|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575 Likes: 37
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575 Likes: 37 |
Thanx! I was pretty close then. Hmm March 15, I wonder if that means the reigional combines will be going on as we enter the FA period...
I think our heads are gonna be on a swivel this spring.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186 |
Peter King said sunday the rams will have the most money to spend in free agency next offseason. He was talking about Jeff Fisher going there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
NRTU...
I just don't get the notion everyone has of the Colts picking Andrew Luck at #1 overall, and him just holding a clipboard, doing push-ups, and eating crappy take-out in the film room 72 hours a week for a laughably wide window of, "Ohh, about 2-5 years!" The guy isn't sitting for a few years like Rodgers. I just don't see how everyone expects him to be content with not certainly knowing how soon he'll be able to play. If that were me, you can bet damn well I'd be actively altering where I land, ala Manning.
I am replying to you :-)
You've got two different scenario's going on.
#1 - If Luck doesn't care where he goes, Indy will be drafting him. IMO, he would be happy to sit a few years behind Manning. He gets paid, learns from one of the best and knows the franchise's history in how they took care of the #1 guy in the huddle (money and talent support). And you're also not factoring in the likelihood of the Colts not picking up Mannings $28 million option (which might kick in for more years too - sorry, I don't know the details).
#2 - If Luck is positioning himself elsewhere because he wants to play right away (with Manning staying already set in stone), he wants to play in a different market or doesn't want to follow a legend then he'll probably get his way. But that wouldn't stop Indy from wanting to pick him.....they wounldn't be able to draft him if he won't report.
And how do you know Luck doesn't want to sit for a year or two? I'm not saying guys want to sit, but it's been shown that it can help a guy make the transition to the NFL. And it's not like there's a 100% guarantee Manning will play every game over the next 1-2-3 years anyway. He's getting older and that neck won't be perfect. He may get to play a few weeks or might just get the fulltime position if Manning's neck falls apart some random week. It's just like any other position on any other team, you're only one injury away from being the starter. You can't assume a 13-year vet with neck problems will be an ironman starter for the next 3 years.
I think it would be a fun conversation to listen to. Manning, the Colts GM, president and coach all talking about the draft and what to do (maybe even better if Manning wasn't there).
As of right now, assuming Luck doesn't orchestrate where he plays, I would bet a decent amount of cash that Luck is a Colt.
If you ask me, I'd want to play in that division. The Jags, Texans and Titans. All dome or mild temperature home stadiums...and they aren't traditional powerhouse teams. It would be nice for Luck to want to come to Cleveland but if I were him, I wouldn't want to even fly over CBS let alone play for the hometown team (cold weather, losing franchise & crazy tough division).
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 Likes: 11 |
I thought he said that cap room was for the 2013 season.
From what I've read, Rams have about $10M anticipated cap room next year. The could probably cut a few players (aka Jason Smith) and grab a little more room, but I don't see where they can cut that many players to make up the $17M they'd need to, then fill the team with all the players they'd need to AND sign Luck for $23-25M.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
With all that said, the Colts are going to beat the Jaguars (who have quit) and the Rams are going to lose to the 49ers who still have something to play for. Meaning the Rams will have the #1 pick.
Rams have #1 pick = pick gets traded. And there are only two other teams that can offer what we can, the Patriots (they have their own 1st pick and the Saints 1st pick) and the Bengals (their pick and the Raiders pick). And both of those teams already have their QB's/don't have high picks we can offer. So if the front office determines they want Andrew Luck we will be the clear front runner to get him.
My only concern is if the Rams determine their need for a left tackle (Matt Kalil) is greater than the haul of picks they would receive for Luck. That would just screw everything up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186 |
yea, he must have said 2013. At any rate many insiders believe Jon Gruden or Jeff Fisher will be their next head coach.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186 |
if we get the 3rd pick, they could probably trade with us, and still get their left tackle. that's unless indy takes him, which is very possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,703
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,703 |
In that scenario, I'd have to think Indy goes Claiborne.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
If they're going to go with Manning next year don't you think they would want to protect him?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Quote:
If they're going to go with Manning next year don't you think they would want to protect him?
If Indy is behind St. Louis and Minnesota, Kalil won't be available.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
If Indy wins that would give both them and Minnesota three wins (assuming Minnesota loses). In that scenario wouldn't Indianapolis draft ahead of Minnesota? (I am not trying to be snarky, I really don't know. I hate that I have to clarify that.)
So it would be St. Louis - #1, Indianapolis - #2, Minnesota- #3. Given that order wouldn't it go Luck, Kalil?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Thanx! I was pretty close then. Hmm March 15, I wonder if that means the reigional combines will be going on as we enter the FA period...
I think our heads are gonna be on a swivel this spring.
Free Agency begins, according to Greg Aiello on March 13th at 4 pm.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Luck is going #1
If whoever is picking #1 doesn't want Luck, the pick will get traded.
What if no one offers Indy or StL what they are asking (which will be a LOT)? Do you think either one of them will take Luck?
I think whoever has the #1 pick will field offers for it and if it doesn't meet with their price, that they may just make the pick or if the gamesmanship blows up in their face.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
If the Rams get offered two 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder and that's their best offer they have to take it. They can't take Luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I'm trying to Hypothetically work this out IF the Rams get the pick ...
1. They draft luck ...
2. They trade the pick. ..
3. They take their BPA who ISN'T Luck.
There are no other options.
I think we rule out 3 unless something major happens between now and then.
I also am trying to wonder what would happen in terms of a cap hit if they took Luck and then traded Bradford? Some of that might not be a major effect but it could be something that deters them (or a new coach) from coming in and realizing a ton of the money he wants to rebuild a team and get solid FA's is burnt up on a player who isn't even there anymore.
So while they could definitely draft Luck ... would that mean they virtually have to kiss Sammy B goodbye? Or would be it alright to hold onto them both for a year before trading Sam?
The only remaining option is of course the trade. BUT ... if they don't really have any other options and other teams almost KNOW that the Rams will trade it ... then the pick becomes a lot less costly as compared to if the Colts just say "forget you guys - we're taking him ourselves"
Just trying to sort through all the scenarios ...
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 Likes: 501 |
Earlier clwb419 dissected the Bradford situation: Quote:
I can't see traded. In 2010 he signed a 6 year, 78m contract, with $50M guaranteed (with a potential total max of 86m). Looking at his contract details, he's been paid 2.88M (prorated 6 years) 1st year contract bonus plus 320k salary in 2010, plus 17.974 signing bonus (not prorated, 1 time hit) and 405k salary in 2011. Since in 2010 he hit his escalators, he was guaranteed another 19m (assume prorated 5 years) and has guaranteed salaries in 2012 of 1.205m, 2013 2.005m. 2014 2.805M, and 2015 of 3.605M. That adds up to his 50.2M guaranteed contract. The other 26 I cannot find, though I'd assume gets rolled into salary for the last 5 years.
This means St. Louis has put 23.459M into the kid for the first 2 years with another 26.541M still guaranteed to him. Assuming that the guaranteed salaries, along with the non guaranteed $ would move to the new team he got traded to, the Rams would still be on the hook for the remaining prorated 2.88m and the remaining prorated 19M - or a cap hit of 17.12M to cut or trade him. This would essentially mean they paid 40.579M for 2 years. The team that gets him (under my assumption a few lines above), would have roughly 36M in contract, including 9.62 guaranteed for the next 4 years.
If this is correct the Rams will have two options:
1) Take BPA other than Luck.
2) Trade the pick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Appreciate that! Sorry I missed it. Between 4 work shifts since Monday at 6 AM (2 days of 2 doubles) and traveling for Christmas - I haven't been caught up on all of the scenarios yet ... little busy to say the least!
However it is pretty interesting to me. I know a lot can happen (if St. Louis loses / wins and same with Indy ... if St. Louis gets a new coach who has no ties with Bradford ... What happens at the Combine and Pro Days... Free Agency ...etc.)
I suppose the thing is if St. Louis can't really trade Bradford then they are almost forced into trading the pick for what they can get. I'd rather be in a bidding war where we can say "Trade down to 3 or 4 ... you could still get EITHER Blackmon or Kalil ... OR you will have the ability to trade for more picks if those 2 are gone and RG3 is still available" ... We could be one of the best trade partners ever with a team who already has a franchise QB and who has a new coach / GM that wants a lot of picks to stockpile his team and bring in his own guys ...
Then again ... a lot still needs to unfold. But it IS interesting to see how it's shaping out.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186 |
if the rams think Luck is better than Bradford they should take him. In the grand scheme of things 17 million in the long run isn't that much if you could get the next John Elway. Just look what Peyton Manning did for the colts. Went to 2 super bowls, and one of the best teams the past 12 years or so. Plus all that winning led to a new stadium, which is hosting the super bowl. IF luck is everything people are saying, you take him, and worry about the rest later on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
Earlier clwb419 dissected the Bradford situation:
Quote:
I can't see traded. In 2010 he signed a 6 year, 78m contract, with $50M guaranteed (with a potential total max of 86m). Looking at his contract details, he's been paid 2.88M (prorated 6 years) 1st year contract bonus plus 320k salary in 2010, plus 17.974 signing bonus (not prorated, 1 time hit) and 405k salary in 2011. Since in 2010 he hit his escalators, he was guaranteed another 19m (assume prorated 5 years) and has guaranteed salaries in 2012 of 1.205m, 2013 2.005m. 2014 2.805M, and 2015 of 3.605M. That adds up to his 50.2M guaranteed contract. The other 26 I cannot find, though I'd assume gets rolled into salary for the last 5 years.
This means St. Louis has put 23.459M into the kid for the first 2 years with another 26.541M still guaranteed to him. Assuming that the guaranteed salaries, along with the non guaranteed $ would move to the new team he got traded to, the Rams would still be on the hook for the remaining prorated 2.88m and the remaining prorated 19M - or a cap hit of 17.12M to cut or trade him. This would essentially mean they paid 40.579M for 2 years. The team that gets him (under my assumption a few lines above), would have roughly 36M in contract, including 9.62 guaranteed for the next 4 years.
If this is correct the Rams will have two options:
1) Take BPA other than Luck.
2) Trade the pick.
If you go with option 1, then you are not really going with your BPA, if Luck is that guy.
It's option 2 I think, with an option 2a; trade the pick and option 2b; draft Luck and shop Bradford.
Perhaps their could be option 3; draft Luck, keeping them both and wait to weigh their options to trade Bradford later.
Speaking of option 2b...
Based on the scenario above ... If a team thinks highly enough to trade extra draft picks for Sam Bradford, then they believe that he has what it takes to start for them, so 36 million over 4 years is not an inordinate amount of money by today's League standard.
The loss off revenue spent will go a little easier and be off set by the extra picks acquired for the Rams.
This is assuming the Colts will beat Jacksonville before the fat drunken shirt less man does his TD dance.
They still have MJD and the Colts defense hasn't stopped any one this year (except for us for the most part  ).
Still they could win and this would open things up for that first pick and the chance to draft Luck that most never imagined would be available a month ago... It looked as if the Colts had the Andrew Luck sweepstakes all but signed sealed and delivered.
Still I don't see how the Rams could stay pat and take their next best player.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,839 Likes: 11
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,839 Likes: 11 |
I'm a little confused as to why you all think the Colts won't be drafting Luck?
Money? Cap? who cares.. there is no limit for a QB who can save your franchise.
Luck doesn't wanna sit behind Manning? who cares.. if I draft him.. and a team wants to trade for him.. it will guarantee that the Colts reap the benefits of the trade as opposed to not drafting him and some other team get a huge deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Man I'm torn here as what to do... Hope Indy wins...Rams get the 1 pick and we get 4...or Hope Jax wins...Indy gets the 1 pick...We get 3...If Minny wins... Gonna be easier to deal with the Rams than Indy...But... If we settle for RGIII...We need the 3 pick... Crazy I say...CRAZY... 
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
I'm a little confused as to why you all think the Colts won't be drafting Luck?
Money? Cap? who cares.. there is no limit for a QB who can save your franchise.
Luck doesn't wanna sit behind Manning? who cares.. if I draft him.. and a team wants to trade for him.. it will guarantee that the Colts reap the benefits of the trade as opposed to not drafting him and some other team get a huge deal.
On the contrary ... I think that the Colts would/will select Luck if they are picking first overall.
Rodgers had to hold the clip board in GB for a couple of years and that's not such a bad thing imo. It seemed to workout pretty well for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459 Likes: 59
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459 Likes: 59 |
Quote:
I can't see traded. In 2010 he signed a 6 year, 78m contract, with $50M guaranteed (with a potential total max of 86m). Looking at his contract details, he's been paid 2.88M (prorated 6 years) 1st year contract bonus plus 320k salary in 2010, plus 17.974 signing bonus (not prorated, 1 time hit) and 405k salary in 2011. Since in 2010 he hit his escalators, he was guaranteed another 19m (assume prorated 5 years) and has guaranteed salaries in 2012 of 1.205m, 2013 2.005m. 2014 2.805M, and 2015 of 3.605M. That adds up to his 50.2M guaranteed contract. The other 26 I cannot find, though I'd assume gets rolled into salary for the last 5 years.
This means St. Louis has put 23.459M into the kid for the first 2 years with another 26.541M still guaranteed to him. Assuming that the guaranteed salaries, along with the non guaranteed $ would move to the new team he got traded to, the Rams would still be on the hook for the remaining prorated 2.88m and the remaining prorated 19M - or a cap hit of 17.12M to cut or trade him. This would essentially mean they paid 40.579M for 2 years. The team that gets him (under my assumption a few lines above), would have roughly 36M in contract, including 9.62 guaranteed for the next 4 years.
From what I've read St. Louis is going to have a hard time with the cap next year as it is - I doubt they're willing to take that hit.
Sorry to get in on this late - but I disagree.
Let's assume that the new STL regime (we don't know who they are) don't think that Bradford is their guy.
Remember:
1.) They owe Bradford the guaranteed money, regardless of whether they keep him or not, so ownership loses no money by cutting Bradford. They will also pay their first round pick around $30M regardless of whether it is Luck or another position player, so they lose no additional money by picking Luck.
2.) They have more cap room than any team in the league (rumored around $35M), so the cap-hit (even if it's $17M this year), doesn't hurt them at all. They are young, and will go after young players, so there is no way they are using close to that much money in FA. http://nfltraderumors.co/nfl-team-cap-space/
3.) Actually, they are in a little bit of a bind the other way - under the new CBA, teams get penalized starting next year for using too little of their cap room, STL could get around that for a year with a big cap hit to Bradford.
4.) If they don't believe that Bradford is the guy - it is a great time to trade him, because he is still enough of a prospect that they could get a decent (late first) pick for him. If they think he won't do well next year, that value will only go down.
5.) The Rams are aiming to be competitive in 2-3 years - due to the new CBA, Luck will be much cheaper 2-3 years down the road than Bradford will be - giving them an extra $5M or so in cap room in the years they want to be competitive.
To summarize: If the new STL regime thinks Bradford is their guy, then they will trade the Luck pick - but if they don't, I don't see anything in the economic situation that forces them to stick with Bradford.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Why I am against using a high pick on a RB
Look at the following list:
Lesean McCoy
Arian Foster
Ray Rice
Frank Gore
Maurice Jones Drew
Matt Forte
NONE were first round selections.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950 |
My opinon,
1st pick is Blackmon, if he isnt availible I have to see more of RG3 dont wanna get caught up in the hype. But I'd go with the DE from Carolina
1B pick, LB if we picked Blackmon, if we went DE we grab a WR
2nd LT or Guard
3rd CB
4th best availible between WR, / Guard / Def.
both picks
We need to address our WR problem in FA & Draft, I do feel we can get a starting LT or Guard in FA
If we dont resign hillis we need to make a push for a FA RB.
I do feel how we draft will be determined bye who we can sign during FA period. We do need a veteran WR to help Colt, add in a young WR along with little and were doing better
If we trade for Luck or pick RG3 I hope we trade Colt for something,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065 |
I think that's kind of a silly strategy to take, in terms of "don't draft player x in the 1st round because these guys (list) weren't drafted there".
You need talent to win. Where that talent comes from doesn't seem to matter in the grand scheme of things. If you have a massive need at RB (which the Browns do) and a player grades out in the vicinity of your draft pick (i.e. Richardson is a consensus top 5 player), then why not take him? How many 3 down RB's are there in the NFL? And of those guys, how many WOULDN'T be worth a #1 pick?
Just to illustrate this point, It's something like 55-60% of the starting NFL QB's were drafted outside the 1st round. Hell, some of the best at the position (Brady, Brees, Romo, etc.) weren't #1 picks either. Is that supposed to mean you shouldn't take Luck #1? Because history tells you that a QB can be found later? Obviously QB's carry a little more weight, in terms of value, that's not really what I'm pointing out. I'm simply underlining that every position in the NFL probably has a nice list of "don't take "x" position in the 1st round because these guys (list) weren't taken there."
Ultimately you take a player in the top 5-10, even at a position like RB, because historically more of those guys pan out. I don't know what the actual percentage is but if a 1st round RB has lets say a 25% better chance to succeed than a 2nd or 3rd round RB, then there's obviously a reason you would target them (if it's BPA + a big need).
I'm not a huge fan of taking a RB that high but if you feel like he's the next AP or Chris Johnson, well, that seems like an easy decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,848 Likes: 951
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,848 Likes: 951 |
Quote:
If you have a massive need at RB (which the Browns do)...
Do you not think that Hillis, Obi, Jackson and Hardesty can get the job done? (Provided we keep Hillis).
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
Plus, Brandon Jackson should return healthy for 2012. Only way we need a RB is if they ditch Hillis, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you have a massive need at RB (which the Browns do)...
Do you not think that Hillis, Obi, Jackson and Hardesty can get the job done? (Provided we keep Hillis).
I agree with this sentiment. If we keep Hillis, we'll have 4 young RB's. Hillis and Ogbonaya are only 25, Jackson is 26, and Hardesty is 24. So next year our starter (hopefully we resign Hillis), will be 26, our primary back up - Hardesty - will be 25, and we will have two more guys to back them up.
This team got hit with a lot of injuries this year at the RB position. Next year, having all 4 of these guys back, healthy, and with another off-season of training and conditioning to learn the offense better and get their bodies ready for an NFL season should bode well for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
NONE were first round selections.
Just trying to get at your point CandyMan.
Are you saying that today, you wouldn't invest a top 10 pick in those guys? Because I watch Trent Richardson, and he's the best RB to come around in a LONG time.
He doesn't have the injury issues of Adrian Peterson, and I'm higher on him than pretty much any college RB i've ever seen.
So just wondering, are they not worth the pick because you can get RBs later in the draft? Or is it that the O-Line makes the RB or something?
LT was a very high 1st round pick, would you pick him? Because that's the level I see Richardson at.........
As for our RBs, Jackson was on IR all season, Hardesty has been brittle the past two seasons. And Hillis has had injuries all over his career. None can really be relied upon. Especially since Jackson is regarded as a guy who isn't particularly good running the ball, more of a 3rd down back. We do have young RBs, but none have shown the ability to really be healthy. Hillis was last season, but not this season. And he got hurt with the Broncos when they started using him as a RB also. With Hillis' style, I don't think he's going to normally make it a full season. Hardesty can't be relied on for anything and Jackson is a 3rd down back. There's definitely a decent case that we have a real need at RB (a position where the guy gets the ball A LOT every game).
When it comes down to who's the better player, Richardson is as good as it gets. I have no issue with getting Richardson, seeing as Hillis and the crew aren't very reliable.
I don't want to pick a WR based on need, and Blackmon is not AJ Green. He's who I wanted last year (AJ). I felt that he was the best player in the draft. The year before, Eric Berry was the guy I liked the most (and then Joe Haden). When Joe Thomas came out, I was sure he'd be really good. This year, Richardson. The only thing you can hold against him is that he's a RB. But if we get one of the best RBs ever, I think it would probably be a good call. Richardson has that potential IMO.
Trent Richardson will definitely be a stud. I have no doubt in my mind. So I prefer him over RG3 (who I just don't know enough about but a lot of people have questions about him and he plays in the spread offense), Quarles (who didn't look good to me when I watched him vs Mizzou) and Blackmon (looks good, but he's no AJ Green). I'd like to trade up for Andrew Luck, but if not, I'm at least sure Trent Richardson will be a stud. I don't know enough about Claiborne or Kalil (never really seen them), but I have seen enough of Richardson. You can't deny that the guy is REALLY good.
So if Richardson will be as good (or as I think, probably better) than the guys you listed; are you saying that (knowing what we know now) Matt Forte, Ray Rice, LeSean McCoy wouldn't have been worth high 1st round picks?
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 12/28/11 05:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459 Likes: 59
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459 Likes: 59 |
I think what he's (very obviously) saying, is that you can get great RBs later in the draft.
It's true.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you have a massive need at RB (which the Browns do)...
Do you not think that Hillis, Obi, Jackson and Hardesty can get the job done? (Provided we keep Hillis).
I don't think any of those players address a long term need at the position.
- Hillis has been up and down and just isn't the type of runner who's going to have a long career.
- Obi was taken off a teams practice squad.
- Hardesty is a glass man.
- Jackson is a 3rd down back.
If you look around the NFL, who has a worse RB situation than Cleveland? In terms of not having either A.) a young, talented back with a lot of promise or B.) an established veteran who's going to be there for the foreseeable future?
I like Hillis but he's not an every down player and his attitude this season has certainly left a lot to be desired. I think he's worth keeping around (for the right price) but he's not a talented enough player to pass on a guy like Richardson if he's the BPA on your board.
I think the Browns have more pressing needs than running back but this team is so devoid of offensive playmakers that need shouldn't play in to the first two selections IMO. The best skill position player on the board is the guy Cleveland should be taking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I think what he's (very obviously) saying, is that you can get great RBs later in the draft.
It's true.
Taking things a logical step further, teams which can really run the ball do so because they have good running schemes with good run-blocking. The Donks, 'Skins, and Texans are perfect examples of that. So from where I'm sitting, why spend a 1st rounder on a RB when there are so many other glaring holes in far more critical positions?
I know I'm parroting what's been said before, but THE most talented backs in this league are laboring on bad teams. Adrian Peterson and Steven Jackson can't sniff a winning record without offensive linemen or QB's. Meanwhile, the Pats, Saints, Packers, and others are going DEEEEP into the playoffs with guys plucked from the middle rounds or scrap heaps.
Frankly, I'd consider a 1st round RB to be a severe waste of a pick.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
In todays league I would take a great passing attack 100/100 over a great running game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,839 Likes: 11
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,839 Likes: 11 |
Quote:
In todays league I would take a great passing attack 100/100 over a great running game. [/quote
why can't i have both? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,459 Likes: 32
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,459 Likes: 32 |
Just realized I forgot to post the updated order after the MNF game this week...not that it changed it much, but here it is anyway. 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/GraffZ06/browns_factory_sig.jpg) Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,573 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,573 Likes: 815 |
Quote:
Why I am against using a high pick on a RB
Look at the following list:
Lesean McCoy
Arian Foster
Ray Rice
Frank Gore
Maurice Jones Drew
Matt Forte
NONE were first round selections.
I generally agree. Unless you have a Adrian Peterson sitting there, it is a tough pick for me as well.
I am not sure Richardson fills that bill, but if we do select him I won't go beserk as he is a fine player. Reminds me of a Steven Jackson type player.
I would be good with that, but by and large, backs are dime a dozen players. There are lots of guys who can gain yardage if you give them half a chance at the line.
The really great backs make their own or find holes nobody else could find, but you don't find that many Emmett Smith or Barry Sanders type players.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I generally agree. Unless you have a Adrian Peterson sitting there, it is a tough pick for me as well.
For me, Richardson is an Adrian Peterson type player.
He's not just any RB, not your average 1st round RB period. He's much better than Mark Ingram IMO.
I have no issue with taking him because he's a sure-fire hit in my book.
1A) Richardson
1B) WR/RT/RG
2) RT/WR/RG
3) WR/RG
Obviously FA will answer some of these holes. But Hardesty is pointless on the team. If Hillis wants a reasonable contract re-sign him and Brandon Jackson as our #3. OG can battle it out with Jackson in camp. That leaves a good spot for Richardson IMO
RT is a must between 1A and round 2 though (unless we make a move for Luck, which I would love). I just don't see us getting a decent tackle in FA. But if we do, I'd definitely be high on picking one of those good RG's with our 1A if available.
I know the NFL is a passing league, but we do play in the north, and a running attack that must be planned for is very good for a stronger passing attack. Especially as we try to become more vertically oriented
If we got ourselves a runningback who could play here for 10 years, I'd have no issue with using a high 1st round pick on it. I've always really liked Richardson, and with a stronger O-Line around him (and Colt), our offense will improve
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,125 Likes: 222
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,125 Likes: 222 |
Not disagreeing with you here...but...
I would rather sign Hillis and draft Claiborne than draft Richardson.
Not apples to apples...I know...but just the thought that I had.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,573 Likes: 815
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,573 Likes: 815 |
I think most who know me or pay attention to my comments know i am a SEC guy down the line.
I don't think he is like a Petersen, but I did mention Steven Jackson.
Again, he wouldn't be my pick, but if we do, I won't complain.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Atlanta and Draft Order Part IV
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
