DawgTalkers.net
Posted By: WooferDawg Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 02:52 AM
Ok, we have gone through 3 drafts and I am beginning to see some tendencies.

Plays the first draft choice safe. (With the exception of Weeden, the picks have made sense). See second rounder...

Tends to reach a bit on the second rounder (Ward, Schwatrz)

Third and Fourth rounders are huge reaches, head scratchers ( Hughes, Benjamin, Marceic)

5 to 7 tend to be very solid.
Posted By: Thebigbaddawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 03:19 AM
He drafts defensive and offensive lines early and often.

He isn't afraid to admit mistakes.

He does not care about so called reaching.

He likes to mix unathletic smart players and athletic yet dumb players.

Isn't afraid of "work ethic" problems.

Some of those are good things, some of them are okay, and some can be downright scary at times.
Posted By: Rishuz Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 05:24 AM
Absolute huge fan of Heckert.

We haven't had a foundation like this in forever.

We have a ton of young pieces in place that have a chance to be above average. Even guys that won't be around in a couple of years are at least young. We have one of the best and youngest OLs and DLs in the league. Gone are the days of the Andruzzis and Bartons and Bowens and Elams and the failed experiment that continued to be the 3-4.

We need a WR, FS, and an OLB. Rounds 1 and 2 next year.

Don't look now, but we are finally on our way.
Posted By: Thebigbaddawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 05:31 AM
I tend to agree, although I think we have a OLB, and will need a DE opposite Sheard instead.

I LOVE the Acho pick, BTW. I think he could be an instant starter, IMO.
Posted By: Heldawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 05:40 AM
He drafts like he believes 100% in his board.

That's a good and a bad thing.

It's good to have conviction in your beliefs.

It's not good to draft a guy in the third round that the rest of the free world has as a UDFA.

What I'm saying is he needs to do a little more predraft intelligence on the other teams. Not sure what the best way to do that is....one way would be to feed some nuggets to the Kipers, McShays and the Mayocks of the world from time to time.

This is the only real issue I have with him.
Posted By: Loki Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 06:25 AM
Just flip-flop the Billy Winn pick and the John Hughes pick if it makes you feel better.
Posted By: Heldawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 08:12 AM
My main problem is that we aren't competitive in our own division and when we're taking the John Hughes of the world we're not helping ourselves.

We're going backwards.

Take a look at the drafts of Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati. If you can convince yourself that we're closing the gap well then you're a better man than i.
Posted By: Thebigbaddawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:15 PM
I think we are closing the gap. The problem is that Baltimore and Pittsburgh are great teams, and that gap doesn't close overnight. But I think we went from a bad team to an average team after this draft. Thus, we are taking steps to get closer.

When we finally have a good/great QB, and a good defense, you can take chances on guys, and overload on skill positions. We aren't at that point yet, so we have to take guys who do things really well instead of taking WR'er prospects really high.
Posted By: Enigmatic Evil Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:33 PM
I always felt Tom Heckert had a better eye for defensive talent than offensive talent and that's entirely refutable of course but just a personal opinion. This year will hopefully disprove that. I agree with the post above who said he "believes in his board" he certainly does and why wouldn't you (as a GM), I think at the very least, he addressed some key needs.

HB, QB, RT, all very important. After that, well...

The last two years drafts speak for themselves, IMO, we've become a better team with Heckert as our GM... we've had some speed bumps but hopefully the wheels will start spinning this year instead of just being stuck in the mud. I've been fighting to keep optimistic about the team at times.
Posted By: Divot Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:36 PM
Quote:

I think we are closing the gap. The problem is that Baltimore and Pittsburgh are great teams, and that gap doesn't close overnight. But I think we went from a bad team to an average team after this draft. Thus, we are taking steps to get closer.

When we finally have a good/great QB, and a good defense, you can take chances on guys, and overload on skill positions. We aren't at that point yet, so we have to take guys who do things really well instead of taking WR'er prospects really high.



Wide Receiverer?
Posted By: Thebigbaddawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:43 PM
Bad habits die hard...
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:49 PM
Quote:

My main problem is that we aren't competitive in our own division and when we're taking the John Hughes of the world we're not helping ourselves.





The thing is, you don't know we didn't help the team.


Everything I have read is the guy is a superb run stuffer and we had him high on our board for that reason because we needed a 3rd player to do that.

Once Wright was selected, we went to the highest rated player on our board. I don't think Heck screwed up and started looking at 6th and 7th round projections.

I think the need pushed him high on our list. I think he was one of the guys we felt we needed to have and stuck him high up to make sure we ended up getting him.

I see a nice 3 man rotation at tackle, leaving us fresh and not missing a beat as we did when we had to go with Schafering or Eason.

Out D just got better.....even if only from a consistency standpoint.

I don't mind the pick at all.
Posted By: FL_Dawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:53 PM
Quote:

He drafts like he believes 100% in his board.

That's a good and a bad thing.

It's good to have conviction in your beliefs.

It's not good to draft a guy in the third round that the rest of the free world has as a UDFA.

What I'm saying is he needs to do a little more predraft intelligence on the other teams. Not sure what the best way to do that is....one way would be to feed some nuggets to the Kipers, McShays and the Mayocks of the world from time to time.

This is the only real issue I have with him.



I agree his/our counter intelligence is poor.

His picks are not necessarily bad selections, they are, or seem to be made earlier then they should be.

What I liked about the Draft:

We fortified our lines, you got'ta love that and brought in a true gunslinger at QB who should give us more big plays down field and that can only help our running game and short to medium passing game.

We drafted some LBers who we could really use (if) one can take over one of the OLBing positions.

The Bad:

We're still are lacking in offensive playmakers and seem to over value what we have now.

We will still be counting on father time S. Brown to man one of the CB positions and still have no true Deep Safety.

With that said I knew we would come out of this Draft still a few peaces short of the puzzle.

If we don't create more needs next year we should be a pretty loaded roster by this time next year.
Posted By: Rishuz Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 01:59 PM
Question to you guys: how do you know the counter-intelligence is poor or that we selected guys too high? In almost every instance, including Hughes, reports surface later that the guy was rising up draft boards and there were other teams interested around the same spot.

So what are you basing your belief stated as fact off of? Kiper, McShay, magazines?

Or maybe the Browns leaked the "rising up draft boards" to the press to avoid egg on their face?
Posted By: bleednbrown Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 02:22 PM
I can't answer your question, but there's alot of posts that said we took "The Schwartz" a round to high. I don't think so. If you read the evaluations on this kid, he's the only one that did not have ?? marks about moving from G to RT. Or vice versa.

Now tell me we picked him to high. Why draft a guy that might have problems down the road converting to a new spot just because Kiper say's so? Heckert said, I think, last week that our board was not the same as the media, Where they had a guy with a 1st round grade, but we had the same guy at a third round grade.

See how that works? I'm sure we scouted Hugh's and liked what we saw. I didn't like the pick, but I'm trusting those who chose him over what I know.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 02:22 PM
Quote:

His picks are not necessarily bad selections, they are, or seem to be made earlier then they should be.




I agree, but I think at times you have to do that, especially the way he sets the board, it is like he eliminates players from the mix. I say that based on him saying we had 18 players with first round grades.

This year, for whatever reason, I think we got a little behind our board, meaning our target players started getting selected just a few slots before our pick.

I think the Hughes pick was where he said screw it and decided to get ahead of everyone else to see to it we started getting the players we had as targets for this team. My guess is Hughes was actually listed as a 4th rounder on our board but just bumped it up so we didn't keep getting snookered and losing the guys we wanted. We lost Wright a few picks before us, so he just moved things up. We got the guys we wanted, be it earlier that we had hoped.

If any of you play fantasy sports and have player drafts, I think you can understand what I am talking about. If you have some players you really want and keep getting them taked just before you pick, you bump things up as well.


I also think this draft was a bit unusual for Heck. I think they know we need to start winning and this draft was based more on needs then in previous years.
Posted By: SaintDawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 02:45 PM
IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.
Posted By: FL_Dawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 02:51 PM
Quote:

Question to you guys: how do you know the counter-intelligence is poor or that we selected guys too high? In almost every instance, including Hughes, reports surface later that the guy was rising up draft boards and there were other teams interested around the same spot.

So what are you basing your belief stated as fact off of? Kiper, McShay, magazines?

Or maybe the Browns leaked the "rising up draft boards" to the press to avoid egg on their face?



What evidence to the contrary do you have.

Rising up the Draft board is pretty thin ice to form a conclusion on. We all make fun of the talking heads, but let's face it they have the contacts and the knowledge of those contacts and also former GM's and players who help them formulate their Boards. Mike Mayock is usually pretty spot on with his round projections and when he is wrong, so to is everyone else ie: AJ Jenkins going to the 9ers @ pick 31. He gave him a 3rd round grade (as did I), but that's not like taking a projected UDFA in the 3rd round (at least we traded down). I wouldn't go as far as to say Hughes would not have been drafted, but with the Comp. Picks we basically have an 8th round, so you talking about a 5 round jump up the board there and that's bound to bring about the second guessing of the selection and I have no problem with the player per say. If he turns out to do what he is being drafted to do, then this will be a moot point, because keeping Rubin and Taylor fresh for the 4th qrt. Was a big concern I had during the season and going into the Draft.

He figured to go where Billy Wynn was selected and visa versa, but now we're getting into what I loved about our Draft reaches aside .

Before the Combine I said that I would Draft Schwartz at pick 37 even though he was seen to be a 3rd round prospect.
Silly season came and went, with others grabbing the spotlight. Myself like most others felt we could take another OT at 22 and when they fell into the 2nd round, fans where naturally calling for one of them to be our selection at 37, so that brought about the questioning of reaching after we passed on the others for Schwartz. As I already stated before the Draft and before the Combine he would have been my choice anyway, so I don't really see this selection as a reach.

Exhibit A however in some fans minds was the worst reach, because of it coming in the first round.

If you care to do your investigating my Mock was the first anywhere (talking heads included) to have us taking Brandon Weeden at pick 22 and once again I knew we would appear to be reaching with the selection there.

For the very same reasons as the Brass gave (to risky to allow him to fall to us at pick 37) I responded to that criticism that I knew was sure to come with, but this pick also allowed me to use the 37th selection on Schwartz and the RT position.

I hit on two picks of this years Draft, so I guess I should just shut my pie hole and be happy, but I can't help it, because I am a perfectionist like many other here I strive and long for excellent and I have been at this hobby/passion a lot longer then many of those talking heads
Posted By: GraffZ06 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 02:59 PM
Quote:

I also think this draft was a bit unusual for Heck. I think they know we need to start winning and this draft was based more on needs then in previous years.



I think you're going to start seeing that become the norm with most franchises with the new rookie salary structure. Everybody would rather build with the draft as opposed to over-paying for FA. So, you wait out the big $$ FA guys, then try to fill all your "needs" in the draft.

It's a little less risky to reach for a need now, since a "bust" won't be so cost-prohibitive to the team (especially this season for us when we went in with 13 picks and came out with 11). With all the extra picks you're definitely going to see some "need" picks vs. BPA just because you CAN.

Also, even if we got behind in our board in the mid-rounds (I think Peen is spot on with this assumption), we made up for it with our gems in the 6th and 7th rounds. If our draft unfolded in this order instead, I think we'd all be jumping for joy at how we did such a good job:

1 - Trent Richardson
1 - Brandon Weeden
2 - Billy Winn
3 - Mitchell Schwartz
4 - James-Michael Johnson
4 - Emmanuel Acho
5 - Trevin Wade
6 - Travis Benjamin
6 - Ryan Miller
7 - John Hughes
7 - Brad Smelley

I see 3 day-1 starters on offense with TRich, Weeden and Schwartz in Rds 1-3, Winn gives us a solid 4-5 man rotation at DE with Sheard, Rucker, Parker and Benard and then in Rds 4-5 I see 3 solid depth guys on defense all with starting potential upside. Rds 6-7 look like "need" and "flier" type guys. Sounds just about right to me when you re-arrange the order and look at it this way.
Posted By: clevesteve Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 03:35 PM
Quote:

Also, even if we got behind in our board in the mid-rounds (I think Peen is spot on with this assumption), we made up for it with our gems in the 6th and 7th rounds. If our draft unfolded in this order instead, I think we'd all be jumping for joy at how we did such a good job:

1 - Trent Richardson
1 - Brandon Weeden
2 - Billy Winn
3 - Mitchell Schwartz
4 - James-Michael Johnson
4 - Emmanuel Acho
5 - Trevin Wade
6 - Travis Benjamin
6 - Ryan Miller
7 - John Hughes
7 - Brad Smelley



You know, I've seen this on the board a number of times since the draft started, and I think it's total BS. As a bad team, we have to make a good decision on every pick. If a good player falls, especially if he's at a position of need, you have to take him. Just because we got bailed out in the 6th and 7th by some good players falling doesn't mean we did a good job. What if those guys hadn't fell? Was our stategy "well, we're going to reach on our pet project backup defensive tackle in the 3rd and hope we get a CB and DE that can push to start with our 6th and 7th-round compensatory picks?" Because that is totally ridiculous. You can even hear in the interviews with Holmgren and Heckert that they didn't want to take Weeden at 22, but when their one target went off the board two picks ahead of them (to a team desperate for a WR right after a team desperate for a WR and right before another team desperate for a WR... good planning, guys) they just panicked and said "well, we don't want to miss out on the guy we were going to take at 37, so let's take him 40% earlier in the draft than we planned to."

We still didn't get a legit receiver out of the draft. "We like our receivers." Break me off a piece of that Kit Crack bar.

Bottom line is, we ended up with an acceptable group of players after reaching with each of our first four choices. Yes, I think spending #4 + #118 + #139 + #211 on Richardson in the first was a reach. #4 wouldn't have been a reach, but all those picks IMO were... especially since it also prevented us from picking up our #22 target by not being able to move in front of all those teams that desperately needed the same position of the guy we were targeting. In fact, we probably would have been better off just straight up trading #22 to the Vikes with #4, since we probably would have been able to get Weeden at 37 and Schwartz at 67 looking back at how the draft played out. Would have has pick 100, 118, 139, 160, 204, 205, 211, 245, and 247 instead of 87 (which was wasted anyways), 100, 120, 160, 204, 205, 245, 247.

I think H/Hs backup plan at WR were Jenkins in the third or Posey in the fourth round, then Jenkins went in the first (Holmgren: "Some things happened in the first round that... we decided to just go ahead and take Weeden there") and Posey in the third (right after they traded back.) Obviously I can't substantiate that, but it's hard to believe their target in the third round all along was a backup defensive tackle .
Posted By: GraffZ06 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 03:50 PM
I don't think anybody questions that Hughes in the 3rd was the dud of the draft for us. You just have to hope that he fills the role he was drafted for. A backup DT who is a great run-stuffer behind Rubin/Taylor. Given that we DID get some high caliber guys late in the draft to make up for that dud....I'm perfectly fine with it. Had we not gotten some of those guys late I'd be right there with you. Call it luck if you want, but it still happened.

Honestly, going into yesterday afternoon I was pretty "meh" about our whole draft but those late round selections turned it around for me. You can't EXPECT to get more than 3-4 starters out of any draft. I think we definitely did that this year...and at positions of need.

I hate picking RBs high because of value, but as far as TALENT goes...TRich was #2 on my board right behind Luck. He's just a flat out stud. Same idea with Weeden. I had him as a 2nd round grade purely because of his age. Based on talent alone? I had him as the 2nd best QB in this draft behind only Luck. Schwartz isn't a glamorous pick but he'll be a day 1 starter for us at RT. Then, to know we've added depth on D with Winn, Hughes, Johnson, Acho and Wade...all of whom could develop into starters at some point? Yeah I'm good with that.

I agree with you though, the one position we completely whiffed on is WR. But, you only have so many picks and so much you can fix at one time. We'll just have to take a wait and see with that position group and fix it next year if it's still under-performing (most likely).

The other thing to note is how COMPLETELY revamped the DE position will be this year even without spending any top draft picks on the position. Our projected 5 man rotation this year includes:

Jabaal Sheard - rookie last year
Jaqua Parker - FA
Frostee Rucker - FA
Billy Winn - draft pick
Marcus Benard - IR last year

80% of that rotation will be new/different from last season.
Posted By: DeepThreat Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 04:02 PM
Quote:

What I'm saying is he needs to do a little more predraft intelligence on the other teams. Not sure what the best way to do that is....one way would be to feed some nuggets to the Kipers, McShays and the Mayocks of the world from time to time.



I think that's a terrible way to draft. You trust your evaluations and ignore what everyone else thinks. If the Browns have John Hughes as a third-round pick, take him in the third round. Follow your board.

I will admit I'm disappointed in the lack of wide receiver additions, but Heckert has done a great job of adding talent. We questioned the Ward pick, but he's one of our two best defensive backs now. He can evaluate, and he's aggressive. He isn't afraid to make "unpopular" moves.

The one thing that bothered me about Savage (in hindsight) is that he always tried to make moves that would please fans and get rave reviews, not move that would actually work. Heckert doesn't do that.

And I don't know how anyone can possibly say this was a need draft when we drafted only one wideout, and that in the fourth round. Heckert drafted to add talent, not fill needs. Note the two linebacker additions. Of course he drafted for need with a few picks, he'd be stupid not to. Even Ozzie Newsome, the most famous BPA guy out there, drafted for need. But this was not a need draft.

I have almost no faith in Mike Holmgren making personnel decisions, but I have a ton of faith in Tom Heckert.
Posted By: Tulsa Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 04:04 PM
In thinking back on the 4th we wasted on Marecic, Hughes is this seasons brain fart by Heckert.
Posted By: FL_Dawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 05:03 PM
Quote:


We still didn't get a legit receiver out of the draft. "We like our receivers." Break me off a piece of that Kit Crack bar.



Me too, but this goes with my thinking that their formula is out dated.

Not so much that they see the WR position as a dime a dozen, but that this is harking back to the old school thought that you don't need to have that star WR. Lunch pale guys will do.

If this is a QB driven League today ... Cough!, they don't say that because the QB is simply a game manager and handing the football off to the RB.

If someone thinks or is telling you that Greg Little (and I like him) is a Top 10 WR, then their smoking some chronic Weeden

He has to first show me that he can catch a ball that hits his hands. If it hits your hands then you can't put the blame on the QB, that's just ridicules to state that. It's a crutch that I don't buy into.
If it's in your catch radius at this level then you should catch 9 out of 10 if you are a starting WR in this League.
Posted By: anarchy2day Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/29/12 11:54 PM
Quote:

My main problem is that we aren't competitive in our own division and when we're taking the John Hughes of the world we're not helping ourselves.

We're going backwards.

Take a look at the drafts of Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati. If you can convince yourself that we're closing the gap well then you're a better man than i.



I see it the same way.

Quote:

Baltimore's draft:

OLB - Courtney Upshaw (starter)
OT - Kelechi Osemele (starter)
RB - Bernard Pierce (takes some of the burden off Ray Rice)
OG - Gino Gradkowski (OL depth)
WR - Tommy Streeter (a steal in the 6th round)
DE - Deangelo Tyson (depth in the rotation, if he makes the team)



I wasn't big on their DB choices (S Christian Thompson & CB Asa Jackson).

Quote:

Bengals draft:

CB - Dre Kirkpatrick (immediate starter)
OG - Kevin Zeitler (immediate starter)
DT - Devon Still (immediate starter as a run stuffer)
WR - Mohamed Sanu (immediate starter)
DT - Brandon Thompson (may be better than Still)
TE - Orson Charles (a nice target that had a bad Combine)
CB - Shaun Prater (good depth who'll get time in nickel & dime packages)
WR - Marvin Jones (a speedy prospect to push for a job)
RB - Dan Herron (powerful runner)



The first five picks would be immediate starters on most every team in the league.

Quote:

The Steelers draft:

OG - David DeCastro (pro-bowl guard for a decade or more)
OT - Mike Adams (very good tackle despite off-the-field issue with pot)
LB - Sean Spence (starter on day 1)
DT - Alameda Ta'amu (monster DT to replace Casey Hampton when he retires)
RB - Chris Rainey (speed, speed, more speed)



And then...

Quote:

The Browns draft:

RB - Trent Richardson (a can't miss RB)
OT - Mitchell Schwartz (quality RT)
OG - Ryan Miller (can't be worse than what we got)
LB - Emmanuel Acho (depth)
DT - Billy Winn (productive rotational at DT)
CB - Trevin Wade (good for nickel & dime packages)
Posted By: AndraDavis4MVP Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 12:06 AM
Just because you think they're day one starters doesn't make them good, (ala John St. Clair, he started) nor does it mean they will. You guys need to calm down.
Posted By: Chinchilla7222 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 12:11 AM
Quote:

IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.



I agree. We will finally be where we want to be when we can just take best player available and upgrade an already talented roster. It did seem we had to reach because of need this year. I have no problem with it. Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and even Hughes were all guys they scouted, wanted badly and made sure they got. You could argue each one were taken "early" but if you really want a guy you get him early or you might miss them. IMO, that is why the end of the draft seemed so much better because they stopped drafting for need and started taking best player available which then started looking like everyone else's cheat sheets. All of a sudden, we think they are finally doing well because they are taking guys that we expect them to.

I like the Weeden pick. It is an upgrade. I still believe the Browns need to keep their eyes open for another young franchise QB that could sit for a couple of years behind Weeden. If the Browns suck this year and we are looking at another top pick, I wouldn't hesitate to select a franchise guy if they are available. The nice thing is now the Browns won't have to desperately reach next year.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 12:30 AM
Quote:

Quote:

IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.



I agree. We will finally be where we want to be when we can just take best player available and upgrade an already talented roster. It did seem we had to reach because of need this year. I have no problem with it. Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and even Hughes were all guys they scouted, wanted badly and made sure they got. You could argue each one were taken "early" but if you really want a guy you get him early or you might miss them. IMO, that is why the end of the draft seemed so much better because they stopped drafting for need and started taking best player available which then started looking like everyone else's cheat sheets. All of a sudden, we think they are finally doing well because they are taking guys that we expect them to.

I like the Weeden pick. It is an upgrade. I still believe the Browns need to keep their eyes open for another young franchise QB that could sit for a couple of years behind Weeden. If the Browns suck this year and we are looking at another top pick, I wouldn't hesitate to select a franchise guy if they are available. The nice thing is now the Browns won't have to desperately reach next year.



And this was the plan that Holmgren put forth when he first got here ........ find a QB, then keep drafting young QBs behind him to develop.

If you have a legitimate starter at QB, then you can look for guys with certain traits to work with. Sometimes you can even trade those guys for value. Other teams do it, why not us? However, when you have no starter, it makes it hard to do anything at all. You can't develop a guy "the right way". The young player will be forced into the lineup early, and will fail. This is especially true if you take a young QB with flaws that you hope to "coach out of him".

McCoy fans should be happy that he's being benched. It could be the best thing that could happen to him. He could now get a chance to develop quietly on the sidelines, and maybe see how the game is supposed to be played at the NFL level. Then again, maybe the team will decide that he doesn't have enough of the qualities they want, and decide to move on without him.
Posted By: WooferDawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 12:34 AM
No If it was an entirely need based draft the order would have been.

RB - Hillis is gone,
QB - McCoy was not the man
RT - Keep Weeden verticle
WR - another target, not a KR
RDE - Rucker and that other guy are fill ins.
S - Young is not a high level safety...
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 12:47 AM
I am trying to remember .... but I think that I had our needs prioritized as follows at the top:

QB
RB
RT
WR
OLB
CB

My thoughts about what to do at 4 bounced around a lot once RG3 was out of the picture. I never imagined that I would be as happy with the draft as I wound up being though. Considering that I was really furious over losing out on an elite QB, I think that the Browns did a masterful job of recovering, and I think that this is, by far, Heckert's best draft. He took a chance here or there, and also picked some really solid guys with upside.

Like I said on another thread, I expect that we will see 5 starters, this year, out of this draft:

RB: Richardson
QB: Weeden
RT: Schwartz
OLB: Johnson
FB: Smelley
Posted By: anarchy2day Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 01:24 AM
Quote:

Just because you think they're day one starters doesn't make them good, (ala John St. Clair, he started) nor does it mean they will. You guys need to calm down.



I didn't think that John St. Clair was starter quality. I thought he was barely qualified to be a back-up.
Posted By: FL_Dawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 02:20 AM
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.



I agree. We will finally be where we want to be when we can just take best player available and upgrade an already talented roster. It did seem we had to reach because of need this year. I have no problem with it. Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and even Hughes were all guys they scouted, wanted badly and made sure they got. You could argue each one were taken "early" but if you really want a guy you get him early or you might miss them. IMO, that is why the end of the draft seemed so much better because they stopped drafting for need and started taking best player available which then started looking like everyone else's cheat sheets. All of a sudden, we think they are finally doing well because they are taking guys that we expect them to.

I like the Weeden pick. It is an upgrade. I still believe the Browns need to keep their eyes open for another young franchise QB that could sit for a couple of years behind Weeden. If the Browns suck this year and we are looking at another top pick, I wouldn't hesitate to select a franchise guy if they are available. The nice thing is now the Browns won't have to desperately reach next year.



And this was the plan that Holmgren put forth when he first got here ........ find a QB, then keep drafting young QBs behind him to develop.

If you have a legitimate starter at QB, then you can look for guys with certain traits to work with. Sometimes you can even trade those guys for value. Other teams do it, why not us? However, when you have no starter, it makes it hard to do anything at all. You can't develop a guy "the right way". The young player will be forced into the lineup early, and will fail. This is especially true if you take a young QB with flaws that you hope to "coach out of him".

McCoy fans should be happy that he's being benched. It could be the best thing that could happen to him. He could now get a chance to develop quietly on the sidelines, and maybe see how the game is supposed to be played at the NFL level. Then again, maybe the team will decide that he doesn't have enough of the qualities they want, and decide to move on without him.



By keeping Colt as the #2 it also would allow us to cut Wallas and save a couple of million.

Colts a good person and I think that he will settle in and be a good team player bidding his time until his number is called.
Posted By: Chinchilla7222 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 02:37 AM
Quote:

No If it was an entirely need based draft the order would have been.

RB - Hillis is gone,
QB - McCoy was not the man
RT - Keep Weeden verticle
WR - another target, not a KR
RDE - Rucker and that other guy are fill ins.
S - Young is not a high level safety...



WR is a need according to you (and others) but the way the Browns drafted, I know that they looked at film and what they learned was WR wasn't a need. They could be wrong, but it is obvious to me that they did not feel that WR was a need. Receivers were open. Game plans had to be watered down because of Colt. Whatever it was, WR was not felt to be a need by the Browns. They looked at film and discovered that they needed a rotational defensive tackle and they felt that Hughes was the best one available. I don't know if Hughes was the best available, or if the Browns are wrong about needing a WR but Hughes was still a need pick according the guys in charge.
Posted By: WooferDawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 03:10 AM
I don't disagree with what you said, but it is not as though we have Fitzgerald catching passes from Kolb versus Warner...
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 02:11 PM
I seriously doubt they concluded that WR wasn't a need. More likely, they concluded there were only 2 or 3 top WRs in this draft and a bunch of #2,3 & 4 wideouts after that. We've already got our 2's, 3's and 4's. The WR we picked was a value pick that lended some speed to an otherwise slow group.

CM was certainly a significant part of the problem, but our WRs ARE crap. Trading down in the third only to select a rotational DT was an epic gaffe on Heckert's part. Sanu was there for the taking at 67. IMO, he was the last of the wideouts who would have been a clear improvement over the flotsam we currently have at the position. Oh well...
Posted By: DIEHARD Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 02:24 PM
Quote:

I don't disagree with what you said, but it is not as though we have Fitzgerald catching passes from Kolb versus Warner...


Well yeah, but there wasn't a Fitzgerald in this draft. I'm tending to agree that any WR outside of Blackmon or Floyd might not have been any improvement of what we currently have. Why waste a pick with the same player you have when you can try to improve other areas?
Posted By: DjangoBrown Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 02:49 PM
I posted this in the Hughes-thread before this thread was out, so just a c/p:

I think I get what style of GM Heckert is by now...he's NOT a BPA guy, regardless of what they tell us....he is, what I call, a "target" guy...he has only several players he really, really likes at a particular spot and those are the guys he wants then, regardless of who falls

Pros of this approach:

- there is a clear plan, they're not drafting just talent, they build a team
- high confidence in the selections, resulting in pretty good Top50 choices so far


Cons:

- less flexibility on draft day, often resulting in position reaching (ie Ward, Hardesty)
- prone to uptrades and/or overdrafts to go get the targets...when a target tier is gone, they dip into next round's instead of considering falling talent regardless of position

It could be that this approach is somewhat forced since we don't have a good overall team yet, but more and more he seems to be the contrary of Ozzie or Jerry Reese in NY, who's style I'd categorize as value "whores"...Upshaw selection being a good example...he wasn't their target, if he was he would not have traded out of the 1st...it was a pure BPA pick based on talent....again, this difference could be and probably is the direct result of the team's overall talent level and competitiveness..simply put: GMs of good teams have the luxury to go value whoring, while GM's of bad teams have o fix high value positions 1st...it can be a vicious circle if those "forced" gambles don't pan out (McCoy, Weeden...)...at least this regime gets it though and tries to fix it...sometimes you need a little timing and luck too (GB with Rodgers, what was Belly before lucking into Brady?)
Posted By: DjangoBrown Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 03:00 PM
Quote:

If you care to do your investigating my Mock was the first anywhere (talking heads included) to have us taking Brandon Weeden at pick 22 and once again I knew we would appear to be reaching with the selection there.



Ahem....I think I slotted Weeden at #22 in January, when we didn't even have a Draft section yet...so I win that pissing contest

Ah, I remember all the age jokes and trashing being "way out there" with that projection...as usually, reality was on my side
Posted By: clevesteve Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 03:29 PM
Wrong. At least as early as November:

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php?...true#Post867882

Quote:

If Indy doesn't want Luck I'd give them 3 1sts + to get him...they'll draft him though

Blackmon-Weeden in the 1st is the way to go, which means the Browns won't do it



This is what you said in October...

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php?...true#Post854098

Quote:

All valid points...my reasoning with taking Weeden even in the 1st would be "opportunity"....we have the opportunity with all those picks and value is totally different when it comes to QBs...you see a franchise QB talent? You get him no matter where or how old he is....Watkins was a 1st round G this year and he was 27...a GUARD...QB have so much more value and it takes just 1 team to see you as a franchise QB and I can't see at least 1 team come up with that stamp on him when they evaluate his tape...that's why I think he will "climb" (on real GMs board he already is much higher Im sure) into the 1st easily and if we would take him I would be ok with it

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 03:38 PM
Nobody cares who said it first.
Posted By: mac Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 03:53 PM
jc...

When one stakes out several different positions, covering 360 degrees...they can claim they are never wrong...
Posted By: oobernoober Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 04:15 PM
DCDawg wins in my book.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 06:16 PM
Heckert has built nearly full team with 3 Browns drafts - Canton, OH - CantonRep.com
http://www.cantonrep.com/browns/x206665246/Heckert-has-built-nearly-full-team-with-3-Browns-drafts

BEREA —
Tom Hecklert has said it a million times.

“You build through the draft.”

He sure hasn’t wasted any time trying.

Through three drafts engineered by Heckert since he became general manager of the Browns less than 2 1/2 years ago, he has criss-crossed the talent pools. He actually has assembled an entire roster of players for every position on offense and defense.

He is just one offensive lineman and one linebacker short of being able to play an intra-squad game with players from his three drafts.

Here is a depth chart of his picks upon the conclusion of the 2012 draft:

OFFENSE (14 players)

Quarterback: Brandon Weeden (No. 22, 2012); Colt McCoy (No. 85, 2010)

Running back: Trent Richardson (No. 3, 2012); Montario Hardesty (No. 59, 2010)

Offensive tackle: Mitchell Schwartz (No. 37, 2012), Ryan Miller (No. 160, 2012)

Guard: Shawn Lauvao (No. 92, 2010), Jason Pinskton (No. 150, 2011)

Center: None

Wide receiver: Greg Little (No. 59, 2011), Travis Benjamin (No. 100, 2012), Carlton Mitchell (No. 177, 2010)

Tight end: Jordan Cameron (No. 102, 2011); Brad Smelley (No. 247, 2012)

Fullback: Owen Marecic (No. 124, 2011)

DEFENSE (13 players)

Tackle: Phil Taylor (No. 21, 2011), John Hughes (No. 87, 2012)

End: Jabaal Sheard (No. 37, 2011), Billy Winn (No. 205, 2012); Clifton Geathers* (No. 186, 2010)

Linebacker: James-Michael Johnson (No. 120, 2012); Emmanuel Acho (No. 204, 2012)

Cornerback: Joe Haden (No. 7, 2010), Buster Skrine (No. 137, 2011); Trevin Wade (No. 245, 2012)

Safety: T.J. Ward (No. 38, 2010); Eric Hagg (No. 248, 2011); Larry Asante* (No. 160, 2010)

*-no longer with team

Heckert’s boss, Mike Holmgren, thinks Heckert is quite the architect.

“Who knows for sure on the draft,” Holmgren said after three days of picking players was done, and Heckert was upstairs calling undrafted guys.

“You really don’t analyze the draft for three years. You guys know that from the last two drafts, we are playing a lot of players, and they are playing pretty well.

“There is no reason to think that these new kids won’t come in and do the same job. So our team, foundationally, is getting better.”

Heckert was fired up after adding a new No. 1 back, Richardson; a projected franchise quarterback, Weeden, and a fix for a chronic problem at right tackle, Schwartz.

“We feel a lot better,” he said. “I don’t know if we’ve transformed the offense, but ... going back to last year I think we made it a point to emphasize we wanted to be tough.

“We thought we did that a little bit last year and the year before on our defense. Obviously, taking Trent helps us on being a physical team on offense.

“Obviously the quarterback ... it remains to be seen how that all works out. I don’t know if we’ve transformed it, but I think we’ve gotten better.”
Posted By: clevesteve Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 06:17 PM
lol Heckert drafts players who play positions on a football team what a revelation.
Posted By: TopDawg16 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 06:20 PM
Quote:

lol Heckert drafts players who play positions on a football team what a revelation.



lol, right?
Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 06:35 PM
Quote:

“Obviously the quarterback ... it remains to be seen how that all works out. I don’t know if we’ve transformed it, but I think we’ve gotten better.”


Well that's a glowing endorsement of the #22 pick.
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 08:01 PM
LOL I was thinking the same thing. If this was a "win now or else" year for this FO (as a number of posters here have "declared"), trotting out a rookie QB who doesn't possess a singe elite quality isn't the way to hold on to your job.
Posted By: E.Ryze19 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 10:21 PM
Quote:

a rookie QB who doesn't possess a singe elite quality



Big arm and good accuracy on both short and long passes. Also has a good touch on passes when needed. Maybe not elite, what ever that was supposed to mean, but he has good qualities for a QB. If you don't like him fine, but to degrade him with such a comment is unfair.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 10:43 PM
Quote:

LOL I was thinking the same thing. If this was a "win now or else" year for this FO (as a number of posters here have "declared"), trotting out a rookie QB who doesn't possess a singe elite quality isn't the way to hold on to your job.



The QB without a single elite, or even average for that matter, quality was the guy who was under Center last year.

He's been replaced with a guy who should be a pretty large upgrade.

McCoy is now what he should have been all along ...... a backup.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 10:49 PM
Quote:

I think I get what style of GM Heckert is by now...he's NOT a BPA guy, regardless of what they tell us....he is, what I call, a "target" guy...he has only several players he really, really likes at a particular spot and those are the guys he wants then, regardless of who falls




I understand what you are saying, but it is still BPA...it's just that he uses HIS board and not the board of popular opinion.


It's like when he said we had 18 players with 1st round grades. He doesn't base first round picks on 32 slots. He bases it on whatever criteria he and his staff have set up.

I am sure the largest part of it is talent, but there also has to be some factoring on fit for this team. As an example, if a guy is a stud 3-4 DE, it sounds like he isn't going to grade out on our scale.


Again, I do understand the targeting. He sets his mind on a player or two, he is going to get them....Hughes might be a perfect example. That wasn't a flubbed pick in so far as us selecting him...he wasn't going to lose him by waiting...he was a guy we had to have.


My thinking is this on that selection. In the pre-draft meetings, Jauron was told he wasn't going to get many players and none were going to be very early. I think they asked him, if you only get one pick in this draft, what do you need most?? I think he said a DT who stuffs the run as do our current starters. Jauron saw a drop in play when others came in, and DT's are big guys. You need to give them a blow every once in a while to keep them playing at the top of their game.

All the scouting said Hughes was who we wanted....but in round 4....but we kept losing the WR's we wanted a few picks before, so Heck gave his D the player they wanted...a rotational DT.

I know that sounds like we didn't get a good player, but in todays NFL, good rotational guys are like starters. We got a guy who plays like Rubin and Taylor....we won't have to change anything and we won't see a drop in play, or much of one.


I know it isn't sexy, but this guy makes our other DT's better because he will eat up 1/3 of their minutes without a drop in play. We will be 100% up front all game long.


Who's tired of seeing last drive wins by the other team because they ran the ball in to FG position??


I think Hughes was a Jauron pick. He wanted Hughes more than anyone in that 4th round range. Since the draft got ahead of Heck's board, he gave his DC the guy he wanted in the 3rd round.
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:16 PM
Quote:

Quote:

a rookie QB who doesn't possess a singe elite quality



Big arm and good accuracy on both short and long passes. Also has a good touch on passes when needed. Maybe not elite, what ever that was supposed to mean, but he has good qualities for a QB. If you don't like him fine, but to degrade him with such a comment is unfair.



How is what I said degrading Weeden? He doesn't have the biggest arm. It's better than McCoy, but not elite. His accuracy is good, but not elite either. Blackmon bailed him out a fair amount at OSU.

Bottom line is, he's a rookie and he'll play like one. I swear some of you people seem to think that Weeden is going to come in and just light it up. I'm just saying, don't expect that. There's nothing in Weeden's game to suggest that's likely to happen. Will he be an upgrade over McCoy? I sure hope so, but we're more likely to see a noticeable improvement in 2013 than we are in 2012.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:20 PM
The more I watch of Weeden's tape, the more I see how he really put the ball on his receivers, including Blackmon.

I didn't see receivers bailing him out ..... in fact they were frequently hit in stride, in the hands, and in position to make a play with the ball.

How many times did you see Blackmon bailing Weeden out? Can you put up some video so I can see it too?
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:23 PM
Quote:

The QB without a single elite, or even average for that matter, quality was the guy who was under Center last year.

He's been replaced with a guy who should be a pretty large upgrade.

McCoy is now what he should have been all along ...... a backup.



Pretty sure I didn't mention McCoy, but your agenda travels before you wherever you go so... Whatever.

I noticed that you didn't disagree with my point that Weeden isn't an elite prospect (because he isn't).

I wouldn't disagree with you that Weeden should be an upgrade over McCoy; maybe even a big one. However, he's a rookie who has a LOT to learn. He's gonna play like one. Expecting to see a huge improvement in 2012 is wishful thinking. I just hope to God that he's showing a big leap by 2013. I have my doubts...
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:28 PM
I expect a fairly big upgrade over last year because of the fact that our QB play was so incredibly inept last year. I truly believe that the QB held down the rest of the offense.

It is obvious that the front office agrees, since they drafted a new QB, but largely stayed with the same receivers. When the QB doesn't throw the ball down the field, receivers don't make plays. It's weird how that works ......

I look at Weeden, and while he wasn't my 1st choice, he is far, far superior to our QB last year in terms of arm strength, accuracy, ball placement, anticipation, quick (and almost immediate) reads, and so on. I look forward to much of this to translate the the NFL level.

Will Weeden be a perfect QB? Almost certainly not. Can he have enough plus qualities to be a winning QB for us? Absolutely. He may never reach great level ..... but I believe that he can be a very, very good QB.
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:42 PM
Quote:

The more I watch of Weeden's tape, the more I see how he really put the ball on his receivers, including Blackmon.

I didn't see receivers bailing him out ..... in fact they were frequently hit in stride, in the hands, and in position to make a play with the ball.

How many times did you see Blackmon bailing Weeden out? Can you put up some video so I can see it too?



What "tape" are you watching? A handful of YouTube videos? I didn't spend a whole lot of time on it, but I watched as many OSU games as I could last season because I thought Blackmon was a guy the Browns might target. There weren't that many (4 IIRC), but I saw plenty of big-time catches that required significant adjustments (mostly on outside throws).

The other thing I noticed was that Blackmon was generally wide-open a lot of the time. I don't recall seeing very many tight throws. The quality of the defenses Weeden faced was hardly elite, so, like all rookie QBs, he'll have to adjust to that as well.

In Weeden I just don't see a saviour (at least short term). I think we're going to struggle again next season. If we run the ball more effectively, we might win a couple more games, but Weeden isn't likely to helps us that much in 2012. Hopefully, he can get to Flacco's level at some point (good, but nothing special). However, that's really his ceiling, IMO. ::shrug::
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:46 PM
Quote:

It is obvious that the front office agrees, since they drafted a new QB, but largely stayed with the same receivers. When the QB doesn't throw the ball down the field, receivers don't make plays. It's weird how that works



If receivers don't catch the balls that reach their hands, they don't make plays either. Funny how that happens as well...
Posted By: Mourgrym Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 04/30/12 11:59 PM
Not a huge weeden fan but I watched Weeden vs Luck and to be honest, if noone knew the names, you would have thought one guy looked like an NFL QB hitting the receivers in stride and the other guy threw a billion screens to wide open guys.

Weeden looked better and he put the ball in position for Blackmon to have success. Now blackmon did break a couple tackles and had monster yards after catch but point is, he didnt have to slow his momentum and that is huge in this offense.

I hope Weeden is who Heckert believes him to be because this was the Heckert pick.
Posted By: Browns Lifer Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 12:04 AM
Not what I saw in the games I watched, but it doesn't matter now. We'll have to wait and see what happens when he faces real defenses at this level (and he'll see plenty of really good ones this season). ::shrug::
Posted By: bleednbrown Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 12:36 AM
I think your right. It think Heck told DJ that the top 3-4 rounds would be for the O and he could have who he wanted after that. But with the WR dropping off in rds. 2-3 He decided to give DJ a bone and get the guy he wanted. It looks funny because the first 3 picks were all O and then we see D when were still short a WR.

I don't see a bad pick at 3, as some claim. They think we just up an made a pick and then turn around and say ol man, we made a bad pick time for damage control. Just don't think it works that way.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 03:06 AM
Yeah, a lot of online videos.

There are videos of every throw in games that show a great deal. I don't see tons of throws that require the receiver to do a whole lot of adjusting to the ball. I see a lot of passes that hit guys right in the hands.

He's not perfect by any stretch, but he is a damn good college QB. Hopefully he becomes a great QB for our Cleveland Browns.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 09:25 AM
Quote:

I hope Weeden is who Heckert believes him to be because this was the Heckert pick.




I was reading somewhere, Ill try to find it that suggests this was Holmgrens pick. Holmgren also pulled rank and moved up to #3. Heck wanted to sit at #4 and wanted to wait for Weeden at #37.

It was a local article, not something off a rumor mill...maybe in the ABJ or Canton paper.
Posted By: OverToad Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 03:34 PM
I think I'm *this close* to putting Holmgren into my sig line, and the history of people who've made it to my sig line have all ended the same way...
Posted By: clevesteve Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 04:28 PM
Holmgren himself alluded as much about 75%-80% into the 4/28 presser, right before calling shurmur "the peacemaker." I got the feeling shurmur wasn't big on the move either.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:07 PM
It is so terribly simple to see what Hecker is doing..

he's building from the Ground up. I still don't understand all his picks, but I can appreciate the method.
Posted By: Rishuz Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:36 PM
Quote:

It is so terribly simple to see what Hecker is doing..

he's building from the Ground up. I still don't understand all his picks, but I can appreciate the method.



Love the foundation that is being laid out here. Lots of young guys. Some up and comers.

I am big fan of Heckert. I think he's doing a great job, and I hope the fans of Cleveland don't run him out of town.
Posted By: Haras Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:40 PM
Quote:

I think I'm *this close* to putting Holmgren into my sig line, and the history of people who've made it to my sig line have all ended the same way...



Seriously, let Heckert do his job. If Heckert goes down for bad picks, at least let it be for picks he wanted to make. Holmgren does a lot of things well. Drafting isn't one of them.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:42 PM
Quote:

Quote:

It is so terribly simple to see what Hecker is doing..

he's building from the Ground up. I still don't understand all his picks, but I can appreciate the method.



Love the foundation that is being laid out here. Lots of young guys. Some up and comers.

I am big fan of Heckert. I think he's doing a great job, and I hope the fans of Cleveland don't run him out of town.



The problem with some fans is that they hear 5 year plan. It's human nature to think,, ok,, 5 year plan. Increase the win totals by 1 or 2 games a year over 5 years.. as if it's some kinda even growth pattern.

it's not necessarly gonna work out that way. sometimes you have 0 growth and maybe even some regression until pieces are in place and begin to work together to produce.

My hope is that most fans understand that.. but if they don't,, as long as Holmgren and more importantly, Lerner understand it.
Posted By: Rishuz Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:43 PM
Quote:

Holmgren himself alluded as much about 75%-80% into the 4/28 presser, right before calling shurmur "the peacemaker." I got the feeling shurmur wasn't big on the move either.



I haven't watched the presser yet, but do you think this means Heckert was willing to forego getting Richardson?
Posted By: Haras Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:50 PM
Quote:

Quote:

Holmgren himself alluded as much about 75%-80% into the 4/28 presser, right before calling shurmur "the peacemaker." I got the feeling shurmur wasn't big on the move either.



I haven't watched the presser yet, but do you think this means Heckert was willing to forego getting Richardson?



I wouldn't be surprised, knowing how Heckert likes to build in the trenches. If someone jumped us for Richardson, that'd mean we'd have the top tackle prospect sitting there for us. We could take a trade back a few spots (including from the Vikings, if they had indeed traded back to 5). I mean, look at all the activity at the top of the draft. Dropping to 7 with Jacksonsville so they could take Blackmon, or even with Dallas to 15, and picking up a first next year? None of those were bad options.

Richardson looks to be a great back, but missing him and getting a great tackle, or a few extra high picks, isn't like missing out on luck or RG3. I brought it up before, but if we had picked Kalil and put him on the right side, and then used 37 for a RB, I wouldn't have been upset in the least.
Posted By: clevesteve Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 05:57 PM
Why do people find it so hard to believe that they liked Blackmon? They've all said they liked Blackmon.
Posted By: clevesteve Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 06:02 PM
Quote:

I haven't watched the presser yet, but do you think this means Heckert was willing to forego getting Richardson?



Well, the thing Heckert had said all along is that "they were going to get a good player at 4" even "guaranteeing" he wouldn't trade up, but might trade back a few picks. The comments I'm talking about from Holmgren are at 27:30 in case you are interested.
Posted By: OverToad Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 06:10 PM
It's hard taking Heckert, or any other talking head of an organization, at their word, especially right before the draft.

If it keeps other teams guessing, I want them lying through their teeth. What I DON'T want is the Walrus telling Heckert and the world that it's his draft to conduct...right until the Walrus decides he's going to step in and force his will upon things. That kind of micromanagement seldom ever creates success. In fact, that kind of thinking gave us McCoy, which has now been branded a failure, not by us, but by the guy who threw his weight around to get him in the first place.

The bottom line is that it's become apparent the Walrus isn't letting Heckert run the show, as he stated he would. That makes me very, VERY uncomfortable, because Heckert has a greater track record of success as an executive.

I'm nervous. We could be 16-games away from another regime change, and much of that hinges on the production of a 29-year old rookie QB who comes from a college spread offense...
Posted By: Spergon FTWynn Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 07:10 PM
I kind of see what you're saying, but I think Mike should have his input, he's being paid a lot of money to see this thing through.

I'm sure his fingerprints were all over this Weeden pick. I know Mike said that Heckert had to convince him to get out of their pick last year to acquire what would be Brandon Weeden.

I just don't want a regime change. If this thing falls flat, Weeden is a bust, and we're at 4-5 wins again, I don't think Heckert should lose his job.

Nobody wants to think about that right now. I'm trying to stay positive. I think Weeden is going to have some things working for him this year that Colt didn't last year, a full offseason, additions to the offensive line, an elite running back prospect behind him... A coach with a full year under his belt who may have actually seen it all in one year.

It just has to work this time.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 07:43 PM
If you watch the way the Shurmur, who usually gets about as excited at press conferences as a 90 year old blind guy at a dead turtle race, talk about Weeden, I think that he really, really wanted the guy. He was as close to giddy as I have seen him at any time since he showed up in Cleveland.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 08:01 PM
Quote:

who usually gets about as excited at press conferences as a 90 year old blind guy at a dead turtle race



Posted By: Haras Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 08:23 PM
Mike should have all sorts of input. He should let Heckert know his thoughts on everything. Then, when the draft starts, he should STFU and sit quietly unless Heckert asks him for his advice.
Posted By: Spergon FTWynn Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 08:27 PM
Quote:

If you watch the way the Shurmur, who usually gets about as excited at press conferences as a 90 year old blind guy at a dead turtle race, talk about Weeden, I think that he really, really wanted the guy. He was as close to giddy as I have seen him at any time since he showed up in Cleveland.



Yeah, I noticed that too.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/01/12 09:30 PM
Quote:

Holmgren himself alluded as much about 75%-80% into the 4/28 presser, right before calling shurmur "the peacemaker." I got the feeling shurmur wasn't big on the move either.






That was included in what I read....Shurmer was acting as peace maker. It wasn't that they were bickering or anything like that....just Heck not wanting to move up or take Weeden at 22 unless he was told to make the moves.


I think I agree with Homie. The word out there is the Vikes did have offers and moving up was the only way to get Richardson, and he was the target at that pick

Everybody was also in agreement Weeden was the guy we wanted, we just differed on when to take him. I have a feeling Weeden wouldn't have lasted until our next pick. Someone in the next 14 oe so picks would have taken him.



Even if not, this shows how shaken the team was about blowing the RGIII deal. They were determined to get nearly every player they had targeted...there was no way to move up for Wright, so they had to wait that out. Once he got snapped up a few picks before us, we just moved every round up starting with the Hughes pick.
Posted By: OverToad Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 03:16 AM
Quote:

I think I agree with Homie. The word out there is the Vikes did have offers and moving up was the only way to get Richardson, and he was the target at that pick


I don't know to believe that the Vikes had other offers on the table for the #3 pick, but I do know this: The Rams desperately wanted a wide receiver. They traded back to #6 rather certain they'd land Blackmon, but the Jags moved up to get their guy. The Jags won, and the Rams lost. So the Rams moved again. They thought they had their hands all over Floyd, only to have the team in front of them AGAIN steal the WR out from under them.

When you also factor in how we lost out on the guy we really wanted, in spite of the fact we had more firepower than the 'Skins, we couldn't afford to end up...like the Rams.

Lastly, no team is going to carry 13 draft picks. We had to burn the picks somehow, and I feel that using them to guarantee your guy is a small price to pay.

I've become increasingly critical of The Walrus as time has marched on, and (of course ) IMHO it's very justified. However, I'm perfectly good with this move. Spend the extra picks to get the guy you wanted. And in case anyone thinks I feel that way because of how loudly I banged the drum for Richardson, I'd have the same opinion of the Jags if they "overpaid" to get Blackmon.
Posted By: Haras Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 03:34 AM
Quote:

The Rams desperately wanted a wide receiver. They traded back to #6 rather certain they'd land Blackmon, but the Jags moved up to get their guy. The Jags won, and the Rams lost. So the Rams moved again. They thought they had their hands all over Floyd, only to have the team in front of them AGAIN steal the WR out from under them.

When you also factor in how we lost out on the guy we really wanted, in spite of the fact we had more firepower than the 'Skins, we couldn't afford to end up...like the Rams.




Couldn't have been happier to watch the Rams/Skins trade bite the Rams where the sun don't shine.
Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 03:36 AM
Quote:

Quote:

The Rams desperately wanted a wide receiver. They traded back to #6 rather certain they'd land Blackmon, but the Jags moved up to get their guy. The Jags won, and the Rams lost. So the Rams moved again. They thought they had their hands all over Floyd, only to have the team in front of them AGAIN steal the WR out from under them.

When you also factor in how we lost out on the guy we really wanted, in spite of the fact we had more firepower than the 'Skins, we couldn't afford to end up...like the Rams.




Couldn't have been happier to watch the Rams/Skins trade bite the Rams where the sun don't shine.



I kinda enjoyed that myself ..... especially the reports that Fisher slammed his glasses down in a fit of rage when the Jags jumped up to grab Blackmon.
Posted By: OverToad Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 03:38 AM
Now I'm kinda rooting for Kirk Cousins to be better than Griffin
Posted By: WooferDawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 03:44 AM
If so, history repeats itself, as Shuler and Ferotte were selected in the same draft.
Posted By: mac Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 11:02 AM
I'm nervous. We could be 16-games away from another regime change, and much of that hinges on the production of a 29-year old rookie QB who comes from a college spread offense...



Quote:


I'm nervous. We could be 16-games away from another regime change, and much of that hinges on the production of a 29-year old rookie QB who comes from a college spread offense...



Toad...you can calm those frayed nerves because Holmgren is not going anywhere, unless he chooses to leave.

Building a team via the draft...adding piece by piece...does not guarantee "instant success" as some seem to believe...as some demand.

Holmgren is overseeing the operation of the Browns, guiding when necessary. You may have the opinion that Holmgren is micro managing, as if that is a bad thing...but that is why he was hired.

We can only guess what role Holmgren played in moving up to draft Richardson or taking Weeden at 22. I'm of the opinion that Holmgren gave the ok to do what was necessary to secure those picks to insure the Browns did not end up like the Rams, who came up just short, "twice"...failing to get the elite WRs they coveted.

Whether or not the Browns win to your satisfaction this year is not up to Holmgren..it's up to the players and coaches.

It seems some Browns fans just have to have someone to blame if the team does not win. We can already see what the message board theme is going to look like...

...if the Browns don't win XX number of games, it's Holmgren's fault.
...if Weeden does not play well, it was Holmgren who forced Heckert to take Weeden...therefore, poor play from Weeden is Holmgren's fault.
...and the bottom line is...some want to see Holmgren "fired" if imaginary goals are not reached.

We already know the Browns are playing one of the toughest schedules in the NFL..playing in what might be the toughest division in the NFL...with one of the youngest teams in the NFL...those are the facts.

Toad..So Holmgren is the target of your agenda...gonna be fun to read your posts as the season progresses.
Posted By: FL_Dawg Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/02/12 03:43 PM
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The Rams desperately wanted a wide receiver. They traded back to #6 rather certain they'd land Blackmon, but the Jags moved up to get their guy. The Jags won, and the Rams lost. So the Rams moved again. They thought they had their hands all over Floyd, only to have the team in front of them AGAIN steal the WR out from under them.

When you also factor in how we lost out on the guy we really wanted, in spite of the fact we had more firepower than the 'Skins, we couldn't afford to end up...like the Rams.




Couldn't have been happier to watch the Rams/Skins trade bite the Rams where the sun don't shine.



I kinda enjoyed that myself ..... especially the reports that Fisher slammed his glasses down in a fit of rage when the Jags jumped up to grab Blackmon.



I'm very skeptical of this, because there where numerous reports of the Jags trying to move up for Blackmon. I'm sure H&H had some discussions with the Jags and I don't think that it's a far stretch to think that they also had them with the Rams.
If the Rams truly had him targeted then they could have done the same and moved up to 5, because they surly had the fire power to do so.
Missing on Floyd was a calculated risk when they traded down the 2nd time with Dallas at pick 14. There where a number of teams that could have drafted Floyd before the Cardinals did. It's obvious to me that the Rams chose quantity over quality in this Draft.

Meh! They chose to let the wheel roll and let the Draft come to them.
I personally think that Cox was their target at pick 14 and not Floyd, but the Eagles leap frogged them and they took the next best option on the board at DT.

Rams fans better not bank too heavily on Fisher bringing in a star quality WR (not unlike us).
Posted By: THROW LONG Re: Scouting Tom Heckert - 05/03/12 10:16 AM
Quote:

The other thing to note is how COMPLETELY revamped the DE position will be this year even without spending any top draft picks on the position. Our projected 5 man rotation this year includes:

Jabaal Sheard - rookie last year
Jaqua Parker - FA
Frostee Rucker - FA
Billy Winn - draft pick
Marcus Benard - IR last year

80% of that rotation will be new/different from last season.



Whose projection?
Looking forward to seeing some of these guys play.
© DawgTalkers.net