WFNY’s 2014 Cleveland Browns Position Review: Tight Ends
January 21, 2015Indians bolster Progressive Field concessions with Melt, Barrio, and Sweet Moses
January 21, 2015It’s time for “The Big Game,” as they call it around radio when they’re not permitted to use it in promotions of any kind. It’s the time of year when the NFL cracks down on church groups who not only show this “big game” but have the audacity to advertise it as a Super Bowl party. Regardless of all that noise, we decided to do a roundtable on Championship week and now the Super Bowl matchup. Here are the instructions I gave, followed by the questions. Feel free to number them and answer them in the comments as well.
“The Super Bowl is set thanks to a Sunday of Championship games. While not directly relevant to the Browns, there are some interesting takeaways here in Cleveland. So, I’m going to give this one a bit of structure and just ask you five questions. Please answer each question and keep your replies to a couple of sentences. Three sentences if you must.”
1. Trent Richardson didn’t even travel with his team for “personal reasons.” If you’re handicapping the trade, do the Browns still win? Does the answer depend on Johnny Manziel’s sophomore season for the Browns?
Andrew: A first round pick for a guy who has barely even played in the NFL? Yeah, the Browns won that trade. The fact that they potentially blew the draft pick has no bearing on the value of the Richardson trade when it was made. That was a great trade by the Browns.
Kirk: Trent Richardson didn’t even travel with his team for “personal reasons.” If you’re handicapping the trade, do the Browns still win? Does the answer depend on Johnny Manziel’s sophomore season for the Browns?
Will: I suppose the Browns still win, but it’s by decision, not knockout. Manziel seems to have a better chance of being redeemed than Richardson, even if it’s a two percent chance instead of one. I don’t know what’s going on with poor Trent. It was funny when he was playing poorly, but lately it’s taken a turn for the sad. I hope he gets right.
Scott: At what point do we stop talking about this trade from a win-loss perspective? I’m more intrigued to find out what Richardson’s alleged familial issues are (if they ever bubble up), but am more intrigued about his future in the NFL. Is it possible that he’s done for good? The Colts can’t go back to him after Dan Herron’s emergence, right? If so, man—what a fall from grace. This dude went from being the next Adrian Peterson to being the next Lawrence Phillips. The NFL is fickle beast.
Craig: I’ll never stop talking about this trade, I don’t think. I’ve talked about it so much I’ll abstain here. Plus, I wrote the question.
2. The Packers had a two-score lead. They gave up a touchdown, lost an onside kick, gave up another touchdown, plus a two-point conversion to trail, only to tie it with a field goal so they could lose it in overtime. Andrew Siciliano among others was comparing it to classic Browns gut-punch losses. On the other side the Colts got smashed and embarrassed. Losing stinks, regardless, but what’s your preference? Would you rather get blown out like the Colts, or lost the way the Packers did?
Andrew: How well does anyone remember the 1989 AFC Championship game compared to the 1986 and 1987 ones? To this day Ohio State’s loss to Michigan State in 1998 stings way more than getting crushed by Florida in the 2006 Championship game. My point is, you tend to forget the blowouts. The close, difficult games where you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory are the games that you can never really let go.
Kirk: As painful as it is, losing a close game gives a little more hope toward next year, making it feel like the team is much closer to getting over the hump as opposed to getting stomped. However, I don’t think I’d wish that Packers loss on any team or fan base. That was brutal.
Will: I would much rather get blown out. When your team is overmatched, that’s easy to deal with. The other guys were better. There aren’t any what-ifs or could-have-beens to worry about. A late gut punch hurts not only because of the surprise, but because being that close means your team was almost good enough to win.
Scott: I’d rather be the Colts right now if only because of their trajectory and age of their quarterback. The way the Packers lost was absolutely brutal and was very Brownsian. Good on those J-O’s who left the stadium early to only stand outside in the rain like they were lost. You leave a title game early, at home, that’s what you deserve.
Craig: Give me that blowout. Losing that way is far more forgettable.
3. The Patriots are once again caught up in a bit of a cheating scandal, potentially. The NFL is going to investigate whether the Pats gained unfair advantage in the sloppy, wet conditions by deflating footballs to make them easier to throw and catch. Bill Belichick’s squad was guilty of cheating in the past, and some questioned their toeing the line of the rules with alignments against the Ravens. Do you give the Pats credit for their gamesmanship, or do you find them to be detestable rule-benders and potentially cheaters?
Andrew: I can’t force myself to pretend like I care about this issue. The fact that people are talking about how much air was potentially in the footballs of a 45-7 game is ridiculous.
Kirk: The second option. It was pathetically unnecessary if they truly did do what they’re accused of, and it’s now a pattern of cheating. They should be hit even harder than they were for Spygate.
Will: This one doesn’t bother me, mostly because I try not to think about the non-game elements of the NFL too much. I don’t have enough room in my heart for another scandal, and even if I did, this one is lame. I suppose growing up in the Clinton era set the bar high, and this one isn’t juicy enough to rope me in. I just wanna see football.
Scott: I’m not buying this scandal until something definitive comes out of it. Spygate is one thing; the Ravens’ squabbling about the play formation makes them look worse than the Pats. Don’t hate on the ingenious—get smarter.
Craig: I’ll await the final details, but I do think it’s a legitimate issue. Anytime you add to a list that was already starting to form a pattern I think it’s noteworthy. I also don’t buy that you blame officials for failing to properly catch and enforce potential cheating. Getting away with something doesn’t make it alright.
4. The Super Bowl betting line opens as a pick ’em. There is no favorite as the Seahawks go against the Pats. So who are you picking and why?
Andrew: I’ll take the Patriots in an incredibly close game. But I don’t say that lightly. Betting against Russell Wilson in a tight game in the 4th quarter is a fool’s errand.
Kirk: I’m going to fall into the trap of the most recent games and take New England. Brady has lost in his last two trips to the Super Bowl, and who knows if he’ll get back again as he advances in age? It is so hard to repeat if you’re Seattle, and they are a little banged up as well. Wilson was the hero last week, but he also helped dig them a huge hole.
Will: My head says Patriots — that offense is so good, and the defense has some real ballplayers — but my heart says Seattle. They reek of destiny after that absurd comeback over the Packers. The players were so energetic, so hyped up, and somehow convinced that no one gave them a chance even though they won the title last year. In the end, head beats heart for me. It would be a delightful story if this plucky Seattle team went back-to-back, but Bill Belichick is anathema to that sort of joy. I think the Seahawks’ collective heart rate will be too erratic, and the Patriots will squash all the good feeling.
Scott: The more interesting discussion should be that the line opened at Seahawks -2.5 and so much went toward New England so fast that it moved nearly a field goal. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the needle move in New England’s favor before the kickoff, especially as we start to hear more about any injuries to Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas. I’m going with the Pats by a field goal.
Craig: The Pats are going to roll and roll hard. The Seahawks barely made it to this game, and they didn’t win in a fashion that makes me feel like they have momentum. The Pats on the other hand probably have plenty of “mo.”
5. What’s the go-to Super Bowl food for you (other than beer?)
Andrew: I love anything that I can dip corn chips into.
Kirk: I don’t usually host nor attend a big super bowl party, but I’d have to say either nachos or wings.
Will: I don’t reckon I have a single go-to, but I am a fan of dips. Bean dips, cheese dips, guacamole, salsa, spicy dips, creamy dips; they’re all marvelous. Any time I can use food like a shovel, that’s a good thing.
Scott: Pizza seems to be pretty common in addition to endless appetizer-type Hor d’oeuvres—buffalo chicken dip, etc. I don’t really have a go-to per se as we spend the Super Bowl at a neighbor’s annual party; I just eat whatever they’re rocking.
Craig: Whatever it is, it’s buffalo flavored. Buffalo chicken wings, meatballs, dip or otherwise. Gimme that Frank’s Buffalo flavor.
6. Bonus question, how excited are you for Katy Perry?! 🙂
Andrew: A lot more excited than I was for that Bruno Mars dude.
Kirk: It should be a good one. I’m a mild Katy Perry fan.
Will: I won’t say “shoot me,” but maybe “box my ears real hard so I can’t hear anymore.” I get that they need someone with mass appeal, but Katy Perry is not and has not and never will be someone I associate with football, in this life or the next. I do wonder, however, if Vegas will take action on a wardrobe malfunction. Maybe I’m more interested than I thought.
Scott: You ask in jest, but I am. Katy’s show is essentially made for the Super Bowl. She’s a huge pop star with songs known around the world. Even Kim Jong Un digs it. What I’m not looking forward to is the endless banter on Twitter and such that attempt to pick apart every facet of the performance. Thankfully, her incredible rack is one heck of a tie-breaker.
Craig: I saw her at the Q this year so you know I’m excited! Plus, look at that picture!
14 Comments
I’m shocked at the unanimous pick of New England over Seattle. I think Kirk hits the nail on the head with the most recent game trap. Seattle was the better team over the previous 17 games. I again am with Kirk on watching the Seahawks injuries, but I think they’re a really bad matchup for the Patriots. They’ll force Brady to have to at least move around in the pocket without bringing extra blitzers, and their own rule-bending strategies should present a real problem for what the Patriots want to do on offense.
You would also think that that last game would have taken some air out of the Jeter-ization of Wilson. Apparently not.
The line movement reminds of just last year, which saw a swing of about five points toward the Broncos. A lot of money coming in from people who just started paying attention to football games. Vegas was just itching to take a lot of dumb money.
1. The Trent Richardson Trade? SHHHH… people that cling to the “you can’t give up on Manziel so fast because he’s a first round pick” theory will hear you.
2. The close defeat. During the Bama/Oregon game most rational Buckeye fans agreed.. please don’t embarrass ourselves. Show hard, show you deserve to be there.
3. Whatever, everyone cheats… even the league.
4. Hmm…. “Bilk-i-chick” vs. “Cheatin Pete”, I go with Billy Bamboozle…he’s pulled off bigger scandals that Conman Carroll.
5. The wife’s Buffalo Chicken Dip.
6. Only if there is a wardrobe malfunction.
1) The trade was a success, no question. What we did with our winnings is “technically” still open for debate, although I fall towards the “bust” side of the spectrum for Manziel.
2) So the question is “Get blown out like the Colts, or lose a close one the way the Packers did?” I would rather get blown out than have a lead and give it away / watch it get chipped away. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is just the worst, right Dwayne Rudd?
3) Hate the Patriots, and hate that they still win so much despite “cheating.” As if a Cleveland fan needs further proof that the universe is not fair and just.
4) Patriots. See above re: unjust universe.
5) Queso con carne. And pretty much anything else too.
6) Katy Perry: “At least she’s not Bruno Mars.”
Katy Perry: “Even Kim Jong Un digs her.”
How do you guys really feel? This could be very, very bad. Wait, what’s this? … images.google.com/search=katy+perry&safe=off Ok, I’m on board.
Saw someone post yesterday that as punishment for the ball deflating scandal the NFL should mandate the Patriots be on Hard Knocks the next two years. That would ruin Belichick’s world.
was commenting on katy perry’s rack really necessary? coming from a female reader – not really the most enlightened or welcoming comment. considering the entire first paragraph of your “commenting policy,” maybe you should not include text in your own articles referring to exactly what you don’t want in the comments.
*** waits for comment telling me to “calm down” from someone who has never been physically objectified based on their gender ***
For those who haven’t read the policy:
“Before You Comment: WFNY commenting policy: When WFNY began, we editors agreed to maintain a family-friendly atmosphere on the site. We would be careful with our language and encourage our commenters to do the same. In addition, we wouldn’t post pictures of half-naked women, nor would we publish links to articles and websites that feature them.”
Maybe if you were objectified more often you’d feel better about yourself.
/////////
booo
ya know, snark just doesn’t work in writing, does it?
I would say that the Katy Perry reference by Scott was Kosher, but only slightly, because it was solicited by the photo.
However, I CANNOT get behind that whole “twirl” thing at the Aussie Open, where the announcer asks the girls to twirl around to show their outfits. That’s outright sexism in any book, and pretty embarrassing, in my opinion. That kind of stuff needs to go.
Of course, the speaker of the House didn’t applaud when our president mentioned wage equality and the gender gap, so you’re left on your own to figure out what’s Kosher these days.
are you trying to say that Katy Perry exploits herself?
because, I honestly cannot argue that point.
Of course that’s what I’m saying.
*slow clap* yup. knew I didn’t have to wait long.
I’m a real musician so I don’t find Katy Perry at all interesting ,but it’s clear by these comments that her “music” isn’t the draw. I’ll just enjoy JJ Watt on the cover instead. he’s a heckuva player. To each their own. But awesome point, LMK, about the commenting policy.
you’re kidding, right? If you can’t laugh at my comment then I’m really sorry.
On top of that, re: the commenting policy, I feel Scott needs to be defended. The policy states that they are going to discuss Cleveland, sports, and some culture. That’s what we do here. Katy Perry isn’t at the Super Bowl for sports, she is there for sex. That’s what she’s selling, that’s what she represents.
But she is on the cover of the world’s de fact sports magazine with the de facto best defensive player in the NFL. She is flirting with him while allowing her ample breasts to sag voluptuously in a pose that any man immediately recognizes as one he has seen countless times in magazines or internet pages that sell sex.
Scott’s comment was light and funny, and in no way in violation of the WFNY commenting policy. If he were to say the same thing about Serena Williams I would have taken issue because when Serena Williams is mentioned, the first thing you should think about is her championship pedigree. Serena is an athlete and deserves to be discussed as so. But Katy Perry is being whored out by the NFL and the Super Bowl for attention – which she happily laps up, she doesn’t play sports professionally, and she has huge boobs. Those are not things that necessarily occur coincidentally.
When someone puts something in your face they have immediately cancelled their right to be insulted when another person comments on that thing. And any would-be defenders would follow suit.
This issue is NOT indicative of sexism or – on a smaller scale – a violation of a certain code. No…this is an issue that is blown out of proportion by a commenter that is looking for a reason to make a comment something that he or she feels strongly about.
I wholly support the point of your argument but I feel it has been misplaced in this forum, where no transgression has occurred.