More about 'More (Rich)

I'm pretty much with Weegie as far as identifying the key offensive storylines this week. I'm also happy about the possibility that the offense can get 13 and we might still win handily. Or, even more conservatively, the offense can get 6, the defense can get 7, and we can win with the same 13.

On the other hand, there are things I really want to see out of the offense. I want to see if Tommy Maddox can snap out of it on the road where he'll hear fewer boos. I want to see if we give Randle El one designed series the way we used to give Kordell when he first started. I want to see if Tommy got the memo about Heath Miller being really useful. I want to know if anyone but Weegie and I had noticed the Randle El semicircular reverse thing--which, admittedly, served him well on the TD to Hines. I want to know if we could make Cedric Wilson's head explode by throwing three passes to Quincy Morgan and two to Jerame Tuman. I want to see Verron Haynes' face when he reads an article about our "three-headed running back" and how many phone calls national and local reporters have gotten from a mysterious "Mr. VH" pointing out that #34 is the only halfback who's been active for every game. I want to see if the no-huddle is going to continue working to get Tommy going. I want to see what the message boards look like this week if Tommy throws for 426 yards and 4 TDs.

Finally, what I really want to see is a healthy #7 under center in 9 nights.

--rich erenberg

Deep 13 offense, and how to not use it. (Weegie)

The story floating around the city this week was of course, "Crap, now what do we do?" Nobody's exactly looking forward to the notion of the Tommy Maddox start, but there is the realization that, if we want Ben to play in January, it's probably good to keep him away from the team that wouldn't mind going off Reichenbach Falls if it took its mortal enemy with them. So we find the story rife with B plots. Will Tommy recover after the Jaguars game? Signs say we hope so, he'll have a better cast to go with this time. Are we going to let the Ravens do what they nearly did on Halloween? Signs say we hope not, and our chief ally in this is Kyle Boller, a man who can't be the modern Vinny against the Steelers, simply because he's the modern Vinny against every other team as well. But the absolute riveting story this week was the possibility of us going with Randle El at QB. He's going in as the 3rd string this week, and there was some notion that him starting would be savvy, as it sounds like Marvel Smith won't be on line offering protection, so mobility would be useful. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a couple trick plays here, and that's what worries me. This is the type of situation where we get cute, and die. We made our mint in the Mularkey era with the occasional gimmick, maybe one a game, go to two of these, and it's something people expect. And Randle El right now, is what people would expect.

I also don't like the angle Randle El typically takes on reverses, he seems to run almost a perfect semi-circle, which means he's too far back at the time when the defense realizes what's up. Contrast this with Hines, who used to run a far less deep reverse, which was usually far more effective than anything 82's generated on that play. And if I remember correctly, the worst example of this recently was Halloween against the same Ravens.

This week would be perfect for the crazy trick play only designed to get force the Ravens to call a time out. Put Randle El and Ward in the backfield, Miller and Max Starks as tight ends, Parker or Polamalu on the wing. Something so blatantly completely insane that the defense for it doesn't exist, and the other team has no choice but to call a time out to deal with it.

Otherwise, I think the best course of action this week is grind, grind, grind. Run, run, run, switch out and put the next runner in. If you pass, play the safe, quick routes. The key here is keeping ahead, making few mistakes, and protect your possible losses if a mistake happens. Ugly but effective.

Notes on the Start of the Second Half (Rich)

First off, the P-G has a nice piece this morning that discusses why the Cleveland Browns v.2.0 have struggled. It's crazy, as someone who grew up in the Kosar era, that the Ravens and Bengals have each in turn passed the men from the Land of Cleve as our primary rivals. Really, it seems to come down to poor personnel decisions: Couch over McNabb, Courtney Brown and Gerard Warren over anyone, Winslow over the handlebars, etc.

In breaking news, we cut Weegie-bugaboo Willie Williams this morning to elevate Matt Kranchick and have two healthy tight ends tonight. Willie had been passed by the whole slew of youngsters at the position, particularly fast-rising #2 pick Bryant McFadden, and had been a healthy scratch for the last several weeks. Willie did yeoman's work for us last year, but may have been the biggest part of why we were torched deep repeatedly in the AFC Championship Game. Ironically, he'll probably be picked up on Monday by the Patriots, where he might be starting within 3 weeks. Meanwhile, I fully expect that the Browns will key on The Heath Bar, and Kranchick will get open for his first career TD tonight.

Finally, I've got to respond to Weegie's playoff math. For a team to miss the playoffs in the AFC at 12-4, both quality and zaniness on an unprecedented scale would have to happen over the final 8 weeks. At least three non-division winners would have to finish at least 12-4. There are only four non-division leaders right now who don't have 5 losses already: the Pitt/Cincy loser, Jacksonville, KC, and San Diego. San Diego already has 4 losses, so we would need all but one of the following to happen: Pittsburgh goes at least 6-2, Cincy goes at least 5-2, Jacksonville goes at least 7-1, K.C. goes at least 7-1, San Diego goes 8-0. Plus, all that would have to happen while Indy and Denver maintained their division leads, or lost their division leads while going no worse than 12-4 overall--so let's add to the list: Indy goes at least 4-4, and Denver goes at least 6-2. Now add the fact that every divisional matchup in that mess still has a second game to be played, plus Indy still has to play Pittsburgh, Cincy, and San Diego. That's at least 8 losses to be accounted for on one side of the ledger or the other. Bottom line: it probably can't happen, and it definitely won't happen.

Here's how I see it playing out:

• Indy cruises to the #1 seed at 13-3 or 14-2
• New England gets the #4 seed by default, at 9-7 if it's lucky
• The Pittsburgh/Cincy rematch winner takes the division at 12-4, although even if we lose the rematch, we might beat out Cincy thanks to a craptacular schedule featuring the Browns twice, the Ravens, and 3 more Norris teams, while Cincy has to go to KC, and we both have to deal with the Colts and each other. The non-winner gets the #5.
• Someone, don't ask me who, emerges in the West and gets the #3. Someone else in the West maintains and battles Jacksonville for the #6. Someone fades and gets nothing. (OK, if you twist my arm: KC emerges, Denver maintains, San Diego fades--largely based on schedule, plus KC's football karma for the end of the Oakland game, plus I always presume the Shanahan/Plummer combo will blow it.)
• The third team in the West might get shut out at 10-6, but I think it's more likely they fall to 8-8
• Jacksonville is the hardest team for me to deal with. They don't seem like better than a 10-6 team, but Matt Leinart has a tougher schedule than what the Jags face. They have the least daunting 3-week road trip in NFL history (at TEN, at AZ, at CLE), they also go to Houston, and they host Tennessee, San Fran, and Baltimore. Their one game with a contender is hosting Indy. I suspect they'll blow it somehow and fight some West team for the #6 slot at 10-6. But man, I can also see them running the table and putting the fear of God into Indy if Indy loses to Pittsburgh and Cincy. If they go 7-1 or 8-0 down the stretch as they very well could, and the Pittsburgh/Cincy winner gets the other wild card, this could be the most competitive AFC playoffs since...well, I gotta go back to 2004-05.

--rich erenberg