We have Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. We have no QB of the future here and we have amassed a ton of picks in this draft.
Reasonable deductions would be that the Browns are going to draft a QB and very early. I would assume that this target would be Sam Bradford but it very well could be another QB. However, it certainly seems like Bradford/Clausen or bust. I'm fairly certain that there is no way the Browns stay at #7.
What do you think?
I really only see one realistic scenario of us not staying at 7.
And that is if the Rams go against the current thought, and pass on Bradford. Then I think the Browns are trying to trade up.
But that isn't very likely. So here is how I see it. If Berry is there, we take him. If he isn't there, I think we would take Jason Pierre-Paul or Joe Haden (if he has a good pro day on Wednesday).
I don't see a scenario in which we could trade back really.
We aren't drafting another first round QB.. too much risk.. and Holmgren doesn't have a history of drafting QB high...
I say 3rd round is the target.. I say Lefevour or Colt McCoy.. I'm kind of wanting McCoy..
Holmgren does have a history of using high picks to acquire unproven QB's. Basically the same thing.
its not the same thing.. lol.
I see very little difference.
the difference that you are not seeing is called "risk"...
Neither Hasslebeck nor Favre had proven a thing at that point. There was equal risk.
I see us either trading up with the Rams to get Sam Bradford or taking Colt McCoy with our 2nd rounder.
What happens if McCoy isn't there ?
I jump up and down with joy. 
LeFevour. Although he doesn't seem like he is very accurate either.
Jeven Snead? Zac Robinson?
I really have no clue. It does seem like Holmgren has a plan for the QB position though.
Quote:
Neither Hasslebeck nor Favre had proven a thing at that point. There was equal risk.
Favre was not Holmgren. It was Ron Wolf.
Wolf fired Infante then went and hired Holmgren and then traded for Favre. The GM made that decision not the newly hired coach.
You think he didn't have an impact on that? He was part of the organization that made the move.
Just my opinon...
We go defence this year, heavy on Defence 9- 10 of our picks Defence.
Only way we go QB is if one we like fall to the 3rd round, and to me that would be a McCoy, Tebow or Pike maybe the guy fro C.michigan
Jake is here to hand-off the ball, not pass for 300 - 400 yards a game, let our defence put our offence in good postions and we play to win close games.
Next year we go QB, let him sit a year in 2011, Jake will be gone in 2012 and then that QB will be starting..
Just my opinon
Maybe that's why we signed Delhomme. Holmgren knows we are guaranteed the #1 pick if he starts for us, therefore locking up Jake Locker for us.
I knew he was a genius!
Quote:
You think he didn't have an impact on that? He was part of the organization that made the move.
But that is not what you said, is it?
You said this...
"Holmgren does have a history of using high picks to acquire unproven QB's. Basically the same thing. "
He may have been part of the room but it was ultimately Wolf's pick and call.
Just like whatever draft pick we make this year will not be Mangini's pick but Heckert's.
Being the expert, you could always call your sources so we find out for sure.
LOL
Keep making digs at me. I don't care. Holmgren being a part of the organization that has traded for two unproven QB's (one of the times he was the man in charge) has virtually no distinction between what I said.
I think that our qb spot is already filled for at least two years. Mike Holmgren believes that with our o-line and great running game, a veteran qb is exactly what we need. - A little ball control, nothing more, nothing less.
I think that we our going to choose defensive players with 80% of our draft picks this year. - Notably in the first and second rounds.
I disagree.
However I will play along. Using your logic, I hope Mangini picks a good quarterback in this draft.
neither lets groom Cribbs to run the WCO!!!! haha
Id rather have Bradford then clausen.....but dont want to miss on Eric Berry!
Quote:
2012 and then that QB will be starting
Great.. the year the world ends, we finally have something to look forward to. 
Yeah, once the world ends we won't have to worry about crappy QB's anymore. Right?
Draft another qb? The cleveland browns? What do they say abouT history and people that are doomed?
I wouldn't go near a qb this year, stop drafting quarterbacks. Yes it took me 11 years to realize this.
Quote:
Draft another qb? The cleveland browns? What do they say abouT history and people that are doomed?
I wouldn't go near a qb this year, stop drafting quarterbacks. Yes it took me 11 years to realize this.
LOL
So I guess the phrase "try and try again" never applied to you. Can't get a job? Oh well, better stop, I guess it's just not for me.
Buck, man, you need to go focus on something else. It's quite clear you thought more of this team than the FO. I guess if I thought this team was a player away from the playoffs, I'd be upset too but man...you need to realize that what this FO is doing is probably the right thing to do.
Quote:
Great.. the year the world ends, we finally have something to look forward to.
look at the bright side, World ends in December, atleast will have 3 1/2 months to watch him, and listen to this board scream about what a bumb he is and what a wasted pick he is and we should be playing his back-up. 
McCoy is also in the mix.
Depending on how the top part of the draft goes. If they are unable to get Clausen or Bradford then McCoy will be a consideration.
Although the draft is hard to predict the further it goes; given the current draft order you would think McCoy would be there for us in the second.
The Browns have enough ammo to go get him if needed in the bottom of the first.
Yesterday I spent about 45 minutes looking at as much info and film as I could find on McCoy. I came away feeling he could be a good fit for WCO. He handles pressure well. He can run and throw on the run. He is accurate. He can put touch on the ball. He appears to be a leader and hard worker. He is not the biggest guy or have the strongest arm but he makes plays under pressure.
One thing is very clear. The Browns are "all in" on this draft and we will draft what MH,and TH believe is our future QB.
Quote:
LeFevour. Although he doesn't seem like he is very accurate either.
Jeven Snead? Zac Robinson?
I really have no clue. It does seem like Holmgren has a plan for the QB position though.
I agree, it does seem like MH has a plan for the QB position... which is why I do NOT think he has a pecking order of QBs and when he will take them. I think he has his eye on one... maybe two... QBs in the draft that he wants and he knows where he wants to take them and if they are gone, he will pass on a QB this year. I do not see him saying, well Bradford is gone, what about Clausen in the second? Well Clausen is gone, what about LeFevour? Well LeFevour is gone, what about... I don't think that's going to happen. He has his top 1 or 2 and he isn't going to take anybody else, no matter how far they drop.. that's JMHO.
I agree with that. I think he has 1 or 2 guys (like you said) and an idea of where they should go. I think he will go get one of those guys either by using one of the picks we already have or trading up.
I'm telling you man. The qb position for the next two years is set. We are going to be taking defensive players in rounds 1,2, and 3. - The offense was addressed via free agency.
Quote:
I'm telling you man. The qb position for the next two years is set. We are going to be taking defensive players in rounds 1,2, and 3. - The offense was addressed via free agency.
If Delhomme and Wallace are the plan for the next two years, we're in big trouble. I don't think we're done at the QB spot. Not by a long shot.
How can you say that for certain? Anything/Everything can change in the blink of an eye on draft day.
Agreed. - However, that's a mighty big contract to give Delhomme to sit. - He's our qb.
I think he starts out our QB. But that $7 million won't stop us from improving the QB position through the draft.
If the Rams don't pick Bradford with the #1 pick I expect we will try and trade up with the Bucs and take him there.
Personally I think drafting a QB this year is not a good idea. There will be atleast 3 QB's available in next years draft that are better than this years class. I'm crossing my fingers that we do not draft a QB with our first round pick or our second round pick for that matter.
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
Quote:
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
Now THIS is why I visit here,....another good Catch 22 look at what is/may/could/ought/might/should/ain't,.... a consideration that some of us had not even labotomized.
Quote:
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well
i'll stop you right there. if he does win the starting job and play reasonably well, then you start him another year.
I hope that is the scenario we are 'stuck' with....I will also accept Seneca Wallace playing reasonably well 
Quote:
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
Being that Holmgren has never drafted a QB higher than the 3rd round, and Heckert found Kolb in the 2nd... I'd say that we'll be Ok.
Quote:
Hasslebeck and Favre.
I'm late getting back,and would have left this alone had you just agreed with Davy,but,nooo.
Check this out,the Hasselbeck deal;
Joined the Seahawks March 2, 2001, via a trade with Green Bay. Seattle received Hasselbeck and the Packers’ 2001 first-round draft choice (17th overall-Steve Hutchinson) in exchange for Seattle’s 10th
selection in the first round and a third-round choice.
Swapped 1st rounders and gave up a 3rd.
Hardly what I would call using an early round pick on a QB.
The Favre deal,yeah newly hired HC Holmgren was in the room,but so was the guy handling the phones and the guy taking care of the buffett table.That was all Ron Wolfe.
There's no shame in admitting a mistake,I do it all the time.But then ,I really don't a crap what people think of me.
Quote:
Id rather have Bradford then clausen.....but dont want to miss on Eric Berry!
My thoughts exactly. Bradford won't be there at 7.....I think Bradford is the only guy worth drafting in round 1 IMO. If he starts to fall, I really don't want to give up the world to move up much. One or 2 spots, no more. We need talent in other areas and have the opportunity to fill some holes.
But if Berry is there......hell yeah! To give a way over-used cliche- WE GOTTA GET THIS GUY! I think the guy is a sure fire thing in the NFL. Besides, there's a group of us dying to get his jersey because of an inside joke from our teenage years.
Now that Quinn is gone -- and not that he was The Savior --we have to take a QB,...
Just suppose,...SUPPOSE,....Bradford AND Berry are "there,...."
THEN what ??
Quote:
Now that Quinn is gone -- and not that he was The Savior --we have to take a QB,...
Just suppose,...SUPPOSE,....Bradford AND Berry are "there,...."
THEN what ??
Bradford. Deep can correct me, but I've heard the guy is really coachable and is a good team mate. He'd be willing to sit back and learn.
Bradford is probably the most accurate QB coming out this year..
if he is not a Brown.. the rest of the QB's won't make it here in Cleveland. We need the absolute best.
Tebow is a gimmick.
McCoy will falter.
Lefevour is Tebow #2.
I could go on...
My personal preference......
Eric Berry.
Quote:
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
I don't think Mallet would be a great fit with the WCO. Ponder probably would be. and I'm not sure on Locker - he needs to work on his accuracy imho.
I think it'll be a very deep QB class, regardless of underclassmen that decide to come out. In addition to the guys you already mentioned, both Jerrod Johnson from Texas A&M and Case Keenum from Houston are potential 1st or 2nd rounders too. And Pat Devlin from Delaware is intriguing too - will be interesting to see how he does next year in his 2nd full season after transferring from PSU.
Of all of these guys, Ponder and Keenum are the two that intrigue me the most, and both are likely middle first to early second rounders at this point.
edit: I forgot Andrew Luck from Stanford on here - with another good season he may also end up going in the first two rounds.
Didn't Mallet go to Michigan for a while,...
Let me ask Braylon,...
Well, then he CAN'T come here and succeed,...
Berry all the way, without thinking twice about it.
Quote:
Quote:
LeFevour. Although he doesn't seem like he is very accurate either.
Jeven Snead? Zac Robinson?
I really have no clue. It does seem like Holmgren has a plan for the QB position though.
I agree, it does seem like MH has a plan for the QB position... which is why I do NOT think he has a pecking order of QBs and when he will take them. I think he has his eye on one... maybe two... QBs in the draft that he wants and he knows where he wants to take them and if they are gone, he will pass on a QB this year. I do not see him saying, well Bradford is gone, what about Clausen in the second? Well Clausen is gone, what about LeFevour? Well LeFevour is gone, what about... I don't think that's going to happen. He has his top 1 or 2 and he isn't going to take anybody else, no matter how far they drop.. that's JMHO.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=170586
Stats are for losers, but I don't see how you can say that Lefevor is not accurate.
Watch the senior bowl replay on NFL Network.
My guess, third round to the Browns, depending on the redskins and rams.
Quote:
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
It's called...
If U Don't Have a Franchise QB, U Don't Pass On One...
It's an unwritten rule and exactly why St Louis WILL take Bradford...
Quote:
LeFevour. Although he doesn't seem like he is very accurate either.
Jeven Snead? Zac Robinson?
I really have no clue. It does seem like Holmgren has a plan for the QB position though.
LeFevours accuracy is what made scouts drool at the senior bowl, He was dead on.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we don't draft a QB til the last day of the draft..
We have a starter in Delhomme.. We have a backup in Seneca Wallace... Why draft a QB high in the draft? There is no need. Mike wanted a QB that could come in and solidify the position by himself... Delhomme was horrible last year, but don't get it twisted. He can make plays.
Holmgren is looking for his next Favre/ Hasselback.. Someone no one is talking about...
I've been looking at QB's.. and I'm gonna say we draft Rusty Smith out of Florida Atlantic. He's 6'5.. 230 lbs.. A mature age of 23... and he is able to move out of the pocket with his feet running around a 4.8.
That is the guy I'm going with. Look out for him. He can be groomed.. Can sit and learn a few things from his coaches, and when the time is right, can fight for an opportunity to show his talent on the field.
if I was a Browns GM, at this point, I would be hesitant to draft a QB in ANY round. At least until an OL and solid defense is in place.
What if the current FO sees Jake,Seneca and Ratliff as adequate, provided of course, there is adequate support around them?
Where is it written that they are required to draft a QB?
I would say that if we grab a QB, we won't reach for it. If one that fits what Holmgren wants comes to us, we take him.
I would also say that you could probably stop looking at things like height, weight, and 40 times for a QB; start looking at who was the most accurate passer, best decision maker, etc... Height/weight and such will be considered, but they will be secondary at best.
Quote:
Yeah, once the world ends we won't have to worry about crappy QB's anymore. Right?
Does this have anything to do with hell freezing over? I have heard we might have a winner then.
great take....
having experience in SW and JD allows us some time to really develop a guy. with no rush to throw the guy in, we need a good fit and ability, not to reach in another "win now" scenario. we're finally able to take BPA with some firepower to allow some movement in teh draft to get our guys.
pretty exciting considering a past of trading away entire drafts to get a few players.
I tend to agree..if they think SB is a fanchise QB..I happen to like him better than Clausen..
For the Browns it will be like I pictured..a developmental QB in the late rounds.
Quote:
Quote:
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
It's called...
If U Don't Have a Franchise QB, U Don't Pass On One...
It's an unwritten rule and exactly why St Louis WILL take Bradford...
If the Rams are really dumb enough to pass on Suh, I'd imagine that we will do everything in our power to move up to take Suh. At least I hope so.
Quote:
If the Rams are really dumb enough to pass on Suh, I'd imagine that we will do everything in our power to move up to take Suh. At least I hope so.
A lot of people would argue that if you dont have a franchise QB, you dont pass one up in the draft. If they think Bradford is a franchise QB, I dont blame them one bit for drafting him instead of Suh.
Why move up and draft a player that might not even fit on our defense?
Quote:
If the Rams are really dumb enough to pass on Suh, I'd imagine that we will do everything in our power to move up to take Suh. At least I hope so.
It's very possible this is the plan,...whether he will fit or not, is beyond my pay grade.
Quote:
Quote:
I'll give you a what if scenario.
What if Jake Delhomme plays reasonably well for (we go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7)? We are now drafting in the middle of the 1st round in 2011 and the three top QB's are all gone by the time our pick rolls around (Mallet, Locker, Ponder I'm assuming).
Now we have a 36 year old starting QB with a 31 year old backup. With no top QB prospects in our grasps.
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
It's called...
If U Don't Have a Franchise QB, U Don't Pass On One...
It's an unwritten rule and exactly why St Louis WILL take Bradford...
Considering the Rams have had the chance to get two franchise QB's in Ryan and Sanchez, passed, and apparently blew it, it'd be damned-hard for them to risk making that mistake for a third consecutive time.
Of course the Rams have to play the game the right way by not giving away their hand, just in case a guy like Holmgren offers some 5 picks and/or players for the right to pay $70 million for Bradford.
And on that note, I'm hoping we do it.
So............to answer the question in the title, for me, it's Bradford or bust. I don't believe Clausen is nearly as impressive as Bradford. I like Clausen more than I did Quinn coming out, but I still think he's a marginal 1st rounder, not a top-10 pick. If we dropped back to the ass-end of round 1, then I'd consider Clausen, but if we don't, I'd want to move up to get Bradford.
As for the rest of these developmental QB's.................No thanks.
I say we let Holmgren work his QB magic this year and see what happens,...
Quote:
I agree that next year's QB's look pretty good, but I don't think the plan should be, "The QB's next year will be better, we should wait." The plan should be get a player now that we like so we don't have to worry about it next off-season as well.
Understandable... but what if you don't really like any of the players available now... or if you do like, say Bradford and ONLY Bradford, trading up to get him is EXTREMELY expensive. So do you use the 2nd round pick to take a LB that you really love or a QB that you sort of like?
If we are 8-8 and drafting in the middle of the pack and in dire need of a QB, after all of the turnover we've had and all of the rookies we are going to be counting on..... then that would mean that the rest of the roster is looking pretty good.. so next year I might be inclined to take the hit to move from 18 to 10 to get one of those big 3 QBs..
Quote:
I say we let Holmgren work his QB magic this year and see what happens,...
That'd be no fun, so no, I won't do that.
Quote:
Quote:
I say we let Holmgren work his QB magic this year and see what happens,...
That'd be no fun, so no, I won't do that.
If he does work magic, then it will be fun,.... 
Toad:
Just curious, I don't watch much college ball, a little here and there. I think you live in Texas?
I have looked at some film on McCoy recently. My thinking is Bradford will be gone and Clausen is questionable. What I saw of McCoy is a guy who may fit well in a WCO and should be available with our second round pick.
What is your take on McCoy?
Not to speak for Toad (actually it is) but we are both in agreement here, so I may as well say our thoughts. He lacks an NFL arm and may get beat up quite a bit with his size.
Quote:
Not to speak for Toad (actually it is) but we are both in agreement here, so I may as well say our thoughts. He lacks an NFL arm and may get beat up quite a bit with his size.
Can I get a big-eared-Ernest-Angley-style "Ayyy-meyun."
I'm not as worried about his size though. More than that, he lacks a lot of useful NFL-applicable experience. He played in a spread offense against terrible defenses and wouldn't have been on he national radar if he A) didn't play at Texas or B) didn't have Jordan Shipley to bail him out on every 3rd down.
Then we gotta get Shipley, too,...
If we are picking a QB lets do it early and NOT get a bigger project than we will already have. I'll trade HALF our picks for the future franchise QB of the Browns. So we have failed and wasted some high picks in the past.. SO WHAT. We also passed on a BUNCH of QB's that I would LOVE to have here. Picking a QB high isn't the problem.
The problem is most of the people on this board could draft BETTER than the idiots in the Browns front office have over the last decade.
Quote:
Then we gotta get Shipley, too,...
I'd like very much to have Shipley on the team.
Don't be surprised to see us take a late round QB every year. Even after we have a starter. I remember the Packers doing just that when MH was there. He also eluded to that very thing during his last Presser.
They would groom guys like Hasselbeck and Aaron Brooks then trade them to other teams.
I think a guy on our radar is Dan LeFevour QB-Central Michigan. From what I have seen he is a very accurate passer.
If the Browns are fortunate enough to land Bradford would any of you play him the first year or patiently watch him hold a clipboard?
Quote:
Don't be surprised to see us take a late round QB every year. Even after we have a starter. I remember the Packers doing just that when MH was there. He also eluded to that very thing during his last Presser.
They would groom guys like Hasselbeck and Aaron Brooks then trade them to other teams.
I think a guy on our radar is Dan LeFevour QB-Central Michigan. From what I have seen he is a very accurate passer.
I only saw the game vs. Troy and he actually looked pretty bad... Maybe it wasn't representative of his ability.
Quote:
I only saw the game vs. Troy and he actually looked pretty bad...
And what did you think of Levi Brown, Troy's QB? He put up crazy good numbers this year. He is supposedly bright and a good leader. I haven't heard anything about arm strength or accuracy but the only bad thing I heard about him was that he played against an extremely weak schedule.
He definitely looked more in control, but it was against western mich. Personally I don't think our record will be very good this year and we should wait till next year for mallett or locker.
Quote:
Toad:
Just curious, I don't watch much college ball, a little here and there. I think you live in Texas?
I have looked at some film on McCoy recently. My thinking is Bradford will be gone and Clausen is questionable. What I saw of McCoy is a guy who may fit well in a WCO and should be available with our second round pick.
What is your take on McCoy?
Pretty-much what Deep said. We've had numerous discussions about him in PM's.
McCoy is a good kid who is a master of his college-level offense, but once you get him into the big-boy leagues, he's going to prove to be an undersized, under-weaponed guy who faces long odds of making it.
In many ways, McCoy IS Charlie Frye: All guts and toughness but not enough tools.
The earliest I'd ever take McCoy is the 4th round, and only if I'm drafting him to be a solid backup QB, not as a potential starter.
Quote:
If the Browns are fortunate enough to land Bradford would any of you play him the first year or patiently watch him hold a clipboard?
Depends on his shoulder and how well he adapts in OTA's.
With Delhomme on board, the only way I'd let him start is if he blows Jake out of the water. The WCO is just a little too complicated for a true rookie who didn't really even play his true Junior year in college.
OKay Toad since you feel Bradford or bust what do think it would take to get Bradford (trade up for him)?
My guess would be:
Our 1st rounder this year
2 of our 3 Third Rounders
Shaun Rogers
Our 2nd round pick next year
Our 1st rounders this year and next, and probably a #2 or #3.
It'd be tough to trade those picks.........
Quote:
Our 1st rounders this year and next, and probably a #2 or #3.
It'd be tough to trade those picks.........
Yeah...I guess it depends on how much you like Bradford. I guess it would be do you see a QB that could be available better than Bradford for a WCO? IF the answer is no then I think you trade next year's first away..I would much rather trade Shaun Rogers than our 1st next year.
Rogers isn't worth our 1st next year.
Quote:
Rogers isn't worth our 1st next year.
I agree but maybe Rogers and a 2nd would be.
Quote:
Quote:
Rogers isn't worth our 1st next year.
I agree but maybe Rogers and a 2nd would be.
ANY discussion about going to #1 STARTS with our 7 pick and our 2011 First Rounder...
Quote:
Our 1st rounders this year and next, and probably a #2 or #3.
It'd be tough to trade those picks.........
At a minimum those two firsts, since the Rams are going to be bad again and will want to squeeze us (-- I know I would).
Assuming the Rams will be bad is saying the Browns will too, so I'm not so sure we need to be giving away future high picks for unproven talent.
Let Holmgren do his job and see where the cards lie. I am just a fan,...I have no other power.
Quote:
Our 1st rounders this year and next, and probably a #2 or #3.
It'd be tough to trade those picks.........
I don't think I could do that deal... seems to high a price to pay....
Quote:
He definitely looked more in control, but it was against western mich. Personally I don't think our record will be very good this year and we should wait till next year for Mallett or Locker.
We can't take Mallett, he started out at Michigan. 
Quote:
Our 1st rounders this year and next, and probably a #2 or #3.
It'd be tough to trade those picks.........
I agree. IMHO, given how much building we still need to do, making this move would be a big mistake. Bradford is probably the best QB prospect of this year's crop, but even he has enough questions about him to be very wary of spending a lot to go get him. If he somehow falls (unlikely), great. If not, there are a lot of good football players that will be available to us at #7. If it were me making the decision, it would be easy: stay put and take the best player available.
Toad, this is for you and Deep....and I know most don't like getting painted into a corner but..................
If you had to pick a QB this yr., who would you guys be looking at and what round do you think we could get them?
Let's leave out Clausen and Bradford because we have enough talk about them and to be honest, I dont want to give up everything we would have to too get Bradford.....and I just don't want Clausen.
Just curious as I have no clue about the other QB's in this draft.
Except Armanti Edwards.......and as much as I would flip out (App. State homerism at it's finest
).....we wouldn't take him
.
Thanks ahead of time guys.
If I may, Armanti is gonna make someone a great Randle El.
Does that translate, or could it fit, into the new Browns WCO ?
I do not know, but I'd look at making Edwards a receiver, and he could then also eat that 3rd string QB spot (one I fear Mangini will hold on to Ratliff as long as he can for, IF we don't draft a project). But, you also have Cribbs, who can do that too.
AE will be a late round steal for someone; so, why not ? Especially with 13 picks,...and with those, I think Holmgren is going to try to strike oil and move up to get Sam. That would take AE off the board, and Ratliff off the roster.
Quote:
Quote:
He definitely looked more in control, but it was against western mich. Personally I don't think our record will be very good this year and we should wait till next year for Mallett or Locker.
We can't take Mallett, he started out at Michigan.
Yeah, but he left willingly, so he's OK
OooRah, you can chime in any time, I didn't mean to be selective, anyone else that wants to chime in feel free too.
As for Armanti, yea, I agree 100% with your assesment of moving him to the WR role and if Holgrem wants speed for the WR position, Armanti has it. For those of you that don't know much about him, he has three things that it seems most of you guys say are musts......
1. Accuracy, he is VERY accurate,
2. Smarts & pocket presence, guy can read the field and make the correct decision, that includes tucking the ball and running with it. VERY few interceptions compared to TD's.
3. a Strong arm. He can make those tough 15 yrd. out throws without a problem.
The problem is that he also has two things that are agianst him.......
1. His size, he is not a big kid in any sense of the word, he doesn't have the hieght or the wieght. BUT.....he is VERY tough.
2. He played in a spread offense, they didn't even have him under center on short yardage plays (which always frustrated the heck out of me
).
All that said, I just don't see us taking him even with a late round flyer, especially now that we have Wallace. Cribbs and Wallace are enough college QB's turned WR/Wildcat for any team.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have him on our team and I firmly beleive that even with his size he will make someone a helluva football player. I just don't think that someone will be us.
Just please don't let it be the Steelers or the Ravens (or the Redskins, Cowboys either
).
Quote:
If you had to pick a QB this yr., who would you guys be looking at and what round do you think we could get them?
Let's leave out Clausen and Bradford
Jeez, NC, painted into a corner is right. 
Frankly, I'm high on Bradford, at-best luke-warm on Clausen (hate him at worst), and as for the rest............I'd take a pass. I'm not at all impressed by this group. In fact, I'm terribly underwhelmed by them.
At this point, it comes down to intangibles and a coin-flip for a bunch of guys who look like they'll be fighting for backup jobs their entire careers.
People are very high on Lefevour, but I'm not. He has a Pennington arm and comes out of the spread. He also doesn't fire the football, preferring to touch it down the field, even on mid-range passes. He measured a Charlie-Frye-like 9 1/4" hand size, which means he's going to be a fumbler.
As I'd warned ahead of time, McCoy measured in small at 6'1, 216. Combined with never having played in a pro-style offense and matched with a Ken Dorsey-like arm, he's got plenty of issues.
Pike? Rail-thin with an iffy arm out of the spread.
Snead? A pretender who can't read a defense.
I could go on, but I'd only depress myself
There are two developmental guys in this draft. The first is LeFevour because of his intangibles. The other is Bill Stull of Pitt.
My problem is that LeFevour is probably going to go earlier than I'd pick him, which would be the 5th.
So.............the answer to your question is Stull in the 4th-5th. He doesn't have a big resume in terms of several years of success. He only played well during his last year, where he completed 65% of his passes, 8.2 YPA, 21 TD's and 8 INT's, but his curve was going up. He has a solid if unspectacular arm. The only reason he'd be my pick is because he came out of a pro-style offense in Pitt. He's taken his snaps from under center, is adept at play-action and rollouts, has learned under a successful pro head coach, and will come to the NFL understanding the NFL game.
Keep in mind this isn't an endorsement. My opinion is if we can't get Bradford, we take a pass on QB's all-together this year.
Quote:
Frankly, I'm high on Bradford, luke-warm on Clausen, and as for the rest............I'd take a pass. I'm not at all impressed by this group. In fact, I'm terribly underwhelmed by them.
it was a long time ago, but what did you think of Tom Brady when he was drafted?
I'm trying to make a point here Toad.. Talent is where you find it..
One of these guys that are going to fall out of the top three rounds may be the guy..
that's why holmgren and heckert get the big bucks..
I bet you Tom Brady didn't impress many folks either. wasn't he drafted in the 6th round?
EDIT:
I checked, it was the 6th round.. actually, it was the second of two picks that round!
Just saying
Quote:
Pike? Rail-thin with an iffy arm out of the spread.
I think Pike's arm strength is under-rated because of how poorly he did at the combine. I heard that some Qb guru changed his mechanics right before the combine and he lost a lot of velocity and accuracy rether than gaining. Check out his senior bowl practices and pro day results. I am pretty tough on Qb's when I rate them - Bradford is the only Qb I would consider in the 1st round. Maybe the only one I would consider in the 1st 2 rounds. So take it with a grain of salt when I say I would look at Pike if he was available in the 5th.
Just clicking here...
What about the kid from Northwestern (Kafka) as a developmental player? All I keep hearing about him is how he is wowing scouts (first at the Combine, then at his Pro Day at Northwestern).
------------
QB Kafka amazes at Northwestern’s pro day
He may not be anywhere near the most famous or celebrated quarterbacks in this year’s draft, but Mike Kafka sure did astound the scouts from 25 teams in attendance at Northwestern’s pro day on Thursday. Among those on hand were Bengals QB coach Ken Zampese and Cardinals QB coach Chris Miller.
The senior signal caller followed up on his sensational NFL Scouting Combine performance, in which he was among the top quarterbacks in the vertical jump, broad jump, three-cone drill, and 60-yard shuttle, with a tremendous throwing session indoors on FieldTurf.
Kafka passed to his former Wildcats receivers, Zeke Markshausen and Andrew Brewer, and according to one scout, missed only one throw the entire workout.
Brewer (6-2 3/8, 217 pounds), meanwhile, also had a solid outing, running 4.60 and 4.62 seconds in the 40-yard dash, posting a 39-inch vertical jump, a 10-foot broad jump, a 4.08-second short shuttle, a 6.84-second three-cone drill and doing 15 repititions of the bench press at 225 pounds.
Two other top Northwestern prospects, Corey Wootton and Sherrick McManis, will work out March 29.
– Gil Brandt
NFL.com
A couple of late round qb's I might have some interest in taking a flier on in with one of our last couple of picks are Skelton from Fordham, Brown from Troy and Kafka from Northwestern.
I haven't made up my mind on these guys yet. I have seen just enough to intrigue me a little but not enough to form a solid opinion yet.
Skelton - big strong Qb. Reminds me of Flacco at this point of Flacco's draft. Weak competition.
Brown - posted some amazing numbers but again against weak competition. He looks like a true leader too.
Kafka - Smart and very accurate. Played in the Big Ten. Arm strength may be a question. Per NFL radio, Pat Kirwin said this kid really opened some eyes at the combine with his performance and that because of that he was going to go back and look at Kafka's game tapes - fwiw.
Talent is where you find it..
If it's there.. Toad echo's what I've been saying about this QB class..I like Bradford but I'm not overwhelmed by him and I love the Sooners.
The rest are really projects..and most will be backups..if not out of the league in several years.
I looked at most of the QB's and the ones I think MH might want to develop..
Fever might be one..Pike might be another..but so could Kafka/Compton/Brown,and several others.
I have always liked what I saw in Kafka and going to Northwestern, he should be damn smart too.
I'd say he's probably on the board in Berea right now. At least I hope and think he should be on it. His arm is certainly better than McCoy's and I think he's more polished than LeFevour.
LeFevour is the guy I think we are targeting. Mobile, smart, hard-working, size, leader. I think his Pro Day (March 24th) is just as important as Tebow's. He has to prove he can make the throws.
And it will be much easier to trade up to get him if we need to. Or he might be there with our 2nd round pick.
Lifer - How'd you squeeze your post in between my back to back posts?
I keep hearing nothing but great things about Kafka in his draft workouts. Anybody know what the criticisms against him are. Why is he never talked about as one of the top 5 Qb's?
I personally think its either Clausen or Bust
I doubt the RAMS pass on Suh...their Defense is worse then ours, and they would be absolutely foolish to pass on such a great Defensive Lineman...Suh will be a hall of famer...no way under the Sun the Rams pass on Suh...
If the Rams are stupid enough to pass on Suh...I'd be willing to trade up for him, but I doubt MH would be willing to,....Suh is bar none the best player in this entire draft...even better then Berry...Suh is a game changer on the DL..great Run Stuffer, immovable object, and gets great penetration in the backfield... Bruce Smith, Reggie White...Suh is "that" kind of DL.....
If the Rams draft Bradford, Clausen could realistically fall to us, or we could move up one or two spots to get him with....
Make no mistake Clausen is a franchise QB....I personally think he is a safer prospect then Bradford.
Bradford has been hyped up a ton by the sports media, and he hasn't really even done anything, and he has an injury history associated with him, and his arm is not NFL impressive..
Clausen is a "much" better prospect then Quinn ever was coming out, and he is a good QB....I see him being the Next Rothlisberger type QB....remember how many people though Ben wasn't even the best QB in his draft class? I would take him over Rivers or Eli...
Clausen has gotten an unfair deal....he has been ragged on by folks unfairly...he is a good QB, who knows...maybe this is MH way of ensure Clausen is there when we pick at 7
We need a QB...why not get him now? we may not draft this high again for awhile....so take the QB now while you have a chance...we have enough draft picks to trade back into the 1st and still come away with a quality player for our defense...
Quote:
Suh will be a hall of famer
Yikes! Dude hasn't even been drafted yet and he's a Hall of Famer. Slow it down.
Quote:
If the Rams are stupid enough to pass on Suh...
The Rams have drafted a linemen in the past three drafts (Carriker, Long, and Smith) and passed on franchise QB's two times (Ryan and Sanchez). This is the year they take the QB.
Quote:
Suh is bar none the best player in this entire draft
No he isn't. There are some draft "experts" who say he isn't even the best defensive linemen.
Quote:
Make no mistake Clausen is a franchise QB
Another Yikes! Clausen has some serious personality question marks. I have doubts that grown men in the NFL will follow a punk kid from Southern California who think he is entitled to being a QB.
Quote:
I personally think he is a safer prospect then Bradford.
Bradford has been hyped up a ton by the sports media, and he hasn't really even done anything, and he has an injury history associated with him, and his arm is not NFL impressive..
The only thing Clausen has on Bradford is the type of offense he ran in college. That's it. Clausen is also coming off an injury (toe surgery) though it's not as serious as Bradford's (shoulder surgery). Also, if Bradford's arm is not NFL impressive then what does that say about Clausen? I'd say they both have equal amounts of arm strength.
Quote:
Clausen has gotten an unfair deal....he has been ragged on by folks unfairly
An unfair deal? The kid showed up to his first Notre Dame press conference in a Hummer Limo wearing his four state high school championship rings. He was one of the most hyped prospects in that recruiting class and won nothing in college.
Quote:
An unfair deal? The kid showed up to his first Notre Dame press conference in a Hummer Limo wearing his four state high school championship rings. He was one of the most hyped prospects in that recruiting class and won nothing in college.
So your saying that if he came here and won several superbowls,, you would still hold what he did as an 18 year old against him..
At 18, few of us were as smart as we are now...
No, I wouldn't hold that against him. But right now, yes. Mainly because he hasn't done anything really to change the perception about him.
I have heard much worse stories about Clausen and by most accounts he's a Jay Cutler style personality.
however, this one is silly.
A. The college football HOF was housed in South Bend, IN at the time. And, he was going to go to school at Notre Dame. Sure, it's a bit abrasive to hold the announcement there, but it's not like he flew to Atlanta, GA (current college HOF) to announce he was going to play at ND.
B. He was wearing his HS FB championship rings to announce where he was going to play college FB. Seems pertinent to show he was a championship caliber QB. I don't know many HS FB players that wouldn't wear those rings.
So, we are continually criticizing a kid for being super confident that he was goign to be a successful college QB and that showing off that he was a super successful HS QB at a press conference 4 years ago.
I just don't see it.
now, as for his accuracy issues, problems reading a defense, and how he started off last season so well and then seemed to go into a funk he couldn't get out of late in the year. well, those are things that we should be criticizing.
Quote:
now, as for his accuracy issues, problems reading a defense, and how he started off last season so well and then seemed to go into a funk he couldn't get out of late in the year. well, those are things that we should be criticizing.
I'll never had problems with people saying this guy or that guy isn't accurate, can't read Defenses,, or whatever..
But I just don't see holding maturity issues against an 18 year old.... JMO
To update........the Seahawks have signed Whitehurst (whom they supposedly view as the future according to the article). This would most likely mean we can have Claussen if we want him, and Berry becomes even more of a pipe dream.
Right. Well, they signed him to an offer sheet. They have to give up a 3rd rounder to get him, and it doesn't seem like San Diego would match the offer as he is there 3rd string QB.
Seems kind of strange that the Seahawks like Whitehurst that much. Maybe they are getting Whitehurst because they are planning on signing Marshall to an offer sheet and will give up the 6th pick? I don't know.
*Update*
This from
ESPN.com Quote:
Charlie Whitehurst had better become more than a backup after the Seahawks paid handsomely for the Chargers' third-string quarterback Wednesday.
Seattle agreed to move down 20 spots in the second round and part with a 2011 third-rounder to acquire Whitehurst from San Diego. The Seahawks go from holding the 40th overall choice, worth 500 points on the NFL draft trade value chart, to holding the 60th choice, worth 300 points. The 2011 third-round choice translates in value to a 2010 fourth-rounder, valued between 44 and 112 points.
A pick in the middle of the fourth round would be worth about 70 points. That means the Seahawks are parting with 270 points in draft capital to make this deal. The final pick of the second round is worth 270 points.
The price is a bargain if Whitehurst turns into a good starter for the Seahawks after signing what is expected to be a two-year deal worth about $5 million annually. With other teams trading quarterbacks for a discount, the Seahawks are betting on Whitehurst to become a meaningful addition. They also faced competition from Arizona, which probably drove up the price. Not having a 2010 third-round choice also limited their options somewhat.
So Seattle and San Diego flip spots in the 2nd round and Seattle gives up a 2011 3rd rounder and they pay an unproven 3rd stringer $5 million a year. It looks like Seattle thinks they found their QB of the future. A guy who couldn't unseat Billy Volek as the Chargers #2 QB.
From what I've read this offseason they aren't the only ones. I have never saw the kid play (well not since college), but this all but eliminates the Hawks from going QB.
If we want Claussen he will be there for us imo. I don't think the Skins will go QB in round 1 with an OL that is just crap. Here's what I have so far before our pick (barring any trades)........
1. Rams.......Bradford
2. Lions........Suh (although i think they will shop this pick hard.....especially if SB drops)
3. Bucs........McCoy
4. Skins........Okung
5. Cheifs........Bulaga
6. Seahawks.....Berry
The only team that might go QB is the Skins. Some of the reports say they are high on him, but I still think when a guy like Shanny looks at that OL he's going to go with that 1st. Them keeping Cambell another year speaks volumes about where they want to go, but we shall see.
I am begining to wonder if we even want Claussen if he's there though. I've not seen any article since the Bernie visit saying that we had interviewed, talked, scouted, or were interested in him at all. I've seen a couple saying we would love to get Bradford, but nothing when it comes to Claussen. It won't shock me at this point if JC is on the board, and we still go somewhere else......jmho.
Holmgren may have been dropping a hint regarding a possible move up
Posted by Mike Florio on April 11, 2010 12:49 PM ET
We recently pointed out that Browns president Mike Holmgren arguably has been a bit too impulsive when it comes to his quarterbacks, giving up Brady Quinn for a cold turkey sandwich with wilted lettuce, trading for a career backup, and paying a king's ransom to a turnover machine instead of waiting for the Eagles to reduce their price tag for Donovan McNabb.
As one league insider explained in response, Holmgren's early moves aren't surprising, given that he spent 17 years as an NFL head coach. "By its very nature coaching is an emotional profession," the source said, "and impatience is more often driven by short-term emotion. . . . How can you ask a person whose short-term thought process is to 'win now' to have oversight of the idea to 'build for the future'? They can't do it. . . . They just can't help themselves."
But there could be evidence that Holmgren is making the transition to long-range planning. Howard Balzer of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat believes that Holmgren may have been dropping a hint via comments he made in the wake of the McNabb trade. "The only way I was going to take all those early draft picks in rounds 1, 2 and 3 and use them would be for a young draft choice that I thought could be the quarterback for the next 15 years," Holmgren said.
As Balzer sees it, Holmgren possibly was saying that he'd be inclined to give up the seventh overall pick, the 38th pick, the 85th pick, and the 92nd pick for an opportunity to trade up with the Rams and land Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford.
Under the outdated (specifically at the top) draft trade chart, this package of picks would justify landing somewhere between No. 2 and No. 3. Given that the first overall pick in 2010 will entail the largest rookie contract in the final year of the free money, that haul of picks should be enough to justify a swap.
The real questions are whether Holmgren was talking about Bradford, and whether the Rams would be interested.
There's another factor that should be considered in any such transaction. Bradford is represented by Tom Condon and Ben Dogra of CAA, and Condon/CAA haven't had a recent history of success with the Cleveland organization, starting with quarterback Tim Couch in 1999 and continuing with quarterback Brady Quinn in 2007.
So the Rams may want to trade down and the Browns may want to trade up, but Bradford's camp may want nothing to do with Cleveland, even with Holmgren at the helm.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ssible-move-up/
it shouldn't take that much to move up...
The jets hosed us to move up with a few picks and some old Gini guys....
The ONLY way the Browns trade up is if the Rams PASS on Bradford. JMHO.
I was thinking, if the Rams pass on Bradford, where do we have to trade up to? In front of the Seahawks? I think the Redskins are are most likely trade up partner.
Quote:
I was thinking, if the Rams pass on Bradford, where do we have to trade up to? In front of the Seahawks? I think the Redskins are are most likely trade up partner.
with Detroit looking more and more likely to take an OT, they would be a willing trade-down partner inside the top 8 if Bradford were still there. We'd have to go to 2.
Detroit really isn't looking likely to take an OT. The only people talking about that are the ones trying to stir something up. It is 99.9% certain they will go DT.
Holmgren also could be very arrogant in the sense that he feels as if he does not NEED Bradford.. and that he could work his magic with either Tebow or McCoy for instance. They both are winners, and they both can run and pass, ala Seneca Wallace.
Bradford hand size 9 1/2
McCoy hand size 9 3/8
Clausen hand size 9
Not a big difference. The question is do they protect the ball?
Quote:
it shouldn't take that much to move up...
The jets hosed us to move up with a few picks and some old Gini guys....
The ONLY way the Browns trade up is if the Rams PASS on Bradford. JMHO.
Really?
U don't think so...that ought to be quote of the year..news flash,the Browns don't have any players to trade yet.. remain competitive ..
The web (started w/ KFFL and then other sites have ran with it) is crazy right now with rumors that Peter King says the Browns could trade up for Bradford. It took a while but I found the article. Really all it is, is King says it is something he could see. IMO certain websites are drumming something up when there is nothing there.
However, there are some Browns tidbits I took from the article and pasted.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/04/11/bryant/index.htmlAll along I've felt Tebow needs to go to a spot where he can have a peaceful redshirt year or two, and assuming Brett Favre plays one or two more years (now we're getting ahead of ourselves), Tebow to the Vikes makes some sense, particularly if Childress feels he's the kind of prospect that two of the quarterback coaches he admires most -- Andy Reid and Mike Holmgren -- think he is.
By the way, Tebow was in Cleveland and Washington last week, and he visits Denver this week. I hear the Cleveland coaches were very taken with him, and if he's there when they pick in round two (number 38 overall), or they trade down from number 7 in the first round, well, who knows?
Sam Bradford works out for Washington and St. Louis this week. The workouts happen Thursday and Friday. They are formalities. Unless something strange happens, it's hard to envision anything standing in the way of Bradford to the Rams with the top pick on April 22. The only strange thing I see is Cleveland paying a ransom to move up to pick Bradford -- like the seventh and 38th picks this year, and the Browns' first-rounder next year, plus something else.
I keep hearing the Rams believe Bradford's significantly better than the other quarterbacks, and if they do, what sense does it make to trade a franchise quarterback so you can be in position to take a quarterback with a couple more holes, and then other top prospects? At the end of the day, you're not going to be sure if you plugged the biggest hole you've got, and if you haven't, and if it's a Brady Quinn situation all over again, then what sense does it make to do the deal? None
3. I think the Browns may do several things at number seven, but the one thing they won't do is take Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen. They could draft into the strength of that area of the draft and pick a tackle, or they could take Eric Berry, or they could take Joe Haden, or they could trade down to fortify their five-in-the-top-100 slate of picks (overall: 7, 38, 71, 85, 92). They'll do so with a GM, Tom Heckert, who, along with Andy Reid, used to turn draft choices into more quality draft picks as well as any team in the league. I just don't think the Browns see Clausen as a no-doubt franchise guy.
4. I think, for those Browns fans who yearn for a franchise receiver and ask, "Why don't we trade down a bit in the round and get Dez Bryant?'' here's your answer: Eric Mangini's spent a lot of energy trying to get his locker room right, and though Bryant appears to be on the right track and could well be a terrific NFL citizen for the next 10 years, they don't sell insurance for this kind of thing, and the Browns would rather take guys without question marks on their resumes.
Quote:
The only strange thing I see is Cleveland paying a ransom to move up to pick Bradford -- like the seventh and 38th picks this year, and the Browns' first-rounder next year, plus something else.
I agree with you that he basically even downplays his own rumor.
But, if we paid this much for Bradford, I will be very disappointed (and upset).
If they do decide to "go-for-it" then I say go all out and gamble on Bradford, though I really don't want anything to do with taking an early quarterback-- even though we don't really have a clue as to how this year's QB clique is going to perform. Point being, if they suck, then the new kid needs to get in there (like I said we should have done with Quinn long ago in order to see what you had,...), and if DelHomme and Wallace instead succeed, a later rounder could be "developed as a project." McCoy, Pike, LeFevour, etc.
We NEED the safety,...we don't really know if we need a QB (except maybe for knowing we that don't have a franchise kid--hell, Wallace might go 6-7 years)
Quote:
But, if we paid this much for Bradford, I will be very disappointed (and upset).
Agreed.
Who doesn't want a franchise quarterback? It would be great to get one. It makes sense though to use this draft to build up the secondary, receiving core and add some more pieces.
Then next year, depending on where we pick, and who is graded higher, grab our quarterback.
Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Casey Keenum, Pat Devlin, Jerrod Johnson, and Ryan Mallet should be in next year's class.
Quote:
Quote:
But, if we paid this much for Bradford, I will be very disappointed (and upset).
Agreed.
Who doesn't want a franchise quarterback? It would be great to get one. It makes sense though to use this draft to build up the secondary, receiving core and add some more pieces.
Then next year, depending on where we pick, and who is graded higher, grab our quarterback.
Andrew Luck, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Casey Keenum, Pat Devlin, Jerrod Johnson, and Ryan Mallet should be in next year's class.
I fixed it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if we paid this much for Bradford, I will be very disappointed (and upset).
Agreed.
Who doesn't want a franchise quarterback? It would be great to get one. It makes sense though to use this draft to build up the secondary, receiving core and add some more pieces.
Then next year, depending on where we pick, and who is graded higher, grab our quarterback.
Andrew Luck, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Casey Keenum, Pat Devlin, Jerrod Johnson, and Ryan Mallet should be in next year's class.
I fixed it.
Wow. Yeah, good call. I forgot he redshirt his freshman year. And with potentially a lockout in 2012 and no draft, good bet he comes out next year.
Quote:
3. I think the Browns may do several things at number seven, but the one thing they won't do is take Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen. They could draft into the strength of that area of the draft and pick a tackle, or they could take Eric Berry, or they could take Joe Haden, or they could trade down to fortify their five-in-the-top-100 slate of picks (overall: 7, 38, 71, 85, 92). They'll do so with a GM, Tom Heckert, who, along with Andy Reid, used to turn draft choices into more quality draft picks as well as any team in the league. I just don't think the Browns see Clausen as a no-doubt franchise guy.
While this may seem like a plausible move, it would be terrible for the Browns. There are too many players involved and the Rams could not assimalate the extra draft choices, even if they wanted. This would be Ricky Williams part 2.
I think Bradford will do well, but not at the price mentioned.
Quote:
Quote:
3. I think the Browns may do several things at number seven, but the one thing they won't do is take Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen. They could draft into the strength of that area of the draft and pick a tackle, or they could take Eric Berry, or they could take Joe Haden, or they could trade down to fortify their five-in-the-top-100 slate of picks (overall: 7, 38, 71, 85, 92). They'll do so with a GM, Tom Heckert, who, along with Andy Reid, used to turn draft choices into more quality draft picks as well as any team in the league. I just don't think the Browns see Clausen as a no-doubt franchise guy.
While this may seem like a plausible move, it would be terrible for the Browns. There are too many players involved and the Rams could not assimalate the extra draft choices, even if they wanted. This would be Ricky Williams part 2.
I think Bradford will do well, but not at the price mentioned.
I think the question that needs to be asked is "Is Sam Bradford a QB that will change the course of a franchise?" If you are absolutely sure and you do not like who is available next year, then you do it, even if it is a king's ransom.
The problem with that, is next years quarterback class looks deep.
This is really dorky. But I was playing around with the 1998/1999 drafts.
Let's say the N.O. Saints who had the #7 pick would have traded up to #1 and selected Peyton Manning. Let's say they gave up their #1 on 1998, a #1 in 1999 and a 2nd round in 1998.
The Saints at # 7 took the #1 OT in Kyle Turley. Their 2nd round pick they whiffed on, so let's say Samari Rolle who was taken 6 picks later. And their #1 in 1999 was Ricky Williams.
I know they traded up to get Ricky, but here is the question. Knowing what we know now, would you trade the careers of Turley, Rolle and Williams for Manning? Absolutely.
The question is, is Bradford that type of player?
Rumor has it that rumors are not allowed to be posted on the board
Where did you hear of this rumour? Please give details.
What were all of these rumors and deleted posts?? Inquiring minds like mine want to know!!
My guess would be refering to the ESPN radio rumor involving the Browns thats getting a ton of airplay.
Quote:
The question is, is Bradford that type of player?
That is the question isn't it. Paying a kings ransom for a 14 year stud QB is probably worth it... Unfortunately you have to make the deal before you know for sure if he's a 14 year stud QB...
IIRC - My deleted post was saying that moving up would cost a lot. If we knew we were getting the next Peyton Manning then despite the cost it would be a steal. However it would be an awful big gamble on the unknown because no matter what we think of Bradford we don't know how good he will become.
Not sure why it got deleted
Quote:
Deepthreat reported it before ESPN. FYI.
come on, Wes... even you have to think that's funny.
Quote:
Quote:
The question is, is Bradford that type of player?
That is the question isn't it. Paying a kings ransom for a 14 year stud QB is probably worth it... Unfortunately you have to make the deal before you know for sure if he's a 14 year stud QB...
I hope MH is sending out signals to make someone else try to jump...as many holes as this team has,they can't afford to do that.
Quote:
I hope MH is sending out signals to make someone else try to jump...as many holes as this team has,they can't afford to do that.
If you dont have a QB it doesnt matter what other holes you have. QB is the biggest hole.
Quote:
Quote:
I hope MH is sending out signals to make someone else try to jump...as many holes as this team has,they can't afford to do that.
If you dont have a QB it doesnt matter what other holes you have. QB is the biggest hole.
Egg-zack-lee. If you think Bradford is a franchise QB, nothing is too high a price to pay.
First we aren't debating about a QB sitting there at 7 ,it's giving up all your picks this year to move up,relinquishing any chance of filling other holes for a prospect who may not pan out.
No I'm not ready nor willing to do that.
Then tell me whats surrounding him after he's drafted????
No solid WR to speak of..weak right side of the Oline..suspect RB's..sure go do that and have nothing to compliment him.
Oh and who said the Rams want to trade him?
Quote:
First we aren't debating about a QB sitting there at 7 ,it's giving up all your picks this year to move up,relinquishing any chance of filling other holes for a prospect who may not pan out.
No I'm not ready nor willing to do that.
Then tell me whats surrounding him after he's drafted????
No solid WR to peak of..weak right side of the Oline..suspect RB's..sure go do that and have nothing to compliment him.
Oh and who said the Rams want to trade him?
No doubt. I think most Browns fans know what happens when you put the cart in front of the horse. I'm not worried though, I believe MH and co. are well aware of this.
You're not in position to draft a high qb very often. I think when the opportunity presents itself you have to take the chance or else be faced with mediocre results.
Quote:
First we aren't debating about a QB sitting there at 7 ,it's giving up all your picks this year to move up,relinquishing any chance of filling other holes for a prospect who may not pan out.
No I'm not ready nor willing to do that.
Then tell me whats surrounding him after he's drafted????
No solid WR to peak of..weak right side of the Oline..suspect RB's..sure go do that and have nothing to compliment him.
Oh and who said the Rams want to trade him?
+1
It's easy to say, "if Bradford is the next HOF Super Bowl QB, go get him, no price is too high". NOBODY knows that. More than likely, he's not (odds say that).
While not the same situation, look at the Bears move to get Cutler last year. They gave up Kyle Orton and first-round picks in 2009 (18th overall) and 2010 (11th overall - ouch), along with a third-round pick (84th overall) in 2009 to do it. Orton went on to have a better year statistically and his team had more wins in 09. Was that trade worth all they gave up?
The Bears gave up waaaay too much and Cutler played pretty awful in his first season. And this was for a QB that had already played in the NFL for three seasons (37 starts). You would think the Bears would know exactly what they were trading for....but it didn't work that way. It was his first season with a QB rating below 80 (76.8 to be exact).
Knowing what we know now....would the Bears or you do that trade again? I didn't like it at the time and I like it even less now. And again, we're talking about a guy that had taken a lot of NFL snaps.
Mortgaging the future to get Bradford is completely stupid. And that goes three times over knowing we have a ton of other holes on this team. Let St. Louis take/pay him and let's build a team with all those picks we have.
I was arguing in favor of giving up a ton of picks to move up and take him, just more of less that I think QB is our biggest need and until you have one, you probably aren't going to win many games in the NFL. QB is our biggest hole and we better get someone back there that can play if we have any real hope of winning.
I more than anyone understand what a QB would do for this team..however moving up to get a guy who may or may be a franchise type is too risky for me.
I said months ago I wasn't sold on any of these QB's this year and I stand by that.
I like Bradford..but I'm not that hyped over him that I'd want to give up our first three picks to get him...
To mortgage the future on a media driven hyped guy like Bradford is definately not worth the risk. I'm so sick of the Browns fielding a team that is outmanned at every position, I want to see a team that can compete week in and week out before we start shooting for the stars.
QB may be our biggest need and this is a QB-driven league.....however, there's actually a small chance Bradford becomes the next Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, or John Elway. To give up so much for such an unknown is way too risky for a team with as many holes we have. Heck, it's super risky for a team that doesn't have our holes.
Go look back on the success rate for QB's taken at the top of draft. It's actually quite alarming. And then go look at the success rate of QB's drafted middle-to-late 1st and then in the 2nd round. It's just as bad/good. Meaning, you can get a good QB just about anywhere in the top two rounds.
I'd rather put a 2nd round QB behind a strong line, good RB's/WR's, and a solid defense than putting a #1 overall QB behind a O-line that stinks on the right, barely a WR to throw to, and a shaky defense.
We need to maximise the chance of success. Putting all our eggs is one basket is a mistake. Even if we hit with Bradford, which is very unlikely, it will be two drafts from now before we can start putting nice pieces around him.
I need to dig up my findings on the current starting QBs, but the middle rounds were actually the least represented (2-5).
There were a ton of 1st round QBs starting for teams in the NFL last year, a ton of late round and undrafted QBs starting. And only a few of those middle round guys.
The point remains it is a high risk to draft a QB high (especially one with injury concerns who came from a spread offense which is hard to predict the NFL translation and who magically bulked up 30-40lbs from his playing weight).
I would be much more likely to believe that we draft two QBs to improve the chances of one panning out.
Clausen or McCoy in the 1st or 2nd, and Pike, Brown, Kafka, etc. with a 3rd or 5th.
Hard for me to believe they are going to shoot the moon for one guy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I hope MH is sending out signals to make someone else try to jump...as many holes as this team has,they can't afford to do that.
If you dont have a QB it doesnt matter what other holes you have. QB is the biggest hole.
Egg-zack-lee. If you think Bradford is a franchise QB, nothing is too high a price to pay.
I'm going to reply to what I've read in this thread on page 4. The Question I have is what do the Browns need to win the SuperBowl????
What do the Browns need to win the SuperBowl??
When I think about it long enough, I think (posters) are putting too much value on all of these draft picks the Browns have. It is not like the team just returned 1 or 2 years ago, I mean I know Mangini gutted the roster for the 4th time since 99 last year but maybe a few of the players on the team are better than what you would draft.
Lets look at it this way... They can only keep a 53 man roster on opening day. They have already signed Pashos, Sheldon ? CB, Ghicuac, Fujita lb, and Watson,
Now if you factor in 10 draft picks they have today, and players like Mike Adams (S), Coye Francies (cb) Brandon Mcdonald, or Chansi Stukey, Brian Robiskie, Lawrence Vickers, Chis Jennings, and James Davis.
You have to add to the situation that keeping the draft picks, won't allow you to have a 63 man roster so the thing you have to look at Is
Will the 2nd 3rd other 3rd, or whatever, will the draft picks you pick be better than what you have to enough of an extent , to make it worth losing the players you will have to cut by opening day OR ! ! !
Or will it be better to lose draft picks that may not be good enough to make the roster anyway.
What does it take, for the Browns to win a Superbowl? At this point I'd be happy with the next Tim Couch, I mean they will have 7 rounds of draft picks next year, If I look at this Browns roster from the middle of last season, there was no hope that they were going to be competitive.
Give me someone to believe in!
What does it take for the Browns to win the Superbowl?
1 Can't get SB if you don't berth playoffs.
2 To berth playoffs you need to win your division or get a wild card.
To win the division you need to beleive you can dominate the teams in your division and play better than them agains teams outside of your division.
To get a wildcard you need to beleive you can have a better record than teams like Indianapolis, New England, Tennessee, San Diego, Denver, and the Jets.
The OL, The DL, The Free Safety, The Strong Safety, The Linebacker, The CB, they score touchdowns, but they don't score the majority of touchdowns.
The majority of touchdowns are scored by the Quarterback, The Wide Receivers, and the Runningbacks, ( and a Kick Returner) if you have a 1 and 10 record)
Gvie me someone to beleive in!
Some here would hope for more offensive line help? I think Al Davis gets it more than those, at least he took a chance on Jamarcus Russell.
the Packers did that to find their backup QB and it worked.
Brohm in the 2nd round busted.
Flynn in the 6th round hit.
Problem for us is we won't likely carry 4 QBs and we traded for Seneca and gave Jake serious $$$, so I doubt we draft 2 QBs.
Keeping in mind that I'm not totally all out in favor of mortgaging the farm to go get Bradford or anybody else... For those who think it's not worth it I have to ask a few questions...
1. We have two options at QB.. one is to spend a bunch and risk a lot to go get a highly touted prospect.. the other option is to keep making smaller investments in the position hoping one of them turns out to be super... what should we do?
2. If we keep filling holes and getting better, isn't only going to keep getting more and more expensive to move up and get the franchise guy if that is the route we go?
3. Everybody keeps talking about the risk.. everybody in every draft has risk.. Manning had risk (both of them).. Rivers had risk, etc.. so when is a QB going to come into the draft without risk?
4. How much better do you think our current talent might be if we had a strong competent QB to lead them?
Quote:
Problem for us is we won't likely carry 4 QBs and we traded for Seneca and gave Jake serious $$$, so I doubt we draft 2 QBs.
This team has a fair number of bubble guys that may or may not be active from week to week. If they are serious about the QB situation, having one less roster spot somewhere else would be worth it. Another option would be to try to stash the late round guy on the practice squad, although I would like that less.
With all those 3rds and 5ths, IMO it's a better idea to just draft two prospects you like than blow your whole draft on one guy.
We have two options at QB.. one is to spend a bunch and risk a lot to go get a highly touted prospect.. the other option is to keep making smaller investments in the position hoping one of them turns out to be super... what should we do?
The Browns have to discuss it..they know they have needs..if they evaluate and take the risk and leave the holes open,or do they strengthen the team and take another guy they need ?
I'm listening to MH right now on 97.1The Fan.
If we keep filling holes and getting better, isn't only going to keep getting more and more expensive to move up and get the franchise guy if that is the route we go?
No,it gets easier..if you fill your holes,then you have only one postion of need to get,you can do whatever it takes..
Everybody keeps talking about the risk.. everybody in every draft has risk.. Manning had risk (both of them).. Rivers had risk, etc.. so when is a QB going to come into the draft without risk?
<ßont color="orange"> When U have to give virtually your whole draft to get him..
How much better do you think our current talent might be if we had a strong competent QB to lead them?
Still the same..a QB doesn't make a safety better,or the LB's better..if the receivers suck they aren't going to get better either..
U need to get better players around the QB too..
Just curious as to what happens if Bradford does not go to St. Louis?
Say that they take Suh?, I know that almost everyone has them taking Bradford, and I think that they should, buuuuuttttttt..........crazyier things have happened.
Let's just say they do take Suh....then what happens?
2. Detriot has Stafford, no way they take Bradford
3. Tampa? Maybe, but supposedly they really like the kid they drafted last yr.?
4. Washington, they are shooting themselves in the foot for trading for Donovan, but do they still take Bradford to sit behind him for a yr. or two...Doubt it.
5. Kansas City, again maybe, but doubtfull as they seem to like Cassell alot.
6. Seattle, they just traded for Whitehurst, again maybe....but doubtfull.
7.
here we are.
Now I know those phones are burning up ahead of us, but how far up would we be willing to go??? and how much would we give up??
Again......I know I am probably peeing into the wind here....but what the hay.....it's the draft.....and speculation is fun
In the incredibly rare instance that the Rams do not take Bradford and assuming no one trades up, there is no one in front of us who needs a franchise QB. Or at least would draft him.
You know, I was thinking the same thing. What if the Rams passed on Bradford? Like you said, might as well speculate while we can.
I have to think that someone between 2 and 6 would trade down because some team will give up a ton to move up and get a guy that everyone thought would go no. 1. Heck, we might be that team.
I have to say that the people in spots 2 - 6 could demand a king's ransom.
i'd be shocked if they don't take Bradford. I figured the Bulger release pretty much sealed it.
Quote:
i'd be shocked if they don't take Bradford. I figured the Bulger release pretty much sealed it.
Oh, I agree 100%, and I think the poster above me agrees, too.
All we're doing is filling the time with "what if"?
yeah I knew that, no worries, just expressing my thoughts and adding tremendous insight to this discussion.
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
Quote:
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
But, what if they have Butch Davis running the show, so they take Suh?
What do you think happens in picks 2 - 6? Who needs to have a QB, what do they offer, etc.?
Quote:
In the incredibly rare instance that the Rams do not take Bradford and assuming no one trades up, there is no one in front of us who needs a franchise QB. Or at least would draft him.
I disagree.
The Redskins went way out of their way to get McNabb. They aren't going to suddenly decide that Campbell is their future.
The above means they have no guy in place to take over in two years when McNabb will be 35. I think they would snatch up Bradford in a moment if he fell to them.
It's worth noting that had the 'Skins believed they'd have a good shot at getting Bradford in the first place, they'd have not gone after McNabb.
Anyone that wants Bradford is going to have to trade up to get him. If the Rams don't want him, they'll open a bidding war. Will the offers be unreal? No, but they'll still yield a helluva price because Bradford is that well thought of.
So if the Browns want Bradford, they'll have to trade up. Essentially, ANY team that wants Bradford will have to trade up, except of course for the Rams.
The odds of anything else happening are beyond remote.
Quote:
Quote:
In the incredibly rare instance that the Rams do not take Bradford and assuming no one trades up, there is no one in front of us who needs a franchise QB. Or at least would draft him.
I disagree.
The Redskins went way out of their way to get McNabb. They aren't going to suddenly decide that Campbell is their future.
The above means they have no guy in place to take over in two years when McNabb will be 35. I think they would snatch up Bradford in a moment if he fell to them.
It's worth noting that had the 'Skins believed they'd have a good shot at getting Bradford in the first place, they'd have not gone after McNabb.
Anyone that wants Bradford is going to have to trade up to get him. If the Rams don't want him, they'll open a bidding war. Will the offers be unreal? No, but they'll still yield a helluva price because Bradford is that well thought of.
So if the Browns want Bradford, they'll have to trade up. Essentially, ANY team that wants Bradford will have to trade up, except of course for the Rams.
The odds of anything else happening are beyond remote.
I seriously disagree with you on the Redskins. They will not draft a QB with their first pick. McNabb can easily play for 2-5 more years for them. Drafting Bradford would be a huge mistake.
However, we do agree that someone will trade up for Bradford. There is a 0% chance he'd make it to 7.
Quote:
I seriously disagree with you on the Redskins. They will not draft a QB with their first pick.
Well, my opinion is that it would depend on which QB is there. Clausen? No. Bradford? I'd be certain of it. So I both agree, and disagree, with you.
It seems to be just rumor at this point but WPXI in Pittsburgh has the story at the link below that St. Louis is offering the #1 and a first rounder next year for Ben. Seems like an awful lot but that would definately shake up the draft.
http://www.wpxi.com/sports/23136434/detail.html
Quote:
It seems to be just rumor at this point but WPXI in Pittsburgh has the story at the link below that St. Louis is offering the #1 and a first rounder next year for Ben. Seems like an awful lot but that would definately shake up the draft.
http://www.wpxi.com/sports/23136434/detail.html
Both Peter King and Adam Schefter have said there is absolutely no truth to it.
Quote:
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
What if the really like Colt McCoy? They take Suh at #1 then trade up back into the 1st round to make sure they get McCoy. Certainly not probable but definitely not implausible.
Two things.
1. If Holmgren thinks that Bradford is the next Kurt Warner (that's who he reminds me of) then I have no problem mortgaging the future.
2. How does this site know that I like cougars?
Quote:
What if the really like Colt McCoy? They take Suh at #1 then trade up back into the 1st round to make sure they get McCoy. Certainly not probable but definitely not implausible.
McCoy or even ..........Tebow (que peen ).
Look, as I said, I don't think it's going to happen, but I don't think it's that far fetched either.
And yea, I also agree that if in the odd chance it does happen, someone will pay to get ahead of us........just having fun is all, that's what this board is for right.
As for getting a vet. to let them break in their QB, I believe that the Redskins have a QB that they would probably let go for a mid round pick, say maybe a 4th? That is the 1st pick of the 3rd day, so it may be worth a little more than years past?
Well to be honest we should be hearing that contract talks have started. The only plausible scenario I can see is the Rams can't get a deal in place with Bradford and do get a deal done with Suh.
If this Happens we are trading up with the Lions or Tampa Bay no doubt in my mind. I wouldn't be surprised to see that we are in discussions with the Rams about trying to get up there.
Lost in all of the Bradford/Rams talk is the Detroit Lions.
They have a great young nucleus in their franchise QB in Stafford(age:22), a stud #1 wr. in Calvin Johnson (age:24), TE Brandon Pettigrew (age 25), Safety Louis Delmas (age 23), LB Ernie Sims (age 25). Kevin Smith if he can recover is 23.
If they add Suh to that. They really are developing a nice team.
They need an o-line. Rob Sims isn't nearly enough there. But I like what the Lions are doing.
Quote:
They need an o-line. Rob Sims isn't nearly enough there. But I like what the Lions are doing.
Absolutely. And that is why you and I have been in a great debate about #2pick. As great as a player Suh is, the Lions could very easily draft the top OT and slide Backus inside. I know you don't see the merit in that.
The Lions draft this year reminds me a lot of what Charlie Casserly went through when ESPN wanted the Texans to take Reggie Bush and he went against the grain and was slaughtered in the media for taking Mario.
I don't think the Lions can go wrong with Suh, and their defensive line will be much improved. However, they cannot keep neglecting the LT position.
Quote:
Quote:
That scenario would only be plausible if Bulger was still on the team, or they traded for say, Jason Campbell.
Right now they have no QB, We have seen Kyle Boller, and he is only a backup.
Bradford or trade is the only way the Rams can go.
But, what if they have Butch Davis running the show, so they take Suh?
What do you think happens in picks 2 - 6? Who needs to have a QB, what do they offer, etc.?
If Suh goes to the Rams, every team beginning with Detroit will be trying to trade out to let someone else select Bradford. The most likely teams engaged would be Seattle, Cleveland and Buffalo.
No way he falls past Seattle. Carroll would take about 1 second to turn in the card for Bradford.
Quote:
2. How does this site know that I like cougars?
Same with me.
And a while back I was getting Harley ads too. Creepy.
You never know with Carroll. The guy is a nut.
Quote:
Still the same..a QB doesn't make a safety better,or the LB's better..if the receivers suck they aren't going to get better either..
U need to get better players around the QB too..
I think the QB makes the safety better, the lb's and the Cb's, Just look at the last year of Charlie Frye, and What happened the first 10 games of Quinn, ... the fact that the Quarterback couldn't move the offense meant that the defense had to make arouind 14 stops a game, instead of 7 or 8 stops a game.
Even if the defense gives the Qb a short field if he throws an int in the end zone then the defenses effort was made void, and
Every defense would rather play with a lead than playing while trailing, because they can take more chances, and they can get the wolfpack mentality
The Bottom line is, If you can get a Quarterback who can give your team a lead, then the opponent has to take more chances as an offense and makes more mistakes.
The Bottom line is the Quarterback, makes your defense better, or worse.
Your Offense, makes Your defense better or worse.
It is all about the offense. It's also a little bit about the pass defense, but defense won't help without an offense.
The best thing they can do to improve the defense, the very best thing the Browns can do to improve their defense, is to Improve their Offense !
Quote:
I see us either trading up with the Rams to get Sam Bradford or taking Colt McCoy with our 2nd rounder.
With all of our needs, I don't see us even considering a trade up for Bradford. Too much of a luxury.
I go with your thinking of McCoy in round 2 and like it!
Ooooh rah
Nobody ahead of us in the second has a need for a QB. Odds dictate McCoy will be there from everything I've see.
McCoy gets to learn the system in year one with a clipboard then we have JD to help mentor him when McCoy starts in 2011.
Sounds like a sound game plan to me.
I see you prescribe to the theory that the best defense is a good offense. I think to some degree that is true. If you control the ball with long drive your defense is on the sideline. Hard to give up a TD when you are not on the field. And great point about playing with a lead. If you can get up 2 TD's (sometimes even just 10 points) offenses tend to give up on the run. This allows the rushers to pin their ears back and go. Increased pressure on the opposing Qb and more mistakes on his part.
Quote:
CLEVELAND -- Browns general manager Tom Heckert admitted today that the Browns have talked to the St. Louis Rams about trading up to No. 1 to acquire quarterback Sam Bradford.
"We're playing a little phone tag,'' said Heckert. "But we've talked to them.''
Browns President Mike Holmgren admitted it would be difficult to pull off such a trade. "He's a coveted young man,'' said Holmgren. "You'd have to mortage the ranch. In the real world, we're probably going to go in a different direction.''
Heckert said he's talked to all of the teams ahead of the Browns at No. 7 and teams behind them about possible trades. The Browns have five picks in the first 92.
Bradford did not come to Cleveland for a visit, but Holmgren said that would not stop him from drafting him.
Mary Kay Cabot, The Plain Dealer
Letting them know we're interested in case they have a change of heart.
I would love to get Bradford, but the price to move up to #1 is pretty steep. I think I would do it if it didn't involve next year's #1.
Yeah, I see this as due diligence more than anything. I mean, what if St. Louis's price wasn't as high as we thought and it would be manageable to get up to no. 1? You don't know for sure until you ask.
I think it would be expensive to move to #1, but I don't think it would cost as much as we all think.
We should start hearing about contract talks between the Rams and Bradford. If you're drafting #1 overall, it's only smart to have the guy signed before the commish calls his name for you (unless you're the Raiders).
The closer we get to the draft, the more likely it seems that Berry will drop to us. I guess that's good news. Of course, you always have to be careful of getting what you wish for too.
I think the QB makes the safety better, the lb's and the Cb's, Just look at the last year of Charlie Frye, and What happened the first 10 games of Quinn, ... the fact that the Quarterback couldn't move the offense meant that the defense had to make arouind 14 stops a game, instead of 7 or 8 stops a game.
This isn' the same thing..we're talking about the offense being able to sustain drives and keep the defense off the field.
That does not make individual players better than what they are.
If they are good they'll be good regardless of the offense..if they suck..well they will regardless of the offense.
Quote:
We should start hearing about contract talks between the Rams and Bradford. If you're drafting #1 overall, it's only smart to have the guy signed before the commish calls his name for you (unless you're the Raiders).
Quote:
Sam Bradford to the Rams with the No. 1 pick in next week's draft has the feel of a foregone conclusion, but it's still not without its potential complications. A source close to the situation told FanHouse on Wednesday that Bradford is "not doing a deal, period, until he is drafted."
Fanhouse.com
Nice find! Looks like I was about two hours late on my prediction.
That hurts his chances of being drafted by the Rams. Nobody wants a guy #1 overall that will be a pain to sign.
I'm not sure what Bradford's end goal would be for waiting....he's gonna get a crazy high deal either way. And since he sets the market, he's only playing off himself. And the more he acts like a diva, the less likely he'll get picked by the Rams (unless that's his specific goal).
Didn't Houston pass on Reggie Bush for this very reason a few years back. They took Mario Williams because of his willingness to sign a contract that day.
Quote:
I think I would do it if it didn't involve next year's #1.
NEVER EVER GONNA HAPPEN...It will guaranteed be our 7 and 2011 #1...PLUS...
Bradford is nowhere near what Vick was coming out...Homework tells ya' what it cost Atlanta...
Cap or no cap...Lock-out looming or not...I LMAO at u guys that think we can get to 1 without our 2011 #1 included...WE HAVE ZERO PLAYERS WORTH A CRAP...
MH said today they aren't in panic mode for a QB this year..that should dispell any myth they will try to trade up.
Quote:
I LMAO at u guys that think we can get to 1 without our 2011 #1 included
Just to be clear. I agree with you that we will have to give up next year's #1 to move up to the 1st pick. I just wouldn't do it.
Also, the Falcons didn't give up their next drafts 1st rounder for Vick. They gave up their 2001 first-round pick to the Atlanta Falcons for first and third-round picks in 2001, a second-round pick in 2002 and wide receiver-returner Tim Dwight ( Link, go to 2001, scroll down to 4/21/01). My homework tells ya' you're wrong.
If that was the price this year I would definitely do it.
So moving up two spots more would be the difference between a 1st rounder and a 2nd rounder? I don't think so.
so how about this... if the Browns really want Bradford.. try this..
Don't even trade this years 1st round...
Trade 2011's 1st rounder, this year's 2nd round, and a couple 3rd round picks..
Then we could get Bradford and Berry.
Nope. This year's first is a must have. They know they will be getting a top 10 pick. Waiting for next year, who knows what happens.
Yeah, why would the Rams do that. I definitely wouldn't if I were them.
Damn, this move would really make me question the new front office.
Doubt that it happens, but I would have a hard time understanding paying that huge amount of money...likely the largest payday EVER for an NFL rookie...when we are much farther than one player away.
Stranger things have happened....
Quote:
Yeah, why would the Rams do that. I definitely wouldn't if I were them.
Never gonna happen...Bradford's no way close to a Manning...
Neither is anybody else in this draft class.
And there was a big debate over Arron Rodgers and Alex Smith, and who did the Browns select... Braylon....
I know several people with teams who would vehemently disagree with that.
It doesn't validate it at all, but many people do feel that he is. I am one of them.
Just a bit about Bradford ..... and other options .... and the draft .....
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/04/15/browns-wont-mortgage-the-ranch-for-no-1-pick/Browns Won't 'Mortgage the Ranch' for No. 1 Pick2
4/15/2010 4:30 PM ET By Pat McManamon
BEREA, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns did talk with the St. Louis Rams about acquiring the first overall pick in next week's NFL draft, but the Browns do not expect a trade to happen.
The target in the hypothetical trade-up scenario: Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford.
"I absolutely love the player," Browns president Mike Holmgren said at a pre-draft news conference Thursday. "But in the real world, we're going to go in a different direction."
Holmgren gushed over Bradford. But he also said that moving up from the No. 7 pick to get Bradford would be like Mike Ditka trading an entire draft to acquire running back Ricky Williams.
"You'd have to mortgage the ranch," Holmgren said, preceding his comments by stating he did not want to mislead Browns fans in his first draft with the team.
It was typical Holmgren -- blunt and direct. He clearly admitted he'd like the Browns to wind up with Bradford -- even saying he's the kind of franchise player he covets -- but also admitted it simply would not happen. As for trade talks, new GM Tom Heckert called them "nothing ... just talk."
What does that mean for the Browns at as they head into a season with Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace as their quarterbacks, and what does it mean for the draft?
Share It brings Jimmy Clausen of Notre Dame and Colt McCoy of Texas back into the Browns' draft picture. Clausen could go at the seventh pick, while the Browns might like to nab McCoy in round two -- either with their pick (No. 38 overall) or by trading up in the round.
But Holmgren also said he was "backtracking" a little from a previous remark that he definitely wanted to come out of the draft with a quarterback.
"There are people we like very much," he said, "but we don't think we are in position to get them."
Holmgren downplayed a comment he had made about Clausen a month ago, when he said he wished he liked him more. A couple days later, Holmgren told Fanhouse that Clausen was the subject of much debate in the Browns offices. Thursday, Holmgren said he has come to like Clausen. A great deal.
"He's a good football player," Holmgren said. "He can play the position. And I think during the course of the year, as we found out, he was playing hurt a good portion of the year. That tells you something about a player certainly.
"He's impressive."
Impressive enough to be the seventh overall pick? Maybe, but maybe not. Because the Browns have a lot of needs, and Holmgren said the team is not in "panic mode" at quarterback.
Which brings McCoy into the picture in round two. The general consensus is that McCoy will go high in the second round -- and might require the Browns to trade up higher than the sixth pick of the second round. Adding to the possibility of a move up is that there is an entire night after the first round. That has led to thinking there will be more second-round deals and moves than in past years.
"He is really an impressive young guy," Holmgren said of McCoy, shrugging off concern about his arm strength.
Holmgren did not discuss Tim Tebow; he was not asked about him. As honest as Holmgren is, he was not revealing specific plans, though Heckert did say he expected the player taken seventh overall to be a starter.
"That's why we're drafting him," Heckert said.
That might rule out Clausen. On the other hand, if the Browns believe he is the quarterback of the future, they might have to take him.
But both Holmgren and Heckert also are aware that the Browns ranked 32nd in team offense and 31st in defense last season. So there are many needs.
Tennessee safety Eric Berry still seems the most logical pick --if he's left. His selection might be a no-brainer if he does not go in the first six.
If Berry is gone, the Browns could choose from a group that includes Clausen, RB C.J. Spiller, DL Jared Odrick and Dan Williams, OL Russell Okung and S Eric Thomas. And WR Dez Bryant is a very long longshot.
As Holmgren said: "It's like I have two thumbs and there are five holes in the dike."
If we think Bradford is the guy, we do whatever we have to to get him. IMO it's really that simple.
If a guy with Mike Holmgren's track record absolutely loves a QB (and you have the chance to get that guy), you pull the trigger. We can't keep 14 rookies on the roster. It's nice to have a surplus of picks but if we have to trade 4-5 of them for a guy we think is the answer at QB, you do it and hope for the best.
Not saying we give up our top 5 selections but a combination of something like swap 1st, 2nd, 4th (and maybe a throw in late round) wouldn't even make me think twice if I believed Bradford was a franchise guy.
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, why would the Rams do that. I definitely wouldn't if I were them.
Never gonna happen...Bradford's no way close to a Manning...
...in your opinion.
In my opinion, you're going to be proved very wrong. Bradford has the quickest release I have ever seen.
The release is an important piece, no doubt. But it is not nearly as important as his smarts and accuracy. Those are incredible. Since I have paid close attention to the draft (2005) he is far and away my favorite QB prospect.
Quote:
The release is an important piece, no doubt. But it is not nearly as important as his smarts and accuracy. Those are incredible. Since I have paid close attention to the draft (2005) he is far and away my favorite QB prospect.
I'm just saying, he gets the ball out quick, on time and with accuracy. Unlike other prospects, he's great before and after the snap.
I'd love to have him on the Browns, but I do not think we are willing to pay the price...which is probably good because we need a lot more than just one QB.
I honestly think I'd be willing to pay quite a bit. Not a Ricky Williams type deal, but a lot.
Quote:
I honestly think I'd be willing to pay quite a bit. Not a Ricky Williams type deal, but a lot.
Here's some "What If's"...
IF the Rams take Bradford he will forever be the Highest paid Rook EVER...There's gonna be a new Rook Structure with the new CBA to come...
IF the Rams r the slightest bit concerned about Bradford's shoulder...And they SHOULD be with the frequency of hits he'll take in the NFL...They could EASILY take Suh at 1...
IF the Rams like Clausen or even McCoy they can easily get Clausen at 7 or McCoy at 33...They go down to 7 and get numerous additional pix...And possibly a Rogers???
How closely rated do they have Clausen/Bradford/McCoy???...
They HAVE options...And although Bradford at 1 is definately one of em'...It ain't the ONLY option...
Again...Start listening for Contract Negotiations with Bradford...They will start early week...If we get ANY wind of a problem signing him...They will trade down or take Suh...
"I absolutely love the player," Browns president Mike Holmgren said at a pre-draft news conference Thursday. "But in the real world, we're going to go in a different direction."
Unless thats a bold faced lie..end of discussion and I never felt they would try to do it.
"You'd have to mortgage the ranch," Holmgren said
Yet the potholes seem to feel it's a easy as boiling eggs...
They won't sign him before the draft but they will still take him. Watch. Fans underestimate how much NFL teams love Bradford.
I don't think thats it neccesarrily.. DT,I think fans seem to think their team can EASILY make a deal for the # 1 pick.
More or less the same thing. I know many fans who think that Clausen is as valued among NFL teams as Bradford is. It's not even close.
Now if it's the Rams don't want to pay anyone that kind of money than I can see them wanting to come out of there...but other than that it's a can't miss situation..U take the QB and call it a night.
Quote:
They won't sign him before the draft but they will still take him. Watch. Fans underestimate how much NFL teams love Bradford.
They may very well take him...But i GUARANTEE u that team is looking REAL HARD at that shoulder and the fragility of it...Make light of the fact it was College and only happened TWICE...He ain't seen chit till he hits the Big Leagues...His shoulder is a MAJOR problem...And the other one too...
You're looking at an 80 MILLION DOLLAR contract kiddo...That ain't something these teams will look at and say "No Probs"...This will be the last year of this BS...It's what the NFL has needed for YEARS...
U go ahead and mark Bradford in STONE...I'm tellin' ya' there is NO GUARANTEE at this moment that he's the Rams pick...I don't care who u r talkin' to...Or reading...
Let's see how many games he misses in the next 3 years...THEN u can talk to me...Bradford's FRAGILE at the most important point of a QB's body...SHOULDERS...WATCH...
The "Plot" thickens...
Sources: Rams won't sign No. 1 pick
The No. 1 pick in the NFL draft will not be signed before Thursday's first round, sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter on Friday.
The St. Louis Rams and expected top pick, quarterback Sam Bradford, will not have a contract in place before the draft.
The Rams don't think they need to have the player signed and Bradford has been hesitant to complete a deal.
The contract for the No. 1 overall pick will likely be staggering. Bradford's contract is expected to pay him an average of $13 million a season with roughly $50 million in guaranteed money. These figures are based on the past two drafts, when Matt Ryan and Matthew Stafford were the first quarterbacks picked.
Two years ago, the Falcons' Ryan received $34 million in guaranteed money on a deal that averages $11 million a season. Stafford, who was picked No. 1 last season by the Lions, received $42 million in guaranteed money on his deal, which averages $12 million a season.
The Rams know the numbers and think the player will sign eventually. Bradford wants to see how the draft plays out and if a team such as Cleveland trades up to get him. Such a scenario could provide him with more leverage.
Adam Schefter is an NFL Insider for ESPN.
I think if the Rams could sign Bradford they would.
Bradford doesn't want to do a contract before the draft. He is the hold up, not the Rams.
Quote:
I know several people with teams who would vehemently disagree with that.
It doesn't validate it at all, but many people do feel that he is. I am one of them.
Well here ya' go then...If it happens welcome to an 80M dollar contract...STUPID...Just take damn McCoy...
Details on possible Cleveland-STL swap for No. 1...From Rob Rang...cbssports.com
I reported here that the Browns were internally discussing making a significant offer to the Rams for the rights to the No. 1 overall pick -- two days prior to Cleveland general manager Tom Heckert announcing that the Browns had spoken with St. Louis about a potential deal.
As I mentioned in the initial report, Cleveland adores Sam Bradford. St. Louis, on the other hand, likes him, but, according to sources, isn't so enamored with him that they won't consider making a trade.
The specific details of the trade are still being hashed out, but there is fire behind all of this smoke, according to my sources. Both clubs are legitimately interested in trading out of their current spots.
The belief by many is that the Rams must have a similar grade for Jimmy Clausen, which is why they'd consider the trade down. With the 7th overall pick, they'd likely be able to nab the former Irish star there.
However, I'm told the club likes Texas' Colt McCoy better and feel they are in perfect position to nab him with the first pick of the second round, the 33rd overall.
Should the Rams make the deal, they'd likely be focusing on either WR Dez Bryant or even DT Dan Williams with the 7th overall selection.
I think there's more smoke in that article than in the trade rumor!
In the end I think Bradford is drafted by us.
I see us trading with the Rams, sending our 1st, 2nd, 4th and Jackson.
If we are going to take a QB early in a draft, this is the draft to make the move.
Everything is primed:
We have the position
We have the picks
We have the QB
We have the need
We have the time
We have the vet QB to play for a year or so until we hand it over to Bradford.
Your scenario seems like we'd be giving up a whole lot, Peen. Now, it may take that to get up to no. 1, but I'd just have to think that we'd get at least another pick out of them, maybe a low round one.
I just don't see Holmgren sacrificing all that for just one pick. JMHO
Quote:
Your scenario seems like we'd be giving up a whole lot, Peen. Now, it may take that to get up to no. 1, but I'd just have to think that we'd get at least another pick out of them, maybe a low round one.
I just don't see Holmgren sacrificing all that for just one pick. JMHO
I don't see Heckert doing it.
Eagles were notorious with the Patriots for trading back and collecting picks.
I'd love to trade out of #7 and keep trading back into the 2nd...then trade as many later round picks as we have to get back into the 2nd as many times as we can.
The 2nd round is the sweet spot, if you ask me, and I'd take 5 2nd round picks in a draft class over 10 picks spread out in multiple rounds.
just clicking...
I believe Holmgren and Heckert are "fishing" in an effort to gather as much information about what the other NFL teams are going to do in the first round.
JMHO, but you don't make an inquiry with the Rams (about a possible deal to move up) public if you are serious about making a deal. Best way to find out what the Rams are planning to do with their #1 pick is to talk them about trading up.
This inquiry by the Browns might have been more about Clausen than Bradford by trying to find out which QB the Rams are targeting. Also, it might flush out information about any other teams that might be talking with the Rams about trading up.
Watching Holmgren, I get the feeling that all the public comments are with a purpose in mind. The fans and media are left with figuring out what the purpose might be.
The only thing I can say Peen is that it would go against and be a totally different approach to re-building a team or even in any draft scenario either Heckert or Holmgran have ever used before.
There are certain tendencies that both of these men have used in previous drafts and your scenario isn't any of them. Here's to hoping you're wrong.
Quote:
I don't see Heckert doing it.
Eagles were notorious with the Patriots for trading back and collecting picks.
They also had a QB for the past 10 years...
The ONLY position u do this for is a QB...And we don't have one...
Quote:
I see us trading with the Rams, sending our 1st, 2nd, 4th and Jackson.
So our 2nd, our 4th, and Jackson in exchange for 1st round positions?
That's not nearly enough, 'Peen.
Quote:
Quote:
I see us trading with the Rams, sending our 1st, 2nd, 4th and Jackson.
So our 2nd, our 4th, and Jackson in exchange for 1st round positions?
That's not nearly enough, 'Peen.
Not to mention we don't a 4th rounder.
We'd have to give up next year's first and probably a 3rd rounder too.
btw, DiD, link?
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see Heckert doing it.
Eagles were notorious with the Patriots for trading back and collecting picks.
They also had a QB for the past 10 years...
The ONLY position u do this for is a QB...And we don't have one...
In selecting their next QB, the Eagles actually traded back.
The way I see it, the Browns are positiong for a selection in the second.
If the Rams don't take Bradford, chances are that they may get Clauson or McCoy at the top of the second. There are not that many teams in dire need of a QB, with really only the Bills and Browns positioning for their preference.
ESPN was talking about us trading with the Rams and they thought that it would take our 1st, 2nd, one of our 3rd's this year and a 1 & a 2 next year.
If we draft McCoy in the 2nd round or higher, I will break something. I am all but certain he will bust. McCoy = Frye
Bradford, injury free, is a sure thing IMO.
I have a feeling McCoy will be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd. If it isn't one of the teams right ahead of us, I have to think some teams will be willing to pay pretty good to trade ahead of us in the 2nd to grab him.
I sincerely hope so, but I'm not certain.
I draw the line with Bradford at giving up next year's 1st as well. I fully expect to have a top 10 pick next year, and we could have the option of Jake Locker, Ryan Mallet, Andrew Luck or Christian Ponder. I don't like any of them as well as Bradford, but I would prefer a Locker and Berry over just Bradford.
Quote:
I have a feeling McCoy will be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd. If it isn't one of the teams right ahead of us, I have to think some teams will be willing to pay pretty good to trade ahead of us in the 2nd to grab him.
If MH is sold on him, it costs a LOT less to move up a few spots there than it will be in the first.
Deep......
I'm not saying we will draft McCoy, but ya might want to go to Wal-Mart and buy something cheap to break............................just in case.
Just sayin'
Yeah, I'll probably just break a chip or something.
Quote:
I sincerely hope so, but I'm not certain.
I draw the line with Bradford at giving up next year's 1st as well. I fully expect to have a top 10 pick next year, and we could have the option of Jake Locker, Ryan Mallet, Andrew Luck or Christian Ponder. I don't like any of them as well as Bradford, but I would prefer a Locker and Berry over just Bradford.
What happened to this Holmgren's a QB Guru BS???
I gots news for u guys that want a QB after #7...HOLMGREN WON'T TOUCH EM' CAUSE HE AIN'T A COACH ON THIS TEAM...
U got Daboll and Smith bringin' this so called QB along...U got Smith who was a QB for a flippen YEAR...FORTY FIVE YEARS AGO...At some chump college called Bakersfield...And u guys want a 2nd/3rd/5th round QB...Oh I know...Holmgren's a genious...
Oh I forgot...Dango says Mangini's history and Holmgren will take over...GREAT flippen thinking process...
I literally have no idea what you are talking about. I believe you think I feel differently than I do. I basically want Bradford, or no QB at all.
Quote:
Quote:
I see us trading with the Rams, sending our 1st, 2nd, 4th and Jackson.
So our 2nd, our 4th, and Jackson in exchange for 1st round positions?
That's not nearly enough, 'Peen.
Also, did Jackson sign his tender? If he hasn't then we cannot trade him. And if he hasn't signed it already then he can't sign it until sometime in June (I think, certainly not for sure).
Quote:
Quote:
I sincerely hope so, but I'm not certain.
I draw the line with Bradford at giving up next year's 1st as well. I fully expect to have a top 10 pick next year, and we could have the option of Jake Locker, Ryan Mallet, Andrew Luck or Christian Ponder. I don't like any of them as well as Bradford, but I would prefer a Locker and Berry over just Bradford.
What happened to this Holmgren's a QB Guru BS???
I gots news for u guys that want a QB after #7...HOLMGREN WON'T TOUCH EM' CAUSE HE AIN'T A COACH ON THIS TEAM...
U got Daboll and Smith bringin' this so called QB along...U got Smith who was a QB for a flippen YEAR...FORTY FIVE YEARS AGO...At some chump college called Bakersfield...And u guys want a 2nd/3rd/5th round QB...Oh I know...Holmgren's a genious...
Oh I forgot...Dango says Mangini's history and Holmgren will take over...GREAT flippen thinking process...
Uh...okay...
DiD, you are all over the place, man. Settle down. I'm still trying to figure out what your point was in this post. Something about Holmgren being a genius and Dango saying Mangini is gone...
Anyway, there are only 3 QB's I'd touch and we are likely not going to be in the best position to take them: Bradford in the 1st, McCoy in the 2nd and Tebow in the 3rd. All of those would be great spots for their development process.
I do not buy the McCoy is the next Frye thing. McCoy has much more QB ability than Frye did. Much more.
There are really two things in the Browns favor if we want Bradford.
#1. Bradford will command the last of a huge rookie salary.
#2. Possible new Rams ownership.
This year may not be as expensive as years in the past to move up to #1.
His argument is that Holmgren won't draft a project QB because the coaching required to develop that QB isn't there.
That makes me confused as to whether or not he was being sarcastic about Django's thinking process..but that doesn't really matter.
Because I know so little about college football and have only watched a few highlight reels.. I feel like I'm a pretty good indicator of hype. My basic opinions on players is pretty much an indicator of being told who is good without viewing any tape.
Lately I've been thinking "oooh McCoy sounds good now for some reason". Which to me means he is being hyped.
Deepthreat not liking him broke the hypnotic spell on me.
A few things worth noting. Haden was hyped. Had a bad combine (or was it a proday?) And the hype said "Its okay, he won't slide!" And then he started to slide.
Personally I don't know enough to know who we should draft.
I would be pretty excited about getting Bradford since most people agree he is the top QB. I'd also be pretty excited about Berry since everyone likes him. Same with Suh and Gerald McCoy (Not 100% if they fit the 3-4)
I would be pretty unhappy with Clausen. Arrogant, overrated, and from Notre Dame? Didn't we just get rid of one of those?
Beyond that ... I really really don't want anything to do with skill players. Even Berry I question. I have a Wide Receiver intolerance after Braylon. A TE intolerance after KW. And a major RB intolerance after Willie Green. Same goes for Tweeners with Wimbley.
In my experience the best draft picks the Browns made in the first round since their reinception have been Joe Thomas, Mack, and Faine. (maybe Brown if he didn't get injured). For this reason I would be really happy picking up a round 1 Guard or Tackle, even rounds 2 -3 would have me pretty excited.
On that note.. I'd also be happy with a D-Lineman . Just avoid the nut cases like Big Money and hope you don't get ACL problems like Brown.
We'd be better off going defense, or trading down IMO.
We won't get Sam B. and I don't want to gamble on the other QBs at #7. But if Holmgren took Clausen I would get aboard, although I'd prefer a safety or LB in the 1st.
We need help on the back end on D, I expect this to be addressed no later than the 2nd round.
DnD is a Claussen pimp.
Sort of like the story of the Three Bears.
Papa Bear ( Bradford ) is too high, costs too much
Baby Bear ( McCoy) is too much of a reach/gamble.
But Momma Bear ( Claussen)? Is "just right".
And as for that part of the debate, QB? Nobody else knows Jack and that's all there is to it! Just ask him, he'll tell ya!
"I would be pretty unhappy with Clausen. Arrogant, overrated, and from Notre Dame? Didn't we just get rid of one of those?"
Yea.. that makes sense. He must be bad since he came from Notre Dame. Just like Quinn uh? Or is it just like Joe Theismann ? Steve Beuerlein ? Or maybe Joe Montana ? .......
Yea.. we better stay away from anymore ND QB's.. Let someone else deal with those duds.
Gonna be a long 5 days....this week is always a testy time...not long for everybody to get their digs/pimpage in on their boys.
Seems like Clausen is the big lighning rod for us this year, and rightfully so. Regardless of what happens, where he ends up on the Browns' board is going to have a huge impact on how the draft is approached.
If and how QB gets drafted this year is probably the biggest question going in. Who knows? It's entirely possible they end up trading picks to stockpile next year if they like one of those guys.
Gonna be a long 5 days.....
Quote:
DnD is a Claussen pimp.
Sort of like the story of the Three Bears.
Papa Bear ( Bradford ) is too high, costs too much
Baby Bear ( McCoy) is too much of a reach/gamble.
But Momma Bear ( Claussen)? Is "just right".
And as for that part of the debate, QB? Nobody else knows Jack and that's all there is to it! Just ask him, he'll tell ya!
How bad u want Berry Pit???
Here's a bolt for ya'...
Shanahan takes Clausen...Don't discount that thought...
5 & 6 both need OT's badly...
Berry's gift wrapped for the Browns...
Notre Dame was just to mention the similarity in their programs and projections.
Please feel free to replace Notre Dame with frat boy.
Well Well Well...lmao...And this is the most accurate mocker over the past 10 years...
Rick Gosselin...Dallas Morning News
1) Bradford QB
2) McCoy DT
3) Suh DT
4) JIMMY CLAUSEN QB---Here's Your Gift Wrapped Berry
5) Okung OT
6) T. Williams OT
7) ERIC BERRY S
8) Davis at his best...Kyle Wilson CB Boise St. lmao...(Maybe he'd come to 7 for him???...lol...)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...ck.33ea398.html
His last mock is the one that is always so accurate. It has typically come out Sat morning of the draft (note: I will be posting a mock on Sat this year and guarantee it's accuracy through the 1st 3 rounds
). And heard it was as accurate as it is because a lot of teams are willing to give him last minute insider info. just an fyi.
Quote:
Quote:
I see us trading with the Rams, sending our 1st, 2nd, 4th and Jackson.
So our 2nd, our 4th, and Jackson in exchange for 1st round positions?
That's not nearly enough, 'Peen.
Maybe not...I guess it depends on how the Rams view Jackson.....ok.....add another 3rd.
If you use that stupid draft guide as some basis of reference, our pick at #7 gets us half way to value. That along with a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and Jackson would be enough.
Just checked.....no, it wouldn't...Jackson isn't worth 700 points....low 1st round value....we would have to add a future 2nd rounder to the mix.
Looking at it that way....I say trade down, take Tebow and land another 2nd round pick.
Problem solved.
If it wasn't for seeing Bradford wither to the ground with his second shoulder injury, I'd say trade whatever it takes....kind of reminds me of Frank Ryan getting hurt in the pro-bowl game....or maybe runner-up game....at any rate, he was never the same after that.
Quote:
Looking at it that way....I say trade down, take Tebow and land another 2nd round pick.
O
M G
U don't quit...
I have 100 on Tebow NOT going in the Top 15 picks...Pretty SAFE...lol...He's a Gator Fan too...SUCKER...lol...
Quote:
Quote:
Looking at it that way....I say trade down, take Tebow and land another 2nd round pick.
O
M G
U don't quit...
I have 100 on Tebow NOT going in the Top 15 picks...Pretty SAFE...lol...He's a Gator Fan too...SUCKER...lol...
Yep...that was a goofy bet on his part.
But why should I quit when I honestly feel Tebow will be a great NFL QB???
I am not going to tell you that you should like him....I'll just tell you that you don't know QBs.
Quote:
How bad u want Berry Pit???
Here's a bolt for ya'...
Shanahan takes Clausen...Don't discount that thought...
5 & 6 both need OT's badly...
Berry's gift wrapped for the Browns...
I've seen it almost EXACTLY the way your "draft guru" sees it. I think the Skins could go Claussen or LT. My mock had them taking a LT with three LT's gone in the first six picks actually.
I could see the Skins going Claussen but with the retirement of Chris Samuals and Levi Jones only playing slightly below average at best, I feel the Skins dire need is keeping their newly acquired 33 year old McNabb upright as being priority #1.
How bad do I want Berry? Actually, I don't have a horse in this race. I think landing someone rated as high as Berry at #7 would be a great deal for us. He fills a dire need and is a great value at #7. So I'd be very happy to see him fall to us. And with at least three LT's rated pretty highly in this draft, with or without the Skins drafting Claussen, I think Berry may very well be there at #7 anyway for the very reason I mentioned, the retirement of Chris Samuals. The Seahawks lost Walter Jones as well and their need is great as well.
So looking at the top talent on the board, I'd be thrilled with Berry at #7.
I don't really have a problem with us going in other directions if he's gone or even trading down slightly for someone enammored with Berry and getting Earl Thomas a little later and another high pick.
I'm pretty open actually. Like I said I don't really have a horse in this race.
jmho
Quote:
If it wasn't for seeing Bradford wither to the ground with his second shoulder injury, I'd say trade whatever it takes....kind of reminds me of Frank Ryan getting hurt in the pro-bowl game....or maybe runner-up game....at any rate, he was never the same after that.
This is what we need to remember about his "second" shoulder injury: He came back early and of his own accord. His shoulder still wasn't healed. Stoops isn't known as a guy who puts the players first. He was trying to win a National Championship, so he let Bradford go back in with a still damaged wing. The joint was still weak and damaged, so when he got landed on, it snapped like a weakened twig.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that his shoulder wasn't hurt the second time because he has loose joints which are predisposed to injury. His original separation can happen to anyone. He's no more prone to additional injuries to that shoulder than any other QB on the market.
It's a subtle, but very important difference.
Now how much is Bradford worth? How much should we give up to trade up to get him? That's a highly subjective question with no clear-cut answer. My personal feeling is that I'm not any more worried about his shoulder than I would be about any other QB out there. My concerns revolve around his inexperience and nothing more. I'm perfectly content with his tools and his mind.
Just to finish the thought about what more it'd take to get him, you'd have to throw a high pick from the 2011 draft into the mix as well. Jackson is a good player, but his value has to be tempered because the moment he's traded, he's going to want a rather hefty contract. Money has to play a role in value.
I am glad you feel that way.
If it's as simple as you say, I agree...a broken leg isn't a indicator you are going to keep breaking your leg.
If the shoulder is sound and we want him, then do it
Me, I am a little wary of spending that much....especially when there are other qbs who give you almost as much, but that's just my opinion.
I guess we will find out Thursday evening.....maybe sooner. There isn't a big advantage for the Rams to hold out until on the clock.
I would be more in favor of shipping next years #1 and keeping our 2nd this year.
I am really hoping we can pick up some players who will have a impact this year....we can do that with the first two picks(except for a qb)
I am not expecting a Super Bowl or anything like that, but I would like to see us in the mix until later in the season and see a few home wins. Last years 0-5 on trips up made for some long return trips.
It'd be nice, but I *think* we're slated to play the AFC East this year and that division is now loaded with talent. I think looking towards next year would probably save you some heart-ache this year.
Now how much is Bradford worth? How much should we give up to trade up to get him? That's a highly subjective question with no clear-cut answer.
I don't think it's that vague either,not with a team that has so little talent..want those holes fixed?
Couple that with a uncertain 2011 season and I feel you need to fix the holes first..
Trading away most of your top 50 picks is risky..too risky for me..
Well man, teams aren't concerned with what may not happen in 2011. They simply cannot adjust their plans for the here-and-now as well as the future on something that is unlikely to happen.
Now, back to the costs to acquire Bradford, there's one component that few people ever talk about, but it's something I've always considered extremely important: Time invested.
People talk the talent of any specific player, they talk the value of the picks spent to acquire the player, and they talk the contract (money) the player has to get. But the TIME invested into any given player is no-less important than any of the other components.
Let's go back to Chuck (it up and pray) Frye. One school of thought (a completely wrong school of thought IMHO) was that it was a worthwhile gamble to take him in round 3. If he doesn't pan out, he won't be considered a bust, and his contract wasn't prohibitive. So no big loss, right?
Wrong.
The most important thing was lost with that line of thinking: We went several seasons without having a legit QB in place, and in this league, the QB is the most important position on the field, and it's getting more important as each season goes by. With Frye, Savage not only spent a 3rd rounder, but also the other pick to move up and acquire him (I believe that's how it played out) then spent MORE draft picks to fix the original problem (or so he thought ) by blowing other picks to get Quinn.
So it's not just about the money, the pick, or the player. It's also about the time invested.
To go after a QB that stands a greater chance of success than others, it becomes more worthwhile to spend greater picks to try and succeed. The key is making sure that the player is worth it.
This is where we have to be glad we have PROVEN guys running the front office.
Holmgren knows QB's. Heckert isn't as known of a quantity, but because of those under his watch succeeding in acquiring Kolb, he probably knows QB's as well. It's more circumstantial than with Holmgren, but he's respected around the league never-the-less. Their expertise gives them an advantage over other guys that think they know QB's. It's ironic that Savage now works for the Eagles, consider he knew JACK-CRAP about QB's. He basically busted on FOUR-STRAIGHT: He loved Russell, he went after Frye, he gave big bucks to Anderson, then blew it with Quinn.
So.........If the guys who know the position feel that the player is a good gamble, spending more picks to acquire him is a good move. With that in mind, while I normally advocate filling holes with all the picks, we're in a division filled with good teams led by good QB's, and without a good QB, we're nothing.
I'm for making the big trade to get Bradford. If we can't get him, I'd rather go your route, Attack, and fill the holes, as I don't think the rest of these cats are good enough gambles to spend the TIME on.
Time invested. It's one of the most under-rated metrics that nobody ever considers.
I agree with that and have said so all along....you pick a player and you waste multiple seasons trying to prove yourself right.
I am thankful we got rid of Savage or we would have been monkeying around with Quinn another 2-3 years before we finally canned him.
At least we saved a few years by getting rid of him now.
Well man, teams aren't concerned with what may not happen in 2011.
U may not think so but a lot of them are and I've heard comments of 2011 already..some are looking at whats avalible coming out and how that could impact what they are able/willing to do this year considering some positions are weak in this draft..like QB/WR/RB..I wouldn't say it if I haven't seen it..I can't remember exact quotes but a few teams are concerned.
Now, back to the costs to acquire Bradford, there's one component that few people ever talk about, but it's something I've always considered extremely important: Time invested.
U mean fans and media..teams rarely dispense that info out because it lets the world know how long they'll try to develop a player..but it's usually known once a player is traded and/or another player at same position is brought in.
Or the most obvious..if that positon is ignored in the draft and they say they couldn't get the value for that position..in fact MH has churned out a few statements in that regard..
So.........If the guys who know the position feel that the player is a good gamble, spending more picks to acquire him is a good move. With that in mind, while I normally advocate filling holes with all the picks, we're in a division filled with good teams led by good QB's, and without a good QB, we're nothing.
Those teams in our division also (man to man) field better overall rosters and only the Rats have gone the fill the other holes first route and take developmental QB's..they also have treated the WR position the same way..they won't reach.. they'll go a different direction to beef up another area and wait ..Bengals/Stoolpigeons already had solid supporting casts and had the luxury of getting a solid QB..
I'm for making the big trade to get Bradford. If we can't get him, I'd rather go your route, Attack
I'm just not feeling a tradeup...and usually I don't because I feel it's too risky..if they do( I won't be totally mad) ,they better have some action plans in place to get him a WR /OT and still address the defense..
I realize we don't have a bigtime QB but I'd be less in block mode if Bradford fell to 7 along with Berry etc..
It's ironic that Savage now works for the Eagles, consider he knew JACK-CRAP about QB's. He basically busted on FOUR-STRAIGHT: He loved Russell, he went after Frye, he gave big bucks to Anderson, then blew it with Quinn.
This is no slap to you,but I could care less where he is..he wasn't the draft guru most made him out to be.
He was too willing to pay whatever price to make trades and didn't suck any from anyone else..heck even Super Genuis got some picks last year..he just didn't know how to use them.
So according to your own logic Toad, the question then becomes do they have Bradford rated high enough to take such a gamble?
IMO, they would have to be "100% SOLD" on Bradford to even entertain such a move.
And the next question would be just how far apart do "they have" Bradford, Claussen and McCoy?
To me you build the foundation for the house to sit on. I don't think we have that foundation yet and don't feel you gamble not building that foundation to simply set a house up with little to no foundation.
To me, we're at least a year or two removed from doing something like that. In order to make such a deal with a team not yet ready for prime time would mean some "lust" for Bradford would have to be in the mix, not simply Bradford as a player IMO
When I started the Sam Bradford thread I asked, repeatedly, would you be willing to trade up, and how much would you be willing to give up to get him? I think Toad was the only one to respond.
Now, looking at it, if we gave up 1,2, one of our 3rds, and a player (Rogers). I could live with it.
The only way we are getting to the big game is with a franchise QB. Its that simple.
Can you imagine what it would look like to see the Browns with effective QB play? Its been a long time.
I'm sure he wasn't the only one to respond but why do you think it's that simple??
The Browns would practically have to use their # 2/3/another high one and next years 1 to move up that far..
I was on ESPN NFL Today podcast today as the Cleveland Browns Superfan and I took Jimmy Clausen as Eric Berry was already taken (#5 KC). Obv I wanted Berry but I am sick of the QB situation in Cleveland and having a duo of Delhomme/Colt McCoy felt too much like Dilfer/Frye. I think Clausen is the pick if Berry is gone.
It would be between taking him or trading down. Somebody wants him.
I think the Brown's board is something like this:
Bradford
Suh
Berry
Trade Down
Clausen
Spiller
Haden
Just my guess. I like Clausen more than I think the Browns do. Dan Williams and Earl Thomas are probably right there after these guys.
Clausen...very lukewarm on him..my comments about tradng up are based on the fact there is a ton of talent in this draft..and anyone after it's over sayin it was a weak draft is talking out the side of their neck..
I tried to trade down once Berry was taken but found no takers. Thought it was too early to take a RT, and a reach to take Dline, my next 2 biggest needs.
I'm very lukewarm on Clausen as well. IMO, he's BQ 1.5 (an improvement, but not worth the top 10 risk).
Assuming Haden was there, I think he would have been my pick. If Berry is gone, I'd be much more comfortable going with the best CB in the draft. We're still thin there and Brown isn't a long-term answer opposite Wright. Plus CB is one of the tougher positions to fill. I'd be happy with either Berry or Haden at #7.
Quote:
Just when it looked like the Rams wouldn't talk contract with any of the potential No. 1 overall picks in round one of the 2010 draft, we're picking up mixed signals about whether it's in fact happening.
One source claims that the Rams has been, or will be, negotiating with up to six candidates: quarterback Sam Bradford, tackle Russell Okung, defensive tackles Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy, safety Eric Berry, and quarterback Jimmy Clausen. Another source has said that, as to at least one of those players, there have been no recent talks. Bradford has been making the rounds on radio, claiming that the Rams never have broached the possibility of a pre-draft deal.
The conflicting information creates a sense of enhanced uncertainty as to the Rams' true intentions, which could help the Rams do what many think they'd prefer to do -- trade down.
And while there has been much speculation of a potential Mike Ditka-style deal, we're hearing increased talk that the Rams would be inclined to slide out of the top spot for far less than all of another team's draft. The thinking is that the Rams would like to trade down and draft a player who'd be able to perform right away as a rookie. The thinking on Bradford is that he'll need some time to adjust to the pro game, and that he could end up on the bench for all or most of the 2010 season.
So, in the final year of the free money, it could be that someone finally trades out of the top five for consideration far less than what the badly-outdated (specifically at the top) trade chart would dictate.
Pro Football Talk
I know it's hard to believe anything we hear this week when it comes to the draft (especially from Florio). But imagine if we got a deal like our 1st rounder and two 3rd rounders for Bradford.
What if the Rams get a contract they like from Suh? Is Bradford ours for the taking? We'd have to trade up to pick #4 at least I would think.
If we want Bradford, it will take next year's 1st as well. Look at the Giants/Chargers deal of '04. It will be more expensive than that was.
And while there has been much speculation of a potential Mike Ditka-style deal, we're hearing increased talk that the Rams would be inclined to slide out of the top spot for far less than all of another team's draft. But according to Ammo since they don't use the value chart , the Rams should just take a single pick or two to move down..the Browns could use their # 7 and a 5th..
If we really want Bradford we will get him.
The Rams have issues with owner changes. Historically, teams have not wanted to commit big deals before an owner change.
We have an owner who has made it clear that money is not an issue.
Normally, it would take a lot of picks to trade up to #1. I don't see it this year. Especially with the end of huge rookie salaries looming.
I understand the value of moving up to #1 and that it would cost draft picks. But any team who moves up to #1 is doing the Rams a favor.
I agree that it would take next year's 1st. Just commenting on the article that said they will take less than people think.
j/c
this appears to be a draft qb thread so i'm going to post this bit from colt mccoy here. the more i read, the more it seems like MH really likes colt so i'm starting to sip the kool aid.
Quote:
McCoy's pick would be Browns
by Marla Ridenour on April 19, 2010
in Uncategorized
If he had a choice on which team will draft him, Texas quarterback Colt McCoy would pick the Browns, McCoy said Monday in a radio interview with 790 The Zone in Atlanta.
"Once I get done with these trips, I have really enjoyed and I absolutely enjoyed Coach Holmgren," McCoy said of Browns president Mike Holmgren. "He is a class act and I could definitely see myself playing in their organization. I think that it would be a tremendous opportunity and they have a lot of good things going for them and Coach (Eric) Mangini and their staff has been awesome.
"So you never know. You never know. I know that God is going to put me in the right place and we’ll go to work from there. Nothing is going to given to you. It never has been my whole life and I’m going to have to earn something. I am looking forward to the challenges that lie ahead."
Of the top quarterbacks in the draft, the Browns hosted McCoy, Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen, Florida's Tim Tebow and Cincinnati's Tony Pike. McCoy is projected by most as a second-round pick.
Asked by the radio station whom he would compare himself to in the NFL, McCoy said, "It is funny. I just left the Browns and Coach Holmgren kind of compared me to Steve Young and Joe Montana and just said that I have the intangibles that I have at this point in their career when they were coming out of college. He expects me to be just like they were.
"I think that is a good comparison and obviously people would compare me to Drew Brees a little bit because of our height. I was about 6-1 1/2, so you never know. I know how hard I prepare and nobody is going to work harder than me or be more prepared going into a game than I am. I expect to do exactly what I did in college and that is come in there and win games.
"I know that it is going to be different. I know that it is going to be a transition, but I am going to work my tail off and earn the respect of my teammates and coaches and go to work."
http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/browns/2010/...OBR+Newswire%29
Noodle arm. I'd way rather have one of the later round guys and pick up BPA in the 2nd, weather it's a DB, WR, DL or whatever.
I really can't see trading back up into the 1st for him. Dude is definitely a class act, I'd give him that, but this team needs a guy that can make all the throws.
MH put his arm strength somewhere between montana and some strong armed qb (favre?) in one of his pressers.
all i know is, listening to MH talk about the guy, and how he apparently sincerely gushed about him in general, it sounds like this guy could be good in the right system.
<edit>
here's the excerpt
Quote:
The Browns have spent as much time with McCoy as any team. They attended his Pro Day in Austin, Texas and hosted him at their facility last week.
"He's a very impressive young man," said Browns President Mike Holmgren. "He clearly cares, and he's very productive."
At 6-1 1/2, McCoy's height doesn't scare Holmgren, who coached Joe Montana and Steve Young, both listed at 6-2.
"He told me he's put two quarterbacks in the Hall of Fame who were both shorter than me," said McCoy.
Holmgren also thinks McCoy's arm strength is sufficient.
"I've had the privilege of coaching a guy who threw it as hard as anybody in Brett [Favre] and the guy that everybody said didn't have the rocket arm but may have been the best quarterback who ever lived in Joe Montana," Holmgren said. "Colt falls somewhere in the middle, but he's really an impressive young guy."
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/04/cleveland_browns_prospect_colt.html
Yea, if he was a little bigger, played in a nonn-gimmicky offense, and had a stronger, non-injured throwing arm/shoulder I would be more into him.
Of course you are right, Holmgren says a lot of gushy stuff about him so definitely he could be his guy. My opinion probably isn't being considered as strongly, heh.
i share/shared (i'm not fully converted yet) your opinion and i know you'd find many supporters of your opinion too. that said, if mh is genuinely this high on the guy, sign me up. i want no business with clasuen and the next tier qbs so colt could be a great pick without the risk of a top 10 investment.
Quote:
Yea, if he was a little bigger, played in a nonn-gimmicky offense, and had a stronger, non-injured throwing arm/shoulder I would be more into him.
He had nothing more than a pinched nerve. Not shoulder damage! Or were you refering to Bradford with that one?
His first two years in Texas he played under center. Everyone I respect on the matter ( accept you of course ) seem to feel he'll be fine in the WCO.
So you can talk out the side of your mouth all you want but I usually do let facts get in the way when I hear such drivel.
Quote:
His first two years in Texas he played under center.
My understanding was that earlier on he took some snaps under center (say 30%). The vast majority of his snaps have been taken in the shotgun. He's going to have an adjustment.
Concerns about his arm strength are legit, he's smallish and threw a TON of short passes in that offense, which brings his % up.
His hands are bigger than Clausen's and Bradford's, which is good. He looks pretty accurate in games and seems to be a good guy. I don't think he has an NFL arm.
It's been a pleasure, as always, to amuse you Pit.
Oh no, no, no......
The pleasure is all mine!
He's about an inch and a half shorter than Claussen and close to the same weight as Claussen. So that makes him small and Claussen okay?
The problem is, the only QB in this draft that has played anything that resembles a pro-style O is Bradford.
And it happens all the time. Reason being? Hardly ANY schools run anything that resembles a pro style O.
I've seen a lot on McCoy. Good and bad. I haven't seen anybody question his ability to make the throws he needs to make in the NFL.
So had you said something like he doesn't have the strongest arm in this QB class, I would agree with you. But the whole "noodle arm" comment is laughable at best.
Quote:
The problem is, the only QB in this draft that has played anything that resembles a pro-style O is Bradford.
1. I think you mean Clausen.
2. There are other QB's in the draft who played in pro style offenses, they just aren't elite prospects (Crompton and Canfield come to mind).
The pro style offense is probably the most overrated trait in a QB ever.
Quote:
1. I think you mean Clausen.
2. There are other QB's in the draft who played in pro style offenses, they just aren't elite prospects (Crompton and Canfield come to mind).
Yes Claussen is what I meant. and you are right about other QB's. Point being, most big schools who recruit the top athletes don't play in the pro-style O.
As was mentioned it's a very overrated thing. If you put that too high on your priority list you'll end up drafting much worse QB's and be leaving much better QB's on the draft board IMO
I think he is going to be a bit of a project for a year or two, as most guys are, and for that I like the idea of spending a 3rd a lot better. Don't see him as significantly better than Pike, for instance, who Holmgren has been looking at as well.
The guy I like the best of the developmental type QBs is Brown. Give me upside.
Quote:
The guy I like the best of the developmental type QBs is Brown. Give me upside.
Which is exactly why I promote McCoy. I think there's a HUGE drop off after McCoy, so do most others.
He's very good already but knows he can get better. He's a hard worker who can lead as well. It's a proven commodity who has played pretty consistantly against top notched talent. Those behind McCoy don't have nearly the pedigree in that department IMO.
He will be game ready in his second season. I mean do we really want a lower valued QB than McCoy? I don't.
Say what you will, but he has lead his team to some great victories. He was coached and played well within the system given to him to play in.
I don't care how you slice it, averaging over 70% in four seasons starting is almost a miracle no matter what system you're playing in.
At this juncture we'll just have to see how it all plays out. But I do however take MH as somebody who plans long term in building a franchise. I don't think him only signing JD to a two year contract was an accident.
I feel he does have plans to try to draft a kid who will be ready to start by 2011. I don't see anyone below McCoy having such an ability. If so, the odds go down drasticly IMO.
That leaves JD as a one year band-aid and to be here for McCoy's first starting season.
I don't feel you can have much security in the feeling those below McCoy in this draft have such a capability. We'll know soon enough! Well, not soon enough, but soon!
Figured this was a good spot for this........
Quote:
Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap
Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2010 6:53 AM ET
The draft is two days away, and there's growing talk in league circles that the Rams would be willing to trade out of the No. 1 overall selection for a package far less than the outdated draft trade chart would require.
The thinking is that, if the Rams stay put, they'd feel compelled to take quarterback Sam Bradford with the No. 1 overall pick. But there's a concern that Bradford, who hasn't played much football since 2008, will end up on the bench for most if not all of 2010, while A.J. Feeley or Keith Null or someone else takes the snaps. (Then there's the whole "exploding shoulder" thing and the whole "spread offense" thing, which Bradford tried unconvincingly to explain away during a Monday interview on Jim Rome Is Burning.)
Some believe that the Rams, who have won six games in three years, would prefer to pick a player who can step right in and play -- and if they can acquire more picks or, perhaps even better, extra players who can immediately contribute, it would be a bonus.
Then there's the value that comes from stepping away from having to fork over the record contract that the first overall pick will receive, especially if it's a quarterback.
So who would trade up? The primary candidates are the Redskins (No. 4), the Browns (No. 7), and possibly the Seahawks (No. 6).
And for those of you who think that the Redskins wouldn't pick a quarterback in round one, the one quarterback they'd potentially pick is Bradford, whom offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan would begin to develop behind the scenes, potentially with the idea of coach Mike Shanahan engineering a torch-passing to Kyle after two or three seasons with Donovan McNabb at the helm.
For the Rams, the biggest question is whether they'd be willing to take the heat for taking a package that would pale in comparison to the deals done in past years at the top of round one. Given that the Rams have suffered through far greater indignities of late relating to and arising from on-field performance (or lack thereof), they should be thrilled to be criticized for making a move that potentially will improve their current circumstances significantly.
Permalink 0 Comments Latest stories in: Cleveland Browns, Latest News and Rumors, NFL Mobile Exclusives - Rumors, Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
Previous: Intervention program sends Aqib Talib to anger management
IF we like Bradford THAT much...We need to offer 2 players who WILL contribute immediately...
Shaun Rogers
DQwell Jackson
AND
Our 7 pick...
AND
Our 2011 #1...Just can't see this without the 2011 1st Rounder included...
AND
Throw in a 3 we have this year and possibly a 5th this year...
And Holmgren has his Man Crush...
I'm OK w staying at 7. If the word is that the Rams are thinking of letting it go cheap, then I offer the #7, Rogers and Jackson. That nets them 3 guys who can contribute right away (depending on what they do with that pick). If they take it, great, MH gets his QB. If not, then we stay at 7 and get Berry/Haden or whoever. Maybe we toss in a late pick this year, but that's it.
It's cheap compared to deals past, very cheap, but they may want to move down more than we want to move up.
I'm definately not in favor for moving up but if we can do it on the cheap I'm OK with it.
Move up to #1 and grab Suh.
Quote:
Quote:
IF we like Bradford THAT much...We need to offer 2 players who WILL contribute immediately...
Shaun Rogers
DQwell Jackson
AND
Our 7 pick...
AND
Our 2011 #1...Just can't see this without the 2011 1st Rounder included...
AND
Throw in a 3 we have this year and possibly a 5th this year...
And Holmgren has his Man Crush...
I don't think DQ would have a lot of trade weight with the Rams... they drafted a pretty good MLB in the 2nd last year.
I bet Shaun, #7, and our highest 3rd could get it done. I'm not saying I want to do it... but I think it'd be enough.
Compare that blockbuster giveaway to the Nags the Jets gave us to move from 16 down to #5. What a Blockbuster trade that was for the Browns. Thank God mangini and Kokinis are done and we have a real GM and team pres.
As far as the topic, why mortgage the farm when the NFL will have a rookie cap and the god awful contracts will be a thing of the past. the NFL vets want this, only the greedy lawyer agents do not.
the NFL vets only want the harder rookie cap if they guarantee that $$$ goes to veterans.
easier for younger players to test FA (unlike this past offseason with RFA ruling the day), salary floor in addition to the salary cap, and higher overall minimum wages across the board.
the problem is the owners want the harder rookie cap without giving the concessions above. the vet's don't just want to give up that $$ without getting something in return.
They could put that money into a fund that takes care of retired players. Or most of it, and let the owners recoup a bit.
I have seen the idea bandied about several different threads about the trading of DQwell. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that we cannot trade Jackson because he is not signed. We gave him a second round tender but he has not signed it so cannot be traded. Additionally I believe that since he did not sign by April 15 that he is not allowed to sign until sometime in June. So we can't even go to him and say hey, if you sign your tender we will trade you to ...
I assume it would be similar to the Brandon Marshall situation. The Rams would work out the basics of a new deal, he would sign the tender and then they would work out the details of a long term deal after a trade.
My feeling on Bradford has always been that if you think he's the guy, you go get him. Given the circumstances for both teams, it looks as though if the Browns offer the Rams a reasonable trade, that they would probably pull the trigger.
The situation is unique in that St. Louis isn't in a position of power, they can't be incredibly picky if they don't want to stay where they are. The Browns' offer is surely going to be the best one on the table, even if it is less than you might expect. The FO should put a borderline package together ane see if they decide to take it. If they balk, move on. McCoy isn't a bad plan B.
Quote:
I assume it would be similar to the Brandon Marshall situation. The Rams would work out the basics of a new deal, he would sign the tender and then they would work out the details of a long term deal after a trade.
That would be true if it was before April 15 but I don't think he is allowed to sign his tender until sometime in June.
I haven't really said anything to this point, just watching all of the big talk about trading away DQ.
But yes, if he doesn't have a tender signed, we can't trade him in the draft. ALL of the talk about Rogers who will be facing some type of league action. Don't people realise you won't get sqwat for him with a possible suspension looming?
And DQ hasn't signed his tender and unless and until he does, he's in "limbo land".
But it has been amusing watching it all be bantered about!
Andrew Luck will be draft eligible next year, and I like him almost as much as Mallet.