Pete Prisco picked the Browns to go 1-15 now. Which isn’t just bad, it’s historically bad - 1-15 seasons don’t come around that often.
I have to say I’m pretty perplexed by the universal agreement that the Browns will be the worst team in the league. They had a pretty fantastic offseason. Last year the defense performed pretty well (whether circumstantial or not, teams don’t just stop trying to score points generally) and they were starting Colt McCoy and Chris Ogbanaya last year. The Browns had a very productive running game in 2010 behind Hillis, and there’s no reason to think Richardson can’t at least match that - especially with the improved O-line.
So combine a pretty solid defense with an entirely revamped offense, and somehow they’re going to win 4 games less this year and be the worst team in the league? I don’t buy it. I’m not saying they’re going to make the playoffs, but their expectations should fall in the 6-10 to 8-8 range, not 1-15 and unanimous worst team in the league.
And depending on how fast Weeden develops, this team has the makeup of a team that can surprise. So much of what made the Browns fail last year was offensive ineptitude at QB, RB, RT, and WR, and they’ve addressed all of those needs. Weeden may take time to develop - but then maybe he won’t, maybe he’ll come out as one of the QBs who hits the ground running. If so, the Browns are in way better shape. They could be like last year’s Bengals, who were expected to be a bottom 3 team and made the playoffs.
I agree with you. I think the Dolphins, Bucs, Colts, Vikings and Rams could all be worse than the Brownies this season.
McCoy sucks, but he’ll probably better than Luck, RG3, Weeden and Tannehill for at least half the season. The Browns have more weapons than a lot of the “rebuilding” teams do and their defense and line are much better than they get credit for.
That said, it’s a tough division even with the Steelers set to take a big step back.
The biggest problem with the Browns is that all the improvement they may have made comes essentially from rookies. None of their improvements have ever played a snap in the NFL.
Richardson can probably make a big difference right away. But assuming Weeden, as a rookie QB, can be anything better than what the Browns had last year is almost crazy. He has no credible WRs.
While it’s always silly to look ahead at a team’s schedule before even training camps open (still fun to do!), I don’t see a lot of potential wins. Everyone in the NFC North is better than Cleveland. Everyone in the AFC West is better. And probably everyone in the NFC East is better (Washington is a wild card with a similar situation). Where are the toss up games? Any team can beat anyone on any week, sure, but you really want to find those games where the opponent isn’t significantly better and you don’t need luck/injuries/weather to compete. The Browns don’t have many toss up games.
1-15 is possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I also wouldn’t bet on 5-11.
1-15 is too low, and I agree they’ve had a very good offseason, but I think you’re setting yourself up for disappointment if you’re seeing 7-9.
Yes, it’s possible that Weeden will be an instant star as a 29-year old-rookie; realistically, what you’re hoping is that Weeden has a career like the best of the other late-starting guys like Warren Moon and Jeff Garcia. Thing is, even those guys were only so-so as rookies, and they had years of CFL experience on top of college. The odds of Weeden being any better than “almost average” this year are slim.
Even if those guys wind up as good as say Adrian Peterson and Warren Moon – which would be a fantastic draft – they’re still going to have growing pains and they still have a very rough schedule. You’re looking for progress, and a foundation for 2013 and onward.
You may be right, but I mean, it’s not like the Browns got embarassed last year like the Colts did. Most of the games were one score games. Even just adding Richardson to last year’s team probably adds at least 2 wins. I don’t think that 7-9 is unrealistic but I think it’s a lot more likely than 1 or 2 wins.
If it was just one guy who picked that way, no big deal. But pretty much every ranking from every sports news service agrees they’re the worst, and I just don’t buy it. The horrible Colts turn it around in just 1 year due to a rookie QB but the Browns flounder because of a rookie QB? The Browns are a much more complete team overall than the Colts are.
Whoa, wait a second. There’s a huge difference between Luck and Weeden. Let’s not pretend those two are equitable. And Luck will have legitimate targets to throw to, whereas Weeden has a bunch of unproven young guys. Even with all that, there’s a big difference between playing six games in the AFC South and six in the AFC North. There’s opportunity for the Colts, not nearly as much for the Browns.
I think those two situations are only similar by the most casual on-paper observation. But actually, a more comprehensive comparison is really interesting (to me). Over the course of the season, the Browns and the Colts had very similar offensive numbers (almost eerily so).
I think Andrew Luck will do more for Indy’s offense than Weeden and Richardson will do for the Browns. And where Indy’s pass defense was a lot worse than Cleveland’s, they were both equally bad against the run. I think Indianapolis will finish with a better record.
Maybe we can do a Power Rankings thing on the board, and see how each of us views the teams in comparison with the others. That might be a fun way to kill a week or so.
You guys are right about the schedule. I suppose the Browns could be a better team than the Colts by a decent margin, but the Colts don’t have to play the AFC North or really the rest of the pretty tough schedule.
I wonder if they factor in schedule when making those power rankings though - I doubt it, since it’s not a specific prediction of wins over the season. I still call bullshit on the unanimous last place.
Hillis only played like 2 or 3 games - when he went down, Brandon Jackson took over who’s definitely not an every down back, and he wasn’t healthy either. They ended up poaching a practice squad player to be the starting running back through most of the year.
On top of that, Colt McCoy couldn’t hit any passes in the deep middle or anything outside the hash marks - when the defense only has to cover about 1/3rd of the field they can stack up against your run game.
Even if Weeden has a slow start, just the very fact that he’ll be physically capable of throwing anywhere on the field will force the defense to loosen up and open up the running game. Add in the development of the O-line and, oh yeah, Trent Richardson, and the productivity of the run game is going to skyrocket. 2000 rushing yards and 12 TDs at least I think (as a team).
I’m actually a little worried about Childress. Minnesota’s run blocking schemes were very primitive when he was the HC there. I’m hoping he was just playing to his talents (and the relative immobility of his line) rather than it being his style - because it wouldn’t mesh well with what the Browns have.
I don’t think that’s going to be close. Cleveland was 28th in the NFL in rushing yards last season and dead last in the NFL in rushing TDs. Your prediction is the equivalent of them being in the top 10 in rushing yards and #2 in rushing TDs in 2011. That’s too significant of a jump to be realistic.
Edit: I thought you put 20 TDs. Not so unrealistic, but I’d still take the under.
You’re right that 2000 would be top 10, but 12 TDs would be tied for 17th this year. I don’t think it’s an unrealistic number, I think it’s actually somewhat conservative, except I’m factoring in Weeden is unlikely to score any, or if he does it’ll be from the 1 inch line.
We should really come up with some sort of interesting wager on this stuff. Money is too simple, but having the winner set the loser on fire is probably too extreme.
Well they’re clearly not as good as Baltimore and Pittsburgh, and while I’m not in love with Cincy, they made the playoffs last year with a rookie QB. I just don’t see any objective reason to think Cleveland is likely to pass anyone this year. Possible, yes. Likely, no.
For what it’s worth, Football Outsiders projects them with
2012 Mean Projection: 5.1 wins
On the Clock (0-4): 40%
Mediocrity (5-7): 49%
Playoff Contender (8-10): 11%
Super Bowl Contender (11+): 1%
Postseason Odds: 2.5%
Projected Average Opponent: 3.1% (5th)
Note that that last means they have the 5th toughest schedule in the league. That all seems about right to me.
At least? With a rookie RB, and without a running QB, effective complementary backs, or a lot of late leads to protect? I’ll wager a bottle or three against that.
Rumors floating around that people are making offers to buy the Browns and they’re being entertained. This would be the time to buy - the team value has to be low, and it’s going to skyrocket with a 2013 super bowl win.
Hmm, what the fuck. There was a rumor of some New York business man too, IIRC, not sure what the deal is. Why the fuck is a Steelers fan trying to buy the Browns?
