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
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: Weeden (using Brady's fail night as an example) Reply with quote

Estonianzulu wrote:
TeHDruiD wrote:
Alright, so after watching this Patriots vs Jets game, it has become very clear to me that a lot of you are way too down on Weeden


Tom Brady gets the benefit of the doubt because he put up solid numbers with bad receivers (2003, 2002 especially).


No, he gets the benefit of the doubt because he's one of the greatest QB to ever play the game.

He's also NEVER had as bad of a supporting cast as Weeden.

Typing he had 'bad receivers' doesn't make it true.

2002 (3rd year for Brady)-
Troy Brown (10th year) 97 catches
David Patten (6th year) 61 catches
Deion Branch (rookie) 43 catches
Faulk (4th year) 37 catches
Smith (6th year)31 catches
Fauria (8th year) 27 catches

1508 yards rushing, 9 TDs
17th defense
9-7 record


2003 (4th year for Brady)-
Branch (2nd year) 57 catches
Faulk (5th year) 48 catches
Brown (11th year) 40 catches
Graham (2nd year) 38 catches
Givens (2nd year) 34 catches

1607 yards rushing, 9 TDs
#1 defense
14-2 record, SB Champs

And you expect Weeden to do what with less around him?

Weeden (rookie) 2012-

Richardson (rookie) 51 catches
Gordon (rookie) 50 catches
Little (2nd year) 53 catches
Watson (9th year) 49 catches
Ogbannaya (3rd year) 24 catches
Cameron (2nd year) 20 catches
Benjamin (rookie) 18 catches

1593 rushing yards, 12 TDs
#19 defense
5-11 record

If you are not willing to see the difference between the receivers Brady had in 2002, 2003 and the ones Weeden had last year--as well as the other differences...no point in try to show it to you.

What Brady has RIGHT NOW is similar to what Weeden had last year as a rookie--only Brady is not a rookie.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

roger murdock wrote:
Tom Brady put up big points last week when he wasn't playing in a storm. Comparing Brady to Weeden is pathetic. Brady can have the occasional bad game because everyone knows he is amazing. If Brady always played like crap the way Weeden does, people wouldn'tthink hhe's an all time great.


Your opinion makes no sense. No one compared Weeden to Brady.

Also, you're mistaken. Brady looked like crap when there was no storm AND when the storm stopped after about one quarter.

You also are misinformed about what Brady did last week. It certainly wasn't putting up 'big points'. It was one more TD than what Weeden had last week.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bigdogsandiego wrote:
Duly noted the WR group was weak and made everybody look bad. O line certainly did not give Weeden the time or protection needed. Coach Turner and Chad did not adjust or implement chip blocks or help for O line. RB and TE did not block effectively. Coach T called 13 out of 70 running plays with no draws, effective screens, or any RB production. Weeden or Brady did not have a chance to succeed.

Weeden has the arm and the fortitude to take a hit. The problem I see is he pats the ball, shows where he is throwing, slow release, and has lead shoes with no ability to find or move the pocket. If we are going with the traditional drop back QB, he better be accurate on short passes and better be able to move in the pocket. Lastly, I do not think Weeden has the ability to change or lacks the mobility in the pocket to be a NFL QB. He has poor to average release and takes too long to read the D. The fact remains he has had 2 years to learn his NFL craft and make the adjustments yet we see very little improvement.


The bolded is a perfect example of why I take issue with some of the criticisms of Weeden.

The 'fact' is that he has played in 16 games--not '2 years', which would be 32 games.

Also, Weeden has a very quick release--well above average in the NFL.

Maybe you meant he takes too long to decide where to throw it, in which case, I would agree that is happening sometimes.

The single biggest problem that Weeden has is a lack of playing speed in this new offense--that should come rather soon, if it's ever going to happen.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NPBrowns


Joined: 16 Sep 2008
Posts: 371
Location: New Philadelphia, OH
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't want a QB in which I HAVE to have Pro Bowl players on the outside to make my QB play better. The difference between Tom Brady is he has an off day/night 1 or 2 times a year. Weeden has them almost every week.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Estonianzulu


Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 25534
Location: Middle of Nowhere VA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Re: Weeden (using Brady's fail night as an example) Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:

Typing he had 'bad receivers' doesn't make it true.



Troy Brown was a whole lot of nothing before Brady (1 season with +500 yards and +5 touchdowns), neither was David Patten (500 yards 1 TD with Cleveland in 2000 was his best), and Deion Branch proved his ability when he left New England and was totally mediocre (only 6 touchdowns once, lots of targets, few receptions). That's a bad receiving corp anyway you cut it. The degree to which it is better or worse than Cleveland's last season is negligible. Better QB play would have shown better statistical success for his receivers.

Now, if you want to argue that he had superior coaching and play design than Weeden had last season, I'm certainly with you 100% there. No one tools his game to the talents available like Bill Belichick. And that should be taken into consideration when judging his success and failure last year. And he still has 15 games in this season to show improvement as well. I'm not writing Brandon Weeden off, he's got the physical talents to achieve. He needs to improve, and he does need help from his receivers.

But I don't think you can really say (not you but the OP) that Brady's bad night due to playing with a receiving corp even worse than ours is an excuse for Brandon Weeden who had trouble progressing as a passer last season even as his weapons got better (Gordon for instance). Now, if Weeden goes out and has a week 2 like he did last year, and shows gradual but noteworthy improvement from weeks 2-16, then he'll have shown that he has the talent, regardless of what is around him, to be a starting QB in this league.

I doubt that it happens, but I'm going to be rooting like hell that it does.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cortes02


Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 2083
Location: Unknown
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Re: Weeden (using Brady's fail night as an example) Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
Estonianzulu wrote:
TeHDruiD wrote:
Alright, so after watching this Patriots vs Jets game, it has become very clear to me that a lot of you are way too down on Weeden


Tom Brady gets the benefit of the doubt because he put up solid numbers with bad receivers (2003, 2002 especially).


No, he gets the benefit of the doubt because he's one of the greatest QB to ever play the game.

He's also NEVER had as bad of a supporting cast as Weeden.

Typing he had 'bad receivers' doesn't make it true.

2002 (3rd year for Brady)-
Troy Brown (10th year) 97 catches
David Patten (6th year) 61 catches
Deion Branch (rookie) 43 catches
Faulk (4th year) 37 catches
Smith (6th year)31 catches
Fauria (8th year) 27 catches

1508 yards rushing, 9 TDs
17th defense
9-7 record


2003 (4th year for Brady)-
Branch (2nd year) 57 catches
Faulk (5th year) 48 catches
Brown (11th year) 40 catches
Graham (2nd year) 38 catches
Givens (2nd year) 34 catches

1607 yards rushing, 9 TDs
#1 defense
14-2 record, SB Champs

And you expect Weeden to do what with less around him?

Weeden (rookie) 2012-

Richardson (rookie) 51 catches
Gordon (rookie) 50 catches
Little (2nd year) 53 catches
Watson (9th year) 49 catches
Ogbannaya (3rd year) 24 catches
Cameron (2nd year) 20 catches
Benjamin (rookie) 18 catches

1593 rushing yards, 12 TDs
#19 defense
5-11 record

If you are not willing to see the difference between the receivers Brady had in 2002, 2003 and the ones Weeden had last year--as well as the other differences...no point in try to show it to you.

What Brady has RIGHT NOW is similar to what Weeden had last year as a rookie--only Brady is not a rookie.


My opinion is that the Browns just need to stick with Weeden for the "ENTIRE" season. Sink or swim, I honestly believe that it does the Browns no good if they were to replace Weeden with Campbell or Hoyer. Campbell and Hoyer are backups at best and should stay there.

A question for Entropy....Just out of curiosity, do you feel that Weeden would play better if he had Brady's WR core from their 2003 Superbowl season? The reason I ask is:


- I believe Gordan compares favorably to Branch

- I believe Richardson is better then Faulk

- I believe that Cameron is better then Graham

- I believe Brown has better hands but in regards to overall talent, I like to believe that Little compares favorably if not a little better due to athletic ability/strength.

- I believe that Givens is the better player over Benjamin right now due to Givens being a pure receiver while Benjamin is track guy still learning the nuances of playing receiver.

So out of the 5 players from the Patriots 2003 team you listed, I believe the Browns to either have equal talent or better talent from 3 of their players. That's just my opinion.

I think that this may be a rough week for the Browns against the Ravens. It will be nice to have Josh Gordon and Shawn Lauvao when they return to really see how this offense will perform.


Peace!!
_________________

Sig By Kempes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
ReggieCamp


Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 9349
Location: Canonsburg, PA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TeHDruiD wrote:
I think as this season progresses, we get Gordon back, we get Lauvao/Pinkston back and these receivers continue to learn and grow into this system, we're going to see that Weeden actually isn't that bad of a QB and is capable of winning us games with his arm. He catches all of the flak, but his receivers really let him down in Week 1

I still have hope for Weeden. I still get the feeling that the FO isn't in love with him, so he won't get a ton of time or patience from them.

This system is still perfect for him, but you're right, the receivers and line need to help him out. A good game (and a victory) against the Ravens will raise morale pretty substantially.
_________________
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
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NPBrowns wrote:
I don't want a QB in which I HAVE to have Pro Bowl players on the outside to make my QB play better. The difference between Tom Brady is he has an off day/night 1 or 2 times a year. Weeden has them almost every week.


Brady has had an off day/night every game this year he has had receivers with poor experience.

Same with Weeden. So I don't see this difference you are talking about.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roger murdock


Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 6165
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The diffnce between Brady and Weeden is that Brady has off games and Weeden has on games. [/i]
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
buno67


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 31011
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

roger murdock wrote:
Tom Brady put up big points last week when he wasn't playing in a storm. Comparing Brady to Weeden is pathetic. Brady can have the occasional bad game because everyone knows he is amazing. If Brady always played like crap the way Weeden does, people wouldn'tthink hhe's an all time great.


Tom Brady put up big points last week when it wasnt in a storm...

lets look at his stat line...

29/52 288yards 2TDs 1INT and this offense scored 23points.

nothing in that stat line is huge, He picked up 288yards on 52 attempts.

Last week Weeden was

32/53 289 1TD 3INTs and his offense scored 10points.

Brady was nothing special last week and Weedn wasnt either. Last night Brady wasnt anything special again.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:58 am    Post subject: Re: Weeden (using Brady's fail night as an example) Reply with quote

Estonianzulu wrote:
Entropy wrote:

Typing he had 'bad receivers' doesn't make it true.



Troy Brown was a whole lot of nothing before Brady (1 season with +500 yards and +5 touchdowns), neither was David Patten (500 yards 1 TD with Cleveland in 2000 was his best), and Deion Branch proved his ability when he left New England and was totally mediocre (only 6 touchdowns once, lots of targets, few receptions). That's a bad receiving corp anyway you cut it. The degree to which it is better or worse than Cleveland's last season is negligible. Better QB play would have shown better statistical success for his receivers.

Now, if you want to argue that he had superior coaching and play design than Weeden had last season, I'm certainly with you 100% there. No one tools his game to the talents available like Bill Belichick. And that should be taken into consideration when judging his success and failure last year. And he still has 15 games in this season to show improvement as well. I'm not writing Brandon Weeden off, he's got the physical talents to achieve. He needs to improve, and he does need help from his receivers.

But I don't think you can really say (not you but the OP) that Brady's bad night due to playing with a receiving corp even worse than ours is an excuse for Brandon Weeden who had trouble progressing as a passer last season even as his weapons got better (Gordon for instance). Now, if Weeden goes out and has a week 2 like he did last year, and shows gradual but noteworthy improvement from weeks 2-16, then he'll have shown that he has the talent, regardless of what is around him, to be a starting QB in this league.

I doubt that it happens, but I'm going to be rooting like hell that it does.


1. If Troy Brown's 9 previous years in the NFL were 'a whole lot of nothing' then what were Gordon's 0 years? Benjamin's 0 years? Little's 1 year?

2. Brown did about as well with Bledsoe as he did with Brady. His career year with TD catches was with Bledsoe.

3. Patten was 31 when he left NE to go catch passes from a 35 year old Brunell--and still was the #2 WR (behind Santana Moss) in catches on a 10-6 playoff team when he missed nearly half the season.

4. Branch was about the same WR when he left NE--he never had 6 TDs with NE--he had 2, 3, 4, and 5 TDs in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 respectively--while missing 11 total games. When Branch was in Seattle he has 4, 4, 4, and 2 TDs in 2006, 07, 08, and 09 respectively while missing 17 games. His YPG and R/G were all similar, if not better with Seattle.

5. Clearly you jumped to a conclusion that I hope you will reconsider.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Weeden (using Brady's fail night as an example) Reply with quote

cortes02 wrote:


My opinion is that the Browns just need to stick with Weeden for the "ENTIRE" season. Sink or swim, I honestly believe that it does the Browns no good if they were to replace Weeden with Campbell or Hoyer. Campbell and Hoyer are backups at best and should stay there.

A question for Entropy....Just out of curiosity, do you feel that Weeden would play better if he had Brady's WR core from their 2003 Superbowl season?



I think Weeden would still not do as well as Brady did, since Brady has more talent. But, yes, Weeden would have done better with more experience for him and his players--I'm not sure what realistic basis can be provided to differ with that.

Even though I tend to agree with your opinion about which players we have that you like better than what the Pats had--the Pats players still had the edge with experience, which is no small thing.

Teams with a lot of inexperience tend to look bad, even if an experienced Brady is the QB--right?

And yes, Weeden would look better on the team with the #1 defense.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaWg_LB.


Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 4589
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bungleodeon wrote:
I don't see how anyone can be anything but negative when thinking about Weeden.




Weeden has a great deep ball, a quick release, and he had 6 games where he had a QB rating over 84.2, he had 3 300 yard games, 5 wins as a rookie in the WCO--and who were his receivers?

THOSE are positives, if you are being realistic.

Blind hatred is blind, sir.


LMAO!!!! Laughing
_________________
-A team is built through the Draft.

Second Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NPBrowns


Joined: 16 Sep 2008
Posts: 371
Location: New Philadelphia, OH
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
NPBrowns wrote:
I don't want a QB in which I HAVE to have Pro Bowl players on the outside to make my QB play better. The difference between Tom Brady is he has an off day/night 1 or 2 times a year. Weeden has them almost every week.


Brady has had an off day/night every game this year he has had receivers with poor experience.

Same with Weeden. So I don't see this difference you are talking about.


I didn't realize throwing for almost 300 yards and 2TDs and 1 INT is an off night.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NPBrowns wrote:
Entropy wrote:
NPBrowns wrote:
I don't want a QB in which I HAVE to have Pro Bowl players on the outside to make my QB play better. The difference between Tom Brady is he has an off day/night 1 or 2 times a year. Weeden has them almost every week.


Brady has had an off day/night every game this year he has had receivers with poor experience.

Same with Weeden. So I don't see this difference you are talking about.


I didn't realize throwing for almost 300 yards and 2TDs and 1 INT is an off night.


That's because you are withholding the part that makes it an off night.

He was 29/52...which yields a low completion percentage and a low YPA.

Which makes his QB Rating 76.4.
_________________
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 3 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