One of the Best Articles on Football You'll Ever Read (INCLUDES BROWNS)

[Shep]

I don't have a problem with the rest of your post... but I don't think it makes the stats less amazing.

The Ravens between that HUGE anomaly Super Bowl win and drafting Flacco were out of the playoffs more than in and had two downright horrible years (5 wins and 6 wins). That's what happens when you're good everywhere but at quarterback.

The Jets were 80-80 the last decade. All over the place.

I think the Ravens and Titans are examples of what you can expect if you have strong units all over the field but instability at QB: inconsistency. You won't win year in and year out like the teams that are built around Brady, Manning, Favre/Rodgers, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, etc.

Same for all the "Teams of the Decade" -- Bradshaw, Montana/Young, Aikman, Brady.

It's really tough to get around it. Like Chuckie said, if you don't have it, if you missed, you have to keep trying until you get it right.

[Thaak]

I can agree with you.

But then how do the Browns and the Texans (the 70's Buccaneers and Seahawks, the 90's Jaguars and Panthers) build that team when they start from squat?

Now I know you are speaking about the rule, rather than the exception here. But I always try to filter rules through my Brown & Orange colored glasses.

How do the Browns fit into this rule? I feel it was a mistake to try and go after Couch #1 overall (or any QB for that matter) in 1999, because we didn't have anything to help him.

[Shep]

The Browns did just about everything wrong with Couch, agreed. But they also WAY overrated his readiness for the NFL coming out of a screwy system at UK. He got the shit beat out of him because of a bad supporting cast, but also because he had no effing clue how to play quarterback in the NFL.

How good could he have been? I just don't know... but wasn't very bright and that's not good.

But you know, Manning was in a similar situation, on a team that was 3-13 the year before and he led them to 3-13 (!), but he survived and they became the winningest team of the past decade starting with the very next year.

I don't think the Browns were wrong to get their quarterback in their first year... but ideally you wouldn't actually PLAY him. Couch could have really benefitted from a year of learning and a better supporting cast, especially the OL, which the Browns never seemed willing to prioritize.

In a perfect world, the Browns would have been able to get an elite QB in the draft this year, the same year they acquired Delhomme as a short-term starter. Second best case, they get him next year so he still could sit for a full season.

I know: Colt McCoy. I just ain't buyin' it.

[BernietheKid]

Originally Posted by Shep

The Browns did just about everything wrong with Couch, agreed. But they also WAY overrated his readiness for the NFL coming out of a screwy system at UK. He got the shit beat out of him because of a bad supporting cast, but also because he had no effing clue how to play quarterback in the NFL.

How good could he have been? I just don't know... but wasn't very bright and that's not good.

But you know, Manning was in a similar situation, on a team that was 3-13 the year before and he led them to 3-13 (!), but he survived and they became the winningest team of the past decade starting with the very next year.

I don't think the Browns were wrong to get their quarterback in their first year... but ideally you wouldn't actually PLAY him. Couch could have really benefitted from a year of learning and a better supporting cast, especially the OL, which the Browns never seemed willing to prioritize.

In a perfect world, the Browns would have been able to get an elite QB in the draft this year, the same year they acquired Delhomme as a short-term starter. Second best case, they get him next year so he still could sit for a full season.

I know: Colt McCoy. I just ain't buyin' it.

The Colts were also 9-7 in the years of 1995 and 1996 right before their stinker of 1997 where they went 3-13. They also drafted their starting LT and WR the two years prior to Manning being drafted.

Indianapolis Colts Year By Year Results

[Shep]

Those were the Captain Comeback years, right? Kind of a blip. They seemed to be starting over in '98.

[slowmo411]

Matt Schaubb is a damn good QB with the probably Best WR in the league. Thats a fact. So why haven't the won the supr bowl or even the AFC? I'd be more than happy to have Schaubb in a browns uni.

[BernietheKid]

Yes, those were the Harbaugh years and they were starting over in 1998, but they were not that far removed from a playoff team. They were in the AFC title game in 1995 and the playoffs in 1996. So there was some talent already on that team.

The Official Website of the Indianapolis Colts

[Tobalaz]

Originally Posted by Masters

That article lost my respect in it's opening paragraph. Apparently that author was unaware that the NFL played a season in 1996, when they were the WC team (Harrison was on that team), or that in 1995 they were in the AFC championship game, and narrowly lost to PIT. The author also decided to ignore that the 1997 Colts were ravaged by injuries (including Harbaugh)

Good point and I was going to bring that up myself.
The Colts already had a good offensive line, a #1 wr in Harrison and a running back in Faulk. They had the team together already and had drafted a 1st round qb they decided was a bust in Jeff George (remember him? the original DA?) before injures wiped them out and allowed them to draft Manning.
They already had a great front office (Bill Polian used to be our gm back when we were winning, then the Bill's when they were winning, ask Rich about the guy, he thinks he walks on water), all they needed to do was grab a coach, qb and a defense.
If for any reason you just think you add a qb and the franchise goes from perennial losers to a winning team you're dead wrong. Too many pieces on too many levels.
The Colts couldn't win it all without their defense could they?
Just like the Ravens who had a great defense and everything but a qb the Colts couldn't win it all without being a complete team even though they fielded winning records every season (but the ravens managed a super bowl without a qb).
It all starts at the top with a good front office with good scouts that make good selections to add talent to the team.
Then the next most important position is the coaching staff, who plans and schemes week to week on how to win a game, keeps the troops motivated and develops those picks into players.
After that would be your qb and the pieces around him.

[Shep]

The Colts have never had that much of a defense, yet they've won at least 11 games 7 years in a row, a record. They're always in contention, always in the tournament. And they also had the 32nd ranked running game and could have won it all anyway. Same for the Cards the year before.

No, the Colts were not a good team before Manning got there. Hell, they weren't a good team the first year he WAS there. They were 6-24 over two seasons. But if you think the Colts are about anything but Peyton Manning, you have severely ear fucked yourself into some kind of contrarian logic. That's the story of the Colts in this Millenium.

That article didn't lose any respect anywhere. It's a pretty fantastic piece of writing. You don't see many football articles working on that level.

As for Schaub, his first full, healthy season as a starter and the Texans first winning season happened in the same year. Not a coincidence.

Plenty of teams are winning without being "complete" these days. Teams with so-so defenses and okey-dokey running games are not just winning but going to the Super Bowl. The Saints were no defensive juggernaut, either. Middle of the pack.

The league has changed. There may be another change in store, but a lof of people feel that rule changes and sophisticated, high-percentage passing offenses might make this "wave" permanent.

[Alo]

Bernie brings the knowledge. +1!

[Shep]

Agreed. Good chip in, Bernie.

[BrownieBornAndRaised]

Shep so your saying everyone from the colts roster from the mid nineties were completely removed from the roster once Manning got their? they had some pieces to help Manning once they drafted him. As were said in previous posts, they had selected his LT and his #1 wideout the two years prior.

And to use them as an example of not having a defense but still finishing in the top of the AFC year in and year out. Yes that is true, but so is the fact they play in a domed stadium and can play that high octane style offense even towards the end of the season and just outscore opponents (the rams used to be the same way during the greatest show on turf years).

But in a division like ours where you have games late in the year against northern outdoor stadium opponents even a good qb would have trouble... Im sorry but in my opinion to win the AFC north you have to build your team to A) run the ball and b) stop the run... so yes maybe you need a qb to win in the NFL but to win our division you have to have a good d and running game imo