DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Draft Stuff v.4

Totally disagree. In fact, I think if you can beat their strengths, they are much easier to beat.

OTOH, you probably rate Blackmon much higher than I based on your sig. Richardson doesn't beat the Steelers and Ravens strictly on the ground. He beats them with key blocks, and catching the ball out of the backfield.

Let me ask you, would you want Marshall Faulk in this offense? Because that's what I see with Richardson.

Yeah, better RBs are more of a focus in their offenses than bad ones are.

Shocking ... I know ..... but often true. Great RBs get more chances in their offenses than so-so ones do .... even on some really great teams.

I really think that some teams get their QB first, and then build around them exclusively. They become unwilling to invest a high pick on a RB who they see as potentially an accessory. However, truly great RBs can contribute, even on a team with a great QB. However, sometimes even teams with great QBs want to upgrade their running game.

We see teams like the Patriots take RB after RB high in drafts. They took Maroney and some guy named Mills back in 2006 in the 1st round and 4th round. This past year they took RBs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. They have added guys like Green-Ellis as well as an UDFA. They have looked high and low for RBs. Why bother if they don't want/need one?

This is also why a team like the Saints would trade for an extra 1st round pick last year to go after a guy like Ingram.

The Texans have a great passing game with Matt Schaub, yet also have a great running game that they use a great deal.

The Eagles grabbed a guy like McCoy in the 2nd round, and they run him almost 300 times/year.

I think that teams either have a great RB, (or 2, on teams like the Texans) or they look for one while making do with the committee. We have a chance to get that 250-300 carry/year guy this year without making a move anywhere in the draft. Richardson is a good blocker and receiver. He just makes sense for the Browns. He would be the biggest security blanket you could have for a young QB, whether that QB is McCoy, or someone else.

The more i look up this doug martin the more i like him....right now i can go anyway and be fine....draft blackmon @4, kendall wright @22, and doug martin @37........explosive offense with one draft


Or we could go t-rich @4, kendall wright @22, orson charles @37


Either way this O should be fixed up nice after this draft

Quote:

---

Totally disagree. In fact, I think if you can beat their strengths, they are much easier to beat.

---

IF that's true then why don't more teams have success running the ball on the Steelers and Ravens?

Faulk ? Hmmm I don't think I'm ready to put Richardson in that category.

Just FYI..

Time Limits by Round

• Round 1 - 10 minutes
• Round 2 - 7 minutes
• Round 3 - 5 minutes
• Round 4 - 5 minutes
• Round 5 - 5 minutes
• Round 6 - 5 minutes
• Round 7 - 5 minutes

http://football.about.com/library/weekly/bl_drafttimelimits.htm

10 minutes, but what time does it start, 7 or 8?

8 pm Eastern

I've come to the final conclusion, that I have no idea what we will do, or what I even want us to do...

There are so many options I'm just ganna sit and wait and see what happens...

Pre Draft Show?

You mean Pre Draft Day

That's all that's going to be on TV leading up to it...

The bad thing is.. thats all ESPN / Sports Center is gonna be babbling about tmr. ALL freakin day.

Good thing I rarely actually watch Television...

He has us skipping over Cordy Glenn, which makes me wanna puke.

If we go Blackmon, the guy better be all that and a bag of chips. That's all. If Tannehill is a bust, it's on Heckert and Co. Because we could have had a great player in Richardson.


I'm positive Richardson will be a star, that's why he's the one I want to draft. Best RB to come around in a really, really long time. He instantly will be one of the best RBs in the NFL

This has been the longest lead up yet. It's gonna be a relief that it's over, ( though it won't be until Saturday) . Followed by boredom and specualtion.

... followed by a hopeful start to a season.
... followed by a wake up call?
... folowed by " why do we always lose? posts.
Oh well, can't give this stuff up.

Actually I think once #4 and #22 are off the books we'll have a really good idea on what's in store for the rest of the draft...

Quote:

---

Django: I really don't get your fence sitting on the QB issue...

McCoy is dead for you ("flatlined"), right?

You don't like Tannehill, right?

You dislike Weeden even more, right?

Hey, if I was just armchair GMing...that's a cool thing to do and you're right 95% of the time taking this stance...but an actual GM has to field a competitive team or he's out of a job...so what would you do?

---

Does he? Looks to me like Heckert has done anything BUT field a competitive team, and not a single solitary soul is shouting for his resignation.

So why is that? It's the same reason why I'm not the least bit interested in making a huge gamble on a QB just because I so desperately need a QB: We're rebuilding. We're taking the long road which is the tougher path to follow.

I've said this numerous times when advocating Richardson, which is that we are a talent-starved team that simply cannot afford to miss on yet another high pick. That means the low-risk route, and Tannehill at 4 and Weeden anywhere in the first 2 rounds are big-time gambles.

"Swinging and missing" is what landed us in this spot to begin with. Time to stick to a true rebuilding plan, and that old tried-and-true plan is to go BPA. When your team is riddled with holes, you gotta be smarter than to hit the panic button.

Besides, in my time on these boards, I've liked my share of QB's. The biggest guy I backed was Rodgers, and had I been calling the shots, he'd be a Brown.

No fence-riding there.

I've also been a huge advocate of signing the stop-gap guy while rebuilding. That's also not fence-riding. However, I never said I didn't like Tannehill. I said I hated him at 4.

Big difference.

In fact, I've said this very year that there are two really good QB prospects in Luck and Griffin, one borderline/solid prospect in Tannehill, and a bunch of guys who are long-shots.

I'm not against Tannehill and Weeden. I'm against them where the media projects them to go.

Lemme keep this simple...When we missed out on Griffin, the guy I wanted in this draft first, I was disappointed. My pimping of him was hardly fence-riding. That states in a crystal-clear fashion that I'm about value and risk, not desperate gambles born from knee-jerk reactions. When the facts of what it took to land RG3 came out, I said I probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger on that. Why? Too much risk.

You feelin' the common theme now?

I'm all about the rebuild this year, and throwing the dice on a higher-risk player based on need is in direct conflict of the term "rebuild" as it pertains to this team.

Quote:

---

Keep McCoy-Wallace depth chart another season? Risking to lose your and your coache's job? Because that's what we're looking at....Colt couldn't "manage" 4 wins on a much easier schedule

---

Heckert can win 4 or 5 and as long as we're gaining talent, he'll have a job. They don't have to win. If they did, The H&H wouldn't be rebuilding, they'd be trying to win.

Going with safer picks with our first few is the way I'd go. To go after Tannehill or Weeden way before they should go is absorbing too much risk for a team that has as few playmakers as any team in the league.

Now hang that on your fence...and ride it.

I think Holmgren set ths "rebuild" thing up to fail when he said he wants 7-8wins (he said that's what he considered progress)...so, he has put himself and the entire org on more of a win now mode in year 3. I don't havy ANY problem with the "long road" plan, I'm a Heckert backer (he really has to screw up this weekend to get me off his bandwagon) and wold support him as long as I see his players getting better and better....no problem here...but do you honestly think that the homers will remember what they say/think maybe now once we're in the middle of another 4win season? The homers will go all pitchfork on this regime, heck even non-homers (at least not full blown, lol) like Peen were close already this season....another 1-7, 0-8 against the Division (and McCoy hasn't instilled much confidence that he'll ever win one of those)? Really?

That said, TR is the best pick for a win now mode President, so that makes sense....but I just disagree that it is the smart move long term....you're switching arguments here: me wanting Tannehill or Weeden is more of a long term move than selecting TR for sure...if we're selecting TR, the pressure got to Holmgren and we're drafting for win now INSTEAD of a true rebuild...we would be chasing what we didn't fill in FA...with all those solid FA RBs available...we let them all go and then go RB at 4? How dumb is that? Drafting for a self-created position need that could have been easily filled via FA (and can be done so EVERY offseason)? I can't think of a dumber thing to do

and Toad: saying you DONT dislike Tannehill but wouldn't select him at 4, IS fence sitting at his finest...when he bombs, you say "I expected that, he should never have been drafted in the 1st", if he succeeds you say "well, I didn't say he was crap"...yeah, risk-reward I get it but as I argued elsewhere: it doesn't apply to QBs, you either think he has franchise QB traits, then you don't care WHERE you daft him or you don't and then you don't draft him Top 100...that's wh you see all those QBs getting supposedly "overdrafted", they aren't...they were just selected because of their high ceiling and GMs didn't care for their floor...when the same happens to other positions (happens evey year too) they're called "busts", with QBs "they were overdrafted"...that's BS...that's why you see less an less 2nd/3rd round QBs...you risk a starters pick anyway be it a 1st or 2nd/3rd, so many GM's make sure they get their guy in the 1st....value and position scarcity dictate those picks

oh and explain to me again what 1st round picks we blew since 09? 3 straight drafts with "safe" picks..the draft isn't about drafting "not to bust", it's about gaining an advantage against other teams and you don't do that by going "safe" on low value positions...every idiot can draft the safest player every year in round 1...the problem is that you have 0 edge to your competition because even an AVG GM will be able to land a good RB via FA or draft...where's the edge? where's the edge we got from Mack with teams finding as good or even better C in mid/late rounds? You have no edge with TR as long as there are a handful of Foster's and Blount's you can fill in through UDFA...to the contrary, you just drafted bad value because NOW you're chasing for high value positions with less valuable picks (pass rush, QB, OT etc etc)

Yeah, TR is the "safest" but not necessarily the best pick for us (and "safest" really doesn't apply when considering position longevity, another forgotten factor)....short term there's no other player that can impact as much as him

I'm taking Holmgren by the word when he said "you have to keep searching for that guy (at QB)"...and even if it is a lottery when it comes to QBs...more tickets=better chances....no tickets= 0chance guaranteed

Risk averse NEVER wins, be it playing "not to lose" or drafting "not to bust"...it's like playing poker and saying I fold until I have AA, then I go all in...yeah, great strategy...you draft according to ceiling early, not looking at the highest possible floor, that's a loser's mentality come draft day.....always has been (Mangini being a great example for ALL of that)

Nothing venture, nothing have...

Quote:

---

I think Holmgren set ths "rebuild" thing up to fail when he said he wants 7-8wins (he said that's what he considered progress)...so, he has put himself and the entire org on more of a win now mode in year 3.

---

DJ...just because the team President says he wants 7 or 8 wins, if it does not happen, is it Holmgren's fault?

...the correct answer is "NO" , it's not Holmgren's fault if the team does not play to Holmgren's expectations.

I happen to believe Holmgren is being over optimistic, if he expects 7 or 8 wins in 2012.

I believe Holmgren knows he is setting himself up as a target for a boatload of criticism from the Cleveland sports media and the fans if the team does not achieve the 7-8 wins ...and Holmgren wants it that way...he wants to be the target.

It's Holmgren's job to manage the franchise and oversee every aspect of the franchise. But Holmgren does not play the games and he does not coach the games.

Ultimately, it's up the players and coaches to win the games and Holmgren has confidence in both. Holmgren's comment was likely meant as a challenge to the players and coaches as much as giving the fans and media something to discuss.

Holmgren is setting himself up for the criticism if the Browns don't achieve the 7 or 8 wins...but what are you and other Browns fans going to do if the Browns only win 4, 5 or 6 games...demand that Holmgren be fired?...NOT GONNA HAPPEN !

This idea that Holmgren set the "rebuild" thing up to fail...ridiculous comment.

The "rebuilding process" will continue as tonight will mark the beginning of year 3 of the 5 year rebuilding process. Hopefully Browns fans can see, with two more drafts after the 2012 draft, this plan is starting to take shape.

As the Browns continue to fill positions via the draft and the more good young players we add...the winning begins when the young players learn the offensive and defensive systems, gain experience and when the players and coaches have had enough of losing.

Don't look for miracles this season, but next year, the rebuild should begin to pay dividends.

Re-read my post

Best quarterback projects: If the Browns don’t take Texas A&M’s Ryan Tannehill or Oklahoma State’s Brandon Weeden, I assume they will use one of their league-high 13 picks on a developmental quarterback.



The two I would seriously consider are fourth-round prospects, B.J. Coleman of Tennessee-Chattanooga and Ryan Lindley of San Diego State.



Both are over 6-3 and 230 pounds with good arm strength. Both need to be coached up. Lindley’s QB coach the last two years was former Browns QB Brian Sipe.



Etc., etc.: The following tidbits come courtesy of STATS LLC …



* Stanford tackle Jonathan Martin gave up one sack last year. Southern California’s Matt Kalil gave up two.



* Baylor’s Robert Griffin III and Oklahoma State’s Brandon Weeden co-led the nation with 44 explosive pass plays (25 yards or more) last year.



* Alabama’s Trent Richardson had 723 yards rushing after contact last year. Virginia Tech’s David Wilson had 990.



* Oklahoma State wide receiver Justin Blackmon had eight drops in 160 targets. Notre Dame’s Michael Floyd had four drops in 144 targets. Blackmon had 794 yards after catch. Floyd had 572.

draft notes

Tannehill is Akili Smith part 2. I want nothing to do with him at all in the first. My wishlist:

1) Kalil
2) Trent
3) Blackmon
4) Claiborne

If we don't get one of those 4, I am going to be greatly disappointed.

Quote:

---

That said, TR is the best pick for a win now mode President, so that makes sense....but I just disagree that it is the smart move long term....you're switching arguments here: me wanting Tannehill or Weeden is more of a long term move than selecting TR for sure...if we're selecting TR, the pressure got to Holmgren and we're drafting for win now INSTEAD of a true rebuild...

---

Hmmm...I disagree. I think you're confusing an instant return on a player drafted as being a move designed to win now.

We lack playmakers and pro-bowl caliber skill people. Richardson would fill a desperate need with a guy who has all-pro written all over him. Anytime you can get the guy that is touted as the best player PERIOD in the draft, and that player fills a position of great need, you're making the best value move for both the here-and-now as well as the future.

Quote:

---

and Toad: saying you DONT dislike Tannehill but wouldn't select him at 4, IS fence sitting at his finest...when he bombs, you say "I expected that, he should never have been drafted in the 1st", if he succeeds you say "well, I didn't say he was crap"...yeah, risk-reward I get it but as I argued elsewhere: it doesn't apply to QBs, you either think he has franchise QB traits, then you don't care WHERE you daft him or you don't and then you don't draft him Top 100...

---

That's fine, but I'm not sure Tannehill has franchise traits. He's a developmental QB who has great tools but has red flags as well.

Lemme explain it this way...I liked Campbell coming out of college. He has NFL tools and I thought he'd develop into a solid starter, though I never saw him as an all-pro. I didn't want any part of him if the cost is taking him in the "can't miss" range in the top-10. He's the guy I'd have taken a shot at in the 2nd round area. The Deadskins reached on him and paid the price. Had they taken a much safer, smarter choice with a guy who had a much great chance of not missing, then gambled on a QB, they'd be in a better place.

So that's how I view Tannehill and Weeden.

Tannehill isn't, IMHO, a franchise guy. He's a developmental guy. You don't take developmental guys early. To me, he falls into the Jason Campbell area of a draft, which is late 1st/early 2nd.

As for Weeden, nobody is going to convince me that taking a 29-year old rookie with a pick inside the top-3 rounds makes a lick of sense, especially when he's coming to the league with no idea how to read NFL defenses or take NFL offensive snaps. I expect Weeden to fail as a pro. There's so much risk to him that he's not worth throwing the dice on with anything but a long-range, who-cares-if-we-miss pick in the 4th or 5th range. And I REALLY laugh at the notion that he's ready to come to the league and start. Why? Because he's already a grown man? That's a joke, and a poor one at that. He has no more experience running an NFL offense than does Kirk Cousins or Nick Foles.

Spend a high pick on Weeden and you're praying for a home-run with a very low-probability move at the expense of a very high pick. Kiper can kiss my arse for having us taking Weeden at 22

Quote:

---

oh and explain to me again what 1st round picks we blew since 09?

---

The better example is what we did with Hardesty, where we panicked and reached for a guy because of need. We gambled and lost, and that's what we cannot afford to do.

Take it a step further, and look at what we gambled with Veikune and Robiskie (which stinks because I loved that pick ). We reached for guys who are no longer on the roster.

We're not in a position to gamble high picks on players right now. That's not what the rebuild is about if you're doing it right.

It's only going to take one desperate team to make an idiotic decision to take Weeden high, just like the idiotic decision of the Donks to take Tebow in the 1st, but it wouldn't shock me at all to see Weeden fall down the boards. He's an idiotic gamble as a 1st-day selection.

Quote:

---

You have no edge with TR as long as there are a handful of Foster's and Blount's you can fill in through UDFA...

---

I'm quite sure Jags fans and Ravens fans would disagree with that line of thinking, as they have quite an edge with MJD and Rice, respectively.

And don't give me any of that "well, that just proves you can get a star running back later in the draft" crap. Hardesty is my rebuttal there.

If you draft an all-pro quality guy, no matter where he starts, you've gotten great value with your pick, and the vast majority of people see all-pro in Richardson. When that player fills a need as desperate as ours, that's a homerun selection. There are other guys we can take like Blackmon and Claiborne, and while I'd understand the pick, I'd also say they are bigger gambles.

Tannehill and Weeden are reaches where they are currently expected to be drafted. That's a poor concept for a team like the Browns.

Quote:

---

Tannehill is Akili Smith part 2. I want nothing to do with him at all in the first.

---

So knowing what you now know, you would have taken Akili Smith in the 2nd?

Ooh - good reply.

Well I guess we just disagree for the most part, no problem with that and as I said...I like TR and know he's a damn good player, just not the way I would build the roster

Also, at the time of past drafts everyone thought McFadden was an AllPro lock, remember Spiller and Moreno being Top 10 players? Reggie Bush at 2...or Ronnie Brown, Benson and Caddy all top 5 picks in 2005? Now all 3 are still FAs, lol

So much for "locks" at this position...and we're talking past 5-7 drafts here, not 1980...they just look flashier because there are stats to it,

I can already hear the "AP-argument" but looking at past drafts he is pretty much the exception not the norm...looking at that list and their longevity especially makes it pretty hard for me to stomach TR at 4...let's all settle on Claiborne, ok?

Yeah, I recall how shocked some folks were here when I backed Richardson. He isn't the conventional pick for many. I just view him in a better light than the guys you listed.

Just ranting here...

I'm watching this idiotic thing on ESPN called "Inside the war room" with the talking heads doing this STOOPID role-playing where they answer the phone from various teams wanting to trade.

This is the worst thing I've ever seen.

Thank God the draft is tonight, because this crap is making me sick...

I'm glad to hear somebody else sharing my sentiments. ESPN has turned into crap IMO. I'll watch PTI and 6PM Sportscenter for the day's news, but HATE all of these specialty shows.

J/C

I love how after Spielman has been trying to push the value of their pick and circulate the TB rumors, Heckert comes back with the Bills rumors to move up for Kalil. They are in a fierce game of Poker right now but the good news is that soon everyone will have to show their cards.

Can you imagine the look on the Phins faces if Browns trade down with Bills pick up 2nd and 3rd then trade that 3rd to the Jags to move back to 7 lmao.