A good fourth quarter should not excuse Derek Anderson. Against a terrible defense, Anderson only managed pedestrian numbers: 15 for 24, 138 yards, 1 touchdown, 1 interception. In fact, he was barely above replacement level passing the ball for the afternoon.

This week's game continued a trend of disappointing performances by Anderson dating to the middle of last season. Using my favorite quick 'n' dirty way to evaluate quarterbacks, adjusted yards per attempt (from The Hidden Game of Football), Anderson hasn't been better than merely decent since Week 8 of last season, against . Check out this graph of Anderson's AY/A by week for the past two years. There are some hicks and jumps—it's not the smoothest series—but there's a downward trend there, too.



Like I said last week, we can pretty confidently peg Anderson now. He's O.K. but certainly not great. Let's say "good". Brady Quinn, though, could be anywhere on the map. Starting him would be a high risk-high reward move. To reference Seinfeld again, Anderson is Mendy's and Quinn is some place else. But if we go some place else, it would be different, but it might not be as good. It's a gamble. I get it.

Sitting at 1-3, this is as good a time as any to take a risk. Playing the safe hand will land the Browns at .500, at best. If the goal is the playoffs, I hope the Browns use the bye week to prepare BQ.

Play of the Week

Alex says: If only Eric Wright hadn't fumbled it away, his interception would've been the best play of the game. It sure was a graceful and impressive catch—leaping at the precise right moment, tipping it to himself, and making the catch. I'm sure most Browns fans think Wright's return, what with the juking and directing blockers, was a mistake. But that's only after knowing the end result. How often does the ball pop out like that on a return? One in 100? I don't know. Even if you still disagree, you must admit it was the best part of a play this week.

Corey says: My favorite play was actually one you may not remember. It was near the end of the first quarter and the Bengals faced 2nd-and-2 from their own 15. The Browns blitzed Brandon McDonald from the right side of the defense, but it was a running play. Douche-Bengal Chris Perry found himself completely exposed in the left flat, where Brandon pummeled him for a four yard loss. It wasn't the most important of plays, but it sure was awesome.

Player of the Week

Alex says: Fans and the media alike have been very hard on Braylon Edwards in 2008. With good reason, too; most of his drops look absolutely ridiculous. But frankly, we all have to give him a little credit. He's the only credible wide receiver the team puts on the field. Kellen Winslow is a fantastic hybrid tight end, but he's not the down-field threat Edwards is. Without any protection, Edwards is covered heavily every down, getting few "easy" ones. Both of Anderson's passes to him in the end zone were beautiful catches (though the first was out of bounds). He showed that he's still a serious weapon. Also, he showed he can still play a mean air guitar.

Corey says: No one really stood out (to me) in this game. Jamal Lewis was relatively efficient in the first half, but canceled it all out with a lousy second half. His backups, Jerome Harrison and J. Gomillion Wright, also had their good moments and their bad. So, what the hey, I'm giving it to Syndric Steptoe, who caught every ball that was thrown to him (okay, both balls that were thrown to him...) and picked up a sweet crucial first down (on the play Cincinnati challenged unsuccessfully). Steptoe Bismol sure had those Bengals DBs reaching for their favorite brand of stomach-calming elixir!

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"Yeah, we played harder and we had those aggressive penalties." —D'Qwell Jackson

Firstly, let's never take D'Qwell as a name granted; it is a gift from heaven. Just a reminder. Anyway, I think that "aggressive" penalties, like the 30 offsides infractions committed by the Browns this week, are a bad thing. To be fair, that's not what Jackson was suggesting. But I don't even think that they suggest other, good things, like more aggressive or violent play. And fortunately for the Browns, most penalties don't correlate with team success.

Corey says:

"We didn't score a lot of points today, but we had an attitude. We established our presence on the field. That's what we need to do to get past the New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys of the world." —Braylon Edwards

Did you notice the Browns' attitude on Sunday? It was totally attitudinal. It seemed to say, "Hmm, this Bengals defense is pretty bad." (Or possibly "Thanks, Ryan Fitzpatrick!") See, that's how you beat the Giants and Cowboys (if those teams were completely awful).

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: On Phil Dawson's pooch punt, who was the first man down the field to down it? That's right, the legend himself, Ryan Pontbriand. Who isn't impressed by the snapper outrunning everyone—not only on his team, but the opponents too—to get to the ball thirty-three yards away?

Corey says: For a few years now, the Browns have had a strange fascination with having Phil Dawson pooch-punt the ball. This doesn't strike me as a problem, per se, because the only real risk is that Dawson might fumble the snap. But is there anything to be gained from such a ploy? If there is, I can't think of it.

Joe Bob Isbell Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: Backup defensive end Louis Leonard filled up the box score this week. On a pivotal third down in the second quarter, he knocked down Ryan Fitzpatrick, leading to an incomplete pass and a Bengals punt. He also had two offsides penalties, woo! Like all great Obscure Browns, Louis is blessed with an unbelievable middle name, Appreicio in his case. Leonard hails from Clovis, N.M. which, Wikipedia leads me to believe, is home to the "only dine in Domino's with buffet in the United States."

Corey says: The second player to be drafted by the Browns in the 2008 draft, TE Martin Rucker (aka "T") is OTTB (Obscure To The Bone) despite the fact that his older brother Mike was a 9-year starter on the Panthers defensive line. Fun fact about Martin (and Mike): his (their) father is a member of the Missouri House of Representatives. But you probably knew that already, politics junkie.

Idiot of the Week

Corey says: For reasons not mundane enough for me to go into, Chris Perry is my least favorite Bengal. Luckily, his performance this year, "aided" by a crummy offensive line, has been among the worst in the entire NFL. He's been about as efficient as a defective sump pump, ranking last in rushing DYAR (-114) by a wide margin (the next-worst, Ryan Grant, has only -74 DYAR), and even ranking near the bottom in receiving DYAR among RBs (-31). What a pear-shaped loser.

Number of the Week

Alex says: , O.K. that's not really a number, but it involves numbers. That's a graphic representation of Jamal Lewis's success running the ball against Cincinnati. Each bar is one carry, if it's up, then it was a success. If it's down, then obviously, it wasn't. The Football Outsiders use as a definition of success, "On first down, a play is considered a success if it gains 45 percent of needed yards; on second down, a play needs to gain 60 percent of needed yards; on third or fourth down, only gaining a new first down is considered success." Lewis started strong, but after the first drive, he wasn't terribly effective and he never was consistent. If the tenets of "establishing the rush" were true, then we should've expected Lewis to only get better as the game wore on and the defense tired. Instead, we see the opposite. The Browns did a great job "establishing" their running game, but that didn't really get them anything, in the end.

Corey says: The fact that the Browns offense had a bad game is only magnified by the fact that the Bengals have a terrible defense. Conversely, the fact that the Browns defense had a (somewhat) good game is tempered by the facts that (a) the Bengals offensive line is in shambles, and (b) Ryan Fitzpatrick is no Carson Palmer. Fitzpatrick had the worst DYAR in the NFL in Week 4, with -121. And that's including his commendable 15 rushing DYAR, meaning his passing DYAR was even worse: -135.

This Week on Josh's Cribbs

Corey says: On episode 4 of Josh's Cribbs, Josh co-hosts a charity golf tournament with Troy Smith of the Ravens. Celebrity guests include Chargers WR Chris Chambers and, uh... Browns special teams coach Ted Dashier. After an obligatory amount of actual golf, Josh and the Josh's Cribbs production team decide it's prank time. We're led to believe there will be a variety of pranks; however, there is really only one, that being the old "exploding golf ball" prank. Cleverly, the cameraman devises a scheme to trick Josh himself, but Josh sniffs it out. Subsequent attempts to prank Smith, Chambers, and Josh's wife Maria prove mildly more successful. This show works best when Josh is goofing around or doing something completely random, so I enjoyed this episode (even though there was a golf-related episode last season, too).

Next week:

The Browns make the trek to Berea to prepare for the Giants and battle their inner demons. Will the Browns' offensive line be able to handle the rush? Is mankind inherently moral? Can they keep their sanity in an increasingly insane world? We'll have the answer to at least one of those questions in next week's Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns!

I'm going to have to make this brief: I've got a soufflé in the oven and I'm babysitting Alex's three kids. Also: the Browns kinda suck. On to the preview!

We're still one week away from real DVOA, so you're going to have to make do with DAVE (now 55% preseason projection, 45% actual results) and the raw, unadjusted VOA totals (which are now broken down into passing and rushing, for what that's worth). For a detailed explanation of how DVOA works, click here.

Browns offense vs. Bengals defense:

                    CLE offense  CIN defense
DAVE after Week 3     -21.5%        15.0%
Weeks 1-3 actual VOA  -39.2%        18.6%
actual passing VOA    -58.4%        28.6%
actual rushing VOA    -12.7%        10.9%

By VOA, the Browns have the second-worst offense in the NFL (thanks, Chiefs!). The Browns have played some brutally tough defenses, though, so we may get a slightly-less-bleak outlook next week, when the "D" in DVOA flaunts its pretty face. Let's hope so, because right now, Derek Anderson ranks dead last among all qualifying QBs in YAR (-292), Braylon Edwards ranks dead last among all qualifying WRs (-90), and Kellen Winslow ranks second-to-last among all qualifying TEs (-31). The good news is, the Bengals defense is pretty bad. They rank 25th by VOA, but just 30th by DAVE. Slight advantage: Bengals (What do you want from me? I said I was keeping it brief.)

Bengals offense vs. Browns defense:

                    CIN offense  CLE defense
DAVE after Week 3      -8.2%        14.4%
Weeks 1-3 actual VOA  -29.8%        26.5%
actual passing VOA    -25.7%        39.3%
actual rushing VOA    -34.0%        18.7%

The Browns rank 29th in both defensive VOA and defensive DAVE. They've done slightly better against the run (26th) than the pass (29th). Frankly, the numbers look like a repeat of last season, which is a bad thing. Once again, let's give them a little more time. But if the defense, of all things, can't come together under Romeo Crennel, then I think Romeo's gotta go. Meanwhile, the Bengals offense has underperformed expectations (ranking 28th by VOA, 26th by DAVE), but like the Browns offense, they have faced some absolutely brutal defenses (Ravens, Titans, and Giants, ranked 1st, 2nd, and 6th, respectively, in VOA). So I suspect the Bengals offense is stronger than their numbers suggest. Slight advantage: Bengals

Special teams matchups:

                       CLE s.t. CIN s.t.
DAVE after Week 3        2.3%    -1.7%
Weeks 1-3 actual VOA     7.1%    -4.5%
FG kicking               1.3     -1.6
CLE kickoff vs. CIN KR   2.3      0.5
CLE KR vs. CIN kickoff  -1.3     -0.1
CLE punt vs. CIN PR      4.2      0.7
CLE PR vs. CIN punt      1.2     -4.5

The Browns have one thing going for them: they rank 3rd in special teams VOA, led by the 1st-ranked punt team and 8th-ranked punt return team. The Bengals special teams are kinda lousy (ranking 25th), with the only (semi-) bright spots being the 10th-ranked kickoff return team and 11th-ranked punt return team. Advantage: Browns

This is the easiest opponent the Browns have yet faced, but even so, the Bengals are probably the better team. Let's hope the Browns can show some signs of life. And hey, if not, then maybe we'll get to see Quinn! Au revoir!

An Indian will not win the 2008 American League MVP award, of course, because of the foolish convention whereby players on non-contending teams are disqualified. So I'm not trying to raise anyone's expectations here. But I am interested in asking whether a Cleveland Indian deserves the award; that is, whether an Indian was actually the most valuable player in the American League in any quantifiable sense.

Value, as far as I'm concerned, is quantifiable—even if, in some areas, we are still working to refine the tools that allow us to quantify it. At this moment in history, our best tools are certain advanced statistics, and so I'm going to represent "value" using metrics such as Baseball Prospectus's VORP and WARP. I'm guessing you are already familiar with these stats, but if not, check out BP's stats glossary for a basic introduction.

Combining the rankings for pitchers and position players, the American League top 10 in VORP, as of September 24, are:

                  team  VORP
1. Cliff Lee       CLE  74.3
2. Roy Halladay    TOR  66.8
3. Alex Rodriguez  NYY  64.3
4. Grady Sizemore  CLE  64.0
5. Dustin Pedroia  BOS  61.0
6. Aubrey Huff     BAL  58.7
7. Milton Bradley  TEX  56.5
8. Ian Kinsler     TEX  55.3
9. Josh Hamilton   TEX  54.8
10. Jon Lester     BOS  54.6

Meanwhile, the American League top 11 (yes, top 11—you'll see why) in WARP1, as of September 24, are:

                  team  WARP1
1. Cliff Lee       CLE  10.5
2. Mariano Rivera  NYY  10.1
3. Dustin Pedroia  BOA   9.7
4. Roy Halladay    TOR   9.4
5. Joe Mauer       MIN   9.2
6. Alex Rodriguez  NYY   8.8
7. Justin Morneau  MIN   8.8
8. Brian Roberts   BAL   8.5
9. Ian Kinsler     TEX   8.4
10. Kevin Youkilis BOS   8.3
11. Grady Sizemore CLE   8.2

The case for Cliff Lee is strong, and I'll return to it in a moment. The case for Grady Sizemore, on the other hand, is tougher to make, though it was stronger a couple weeks ago (I think he ranked ahead of A-Rod in VORP, and maybe also Halladay).

Even though VORP makes no consideration for defense, I include it (instead of just WARP), not because VORP appears to bolster Grady's case significantly, but because I have more confidence in VORP than WARP. This is because I don't know how much stock we can (or should) put in BP's fielding metric, FRAA. FRAA indicates Grady had a pretty bad year, defensively (-12 runs below average), while other, slightly more reliable measures, such as John Dewan's plus minus, or The Hardball Times's Revised Zone Rating, indicate that Grady's defense was at worst, about average, and at best, on a par with most of his MVP competition. What's clear is that Grady did have an amazing year with the bat, which I believe is accurately reflected in his VORP.

To honestly argue the case for Grady as MVP, you first have to adopt another foolish convention of MVP voting: that pitchers should not be eligible. I believe pitchers should be given every consideration. The fact is that in most years, pitchers don't lead the league in VORP or WARP; this just happens to have been an unusual year. But even if we do, for whatever reason, eliminate pitchers from the discussion, Grady still has to overcome the (slightly) superior bat of Alex Rodriguez and the possible—though hardly conclusive—defense-based advantages of guys like Pedroia and Mauer.

So no, I don't think Grady is the most valuable player in the American League, and while I believe there's a case to be made that he's the most valuable position player, it's not an open-and-shut case. I only wanted to highlight just how close he is, because I don't think the media realize it, even in spite of their misguided obsession with Grady's meaningless "30-30 Club" achievement.

With 5 games to go, it's conceivable that Grady could overtake A-Rod or Halladay in the VORP department. My larger point, though, is that even Grady doesn't have a realistic shot of overtaking Cliff Lee as the most (quantifiably, objectively) valuable player in the American League. Cliff is probably going to win the American League Cy Young award, and he probably deserves it (there's an argument to be made that Roy Halladay, the next-most-valuable contender, faced significantly tougher opposition, but even then, it would be a close call). But the fact is, Cliff doesn't just deserve the Cy Young. He deserves the MVP award, too.

Okay, so he didn't play every day. He played every five days. That doesn't affect the bottom line. And his teammates sucked just enough to keep the Indians from the pennant race. That doesn't affect the bottom line, either. Cliff Lee kept more runs off the board than Dustin Pedroia (or Justin Morneau, or A-Rod) put on it. Take Dustin Pedroia away from the Red Sox, and they probably win about 9.7 fewer games. Take Cliff Lee away from the Indians, and they probably win about 10.5 fewer games. So Cliff was the more... "beneficial" player. He had the greater "impact". His presence was "worth" more. Isn't that the same thing as being more "valuable"?

Appendix A

Here's an interesting footnote regarding the Indians and VORP. The Indian with the highest total 2008 VORP may not even be Cliff Lee or Grady Sizemore—it might be CC (formerly C.C.) Sabathia. It's complicated. CC's combined pitching VORP leaves him trailing Cliff, 67.5 to 74.3. But if we factor in hitting VORP for both pitchers, the ranking takes an interesting turn:

                  CC   Cliff  Grady
pitching w/ CLE  23.6   74.3    --
pitching w/ MIL  43.9    --     --
hitting w/ CLE    1.5   -0.7   64.0
hitting w/ MIL    4.9    --     --
total VORP       73.9   73.6   64.0

Of course, CC only wins in "total" VORP because he's in the National League, where he can maximize his value as a good-hitting pitcher. If the Indians hadn't traded him, he wouldn't have been able to rack up as much hitting VORP, and Cliff would still have beaten him.

By the way, I don't think it's fair to assume, as some do, in light of the Indians' surprising second half run, that they would have made the playoffs if they hadn't traded Sabathia. Even if we assume CC could have pitched as well in Cleveland as he did in Milwaukee, he was only worth 5.5 WARP (wins above replacement level) to the Brewers. And even in Cleveland, that 5.5 of WARP wouldn't have come at a replacement-level pitcher's expense; it probably would have come at the expense of the surprisingly effective Scott Lewis (1.5 WARP) or Anthony Reyes (1.8 WARP). So hypothetically-still-an-Indian CC might only have been worth an extra 4 wins or so. That might have led the Indians back into the race at some point, but they would most likely still miss the playoffs, in the end. I'm happier with M. V. La P., thanks.

According to my contract, prior to October 1st, I may only start phoning in "Born and Raised" after the Browns have lost three games. (Interestingly, Alex's contract says he can phone it in any time he pleases—Alex has a much better agent than me). Just don't say I didn't warn you.

It hasn't taken long for the public perception of the Browns—universally over-optimistic, not long ago—to catch up to reality. In fact, the public perception is now probably over-pessimistic. Such is Browns football.

Against Baltimore, the Browns didn't look too good. But the defense played a halfway-decent game, I thought. Baltimore's offense scored 21 points, but 7 of those were a gift from Derek Anderson. So even if we cut the Ravens a break for Matt Stover's missed field goal, the Browns defense only surrendered about 17 points, and that was with less-then-optimal field position. On the other hand, I think it's safe to assume that the Ravens have a weak offense, so perhaps it's no wonder the Browns' D looked okay this week.

The Browns offense is another matter. Granted, the Ravens have possibly the top defense in the NFL, but even that doesn't account for the Browns' lack of scoring in this game. With each passing week, I am inching further away from the notion that Derek Anderson has a real future in the NFL. It's easy for us to forget that last year, despite his stellar overall statistics, his performance got worse and worse over the course of the season. Mightn't we be seeing the rest of the league "catch up" to an under-qualified quarterback who, in 2007, happened to benefit from being in the right place at the right time? It's not time to bench Anderson now—in fact, I would advocate doing whatever is best for Brady Quinn, regardless of how bad (or good) Anderson plays. For me, there was never any controversy over which player was the "quarterback of the future," only now I'm starting to have doubts about which is truly the "quarterback of the present."

Play of the Week

Alex says: Touchdowns always get the most attention, but not always rightly so. This week Jerome Harrison's nineteen-yard touchdown reception on the first play of the second quarter deserves the attention. It was a fantastic play. Then again, it probably doesn't deserve too much attention, since it runs counter to everything else the team did on offense. As Steve Beuerlein astutely pointed out (how often does that happen?), the Ravens left themselves vulnerable by blitzing two. Even if Harrison wasn't as elusive as he is, or he didn't have the good down-field blocking he did, he still could have gone ten yards untouched. It was a rare bright spot for the offense in the first three weeks. It was also the Browns' longest gain all afternoon.

Corey says: I'll go with Mike Adams' interception in the end zone early in the second quarter. As soon as I saw the Ravens were going to attempt a flea flicker of sorts, I flashed on all the Browns secondary's greatest hits—I'm talking about blown coverages and getting fooled by the likes of Hines Ward and T.J. Houshmandzadeh. But, bless their souls, about 26 different Browns DBs smelled the rat, and there was an orange-and-brown-clad welcome committee waiting for Joe Flacco's pass. I can't have been the only Browns fan who exclaimed, "Wow, that never happens!"

Player of the Week

Alex says: For a shocking second time in three weeks, this award falls to Joe Thomas by default. Congratulations, Joe! (If this happens again in the next few games, we should all be suspicious of Thomas. He may be behind the Browns' collective catastrophic play for his own personal glory. Consider this a warning. You're on watch, Joe.)

Corey says: I'm about to go against my better judgment and do the opposite of phoning it in. Please to enjoy: How I Picked My Player of the Week: Rumble In Ravenstown: a Mini-Essay by Dr. Corey Z. Rubin, D.D.S.:

Judging defensive players without the insight of game-charting data is perilously tricky. It's impossible to watch all 11 defenders during a TV broadcast, especially since most of them (well, the secondary, anyway) are almost never on-screen. Besides, I'm willing to bet that even the most thoughtful of football fans has his eye focused on the offense most of the time. That leaves us with the box score, an extremely flawed account of individual performance. Just because a defensive player shows up in the box score doesn't mean he played well, or poorly. But the box score is all I have to go on, and I am determined to make a defensive player my Player of the Week for once.

So, based on a careful, if possibly misleading, analysis of the box score, I'm declaring that Brandon McDonald was the Browns MVP in Week 3. For one thing, the Ravens tested him only 2 times (that we can confirm), compared to 8 times they tested Eric Wright. That alone can be an indicator that McDonald is doing something right, though not always. Of course, when they did test McDonald, they accomplished next to nothing: 2 yards on a 1st-and-10, and 12 yards on a 3rd-and-15 (which led to a punt). There was also the play on which McDonald (rightly) committed intentional pass interference, to prevent Baltimore from a certain touchdown. Now consider what Joe Flacco was able to achieve when he tested Eric Wright: 19 yards on 1st-and-10, 12 yards on 1st-and-10, 7 yards on 1st-and-10, 7 yards on 3rd-and-9, 10 yards on 2nd-and-8, 17 yards on 1st-and-10, and -2 yards on 3rd-and-10. Wright wasn't without his great moments, but his overall performance looks bad, on paper.

Now, these data are hardly conclusive. For all I know (I should say, for all I remember), that play where Baltimore gained 19 yards on 1st-and-10 wasn't Eric Wright's fault at all. It could even have been Brandon McDonald's blown coverage that allowed the completion, and because of the scheme and the route-running and what have you, it just happened to be Wright who was in position to clean up the mess. It's possible. I honestly don't remember the play.

That's why game-charting data, like those being collected by Football Outsiders, is so important. The game charter assigns credit (or blame) to defenders based on who actually did what, not who ultimately made the tackle. Of course, I don't have access to FO's game charting data (it takes a while for the game charters to transcribe everything and for Aaron Schatz to put everything into a presentable format), but in a few weeks, we should be able to get some idea of how the Browns defenders (especially the DBs) are really performing, and I, for one, suspect we'll see Brandon McDonald's name at the top of some lists. Let's hope.

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"There are two dimensions to our offense. We have to run the ball and throw it downfield. Baltimore has a great defense and they are very hard to run against. But I thought our offensive line played well in the first half and they created some running room. But everything changes in the second half. I guess it comes down to this: they finished the game and we didn’t." —Jamal Lewis

First, what offense doesn't have two dimensions (running and passing)? Ever since the legalization of the forward pass, I'm pretty sure Lewis's statement applies to every single professional football team. It's possible, I suppose, for an offense to have three dimensions. I'm not sure what that third dimension would exactly be, perhaps strategic fumbling or inducing penalties or something. Second, I thought I remember the Browns finishing the game. I mean, they were on the field for the last few plays, or am I just imagining things?

Corey says:

"I think what we have to do is evaluate it and do what's best for this team to try and win a game. If [a quarterback change] is what it is, then that's what it needs to be if we decide that." —Romeo Crennel

First off, this quote is positively Butch Davisian. I mean, if Romeo thinks it is what it is, and it needs to be what it is, then that's what it will be, so long as it is that—if that's what it is. Secondly, there are few Cleveland traditions more storied than the annual Quarterback Controversy, when all the townspeople of Cleveland share a big feast and all the local children sing time-honored carols of joy and confusion. I must confess, the QB Controversy seemed to come early this year. It sneaks up on you, I guess. It's like Hanukkah.

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: Phil Dawson continues his march to the 2009 Pro Bowl with another perfect week. So far this season, he has hit all five of his field goal attempts and both of his extra points. By my math, that's infinitely more field goals or extra points than anyone else on the roster! His kickoffs have been less than stellar, but as we all know, kickoffs are absolutely meaningless. It's all about points, baby. And kickoffs don't lead to points. Look out Honolulu, here comes Phil!

Corey says: I guess I'll go with... uh... Matt Stover's missed field goal. The Browns did an excellent job on that one. (There we go. Now that's phoning it in!)

Eppie Barney Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: Charles Ali got to return a kickoff this week, though not by design. Matt Stover kicked it short and Ali happened to be in the ball's path. As far as I can tell, it was the first time Ali has shown up in an N.F.L. box score in his career. I feel like he's been a Brown since 2003, but I guess he was actually signed out of Arkansas-Pine Bluff last season. Does anyone else remember Ali being on the team for much longer than this? Nevertheless, Ali's the proud owner of a fantastic website. My favorite may be the "Multimedia" page—which as far I can tell, only has one medium—and the "Foundation" link that takes you nowhere.

Corey says: It's not often that a team's top draft pick can be considered obscure, but that's exactly what happens when you trade all of your picks away. Linebacker Beau Bell is a natural for this award since his first name is his middle name (Beaumont, as in James Beaumont Bell). Another award for which he might be a natural would be the "Beau Bell Peace Prize." Eh?

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: At kickoff on Sunday, CBS cut to a sideline shot of Romeo Crennel and all Browns fans were temporarily elated. Why? Coach Crennel was wearing a Browns visor. And as all astute football fans know, the Browns have been 14-4 under a be-visored Crennel. With the evil sun all up in his eyes, the Browns had stumbled their way to a measly 6-23. Is there any other way to explain the team's lead at halftime? Unfortunately, we all know what comes next. Crennel ditched the visor and the team fell to pieces. It doesn't take a football genius like Sean Salisbury to figure this out. Keep on visorin'!

Corey says: There is nothing new for me to say about the Browns' insulting choice in sockwear, but I must keep saying it, because the team needs to know that we—the 2 people who co-author this blog, plus the 27 million who read it every day, including every single Browns season ticket holder and a majority of the world's leading politicians—will not sit by and accept the new status quo. Bring back the striped socks! Bring back the striped socks! Bring back the striped socks! Oh, and boycott ketchup!

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: Imagine a stereotypically surly, angry black professional athlete. He's has amazing athletic talent; they surpass all his peers' by a good margin. Even when he's past his peak, he is still among the best in the league. He's also a known felon. Though he hasn't been convicted, in the court of the public opinion, he's guilty. Now, who were you thinking of: Barry Bonds or Ray Lewis? The difference in treatment between Bonds and Lewis is part of the reason I can't stand Lewis at all. Bonds was definitely the superior athlete, seven MVPs to one. He even committed a lesser crime, perjury to murder. So, why is Bonds vilified and Lewis is a hero? I understand that it boils down to a double standard from the public with what they expect from baseball players and football players. Still, why isn't the topic even mentioned among fans or when sportswriters work themselves into a lather crucifying Bonds?

Corey says: The greatest television drama of all time taught me that there are a lot of idiots in Baltimore. Between incompetent cops, corrupt politicians, unscrupulous drug dealers, lying newspaper reporters, and Greek people, it's no wonder the local football scene is such a cesspool of cheating, idiocy, and amorality. In other words, my Idiot of the Week is Ray Lewis. Duh.

Number of the Week

Alex says: -241, or Derek Anderson's total yards above replacement this week. Normally, when something like Anderson v. Quinn is the talk of the town, I'd address it right from the outset. Leave it to me to bury the lede; thanks a lot, arbitrary structure of "Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns." And normally, Corey is the one to get his Number of the Week from Football Outsiders' Quick Reads. But this isn't a normal week; Anderson's mind-boggling crappiness against the Ravens is turning the world on its ear. It's clear that Anderson has demonstrated exactly what his ceiling is: an average N.F.L. quarterback. Obviously, some weeks will look better than others, though on the whole, Anderson can be decent. He's not going to another Pro Bowl. That ship sailed as soon as defenses had substantial game film to study. Conversely, Quinn's ceiling is almost unknown. It's possible that he'll be better than Anderson and also possible he'll be worse. Given the poor state of the team, I think the Browns would be wise to swap out Anderson for Quinn before next week's game, precisely because Quinn is an unknown quantity. If he turns out to be worse than Anderson, then the team knows there isn't an elite quarterback on the roster and if they want one, they'll have to work on that in the off-season. And if Quinn turns out to be better than advertised, then I don't think anyone will be complaining. When was the last time a team was criticized for promoting the superior backup too early?

Corey says: Okay, Alex, you can steal my go-to source for Number of the Week candidates—point out Derek Anderson's historically bad performance all you like. But I thought I made it abundantly clear that I'm phoning it in this week, damn it, so I, too, will borrow a statistic from the aforementioned Quick Reads. Would it surprise you to learn that the Browns had not only the least valuable passer, but also the least valuable pass catcher in all of Week 3? Yes, Kellen Winslow caught only 2 of 13 passes aimed his way (ouch), good for a YAR (still no DYAR) of -48. It was not a good week for the offense.

This Week on Josh's Cribbs

Corey says: This week, Josh and teammate Steve "Chin Man" Sanders co-direct a rap video for the song "Limit Is the Sky" by local rappers Street and Preme. The song doesn't strike me as anything special, and as video directors go, Josh and the Chin Man still have some skills-honing to do. But it's cool to see two Browns teammates cavorting around Cleveland. And though it only took up about 10 seconds of air time, Sanders also hit us with one of my new favorite Josh's Cribbs moments: an impromptu reenactment of the Madison Square Garden scene from Coming to America (one of the greatest comedies ever made), with Josh as the Prince of Zamunda and Steve as the star-struck Zamundan schmo. Classic.

Moral DVOA Rankings

Regrettably, we're still about a week away from having real Moral DVOA figures. For now, we're still looking at raw, unadjusted Moral VOA. The Browns enjoyed a resounding moral victory this week, as is virtually unavoidable when you play the Ravens. The Bengals' overtime loss has them feeling morally empty, as they relinquish their former #1 ranking. And the Steelers put in a more-or-less morally neutral performance against Philadelphia.

            Moral VOA  NFL rank
Cleveland     190.3%       1
Cincinnati     86.1%       2
Pittsburgh     11.6%      13
Baltimore   -6188.0%      32

Next week:

The Browns travel to the southernmost extremities of the known universe, where they will earn their first win of the season against those notorious patsies, the Cincinnati Bungles. Oops, I'm sorry! Did I say Bungles? 'Cause I meant to say... Bungles! Join us, won't you, as we phone in still another exhaustive edition of "Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns."

Welcome, smart people and Baltimorons. It's time for another hearty dose of Browns preview. Does everyone have their sliding charts and marmalade? Good.

All stats are borrowed from Football Outsiders' weekly DVOA reports. Starting in Week 5, we'll be using regular old DVOA, but until then, we're still working with our starter package: preseason projections, DAVE (75% projection, 25% actual results), and raw, unadjusted VOA from the first two games.

As always, the unadjusted VOA totals are highly unreliable and represent an impossibly small sample size. Also, bear in mind that because of Hurricane Ike, Baltimore didn't play a Week 2 game. So their raw VOA totals are even less reliable than the Browns' are. And the Ravens' DAVE totals are carried over from Week 1, so they're actually 90% projection, 10% actual VOA.

For a detailed 'splanation of how DVOA works, klicken sie hier.

Browns offense vs. Ravens defense:

                    CLE offense  BAL defense
2008 projected DVOA    -8.0%       -24.1%
DAVE after Week 2     -11.2%       -27.5%
Weeks 1-2 actual VOA  -23.5%       -58.0%

The Browns offense, already projected to disappoint, has underperformed (if anything) in its first two games, ranking just 27th by DAVE. In honor of International Talk Like A Pirate Day, let me offer you some "dyarrr," er... DYAR (which stands for Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement—it has replaced the old DPAR as FO's counting stat of choice). Derek Anderson has been responsible for -53 DYAR, which ranks him 27th among qualified quarterbacks. Jamal Lewis, with -20 DYAR, ranks 29th among qualified running backs. Braylon Edwards has actually been the worst (or most harmful, if you prefer) wide receiver in the league so far, with -72 DYAR. In short, the Browns' key contributors (save Kellen Winslow, with 18 DYAR) are not even performing at replacement level.

To be fair, though, none of the numbers are yet adjusted for quality of opposition. The Browns have faced two very tough defenses, and are about to face an even tougher one (as we'll discuss in a moment). When "real" DVOA arrives, it's going to offer the Browns some sympathy for that fact. Meanwhile, if the offense has one thing going for it, it's that Derek Anderson has been tough to sack: the Browns O-line ranks 6th in Adjusted Sack Rate (having given up only 3).

The Baltimore defense entered the season projected to be the NFL's best. In Week 1, facing the maybe-good-but-so-far-horrible Bengals offense, they dominated, now ranking 1st in both DAVE and raw VOA (against the pass and against the rush). It may be early, but for now, we have every reason to say Huge advantage: Ravens

Ravens offense vs. Browns defense:

                    BAL offense  CLE defense
2008 projected DVOA   -25.5%         4.6%
DAVE after Week 2     -21.7%        12.7%
Weeks 1-2 actual VOA   13.6%        37.2%

DAVE ranks the Browns 27th among NFL defenses, which is a considerable drop from the 21st-place ranking that was projected just 2 weeks ago. The problems in Weeks 1 and 2 have been various, and the Browns rank 26th in VOA against the run (19.1%), 30th against the pass (60.0%). The good thing is that Week 2 wasn't nearly as bad as Week 1. We saw last season that the defense improved (slowly) over time. Maybe this year the same thing will happen, but on a faster timescale.

The good news for this week is that the Ravens offense is pretty terrible itself. The Baltimore defense may have been projected to rank #1, but the offense was projected to rank #31. And their one game of decent performance should not sway you—for one thing, it was against the awful Cincy defense (now 25th in DAVE). Thus, Baltimore still ranks only 31st in offensive DAVE. Slight advantage: Browns

Special teams matchups:

                     CLE s.t.  BAL s.t.
2008 projected DVOA   -1.6%      4.6%
DAVE after Week 2      1.9%      3.9%
Weeks 1-2 actual VOA  12.4%     -2.0%

It's interesting that the Browns rank 2nd in special teams VOA through 2 weeks (10th in DAVE), despite having gotten very little production from their vaunted kickoff return team. Dave Zastudil's historic game last Sunday is a big part of it, as is overall consistency: the Browns are one of only 2 teams without a negative rating in any one special teams category (so far). Of course, we have seen year after year that Phil Dawson (who plays a huge role in 2 of those 5 categories) declines precipitously as the year goes on. For now, though, the state of the special teams is strong. Baltimore, for its part, was projected to have the league's 2nd-best special teams, and now ranks 5th in DAVE. Special teams are harder to predict than offense or defense, so I don't want to put much faith in the DVOA projections, but neither do I think one (or two) games' worth of data is anything to go on. Both teams are probably better than average, special teams-wise. Advantage: Neither

Football Outsiders was high on the Ravens coming into this season. Though they projected the Steelers to be better, they actually projected the Ravens to win the division based on an easier schedule. That said, it's a pretty weak division—the Ravens are hardly among the NFL elite. This will be the Browns' easiest test so far, but it will still be a game the Browns could reasonably be expected to lose. So, uhh... shiver me timbers!

For a long time, people have been upset at LeBron for not being a fan of Cleveland teams. The "controversy" raged hardest last fall, when, we all probably remember, He wore a Yankees cap to a Indians–Yankees playoff game at Jacobs Field. It was then that most people learned that He grew up a Yankees, Cowboys, and Bulls fan. Corey and I stayed mum on the subject. The Chosen One's favorite teams are a matter of importance to the Cult of LeBron, but who are we to question His judgment? The issue popped up again a couple weeks ago, as LeBron was on the Cowboys' sideline before their game with the Browns, and I've been mulling it over again.

The first question that people have is is it O.K. for LeBron to root for these teams? For two reasons, LeBron's rooting habits upset Clevelanders: (1) he's a clear front runner, and non-front runners hate front runners, especially those non-front runners whose teams haven't won a championship recently; and (2) LeBron, like most Cleveland fans, grew up in Northeast Ohio but unlike them doesn't care much for the Indians or Browns (or Cavaliers, before 2003). Fans resent that LeBron never grew attached to Cleveland teams. But should anyone care?

The more belligerent fans act as if LeBron owes something to the city of Cleveland, besides playing godly basketball. Everyone should agree that this is nonsense. As an Indians and Browns fan, of course I'd love my favorite athletes to also root for those teams, but it's easy to see how a poor kid from Akron (or any kid from anywhere, for that matter) could grow up rooting for the most successful franchises. They're on TV the most, they win the most, etc. Why else would front running be so wide-spread? I don't intend for this to become a defense of front runners. Though, it's still a pardonable sin in the world of sports fandom.

I think that a lot of the anxiety and anger that followed Yankeeshatgate is related to the fear Clevelanders have of LeBron leaving the Cavaliers. For five years, we've heard it countless times, He's going to the Knicks, or the Nets, or anywhere not Cleveland, and as soon as possible. Living in New York, I get it pretty mercilessly all the time. I try to brush the comments away, but the fear persists. Someone learns that LeBron has no rooting interest in Cleveland teams and infers that He has no reason to stay here. To make matters worse, He's a Yankees fan; moving to New York would be that much more attractive! In short, LeBron has no loyalty to Cleveland. He's a hired gun and will go to the highest bidder, likely New York.

That's the prevailing view and there hasn't been any other way to respond other than with apathy, as Corey and I have. Well, there is another way to spin the issue, and it's pro-Cleveland. We should keep in mind that LeBron continues to root for His teams even in the face of extensive public criticism. He hasn't dropped His rooting interests in order to placate His fans. An athlete only caring about image would root for whoever would make him most marketable. And LeBron rooting for the Cowboys probably doesn't mean much in Dallas but it means a lot (to some) in Cleveland. The image-conscious athlete would've long ago dropped his allegiances for whatever was marketable. LeBron hasn't done this. He has remained loyal to His teams, albeit the wrong teams in many people's eyes.

There's that word again, loyal. If LeBron would stay loyal to the Yankees and Cowboys despite it possibly costing Him money, why wouldn't He stay loyal to the Cavaliers and Cleveland, too? LeBron's front-running can easily be twisted to support both the optimist and pessimist. I still think we really shouldn't care about these things, but everyone should agree that it could be a positive in the long-run. I'm hope this precludes any debate or castigation following a future LeBron rooting controversy. It's a non-issue.

I don't think Romeo Crennel understands game theory. You all remember the situation he faced Sunday night: down by seven points; three-and-a-half minutes left in the game; fourth-and-seven at the edge of the red zone. What to do? A creative, open-minded person would have weighed their options. As I see it, there were more than a few ways in which the Browns could've ended up victorious:

• Attempt the FG, and succeed; stop the Steelers; score a touchdown
• Attempt the FG, and fail; stop the Steelers; score a touchdown; go for two, and succeed
• Attempt the FG, and fail; stop the Steelers; score a touchdown; kick the PAT; win in overtime
• Go for it, and succeed; score a touchdown; go for two, and suceed
• Go for it, and succeed; score a touchdown; kick the PAT; win in overtime
• Go for it, and fail; stop the Steelers; score a touchdown; go for two, and succeed
• Go for it, and fail; stop the Steelers; score a touchdown; kick the PAT; win in overtime

Sure, I left out some possibilities—like missing the extra point but stopping the Steelers, getting the ball back, and scoring again to win the game—because I figured they were too unlikely or there would have been too little time left on the clock to accomplish them.

As you can see, lots of the options involve stopping the Steelers and then going on to score a touchdown. No one could have been one-hundred-percent certain that the Steelers would have been able to run out the clock, so stopping them was possible. But given that one of the Browns' biggest weaknesses is stopping the run, banking the game on precisely that seems short-sighted. And it's especially short-sighted since it was an unnecessary gamble. If the Browns had converted the fourth down, they would've been in excellent position to bleed the clock and score a touchdown.

I wanted to put numbers on the probabilities of each of the situations above, but there are just too many uncertainties. For example, what were the odds of the Browns stopping the Steelers from running out the clock? Still though, going for it on fourth down is the only option that doesn't require leaning on the weak defense.

It's possible that Romeo Crennel considered these possibilities during the game. We can never be sure. But if he did, and still came to the conclusion that kicking a meaningless field goal was the team's best shot at winning, he sure has some messed up logic. The other option is that Crennel gave little or no thought to the matter. He saw it was 4th-and-7 in field goal territory and that means it's time to send out the field goal unit. He's a (rather unsophisticated) coaching automaton.

Neither of those possibilities is very encouraging. In the former, Romeo has the right idea, but has some distorted view of how football games unfold. In the latter, it's like hitting "Ask Madden" on every play. There's got to be something better than that.

Play of the Week

Alex says: Kellen Winslow's old tip-drill catch during the Browns' final (real) drive was a beautiful play. Not only did he outplay Troy Polamalu (who's very well-spoken!!!!), but it was a third down and Winslow managed to fall just past the first-down marker. The excellent catch begs the question of what was up with the throw? As the sage Aaron Schatz wrote, "It feels like everything Derek Anderson has thrown has fallen short. Everything seems to be sort of weak. I don't think that's the weather, right?" I'm not ready to call for Anderson's benching, but this is something to watch for. I have a bad feeling about how this will turn out.

Corey says: I gotta go with Jerome Harrison's 23-yard screen pass to start the Browns' last (real) drive. It was a sweet play (one of the few), mainly due to Harrison's field-crossin' run after the catch. Harrison has been pretty effective for more than two years now; I'm sure this play had a lot of people wondering why he doesn't get into the game more. Running backs may be mostly interchangeable, but Jamal Lewis, more than most, is a one-trick pony. Put me on record as wanting to see more Harrison, in both the passing and the running games.

Player of the Week

Alex says: Nose tackles don't often show up in the box score, but Shaun Rogers was almost everywhere this week. As I count it, including plays nullified by penalties, he got to Ben Roethlisberger four times and made six tackles. And each of those six tackles left the Steelers with either a loss, no gain, or a gain of one yard. For one week, he was positively Bodden-esque. Then again, the Steelers aren't exactly known for their offensive line. I'm still reserving judgment.

Corey says: Dave Zastudil had probably his best game as a pro. His average (over five punts) of 53.0 yards was not only a personal single-game best, it was a Browns franchise single-game best. Of course, the most impressive part might be the fact that the D-Zaster was kicking into such harsh winds. Marvel, for example, at the fact that 4 of his 5 punts came in the first quarter, when the Browns were moving against the wind, (and when the wind was at its strongest), over which period Zastudil averaged 51.8 yards per punt.

(Incidentally, I e-mailed Aaron Schatz from Football Outsiders, who reports that Zastudil's Sunday might have been one of the best single-game performances by a punter in the entire FO database. Aaron may end up doing a brief article about it—I'll keep you posted. For what it's worth, Zastudil netted the Browns 3.6 points worth of field position above average. For a point of reference, that would have been the second-best single game by a punter on any team in 2007.)

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"There's a lot of little things we have to work at." —Kellen Winslow

No one player's interview stood out this week; they were all pretty vanilla. I must commend Romeo Crennel and his coaching staff for keeping the team focused on whatever that week's mistakes were. This time around, every player mentioned penalties and "little things", whatever those are. Sometimes you can almost reconstruct Crennel's post-game speech to the team. I wonder if staying on point with the media is a little thing.

Corey says:

"If someone had told me before the game that I would do what I did, I wouldn't have believed them because of that wind. I didn't think it was possible. I surprised myself. There was definitely someone looking out for me." —Dave Zastudil

Well, of course there was someone looking out for you, Mr. D-Zaster, and I'm not talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who almost certainly was also looking out for you, but that's neither here nor there). You yourself explained it:

"[Pontbriand's] snaps, as usual, were very accurate, right there where they needed to be."

See? The lesson here is, always remember that Ryan Pontbriand is looking out for all of us. As is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Uhh... praise LeBron.

(Seriously, though, does Dave Zastudil really think that his god cares enough about the specific goings-on of a regular season NFL game to arrange for certain punts to go well... for the losing team? Or does Dave think his god is only intervening to help him specifically, in which case, why now? Where was this god on those days when Zastudil punted poorly? Perhaps he was busy helping—I don't know—Juan Pierre steal bases.)

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: I'll go with Phil Dawson's first field goal, a thirty-one-yard affair at the end of the third quarter. It may have been the ugliest field goal I've ever seen. Before the snap, you can see the goal posts shaking in the wind, it must have been upwards of thirty miles per hour. As soon as the ball leaves Dawson's foot, it takes an erratic, knuckleball-like path. Somehow it sneaks in between the uprights, but it looked less like a spiral than one of those beach balls that's weighed on one side with sand. Crazy, crazy stuff.

Corey says: I guess I've got to keep the Zastudil theme going here, don't I? My favorite punt of the game was probably the first one. Having opened the game with a three-and-out, the Browns called on the D-Zaster to punt from their own 22-yard line, into the wind. Dave delivered a booming 59-yarder which Mike Adams downed at the Pittsburgh 19. It was gorgeous.

Tarek Saleh Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: Nick Sorensen should be something of a growing legend around these parts. He won his first Obscure Brown of the Week award last season, is a special teams extraordinaire, and this week, managed to get in during non-special plays. And then, he actually got a sack—well, half a sack, but it's good enough for me. In the entertaining miscellany category, you may remember that Sorensen is the world's second-largest Indians fan (to John Adams), having been born in Winter Haven.

Corey says: With Shantee De'Shjuan Orr on the roster, it's really hard for me to pick anyone else. But I'll try. You may already have noticed rookie Gerard Lawson, #30, as the Browns' token "defensive back with dreadlocks" (it's like a token Corey; every team has one). In the first two games, Gerard's actually gotten some action, as the Browns' fourth or fifth cornerback. His official bio describes him as "one of the best special teams players in Oregon State history," who served as a gunner on kickoffs (my personal favorite special teams position), blocked punts, and even returned kicks. He sounds like a a Mistake by the Lake favorite-in-waiting. We'll see.

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: If the Browns are going to continue to wear solid socks (and they're 0-2, coincidence?), the players may as well make sockade out of it. Eric Wright, one of the most fashionable Browns, wears the white sock that sits over the brown one much higher than most other players, almost up to his knee. The effect is that the brown splotch's ugliness is minimized. He's like the anti-Kellen Winslow. I wish Wright could only get his teammates to join in, thus energizing the team to a thrilling playoff push. I can see the team video now, "2008 Cleveland Browns: A White Sock-cess Story".

Corey says: My seventeen-week brown-socks-bashing campaign is already off to a late start, but I am the designated logo creep curmudgeon around here, so here we go... I'm sure Gene Upshaw was a fine person, and I'm sure there are plenty within the NFL who want to memorialize him publicly. But people have been dying for, oh, centuries now. And until very, very recently, we all managed to honor, remember, respect, and beatify the dead without the help of uniform patches, helmet decals, and field decorations the size of McMurdo Station. I ask you: what is being achieved by this (presumably season-long) love-fest? Because at least one (admittedly minor) thing is being hurt by all the logo creep, and that's the visual aesthetic of the games themselves. What happens if, say, Jim Brown, Paul Tagliabue, and the Bone Lady all happen to pass away in the same year as the Browns' 75th Anniversary celebration... which also happens to be the 10th anniversary of their historic 2011 Super Bowl season... which also happens to be the 1,100th anniversary of the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte? What then???

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: My Idiot of the Week must be Frank Nelson of the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. As you all know, Corey and I like to spend our Sunday evenings in war-torn areas helping refugees however we can. At the end of the night, we round up all the orphans we can find and bring them over to America, where they'll actually have a shot of leading a full life. We have a standing agreement with the immigrant official on call on Sundays, the wonderful Susan O'Reilly, to let in our orphans, even though the borders close at 9 p.m. Otherwise, we'd have to send them back to the battlefields, and no one wants that. Well, with the Browns playing on Sunday night, Corey and I had to delay our humanitarian mission until Monday. So, on Monday night, with about thirty orphans in tow, Officer Nelson wouldn't let us back into the country! Apparently, he wasn't aware of our agreement and was too cold-hearted to hear our pleas. Long story short, it took the better part of two days to sort the mess out. Thankfully, Corey and I and the orphans are safely back in the country now, but it sure took a while. And that's why Born and Raised was delayed this week.

Corey says: Alex covered this brilliantly in his intro, but I want to add my support to his argument. For the second straight week, I'm naming Romeo Crennel the Idiot of the Week based on his retarded (or possibly nonexistent) concept of in-game strategy. My vote is with "nonexistent," by the way; in other words, I don't think Romeo is actually thinking about odds and percentages and the likely outcomes of various paths. Nor do I think he's some kind of Pavlovian dog ("It's 4th down? Oh, I better kick it"). My guess is, his thought process is (a) subconscious and (b) motivated by a desire to be generally conservative (which generally helps a coach keep his job longer) and to defer the final determination of the Browns' fate for as long as possible. Either way, he was wrong.

Number of the Week

Alex says: 46.7%, or the Browns third-down conversion rate. For as bad as I remember the offense playing—and 208 total yards on offense is pretty terrible—they actually managed decency on third downs. I don't understand how this happened, nor do I exactly remember it. It turns out that before the team's second-to-last drive, that ended in Dawson's field goal, they went three for four on third downs. Before then, they had converted 36.3% of them. That sounds about right.

Corey says: The Week 2 game went a lot better for the Browns than the Week 1 game did, but the improvement was mostly on the defensive side. The offense may even have taken a step back, depending on how you look at it. Certainly, Derek Anderson had a worse game against Pittsburgh than he did against Dallas. In Week 1, Derek totaled -8 DYAR (meaning, with a replacement-level performance out of the QB position, the Browns might have gained an extra 8 yards on the day), while in Week 2, he managed an even-worse -45 DYAR. Sufficed to say, he's way off his 2007 pace (of 47 DYAR per game), not that we can draw any conclusions yet.

This Week on Josh's Cribbs

Corey says: In Episode 2 of the new season, Josh is joined by his mom and dad on a fishing expedition. First, they go shopping for fishing gear while Josh reminisces about his childhood fishing experiences. However, once they get out onto Lake Erie (near the Perry nuclear plant, though disappointingly, there are no three-eyed fish), Josh isn't even in the same boat with his parents, and worse, he's clearly not used to the boating life. Josh starts to get seasick (as does the Josh's Cribbs cameraman, we're led to believe), so the expedition relocates to calmer waters (of what I assume is the Grand River). There Josh is finally at ease, and able to converse with his folks over in the next boat. Some fish (bass?) is caught. Also, we get to see some cute home videos of Josh's trip to Honolulu for the 2008 Pro Bowl. All in all, a pretty great episode.

Moral DVOA Rankings

It's still too early for us to compute moral opponent adjustments, so we're still talking about raw, unadjusted Moral VOA for now. It was a week of moral progress for the Browns, who narrowed the moral gap with the Steelers. Meanwhile, the Bengals suffered a huge moral letdown against Tennessee, but are still sitting pretty following their moral demolition of Baltimore in Week 1. Baltimore, of course, didn't play a game this week, thanks to Hurricane Ike, yet somehow they still managed to get slightly worse, morally. It's just one of the mysteries of science, I suppose.

           Moral VOA  NFL rank
Cincinnati    156.6%         1
Pittsburgh     12.3%        12
Cleveland       3.1%        15
Baltimore   -4615.0%        32

Next week:

The Browns travel once again to that murky underbelly of crime, Baltimore, Md. to take on John Harbaugh's merry band of thieves and obstructioners of justice. And once again, we'll be here with Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns to process all the evidence!

And now, a very special prime time Browns preview... 'n' dat! This week, the joke is on the television industry, which has opted to put the Browns in the national spotlight something like 42 times this season. Will Romeo's Renegades find the strength to cut through Steel? Are the Steelers even all that good themselves? Let us preview.

As always, the stats in this preview come from Football Outsiders' weekly DVOA reports. Of course, it's still only Week 2, which means there's hardly enough data to compute DVOA reliably. Instead, we've got our familiar early-season lineup of DVOA proxies. We begin with Football Outsiders' 2008 DVOA Projections, which were calculated before the season started, and thus are not affected by any potentially fluky things that may have happened in Week 1. Second, we've got our old friend DAVE (or DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early), which, at this stage in the season, is a smooth blend of 90% projection, 10% actual results. Finally, we've got the actual, unadjusted VOA results from Week 1, which, I needn't remind you, reflect only one game's worth of data and are therefore make for a highly suspect picture of team quality. Take the raw VOA numbers with a grain of salt.

For a detailed explanation of how DVOA works, click here. Now, let's get to it...

Browns offense vs. Steelers defense:

                    CLE offense  PIT defense
2008 projected DVOA    -8.0%       -13.7%
DAVE after Week 1      -7.8%       -14.6%
Week 1 actual VOA     -13.9%       -22.1%

To my surprise, you'll recall, Football Outsiders projected the Browns to have a relatively weak offense this year. And the Week 1 numbers don't exactly contradict that. In Week 1, Derek Anderson had a -8 DYAR (DYAR is new and replaces the old DPAR; the Y stands for Yards (the P stood for Points)), meaning his performance was below replacement level. Similarly, Braylon Edwards was the worst receiver in the NFL in Week 1, with a DYAR of -50.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have one of the top defenses in the league, no matter how you look at it. The preseason projections ranked them 3rd, while their performance against the Texans in Week 1 ranks them 6th, by raw VOA. They finished 2007 with the NFL's 2nd-best defense (-12.3% DVOA), ranking 5th against the pass (-8.7%) and 3rd against the run (-17.3%). If the 2007 Steelers defense had a weakness, however, it was a lack of depth in the secondary, especially at the cornerback position, which has been a problem for them for a number of years now. The 2008 Steelers are still running Ike Taylor and Deshea Townsend out there (though Townsend is doubtful with a knee injury, so we'll likely see Bryant McFadden and William Gay). The Browns should target Edwards on the sideline, maybe even line Winslow up wide, and hope for the best. Advantage: Steelers

Steelers offense vs. Browns defense:

                    PIT offense  CLE defense
2008 projected DVOA    -9.4%         4.6%
DAVE after Week 1      -4.5%        10.6%
Week 1 actual VOA      32.2%        65.1%

The Browns defense was pretty bad in 2007 (7.6% DVOA, to rank 22nd). The 2008 DVOA projections foresaw only minimal improvement. And the results of Week 1's disaster only darken the picture, as the Dawg Defense put up the league's 3rd-worst VOA total last weekend.

But I don't think we're about to see a repeat of last week. The Browns defense may not be good, but neither is the Steelers offense. Even though Pittsburgh put up the 5th-highest raw VOA total in Week 1, they were/are projected to have the league's 24th-ranked offense in 2008 (after finishing 2007 ranked 12th). I'm not suggesting the Browns will be able to shut them down, especially with Sean Jones out and Brodney Pool questionable, but it won't be as big an embarrassment. Let's hope. Slight advantage: Steelers

Special teams matchups:

                    CLE s.t.  PIT s.t.
2008 projected DVOA  -1.6%      1.3%
DAVE after Week 1    -0.9%      1.6%
Week 1 actual VOA     5.2%      4.8%

I said last week that I'm not sure where the Browns' mediocre special teams projection came from. I'm also not sure where the Browns' solid Week 1 special teams VOA came from; I guess, even though they didn't do anything spectacular, they didn't allow anything spectacular either. Josh Cribbs is questionable; if he plays, he could make a big impact (the Steelers had one of the weaker kickoff teams last year). Overall, the Steelers special teams have been medium-to-lousy in recent years (-1.4% DVOA in 2007, to rank 21st, after ranking 30th in 2006). Advantage: Neither

All in all, this is another game the Browns could reasonably be expected to lose. Last year, after a miserable Week 1 (against these same Steelers), they shocked us all, winning a 96-point shootout at home against Cincinnati. But this ain't Cincinnati. Enjoy your magic salad! I mean... enjoy your Browns football, NBC!

We welcome you, we welcome you! It's the first "Born and Raised" of the year, and you know what that means: time to drown our sorrows with half-hearted attempts at humor! Who's with me?

In case you've forgotten (or are incredibly dumb), this is our weekly Browns recap column, in which Alex and I analyze the most recent game in such crucial areas as Obscure Brown Middle Name Quality, Sock Stripedness, and Moral Efficiency. By now, we've been doing "Born and Raised" for so long, I've forgotten what we were even fighting about in the first place.

This week, the Browns acquiesced to our fears, getting thoroughly outplayed by the Cowboys. However, it wasn't the type of game about which I generally get upset (those would be the games where the Browns get thoroughly outplayed but somehow still have a prayer of winning). I thought the offense underperformed, but I'm willing to give them a pass. For one thing, the #2 receiver was Syndric Steptoe, and while I'm as big a Steptoe Bismol fan as there is, his being so high on the depth chart is a tough handicap to overcome. For another thing, the offense wasn't outright terrible—more like inconsistent.

The defense, on the other hand, was pretty miserable. It's easy to forget that they were pretty miserable last year, too, but they had gotten much better by season's end, and I think most people felt like they improved in the offseason, too. Against Dallas, the Browns defense did almost nothing well. It would be easy to just blame the pass rush, because truly, Tony Romo did have all day to make his reads; however, as Football Outsiders' Vince Verhei pointed out in this week's Quick Reads:

"The Browns rushed three on almost every play in the first half. The announcers were clueless to this, noting only that Cowboys’ linemen 'looked like they were looking for someone to block.' Well, yes, when you have six men blocking three, you are going to have guys literally standing around looking for someone to block. I realize Joe Buck is incompetent, but I expected more from Troy Aikman. The onus for the Browns' failure falls with the eight men dropping back in coverage, who were getting beat short and deep with regularity."

I would add that the onus also falls on the coaches, whose occasional blitzes were incredibly easy to recognize (at least to my eye, though certainly the Cowboys offense had no trouble picking them up either). Based on one game's worth of observation, it looks like the Browns defense has a long way to go.

But enough of that. Bring on the regular items!

Play of the Week

Alex says: Is it too much of a cop out to name Adam Jones's mugging of Braylon Edwards in the end zone? I always like to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, but (you knew that was coming) he would not have made that catch, even if Jones decided to sit that play out on the sideline. And it's not because he had some dumbfounding drops. Derek Anderson threw a rocket to the back of the end zone and Edwards could not have caught up. Though I'll admit the cameras could have been playing tricks with us. Anyway, Jones's penalty gave the Browns a fresh shot at the one-yard line; it was third down, after all. Considering Crennel's risk avoision, Jones turned a Browns field goal into a touchdown.

Corey says: There are not many decent choices here. One play that was pretty-looking, if ultimately for naught, was Jamal Lewis' 24-yard run up the middle at the very end of the third quarter. Having just taken over at the Browns' own 13 thanks to an Eric Wright interception, and needing three touchdowns to tie, rushing up the middle was a potentially costly decision. That time, however, it worked out well, as Lewis dragged a rather large contingent of Dallas defenders with him for the last 10 yards or so. Of course, the Browns went on to kick a @#$%&ing field goal which meant that the entire drive was a total waste of 5:45, because the Browns still needed three scores. My theory is that, at that point, Crennel had already decided the game was lost, and was just playing out the string when he sent Dawson out there. Even if that were the case, though, it would be hard to excuse. But I digress. Great job on that one play, Jamal!

Player of the Week

Alex says: Uh... pass! In the glory days (which ironically, were quite inglorious) of the New Browns, when the team got together and failed to play well, to a man, Corey and I would have to struggle to justify choosing our pet Obscure Brown of the moment as Player of the Week. But nowadays, the decision tree goes like this: when no one else plays well and he didn't not play well, choose Joe Thomas; he was probably great. Congratulations, Joe. I feel I may have to call on this rule again.

Corey says: Uh... pass also? Can I just go with Cliff Lee? If not, then I guess I'll default on Joe Thomas, too. Hey, he could be the Browns' version of Cliff Lee: the best left tackle in all of football... just not on a winning team.

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

Anonymous clevelandbrowns.com interviewer: "Obviously a tough opener. Did you see anything out there that makes you think that there's better days ahead?”
Mike Adams: "No. I mean, there wasn't nothing spectacular we saw. I mean, we was out there... I mean, shhhhh..."

Now that's what I call pumping up the fan base!

Corey says:

"It was a tough day for the Browns offensively, but two players still performed well. [Jamal] Lewis carried 13 times for 62 yards, including a 24-yard [sic] when he carried a whole posse of Cowboys for much of the way. If he maintains that yardage pace, he'll finish with 1,000 yards." —Steve King of clevelandbrowns.com

I prefer my Quotes of the Week to be from players and coaches, not excerpted from the work of beat writers and sports "journalists". However, this little nugget of flawed analysis struck me as too precious to ignore. Jamal Lewis did not have a good game. If you watched, you might have known this intuitively. But even by the numbers being flaunted here, Lewis had one good carry, as I have already discussed, plus 12 other carries totaling 38 yards. It's worth knowing that on those 12 carries, Jamal didn't record a single first down. You wouldn't laud a quarterback who had one great pass plus a bunch of mediocre ones. So should we fight back our urge to laud Lewis for having almost accomplished 1/16th of a 1,000-yard season (as if that's a meaningful achievement), albeit in a somewhat inefficient manner. I say "almost accomplished" because, even with his 62 yards, Jamal is not on pace for a 1,000-yard season, as Steve King asserts. I guess math isn't King's strong suit either.

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: I can't overlook a Phil Dawson touchback. They're too rare and likely getting rarer. Since 2004, he's kicked twenty five touchbacks, eleven of them in 2006. I love Dawson for his longevity with the team and complete lack of a public personality (seriously, I've been a die hard since 1999, and all I know about Dawson is that he's from Texas and his wife had medical problems a couple seasons ago; and that he invented the Dawson Bar), but he's something of a weak link on the Browns' otherwise awesome special teams—awesome with a healthy Josh Cribbs, that is. Dawson isn't a poor kicker (yet), but he's not much better than replacement level, especially considering his kickoff skills.

Corey says: We only got to see Steptoe Bismol attempt three kickoff returns and Gerard Lawson attempt two, which is not much to go on. But does their relative failure to mount even a decent return say anything about the value of Josh Cribbs? I'm inclined to think that Cribbs' success has more to do with the talent of the whole unit (or scheme) than with the magical abilities of just one man, but this game could certainly lead us to conclude that Cribbs is far from replaceable. Get well soon, Josh!

Zola Davis Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: We'll have to wait another day for the Browns debut of A. Rubin, sadly. Alex Hall—who still has a good name, but is no Ahtyba—did well enough for himself in his first official N.F.L. game. He doesn't show up in the stats for the game, but as we all know, things that don't show up in the stats are more important than things that do (see: grounding out to the right side with a guy on second base). I'm pretty sure I saw him out there for special teams, being all Alex-y and the like. We're still waiting on the Alex-Corey-Rubin defensive line triumvirate. One of these days...

Corey says: Is it just me, or is the current Browns roster particularly obscure for such an early stage of the season? There are even a couple of guys I hadn't even heard of until I scanned the roster just now. What is this, Week 15? One of those guys is linebacker Shantee Orr, #51, a free agent pickup (and six-year NFL veteran... seriously, should I have heard of him before?) with possibly the greatest middle name in Browns—nay, in human—history. Are you ready? His middle name is De'Shjuan (or, according to Wikipedia before Alex so brazenly changed it: DeShJuan... TripleCapiTal!). He is Shantee De'Shjuan Orr. I couldn't invent a better middle name than that. Congratulations, Shantee, you are my new favorite Obscure Brown (sorry, cousin Ahtyba).

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: I'll leave the Gene Upshaw bashing to Corey and I'll wait on the brown pants bashing until the Browns break them out in the regular season. I'm sure we'll have plenty of complaining to do then. (Corey says: I thought they said it was only for the preseason.) I'll also pass on the whole striped socks issue. It remains a travesty that the Browns seem committed to wearing a sock that is completely inferior in absolutely every way: style, comfort, thread count, wind resistance. So where does that leave me? Shaun Rogers's inability to keep his helmet on? Is that some kind of competitive advantage?

Corey says:



A reader sent me this amusing photo during the offseason, and I've been holding onto it ever since to use as a Fashion Item of the Week. The Gene Upshaw bashing is coming, though, so watch out, Weeks 2 through 17!

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: In a game where nothing interesting is happening, I understand that the announcers will say stupider-than-normal things. But the obvious hypocrisy of what they were saying in regards to the Dallas rushing game left me miffed. Felix Jones, in his first few N.F.L. carries, was absolutely destroying the Browns. Like any good robot, Aikman wasted no time mentioning how excited the Cowboys were about the rookie and how obvious it was he's a special talent. Tashard Choice, in his first few N.F.L. carries, was also absolutely destroying the Browns. But now, the talk was of how easily the Cowboys were able to open holes against the front seven. You can't have it both ways. Either Felix Jones is super special and we can already tell, or the defense just sucks. If it’s the former, then Choice must be pretty awesome too. If it’s the latter, then we know next to nothing about Jones at this point. Give it a rest.

Corey says: I don't like to award Idiot of the Week to Browns players and staff, but Romeo Crennel's decision to kick that field goal still bugs me. It was a decision lacking any possible logic whatsoever. It's well documented (by smart people) that coaches don't go for it on 4th down often enough; there are tons of situations where the odds favor going for it, but the conventional wisdom (and, presumably, the coach's fear of reprisal in the media) dictates kicking the field goal or punting. However, this was not one of those situations. This was a decision guaranteeing the Browns a setback (ie: a complete waste of more than six minutes of precious game time). Romeo Crennel is not without his strong suits, but in-game strategy has never been one of them.

Number of the Week

Alex says: 6, or the number of times that Derek Anderson was knocked down by a Dallas defender. All this came in twenty-six drop-backs, including penalties. That's nowhere near Charlie Frye-quality protection, where a quarterback drops back and is immediately drawn and quartered by the four defensive linemen. Then again, that's fallen off a lot from the impressive pass blocking by the offensive line last season. Dallas, of course, has a good defense. We'll need more time to accurately gauge their performance, but it's something to watch for.

Corey says: The Browns' defensive VOA for the game was a miserable 65.1% (meaning they were 65% worse than league average)—73.3% against the pass and 56.8% against the run. Now, we're talking raw VOA (as opposed to DVOA), meaning the numbers contain no opponent adjustments (ie: considerations for the fact that the Cowboys have a better-than-average offense, etc.), but still, it's pretty lousy. It ranks the Browns defense 30th, which makes me wonder: how bad were the Raiders and Lions defenses this weekend?

This Week on Josh's Cribbs

Corey says: Last year, I faithfully brought you my review of each new episode of Josh's Cribbs, the awesome FSN Ohio reality show in which Josh Cribbs goes about his daily life. So you can imagine I was thrilled when I found out the show would be returning for a second season! The first episode of Season 2 aired last night (Monday), and while it lacked the goofy aura and arbitrary settings that define Josh's Cribbs at its best, it was a very informative episode, in which Josh visits his hometown of Washington D.C., showing us around town, visiting his high school, the neighborhood where he grew up, and finally, his parents' house. I enjoyed the season premiere, but I can't wait to see what kind of wacky (that is, wackier) adventures Josh will have in the coming weeks!

Moral DVOA Rankings

Two years ago, frustrated by the dearth of actual, officially-recognized Browns victories, Alex and I began tracking "Moral Victories" for the four AFC North teams (if you're curious, the Browns finished 15-1 in the Moral Standings that year). Last year, however, we came to our senses and realized that Moral Victories alone might not be the best measure of the Browns' moral superiority. Instead, we started tracking Pythagorean Moral Victories, which, as everyone knows, are a much better predictor of future moral success than regular Moral Victories. (For the record, the Browns finished 2007 with 13.7 Pythagorean Moral Wins and 2.3 Pythagorean Moral Losses.)

This year, however, we're happily going in a new direction. I have finally completed the complex software program that will allow us to compute Moral DVOA. Like its cousin, regular DVOA, Moral DVOA tells us how much better (or worse) than "morally average" a team morally performs. It's an even better measure of moral fiber than Pythagorean Moral Wins, Third-Order Moral Wins, or any other moral metric known to man.

It will take a few weeks before we have enough game data to reliably compute Moral DVOA, so for now, you'll have to make do with the raw, unadjusted Moral VOA. As you can see below, the Browns were pretty close to morally average this week, though of course the numbers may shift once we're able to adjust for the moral turpitude of the Browns' opponents. Elsewhere in the AFC North, it was a solid moral week for the Steelers, and an unbelievably fantastic moral week for the Bengals; likewise it was a miserable moral week for the Bengals' opponents, the lowly Ravens.

            Moral VOA   NFL rank
Cincinnati   4550.0%        1
Pittsburgh     24.7%        7
Cleveland       0.9%       16
Baltimore   -4550.0%       32

Next week:

The Browns travel to beautiful Cleveland, OH (from their towns of residence, I mean—Westlake, North Royalton... you know) where they will face the steely-brained Steelmarms of Steelburgh. We'll have all the best usual analysis right here, in another thrilling edition of "Born and Raised"! Don't miss it!

Boy, time flies when you're not blogging. It's football season! And I, for one, can't wait to see the ending of last season's cliffhanger finale.

If you're new around here, this is my weekly Browns preview, which usually appears on Fridays. (If you're old around here, you can skip ahead a little.) As in the past, I'll be analyzing the Browns with the help of some of Football Outsiders' advanced statistics (like DVOA and the new-fangled DYAR).

I have attempted to explain how DVOA works on several previous occasions (most notably in my Week 1 preview from two years ago), so I won't go into too much detail. Basically, DVOA evaluates each play based on its success relative to similar plays (ie: similar down, distance, field position, etc.). It is then expressed in the form of a percentage, so that an offense with a DVOA of -10.0%, for example, is ten percent worse than league average, while a defense with a DVOA of -10.0% is ten percent better than league average. A more in-depth explanation can be found in Football Outsiders' own "Methods to our Madness."

DVOA is versatile; it can describe a whole team, a single unit, or even an individual player. It can look only at running plays, only at passing plays, and so on. That, and the fact that it's far better predictor of future success than any other metric out there, is why I like to focus on DVOA when I preview each Browns game.

Since no games have been played, however, there is no DVOA for the Browns or their Week 1 opponents, the Dallas Cowboys. Instead, we'll make do with Football Outsiders' DVOA Projection system (which, in seasons past, has shown itself to be a pretty good predictor, at least compared to all the other forecasters known to man.) So unfortunately, I won't be able to break down the Browns offense by running, passing, and the like. Not until we gather a few weeks' worth of data, anyway. Don't worry: these Browns previews will get more specific, more reliable, and more interesting as the weeks go on.

In light of the Browns' 2007 success, expectations are high, and many reasonable people think the Browns will build on last year's progress (ie: secure a pancake berth). However, Football Outsiders predicts the Browns will fall victim to the Plexiglass Principle. As such, the Browns' DVOA projection seems to paint a pessimistic picture. Personally, I have high hopes for the Browns, and it's clear they are a team on the rise. That doesn't mean, however, that they're certain to match last season's spectacular success on offense and special teams. The defense, meanwhile, may have improved slightly, but it's hard to say how much. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

Browns offense vs. Cowboys defense:

               CLE offense  DAL defense
projected DVOA    -8.0%        -6.2%

We might as well get it out of the way: Football Outsiders projects the Browns to have just the 22nd-best offense in the NFL, and be 8% worse than average. I have to confess to being a little puzzled by this projection. The Browns finished 2007 with the 11th-best offense (6.9% DVOA), ranking 9th in Weighted DVOA (9.1%). Granted, that was with a lot of players having career years, and without any major injuries to any stars, but I suspect the -8.0% offensive projection is taking pre-2007 (ie: Carthon-era) data a little too seriously. Accuse me of wishful thinking if you must. For what it's worth, I will say that my own expectations for the offense have been significantly tempered.

Dallas is projected to have the league's 8th-best defense. That's consistent with 2007, when they ranked 10th in both DVOA (-5.8%) and Weighted DVOA (-5.1%). If, in fact, not much has changed for the Cowboys defense, it's useful to know that in 2007, they ranked 9th against the pass (-6.0%) and 15th against the run (-5.6%). The Cowboys' secondary struggled to contain #1 receivers (5.2%, 20th) and especially tight ends (24.7%, 30th), which would play to the Browns' strengths. Let's hope Kellen Winslow gets plenty of opportunities.

The marquee matchup is probably that between the Browns' celebrated offensive line (which allowed a sack on only 4.2% of pass plays last season, good for 5th-best in the NFL—this in spite of Charlie Frye's 127-sack nightmare in Week 1) and the Cowboys' vaunted front seven (which accomplished a sack on 7.8% of pass plays last season, good for 4th-best in the NFL). Interestingly, the Cowboys' defensive line is now under the tutelage of Todd Grantham.

All things considered, if the Browns offense resembles the 2007 model, this is a pretty even matchup, maybe even a slight edge for Cleveland. But the DVOA projection is so divergent, it's impossible to ignore. Hedging my bets, I'll say Slight advantage: Cowboys

Cowboys offense vs. Browns defense:

               DAL offense  CLE defense
projected DVOA     4.6%         4.6%

Football Outsiders likes the Browns to have the NFL's 21st-best defense. That would actually reflect a slight improvement over last year, when they finished 22nd with a DVOA of 7.6%. Last year, the defense got slowly better after an absolutely dismal start, especially against the pass. Of course, much has changed—Mel Tucker has taken over as Defensive Coordinator and the Browns traded Leigh Bodden (probably their best defensive player, though coming off a down year) for Shaun Rogers (also probably the team's best defensive player, though also coming off a bad—in fact, terrible—2007).

So the secondary, already the weakest unit, may have suffered a decline at the expense of a beefed-up front seven. On the other hand, the secondary was weak primarily because of inexperience. Eric Wright and Brandon McDonald, two very promising young players, are only going to be better in 2008 than they were in 2007. Meanwhile, I wouldn't take it as a given that the front seven is improved. Shaun Rogers is not washed up (necessarily) but he's in his decline phase. Last season was the worst of his career, according to Football Outsiders' game-charting data, and the Lions finished dead last in Adjusted Line Yards allowed on runs up the middle (5.09). In short, I don't see strong evidence to suggest the Browns defense has improved in 2008, nor do I see strong evidence to suggest it has gotten worse. I think the DVOA projection feels about right.

The Cowboys offense, for its part, is projected to rank 12th in the NFL, despite having ranked 4th in 2007 with a DVOA of 19.0%. I'm not in a position to speculate on the reasons for this anticipated decline, though it is worth noting that the Dallas offense had the highest week-to-week variance (19.9%) of any team in the NFL last year (ie: they were inconsistent). Still, even if they do decline a little, they'll hold an edge over the Browns defense. Advantage: Cowboys

Special teams matchups:

               CLE s.t.  DAL s.t.
projected DVOA  -1.6%     -0.1%

I will confess to being surprised by the Browns' poor special teams projection, which ranks them 25th in the NFL. They had the 2nd-best special teams in the league last year (6.9% DVOA) and had been relatively strong on special teams for years prior to that. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that the 2007 Browns special teams had all their eggs in one basket, so to speak (that being the best-ever kickoff return team, which is certainly due for some regression to the mean itself), while certain other units remain dependent upon a fast-declining Phil Dawson. The important thing to remember is that special teams are extremely volatile (ie: they do not correlate well from season to season), and therefore the hardest to predict. For what it's worth, Dallas is projected to have the 19th-best special teams in the NFL, so I guess it's Slight advantage: Cowboys

The Browns' overall team projection pegs them for a DVOA of -14.2%, which would make them the 24th-best team in the league, and the worst team in the AFC North. The Browns' mean win total for the upcoming season (which is further affected by their having the NFL's 6th-toughest schedule) is a lowly 6.1, according to Football Outsiders' simulations. Naturally, this has sparked a lot of conversation, as it's probably the DVOA projection that differs most from the "consensus" of the mainstream (and certainly of the oddsmakers). Personally, I'd take the over on the Browns winning only 6.1 games this year, as I imagine most of you would. But I'm not getting my hopes up too high, that's for sure. Enjoy the game, everybody!