|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Quote:
Having too many options gives me flashbacks to Shurmurs "Sets"
I swear every play the guy would sub in and out 3-4 players... Chemistry be damned...
Ugh, I HATE that type of system on either side of the ball.
Get guys that can stay out there and line up with anyone. If you can't do that, you've got work to do.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
I just wanna see us have good pass catchers. I'm sick of seeing our guys leave the Browns and then leave the league because they suck.
No offense and it is only an opinion, but I am sick of the Browns investing so much on WRs and TEs. It hasn't worked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
I just wanna see us have good pass catchers. I'm sick of seeing our guys leave the Browns and then leave the league because they suck.
No offense and it is only an opinion, but I am sick of the Browns investing so much on WRs and TEs. It hasn't worked.
What do you want them to do instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
1. Go all in on getting a franchise QB.
2. Build a dominant OL.
I think you add a big-time WR after you have built the rest of your team. They are the final piece of the puzzle to get you over the top. They are NOT the key ingredient.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,469
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,469 |
if they aren't a key ingredient, then how are they able to get a team over the top?
me and you are tracking; QB is THE priority.
but you don't need a complete dominant OL to win. teams have already proven that. but you do need playmakers.
we need both, but on OUR team specifically, we need playmakers. our OL is fine for the most part. but OL isn't the ones catching passes down field.
imo.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I agree with you. However I think we're almost there building the team. We have a major hole at QB, then it's guard, WR2, ILB2 and CB2. So I don't see the problem of taking a WR high as long as we get our QB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Not naming you - just many on the board Every year are stating WE Need WR take a WR with First round pick, 2nd, etc. FA got to get that guy.
And the very same people will say - We invested in Couch, BQ n Weeden and that hasn't worked out. Pass on QB and get one Later in the draft we invested too much in the past and it hasn't worked out.
When the same argument comes up that we invest in 9 WRs Not 3...but 9 WRs with 1st/2nd round high impact picks and the highest TE pick (#6???) and it hasn't worked out (Gordon is looking good). They are quick to say we got to invest in X, Y, Z...lol 
But not the QB??? Just confuses the heck out of me. 
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
Quote:
I just wanna see us have good pass catchers. I'm sick of seeing our guys leave the Browns and then leave the league because they suck.
No offense and it is only an opinion, but I am sick of the Browns investing so much on WRs and TEs. It hasn't worked.
LOL On another thread, you were complaining about us not signing daniels who ended up going to with the Ravens. You raged on Farmer for taking someone else instead
Now you are " sick of the Browns investing so much on WRs and TEs. It hasn't worked"
Which is it? Should we stop signing TE's 0or should we only sign the ones you want?
Oh,, here is your exact quote from the Signings thread
Quote:
We passed on Owen Daniels and signed "who" at TE?
Let me guess, another brilliant move by Farmer?
#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: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,164
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,164 |
Quote:
Not naming you - just many on the board Every year are stating WE Need WR take a WR with First round pick, 2nd, etc. FA got to get that guy.
And the very same people will say - We invested in Couch, BQ n Weeden and that hasn't worked out. Pass on QB and get one Later in the draft we invested too much in the past and it hasn't worked out.
When the same argument comes up that we invest in 9 WRs Not 3...but 9 WRs with 1st/2nd round high impact picks and the highest TE pick (#6???) and it hasn't worked out (Gordon is looking good). They are quick to say we got to invest in X, Y, Z...lol
But not the QB??? Just confuses the heck out of me. :saywhat
So true! Look at Denver. Does their offense look more appealing having Payton or Tebow? If you really get technically, how well has Pittsburgh and Seattle looked with their stud receivers over a QB? Oh, wait they build their team around a QB. Patriots and Saints won having it both ways. Bottom line their QB won games.
It is true a QB can't do it by himself. San Diego struggles. Then again, they did rebound well not having studs. Carolina is another team who hasn't transitioned without a receiver.
Teams who invested at receiver that didn't not go far or fizzled once in the playoffs Detroit, Arizona, Philly, Cincinnati, and Miami. I should include Dallas, but I think it is more chemistry issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
but you don't need a complete dominant OL to win. teams have already proven that. but you do need playmakers.
It doesn't matter how good or bad your line is... if your QB sucks. It doesn't matter how many more playmakers, or less playmakers you have... if your QB sucks.
This day and age, defenses won't win you games. So virtually, point a, point 1, the first point - whatever you want to call it is going to evolve on the success of the QB.
Look at Cinci, a somewhat above avg QB gets you into the playoffs. Teams with QBs playing lights out go beyond. Seattle is freak that they have the luxury of an extremely good defense and a very quality QB and offense...
All JMO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
If I wasn't already aware of your notoriously poor reading comprehension, I actually might believe that you weren't serious.
I am talking about investing high draft choices on WRs and TEs, not about picking up FAs who don't cost that much.
You probably still won't get it, but I tried.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
If I wasn't already aware of your notoriously poor reading comprehension, I actually might believe that you weren't serious.
I am talking about investing high draft choices on WRs and TEs, not about picking up FAs who don't cost that much.
You probably still won't get it, but I tried.
That's not what you said,, I guess I must be lying again right?
#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: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,164
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,164 |
Dawg_LB, defenses have played a major part in winning the last two Super Bowls.
In today's football, teams can win having a tough defenses and above average QB. Teams consistently making the playoffs Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and San Fransisco have the tough defense with an above average QB. It looks like you can add Seattle to the mix. Patriots? They done it multiple ways.
One additional ingredient I add is having multiple offensive weapons. I don't think you need the dominate receiver or running back. What works is having five and six above average guys. Ideally I like an offense full of Cribbs! I believe having a stable of specialist all doing their job is tough to defend....think New Orleans and New England. Every week a specialist will face a weakness in the defense. This is how Belichick and Sean Payton work it. How many second, third, and fourth round guys do they crank out and make stars.
If Browns do add Burleson, I think is another above average receiver. Burleson will fill the void if Little can't get it together. Having that constant rotation of play makers wears down defenses and helps combat the injury bug. Having several receivers who play makes it tough to prepare against too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
The one hangup there...
is that looking at our past too...Couch, BQ, Weeden...Taking a QB because you need a QB doesnt always work either...
I think that if you cant find a QB that screams franchise...or you cant get in a position to take one...dont reach.
If we dont think Teddy, Johnny, or Blake are that guy...no reason to take em because we think we need one. There's quality at every position in this draft, and if you dont think that QB is the one...go get that quality. I look at Sammy Watkins and think thats the highest quality you can get out of a position. Clowney has the highest upside but has some real question marks.
Get talent at the top of the draft. Dont QB just because you need one if you dont think he's the guy.
Ask Jax how thats worked. Ask Oakland how thats worked. Ask ourselves how thats worked...
The biggest thing is that...theres no set way to win in the NFL. Russell Wilson wasnt an elite QB until he was. Nor was Kaepernick. Its about the fit. Its about how the players complement each other.
If you have bad WRs and a good QB...you look like SD and NYJ have the past few years, and ATL and NYG this year. If you have a bad QB and good WRs you look like Denver did with Tebow, or Indy the year Manning was hurt, or Cincy.
The one constant among good teams though, is that the defense is quality. It doesnt have to be elite...but it has to have quality. Whether its quality like Seattle or SF where you cant move the ball, or gives up yards but not TDs and has a lot of takeaways like Indy and NO in their Super Bowl years...it has to have quality of some sort. Defense doesnt slump...and gives you a chance always.
Ask UVa basketball, and Florida basketball this year. and Seattle, and SF...
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I have been making the same point for years. Give it a rest, man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
I have been making the same point for years. Give it a rest, man.
Not in a million years..
#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: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Now you are " sick of the Browns investing so much on WRs and TEs. It hasn't worked"
Which is it? Should we stop signing TE's 0or should we only sign the ones you want?
I think the words I highlighted is a point you missed in his original comment.
He went on to explain that he meant high draft picks, which is the way I understood it the first time, but you missed it again.
His original comment was about investing high picks, (a lot of money), on WR's and TE's.
His subsequent comment was talking about his preference of lower tier, (a little money), TE's.
You somehow combined the two totally different topics into one and thought you'd found them contradictory. They weren't. They were different topics, not related to each other.
Now you infer that he's lying and are unwilling to put your pursuit of that to a rest.
It's only my opinion, but it would serve you well to go back and re-read each comment in context.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Thanks ddub. It's almost embarrassing that you are defending me, but I actually do appreciate it.
Daman is on a crusade to make me look bad. It's a goal..............weird, but true.
He continually misconstrues my meanings in an attempt to ridicule me. He wants me to twist off so I will be suspended.
What a guy.
Last edited by Versatile Dog; 04/06/14 08:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
I'm not on a crusade to make you look bad, I don't have to..
#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: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Thanks for making my point. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
Thanks for making my point.
You are welcome
#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: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Browns | Nate Burleson agrees to termsSun, 06 Apr 2014 18:08:36 -0700 The Cleveland Browns have agreed to terms with free-agent WR Nate Burleson (Lions) on a one-year deal. Financial terms were not disclosed. Share: Tweet! Share on Facebook | Source: ESPN - Adam Schefter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 507
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 507 |
Hope he was dirt cheap. Should have waited until after the draft. He would have still been hanging out there praying for a team to sign him.
Never have hope. You won’t be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317 |
Nate Ulrich ‏@NateUlrichABJ 6m
Agent of WR Nate Burleson, Ken Sarnoff, confirms #Browns have struck a one-year deal with Burleson.
-------------------------------------------------
Burleson is a Brown.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,469
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,469 |
so, nate can be a solid #2 when healthy. he was good beside a #1 in megatron, and no reason to think he can't here...when healthy.
so does that eliminate the possibility of watkins at 4 if our Qb's are gone? do we grab an OL, or do we still take a playmaker there, HYPOTHETICALLY(for you grab qb no matter what crowd) if the QB we want is gone.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915 |
Quote:
so, nate can be a solid #2 when healthy. he was good beside a #1 in megatron, and no reason to think he can't here...when healthy.
so does that eliminate the possibility of watkins at 4 if our Qb's are gone? do we grab an OL, or do we still take a playmaker there, HYPOTHETICALLY(for you grab qb no matter what crowd) if the QB we want is gone.
I don't think it eliminates anything. They could still take Watkins if they deem him the best player on the board. Signing Burleson is a stop gap not a long term answer.
But it does shore up the position so we don't HAVE to draft a WR near the top.
#BlackLivesMatter #StopAsianHate
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317 |
I don't think this signing changes anything with the draft. Particularly the first round. My best guess is we take BPA at 4. Those candidates include Watkins or Robinson as you had mentioned both WR and OL as possiblities. Obviously Clowney is in that conversation as well but I don't sense either the need or interest from the FO in him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915 |
Until we find that great QB like Manning or Brady, it's not a bad thing to increase our talent at the skill positions. Yes, you can get by with less talent at those positions if you have the best QB in the league. Unfortunately we don't HAVE that QB on the roster. And one doesn't look to be available at the top of this draft. Even if we do select Bridgewater, he's not a sure thing. And he sure could use some HELP. On the line AND at the skill positions. He's not going to turn a sows ear in to a silk purse. Especially his rookie season. So giving him a running game and a quality WR corp sure as hell won't hurt our QB's chances of success no matter who is under center.
Be it Bridgewater, Bortles, Carr,Johnny M or even Hoyer. I don't see any of those guys as Peyton Manning 2.0 So giving one of these kids some weapons to throw to or hand off to would seem a prudent idea.
#BlackLivesMatter #StopAsianHate
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I don't think this signing changes anything with the draft. Particularly the first round. My best guess is we take BPA at 4. Those candidates include Watkins or Robinson as you had mentioned both WR and OL as possiblities. Obviously Clowney is in that conversation as well but I don't sense either the need or interest from the FO in him.
And I think that they're targeting Mack. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
I think that it's a solid value signing, and I doubt that he was very expensive. He should be a solid veteran mentor for the receiver corp. Cleveland Browns agree to terms on a one-year deal with WR Nate Burleson | cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/04/cleveland_browns_agree_to_term_6.htmlCLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Browns are hoping that new receiver Nate Burleson is better at catching passes than he is at catching pizzas. The Browns have agreed to terms on a deal with the 12th-year pro, the club announced. His agent Ken Sarnoff told cleveland.com it's a one-year deal, but terms were not available. Last year, Burleson suffered a broken arm in two places from a single car accident in September which occurred when he tried to save a pizza from falling off the front passenger seat at 2:25 a.m. The Lions said no alcohol was involved in the incident. But Burleson maintained a great sense of humor about the accident, even tweeting out a month later that DiGiorno was supplying him with free pizzas for a year. After undergoing surgery on the arm, Burleson, 32, missed the first half of the season, but returned for the final eight, catching 39 passes for 461 yards and a touchdown. The Lions cut him in February in a move that enabled them to save $5.5 million on their salary cap. Burleson, who spent the past four seasons in Detroit, will provide the Browns with some depth and an experienced veteran who can help mentor young receivers such as Josh Gordon. In 2011, he won the Lions' Good Guy Award from the local sportscasters and Pro Football Writers Association and was a leader in the locker room. Burleson, who had dinner Saturday night in Cleveland with coach Mike Pettine and receivers coach Mike McDaniel, also visited with the Dolphins within the past week. Because of injuries, Burleson missed 17 games over the past two seasons, including 10 in 2012 when he was placed on injured reserve with a broken leg. Without him, the Lions lost eight of 10 games. Burleson is the second free agent receiver the Browns have signed this offseason. The first was restricted free agent Andrew Hawkins from the Bengals. They're also still likely to add a starting-caliber receiver in the draft next month. A third-round pick by the Vikings out of Nevada in 2003, Burleson has played in 135 regular-season games, with 103 starts. He has 457 career receptions for 5,630 yards (12.3 avg.) with 39 touchdowns. He also has 40 carries for 257 yards (6.4 avg.). Although he hasn’t returned kicks since 2010, he’s also averaged 9.8 yards on 156 career punt returns, including three TDs, and averaged 22.6 yards on 57 career kickoff returns. He's also helped his teams to the playoffs on four occasions. After three seasons with the Vikings (2003-05), he signed with the Seattle Seahawks (2006-09). Burleson arrived just in time to join the Browns at the start of their offseason program on Monday.
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: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Browns | Nate Burleson agrees to terms
Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:08:36 -0700
The Cleveland Browns have agreed to terms with free-agent WR Nate Burleson (Lions) on a one-year deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Share: Tweet! Share on Facebook | Source: ESPN - Adam Schefter
Huh. This move is leaving me feeling kind of empty...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
No risk signing. If he doesn't work out we cut him. No one should complain about this signing, I am sure some will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 193
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 193 |
i dont care how old he is.
i dont care how often injured he is.
i only care about the fact that this means i will get to watch greg little spend less time on the field dropping passes.
this dude doesnt have to be a world beater, he just has to outplay some one on our very weak wr corps. if he does that, he was a successful signing. i fully expect that to occur.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
j/c
He's a good guy, solid vet and may have another year in the tank at WR. At best, he shows he's still a good #2. At worst, he's a fill in until a drafted WR can take over. I think this opens the door a little on a guy like Moncrief.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
Hope he was dirt cheap.
It better have been cheap. Either or, still hopeful they draft a WR in the upper rounds as I don't care much for the basket of Greg Little or Nate Burleson. We can upgrade from driving a Cavalier to a BMW by finding someone who can beat out the two mentioned above.
JMO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561 |
Quote:
so, nate can be a solid #2 when healthy. he was good beside a #1 in megatron, and no reason to think he can't here...when healthy.
so does that eliminate the possibility of watkins at 4 if our Qb's are gone? do we grab an OL, or do we still take a playmaker there, HYPOTHETICALLY(for you grab qb no matter what crowd) if the QB we want is gone.
I don't think it eliminates Watkins at all. If Nate had signed a 4 year deal one might be able to read it that way, but a 1 year deal isn't going to toss Watkins to the side if we have any interest in selecting him.
I think this is Little's direct competition for either the #2 role or the #3 role if we do select Watkins.
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: 39,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561 |
After some further thought, if anything can be read in to this signing, it leads me to think we aren't going to take Watkins, and are looking at a player or two a little deeper in the draft. It is said to be a deep receiver class.
This way the team doesn't have to rely on Little or a drafted rookie to fill the #2 role this season. This gives the drafted player a year to grow in to the role.
Just thinking out loud.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
Quote:
After some further thought, if anything can be read in to this signing, it leads me to think we aren't going to take Watkins, and are looking at a player or two a little deeper in the draft. It is said to be a deep receiver class.
This way the team doesn't have to rely on Little or a drafted rookie to fill the #2 role this season. This gives the drafted player a year to grow in to the role.
Just thinking out loud.
Disagree. A 32 year old WR will never displace interest in a rookie who has STUD written all over him.
The ONLY way I pass on Watkins is if we like Bridgewater or Bortles at 4. Notice I left Manziel, Carr off that list?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
After some further thought, if anything can be read in to this signing, it leads me to think we aren't going to take Watkins, and are looking at a player or two a little deeper in the draft. It is said to be a deep receiver class.
This way the team doesn't have to rely on Little or a drafted rookie to fill the #2 role this season. This gives the drafted player a year to grow in to the role.
Just thinking out loud.
Disagree. A 32 year old WR will never displace interest in a rookie who has STUD written all over him.
The ONLY way I pass on Watkins is if we like Bridgewater or Bortles at 4. Notice I left Manziel, Carr off that list?
I think you are misreading or i wasn't clear. In my first post I said that Nate wouldn't prevent us from selecting Watkins. In the second I am saying that maybe we have ruled out taking Watkins and the Burelson signing is a bridge for this year while some later drafted receiver learns the ropes.
I hope that clears it up.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Nate Burleson to visit.
|
|
