Terry Pluto's Talkin' ... about the Browns' offensive line, the No. 4 draft pick decision
January 15, 2012
Terry Pluto, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- On a white mid-January Sunday, we're talkin' ...
About the Browns' offensive line ...
1. The Browns had three offensive linemen who didn't miss a single play in 2011: Alex Mack, Joe Thomas and Jason Pinkston. Thomas and Mack have never missed a snap in their pro careers. The same can be said of Pinkston, a rookie. Guard Shaun Lauvao played 95 percent of the snaps in 2011. So other than the season-ending back injury to Eric Steinbach in training camp, the line was very healthy.
2. What about Tony Pashos? That he battles injuries is news only to those who don't pay attention. He missed 11 games in 2009, 10 in 2010. It's a bonus that he missed only four games in 2011 and played 73 percent of the snaps.
3. Suppose Steinbach comes back from back surgery and is healthy for 2012. He can take over left guard, where he played every snap from 2007-10 for the Browns. That would allow Lauvao and Pinkston to duel for right guard. But they still need a right tackle. You can make the case that Pinkston can play right tackle -- he was a left tackle at Pitt. I make the case that they need a big-time right tackle, be it from the draft or free agency.
4. Offensive linemen are like starting pitchers. You think you need only five, but you better have seven capable of playing reasonably well because these guys get hurt. There was nothing about Pinkston that made me believe he should be given the right tackle spot. He was a fifth-round draft choice who was supposed to be worked into the NFL, not start immediately. But injuries and a lack of depth forced that.
5. According to STATS Inc., the offensive line ranked 18th in protecting the quarterback. They use a complicated formula going far beyond sacks. The Browns raised their ranking in the last five games, which indicated the young line was improving.
6. The most recent time the Browns had a good offense was 2007. Derek Anderson, Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow all had career seasons. Jamal Lewis shocked the NFL by running for 1,304 yards when most evaluators believed he was washed up. The Browns were 10-6.
7. Something rarely discussed about 2007 was the emphasis GM Phil Savage placed on the offensive line. Savage selected Thomas with the No. 3 pick. He signed Kevin Shaffer and Steinbach as free agents. They also had veterans Hank Fraley, Seth McKinney and Ryan Tucker. They allowed only 19 sacks and opened big holes. Tucker couldn't stay healthy. Shaffer faded. But the point of a frontal assault to upgrade the line is a worthy approach for 2012.
8. It's hard to measure linemen with stats. I use two services for sack totals -- STATS Inc. and Profootballfocus.com. Here are the sacks-allowed totals -- STATS Inc is the first number: Pashos (9.0, 7.0), Thomas (3.5, 3.0), Mack (2.0, 4.0), Pinkston (1.0, 1.0), Lauvao (4.5, 6.0).
9. This reveals what most fans saw -- the right side with Pashos and Lauvao had problems. Lauvao also was flagged for a team-high 11 penalties. You can safely say Lauvao and Pashos allowed at least 15 sacks, or about 40 percent of the team's total.
10. I wasn't able to get "Quarterback Hits Allowed" from STATS Inc., but I did from Profootballfocus. Pinkston led the Browns with 10. No one else had more than three. So Pinkston's sack total of 1.0 is deceiving. He didn't allow sacks, but he did permit the quarterback to get beat up. He played like a fifth-round rookie tackle who was thrown into starting the season opener at guard.
11. Assigning sacks to certain players is subjective unless you know the blocking schemes. That's why the two services differ. STATS only makes available sacks allowed by linemen. So it has the Browns allowing 39 sacks, but only 20 are accounted for. Profootballfocus has the Browns with 33 sacks allowed. In addition to the linemen, they assigned 4.0 sacks allowed to running back Chris Ogbonnaya, 2.0 to fullback Owen Marecic and 1.0 to tight end Evan Moore. PFF says QB Colt McCoy ran into 3.0 sacks, while Seneca Wallace did it once. Running backs Peyton Hillis and Montario Hardesty each allowed one sack.
12. Hard to believe, but neither service had backup right tackles Oniel Cousins and Artis Hicks allowing a sack -- both seemed to be pushed around. NFL.com has the Browns allowing 83 quarterback hits, No. 8 in the league. Bottom line: The No. 4 pick should be reserved for a big-time offensive playmaker. But a right tackle should be considered for any other pick. That's especially true when you consider Browns ranked last in rushing touchdowns and 31st (3.7 yards per carry) in running the football.
About Trent Richardson ...
I'll start with a confession: I'll probably change my mind about the No. 4 pick about 10 times before the April 26 draft.
But right now, I would not take the Alabama running back ... or any running back at No. 4. It seems there are running backs available in free agency or lower in the draft who can be plugged in and rush for 1,000 yards. The Browns did it twice in trades with Denver -- for Reuben Droughns and Hillis. And they do plan to at least talk to Hillis' agent in the near future.
After writing so much about the offensive line, part of me is tempted to pick Southern Cal's Matt Kalil -- if he's available. He is the Joe Thomas of this draft. Plug him at right tackle, with Thomas on the left side and Mack in the middle -- and that line could be superb for a long time.
But the Browns need playmakers.
I know, Robert Griffin III. This is not a knock on RGIII, but I don't see him fitting into the Browns' offense -- and I don't see them making major adjustments as Carolina did for Cam Newton and Denver did for Tim Tebow. Could be totally wrong, but I'd be shocked if they picked him.
My favorite is Justin Blackmon, the outstanding receiver from Oklahoma State.
Suppose that RGIII falls to the Browns. Suppose the Redskins desperately want to trade for him. Suppose the Browns could trade down just a few spots, and still grab Blackmon, Kalil or another big-time player -- and add a second-rounder.
I'd think about it ... real hard.
web page
Quote:
Suppose that RGIII falls to the Browns. Suppose the Redskins desperately want to trade for him. Suppose the Browns could trade down just a few spots, and still grab Blackmon, Kalil or another big-time player -- and add a second-rounder.
I'd think about it ... real hard.
web page
I'd be up for this. There will still be good talent at the beginning of the 2nd round...
Vinny Curry, Chase Minnifield, Mike Adams, and even Burfict could fall just as Mauluga did a few years back..
I would prefer to have Blackmon over Kalil though.
Trade down and still get Blockmann or Kalili? I'm perfectly fine with that.... IF they think that Colt has the chance to be our QB for the next several years and they don't think RG3 is...
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kalili go very high though.
Quote:
You can safely say Lauvao and Pashos allowed at least 15 sacks, or about 40 percent of the team's total.
And as Lauvao and Pashos constitute 40% of the offensive line (2 out 5), I can safely say I don't think this point doesn't amount to much.
Don't get me wrong ... we need to do somerthing about the right side of the line. And soon. But as a math guy, his above logic humored me.
Lots of fun things to talk about in that article,, But this kinda stood out for me.
Quote:
6. The most recent time the Browns had a good offense was 2007. Derek Anderson, Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow all had career seasons. Jamal Lewis shocked the NFL by running for 1,304 yards when most evaluators believed he was washed up. The Browns were 10-6.
The line played well, Anderson, Edwards and Winslow had career years and Lewis at 1300 yards rushing.
We all know now without any doubt, that Anderson wasn't all that and a bag of chips. Defnatly not an elite QB...
Edwards is, for now, out of the NFL (I do expect that someone will pick him up next season), Winslow has had decent years since that year,,, but nothing quite like that year.. And Lewis is out of football as well.
But together,, they screamed.. they made people pull thier hair out.
Proving yet again, you don't NEED an elite anything (although it's nice),, you just needs parts that pull together...
The STATS total for sacks allowed by the offensive line is 20; 13.5 of which were allowed by Pashos and Lauvao, which is 70.5%. The Pro Football Focus total for sacks allowed by the offensive line is 21; 13 of which were allowed by Pashos and Lauvao, which is 63%. Split the diff, and figure that 2 out of every 3 sacks (67%) allowed by the O-Line were attributed to 40% of the O-Linemen - which is a red flag. The team total for sacks allowed includes TE, FB, and RB's.
To me,a person who was just plumb evaded by the multipication tables,your math skills leave me envious.
But,there is only one stat sheet that can acurately be used to measure o-linemen,the coaches grade sheet. All others are speculative.
I have been complimentary on the run blocking of the young guards,thier pass pro hasn't been as good.I will atribute that to youth and the inexperience that goes with it.Forget this talk about moving Pinkston,get a good,young RT in here,we'll be set for years.
Quote:
Suppose the Browns could trade down just a few spots, and still grab Blackmon, Kalil
Pipe dream 
Quote:
12. Hard to believe, but neither service had backup right tackles Oniel Cousins and Artis Hicks allowing a sack -- both seemed to be pushed around.
That might be a good clue that these stats are not very accurate and also not official.
I find it real hard to believe that Pinkston was only credited with 1 sack given up.
I thought that the OL took it's lumps early on, but improved after the 1st half of the season. We need to fix that RT position once and for all though. I would prefer that we draft a guy that would hopefully be a long term solution there, unless we can pick up a younger RT in FA.
Quote:
Quote:
Suppose the Browns could trade down just a few spots, and still grab Blackmon, Kalil
Pipe dream
My thoughts exactly. More likely neither are there at four than one of them is available at 6.
I can see Blackmon being there but not Kalil.
I wouldn't be surprised if Blackmon was drafted in the mid-teens.
Quote:
I can see Blackmon being there but not Kalil.
I wouldn't be surprised if Blackmon was drafted in the mid-teens.
As the best receiver in the class I see Blackmon in the 5-10 region, but a lot depends on his 40...
If he runs in the late 4.5s (which isn't out of the question), the mid teens could be reasonable. Both Crabtree and Mike Williams were seen as top-3 guys around now, and both slipped to ten based on bad 40s..... the fact that neither have blown up the league afterwards will confirm how much a bad 40 could hurt a guy like Blackmon.
I agree.
He may be the best in the draft, but that doesn't mean you select him at #4.
Quote:
As the best receiver in the class I see Blackmon in the 5-10 region, but a lot depends on his 40...
If he runs in the late 4.5s (which isn't out of the question), the mid teens could be reasonable. Both Crabtree and Mike Williams were seen as top-3 guys around now, and both slipped to ten based on bad 40s..... the fact that neither have blown up the league afterwards will confirm how much a bad 40 could hurt a guy like Blackmon.
I don't agree ... Most scouts put more weight on their evaluation on film study and how a player interviews, then any 40 time will, unless he absolutely performs poorly, I don't see it affecting his draft position.
I never thought as highly of Crabtree and especially not with Williams when they where prospects.
You don't have to like a prospect to give an objective evaluation of him.
First I don't need website to stell me what I eyes already saw..Pinkston struggled at first ,then settled down..But Lava and Paschos struggled all year...Dude is injury prone and inmoble..will easily get burned if he faces a athletic DE ..taking Kalil at 4 and making him a RT is simply..a waste of a high draft pick.
And I don't care what any writer says,if Griffith is there at 4 and anyone calls ,I'm saying buh-bye..
Browns haven't had a playmaker at QB since the return ,why would U give that up now when U need one?
Shortsighted way of thinking.
Dude can make all the throws and is smart,so why can't he runa WCO offense ?
Only way I want the Browns to move back is if Griff is gone..I like Blackmon so I have no issue with him..he plays big and makes the catches..
Quote:
First I don't need website to stell me what I eyes already saw..Pinkston struggled at first ,then settled down..But Lava and Paschos struggled all year...Dude is injury prone and inmoble..will easily get burned if he faces a athletic DE ..taking Kalil at 4 and making him a RT is simply..a waste of a high draft pick.
And I don't care what any writer says,if Griffith is there at 4 and anyone calls ,I'm saying buh-bye..
Browns haven't had a playmaker at QB since the return ,why would U give that up now when U need one?
Shortsighted way of thinking.
Dude can make all the throws and is smart,so why can't he runa WCO offense ?
Only way I want the Browns to move back is if Griff is gone..I like Blackmon so I have no issue with him..he plays big and makes the catches..
We need play-makers, so I'm not in favor of trading down from 4 if there are those types of prospects available.
Last year was last year and my top two prospects (Green and Peterson) where off the board and baring we don't screw up our 22nd selection, then I still favor the trade, then what we might have got if we stayed at 6.
And also because I hope we are not drafting in the top 5 again next year.
Quote:
Browns haven't had a playmaker at QB since the return ,why would U give that up now when U need one?
Shortsighted way of thinking.
Dude can make all the throws and is smart,so why can't he runa WCO offense ?
They have tried that rout twice in 10 years picking a first round QB and both those guys were "Smart" too. So acting like this is the last chance or the best opportunity to do so is only relative to this year, so yes it is shortsighted. Next year I would take the first 4 QB's over Griffin of this year. He is book smart which has absolutely nothing to do with reading a defense or learning a Playbook or going through progressions which none of the above he had to do at Baylor under Briles. Couple that with the fact that his Mechanics are shoddy never took a snap under cenetr ran a option based offense which quite frankly is a gimmick free for offense that every single QB that has played in it under Briles at Houston or while at Texas Tech when Leach was Head Coach and he was OC has put up the same numbers or better. Griffin would be the worst pick for this franchise in a long long time especially at the point where we are at and the team he would come to. JMO but take a look at the facts and the history. Look at his film as he stares down his receivers. If the first option isn't open he runs and half the time doesn't keep his eyes down field..I honestly don't see the Browns even considering him.
I think he is a huge risk. He is exciting and fun to watch and hell he could end up going #1, but I would not do it. I can understand why teams and many around here want this kid but I am truly leery due to size, scheme, mechanics and most importantly durability. If we take him, I just hope I am wrong but I will be cheering for him every Sunday.
When I read him say that RG3 stares down his receivers, and doesn't keep his eyes down the field when pressured (which is about every down) and I know that the poster has either never watched RG3 play, or has no idea how to evaluate players.
Quote:
When I read him say that RG3 stares down his receivers, and doesn't keep his eyes down the field when pressured (which is about every down) and I know that the poster has either never watched RG3 play, or has no idea how to evaluate players.
Yeah..I have watched him play and you can look anything up I said regarding QB's under him or anything..But coming from a poster that called Burfict a 4th round project I can't take anything you say serious.
I never was much of one to complain about a QB starring down his receivers lol. How else is he gonna hit him without looking at him? Aaron Rodgers stares down his receivers probably more than anyone in football and seems to do pretty well for himself. Follow 1, progress to 2 and on to 3 and checkdown if needed.
Now if you see a guy that just continues to follow 1, then he isnt going through his progressions and you have a problem.
I don't think that I have ever assigned a round value to Burfict. I said that I would not want him on my team because he is a walking personal foul.
Can you please show me where I said that he was a 4th rounder?
RG3 makes most of his plays on the run because his line sucks. Obviously, since he sompletes 70+% of his passes, he much keep his eyes down the field when pressured. He also throws one of the nicest deep balls in this draft.
However .... so on back to your "appraisal".
Here is is highlight film, not even taking the bad plays but see for yourself. Stares down his receivers..Just like Case Keenum. It is a 1 and done read offense, very seldom progresses beyond that.
Griffin
Highlight reels tell little ...... but we'll see who's right on RG3. I think that he's going to be a superstar NFL QB. It may even take him a year ...... but he'll get there, and make a lot of teams wish they could have drafted him. I've put my opinion out there, and so have you. We'll see who's right in time.
Quote:
When I read him say that RG3 stares down his receivers, and doesn't keep his eyes down the field when pressured (which is about every down) and I know that the poster has either never watched RG3 play, or has no idea how to evaluate players.
I want you to take a good hard look at what you wrote and how it is written. Do you see anything wrong with it? Who do you think you are? Quite frankly I am sick of Posters like you who roam these boards and call out others or try to undress them in a message and trying to make them feel irrelevant or make them look stupid. When I put JMO it means it is just my opinion which I have never ever once seen you put. That's the problem with you, besides your tone and your know it all sentiment, you think your opinion is gold and that is all it is. Just like mine it is only your opinion and holds no weight what so ever. I never stated I am a professional scout so when you say I don't know how to evaluate players I think you believe you are some sort of Scout.
So maybe you take this for what it's worth and quit trying to talk down to people and realize we all have different opinions and you don't need to confront everyone on this board who's opinion is different than yours and berate them. Just saying man. We all have our own ideas and opinions..you think he is a superstar, I think he is a decent QB that is overrated and the system breeds who he is. I have supported my opinion with facts about the Coach and QB's that have played under him or his protoge Mike leach while at Houston or Texas Tech. It is Mountain West football in the Big 12 and since this is his first QB who followed him from Houston and the first 4 years of this you wil see that every QB from Baylor moving forward will have similar numbers. It's like buying the first model of a new car..don't be fooled by the slick new design or colors.
Picture both of them still at Houston where they both were 4 years ago. You wouldn't know who he was just like most people don't know who Case Keenum is if he was still there. But the guy(keenum) threw for 5,631 yards 48 TD's 5 int's and completed 72 percent of his passes... In Briles Offense. But it is just my opinion and I don't want to be duped right now when I think we can turn a corner. He is risky and most people can see that.
Like I said ..... we have diametrically opposed positions, and we'll see who is right about him over the next couple of years, , and who is wrong.
Quote:
They have tried that rout twice in 10 years picking a first round QB and both those guys were "Smart" too. So acting like this is the last chance or the best opportunity to do so is only relative to this year, so yes it is shortsighted. Next year I would take the first 4 QB's over Griffin of this year. He is book smart which has absolutely nothing to do with reading a defense or learning a Playbook or going through progressions which none of the above he had to do at Baylor under Briles. Couple that with the fact that his Mechanics are shoddy never took a snap under cenetr ran a option based offense which quite frankly is a gimmick free for offense that every single QB that has played in it under Briles at Houston or while at Texas Tech when Leach was Head Coach and he was OC has put up the same numbers or better. Griffin would be the worst pick for this franchise in a long long time especially at the point where we are at and the team he would come to. JMO but take a look at the facts and the history. Look at his film as he stares down his receivers. If the first option isn't open he runs and half the time doesn't keep his eyes down field..I honestly don't see the Browns even considering him.
What freaking planet do U live on???
I don't even know where to start with U ..yeah I do..It sounds like U really don't know what you're talking bout Willis..by your own admission of the failures the Browns have had..then why take a top ten QB next year????If U have the chance to get a franchise QB when you're on the board,then you're
crazy to pass it up till next year..Griffith's weakness are no different than any other QB who's come out of college..and this stuff about he's book smart but not ball smart doesn't make U look very smart..FYI...Briles has experience working some other QB's before he came to Baylor..
I want a playmaker..it's time to take a risk..if they pass on him and go Tannehill ..fine...I like him too..but U guys trying to sound like you know how to evaluate him need to put the keyboard down and go watch some FOX animation tonite.. 
Quote:
Like I said ..... we have diametrically opposed positions, and we'll see who is right about him over the next couple of years, , and who is wrong.
Yes we will. Just like when I said Quinn was a waste and everyone said the same stuff. Attack..please
Quote:
Yada yada yada yada......Briles has experience working some other QB's before he came to Baylor..Yada yada yada.....
Care to list them..List their stat columns too. That's what I have been saying man..How's Kevin Kolb adjusting. Even after sitting on the bench in Philly behind McNabb and learning from Reid. The guy has limitations from never having to develop under Briles. He didn't even have a playbook. It was a "Free for all offense" a one read quick strike offense. I will have to go look at the others but when at Texas Tech Grahm Harrell, Klingler, Kingsbury..I believe they all shattered records. I will have to look and see the Houston QB's under him but Keenum and Griffin were his recruits. Houstons Mountain West"Air Raid" offense is still there. Which is the offense Keenum put up those numbers under.
Well, considering that I was one of the first people on this board off the Quinn bandwagon, that's little credit for you.
I don't even remember what you said about Quinn when he was drafted, if you were even around then .....
Yeah, I see that in you, On and off the bandwagon. That's credit enough the unintentional route. I said both Jamarcus and him were highly overrated and were the beneficiaries of being in a horrible draft class for QB's and of course the Hype machine. I don't know it all, what I know is if we keep flopping QB's it won't matter who is back there. The only time that will ever work is after we have been in the same system for 4 years and there aren't a bunch new guys playing together, learning a new offense, with no off season and a bunch of injuries. When a QB can step in and get on the same page and not everyone is trying to get on the same page.
I was 99% in the no to RG3 camp. But then I read that you're on the same side as me. So now I'm doubting myself.
Quote:
I was 99% in the no to RG3 camp. But then I read that you're on the same side as me. So now I'm doubting myself.
So as the saying goes..stick with stupid. Your a big boy, you can make up your own mind by now.
It's a joke. I should have posted it in purple
I agree with most everything you say about Griffin, but wouldn't you also agree that Cam Newton was in a offense that was very similar? Look at the success he had. I think Newton is more of an aberration than the rule, but you have to take him into account because he adjusted very nicely when going from one read and run to the NFL.
Quote:
I was 99% in the no to RG3 camp. But then I read that you're on the same side as me. So now I'm doubting myself.
Sometimes that is the way to go.
I vote like that.
Whenever I hear a known simpleton...say Al Sharpton...I want whoever he doesn't. 
Quote:
Next year I would take the first 4 QB's over Griffin of this year. He is book smart which has absolutely nothing to do with reading a defense or learning a Playbook or going through progressions which none of the above he had to do at Baylor under Briles. Couple that with the fact that his Mechanics are shoddy never took a snap under cenetr ran a option based offense which quite frankly is a gimmick free for offense that every single QB that has played in it under Briles at Houston or while at Texas Tech when Leach was Head Coach and he was OC has put up the same numbers or better. Griffin would be the worst pick for this franchise in a long long time especially at the point where we are at and the team he would come to. JMO but take a look at the facts and the history. Look at his film as he stares down his receivers. If the first option isn't open he runs and half the time doesn't keep his eyes down field..I honestly don't see the Browns even considering him.
I agree.
Quote:
Obviously, since he sompletes 70+% of his passes, he much keep his eyes down the field when pressured.
Reverend Al, is that you?
Quote:
Yeah, I see that in you, On and off the bandwagon. That's credit enough the unintentional route. I said both Jamarcus and him were highly overrated and were the beneficiaries of being in a horrible draft class for QB's and of course the Hype machine. I don't know it all, what I know is if we keep flopping QB's it won't matter who is back there. The only time that will ever work is after we have been in the same system for 4 years and there aren't a bunch new guys playing together, learning a new offense, with no off season and a bunch of injuries. When a QB can step in and get on the same page and not everyone is trying to get on the same page.
These folks that want RG3 need to realize that he ain't coming to Cleveland and they might as well get their vents out now about it. Listen to Heckert on WKNR's 'Really Big Show' with Tony Rizzo.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=70&c=476&f=354141
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, I see that in you, On and off the bandwagon. That's credit enough the unintentional route. I said both Jamarcus and him were highly overrated and were the beneficiaries of being in a horrible draft class for QB's and of course the Hype machine. I don't know it all, what I know is if we keep flopping QB's it won't matter who is back there. The only time that will ever work is after we have been in the same system for 4 years and there aren't a bunch new guys playing together, learning a new offense, with no off season and a bunch of injuries. When a QB can step in and get on the same page and not everyone is trying to get on the same page.
These folks that want RG3 need to realize that he ain't coming to Cleveland and they might as well get their vents out now about it. Listen to Heckert on WKNR's 'Really Big Show' with Tony Rizzo.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=70&c=476&f=354141
He can't comment on any underclassmen without being fined/lose draft picks. Can you specify what he said that causes you to believe that he doesn't like RG3, and won't take him at 4?
Heckert is one part of the equation.. He has scouts and then there is also Holmgren that can effect who we draft...
but if both Blackmon and RG3 are there.. I would like to think we would draft Blackmon first...
Quote:
He can't comment on any underclassmen without being fined/lose draft picks. Can you specify what he said that causes you to believe that he doesn't like RG3, and won't take him at 4?
I think it had more to do with what he said about Colt McCoy, and I kind of agree with him. I'd like to see Colt McCoy with a legitimate offseason to learn the offense.
Last season was the worst situation that could have happened for a head coach, installing a totally new offensive system. All the OTA's were missed. All the work done before training camp with coaches was missed.
I was listening to Aaron Rogers and Matt Flynn talk about how they have a QB Camp in March for a couple weeks, where they refine their throwing motions and work on the offense. Colt didn't have a chance for anything like that.
New system and he doesn't get to work on it until training camp. His top receiver misses all training camp and isn't that good anyway (Mass). I'm just really hoping the receivers and QBs all look better with a full offseason of learning the WCO.
Although I have a tough time believing Colt will ever look like any of the top playoff QBs I saw the past couple days (Brady, Eli, Brees, and Rogers). But those guys are all very good, all have won superbowls, and they've all played for awhile.
I would really like to see the Browns build an elite offensive line. If Kalil is there at 4, I hope they consider taking him.
Quote:
I would really like to see the Browns build an elite offensive line. If Kalil is there at 4, I hope they consider taking him.
I've thought about this and have one major problem with it.
In the end, Kalil will want LT money when he becomes a FA. Are we going to sign him to a similar contract we just gave Joe Thomas?
It's just a lot of money to get a RT. And drafting someone at 4, I'd really like it to be someone who is here for awhile.
I agree with both of you. I'd like an elite OL but I don't think you need book end LTs to make that happen. I think there will be a very good OT available with our second round pick...
we'll have plenty of money to re-sign kalil if we don't have a franchise QB or a #1 WR.
We'll have plenty of money.
Not many teams have had to strip their roster because they didn't have enough money or cap space.
The cap goes up each year based on revenue. The dollars we are dealing with today won't be the same in 4-5 years.
Plus, if you are thinking more than 2-3 years ahead, you are missing the boat. Too many variables to be thinking 4-5 years down the road.
Just think about winning next year and the year after that. That way you always have one year to plan for the next while keeping your eye on the most important thing....winning your next game.
Quote:
we'll have plenty of money to re-sign kalil if we don't have a franchise QB or a #1 WR.
Obviously, I don't think anyone thinks that a RT should take the place of getting us a good quarterback.........
That's one thing that's very clear. Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers: Those guys are really good. It can't be a coincidence that four of the best five quarterbacks (not counting Peyton) in football were in the divisional playoffs. That two of the best QBs in football are in the Conference Championship Games. All five of the best QBs in football (playing this year) were in the playoffs.
But if there is no QB for us to get this year that is a "franchise QB" nothing you can do........
Quote:
Plus, if you are thinking more than 2-3 years ahead, you are missing the boat. Too many variables to be thinking 4-5 years down the road.
This I disagree with Peen. Offensive linemen are one of the main positions I see that way. They have very long careers (especially the good ones), so I see it like the stock market. As a safe, long-term investment. Joe Thomas was that, and he just so happened to fill an extremely important need as well
Most RBs don't have careers like my main man Curtis Martin (favorite RB ever, kinda an idol of mine when i was a kid playing backyard football). He played 11 seasons, and for 10 of them he was very productive. But anyway, they're short term investments IMO. Sometimes you get lucky and get someone like Curtis though. (That's why I want Trent Richardson, very safe pick, great player, has a big impact on the game. Bring the Browns our Curtis Martin. 10 years of a solid running game and bring Danger a new Browns Jersey (Brown one so that I can wear it for home games, while wearing Haden for away games))
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, I see that in you, On and off the bandwagon. That's credit enough the unintentional route. I said both Jamarcus and him were highly overrated and were the beneficiaries of being in a horrible draft class for QB's and of course the Hype machine. I don't know it all, what I know is if we keep flopping QB's it won't matter who is back there. The only time that will ever work is after we have been in the same system for 4 years and there aren't a bunch new guys playing together, learning a new offense, with no off season and a bunch of injuries. When a QB can step in and get on the same page and not everyone is trying to get on the same page.
These folks that want RG3 need to realize that he ain't coming to Cleveland and they might as well get their vents out now about it. Listen to Heckert on WKNR's 'Really Big Show' with Tony Rizzo.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=70&c=476&f=354141
He can't comment on any underclassmen without being fined/lose draft picks. Can you specify what he said that causes you to believe that he doesn't like RG3, and won't take him at 4?
He would comment on any underclassmen but when asked about McCoy, he supported him and commented on that. They're not going to go with RG3 and if they do, they're putting the franchise back. They're not wasting a pick on him. They'll trade back if they think that they can get their guy later and that's what I think the plan is to do. They're looking to trade back and to get the guy that they're really targeting later. If they're sitting there at #4 and RG3 is there, he wouldn't be talking like that. RG3 won't be there (but he should be) if they traded back because I don't think he'll get passed the Redskins at #6. That leads me to believe that they won't be drafting RG3.
For another, RG3 isn't even in the same class as Luck and there is little chance that we would go up to seek Luck at the #1 spot either.
Of course, trading back always depends on who is available and who wants to move up to the spot the Browns occupy and what they're willing to give up.
I can see the Browns going after Claiborne because I think they had their eye on Peterson last year and Arizona drafted him right ahead of the Browns. I honestly think that the trade was their back-up option and it was executed.
Quote:
Heckert is one part of the equation.. He has scouts and then there is also Holmgren that can effect who we draft...
but if both Blackmon and RG3 are there.. I would like to think we would draft Blackmon first...
I don't think that if either of them are there that they draft them and they look to trade back out of the spot.
Just take a look at last years draft. I think that Heckert loved the way that the draft worked out (who we got with the picks) and that it was a better decision than to taking Julio Jones ourselves.
Stocking up on picks will bring in more talent at more positions, even if they aren't some overrated QB.
Blackmon could be a fine WR and the Browns can use them, but the feeling I have is that they aren't going that way.
Quote:
I can see the Browns going after Claiborne because I think they had their eye on Peterson last year and Arizona drafted him right ahead of the Browns. I honestly think that the trade was their back-up option and it was executed.
See, that I don't really think is gonna happen. With Patterson and Skrine, I like our young CBs. I thought Dimitri looked pretty good filling in for Sheldon Brown. We already have Joe Haden. What we really could use is an impact DE or LB IMO. Unfortunately, there isn't a superstar DE in this draft (that I can clearly see). We need a player who can affect the run and the pass. That's why I'm hoping we find a good FA DE or pick one with one of our next two picks in the draft (1B or 2)
Quote:
I would really like to see the Browns build an elite offensive line. If Kalil is there at 4, I hope they consider taking him.
I can't say that I would dislike the player, because I wouldn't but that I think it would be too much for a RT. While it's true that Kalil could be out there playing LT, you don't want to put into the mind of your Pro Bowl LT that his job could be in jeopardy.
I think you take a RT later in the draft and there will be very good ones available.
I love Kalil, and if we needed a LT, I'd be all for it.
Quote:
I can't say that I would dislike the player, because I wouldn't but that I think it would be too much for a RT. While it's true that Kalil could be out there playing LT, you don't want to put into the mind of your Pro Bowl LT that his job could be in jeopardy.
Joe Thomas just got an 84 million dollar contract to be the highest paid tackle in the league. Would he really feel like his job is in jeopardy because we drafted another tackle?
Quote:
Quote:
I can see the Browns going after Claiborne because I think they had their eye on Peterson last year and Arizona drafted him right ahead of the Browns. I honestly think that the trade was their back-up option and it was executed.
See, that I don't really think is gonna happen. With Patterson and Skrine, I like our young CBs. I thought Dimitri looked pretty good filling in for Sheldon Brown. We already have Joe Haden. What we really could use is an impact DE or LB IMO. Unfortunately, there isn't a superstar DE in this draft (that I can clearly see). We need a player who can affect the run and the pass. That's why I'm hoping we find a good FA DE or pick one with one of our next two picks in the draft (1B or 2)
You have a point. I like Skrine (with that blazing speed!) and Patterson is good but he's also a FA.
I think making a serious play for Mario Williams (and yeah, I'd overpay on the current scale for his services) would solve one of those problems. We could put him at either the DE spot opposite of Sheard or in the OLB spot and have a nasty force there.
I'm not so certain that there aren't some quality DEs or LBs later in the draft and I don't think superstars is what we necessarily need but that seems to be the consensus among the fans on these message boards.
Quote:
Joe Thomas just got an 84 million dollar contract to be the highest paid tackle in the league. Would he really feel like his job is in jeopardy because we drafted another tackle?
Everyone is expendable or he could be moved. I don't think anyone would argue that Joe Thomas had a remarkable year. That might be partially due to the injury to Steinbach and the fall-off in talent to his right, but not all of it.
I just don't see it happening, since Kalil would want that LT money when he hits FA and he wouldn't get that coming to Cleveland. He might refuse to play for the Browns. That's his livelihood and the potential future earnings that the Browns would be playing with.
Quote:
You have a point. I like Skrine (with that blazing speed!) and Patterson is good but he's also a FA.
I think making a serious play for Mario Williams (and yeah, I'd overpay on the current scale for his services) would solve one of those problems. We could put him at either the DE spot opposite of Sheard or in the OLB spot and have a nasty force there.
I'm not so certain that there aren't some quality DEs or LBs later in the draft and I don't think superstars is what we necessarily need but that seems to be the consensus among the fans on these message boards.
I think we will re-sign Patterson. I really hope we do at least. I'd love to make a play for Mario Williams, although I doubt he sees much duty as an OLB in our scheme. I could see him doing spot duty standing up if it's advantageous to us with because we want to add in more DE's (as the Giants did last night where they were lining up 3 guys on the line with Justin Tuck standing up), but I imagine if Williams is coming here his hand will be on the ground. Him and Sheard would be awesome. Phil Taylor and Rubin can collapse the pocket very well too. Our D-Line would be a real strength. And I don't think Mitchell would be bad as a backup, he's just definitely not a starter.
As for players later in the draft, I definitely think we'll look into other D-Linemen, whether or not we get our new starting DE in FA. Another DTackle would be good to get. Taylor and Rubin are big guys, and having a rotation that would keep them fresh would get the most out of them. I wasn't very impressed with Schaffering at all. And if Rubin or Taylor goes down, he's definitely no starter
Quote:
I just don't see it happening, since Kalil would want that LT money when he hits FA and he wouldn't get that coming to Cleveland. He might refuse to play for the Browns. That's his livelihood and the potential future earnings that the Browns would be playing with.
This is my question. Will we pay Kalil LT money to stay in Cleveland? Thomas is 27, he's not retiring soon or anything. Kalil's contract will be up or close to be up and we're going to have to ask ourselves, are we willing to give him a 6 year 84 million dollar contract like we gave Joe Thomas?
I don't think so, so I don't think we'll go Kalil
Quote:
These folks that want RG3 need to realize that he ain't coming to Cleveland and they might as well get their vents out now about it. Listen to Heckert on WKNR's 'Really Big Show' with Tony Rizzo.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=70&c=476&f=354141
Thanks for the link Anarchy! I don't know how much more he could say about McCoy being in the position we are in in the draft with the possibilities of like you said trading down. Without saying Colt is our Guy he said enough to make you believe that without saying it. Obviously he doesn't want other teams to believe that or being in the 4 hole with Griffin on the board loses value. If teams think we are taking him they would love for a Washington to go up and get him. Now sitting at 4 if Luck and Griffin and say one of the Top 4 guys (Kalil, Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson) are off the board teams will pay big time to move into our spot to grab the three that are still there or the likelyhood of the guy they really want are there out of those guys. Once again I don't even think Griffin is an option especially after listening to him about McCoy and knowing what most of us can see with what was wrong last year and he eluded to. Heckert will get a nice bunch of package offers and some might include players. I think he will take the best one and move down. Teams I can see that might be calling Could be Miami, Seattle, Dallas, Detroit and possibly Cinci. If Griffin is there and he will be unless someone thinks we are drafting him, Miami and Seattle or Washington will be calling. Now in a perfect world we trade with Washington and move down to 6 picking up extra picks and with Richardson or one of the others left on the board we trade out agin.
I will have to do the breakdown on that, but wow.
After listening to that interview it's hard to believe that our QB will be anyone other than Colt McCoy.
It's in the best interest for negotiating purposes that the rest of the NFL thinks that as well. Don't get too tied up in what the front office says from now until late April. Silly season has begun.
Quote:
It's in the best interest for negotiating purposes that the rest of the NFL thinks that as well. Don't get too tied up in what the front office says from now until late April. Silly season has begun.
Listen, softly in the distance, you can here the glasses clinking as Mort, Schefter, and Jay Glazer toast to their busy months ahead...
Quote:
It's in the best interest for negotiating purposes that the rest of the NFL thinks that as well. Don't get too tied up in what the front office says from now until late April. Silly season has begun.
This!
Don't believe anything until the ink is dry. None of us know what they are thinking or planning. All we can do is speculate.
Wow .... you heard a lot of stuff in there that I didn't. lol
They said "Pause if you are not taking a QB ...... or something like that" ...... and he said that he can't talk about specific players yet.
Of course he's going to talk up McCoy right now. What good does it do to talk him down when we can't sign anyone else yet, can't draft anyone else yet, can't have players in for camp yet, and can't trade and/or trade for anyone yet?
They are going to make safe statements, and wait for everything to open up. Then they still aren't going to tell us anything.
I will say this .... if this front office decided to go with McCoy for another year, they better be right. I get the feeling that they would be overruling their head coach, because his body language hasn't said "Gee, I can't wait till I get Colt McCoy back on the field!!!".
If I am betting, than I am betting on us having a new starting QB this fall. I think it will be through the draft, but it could be a trade. I know my preference .... and like I said ..... if you need a QB and you pass on one, you better be right about the choice you made. Nothing gets front offices and GMs fired faster than bad QB decisions.
Quote:
Wow .... you heard a lot of stuff in there that I didn't. lol
They said "Pause if you are not taking a QB ...... or something like that" ...... and he said that he can't talk about specific players yet.
Of course he's going to talk up McCoy right now. What good does it do to talk him down when we can't sign anyone else yet, can't draft anyone else yet, can't have players in for camp yet, and can't trade and/or trade for anyone yet?
They are going to make safe statements, and wait for everything to open up. Then they still aren't going to tell us anything.
I will say this .... if this front office decided to go with McCoy for another year, they better be right. I get the feeling that they would be overruling their head coach, because his body language hasn't said "Gee, I can't wait till I get Colt McCoy back on the field!!!".
If I am betting, than I am betting on us having a new starting QB this fall. I think it will be through the draft, but it could be a trade. I know my preference .... and like I said ..... if you need a QB and you pass on one, you better be right about the choice you made. Nothing gets front offices and GMs fired faster than bad QB decisions.
Wow - about the coach - you must be a body language expert.
Who knows about Mccoy? I don't. You don't. But you say if they stick with Mccoy, they better be right? Please.
But, okay.
I'll say this, if they trade 3 first round picks, plus a second - they DAMN well better be right.
There isn't a player around that is worth 3 first round draft picks. Let me clarify that statement: There isn't ONE single player in the DRAFT that is worth 3 first round draft picks. Not one. Not this year, not any year. (and don't bring in the "you wouldn't have traded 3 first round picks for Manning" crap)
Every draft is a crap shoot. Every pick is a crapshoot. I don't care what the scouts and so called "experts" say. Face it - they say it every year - same crap, different name. And? They're wrong as often as they're right. Period.
If a qb falls to us, great. If not, you do NOT sell out to get one. Too many holes to fill on this team.
I should add that I was talking about Shurmur earlier when he was asked about McCoy. I got the impression that he's not all that sold on him ..... and his body language when the offense would blow up on the field said that he wasn't happy.
Oh, and since you're apparently a body language expert - can you tell me how the coach's body language read when he didn't have a clue as to when to call a time out? Or when he didn't have a clue as to what play to run?
When the Browns scored a t.d. and Shurmer's body language said "ah"...........what did that mean?
When a receiver dropped a pass on 3rd down, what did coach's body language say?
Seriously dude, we get it. You think all we need to do is get a stud qb. You think there are 2 in this draft - get one, and we'll be well on our way to superiority. Come on man - drop it.
Too many needs on this team. There isn't ONE player that will change this team - regardless of how many times you say a qb will.
And for the record - I know of NO ONE that has said Colt is the answer. I haven't. But I do know of many, many people that say "if a qb is there with our pick, get him". I know of many, many people that have said "we have too many holes to sell out for a "might be".
Come on man.
I have an opinion, and I expressed it.
Man, I thought that this is what a message board was all about.
I had no idea so many of McCoy's relatives posted here.
lol
(yeah, that's a joke for all of the thin skinned)
Interesting way to put it - about Colt's relatives. It seems to me Colt stole your girlfriend, wife, mom, car, house, dog, and bank account - they way you incessantly blame him for everything.
Oh, about opinions? Yup, we all have them. 99% of the people on here agree that if a qb is available, we get one. NOT trading away the future to do so. YOU, sir, on the other hand - seem to never fail to blame the qb for anything and everything.
Dude, we get it - you hate Colt for whatever reason. We get it. You post it a hundred times a day.......heck, can't even post in a thread about linemen without you saying they'd be better with a stud qb. Damn, man, it gets old.
And you - honestly - feel that Luck or RG is all we need............well, until called on it - then you say we need more. But, you sure as hell don't let that affect your posts about Colt. You constantly blame him, while holding him up to standards no qb could succeed with.
Hey - where's Cam Newton? Oh, he watched the playoff games on t.v., just like we did.
Where's the great Aaron Rodgers? Cleaning out his locker.
Where's Drew Brees? Same.
Where's the guy from Pittsburgh?
What about Stafford? He won as many playoff games as Colt did, right?
Look - NO ONE has said Colt is the answer - and your constant yapping and harping about Colt being THE problem gets damn old damn quick. And trust me - it's damn old.
And yes, this is a message board. You can say what you want. And yes, it's a message board - and I'll say what I want.
There's a small part of me that wants the Browns to go stir crazy and get Luck.................but that's only because I would love to shove it in your face when we go 4-12 next year with him at qb.
Holes - dude - holes. We have them. Can't fill them with one person.
And I want to say right up front: Yes, I know you'll assume I'm a Colt apologist - that I'm thinking Colt is the answer.
If and when you say that, you'll look stupid. Because I've never said that, or insinuated that.
Quote:
Hey - where's Cam Newton? Oh, he watched the playoff games on t.v., just like we did.
Where's the great Aaron Rodgers? Cleaning out his locker.
Where's Drew Brees? Same.
Where's the guy from Pittsburgh?
LoL, where's Tom Brady? Where's Eli Manning?
Of the five best QBs in football two are in the Conference Championship Games. Four of them played in the 2nd round of the playoffs. All of them played in the playoffs.
Peyton didn't get to play this year, so he doesn't count
PS: I'm not saying I want to draft a QB. My point is this, is there a guy this year who's at those player's caliber (Peyton, Eli, Brady, Brees, Rogers). What will it take to get him?
QB is definitely the most important position. It's much easier to win with one then win without one. But will there be any franchise QB's available to us? That's up to the front office. That's why i'll be okay with Colt if that's the case.
I just hope there's no pressure on them to pick a guy like I feel like there was with Savage and Brady Quinn. We can't just pick a guy just to pick a guy. I want someone we feel good about. You can't good lemonade if you don't have good lemons
Quote:
Quote:
Hey - where's Cam Newton? Oh, he watched the playoff games on t.v., just like we did.
Where's the great Aaron Rodgers? Cleaning out his locker.
Where's Drew Brees? Same.
Where's the guy from Pittsburgh?
LoL, where's Tom Brady? Where's Eli Manning?
Of the five best QBs in football two are in the Conference Championship Games. Four of them played in the 2nd round of the playoffs. All of them played in the playoffs.
Peyton didn't get to play this year, so he doesn't count
And you think - based on months worth of your posts - that all we need is a qb and some 5th round picks and we'll be there.
Please. You know as much, or as little, as I do.
Your constant harping about our qb really sucks.
I hate to say it. Politically, we agree. On almost everything, we agree. But your constant Colt bashing makes me sick. And I'll say it for the 1 thousandth time - I'm not a Colt lover.
But honestly - you need to get over Colt. Replacing him with a "might be", puts us in the same spot we are now.
Hey, did you know there will be a draft in 2013? Honestly - there will. And the dude that many on here think was the best qb pick this year will actually be in the draft next year. Did you know that?
I've got $100 that next year there will be 2 or 3 qb's rated as "can't miss super stars". Just like it's been since forever.
Quote:
Your constant harping about our qb really sucks.
I hate to say it. Politically, we agree. On almost everything, we agree. But your constant Colt bashing makes me sick. And I'll say it for the 1 thousandth time - I'm not a Colt lover.
You aware that it's me who posted that?
EDIT: Although I am on board with YTown politically usually. So we got that going for us
Quote:
Quote:
These folks that want RG3 need to realize that he ain't coming to Cleveland and they might as well get their vents out now about it. Listen to Heckert on WKNR's 'Really Big Show' with Tony Rizzo.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=70&c=476&f=354141
Thanks for the link Anarchy! I don't know how much more he could say about McCoy being in the position we are in in the draft with the possibilities of like you said trading down. Without saying Colt is our Guy he said enough to make you believe that without saying it. Obviously he doesn't want other teams to believe that or being in the 4 hole with Griffin on the board loses value. If teams think we are taking him they would love for a Washington to go up and get him. Now sitting at 4 if Luck and Griffin and say one of the Top 4 guys (Kalil, Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson) are off the board teams will pay big time to move into our spot to grab the three that are still there or the likelyhood of the guy they really want are there out of those guys. Once again I don't even think Griffin is an option especially after listening to him about McCoy and knowing what most of us can see with what was wrong last year and he eluded to. Heckert will get a nice bunch of package offers and some might include players. I think he will take the best one and move down. Teams I can see that might be calling Could be Miami, Seattle, Dallas, Detroit and possibly Cinci. If Griffin is there and he will be unless someone thinks we are drafting him, Miami and Seattle or Washington will be calling. Now in a perfect world we trade with Washington and move down to 6 picking up extra picks and with Richardson or one of the others left on the board we trade out agin.
I will have to do the breakdown on that, but wow.
Welcome, but I can't take credit. The site has a good setup and it wasn't hard to pluck it out of there.
I also think we could look to be trading down, not only once, but possibly twice and just piling up the picks. And if the compensatory picks that someone posted about is correct, that's just a mound of picks that we could have.
We have 9 now with a possible addition of 3 or 4 compensatory picks and if we get more in a trade-down scenario, it's just insane how many picks we could get. A good number of them will be starters and the others will be bit players or special teamers.
Imagine a scenario where the Browns get 15 picks or more!
Quote:
Quote:
Your constant harping about our qb really sucks.
I hate to say it. Politically, we agree. On almost everything, we agree. But your constant Colt bashing makes me sick. And I'll say it for the 1 thousandth time - I'm not a Colt lover.
You aware that it's me who posted that?
EDIT: Although I am on board with YTown politically usually. So we got that going for us
Uh.......... 
.............egg, meat face.
My bad.
But, aside from the fact I misquoted/mis attributed - I'm tired of ytown constantly berating our qb.....
Quote:
After listening to that interview it's hard to believe that our QB will be anyone other than Colt McCoy.
That's the feeling that I got too.
Quote:
Imagine a scenario where the Browns get 15 picks or more!
My issue with this is............. How are we going to fit all those guys on the team?
I'd rather have less picks and have them higher rounds than 15 picks and have a bunch not get a chance to make the team because our roster rules won't allow it.
We get 15 picks and we'll have a bunch of guys on the practice squad that other teams will pick up and we'll never get to develop. That's why it sucks that we can't trade the comp picks
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your constant harping about our qb really sucks.
I hate to say it. Politically, we agree. On almost everything, we agree. But your constant Colt bashing makes me sick. And I'll say it for the 1 thousandth time - I'm not a Colt lover.
You aware that it's me who posted that?
EDIT: Although I am on board with YTown politically usually. So we got that going for us
Uh.......... .............egg, meat face.
My bad.
But, aside from the fact I misquoted/mis attributed - I'm tired of ytown constantly berating our qb.....
Egg on face isn't all that bad really,, and I should know LOL
Ytowns point of not believing that McCoy isn't the guy is fine, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it.
The problem I have with his thinking is that he's willing to trade 3 first round picks to move up to get Luck.
Now, let's be real, we aren't going to get that pick away from Indy for anything of reason (short of the next two drafts completely would be my GUESS)
it's the thought that, given our current talent level, that anyone could possibly believe that getting a TOP QB, either from the draft or FA, that instantly, with the same receivers, same RB's, Same Line is just going to turn things around in a heartbeat.
Dallas did it. They got Aikman first., then got thier RB and WR.. but I don't think they had to trade to get him and then the mega trade involving Herschell Walker sure helped them to get over the hump.. we don't have that player to trade.
Having said that, I'll agree that better players anywhere on the team improve the team. At skill positions like Receiver or RB or yes, QB can make a greater impact quicker..
But to give up 3 first round picks.. with all the needs we have.. I just think that's irresponsible.
Now,, let's say we have the RB.. we have the receivers.. and Luck is there and all we gotta do is give up some picks to get him.. NOW I'll agree..
but not as we sit today...
I just don't see it
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your constant harping about our qb really sucks.
I hate to say it. Politically, we agree. On almost everything, we agree. But your constant Colt bashing makes me sick. And I'll say it for the 1 thousandth time - I'm not a Colt lover.
You aware that it's me who posted that?
EDIT: Although I am on board with YTown politically usually. So we got that going for us
Uh.......... .............egg, meat face.
My bad.
But, aside from the fact I misquoted/mis attributed - I'm tired of ytown constantly berating our qb.....
And i am tired of people berating the rest of the whole damn team (on the offensive side of the ball anyway) in order to defend an ineffective QB.
"Oh if only the WR, TE, RB, and OL was better .... then he'd have a fair chance ......"
BS. The things that make him ineffective have nothing to do with the players around him, and they are not going to get better (to the point of being a playoff caliber QB) with the addition of "better players".
Look at how many OL we went through who went on to play for Super Bowl teams in our early expansion years that we let go because "they sucked". There have been a lot. For some reason, the QB gets this huge pass because "it's not fair to judge him without all of the pieces" ........ Bull. There are still many things you can use to judge a QB's play, regardless of who he plays with. (although maybe the train wreck in St Louis might be somewhat different as the lost most of the starting OL plus their starting and backup WRs)
Anyway ... people can go back to bashing the team to protect the QB. "All those other guys suck ...... but don't you dare criticize the QB. He's exempt."
Quote:
Anyway ... people can go back to bashing the team to protect the QB. "All those other guys suck ...... but don't you dare criticize the QB. He's exempt."
Yeah.
That's exactly what I said.
Your bias against our qb is so blatant and stupid it's sad.
All we need is a qb, right? Don't need anything else, right? (you'll say yes..........until a different thread where you'll say we do need other parts).
The only thing I will say about the trading 3 first round picks for one guy thing, is every SEEMS to be taking it out of context to a point...
It's not like if we trade for Luck this year, we won't have a First round pick for the next three years...
The fact that we have the extra #1 gives us this advantage.
Trading two ENTIRE drafts? Lets be serious, if Indy has any intention of trading the pick, which is the first thing that would have to happen, they are going to be realistic...
Lets say..
2012 #4
2012 #22
2012 4th Round
2013 1st Round
2013 3rd Round
for
2012 #1
2012 5th Round
2013 4th Round
(I'm just saying, bare with me.)
Some people say thats WAY to much and OMG how will we get Luck any help?!?
Well all we're really losing is a #1 next year, Because we still have the #1 this year we picked to get Luck, and Moving around some late round picks...
I don't really care for starting Colt, if we bring anyone in FA, and draft anyone in rounds 1-3 That to mean is the sign the FO has given up on him. IMO.
But if you read anything read this...
The reason I began to ignore ALL QB talk, and started a NON QB Thread, was because of all the bickering... It's getting ridiculous...
If someone else Drafts Luck, and he goes on to multiple Probowls etc, and the guys we draft are good players and go to Probowls...
That doesn't mean people that wanted him are right, or people that didn't are wrong...
There IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG...
10 years from now, looking back on this draft, THERE WILL STILL BE NO RIGHT OR WRONG...
Saying you want this or that to happen, and it happens, doesn't mean you win anything..
As a member of the trade 3 1st Round picks or more camp for Luck let me say this.
Not sure if it's possible or not to get this trade made before free agency, which coincides with Mannings bonus or not.
But if we somehow obtain the rights to draft Luck before Free Agency we can count on some guys looking at Cleveland as a place they would want to be.
If you have the QB situation nailed down, you know you're going to have a chance to win games each year.
I really do believe that if we could make that happen, with Pittsburgh and Baltimore aging...we might flip the script in the division in short order.
Quote:
The fact that we have the extra #1 gives us this advantage.
I absolutely agree. People seem to forget this.
I think it's DawgInDayton who had some post earlier showing the possibilities of what you could do with a trade for Andrew Luck, giving up 3 first round picks. He made a mock draft out of it and I loved it.
You can still make huge improvements. I said pull the trigger then. I still say it's the right move.
If you have an opportunity to get a franchise QB you get them. I've made my point earlier about how very good QBs always seem to be in the playoffs. All the best QBs are there and consistently there.
It's the single most important decision. But you gotta go with one when you pick one, so you have to make sure that you get the right guy. If the right guy isn't there, we stick with what we have
This year we have the ammo. If we can pry Andrew Luck from Indy, why not? I sure hope that Heckert at least calls and gets a feeler as to whether they're open to trading the pick and at what cost (pre-Free Agency). Essential positions we have to fill........... Defensive End, Wide Receiver, Right Tackle, Running Back. Assuming we keep our 2nd round pick and our 3rd round pick, only two of those positions need to be filled in FA. Something like three firsts, a fourth and a fifth might do it. Even a third and a fourth (then we'd have to fill three of those positions with FA). With that second pick we can get ourselves one of the positions not covered in FA; a RT (someone like this Adcock guy), a WR (there's gotta be someone, Jeffery?), RB (Polk?), DE (Vinny Curry?)
It's not really that unfeasible that we could get him, and I don't think it would set us back as much as some people do. I like making safe picks, and Andrew Luck is a pretty safe bet at the most important position on the field, QB. It isn't like we're losing three years of 1st round picks. Just two years. Normally we'd only have two firsts to give up anyway.
To win a superbowl you generally need a great QB. Just looking at recent champions, Bucs (2003) and Ravens (2001) and then all the way to the Redskins (1992, and i've never seen this Rypien guy play, so beats me). There's a major correlation that I see, great QB's. So yeah, if we can get Luck, I'm down. If we can't, that's okay. But I'd like to at least give it a shot
Having two firsts this year is a sunk cost (or in this case sunk benefit) -- it doesn't actually make Andrew Luck any cheaper?
Unless you are saying that the Colts will ask for less because both firsts would be this year - which I don't see being a substantial difference (it maybe saves us a 2nd next year at best).
Quote:
Having two firsts this year is a sunk cost (or in this case sunk benefit) -- it doesn't actually make Andrew Luck any cheaper?
Unless you are saying that the Colts will ask for less because both firsts would be this year - which I don't see being a substantial difference (it maybe saves us a 2nd next year at best).
I understand this. It's a benefit we have though. I'm just saying it's not like we don't have two first this year. It would be one thing if we were losing 2012's 1st, 2013's 1st, and 2014's 1st. We're just losing 1sts from the next two years. We'll still have a high 2nd round pick this year and a 2nd round pick next year. And in 2014 we'll be back to normal again. That Atlanta Trade gave us the ammo we need to put us in the position to be able to get Luck.
People act like we're gonna set ourselves so far back if we trade up for him. That's just ridiculous
I think, if as I proposed awhile ago, we got two good FA's (one WR and one DE), we could draft a RT with our 2nd, trade up for Andrew Luck, and we'll have a successful offseason. We can trade up into the 3rd round, possibly 2nd if we have a 3rd round pick, and get ourselves a decent RB too. That would be very successful to me
Quote:
I understand this. It's a benefit we have though. I'm just saying it's not like we don't have two first this year. It would be one thing if we were losing 2012's 1st, 2013's 1st, and 2014's 1st. We're just losing 1sts from the next two years. We'll still have a high 2nd round pick this year and a 2nd round pick next year. And in 2014 we'll be back to normal again. That Atlanta Trade gave us the ammo we need to put us in the position to be able to get Luck.
That's what i don't understand - your 1st round pick in 2014 should be less valuable (by any rule) than your first round pick this year -- that's why teams have to trade more than a "first next year" to get back into the first round.
You're not really saying that you have extra value then - you're just saying that you've devalued your own first round picks by having two of them... that doesn't really make sense.
What I'm saying is that people act like we're setting ourselves so far back by giving up these picks to get Andrew Luck, and I just don't think we are. There seems to be an assumption that we'll have to trade away our whole draft.
I just don't think we are. May be the case can be made that i'm devaluing our 1st round picks because we have more of them, and that's fair.
I see how you think a 2014 first round pick is worth less than our our 2nd 2012 1st round pick. I just feel that, the surplus of 1st round picks gives us the option of doing it without sacrificing as much in the long run scheme of things. That's all.
And I do understand the point that, you're still losing a first round pick, and we could potentially be that much better because we have an extra first. But I really want Andrew Luck, and if we're given an option to get him (that's reasonable), I say, let's do it. QBs like him don't come around all the time. Often times, when they do, it's a matter of luck being able to get them. Well, we so just happen to have the ammunition to get him this year. If anyone does, we do at least
Quote:
Having two firsts this year is a sunk cost (or in this case sunk benefit) -- it doesn't actually make Andrew Luck any cheaper?
Unless you are saying that the Colts will ask for less because both firsts would be this year - which I don't see being a substantial difference (it maybe saves us a 2nd next year at best).
If the Colts are going to trade the pick, then that means they are sticking with Manning, who's years are numbered even if he fully recovers from his surgery. He's just getting up there in age. A first this year would mean more to them than one next year (actually, that's the norm with the value of draft picks) as that is one more big piece they can get Peyton now.
Quote:
If the Colts are going to trade the pick, then that means they are sticking with Manning, who's years are numbered even if he fully recovers from his surgery. He's just getting up there in age. A first this year would mean more to them than one next year (actually, that's the norm with the value of draft picks) as that is one more big piece they can get Peyton now.
That's fair, and I agree with that, if the Colts wanted to trade out of the pick, they would certainly want us to be the one putting out the multiple firsts.
I am on record as saying I would trade for Luck if the cost were the two first rounders -- I'm just not willing to go much higher than that - and I believe the cost would be much much higher (My best guess it would be 4 firsts at least).
Noones going to pay 4 firsts (well, there is Dan Snyder..)
And if Indy's asking for it, it's because they don't ACTUALLY want to trade the pick...
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine a scenario where the Browns get 15 picks or more!
My issue with this is............. How are we going to fit all those guys on the team?
I'd rather have less picks and have them higher rounds than 15 picks and have a bunch not get a chance to make the team because our roster rules won't allow it.
We get 15 picks and we'll have a bunch of guys on the practice squad that other teams will pick up and we'll never get to develop. That's why it sucks that we can't trade the comp picks
Then package them together and move up to a round or even two with them all. Of course, you can't trade the compensatory picks, but you can trade all the others.
Besides, not all of the picks are going to make it onto your team, no matter where they are taken, but with the sheer numbers, you're bound to hit on a few of the late round selections.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway ... people can go back to bashing the team to protect the QB. "All those other guys suck ...... but don't you dare criticize the QB. He's exempt."
Yeah.
That's exactly what I said.
Your bias against our qb is so blatant and stupid it's sad.
All we need is a qb, right? Don't need anything else, right? (you'll say yes..........until a different thread where you'll say we do need other parts).
So, you don't think mortgaging the future of the franchise is the right answer? I mean, with Barkley coming out next year, how will we mortgage the future for him if we've already mortgaged it for Luck or (May God help us!) RG3!
These folks insisting on such nonsense are doing it with their heads firmly implanted where the sun doesn't shine.
The compensatory picks in the 6th and 7th basically give us a leg up on the UDFA market. We can draft guys we want instead of having to compete for them in free agency.
I will say that I agree that we will have options with our own picks ..... maybe even trading up for extra picks in the 3rd - 5th rounds.
Quote:
Noones going to pay 4 firsts (well, there is Dan Snyder..)
And if Indy's asking for it, it's because they don't ACTUALLY want to trade the pick...
You only need one (Snyder makes a lot of sense) -- they like building through FA and they like making big splashes, and they need a QB. I feel less confident that the pick will be traded now, than I was a month ago, though it remains to be seen.
I will make a prediction that any trade will be for more than three firsts - Andrew Luck is very valuable to a lot of clubs.
Indy taking Luck, and then waiting to see if a guy like Kalil is around at #4 makes alot of sense, I doubt they trade the picks BEFORE taking him, Eli/SD style...
If they could get Manning a LT for the next how long ever, And maybe get a guy like Tannehill at 22, I think DEPNDING ON MANNINGS HEALTH, That would make even more sense than taking the guy that's ready RIGHT NOW if he's going to sit for 2-4 years...
It would also help if they knew who their coach was going to be...
I agree YTBF....a long time ago I said Couch made his line look bad and got hammered.....but it was true.
Colt has the same deal going.
Until we get a QB who can see the field and hit his receivers in stride, as well as know when he is leading his receivers in to a defender, he needs to make the receiver go low to catch it, we aren't going to do much on offense.
If we don't get him replaced, it doesn't matter who we draft or sign, the O is going to sputter and never run smoothly.
Heck, we saw a smoother running O when Wallace was in the games, and he is just a fraction better than McCoy.
Couch was king of the dump pass. McCoy is king of the 3 yard forward pass.
If that is this teams WCO, then we need to rip up the playbook and run whoever thinks that's how the O should be run out of town on a rail.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that people act like we're setting ourselves so far back by giving up these picks to get Andrew Luck, and I just don't think we are. There seems to be an assumption that we'll have to trade away our whole draft.
We wouldn't be...And we wouldn't have to...
Anyone who WOULD NOT go get a QB the quality of Luck is BLINDED and has NO DAMN CLUE the significance of a quality QB in the NFL...
I love this one the best Courtesy of this Anarchy dude...
"Go get the QB NEXT YEAR"...
2 problems with that...
1) We won't be drafting in the Top 10...Even with McCoy this is a 500 team...
2) There is no QB the quality of Luck in 2013...
We sit at 4...And we have the ammo...If Indy's willing...DO IT...Cause I bout' guarandamntee ya' we'll be in the PLAYOFFS as soon as 2013...Even without the 2 First Rounders...That's right...TWO...Our 22 and our most likely 15 or LOWER in 2013...
And several of us have already PROVEN that we can add ALOT of talent beyond Luck with remaining picks and FA moves...Without going money crazy in FA...
The same people saying we SHOULD NOT go get Luck r the same fools that will be partyin' in Cleveland when we're a Division Champion YEARLY...
I've been saying I'm on the fence with trading 4 and 22 plus other stuff for Luck but after consideration I think it should at LEAST be attempted.
It's time for some quality...
Quote:
I agree YTBF....a long time ago I said Couch made his line look bad and got hammered.....but it was true.
Colt has the same deal going.
BS!!!!!
Couch held on to the ball and had many late sacks...he was beaten up and became gunshy.
Colt doesn't have time in the pocket and has had MANY instances where he gets pressured BEFORE he can even set his feet!!!!(yeah, that must be Colt's fault )
Now Colt HAS gotten the Ball out late at times...and timing between he and his receivers hasn't been spot on....But this blanket statement about Colt making his OLine look bad is just garbage...It was a 2 way street last season....and there was a ton of traffic from the Olines side.
Quote:
Now Colt HAS gotten the Ball out late at times...and timing between he and his receivers hasn't been spot on....But this blanket statement about Colt making his OLine look bad is just garbage...It was a 2 way street last season....and there was a ton of traffic from the Olines side.
I do think there was way too many instances where the O-Line collapsed on Colt, starting from the right side.
My weak link is that Pashos and Cousins. They suck.
But it's hard for me to also deny that there were times when Colt held onto the ball too long. But that happens to QBs all the time. It's hard to get into a rhythm when your right side keeps collapsing on you. It's better than the left side, because at least you can see your own fate coming.........
But that right tackle position is abysmal. It really pissed me off that we went into the season with that joke of a RT. Year after year that position gets neglected. Drives me nuts
Tom Heckert says we're fine at that position.
Quote:
Tom Heckert says we're fine at that position.
Well, everyone has an opinion I guess.. I don't agree with him if he means it.
Is he saying that because it's what he believes, or is he saying that for other reasons?
Quote:
Quote:
Tom Heckert says we're fine at that position.
Well, everyone has an opinion I guess.. I don't agree with him if he means it.
Is he saying that because it's what he believes, or is he saying that for other reasons?
I think he said it before the season... he said we were fine at a lot of positions when I'm sure deep down he knew they would need to be addressed in the not too distant future.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tom Heckert says we're fine at that position.
Well, everyone has an opinion I guess.. I don't agree with him if he means it.
Is he saying that because it's what he believes, or is he saying that for other reasons?
I think he said it before the season... he said we were fine at a lot of positions when I'm sure deep down he knew they would need to be addressed in the not too distant future.
Ahh, that makes a ton more sense. Knowing what we know now, I think we have issues. As long as Heckert knows it, then that's a step in the right direction..
Quote:
Ahh, that makes a ton more sense. Knowing what we know now, I think we have issues. As long as Heckert knows it, then that's a step in the right direction..
If Heckert didn't know we had RT problems before we had Pashos, when we signed Pashos and this year, then we've got some issues.
I remember when people said he'd be the answer. My wise self said, "Who the heck is this pistashos? Sounds like a joke to me" 
I mean the guy didn't play the season before. He didn't play last year. So why would we think he'd show up this year? And he supposidly wasn't particularly good when we got him anyway.
I mean it's easy to upgrade St. Clair, that guy was the worst. But that doesn't mean you solved the huge problem..........
Quote:
I love this one the best Courtesy of this Anarchy dude...
"Go get the QB NEXT YEAR"...
2 problems with that...
1) We won't be drafting in the Top 10...Even with McCoy this is a 500 team...
2) There is no QB the quality of Luck in 2013...
For the record, I don't know what my view about taking a QB will be next year, but if I support taking one and we're in a position to get Barkley (or whoever the top-ranked QB prospect will be) then I might be in support of it.
I have no problem with who I think the current starting QB will be next year for the Browns. Yeah, I think it's going to be Colt McCoy and Tom Heckert essentially said that's the case. Maybe it's a smokescreen and maybe it isn't. We'll have to see.
In my view, I'd be more in favor of giving McCoy some weapons or building a stifling defense here in Cleveland. We have a great foundation for such a defense and I wouldn't necessary oppose going all-in on the defensive side of the ball and seeking some short-term answers on the offense (even going after aging veterans - Donald Driver anyone?) to give McCoy some weapons to throw to and then going all in.
On the other hand, I wouldn't object to them going all-in on the offense and giving McCoy some major weapons and upgrading the OL.
I suspect that we'll see a mix of offensive and defensive selections in the draft.
Quote:
2) There is no QB the quality of Luck in 2013...
Sure there is. Just wait until this time next year and the next great "greatest prospect since Archie Manning" will be getting pimped left and right on here.
It happens EVERY year. EVERY year there is that one QB that everybody holds up above all else and he gets hyped to the gills.
Next year will be no different.
(and after that draft, in the first year, that over hyped prospect will get outplayed by some lower round prospect, lol)
Quote:
For the record, I don't know what my view about taking a QB will be next year, but if I support taking one and we're in a position to get Barkley (or whoever the top-ranked QB prospect will be) then I might be in support of it.
I have no problem with who I think the current starting QB will be next year for the Browns. Yeah, I think it's going to be Colt McCoy and Tom Heckert essentially said that's the case. Maybe it's a smokescreen and maybe it isn't. We'll have to see.
In my view, I'd be more in favor of giving McCoy some weapons or building a stifling defense here in Cleveland. We have a great foundation for such a defense and I wouldn't necessary oppose going all-in on the defensive side of the ball and seeking some short-term answers on the offense (even going after aging veterans - Donald Driver anyone?) to give McCoy some weapons to throw to and then going all in.
On the other hand, I wouldn't object to them going all-in on the offense and giving McCoy some major weapons and upgrading the OL.
I suspect that we'll see a mix of offensive and defensive selections in the draft.
Very well put and I have said essentially the same things. And Yes every year there is a QB in the draft that is the next greatest thing. Every Year single year since I can remember. The best draft ever with Couch and Akili, Jamarcus Russel was going to take the league by storm, Quinn was about as solid and sure thing as could be, Newton. There will always be that QB in every draft. The media wouldn't have it any other way. Next year it could be someone that comes out of the blue. Take a look at the 2013 Mocks. Matt Barkley #1, Tyler Bray #2, Tyler Wilson at 27. That is not counting the guys like a Robert Griffin that weren't even a blip the year before.
Quote:
Quote:
For the record, I don't know what my view about taking a QB will be next year, but if I support taking one and we're in a position to get Barkley (or whoever the top-ranked QB prospect will be) then I might be in support of it.
I have no problem with who I think the current starting QB will be next year for the Browns. Yeah, I think it's going to be Colt McCoy and Tom Heckert essentially said that's the case. Maybe it's a smokescreen and maybe it isn't. We'll have to see.
In my view, I'd be more in favor of giving McCoy some weapons or building a stifling defense here in Cleveland. We have a great foundation for such a defense and I wouldn't necessary oppose going all-in on the defensive side of the ball and seeking some short-term answers on the offense (even going after aging veterans - Donald Driver anyone?) to give McCoy some weapons to throw to and then going all in.
On the other hand, I wouldn't object to them going all-in on the offense and giving McCoy some major weapons and upgrading the OL.
I suspect that we'll see a mix of offensive and defensive selections in the draft.
Very well put and I have said essentially the same things. And Yes every year there is a QB in the draft that is the next greatest thing. Every Year single year since I can remember. The best draft ever with Couch and Akili, Jamarcus Russel was going to take the league by storm, Quinn was about as solid and sure thing as could be, Newton. There will always be that QB in every draft. The media wouldn't have it any other way. Next year it could be someone that comes out of the blue. Take a look at the 2013 Mocks. Matt Barkley #1, Tyler Bray #2, Tyler Wilson at 27. That is not counting the guys like a Robert Griffin that weren't even a blip the year before.
Exactly, exactly, exactly. And yet some people are willing to trade anything to get this year's "best since...." Then we here about Newton - his team scored more points this year, so it was all Newton - we HAVE to get a qb. What we don't here is "his team finished 6-10, and he was drafted without trading 3 first round picks to get him".
Or we here about Rodgers - who sat and learned for years - or Brees - or Stafford, or whoever..........(stafford won as many playoff games this year as Colt did - or any Cleveland qb since 1999).
Then comes the Tom Brady thing - you have to have an elite qb like brady..........who was a 6th round pick.........
Brady is the only qb I can think of that did well early in his career - yet some people want us to trade anything for Luck ......er, well, since we won't get him, it turned to "get Barkley".......er, well, since he's not coming out, it's "get RG".........and if not him, Tannehill....
Next year will be the same.
Especially coming from a certain few posters IF we draft a qb this year, and IF they hold the drafted qb to the same standards they hold our current qb. As in, win, now, or you suck.
Damn - I hate being "that guy that sticks up for Colt", as I'm not convinced he's all that and a bag of chips - but I'm also not blinded by idiocy into thinking it's all Colt's fault.
Quote:
yet some people want us to trade anything for Luck ......er, well, since we won't get him, it turned to "get Barkley".......er, well, since he's not coming out, it's "get RG".........and if not him, Tannehill....
oh my God.. .that is so accurate, and so very sad, because that is EXACTLY how it has gone on here since December.
Quote:
Quote:
yet some people want us to trade anything for Luck ......er, well, since we won't get him, it turned to "get Barkley".......er, well, since he's not coming out, it's "get RG".........and if not him, Tannehill....
oh my God.. .that is so accurate, and so very sad, because that is EXACTLY how it has gone on here since December.
And yet I get accused by someone as being a Colt fan.
Quote:
Exactly, exactly, exactly. And yet some people are willing to trade anything to get this year's "best since...." Then we here about Newton - his team scored more points this year, so it was all Newton - we HAVE to get a qb. What we don't here is "his team finished 6-10, and he was drafted without trading 3 first round picks to get him".
Or we here about Rodgers - who sat and learned for years - or Brees - or Stafford, or whoever..........(stafford won as many playoff games this year as Colt did - or any Cleveland qb since 1999).
Then comes the Tom Brady thing - you have to have an elite qb like brady..........who was a 6th round pick.........
Brady is the only qb I can think of that did well early in his career - yet some people want us to trade anything for Luck ......er, well, since we won't get him, it turned to "get Barkley".......er, well, since he's not coming out, it's "get RG".........and if not him, Tannehill....
Next year will be the same.
Especially coming from a certain few posters IF we draft a qb this year, and IF they hold the drafted qb to the same standards they hold our current qb. As in, win, now, or you suck.
Damn - I hate being "that guy that sticks up for Colt", as I'm not convinced he's all that and a bag of chips - but I'm also not blinded by idiocy into thinking it's all Colt's fault.
Arch, maybe one day you and I will grab a beer! I think the same things. It's constantly move on to the next one and he's great..no he sucks, then he's great and then he suck's again..and onto the next one. I'm not sure McCoy is the long term answer. It certainly be great if he was though. Not because he is Colt but because that would mean we can stop this nonsense on here.
There is not one analyst or Knowledgable(hope i spelled that right or it would be quite ironic) football person out there that hasn't commented on the serious lack of talent on the offensive side of the ball on the Browns. I think I have heard them called the worst wide receivers in the league(When we had Robiskie more so) or how bad the line play, play calling, injuries, youth, the change over, lack of offseason has hurt them. They haven't pinned it all on Colt and rightfully so. I have heard comments from a laughing Kurt Warner say I"I wouldn't know where to go with that ball with these routes." I think it is widely known that Shurmer's play calling was pretty horendous this year, and I have a feeling that Big Ol' Holmy wasn't too pleased. Drpped balls kill teams...they kill drives, they are bad and do as much to hurt a team as a TO sometimes. Yet on here they are discounted. You want to know how much they hurt just go ask the Packers! Aaron Rodgers looked pretty pretty normal back there with pressure in his face and guys dropping balls.
Anyway, I'm all for Giving Colt another year and building the team. I'm all for seeing the continuity and progress of a season and having an offseason with a few more weapons. I don't believe we will make the playoff's next year but believe significant progress will be seen and made from everyone as a whole, including the Coaches. So what's the worst that can Happen? You are another year more established in the system you have continually brought in better players and they develop a year and if Colt is visibally not the answer you get him next year. You will have a more solid and established team more ready to support a young QB and his chances of stepping in and being good, not going through this, and having succes are even better and for us as a team to do better right away like a Roethlessburger or Flacco..He will have a better D behind him to boot.
This talk about how EVERY year there is "The next great QB!!" is ridiculous...
Usually there is a QB that is rated better than others in his draft class, like any position...
But to say guys like Cam Newton, and JaMarcus Russel were touted as "The Best QB in 20 years!" is just asanine...
Sam Bradford was thought to be a REALLY GOOD prospect coming out, but even he had questins (Coming from the Spread, Injury History)
Brady Quinn came from a Pro Style offense, and was "Coached Up" by Charlie Weiss, but those were things that assisted him, But beyond that, not much was there, hence a drop to the 20s...
I don't care if people don't want to trade up for Luck, And I'm occasionally a fan of being extreme to make a point, But that's usually toned with sarcasm...
But some of the reasons you guys are giving are ludacris...
Don't get me wrong. I like Luck a lot. I think he is the best QB prospect to come along in some years. I don't O over first round QB's though, I just don't. But You can't even say that it isn't the same every year. Luck is special, so it's valid but special is the same every year to some. Whether it was Bradford, or Jamarcus, I remember people on here about crying over Sanchez and that we ruined the franchise yada yada..Think about it.
Ludacris was a rap group or something, wasn't it?
Ludicrous I believe.....think that's the word you wanted.
Regardless, I'm not the spelling police.
However, as to your point, I believe you are wrong. Every year we get the "this guy is a can't miss" crap. Yes, every year.
In fact, we already have a "proven" can't miss guy for next year - Barkley. And, I guarantee, there will be 1 or 2 or maybe 3 more "can't miss" qb options next year. It happens EVERY year.
And, every year, about 50% of the top 5 or 10 draft picks end up being nothing but average.
I agree with you.
Yes every year people cry "wolf". But every so often there is an actual WOLF!
And Luck is it.
Of course the media is going to do anything that draws attention to the draft and playing up the QB position is the most effective way to get people who don't normally pay attention..to pay attention.
But for people who do pay attention every year...well this year is truly different.
Just read an article about Gunner Kiel. The article quotes scouts saying already looks like a first round draft pick, as well as comparing favorably to Peyton Manning. So I guess the 2015 draft is covered as well by the next next Peyton Manning.
LOL!
Quote:
But for people who do pay attention every year...well this year is truly different.
I agree. I've never really pushed to get any quarterback. I wanted Joe Thomas when Russell and Quinn were the QBs. I wasn't interested in Sanchez. Wasn't all about Matt Ryan. I was nervous about injury issues with Sam Bradford. I wasn't gaga over Newton or Blaine Griffith (Griffin?)
I was very happy when we got Colt McCoy. Thought we got great value. But I didn't want him in the first or second round..............
This year though, I see a guy I really like. The first time I'm pushing for a QB since Ben Rothlisberger or when Rogers fell to us with the third pick..........
Andrew Luck looks like the real deal to me. You just can't pass up an opportunity to get that. A great QB makes your chances of being a good team sky rocket.
Sure, teams can do it without great QBs. But it's a lot harder without one. Just look at the last teams that have won superbowls. It's very rare to win it without one.
May be there's people on this board that pop woodies for every QB that comes along. But there's definitely some of us that don't. And if there's some feasible way we can get the guy on our team, I'm all in
Quote:
Quote:
But for people who do pay attention every year...well this year is truly different.
I agree. I've never really pushed to get any quarterback. I wanted Joe Thomas when Russell and Quinn were the QBs. I wasn't interested in Sanchez. Wasn't all about Matt Ryan. I was nervous about injury issues with Sam Bradford. I wasn't gaga over Newton or Blaine Griffith (Griffin?)
I was very happy when we got Colt McCoy. Thought we got great value. But I didn't want him in the first or second round..............
This year though, I see a guy I really like. The first time I'm pushing for a QB since Ben Rothlisberger or when Rogers fell to us with the third pick..........
Andrew Luck looks like the real deal to me. You just can't pass up an opportunity to get that. A great QB makes your chances of being a good team sky rocket.
Sure, teams can do it without great QBs. But it's a lot harder without one. Just look at the last teams that have won superbowls. It's very rare to win it without one.
May be there's people on this board that pop woodies for every QB that comes along. But there's definitely some of us that don't. And if there's some feasible way we can get the guy on our team, I'm all in
So Say if we don't draft a QB and Next year say we need to draft one. You won't be on board with trading the 16th pick and say a pick we grab this year from trading down for matt barkley? The thing is there will be. I understand Luck is special..but to some they have that guy every year. They live for it and when that team does crappy and the young QB is learning makes mistakes they move on to the next one..That is the only problem. Very few QB's come into the league and just light it up, even the top tier passers didn't all start out there careers that great now try doing it here under the conditions we were in. The ones that do usually have a solid team around them or are allowed the time to build a solid team around them. Here it is not the case. We flop Qb's every year and switch coaching staffs every 2-3 and the process starts over again. Then we switch defenses and we have to reload personell and then we switch offenses or strategy and we have to switch personell. Waiting a year hurts no one and you increase your chances of being able to lure a free agent like a Brees like the saints did and be succesful.
Then there is Griffin now he is great and the answer to everything. Now people want to trade everything and get him.,,and next year it wil be Barkley and if not Barkley it will be Tyler Bray unless the next Robert Griffin comes along and then its him. I don't think Luck is the problem because I think people know he has potential to be very good. I think people have a problem with the cost or not having a team around him or too many holes. Besides that it is redundent(sp) with some yearly.
Quote:
So Say if we don't draft a QB and Next year say we need to draft one. You won't be on board with trading the 16th pick and say a pick we grab this year from trading down for matt barkley? The thing is there will be. I understand Luck is special..but to some they have that guy every year. They live for it and when that team does crappy and the young QB is learning makes mistakes they move on to the next one..That is the only problem. Very few QB's come into the league and just light it up, even the top tier passers didn't all start out there careers that great now try doing it here under the conditions we were in. The ones that do usually have a solid team around them or are allowed the time to build a solid team around them. Here it is not the case. We flop Qb's every year and switch coaching staffs every 2-3 and the process starts over again. Then we switch defenses and we have to reload personell and then we switch offenses or strategy and we have to switch personell. Waiting a year hurts no one and you increase your chances of being able to lure a free agent like a Brees like the saints did and be succesful.
1) No one thought Brees would get to the level where he is. Not when he was a free agent. He was coming off shoulder surgery.
2) Luck is a once in a long while prospect........... I would've wanted the guy last year and he didn't come out.
3) I don't look for Luck to light it up for us this year. I look at it as an investment. Something that pays itself off in the future
4) If we draft Andrew Luck we won't be flopping QBs every year. And hopefully now that we have Heckert and Holmgren, we'll have some sort of stability. Whether Shurmur stays or goes, I expect Heckert to at least stay. We got ourselves a good GM
Barkley seems like a nice pick. But what makes you think we'll have the ammunition to trade up for him? And Barkley is not in the same class as Luck anyway. I would have taken Andrew Luck, the junior, over this year's Barkley.
There's a guy who's gonna be a superstar in the NFL draft. He plays quarterback, the most important position on the football field. If we can get him, we should.
I don't even dislike Colt McCoy. I like the guy. I really hope he succeeds. I just don't think he has the tools to ever be a very good QB.
I get that some people on this board drool over QBs every year. I don't. And I feel like you're acting like there will be another Andrew Luck next year, and the year after. There won't be. Not the same caliber.
This year we have the 4th pick of the draft. We have another 1st round pick this year. If any team is in a good position to trade up to get the guy, we are. So if we can make it happen, we should.
Quote:
1) No one thought Brees would get to the level where he is. Not when he was a free agent. He was coming off shoulder surgery.
2) Luck is a once in a long while prospect........... I would've wanted the guy last year and he didn't come out.
3) I don't look for Luck to light it up for us this year. I look at it as an investment. Something that pays itself off in the future
4) If we draft Andrew Luck we won't be flopping QBs every year. And hopefully now that we have Heckert and Holmgren, we'll have some sort of stability. Whether Shurmur stays or goes, I expect Heckert to at least stay. We got ourselves a good GM
Barkley seems like a nice pick. But what makes you think we'll have the ammunition to trade up for him? And Barkley is not in the same class as Luck anyway. I would have taken Andrew Luck, the junior, over this year's Barkley.
There's a guy who's gonna be a superstar in the NFL draft. He plays quarterback, the most important position on the football field. If we can get him, we should.
I don't even dislike Colt McCoy. I like the guy. I really hope he succeeds. I just don't think he has the tools to ever be a very good QB.
I get that some people on this board drool over QBs every year. I don't. And I feel like you're acting like there will be another Andrew Luck next year, and the year after. There won't be. Not the same caliber.
This year we have the 4th pick of the draft. We have another 1st round pick this year. If any team is in a good position to trade up to get the guy, we are. So if we can make it happen, we should.
I don't know if they thought he would get to that level but Sean Payton wanted him to be his QB and Brees very well could have been in Miami where who knows what would have happened. Believe me I get what you are saying. I understand..I do. I don't think you see what I am saying and some others but that is probably on me.
Quote:
Waiting a year hurts no one
I disagree slightly with this, Trading up this year to get Luck versus Trading up next year to get Barkley (which everyone seems to be fine with, awkward)
If we Trade up to get Luck, THIS YEAR, then he has this entire TC and Regular Season to get accumulated to our offense and the NFL, so saying you lose NOTHING by waiting a year is slightly innacurate...
Quote:
Then there is Griffin now he is great and the answer to everything. Now people want to trade everything and get him
I don't want to draft Griffin in the top 10 let alone trade up for him, I don't think theres any chance we trade up for RG3, if we're trading up it better be for Luck.
Quote:
I disagree slightly with this, Trading up this year to get Luck versus Trading up next year to get Barkley (which everyone seems to be fine with, awkward)
If we Trade up to get Luck, THIS YEAR, then he has this entire TC and Regular Season to get accumulated to our offense and the NFL, so saying you lose NOTHING by waiting a year is slightly innacurate...
Which brings me to the points I mentioned. I think there will be very visible improvements on Offense, Defense, Coaching, etc. Just from having a year more and an offseason and a strong draft. If we don't have that we still have that year more in the system, a reliable back-up and a better team. If you haven't noticed the best QB's in the league are going to be watching the Super Bowl from the same spot as McCoy...their Couch. I think if we have a great team and time we don't need Luck to be the QB, we will be able to get there with McCoy and a great team or be able to get a Barkley or Bray plug them in and have the same success.
Quote:
I don't want to draft Griffin in the top 10 let alone trade up for him, I don't think theres any chance we trade up for RG3, if we're trading up it better be for Luck.
This we agree on!
seriously do you really think that the Colts are going to trade that first pick?
If so, what are they going to want. and please, throw away the draft value chart..
Just throwing in my opinion (which you probably have already seen)
I'd trade 4, 22, 1st next year, later 4th, 5th. If they say no. I'd be willing to go no higher than 4, 22, 1st next year, 3rd, 4th. May be 4, 22, 1st next year, and 2nd (then we have to trade our 3rd and our 1st fourth to move up into the 2nd to get our RT)
If they say no. That's fine. Move on............ But i'd like to at least try. I don't think I could give up our 2nd because we'll probably need someone with that pick (right tackle). I'd like to have a 3rd to pick up a RB (assuming Hillis is gone). I hope to sign a DE and WR in FA, I just don't think we'll find a RT worth a damn in FA. We never have, so I'm not getting my hopes up now.
The fact that we have that number 4 pick, which can get them one of the elite players of the draft, is key
But as I said, we can't get him, no big deal. We'll still have a good draft
Quote:
seriously do you really think that the Colts are going to trade that first pick?
If so, what are they going to want. and please, throw away the draft value chart..
I don't even know if Indy knows what they are going to do... I really think it depends on Manning and who their new coach is...
But I posted in another thread a trade that I think is fair and could actually happen...
Indy Gets
2012 #4
2012 #22
2012 4th Round
2013 1st Round
2013 3rd Round
Cle Gets
2012 #1
2012 5th Round
2013 4th Round
We're losing the #22 and next years first and moving around some late rounds picks, I think it's realistic for both teams if Indy wants to go all in with Manning to win now etc. And hey, look, we still have draft picks!
why would indy send us back random 5th and 4th rounders (when we are also sending them 5th and 4th rounders?) that doesn't make any sense
Because they are getting later value by moving later picks up...
Quote:
Because they are getting later value by moving later picks up...
Right - trades tend to be as simple as possible, they don't usually randomly add on additional picks from both sides (see the Falcons trade last year - we only sent our first away for a bunch of things).
You only see the "and a swap of 5ths" or something, when the two picks are in the same year, but at very different points of the 5th round -- in our case the Colts and Browns pick very close, so that swap is pretty meaningless.
A trade like yours (which I don't think will happen, but that's a different argument), would be more likely to look like:
Browns:
#1 Overall
Colts:
#4
#22
4th round pick
2013 1st Round Pick
Quote:
I'd trade 4, 22, 1st next year, later 4th, 5th. If they say no. I'd be willing to go no higher than 4, 22, 1st next year, 3rd, 4th. May be 4, 22, 1st next year, and 2nd (then we have to trade our 3rd and our 1st fourth to move up into the 2nd to get our RT)
There probably is no way I could be convinced to do that.. I can't believe anyone would.
I don't believe Indy would accept that and I don't believe any team would pay that.
We ain't getting Luck. With Irsay cleaning house up in Indy and checking his piggy bank for an extra 30 some million for a 36 year old QB with a bad neck and see them rebuilding with the new GM, Coach and Andrew Luck.
Quote:
Quote:
I'd trade 4, 22, 1st next year, later 4th, 5th. If they say no. I'd be willing to go no higher than 4, 22, 1st next year, 3rd, 4th. May be 4, 22, 1st next year, and 2nd (then we have to trade our 3rd and our 1st fourth to move up into the 2nd to get our RT)
There probably is no way I could be convinced to do that.. I can't believe anyone would.
I don't believe Indy would accept that and I don't believe any team would pay that.
It's pretty much the same thing the Giants gave San Diego for Eli, except for the #22 pick. And the Giants made out on that deal IMO See this article
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/10278...draft-after-all
I really think it helps our chances of getting Luck. The old GM was pretty much set on going Luck. The new GM Grigson is Great friends with Heckert. I think he wants more picks and to start rebuilding this aging franchise.
You have the Colts roster including Peyton Manning. The Browns offer you their #4, #22 and #38 for Andrew Luck. That means you have 4 picks in the top 40. You could add your future QB, DE, and Receiver ad fill the current need at corner. Those 3 picks are trade chart value and teams arent going to stay to far from that chart.
If we do that then we really need to hit some home runs in free agency and in the mid rounds of the draft. I gotta say it makes alot of sense for both teams.
you rebuild with a QB.. you don't give up Luck for picks in that situation. just give it up.. its not happening.
Hello!! You Play to Win the Game!! lol
Drafting Luck does not win you a single game as long as Peyton can play. You can draft and groom someone behind Manning. You dont draft a #1 to sit for 3 or 4 years. That would be about as stupid a move as they could make. Hell Luck would forget how to play QB playing behind Manning.
Quote:
We ain't getting Luck. With Irsay cleaning house up in Indy and checking his piggy bank for an extra 30 some million for a 36 year old QB with a bad neck and see them rebuilding with the new GM, Coach and Andrew Luck.
x2
Quote:
I don't even know if Indy knows what they are going to do... I really think it depends on Manning and who their new coach is...
I think they knew the moment they found out they had the top pick..in fact, I'm guessing they knew when it became apparent that they were in the running for the 1st pick..
The only thing that could change thier thinking is if suddenly, Luck came up lame at the combine or totally bombed at the combine or in interviews. Or if some team was willing to give up thier some absolutly insane draft picks.. and what you propose isn't what I'd consider enough.. Not to give up potentially 10 or more years of winning football.
It's just my guess, but if Indy thinks Luck is all that he's supposed to be.. he's thier first choice.. boom, done deal, it's over.
Why do I say that? Well put yourself in Irsays shoes..
You've had one of the best QB's in Payton Maning ever to play the game.
Are you going to pass up a chance to get another franchise QB for the next 10 + years? My guess is that you will not.
As far as Manning, I think Irsay will work a deal to keep him. And if he can play, he'll start, Luck will sit and watch and learn.
I think it's a done deal.
As for why the browns won't do it.. it kills the franchise for two or three years more. dooming them to be bad for at least that long.
Now, if they wanna take RG3 if they think he's the guy at the number 4 spot, I don't have a problem with it. none.
but to give up all that to get a guy that may or may not be for real? I don't think so.
I find it funny, some folks on here think that it's reasonable to give up 3 firsts and some other later picks to move up to get Andrew Luck, But I bet these are the same folks that IF we had that first pick, would go nuts if the Browns would consider trading it away. 
Quote:
Quote:
I'd trade 4, 22, 1st next year, later 4th, 5th. If they say no. I'd be willing to go no higher than 4, 22, 1st next year, 3rd, 4th. May be 4, 22, 1st next year, and 2nd (then we have to trade our 3rd and our 1st fourth to move up into the 2nd to get our RT)
There probably is no way I could be convinced to do that.. I can't believe anyone would.
I don't believe Indy would accept that and I don't believe any team would pay that.
Gotta believe that's a classic one.
So no one would offer that much because it's way too much.
But you don't think Indy would accept it.
I wouldnt trade up for anyone, but I think it is a very strong possibility. I would rather trade down pick up another 2nd and walk out with Richardson, Tannehill, Mercilus and Dwight Jones.
I think the Browns ultimately would benefit the most by selling the farm for luck.
With that said I think there's a sweet spot in the 20-40 range where there are a lot of players that would be impact starters in 2012 for the Browns.
Janoris Jenkins CB North Alabama (O)
*Nick Perry DE Southern California (OLB)
Melvin Ingram DE South Carolina
*Mohamed Sanu WR Rutgers
Ryan Tannehill QB Texas A&M
Kelechi Osemele OG/OT Iowa State
Mike Adams OT Ohio State
*Whitney Mercilus DE Illinois
*Stephon Gilmore CB South Carolina
Lavonte David LB Nebraska
Zebrie Sanders OT Florida State
Chase Minnifield CB Virginia
*Donta' Hightower LB Alabama
*Rueben Randle WR LSU
Jared Crick 5T Nebraska (X)
*Chris Polk RB Washington
Dwight Jones WR North Carolina
Vinny Curry DE Marshall
Brandon Weeden QB Oklahoma State (O)
Bruce Irvin OLB/DE West Virginia
Therefor a trade down from 4 into this range with a 2013 #1 and a second rounder is appealing as well. Kind of like our Julio Jones trade.
Anyone in the 20s need RG3?
Ton of teams needing receiver and corner. RG3 will go #2 overall, pretty sure of that unless the Skins trade all the way to #1 to take him.
Quote:
I wouldnt trade up for anyone, but I think it is a very strong possibility. I would rather trade down pick up another 2nd and walk out with Richardson, Tannehill, Mercilus and Dwight Jones.
Finally with an intelligent FO a draft like that might actually happen.
I'm still curious if they're thinking Flynn or Tannehill at this point.
j/c
I really want to draft Blackmon, but Kalil as a bookend to Thomas would be awesome. As for QB, I'd like to make a play for Flynn or trade (almost anything) for Luck BUT anyone else would have to fall to us. I'm not even sure I want RG3 if he falls to us, I think I'd trade down then. The first three picks determine what we do.
Colt doesn't get the auto nod from me, but I have no problem giving him another year or so either. The only problem is that if the FO fails to make a change at QB (or at least bring in competition), I think their future will be tied to Colt's.
Quote:
Hello!! You Play to Win the Game!! lol
Drafting Luck does not win you a single game as long as Peyton can play. You can draft and groom someone behind Manning. You dont draft a #1 to sit for 3 or 4 years. That would be about as stupid a move as they could make. Hell Luck would forget how to play QB playing behind Manning.
The "It ain't happenin'" crew won't understand this...BUT...
As much as alot of fans say "No one player is worth that much"...U can twist that around and say "No one player is worth so much that we can PASS on that kinda deal"...
First off...I'm SHOCKED Indy fell apart that damn bad losing ONE PLAYER...I thought they would still be an 8-8 team without Manning...I was wrong...Bigtime wrong...That tells one that that roster sucks wind from top to bottom...
So what do you do???...They can say all they want that they are taking Luck...Right now they have yet to hear ANY OFFER for that #1 pick...As much as I think they will go Luck...I'm just as sure they will not hang up the phone on a Browns team...They WILL listen...
It's a given they need to replace an aging QB...Do they feel they need to do it NOW or can they wait till 2013 to do it...That's a burning question in Indy...
What could they do with an offer from the Browns...And still get a QB that might SIT behind Manning for a year???...Pretty simple folks...There's THREE options in Round One...Having the #4 and #22 picks...
1) RGIII at 4...(How u say???)...We take Luck and the likelihood of Griffin at 4 is REAL...WE r the team the Skins and Miami know they need to get ahead of for RGIII...Indy gets em' at 4...Option #1...
2) Tannehill at #22...
3) Targeting Tannehill...Move DOWN again with Skins or Miami...Take Tanny there and get yet ANOTHER 2013 1st Rounder...
There's your QB of the future to go along with up to FIVE First Rounders the next 2 years...One could argue Indy would be STUPID...Possibly IRRESPONSIBLE passing those deals up for ONE PLAYER...
I know one thing GUARANTEED...
We are either getting Luck at #1 OR we r still gonna have an outstanding draft having 4 & 22 plus high picks in 2-3-4...This is a major Win-Win for the Browns...And I don't care how many times we hear Schefter & Mort spout off that Indy's going Luck...NOTHING is set until they make the actual pick...
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldnt trade up for anyone, but I think it is a very strong possibility. I would rather trade down pick up another 2nd and walk out with Richardson, Tannehill, Mercilus and Dwight Jones.
Finally with an intelligent FO a draft like that might actually happen.
I'm still curious if they're thinking Flynn or Tannehill at this point.
I like both of those options.
Flynn allows us to keep our picks.
Tannehill allows us to trade down a bit from #4 to select him and pick up say a 2nd rounder and possibly a 4th-5th rounder.
Of the rookies, I have a feeling Tannehill is going to end up the best QB. Maybe not year 1, but say in 4 years.
Actually, even better, Flynn would allow us to acquire more picks. We sign Flynn as a FA then it's obvious we are not going RG3 in the draft. Teams looking to move up in the draft for RG3 can now try to barter with us instead of St. Louis as moving to 4 should be cheaper than moving to 2.
I hate the idea of taking Flynn. I think that he is "just another QB body", and we've had enough of those floating through here in the past decade.
We'll see what the FO thinks down the road.
Quote:
Of course the media is going to do anything that draws attention to the draft and playing up the QB position is the most effective way to get people who don't normally pay attention..to pay attention.
That's because most fans want to believe they are only one position away from turning their 4 win team into a 10 win team and most people find it easier to believe that the position in need is the QB.... it's the easiest story to sell.
and I think he's a QB who has had time to learn the WCO, understands the offense and the adjustments that need to be made based on defenses he is seeing and has demonstrated that he is capable in limited opportunities.
Yes, he has had all of that.
However, he is still largely the same QB he was when he was drafted. he has developed some, and has learned the offense ..... but he still possesses many of the same physical limitations that he did back then, and I have a feeling that those limitations will have the team that overbids for him regretting it. We have seen QBs light it up in very limited duty only to have the bottom drop out when they get greater exposure. If we sign him, then I hope this is not the case, but I have this feeling that he is not a guy to take us to the Super Bowl, and if he isn't a guy capable of doing this, then we should stay with what we have and save the team a lot of money or look in a different direction.
i'm not 100% on him. he has obvious risks. however, I don't think he has any more risk than RGIII. in fact, given the 'win now or else' mentality of the NFL, I would actually say he has a bit less.
as far as physical limitations, he quickly proved that he could overcome those by beating out Brohm for the backup job (2nd round pick in same draft) and Clements has had years to work on his technique with him (as he did with Rodgers before getting the nod).
is it enough to be a viable starter for the next 5-10 years? i have no idea. defenses need to see him to get a book on him and he has to prove he can adjust to that (and then keep adjusting). impossible to know today.
He'll definitely be an interesting case to watch over the next few years, as some team is probably going to guarantee upwards of $25 million and invest upwards of $50 million to see what he's got.
I just hope that we make the right decision at QB, whatever course we take.
Quote:
and I think he's a QB who has had time to learn the WCO, understands the offense and the adjustments that need to be made based on defenses he is seeing and has demonstrated that he is capable in limited opportunities.
And I THINK he's a QB that hasn't seen squat for playing time...Has NEVER been planned against by any Defensive Coordinator...And is on a team that has a HUGE advantage of plugging in any QB simply due to the fact that that said QB has been there for some time...
Here's a question for u Fynn homers...
U see what NY did to GB and Rogers Sunday?...Do u understand how it happened?...Flynn woulda been a Deer in the Lights Sunday...Rogers just SUCKED...
GB didn't lose because of dropped passes...They lost because the Giants did what everyone should do to dispupt a TIMING OFFENSE...Pressure UP THE GUT...
Flynn woulda been a lost cause in the same situation...
NO THANK YOU AT THE $ HE WILL GET...Go to WASHINGTON...
I think that I would be quite ecstatic if Flynn wound up in Washington.
I would be happy if Flynn and RG3 would end up in Washington together.
any and every QB looks bad under constant pressure....is that really supposed to be an argument against flynn? that he's inadequate because even aaron rogers couldn't beat the pressure? thats some rock solid logic there...
you sure all the flynn hate isn't because he laid OSU to waste in the national championship game?
cause as i see it, college careers were similar...one good year. difference being LSU is in a real football conference with real football defenses...personally, college performance isn't really important to me. flynn has 3 years more experience griffin does. that in and of itself means his impact would be felt sooner.
cause i seem to remember another smart big 12 QB, the winning-est college QB of all time, struggling mightily to execute this offense from under center. threads galore about how shurmur wont let him play from the shotgun and the offense needs changed to suit colts strengths. so the next most intelligent thing to do would be to throw a rookie who displays the very same red flags into this rigid offense and expect different results. i mean, cam newton is good, right? im sure we can find plenty of other spots to burn all that cap space, rather than use it on a young QB thats already been in the WCO for 3 years.
lmao....
seriously people...try reading a scouting report on griffin for a change. its a nice mismatch of positives and negatives.
you bring up alot of good points there but Griffin had more than 1 good year.
and that Baylor's O-Line was terrible and he was under pretty much constant pressure all year when he put up his numbers.
Quote:
cause as i see it, college careers were similar...one good year.
I'm not going to get too deep into this.. but..
in Flynn's "one good year" he completed 56.3% of his passes for 2407 yards, 21 TDs and 11 INTs.. rushed for 215 yards (this includes sack yardage)
in RGIII's "one good year" he completed 72.4% of his passes for 4293 yards, 37 TDs and 6 INTs... rushed for 700 yards (also includes sack yardage)
There is a reason RGIII is considered a top 5 pick and Flynn was taken in the 7th round...
Quote:
you sure all the flynn hate isn't because he laid OSU to waste in the national championship game?
Seriously?
Sure there are a ton of Buckeye fans here (including me) but when it comes to finding the best players for the Browns, I don't think any of us are going to dismiss someone because they had success against Ohio State while in college. If Tom Brady were available I don't see any of us saying "Screw that, he went to UM," (Braylon's delusions notwithstanding). Bob Sanders was pimped huge on this board when he came out of school and he was a major pain to Ohio State. As was Joe Thomas .... did anyone complain when we picked him, because Ohio State defensive players couldn't beat him?
well...sorta true. not bad stats i guess...but one of these things is not like the others...
SEASON CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2011 291 402 4293 72.4 10.68 87 37 6 27 189.5
2010 304 454 3501 67.0 7.71 94 22 8 20 144.2
2009 45 69 481 65.2 6.97 42 4 0 4 142.9
2008 160 267 2091 59.9 7.83 61 15 3 28 142.0
then by comparison
Year School Conf Class Pos Cmp Att Pct Yds Y/A AY/A TD Int Rate
2006 Texas Big 12 FR QB 217 318 68.2 2570 8.1 8.9 29 7 161.8
2007 Texas Big 12 SO QB 276 424 65.1 3303 7.8 6.9 22 18 139.2
2008 Texas Big 12 JR QB 332 433 76.7 3859 8.9 9.7 34 8 173.8
2009 Texas Big 12 SR QB 332 470 70.6 3521 7.5 7.5 27 12 147.4
its frightening how similar their college careers were, no?
this is why i dont put much stock into college numbers. its not a good indicator as to NFL success. its reasonable looking at the above to conclude that griffins last year was an anomaly. more damning than any stats, are the very real parts of his game that are missing. i'd probly be OK with him if our coaches showed any propensity to adjust to the players, but i fear they'd treat him the same as colt. force it down his throat and move on if he fails.
Quote:
you sure all the flynn hate isn't because he laid OSU to waste in the national championship game?
Now THAT'S rock solid logic...
choco,
I'm not really interested in the stats. I watched quite a bit of baylor and the bottom line is the guy is incredibly accurate (puts the ball on the receivers in stride from the pocket, deadly deep ball, hits receivers when running) and has a very strong arm. He adjusts velocity well for the situation. These are things I don't really see in Colt. They both have good pocket escapability. Certainly not Big Ben level, but better than average. They're not the same prospect just because their college numbers are similar and both systems worked primarily from the shotgun.
lol....um....it was an inquiry simply to make you realize he's still done more than your hero...
ill assume your silence on the other points in that post reflect your inability to construct an ample retort.
Quote:
you bring up alot of good points there but Griffin had more than 1 good year.
Yes some very good points that I already agree with [bravo], but saying RG3 had one more good year (at baylor) is really irrelevant, don't you think?
Flynn was not afforded that opportunity, so imo that falls into the unknown category and can not be used for a case for comparison sake.
I think that was a coaching decision and Les Miles is well known for sitting a QB to go with a different look at the position. I see no reason to think that if Flynn was given the opportunity, that he would not have performed to a level that is required.
One more year at Baylor hardly tells us anything on how he will or if he can make the transition to the League.
To reiterate one of those very good points. What system or philosophy he will go to will go a long way in determining how well his (or another's) chance of success will be.
Cam Newton would not have had the year that he had in this offense and I feel pretty confident in that statement or I wouldn't have said it.
We would like to all believe or think that he would have been an upgrade to Colt McCoy, but I'm not so inclined to think that is or should be a given.
He does probably have a higher upside, but I don't think that would have made a difference in our season as far as our record this past year.
Steve Smith made Jake Delhomme look pretty good for years too. Different set of circumstances, but we don't have a talent like him at this point.
see...reading comprehension is really a requirement when posting on the intertubes.
where i typed "frightening how their college careers are similar", you read "they are the same prospect because their numbers are similar and the system is similar".
griffins deep ball accuracy isn't gonna matter one iota for quite some time....least until he learns how to take a snap from under center, correct the horrible footwork, and deliver a ball past his first read (btw, who is that deep guy threat he's gonna throw to?) see...thats where the similar system actually matters. if you dont think so, then you really missed the lesson that was this years football woes.
So, why is it frightening that Griffin had good numerical production in college? I missed that lesson.
Quote:
Yes some very good points that I already agree with [bravo], but saying RG3 had one more good year (at baylor) is really irrelevant, don't you think?
Flynn was not afforded that opportunity, so imo that falls into the unknown category and can not be used for a case for comparison sake.
So then Colt is still an unknown.. because he has not been afforded the opportunity to sit and learn for a few years behind a potential future HOF quarterback in an established system with consistent coaching and with very good weapons..
Quote:
Quote:
cause as i see it, college careers were similar...one good year.
I'm not going to get too deep into this.. but..
in Flynn's "one good year" he completed 56.3% of his passes for 2407 yards, 21 TDs and 11 INTs.. rushed for 215 yards (this includes sack yardage)
in RGIII's "one good year" he completed 72.4% of his passes for 4293 yards, 37 TDs and 6 INTs... rushed for 700 yards (also includes sack yardage)
There is a reason RGIII is considered a top 5 pick and Flynn was taken in the 7th round...
Case Keenum in just "one of his good years" completed 71% of his passes for 5,631 yards, 48 TDs and 5 INTs...He didn't rush for much yardage but scored 3 TD's rushing, but for his career had 23 Rushing TD's.
I would say a much better statistical year than Griffin and yet he did it in the same Briles Houston Offense. Yet he is considered a 7th round pick. Why? because it is Houston and the offense he is in. Which people are not taking into consideration when taking into account Griffin.
If Griffin and Briles were still at Houston(Briles was Coach and Griffin signed to play there), and if Griffin got a chance to play because Keenum was Briles recruit. I don't think he would be considered this top QB because most people understand the buyer beware with a Briles QB and the system he runs.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
cause as i see it, college careers were similar...one good year.
I'm not going to get too deep into this.. but..
in Flynn's "one good year" he completed 56.3% of his passes for 2407 yards, 21 TDs and 11 INTs.. rushed for 215 yards (this includes sack yardage)
in RGIII's "one good year" he completed 72.4% of his passes for 4293 yards, 37 TDs and 6 INTs... rushed for 700 yards (also includes sack yardage)
There is a reason RGIII is considered a top 5 pick and Flynn was taken in the 7th round...
Case Keenum in just "one of his good years" completed 71% of his passes for 5,631 yards, 48 TDs and 5 INTs...He didn't rush for much yardage but scored 3 TD's rushing, but for his career had 23 Rushing TD's.
I would say a much better statistical year than Griffin and yet he did it in the same Briles Houston Offense. Yet he is considered a 7th round pick. Why? because it is Houston and the offense he is in. Which people are not taking into consideration when taking into account Griffin.
If Griffin and Briles were still at Houston(Briles was Coach and Griffin signed to play there), and if Griffin got a chance to play because Keenum was Briles recruit. I don't think he would be considered this top QB because most people understand the buyer beware with a Briles QB and the system he runs.
He said Flynns and RGIIIs careers were similar in that they had one good year.. I was showing that they weren't all that similar. Had Matt Flynn put up the same numbers at any school other than LSU or Alabama, he would have won 5 games and probably would not have been drafted and he might be selling cars today.. so I don't really care what Case Keenums stats were.
So you think that Mel Kiper and Todd McShay and all of the NFL scouts are not taking all of this into consideration?
I would assume that NFL scouts would fall into that "most people" category who would understand that... so if you are right, he will fall dramatically in the draft. If he does not, then obviously the experts see something you don't.
So why didn't AJ McCarren declare then? He had a better year as a sophomore against those same SEC defenses than Flynn had as a senior.. better completion percentage, more yards, better TD:INT ratio... and he didn't lose to Kentucky and Arkansas.
Quote:
If Griffin and Briles were still at Houston(Briles was Coach and Griffin signed to play there), and if Griffin got a chance to play because Keenum was Briles recruit. I don't think he would be considered this top QB because most people understand the buyer beware with a Briles QB and the system he runs.
Interesting point. I wonder if some people are so high on Griffin just because he's NOT McCoy.
Quote:
Quote:
If Griffin and Briles were still at Houston(Briles was Coach and Griffin signed to play there), and if Griffin got a chance to play because Keenum was Briles recruit. I don't think he would be considered this top QB because most people understand the buyer beware with a Briles QB and the system he runs.
Interesting point. I wonder if some people are so high on Griffin just because he's NOT McCoy.
Bingo! And if it wasn't Griffin it would be Barkley and so on..
Quote:
He said Flynns and RGIIIs careers were similar in that they had one good year.. I was showing that they weren't all that similar.
I understand but I thought you took the stats and said there is a reason why one is a 1st round QB and the other is a 7th...I must have mis understood. Honestly I think Kiper and McShay are tools. I think they can take any player and throw them on their board and it would create a buzz. If Kiper and McShay pumped up Keenum and posted his stats there are people on here that would drop 3 first rounders for him. I think Griffin is 1st more so 2nd round material. That is my opinion. I am not an expert but the guy works one side of the field in a one read offense, never took a snap from under center, Is in an offense that damn near everyone completes high 60's to 70 percent of the passes, doesn't understand how to read a defense, never had a playbook, and the offense caters to high percentage throws for a lot of yards and few interceptions. It's the style of offense. I absolutely don't think he is a first round pick. Based on what, his arm strength? First round picks just don't have that much stuff to work on and the numbers skew what peeople actually see. Luck is a first round QB, Griffin is hype. That's my opinion. He can be good, but so can Keenum. But they won't get the saame shot(and no I don't want Keenum anymore than I want Griffin). He needs a buyer beware asterisk by him. I think over time these drafts have become More about Hype which is why there is so much failure from certain 1st round QB's without taking a look at where they were and what they were asked to do and the consistency at which QB's put up those numbers in that offense. I guarantee that the next Baylor QB does just as well as Griffin.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes some very good points that I already agree with [bravo], but saying RG3 had one more good year (at baylor) is really irrelevant, don't you think?
Flynn was not afforded that opportunity, so imo that falls into the unknown category and can not be used for a case for comparison sake.
So then Colt is still an unknown.. because he has not been afforded the opportunity to sit and learn for a few years behind a potential future HOF quarterback in an established system with consistent coaching and with very good weapons..
Apples and oranges old boy.
I was making a reply in response to Nologo's statement, that Griffen had one more year in College as a 'starter.'
As if that has any bearing on how good a player was or was not (at that level), because he happen to not be the starter for more then a year.
They both had a separate set of circumstances and none smaller then what university they played for and the competition for their positions there.
To answer your question ... No! Colt is not at this point a finished product and I fully expect him improve his game, with that said, Colt does have a larger body of work at this level then does Flynn, even though mentally he is some years behind Flynn. True.
There are multiple reasons why Griffin is a top 5 pick and Keenum is a late round QB
1) Griffin's arm is significantly stronger
2) Griffin can extend plays and make something out of nothing with his legs.
3) Griffin played in a significantly stronger conference
4) Griffin was a top player for a long time in one of the best conferences in college football
5) Griffin was able to read defenses, as proven by very low interception numbers
If Keenum had played like he did against top competition with a rocket arm and the ability to run for, on average, about 690 yards per year and extend plays from a broken pocket, then he'd be a top pick.
Instead, he played really well in a trash conference while making bad decisions and showing a weak rainbow arm.
well, Griffin was the starter from day1 that he stepped on campus. He had much more than 1 more year compared to Flynn (though RGIII missed his sophomore campaign to injury).
and, it has been shown in the past that 1 year starters in college have a much lower success rate in the NFL. I can't recall the exact stats on it, but there was a distinct correlation (the original report I think was from SI but had wonderlic involved too and it's been since proven that the wonderlic does NOT have a correlation)
all that being said, I still think Griffin represents more risk than Flynn at this point. Flynn has proven his merit (earning the backup job in GB, having time to learn the WCO, being successful in both stints that he has had the opportunity to play-in), while Griffin is more of an unknown.
don't get me wrong, they both have HUGE questions and there's really know way to make a completely accurate decision at this point, but
If you were equally sure on both (and i'm sure the FO wouldn't rate them as "equal" regardless of which one they like more) -
then you should pay $60M for Flynn (probably about $30M guaranteed) instead of $30M (all guaranteed) and a #4 overall pick (or more) for RG3.
Just my opinion.
Quote:
and, it has been shown in the past that 1 year starters in college have a much lower success rate in the NFL
There is probably some truth to that statistic (and also it could in part explain Flynn's drafted position), but it's probably a pretty week one to go on too as a basis for evaluation proposes. You can only judge anyone on the opportunities that they are presented with.
I always tell my children that's why you have to make the most out of each and everyone (opportunity) you are fortunate enough to be given a chance to prove yourself to someone or some team.
Quote:
If you were equally sure on both (and i'm sure the FO wouldn't rate them as "equal" regardless of which one they like more) -
then you should pay $60M for Flynn (probably about $30M guaranteed) instead of $30M (all guaranteed) and a #4 overall pick (or more) for RG3.
Just my opinion.
i'm thinking it'll be closer to 5yr/$50mil with $20mil in guarantees for Flynn (in lines with Kolb, Fitz, Cassell contracts)
and that's my general feeling right now which is why I prefer Flynn at the moment.
I agree - i was taking an pessimistic view of the cost for Flynn.
My point is that Flynn is much cheaper than RG3 - especially if you have to trade up.
If you think RG3 is much better, then that's immaterial, but otherwise...
My feeling on the Flynn situation is that if you're willing to live with Flynn's natural limitations then just stick with McCoy, coach him up better, call better plays, and give him better wideouts. Flynn is not going to come into Cleveland and throw for 6 TDs and 480 yards in a game just because he has experience in the WCO. Flynn was not a better prospect coming out of college than McCoy. Why is he better? He had time to learn his system and he had excellent talent around him. Flynn is not the type of guy who is going to elevate the players around him. Neither, as we seem to be finding out, is McCoy. I'm in the camp that if one of the two QBs falls to us at 4, you take him. The reason being he would be the best value and offer the most improvement to our team. If they're both gone, stick at 4 and take Blackmon. If he's gone as well, then it gets trickier.
Quote:
Quote:
If you were equally sure on both (and i'm sure the FO wouldn't rate them as "equal" regardless of which one they like more) -
then you should pay $60M for Flynn (probably about $30M guaranteed) instead of $30M (all guaranteed) and a #4 overall pick (or more) for RG3.
Just my opinion.
i'm thinking it'll be closer to 5yr/$50mil with $20mil in guarantees for Flynn (in lines with Kolb, Fitz, Cassell contracts)
and that's my general feeling right now which is why I prefer Flynn at the moment.
And still have all of our Draft picks to improve the other components of the team.
The question that comes to mind is how would signing Flynn have an effect on the top of the Draft board, if teams new they would not have to draft above us to get RG3?
Actually I think it would make our pick the one people were looking to to move up. You've still got WAS, MIA, and SEA looking for QBs. Justin Blackmon is gone at 4 in that scenario. Heckert like to trade down. you could pretty much sew up Luck, Kalil, and Blackmon as the top 3 picks, with STL deciding who Minny would draft IMO.
Minny could go Claiborne if Kalil is gone. Their secondary is old, often-injured and was terrible.
I would be really hoping for that in that situation. Heck, I might offer them a 6th rounder just to take Claiborne lol.
Quote:
My feeling on the Flynn situation is that if you're willing to live with Flynn's natural limitations then just stick with McCoy, coach him up better, call better plays, and give him better wideouts. Flynn is not going to come into Cleveland and throw for 6 TDs and 480 yards in a game just because he has experience in the WCO. Flynn was not a better prospect coming out of college than McCoy. Why is he better? He had time to learn his system and he had excellent talent around him.
i agree on why he is better. he had time to sit and learn the nuances, routes, and figure things out.
Quote:
Flynn is not the type of guy who is going to elevate the players around him. Neither, as we seem to be finding out, is McCoy.
you don't know that. he doesn't have the laser arm, but just knowing where to throw to, who to throw to, how to make line-adjustments, etc. can make everyone on the team better.
Quote:
I'm in the camp that if one of the two QBs falls to us at 4, you take him. The reason being he would be the best value and offer the most improvement to our team. If they're both gone, stick at 4 and take Blackmon. If he's gone as well, then it gets trickier.
I don't mind this scenario. But, we need to make the decision before we know who falls to us at #4. And, I think Flynn carries slightly less overall risk (when factoring in still having that draft pick, the fact he knows the WCO and has more proven in the NFL at this point).
Quote:
There are multiple reasons why Griffin is a top 5 pick and Keenum is a late round QB
1) Griffin's arm is significantly stronger
2) Griffin can extend plays and make something out of nothing with his legs.
3) Griffin played in a significantly stronger conference
4) Griffin was a top player for a long time in one of the best conferences in college football
5) Griffin was able to read defenses, as proven by very low interception numbers
If Keenum had played like he did against top competition with a rocket arm and the ability to run for, on average, about 690 yards per year and extend plays from a broken pocket, then he'd be a top pick.
Instead, he played really well in a trash conference while making bad decisions and showing a weak rainbow arm.
Look I don't give a crap about Griffin or Keenum but don't just say stuff to say it. How is reading a defense and low interception numbers a plus for Griffin but then you go on to say Keenum made bad decisions when he had less interceptions and more TD's? H e rushed for 690 yards because it was a one read option offense. If the first read wasn't there he tucked and ran or they ran an option play because of his athletic ability. If that's what you want out of your QB you have him here because McCoy can run fine, but that's not the idea and that's how QB's end up on the shelf. Competition? Take a look at what Keenum did against Penn State in the Bowl game compared to what Griffin did in his. Basically because Griffin has a strong arm and can run that's all there is. I'm done with this, it's pointless.
Quote:
Quote:
Flynn is not the type of guy who is going to elevate the players around him. Neither, as we seem to be finding out, is McCoy.
you don't know that. he doesn't have the laser arm, but just knowing where to throw to, who to throw to, how to make line-adjustments, etc. can make everyone on the team better.
What I mean by that is that he doesn't have some innate attribute that makes poor players good or decent players great... super accuracy or arm strength that makes people who can't separate open. What you are describing is just being functional (not sure if that's funny or sad.) I think Colt could possibly be every bit as good as Flynn with the same time and preparation and we wouldn't have to lock $50 million into him right now. Flynn isn't going to do well unless we put talented receivers and TEs around him who also know how to run the offense... (not to mention RBs who know who to block.)
I really don't see signing Flynn as a significant upgrade. There will be some learning curve with Flynn coming here just as Colt still has a lot to learn. I'd rather they gave that $50 mil to keep DQ and sign a good receiver. Plus, signing Flynn takes you out of realistic QB at 4 talk.
Quote:
I really don't see signing Flynn as a significant upgrade.
then there's no reason to grab him to you and I can understand that. I see more attributes that do make him better because Colt isn't going to get that time to figure things out. best case for Colt is that he gets one more year to start (and likely with a rookie breathing down his neck).
I totally agree with you. Matt Flynn looked good in spot start duty for the super bowl champions.O.K. does Matt Flynn throw 480 yds. and 6 TDs vs the Lions with our offense, doubtful. It seems Flynn is a less experienced slightly larger (1" and 10 lbs) version of McCoy. Alot more expensive and at the cost of a high draft pick possibly. No way let some other team take that gamble based on two games worth of experience.
Quote:
I understand but I thought you took the stats and said there is a reason why one is a 1st round QB and the other is a 7th...
The stats are only part of the reason one is a top 5 and the other is a 7th round.
Quote:
and the offense caters to high percentage throws for a lot of yards and few interceptions. It's the style of offense.
Ok, I've seen this about 1000 times now so I'm just going to ask the question... if there is an offense that you can plug any old QB into and complete a high percentage of your passes for a ton of yards and few interceptions... why doesn't everybody do it? Do the coachs at Stanford and Ohio State and LSU just prefer lower completion percentages for fewer yards and more interceptions? 
Quote:
Look I don't give a crap about Griffin or Keenum but don't just say stuff to say it. How is reading a defense and low interception numbers a plus for Griffin but then you go on to say Keenum made bad decisions when he had less interceptions and more TD's?
Well, multiple reasons, really.
1) Griffin has constantly had a lower interception rate.
2) Griffin had 11 less touchdowns on 200 less passes. He also had 1 more INT, which could easily be chalked up to playing better defenses.
3) I've watched a lot of both of them, and Griffin can make the progression, whereas Keenum can be shut down if you take away his first option or blitz him. Keenum can be shaken easily.
Quote:
He rushed for 690 yards because it was a one read option offense. If the first read wasn't there he tucked and ran or they ran an option play because of his athletic ability. If that's what you want out of your QB you have him here because McCoy can run fine, but that's not the idea and that's how QB's end up on the shelf.
No matter how many yards he rushed for, he had the ability to take a broken pocket, extend the play, then make the play, unlike Colt.
What I'm saying is, Griffin can make something out of nothing, a real gamebreaker type talent.
Quote:
Competition? Take a look at what Keenum did against Penn State in the Bowl game compared to what Griffin did in his.
Yes, lets take a look.
Case Keenum threw for 532 yards, 3 TD's and 0 INTS
Robert Griffin threw for 295 yards, 1 TD and 0 INTS
Now looking at the bare bone stats, you'd say that Keenum easily had the better game.
However, Keenum nearly threw 70 passes whereas Griffin threw 32 passes. Griffin had a higher completion percentage, higher average per completion, and his team scored 67 friggin points because of the running game of the whole team andIWashington being scared to death of Griffin.
Oh, and Griffin faced some of the best pass rushes in the NCAA, including Texas A&M who had the best pass rush in the nation, Oklahoma was tied for 8th in sacks, and Oklahoma State who was 30th. Keenum's hardest defense as far as pass rush was Southern Mississippi who was tied for 22nd, and Keenum got destroyed.
If we went with passes defended, Griffin went up against the best PD team in the NCAA in Texas who lead the nation. Keenum, once again, was Southern Miss. INT, Griffin once again faced the hardest INT team in the Nation with Oklahoma State. Granted, Keenum did face some tough INT teams.
My point is, Griffin faced some significantly harder teams defensively, and Keenum didn't. Keenum put up great stats in a 2 team league. Griffin did his in the Big 12 against big time competition.
Quote:
Basically because Griffin has a strong arm and can run that's all there is. I'm done with this, it's pointless.
Griffin has a strong arm, can run, can hit receivers in stride, can fit the ball in NFL windows, can keep broken plays alive, can destroy a pass rush with quick decisions, and can do all of that against some of the best competition in the NCAA.
I wish you were really done, because you are holding a grudge against the guy for no reason other than you apparently do not like him and are spouting off false facts and judgments based upon stereotypes.
I'm not sure you have even watched more than 1 game of Robert Griffin.
I guess I just don't think Colt McCoy would have thrown for 480yds and 6TDs for the Packers if you plugged him in week17 there.
Im holding out on my judgement of RG3 until after the combine and such. It's still extremely early to be projecting where he might go. Luck is the only certain as far as I'm concerned. Look at last year. At this time Fairly and Bowers were being discussed as the top picks and Cam Newton was projected as a late first rounder. We still have plenty of scouting to go.
Quote:
Im holding out on my judgement of RG3 until after the combine and such. It's still extremely early to be projecting where he might go. Luck is the only certain as far as I'm concerned. Look at last year. At this time Fairly and Bowers were being discussed as the top picks and Cam Newton was projected as a late first rounder. We still have plenty of scouting to go.
Yes and no:
First off, I think the teams are mostly done with scouting - most GMs will tell you that their Big Boards don't move very much after the large scouting meetings that are held around the end of January. People get pushed around a little bit by the combine, and by interviews - but they've watched all the tape already, so things are pretty set.
On the other hand, the media big board does move a lot - for the following reasons:
1.) Combine - combine numbers are a lot bigger in the media than they are for teams (or else, you could say teams have a better idea what a players numbers will look like than the media).
2.) Info from inside different teams - over time, small leaks and inferences from team insiders get out to the media, which then switches it's own "consensus" big board to compensate for what teams were already thinking back in January.
The first phase happens between now and the end of February. The 2nd phase happens more and more as we get closer to the draft. It's the second part that someone like Mel Kiper is very good at (he has the best connections to team insiders) - and it shows in his final mock draft, which is usually among the most accurate.
Quote:
I guess I just don't think Colt McCoy would have thrown for 480yds and 6TDs for the Packers if you plugged him in week17 there.
Probably not... and I'll all but guarantee you that if the Packers played the Lions 10 more times that Matt Flynn couldn't duplicate those numbers either.
But I will say this, if Colt had come into the league with the Patriots, sat behind Tom Brady for 3 years with no pressure, learning the system, playing in a consistent scheme... then been asked to start, he would have looked a heck of a lot better than he has looked here since being thrown to the wolves.
The Browns don't just need to find a franchise QB... they need to find a guy who is capable of looking a lot like a franchise QB from day 1 because he's never going to get a year or two to sit and learn. I have just accepted that as a fact. That is the single biggest argument that I can find for signing Matt Flynn...
I will ask this though, what if we sign Flynn or draft RGIII and start him and we still score 14 ppg and go 5-11?
I think it has a lot to do with the situation because it has worked both ways.. some star QBs like both Mannings, Roethlisberger, Aikman, Elway, Marino either started the first season or became the starter early in year one... others like Montana, Brees, Rivers, Rodgers, Favre, Brady had a year or more to sit... who knows how much that year of sitting allowed them to grow and improve and impacted their career..
.. " I'm done with this, it's pointless.. "
... PROMISE ? ...
Quote:
.. " I'm done with this, it's pointless.. "
... PROMISE ? ...
With that one! I make too much sense for you!
Quote:
and the offense caters to high percentage throws for a lot of yards and few interceptions. It's the style of offense.
Quote:
Ok, I've seen this about 1000 times now so I'm just going to ask the question... if there is an offense that you can plug any old QB into and complete a high percentage of your passes for a ton of yards and few interceptions... why doesn't everybody do it? Do the coachs at Stanford and Ohio State and LSU just prefer lower completion percentages for fewer yards and more interceptions?
Thank you.
Quote:
I really think it helps our chances of getting Luck. The old GM was pretty much set on going Luck. The new GM Grigson is Great friends with Heckert. I think he wants more picks and to start rebuilding this aging franchise.
You have the Colts roster including Peyton Manning. The Browns offer you their #4, #22 and #38 for Andrew Luck. That means you have 4 picks in the top 40. You could add your future QB, DE, and Receiver ad fill the current need at corner. Those 3 picks are trade chart value and teams arent going to stay to far from that chart.
If we do that then we really need to hit some home runs in free agency and in the mid rounds of the draft. I gotta say it makes alot of sense for both teams.
Heres the question's I would ask myself. (best Pluto voice)
Why wouldnt the Browns keep those picks and add "Their future QB, DE and Receiver" instead of adding just 1 future QB? If it works for Indy why wouldnt it work for the Browns who have more needs?
Thats why im not in the trade up camp we can do more to help this team by not trading up.
Also as someone posted we could trade down get a 1st next year maybe even 2 under the right situation and trading down twice. Then be in prime position to do what ever we want in next year draft as well
Quote:
Quote:
I really think it helps our chances of getting Luck. The old GM was pretty much set on going Luck. The new GM Grigson is Great friends with Heckert. I think he wants more picks and to start rebuilding this aging franchise.
You have the Colts roster including Peyton Manning. The Browns offer you their #4, #22 and #38 for Andrew Luck. That means you have 4 picks in the top 40. You could add your future QB, DE, and Receiver ad fill the current need at corner. Those 3 picks are trade chart value and teams arent going to stay to far from that chart.
If we do that then we really need to hit some home runs in free agency and in the mid rounds of the draft. I gotta say it makes alot of sense for both teams.
Heres the question's I would ask myself. (best Pluto voice)
Why wouldnt the Browns keep those picks and add "Their future QB, DE and Receiver" instead of adding just 1 future QB? If it works for Indy why wouldnt it work for the Browns who have more needs?
Thats why im not in the trade up camp we can do more to help this team by not trading up.
Also as someone posted we could trade down get a 1st next year maybe even 2 under the right situation and trading down twice. Then be in prime position to do what ever we want in next year draft as well
I understand your point, but I'll disagree with the "we have more holes" point SLIGHTLY, not that it had anything to do with your overall statement...
The Colts are in a really bad position, They whole Manning thing, Their Oline isn't that great, they have ALOT ogf FAs and quite a few of them are getting somewhat older...
It's in my opinion that unless they completely blow it up, they have a really small window to win now, and if Mannings healthy, they could view this as a chance to win one or two more SBs now instead of maybe competing 5-6 years from now...
Here is an even worse case, we make that trade with Indy they hold the 4th pick now and RG3 falls to them then trade that pick to washington. Getting their first next year and their 2nd this year. Moving to 6 you have Luck Clayborn Blackmon and RG3 off the board. Richerson (sp? the running back goes next) they grab Kawli (again sp?) falls right into their lap. They take WR with the atlanta pick. DE with their 2nd round pick, Corner with our 2nd rounder and LB with Washingtons pick.
Next year we tank as usual, manning falls apart, Wahington is well washington and they go south because RG3 isnt NFL ready and they have the #1 (ours) the # 2 (theirs) and washingtons at #3 the 2013 draft.
Humm hello Barkley.They are rebuild in 2 years for the next decade.
We have just (the) Luck
You are probably right about that.I think McCoy, plugged into the packers offense, against that team, comes off looking like a very good QB. But for the price that I have heard it would cost to acquire Flynn,I just don't see an upgrade worth the risk.
I would not make the trade because I am a believer in Tannehill as a franchise QB and I believe I can get him at 22. I also believe Trent Richardson is the 2nd best player in this draft and a hair behind him is Claiborne.
I am perfectly content to take Richardson, Tannehill and Dwight Jones with my first 3 picks and do a happy dance all the way to the podium turning in the cards for each.
With the foot injury, any chance Tannehill drops to Round 2?
I think it depends on what you're drafting him for.
Are we drafting Tannehill to sit for a year behind Colt/Wallace/FA?
Or is he coming in here to compete right away (well I guess he can't...)
I'm not sure what my point is...
Many people have Tannehill pegged in round 2 before the injury.
He was almost always in round 2 before Barkley and Jones went back to school, i'm not sure what he's done to improve his stock since.
Quote:
Many people have Tannehill pegged in round 2 before the injury.
He was almost always in round 2 before Barkley and Jones went back to school, i'm not sure what he's done to improve his stock since.
He is a QB in a QB thin draft is probably about it that alone raises his stock.Not sure but with his injury I would have to guess hes going to fall to the 2nd round however one of the good teams may be willing to take a flyer on him late 1st. Pitt Balt SF GB NE NO can all afford to let him sit and heal up for a couple years and not blink twice.
Quote:
Quote:
Many people have Tannehill pegged in round 2 before the injury.
He was almost always in round 2 before Barkley and Jones went back to school, i'm not sure what he's done to improve his stock since.
He is a QB in a QB thin draft is probably about it that alone raises his stock.Not sure but with his injury I would have to guess hes going to fall to the 2nd round however one of the good teams may be willing to take a flyer on him late 1st. Pitt Balt SF GB NE NO can all afford to let him sit and heal up for a couple years and not blink twice.
I don't think he is going to drop much if any because of the injury. What it will do however, is stop him from shooting up the draft boards. So late first or early second seems about right. He should be there at 22.
He has been anywhere from #6 overall to the 2nd round. I believe he is a solid top 10 talent but if I can get him at 22 woo hoo.
Tannehill is gonna go in the 1st round.. should he? not sure.. but he will.
Quote:
I guess I just don't think Colt McCoy would have thrown for 480yds and 6TDs for the Packers if you plugged him in week17 there.
Definitely not with Shurmur calling the plays.
Quote:
He has been anywhere from #6 overall to the 2nd round. I believe he is a solid top 10 talent but if I can get him at 22 woo hoo.
I was kinda just thinking about this. Remember when we drafted Colt he was going to sit the whole first year and learn? Injurys happen and we all know Colt was rushed into 2 systems in 2 years but I could see the Browns pulling the trigger on this guy and dropping him on IR ensuring he sits for a year. Again Im not sure how serious his injury is and how that would play into the FO's mind set.
Quote:
The first phase happens between now and the end of February. The 2nd phase happens more and more as we get closer to the draft. It's the second part that someone like Mel Kiper is very good at (he has the best connections to team insiders) - and it shows in his final mock draft, which is usually among the most accurate.
I think Mayock does a better job than either Kiper or McShay in evaluating players.
Quote:
I think Mayock does a better job than either Kiper or McShay in evaluating players.
Entirely agree, and that was the point I was trying to make. I think Kiper's early Mock drafts are quite bad -- but he is the most likely to hear about what teams are actually going to do running up to draft day. For instance - was the one to put Tyson Jackson at #3 in 2009, when nobody else had him in the top ten. That didn't come from Kiper's player evaluating ability, it came from an inside leak in the chiefs organization.