The Booger Beat: MNF Redskins v. Saints

By Kris Mead

 

With John Gruden’s departure from Monday Night Football on ESPN, most viewers who enjoy not having their ears bleed while watching football, were hopeful that they could once again unmute their televisions and watch the game with the sound on. However, that wish was short lived as ESPN replaced one washed up NFL coach, who could only muster speaking words with, at most, three syllables, with an equally, if not more unintelligent, brute in Booger McFarland.

Since ESPN has beat reporters to cover each NFL team, I have taken it upon myself to be the beat reporter for our lovable nimrod – Booger McFarland. Welcome to the inaugural installment of The Booger Beat!

Booger is unique not only in his ability to state the obvious, but in how he goes about stating the obvious. For instance, in last Monday’s game, Booger made this analysis, when the Redskins were in the red zone but down 26-6 against the Saints, “Redskins need a touchdown, cannot settle for a field goal in the red zone.” Disregard the fact that Booger could have used his experience playing football to better analyze how the Redskins should attack the New Orleans defense, or what play call the Redskins tend to make in this part of the field.  Instead, Booger used all his NFL insight to state that a team down by twenty points would be better off scoring six points rather than three points.

There was another point in the game in which the Redskins were called for a horse collar tackle penalty. While the penalty was being sorted out, Booger was given the honors of letting the viewers know what was happening. So, Booger stated, “think you may have a horse collar on the tackle.” Booger essentially defined a word by using the word in the definition. By saying that it was a “horse collar,” there was no need for Booger to add that extra insight that the horse collar “is on the tackle.” That’s because the penalty is literally called a “horse collar tackle.”

At other times Booger chose to use the Socratic method on the viewers. At one point the Saints were pushed back on third down due to a penalty. Booger took it upon himself to make his “deep” analysis. First Booger told the audience that, “They [Redskins] got to make a play here.” What Booger did in this case was similar to when a fifth-grade teacher tells her students that they should refrain from using adjectives with three letters and try to use “bigger” words in their writing. Booger basically did the same thing, but in sportscaster talk. Whereas a teacher might encourage her pupils to use the word “enormous” in place of the simplistic word “big” to describe something large, a sportscaster is encouraged to say something like, ”the middle linebacker should blitz up the A gap because you know the offense likes to throw in third and long” rather than, “they need to make a play” when describing a third and long situation for the defense. However, Booger decided to go the more simplistic route. The second item that Booger did was what I’ll call “flip the script.” After Booger said that the Redskins needed to “make a play on defense,” he then asked the audience, “Do they come after him [New Orleans quarterback, Drew Brees] or stay back?” Booger went Socratic method on us football viewers! Booger probably got too tired of giving us idiots all the answers, deciding it was time the viewer worked for his expertise!

Some other “notable quotables” that Booger decided to use:

1. Just a dancing bear, not just a blind dog in a bee house (Booger was describing a Washington defensive lineman causing a fumble on a New Orleans screen play. Still not sure what to make of that analogy).
2. That’s not a good formula to play D against that guy (That “guy” would be New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees. The Redskins committed pass interference which gave New Orleans a fresh set of downs.)
3. Them ‘Bama Boys make a difference (the name Booger gave to the Redskins defensive line because two out of their three linemen came from the University of Alabama…)
4. Redskins need to settle down, lot of football left to play in the second half (another extremely generic football quote. There is exactly 30 minutes of football left to play at the beginning of the second half)

At one point it appeared Booger was being outright contradicted by his own commentator, Joe Tessitore. In the second quarter, the Redskins were down but had the ball. Booger stated, “Redskins can still run the football. They have to be patient.” However, then Tessitore immediately said, “You must press the pedal against the Saints.” Joe, who had zero experience playing football at any high level, outright contradicted the most insightful analysis that Booger gave the entire night!

Joe’s annoyance with Booger would only continue. In the third quarter the Saints caused a sack fumble and recovered the ball. Booger’s analysis was, “I think they [referees] are going to call that a sack fumble, Joe.” Joe immediately stated, without any hesitation to Booger, “No doubt about it.”

A few “Booger Stats”:

1. Total comments in first quarter: 13
2. Total comments in second quarter: 30
3. Total comments in third quarter: 21
4. Total comments in fourth quarter: 10

So, if you do tune into Monday Night Football I still recommend keeping your T.V. on mute.  But if you must have the sound, I recommend only turning it up during the first and fourth quarters. Booger gets all riled up in the second and third quarters and I have yet to find out why this is (possibly they feed him during these quarters), but my investigative reporting (from my couch) has yet to determine the cause. Sorry.

2018 Browns' Chronicles: Week 5

By Kris Mead

 

The Browns not only won a game on a Sunday, the first in over 1,000 days, but, more importantly, they beat a division rival for the first time in three years! Although the Browns won in dramatic fashion, they earned the win against an extremely talented Baltimore team, primarily against its second ranked defense. However, not everyone could be happy and in this week’s issue of the “Browns’ Chronicles” I will examine the human rain cloud, better known as ESPN’s Cleveland Browns’ beat reporter – Pat McManamon.

Who is Pat? Pat is a native Clevelander, so I can’t dog him for being an outsider who only took the Cleveland beat writer job out of desperation, rather than actual interest into Cleveland sports. However, there is some level of argument that ESPN would like to layoff Pat, as they have been gutting their personnel for some time. If you need to see who ESPN let go, just tune into its up and coming rival FS1 and you’ll rediscover the same talking heads who once yammered their mouths on behalf of the almighty ESPN. It could also be there is just a lack of supply for beat writers licking their chops to cover the Browns. In turn, ESPN faces the economic challenge of a lack of labor which drives McManomon’s perceived worth “up” and gives him the “oompas” to keep writing garbage columns.

The article I will be critiquing is Pat’s analysis of the Browns’ week 5 win against the Baltimore Ravens entitled, Baker Mayfield, Browns look for hope from an ugly win. So right off the bat, Pat portrays himself as the guy in school who is friends with the losers, but wants to fit in so desperately with the winners that he’ll throw his own nerdy friends under the bus in order to achieve that gratification.  Just look at the passive aggressive title, “Browns look for hope from an ugly win.” Now, it is quite common for the words, “Browns,” “ugly,” and “hope” to be in the same sentence, but “Browns” and “Win” in the same sentence is about as common as President Trump not making an utterly dumb remark within a 24-hour news cycle. So then why must Pat combine the negative words with the positive words? Sure, Pat wants to come across as an unbiased journalist, but it seems more evident that Pat wants to subliminally distance himself from the “loser franchise” he covers, for fear his readers might view him a loser by association.  With that, let’s continue examining this shallow, uncharacteristically negative, ESPN Cleveland beat writer, shall we?

Pat then begins his article by recalling how the Browns, just last week, lost a game after scoring 42 points, but then, this week, only scored 12 points and yet won. This passive aggressive jab at the Browns inadvertently reveals Pat’s lack of understanding for the unexpectedness that is the NFL.  For instance, the Buffalo Bills lost to the Ravens by 44 points but then went on to beat the Minnesota Viking by 24 -  in Minnesota. Both opening sentences first state something negative about Cleveland and then are quickly twisted around to make it “sort of” positive. It’s as though Pat can’t believe the Browns could win, because the week prior they lost even after playing well.  The same can be said for the Bills and their Viking win, since the Bills lost so badly prior to the Ravens. However, and what Pat fails to understand, is that more often than not the NFL is unpredictable.  Previous week games are inconsequential to the week coming up. If this wasn’t the case the NFL would become an extremely monotonous, predictable form of entertainment. Actually, if the NFL increased in predictability, its entertainment value would, hopefully, decrease (what fan would want to wasting four hours of their Sunday watching something where the outcome is fairly certain?). Now, to be clear, there is some level of statistics which allow coaches to either change their upcoming week strategy or exploit their opponents’ weaknesses. In that way outcomes become a little more predictable.  Nonetheless, due to high levels of competition between each NFL team and the fact that even the smallest variable could cause a team to lose, the NFL is a highly unpredictable week to week.   

The next statement Pat makes, which is uninspiring, comes in the end of his third paragraph in which he says, “[a] team trying to change its culture . . . maybe can use a 12-9 overtime victory to propel it forward.” First, the very fact that Pat is certain a victory will assist a team trying to change its culture is utterly absurd. Pat, how would you suggest a team, that in the past two years has gone 1-31, best go about trying to change its culture? It wouldn’t require a half-baked and whitewashed FBI investigation to figure this one out, as the answer is simple: winning football games is how a historically bad team starts to change its culture. So, it isn’t that the Browns “maybe” could use a victory, but rather that need to have a victory, in any form, drives culture change. Secondly, the win in itself has propelled the Browns forward automatically for the simple fact that under Hue Jackson they have never won more than one game in a season - now they have doubled that. Another way to look at it is if the Browns would have lost, they would not have moved forward at all. So in turn, because they won, they automatically have propelled forward and now need to continue propelling forward by winning games. However, to suggest that if the Browns weren’t to win any more games this year then they would not have propelled forward from this win would be false.  Sunday’s win in itself is evidence of the team moving forward.

Next Pat does something that all non-Browns fans do – they reminisce on how bad the Browns have been. Pat goes on to provide anyone who has been living under a rock various examples of how bad the Browns have been. Thanks, Pat. I am quite confident that anyone choosing to read about the Browns is either a Browns fan or is having suicidal thoughts, and if it’s the latter, don’t waste your time giving them a history lesson.

Pat moves on to describe that “…when they [Browns] somehow pulled out the win, the outlook changed. For this team 2-2-1 is a quantum leap from 1-3-1.”  This phrase makes it seem that the Browns had some sort of 300 moments similar to when the 300 Spartan warriors “somehow” held back the thousand or so Persians from advancing on them. Now, I will give Pat some leeway here as he does go on to discuss how Baker, Denzel Ward, and Myles Garret’s play helped the Browns win.  But to say that this was a “quantum leap” is startling, to say the least. The reason for this is that the Browns are a team that is capable of winning 6 games, if not more. They became markedly better between this year and last year. For instance with the signing of Randall, Terrence Mitchell (although now hurt), and Jarvis Landry, the Browns sured up their pass defense and helped out their depleted receiving corp. Further with the Browns picking Mayfield, Ward, and Calloway in the draft they, again, became more talented than the year prior. It wasn’t a quantum leap that the Browns won.  It is more like a quantum leap that the Browns did not have some sort of unpredictable mishap cost them the game – multiple missed kicks (New Orleans loss) and inexplicable official miscues (Oakland).

So I congratulate the Cleveland Browns and especially to the rookies – Mayfield and Ward. The former for keeping an offense going even when it seemed over, and the latter for making game saving plays in crucial moments. That is what propelled the Browns to the win and what will continue to propel the Browns forward (although the Browns do need to cut the penalties).

Finally, I apologize for Pat McManomon’s constant pandering to the rest of the NFL fandom. Yes, in his article he does mention, briefly, about Cleveland’s growth, but he did so under a cloud of judgment in which he, involuntarily or otherwise, secretly wishes that the Browns would come back down to earth. It may be that Pat has become so accustomed to writing about losers that he isn’t quite sure how to write about winners. If this is the truth, then not only do the Browns need to use this win to “propel” forward and change the culture, but so does Pat.

2018 Browns' Chronicles: Week 4

By Kris Mead

This week’s loss could be summed up with a very simple take that my friend told me, “The refs screwed us, and it didn’t help that we shot ourselves in the foot.” So that’s essentially what this week’s chronicle will analyze: (1) how the refs robbed the Browns of a victory with two very bogus calls, one of which had no reasoning behind it and another that had very bogus reasoning behind it and (2) the Browns’ missed opportunities that would have allowed them to win the game. So, without further ado, let’s dig into the epic collapse, that is better known as the Browns!

1.       The Zebras. Let me first preface this point by advertising another blog I wrote that, ironically, is specifically about football refs called, Although Refs May Dress Like Zebras, They are Still Dumber. Okay now that I have that “self-marketing” segment out of the way I will proceed with violating one of the wholly sacraments of all of sport: "thou shall not blame thy refs when thou loses." That sacrament is for the very fact that if players refuse to respect the refs, then the game fails to be played in its proper nature. It is essentially like if the U.S. population chose not to follow a judge’s ruling, simply because it felt the judge was wrong. However, I think that the refs can be blamed for a loss the same way Seahawks fans blame Pete Carrol for choosing to throw the ball, rather than handing the ball off to Marshawn Lynch on fourth down at the Patriots’ 1-yard line, in the closing moments of Super Bowl XLIX (as many of you know the pass was picked off and the Patriots then won the Super Bowl).

So, the first blunder by the refs in the Browns v. Raiders game was the strip sack, which was blown dead. There is no consensus as to why this play was blown dead. It can only reasonably be determined to have been an inadvertent whistle (which is the ultimate cardinal sin a ref can commit). The refs could not suggest that Oakland quarterback Derek Carr’s arm was moving forward in a throwing motion, as he clearly had the ball held at his chest when it was stripped. Further, it can’t be said that he was down prior to the ball popping out, as the ball was clearly on the ground before Carr was toppled over. The issue that stings the worst in this referee blunder was the very fact that the ball was scooped up by a Browns’ defender, who would have waltzed into the end zone for a Browns’ touchdown. That would have not only put the Browns up even further, but any morale Oakland may have had, would have been severely depleted. In the ref’s defense, we all make mistakes, but some mistakes are worse than others. For instance, forgetting to copy someone on an email is usually a relatively inconsequential mistake, but that wasn’t what the ref did. Here the ref basically did the equivalent of a soldier opening fire on fellow comrades and only realizing he made a mistake after they are all either were killed or critically injured. In this case, the ref who blew the whistle most likely wished that he was dead right then and there. The reason for this is because good old Hue Jackson, who just last week got his second win in his over two-year stint with his Cleveland Browns, had a little pep in his step, a little swagger with his walk, if you will. So, Hue gave that ref an earful of most likely inaudible sounds.  That ref took it. One last note, before I move onto to the next ref blunder, the ref could breathe a sigh of relief that the inadvertent whistle went in the home team’s favor, because if the same whistle was blown in Cleveland, well, I would have provided a link to his obituary.

The next blunder occurred in the fourth quarter. Essentially the Browns just needed to pick up a first down, and, if they did so, they could just run out the clock on the Raiders. However, in Browns fashion, Carlos Hyde took the hand off and was awarded the first down. However, the NFL decided to do an official review. After, the analyst claimed the call probably would stand because there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field, the NFL does what it always does to Cleveland – screws us. The refs stated that Hyde was just short of the line to gain a first down and therefore it would be fourth down. So, Hue punted and the Raiders, with just over a minute left to play, were able to score a touchdown AND convert a two-point conversion, sending the game to overtime. What was interesting was the fact that after the game was over, and due to such uproar (justified uproar I might add) the NFL decided to come out with a statement that defended its refs. The NFL defending its refs is sometimes like a teacher’s union defending that teacher who everyone knows was a pedophile. So, the NFL came up with some outlandish quote about how they stitched together two angles in the NFL’s New York review headquarters, to determine the call, after stitching together these two views they then could overturn the call on the field. So basically, the NFL is saying, “please don’t question us because we have information that you don’t have (i.e. the stitched together sequence), but we aren’t going to provide you with that information, but still please take our word for it. Thanks.”

In a league which tries to provide the fans with every little field of view imaginable, it’s hard to imagine why they would not provide the fans with the same viewpoints the NFL officials apparently had. It baffles me. The NFL should, instead of treating these “secret” angels as some sort of top secret national security information, market it by partnering with Direct-TV. Together they could rip off their loyal Cheeto eating, Bud heavy drinking, slightly obese, half shaven, red neck American viewer by getting him to purchase the “Angle Package.” Yes, the Angles Package, which sounds like some sort of adult entertainment site, but will give that middle age man the same views the refs use in NFL headquarters to determine challenges. So not only did the privacy that these “secret views” carry cause me to once again see how outlandish and utterly dumb the NFL treats its viewers, but I also started to question which angles they were stitching, as the ref in the commentator booth said it was extremely unlikely that the call on the field would be overturned. So the NFL’s ambiguity caused me to think the NFL may have cameras that us viewers aren’t even privy to. My guess would be there must be some sort of micro cameras at every hash mark or, better yet, the Goodyear blimp is some sort of military style drone that can see every angle of the field.

However, as much as I kid, the NFL rather I come up with these dumb ideas, than question their truthfulness. For why would a business that dedicates a month to Breast Cancer, and every day to Veterans, convolute a game with hypocrisy? It’s because it is a business.  A sport can only be followed if people believe there is an equal chance that each team could win. For if that aura of fairness is sucked out of the sport, then it is no longer a sport, but it becomes what so many other enterprises are these days – gimmicks. It becomes nothing more than a magic trick in which the viewer is lured to view something happening in one place, so that he won’t notice something happening in the other. Now, I am not suggesting that the NFL is rigged, but I am suggesting that they will do everything possible to make sure that there can never be any doubt of fairness, even if that requires lying to keep their refs safe.

With all this turmoil in Washington this week regarding Brett M. “Keganaugh” claiming that he is being persecuted under some Democrat conspiracy, but at the same time claims he is a nonpartisan justice, it was a welcome respite to just tune into football. However, after seeing the lousy officiating in the NFL, followed by the NFL’s even lousier excuse for the bad calls, begs the question – are Americans really this easy to deceive? To put it more bluntly, are Americans really so dumb to drink whatever Kool-Aid is handed to them, not only from Washington, but the NFL too?

2.       Mistakes. This one is simple – catch the ball when it is thrown to you and play better defense.

America's Morals are Restored and Kavanaugh Collapses (Hopefully)

By Kris Mead

The level of straight face lying has reached an exorbitant level in the last two years. Just this past week America had a potential Supreme Court Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, refute his alleged claims of sexual assault against him by sharing with the Senate Judiciary Committee his high school calendars, which ironically, marked the days in which he planned to drink … underage. However, he was quick to note that he never drank “too much” and never had a lapse in memory from drinking (right …). What was even more amazing was the very fact that Americans, “hardworking Americans,” believed Brett over the alleged victim – Dr. Ford.

Ford has nothing to gain from making this accusation and providing her testimony to the Committee, other than providing the American people a fair assessment of Judge Kavanaugh’s character. Kavanaugh will not have any criminal charges pressed against him from Ford’s testimony and Ford will not receive any sort of civil award for damages.

One set of Americans who side with Brett Kavanaugh but must desperately fight their moral conscience to do so are women. These types of Americans seem to suggest defenses such as, “everyone does stupid things in high school” or “I wouldn’t want someone looking back 35 years into my past” are legitimate.   Their defenses don’t refute that Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, but rather they try to rationalize committing sexual assault with say, “teepeeing Johnny’s house.” The latter is something that immature youths commit, while the former is an egregious act that is not only immoral and outright disgusting, but is a felony.

The other kind of defense that many Americans have used is to first rationalize Kavanaugh’s actions, and then, second, go after Dr. Ford’s credibility.  The first attack that Kavanaugh supporters use against Ford is the fact that, “why did something that happened 35 years ago, and was alleged to be so terrible, just now become public knowledge?” This attack demonstrates that the attacker lacks information about women who have been sexually assaulted and, more importantly, women who have been sexually assaulted by men who had resources (i.e. rich, white men). These victims tend not to report. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2016 only 23 percent of victims of sexual assault or rape reported these incidents to authorities. The reasoning for not reporting is usually due to fear that the victim will experience retaliation, especially if the alleged perpetrator is well known or comes from a wealthy family. It was also found in a report by the Rape, Abuse, & Incest, National, Network (“RAINN”) that, between 2010-2014, out of every 1,000-sexual assault perpetrators, 994 walked free.

The other attack that they use against Ford is “she was probably drinking at the party and so was no angel either.” Yet this is again trying to rationalize attempted rape with underage drinking. If these linear thinking apologists were to actually listen to Dr. Ford’s extremely detailed testimony, they would  realize  she was not asking to have sex. Consensual sex does not typically require the man to place his hand over the woman’s mouth to stop her from screaming. Furthermore, consensual sex usually does not require the man to have to try and rip off the girl’s clothes.

So, there is ample reason why Ford did not come forward earlier.  Also, it wasn’t that Ford had never discussed this assault with anyone previously.  It was stated that in 2012 her counselor, whom she was seeing because of sexual assault experience, noted that Ford told her she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in high school. Also, Ford told her husband in the same time. Ford repeated her claims in 2013 during a counseling session.

Finally, what these hearings have established are not only the partisanship and level of indecency that has engulfed the Republican Party (remember this was the party that was supporting a child molester for the open Senate seat in Alabama … luckily he lost … barely), but the white male privilege which has been in American politics since its onset.  Although it would appear that women have made strides in government, it still seems that with a flip of a switch white men can still force their will and do so unapologetically. Also, what is sickening, is the fact that the Republicans just need a simple majority to get their “guy” on the bench. The fact that they will refuse to withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination and select another far-right judge is due to two fears. The first fear being that the Republicans would be politically embarrassed. In other words, by taking away Kavanaugh’s nomination, they would essentially be saying that, “yes, this guy is too far gone and we were wrong to select him.” The other issue is the Republicans are afraid that they may very well lose Congress in the midterms. So, by having to go through a whole new nomination process, they may not get Republican dominant hearing before the elections.

Both of those points only matter if the Republicans set aside their morals, which they haven’t done on numerous occasions. For if the Republicans listened to their morals, they would realize that Kavanaugh is a lying scum bag of a man. In his “firing” rebuke on Thursday Kavanaugh sounded like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Rush Limbaugh as he decided to claim that all these allegations were some sort of left wing conspiracy and a “Clinton revenge.” In Brett’s opening lines he displayed that he is not a neutral jurist, but rather a deeply slanted, right wing ideolog who most likely will decide law, not based on the facts, but based on his conservative and nonexistent morals. Kavanaugh is a man who is adamantly opposed to an FBI investigation, into the alleged claims of sexual assault, but at the same time professes he is completely innocent. In turn, because the hearing is not a criminal trial, the “burden of proof” is not that of “beyond a reasonable doubt” but just a mere “preponderance of the evidence.” With that burden of proof measure, there seems to be enough character doubt against Kavanaugh that he should not be deciding cases and enforcing law against the American public, and especially not deciding law against American woman. For if Kavanaugh had no problem trying to rip a woman’s pants off, he surely would have no problem deciding women’s rights, as it appears he doesn’t believe they have any. So yes, people do “dumb things in high school”, but as the old saying goes, “some people don’t change from high school.” Kavanaugh may have grown up, but he is still that rich, entitled, kid from suburban D.C., who is unaccustomed to not getting his way. It’s a shame Republicans, even with all their Bible belt rallies, can’t find any morals to stand on. What they have found is under the culture of Trump, when the moral high ground is an impediment to maintaining power, bypass the high ground, feign righteous indignation, but by all means, keep the power!    

2018 Browns' Chronicles: Week 3

 

By Kris Mead

1. We Won! The best part about this win was that it was a decisive win in all three phases of football. The offense, once Tyrod was no longer able to play and Baker inserted in, looked fantastic and the defense, as it has been doing in the last two games, was dominant. So, in saying that it was “decisive” I am referring to the fact that it felt like the Browns were a legit NFL team … for once. For instance, in 2016, in the one game that the Browns won that year, it was great that the Browns won, but it wasn’t decisive.  It was more or less extremely lucky – Josh Lambo shanked the Charger’s game tying field goal. Further it was late in the year,  so the fans just wanted “a” win to avoid the dreaded 0-16 record, which, little did we know, would be awarded to us the following year.  


However, this win, which happened on September 20, 2018, was like what the Battle of Gettysburg was to the Union Army. Before the North’s victory at Gettysburg they were getting beaten profusely.  The North’s only “meaningful” win was at the Battle of Antietam, but this battle was essentially won after both armies annihilated each other.  It just so happened at the battle’s conclusion that there were more Union troops standing in the ocean of blood than Confederate troops. So, for purposes of football, consider the Browns’ win on December 24, 2016 against the San Diego Chargers as their Antietam.  


2.A Tale of Two Quarterbacks. The First Half. Tyrod Taylor played the role of General Burnside or General Hooker. It doesn’t matter which of the two Union generals are picked because they both sucked, like Tyrod did. Tyrod was brought in, not because he won games, but because he didn’t lose games. So, the Browns knew their defense was good and figured that if their defense could hold up, then Tyrod could make at least one or two drives to get the Browns some points. But that was not the case. The defense held up their end of the bargain, but Tyrod, like Generals Hooker and Burnside, couldn’t clinch a decisive victory. In the first half, the half that Tyrod played almost the entirety, Tyrod went 3 for 22 passing for 19 yards.

Tyrod resembled 1^st Lieutenant Norman Dike, from the World War II miniseries, Band of Brothers. Dike assumed the role of company commander of Easy Company. At one point he attempted to attack a village but was pinned down and ordered his men to take cover behind a wagon, as a machine gun barreled down on them. Dike’s sergeants informed him that he must decide where his soldiers should move, because if he didn’t, they would all be annihilated. Tyrod was hiding behind the wagon, as the machine gun, in this case the Jets defense, kept pinning him down. Tyrod was so afraid to make a mistake that his decision making froze, causing him to throw bad passes and miss obviously open receivers. While Tyrod did risk a deep pass (twice), it just seemed that his arm strength wasn’t there, as the Browns wide receiver was too fast for his limp throws. Despite the wide receiver beating his defender, both underthrown deep passes were nearly intercepted, forcing the wide receiver to come back to the ball. Tyrod suffered the same fate as Lieutenant Dike, in that Tyrod was relieved from his battlefield duties and sent back to HQ or in football terms, the bench.

3. A Tale of Two Quarterbacks. The Second Half. I’ll admit Baker Mayfield was not my favorite quarterback in the draft.  I thought he was immature and lacked athletic ability. However, winning is the best kind of deodorant and no matter how bad you “smell” (I’m looking at you Rapistberger, Michael Vick, and Ray Lewis) it always covers the nastiest of stenches. In Baker’s defense there wasn’t any egregious behavior before the NFL, and, so far, there hasn’t been any sort of immature or egregious behavior that has occurred while he has been in the NFL. With that said, Baker Mayfield was the Browns’ Gustav Adolphus (the leader of the Swedes who single handedly turned the tide in the Protestant’s favor during the Thirty Years War). The stats speak for themselves: 17 of 23 for 201 yards passing and a QBR of 94.9. Remember, these stats are over just one half of football! However, the stat line doesn’t justify what Baker did for, not only the Browns, but for all Cleveland Browns fans. Baker Mayfield looked like a pro quarterback. He electrified a dispirited team, he had both accuracy and zip on the ball, and he was decisive with his throws. Baker looked like Brett Favre. Actually, let me rephrase - Baker looked like Brett Favre on the field, not the Brett Favre who sent pictures of his “you know what” to a female reporter (I’m sure Brett’s wife loved that kind gesture of his!), and now, ironically, does Wrangler Jean commercials sponsoring their “V” shape crotch jeans meant for “extra comfort.”


4.We Looked Like a Real Team. I know I alluded to this in the first section, but the Browns finally looked like a TRUE NFL team. Typically, the Browns play similar to an unbalanced table. For instance, let’s say you have a table in which three of the four legs reach the floor, while the other leg does not. So, what do you do? You grab a couple sugar packets and place them under the adjacent leg to balance the table. However, imagine placing sugar packets under every foot and still the table fails to balance. That’s the Browns of yesteryears. At one moment the offense could be playing great, but the defense doesn’t know where they are, or, and more typical, the offense plays like a Pee Wee football team and the defense eventually gets worn down. Then there are the times in which none of the table’s legs reach the floor, like when our only consistent play is a punt and our pass defense, plays like butter being sliced by a warm knife!


On September 20, 2018 the legs of the table all reached the floor and the sugar packet, it appeared, that worked, was Baker Mayfield! He brought the best out of the offense – receivers catching passes, balls being thrown with crisp power and accuracy, the running game was moving, and the defense held strong. Further, this team’s draft picks are proving to be effective. With a team that has made a namesake for missing picks and drafting busts, this was a relief. Denzel Ward played like a corner that we have needed for years, Myles Garrett looks like a number one overall draft pick with getting two sacks, Ogunjobi is playing like a defensive tackle that we haven’t seen since Sean Rogers (and hopefully Ogunjobi doesn’t “accidently” bring guns in a suitcase while going to an airport), and even Jabrill Peppers is playing surprisingly well.  


Although General Meade won Gettysburg, it would be dreadful if Baker becomes a “General Meade.” Yes, Gettysburg was important to the Union, but it was the high-water mark of Meade’s notoriety and battlefield prowess. What Cleveland needs Baker to become, and hopefully has found, is a General Grant or General Sherman - someone who can take command, be a force that its opponents fear, and provide consistent victory. So yes, it’s nice the Browns finally won a game, but that was just a battle, the war is far from being won.


On to Oakland!  

2018 Browns' Chronicles: Week 2

That’s it folks! Week Dos of the NFL season is now in the books and Cleveland still remains winless since December 24, 2016, or also known to me as a Christmas miracle! Anyhow, the Browns lost (again) and lost in what many would call a dramatic and unique fashion (again). The Browns have the ability to keep their fans on edge and infuse them with the feeling of hope to make them falsely believe that they will be victorious, that this Sunday will be Cleveland’s. But as soon as that thought even materializes in a Browns fans’ head, the moment vanishes almost as swiftly as a Tyler Perry Madea movie leaves theatres. This vicious and ugly feeling most closely resembles former New York Jets and, subsequently, Buffalo Bills head coach, Rex Ryan encouraging his players and respective fans that his teams would win the AFC East and take down the Patriot Dynasty. However, as any layperson sports fan knows, this promise never came to fruition, as Rex Ryan is now playing paddy cake on NFL Live and Bill Belichickk is still coaching and winning with the Patriots. So let’s break down Week Dos!

1. Gonzalez is Gone.  I put this as my first topic because I think it is the most obvious one. It is also the lousiest excuse. Yes, there is no question Zane Gonzalez, the heralded kicker from Arizona State University, which ironically was also the university that produced the short lived, but highly expensive Browns’ quarterback Brock Osweiler, should have made both PATs and at least one of his two field goals. I naturally feel badly for kickers. They have one job, but their job matters typically either on fourth down, when time is about to expire, and/or during a game winning/tying situation. In other words people only earnestly care about kickers when the game is at its epicenter of calamity. Kickers are what “closers” are in baseball – called in late in the game, but when the game matters the most and they, by stepping onto the field, assume sole responsibility for the entire outcome of the game. But unlike closers, kickers have almost no leeway when it comes to screwing up.  That’s because football only has 17 weeks of actual life! Unlike a closer who may be able to get by with his coach saying, “he just has to get in a rhythm,” a kicker screws up once and he is cut. Kickers are like judges on American Idol.  Each year there is a whole new set of judges and the fans are left trying to figure out what happened to the last guy. This past week NFL kickers missed a total of 19 field goals and 7 extra points. Plus Zane wasn’t the only guy who received a pink slip, so did Vikings’ rookie kicker, Daniel Carlson.

So does the blame rest on the kickers? Some of it does. However, America has turned into a systematically linear thinking nation. Too often we have shown ourselves to be a nation that needs immediate results, has short patients, views matters of justice as simply “black or white,” and relies upon what we remember in the last five minutes. For instance, Americans hate being in traffic jams, but once out of traffic jams and continue their day, they forget they were ever in such a terrible mood to begin the morning. Another example would be modern day investment fund holders who demand a 10% return on investment within the first 18 months, rather than the typical and more reliable five-year investment period. So a kicker is a victim of football’s, and now America’s, personality – short sighted, irrational, highly agitated, and mostly impatient.

2. Offensive Play Calling. I think Todd Haley, the Browns’ offensive coordinator, proves some weeks why he is a highly effective coordinator and other weeks why teams have routinely let him go. Week 2 was an example of both, but because this blog looks at the Browns’ weekly issues (not strengths) we will only focus on how Haley coached like a second grader trying to write his name in cursive. On third and short a team, trying to move the ball, typically would not want to move the ball backwards in hopes of moving it forward. Another way of saying it is, if the first down is only 2 yards away, the quickest means of getting that first down is to run up the middle in a straight line. The Browns, in typical Browns’ fashion, decided to try and “smoke screen” the Saints and do a double wide receiver reverse. So we pitched the ball back five yards in one direction and then pitched the ball back again. Instead of trying to gain two yards, the Browns decided to try to gain seven yards. So the Browns, on their own accord and under their own consent, chose to pick a play that would take a third and manageable and make it a third and long. So, in my book, I would consider this an idiotic decision on par with Zane Gonzalez missing an extra point. However, this play was just one when Haley would choose plays that seemed out of character for either the yardage needed, or the personnel situated on the field. At one-point Haley opted to employ Duke Johnson, the Browns’ talented, speedy and quick running back, as a power back. This was quite odd because the Browns specifically signed a power back in the offseason for just this sort of task – his name is Carlos Hyde.

The odd play calling (running initially laterally before running north/south) suggest to me that either Haley feared the Saints’ interior defense or has no faith in the Browns’ offensive line. The offensive line did do better in that they only allowed three sacks this week, and Taylor only scrambled for 26 yards. The other plus was the fact that Carlos Hyde was the lead rusher, not the quarterback. The downside seems to be that Taylor was the second leading rusher and that Hyde, the leading rusher, had just 46 yards of rushing on 16 carries. The Buccaneers, the week prior, mustered 112 rushing yards and their leading rusher, the running back Barber, rushed for 69 yards on 19 carries.

3. Front Office. Although this did not happen in the week 2 game, it just added to the misfortune that is the Browns. Cleveland announced on Saturday that they were going to release highly talented but routinely misguided, wide receiver Josh Gordon.  However, as if the Browns just found out that they could trade Josh Gordon rather than simply release him, they announced they were vetting different offers for Josh Gordon, from other teams. Naturally, Bill Belichick, who next to winning Super Bowls, salivates at the joy of screwing his former employer, the Browns, traded for Josh Gordon. John Dorsey, the Browns GM, agreed to this trade. In return for the highly coveted wide receiver, the Browns received a fifth-round draft pick. If this was the best offer the Browns received for Gordon, and they claimed to have received close to ten or more different offers, it would appear many teams have little faith that Gordon will be able to compete in the NFL due to his personal issues. The Browns also, as usual, shot themselves in the foot at the onset of negotiations by declaring to the world that they were going to release Gordon and in turn, teams could start to bid for him. Realizing this, most teams weren’t going to trade too much for Gordon as the Browns were already going to kick him to the curb.  So naturally teams are only offering to trade with the Browns so that they don’t have to go through the excruciating task of bidding for Gordon. 

Go Browns! Beat the Jets!

2018 Browns' Chronicles: Week 1

Football is back, America! Along with it are the countless Bud Light Lime commercials, the endless Lincoln ads in which Mathew McConaughey is the epitome for the phrase “just smile and look pretty,” and of course, the litany of Allstate “Mayhem” commercials. However, what is even more prominent is what I like to call, “The 2018 Cleveland Browns’ Chronicles!”

That’s right, after the Browns accrued no wins in 2017, I became inspired to write a blog each week detailing the major “points of emphasis” for that week’s game. In turn, this blog will be the inaugural for the 2018 Cleveland Browns Season. Let’s begin!

1. Cleveland’s Offensive Line: Boy was it bad. Several stats can be used to gauge how bad an O-line really is. Looking at the stats is like a doctor running a diagnosis by checking for symptoms. The patient says he has a sore throat and then the doctor tries to run different tests in order to determine whether the sore throat is caused by allergies, a cold, sinus infection, strep throat, or mono. From there the doctor can prescribe a treatment for the patient or tell the patient to just rest.  Either way the patient will be sure to receive a bill that far exceeds the doctor’s efforts. Anyhow, enough with America’s big business called healthcare and back to America’s soul called, football!

So what the stats will show is whether the fault lies with the offensive line or the quarterback. The first stat to look at is the amount of sacks that the quarterback, Tyrod Taylor, incurred. Tyrod was sacked seven times for a total loss of forty-seven yards. In other words, if Tyrod remembered his own birthday by the end of the game, it would be a miracle. The next stat is leading rusher. Typically this usually should be a running back. However, for the Browns it was Tyrod Taylor. Yes, Taylor is a scrambling quarterback, but he hardly had any quarterback design runs, and so this signals that he may have been running for his life, rather than by tactical intent. However, the Browns did have more rushing yards than their opponent, with 177 yards. Unfortunately, 77 of those yards came from Tyrod Taylor running for his life. Granted, the Steelers pass rushers resemble Patton’s tank battalion’s systematic trampling over the French plains. Also, the Browns are replacing the Hall of Fame left tackle, Joe Thomas, who unfortunately suffered from Stockholm syndrome as evidenced by his refusal to leave Cleveland for, I don’t know, a team with any sort of playoff chance.

2. Ben Rapistberger. Not only did the largest pretentious brute in the NFL, and that’s saying something as there are a lot of pretentious brutes in the NFL, play terribly, but he might have been what cost the Steelers the win. However, this should really be credited to the Browns’ defense that never lost focus and only got better as the game went on. It was good to see young first round draft picks, specifically Myles Garrett and Denzel Ward, have huge impacts on defense.  The commentators, specifically Big Ben’s former offensive coordinator, Bruce Arians, kept praising Big Ben for slimming down and following his diet (disregard the fact that Rapistberger’s previous daily diet consisted of a case of Bud Heavy and a family size package of Oscar Meyer all beef hot dogs). However, even with Big Ben’s “tremendous” weight loss, he still evaded rape charges better than the Cleveland Browns’ pass rush. Also the Browns’ pass defense caused Big Ben to force passes, which resulted in three interceptions.

3. Hue Jackson. I used to feel sorry for Hue Jackson, as I thought he was just a dispirited coach who has tried to do everything to get his team to win, but to no avail. For the longest time I thought, before the Browns players would rush out on the field, Jackson would flip a coin to decide whether he would take a swig of whiskey or shoot himself in the head with a revolver. However, now I have come to the conclusion that Hue Jackson is like the two young Joad children, Ruth and Winfield, from Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. More specifically when the Joad’s enter California they first live in a “government camp.” Here Ruth and Winfield encounter one of the camp’s sanitary stations, what we would call toilets, but what they thought were simply white, porcelain pots that held water. Winfield then pulls the lever on the toilet and jumps when the water swishes down. Ruth then claims Winfield broke the machine and Winfield starts to sulk.  Jackson’s coaching is like Winfield coming upon a toilet for the first time. In the past two years, whenever Jackson would look down at his play sheet, he was like Joad staring at the porcelain toilet. Each time Hue would hear a voice in his headset, he would jump, just like Winfield jumped when the water swished down the toilet.

However, now Jackson looks like a man who has been told that what he has in his hand is called a play sheet which he can reference to decide what plays to run in a given situation. At one moment I saw Hue cussing out a referee. It brought a tear to my eye, because it caused me to realize that Hue does have a soul.  He has finally realized where he is and what he is to do. Now, it may be that Hue is finally feeling the fire under his ass, because if he can’t put a winning team together, he may find himself in a position similar to Joad’s, in that he must start frantically looking for new work.

4. The Weather.  Bruce Arians was not only a terrible analyst, but he was about as unbiased as Matt Lauer was while he was moderating a 2016 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Laurer would ask Hillary how she would end worldwide poverty with only a ten dollar bill and a ballpoint pen, while he would then ask Trump if he likes his Quarter Pounder with or without cheese). Arians believed that because Big Ben was the best “bad weather” quarterback, that the advantage went to the Steelers. Never mind the fact the Steelers are the defending division champs and are picked to possibly represent the AFC in the Super Bowl, but it’s the fact that Big Ben is good when things become “messy. “Just like Ben’s stellar ability to escape prosecution after forcing himself upon a hotel maid. Looking at the pass statistics the Browns were very affected by the rain – they only had 150 yards of passing offense and Taylor only had 15 completions out of 40 attempts. So, it’s ironic that Cleveland next travels to the city most affected by Hurricane Katrina after they basically just played in it.

5. We Tied, Which Means We Can’t Go 0-16, Again! After losing every game last year and only winning one the year prior, it felt good just securing a tie, especially against an upper echelon team like the Steelers. So yeah, a tie feels the same as being ghosted after going on one date with a beautiful lady, but hey, at least that lady thought enough of you, initially, to go on one date. So Cleveland, we may have been unable to secure that coveted second date, but we got that first date, which was more than we ever got last year!

On to New Orleans! Go Browns!