DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum RAC: "He let me do all of it."

Willie, the reason some people take a lot of crap for getting down on RAC, other than the ones Attack is talking about who have agendas, is basically due to what Diam just said, "...impatient ones who think he can turn crap into gold overnight with a game plan and a motivational speach just dotn get it .. "

What they don't get it that it takes talent. Not talent potential, but experienced talent. As the team gets better many will say RAC is finally getting it. But that won't be the case. He gets it now. What will cause the team to get better is for the young, inexpereienced talent to become experienced talent. As they get experience under their belt the team will get better.

They will better understand what it is they are being taught and will be better at executing it in games.

If they don't have the talent they never will and cannot be coached to be better than they are. If they do have the talent but lack experience then they just need experience.

Blaming the coach because he can't teach experience is illogical, futile and misguided. Blaming the coach because he can't "coach up" players who lack talent is just as illogical and misguided.

Being illogical and misguided is usually a red flag that will get called out.



And on the "alignment issue you brought up.

The problem is not that they can't "line up" in the right places, as in, you stand there and you stand over here. What's at issue here is that at the snap of the ball these guys need to get to a certain place and be disciplined enough to stay there until the play is obviously going elsewhere. Then they need to pursue to the ball.

The problem is two-fold.

First, they already do know where to go, they've been taught that, but too often they overthink what they are seeing after the snap and they try to pursue to where they "think" the ball is going, (instead of staying where they were supposed to and let the play come to them), and many times, the play develops right into the spot they just vacated.

For example, a linebacker, we'll call him Andre Davis, is lined up in the middle, just a little to the right. The ball is snapped and handed off to the running back. The running back seems to be heading straight toward the center of his offensive line. Mr. Davis then, seeing the chance to "make a play", moves to his left, following the action of the ball, (where he thinks the play is going). As he does this, the running back then, "cuts back", to the hole where Andre Davis was. BAM, big, big gain for the running back.

Had Davis stayed in his gap, or been in position or carried out his assignment, he may well have tackled the running back for little to no gain. Instead, by being out of position, in the name of trying to make a play, what he did was leave a gaping hole for the running back to run through. A good running back with good vision and a cut back ability, like Jamal Lewis, will have a record setting day vs. a defense who is not disciplined enough to be in position.

This is the "alignment" or assignment or position that is talked about when players are not in the right place. They know where to be but they too often abandon it in an attempt to "make a play".

Once they have gained enough experience to focus on their assignment in the heat of the battle and discipline themselves enough to be in position even if it looks like a better idea to go with the flow of the ball, they will fare much better and give the team a better chance to win.

I said the problem was two-fold. This is the second part of it...

Once the young player has disciplined himself enough to stay in his place, he must then instantly recognize the exact moment when the play is obviously not coming to him and the must pursue the ball.

An inexperienced player will make that decision too late and become a non-factor in the play. A more experienced, instinctual player will recognize the exact split-second to pursue the ball and may well make the tackle for no gain on the left side of the line, even though he started out on the right side of the line.

Instincts gained by experience. There is no substitute.

Knowing your defensive schemes, knowing your assignment and carrying it out, knowing when to pursue the ball, knowing when to rely on the concepts of your defense that you learned in practice when finding yourself confused on a given play and playing enough so that all of those things are second nature and you don't find yourself confused on any given play. Those are the keys to potental being realized.

It takes time. Time is experience. Experience cannot be coached.

They've got to play and make mistakes and have successes until the right thing to do becomes instinctual. It takes knowing that your teammate beside you knows what to do and that he will do it so that you don't have to have any of your attention paid to covering for him if he messes up.

Gelling as a team is so important. That takes time.

This team looks to be improving. It's because the young guys, those second year guys, are beginning to gain some experience. They will still make mistakes and lose games. But they have had some success and the more of it they have the more confident they are going to be and that will translate into better play and a better chance to win.

Then the fans will be happy with the job our head coach is doing.

Quote:

---

Even though I don't think he could've answered much differently than he did, I'm going to believe RAC...in spite of the fact that Bill was a control freak in Cleveland.

---

A whole lot of the NFL would know if RAC was lying. He could hardly have said that were it not true. He has a lot of respect from around the league and he didn't get it by being a puppet or by lying about himself on TV.

"Bud Carson was a great D coordinator...a innovator really...something RAC wasn't."

Not to pile on - but your disdain for RAC is quite evident from that statement right there. How could you remotely even utter that with a straight face???

After he utilized a defense called the UFO defense here cause he didn't have much else of a choice. After he installed a 3-4 Defense that only one other team at the time was utilizing (Steelers). After he was innovative enough to utilize a WR as a Cover Corner due to injury bugs and win a Super Bowl with it. After winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years and the same team not getting nearly as close after he left.

Not Innovative...lol ya got to be kidding me ya hate the guy that much?

JMH?

Carson was the guy who got Green playing in the gap on top of the center, at an angle...that was the innovation....installing a new d isn't innovation.

And the more I think of it.....I seem to remember the UFO was the creation of that D-line coach we had...can't think of his name....started with a M, I believe.

Plus....the UFO defense?? You have to be friggen kidding???

Quote:

---

Well.....maybe I was kind of, sort of playing with you a bit.

---

What else is new?

Oh, and Carson took over a pretty good team that marty left him and rode them all the way to the AFC Championship game against Denver,,, and again, we lost.. The next season, we won 3 games and in the middle of the season, Carson was fired and replaced by Shofner I think....

End result, he didn't' get stupid in one off season,, something else must have happened... Just a thought

"Carson was the guy who got Green playing in the gap on top of the center, at an angle...that was the innovation."

Sorry "1 Technique" or "Echo allignment" was being used way before Carson - don't get your example of INNOVATIVE

UFO...heck we had nothing the rest of the NFL's throw aways in 2000 and surely didn't have much help from Clark with the exception of a Rookie who had a good season in Courtney Brown. UFO - granted not something you want to use with a normal team - but we were far from normal and which ever way you want to laugh or giggle or whatever - you brought the subject of Innovative and it was innovative never the less and actually aprappo for this week as we were able to defeat the Patriots in 2000 utilizing the UFO defense. So throw all the in your debate with me. I must be making a point if now you got to throw in the as if looking around "Hey maybe posters will actually think its STUPID" I see you didn't even bother to touch the other points I made about RAC innovative nature.

You know I didn't even come down on you regarding your Kill Piggy, Kill RAC routine. I pointed out one totally major incorrect statement you presented as fact. thats all and one of us proved it....I with some football and your counter with " "

All I know I Carson is the guy credited with being the innovator.

Why because ESPN told you so??? Give us some example of how innovative Carson was............if you can't then quit saying something as fact that is merely your opinion. It's okay to have opinions that aren't based in fact........we all do. However, it's not okay to pass off your opinion as fact when you have jack crap to back it up. Give us some examples of how BC was an innovative DC.

Bud Carson, 75, Innovator With Steel Curtain Defenses

* Print
* Save
* Share
o Del.icio.us
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o Permalink

By RICHARD GOLDSTEIN
Published: December 9, 2005

Bud Carson, the renowned National Football League strategist who devised the Pittsburgh Steelers' Steel Curtain defenses of the 1970's, died Wednesday at his home in Sarasota, Fla. He was 75.

The cause was emphysema, his wife, Linda, said.

In a quarter-century as a defensive coordinator and, briefly, the head coach of the Cleveland Browns, Carson created aggressive and unpredictable schemes that pressured and confused opposing quarterbacks.

As Coach Chuck Noll's defensive coordinator with the Steelers from 1972 to 1977 -- teams that won two Super Bowls -- Carson put together defenses featuring Mean Joe Greene, Dwight White, L. C. Greenwood and Ernie Holmes on the line; Jack Lambert, Jack Ham and Andy Russell at linebacker; and Mel Blount, Glen Edwards, J. T. Thomas, Donnie Shell and Mike Wagner in the secondary.

Carson's alignments combined a fearsome front four and complicated zone coverage in the secondary known as Cover 2.

''He did things that I never heard of,'' Russell told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. ''He would have us playing five or six different defenses before the ball was even snapped. He wanted to be in the best defense for every offense.''

Dan Rooney, the Steelers' owner, recalled that Carson defied the common notions of his era. ''At that time, talk was starting about getting the big guys who could just jam things up,'' Rooney said in a statement Wednesday. ''Bud always wanted the fast players, the athletic players who could get up the field and really rush the passer.''

The Steelers of Noll and Carson won the Super Bowl in the 1974 and 1975 seasons, and Carson's 1976 defensive unit yielded only 28 points in a nine-game winning streak that took the Steelers from a 1-4 start to a playoff berth.

A native of Freeport, Pa., and the son of a steelworker, Carson was a defensive back at North Carolina, began his coaching career in high school and served as the head coach at Georgia Tech from 1967 to 1971 before joining the Steelers.

After his six seasons in Pittsburgh, Carson was a defensive coordinator for the Los Angeles Rams, the Baltimore Colts, the Kansas City Chiefs and then the Jets, from 1985 to 1988, before becoming the Browns' head coach. His 1989 Cleveland team went to the American Football Conference championship game, losing to the Denver Broncos. But Carson was fired the next season after the Browns got off to a 2-7 start.

Returning to his specialty, he was the Philadelphia Eagles' defensive coordinator from 1991 to 1994. He returned to the N.F.L. in 1997, taking over the St. Louis Rams' defensive unit, retired, then came back as a consultant to the Rams in 2000.

In addition to his wife, Carson is survived by a son, Clifford; his daughters, Dana Carson Williams and Cathi Carson; a stepson, Gary Ford; his brothers, Guy, Harry and Gib; and two grandchildren.

Although he never played pro football, and his players towered over him, making his 5-foot-9-inch frame seem smaller, Carson's intensity and intellect served him superbly.

At speaking engagements, people remarked, ''Well, it must have been hard to handle those guys,'' Carson told Bill Chastain in ''Steel Dynasty.'' But, as Carson put it: ''Very seldom was that the case in my whole career. If you knew what you were talking about, people listened.''

Others words.....not mine.


Good-night.

NOTES --- Vermeil mourned the death Tuesday of Bud Carson, a former defensive coordinator of the Super Bowl Steelers, the 1983 Chiefs and an assistant for Vermeil's St. Louis Rams.

"He was an innovator. A lot of things done on defense today were started by Bud Carson," Vermeil said of the former Cleveland Browns head coach. "I learned a lot of football from Bud Carson, and we all lost a wonderful man."

Copyright 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.


Those were by Vermeil if you need more.

Ok, so how does that prove he was not head coaching material?

He was never a head coach again.

Just Clicking

There is absolutely no way anyone can possibly suggest that Romeo was not a great Defensive Coordinator or that he didn't think for himself. In the only season he was with the Browns as our coordinator, our defense was excellent. He created the "UFO Defense" and our defense just did a great job in general. And obviously Belichek thought he was good.

An example that he definetly thought for himself is that it took him no time at all to switch to the 3-4. And considering how much our defense has been turned over since he got here, our defense isn't bad at all. You also must remember he hasn't had the best of talent to work with. Most people on here like Grantham and remember Romeo helped pick him. Same thing with Chud; Romeo helped pick him. I know some people think that Romeo is too calm on the sideline, but what does it matter as long as your players respect you as their leader, want to win, are going to play hard, and are prepared to play. I know his players respect him. Our players definetly want to win, and are puting in all of their effort. Whether or not they are prepared is a debate I am not going to get into. And whether or not Romeo shows enough fire; I really don't care. Do I wish he showed some emotion out there on the sidelines? Sure I do. But it doesn't matter as long as he shows some behind closed doors, and that the players are motivated. I'd rather not see him ripping someone out after they mess up anyway.

I have always stood by Romeo, and I hope that he isn't going anywhere. Do I think he is the best coach ever? No I do not. But I do think he is right for our team. I really think the main step in going from coordinator to Head Coach is being the leader of the team. You are in charge of the team. Your players have to respect you and your assistants have to respect you. And I believe that all of the players respect Romeo and regard him as their leader, and I think all of the assistants respect Romeo as their leader. I also believe that Phil respects him and gets along with him great. Until Romeo shows me some reason why he should not be our Head Coach, I will continue to stand by him. And I just hope he helps out more with the Defense and lets Chud do most of the Offense.

Lets return to Romeo...Has anyone asked how much Romeo had to do with our last draft? I think that the head coach should have major input into all draft decisions. Our first two drafts looked more like Savage and maybe there was not enough time to do a good job in 2005. 2006 had more defense and three LBs. 2007 was a very good draft that got our offense fixed...Oline DB and QB.

Clearly the best draft was 2007 and that came after we had two QBs hurt and over 50 sacks. The previous draft went defense after getting Bentley in FA...his loss hurt. 2006 had WImbley, Jackson, WIlson, Williams, Sowells , Harrison, Minter, Vickers and they are still here but Wilson is fading. The offensive players taken were not great especially at Oline. The LBs have not really done much except for Wimbley. 2005 was Edwards, Poole, Frye, Perkins and McMillian and three are still here.

If Crennel influnced our pick of Thomas and Lewis then he is using his head. 2006 didn't help much and reminded me of B.Davis. We will see if 2008 can give us some Dline talent and start Romeo in the right direction.

j/c

It's my opinion that Romeo is good. But it really doesn't matter what any of us think about Romeo. It only matters what the players think.

I still don't know that he's proved he's a good coach. The jury's still out on that. But he's clearly not the pushover some would have you believe.

I don't know.

Savage has roster control. How much he lets Romeo have input is unknown.

I think Frye was a Romeo pick....since he started the guy. I don't think Savage tells Romeo who to start.



Pick as in being on the roster to start the season.

almost forgot....the guy waddles when he walks!

How can you not like a guy who is our living mascot? He resembles a bulldog in more ways than his walk.

Quote:

---

He was never a head coach again.

---

A year and a half ain't much on a resume, especially the way he was let go.

Getting all the blame, as RAC gets around here by some, when it was evident that it was a lack of youthful talent and depth as the reason that Browns team failed so miserably.

So they get rid of Bud but the team doesn't improve. Not until they began to tear down the roster and bring in youthful talent. Once that talent was in place and got some experience under their belts they did alright. How long did that take? Four years?

So fire Bud Carson because he was a bad coach, then the Browns takes four years to field a winning team. If Bud was the problem, why did it take so long? Wouldn't getting rid of a "bad coach" almost immediately fix the problem?

Not if the coach was not the problem. Not if the coach was not really a "bad coach". Bud Carson was Art Modell's scape goat. It had nothing to do with his ability as a head coach.

If the coach was the problem the new coach should have them back to playing solid ball in his first year wouldn't he? No, then surely by the new coach's second year they should be back to their winning ways right? Well, certainly by his third year! No, it took four years to get back to a winning record and the playoffs. And that team started out with a better talent pool than our current one did.

Then, as now, the problem was talent and depth.

RAC is in his third year, as in the third year is not even close to being over. He has two years and four games in his rebuilding of the team. Shall we consider that he too is a bad coach and that is why this team is not yet winning? Did we learn nothing? Are we doomed to relive history as Art Modell taught us?

He did teach us one thing: every Browns head coach who was given his five years took this team to the playoffs. With that alone being said, I think it a bit premature to release RAC after two and one-quarter seasons.

Quote:

---

He resembles a bulldog in more ways than his walk.

---

That he does!

Quote:

---

After winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years and the same team not getting nearly as close after he left.

---

eo, I'm on your side in this debate.. but the Patriots were 12-4 last year and lost the AFC championship game by 4 points to eventual super bowl champs... I'd say that's getting pretty close...

Romeo has been supporting Frye but the Oline had really no way to give him confidence. I do think that Savage was over anxious to make his GM debut so he probably did alot of the first two years. Savage had to have some major input on position and type of player needed from Crennel. Chudzinski saw Anderson as a thrower that could make some plays but I think Crennel didn't want to dump Frye after he finally got Oline help.

The Oline decision and Steinbach had to influnce Lewis into coming here. We must admit that we have had no real success in getting Oline talent until Savage and Crennel. DId Crennel have as much influnce in attracting talent as Savage...I think it had to be important.

Peen, I certainly didn't say that carson wasn't an innovator,, He was,,

What I'm saying is that so was RAC,, but his record in terms of years is much much shorter than carsons,, it only stands to reason that the examples of innovation would be in shorter supply as well...

Quote:

---

I don't think that is right. I seem to recall Phil had liked charlie's abilities in college and was the reason we got him. Romeo probably didn't even know much about charlie frye while he was busy working with the patriots. i highly doubt he was doing much scouting, especially since he had a long season going to the superbowl.

---

He said, "Pick as in being on the roster to start the season"

I think he meant this season.

I also think that is false, as in Frye being RAC's roster pick, as we all heard Savage backing Frye in his press conference before the season started.

If Savage was only saying that to sound as though he agreed with RAC, as some will undoubtably try to imply, then anything either of them say about each other is crap and not worth the sound bite it is recorded on. If that's the case then they're both just slinging lies with regularity. And I don't believe that.

Frye crapped out = RAC's pick. GMAFB

I'd really hate to see this turn into a QB thread, but if DA would have played better in the preseaon he would have been the starter game one. He didn't, so RAC went with the more experienced Frye. What else could he do? They both stunk it up and Frye won on the head-to-head match up with experience. When Frye looked shell shocked and lost in the first game RAC pulled him and went with DA the rest of the way.

That is obvious by the trading of Frye two days later.

Then we hear from the conspiracy theorist that Savage was forced to trade Frye to keep RAC from starting him the next week. RAC had already said, when he named Frye the starter for game one, that it was only for game one. He was not committing any further than that. That comment should go a ways in explaining away the RAC loves Frye crap as well as Savage had to protect RAC from himself. Again, GMAFB

RAC, like the rest of us, (and this is my belief), didn't give a damn which of those two stepped up and played. He just wished one of them would. When "experience" didn't do it he went with the other guy.

Quote:

---

What I'm saying is that so was RAC,, but his record in terms of years is much much shorter than carsons,, it only stands to reason that the examples of innovation would be in shorter supply as well...

---

We never heard all those wonderful things about Bud until after he passed. That's just the way it is with everyone.


What will they say about RAC when he passes?

He was the DC on a three time Superbowl winning team and has five rings in all. Or does someone think they certainly would have said all these wonderful things about RAC already if he really is so great?

j/c...

Romeo gives his input to Savage... Savage says that he and Romeo talk all the time about the roster, and what changes or improvements can be made.

1) QB situation - It was obvious to EVERYONE that Charlie wasn't cutting it. It was obvious that the players liked Anderson's arm a lot better than Frye's. So someone OFFERED for Frye, and the Browns took it.

2) Romeo gives the most input on the players he already has and I'm pretty sure he tells Savage what he is looking for to help improve the team. I've seen reports where they work together on that portion, but when it comes to the actual scouting, that is COMPLETELY Savages job, just like its Romeo's job to coach.

Savage scouts, and gets quality players to fill holes, and/or get quality depth. Guys that could do something.

Romeo coaches, and gets quality players on the field, and get them ready to win ball games.

Quote:

---

they just dotn understand that for his first two years here he was going to a gun fight with a butter knife

---

I wish I'd said that

I was looking for a way to say that no coach can win if they don't have some kinda talent,,, But that was about as perfect way to get it across as I've heard..

Quote:

---

We never heard all those wonderful things about Bud until after he passed. That's just the way it is with everyone.

---

I don't know about you, but I heard plenty of great things about Carson when he was hired as HC of the Browns..

All the press and other media types could talk about is how he built the Pittsburgh D in the 70's...

OK...Romeo came up with the UFO defense....I still seem to remember that John Teerlink(couldn't remember his name last night) is actually the guy who had the idea....but it doesn't matter....when the UFO defense sweeps the league, I will bow to that point.

A night a sleep refreshes the mind...You guys are right....Romeo is doing a great job and we are darn lucky to have the guy. I don't know what I have been thinking the last couple of years.

Thanks for straightening me out.

What I always find funny is how whenever RAC is criticized the same 3 or 4 guys are set loose on the criticizing poster like a pack of wild dogs.

"that's just your opinion" "look what he had to work with" "Butch left him with nothing" etc., etc., etc.......

My question has always been, "When do we get to criticize?" The end of 3 years? 4? 5?

RAC is probably a pretty good Defensive mind. The jury is still out on his HC abilities. Beating Cincy, as has been shown since then, may not be that big a deal. The Baltimore win was very nice, indeed. But honestly, I'd be more impressed if the Ravens actually seemed to have an Offense. The Pitt loss was putrid and we should have beaten the Raiders.

Look, we all want Romeo to succeed. We want to watch a winner. But that doesn't mean we all have to be in lock-step with our opinions on the HC. So I think the guys who keep barkin' at Peen need to ease up a little. He's entitled to his opinion. And it's just possible he'll end up being right.

I know. I went though this with Couch.


Prove it...that's another standard retort.

You can be such an AZZ sometimes.,, you know that Peen

I tried to do a Google search on Teerlink and I didn't come up with much to be honest.. Not exactly a good indication that he's real well known for anything except something to do with Vick and flipping the bird or something like that.

I do think the team is riding pretty high right now. With that considered and with RAC making improvements in the prep, we should be able to stay in this game. While a win might be a tall order, we should be able to make it a game....and if we are there at the end, anything can happen.

Quote:

---

My question has always been, "When do we get to criticize?"

---

So, criticize is what you want to do? That may say a lot right there.

But to answer your question, from my own opinion, you get to criticize the coach when the team's failings are coach related. If you don't understand that I can't help you. Lord knows I've tried.

I'm not saying that RAC is now or even will develop into a great head coach. There is no way of knowing that in advance. Coaches get called great after the fact. Do great things as a head coach and then you get to be called a great head coach.

But there is a concept of giving a guy a chance.

If Mike Tomlin runs the Steelers team into the ground by the end of the season and by mid-season next year it's worse or no better, then he is not head coaching material and yes, you can tell that soon. The reason you could tell that soon is because he came into a situation where the team is already loaded with talent, has a great defense with the continuity of keeping it's successful DC, the offense has a great line and proven, successful NFL playmakers, including a proven highly successful quarterback, who have been playing together for no less than several years, and the organization itself has been the model of solidity, continuity and stability.

If Mike Tomlin screws that up then he sucks as a head coach.

The difference here in Cleveland is that the situation the head coach came into is vastly different. There was very little talent on either side of the ball and certainly none who could be called playmakers, an entirely new coaching staff was brought in, in a hurry I might add, we had no talent at the quarterback position, and an organization and scouting department that was about as dysfunctional, ineffective and in as constant a flux as a football organization can get.

There was a lot of serious behind the scenes work to do just to stabilize the situation .


To bring in talent and develop some sense of consistancy. (We want to see consistancy even though the roster itself is constantly changing.)

To build that roster through the college draft, which takes time at the pace of three players per year. (And wait the natural time span for them to become legitimate NFL players.)

To take those players, put them on the field and allow them to gel as their respective units. (We have just now entered the very beginning stages of having the potental talent to compete in the NFL, but we want to them to be a well-oiled machine by their fourth game together.)

The players who remained from the previous regime knew nothing but losing in their NFL careers and that mindset had to be turned around. (Without having the benefit of winning to do it for you.)

A coaching staff had to be in place and on the same page. (Even though the first wave was hired in a hurry from a coaching pool that was depleted by the time RAC got to choose his.)

The front office had to be stabilized as the President of the organization was attempting to undermine the General Manager. (As though the task of reorganizing the scouting department and bringing in talent was not hard enough without that kind of crap to deal with at the same time.)

None of these issues is coach related.

The man can't win without talent. He can't speed up time to get it here in a hurry. He can't teach experience. He can't develop consistancy with the ever changing roster. And the road to changing the losing mindset is steeped in needing to win and the situation was stacked heavily against him in that regard.

If we expect RAC to have that turned all that around by the middle of his second year, (as that was about the time the serious criticizims were starting), when we all know that the team didn't really start with any serious rebuilding until the beginning of that season, well then, who sucks? The coach or the fans?

Give the man a chance. That's all I'm saying.

He hasn't had much of a chance up to this point and now that he is finally entering a situation where he may actually have a chance to improve and get something done, we have fans who want him removed because he hadn't gotten it done already.

Quote:

---

I don't know about you, but I heard plenty of great things about Carson when he was hired as HC of the Browns..

---

Yes. And I did too. I would never put Bud Carson down for any reason. I loved him when he was here. One of my last really great memories of watching the Browns with my Dad was the 51-0 smack-down he put on the Steelers. I will always respect, admire and be grateful for that.

If I'm not mistaken Bud did "invent" the Cover 2, not merely perfect it. It's league-wide use today is testiment of his genius.

But they were not praising Bud when he was hired nearly so much as they did after his passing.

All I'm saying is that it will likely be the same for RAC.

I have also heard plenty of great things about RAC when he was hired as HC of the Browns.

When RAC passes, we'll see people coming out of the woodwork to praise his DC knowledge and abilities. And for all we know things may come out of that which will clue us in on some innovations of his own. Innovator or not, the man knows his defense.

If you don't understand that I can't help you. Lord knows I've tried.

You are usually an excellent poster. But I stopped reading right there. I doubt if you were trying to sound like an arrogant SOB but it certainly came off that way.

Here's all I'm gonna say on this subject. RAC is doing well now. I hope he keeps it up. But if the team starts losing and looking bad while doing it he's gonna get criticized. Count on it. And it won't be just by us "know nothings".

As far as how we'll do tomorrow......I expect us to lose. Probably by about 17 points. NE is just that much better. All I ask is that we don't look like a middle school team while we're doing it. Because if we do look like the team that lost to Pittsburgh I won't be the only guy asking why.