Browns

ESPN uses wrong quarterback for Browns

ESPN tweeted a graphic featuring the only three NFL teams not to play on Wild Card Weekend since 2010. The Browns, Buccaneers and Patriots.

Maybe Colin Cowherd didn’t leave ESPN. Judging by the graphic that was used by “The Worldwide Leader”, this is an easy assumption. ESPN tweeted out the following about the Browns, Buccaneers and Patriots. The problem? Tampa Bay and New England had active quarterbacks. Cleveland did not.

Why would they use Johnny Manziel? Manziel is not the Browns quarterback. In fact the last thing Johnny Football did was appear on an insurance billboard.

https://twitter.com/ab89/status/1168484783132938245?s=20

The real problem is that ESPN did not use current Browns quarterback Baker Mayfield. This is why the above comment about Colin Cowherd came form. Cowherd clearly does not like Mayfield and has an agenda against him. It may be just for attention, but throwing out digs at Baker Mayfield is like a normal bodily function for Cowherd. This seems like a scheme that Cowherd would concoct just to take yet another shot at Mayfield.

ESPN clearly is just following a path that Cowherd already cleared.

The inclusion of Tom Brady is understandable on this list. Brady routinely leads the Patriots to a first round bye and New England skips Wild Card Weekend. Jameis Winston is the current quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and is yet to make the playoffs. The issue is including Manziel. There have been quite a few quarterbacks that have taken the field for the Browns since Johnny Manziel was in the NFL. The Browns are an entirely different franchise since Manziel skipped town and partied as Billy Vegas. Baker Mayfield is the current quarterback and appears poised to break this streak. Why not use the current quarterback of the Browns?

My guess? To make sure they get one last shot in while they still can in case the Browns break this streak.
Jamie Gillan Previous post Jamie Gillan is already a legend
Carlos Carrasco Next post Carlos Carrasco deserves better than this
Close