Cleveland Browns' Offense Treated Brutally by Yahoo! Sports in Rankings Lists

Currently undefeated in 2010 and riding high after a four-game winning streak to close out the 2009 NFL regular season, the Cleveland Browns are not getting any good marks from Yahoo! Sports in its offensive rankings.

Yahoo! Sports writer Jason Cole has been brutal toward the Browns offense in his NFL position rankings for quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers for all teams.

So maybe the Browns are not among the NFL's elite, or even in the top half of the league, but they are definitely not the absolute worst in the NFL in two of the three ranking categories.

This may just be my opinion (since I am a Browns featured columnist on Bleacher Report and I own a Browns blog too), but there is no reason the Browns should be getting such a bad rap right now.

Are they young and inexperienced with many question marks on the offense?

Of course they are, and I can actually see where Cole is coming from with his rankings, but do I think he is right?

Not a chance, and I'm sure Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert, and Eric Mangini all agree.

Yahoo! Sports' Quarterback Ranking

So where did Cole rank the Browns' quarterbacks?

He ranked the Browns at No. 31.

"The Browns purged the roster of Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn early in the offseason and then got Jake Delhomme and drafted Colt McCoy," wrote Cole. "In short, they got an older (albeit more accomplished) version of the wild-armed Anderson and a guy with far less physical presence than Quinn."

"McCoy is the future, but he’s unlikely to play this season. And if McCoy doesn’t put on at least 20 pounds, opposing defensive linemen are going to snap him like a chicken wing when he finally does play."

An older version of Anderson?

Wow. I've heard some crazy things said about the Browns' acquisition of Delhomme, but this one might take the cake. I hope Delhomme has a great 2010 season just to make Cole eat those words.

Other teams that I feel should have been ranked below the Browns because of questions at quarterback are: Philadelphia (Kevin Kolb has a ton of pressure on his shoulders now that Donovan McNabb is gone), San Francisco (Alex Smith's resurgence is still in question), St. Louis (Sam Bradford is the No. 1 overall pick, but he shouldn'e be ranked higher than Delhomme, who is a former Pro Bowler and former Super Bowl quarterback), Carolina (Matt Moore and Jimmy Clausen on top of their depth chart—please), Arizona (Matt Leinart and Derek Anderson? Ha!), and Tampa Bay (Josh Freeman ranks higher than Delhomme? Crazy).

Yahoo! Sports' Running Back Ranking

Where did Cole rank the Browns' running backs?

He ranked the Browns at No. 32.

"After flashing a little talent for a couple of years, Jerome Harrison had a monster three-game run at the end of last season," wrote Cole. "He rushed for 561 yards and five TDs over that stretch, including 286 yards in one game."

"However, that run came against Kansas City, Oakland and Jacksonville in meaningless games, so we’ll reserve final judgment for awhile. Hopefully, it’s real. More likely, it’s not and the Browns are stuck with a roster full of JAGs (that’s scout lingo for Just A Guy)."

I'll give Cole the fact that Harrison did have three great running performances during meaningless games against non-playoff teams.

But Harrison did indeed run all over those teams, which is a sign of improvement not only in his game personally, but also in the offensive line.

The Browns will be bringing back smash-mouth AFC North football by being a run-heavy offense in 2010, and the additions of Montario Hardesty and Peyton Hillis—along with a healthy James Davis—should give the Browns a solid running attack.

Other teams I feel have a worse running attack than the Browns and should be ranked lower, since the Browns have great depth, are: Philadelphia (LeSean McCoy and Mike Bell? I question this tandum right now more than the Browns depth), Seattle (they wouldn't have been listed here if they didn't cut LenDale White), Detroit (drafted Jahvid Best, but that's not enough to be ranked higher than the Browns), and Oakland (with JaMarcus Russell gone, Raider Nation will see Darren McFadden as a first round bust now).

Yahoo! Sports Wide Receiver Ranking

Where did Cole rank the Browns' receivers?

He ranked the Browns at No. 32.

"Mohamed Massaquoi led the Browns with 34 catches last season," wrote Cole. "That’s not a typo, that’s a testament to how far Cleveland’s receiving corps has fallen in two years since it had Braylon Edwards, Kellen Winslow and Joe Jurevicius."

I will have to say that this ranking might be the most accurate out of all three, since the youth and inexperience of the Browns' receivers are highly talked about around Browns nation and by many experts and analysts too.

But there are some other teams who have some questions surrounding their receivers as well.

The following I believe should have been ranked below the Browns: St. Louis (Donnie Avery and Mardy Gilyard are the top candidates to start), Tampa Bay (they added some receivers via the draft, but all they have is Kellen Winslow, and he isn't a wide receiver), Oakland (Darrius Heyward-Bey was a first round bust his rookie year, and who else do they have?), Buffalo (there is Lee Evans and.....?), Jacksonville (Mike Sims-Walker and......?).

In closing, Cole does make some good points about the Browns, and there are many questions surrounding the offense, but Browns fans, myself included, hope that the offense can start off hot this season and prove all the writers who are hating on the Browns wrong.

(Alos posted on Dawg Scooper: THE Cleveland Browns Blog)