Quote:

---

Robert Griffin III was 'too small', according to Browns

The narrative is being written. Cleveland Browns first-round pick Brandon Weeden had "the look of a No. 1 quarterback" according to The Plain Dealer at Tuesday's minicamp. Weeden is the one meeting with the media after practice. Colt McCoy is an afterthought.

Weeden is being sold. The other options Cleveland had at quarterback this offseason are being discredited. Veteran beat writer Tony Grossi reports that the Browns only pursued Robert Griffin III "enough to say that they tried." Griffin was viewed as "too small" and "eager to show how fast he was."

The Browns didn't like Matt Flynn either: "No bigger than McCoy with a similarly popgun arm. He was never seriously considered."

Or Ryan Tannehill: "His maturity as a quarterback and field leader were so lacking that he turned them off in personal interviews. He didn’t project as a leader."

Weeden, according to the narrative, emerged as the best option. We could swallow this entire story a little better if it didn't suggest that the Browns actually preferred Weeden to giving up picks for Griffin. That's revisionist history. (The Browns' lack of interest in Flynn and Tannehill, on the other hand, was apparent.)

We have no idea if Weeden can be successful as a 28-year-old rookie starting quarterback. He will get a chance to try. Grossi says Weeden has the strongest arm the team has seen in years and his accuracy is reminiscent of Bernie Kosar.

Now all Weeden has to do is show he can keep that accuracy when tackling is allowed. And, you know, when he faces defenses other than the Browns.

---

--------------------

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

The Browns didn't like Matt Flynn either: "No bigger than McCoy with a similarly popgun arm. He was never seriously considered."

Or Ryan Tannehill: "His maturity as a quarterback and field leader were so lacking that he turned them off in personal interviews. He didn’t project as a leader."

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

Brandon Weeden's maturity, essential as much as his arm strength and accuracy, is showing up already
Jun 06, 2012 -- 6:00am
By Tony Grossi



The Morning Kickoff …

Stepping up: After another Browns season blew up with Colt McCoy and Seneca Wallace getting tossed around by division foes like rag dolls, what was obvious about their quarterback situation was this: They needed size at the position. They needed a strong and accurate arm. And they needed maturity.

Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck? Ideal fits, to be sure … but unobtainable. Manning didn’t want to play here and the Colts weren’t stupid enough to trade the No. 1 pick.

Of the more realistic candidates, free agent Matt Flynn was no bigger than McCoy with a similarly popgun arm. He was never seriously considered.

Media darling Robert Griffin III also was too small. And too eager to show how fast he could run. The Browns never seemed all-in on Griffin. They pursued him just enough to say they tried.

Ryan Tannehill had the size and the arm, but his maturity as a quarterback and field leader were so lacking that he turned them off in personal interviews. He didn’t project as a leader.

So Brandon Weeden emerged as the best option. Great arm. Great size. Great production. And the very thing that scared off every other team – he’s a 28-year-old rookie because of a failed five-year stint in professional baseball – actually became an attraction to the Browns.

In seven practices – six in the voluntary OTA sessions and one on the first day of mandatory minicamp on Tuesday – Weeden has displayed a strong arm not seen here since Derek Anderson in 2007 and an accurate one with a deft touch reminiscent of Bernie Kosar in the late 1980s.

But what we’re also learning about him is his instant grasp of the position, its responsibilities on the field and off it.

“It’s exciting,” receiver Mohamed Massaquoi said in comments distributed by the team. “He’s mature. He’s played pro ball. He’s going to make us better.”

Early returns are good: We can only go by what we see and hear right now. We see Weeden make all the throws. And we hear him talk intelligently, honestly and excitedly about what lies ahead for him. He doesn’t blanch from the responsibility of being a spokesman for his team and his offense.

On whether he feels like “the guy”: “Not yet, just because nothing is formal. We’re still two months out until we play our first preseason game. No, not yet.”

On establishing rapport with his receivers: “It’s getting there. That’s when offenses get better, when their quarterbacks and receivers are on the same page.”

On his grasp of the Browns’ offensive playbook: “I’ve probably got my hands on 80 percent of it. It’s hard to say. We’re still installing it. I don’t really know, I guess, what there is that I don’t know. I like pretty much all of it. There are a couple plays in the red zone I told Coach (Mark) Whipple I wasn’t a big fan of. If I don’t like it, I’m going to continue to tell him about it. If you’re not comfortable as a quarterback throwing it, most coaches will tell you they won’t call it. As for what I like, I like 99.8 percent of it.”

On shaking off an interception at practice: “I think you guys will find out I’m pretty even-keeled. I think my track record shows I put that behind me. They say wash your hands and move on. That’s the approach I take. That comes from baseball. I gave up a lot of home runs in baseball. You just toe the rubber … take the next snap, and move on to the next play. I’m going to make mistakes. It’s how you bounce back the next series, make a completion here, a completion there.”

On the biggest obstacle to getting comfortable in the pro game: “I think just having some success. Just going out and completing a lot of balls, moving the offense. Just getting confidence in your arm and trusting your reads. I think as a quarterback, if you can get to that third read sometimes, that’ll give you a lot of confidence because you know you’re doing the right thing. That’s where I’m starting to get.”

Looking ahead: When will the Browns formally hand the starting job to Weeden? I think it’s all part of a process.

The significance of minicamp this week is for the veterans on the team to ascertain Weeden’s physical skills throwing the ball and get a sense for his work ethic and maturity on the field and in the huddle.

There are four more OTA practices next week and then they will disperse for summer vacation. By then, they will know who their quarterback is. A formal announcement by the Browns won’t be necessary.

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Browns didn't like Matt Flynn either: "No bigger than McCoy with a similarly popgun arm. He was never seriously considered."

Or Ryan Tannehill: "His maturity as a quarterback and field leader were so lacking that he turned them off in personal interviews. He didn’t project as a leader."

---

Why does part of me think these are not even close to the exact quotes the PD was given about Flynn and Tannehill.

That doesn't sound like talk a FO would publicly put out there about players...

JMO

---

If it's from Tony Grossi, it's not the PD,, it's ESPN Cleveland.. Tony is known for putting his own spin on things..

--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, Skydiving isn't for you

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

If Washington had a brain fart and chose Claiborne instead of the QB who do you think we would have drafted at #3? We'd have taken RG3 over Richardson.

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

This is almost as bad as Harbaugh saying he didn't want Peyton Manning

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

If you follow what H&H have said since the end of the Season

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

I've posted this several times, but get little to no reaction. So, I will ask Toad who seems to follow the why's and where's of the Browns maybe more closely than others do. So what about it Toad? If you follow what H&H have said since the end of the Season, doesn't it follow that we could have cared-less until the Media started reporting that "The Browns" who need a QB, have remained on the sidelines. I think there was only one other Team who expressed an interest about trading up & that was the Chiefs. Then they backed off when the Skin's started talking about how they were willing to give up future #1's. Only then did "The Browns" just so happen to start talking trade. It smells like a set up to me, and that was the Rams wanted to make sure they got alot for the pick, and they did.

---

Well man, I wouldn't say that I follow the Browns' "why's and where's" more closely than others, but rather I try and decipher the truth from all the stories, media reports, and fan thoughts. To that end, it seems to me that you're asking me if I see any truth in the premise that states the Browns only became interested in Griffin once the media started pushing that story. Further complicating this thought process is the suggestion that Holmgren only piped up to make a good show for the season ticket holders and/or Lerner, of all people.

So if I have all that right Bleeder, here's how I'd answer that...

I believe that the Browns always wanted a new QB, and that the selection of Weeden in the 1st round validates that belief. So since we've selected a QB, especially in the 1st, I don't believe there can be a debate as to whether or not we always had our eye set on acquiring a top-tiered talent in this draft.

That's point number one.

Now the debate isn't about whether or not we wanted a 1st round QB. We absolutely did. The debate is going to be how badly we wanted Griffin. Was the supposed offer just for show? That's the real question, and my response to that is as follows:

Hell no it wasn't for show, and here's why: What kinda idiot team President or GM would offer more than a 1st round pick for a guy that they really didn't want? Nobody knew exactly what any other team would offer for Griffin, so the risk in offering a 1st rounder plus other picks and/or players for the sake of appearances is the kind of gamble that no dolt would ever make.

I don't know what kind of crack Grossi is smoking, but it's gotta be some serious stuff if he thinks a ton of folks are going to buy into his comments just because he wrote them.

The only possible kind of reverse-spin that can be performed on his comments would read like this...

"The Browns liked Griffin, but because of his less-than-optimal size and desire to run before he throws, the Browns weren't willing to give up three future #1 draft picks for his services."

Now even those comments are false IMHO because I saw Griffin as a PASS-first QB who could run, much like Steve Young. That opinion has since been validated by various scouting reports. Keep in mind I simply was trying to reverse-spin Grossi's comments so that they'd make sense.

I could go down even murkier avenue's of deception to state my belief, which include how teams don't speak of their desires when trying to make trades so that they don't get undercut by other teams, or speak in cliche's like "teams always hold their cards very close to their vest" Hehe.

So....my honest opinion of Grossi's comments that we thought Griffin was too small and too enamored with his wheels...He's just trying to spin the fact that we didn't get the guy we really wanted, and the best way to do that is to pump up the guy we got. Teams do it all the time, and that's what Grossi is doing here.

I do believe that the media has the ability to indirectly manipulate things, but I see just too much evidence here which would fly in the face of the belief that everything was just an elaborate and complex show to appease some season-ticket holders (who can easily be replaced with other season ticket holders) and/or the owner (who isn't going to throw the team in the Ohio River if he doesn't get his way).

IMHO there were two "can't miss" guys (though we know there's no such thing) and two "fringe" Franchise guys. Luck was never available, leaving Griffin as the last "can't miss" guy. When they lost out on him, we had to choose between Tannehill and Weeden. Tannehill was too much of a gamble at #4, where we had to have a "can't miss" guy, which is why I felt Richardson was a lock. Weeden had the talent to be a 1st round guy but was so damned old I never felt he'd go there. Well, the Browns had to have a new QB so they reached for the old guy with the talent because they wanted a QB who could come right in and start from day-one.

You can beat that theory to pieces but that's the way I personally feel things went down.

(edited. Thanks Ytown)


--------------------
My free agent wishes as of 3/15/13:
Michael Huff, FS
Brent Grimes, Corner
Karlos Dansby, ILB
Brandon Moore, G
Jason Campbell, God

Edited by OverToad (Fri Jun 08 2012 12:51 AM)

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

Toad - clearly point one is beyond contention. My question is: does anyone know what we actually did offer the Rams? I have heard a lot of conjecture but nothing that I can lay my hat on. IF we offered say the #4 pick and a 7th next year then that would play toward us just making a token. If we offered 2 1st rounders + then that certainly goes strongly against that sentiment.

---

I really don't expect that we'll ever know 100% exactly what we offered for the 2nd pick in the draft. No one really has any reason to say exactly what anyone else offered. Holmgren has said that our offer was every bit as good as Washington's ........ but that could be a subjective opinion, or flat out propaganda.

--------------------
Here We Go Brownies! Here We Go! Woof! Woof!

Welcome Home Chud!

Let's Go Win A Super Bowl or 2!

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

Toad - clearly point one is beyond contention. My question is: does anyone know what we actually did offer the Rams? I have heard a lot of conjecture but nothing that I can lay my hat on. IF we offered say the #4 pick and a 7th next year then that would play toward us just making a token. If we offered 2 1st rounders + then that certainly goes strongly against that sentiment.

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

Toad - clearly point one is beyond contention. My question is: does anyone know what we actually did offer the Rams? I have heard a lot of conjecture but nothing that I can lay my hat on. IF we offered say the #4 pick and a 7th next year then that would play toward us just making a token. If we offered 2 1st rounders + then that certainly goes strongly against that sentiment.

---

Post Extras:                Share:

Quote:

---

Where's this narrative from?

And, if it's true, that would mean we attempted to give up a bunch of draft picks for a guy we thought was "too small" and "eager to show how fast he was"?

---

all anyone has to do is use logic...u don't attempt to give up 3 first round picks then say the prize U wanted isn't up to the level U want..someone is stirring a fire here.
No different then the rumor someone told McCoy they weren't gonna draft a QB..I don't buy this mess...

--------------------

Post Extras:                Share: