So…uh…now the Lions are interested in Pacman Jones.
Well…guess the titty bars won’t be safe anymore.
Pacman in close proximity to Windsor?!?! YES!
I’m mildly shocked. It would have been that easy to ask why the Bengals didn’t make a push for him…
Although the Canadian ballet…hm.
The NFL schedule gets released april 3rd. I’m excited to see it.
The Browns should get some national games. They were probably the most exciting team to watch last year - around 8 games came down to the final play or final few plays.
There was a:
51-45 shootout
An overtime with Seattle with a 4th and 1 stand
A game that we won and then lost with a field goal (Oakland did the last second time out thing, second kick was blocked after the first one made it)
A game we lost and then won with a field goal (the “Dawson Bar” kick in the second Baltimore game that was ruled no good, and then good)
A last-play field goal attempt a fierce rival
An almost-spectacular 4th and 30 (something like that) play to win the game on in Arizona where Winslow caught it at the corner of the end zone
Another game that came down to a last second throw into the end zone in the second Cinci game
And a blizzard 8 to 0 game of the sort loved by purists (probably my favorite game this year, although the crushing of spirits Baltimore with the whole surprise overtime thing is hard to top).
I’m not sure there’s a team that had a more exciting season overall.
Good candidates:
an early/good weather game against Cinci. The Cinci/Cleveland matchup has produced 2 of the top 10 scoring games in NFL history in the last 4 seasons.
A home game against the Steelers the rivalry is really warming up as I don’t doubt that most of the Browns are beginning to legitimately hate the Steelers. So very close last year - this is the year we overtake them.
Home game vs the Colts. Oh please, please let this be a late December game in Cleveland at night with 40 mph winds and -10 degrees cold. Media gets the revenge story. And a good reason to schedule it late - it may affect the playoff chances of either team in a way appropriate to the revenge theme.
At home vs the Cowboys. The Cowboys get 12 primetime games per year anyway, why not make one against the Browns?
At home vs the Giants. Exciting, upcoming team vs superbowl champs.
I listed a lot of home games… but most of our interesting ones are at home. I was there at the last Cleveland home MNF game in IIRC 2004. It was in December and my knees were so damn frozen by the end of the game that I remember it being unpleasant to walk back to my car. How nice something like that would be against the Colts…
Yeah, I can’t wait to see the schedule.
Regular season, you mean. And I agree with you completely. But once you introduce the second season, the Giants playoff run was one for the ages.
I want that as much as you do. I fucking hate prissy pass-happy teams, especially if they play in a dome. That the Bears let them win a Superbowl still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This also explains why I think those two Browns/Bengals games, along with that puntless Colts/Chiefs playoff game, were the three most pathetic games in NFL history. Anyone who doesn’t think they were a disgrace might be better off as a fan of the Arena League.
In my opinion, the embarassment in London was a million times better than any of those ridiculous scorefests.
Yeah, that’s true.
I know you like to beat your chest about what a purist you are and that any games where the over/under is more than 12 make you cry on the inside, but it’s a bit condescending to imply that anyone who disagrees is unworthy of being a fan. I may be taking my interpretation too far with that though.
And while it is indeed shameful that my team’s defense took part in games where so many points were scored, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t exciting games to watch. I can appreciate games with scores of 10-7 - and as I posted, the 8-0 game in the Blizzard was probably my favorite game to watch this year - but that doesn’t all mean that high scoring games aren’t entertaining.
There’s not that much variety in the NFL, it’s a copycat league. There aren’t that many different offenses and defenses being used. Focusing resources on one side of the ball is one way teams differentiate from others and adds from variety.
Of course my preferences lie in a more purist perspective. I’d prefer my team to have a dominating defense than a dominating offense, I’d be among the massive crowd that formed to burn the stadium down if they ever put a dome on it, etc. But I don’t have to commit ritualistic suicide after watching a high scoring game.
In any case, I was talking about the potential primetime games from the scheduler’s perspective. I’ll take any primetime game we can get. And anticipating a high scoring game would be a good reason for the schedulers to make it one.
I like defensive games too, but going so far as to say that a fan of high-scoring affairs isn’t a football fan is (slightly) too much.
Focus the hate where it belongs.
On the Cowboys.
As you are with your over/under of 12, which I never said. Hell, I find 24-17 games perfectly reasonable from a defensive perspective. Even 28-24 can still be reflective of a solid defensive effort. It’s when you start to get well north of 60 combined points that it stops being real football.
106 total points: Browns over Bengals 58-48. This is just not a football score. This game didn’t resemble the NFL game at all.
96 total points: Bengals over Browns 51-45. Same as above.
69 total points: Colts over Chiefs 38-31, without a single forced punt. Not the worst point total ever, but the fact that neither defense was able to generate a single stop is just pathetic. No punts, no interceptions. There was a lost fumble, but many will argue that defenses don’t “earn” fumble recoveries, so we can’t credit the defense for the stop in that scenario. I do, but even with that, this game was a friggin’ joke.
These three games averaged an over/under of 90 points. So after I blast them, you counter that I won’t accept anything over 12? Is there really no middle ground between 12 and 90 in your world?
I stand by my post.
Obviously I was a bit sarcastic. I was poking fun at your tendency to be a little rah rah football purist who scorns anyone who doesn’t talk about how the invention of the forward pass irrevocably damaged football.
Or were you actually ashamed the day those games occured in your beloved sport? Did you hang your head? Do you think back on those days as Black Sunday?
I have already clearly stated my opinion on those games twice now. I’d appreciate it if you would stop lobbing strawmen at me in some vain attempt at a “gotcha.”
Remember, my original point was that those games ought not be considered as reason for putting a rematch on primetime.
Well then it’s a good thing I didn’t say that. Try reading it again:
You guys are arguing nothing but strawmen. Nowhere did I condemn “high-scoring games”, but you guys are acting like I just pissed in your cheerios because you think I did.
I slammed those three specific games, not high-scoring games in general. And I slammed those three specific games because two of them were brought up in the context of “maybe there will be another good game like those two, thus meriting a primetime matchup.”
If you want to attack my position, you have to defend those three specific games. I have made no claims about any games where the combined score is less than “well north of 60.”
I’m not trying to play “gotcha”, I was sarcastically criticizing what seemed to be smug condescension. What would there be to say “gotcha” about? You haven’t contradicted yourself, just insulted people who might not share your views.
I listed it as a game that the media/nfl schedulers would look at as a good potential game for prime time. I’ll take whatever prime time games we can get - I was just listing reasons which games could be chosen. I didn’t say it was the epitome of my personal viewing experience.
But then you also listed a Colts game in Cleveland late in the season, contradicting your previous logic. It read to me as a list of your criteria for which might be good matchups, not the schedule-makers.
I’m now curious to see if the schedule-makers pamper the Colts. Looking at just the away games in December, since realignment:
2007: @ Baltimore (12/09), @ Oakland
2006: @ Tennessee (12/03), @ Jacksonville, @ Houston
2005: @ Jacksonville, @ Seattle
2004: @ Houston, @ Denver (01/02)
2003: @ Tennessee (12/07), @ Houston
2002: @ Tennessee (12/08), @ Cleveland (12/15)
Wow. Exactly twice there have been good odds for a snow game for the Colts in the regular season since they left the AFC East. One could argue that it’s because the away games are mostly divisional, and the divisional opponents are in the South. However, looking at 1999-2001, all the divisional away games after November were in Miami, with one single exception at the Jets.
Conspiracy!
ETA: Is it likely to snow in Cleveland by December 15th?
I explained after I stated it. The Colts laying down was partly responsible for the Browns making the playoffs, so the media is going to play up the “revenge game” aspect of it. If you have it late in the season, there’s a greater chance it impacts either or both teams’ playoff chances or seeding, possibly leading to a situation where Cleveland really has a chance to exact revenge upon the Colts. Enough drama for a primetime game.
It’ll certainly be cold enough… I’m not sure what the stats are on mid-december precipitation but it’s definitely not unlikely.
hehheh, nice Freudian slip. You meant “partly responsible for the Browns not making the playoffs”.
Now I remember the Titans game, but I didn’t make the connection when I read your earlier post. That’s a good point, but I’m not entirely sure the media is that football-savvy. The schedule-makers may be, but I wouldn’t bet a ton of money on it. They have a million things to worry about.
Still, I’m rooting for that matchup right there with you.
Simmer down there, cupcake. It’s really not a big deal. Good football is good football. Sheesh, there’s no pile on…there’s really no argument. I was making light of the situation.
In any case, nobody knows how the prime time matchups are going to go. Isn’t parity fun?
More pee in my Cherrios, please.
Sure thing, Nancy.
Sure we do. Dallas, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup, Dallas, Dallas, other NFC East matchup.
You sure we won’t have a Packers home game stuffed somewhere in there? Certainly there has to be a Colts, Patriots, or a Giants game in there.
Well, there are 2 or 3 primetime games per week and Dallas can only play 1 of them, so I’m sure a few more teams will get some games squeezed in there somewhere.
Perhaps the Eagles, Redskins, and Giants.
Random football related thought I was having today.
Too much emphasis is placed in pass rushing on the QB’s blindside. It has structured how we make our offensive lines - the left tackle is the agile, quick pass defender and the right tackle is the big mauler because he doesn’t have to deal with a team’s best pass rushers.
The advantage to pass rushing the blind side, of course, is that the QB doesn’t see it coming, which leads to more sacks, and more fumbles.
But I was thinking - a lot of the value of a pass rush isn’t just generating sacks. Those are significant, sometimes game-changing plays, but they only occur a few times a game. But a good pass rush will constantly put the QB under pressure - force him to turn potential big gainers into dumpoffs, or to throw the ball away, or to throw a bad pass and get it intercepted. This can happen much more frequently than sacks.
But when you have your best pass rusher on the blindside, you’re trying to avoid letting him see that pressure coming, negating some of the benefit of those forced throws in order to get more sacks. I’m not so sure how good that tradeoff is.
Besides that, NFL offenses have adjusted to the way things are, and the QB’s blindside is now the hardest place to pass rush, because the best pass blockers play there. Occasionally you get a good pass rusher who plays well on the other side like Michael Strahan and they do well because they can abuse right tackles with lesser pass block ability. But he’s unique because he’s big and strong enough to handle the right tackle in the run game. You wouldn’t want Dwight Freeney over the right tackle on first and 10 most of the time.
But in an obvious passing down, why don’t teams put their best pass rushers on the offensive right? It makes them both more likely to get to the QB, and more likely to make him rush and make a bad throw because he sees it coming. Since you know the team is going to pass, the downside of putting the lighter/quicker guy up against the team’s better run blockers is negated.