Something I wrote on a sports message board. I wrote this before they beat the Giants and lost to the Redskins, but I feel it's still pertinent . . .
There are three things that have defined the Browns' season so far. The first has been injuries. Other than quarterback and running back, a player at every vital area has been injured for a significant amount of time. From wide-receiver, offensive line, defensive line, secondary, and linebacker, a key cog that the Browns' had been relying on to make significant contributions this season has gone down, often for the season. But the Browns, for once, seem to actually have some depth - except in the secondary and at wide-receiver.
This has lead to the second problem; inconsistent play. Eric Wright and Ben McDonald look like they may turn into big-time corners in the near future. Unfortunately, this is the present and all too often they appear to be overwhelmed and only occasionally do they step up and make a big play or big stop. Kamerion Wimbley apparently has taken a huge step backward. Again. As has Andra Davis. Again. What happened to them? Both of them? They both showed flashes of brilliance in their first seasons, but then tailed off in progressive seasons. Shaun Rogers has been a force of nature at nose tackle, but his compatriot at defensive end, Corey Williams, seems lost by all accounts. This is what happens when you move a 4-3 defensive end to 3-4 defensive end or 3-4 linebacker! It rarely works! How many times has this happened now? How many times has it NOT worked? On the other side of the ball, the offensive line has taken a step backwards - albeit small, but one significant enough to be obvious. Anderson has had less time this year than last year and he's taken quite a few more hits in these first four games than he did much of last season. Meanwhile, what receivers are healthy can't seem to catch the ball, even when it's thrown to them. Which brings us (ok, me . . . ) to Derek Anderson . . . In only one quarter has Derek Anderson appeared to be a competent quarterback and that was against one of the few teams worse than the Browns. His throws have been off-target, weak, and lack the confidence and zip he had last year. He's been throwing off his back foot and been staring down his receivers. His mechanics are completely out of whack. And that leads to short drives, turnovers, and more field goals than touchdowns.
Which brings me to the third and, I think, biggest problem. After Romeo Crennel led the team to an improbably 6-10 record his first year, I felt cautiously hopeful about the following season. Even though the new front office was still ignoring the three key weaknesses - quarterback, offensive and defensive lines - it seemed like new skill players were making significant contributions AND players from the previous "regime" (and the Butch Davis-era seemed very much like a monarchical "regime") started taking progressive steps forward. Of course, Browns fans suffered through yet another 4-12 year. While many of my fellow fans were calling for Crennel's head, I urged patience. It was only his second year. Yes, he seemed unusually passive. Yes, his clock management skills could be improved. And, yes, he was bewilderingly loyal to a completely incompetent offensive coordinator. But what coach doesn't have flaws? I thought the key was that previous malcontents were suddenly playing hard and keeping their mouths shut while young players were making strides and playing their roles. Also, the front office was finally addressing blatantly weak areas of the team. And, even though they were losing, they were playing hard. There were a lot of 17-10 and 16-13 games that year, so I urged patience. A few new skill players and I felt the Browns could very well finish 6-10 again or, dare I dream of such grandeur, 8-8. Of course, the Browns exceeded my - and all of our - expectations by missing out on the playoffs only by a backroom deal worthy of any Chicago politico or Tammany Hall veteran. But hidden in that 10-6 season was a lot of luck and a shadowy hint of those same old flaws. Crennel still couldn't manage the clock and was still too passive; the defense gave up a lot of yards and points; injuries were, for once, a dodged bullet; and Derek Anderson only completed 58% of his passes, threw 19 interceptions, and completely melted down in a couple of games at the now-forgotten tail-end of the season.
Coming into this season, a lot fans had a lot of hope, but I was cautiously hopeful once again. And I warned fellow fans to be cautiously hopeful as well. I looked at the staggeringly tough schedule, the snake-bitten injuries that once again reared their heads, and the glaring lack of depth at key positions and said, "They'll be lucky to finish 8-8." I think all Cleveland fans have that "cautious optimism" inbred in us by now. We're the new Boston. Now we've seen the real Browns and we've seen the real Romeo Crennel. He is borderline incompetent. And, as much as it pains me to say this, so is Phil Savage. There are glaring areas of weakness on this team and both the head coach's and front office's response has been to "stay the course." This is not the answer. Let me say that again. This is not the answer. The 3-4 defense is not working. Sticking to it until the end of the year is not the answer. Romeo Crennel hasn't shown any inventiveness or any willingness to deviate from the norm. Why haven't the Browns used Josh Cribbs more? Why not move him around like the Bears do with Devin Hester? Why not give him some game time at quarterback? Why don't the Browns move defensive players around? Why don't they vary their blitz packages at all - especially when it seems they're so successful when they do? (And when other teams like the Ravens and Steelers do it so well?) Why don't they give Brady Quinn a few plays per game just to give him a taste of the speed and texture of the NFL game? Why not give Jerome Harrison and Jason Wright more than one or two touches per game when they so clearly change the complexity of the Browns' offense? Why not go back to the 4-3 RIGHT NOW when it so obviously would help several players RIGHT NOW - not at the end of the season when the season's already lost? Why not try something new NOW? This lack of inventiveness and adherence to the plain vanilla, "same ol' same ol'" infuriates me to no end. But the thing that infuriates me the most is that the Browns have looked woefully under-prepared going into every game since that first Giants preseason game two months ago. I would rather have that 4-12 season back and all of those low-scoring brawls than to watch a team that looks like a JV team taking on St. Ignatius or Benedictine. (Or, if you prefer, a Sun Belt team taking on a SEC team.) He's in his sixties, this is his fourth year, and he hasn't shown any sort of imagination, flexibility, or fire. And that is why Romeo Crennel needs to be fired. Immediately.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Coming into this season, a lot fans had a lot of hope, but I was cautiously hopeful once again. And I warned fellow fans to be cautiously hopeful as well. I looked at the staggeringly tough schedule, the snake-bitten injuries that once again reared their heads, and the glaring lack of depth at key positions and said, "They'll be lucky to finish 8-8." I think all Cleveland fans have that "cautious optimism" inbred in us by now. We're the new Boston. Now we've seen the real Browns and we've seen the real Romeo Crennel. He is borderline incompetent. And, as much as it pains me to say this, so is Phil Savage. There are glaring areas of weakness on this team and both the head coach's and front office's response has been to "stay the course." This is not the answer. Let me say that again. This is not the answer. The 3-4 defense is not working. Sticking to it until the end of the year is not the answer. Romeo Crennel hasn't shown any inventiveness or any willingness to deviate from the norm. Why haven't the Browns used Josh Cribbs more? Why not move him around like the Bears do with Devin Hester? Why not give him some game time at quarterback? Why don't the Browns move defensive players around? Why don't they vary their blitz packages at all - especially when it seems they're so successful when they do? (And when other teams like the Ravens and Steelers do it so well?) Why don't they give Brady Quinn a few plays per game just to give him a taste of the speed and texture of the NFL game? Why not give Jerome Harrison and Jason Wright more than one or two touches per game when they so clearly change the complexity of the Browns' offense? Why not go back to the 4-3 RIGHT NOW when it so obviously would help several players RIGHT NOW - not at the end of the season when the season's already lost? Why not try something new NOW? This lack of inventiveness and adherence to the plain vanilla, "same ol' same ol'" infuriates me to no end. But the thing that infuriates me the most is that the Browns have looked woefully under-prepared going into every game since that first Giants preseason game two months ago. I would rather have that 4-12 season back and all of those low-scoring brawls than to watch a team that looks like a JV team taking on St. Ignatius or Benedictine. (Or, if you prefer, a Sun Belt team taking on a SEC team.) He's in his sixties, this is his fourth year, and he hasn't shown any sort of imagination, flexibility, or fire. And that is why Romeo Crennel needs to be fired. Immediately. 
Am I really a 'blogger'?
I guess it's official. After years of bucking dozens of trends, I've finally caved in and decided to follow the pack. Everyone's got a blog, and now so do I. I know this is just a form of mental masturbation, but, whatever. I like to write and I like to read what I write. And I like to think that I have a somewhat competent understanding of the English language. (The last time I gave in on what I thought was a fad, I ended up reading all of the Harry Potter books in under a week.)
I'm reading The Dark Tower series, and I've just reached the final book. I felt the first book was amazing while the subsequent three to four books all follow along fairly well. There are some ups and downs within those books, but, to that point, Stephen King had written a series that I thought could eventually be compared with The Lord of the Rings of Harry Potter or any other fantasy series with a fanatical following. But then I read Song of Susannah. And the wheels came flying off. The book is horrible. And I don't think I'm being particularly hyperbolic or unkind. It really is that bad. There's no need for the book. Not only is it the vestigial organ of the series, but King includes many details and sections that have no place in the universe he has created and completely ruin the mythos he has created. For instance:
King is known now as the genre-defining horror author. Most of his books could typically be described as pulp or fluff. Occasionally, he rose above his typical fare by writing stories like The Green Mile, Misery, Hearts in Atlantis, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." In these stories, King wrote not of horror or fantasy, but a plausible reality tinged with the highly improbable. He also avoided unnecessary and overtly graphic scenes and descriptions. And, for the most part, the first four books of The Dark Tower series follow these trends rather than the typical populist horror stories he's more known for writing. In the fourth book, Wizard and Glass, we see that King begins to lose his way. Rather than sticking to the world of The Gunslinger, King reverts back to his pulpy pop-culture past - even going so far as to include scenes and places not only from his previous books but from other fictions as well. Also, King includes a rather graphic and unnecessary description of a young boy blowing up a stray dog's head with a firecracker. While King may have felt the need to include these scenes as a writer, as a reader, he only manages to rip me completely out of the story. When he writes scenes like these, I am not immersed in his world but aware of the construction behind it. He is not a writer, then - a wordslinger - but a very, very poor magician. Ironically, he alludes to the scene from The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her 'ka-tet' visit the Emerald Palace. Don't look behind the curtain.
This continues in the next book. While the story that takes place in Calla Bryn Sturgis seems to fit the overall arc, significantly larger chunks of the book fall outside of the construct of the series. I'm sorry, Mr. King, but vampires and zombies and barely disguised 'low-men' have no place in your story. Nothing so unbelievable occurs in this world you've created. Much like Lucas' inclusion of midiclorians, this drastic change in plausibility ruins the mythology he has created. It just doesn't fit. And the references to lightsabers from Star Wars and snitches from Harry Potter and the continued 'borrowing' from the writer's other books only further diminish the illusion of immersion.
Song of Susannah is the culmination of King's gradual deviation. This isn't merely a scene of unnecessary description and gore. This isn't merely a chapter of implausibility. This is an entire, fully-conceived, full-price book. And it is an abomination. First off, nothing happens in this book. If you were to skip this book in its entirety while reading the series, you would not miss one development in the overall story. On top of that, there is so much unnecessary fluff and gore . . . At one point, one of the characters hypnotizes another character and convinces him that he will be 'regular' for the rest of this life. Really? Was this necessary? Does this benefit the story in any way? Also, by this point, we know that the low-men are evil; that they are creatures of destruction that should be avoided at all costs. And yet King felt it necessary to include a vivid and graphic description of the low-men cooking a human baby. Yes, that's about as jarring a sentence as it was a scene in the book. Why include any of this?
Part of the reason I continued to read the series is that, as a reader, I have been 'drawn' along with Eddie and Susannah and Jake into Roland's search for the Dark Tower. I, too, want to see the field of red roses and the smoky, hazy form of blackness rising out of it. Unfortunately, with Song of Susannah (and, apparently, the beginning of The Dark Tower), this wordslinger has lost his drive and desire to complete the quest.
I'm reading The Dark Tower series, and I've just reached the final book. I felt the first book was amazing while the subsequent three to four books all follow along fairly well. There are some ups and downs within those books, but, to that point, Stephen King had written a series that I thought could eventually be compared with The Lord of the Rings of Harry Potter or any other fantasy series with a fanatical following. But then I read Song of Susannah. And the wheels came flying off. The book is horrible. And I don't think I'm being particularly hyperbolic or unkind. It really is that bad. There's no need for the book. Not only is it the vestigial organ of the series, but King includes many details and sections that have no place in the universe he has created and completely ruin the mythos he has created. For instance:
King is known now as the genre-defining horror author. Most of his books could typically be described as pulp or fluff. Occasionally, he rose above his typical fare by writing stories like The Green Mile, Misery, Hearts in Atlantis, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." In these stories, King wrote not of horror or fantasy, but a plausible reality tinged with the highly improbable. He also avoided unnecessary and overtly graphic scenes and descriptions. And, for the most part, the first four books of The Dark Tower series follow these trends rather than the typical populist horror stories he's more known for writing. In the fourth book, Wizard and Glass, we see that King begins to lose his way. Rather than sticking to the world of The Gunslinger, King reverts back to his pulpy pop-culture past - even going so far as to include scenes and places not only from his previous books but from other fictions as well. Also, King includes a rather graphic and unnecessary description of a young boy blowing up a stray dog's head with a firecracker. While King may have felt the need to include these scenes as a writer, as a reader, he only manages to rip me completely out of the story. When he writes scenes like these, I am not immersed in his world but aware of the construction behind it. He is not a writer, then - a wordslinger - but a very, very poor magician. Ironically, he alludes to the scene from The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her 'ka-tet' visit the Emerald Palace. Don't look behind the curtain.
This continues in the next book. While the story that takes place in Calla Bryn Sturgis seems to fit the overall arc, significantly larger chunks of the book fall outside of the construct of the series. I'm sorry, Mr. King, but vampires and zombies and barely disguised 'low-men' have no place in your story. Nothing so unbelievable occurs in this world you've created. Much like Lucas' inclusion of midiclorians, this drastic change in plausibility ruins the mythology he has created. It just doesn't fit. And the references to lightsabers from Star Wars and snitches from Harry Potter and the continued 'borrowing' from the writer's other books only further diminish the illusion of immersion.
Song of Susannah is the culmination of King's gradual deviation. This isn't merely a scene of unnecessary description and gore. This isn't merely a chapter of implausibility. This is an entire, fully-conceived, full-price book. And it is an abomination. First off, nothing happens in this book. If you were to skip this book in its entirety while reading the series, you would not miss one development in the overall story. On top of that, there is so much unnecessary fluff and gore . . . At one point, one of the characters hypnotizes another character and convinces him that he will be 'regular' for the rest of this life. Really? Was this necessary? Does this benefit the story in any way? Also, by this point, we know that the low-men are evil; that they are creatures of destruction that should be avoided at all costs. And yet King felt it necessary to include a vivid and graphic description of the low-men cooking a human baby. Yes, that's about as jarring a sentence as it was a scene in the book. Why include any of this?
Part of the reason I continued to read the series is that, as a reader, I have been 'drawn' along with Eddie and Susannah and Jake into Roland's search for the Dark Tower. I, too, want to see the field of red roses and the smoky, hazy form of blackness rising out of it. Unfortunately, with Song of Susannah (and, apparently, the beginning of The Dark Tower), this wordslinger has lost his drive and desire to complete the quest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)