They've had their chances, their highlights, their breakthroughs. They're not the Browns. http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/60280234/ they also literally went forty years without making the playoffs.

The browns have been bad recently, but consider the fact that you could be sixty years old and have only experienced ten good years of Indian baseball. Everyone says how bad the browns are, but the history of the browns is much more rich than the history of the Indians.

that blue plaid suit was baller. gotta get me one of those.

well, it is reaffirmed that the Jets fan is the most loathsome creature roaming this earth:

the receiver core will be bad as long as little is a number one. Gordon might make a great deal of difference, as he did last year. I want to see what happens when the full offence is there. Also, they stopped going to Richardson long before the game started getting out of hand. On fourth and two, he wasn't even out there.

It had nothing to do with shedding hafner and grady's useless contracts and paying players who will stay on the field. no, that would make too much sense. My point is, when you have the thirty best people in the world, doing a job that has limitations of skill, the difference between managers is very small in terms of the wins they produce. how many more wins per year does the best manager in baseball bring you as opposed to the mean?

don't put the success on the manager. the difference between managers is almost negligible.