|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
So this morning I was lamenting the abortion of coverage on Boldin by Wright and a thought occurred to me. Remember when the sportswriters were saying that drafting Joe T. was the worst thing for Wimbley's career here? That he was getting crushed so bad in practice that he lost all his confidence and couldn't play at a high level? I'm wondering if the opposite is going on with our corners and Stuckeroboquoi... in that guys like Wright don't even have to try to cover them in practice.
Do you think the lack of talent at wideout could be having a negative effect on the intensity our DBs practice with? Is that something that would carry over into the game? Not being able to just "turn it on?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388 |
Quote:
Remember when the sportswriters were saying that drafting Joe T. was the worst thing for Wimbley's career here? That he was getting crushed so bad in practice that he lost all his confidence and couldn't play at a high level?
Thats BS in my opinion. If anything should have made him better. Cream rises to the top, and going against the best LT everyday should make him better, it didnt.
"The medium for the bad news was ESPN, which figured. The network represents much of what is loud, obnoxious and empty in sports today."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
I agree..
and in regards to our WR's.. no.. they are not hurting us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Unless by hurting us, you mean the opposite of helping us out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
By DBs, I'm thinking you're referring to Wright. Wright has played well against top receivers. He had a bad day. He admitted he wasn't on his game. On the flip side, Hoosh and Mason were practically invisible. For the most part, our DBs seem like they can keep up. Personally, I'm anxious to see how Wright does this week.
As far as the receivers are concerned, I see two things plaguing them, 1) their ability to separate, and two, 2) route calls that don't put them inside the DB, or allow them to break off and get open. This would be my one major criticism of the offense. So in that sense, yes, I think they're hurting us, but not in the sense you mean. They were invisible Sunday for two reasons, 1) inability to separate, and 2) a game plan that called for getting rid of the ball quickly if the primary target wasn't open. For that I blame reason 1.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/hfMNC7T.jpg) "I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
Wright had a HORRIBLE day... but he is use to playing against talented WR's... ie Chad Johnson, Hines Ward, Santonio Holmes.. He just slipped. He normally doesn't get targeted that much either, so it made his day even worse. I wouldn't be surprised though if other coordinators went after him as well, similar to what happened to BMac.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426 |
I still can't beleive Heckert said he was satisfied with our WR core before the season started.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
I still can't beleive Heckert said he was satisfied with our WR core before the season started.
What did you expect, Heckert to come out and say "boy, our WRs leave a lot to be desired..."
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086 |
Quote:
Quote:
I still can't beleive Heckert said he was satisfied with our WR core before the season started.
What did you expect, Heckert to come out and say "boy, our WRs leave a lot to be desired..."
Exactly. Regardless of how he might really feel inside, he can't go the media and say - oh man, these guys are horrendous wait till you see it out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
I expect to see Wright glued to #85 all day long, he's not as big as Boldin, it's a better matchup for Eric. I think he could take him out of the game...
As long as he stops playing 5 yards off and letting WRs do whatever they want...
Maybe that was his tribute to McDonald game?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2010/...as%c2%adsaquoi/Numbers just don’t add up for Browns’ Mohamed Massaquoi Brian Dulik September 30th, 2010 BEREA — Mohamed Massaquoi has three receptions for 55 yards in the Browns’ first three games. Those are paltry numbers for any wide receiver, let alone one listed atop Cleveland’s depth chart. “Of course, you want to make plays,” Massaquoi said Wednesday prior to practice. “Everyone wants more opportunities, but at the same time, we’re getting better as a team. “It’s going to come in time, believe me. I’m just going to continue to work, continue to hone on my craft, and it will come.” The sooner, the better — both for Massaquoi and the Browns, who will carry a winless record into their Sunday home game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Though there are myriad reasons why Cleveland has started 0-3, its lack of production at wide receiver is fairly high on the list. Second-year pros Massaquoi and Brian Robiskie were handed the starting jobs early in training camp, but their combined five catches are far and away the least by any NFL tandem entering Week 4. “You can win a lot of different ways: Running back as your leading receiver, tight end as your leading receiver, wide receiver as your leading receiver,” Browns coach Eric Mangini said. “It doesn’t matter, as long as we can move the ball and score, and win the game. “With Mohamed, I think he has improved. The numbers aren’t there, but he’s made strides in a lot of areas.” In particular, Mangini cited Massaquoi’s improved understanding of the offense, his route running, run blocking and his comfort level in the system. But he added, “Would he love to have a lot more catches? Obviously.” As this point, the Georgia product would probably settle for having a few more balls thrown in his direction. The 6-foot-2, 207-pounder was only targeted once last week by quarterback Seneca Wallace in a 24-17 loss in Baltimore. In the same game, Ravens wide receiver Anquan Boldin had 11 passes thrown his way — matching Massaquoi’s season total. “This is the ultimate team game, it’s not like I can force things,” said Massaquoi, who led the Browns with 34 catches and 624 receiving yards last year. “You just have to stay in the game plan. It’s still my job to go out there every play and go hard. I don’t know how else to say it.” Wallace, who has started the last two games, said he empathizes with Massaquoi’s plight. While running back Peyton Hillis (team-high 14 receptions) and tight end Benjamin Watson (12 receptions) are piling up the catches of late, they are doing so at the expense of the club’s wide receivers. “We just have to try to find Mo, whether it’s me or Jake (Delhomme) — it’s nothing that he’s doing wrong,” Wallace said. “It’s not like it’s in the back of your mind that Mo’s only got one catch during a game, but it’s something we have to do a better job on.” Until that happens, Massaquoi said he plans on sticking with the status quo. He won’t slack off in practice, he won’t beg his coaches for the ball and he won’t lobby Wallace for more opportunities. In other words, he’ll continue being himself, which is why he belives it’s only a matter of time before his statistics start to multiply. “Wait until the end of the year to judge him,” Bengals coach Marvin Lewis said. “Massaquoi has been a fine player, a fine young development player for them, but receivers can’t control what unfolds on Sunday. “Those guys have to have the patience and the mental toughness to work through some things. From what I know about him, Massaquoi should be able to do that.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
If Mo-Mass wants more catches, I have three words for him: SEP-AR-ATE! 
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Quote:
Quote:
I still can't beleive Heckert said he was satisfied with our WR core before the season started.
What did you expect, Heckert to come out and say "boy, our WRs leave a lot to be desired..."
No but Heckert could have said they were looking to upgrade that unit..
I think it's time to say again I don't like Heckert/Holmgrem standing pat on the wideouts.
Fact is H/H didn't need to see film to know what the smart Browns fan already knew..neither of those two were going to be threats to opposing defenses.
And more than likely one wasn't going to produce and we all know who that one is..
I could care less that Mangenuis wanted to roll with those two..Holmgrem shoulda rolled him and brought in one deep threat..
He rolled the QB's out and brought in two guys to fill in short term..that could have done with the receiver position in a similar manner..
As far as "can't fix everything in one season"..WR was as big a hole as the secondary..perhaps a QB drafted(McCoy) could have waited a year or later in the draft..or maybe not jumping to take MH...who was a risk and it certainly backfired since he's out for the year..we can argue his talents and while I wasn't strongly opposed to the pick, it isn't doing the Browns any good this year.
Holmy had to have McCoy ..but the Browns really needed a true WR...so one box I blame Mangini,not for trading Edwards out but for not bringing in a #1 type last year..and he had the entire draft to do it.
Heckert addressed the secondary ,but he also could have made a move for a WR..now I did not scan the FA list as some do ,but I was sure from my initial look there wasn't one (on the cheap) that could come in and start.
I don't give those two a free pass at all...not on that unit..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
I still can't beleive Heckert said he was satisfied with our WR core before the season started.
It's not like he could've don anything about it anyway. The only WR worth taking at our spot in the draft was Bryant and he had major question marks.
And it's not like there was some stud WR free agent that we could have thrown money at.
If you're stuck with what you have you don't say you need to get better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
The players say they are getting better, that they are honing their craft?
I wonder, if the players think they can get better and still be winless for eternity.
Is it possible to be getting better each game, yet still not win, and if so at what point does that stop. Suppose they go winless for 40 games, maybe 42 losses in a streak, Can you still be getting better? Can you still be closer to the win every time though just not quite there?
It is Funny how the Bengals coach, has support for the Browns receivers.
Fix it, stop the wait, don't be SATISFIED with LOSING.
Bench Robiskie, and Bench Mangini, Yesterday!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,086
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,086 |
Our wides are the only guys he can cover; might explain how hard they practice and his shameful game performance. Why people feel a need to explain away and rationalize the numbers being put up on Eric is beyond me; admirable but misplaced. For whatever reason. And our wideouts don't hurt us, not the way Daboll is using them. And the way we are not connecting. Not sure I have seen them do much. Game comes down to wideouts, we may well be toast. 
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 24 |
Are our WRs hurting us? Absolutely. Would you say that taking away the passing game hurts a team? The short passing game is there, but the long pass is nearly non-existant, save for the occasional over the middle for 20 yard catch by Moore or Watson. Seems like our TEs are the only receivers out there. Lately, it's as if I have to be reminded who folks like Massaquoi and Stucky even are, because you never hear or see them. (In fairness, Stucky did have a nice catch yesterday). Are the WRs hurting us more than we realize? No. I'm fully aware of exactly how much not having a real WR corps hurts us  What possibly hurts even more, though, is having a D that absolutely crumbles and can't keep it's composure when we have a lead. It's funny how everyone grills Daboll but seems to love Ryan. Ryan can't teach a D to play for 60 minutes or how to play with a lead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
I have a dumb idea, but I don't know why it won't work and would like somebody to explain. We have the worst WR's in the NFL. Do we have to play them? Can we just go to 3 TE sets and run the ball 90% of the time and then throw to E. Moore, B. Watson, Hillis and rarely to R. Royal? I know it sounds like I am kidding, but the WRs don't keep the defenses honest so why not put guys out there that can help block the safeties that are going to be in the box anyway? If you are the opposing defense, do you put corners on Watson and Moore? Our WR's don't stretch the field anyway, so let's do what we do well now even better. Crazy?  ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Our WR's don't stretch the field anyway, so let's do what we do well now even better.
our WRs block better than most of our TEs, might as well leave them in
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 344
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 344 |
Quote:
no.. they are not hurting us.
Uhhhh...YES They Are!!!! With just an Average receiving threat, our running game would be Even Harder to Stop! Why is this coaching staff soooo Stubborn? They should have been in SD 2 games ago offering Whatever it took to get Jackson!!!! JMHO Go Brownies!!!!!
Who Let Da Dawgs Out? Woof, Woof, Woof!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
I have a dumb idea, but I don't know why it won't work and would like somebody to explain.
We have the worst WR's in the NFL. Do we have to play them? Can we just go to 3 TE sets and run the ball 90% of the time and then throw to E. Moore, B. Watson, Hillis and rarely to R. Royal? I know it sounds like I am kidding, but the WRs don't keep the defenses honest so why not put guys out there that can help block the safeties that are going to be in the box anyway? If you are the opposing defense, do you put corners on Watson and Moore?
Our WR's don't stretch the field anyway, so let's do what we do well now even better.
Crazy? ?
Perhaps we can use Cribbs exclusively as an end-around WR.  (ok not really, but still)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388 |
On Grossi's podcast today he made an interesting observation that the reason MoMass isn't pulling in catches is because Wallace doesnt like to look left. Said Wallace hardly looks left and only after exhausting his other reads.
"The medium for the bad news was ESPN, which figured. The network represents much of what is loud, obnoxious and empty in sports today."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I do not think we need a whole new set of WRs.. I think we need 1 really dominant one.... I've said this about other positions before too... Let's say hypothetically we could draft Calvin Johnson next year in the first round, then let MoMass, Robo, Cribbs, and Stuckey battle it out for 2, 3 and 4.. I think our WR corps gets 1000% better.... and I think Robo is the odd man out in that scenario...
I also don't think that Seneca Wallace is EVER going to be a guy who stretches the field and really uses his WRs vertically..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Quote:
I do not think we need a whole new set of WRs.. I think we need 1 really dominant one.... I've said this about other positions before too... Let's say hypothetically we could draft Calvin Johnson next year in the first round, then let MoMass, Robo, Cribbs, and Stuckey battle it out for 2, 3 and 4.. I think our WR corps gets 1000% better.... and I think Robo is the odd man out in that scenario...
I also don't think that Seneca Wallace is EVER going to be a guy who stretches the field and really uses his WRs vertically..
I agree with most of this. I think one of the biggest things hurting our WR corps right now is that MoMass isn't capable of being a #1 but he's being asked to function as one. Part of the reason he was so successful last year is because he had Braylon demanding attention (as unreliable as he was, he was still a threat). Right now, we have a corps full of solid receivers but really, none to be feared.
If you add a stud #1 onto this team (maybe A.J. Green in the draft next year), MoMass thrives again because he isn't getting blanketed and our other receivers can fit into their roles. I only disagree because I think Robo would still have a role on that team, he just can't be a functional #2 like we want him to be. I think he'd be a great possession wideout if there's a #1 allowing him to get better matchups that don't just dominate him physically. If separation is his biggest problem like the whispers say, letting him match up against #3 corners would make him a big factor again.
I really do think that all the guys we have right now are really good complementary pieces behind a #1 wideout. It's just a matter of getting that guy in place (and getting a QB who will actually take advantage of that) and I think the change will be pretty dramatic.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I'd completely concur with that as well. Get a true big-time threat WR and the rest looks world's better.
Additionally, get a true QB that will get the ball downfield as readily as he checks down and I think that puts this offense into the upper echelon, even without addressing RT.
I would say that we are solid across the line (minus RT), at TE, FB and RB and we've definitely got a #2 & #3 WR somewhere in the mix. We're not far away at all.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,070
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,070 |
I can't stand TO as much as the next guy, but it's kinda looking like he could've helped this team out alot this year. I know he's a headcase but you can see how much a legit #1 receiver would help about right now.
4-0 maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
4-0? Perhaps, using some well smudged hindsight... but that's so hard to say. There was a lot more wrong in games 1-3 than just one WR... and that one WR wouldn't be playing Defense. When it comes to a TO, or a Vincent Jackson, or whomever.... I think we have to remember a few things: 1.) We've gone to great lengths to root out the headcases and personalities that aren't willing to buy into the culture here.... and yes, that has meant taking some steps back in places. 2.) As a result of #1, I really don't think we would seriously consider bringing in a volatile personality at this point. Once we establish a track record and an identity, I could see us doing it, but not when we're still in flux like we are. Face it - we are seeing the positives that we are because the players that are here have bought in. An easily disgruntled player would begin to fracture things, guaranteed. 3.) T.O., Vincent Jackson, whomever, would have to actually want to come to a perennial non-contender for the challenge of being a part of the rebuilding... that isn't an easy sell, especially for T.O. who just fell flat in Buffalo.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
On Grossi's pod cast today he made an interesting observation that the reason MoMass isn't pulling in catches is because Wallace doesn't like to look left. Said Wallace hardly looks left and only after exhausting his other reads.
I think there is some truth to that statement.
Unless his first read is left.
I think Wallace has been favoring the right.
I also agree with MoMass having an easier go at it when he was lined up opposite BE last season.
If we can bring in a proven veteran receiver,
I think it will help players like MoMass.
Stuckey does some good things from the slot, but doesn't offer much split out and stationary.
Hopefully Mitchell will come around at some point this season and shows something, because I'm about ready to see Robo put on the bench.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,532
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,532 |
i agree with everything you said just watch mentioning BE because people will jump on you....just like what happened in anothe thread
#brownsgoodkarma
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Robiskie was inactive yesterday, for what it's worth (so was Mitchell). http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/54913/CLV_Gamebook.pdfI do wonder now, giving consideration to the absence of Robo, how much better our passing game may have been. If nothing else, it would be one more element that they'd have had to account for.... probably not much of a difference.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
I don't think of Vincent Jackson as a head case.
His situation was very much like Cribbs.
The difference being we gave Cribbs what was due to his caliber of play.....SD is not going to give in to Camp Jackson.
By the standards of his pears, because he was an UDFA, he has been grossly under paid.
It's not like he was a one hit wonder.
Jackson is a heck of a good weapon and SD is only hurting themselves imo.
I think there is some collusion going on with SD and the rest of the League where Jackson is concerned or SD flat out refuses to trade him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,578
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,578 |
... and Cribbs doesn't get pulled over while his license is suspended for multiple DUIs after a night of partying... before his big playoff game. The guy is one arrest away from some serious league discipline.
You guys thought BE was a mental midget... he's a choir-boy, Mr. Reliable, "what else can I do for you, sir" compared to Jackson.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
... and Cribbs doesn't get pulled over while his license is suspended for multiple DUIs after a night of partying... before his big playoff game. The guy is one arrest away from some serious league discipline.
You guys thought BE was a mental midget... he's a choir-boy, Mr. Reliable, "what else can I do for you, sir" compared to Jackson.
a.k.a. "Head Case"
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
Quote:
Robiskie was inactive yesterday, for what it's worth (so was Mitchell).
.
Robiskie's been inactive for every game, as has Massaquoi. It's just that sometimes they put on their uniforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 147
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 147 |
I would like to bring in Clowney, he always seemed like he could play to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I would like to bring in Clowney, he always seemed like he could play to me.
I thought that when he came out of Tech but its just never happened for him.... I think he's in about his 4th or 5th year and has never had over a few hundred receiving yards.. who knows, maybe a change of scenery would work for him but I think we would be bringing in a #3 to put with all of our other 2s and 3s.. who loses time? Cribbs or Stuckey? I don't think its an upgrade.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
T.O was a free agent, and so was TJ Houshmanzadeh, TWICE, they weren't even talked about joining the Browns.
I'd guess it is economics.
The Browns have often been under talented since the onset of free agency.
Maybe if they made an investment, then some others would want to join in in the investment.
Joe Jurevicious, he was a northeastern Ohioan, and he signed for 6 years. Didn't work out though.
To me it just seems like more of the situation of ( We have Bentley, so there is no way we can hang on to O'Hara, or Faine ) .
The problem is you can't get 3 receivers at once, unless it is a bad trade for also rans.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
T.O was a free agent, and so was TJ Houshmanzadeh, TWICE, they weren't even talked about joining the Browns.
I'd guess it is economics.
The Browns have often been under talented since the onset of free agency.
Maybe if they made an investment, then some others would want to join in in the investment.
Joe Jurevicious, he was a northeastern Ohioan, and he signed for 6 years. Didn't work out though.
To me it just seems like more of the situation of ( We have Bentley, so there is no way we can hang on to O'Hara, or Faine ) .
The problem is you can't get 3 receivers at once, unless it is a bad trade for also rans.
I bet they were both at least brought up by the Browns ... but it doesnt fit our teams ... TO was either looking for a big payday or a team that could be a contender ... no point in paying him for 5 or 6 years when he might retire in 2 .. but he also could be a headcase ... he's acting like one already in cincy (see their press conference / interviews after they lost to us)
and TJ wants to play for a contender, put up great numbers for a year and then cash in on what should be his last payday as well. Also, because TJ was cut by Seattle then he could sign with baltimore for a veteran league minimum, and then whatever the difference is between his salary and the 7 mil owed to him by SEA ... seattle still has to pay him. So salary was clearly no part of the equation, hes making 7mil no matter what team he goes to (unless we would foolishly offer him something like 9 or 10 million for this year alone .....)
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
With the questions surrounding our WRs right now, I think we should at least bring the guy in for a looksee.
I am starting to think Robo will be gone by the end of the year.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Are our WRs hurting us more than
we realize?
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
![[Linked Image from i45.tinypic.com]](http://i45.tinypic.com/adhq2o.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
