like_that;1871389 wrote:I am sure they do, but they sure as hell haven't executed it that well the last 10+ years.

kizer permanente;1871390 wrote:Or maybe they do practice, like everyone else, and still aren't just good enough "to close out games "

like_that;1871389 wrote:I am sure they do, but they sure as hell haven't executed it that well the last 10+ years.

kizer permanente;1871390 wrote:Or maybe they do practice, like everyone else, and still aren't just good enough "to close out games "

like_that;1871395 wrote:I acknowledge your point, my issue is you're making it black and white. If good/talented enough was all it took to close out games we wouldn't see shitty teams defeating far superior teams in the NFL. It happens all of the time. There are a lot of variables that play into closing out a game.

kizer permanente;1871396 wrote:It's not black and white and it's equally stupid of me to present it as that, but you can't "learn to close it out". That's my whole issue.

kizer permanente;1871398 wrote:They need to get better to win consistently. They're getting better. Hopefully they continue to get bettee next year and they year after that and so on and so forth. That's how they'll magically "learn to close out games". By ability.

like_that;1871399 wrote:Learning how to close out games is getting better.

And you tried to call BR out for playing semantics. LOL.

like_that;1871399 wrote:Learning how to close out games is getting better.

And you tried to call BR out for playing semantics. LOL.

Commander of Awesome;1871401 wrote:SMH, I think he sees his fail, but refuses to admit it. Nice fail "kaizer".

I suggest we just move on.

kizer permanente;1871404 wrote:I think you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But whatever

Commander of Awesome;1871405 wrote:oh? Elaborate please.

kizer permanente;1871406 wrote:You're taking the side that Cleveland will get better by learning how to close out games and not by adding better players. It needs no elaboration, really.

Commander of Awesome;1871407 wrote:lol, just lol

kizer permanente;1871409 wrote:"You're right. I got nothing. "

Commander of Awesome;1871410 wrote:Got a link to me saying we don't need talent to win lil guy?

kizer permanente;1871411 wrote:I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing at this point.

kizer permanente;1871411 wrote:I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing at this point.

like_that;1871412 wrote:Edited for accuracy.

like_that;1871412 wrote:Edited for accuracy.

like_that;1871412 wrote:Edited for accuracy.

kizer permanente;1871415 wrote:Sure.
Ok. I'll wait for your explanation of how Browns are going to learn to close out games.
Hint: their "learning to close out games" comes magically when they add better players and get more talented. It's a made up phrase.

like_that;1871418 wrote:I'll wait for you to explain how you factored the Browns have 11 winnable games on their schedule.

Surely, you don't think the Browns are better or more talented than those 11 teams. If so, then you are obviously an idiot. If not, what variables did you factor in when determining they have a chance in 11 games. I'll give you time, so your spin machine doesn't contradict your current logic.

kizer permanente;1871419 wrote:I've already explained that to you previously. Please review earlier comments.

Short version. We're better this year and play a lot of bad teams.