|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
I think taking someone in the 2-3 range is a waste this year, Unless you think Weeden can come in and start/be productive right away..
I only think we draft Tannehill if we think he can come in and start right away.
I think we're going with McCoy, hoping either he breaks out, or craps out. Possibly solving our QB conundrum with a Barkley or someone next year.
The only problem would be if he does JUST GOOD ENOUGH to get us to like 6-10/8-8
Then I dunno.
This Year:
Take Tanehill in the 1st(I don't wanna, that's where we'd have to probably)
Weeden in the 2nd
NOTHING ELSE.
Next Year:
Who knows...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,663 Likes: 673
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,663 Likes: 673 |
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
I think if Colt wins 7+ games were "stuck" with him for another season...
It also depends on how those games go in and of themselves. If he's awesome but our D gives up alot and we keep losing (aka Newton at the beginning of this last year) and we only win 5-7 games you can sell me on him for another year...
But I think part of it won't be wins, or even stats to a point, he has to pass the eye test.
When I watch a guys like Rodgers and Brady, they make you say "wow" as QBs...
I don't expect that level from Colt now (if ever) but right now he's not even at Matt Cassel level...
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 |
j/c Since it appears we're rolling with Colt again, I'm going to look to the positive side. There was once a 6'2" QB who started his NFL career with a really bad offensive football team. He started 19 games in 2 seasons and won only 3, completing 11 TD's and 21 INT's, he had less than a 55% completion ratio. This guy sucked and had bust written all over him. Was it really him? Was it the fact he had no weapons around him? No matter, he was traded away to a WCO team that had some weapons. That QB was HOF'er Steve Young. Am I saying that Colt is Steve Young? Nope. Looking at the positive side of things though, after a rocky start to his career, somewhere along the way it clicked for Young and it could click for Colt, with a few weapons to work with he just might turn out to be a decent player. Since I can't do anything about what we don't have, I think I'll just try and look positively at what we do have and maybe daydream a bit. Come game day though, all bets are off. 
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
...then there are this 999 other 6'2 QBs that sucked through their 1st 20 games....and kept sucking  This argument is as "good" as saying you can find your franchise QB in the 6th round...might as well just say: there are wonders !
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
It's a personal choice but at least give an umbrella a try while you're walking under that black cloud!
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
I dunno what happened between January of 2011 and September...
But I think if 2010-11 Colt plays this last year instead of 2011-12 Colt, we take the Bengals spot and make the playoffs...
He may not have all the physical skills. But there was a confidence about him, seen mostly at the end of the Jets game, that he just didn't have this year...
If we can get that guy back, I think we'll be "ok" for now...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
JC ... Holmgren gripes about Griffin tradePosted by Mike Florio on March 16, 2012, 6:00 AM EDT Last week at this time, the Rams were working out a deal to send the second overall pick in the 2012 draft to the Redskins for the sixth overall selection plus two other first-round picks and a second-round pick. The Browns were in the running for the pick that most likely will become the rights to Robert Griffin III, but in the end the Rams decided not to do business with the Browns. Browns president Mike Holmgren isn’t happy that a franchise that was once headquartered in Cleveland dissed the team that currently plays there. He seems to think it was an inside job by the Rams to steer the pick to the Redskins. “Honestly, when it didn’t happen I think there are reasons that I can’t go into right now, but there is a very close relationship between the people getting the deal done and the people who offered. And I’m not sure anything we offered would have been good enough. We were very, very aggressive and it didn’t work,” Holmgren said during a Thursday conference call for season-ticket holders, via Tony Grossi of ESPN Cleveland. (With all the football players getting new jobs lately, I forgot to point out that Grossi has a new job, too — he’s back on the Browns beat with ESPN Cleveland, which to its tremendous credit wasn’t troubled by Grossi’s Twitter malfunction from late January.) As Grossi explains it, Rams coach Jeff Fisher and Redskins coach Mike Shanahan have a friendship. That friendship, in Holmgren’s view, ensured that the Redskins would get the pick. (As a league source explains it, Holmgren may have been referring to Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen and Rams COO Kevin Demoff, who were colleagues and close friends with the Buccaneers.) But while Holmgren claimed that the Browns made “every bit the offer” that the Rams accepted from the Redskins, Holmgren didn’t disclose the terms. Was it three first-round picks and a second-round pick? Or was it some other package that Holmgren believes the Rams should have regarded as equivalent? Peter King of SI.com reports via Twitter that Rams G.M. Les Snead instructed teams to make their best offer. The Redskins did and the Browns did. Then, the Browns wanted to make another offer, but the Rams had already decided to accept what the Redskins had offered. Holmgren’s comments seem misguided, for several reasons. First, the Rams had the right to trade the pick to anyone to whom they wanted to trade the pick. There are no rules in this regard apart from the two interested teams coming to a mutual agreement and the league providing its approval. Second, absent specific disclosure by Holmgren of the offer that was made in response to the Rams’ request for the “best offer,” there’s simply no way to assess the validity of Holmgren’s complaint. Third, if Holmgren knew the Redskins were at the table and knew that the relationships involved pointed to St. Louis doing the deal with D.C., why bother to even try? Or, even better, why not offer more than what the Redskins were expected to put on the table? Fourth, it wasn’t in the Rams’ interests to keep Griffin in the conference. All things being equal, it made more sense to ship the pick to the AFC, since the Rams will now face Griffin at least once every three years, and possibly any year in the six-team NFC playoff field. Thus, if it truly was a tie (and since Holmgren didn’t disclose the offer we don’t know that), the Rams would have been more inclined to trade Griffin to the Browns. Fifth, the comments will do little to shore up the confidence of Colt McCoy, or to allow the team to sell whoever the starter may be in 2012 as the first choice. The first choice was Griffin, and now everyone knows it. Sixth, whining about the situation serves no purpose. Browns fans won’t get mad at the Rams or the Redskins; they’ll assume that the failure to land Griffin is the latest new product rolling off the assembly line at the “factory of sadness.” Seventh, Holmgren has surely benefited from his own friendships and relationships many more times than he has been burned by those maintained by others. The Godfather of what once was known loosely as the Green Bay Mafia (Jon Gruden perhaps was Luca Brasi), Holmgren knows how to call in favors and/or throw his weight around when he needs to. He’s frustrated primarily because he wasn’t able to do it this time. He would have wise, in our view, to keep those frustrations to himself. And with that I’ll officially withdraw my application for employment with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/holmgren-gripes-about-griffin-trade/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,124 Likes: 222
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,124 Likes: 222 |
I'd like to personally thank the Rams & Redskins for NOT letting us make that trade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
What kind of talent can we add to get 5 more wins if the QB sucks? You think a couple mid level FA's is going to do that? You think rookies at CB and WR or RB can get us 5 more wins than we had last year?
All I've heard is that you CAN'T WIN WITHOUT GOOD QB PLAY... so now you are saying what if we DO win without good QB play?
I can't imagine any scenario in which we even sniff 9 wins without Colt really picking it up...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,528 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
From the PFT article: Quote:
Les Snead instructed teams to make their best offer. The Redskins did and the Browns did. Then, the Browns wanted to make another offer, but the Rams had already decided to accept what the Redskins had offered.
This is not exactly the way Holmgren tells it. He claims that existing relationships between the Rams and Redskins took precedent over an equal or superior offer by the Browns. Why would the Rams settle for less than they could get? It sounds to me like our "best offer" didn't match Snyder's and we tried to up it. But the Rams decided it wouldn't be right or fair to allow the Browns a second bite at the apple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,488 Likes: 146
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,488 Likes: 146 |
jcing...
Holmgren had to let the fans know what happened in part due to the fact that the local media took off on a rage without knowing all the facts, writing and talking as if they knew what went down and assuming the Browns didn't even try to make the deal happen.
We had fans here dumping on Holmgren and Heckert for the same reason when in fact, like the local Cleveland media, many of our fans didn't know the truth.
As for the Rams taking the Pig's deal...it might very well cost them a shot at drafting Blackmon, since they are now setting behind the Browns at #6.
They could have had the #4 pick and likely a shot at Blackmon, but they wanted to take care of their buddies. That's just the cost of doing business in the NFL...just when you think you have made a great deal...suddenly you find out it might not have been such a great deal.
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,663 Likes: 673
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,663 Likes: 673 |
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
What kind of talent can we add to get 5 more wins if the QB sucks? You think a couple mid level FA's is going to do that? You think rookies at CB and WR or RB can get us 5 more wins than we had last year?
All I've heard is that you CAN'T WIN WITHOUT GOOD QB PLAY... so now you are saying what if we DO win without good QB play?
I can't imagine any scenario in which we even sniff 9 wins without Colt really picking it up...
My post is a what if in referral to Holmgren's statement that we will be better than 6-10... Then the poster before me said 8-8...
So what if...
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
Quote:
... but they wanted to take care of their buddies.
I don't think a team would accept less than they could feasibly get to help a division rival. They have to face the Redskins twice a year. I also don't think a team could allow another team (the Browns) a "last look" in what amounted to a sealed bid auction, and maintain their reputation in the league as an organization worth doing business with. It would be incredibly short-sighted and damaging to the Rams to operate that way.
Edit for brain cramp: Rams & Redskins are not divisional rival.  I still don't think they would intentionally help another team at their own expense, if they knew they could have gotten a better deal from the Browns.
Last edited by Dave; 03/16/12 10:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
(I'll preface this by saying we coulda/shoulda been 1-16 as the Colts game is the only won we emphatically won.)
We won 4 games.
If you subtract Defensive/Special Teams mistakes we're up to 6-10
Then the other Bengals and Cardinals games where we lost by 3 (one in OT) and we're already up to 8 possible wins.
THIS IS HOW BAD WE WERE LAST YEAR. AND HOW CRAPPY OF A SCHEDULE WE PLAYED.
Had we played above average this year, We probably would have made the playoffs...
Yes I understand we have a more difficult schedule on paper next year.
But we should also be more talented, and better suited to the system...
I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
(I'll preface this by saying we coulda/shoulda been 1-16 as the Colts game is the only won we emphatically won.)
I don't think you make the playoffs at 1-15. Maybe in the NFC west.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I have a few issues with Florio's take: These two things make sense: Quote:
First, the Rams had the right to trade the pick to anyone to whom they wanted to trade the pick. There are no rules in this regard apart from the two interested teams coming to a mutual agreement and the league providing its approval.
Second, absent specific disclosure by Holmgren of the offer that was made in response to the Rams’ request for the “best offer,” there’s simply no way to assess the validity of Holmgren’s complaint.
Then you have this:
Quote:
Third, if Holmgren knew the Redskins were at the table and knew that the relationships involved pointed to St. Louis doing the deal with D.C., why bother to even try? Or, even better, why not offer more than what the Redskins were expected to put on the table?
I have a feeling that's why Holmgren is PO'd. He's probably looking back now thinking that we never should have even tried. As he said, he feels no offer we made would have been accepted. I'm guessing he came to that realization too late (likely after the trade was done).
And, as Florio stated several times, we don't know what our offer was. How do we know our offer WASN'T better than the 'Skins? Now, maybe the Rams will come out and say what our offers were. But, without knowing that, it's hard to say that we should have just offered more than what we expected the 'Skins to offer. Heck, we may have done just that, but the 'Skins surprised us.
Quote:
Fourth, it wasn’t in the Rams’ interests to keep Griffin in the conference. All things being equal, it made more sense to ship the pick to the AFC, since the Rams will now face Griffin at least once every three years, and possibly any year in the six-team NFC playoff field. Thus, if it truly was a tie (and since Holmgren didn’t disclose the offer we don’t know that), the Rams would have been more inclined to trade Griffin to the Browns.
[conspiracy theory] Unless Holmgren is right and it wouldn't have mattered what we offered, meaning some sort of "intangible" was the real reason for the trade. [/conspiracy theory]
Quote:
Fifth, the comments will do little to shore up the confidence of Colt McCoy, or to allow the team to sell whoever the starter may be in 2012 as the first choice. The first choice was Griffin, and now everyone knows it.
Yes, because before Holmgren said it, everyone was of the mindset that we hadn't been involved at all and had put our total faith behind McCoy.
Quote:
Sixth, whining about the situation serves no purpose. Browns fans won’t get mad at the Rams or the Redskins; they’ll assume that the failure to land Griffin is the latest new product rolling off the assembly line at the “factory of sadness.”
I think this is just wrong. I've seen a change in the fanbase since this came out. Yeah, people might still be PO'd, but I think people are a little "happier" to show we didn't totally muck this up. At the worst, we guessed wrong as to what the Rams wanted. It wasn't like we offered them a 7th rounder, thinking that's what they expected.
And, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the "we're only going to take one offer" situation has been used before, and then more offers are taken. Heck, in all of my negotiations, there is almost ALWAYS a point where someone says this is the last best offer, and then they listen to more offers. So, now people know when the Rams say it, they mean it. We just happened to be on the wrong side of it this time.
Quote:
Seventh, Holmgren has surely benefited from his own friendships and relationships many more times than he has been burned by those maintained by others. The Godfather of what once was known loosely as the Green Bay Mafia (Jon Gruden perhaps was Luca Brasi), Holmgren knows how to call in favors and/or throw his weight around when he needs to.
I don't have a problem with that. You know that deals happen all the time that maybe "shouldn't" because of relationships. However, this is probably Holmgren's last hurrah, so maybe he doesn't care as much about it anymore. Just a (poor) guess.
Quote:
He’s frustrated primarily because he wasn’t able to do it this time. He would have wise, in our view, to keep those frustrations to himself.
I agree that Holmgren is frustrated because of how this turned out. He probably thought that we put together a ridiculous offer and was surprised when it came out that (apparently) another team made a ridiculouser offer. Like I said in another thread, you could hear the anger in his voice on the call.
But, as I said above, I've seen a "change" in Browns fans after he said that. Like maybe our FO didn't just sit on their hands and screw the pooch. They were aggressive and just didn't make it.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
I don't think a team would accept less than they could feasibly get to help a division rival. They have to face the Redskins twice a year.
That's just plain wrong. Rams are in NFC West. 'Skins are in NFC East. They only play each other sporadically, similar to how we might only play the Jets or the Broncos once every couple years.
And, I maintain that I admire the Rams for doing it this way. They stuck to their word. The issue I have is, maybe they shouldn't have done it that way if they wanted to maximize value.
It's great to be a nice guy, but in this league, as with life, you have to do what's best for you. Having the two teams play against each other is the best way to do that, and, I wouldn't be surprised if it's expected.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
They have to face the Redskins twice a year
the Rams are in the NFC-W, Redskins in the NFC-E
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
BF79, NLR - see my edit of my mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
no worries. I agree they wouldn't help out a buddy at their own expense, but they may have used it as a tie-breaker.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
(I'll preface this by saying we coulda/shoulda been 1-16 as the Colts game is the only won we emphatically won.)
Every teams record would be worse if you took away games they didn't "emphatically win".. but then that would mean that the other team won a game less than emphatically.. Winning close games, even ugly games is what the NFL is about, not blowing people out.
Quote:
THIS IS HOW BAD WE WERE LAST YEAR. AND HOW CRAPPY OF A SCHEDULE WE PLAYED.
By record at the end of the year, we played the 6th hardest schedule in the NFL. But here is the thing about SoS, the fact that we lost to every team in our division twice, makes our schedule look harder than theirs even though the rest of our schedule was largely similar... So by default, most of the teams with hard SOS are not very good and all of the teams with easier SoS are better teams... it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
I think Florio's suggestion that the Browns made their "best offer" and then tried to improve it rings true. The Rams would have taken a beating for double-dealing, inside league circles, if they had allowed that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
adjusted-SOS rankings fix that. they do it for college football and basketball, I assume they have it somewhere for the NFL
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
There is nothing wrong with a bidding war and that's what that would have been.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
I think Florio's suggestion that the Browns made their "best offer" and then tried to improve it rings true. The Rams would have taken a beating for double-dealing, inside league circles, if they had allowed that.
I don't see why it would be so bad for them to actually negotiate with both teams.. Since when did blind bid trades become the "ethical" thing to do?
Now I could see if they LIED and told H&H that the Redskins had offered 3 #1s a #2 and a #3 just to up the Browns bid if that is NOT what the Skins had offered.. that I think would be unethical but to try to play the 2 against each other in a bidding war to get the best deal... I sort of thought that was the idea. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 Likes: 234 |
But having asked for best offers means the Rams were trying to foreshorten the process. Best offer means best offer - what part of that didn't H&H understand?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,562 Likes: 814
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,562 Likes: 814 |
Quote:
Colt is done for.
No doubt. The team wouldn't make a play like that if we though Colt could be the guy with a little more help.
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: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
But having asked for best offers means the Rams were trying to foreshorten the process. Best offer means best offer - what part of that didn't H&H understand?
I haven't seen anything that shows they didn't understand it. I have a feeling they just didn't think it would seriously be only a one offer thing. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the "we're only taking one offer" has been used a lot but never followed.
Again, I admire the Rams for sticking to their word. But, I don't think it was a good idea (from a Rams team standpoint) to set it up that way.
Now, arbitration is baseball is like that. Each side offers their best offer and then the arbitrator picks one. There's merit to that. But, that's only when it gets to arbitration.
If I'm a GM or an owner, if I'm shopping a pick, I go to teams and say, "start bidding." I play teams against each other, just like I would expect teams to play me against another team if I'm bidding for their pick. It's just how the game is played. The Rams threw in a curveball by being honest.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
I don't know... I think they saw an opportunity to make a significant upgrade at the position with a special player and tried to make it happen. They may not see the remaining options as significant upgrades. I think the fact that they were willing to give up so much for Griffin (more than I would have wanted to) supports that fact. I think if they thought they could make a significant upgrade outside Luck and Griffin they would not have offered so much for the pick.
My order of preference went:
1. Luck
2. Griffin
3. Stick with Colt/Seneca and add players around them (+ time in the system for Colt).
It sounded from the interview that that may be the org's strategy, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
But having asked for best offers, means the Rams were trying to foreshorten the process. Best offer means best offer - what part of that didn't H&H understand?
If the Browns were the only team bidding then their best offer would have been something the Rams would have taken or passed on. But when your best offer has to be judged as bidding against another bidder then it gets more difficult.
Washington knew we had 2 firsts this year. They may have figured we'd give both this year and our #1 next year. That would trump Washington's 3 firsts in each of three years since ours would be had in two and this year's first was higher.
If Washington does not know the Browns offer but figure it would be 3 firsts then they figure they have to throw in another pick to trump the Browns.
The Browns, not knowing Washington's offer, maybe figure it will be 3 firsts and know their own three firsts beats that.
How were the Browns to know Washington would offer up so much? Do they suppose that might be the case so offer our 3 firsts plus a 2nd plus a 3rd? When does it stop? Should they have thrown in a 4th and a 5th just to make sure?
When you offer 2 extra firsts to move up 2 spots that should be enough. As it went down, in my opinion, the winning bid was ridiculous.
There's usually a bidding war. This time there wasn't.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,562 Likes: 814
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,562 Likes: 814 |
I don't know that we will do anything about it this year because as you say, there may not be a option we want, but in the long run they have sent a message to camp McCoy.
I will say we still need to see where Manning goes. Once he picks a team, there is a good chance a current starter is going to be available.
I think if the Titans land Manning, Hasselback ends up here.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,117 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,117 Likes: 134 |
WOW Os,, I'm in shock.. The way I read your post, I really felt as if it was a rather positive lookback.  Holmgren made mention of something similar., it was either yesterday or maybe at his end of the year presser. basically, eliminate some dumb mistakes, dropped passes and add in a running game, and we win 2 to 4 more games. He's probably right.. That's not really saying anything.. because a couple of breaks we did get, if they go the other way, maybe we don't win 1 game... I prefer the more optomistic outlook
#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: 49,975 Likes: 355
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,975 Likes: 355 |
And Butch Davis once said that if we just eliminated those 1 or 2 plays in the run defense, we'd win 2 or 3 extra games ..........
Almost every team can claim the "If onlys" for a few games per year. Unfortunately, "if onlys" almost never translate to more wins the next year.
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: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
I will say we still need to see where Manning goes. Once he picks a team, there is a good chance a current starter is going to be available.
I think if the Titans land Manning, Hasselback ends up here.
Since the Dolphins are no longer an option.. that leaves Tebow, Hasselbeck, or Kolb I guess... I don't think there is any way Shurmur envisions Tebow being able to run his offense and not likely to change our offense the way Fox did.. so Hasselbeck or Kolb. Not sure what it would take to get Kolb, he just signed a big deal a year ago and the Cards would take a heck of a hit if they just cut him. Hasselbeck is going into his 14th year so while he might stabilize the position and upgrade it, it would obviously only be a short term fix and that's not what H&H seem to want..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Not sure what it would take to get Kolb, he just signed a big deal a year ago and the Cards would take a heck of a hit if they just cut him.
It's actually the opposite.
Because of the Bonus deadline. If they give it to him, he's their QB. If they don't, He's gone. Same as was Manning.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,839 Likes: 11
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,839 Likes: 11 |
j/c.. yall need to stop dissing my QB.. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Offer to the Rams
#4 for #6, 2012 2nd & 5th, 2014 1st
Saw this in your sig and I'm wondering why in the world would the Rams trade for that?
If reports are true that we offered at the least #4, #22 and 2013 1st but the Redskins was (3) 1st and this years 2nd. The difference is only a 2nd round pick.
So why would they give up a 2nd and 5th this year a 2014 1st to move up two spots when they could of traded with us to begin with and came out better?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,975 Likes: 355
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,975 Likes: 355 |
I keep thinking about this Hasslebeck thing .... and while it makes some sense, I also think that it doesn't.
How much longer is he going to play at a high level? Maybe this year? Maybe, at best, next year?
Let's say that the brass really isn't completely decided one way or the other on McCoy. I would think that they would give him one more chance, unless they can clearly upgrade the position for a long, long time. (Like they could have with Luck or RG3) I just have trouble seeing them go for a 1 year fix, unless they have a guy in place to take over in a year or 2.
Now maybe if they have decided to go Tannehill, then signing a guy like Hasselbeck makes sense. However, I have trouble seeing that kind of move if Colt McCoy is the fallback again in a year or 2.
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.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Rams/Redskins Trade Part 2
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)