I'm not usually one to interrupt the continuity of Preview-then-Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns, so please accept my apologies. I'll keep this short. First, I read this:

"I definitely feel like this year is the best I've pitched,'' Sabathia said. "I've been more consistent by far.''

Then, on the front page of Baseball Prospectus, I see this:

Top 5 Flakiest AL Starters, by FLAKE*

Player          Team   FLAKE
C.C. Sabathia    CLE    .285
Joe Saunders     ANA    .282
Dan Haren        OAK    .275
Jose Contreras   CHA    .272
Robinson Tejeda  TEX    .269

* Minimum 10 games started.

And... punchline!

You know what they say, fourth time's the charm! This week, the Browns face an opponent that has looked like possibly the worst team in the league so far. Are the Raiders as bad as they say? Let's get to previewin'!

At some point in the next few weeks, we'll be ready to start using plain old, straight-up DVOA in our Browns previews, which will make things a lot easier to follow. We have not yet reached that point, however, as the sample of games played so far is still a little too small to be meaningful. Thus, as I did last week, I'm presenting both a "weighted" version of DVOA, combining pre-season DVOA projections with the numbers from weeks 1-3 (a stat which Football Outsiders is now calling "DAVE"--for "DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early"), and the actual, raw VOA from weeks 1-3 (still not adjusted for strength of opposition). As usual, take raw VOA totals with a huge grain of salt!

This week's DAVE and VOA totals can be perused here. A detailed explanation of how DVOA works can be read here.

Browns offense vs. Raiders defense:

                    CLE offense  OAK defense
DAVE (weighted)       -16.4%        -1.5%
Wks 1-3 actual VOA    -26.3%         6.9%
actual passing VOA    -33.8%        -3.4%
actual rushing VOA    -16.0%        12.6%

It shocks me, as it should shock you, that in the season's first three games, according to VOA, the Browns' rushing attempts have been more successful on a per-play basis than their passing attempts. I mean, we have seen Reuben Droughns, Jerome Harrison, and Jason Gomillion Wright do absolutely nothing this season. There may be an explanation for the numbers above, however. For one thing, Charlie Frye has been extremely effective as a runner, either picking up first downs with long to go, or scoring touchdowns in goal line situations (three so far!). In fact, the Browns as a team have been effective in goal line or short yardage situations, simply by dint of Frye's runs. Also, apparently, rushing performances have been way down across the NFL so far this year. I have no idea why this is, but since VOA is a percentage over league average, a team like the Browns is helped out by league-wide poor rushing.

So no, I do not think that the Browns' rushing game has been their offensive strength so far this year. I think we are seeing the effects of a small sample size. Similarly, I don't think the Browns offense as a whole has been as bad as the numbers suggest--they have played some pretty good defenses so far (at least the Saints and Bengals are beginning to look like good defenses). The Raiders defense, on the other hand, was projected to be decent, and, in two games so far, actually has been more or less decent. Much as I remain uninterested in seeing the Browns attempt many rushing plays, perhaps this is the week they will get something going on the ground, as Oakland has been stronger on pass defense than on run defense. Advantage: Raiders

Raiders offense vs. Browns defense:

                    OAK offense  CLE defense
DAVE (weighted)       -35.8%         1.4%
Wks 1-3 actual VOA    -73.7%         8.6%
actual passing VOA   -105.4%        16.1%
actual rushing VOA    -37.9%        -0.6%

This is why stats are misleading when they are not adjusted for strength of opposition. This is also why small sample sizes are dangerous. The Raiders have only played two games so far, and they were against the #1 and #2 defenses in the league, by DAVE (Baltimore and San Diego). Account for that, and the Raiders offense might not look so bad on paper. Even the Raiders' league-worst offensive DAVE is probably getting screwed up by these factors. That said, this is not a good offense by any stretch of the imagination--they were projected to rank 21st in offensive DVOA before the season started. And that was before Aaron Brooks injured himself. Of course, Aaron Brooks was a big part of the problem (he has been quite overrated for years), and this Andrew Walter character is a complete unknown, so I'm not entirely certain it's a good omen that the rookie backup will be getting the start against the Browns on Sunday.

If you recall, these two teams met late last season and LaMont Jordan had a career day, running, as they say, "hog wild". The Raiders managed only 7 total points, however, because the Browns' shutdown corners managed to, as they say, "shut down" the Oakland receivers most thoroughly. Seeing as how the Raiders passing game still looks to be in shambles, I would say that the Browns should be trying to follow that blueprint once more, even if it means allowing LaMont Jordan to rack up lots of yards again. The key will be whether Gary Baxter is ready to play Sunday. I don't have to tell you what a difference there is between Baxter and either Ralph Brown, Daven Holly, or Antonio Perkins. Advantage: Browns

Special teams matchups:

                        Browns  Raiders
DAVE (weighted)          2.0%     2.3%
Wks 1-3 actual VOA       3.8%     4.0%
FG kicking               0.4      1.7
CLE kickoff vs. OAK KR   4.3      3.0
CLE KR vs. OAK kickoff  -1.6     -2.0
CLE punt vs. OAK PR      1.2     -1.2
CLE PR vs. OAK punt     -0.3      1.5

Wow, talk about an even matchup. Neither the Browns nor the Raiders have a clear advantage in any one area of special teams. For the record, both units are quite strong, ranking #3 (Oakland) and #5 (Cleveland) in the NFL in special teams DAVE. Ironically, the strength of the Browns special teams so far has been the kickoff unit, probably because Robot Phil Dawson has been on hand to deliver so many touchbacks. The weakness? The kickoff return unit, which, you'll recall, got off to a very cold start last year but finished on fire. Advantage: Neither

All things considered, I like the Browns' chances of picking up their first win this weekend (note my cautious choice of words--no predictions!). The Browns offense may be bad, but the Raiders offense is probably worse. That could mean we're in store for a low-scoring battle. Last year, the Browns beat Oakland 9 to 7, and aside from a last-second field goal, that game was a real snoozer. Let's at least hope we have a little more excitement this time around.

Last week, I was checking Jhonny Peralta's DT card on Baseball Prospectus, as is my wont, and something jumped out at me. Pro-rating the rest of the 2006 season, Jhonny is on pace for somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 Fielding Runs Above Average! If that doesn't mean anything to you, how about this: 25 FRAA is more than the career highs of Omar Vizquel, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzuto, Honus Wagner, Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, and is nearly equal to that of Cal Ripken Jr., Ozzie Smith, Barry Larkin, and a few others. I quickly pounded out e-mails to Nate Silver, BP's head honcho, and Clay Davenport, who invented FRAA, seeking an explanation for these stunning numbers. Sadly, I'm still waiting on a response.

In an earlier defense of Señor Peralta, I wrote that he was in "Gold Glove territory." At the time, Jhonny had a FRAA of 15. But 25 FRAA isn't just in Gold Glove territory, it's in Greatest Defensive Season in Team History territory. Here are the greatest seasons by an Indian by FRAA (adjusted for era):

Player          Year  FRAA
Graig Nettles   1971    36
Joe Sewell      1925    29
Frank Duffy     1975    26
Nap Lajoie      1908    26
Lou Boudreau    1940    25
Jhonny Peralta  2006    25 (projected)
Terry Turner    1906    24
Joe Vosmik      1932    23
Graig Nettles   1970    22
Lou Boudreau    1943    22
Mickey Vernon   1949    22
Lou Boudreau    1946    21
Nap Lajoie      1907    21
Jim Hegan       1950    21
Ken Keltner     1939    20
Joe Sewell      1928    20
Felix Fermin    1989    20
Jerry Kindall   1962    20

You may notice that many of these seasons are from a really long time ago, when defensive statistics are a little iffy. So take this list with a grain of salt. If you want to rely on more modern data, consider that Jhonny is currently second in the MLB in FRAA, to Jamey Carroll, and first among shortstops. Eleven players are projected to amass 20 or more FRAA this season. Only three are shortstops: Michael Young, Adam Everett, and Jhonny Awesomestix. Nevertheless, Peralta is among impressive and rare company. Before you sink your teeth into me with a "don't you even watch the games?", let me say that I found these statistics a bit unbelievable myself. That's why I wrote to Messrs. Silver and Davenport.

The issue of Jhonny's impressive defensive statistics raises a few interesting questions. Firstly, how accurate and trustworthy are FRAA and it's sister FRAR (Fielding Runs Above Replacement)? Personally, I have confidence in what FRAA and FRAR tell me, especially since the writers from Baseball Prospectus draw so many conclusions from them. There are indeed better measures of defense, like those within The Fielding Bible, but that has some drawbacks: (a) it costs money, and (b) it doesn't go back through 1901.

Secondly, what does this tell us about Jhonny Peralta? And thirdly, what does this tell us about other defenders (read: Omar Vizquel)? I'll argue that Jhonny is underrated defensively until the day I die, and Baseball Prospectus's numbers go a long way to back me up. Even if you don't think Peralta is deserving of high praise, you'd be hard pressed to find statistics showing Jhonny to be at least below average defensively. He has a very poor reputation, and fans generally watch professional sports through reputation-tinted glasses.

That Omar Vizquel and others, like Kenny Lofton and Robbie Alomar, don't come out as well as Jhonny in this exercise is also surprising. I've begun reevaluating my position on their defense. It would seem they clearly had a knack for highlights, but were underwhelming when it came to consistency. Omar's errorless streak is an easy rebuke to this argument, but at the very least, it's possible that Omar didn't reach balls either up-the-middle or in-the-hole that he should've to be a truly great all-around defender.

I don't have any big conclusions to draw. I just think it's intriguing that Peralta is rated so highly by some and so poorly by others. The big question is where does this disconnect come from? My gut feeling is that Peralta performs well in the less-heralded aspects of defense, like knocking down far-away groundballs and so forth. Until we know how FRAA is calculated though, we can't be sure.

For fun, let's look at the worst seasons by an Indian by FRAA (adjusted for era):

Player          Year  FRAA   
John Gochnauer  1903   -23
Fred Kendall    1977   -21
Max Alvis       1965   -21
Toby Harrah     1979   -20
Bobbby Avila    1952   -20
Victor Martinez 2006   -20 (projected)
Ray Chapman     1913   -19
Jerry Browne    1989   -19
Leon Wagner     1965   -19
Julio Franco    1983   -18
Felix Fermin    1993   -18
Ivy Olson       1911   -18
Duane Kuiper    1978   -17
Jack Heidemann  1970   -17
Leon Wagner     1964   -17
Gary Alexander  1979   -17
Joe Gordon      1947   -17

It speaks to the volatility of fielding performance (and maybe of FRAA itself) that Felix Fermin shows up on both the "Best" and "Worst" list. Congrats, Felix. I think I've found something that every Indians fan can agree on: Victor Martinez is having an awful year with the glove. How much this hurts the team, though, that's a whole other issue.

Ugh, so close! The Browns gave it a good effort, but allowed the game to go on for just a minute too long. I think we can agree, though, that the team looked much better in Week 3 than in either of the previous games. That first win of the year is just around the corner, I promise!

That's going to be it for an intro this week. Let's get right to your regular items...

Play of the Week

Alex says: Early in the fourth quarter, with the Ravens mounting their pathetic comeback, the Browns offense needed to sustain a drive and run time off the clock. On a 3rd-and-14, Charlie Frye rolled to the right outside the pocket, due to pressure. Before stepping across the line of scrimmage, Frye threw a lame duck back across his body to a wide-open Kellen Winslow. Winslow caught the pass and turned upfield for a few extra yards. While Kellen's catch of a jump ball that looked more like something Frye was trying to throw away was more improbable, his catch in the fourth quarter was much more exciting.

Corey says: I think the Play of the Week is pretty obviously Braylon Edwards' touchdown. It was most beautiful. And I am not above giving credit where credit is due. In the first half, Maurice Carthon didn't waste nearly as much time "establishing" the Browns' fearsome power running game before he let Charlie Frye take to the air. Yes, the offense scored fewer points against the Ravens than against the Bengals, but keep in mind how much better the Baltimore defense is than Cincinnati's. Keep in mind, too, that because the Browns had the lead in the second half, they (correctly) went back to the run a little bit to try to run out the clock. That the Browns were able to mount two successful scoring drives before halftime while facing perhaps the best defense in the league is a testament to the fact that this offense can be quite good if they simply adhere to a more point-scoring-friendly philosophy.

Player of the Week

Alex says: On the drive after Baltimore had cut the Browns lead to two, Kellen Winslow was seemingly unstoppable. Three times during that drive the Browns offense faced a third down, and each time Charlie Frye found Kellen open for the conversion. For the afternoon, he caught eight of the nine passes directed his way--and seven of them generated a fresh set of downs. By the end of the game, Winslow looked like a man possessed on the sidelines. If the coaches had put him in on defense, who knows, he might've been able to deliver a knockout blow to Steve McNair.

Corey says: I'm going with Charlie Frye, who was absolutely on fire in the first half, even if his second half performance was unspectacular. In his short career, Charlie has had to face an extremely tough slew of defenses. Last year, he faced Miami (4th in the NFL in defensive DVOA at the time of the game), Jacksonville (2nd in the NFL at the time), Cincinnati (3rd at the time), Pittsburgh (2nd at the time), and Baltimore (8th at the time), in addition to the less-impressive Raiders. Thus, I think it's fair to say that in 9 games played so far in his career, Frye has faced at least six top-10 defenses, or, if you prefer, at least 5 top-5 defenses. That's no easy task for Peyton Manning, let alone a Browns rookie.

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"Charlie got hit in the back as he was delivering the ball. Probably, if he doesn't get hit in the back, it's a touchdown." --Romeo Crennel, on Charlie Frye's fourth quarter interception

Charlie himself touched on this issue too. Apparently, the Browns had plenty of blockers in for the play (including a tight end on the weakside), yet the Ravens still managed to get blindside pressure. Charlie admits he didn't even see where the ball went thanks to the hit. Since the only replay you're likely to see of this play is from the endzone camera following Braylon, we may not know who blew the block. Anyway, if Charlie wasn't hit, I'm not so confident it was a sure touchdown--Chris McAlister jumped the route--but it at least should've been incomplete.

Corey says:

"It just bounced their way, man. You know, half the games are three points or less, in the NFL. That's just the way the NFL goes, man." --Kellen Winslow

This is the kind of thing I can never just let go. Half the games in the NFL are not decided by three points or less. In 2006 so far, for example, 9 of 45, or 20% of games, were decided by three points or less. And in case Kellen was referring only to Browns games: since he was drafted, 9 of 35, or about 26% of Browns games, have been decided by three points or less. I imagine he was actually referring to baseball games but got his league acronyms mixed up.

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: Early in the fourth, on a Dave Zastudil punt, Josh "MTV" Cribbs raced downfield and managed to snare returner BJ Sams for a loss of one yard. It was a nice bit of tackling on a slow day for special teams. Sorry, this is all I got for special teams on the afternoon. Although, Cribbs is turning into quite the special teamer. He has yet to break off a truly exciting kickoff return, but I'm confident one is coming. Plus he's now a pretty strong gunner on punts and kickoffs. Sure, he's no Leigh Bodden in 2004--but not just anyone can be.

Corey says: I'm afraid I'm also going to have to go with Josh Cribbs' acrobatic tackle-for-a-loss on BJ Sams' punt return. There really weren't any spectacular special teams plays, for which we have the wind to thank. Anything kicked from east to west, whether kickoff, punt or field goal, went sailing about an extra ten yards... leaving us to muse over a ton of touchbacks and a game-winning field goal that might not have made it over the crossbar were it not for those meddlin' Lake Erie winds!

R.J. Bowers Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: In one afternoon, "Big Ol'" Simon Fraser quadrupled his tackle total from a season ago. Fraser filled in for much of Orpheus Roye's playing time, performing well. He even got that elusive first career sack in the third quarter. Simon did this, of course, after having charted parts of British Columbia all Sunday morning.

Corey says: I'm going with DB Justin Hamilton, #25, a 2006 seventh-round draft pick out of Virginia Tech. With such strong winds encircling the field yesterday, the Browns were forced to turn to Hamilton as their holder on all kickoffs. The result? Three kickoffs, three touchbacks. Now, we all know that Human Phil Dawson is not capable of booting three touchbacks in a row, even in the strongest of winds. So he must have sent his doppelgänger Robot Phil Dawson out there in his stead. However, even with a robot doppelgänger and extremely high winds, I believe it was Hamilton's flawless holding technique that resulted in those touchbacks. Way to go, Justin!

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: Kudos to the man (or woman) who dresses Ted Washington. To make his jersey fit, they probably just throw a few hundred square feet of brown material around his massive girth and sew Ted into his brand new custom-made jersey. I can't imagine what one of those would look like without a Ted Washington-shaped person stretching it to the limit. Probably like some strange muumuu.

Corey says:

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: We here at the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times are nothing if not steeped in meaningless tradition. Normally, I'd name Ray Lewis the Idiot of the Week after a Ravens game, regardless of his contributions on the field. And today is no different. God, I hate Ray Lewis. I hate every murderous, lying, evil cell in his felonious body. While Lewis is clearly the chief Idiot, Brian Billick, Offensive Genius, is his inadequate sidekick-Idiot.

Everyone knows that Billick is an Offensive Genius, but what about Jim Fassel, the Ravens offensive coordinator? I think he's a semi-Genius, since he's also involved with Baltimore's juggernaut offense. But in my mind, the offense is more a product of Billick's freakishly large brain than Fassel's cold and calculating haircut.

Corey says: In some ways, it's almost a shame that Ray Lewis has this award locked up for life, because there are just so many truly idiotic people on--or associated with--the Baltimore Ravens. Case in point: the two Ravens fans in section 134, row 3, seats 1 and 2 at yesterday's game. My God--could they have been any more irritating? The woman in seat 1 emitted an almost uninterupted, extremely high-pitched scream for almost the entire game. Honestly, I think it was the same sound a smoke detector makes. The man in seat 2, on the other hand, was the worst kind of know-it-all, and he loved to hear himself speak. And he was a glutton for overstatement. Like when the Ravens burned a timeout in the final minute with the clock already stopped, he said (loudly), "My God! This is the worst fiasco of clock management I have ever seen!!!" Seriously, these two were unbearable to listen to. But yeah, my Idiot of the Week is, of course, Ray Lewis.

Number of the Week

Alex says: 1, or the official number of tackles credited to long-snapping sensation Ryan Pontbriand from this week's game. The number itself shouldn't surprise you, Pontbriand averages more than two tackles per season. However, delving deeper we find that he apparently made the tackle on a six-yard Todd Heap reception in the third quarter. Now, I don't know for sure whether Pontbriand lined up as a defender on that particular play--it's possible, I suppose. But, really, Official Scorer, you should know better than this.

Corey says: 22.6, or Braylon Edwards' average yards per reception through the season's first three games. Braylon has now had a 58-yard touchdown and a 75-yard reception and ranks third in the NFL in yards per catch. He trails only Antonio Bryant of the 49ers (23.4), whose secret cookie recipe is going to make him difficult to overcome, and Javon Walker of the Broncos (22.7). Braylon has had a couple of crucial drops this season, especially last week in Cincinnati, but when he has caught the ball he has been absolutely phenomenal. Don't forget that last year he was the Browns' best receiver, by far, on a per-play basis. He is scary good.

Moral Standings

The Ravens thought they were going to come in and dominate the Browns as they had the Buccaneers and Raiders, but instead they were barely able to squeak by with a win. This constitutes a moral loss for the Baltimorons, whose collective psyche is now severely damaged. Watch for the Ravens to decline precipitously in the coming weeks. The Browns, by dint of the Ravens' moral loss, pick up another close moral victory. In other news, last week, Alex gave the Steelers 2/3 of a moral loss in anticipation of their humiliating defeat at the hands of Jacksonville on Monday Night Football. I have gone ahead and given them the other 1/3 of that loss, along with the one they suffered this week at the hands of Cincinnati.

            MW  ML    pct
Cleveland    3   0  1.000
Cincinnati   2   1   .667
Pittsburgh   1   2   .333
Baltimore    0   3   .000

Next week: The Browns begin their playoff run in earnest with a thrilling win over the hapless Raiders, as Aaron Brooks completes passes to more Browns defenders than the Raiders have receiving targets. Whether you were born, raised, or both on the Cleveland Browns... keep it here for all your game recap needs!

Welcome, ladies and dawgs, to our third Browns preview of the season. This week, our heroes face a team that has been absolutely dominant in Weeks 1 and 2. Naturally, pundits across the country are ready to declare the Baltimorons legitimate Super Bowl contenders. Me, I require more than two weeks' worth of evidence, especially when the only teams Baltimore has faced so far look to be quite terrible themselves.

Because it is still so early in the season, I'm going to present you with three different versions of DVOA so you can get a fuller picture of the Browns' and Ravens' true strength. First, you have Football Outsiders' preseason projections, which do not account for anything that happened in Weeks 1 and 2. Those numbers can be found here. Next, you have the raw VOA from Weeks 1 and 2. Warning: these numbers are based on ridiculously small sample sizes! They reflect only 2 games' worth of data and do not make any attempt to adjust for strength of opponent (which seriously inflates the Ravens' numbers, for instance). Thirdly, you have a "weighted" version of DVOA which combines the two. The weights are 80% projection, 20% actual VOA. Both the raw numbers and the weighted ones can be found here. For a detailed explanation of how DVOA works, see here. Okay, ready? Let's go.

Browns offense vs. Ravens defense:

                    CLE offense  BAL defense
2006 projected DVOA   -12.2%        -5.5%
Wks 1 & 2 actual VOA  -31.2%       -82.3%
Wk 3 weighted DVOA    -15.4%       -20.9%

I am someone who really likes to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ever since the Crennel regime took over, I have been reserved (though not silent) in my criticism of the Maurice Carthon Philosophy of Offense™. Reserved, that is, until last weekend. If you read "Born and Raised" on Monday, you saw Alex's and my long rants about the Browns' idiotic insistence on doing things one way: a way that, historically, does not put many points on the board. For two weeks in a row now (and actually, for much longer than that), we have seen the offense perform significantly better in the second half, when they had no choice but to pass the ball. Imagine how successful the offense could be if they passed the ball when the other team didn't already know they were going to! Perhaps then, they would be able to use the second half to implement their precious running game, as a way to run out the clock and protect a lead!

Now, about the Ravens defense. As you can see, in Weeks 1 and 2, they put up an otherworldly VOA total that ranks #1 in the NFL by a laughable margin (San Diego, at #2, has a defensive VOA of -48.9%). Their preseason projection was much more down-to-Earth, although it still ranked the Ravens D sixth in the NFL. In other words, there's no getting around it, Baltimore has an excellent defense, scofflaws though they may be. Huge advantage: Ravens

Ravens offense vs. Browns defense:

                    BAL offense  CLE defense
2006 projected DVOA    -4.9%        -2.2%
Wks 1 & 2 actual VOA   -1.5%        12.0%
Wk 3 weighted DVOA     -3.6%         0.6%

Babatunde Oshinowo is now active, so all bets are off! Seriously, though, the numbers show that the Browns defense has underachieved in the first 2 weeks. This may have something to do with the fact that they have been forced to turn to Ralph Brown in the absence of Daylon McCutcheon. Unfortunately, Daylon is not coming back, as he was placed on the IR this week. Even more unfortunately, Gary Baxter has been listed as doubtful with his pectoral muscle injury. That means Ralph Brown is going to play just about every snap, and that we'll see a healthy dose of Antonio Perkins as well. In other words, the Ravens offense is going to be playing a game of "find the not-Leigh Bodden" all afternoon long. What success the Browns are able to have in stopping the Ravens will depend on how well they dictate the matchups in the secondary. If they can keep Bodden on Derrick Mason, the Ravens' only decent wide receiver both last year and so far this year, and somehow contain Todd Heap with a combination of Sean Jones, Brodney Pool, and the linebackers, then there oughtn't to be much to worry about. Sounds simple, eh?

Fortunately, the Ravens' offense has not exactly been stellar. Whatever credit Steve McNair is getting for this 2-0 start is simply the product of ignorant reporters who think that quarterbacks alone are responsible for wins and losses, and who sorely overestimate the value of "veteran clubhouse leadership". The Ravens are 2-0 because of their defense and a weak schedule. In spite of the injuries, I expect to see the Browns defense come a little closer to our (and Football Outsiders') preseason expectations than they did against the (legitimately) strong Bengals offense. Slight advantage: Browns

Special teams matchups:

                      CLE s.t.     BAL s.t.
2006 projected DVOA     1.2%        -1.0%
Wks 1 & 2 actual VOA    4.8%         3.5%
Wk 3 weighted DVOA      1.9%        -0.1%

For what it's worth, the Browns special teams have continued to play well in 2006. They currently rank 5th in the NFL. The Ravens have also played well, ranking 9th. But whereas the Browns' special teams were projected to do well, the Ravens' were not (preseason rank: 21st in the NFL). At this early point in the season, there's really not much else I can say. Advantage: Browns

I don't think the Browns are as bad as they've played in the first 2 weeks. I certainly don't think they're as bad as certain reactionary people are making them out to be. Furthermore, I definitely don't think the Ravens are as good as they've played in the first 2 weeks. And I definitely don't think they're as good as certain reactionary people are making them out to be. So perhaps this Sunday's game will not be as much of a mismatch as we're led to believe. That said, the Ravens are probably better than Browns right now--especially on defense--so it's not like I'm predicting a Browns win either. We'll just have to wait and see.

The Browns rushing attack has been pathetic this season. Which, given the offensive line mess and anemic ground game of 2005, shouldn't be surprising. "Wait," you might say, "Reuben Droughns rushed for 1,000 yards last year!" Thousand-yard rushers are nice and all, but ironically the Browns actually rushed for more yards as a team in 2004 (1657) than they did last season (1495). So the fact that the Browns running backs (Droughns, Jerome Harrison, Jason Gomillion Wright, Terrelle Smith, and Lawrence Vickers) have racked up a paltry 72 yards on 31 carries shouldn't be startling.

With a stalling ground game, of course the Browns would take to the air, right? Well, sort of.

For the second consecutive week, the Browns opened up the game trying the oldest of old football fallacies--"establishing the run." The Browns' first series transpired as such: run, run, run, punt. The second? Run, run, incomplete pass, field goal. Great drive there fellas, way to put points on the board! By the time Charlie Frye put his hands on Hank Fraley's butt for the offense's third series, the Browns were already down 14-3. Down by two scores less than a quarter into the game and without a single first down, Maurice Carthon finally took to the air.

For the remaining 48 minutes and 3 seconds of game time, the Bengals only outscored the Browns 20-14. Okay, so they still lost--but it was a lot closer. And the defense apparently decided to hit the showers early, somewhere around the middle of the fourth quarter.

I personally guarantee that if Maurice Carthon has the Browns open up next Sunday's game against Baltimore in the similar "pound, pound, pound" mentality, the offense will be highly unsuccessful--at least until they discover the pass. And, if the Browns do try to force the running game and are repeatedly stuffed, Maurice Carthon must have his play-calling duties revoked.

Play of the Week

Alex says: The game was all but over, but in the fourth quarter, Leigh Bodden intercepted a pass intended for Chad Johnson, who was running a short slant. I'm happy whenever Leigh can be in the spotlight. The icing on the cake, though, was Brian "Bryan" Russell's jarring hit on Johnson. Off came Johnson's helmet, and we all got to bask in the image of him dabbing his cuts on the sideline. I've watched the highlight of Russell popping Johnson at least 12 times now, and I can't decide if it's a legal hit. The issue really is the low-quality of the video I'm watching--it's difficult to tell whether it's helmet-to-helmet.

Corey says: I'm partial to Braylon Edwards' death-defying 75-yard tractor pull/reception early in the fourth quarter. The replay shows that Bengals defender Kevin Kaesviharn attached himself to Braylon at about the 20-yard line, from which he was dragged all the way to the 1-yard line. And Braylon made Kaesviharn appear to be quite weightless all along the way. Unfortunately, outside of this play, Braylon didn't have a very good game, as he only caught 4 of 9 passes thrown to him, failing to catch a couple of easy ones that would have been first downs.

Player of the Week

Alex says: For a lack of better candidates, I'll choose Human Phil Dawson. Not only did he start the season perfect on field goals (as Human Phil always does), but he executed a nifty pooch punt pinning the Bengals at their own 7-yard line, and his four kickoffs averaged more than 70 yards in the air, enough to land in the opposite endzone and enough to make him my Player of the Week.

Corey says: Two weeks in a row now, we're lacking in obvious candidates. So I'm going with Leigh Bodden (big surprise, right?) for doing a pretty decent job covering arguably the best receiver in the NFL. And while usually Bodden and Baxter are deployed on a fairly strict left/right basis, I noticed throughout this game that Bodden was deployed on fairly strict "Chad Johnson duty", which put him all over the field. True, Johnson had 6 catches for 78 yards--but Carson Palmer targeted Johnson 12 times, meaning Johnson had a very low catch percentage (by his standards). Of those 12, the NFL's official play-by-play actually only lists Leigh as the primary defender twice (one incompletion plus Leigh's lovely interception). Furthermore, of Johnson's 6 receptions, several saw him covered by other Browns due to zone coverage. On the touchdown in the first quarter, for example, it was Sean Jones who had the misfortune of trying to cover Johnson. As Bodden himself said, "He caught some passes. Obviously, I wasn’t on him man-to-man every play, but he caught some passes when we were in a zone. He caught about three balls on me, but that happens." All in all, I'd say Leigh had himself a very good game.

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"I think we needed to try to run the ball a little bit more. And so we wanted to try to do that. And so that's kind of what we did." --Romeo Crennel

Is this a joke? Last week, Corey and I lambasted the Browns for trying to force the rushing game when it clearly wasn't successful. In the second half, the team finally discovered the pass and bam! instant offense. So, from those results, Romeo Crennel drew the obvious conclusion: more running! And that's definitely "kind of what [they] did." And surprise of surprises, the offense sucked. Since establishing the run has been so monumentally unsuccessful these past two games, why not take a flyer on establishing the pass. It's just crazy enough to work.

Corey says: I want to comment on the very same Romeo Crennel quote that Alex did. Indulge me this week, because I have something to say about this playcalling fiasco--my frustration levels are rapidly rising. It troubles me that the coaching staff seems to misunderstand the symptoms when it comes to the offense. Consider three hypothetical NFL teams (warning, this analogy may turn out to be needlessly complex). Team A, say, studies the results of past games, conducts research, looks at how certain tendencies correlate to point scoring, and so on, and comes to the conclusion that they should spread the field early in the game, presuming they have done their research correctly and objectively. Or perhaps Team A finds its way by trial and error: they pound, they spread, they see what works, and eventually, they realize that it's important to pass the ball early in the game in order to build up a lead, and then to run the ball to protect that lead. Teams that fit this mold include the Colts, the Patriots, the Steelers, and the Bengals--you know, teams that score points. Team B, meanwhile, makes up its mind beforehand that it is definitely going to establish the run, no matter what. However, since Team B happens to be able to run the ball ridiculously well--way better than your typical NFL team--they manage to score enough points to win. Teams like this are rare--I guess the closest thing in today's NFL would be the Falcons. Team C, meanwhile, also makes up its mind beforehand that it is going to establish the run at all costs. It is repeatedly met with frustration--especially in the first half of the game! They know something is wrong, but rather than try a different style, they stubbornly assume that they need only do the power running thing better--after all, look at Team B! And what happens? Team C keeps losing. Naturally, Team C is the Browns. My point is that, in a perfect world, the Browns would stop running so much because they realize that it is a bad philosophy. But even in a secondary, not-as-perfect world, they would stop doing it simply because it hasn't worked so far. Apparently, though, they're not even willing to do that.

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: In the second quarter, Dave Zastudil demonstrated his powerful puntin' leg by blasting one to the Bengals' two-yard line. A confused Josh "MTV" Cribbs tried mightily to down the ball, but was unable to cleanly grasp the ball. He could only manage to tip the ball ever so slightly, if at all. Nevertheless, the ball struck the ground and immediately hurtled to the sideline, giving the Bengals the worst field position possible. Zastudil earned a gold in the Coffin Corner for that one.

Corey says: I thought the special teams had a good game all around, especially in terms of setting field position. My selection for this week is Human Phil Dawson's pooch punt, which worked like a charm. We Browns fans have known for years that Human Phil, while deadly accurate from inside the 30, can barely convert anything from outside it. Romeo Crennel certainly knows this, as last year he called for Phil to surprise-punt on several occasions. The Bengals, however, seemingly did not know this, as they were completely caught off guard by something we all knew was coming. The result: Cincinnati started their drive on their own 7.

James Dearth Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: How about defensive end David McMillan, who, despite being called out by Roger Brown prior to the game, was able to make the active roster? In fact, McMillan received actual playing time late in the game thanks to an injury to Alvin McKinley. He even made it into the official gamebook, registering an assisted tackle. But wait, there's more! McMillan, along with Sean Jones, ganged up on Kelley Washington 18 yards downfield early in the fourth. What is a defensive end doing chasing a wide receiver 18 yards up the field?

Corey says: I choose recent fourth-round draft pick Leon Williams, #94. Leon has three things going for him in this category: giant dreadlocks, the fact that, according to his official team bio, he was once "Dubbed by Parade Magazine as the best college football prospect in the New York City area in 25 years", and the fact that his middle name is unusual (it's "E'srom"). Loyal readers know Alex and I are suckers for a good middle name. See: Westmoreland, Eric Lebron, and Wright, Jason Gomillion.

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: The Browns have completely abandoned the striped socks we all know and love, for these solid-brown monstrosities. Due to the NFL's ridiculously stringent regulation of uniforms, players are not given much room for creativity with their stylings. But given the Browns sock-situation, there are two schools of thought on the matter. The Dennis Northcutt and the Kellen Winslow. Northcutt wears his white socks (a "sani," if you will) very high, with only a thin strip of brown sock showing above. Winslow, though, seemingly doesn't wear any white sock at all. Instead, his entire calves are sheathed in unsightly brown. For shame, Kellen.

Corey says: Sometimes, I wish this really were a socks blog. Anyway, I have taken many an opportunity to rag on the hideous Bengals uniforms in the past, but this week, I attended the game in person, and I would like to report that not only do the Cincinnati fans purchase these things by the thousands, they are insultingly uncreative in their choices. Go to any Browns game, home or away, and you're liable to find every jersey under the sun, from Jim Brown to Tim Couch to Corey Fuller to "STEELERS SUCK" to Ryan Pontbriand, bless his heart, to the Big Dawg himself. The Bengals fans, on the other hand, wear everything from Carson Palmer jerseys to Chad Johnson jerseys. I know--can you believe it!? (In Bengals fans' defense, though, I understand they are generally too busy watching NASCAR, hunting deer and ogling their cousins to put any thought into the team gear they wear.) (I kid!) (Or do I?)

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: Everyone should know the obvious winner is Chad Johnson. Not only for his ridiculous haircut, but for his terrible rapping in that stupid NFL Network commercial I've been forced to watch too many times to tell. I've already covered the bleeding, which should have warmed some of your hearts, but actually, Johnson was also "injured" on a previous play. On Johnson's touchdown in the first quarter, he landed on the ball and either knocked the wind out of himself or broke a rib or something. Afterwards he was doubled over in pain on the sideline. But not before he was able to perform the chicken dance! What is wrong with this man? He has the strength to do a touchdown dance, and then he keels over?

Corey says: Yep, gotta go with Chad Johnson. Remember "Who will cover #85 in '05"? Remember when Chad was forced to check "yes" next to Leigh Bodden's name last December? That was pretty sweet. Anyway, Chad's new haircut is stupid. That is all.

Number of the Week

Alex says: 3, or the number of Browns wide receivers that appeared against the Bengals. Of the three though, Josh Cribbs didn't play a snap on offense until the end of the fourth quarter. In a modern offense, it's common to see four or even five receivers in one formation. Not for the Browns! They much prefer to bunch everyone inside the hash-marks and just run five-yard curl patterns. Of course, the lack of WRs appearing was not helped by Joe Jurevicius's injury. I can't find any indication whether Travis Wilson was actually activated, but he was nowhere to be seen during the game.

Corey says: 16, or Charlie Frye's rushing yardage if you take out the -6 he is officially assigned in the play-by-play for a botched handoff-turned-fumble. Taking into account only the times Charlie actually ran the ball, he had another fine rushing performance, picking up a first down on one 1st-and-10 play and scoring a touchdown on another. Here's hoping he can keep it up.

Moral Standings

With a furious finish on offense, and a much improved defense in the second half, the Browns picked up their second-straight moral victory and are sitting pretty at 2-0. The Bengals, obviously, took the moral loss. The Ravens' "real life" victory over the pitiable Oakland Raiders actually comes out as an oh-so-narrow moral loss after you adjust for strength of opposition. The Steelers don't play until Monday night against the Jaguars, although I'm pretty sure they'll take their first moral loss. I gave them 2/3 of a loss for good measure.

            MW   ML    pct
Cleveland    2    0  1.000
Pittsburgh   1  2/3   .600
Cincinnati   1    1   .500
Baltimore    0    2   .000

Next week: The Cleveland Police Department beefs up its staff as Ray Lewis and his vile gang of hardened criminals, otherwise known as the Ravens, roll into town on their team bus, which is probably stolen. We'll be here to wrap-up the monstrous Browns victory and all relevant police blotter, same day, same time, same URL!

Week 2 is upon, and this time it counts! Let's get right to previewing this fine matchup...

Since it's still so early in the season, I'll do as I did last week and base the discussion around Football Outsiders' pre-Week 1 DVOA projections, which can be found here. I'm also going to list the Browns' and Bengals' actual VOA from Week 1 (no "D" because it's still too early to add opponent adjustments), but I severely caution you against putting stock in these numbers. We all know what folly can come from early-season rushes to judgment. Oh, and for an explanation of how DVOA works, see here. Et maintenant...

Browns offense vs. Bengals defense:

                    CLE offense  CIN defense
2006 projected DVOA   -12.2%         2.8%
Week 1 actual VOA     -35.0%       -29.7%

The Browns' offense will not be as bad over the rest of the season as it was in Week 1. This I can guarantee you. It was, however, projected to rank 26th in the NFL in offensive DVOA prior to the start of the season, so let's not get our hopes up too high. If we can take one positive from the game against New Orleans, it would have to be Charlie Frye's 3.7 points of rushing PAR. Granted, we're only talking about a fluke of small sample size, but it's fun to point out that Frye currently ranks 3rd in the NFL in rushing PAR... and I don't just mean among quarterbacks:

                  rushing PAR
Tiki Barber, NYG      5.1
Brandon Jacobs, NYG   4.1
Charlie Frye, CLE     3.7
Ahman Green, GB       3.6
Steven Jackson, STL   3.4

The Bengals defense, meanwhile, had an amazing game against Kansas City in Week 1, but was previously projected to rank a surprisingly low 24th in overall defensive DVOA (this after finishing only 20th in defensive DVOA in 2005). Last season they struggled to defend passes to tight ends in particular (24.7% DVOA), which, based on what we saw from Kellen Winslow last Sunday, could be a good thing. That said, the Bengals' D deserves to outmatch the Browns' O. Advantage: Bengals

Bengals offense vs. Browns defense:

                    CIN offense  CLE defense
2006 projected DVOA    22.2%        -2.2%
Week 1 actual VOA      -1.9%        -4.2%

The Cincinnati offense is stellar, to put it mildly. They ranked 6th in the league in offensive DVOA in 2005 and projected to rank 5th before the current season started. That they didn't put up a great VOA last week shouldn't fool anyone. Carson Palmer had the second-highest quarterbacking DPAR in 2005 (108.3). Chad Johnson had the second-highest for a receiver (38.0) while T.J. Houshmandzadeh had the ninth-highest (29.8). Rudi Johnson had the fourth-highest DPAR for a running back (48.0), which isn't surprising, seeing as how the Bengal O-line finished 4th in the NFL in Adjusted Line Yards (4.51). The Browns have a strong defense, but I expect the Bengals to do their fair share of scoring this Sunday. Advantage: Bengals

Special teams matchups:

                      CLE s.t.     CIN s.t.
2006 projected DVOA     1.2%        -0.3%
Week 1 actual VOA       5.4%         8.1%

The Browns' special teams are pretty good, while the Bengals' are more or less league average. Both played quite well in Week 1. One specific matchup worth watching closely will be the Browns' punt return team (3rd in the NFL in '05) vs. the Bengals' punting unit (24th in the NFL in '05). I'm not making any direct predictions (anymore), but a Dennis Northcutt punt return for a touchdown is a real possibility, and one of the ways the Browns could keep themselves in this game. Advantage: Browns

The Bengals are the heavy favorites as of this writing, and they deserve to be. On top of that, there's a lot of negativity encircling the Browns right now because of their Week 1 performance. That's why I want to remind you that even in a severe mismatch, the underdog wins some of the time. We saw the inferior team prevail last weekend; why can't we see it again? Keep the faith, Browns fans. And I'll see you in Cincinnati (maybe)!

With a tip of the hat to Fire Joe Morgan, and a wag of my finger to Roger Brown, let's talk Browns. In his most recent column, "Bad opener puts GM Savage in line of fire," Brown asks a multitude of questions that are supposed to be hard-hitting but really only serve as a "I told you so" since the Browns sucked against the Saints. It kills me that Brown refers to them as "very fair questions" twice. It's like calling The Da Vinci Code a good source on the history of The Catholic Church.

Obviously, there aren't real answers to these stupid questions, so let's answer them anyway.

1. "Why, after two years of spending tens of millions of dollars on offensive linemen (Joe Andruzzi, L.J. Shelton, Bob Hallen, Cosey Coleman and Kevin Shaffer, among others) do the Browns still have a line incapable of keeping a quarterback from running his rear off all game - merely to survive all four quarters?"
   
   Way not to mention LeCharles Bentley. Very sly there, Roger. Like I wouldn't notice. Anyway, I suppose you could call Andruzzi a disappointment, but I wouldn't. Unfortunately, he's not one of the premier guards in the league. It's tough to single out his performance, though. L.J. Shelton sucked, we all know that. And now he's gone. Problem solved. And if I recall correctly, Savage had to sign Shelton on short-notice right before the season because Ross Verba went insane.
   
   Was the team supposed to know that Bob Hallen had some strange emotional issues, or whatever the hell is wrong with him? I thought everyone agreed to give the team a free pass on that one. Kevin Shaffer has played one game for the Browns. Did Brown complain about Drew Gooden when he only scored 4 points and had 6 rebounds in his first game as a Cavalier? God, I hope so. I don't like Cosey Coleman very much, but I'm only going by my gut, which can be fickle. Assuming that Coleman is in fact a poor lineman, that makes one and a half (I'm not fully counting Shelton, since he wasn't in the team's long-term plans and was shown the door) bad decisions on the line. There's definite room for improvement, but this isn't worth running Phil Savage out of town for.
   
   
2. "Would Browns owner Randy Lerner have made a better investment buying more practice balls for Aston Villa - the English soccer club he also owns - than this offensive line?"
   
   What exactly is Brown asking? As far as I can tell, it's either (a) Would it have been a better investment to buy more practice balls for Aston Villa than to buy more practice balls for the offensive line? or (b) Would it have been a better investment to buy more practice balls for Aston Villa than to buy his offensive line?
   
   The answer to (a) is "yes." I doubt the offensive line needs more practice balls, since only the center would ever use them.
   
   The answer to (b), though, is "no." The 2005 starting offensive line (Shelton, Andruzzi, Jeff Faine, Coleman, and Ryan Tucker) made a combined $9,522,896. That would buy approximately 89,000 of the soccer balls used by the English Premier League. Which is more than two for every fan at an Aston Villa home game. I think the money was wisely spent on the line.
   
   
3. "Really, in your heart of hearts, do you think this offensive line would be a top-quality NFL unit even if injured center LeCharles Bentley had played this season?"
   
   No, but they'd be much improved. The problem is that there is no reliable way to estimate the performance of the offensive line with Bentley instead of Fraley. But if Roger Brown can't admit that Bentley would significantly upgrade the line, he should be barred from even watching Browns games.
   
   
4. "Since it's obvious rookie inside linebacker D'Qwell Jackson and veteran Chaun Thompson are of equal talent - Jackson barely won the starting job over Thompson - shouldn't you have devoted the second-round pick you spent on Jackson to taking a promising offensive lineman? While the best OL prospects were still available on the draft's first day?"
   
   Huh? Apparently D'Qwell Jackson's talent is a fixed amount, according to Roger Brown. If D'Qwell could win a starting job as a rookie from a veteran, that bodes well for his future. This might be a foreign concept to Brown, but young players generally improve with time.
   
   
5. "Doesn't it raise a red flag that Jackson, an experienced college inside linebacker, struggled to beat out a guy (Thompson) who hadn't played the position in years?"
   
   Say it with me: Jackson is a rookie. The NFL is different from college football. Rookies are expected to struggle at first.
   
   
6. "Isn't it an indictment of your 2005 draft that only two picks are starters (Charlie Frye, Braylon Edwards) - while two are low-wattage backups (Brodney Pool, Antonio Perkins), two are totally gone (Nick Speegle, Jonathan Dunn), one is a practice-squad player (Andrew Hoffman) and another was put on the inactive list against New Orleans, at Crennel's behest (David McMillan)?"
   
   First of all, Brodney Pool is not a "low-wattage" backup. He almost won the starting strong safety job. Not to mention that he came out of college very early, and is like 16 years old. Anyway, Dunn was a seventh-round pick and Speegle a sixth-rounder, it's not a surprise they didn't stick. McMillan is an inexperienced second-year player. Plus he's still on the team. Someone had to be made inactive for the game. The only disappointment has been Antonio Perkins, who's been too injury-prone to accomplish much.
   
   
7. "Isn't it an early indictment of your 2006 draft that third-round pick Travis Wilson was, like McMillan, a "healthy scratch" for the New Orleans opener?"
   
   Come on, this is the same question. And the answer is no.
   
   
8. "If you hadn't taken Wilson so high in April's draft, would he still even be on the team's roster - instead of popular fellow receiver Frisman Jackson (who was cut)?"
   
   Yes. Frisman Jackson had four seasons with the Browns to crack the starting lineup and he never did. Now he's 27 and not improving and Wilson is 22.
   
   
9. "Didn't you make a huge mistake by not acquiring a credible backup veteran quarterback this off-season?"
   
   And which "credible backup veteran quarterback" would this be? Vinny Testaverde? Jeff George? Kerry Collins doesn't count, since he only wanted to be a starter.
   
   
10. "Aren't you compounding that original mistake by still not getting a quality backup QB?"
    
    Still? What exactly does Brown expect Phil Savage to do?
    
    Savage: Hello, Falcons GM? I'll give you David McMillan and a conditional 2007 draft pick for Matt Schaub.
    
    Falcons GM: Sweet Mary Moses! We'll take it!
    
    
11. "Does current backup quarterback Ken Dorsey remain on the team because you still must try to justify getting him in that straight-up trade for QB Trent Dilfer?"
    
    Does Roger Brown even think for a second about these questions before putting them to paper? Here he's implying that some other QB outplayed Dorsey in training camp and deserved to make the team in his stead. Granted, I didn't watch many Browns practices or all of the preseason games, but I don't think Lang Campbell, Darrell Hackney, et al. were that great.
    
    
12. "Doesn't your signing of free-agent receiver Joe Jurevicius look, more and more, like a move high in sentimentality - but low in actual productivity? (Jurevicius is a Lake Catholic High grad.) And wasn't that the case even before Jurevicius was injured in the season opener, sidelining him for several weeks?"
    
    Shame on you, Phil Savage. You should have known better than to sign a player who would just get injured during Week 1. How could you be so stupid?
    
    Anyway, Jurevicius had been one of the most productive wide receivers in the NFL the past few seasons. I will now vomit forth some stats:
    
    2005 - 20.7 DPAR, 20.9% DVOA
    2004 - 10.6 DPAR, 27.6% DVOA
    2003 - 1.3 DPAR, -3.2% DVOA
    2002 - 13.7 DPAR, 26.5% DVOA
    2001 - 15.8 DPAR, 11.3% DVOA
    
    
13. "Can't the same be said regarding your signing of free-agent linebacker Willie McGinest, the former New England star whose leadership ability seems to exceed his playing skill?"
    
    This is an excellent question. What makes it so exceedingly excellent is that there is absolutely no way to measure the "leadership", or "playing skill" for that matter, of McGinest. Oh, by the way, it's Week 2 of McGinest's first season in Cleveland. So no matter what your answer, you're wrong.
    
    
14. "Are you and Crennel really on the same page regarding team personnel use and talent evaluation? Or is it the same type of same page you and Collins would publicly insist you both were on last season?"
    
    Aw, man. What an anti-climactic way to go out. I was ready for something like "Did you even consider that Ken Dorsey has among the worst winning percentages of all-time for quarterbacks who've started at least 5 games and have a single digit jersey number?" and I get this. I don't know the answer to this. Time will tell, I suppose.

If someone wants to criticize Phil Savage, that's fine. He certainly shouldn't be immune to judgment. But Brown's line of questioning is pretty narrow-minded and self-serving, if you ask me. Also, THE BROWNS HAVE ONLY PLAYED ONE GAME! Let's save the Willie McGinest-, Joe Jurevicius-, Travis Wilson-, and D'Qwell Jackson-bashing for the end of the season, when we might actually have some bearing on what happened.

• Week 1: vs. New Orleans
• Week 2: at Cincinnati
• Week 3: vs. Baltimore
• Week 4: at Oakland
• Week 5: at Carolina
• Week 6: Bye
• Week 7: vs. Denver
• Week 8: vs. New York
• Week 9: at San Diego
• Week 10: at Atlanta
• Week 11: vs. Pittsburgh
• Week 12: vs. Cincinnati
• Week 13: vs. Kansas City
• Week 14: at Pittsburgh
• Week 15: at Baltimore
• Week 16: vs. Tampa Bay
• Week 17: at Houston
• Season Wrap

Welcome back, Browns fans--it's the first "Born and Raised" of the season! For those of you who are new here, this is our weekly Browns recap column, which is by far our most popular recurring feature. We've put a fresh coat of paint on all our best stock material, so you won't even know the difference!

Of course, the story of the Browns' first game was not such a good one. In a repeat of last year's season opener, a slew of penalties nullified a bunch of the Browns' best plays. Last year, it was a Northcutt punt return for a touchdown and a Leigh Bodden interception return for a touchdown; this year, a 74-yard Braylon Edwards touchdown reception, a 20-yard completion to Joe Jurevicius on 4th-and-1, and a 19-yard Reuben Droughns run for a first down.

I, like most of you (I'm assuming), was quite displeased with the playcalling of one Maurice Carthon--in the first half, anyway. In the second half, the Browns finally discovered a little bit of a passing game. And of course, they could have had an easy win if not for some dropped/tipped passes in the final minutes. Let me know if this feels somehow familiar. All last year, we saw the Browns trying vainly to "establish the run" in the first half, getting nowhere, opening things up in the second half, having some success, but just narrowly falling short of a victory due to some lone unfortunate circumstance late in the game. At least that's how I remember it.

The defense, I felt, played okay at times, but allowed New Orleans to pick up a handful of easy first downs in key situations. The Saints totaled 17 first downs in the game, and lest you think it was the rushing performance of Reggie Bush and/or Deuce McAllister that made the difference, 13 of those first downs came through the air. That means that 82% of Drew Brees' complete passes were for either a first down or a touchdown.

Play of the Week

Alex says: Converting a 1st-and-goal from the 1-yard line isn't usually worth getting too excited about. The success rate has to be near 70%, at least. Nevertheless, Charlie Frye's scramble to the right pylon had me jumping out of my seat. First he made Charles Grant miss and then juked Scott Fujita--as Lee Corso would say on NCAA Football 2004 for Gamecube--"out of his shoes." Astute Browns fans already know about Charlie's elusiveness, but on each of his five scrambles Charlie gained valuable yards--meaning no 10 yard gains on 3rd-and-15. 9 yards on 1st-and-10; 15 yards on 1st-and-10; 10 yards on 3rd-and-8; 9 yards on 1st-10; and of course 1 yard on 1st-and-1, my choice for Play of the Week.

Corey says: Both of Kellen Winslow's endzone plays (I can't really call them both "catches") were spectacular. But I choose Sean Jones' interception in the first quarter. With Ralph Brown blitzing on that play, it looked like Saints receiver Terrance Copper was going to be wide open for a first down. But Jones stepped out of nowhere for the first of two turnovers he recovered on the day.

Player of the Week

Alex says: Kellen Winslow started the game quietly, but was a force after halftime. Not including his one-handed "drop" in the endzone (which officially is a "No Play"), Kellen caught eight of the nine passes directed towards him. And if my memory serves me, the one incompletion should lay at the feet of Charlie Frye, thanks to the ball being thrown behind Kellen. Plus, I really enjoyed watching Winslow manhandle Roman Harper in the endzone on Frye's touchdown, which was the play directly after Harper interfered with Kellen's own one-handed touchdown catch. Eat it, rook.

Corey says: I'm tempted to go with Leigh Bodden. By my count, on plays when Drew Brees tried to throw in Leigh's direction, the Saints gained an average of 4 yards. However, I can already tell that you're going to get tired of hearing me talk about how well Bodden shuts down his side of the field over the course of the season, and besides, by Leigh's standards, 4 yards per play is probably a lot. So I'm not going with Leigh Bodden (see what I just did there?); I'm going with the obvious choice, Charlie Frye, who also had himself a great game. As we saw last year, Charlie's scrambling ability is probably his greatest asset. For all the fuss that was made about Reuben Droughns' 2005 season, it was Charlie Frye who led the Browns in rushing DPAR last year (with 2.4, to Droughns' 2.1). Now if he can just learn to differentiate the plays on which he should throw the ball away (he did take 5 sacks), then we've really got something.

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"...magical feet..." --Terry Donahue, on Reggie Bush

I counted no fewer than three times when Donahue referred to Bush's feet in this manner. With all due respect, what the hell was he talking about? I understand the endless praise of Bush, although it nauseates me, but what is so special about his feet? On the one hand, they do seem to move a lot when Bush runs. And they move really fast. On the other hand, every running back's feet move a lot when they run, even the slow ones. Especially Jamal Lewis. Watch his feet right here. They're moving. But I digress, the saddest thing about all this is that Terry Donahue was once the General Manager of a team in the NFL. So cheer up football idiots of the world, even you can run your own professional franchise.

Corey says:

"He's so athletic, he can pick up the ball." --Donahue

It's a Terry Donahue sweep, as the FOX commentator repeatedly went overboard in masturbating himself to the thought of Reggie Bush. In this instance, Bush had just failed to catch a punt, letting it sail over his head, on his first ever NFL touch. Donahue was quick to point out, however, that Reggie Bush is so talented (how talented is he?), he can pick up the ball! That's what a guy like a Reggie Bush brings to the table. Hey, did you know Reggie Bush has an extra gear (or two)? And that's not all! He also has dual airbags, power steering, and really sweet-ass cup holders that come out of the dashboard and rotate 90 degrees when you press them!

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: In the second quarter, Dennis Northcutt caught a punt at the Browns' 11-yard line and proceeded to make something like 13 different Saints players and coaches miss on his way to a 31-yard return. In a surprising turn of events, the return wasn't called back. If Northcutt had only eluded eventual-tackler Terrance Copper (which would have resulted in a sure touchdown), I'm sure the referees would have objected to something. I mean, it's their job.

Corey says: All the special teams played well this week. In addition to Northcutt's superb punt return, Josh Cribbs had an excellent 40-yard kickoff return early in the second quarter. Last year, the Browns' strongest special teams units were the two return units, so here's hoping we've seen only a taste of what's to come.

Cedric Figaro Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: We might have seen the last of defensive lineman Nick Eason in 2006. Being carted off the field never bodes well for your short-term football prospects. So far, there's no official word on Eason's injury, so I'll just assume some combination of muscle tears and ligament explosions. Therefore, let's honor Nick's contribution for the season: um... Well, he didn't get in on many snaps so it's unfair to pick on him. If there's a silver lining in potentially losing Eason for the year, it's that the Browns might call up... oh, maybe I shouldn't go and ruin it.

Corey says: No truly obscure Browns were able to make an impact on the game itself, so I'll go with a benchwarmer this week. How about Nat Dorsey, an absolute whale of a man (not a Blue Whale, like Ted Washington, maybe more of a Northern Minke Whale), who is easily one of the top two Dorseys on the Browns roster. Here's hoping Nat never has a reason to get into any games this season!

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: Gray facemasks, black shoes, different-shade-of-orange helmets, removal of brown stripes from brown jersey sleeves. Most of the uniform changes made for the 2006 season are splendid; historically accurate and thoroughly Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times-embraced. I must take issue with one alteration, though: the change from true sleeve stripes to faux sleeve stripes. Let me explain. When the Browns first entered the NFL, they (along with every team in the league) had actual sleeves on their jerseys, like a shirt. Over time, football jerseys changed, but the Browns kept a semblance of sleeves, even last year. But no more. Now the Browns jerseys look more like vests than jerseys. This is an unwinnable battle, I'm afraid. I'm opposed to these new sleeveless uniforms, but if it is the price of progress, so be it.

Corey says: Alex, I don't think the Browns have had even a semblance of sleeves for a few seasons now. See this photo. Notice how the orange and white stripes on Daylon's "sleeve" don't fully encircle his arm. Also, you'll notice in the armpit area that the jersey goes right from "torso" fabric to arm hole; there is no "sleeve" fabric. Anyway, I agree that the gradual disappearance of NFL sleeves is a sad state of affairs, as is the phenomenon I'm about to discuss in my Fashion Item of the Week: ridiculously large, unnecessary jersey patches such as the "60th Anniversary" patch the Browns are wearing on their chests this season. Not only is this patch insultingly huge and thus aesthetically nauseating, I would like to know why they are making such a big deal about the 60th anniversary. Is it because we never got to celebrate the 50th anniversary? 60 years is not a big milestone. And anyway, this is only the Browns' 56th year in the NFL. I mean, by this logic, 2006 is also the 49ers' 60th anniversary. Are they celebrating? No. Hey, it's the Dolphins' 40th anniversary! Are they celebrating? No!

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: The offensive line performed somewhere between "sucky" and "Kane Davis" this week. Aside from Charlie Frye's scrambles (which were in part caused by poor blocking), the Browns gained 31 yards on 16 carries. Seven times the Browns called a rushing play with two or fewer yards to go, four times they were stuffed--no wonder the pass-happy fourth quarter. The line officially allowed five sacks, since the sixth was voided on an illegal contact penalty on cornerback Mike McKenzie. And let's not forget two of the most memorable plays of the game: a 74-yard touchdown bomb to Braylon Edwards nullified thanks to a holding penalty on Kevin Shaffer and a 20-yard strike to Joe Jurevicius to convert a 4th-and-1, cancelled due to Cosey Coleman's holding. Both drives ended with punts. Surely, there is nowhere to go but up.

Corey says: It would be far too easy to just pick on whoever does the color commentary for each week's Browns game, because truly, NFL broadcasters are the dumbest of idiots, so in the future I'll try to be more creative. This week, however, lacking any really obvious candidates, I'm going with Terry Donahue of FOX. I am so grateful we won't have to listen to his "analysis" any more this season! Not that it's going to get any better... thank LeBron for the mute button!

Number of the Week

Alex says: 50%, or the Saints' third down conversion percentage. Thanks to unimpressive stats from Drew Brees and the New Orleans receivers and the notoriety of Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister, many will point to the run defense as the weak link in the defense this week. The real culprit, though, was the passing defense. They didn't give up the big play, but New Orleans consistently was able to sustain drives by passing. The Saints went 8-14 on third down through the air. I don't know if it was a strategic decision, but the risk-averse tactics of the secondary and linebackers this week helped lose the game.

Corey says: Alex already touched on it, but my Number of the Week is 89%--Kellen Winslow's catch percentage for the day. Conventional wisdom and traditional statistics assign all blame for incomplete passes to the quarterback. But as you would expect, research has shown that receivers' catch percentages do correlate from year to year. Receivers drop "perfect" passes all the time; they also manage to catch seemingly impossible throws. Yet hardly anyone tracks incomplete passes for specific receivers. At any rate, Winslow put on quite a performance in his return to action, first and foremost because he made extremely efficient use of all the passes that were thrown him.

Moral Standings

You probably haven't noticed, but over the last few years the Browns haven't won many games. It wasn't very much fun for us Browns fans. That's why, this year, Alex and I are going to start keeping track of moral victories. A moral victory is, of course, any game in which the Browns achieved something like a victory even if the final score said otherwise.

This week, the Browns eked out a narrow moral victory by winning the average yards per rush battle, 3.9 to 3.8. Hooray! The Steelers and Bengals each morally won handily, while the Ravens, despite winning by 27 points over Tampa Bay, couldn't overcome the depressing reality of being a bunch of smelly shnorrers with no talent.

            MW  ML    pct
Cleveland    1   0  1.000
Pittsburgh   1   0  1.000
Cincinnati   1   0  1.000
Baltimore    0   1   .000

Next week: The Browns (and yours truly) travel to the backwards land of Skyline Chili, hideous jerseys, and Pepto Bismol for a quick win over the so-called "Bengals". Join us once more, football fans, for a very special "Born and Raised"!

Welcome, one and all, to the first Browns preview of 2006! I've got my abacus out and plenty of marmalade on my toes... are you ready? As I did for most of 2005, I'll be posting a preview each Friday or so using Football Outsiders' innovative DVOA statistics to highlight important matchups and trends. Let me just promise you right now that my weekly preview will never be as long as this one is. Starting next week, the introduction will be blissfully brief!

This week, however, I want to address the big picture a little bit. You may be wondering why I go with DVOA week in and week out. You see, football is much harder to predict than, say, baseball. (And a meaningful game preview is essentially a prediction when you boil it down.) The season is so short (by comparison) that little things like individual plays, changes in personnel, schedule strength, and yes, luck, have a serious ability to screw with the standings.

Consider a recent study done by Doug Drinen of the excellent Pro-Football-Reference.com blog, in which he set out to answer the question "How often does the best team win?" (I highly recommend you read the whole series; it's truly fascinating: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V). Doug finds that, simulating an NFL season 10,000 times, even the worst team in the league can win the Super Bowl simply by luck, an easy schedule, and/or a weak division.

In other words, a team's win total does not necessarily reflect its true level of ability. This is true in other sports, as we've seen, but even more true in football. Now, a team's "true level of ability" is something we will never be able to know. A team's record can disagree with its performance, sure, but even its performance can disagree with its true level of ability. Maybe the Browns were in fact one of the best teams in the NFL in 2005, but we just happened to observe them during a 16-game stretch when they were struggling, only playing like a .375 team instead of the .750 team they really were. Again, we'll never know. It seems highly unlikely, but it's possible. Certainly, in a typical 162-game baseball season, there are a number of 16-game stretches in which the best team in the league goes 6-10, or worse.

This may all seem a little ridiculous to you. Wins and losses are how we reward or punish teams, not "true level of ability"! Why should you care about "true level of ability" when wins and losses are right there, perfectly quantifiable and easy to understand? Well, there are two reasons why: because the closer we can come to estimating "true" level of ability, the more correctly we can evaluate players or groups of players, and the more accurately we can predict future outcomes.

That's where DVOA comes in. DVOA does not purport to reflect "true level of ability"; it merely does a better job of estimating it than any other tool currently at our disposal. This is easily tested (and has been, numerous times)--DVOA correlates better to future performance than any other statistic, be it wins, point differential, yards, yards per game, whatever. Also, DVOA has, for many years running, predicted future performance better than any so-called "expert", be he an ESPN analyst, a gambling expert, whoever.

And that's why I choose to look to DVOA each week for my Browns previews. Actually, there is one other reason: because, if you're interested in seeing the Browns game forecasted based on traditional criteria, you can look almost anywhere, from any major newspaper in America, to any football-related blog or website known to man. Using DVOA is simply a way for me to offer a Browns preview that is distinct, yet still valuable as information.

Now... what is DVOA, anyway? Essentially it is a statistic that judges individual plays by comparing them only to similar plays--same down, same distance, same field position, and so on. For example: say the Browns face 3rd-and-25 on their own 40, and Reuben Droughns runs for 12 yards. Traditional stats credit this as a great run--12 yards! But the truth is that running plays in that situation probably go for 12 yards quite often since the defense is only concerned with preventing gains of 25 yards or more. DVOA will not credit Reuben (or the Browns) with as great an achievement. And if that run came against, say, the putrid Texans defense, DVOA will also discount Reuben's contribution accordingly.

DVOA stands for "defense-adjusted value over average". It is expressed as a percentage, which, as you might have guessed, represents how much better (or worse) than average a team or player has been over a given period. For offenses, positive numbers are always better, but for defenses, negative numbers are always better. For special teams, positive numbers are better.

DVOA is quite versatile. It can describe--for example--entire teams, just the offense, just the defense, just the running game, just the pass defense, or even just an individual quarterback, running back, or receiver. This is yet another reason why I like to refer to it so much.

I should also make mention of DVOA's cousin, DPAR, to which I also refer quite often. Also created by Football Outsiders, DPAR exists only for individual players (that is, skill position players) and is cumulative, so it can be useful in weighing past performances (it's a lot like VORP, for you Baseball Prospectus fans). It stands for "defense-adjusted points above replacement" and thus it roughly corresponds to how many more points a team scored, compared to what it would have scored if a "replacement level" player had been involved instead of the player in question.

If you're interested in a much better and more detailed explanation of how either DVOA or DPAR works, I encourage you to read Football Outsiders' own "Methods to Our Madness". For 2005 overall DVOA ratings, click here.

Now, who's ready to talk Browns and Saints?! For this week's preview, I'll rely less on DVOA than I would in a normal week, since no stats have been compiled yet! Of course, there are still Football Outsiders' 2006 DVOA projections, which are formulated based on a complicated system that probably only Aaron Schatz could explain. Nonetheless, the projections can be found here, and I'll list the relevant ones below.

Browns offense vs. Saints defense:

               CLE offense  NOR defense
projected DVOA   -12.2%        14.6%

Football Outsiders projects the Browns to have the 26th-best offense in the NFL this year. I'm perhaps a smidge more optimistic than that. The offense ranked 26th last year by DVOA (-13.5%), and I think you'd be hard pressed to name a position where they got demonstrably worse in the offseason. Left guard and right tackle, maybe a little, as a couple of guys experience the natural aging process. But I believe the Browns are either upgraded or the same at nearly all the other positions. Of course, that doesn't mean the offense will be good. I still have serious concerns for Maurice Carthon's "bunch everyone together in the middle of the field" play-calling. And the Browns will have to face a very tough slew of defenses this year, which could make them look worse than they really are.

Lucky for us, the Saints defense is awful, and I do mean awful. Their defense, projected to be the worst in the NFL by DVOA, is the biggest reason why New Orleans as a whole is projected to be the worst team in the league this year. Here's a fun game: how many Saints defenders can you name? If you said none, pat yourself on the back--you're right!!! Seriously, though, their defense ranked 25th by DVOA last year (7.6%) and has done little or nothing to improve itself in the interim. They even lost defensive lineman Darren Howard to free agency and traded away safety Dwight Smith; players who, according to Football Outsiders' game charting project, were far and away the Saints' best defensive lineman and defensive back, respectively, in 2005. Advantage: Browns

Saints offense vs. Browns defense:

               NOR offense  CLE defense
projected DVOA   -16.9%        -2.2%

Hey, the Browns defense is actually projected to be better than average (they rank 14th by DVOA)! In 2005, the defense ranked 24th with a DVOA of 5.4%, but the additions of Willie McGinest, Ted Washington, Kamerion Wimbley and D'Qwell Jackson, along with full seasons from Gary Baxter and the man whose bandwagon I practically built from scratch like 3 years ago, Leigh Bodden, will see the Browns defense much improved. And that's on top of the natural improvement we could have expected from them being together in a new system for the second year. Seriously, the Football Outsiders game charting project absolutely loved Leigh Bodden last year--I just wanted to point that out since Alex and I were touting him so much. I expect big things from Oshinowo's Eleven--yes, I am going to call them that whether it makes sense or not, damnit--in 2006.

The New Orleans offense is projected to rank 29th in the NFL by DVOA this season. Much has been made of the additions of Drew Brees and Reggie Bush, but I remain skeptical. Brees has had two very nice seasons now (73.3 DPAR in 2005), but that was in the San Diego system. The Saints ranked 25th in offensive DVOA last season (-13.4%), and outside of tackle Jammal Brown, they have almost no offensive line to speak of, especially after downgrading from all-pro center LeCharles Bentley to Jeff Faine in the offseason. My feeling on Reggie Bush is that, while he may turn out to be one of the best running backs in the league, he is currently vastly overrated. I mean, people were comparing him to LeBron James around draft time, for LeBron's sake! That's lunacy! (And those people should be hanged.) At any rate, success as a running back, more than any other skill position in football, depends upon having strong teammates around you--especially offensive linemen.

Even if Bush does have a breakout game on Sunday, though, one lesson that they've known at Football Outsiders for quite some time--and that we learned time and time again from the 2005 Browns--is that, contrary to popular belief, "establishing the run" has little to do with offensive success, at least not compared to establishing the pass. Similarly, stopping the run has little to do with defensive success. The truth is that winning teams often rack up lots of rushing yards (and losing teams allow lots of rushing yards) because a team tends to run more after it is already ahead, in order to run out the clock. This leads a lot of analysts to misunderstand the relationship between correlation and causation (read the article linked here, you won't regret it!). In reality, passing success correlates much better to point scoring than running success, which is why I'm unconcerned about Reggie Bush, and why I definitely wouldn't have invested a resource as precious as the #2 overall draft pick on him, if I were an NFL GM. But I digress, as usual. However you choose to see it, Advantage: Browns

Special teams matchups:

                 CLE s.t.     NOR s.t.
projected DVOA     1.2%        -2.6%

Special teams are generally inconsistent from year to year, which is why they're harder to predict. Last year, the Browns ranked 8th in the NFL in special teams DVOA (1.7%), with strong punt return and kick return units leading the way. The Browns have generally had excellent special teams ever since the beginning of the Butch Davis era, so all trends indicate they will have another solid year. The 2005 Saints, on the other hand, ranked 24th in special teams DVOA (-2.0%), lowlighted by horrible kick returning and field goal kicking. That said, this matchup remains something of a wild card, for this week, anyway. Slight advantage: Browns

With the Browns holding tentative edges in all three phases of the game, things are looking good for Week 1 of the new season. Of course, one of the main points of the article you've just read is that the NFL, by its very nature, is unpredictable. Last year, at the end of my weekly preview, I made joking attempts to predict the winners of each Browns game. I ended up being wrong an alarming percentage of the time. In other words, anything can happen, and that's part of the beauty of the NFL. I only hope that, with DVOA as a companion, we are able to appreciate the Browns this season on a more meaningful level than we're used to.

These game previews are sure to get more interesting as Football Outsiders begins posting more stats, and as I have more opportunities to communicate with Aaron Schatz, the man behind DVOA. For now, sit back and enjoy the ride, and GO BROWNS!

Babatunde Oluwasegun Temitope Oluwakorede Adisa Oshinowo Jr., waived.

I know, I know. Alex and I got so excited about this guy and he didn't even make the team. Perhaps he's bound for the practice squad. I can only hope that this is the case. He may be undersized for his position, but he was good enough in college to impress scouts and analysts alike into calling him a potential third-rounder and the steal of the draft.

Of course, a few of the other Browns roster cuts have me sighing in a bittersweet kind of way...

Goodbye, wideout/emergency backup QB Frisman Jackson. You were the self-proclaimed "fattest wide receiver". And you could throw the ball 170 yards.

Happy trails, Ross Tucker. Something never felt quite right about you--you weren't a Cleveland native--and anyway, we got two better options now.

Arrivederci, Lee Suggs. You'll never have as cool a middle name as Jason Gomillion Wright, which is why we're breaking camp without you. Plus you were the worst kicker in the entire NFL!

Godspeed, William Green. You weren't cut but you were placed on the IR so you'll either be traded in the next few days or be guaranteed not to play in 2006. We'll sorely miss your trademark runs for no gain.

Smell ya later forever, Nick Speegle. I think you may have won Obscure Brown of the Week a couple of times.

It's been real, Therrian Fontenot. I could have really gotten on your bandwagon. A great song once commanded me to "[not] forget Fontenot!!!!!!!!!" and I never will.

And of course, catch you on the flip side, everybody else. Parting is such sweet sorrow! (And please, please, please let Babatunde be on the practice squad!)