|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556 |
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).
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556 |
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.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556 |
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).
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
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...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,834
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,834 |
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.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,556 |
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.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
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...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,298
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,298 |
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.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
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...
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,831 |
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
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.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,298
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,298 |
Tom Heckert says we're fine at that position.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,495
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,495 |
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?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
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.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,495
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,495 |
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..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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..........
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,342
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,342 |
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)
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
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.
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,342
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,342 |
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.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
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.
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
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...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
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.
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,928 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,104
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,104 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,342
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,342 |
LOL! 
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
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.
Last edited by LOYALDAWG; 01/17/12 05:53 PM.
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
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.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Pluto's Talkin' about the Browns'
offensive line, the No. 4 draft
pick
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
