Mulva;1249940 wrote:lol. They added a lot more than 2 players. Those were 2 pro bowl caliber players. Very few teams do that in 1 offseason.

Your argument is pretty weak. Are you suggesting the Niners were picked to do better than win 4 or 5 games last year? Yes or no answer.

Harbaugh and his staff made it work.

Perhaps the GB game wasn't necessarily the "dress rehearsal." The 1's will play the first half against Philly.

Footwedge;1249954 wrote:Your argument is pretty weak. Are you suggesting the Niners were picked to do better than win 4 or 5 games last year? Yes or no answer.

I didn't say anything about what they were picked to do, I just called out your dumbass remark that the only change was the coaching staff.

They brought in guys like Rogers, Smith, Whitner, Akers, etc who had a huge impact on the success of their team last year. It's a fact. There isn't really any argument to be made.

But if you want an answer to your question, I would suggest that they were expected to win more than 4 games anyway. Considering they won 7, 8, and 6 from 2008-2010 I think most people probably expected 6 or 7 wins again. Especially in that miserable division.

Do you not remember San Fran being the media darling sleeper pick to win the NFC west about 4 years in a row in the 2007-2010 range? Mike Nolan had them "on the verge" when they went from 2 to 4 to 7 wins (in 2006). Then people thought Mike Singletary was going to hardass them into the playoffs. They had 5 pro bowlers in 2009. Everyone was aware they had talent. The only reason expectations finally dropped with the "experts" last year is because everyone other than Jim Harbaugh finally gave up on Alex Smith.

I guess you're right Mulva. The Niners were loaded last year and I should have known...before the season started. I'll try to do better this season.

Who this year has some new players?

Is isadore posting as Footwedge on this thread? My word, those are some optimistic thoughts there.

I see the Browns going 2-4 in division. Splitting with cinci and pitt

Terry_Tate;1250052 wrote:Is isadore posting as Footwedge on this thread? My word, those are some optimistic thoughts there.

I take it you haven't seen his pre season posts before. Last year he predicted the Browns should easily win 10 games. Also, the first season without LeBron, he predicted the cavs would easily make the playoffs, because they had a good preseason record. He even made a thread mocking people for saying the cavs wouldn't make the playoffs lol. Just read his posts, get a good laugh, and move along to the real discussion.

Pick6;1250087 wrote:I see the Browns going 2-4 in division. Splitting with cinci and pitt

I could see that, and sadly I would be happy with this. I'd obviously want a better record in the division, but a 2-4 record is a step in the right direction. These guys need to learn that they can beat their division foes.

Pluto's article on Dawson:

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2012/08/phil_dawson_still_gets_a_kick.html

like_that;1250095 wrote:I take it you haven't seen his pre season posts before. Last year he predicted the Browns should easily win 10 games. Also, the first season without LeBron, he predicted the cavs would easily make the playoffs, because they had a good preseason record. He even made a thread mocking people for saying the cavs wouldn't make the playoffs lol. Just read his posts, get a good laugh, and move along to the real discussion.

Haha, I have not seen them. Makes sense now, I just couldn't believe what I was reading. It's ok to be optimistic, but thinking they can do what the 49ers did just made me lol.

Terry_Tate;1250052 wrote:Is isadore posting as Footwedge on this thread? My word, those are some optimistic thoughts there.

No...I am an optimist...Isidore is a pessimist.

like_that;1250095 wrote:I take it you haven't seen his pre season posts before. Last year he predicted the Browns should easily win 10 games.

Never said that. You seem to know more about what I post than what I do. Why is that?

Terry_Tate;1250124 wrote:Haha, I have not seen them. Makes sense now, I just couldn't believe what I was reading. It's ok to be optimistic, but thinking they can do what the 49ers did just made me lol.

The 49ers of last year happen each and every year in the NFL. I am hoping the Browns are that team this year.

Footwedge;1250051 wrote:I guess you're right Mulva. The Niners were loaded last year and I should have known...before the season started. I'll try to do better this season.

You are completely missing the point. Which is not surprising at all.

Saying San Francisco made no significant changes last offseason other than the coaching staff = retarded comment. The end. Only point I was trying to make.

Footwedge;1250137 wrote:The 49ers of last year happen each and every year in the NFL. I am hoping the Browns are that team this year.

I rarely agree with fw, but wasn't it like 3 straight years the NFC South team went from worst to first?

The way the NFL schedules has a lot to do with it. An underachieving team is rewarded with an easier schedule. Unfortunately for us, our schedule this year based on our division and the NFC division they paired us with are the 2 of the 3 best divisions in football (IMO this year NFC North is the best).

Mulva;1250172 wrote:You are completely missing the point. Which is not surprising at all.

Saying San Francisco made no significant changes last offseason other than the coaching staff = retarded comment. The end. Only point I was trying to make.

Listen up. I totally GET your point. WTF is your problem here? One last time. The experts KNEW what additions the 49ers added. And inspite of that, they were picked to be a pile of shit anyway. Do you want me to google what the Niners over/under was last year? In the shittiest of shitty divisions, it was probably 6.5 wins at best.

Why was that?

It's because most people...including Vegas....said that they...on paper...blew ass and were going to blow ass. If you can't understand that, then that's your problem.

I give credit to Harbaugh and his staff for performing a lot better than the fuggin gurus had predicted for them, I guess you were one of few that had it all figured out that San Fransisco was going all the way to the title game. Right sleuth?

Why do I bother wasting my time with you people?

Back to talking about the Browns.......no more thread shitting by the pessimists of the world. Jesus.

I am sad that I spend less and less time on this site.... this thread always makes me chuckle. I love my Cleveland sports brethren

BR1986FB;1249979 wrote:Perhaps the GB game wasn't necessarily the "dress rehearsal." The 1's will play the first half against Philly.

They play 3 teams twice in a year every year, they have no reason to not play this game with their starters getting at least a half. They need the experience

i did see grossi said the starters will play the first half against the eagles.:thumbup:

Footwedge;1250216 wrote:inspite of that, they were picked to be a pile of shit anyway. Do you want me to google what the Niners over/under was last year? In the shittiest of shitty divisions, it was probably 6.5 wins at best.

Why was that?

It's because most people...including Vegas....said that they...on paper...blew ass and were going to blow ass. If you can't understand that, then that's your problem.

I give credit to Harbaugh and his staff for performing a lot better than the fuggin gurus had predicted for them, I guess you were one of few that had it all figured out that San Fransisco was going all the way to the title game. Right sleuth?

Why do I bother wasting my time with you people?

The fact that San Francisco had low expectations last year does not make

Footwedge;1249756 wrote:The only thing that changed with Frisco of significance was their coaching staff.

less of a moronic thing to say. You clearly had no idea what you were talking about.

You could have just shut up about it. Instead you said

Footwedge;1249911 wrote:So they added 2 players. BFD.

which was another moronic comment because they added way more than that, the 2 I mentioned just happened to be pro bowl level players. And then you spun my response, which had nothing to do with preseason expectations whatsoever, into me somehow implying that they were expected to win more than 4 or 5 games. Which, by the way, they were.

Bodog had them at 7.5 for the over/under last year. With the over being -130, meaning more people were betting on the over. MGM had the over/under at 8, with over at -120. So they weren't expected to be as good as they were, but people weren't picking them to go 0-16 or 1-15.

Be optimistic if you want, but the 49ers last year and Browns this year aren't comparable situations at all. San Fran wasn't relying on a bunch of rookies to improve a complete garbage roster.

Mulva, you want to stop the threading crapping now or later? As for the over under on Frisco, what was the over under on St. Louis? Seattle? Arizona?

Having a 7.5 O/U is hardly impressive in that division... and really it's besides the point. Frisco exceeded all expectations...it happens every year.

But here's my rub with you and all the rest here. You think that what's on paper converts to what happens on the field. That unless it's on paper, it can never happen. Well it happens...it happens a lot.

The Cavaliers were 8-1 favorites over the Magic a couple years ago. So what happened? The Jets in 69 were 18 point dogs in the Super Bowl of 69. The Jets won outright. That converts to probably a 7-1 gut shot.

Mel Kiper Junior said that Jake Locker was the slam dunk number one overall pick before his senior year. How did that work out?

The Browns are a 23 to 1 shot to win their division according to Pinny. So obviously, it's a long shot. But people can go suck my one eye if they don't like my optimism. I don't need to justify it to you or anyone else.

Mulva;1250276 wrote:Bodog had them at 7.5 for the over/under last year. With the over being -130, meaning more people were betting on the over. MGM had the over/under at 8, with over at -120. So they weren't expected to be as good as they were, but people weren't picking them to go 0-16 or 1-15.

.

and this....where did I say the Niners were going 1-15? And minus 130 doesn't mean more people are betting over 7.5. What it means is that the betting market says you must lay 130 to win a 100 to bet over at that bookie joint. Probably paid plus 110 to bet under. BFD. Nothing more or less than that.

Now quit stalking me..or I'll have to get a restraining order from Mantooth.

Back to the Browns...............

The only one thread shitting is the poster who is QQing, because not everyone agrees with him, and he doesn't like facts being thrown in his face.

[SP]It's footwedge.[/SP]

Try not getting your panties in a bunch if somebody disagrees with you, and maybe it won't seem like the thread is being derailed.

Now I know that the Steelers O-Line isn't as good as the Browns but it will be interesting to see if Weeden stays upright against the Iggles. Philly had 7 sacks against Pittsburgh.