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

Browns rank 3rd out 7 as most attractive HC Jobs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CleBrowns07


Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4432
Location: Willoughby
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Luck brought a 2-14 team to an 11-5 record and to the playoffs. Weeden brought a 4-12 team 1 more win. I don't see what else there is to discuss.


Luck didn't carry the team, the team carried Luck. If you don't believe that, then explain how they won 11 games when Luck had 23 turnovers and only 28 TDs.


So explain why that team won 9 less games last year? Quit acting like Luck played no part in the turnaround.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas5737


Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Posts: 4976
Location: WV
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They both underachieved. Luck was better at winning games, he led a lot of comebacks. Statistically they are close. Eye test isn't all that far off either until the game is on the line. If Weeden would have played great down the stretch of games and won 4 that we lost this would be a better argument.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom Shean


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 4740
Location: Tha 703
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Let's be real here, ok? Weeden is a rookie. He played on an offense where almost ALL of his skill players were rookies and a 2nd year guy. He was playing in a complicated offense that has taken "elite" QBs years to learn.

You misspelled "Luck"
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HADEN4PREZIDENT


Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 477
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom Shean wrote:
Quote:
Let's be real here, ok? Weeden is a rookie. He played on an offense where almost ALL of his skill players were rookies and a 2nd year guy. He was playing in a complicated offense that has taken "elite" QBs years to learn.

You misspelled "Luck"

Wayne is a big upgrade over Browns targets but I'm still on your side obviously.
_________________

^^^Jamison^^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HADEN4PREZIDENT wrote:
Entropy wrote:
nugpimpen wrote:


And I almost guarantee that less than 5% would say Weeden played better.

Don't cop out because someone might say

ziomg Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden

[inappropriate/removed] it, i'm making the thread.

O give me the damn soap



If 95% of people say "Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden" it's still just using inequality symbols.

What if I use 4 more or 6 less inequality symbols? Did I disagree with you? And if so, by how much? What criteria did I use?

Do I add more to the discussion by using these symbols?

If you would like to discuss actual points, I'd love that.

Just a simple question can you give a defining moment this season where Weeden led or willed this team to victory? Avoid saying that one dropped ball cost him games. I can name one time against Dallas he faced adversity and gave us a chance to win but we fell short without Joe in the secondary. Luck won multiple games for his team leading them to victory showing us how clutch he was in close games.


Weeden led his team to victory in the 1st game against Cincy, but the defense led us to defeat. Something Luck didn't encounter.

Weeden led us to victory in the 2nd Cincy game.

Weeden led us to victory against the Colts, but the defense couldn't contain the QB on the goal line twice.

Weeden led us to victory against the Bolts, thanks to the defense not caving again.

Weeden led us to victory against Dallas, but the defense and refs blew it.

Weeden led us to victory against the Steelers.

Weeden led us to victory against the Chiefs.

Now, show me when Luck won games without his defense getting him the ball late so he had a chance to overcome his poor playing earlier in the game.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dropkick_pride


Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 10805
Location: C-bus
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom Shean wrote:
Quote:
Let's be real here, ok? Weeden is a rookie. He played on an offense where almost ALL of his skill players were rookies and a 2nd year guy. He was playing in a complicated offense that has taken "elite" QBs years to learn.

You misspelled "Luck"


Sorry, I have zero idea as to why this is even a discussion. Haha
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CleBrowns07 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Luck brought a 2-14 team to an 11-5 record and to the playoffs. Weeden brought a 4-12 team 1 more win. I don't see what else there is to discuss.


Luck didn't carry the team, the team carried Luck. If you don't believe that, then explain how they won 11 games when Luck had 23 turnovers and only 28 TDs.


So explain why that team won 9 less games last year? Quit acting like Luck played no part in the turnaround.


Luck did play a part. He was the guy that actually threw the passes that receivers caught at the end of games. It's just that he was playing poorly in those games before the end.
We didnít get those opportunities to correct mistakes OUR QB made as much NOR did we have a defense that didnít lose games all by themselves.

Last year, the Colts has 3 QBs that should not have even been in the NFL. THAT is why they did so poorly.

Luck clearly belongs in the NFL...so in comparison to what they has last year, it's a huge improvement IN THE QB POSITION.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dropkick_pride wrote:
Tom Shean wrote:
Quote:
Let's be real here, ok? Weeden is a rookie. He played on an offense where almost ALL of his skill players were rookies and a 2nd year guy. He was playing in a complicated offense that has taken "elite" QBs years to learn.

You misspelled "Luck"


Sorry, I have zero idea as to why this is even a discussion. Haha


Yet you're reading it? And responding?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dropkick_pride


Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 10805
Location: C-bus
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Luck brought a 2-14 team to an 11-5 record and to the playoffs. Weeden brought a 4-12 team 1 more win. I don't see what else there is to discuss.


Luck didn't carry the team, the team carried Luck. If you don't believe that, then explain how they won 11 games when Luck had 23 turnovers and only 28 TDs.


So explain why that team won 9 less games last year? Quit acting like Luck played no part in the turnaround.


Luck did play a part. He was the guy that actually threw the passes that receivers caught at the end of games. It's just that he was playing poorly in those games before the end.
We didnít get those opportunities to correct mistakes OUR QB made as much NOR did we have a defense that didnít lose games all by themselves.

Last year, the Colts has 3 QBs that should not have even been in the NFL. THAT is why they did so poorly.

Luck clearly belongs in the NFL...so in comparison to what they has last year, it's a huge improvement IN THE QB POSITION.


Gee, that sounds familiar...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom Shean wrote:
Quote:
Let's be real here, ok? Weeden is a rookie. He played on an offense where almost ALL of his skill players were rookies and a 2nd year guy. He was playing in a complicated offense that has taken "elite" QBs years to learn.

You misspelled "Luck"


No I said Weeden Tom.

Luck didn't have a rookie WR, a rookie RB, and a 2nd year WR as his top 3 targets, did he?

Hey Tom, how much NFL experience did Luck's top 3 targets have? How many were All Pros?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dropkick_pride wrote:
Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Luck brought a 2-14 team to an 11-5 record and to the playoffs. Weeden brought a 4-12 team 1 more win. I don't see what else there is to discuss.


Luck didn't carry the team, the team carried Luck. If you don't believe that, then explain how they won 11 games when Luck had 23 turnovers and only 28 TDs.


So explain why that team won 9 less games last year? Quit acting like Luck played no part in the turnaround.


Luck did play a part. He was the guy that actually threw the passes that receivers caught at the end of games. It's just that he was playing poorly in those games before the end.
We didnít get those opportunities to correct mistakes OUR QB made as much NOR did we have a defense that didnít lose games all by themselves.

Last year, the Colts has 3 QBs that should not have even been in the NFL. THAT is why they did so poorly.

Luck clearly belongs in the NFL...so in comparison to what they has last year, it's a huge improvement IN THE QB POSITION.


Gee, that sounds familiar...


Don't it though?

It seems Browns fans should have no trouble understanding how the QB can single-handedly ruin a season.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CleBrowns07


Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4432
Location: Willoughby
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
HADEN4PREZIDENT wrote:
Entropy wrote:
nugpimpen wrote:


And I almost guarantee that less than 5% would say Weeden played better.

Don't cop out because someone might say

ziomg Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden

[inappropriate/removed] it, i'm making the thread.

O give me the damn soap



If 95% of people say "Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden" it's still just using inequality symbols.

What if I use 4 more or 6 less inequality symbols? Did I disagree with you? And if so, by how much? What criteria did I use?

Do I add more to the discussion by using these symbols?

If you would like to discuss actual points, I'd love that.

Just a simple question can you give a defining moment this season where Weeden led or willed this team to victory? Avoid saying that one dropped ball cost him games. I can name one time against Dallas he faced adversity and gave us a chance to win but we fell short without Joe in the secondary. Luck won multiple games for his team leading them to victory showing us how clutch he was in close games.


Weeden led his team to victory in the 1st game against Cincy, but the defense led us to defeat. Something Luck didn't encounter.

Weeden led us to victory in the 2nd Cincy game.

Weeden led us to victory against the Colts, but the defense couldn't contain the QB on the goal line twice.

Weeden led us to victory against the Bolts, thanks to the defense not caving again.

Weeden led us to victory against Dallas, but the defense and refs blew it.

Weeden led us to victory against the Steelers.

Weeden led us to victory against the Chiefs.

Now, show me when Luck won games without his defense getting him the ball late so he had a chance to overcome his poor playing earlier in the game.


Luck beat us that game. He played very well and Weeden couldn't match.

Weeden did not win us SD or Pitt. Those were on the defense. We scored 1 TD against San Diego and it was TRich. Our defense had 8 FRICKEN TURNOVERS against Pittsburgh and Weeden only mustered 20 points. How exactly were those victories lead by him?

KC and Oakland are terrible so I don't want to hear that. Cinci I'll give you.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HADEN4PREZIDENT


Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 477
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
HADEN4PREZIDENT wrote:
Entropy wrote:
nugpimpen wrote:


And I almost guarantee that less than 5% would say Weeden played better.

Don't cop out because someone might say

ziomg Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden

[inappropriate/removed] it, i'm making the thread.

O give me the damn soap



If 95% of people say "Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden" it's still just using inequality symbols.

What if I use 4 more or 6 less inequality symbols? Did I disagree with you? And if so, by how much? What criteria did I use?

Do I add more to the discussion by using these symbols?

If you would like to discuss actual points, I'd love that.

Just a simple question can you give a defining moment this season where Weeden led or willed this team to victory? Avoid saying that one dropped ball cost him games. I can name one time against Dallas he faced adversity and gave us a chance to win but we fell short without Joe in the secondary. Luck won multiple games for his team leading them to victory showing us how clutch he was in close games.


Weeden led his team to victory in the 1st game against Cincy, but the defense led us to defeat. Something Luck didn't encounter. Maybe his most impressive game.

Weeden led us to victory in the 2nd Cincy game.

Weeden led us to victory against the Colts, but the defense couldn't contain the QB on the goal line twice.

Weeden led us to victory against the Bolts, thanks to the defense not caving again.

Weeden led us to victory against Dallas, but the defense and refs blew it.

Weeden led us to victory against the Steelers.

Weeden led us to victory against the Chiefs.

Now, show me when Luck won games without his defense getting him the ball late so he had a chance to overcome his poor playing earlier in the game.


First Cincy Game he was impressive but still wasn't enough to win.

Second Cincy Game was also good.

Indy game were unable to finish drives and Lucks athleticism is underrated.

SD game 11-27 158yds is not good QB play and we did not win because of him.

Dallas game we had a big lead and were unable to score until are backs against the wall concerns me.

KC is KC he played decent against a poor team but did not throw for a TD.

OAK game threw two costly picks but did throw the ball well.

My problem is in the NFL game comes to down to the very end and Luck showed that he can put together GW drives and carry his team on multiple occasions. I'm not giving up on Weeden in fact I would love to see him in Chip Kelly's offense in the no huddle like he had in Ok St but to say he had as good a season as Luck is wrong all you have to do is look at that records.
_________________

^^^Jamison^^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CleBrowns07 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
HADEN4PREZIDENT wrote:
Entropy wrote:
nugpimpen wrote:


And I almost guarantee that less than 5% would say Weeden played better.

Don't cop out because someone might say

ziomg Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden

[inappropriate/removed] it, i'm making the thread.

O give me the damn soap



If 95% of people say "Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden" it's still just using inequality symbols.

What if I use 4 more or 6 less inequality symbols? Did I disagree with you? And if so, by how much? What criteria did I use?

Do I add more to the discussion by using these symbols?

If you would like to discuss actual points, I'd love that.

Just a simple question can you give a defining moment this season where Weeden led or willed this team to victory? Avoid saying that one dropped ball cost him games. I can name one time against Dallas he faced adversity and gave us a chance to win but we fell short without Joe in the secondary. Luck won multiple games for his team leading them to victory showing us how clutch he was in close games.


Weeden led his team to victory in the 1st game against Cincy, but the defense led us to defeat. Something Luck didn't encounter.

Weeden led us to victory in the 2nd Cincy game.

Weeden led us to victory against the Colts, but the defense couldn't contain the QB on the goal line twice.

Weeden led us to victory against the Bolts, thanks to the defense not caving again.

Weeden led us to victory against Dallas, but the defense and refs blew it.

Weeden led us to victory against the Steelers.

Weeden led us to victory against the Chiefs.

Now, show me when Luck won games without his defense getting him the ball late so he had a chance to overcome his poor playing earlier in the game.


Luck beat us that game. He played very well and Weeden couldn't match.

Weeden did not win us SD or Pitt. Those were on the defense. We scored 1 TD against San Diego and it was TRich. Our defense had 8 FRICKEN TURNOVERS against Pittsburgh and Weeden only mustered 20 points. How exactly were those victories lead by him?

KC and Oakland are terrible so I don't want to hear that. Cinci I'll give you.


Luck didn't beat us, our defense beat us. Weeden was a better passer that game.

Oh, so the defense can win games by getting TOs? Hmmm, can we use that same excuse for Luck?

And now a player who is NOT the QB gets the credit for the win because he made an amazing play? I think a few of Luck's receivers did the same thing, yet you credit Luck for it.

You can't just throw out KC and Oakland unless you throw out the poor teams Luck won against too.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nugpimpen


Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 19724
Location: 10 Miles South of Cleveland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
CleBrowns07 wrote:
Entropy wrote:
HADEN4PREZIDENT wrote:
Entropy wrote:
nugpimpen wrote:


And I almost guarantee that less than 5% would say Weeden played better.

Don't cop out because someone might say

ziomg Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden

[inappropriate/removed] it, i'm making the thread.

O give me the damn soap



If 95% of people say "Luck >>>>>>>>>>> Weeden" it's still just using inequality symbols.

What if I use 4 more or 6 less inequality symbols? Did I disagree with you? And if so, by how much? What criteria did I use?

Do I add more to the discussion by using these symbols?

If you would like to discuss actual points, I'd love that.

Just a simple question can you give a defining moment this season where Weeden led or willed this team to victory? Avoid saying that one dropped ball cost him games. I can name one time against Dallas he faced adversity and gave us a chance to win but we fell short without Joe in the secondary. Luck won multiple games for his team leading them to victory showing us how clutch he was in close games.


Weeden led his team to victory in the 1st game against Cincy, but the defense led us to defeat. Something Luck didn't encounter.

Weeden led us to victory in the 2nd Cincy game.

Weeden led us to victory against the Colts, but the defense couldn't contain the QB on the goal line twice.

Weeden led us to victory against the Bolts, thanks to the defense not caving again.

Weeden led us to victory against Dallas, but the defense and refs blew it.

Weeden led us to victory against the Steelers.

Weeden led us to victory against the Chiefs.

Now, show me when Luck won games without his defense getting him the ball late so he had a chance to overcome his poor playing earlier in the game.


Luck beat us that game. He played very well and Weeden couldn't match.

Weeden did not win us SD or Pitt. Those were on the defense. We scored 1 TD against San Diego and it was TRich. Our defense had 8 FRICKEN TURNOVERS against Pittsburgh and Weeden only mustered 20 points. How exactly were those victories lead by him?

KC and Oakland are terrible so I don't want to hear that. Cinci I'll give you.


Luck didn't beat us, our defense beat us. Weeden was a better passer that game.

Oh, so the defense can win games by getting TOs? Hmmm, can we use that same excuse for Luck?

And now a player who is NOT the QB gets the credit for the win because he made an amazing play? I think a few of Luck's receivers did the same thing, yet you credit Luck for it.

You can't just throw out KC and Oakland unless you throw out the poor teams Luck won against too.



Was Weeden the better Passer that day against the Colts?? Maybe

Was he the better QB? No


Colts won because Gordon dropped a pass in the sun and because Luck did this thing that Weeden can't do. Score TD's with his legs
_________________


IDOG_det on the incredible sig!
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, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
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