Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Weeden (using Brady's fail night as an example)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dropkick_pride


Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 10805
Location: C-bus
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Comparing Tom Brady to Brandon Weeden is laughable... PLEASE post this in NFL general.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReggieCamp


Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 9349
Location: Canonsburg, PA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dropkick_pride wrote:
Comparing Tom Brady to Brandon Weeden is laughable... PLEASE post this in NFL general.

If you read the entire original post, you can see that it's not about comparing Weeden and Brady, as much as it is comparing situations.
_________________
Suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

Adopt-a-Brown: Desmond Bryant
2013 Stats (10 games): 24 Tkls, 3.5 Sacks, 2 Stuffs, 1 PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dropkick_pride


Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 10805
Location: C-bus
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ReggieCamp wrote:
Dropkick_pride wrote:
Comparing Tom Brady to Brandon Weeden is laughable... PLEASE post this in NFL general.

If you read the entire original post, you can see that it's not about comparing Weeden and Brady, as much as it is comparing situations.


I read it, and I agree with the OP in a very very very tiny sample size, but most of it since then I'd love to see posted in NFL General. The other comparisons tried to be made of the players, situations, teammates, organizations is laughable on so many levels. Its ridiculous. there is no comparison.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dropkick_pride wrote:
ReggieCamp wrote:
Dropkick_pride wrote:
Comparing Tom Brady to Brandon Weeden is laughable... PLEASE post this in NFL general.

If you read the entire original post, you can see that it's not about comparing Weeden and Brady, as much as it is comparing situations.


I read it, and I agree with the OP in a very very very tiny sample size, but most of it since then I'd love to see posted in NFL General. The other comparisons tried to be made of the players, situations, teammates, organizations is laughable on so many levels. Its ridiculous. there is no comparison.


Well tell us about it...

Tell us why your opinions aren't laughable and ridiculous.

Tell us about these 'so many levels' that you think exist.

Basically, just post something of substance besides a strong general opinion.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ether


Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 1900
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well on the other hand we said that same exact thing about Colt McCoy, Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, Charlie Frye, Tim Couch, etc. etc. and all of them went elsewhere and did very little, often in fact they were even worse after their Browns career.

I don't think we should play the blame game, it's fair to say that nobody on the offensive side of the ball stepped up to the plate. That includes Weeden. Just like when Tom Brady doesn't turn in the same performance every week it's still a reflection of him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ether wrote:
Well on the other hand we said that same exact thing about Colt McCoy, Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, Charlie Frye, Tim Couch, etc. etc. and all of them went elsewhere and did very little, often in fact they were even worse after their Browns career.

I don't think we should play the blame game, it's fair to say that nobody on the offensive side of the ball stepped up to the plate. That includes Weeden. Just like when Tom Brady doesn't turn in the same performance every week it's still a reflection of him.


'We'?

Are you a Frenchman with spelling issues? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Do you mean the 'royal' we? Very Happy

Seriously, good points. The issue is that there clearly is an effect, even on an elite QB, from inexperience at the receiver position.

I seem to remember some people (not saying you Ether) saying that elite QBs 'make' receivers better and NOT that poor receivers make even elite QBs worse--when the latter seems to be more accurate.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roger murdock


Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 6136
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Braylon4MVP


Moderator
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 15391
Location: ohio
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good post. Anyone who was calling for Weedeon to get benched after week one was just looking for a scapegoat.. Brandon Weeden was not the problem last week, he was a problem. Offensive problems that are of greater concern than Brandon Weeden:

Run Blocking
WR Separation
Pass Blocking
Hands
Playcalling
Brandon Weeden

That's how I would rank the offensive problems, just based on last week's game.

Brandon Weeden will be fine IMO. He is a good passer, he just needs time to build chemistry with this offense. Oh, and he needs Josh Gordon back. Gordon is THE most important player on this roster.
_________________
RIP Crakburn, B2TB, Sean Taylor and Chris Henry

John Frusciante FTW
Red Hot Chili Peppers FTW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roger murdock


Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 6136
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.


Obviously I understand that a QB will do better with better WR, RBs, OL, and play calling.

What you don't seem to understand, is that Weeden hasn't shown any ability to do anything well. He doesnt look accurate on short, medium, or long range passes. His pocket presence is nothing short of a disaster. He is a rhythm passer playing in a league which doesnt let QBs get in a groove and feel comfortable. He seems to lack confidence in his own abilities and lets mistakes and bad plays snowball into blown games.

My point is that Weeden will always be bad no matter what surrounds him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

roger murdock wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.


Obviously I understand that a QB will do better with better WR, RBs, OL, and play calling.

What you don't seem to understand, is that Weeden hasn't shown any ability to do anything well. He doesnt look accurate on short, medium, or long range passes. His pocket presence is nothing short of a disaster. He is a rhythm passer playing in a league which doesnt let QBs get in a groove and feel comfortable. He seems to lack confidence in his own abilities and lets mistakes and bad plays snowball into blown games.

My point is that Weeden will always be bad no matter what surrounds him.


Yeah, you obviously have nothing to support your opinion.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TypicalBrowns10


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1091
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.


Obviously I understand that a QB will do better with better WR, RBs, OL, and play calling.

What you don't seem to understand, is that Weeden hasn't shown any ability to do anything well. He doesnt look accurate on short, medium, or long range passes. His pocket presence is nothing short of a disaster. He is a rhythm passer playing in a league which doesnt let QBs get in a groove and feel comfortable. He seems to lack confidence in his own abilities and lets mistakes and bad plays snowball into blown games.

My point is that Weeden will always be bad no matter what surrounds him.


Yeah, you obviously have nothing to support your opinion.


Really Entropy? Do you own cable and some sort of television? Watch him play. What Roger just said is clear on any screen.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TypicalBrowns10 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.


Obviously I understand that a QB will do better with better WR, RBs, OL, and play calling.

What you don't seem to understand, is that Weeden hasn't shown any ability to do anything well. He doesnt look accurate on short, medium, or long range passes. His pocket presence is nothing short of a disaster. He is a rhythm passer playing in a league which doesnt let QBs get in a groove and feel comfortable. He seems to lack confidence in his own abilities and lets mistakes and bad plays snowball into blown games.

My point is that Weeden will always be bad no matter what surrounds him.


Yeah, you obviously have nothing to support your opinion.


Really Entropy? Do you own cable and some sort of television? Watch him play. What Roger just said is clear on any screen.


Really?

If it is so clear then why can't you talk about it without using hyperbole?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TypicalBrowns10


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1091
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
TypicalBrowns10 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.


Obviously I understand that a QB will do better with better WR, RBs, OL, and play calling.

What you don't seem to understand, is that Weeden hasn't shown any ability to do anything well. He doesnt look accurate on short, medium, or long range passes. His pocket presence is nothing short of a disaster. He is a rhythm passer playing in a league which doesnt let QBs get in a groove and feel comfortable. He seems to lack confidence in his own abilities and lets mistakes and bad plays snowball into blown games.

My point is that Weeden will always be bad no matter what surrounds him.


Yeah, you obviously have nothing to support your opinion.


Really Entropy? Do you own cable and some sort of television? Watch him play. What Roger just said is clear on any screen.


Really?

If it is so clear then why can't you talk about it without using hyperbole?


Doesnt matter how its said, Weeden was a mistake by Heckert. And we have to pay for it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roger murdock


Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 6136
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
Entropy wrote:
roger murdock wrote:
I dont think you guys understand just how freaking bad the rest of the Pats are. I think if you switch Weeden and Brady we are talking playoffs and they are talking #1 pick.


Um, no.

The Pats are bad because the offense was bad. The offense was bad because it is designed around the passing game and the receivers are currently bad.

Brady on this team does better because he's a better QB--but he still doesn't do well when receivers drop passes, run bad routes, have communication breakdowns, or just play badly. Because dude--THAT is exactly what happened.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.


Obviously I understand that a QB will do better with better WR, RBs, OL, and play calling.

What you don't seem to understand, is that Weeden hasn't shown any ability to do anything well. He doesnt look accurate on short, medium, or long range passes. His pocket presence is nothing short of a disaster. He is a rhythm passer playing in a league which doesnt let QBs get in a groove and feel comfortable. He seems to lack confidence in his own abilities and lets mistakes and bad plays snowball into blown games.

My point is that Weeden will always be bad no matter what surrounds him.


Yeah, you obviously have nothing to support your opinion.


The burden of proof is on you too prove that the QB with horrible stats and a horrible record is good. I don't have to go out of my way to make him look bad when almost all the evidence supports my opinion. The only people with faith of Weeden are Browns fan, and probably a minority of Browns fans.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group