|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Besides Hillis, which is debateable, we haven't really lost anything..
Steinbach didn't play last year.
Adams (as much as I liked him as a Player/Person) was a rotational backup/starter.
Mitchell was garbage.
I can't see the Rucker/Parker combo being any worse than Mitchell so thats at least some sort of upgrade, and I assume Heckert will try to hit on another mid round DE..
We HAVE to draft a RT at some point. I think LT-RG is set. (Don't think it's great just yet, but it's set.)
And I think trading back and grabbing Richardson is a big possibility (I don't want him at 4) unless Heckert wants to go all in on Hardesty this year, then I'd like to see a guy like LeMichael James or Turbin in the later rounds...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
My guess at RB is that we're going to roll the dice on Hardesty, Obi-Wan and whomever else we currently have, plus UDFA's.... *maybe* take a later round guy, or something.
I think, basically, that Hardesty gets this year to showcase himself before we invest another high pick in a RB.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
I've always been a fan of grabbing Adcock
Is this really the best way you could think of to say this? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
I've always been a fan of grabbing Adcock
Is this really the best way you could think of to say this?
*ahem*
I have always been of the opinion that drafting Offensive Tackle Levy Adcock of Oklahoma State in the 3rd to 4th round would be a good idea...
..better?
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
My guess at RB is that we're going to roll the dice on Hardesty, Obi-Wan and whomever else we currently have, plus UDFA's.... *maybe* take a later round guy, or something.
I think, basically, that Hardesty gets this year to showcase himself before we invest another high pick in a RB.
I don't think that's out of the question, certainly. However, I can't imagine Heckert is all that comfortable with having Hardesty as our feature back. If (when?) he goes down again, we're back to what we had last year, with "ok" backs, but no one that's going to scare defenses (unless Brandon Jackson can somehow tear things up).
Then, defenses are going to just stack the lines and make Colt pass. And we saw where that got us last year.
As time is going on, I am leaning more and more toward us drafting Richardson at 4 (not that I'm saying I like it, just that I think that's what we're going to do). Maybe we try to get a WR at 22, or maybe we just hope that a WR corps of Little, Cribbs, MoMass and Norwood can improve over last year.
JMHGuess
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Quote:
My guess at RB is that we're going to roll the dice on Hardesty, Obi-Wan and whomever else we currently have, plus UDFA's.... *maybe* take a later round guy, or something.
I think, basically, that Hardesty gets this year to showcase himself before we invest another high pick in a RB.
I don't think that's out of the question, certainly. However, I can't imagine Heckert is all that comfortable with having Hardesty as our feature back. If (when?) he goes down again, we're back to what we had last year, with "ok" backs, but no one that's going to scare defenses (unless Brandon Jackson can somehow tear things up).
Then, defenses are going to just stack the lines and make Colt pass. And we saw where that got us last year.
As time is going on, I am leaning more and more toward us drafting Richardson at 4 (not that I'm saying I like it, just that I think that's what we're going to do). Maybe we try to get a WR at 22, or maybe we just hope that a WR corps of Little, Cribbs, MoMass and Norwood can improve over last year.
JMHGuess
Or we take Clariborne at 4, and then we can stack the line. WR at 22, and RG in the 3rd. Still leaves our 2nd round pick.
I don't understand your line of thinking that if we draft the top RB prospect other teams won't stack the line. Wouldn't it be the opposite?
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I don't think I said what I meant very clearly. Frankly, I'm not sure what the hell I was trying to say! lol I guess what I was thinking was that McCoy had his greatest success when we were running the ball well. I think the coaches will recognize this. If we don't have a solid RB, teams will sit back, take away the pass with the assumption that even if we run, they'll be able to stop it. In other words, the complete opposite of what I had said before. lol. I need to stop drinking in the morning. If we get a solid RB like Richardson, then teams have to respect the run. That might open the pass up a bit. Then, they have to drop back to cover the pass, and we can run again. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517 |
It willnot matter who the RB is,until Mccoy proves otherwise,every team will be stacking the line.
We will all complain about the o-line,coaching and play calling,but the simple fact is,our QB play has to improve.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
Quote:
It willnot matter who the RB is,until Mccoy proves otherwise,every team will be stacking the line.
We will all complain about the o-line,coaching and play calling,but the simple fact is,our QB play has to improve.
This is a point lost on the masses and is the reason we constantly get the "OL sucks, WR sucks, RB sucks ... McCoy won't be anything until we fix those problems" argument. The simple fact of the matter is teams had no regard for the deep (or even intermediate) ball. Made everyone else look worse.
I think I've said this a hundred times on this board. You cannot have a pro bowler at every position. So you can't handicap yourselves even worse with a QB who refuses to make all the throws or simply can't.
That said, I'm torn on drafting a guy or giving McCoy another year to see if there is improvement. Without drafting #1 overall, that's the position we find ourselves in, unfortunately.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
All that is absolutely correct, but - like so many, many discussions on here - it takes a bit of an extreme view. Nobody is saying that we need pro bowlers at every position. People are saying, however, that the people at our skill positions have to actually have a clue, some ability, and hold onto the ball.
We did not have that last year, and it is something that we *should* have this year. Colt's been put on notice by the front office - he MUST show improvement for his part of things or he is going to be shown the bench (or the door), but that applies to everyone else as well.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
Without question, outside of LT, every single part of the O can stand to be improved.
However, if you had to rank the biggest problems with the O, you'd have to start with QB at #1, IMO.
QB is the only person on the team that really can control to some extent how the others look and perform over the course of a game. Peyton Manning looked like he was playing with a Pro Bowl OL through most of his career. He wasn't.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
That said, I'm torn on drafting a guy or giving McCoy another year to see if there is improvement. Without drafting #1 overall, that's the position we find ourselves in, unfortunately.
We're now in QB purgatory. There's no denying that, since it's been verified by the actions of the organization.
But your decision shouldn't be about whether or not you think there's going to be great improvement on McCoy's part. There aren't any elite tools which would give you any serious faith his ceiling is so far above where he's at now that he's a good bet. Since we lost out...again...on the QB the team really wanted, we are really stuck between just another year of rebuilding or BADLY over-reaching on a guy like Tannehill.
So the decision is do we go after the boobie-prize in Tannehill, do we stick with McCoy for no other reason than we're stuck with him and resign ourselves to more rebuilding (with the dollars we've spent on free agents, it sure looks like that's what we're doing) or the third alternative, which was prevalent before this season started and has been proven to be faulty logic, which is we sit tight with McCoy and take one of the 3rd tier QB's such as Foles, Cousins, or Osweiler.
At this point, I'm pretty-much in "screw it" mode. I don't care for any of the QB's available to us now. Tannehill is going to go far higher than he should and I want no part of that. If we've passed on any legitimate starting free agents who are going to make big impacts, we might as well just not bother wasting any more valuable picks on low-probability QB's. Build the skill positions and the lines and look to the future.
Seems that's what we do best these days...
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
I'd just stay put at #4 and take Claiborne. Fixes 2 positions in one pick by giving us an outstanding corner tandem and letting Brown move to FS. Would let Young move to utility safety and would make sense given that we let Adams go. The holes on the roster post-FA are pretty much signaling where we're looking other than BPA with pick #1 - RB, WR, RT, QB, OLB. I can see the draft looking kind of like this:
1a) - Morris Claiborne, CB
1b) - Kendall Wright, WR
2) - David Wilson, RB
3) - Bobby Massie, RT
4) - QB/OLB
5) - QB/OLB
The only problem with that scenario is that we're relying on Colt again. Hopefully he'd blossom and we'd be looking good for the future but even if he doesn't, it would put us in position to get a QB next year (which is a crappy option but likely the best left). Given what's left at the position and how if we want Tannehill, we'd probably have to reach farther than Heckert is comfortable, I think our draft could likely look something like this concerning the positions drafted.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
However, if you had to rank the biggest problems with the O, you'd have to start with QB at #1, IMO.
I can see that, but I'm also not so quick to come to that conclusion, either. There were screw ups with this offense left and right by all involved.
If the QB is at fault, and the WR's are in the right spot... it looks like the QB is wrong.
If the QB is right, but the WR's are in the wrong spot or not open... it looks like the QB is wrong.
If the QB is right, the WR's are in position in their routes, but the line isn't opening the correct passing lanes... it looks like the QB is wrong.
.. and that doesn't take into account the plays that get blown up by the line getting caved in on the right side.
I've beaten this point to death, but in a new offense as complicated as the WCO, where absolutely nobody had any real time to learn or work with it, we saw what we saw... a lot of kids learning on the fly as the season went on.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
The only problem with that scenario is that we're relying on Colt again.
I'm going to offer some sarcastic advice here...People need to stop worrying about "relying" on McCoy again. Winning a ton of games and making a playoff push are NOT part of the blueprint for this season. The paradigm shift needs to be away from thinking we're trying to win, and move towards acceptance of the fact we're not going to be a good team because we're still in full-on rebuilding mode.
Do that and it'll make the steps the FO is making easier to take.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Well, be that as it may, I have to think that we should expect improvement from this team, even if it doesn't mean a playoff push. If we get some playmakers on offense, there is really no reason for us NOT to improve, short of McCoy just stinking up the joint (which is still a possibility).
If we get a quality WR to be opposite Little and a quality RB and RT, I think we'll improve quite a bit. Now, that might mean we get up to 7-9, but with a "hope" for the future.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
You make a compelling argument and give a lot of food for thought.
However, I'm a huge believer in the common denominator principle. Every play involves McCoy, and our QB, RB, RT, and WRs all underachieved. McCoy is the only position in common with every single play run when these other positions underachieved.
Furthermore, McCoy was at the bottom ... all the way to the bottom ... when ranking the QBs. I can't imagine these other positions screwed up enough to cause that. At worst case, if it were the other guys, and making McCoy look bad when he really wasn't, he would have been at least a middle of the pack ... maybe slightly lower ... rated QB. As it was, he was an extreme outlier. That's another reason why I believe it was mostly him.
And lastly, I trust what I'm watching. I'm not a football expert by any stretch of the imagination, but when you watch enough it's easy to get a feel for what you are seeing.
Add in the fact that we were willing to trade 2 first round picks for RG3 ... and the math all kind of adds up, IMO.
Now do I think he can't get any better? There are some strong arguments from guys on here that know way more than I do that say "probably not". But I'm not ready to make that call yet. I wouldn't mind passing on QB in the draft, getting a WR, RB, RT with our first three picks, and giving McCoy another year to see what he could do.
Now if that gets us off to an 0-4 start, I might regret I said that.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517 |
Saying that puts you at odds with the Big Man.
"Winning 6 games isnot acceptable."
You haven't been said this,but on the subject of moving Brown to safety.
Iam amazed at how people can nonchalantly say this.This isn't really a common practice with corners.
Young ones,yes.Great ones that lost a step,yes.
Old,slow ones,no.
We need a FS badly.Moving Brown over,we would still need one.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Brown would be a CB i'd mmove to SS MAYBE, as he has the big hit tendencies..
Free Safety? No way...
I like the idea of getting a guy like Minniefield, and trying him out at FS.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Saying that puts you at odds with the Big Man.
"Winning 6 games isnot acceptable."
People who listen to the words that come out of the mouths of any talking heads of organizations are setting themselves up for disappointment.
Actions speak louder than words, and I haven't seen one single action that says we're trying to win more than we lose this next season. Trying to get RG3 only says we think McCoy needs to be replaced. Signing ZERO impact free agents says we're in full-on rebuilding mode.
Read the actions, not the words.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
I have to agree with you. I think 4 wins is our max next year as it stands now, even with an outstanding draft. You know you've been preaching it, and maybe I should have listened more ... but now that I've set my expectations accordingly and see the reality of the situation ... it's quite liberating ...  Although, I'll be going to TC this year. Last time I went to TC was 2007. 
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
My position on who we should take changes from day to day.. at one point its Blackmon.. at one point its Richardson.. and then another is taking Claiborne... Regardless you can't go wrong. I guess the biggest issue is making sure if we draft a RB high, what talented WR can we bring in to get the air game going? If we get a WR high, what RB is gonna come in and force teams to put 8 in the box? There is the philosophy of getting Blackmon at 4... and then a RB like Pierce or Turbin later on... or getting Richardson, and getting a guy like Jeffery in the 2nd.. IDK anymore.. I like them all.. I really do. Just hoping that however it turns out.. we can win more ball games than we have in years past. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
However, I'm a huge believer in the common denominator principle. Every play involves McCoy, and our QB, RB, RT, and WRs all underachieved. McCoy is the only position in common with every single play run when these other positions underachieved.
And this line of thinking fails to account for the fact that his play is just as dependent upon them as the other way around.
Your view takes us back to the old adage that "QB's get too much glory when it all goes well, and too much blame when things go wrong".
Quote:
Furthermore, McCoy was at the bottom ... all the way to the bottom ... when ranking the QBs. I can't imagine these other positions screwed up enough to cause that.
Seriously? I mean it... seriously? You cannot take QB rankings into anything. It is the epitome of a Team statistic and is sooo grossly skewed by so many things that the QB has no involvement or influence upon that it is ridiculous.
Quote:
Add in the fact that we were willing to trade 2 first round picks for RG3 ...
I don't discount that a bit, but that just merely says that they were willing to take a mega risk on an opportunity to upgrade the position for a guy that was going to go before us.
That, in no way, says that "all of the problems we had were on the QB" (though, plenty on here have already spun it to say that very thing).
Quote:
Now do I think he can't get any better? There are some strong arguments from guys on here that know way more than I do that say "probably not". But I'm not ready to make that call yet. I wouldn't mind passing on QB in the draft, getting a WR, RB, RT with our first three picks, and giving McCoy another year to see what he could do.
My lone point all along in this long debate on here has been one simple thing: You just cannot realistically say that a guy isn't going to get it after one single season in a new offense where NOBODY on the team knew what they were doing.
People saw us sucking worse than Milli-Vanilli and they - like so many are prone to do - just to that common denominator and refuse to look and further beyond that because doing so may reveal what they don't want to accept.. that there is a helluva lot more than just one little thing that needs to be fixed before this thing is going to work and look good. They don't want to accept that because they want it to work and they want it to work NOW... they don't want to look at the fact that they just may have to suck it up and have some patience and wait with a positive attitude through a few losing seasons while we finally put something together that will last. JMO.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Quote:
At this point, I'm pretty-much in "screw it" mode. I don't care for any of the QB's available to us now. Tannehill is going to go far higher than he should and I want no part of that. If we've passed on any legitimate starting free agents who are going to make big impacts, we might as well just not bother wasting any more valuable picks on low-probability QB's. Build the skill positions and the lines and look to the future.
Seems that's what we do best these days...
This is exactly where I'm at mentally... there were 2 likely "franchise" guys in this draft and we weren't able to get either. Free agency was slim pickins and there's nothing much available via trade. At this point, it's either let desperation take over and overpay for a guy like Tannehill, draft another guy in the "Colt range" (Weeden/Foles etc) with a low probability of success or just say screw it, ride it out with Colt again and try again next year.
I always say it's stupid to look towards next year's draft when we have one right in front of us but now that the legitimate options at QB have been reduced to "overpay for Tannehill or bust", I think it's the best move to keep Colt and only take a guy in the 5th/6th as a developmental guy to replace Lewis. If Colt does well and thrives, we have our franchise QB. If he's the same guy he was (and there's a... um... "decent" chance he will be), we'll be picking near the top again and need to make a push for Barkley or whoever else separates themselves from the pack like RGIII did this year.
At least at that point with all the picks we have this year, we should have the weapons, protection and defense in place for the most part leaving us a franchise QB away from taking that next step. It sucks that it's come to this because it's much easier to build QB first, but the alternatives are even worse IMO.
The only thing worse than not having a franchise QB is being committed to a guy who isn't one. Just say no to reaching on Tannehill.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,520
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,520 |
Well..... While I have resigned myself to ride the Colt train again this year
(do I have a choice ?) I don't think we can just say the heck with it and go into this season with the same trio we had last year.
I doubt Colt makes it through the whole season healthy ( he hasn't yet) ,and I'd rather see HIM limping around out there than watch Wallace throw those late outside passes to the CB instead of one of our guys. Can't even remember who the 3rd string guy is Shurmur dragged off the Rams PS last year but I'd like to see at least a "different" backup this year then what we've had. Make everyone happy and find a Dalton in this draft mess somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Brandon Weeden
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
You know what? At this point the only reason you take Weeden is because you wanna throw him right in as a starter, and if we took a 4th round flyer on him with the idea that he's going to duke it out with McCoy for the starting gig this season, I'd be all for it. Then, if by year's end, he doesn't show a ton of promise, we can start the search again in the 1st round next year.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
The paradigm shift needs to be away from thinking we're trying to win, and move towards acceptance of the fact we're not going to be a good team because we're still in full-on rebuilding mode.
Do that and it'll make the steps the FO is making easier to take.
Amen Brotha.
That was almost as good as one of my posts.
(I forget which one)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Why the heck bother with that?
So you can have two QB's that you're hoping might step it up?
That pick is WAY better spent on a LB, or a rotational DL project.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,441 |
Quote:
Quote:
At this point, I'm pretty-much in "screw it" mode. I don't care for any of the QB's available to us now. Tannehill is going to go far higher than he should and I want no part of that. If we've passed on any legitimate starting free agents who are going to make big impacts, we might as well just not bother wasting any more valuable picks on low-probability QB's. Build the skill positions and the lines and look to the future.
Seems that's what we do best these days...
This is exactly where I'm at mentally... there were 2 likely "franchise" guys in this draft and we weren't able to get either. Free agency was slim pickins and there's nothing much available via trade. At this point, it's either let desperation take over and overpay for a guy like Tannehill, draft another guy in the "Colt range" (Weeden/Foles etc) with a low probability of success or just say screw it, ride it out with Colt again and try again next year.
I always say it's stupid to look towards next year's draft when we have one right in front of us but now that the legitimate options at QB have been reduced to "overpay for Tannehill or bust", I think it's the best move to keep Colt and only take a guy in the 5th/6th as a developmental guy to replace Lewis. If Colt does well and thrives, we have our franchise QB. If he's the same guy he was (and there's a... um... "decent" chance he will be), we'll be picking near the top again and need to make a push for Barkley or whoever else separates themselves from the pack like RGIII did this year.
At least at that point with all the picks we have this year, we should have the weapons, protection and defense in place for the most part leaving us a franchise QB away from taking that next step. It sucks that it's come to this because it's much easier to build QB first, but the alternatives are even worse IMO.
The only thing worse than not having a franchise QB is being committed to a guy who isn't one. Just say no to reaching on Tannehill.
I agree. Well said.
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: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,520
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,520 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At this point, I'm pretty-much in "screw it" mode. I don't care for any of the QB's available to us now. Tannehill is going to go far higher than he should and I want no part of that. If we've passed on any legitimate starting free agents who are going to make big impacts, we might as well just not bother wasting any more valuable picks on low-probability QB's. Build the skill positions and the lines and look to the future.
Seems that's what we do best these days...
This is exactly where I'm at mentally... there were 2 likely "franchise" guys in this draft and we weren't able to get either. Free agency was slim pickins and there's nothing much available via trade. At this point, it's either let desperation take over and overpay for a guy like Tannehill, draft another guy in the "Colt range" (Weeden/Foles etc) with a low probability of success or just say screw it, ride it out with Colt again and try again next year.
I always say it's stupid to look towards next year's draft when we have one right in front of us but now that the legitimate options at QB have been reduced to "overpay for Tannehill or bust", I think it's the best move to keep Colt and only take a guy in the 5th/6th as a developmental guy to replace Lewis. If Colt does well and thrives, we have our franchise QB. If he's the same guy he was (and there's a... um... "decent" chance he will be), we'll be picking near the top again and need to make a push for Barkley or whoever else separates themselves from the pack like RGIII did this year.
At least at that point with all the picks we have this year, we should have the weapons, protection and defense in place for the most part leaving us a franchise QB away from taking that next step. It sucks that it's come to this because it's much easier to build QB first, but the alternatives are even worse IMO.
The only thing worse than not having a franchise QB is being committed to a guy who isn't one. Just say no to reaching on Tannehill.
I agree. Well said.
Sounds like a solid plan. My only problem is I don't have any faith in ANYONE these days to really identify what a possible "franchise" QB is or isn't these days. It all appears to be like a lottery game. The more tickets you buy the better chance you have of winning. Take 3 QB's in the same draft and trade off the ones you don't want 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,601
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,601 |
Quote:
Besides Hillis, which is debateable, we haven't really lost anything..
We lost RGIII because our numbskulls didn't make the proper offer until after the bidding was over.
But that is a different thing. I agree, Hillis was really the only player worth a salt lost.
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: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Why the heck bother with that?
So you can have two QB's that you're hoping might step it up?
That pick is WAY better spent on a LB, or a rotational DL project.
I don't know about "WAY"..maybe "way" 
I think the only reason you take Weeden is to try and catch lightning in a bottle. However, to honestly answer your question, the cat's out of the bag now. The FO doesn't believe in McCoy. So if you take Weeden and he wins the job, great, you did catch lightning in the bottle. By then, McCoy will be nearing the end of his contract, and he'd be dead weight anyway, so you either cut him or release him. If Weeden doesn't take the starting gig and McCoy proves to be a dud as the starter, you can still let McCoy go in 2013 and Weeden becomes the primary backup, eliminating the need for a high-priced free agent to be the backup.
I think it makes sense.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,601
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,601 |
Quote:
I have to agree with you. I think 4 wins is our max next year as it stands now, even with an outstanding draft.
You know you've been preaching it, and maybe I should have listened more ... but now that I've set my expectations accordingly and see the reality of the situation ... it's quite liberating ...
Although, I'll be going to TC this year. Last time I went to TC was 2007.
If that happens Homie needs to go. He already looks like he is cracking under the pressure.
First he blows the sweepstakes for RGIII by not following directions and submitting his best offer as requested by the Rams. He offered up the 2nd round pick too late. End of story.
Then he goes on some irrational tirade about our offer being every bit as good or more and the other teams were simply buddy buddy. I think that little discussion with the press is what caused the leak outlining exactly what we offered and how we tried to add on after the bidding was over. Sorry Homie, you guys blew it, and seeing how much you were offering, that was your guy. Don't try to blame the other teams. Blame yourself. Let the fact we didn't get RGIII aside because you didn't want him. Our commander did and and failed in a big way. You can't get around that because never once did he say the cost got to high. We were all in and flubbed it.
If Griffin goes on to a long stellar career, we can thank Howdy and Doodie for that.
Couple that with his brilliant comments about not coming to him for playoff tickets. LOL
Playoffs?? Playoffs! Hey Homie, try to win 8-9 games first.
Heck, win 6. It's becoming evident to me why Seattle decided parting ways was the best option.....Oh, Rish....did I space this to your satisfaction??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Besides Hillis, which is debateable, we haven't really lost anything..
We lost RGIII because our numbskulls didn't make the proper offer until after the bidding was over.
But that is a different thing. I agree, Hillis was really the only player worth a salt lost.
I think that Mike Adams was more important than Hillis. Just my viewpoint though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Well..... While I have resigned myself to ride the Colt train again this year
(do I have a choice ?) I don't think we can just say the heck with it and go into this season with the same trio we had last year.
I doubt Colt makes it through the whole season healthy ( he hasn't yet) ,and I'd rather see HIM limping around out there than watch Wallace throw those late outside passes to the CB instead of one of our guys. Can't even remember who the 3rd string guy is Shurmur dragged off the Rams PS last year but I'd like to see at least a "different" backup this year then what we've had. Make everyone happy and find a Dalton in this draft mess somewhere.
I think that the Bengals might say differently, but I don't think they really knew that Dalton would be able to come in and be as successful as he was last season as a rookie when they drafted him.
[purple] Although I have my doubts that he would have looked so good with our great WR group.[/purple]
Perhaps there is one like him in this draft and perhaps not, but as the saying goes ... You can't win the lottery if you don't purchase a ticket.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
j/c The ONLY thing more insane than taking Richardson at #4 OVERALL would be taking Tannehill at that spot instead. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
The only thing that makes sense is either Blackmon...Claiborne...or trade down.
It's been that way since early January.
Nothing else...and I mean NOTHING else...makes any sense for THIS team at THIS time.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Back to the drawing board, what's
the move??
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
