2019 Cleveland Browns Regular Season

[bushwick_bill]

funny how sobering stats are isn't it. this team is going to be 1-6 going into the devner game

2 wins. My yearly prediction.

 

[Deezus]

There is no way I can say with any definitive confidence in such a limited amount of film that this Mayfield character is more than another undersized QB with some decent accuracy and a high football IQ.

@Ozone

 

[I'mWithDan]

Its a safety issue. Want to be able to see a player's eyes if he gets laid out.

When the protocol is triggered, the player is escorted off the field. That triggering is not a result of an eye test by anyone. It is initiated based on the type or force of a hit.....or how a player reacts in the aftermath.

At that point, the player is removed from the field, his helmet is taken off and he goes through a series of nuero exams. The days of saying “I’m fine” and avoiding the trainer are over.

During this process the players helmet is taken and it is returned when he passes. Tinted visors in no way impact this process.

The league just does does not like the look of faceless players. The ban didn’t even go in effect until 1998.....it’s a modern rule change, one that was just a subjective thing, especially with how easily they are removed in a life threatening situation. The new clips Oakley produces can be removed in seconds or if the face mask needs to be removed, the visor is not anchored to the base of the helmet and just comes off with the face mask.

There was a more flimsy argument in the past but now....with the protocol in place and how it is triggered, the whole eye test thing is moot. That isn’t how guys are going in to it. In the rare instances a player is knocked out, they take the face mask off and the visor doesn’t inhibit that process.

If it was an actual safety issue, no player, under any circumstances could wear one. The league just wants to make it harder because they don’t like players having obscured faces when trying to sell an on field product.

 

[Urban]

When the protocol is triggered, the player is escorted off the field. That triggering is not a result of an eye test by anyone. It is initiated based on the type or force of a hit.....or how a player reacts in the aftermath.

At that point, the player is removed from the field, his helmet is taken off and he goes through a series of nuero exams. The days of saying “I’m fine” and avoiding the trainer are over.

During this process the players helmet is taken and it is returned when he passes. Tinted visors in no way impact this process.

The league just does does not like the look of faceless players. The ban didn’t even go in effect until 1998.....it’s a modern rule change, one that was just a subjective thing, especially with how easily they are removed in a life threatening situation. The new clips Oakley produces can be removed in seconds or if the face mask needs to be removed, the visor is not anchored to the base of the helmet and just comes off with the face mask.

There was a more flimsy argument in the past but now....with the protocol in place and how it is triggered, the whole eye test thing is moot. That isn’t how guys are going in to it. In the rare instances a player is knocked out, they take the face mask off and the visor doesn’t inhibit that process.

If it was an actual safety issue, no player, under any circumstances could wear one. The league just wants to make it harder because they don’t like players having obscured faces when trying to sell an on field product.

I mean, they are banned across all levels of football from youth, to high school to college to the pros. This isn't some power move conspiracy theory that you're making it out to be.

 

[blommen]

I am absolutely terrified at the prospect of our O-Line trying to deal Donald. It hasn't looked stellar so far, and we're about to go up against the best defensive player in the league, a guy who makes good O-lines look like cum soaked tissue paper and our O-Line isn't even good to begin with.

This would be a really good time to hurry up the offense and get the ball out of Bakers hands in a hurry.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Lindley, who has spent about 30 years on football sidelines as an athletic trainer, says visors make concussions and other injuries harder to spot.

“If you take away the ability to look into the eyes of an athlete — even from a distance — that’s going to be a challenge,” Lindley told SB Nation. “The assessment of a number of things, not just concussions, is tremendously challenging when you find your way onto the field for an athlete who’s down.

“There are also situations where you don’t know where the origin of blood might be, so sometimes the helmet comes down on the bridge of the nose and there’s a laceration on the face. If you can’t identify where that’s from, you can certainly understand what type of challenge and what type of urgency that would bring.”

Removal of the visor is impossible without taking off the helmet completely. That’s a potentially dangerous choice for athletic trainers, who can’t be sure — especially without seeing the player’s eyes — if there’s reason to be wary of a neck or spinal injury.

NFL players love the dark visor — and it could be coming back | SB Nation’s 2019 NFL Preview

The NFL has good reason for its ban on tinted visors, but a change may be on the horizon.

www.sbnation.com

Again, the sham of this being an actual safety issue is players wearing them in the pro bowl (as this article states) and day to day in practice. It's not a safety issue at all. It's the league just not wanting this specific look to become prevalent or trendy. Many football players are unrecognizable as is.....they don't want stars like Beckham having their entire face obscured with a dark visor. It's that simple.

 

[BlessEm]

There is no way I can say with any definitive confidence in such a limited amount of film that this Mayfield character is more than another undersized QB with some decent accuracy and a high football IQ.

Definitely not the historic rookie season he just had. 100% a top 5 season all time for any Rookie quarterback.

Not the sole all time rookie QB Td record that took Peyton Manning 17 games and Baker only 13 starts.

Definitely not the 64% for 3726 yards for 27 tds, 14 ints, and 93.7 qbr.....500 yards short of all time record that once again took 17 games by Manning.

Not the fact he is the only Rookie Qb to to put up a passer rating of over 151.2 in a game, or how he joined only Aaron Rodgers and Kurt Warner having two back to back 140 passer rating games.

Not the fact the he is only one of 3 quarterbacks to have a td pass in their first 10 games. Which he continued for all 13 games his rookie season. Another Rookie Record, Which btw is still active and now 15 straight.

Not owning almost all browns rookie qb records.

Not the 3 4th quarter comeback wins last year he lead. Or the 4 game winning drives...

Not how he was top 3 in passer rating In the Redzone for all qb's last year as a rookie. Or how he finish with a 93 plus passer rating as a Rookie. Another Browns Alltime Record.

Not how he didn't even start till week 4 yet by the end of the year he led all Rookie Qbs in Td's, passing yards, %, passer rating, pff grades. And efficiency in redzone and all levels of the field.

None of that huh.

Even when you add in the fact it was on a Browns team that was 1-31 the previous 2 years?

If that isn't enough to make you doubt your "just an undersized qb with decent accuracy and football IQ" then I'm not really sure what will.

But I get it. Sophomore year as 24 year old Qb in his first two games this year with all new pieces, teammates, OC, 1st time Headcoach, expectations, and a worse o-line that really didn't play much all together this preseason, Totally unacceptable of Baker to still be making mistakes of that of a young NFL Qb still learning and having growing pains.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I mean, they are banned across all levels of football from youth, to high school to college to the pros. This isn't some power move conspiracy theory that you're making it out to be.

When did I say it is a conspiracy? I said the reason for the stated ban is silly when you look at it at face value. They allow them to be worn in the pro-bowl and in practice. Both situations where the same types of head injuries can and do occur.

If it was a serious medical risk to wear one, it would be legislated across all games and activities, which it is not. It's an arbitrary thing the NFL doesn't like......and it only being banned for regular and post season games (and not things like the pro-bowl or practice) is the dead giveaway that it's merely a preference thing for league decison makers.

 

[Urban]

When did I say it is a conspiracy? I said the reason for the stated ban is silly when you look at it at face value. They allow them to be worn in the pro-bowl and in practice. Both situations where the same types of head injuries can and do occur.

If it was a serious medical risk to wear one, it would be legislated across all games and activities, which it is not. It's an arbitrary thing the NFL doesn't like......and it only being banned for regular and post season games (and not things like the pro-bowl or practice) is the dead giveaway that it's merely a preference thing for league decison makers.

Maybe conspiracy is harsh, but you're saying the NFL is hiding behind a safety excuse to flex their power over the players by banning tinted visors.

The tinted visors were what, 1 of 10 or so new things that the NFL tested out at the Pro Bowl?

Concussions and head injuries are the #1 threat to the sport. The negative optics of removing a layer of protection, whether or not you believe it's bogus, is a much more valid reason than the NFL simply not liking them, controlling its players, or not wanting the faces of its stars concealed by a visor. The technology has advanced since 1998 as you mentioned, it's entirely possible the NFL is just taking baby steps here.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Concussions and head injuries are the #1 threat to the sport. The negative optics of removing a layer of protection, whether or not you believe it's bogus, is a much more valid reason than the NFL simply not liking them......

Ok, if this is your genuine argument, why are they allowed in any scenario? If it is an actual safety issue? You can't have it both ways......that's what I am trying to state here as it pertains to the legislation of these visors.

If head injuries are the #1 threat to the sport.....and dark visors, in any medically proven way, contribute to them or inhibit the treatment of them, it would be LUDICROUS for the league to allow them in ANY capacity...... except under strict medical guidance, by league approved channels, where accepted and universally proven medical conditions require one.

The stance that "These are dangerous but we're just gonna only ban them during game days" is the dead giveaway to the game here. It's absurd to think there is hard science behind them being bad or contributing to sport altering problems and the NFL allowing players to use them the other 6 days of a week, during football activities.....or flippantly allowing players to wear them in other football games, like the Pro Bowl.

 

[Triplethreat]

Last week we’re arguing about pouring a beer on a player and this week dark visors?

This section is horrible right now.

 

[Frank Stallone]

There are multiple issues at play with Baker and the offense and among the chief concerns are the ones you've cited above. To add/summarize (in my opinion):

• Baker doesn't trust his offensive line and it's abundantly clear. He's developed happy feet, ball patting, and is rushing easy throws that have been routine for him throughout his career
• Baker is "big play happy" and has yet to put his words into action about trusting the checkdown or easy yardage plays
• Playcalling has been suspect and - to your point - taking far too long to get the call in
• Too many long-developing plays/routes
• Defenses have adjusted to Baker and he's struggling to read defenses pre-snap.

I expected to see chemistry and communication issues early this season. However, there are bigger issues at play that need to be addressed quickly. I don't think there's anything on that list that is "unfixable;" but they need to make these changes rapidly or the season can slip away quickly over the next 5 games.

Baker has looked off and my biggest issue has been his touch, but, honestly, I attribute a ton of it to the offense. They're not setting him up for success. This isn't the offense that made him dynamic last year or that made Freddie the head coach. I think it starts at the top and Baker will fall into a better place from there on out.

It also goes without saying that the lack of meshing in the preseason, etc. has led to poor rhythm and being out of sync.

 

[Urban]

Ok, if this is your genuine argument, why are they allowed in any scenario? If it is an actual safety issue? You can't have it both ways......that's what I am trying to state here as it pertains to the legislation of these visors.

If head injuries are the #1 threat to the sport.....and dark visors, in any medically proven way, contribute to them or inhibit the treatment of them, it would be LUDICROUS for the league to allow them in ANY capacity...... except under strict medical guidance, by league approved channels, where accepted and universally proven medical conditions require one.

The stance that "These are dangerous but we're just gonna only ban them during game days" is the dead giveaway to the game here. It's absurd to think there is hard science behind them being bad or contributing to sport altering problems and the NFL allowing players to use them the other 6 days of a week, during football activities.....or flippantly allowing players to wear them in other football games, like the Pro Bowl.

I don't have a good answer for you for practice. As far as the Pro Bowl, again, they used it as a test ground for the visors among other technological advances listed below.

Pro Bowl tests out new innovations, including Oakley tinted shields

The NFL used Sunday's Pro Bowl to test-drive several game-day innovations, as the league uses the game as an incubator to determine whether innovations should be considered for further expansion into regular usage during games.

www.nfl.com

Them testing & exploring the new visors, along with allowing them to be used in practice doesn't really align with the idea that the NFL still has them banned because they don't like them, they want their stars faces shown, and that they want to control their players

I'll drop it now since @Triplethreat asked so nicely

 

[AZ_]

Last week we’re arguing about pouring a beer on a player and this week dark visors?

This section is horrible right now.

Dark Visors > Mike McCarthy

 

[Triple-S]

Local media is finding new ways to piss and moan in this era.

"LAMAR JACKSON IS FARTHER ALONG IN HIS DEVELOPMENT THAN BAKER".

I fucking called it. I knew that was going to be the talking point.

my god. these people deserve to be covering the 8th grade jv football or some shit.