|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
With Manning a No-Go in Washington, and them seemingly wanting a Headline more than anything else, I think RG3 to Washington is 99.9% done, I don't think the H&H are interested in "selling the farm" for the 2nd best QB in the draft...
If by some slim chance he gets to 4, Yeah I think we take him, unless WE can fleece someone else... If I knew Claiborne would be at 6 I wouldn't even ask for the world...
Ugh, Is it April yet?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
With Manning a No-Go in Washington, and them seemingly wanting a Headline more than anything else, I think RG3 to Washington is 99.9% done, I don't think the H&H are interested in "selling the farm" for the 2nd best QB in the draft...
If by some slim chance he gets to 4, Yeah I think we take him, unless WE can fleece someone else... If I knew Claiborne would be at 6 I wouldn't even ask for the world...
Ugh, Is it April yet?
You're forgetting bounty gate and distinct possibility the skins may suffer some repercussions from their participation. I'm sure the NFL will dole out their verdict before the draft. If the skins are hit with their 1st next season, do they really have the ammo at that point to move up to two, probably not.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
Well I liked Tannehill before I found out that Lombardi said that. Crap, now I'm scared of Tannehill.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
I think NO will get their 1st taken next year, But I doubt Washington does, its not a statute of limitations type thing, but they (and Buf) aren't the team in focus...
Plus I doubt we'd even Consider giving up our first next year either, we've stated we don't wanna give up 22 (though that could change)
I think Heckert would value the pick next year too much...
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:
You don;t agree that we've had crap at QB over the past 20 years, while most other teams have had at least one pretty good QB during that time?
I don't know how you could possibly disagree with that given the list. 
Not speaking for Daman, but I do disagree with it. I think we've had horrid quality at other positions on this team at various times in the past 20 years. Sometimes, the QB hasn't been the problem position. Some of the time, it's been DL. Or OL. Or RB production. Or the WR corps. Or the DBs. Mostly, I think it's been a deficiency in the front office and below them, the coaching staff. To be fair, I think that it's mostly been the front office since the return in 1999, but I won't let any of the pieces completely off.
Much of the team's problems originated with the front offices. They got certain aspects right (I think selecting Tim Couch #1 in 1999 was a good move but nothing else out of that draft was even worth the time.
The Browns should get better and getting better could very well mean that we bundle the later round picks together to move back up into an earlier round.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,401
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,401 |
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
He appeals a lot more to me too FWIW (which is about nothing). I just feel like he sets himself better, has better footwork and would fit our system. JMHO.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
He appeals a lot more to me too FWIW (which is about nothing). I just feel like he sets himself better, has better footwork and would fit our system. JMHO.
I just don't wanna spend a high 1st round pick on a QB that basically HAS to sit for an extended period of time (RG3 will start wherever he goes, and Tannehill should sit unless he surprises)
#22? Maybe, I'd take him at 37 no doubt, but theres almost no way he gets there...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
Well I liked Tannehill before I found out that Lombardi said that. Crap, now I'm scared of Tannehill.
LOL, yeah even he gets one right now and again though. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
If you believe that a kid is going to be an ELITE level QB with the right grooming, you take him and let him play through his growing pains or you sit him until you believe he is ready to run with it but the bottom line is that you take him.
Now they may not believe it. I know many on here do not. Some believe in RG3, some don't believe. It is the risks a GM takes.
Then it is the coach that must decide how to grow your project. I would have a competition and let him compete with Colt. I think competition will help both. If he is showing he is ready, you let him play. If he doesn't you let him sit and learn. Now you might want to slant it a bit towards the veteran and make the hill a bit tougher for him to climb.
I want to get my QB and have him grow with the team and be ready to make that run.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,861
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,861 |
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
LOL there it is again, the automatic assumption that Colt is not going to be the starter next season..
ya know,, that may well be the case,, but it seems only settled in the minds of (a few) fans and the media....
#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 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
LOL there it is again, the automatic assumption that Colt is not going to be the starter next season..
ya know,, that may well be the case,, but it seems only settled in the minds of (a few) fans and the media....
Where in that quote does anyone say anything about anyone starting?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,861
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,861 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
LOL there it is again, the automatic assumption that Colt is not going to be the starter next season..
ya know,, that may well be the case,, but it seems only settled in the minds of (a few) fans and the media....
Where in that quote does anyone say anything about anyone starting?
Whoops, quoted the wrong thing. Gotta go find what I was actually commenting on..thank and good catch OS...
#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: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Pretty sure we save 2.4 million when we cut him. He will be the odd man out. Colt is just as good as Wallace and a lot cheaper.
BTW on Path to the draft Michael Lombardi said TAnnehill appeals to the Browns more than RG3.
Well I liked Tannehill before I found out that Lombardi said that. Crap, now I'm scared of Tannehill.
LOL, yeah even he gets one right now and again though.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, what Lombardi said was that he would tell Holmgren not to worry about drafting system players, but drafting good players... and that RGIII is close to what Steve Young was. Good players play well in systems is basically what he said.
Basically, Lombardi said in two different segments that he would tell Holmgren to draft RGIII, but he thinks the Browns like Tannehill better because of the WCO experience. He also said he doesn't think that's a good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
I was reading that Heckert was talking to the Rams. I do think a Redskins trade up to 2 is inevitable but was thinking what things we can be talking about with the Rams. The Rams I think need to get back up to 4 and want to know the cost of such a deal before anything is finalized. The Rams can ask for players and picks from the Skins if say the Brown's will do it if they include a Fred Davis or Orakpo in a deal or a Tackle, etc. Not much on the Rams roster but maybe they like Chris Long or Laurenitis. I think it would be wise for St. Louis to see what our price would be to help make a deal before hand easier and make every team happy. I would test the waters to see how desperate Washington is. Pipe dreaming, but if there is way Heckert will fleece someone in their weakest moment, such as Shanny and his job being on the line I am sure he will take full advantage of 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: 9,806
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 |
They could be talking about a lot of other things as well. In addition to what you mention:
Maybe the Rams want to know the price move up from #34 to #22
Perhaps what it would cost for us to trade for Bradford
We should know the price to trade up to #2 in the event Indy takes RGIII and we want to go get Luck
And we all want to know who is the better Republican candidate Santorum or Romney
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Crazy Trade Back Scenario's (That
Could Happen)
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
