Thought I'd continue the discussion here.
Divot:
Quote:
Who do you think will have the better team in 3 to 5 years, Rams or Skins?
Snyder killed his team for at least 5 more years.
If I were a Rams fan I'd be giddy right now. I'm not all that high on what I've seen from Bradford, but there is potential there, and now you're sitting at the #6 pick, an extra second, and two extra firsts for the next two years. That's an amazing opportunity right there.
YTown:
Quote:
Actually, I have not called them failures, other than being firmly in the driver's seat in this deal, and blowing it.
What were we supposed to do? Offer more?
I couldn't be happier that we weren't the ones to pull the trigger on this mess of a deal. I'd be hard pressed to make that deal for Luck, who is far less of a risk than Griffin. I know you like the guy and all, but how is not outbidding Snyder's cartoonish move blowing something?
Snyder lost his mind and sold the farm. What were we supposed to do to not have not blown it?
As I said elsewhere, the fact that the salaries have gone down for high draft picks has driven the price to trade up, especially for positions of high value, like QB.
It used to be that a team drafting a QB high would risk tens of millions of dollars. Now, Cam Newton last year got what ...... 4 years and $22 million? That's not much to risk on a financial basis. Further, as shown by the fact that we have tried hard to trade up in 2 of Heckert/Holmgren's drafts thus far (counting this year) QBs have major value. Since there is far less risk on a financial basis, teams like the Rams, who have already made their commitment to a QB, can demand a king's ransom from teams desperately in need of a QB. Those teams will pay more in terms of draft picks, because it is rare that you can actually trade up for a top QB, and the financial risk is all but gone. Trades of this nature will become more expensive into the future, not less.
Hell, we traded down last year, and granted it was a pretty good drop, but we stayed in the 1st, and got a total of 2 1st round picks, a 2nd, and 2 4th round picks. That's quite a king's ransom for #5 as well ..... especially considering that it was for a WR, not considered a position of as high a value.
I bet that we will see trades involving more than the Redskins paid in the future, should a similar situation occur, or should a team with a young, franchise quality QB somehow wind up with a top pick. (because of injury, or similar situation) However, in most cases, teams at the top of the draft will need a QB, and will be unwilling to trade. That's why a pick like the Rams had such value. It was actually available.
This was from the RG3 thread....I pretty much nailed what it would take.....I was told even the 3 firsts and some mid rounds were to much....and he went for 3 firsts and a second.....either the Browns just did not want him or the price just got to high.....we will see how he does with the Skins.
HACK
Quote:
I don't think it is all about this year as much as total value....Stl. is not a year away...or a player away...its going to need to build from the ground up...they have maybe 20 players that they feel they can build around...
If the Redskins were to just offer 10 first round picks over the next 12 years....You have to take it...doesn't matter that the Skins might be drafting #32 every year from now till 2024.
Fisher will put his stamp on this team over the next 3 years so 3 first round picks over the next 3 years would appeal to him....6 first rounders to build around....Letting Fisher move up or down has he sees fit.
I just don't think its as simple as 2 first this year might be more valuable in the short term than 1 and 1.....but what if the offer is 1 and 1 and 1 with a couple of mid rounders thrown in as well. The Skins are known for giving up draft picks, and using free agency to fill gaps.
All that being said...I think he will be a Brown if they want him.... everyone else will just be driving up the price a little higher than most would like.
HACK
Going from the first topic, the Rams will be way better off.
For one, I think the first great thing they did was hire Jeff Fisher, who's one of the most respected men in the league, and a very good coach.
And now this? If done right they could have set themselves up, The NFC West going forward might not be the pushover that it's been for the last 7 or 8 years.
I think they have some pieces in place there, but considering they received all those picks, and only moved a few spots back is incredible.
As far as Washington goes, unless RG3 turns into a mega superstar, they may run Dan Snyder out of town. I don't think that team was a QB away. He'll probably blow a ton of money in FA when he gets the chance.
Yeah, I don't get the "we blew it" thinking ... No prospect is worth 3 first round picks and more.
He's not even the best QB in this Draft and he comes with warts too.
Washington will continue to go against the grain and try to build a team around Griffen with FA.
It will also put them in cap hell down the road. I actually feel sorry that Griffen is going to such a backwards thinking Franchise.
Griffen is not the be all to end all for this Franchise.
I'm also glad the cats out of the bag and now we can turn our attention to the rest of our Draft and FA signings.
TO to Washington? followed by Randy Moss to Washington?
I think that would work out well for RG3..
Quote:
TO to Washington? followed by Randy Moss to Washington?
I think that would work out well for RG3..
Reaaally how so? Did they both lose 10 years? What continuity could they offer?
Half cocked statement, without forethought imo.
lol not exactly the players I would want to surround my rookie QB with. He holds the ball so long, it wont matter with 2 games against Tuck and company and 2 games against Demarcus Ware and Rob Ryan's defense and 2 games against Phily's blitzing defense. Combine a porous offensive line with facing those elite NFL defenses and well it is not gonna be pretty.
Do u really think Snyder cares about continuity?
They both provide solid deep ball threats.. RG3 can throw money balls w/ ease. It would work. Now would it happen? probably not..
Am I missing something here ... How did it cost the Redskins 3 , three , first round picks ???
Quote:
Do u really think Snyder cares about continuity?
They both provide solid deep ball threats.. RG3 can throw money balls w/ ease. It would work. Now would it happen? probably not..
I don't think he thinks past his nose.
Your thinking in yesteryear. They are both a year removed from the game and both have long since been in their prime.
Maybe they should trade for Wallace ... Oh wait they don't have that option anymore 
Some people on here like to use wierd math.. Yes they will use 3 First rounds picks minus the ONE they already had in the bank. It "Cost" three but they had one in the bank so it really only cost TWO extra firsts and a 2nd.
I definitely think it would be wise for them to pick up one of the two.
TO played very well the last season he suited up in the NFL. Nobody stays in better shape than TO. The last guy to do so was Jerry Rice, and he played till 41.
Reports are that Moss looked good in NO, and has another workout for SF on Monday.
Either guy would be q great safety blanket for Griffin IMO, as they have no legit receivers on the roster after Santana Moss right now. Hankerson could develop, but as a rookie he'll need more than that.
After watching the '91 'Skins special on NFLN hearing them talk about "Sprint Bomb" basically carrying them through the season, I'd say it's about even money that Nick Toon is their first pick when the third round rolls around.
Quote:
Some people on here like to use wierd math.. Yes they will use 3 First rounds picks minus the ONE they already had in the bank. It "Cost" three but they had one in the bank so it really only cost TWO extra firsts and a 2nd.
So did the Redskins trade 2 or 3 1st rounders ?
the answer is yes. Both are true depending how you phrase it.
The Redskins did indeed trade 3 1st rounders to the Rams. The Rams traded one 1st rounder to the Redskins. True.
The Redskins gave the Rams 3 1st rounders in exchange for 1 1st rounder for a net total of 2. True
The Redskin traded two 1st rounders to the Rams to exchange 1st round picks. True.
It is all in the semantics. Regardless, the Redskins gave three1st rounders to the Rams. An unprecedented amount. True.
Quote:
Damanshot:
CLEARLY? well, maybe you've seen where someone from the Browns has said we offered anything.. But really, all I've seen is that it was Reported by a reporter and then re-reported by another then another and so on and so on.
I think I read that Heckert said they spoke to the Rams.. but I don't remember anyone saying that we offered anything? I'm not at all convinced that the Rams didn't float that in order to wrangle more out of the Redskins..
Then something else...Quote:
I'm also a wondering where did the reporters get the information that the team had made an actual offer?
I'll ask this again, Heckert said that rumors of them trading up to get the 2nd pick were crazy. to those that wanted RG3, it's misdirection. to those of us that didn't care, it's,, hey,, he said it was crazy.. why was anyone suprised when he didn't do it?
It's funny how a persons hopes change the meanings of things said....
Who said he didn't try? 
Daman, you also said that Shefter got his information from a St. Louis paper.
MaryK says differently:
Quote:
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Browns offered at least their No. 4 and No. 22 overall picks in this year's draft to trade up to No. 2, a report said, but now it's time to look at life without Robert Griffin III.
As of last week, the Browns were unwilling to include their No. 22, but they acquiesced, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Saturday.
ESPN's Adam Schefter, citing Cleveland sources, reported that the Browns offered a third first-round pick and were also prepared to throw in a second-rounder. Schefter said the Browns thought they had a deal, only to discover the Redskins had outbid them. web page
Sooner or later you're going to have to take someone's word for something. You cannot shrug off these reports until 100% proven then turn right around and say "Why are people surprised Heckert didn't make the deal?" when he hasn't come right out and said he didn't try to get RG3.
If you're gonna ride the fence, right it all the way.
We've got numerous reports from numerous sources saying the Browns tried to trade the farm for Griffin, but not one single report saying they didn't.
Time to use some common sense...
Quote:
I bet that we will see trades involving more than the Redskins paid in the future, should a similar situation occur, or should a team with a young, franchise quality QB somehow wind up with a top pick. (because of injury, or similar situation) However, in most cases, teams at the top of the draft will need a QB, and will be unwilling to trade. That's why a pick like the Rams had such value. It was actually available.
I'm not sure we'll see trades like this in the future.
I think the market sets what people will do and people don't just go off what someone else does.
People will still only give up what they think someone is worth. And Dan Snyder swapping firsts, trading and two future firsts and a second plus some other picks, doesn't have to set the market.
It's set by what the teams looking to trade up are willing to give up and what the other team is willing to take in return.
Just look at the Jets Mark Sanchez deal with us. We didn't get much from it at all. Years earlier, the Ricky Williams deal involved a huge trade up and someone made a killing from it.
May be this shows the increased value of QBs in this league, but I dunno. I just don't think NFL GMs are like sheep and are going to follow this deal just because that was the deal. Every player you're trading up for is different and every team is different
-------------------------------------
And i'm not gonna blame our GM for not getting RG3 either. If it's something like the vikings on draft day and being late to hand in your draft card, that's fair. But losing to Dan Snyder in an auction, doesn't have to be a bad thing. You value a guy how you value a guy, and spending more than you think they're worth is how you lose
Quote:
Time to use some common sense...
Now that could pose a problem. 
It depends on the player. Sanchez wasn't as highly thought of as griffin. Plus, maybe there weren't multiple bidders going for his services like with griffin. That's what it came down to, the rams knew there were multiple teams willing to trade up. Thus the rams got the offer from the skins.
Quote:
Am I missing something here ... How did it cost the Redskins 3 , three , first round picks ???
to get the 2nd pick in the draft this april, they had to give up 3 of thier first round picks..1 this year, 1 next and 1 the year after. it's a 3 for 1 deal (not counting the 2nd rounder they gave up also)
I suppose it could be argued that they only gave up two first rounders because it's merely a swap of firsts this year.. But that's not the way it's viewed...
Quote:
We've got numerous reports from numerous sources saying the Browns tried to trade the farm for Griffin, but not one single report saying they didn't.
I think the Browns need to make a statement on this whole situation soon. One way or the other they should clear the air.
Quote:
It depends on the player. Sanchez wasn't as highly thought of as griffin. Plus, maybe there weren't multiple bidders going for his services like with griffin. That's what it came down to, the rams knew there were multiple teams willing to trade up. Thus the rams got the offer from the skins.
Exactly, that's what I was saying.
Depends on the player (and how much a team values him) and what you're willing to take. The Redskins thought Griffin was worth what they gave him, St. Louis said, we're willing to give up our pick for that and bam, there's a deal.
I just don't agree with Ytown where he said, this trade goes to show that moving up in the 1st round will be very expensive from now on. It's just one trade and based on those three sets of things (How much the Redskins were willing to give up for RG3, how much we were willing to give up RG3, and if that's enough for the Rams to swap picks). Different sets of teams, different sets of players, and things won't be the same.
I don't think this deal has to set a precedent or anything. These guys are their own people, they aren't sheep
May not be how it's viewed by some, but in the end the Skins are out two 1st rounders.
They get a first rounder this year, and don't for the next two...thus, it cost two first rounders.
The Rams get a first rounder this year just as before and a extra for the next two years, thus a gain of two first round picks.
Pretty simple really.
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something here ... How did it cost the Redskins 3 , three , first round picks ???
to get the 2nd pick in the draft this april, they had to give up 3 of thier first round picks..1 this year, 1 next and 1 the year after. it's a 3 for 1 deal (not counting the 2nd rounder they gave up also)
I suppose it could be argued that they only gave up two first rounders because it's merely a swap of firsts this year.. But that's not the way it's viewed...
................................................................................................................
No wonder I am usually the odd man out on the board 
.. In my eye they swapped this year 2 for 6 and Gave UP two first rounders in 13 and 14 .. So they gave TWO extra first rounders for RG3 ! 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something here ... How did it cost the Redskins 3 , three , first round picks ???
to get the 2nd pick in the draft this april, they had to give up 3 of thier first round picks..1 this year, 1 next and 1 the year after. it's a 3 for 1 deal (not counting the 2nd rounder they gave up also)
I suppose it could be argued that they only gave up two first rounders because it's merely a swap of firsts this year.. But that's not the way it's viewed...
................................................................................................................
No wonder I am usually the odd man out on the board .. In my eye they swapped this year 2 for 6 and Gave UP two first rounders in 13 and 14 .. So they gave TWO extra first rounders for RG3 !
The Devil is in the details ... I do not remember anyone stating that they gave up 3 'extra' first round picks, but they did give up 3 1st round picks to move up for one, no matter how it is spun.
They gave up their 6th selection (along with their 2nd round selection) this year = 1 1st round pick.
Additionally they will forfeit their 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014 = 2 more 1st round picks for the 2nd selection overall this year.
The Rams get (3) 1st round picks for their 2nd selection for a net gain of 2 1st round picks for dropping 4 spots.
The Redskins will not have a 1st round pick of their own until the Draft of 2015.
Quote:
We've got numerous reports from numerous sources saying the Browns tried to trade the farm for Griffin, but not one single report saying they didn't.
Time to use some common sense...
Toad...did you hear that Peyton Hillis was going to join the CIA?
web page
Take note, who was the writer to break the "Hillis to join CIA" story?
...same guy making claims about the Browns trading with the Rams.
It really doesn't matter if the Browns tried make a deal with the Rams or not ...if the Browns did try, we need to thank the football Gods that someone in the front office had brains enough not to mortgage the franchises future for just one man.
Now the Browns can return to rebuilding the team via the draft.
Sorry FL. but that sounds like a Govt. trying to explain a program thats good for us !
.. In my book , the Rams picked up two additional firsts ....
First of all, there usually aren't 2 guys considered to be franchise QBs in most drafts. Usually there's one, and the team sitting at #1 overall generally is sitting there because they have been starting some guy who would struggle in the Arena League. With that in mind, there is no way that a team with a glaring and gaping need at QB would ever trade away a guy they consider to be a true franchise guy. This is especially true given the new lower price tag on a high pick from a salary and bonus aspect.
This year was a special year in that there were 2 such guys available in the draft, and the team at #2 has their franchise guy, he was hurt and is coming back, and they don't need a second franchise QB. Thus they were in position to sell the pick to the highest bidder.
This, obviously won't happen very often. (which is why this could really hurt us) Most drafts have one guy considered to be a surefire franchise guy at most. Most teams who wind up in position to take that guy have a huge need for a franchise QB. This year was different. However, if such a situation occurs again, the pricetag will likely be even higher. There are always teams who need a great QB desperately. Teams will pay a massive premium if they think that they have a franchise guy. With the salary cap not being as big a consideration with rookies anymore, this means that more teams can afford such a trade from a cap perspective. This will create more demand should such a situation arise, and the price will likely be even higher. (especially if RG3 succeeds in Washington)
There are very few drafts were there are 2 guys right at the top. When it happened with Manning and Rivers, it was still those 2 teams taking those 2 QBs.
In essense, the Chargers got 2 first round picks (one of which was Phillip Rivers), a 4th and a 5th ....... and still got their franchise QB. Was the trade for RG3 really that much more unbalanced? The Rams moved down a considerable amount, and will not be in the market for a QB. They can take a lower pick, and fill needs at any number of positions. They wanted quantity, where the Chargers wanted a particular quality player, along with draft picks. I would imagine that there would have been an even larger premium attached to that trade if Rivers had gone to a different team. What would have been the price if, say, Oakland had taken Rivers? I bet it might have hit the 3 first round mark. That would have been in an era with massive rookie salaries, too.
Anyway, this was a situation not likely to come about again for quite a few years. It is rare that you get 2 guys considered to be franchise QBs in the same draft. Usually you get a guy like Stafford, followed up by a schlub like Sanchez. Usually there is a massive perceived difference between the top 2 guys. Rarely is there a situation where one guy is expected to be a surefire #1 type guy, and the 2nd guy might even be more exciting.
Anyway .... hopefully we can someday come up with a great QB from somewhere. We really aren't going to win our division, let alone a Super Bowl, without one.
If I'm Heckert I'm waging war on the NFL..I'm taking the best deals and the best players I can get...I'm gonna make the Rams and Synder's cup very bare if I can.
Quote:
Sorry FL. but that sounds like a Govt. trying to explain a program thats good for us ! .. In my book , the Rams picked up two additional firsts ....
We all understand that their first round picks are exchanged, but technical they are part of the traded selections.
So the Rams get 2 extra 1st and a high 2nd round pick to trade down 4 slots.
That's a lot to give up for any 1 prospect. Notice I did not call him a player, because until he has played a down in the League, that's all he is.
Like when I went to Pairs Island for boot camp ... I was called a recruit and not private, because that has to be earned.
Quote:
That's a lot to give up for any 1 prospect. Notice I did not call him a player, because until he has played a down in the League, that's all he is.
Like when I went to Pairs Island for boot camp ... I was called a recruit and not private, because that has to be earned.
its football man.. its not that serious. 
Quote:
If I'm Heckert I'm waging war on the NFL..I'm taking the best deals and the best players I can get...I'm gonna make the Rams and Synder's cup very bare if I can.
Attack, I'm one of those guys who believes that you can find talent anywhere in the Draft. There isn't a Draft where we don't have examples of this. I Guess I value Draft picks higher then most, is what I am trying to say.
Since our return in 99, the past two Drafts I thought where our best overall, so I am still optimistic about this years Draft (possibly QB's aside), that we will add some more key peaces.
Quote:
Quote:
That's a lot to give up for any 1 prospect. Notice I did not call him a player, because until he has played a down in the League, that's all he is.
Like when I went to Pairs Island for boot camp ... I was called a recruit and not private, because that has to be earned.
its football man.. its not that serious.
What ever man
They still have to prove they belong at the top level of the game.
I seen too many 'can't miss prospect' come and go, so I'm not blowing smoke up your butt dude.
But your welcome to your opinion.
No I know that ..I know as well as anyone in here that U can find talent in late rounds...right now I 'm stoked about tgis..I want the Browns to take the starch out of the rest of league..everyone will be eyeing the Redskins and the Rams during and after the draft..I want the BROWNS to surpass anything those freakin two teams can do.
j/c
Math can be fun...here's how I see it.
Over the next three drafts - 2012-2014 - and barring any trades...the Rams will pick (3) players and the Skins will pick (1)...so...
The Skins think RG3 is worth (3) 1st Rd picks...the one they use on him and the two they gave up. (Not to mention the 2nd Rdr.)
I'm sorry...but...that's just stupid. I would not have given up that much to draft Luck.
Quote:
No I know that ..I know as well as anyone in here that U can find talent in late rounds...right now I 'm stoked about tgis..I want the Browns to take the starch out of the rest of league..everyone will be eyeing the Redskins and the Rams during and after the draft..I want the BROWNS to surpass anything those freakin two teams can do.
I think we all would be in favor of that and lord knows we posters do not unanimously agree on much. LOL
You will like this Mourg
Keep in mind though that this same guy liked David Veikune too
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Did-the-Redskins-give-up-too-much-for-RG3.htmlDid the Redskins give up too much for RG3?Was Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill actually a better value? Wes Bunting
The Washington Redskins decided three 1st round picks and a second rounder was the appropriate price tag for a talent like Baylor QB Robert Griffin III. Did they pay too much?
Why I like the deal…
Griffin ICONGriffin III has an elite skill set.
It wasn’t too much for the simple reason that you can never put a price tag on a franchise quarterback, especially one with the overall talent level of a guy like Robert Griffin III. He’s a quarterback who can create second lives in the pocket, make all the throws, kill you with his legs and is a perfect fit for the Skins boot action offense. Plus, you get a guy who “gets it” from the shoulders up. He’s willing to put in the work, win football games on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday with his hard work and preparation, and has shown the willingness to work at his trade and get better.
Griffin III also has elite upside at the position, is a leader who everyone seems to rally around and does the two things every offense needs from their QB in order to win…
1. Move the chains consistently.
2. Creates big plays on all levels of the field.
Why I question the deal…
It’s as simple as Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill.
I might be one of the biggest Ryan Tannehill supporters out there. However, despite the talent of Robert Griffin III, when you weigh the options of Tannehill for a first round pick and Griffin III for three 1st rounders and a second, I am of the thought personally that Tannehill is the better value.
Now, obviously I like Griffin III more as a prospect. However, I also think Tannehill can be a heck of a quarterback in the NFL and has the talent/mental aptitude needed to be a franchise signal caller. Therefore, in my view the idea of getting Tannehill in the first round, even in the top ten, is a more attractive option for the Skins because of his skill set and fit in the boot action offense, than risking the future of the franchise for any single prospect.
But that’s just my take.
Quote:
j/c
Math can be fun...here's how I see it.
Over the next three drafts - 2012-2014 - and barring any trades...the Rams will pick (3) players and the Skins will pick (1)...so...
The Skins think RG3 is worth (3) 1st Rd picks...the one they use on him and the two they gave up. (Not to mention the 2nd Rdr.)
I'm sorry...but...that's just stupid. I would not have given up that much to draft Luck.
None the less, the irrefutable fact is the Skins are minus two first round picks.
They have one this year.
Yeah, you can agree or disagree on the wisdom of the move. But, I guess I look at it like this (though I can't believe this is actually a big point of contention):
Prior to the trade:
# of Rams 1st round picks over the next 3 years: 3
# of Redskins 1st round picks over the next 3 years: 3
After the trade:
# of Rams 1st round picks over the next 3 years: 5
# of Redskins 1st round picks over the next 3 years: 1
Rams pick up 2
Redskins give up 2
I am of the opinion, if the skins are right on griffin, than they made a great deal. I've been following this draft for 20+ years, it's very difficult to hit on 3 first rd pocks. Most teams have quite a few busts. Just look at our draft history.? It's an all or nothing gamble, but if the skins get their quarterback for the next 10-15 years, no one will care about a few picks over the long haul.
The redskins traded this year's first, next year's first, and their first from the year after that, as well as a secondthis year.
They traded three firsts and a second.
For that trade, they got #2 overall this year.
They are using that pick to take Robert Griffin.
They traded three first round draft picks and one second round draft pick for Robert griffin.
There is no other math.
Right....they traded first round picks and gave up 2 more....
Glad you agree
Quote:
Quote:
Damanshot:
CLEARLY? well, maybe you've seen where someone from the Browns has said we offered anything.. But really, all I've seen is that it was Reported by a reporter and then re-reported by another then another and so on and so on.
I think I read that Heckert said they spoke to the Rams.. but I don't remember anyone saying that we offered anything? I'm not at all convinced that the Rams didn't float that in order to wrangle more out of the Redskins..
Then something else...Quote:
I'm also a wondering where did the reporters get the information that the team had made an actual offer?
I'll ask this again, Heckert said that rumors of them trading up to get the 2nd pick were crazy. to those that wanted RG3, it's misdirection. to those of us that didn't care, it's,, hey,, he said it was crazy.. why was anyone suprised when he didn't do it?
It's funny how a persons hopes change the meanings of things said....
Who said he didn't try?
Daman, you also said that Shefter got his information from a St. Louis paper.
MaryK says differently:
Quote:
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Browns offered at least their No. 4 and No. 22 overall picks in this year's draft to trade up to No. 2, a report said, but now it's time to look at life without Robert Griffin III.
As of last week, the Browns were unwilling to include their No. 22, but they acquiesced, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Saturday.
ESPN's Adam Schefter, citing Cleveland sources, reported that the Browns offered a third first-round pick and were also prepared to throw in a second-rounder. Schefter said the Browns thought they had a deal, only to discover the Redskins had outbid them. web page
Sooner or later you're going to have to take someone's word for something. You cannot shrug off these reports until 100% proven then turn right around and say "Why are people surprised Heckert didn't make the deal?" when he hasn't come right out and said he didn't try to get RG3.
If you're gonna ride the fence, right it all the way.
We've got numerous reports from numerous sources saying the Browns tried to trade the farm for Griffin, but not one single report saying they didn't.
Time to use some common sense...
and perhaps you should have read on where it says "Others have indicated the Browns didnt offer three first-rounders, including NFL Network's Mike Lombardi, who told the Washington Post on Saturday that Browns sources told him they weren't willing to invest that much.
For their part, the Browns aren't saying anything, declining comment through team spokesman Neal Gulkis."
So yeah we have a St Louis reporter saying we would have and an NFL network guy telling Washington we wouldnt which is what we have been hearing all along. First I heard Rams are suprised Browns are showing little interest. Then I hear Browns wont add in the 22nd pick. Then I hear yeah we would have given them 4th (better then 6th) 22 this year or our next 2 years 1st round picks and our 2nd but that doesnt somehow trump Washington?
No, common sense says that we were not players and Washington was bidding against themselves and some major media hype. Glad they won personally.
Tannehill is special. I think the fact that he was asked to play receiver and he goes out and was the best receiver on this roster shows something. He worked to become a receiver but he never stopped working on becoming a QB. He showed enough they take their #1 receiver put him at QB and he runs with it to a bowl game against LSU. Folks that mentality is rare.
Physically, he has everything you ever look for in a QB. He has that special desire to be great. The guy is studying to become a surgeon so he has the smarts. The only thing that is lacking is more experience under center.
If you put this kid with the right group of coaches, he is going to be a true franchise QB for years to come. He has the individual parts but he needs the coaching to bring it together for him.
I rip on RG3 primarily to get a rise out of Ytown but that kid has that same mentality with Randall Cunningham arm and athleticism and charisma like no other. He is going to a coach that will play to his strengths and he has a real chance to succeed if he can learn to get that ball out fast.
Luck is the pedigree and he should be a success but he will take a lot of hits in Arians offense. Honestly, I think he has the worst hill to climb.
Get Tannehill here with this group of coaches and a pretty good OL and we can take back this division.
Quote:
Am I missing something here ... How did it cost the Redskins 3 , three , first round picks ???
RG3 cost Washington 3 first round picks plus a 2nd. Try to despute that was not the cost for that player. Thats what people are saying, For all intents and purposes they got a player and that player cost 3 1st round picks plus a 2nd round pick.
Quote:
I am of the opinion, if the skins are right on griffin, than they made a great deal. I've been following this draft for 20+ years, it's very difficult to hit on 3 first rd pocks. Most teams have quite a few busts. Just look at our draft history.? It's an all or nothing gamble, but if the skins get their quarterback for the next 10-15 years, no one will care about a few picks over the long haul.
The Giants gave up 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 5th to get Eli Manning.
The Chargers got Phillip Rivers, Shawn Merriman, and Nate Keading...
The Giants have 2 Super Bowl wins.
Who got the better end of that trade?
Quote:
Quote:
I am of the opinion, if the skins are right on griffin, than they made a great deal. I've been following this draft for 20+ years, it's very difficult to hit on 3 first rd pocks. Most teams have quite a few busts. Just look at our draft history.? It's an all or nothing gamble, but if the skins get their quarterback for the next 10-15 years, no one will care about a few picks over the long haul.
The Giants gave up 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 5th to get Eli Manning.
The Chargers got Phillip Rivers, Shawn Merriman, and Nate Keading...
The Giants have 2 Super Bowl wins.
Who got the better end of that trade?
And the Pats didnt give up anything for Brady same as the Steelers and NO and GB how did that work out? So we have 1 team that traded up to or made a trade and won a couple super bowls right? Lets flip the script and how many SB winning teams didnt trade up to get their QB in the last lets say 20 years.
Quote:
Get Tannehill here with this group of coaches and a pretty good OL and we can take back this division.
I've been watching a lot of youtube videos on Tannehill. Ones where you get to watch every one of his throws. He does have a strong arm, but I'm not seeing the accuracy that I really want in a first round QB.
But man, you are really selling me on this guy
Quote:
There is no other math.
I hate to break it to you but you're wrong.
There is the Fuzzy math,and the always difficult for me Modern math.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am of the opinion, if the skins are right on griffin, than they made a great deal. I've been following this draft for 20+ years, it's very difficult to hit on 3 first rd pocks. Most teams have quite a few busts. Just look at our draft history.? It's an all or nothing gamble, but if the skins get their quarterback for the next 10-15 years, no one will care about a few picks over the long haul.
The Giants gave up 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 5th to get Eli Manning.
The Chargers got Phillip Rivers, Shawn Merriman, and Nate Keading...
The Giants have 2 Super Bowl wins.
Who got the better end of that trade?
And the Pats didnt give up anything for Brady same as the Steelers and NO and GB how did that work out? So we have 1 team that traded up to or made a trade and won a couple super bowls right? Lets flip the script and how many SB winning teams didnt trade up to get their QB in the last lets say 20 years.
Those situations aren't comparable.
Compare Tom Brady to how many 6th round QBs pan out let alone win a SB...
Compare Brees to how many 1st round QBs succeed on their second team. (Adding the caviot that he was injured, maybe if he isn't SD trades Rivers? But that's not my point)
I'm not saying trading multiple picks for a QB (or any player) is always a good idea, I'm saying that IF IT WORKS, you then won't care what the price was...
no its completely comparable how many teams that trade up for a QB as in your example of the NYG's who did trade up and won super bowls as opposed to those that let the QB fall to them.
Yours is the exception not the rule.
Did you edit your post? Because you almost messed up my whole response (with my point being, compare RG3 with how many second selected QBs have been failures. Do you want to put 2 extra first round picks + more picks into that?)
I felt MUCH better about Eli coming out of college than RG3 too. Same thing with Big Ben (the guy I wanted that year). And it turns out it took Eli a couple years to catch on. Many Giants fans wanted to replace Eli ya know
BUT YES: If RG3 is an elite QB, it's a good trade. But if not, it's devastating. 3 first round picks on a guy is a lot. Only one I wanted to sink that into was Andrew Luck
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am of the opinion, if the skins are right on griffin, than they made a great deal. I've been following this draft for 20+ years, it's very difficult to hit on 3 first rd pocks. Most teams have quite a few busts. Just look at our draft history.? It's an all or nothing gamble, but if the skins get their quarterback for the next 10-15 years, no one will care about a few picks over the long haul.
The Giants gave up 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 5th to get Eli Manning.
The Chargers got Phillip Rivers, Shawn Merriman, and Nate Keading...
The Giants have 2 Super Bowl wins.
Who got the better end of that trade?
And the Pats didnt give up anything for Brady same as the Steelers and NO and GB how did that work out? So we have 1 team that traded up to or made a trade and won a couple super bowls right? Lets flip the script and how many SB winning teams didnt trade up to get their QB in the last lets say 20 years.
Those situations aren't comparable.
Compare Tom Brady to how many 6th round QBs pan out let alone win a SB...
Compare Brees to how many 1st round QBs succeed on their second team. (Adding the caviot that he was injured, maybe if he isn't SD trades Rivers? But that's not my point)
I'm not saying trading multiple picks for a QB (or any player) is always a good idea, I'm saying that IF IT WORKS, you then won't care what the price was...
So we are not like a basketball bouncing between replies yeah if it works but it doenst work often in fact the odds say hardly if at all much as the odds of a 6th round pick winning SB's.
Your better off taking them when they fall to you and keeping the picks you have. IMHO.
BTW the last I can remember was much like Eli and that was Elway forcing his way into a tradr from Indy.
Yeah, I added the Brees line and the line after that...
Sometimes I hit send before my brains done talking...
Quote:
Yeah, I added the Brees line and the line after that...
Sometimes I hit send before my brains done talking...
LOL been there done that many times
Quote:
Yeah, I added the Brees line and the line after that...
Sometimes I hit send before my brains done talking...
Don't sweat it, I do the same thing.
I just think putting 3 1st rounders into a guy, especially when you're team needs more talent, is a very risky proposition. And if the guy isn't the next coming of Jesus Christ (as Andrew Luck is IMO), it just doesn't make any sense. It's not like we're a great team, these will be early 1st rounders. Guys that will make us much better.
And while the risk is lower now with the lower cost of rookie contracts, veteran contracts will go up, so those good young players are going to be vital to a team's success
I'm gonna watch some more Tannehill and try to sell myself on him instead i think 
Griffin's just water under the bridge, although if he gets all Donavan McNabb-esque and manages to make all the guys around him better, it'll definitely pay off for the Skins (early years with Donavan, the Eagles offense had really no tools around him and he always seemed to do pretty well)
It's hard to say how often it's paid off. Besides Eli, and Elway I can't remember a trade involving a quarterback of this magnitude. Like ytown has said, more times than not, teams picking that high need a quarterback, and aren't likely to trade the pick when a franchise quarterback is available. So as far as I'm concerned the two trades involving Elway and Eli have been home runs. 1 hall of famer, and 1 buliding a resume to join him. 2 for 2 if you ask me.
Quote:
So as far as I'm concerned the two trades involving Elway and Eli have been home runs. 1 hall of famer, and 1 buliding a resume to join him. 2 for 2 if you ask me.
You can look at it as if that average is just too good............ Bound to be a failure in there, and the team to do it would normally be someone like us (or the Redskins). A team that just can't catch a break. So, kinda better it's them than us
Quote:
It's hard to say how often it's paid off. Besides Eli, and Elway I can't remember a trade involving a quarterback of this magnitude. Like ytown has said, more times than not, teams picking that high need a quarterback, and aren't likely to trade the pick when a franchise quarterback is available. So as far as I'm concerned the two trades involving Elway and Eli have been home runs. 1 hall of famer, and 1 buliding a resume to join him. 2 for 2 if you ask me.
And I wouldnt disagree at all because they both were considered the best coming out in their Class just like Luck is, none of them were the 2nd best in the class. IF we were talking about Luck Id have a whole different mind set.
I love the logic used by some people.
Maybe we should be scouting the local supermarket checkout lanes ......... because Kurt Warner was doing that before he became a Super Bowl QB .........
Most QBs who are winning Super Bowls right now are 1st round picks. That's not even disputable. Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brees (who was a 32nd pick, and would be a 1st round in a modern draft) Rodgers, hell, even Grossman and McNabb got their teams there.
The exceptions in the past 10 years? Brady, Warner, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Johnson and Gannon. (and the last 2 will fall off next year) That means that out of 20 possible spots for starting Super Bowl QBs, 4 went to Tom Brady. I think that we can all agree that he's a pretty rare talent, and a huge exception to the rule. 1 went to those other 4 guys. 11 went to former 1st rounders, or Brees.
As far as victories? 2 for Brady, 1 for Johnson ...... and the rest were 1st round QBs, and Brees.
I'll take a top QB and take my chances. Sure, we might run across that once in a lifetime guy like Brady ...... or we might find that once in a lifetime QB in the checkout line of the local grocery store ...... but the chances that we find a Super Bowl winning QB are much greater if we just draft one in the 1st round. This is probably even more true today, now that a rookie 1st round QB does not immediately destroy his team's cap situation.
Quote:
May not be how it's viewed by some, but in the end the Skins are out two 1st rounders.
They get a first rounder this year, and don't for the next two...thus, it cost two first rounders.
The Rams get a first rounder this year just as before and a extra for the next two years, thus a gain of two first round picks.
Pretty simple really.
Let's just phrase this in a different fashion. The Redskins are using 3 first rounders and a 2nd rounder to pick RGiii with an outside chance of Luck. They are investing 4 good quality draft picks in a QB that they hope will pan out to be their franchise QB as opposed to the normal 1 pick.
I love how everyone is still arguing the semantics of what the trade means in number of picks...
Quote:
I love how everyone is still arguing the semantics of what the trade means in number of picks...
That is kinda crazy, isn't it.
Yet people whine about the fact that I think that RG3 is going to be a great one.
Quote:
I love the logic used by some people.
Most QBs who are winning Super Bowls right now are 1st round picks. That's not even disputable. Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brees (who was a 32nd pick, and would be a 1st round in a modern draft) Rodgers, hell, even Grossman and McNabb got their teams there.
The exceptions in the past 10 years? Brady, Warner, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Johnson and Gannon. (and the last 2 will fall off next year)
Totally agree. However, not disputing your point, just that Brees was, is, and will always be considered a 2nd round pick (1st pick of the 2nd is still 2nd rounder), and it is only ONE QB removed from your list, but let's just try to be fair to the facts and keep it logical by miscategorization.
Otherwise, correct most SB winning QB's were taken in the first round, it doesn't mean you have to take one in the 1st to win a SB, just that your odds improve. Of course less than half (roughly) of first round QB's make it very far at all in their career, most get labeled as busts. So there is risk involved from both angles... Don't take a QB in round 1 and your odds of SB success lessen, take one in round 1 and the chances of that one busting are slightly over 50%, setting the franchise back a few years. ( I posted something near or at the end of the season with the past drafts first round QB's taken and their success, or lack thereof, not going to look for it tonight, but it was under 50%).
Classic case of risk vs reward, imo.
Sometimes the risk isn't worth it, and sometimes it is.
Big picture, 53 roster spots, most need upgrading on our team, will upgrading just one this year be better than getting to make upgrades at several postions this year, next year, and the next (1st and 2nd rounders this year)? (not really asking you, just a general question for everyone to ask themselves) H&H felt the latter, or just got hoodwinked by Fisher and Shannahan and their friendship, or fill in whatever other story is out there. We do not know since this was announced late Friday night and H&H haven't commented on it yet, and may not, they do have families and probably enjoyed some home time this weekend.
Quote:
Brees (who was a 32nd pick, and would be a 1st round in a modern draft)
That is a total stretch to help your point. You're right, Brees would have been a first round pick if there were thirty-two teams when he was drafted. But there were only thirty-one teams. That means he was a second round pick.
How do we know he would have been picked there if there was an extra team? The team with the 32nd pick would have had the best record, so they probably wouldn't need a QB. So that means Brees would have been the 33rd pick. Or as I like to call it, the first pick in the second round.
And if the draft was like it is currently the second round would be on Friday, not the same day as the first round. So the Chargers might have auctioned off that pick and Brees wouldn't have gone till later.
If there were one hundred and ninety-nine teams Brady would have been a first round pick. And if there was only four teams Rodgers would have been a sixth round pick. One more because this is fun. If there were 6 billion teams, I would have been drafted in the first round.
Quote:
and the rest were 1st round QBs, and Brees.
There were seven dogs and a cat. That implies that the cat is not a dog. If the cat was a dog you would just say, "There were eight dogs."
The rest were first round QB's and Brees. That implies the "rest" were 1st round QB's and that Brees was not.
Quote:
The exceptions in the past 10 years? Brady, Warner, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Johnson and Gannon.
Let's include Brees in that group because your whole argument for him being a first round QB is garbage. So Brady, Warner, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Johnson, Gannon and Brees all made the Super Bowl in the last ten years. That's seven guys with twelve apparances between them (Brady with 5, Warner - 2, Hasselbeck -1, Delhomme - 1, Johnson - 1, Gannon - 1, and second round QB Brees with 1).
The guys that you mentioned who were drafted in the first round are Manning, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Grossman, and McNabb (Manning - 2, Manning - 2, Roethlisberger - 3, Rodgers/Grossman/McNabb - 1). That's six guys. One less than the group mentioned above. Which is weird. Why would you make up some asinine argument for Brees? Because if you didn't the group of QB's not drafted in the first round would be larger than the QB's drafted in the first round.
Let's summarize.
Drew Brees. Second round pick.
Number of QB's drafted outside the first round with Super Bowl appearances in the last ten years. Seven.
Number of QB's drafted within the first round with Super Bowl appearances in the last ten years. Six.
7 > 6
Quote:
Sure, we might run across that once in a lifetime guy like Brady
I am twenty-five. I was born in 1986. That is my lifetime. Your criteria has been guys who have reached the Super Bowl. In my lifetime there has been four guys who have made it to the Super Bowl who were drafted in the sixth round or later. Brady, Mark Rypien, Stan Humphries, and Brad Johnson. If you can use Rex Grossman to support your argument I am for sure going to use Rypien, Humphries, and Johnson to support mine. So if by once in a lifetime you mean four times in a lifetime, yeah, I guess you're right.
Quote:
but the chances that we find a Super Bowl winning QB are much greater if we just draft one in the 1st round. This is probably even more true today, now that a rookie 1st round QB does not immediately destroy his team's cap situation.
So a guy is less likely to bust because he will get paid less money? I would argue the opposite. Teams will give up on a guy more quickly because they aren't paying him very much and it won't kill their cap to cut the guy. If RGIII is JaMarcus Russell-horrible after two seasons it will be very easy to cut him. (Note: I did not say RGIII will be JaMarcus Russell. I said IF he is that bad. Not he will be that bad. There is a difference.)
I do like Wes Bunting. He puts out good, well thought out pieces. Stuff gleamed from watching tape, not gauged on what other GMs/Scouts are offering.
Slight digression....most of the ESPN people know very little and rely on their connections for their opinions. Once you peel back the onion on these guys, their backgrounds and their jobs now....
I can't think of one that was a legit scout who loved watching football.
Most of these guys like Mort, Shefter, Glazer and Clayton are wannabe gumshoes...guys who came up through journalism, got in with a team, then parlayed that into sources and brokers of inside information.
These aren't guys like Wes Bunting who want to spend time watching football! ugh, blech! football!
These are reporters. That's it. Finito.
Back to Tannehill.
The only thing I don't like about this guy is that he doesn't have an ideal release angle.
That's it.
He shotputs some of his throws. This can be corrected. And he doesn't snap off and spin some of his easy stuff. It's ok. Kind of lazy but he's a college passer and a kohai at that. All good.
If it weren't for Luck and a weird one in RG3... truly weird...then he'd be thought of differently. I'll leave it at that.
I make up my own mind. I know what I watch.
And I can guarantee you this guy is worth the 4th pick overall.
And he's going to be snapping off throws to an outside the numbers double move WR that will leave a Cover 2 safety helpless. TD. The end.
Tannehill is our pick at 4.
We're not going anywhere and he's our guy for too many reasons.
Quote:
Tannehill is our pick at 4.
*Sniff*Sniff*
I smell a signature bet.
Quote:
Quote:
Tannehill is our pick at 4.
*Sniff*Sniff*
I smell a signature bet.
I don't have a sense of smell...
...Hmmm... Maybe that's why I'm a Browns fan after all...
NO QB in this years draft....THere will be QB coming out next year also, and I bet they will be QB's who everybody thinks were sent bye god himself to take us out of this hole.....common, lets use our draft picks to shore up some areas, we need a RT, WR, RB another LB would be nice along with another corner....Lets take care of these areas give colt another year only this time lets give him a couple weapons, if he dosent get ti done than we will be in the postion to draft a Barkley or another cant miss College QB coming out, QB's dont stop graduating and coming out after this year...And lets face it, after Luck & RG# there are no other QB which are taged cant miss franchise QB's
Tannehill at #4 would be a reach of historic proportions and there is no way I see Heckert making that move. Maybe at #22 (which would likely still be a reach), but no way at #4. The ONLY reason Tannehill is getting any attention now is because a bunch of guys didn't declare and the two best QB's are going 1/2.
Quote:
Tannehill is special. I think the fact that he was asked to play receiver and he goes out and was the best receiver on this roster shows something. He worked to become a receiver but he never stopped working on becoming a QB. He showed enough they take their #1 receiver put him at QB and he runs with it to a bowl game against LSU. Folks that mentality is rare.
Physically, he has everything you ever look for in a QB. He has that special desire to be great. The guy is studying to become a surgeon so he has the smarts. The only thing that is lacking is more experience under center.
If you put this kid with the right group of coaches, he is going to be a true franchise QB for years to come. He has the individual parts but he needs the coaching to bring it together for him.
I rip on RG3 primarily to get a rise out of Ytown but that kid has that same mentality with Randall Cunningham arm and athleticism and charisma like no other. He is going to a coach that will play to his strengths and he has a real chance to succeed if he can learn to get that ball out fast.
Luck is the pedigree and he should be a success but he will take a lot of hits in Arians offense. Honestly, I think he has the worst hill to climb.
Get Tannehill here with this group of coaches and a pretty good OL and we can take back this division.
mourg...after watching a lot of video on perspective QBs, Tannehill is the guy I liked in this draft, other than Luck who is going to the Colts.
Tannehill has a unique perspective as a QB, being a very good WR for his team before returning to the QB position. That experience might lead to his quality of getting the ball out quickly once he sees his target..quick release.
He will be 24 in July and clearly has the years left to be groomed. Weeden, whether they say age is an issue or not, is going to be 29 this year and his window of opportunity is much narrower than Tannehill.
Tannehill has speed enough to be a threat to pull the ball down and run if needed and his is smart.
The big question facing the Browns, do they take him at #4 knowing the Seahawks or another team might try to move ahead of the Browns should we not take Tannehill at #4.
I don't wanna say I have anything against Weeden, but whenever I see/hear about him, I think Drew Henson, and I think what a waste.
I don't want to assume that he's one foot in, one foot out, but that's what I think. I mean will this guy turn around and say he's going back to try baseball once he realizes how hard the everyday grind of the NFL is (especially at QB)?
Quote:
I don't want to assume that he's one foot in, one foot out, but that's what I think. I mean will this guy turn around and say he's going back to try baseball once he realizes how hard the everyday grind of the NFL is (especially at QB)?
sperg...there is no way to know if Weeden might, at some point, change his mind and return to baseball.
His age and the fact that Weeden "could" pursue baseball again, might be the tiebreaker if a team values Weeden and Tannehill equally.
Quote:
I do like Wes Bunting. He puts out good, well thought out pieces. Stuff gleamed from watching tape, not gauged on what other GMs/Scouts are offering.
Slight digression....most of the ESPN people know very little and rely on their connections for their opinions. Once you peel back the onion on these guys, their backgrounds and their jobs now....
I can't think of one that was a legit scout who loved watching football.
Most of these guys like Mort, Shefter, Glazer and Clayton are wannabe gumshoes...guys who came up through journalism, got in with a team, then parlayed that into sources and brokers of inside information.
These aren't guys like Wes Bunting who want to spend time watching football! ugh, blech! football!
These are reporters. That's it. Finito.
There's 1 problem with Bunting...there are tape watchers with a backbone and there are Bunting's
I have follwed his rankings since the 1st day he released them and he has dropped (or upped) some prospects by as much as 1+ point without changing the text...how come? Me thinks he "heard" stuff and changed his rankings accordingly...without explaining any of them...he wants to be a "tape guy" but he's a weather vane as most of the others 1st and foremost
Right or wrong, THIS is a tape guy with a backbone:
http://footballdiner.com/ncaa2012underclassmen2.html
-JC-
I don't like Weeden (and not because of his age), but I would be all for Draft Osweiler in the 2nd/3rd (depending on where they think he might go) and letting him sit for a year behind Colt.
Or
Packaging #22 and #37 in an attempt to move up and get Tannehill and drafting Blackmon or Claiborne at #4.
I am happy we didn't get RG3, not because I think he sucks, but because I think he doesn't fit our system. Even with RG3 we were not making the playoffs next year, IMO. It is probably better for us to draft a guy that fits our system and let him sit for a 1/2 - 1 year. Tannehill is 6'4", NFL caliber arm and played in the WCO. A little grooming with our Offensive guru staff and he could be this years Jay Cutler (drafted behind Vince Young and Matt Leinart) or Ben Rothlessburger (drafted behind Eli and Rivers). I don't know if #22 and #37 is enough to get him but it would be my preference to stay at #4 and take Blackmon or Claiborne.
If the Redskins missed on RG3, Tannehill would have gone at 6. There is no way he gets past Miami, KC and Seattle. If we want Tannehill, we will take him at 4.
KC is at 11, SEA is at 12, if Miami gets Flynn they would be out, then you are talking to Buffalo to jump up over those other teams. #22 and #37 and maybe a 2nd round next year should be enough. KC still has Cassel, I don't think they are going to give up that much, Seattle might, they don't have an option at this point so you will probably be bidding against them.
I'd rather just try to trade back a couple picks or pick Tannehill at 4, lol. We aren't in a position to just give away 2nd round picks.
Those guys are players who would be starters on this team
If we're looking for ways to get Ryan Tannehill, why don't we just cut the bs and get him so we don't have to sweat?
does anybody have any video of Ryan Tannehill looking like a 1st round QB that they can post so i can stop having nightmares please?
Quote:
does anybody have any video of Ryan Tannehill looking like a 1st round QB that they can post so i can stop having nightmares please?
Go on youtube and watch some of his games. Have you seen any. Not the highlights, the actual games where you see every throw he makes.
I kind of like him, he's got a solid arm, and he's pretty accurate. Things I'd like to see him improve is his decision making. But he's only been playing QB for a little while. 6'4, athletic, strong arm, good character.
Just needs more experience
I don't take him at #4, and trading back is an option. I'd call Tampa and ask them how much they like Claiborne, then when we are on the clock at #5 I'd call StL and ask them how much they like Blackmon and then draft Tannehill at #6.
Quote:
Quote:
does anybody have any video of Ryan Tannehill looking like a 1st round QB that they can post so i can stop having nightmares please?
Go on youtube and watch some of his games. Have you seen any. Not the highlights, the actual games where you see every throw he makes.
I kind of like him, he's got a solid arm, and he's pretty accurate. Things I'd like to see him improve is his decision making. But he's only been playing QB for a little while. 6'4, athletic, strong arm, good character.
Just needs more experience
Yes, I did.
https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php?...true#Post905926
These two games, he did not look like a 1st round pick. The comments we've been bombarded with about his offense being so much like ours doesn't show through in these games. He completed 5 passes TOTAL from under center and two were dropped in these two games.
I'm hoping I somehow got two of his worst games and someone has better videos they can provide to help justify in my mind the possibility that he might be taken #4 overall... or even anywhere in the first.
not to mention that youtube conviently doesn't have his worst games he played last year (against the decent pass defenses).
I saw the Texas and OU games. Saw most of the OkieState game. He was not good in those games.
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
Math can be fun...here's how I see it.
Over the next three drafts - 2012-2014 - and barring any trades...the Rams will pick (3) players and the Skins will pick (1)...so...
The Skins think RG3 is worth (3) 1st Rd picks...the one they use on him and the two they gave up. (Not to mention the 2nd Rdr.)
I'm sorry...but...that's just stupid. I would not have given up that much to draft Luck.
None the less, the irrefutable fact is the Skins are minus two first round picks.
They have one this year.
So, if the Skins instead just gave up their first picks in '13 and '14 how many picks would they have given up? Less than 2? Now, account for this year's pick.
Quote:
I don't take him at #4, and trading back is an option. I'd call Tampa and ask them how much they like Claiborne, then when we are on the clock at #5 I'd call StL and ask them how much they like Blackmon and then draft Tannehill at #6.
So you want Claiborne and Blackmon more than Tannehill? Because that's what you'd have to make those teams believe.
And remember that you're assuming they don't make a trade with us and then trade down to another team who gets Tannehill right from under our noses
Both of these schemes seem kind of ridiculous, but yeah. I just don't see that happening. We either trade down, hope Tannehill is there or go for someone else that's high on our list (Cordy Glenn, Melvin Ingram, Malcom Floyd, Trent Richardson?)
Or...... we just select Tannehill at 4. From my viewpoint, sure, I'd rather have had RG3 at number 4 than Tannehill, but would I rather have RG3 at 4, 22, and next year's 1st (plus may be some other picks) or would I rather have Tannehill at 4 and keep those other picks.
I had him written off, and then I actually started watching him on youtube (the actual game film), and he is better than I had thought. Mourgym might be on to something. He's got a good arm, not a noodle arm like Charlie Frye's and better than Colt's too
Quote:
does anybody have any video of Ryan Tannehill looking like a 1st round QB that they can post so i can stop having nightmares please?
I just watched as much footage on him as you can. There are a couple of games on youtube, him vs LSU, Northwestern, and Arkansas.
My impressions of him:
His arm is average to below average in strength. His ball can tend to flutter on him a bit and his long ball is almost always a heave and pray, it seems. For short routes, it is adequate but it is definitely not going to make anyone forget about Marino.
His accuracy is good at 5-15 yards, beyond that it's Frye/McCoy like. He can nail WR'ers on slants and crosses, even hit the occasional 10 yard out or 15 yard crossing route, but when you are talking about challenging a defense 30-40 yards down field, it's not very good. He is not putting the ball on the money. He can be very good at driving a team down field and can make NFL accurate throws from 15 yards or so in.
I should also mention that his windup is very slow. It's not Tebow or Leftwich like, but it's pretty slow. He definitely needs to tighten his release up because it takes quite a while for him to go from recognition to the ball coming out of his hands.
His decision making is very poor. He forces passes that he cannot make and that comes back to bite him. I understand trying to fit balls into tight windows, but he really likes to try and fit a ball in double or triple coverage way too much. He made quite a few mistakes where he thought a WR would go one way and the WR went the other. Is that coaching or on the QB? Who knows.
He is a big and athletic guy. He's strong and can move for as big as he is. He can break tackles and move very well, could be a dual threat type player if he wanted to. Reminds me of a Jake Plummer in that sense.
Overall, I am not very impressed. Certainly is not a Top 5 pick in this or any draft. I'm not sure why he is even being touted as a top 15 pick. I'd take him somewhere in the 30's if he was there, but I definitely would not reach on him. He reminds me, hype wise, of Blaine Gabbert, going up draft boards because of need rather than talent. I definitely do not see what others on here are seeing as far as legitimate potential, as I see a game manager at best, not a franchise QB.
Quote:
So you want Claiborne and Blackmon more than Tannehill?
Yes. In Terms of BPA, with out a doubt.
Quote:
And remember that you're assuming they don't make a trade with us and then trade down to another team who gets Tannehill right from under our noses
And then we still get either Blackmon or Claiborne who are better prospects and we still got extra picks.
j/c
From Monday Morning Quarterback:
It's hard, obviously, to project where the Washington first-round picks will be in the 2013 and 2014 drafts. But because we don't know, let's project them to be in the middle of the round, at 16, each year. (That is actually how the Rams calculated it, by the way, with each of the two mystery picks in the middle of the first rounds of 2013 and 2014.) And let's compare this trade to two other very big ones of recent years: the Saints' trade of eight draft choices to Washington so they could draft Ricky Williams in 1999, and the Giants' move with San Diego to pick Eli Manning in the 2004 draft. I'll also tell you how much each trade returned in value, according to the well-worn draft-trade value chart -- even though that chart has to change now because very high picks are paid much less since the approval of the 2011 CBA, including a rookie wage scale.
The reason I think this Washington deal is better than either of the others is it gives the Rams one top-10 pick and, overall, four picks in the top 40. Each of the other trades gave the trading team the lower pick two picks in the top 40.
Amazing thing about this deal is rookie GM Les Snead, according to one Rams operative, "never looked at the trade value chart. As Les said, 'There is no value for a franchise quarterback.' '' Look at Eli Manning. When the Giants made the trade with San Diego in 2004, the common wisdom was GM Ernie Accorsi overpaid. Now, with Eli Manning having won two Super Bowls and played such clutch football in both championship game victories, it's apparent that the Giants, if anything, underpaid for him.
As for how it all happened, Rams COO Kevin Demoff said two weeks ago the deal could be made in any of three windows -- now, or around the time of Griffin's March 21 Pro Day workout, or right before the draft. It happened now because Washington was moving aggressively, knowing that Peyton Manning would not come and play in his brother's division and knowing what a jewel Griffin was, and because there was clear competition for the pick.
Snead was honest with the two teams most involved, Washington and Cleveland, and the third (Miami) on the periphery. He told them they were going to make a deal by the close of business Thursday, and they needed to make their best offer. According to one of the teams involved, Washington made an offer beyond what St. Louis ever thought it'd get -- three first-round picks and a second-rounder. Cleveland offered something less, thought to be three ones. (It's unknown what Miami's best offer was, though the Dolphins wanted Manning, and so never got to the level of the Redskins.)
The Rams might have gotten more by telling the Browns what Washington's offer was, but Snead had promised each side he wouldn't play one bid against another but rather simply ask for each team's best offer. Once Washington's offer was better than Cleveland's, the deal was done.
"What happened,'' said one team executive involved in the talks, "was everyone wanted to get the deal done before free agency, to make sure they filled a chair with a quarterback they really wanted during musical chairs. That really helped the Rams.''
link
Money quote:
Quote:
The Rams might have gotten more by telling the Browns what Washington's offer was, but Snead had promised each side he wouldn't play one bid against another but rather simply ask for each team's best offer. Once Washington's offer was better than Cleveland's, the deal was done.
So we offered what we did and didn't have a chance to match Washington's offer. Now it makes sense as to why we didn't get the deal done.
While it's admirable for the Rams to not play the two teams against each other, gotta wonder if it was the right "business" move?
For a rookie GM who is going to have to deal with these guys for the duration of his job, absolutely. You don't go out of your way to try and screw over teams and playing games. That is how you get teams to shut you out of trade talks and offers.
I am thinking the same thing. Yes, they did what they said they were going to do. But it seems like they could have gotten a better deal.
We essentially lost a silent auction.
Quote:
For a rookie GM who is going to have to deal with these guys for the duration of his job, absolutely. You don't go out of your way to try and screw over teams and playing games. That is how you get teams to shut you out of trade talks and offers.
That is a 100% valid point of view. And I'm not saying I disagree.
I guess I'm just kind of thinking of car shopping. When I go car shopping, I expect that I'm going to have to negotiate with the guy. Yeah, it's nice if I don't have to, but I've never had that happen. The first time I go to a dealer who says "we'll make one offer each, and that's it", I wouldn't believe it. Now, after they do that, I'd believe it from then on.
When I'm a GM of an NFL team, I'd approach trade talks with the mindset that I'm going to be playing against another team and the team I'm trading with will want to get maximum value. So, I might come in "low", even if he tells me "nope, I'm taking each of your first offer and no more." So, I'd be entirely surprised when he sticks to his word, not because I expect him to be a liar, but because I expect him to get max value.
JMHO
I think they try to be somewhat fair and honest because they are going to have to deal with each other again (possibly). The other guy might be in the power position next time, and you want him to remember that you gave him the truth.
just my opinion of course
Yeah I think it was a savvy business move.
What happened was what I suspected happened. The Rams were surprised by Washingons offer. Washington obviously went into it with the mindset they were going to make sure they were not outbid.
It looks like we gave an honest effort.
I want to see that same honest effort in FA.
To all those pointlessly arguing over the value of the compensation the Redskins gave the Rams for the number two pick:
Quote:
I think there's been some confusion on the compensation the Redskins paid the Rams for the second pick in the draft, at least according to the Twitter world. Dozens of you, and some emailers too, have said, Wait a minute. The Redskins didn't trade three first-round picks and a two for Robert Griffin III. They traded two firsts, then swapped positions with this year's first-rounders with the Rams. In a way, it's all semantics. But it's much more accurate, and truthful, to say Washington traded four picks for one pick. If we described it as three picks for Griffin and a swap of ones this year, that diminishes the importance of this little swap of picks this year.
In the NFL today, trading up from six to two in the first round cannot be dismissed as simply "swapping spots" as though it's a minor part of the deal. On the draft trade value chart, which all teams use (though its importance has been lessened because the cost of high picks is so much more affordable now with the new rookie wage scale), the difference between the sixth and second overall picks is 1,000 points, the equivalent of the 16th overall pick in the draft.
Link
Quote:
Quote:
On the draft trade value chart, which all teams use
Link
Quote:
Amazing thing about this deal is rookie GM Les Snead, according to one Rams operative, "never looked at the trade value chart.
link
I think on the Rams/Redskins deal the draft value chart was not used.
But Peter King is trying to explain that the second pick and sixth pick were not just "swapped" as the difference between those picks is the equivalent of the sixteenth pick in the draft.
so your saying it wasnt used, but then use it to prove a point?
It wasn't used not because it isn't valuable but because the value of the picks traded was unprecedented.
When dealing with a guy that overpays for everything the last thing you want to do is ask for the going rate lol. When it comes to the Raiders and Redskins, you take them for whatever you can and have them thank you for it afterwards.
We may have offered a 2 and 4, no one knows and I doubt we will ever know.
I understand, but you cant say "we arent gonna use the chart here, then use the chart to say it isnt a swap."
Quote:
I am thinking the same thing. Yes, they did what they said they were going to do. But it seems like they could have gotten a better deal.
We essentially lost a silent auction.
economic game theory. it's the reason some places prefer silent auction. sometimes the "threat" of being outbid can cause higher bids than having actual bids to play against.
and, if they said they were going to do a silent auction and then "poisoned the well" by taking offers after it, they would have hurt themselves doing business with teams in the future. and not just the one team that "lost" this bidding.
Quote:
So we offered what we did and didn't have a chance to match Washington's offer. Now it makes sense as to why we didn't get the deal done.
Exactly. Those that want to say the Browns screwed up are likely not correct. We may never know the total truth of what the Browns offered, but it doesn't look like they bungled anything.
I agree 100%. If they said they weren't going to play the teams against each other, then they were right to stick to that.
I just question the wisdom of saying that to begin with. If you want to maximize value, you pit the two teams against each other. You can still be honest and say "you're bidding against the Redskins" or "The 'Skins offered us x, y and z..."
Quote:
While it's admirable for the Rams to not play the two teams against each other, gotta wonder if it was the right "business" move?
I think it might be, and I wouldn't be surprised if this type of thing gains momentum with other teams. It might cause teams to bid high just to make sure they're in the running. On the other hand, it might turn teams off who want to make an offer and then have the right to match/exceed it.
the Rams may have been worried that Heckert would have balked after the initial Redskins offer. then, they get less.
it's a gamble either way. it's possible to get more in a live auction if 2 extremely desperate parties are in play (or more). but, it's also possible to get more in a silent auction if you have at least 1 desperate party that is paranoid about losing on it's bid.
Quote:
Tannehill has a unique perspective as a QB, being a very good WR for his team before returning to the QB position. That experience might lead to his quality of getting the ball out quickly once he sees his target..quick release.
I think this is one of the most overused, abused, speculative, imaginative, fraudulent, and flat-out wrong ways of trying to pump up the perceived value of Tannehill.
His time as a WR doesn't mean j'it in terms of his ability to become a good QB. Not one, single, iota. There isn't anything he has learned as a WR which is going to be "secret inside knowledge" that any other half-way decent QB doesn't already know or will be taught by coaches.
That premise is so ridiculous it's hardly worth beating down.
Mac, I'd like you and others who believe in that fallacy to explain in detail why that will give Tannehill an edge. Tell me what it exactly is that he's going to understand that the other 31 starting QB's in the NFL won't.
I think your answer is going to be an effort in spin. Hell, your very quote above is nothing more than a bit of double-talk already...
Oh, and Hel, there's no conceivable way we're going to take Tannehill at 4. I'll fly you down and get you on at Colonial with the two hotest strippers in Dallas to round out our foursome if we do (and I cannot wait to see how many people take THAT quote the wrong way 
)
Quote:
Money quote:
Quote:
The Rams might have gotten more by telling the Browns what Washington's offer was, but Snead had promised each side he wouldn't play one bid against another but rather simply ask for each team's best offer. Once Washington's offer was better than Cleveland's, the deal was done.
So we offered what we did and didn't have a chance to match Washington's offer. Now it makes sense as to why we didn't get the deal done.
In my best Damanshot voice... Maybe we did, and maybe we didn't, but that's a report made based on an anonymous source so it cannot be proven. 
Sooner or later we're gonna have to accept we made a big push for Griffin. At least now we know why we didn't get a chance to offer the farm PLUS our first-born child for him...
I have to agree with a lot of what you've said.
He looks decent on the short stuff, and he actually can hit a receiver in stride, so that's an improvement over McCoy right now, but get beyond 10-15 yards and his accuracy drops off like a rock. Also, his game has a tendency to go to hell when pressured. He would see nothing but blitzes, because he can be pressured into mistakes.
He's got some inherent physical ability ...... but he basically needs built as an NFL QB. I don't see as we have time to wait a year or 2 to find out if he can be a good QB. This regime won't be around if we're still wondering what we have at QB in another couple of years.
Also, I read something on this thread about Weeden possibly going back to baseball as a reason we shouldn't take him. Really? How far does someone have to stretch to get an idea like that?
We'll see how Tannehill does, wherever he goes. I just don't see him as a special guy. I do think that someone will overdraft him out of desperation. I hope that's not us.
The draft forum will continue on with all of these posts preserved for posterity. It will be interesting to see who tries to change their opinions down the road if he booms/busts.
"In my best Damanshot voice..."
Now for the full effect,
Raise both heads above your head,extend both fore and middle fingers to form a V.Add sweat on the forehead and shifty,beady eyes.Begin each sentence with "My fellow Americans"
Be sure to flip,flop,twist,and turn everything you say,or that is said to you.
Quote:
Raise both heads above your head
haha I lol'd a lot!
Im so immature
Quote:
Exactly. Those that want to say the Browns screwed up are likely not correct. We may never know the total truth of what the Browns offered, but it doesn't look like they bungled anything.
It also says that the Rams got far more than they were even hoping for... could be that the Browns made a very reasonable offer right in line with what the Rams were expecting and just got outbid... and I'm glad we did because if we would have given them MORE than the Redskins did.. I would have been upset.
Quote:
I think this is one of the most overused, abused, speculative, imaginative, fraudulent, and flat-out wrong ways of trying to pump up the perceived value of Tannehill.
His time as a WR doesn't mean j'it in terms of his ability to become a good QB. Not one, single, iota. There isn't anything he has learned as a WR which is going to be "secret inside knowledge" that any other half-way decent QB doesn't already know or will be taught by coaches.
That premise is so ridiculous it's hardly worth beating down.
This I agree with. The only thing him play WR shows is that he's a pretty good athlete (but I doubt the athlete required to be an NFL WR) and that he's competitive.
I don't think playing the WR position will especially give him a new perspective on QB. Not at the NFL level at least.
I do agree with posters on here that it's too bad that so many of his passes are short passes on film. I didn't notice the shotgun vs center. But I do think he has a pretty good arm. I don't see the very slow release/wind up, although he doesn't throw really fast like Peyton Manning does (never seen Marino, so Manning is the best I can come up with).
But I do think he has a stronger arm that some people on here gave him credit for. He puts pepper on his out routes, much better than McCoy can. His accuracy on deeper throws is decent, and I think it will get better as he plays the position more.
He is after all, a college QB.
I just see A LOT of potential. Is he RG3? No. Is he Andrew Luck? No. But I do think he'll be better than what we got, and probably pretty quickly.
I dunno about trading down, I don't want to trade up to get him though. If he's there at the 22 I'd definitely like him. And if Heckert really likes him, I see no issue with spending the 4 on him.
Nobody at 4 really excites me anyway. Trent Richardson is easily the best player, but the RB position makes me wishy washy. I guess a lot of that has to do with Peyton Hillis.
No FA QB excites me, not Flynn at least. I'd almost prefer Kevin Kolb over Flynn. But I dunno if either is a much better option than Colt, all depends on Kolb's arm verses Colt's. That's something Heckert would know
Weeden being 28 is disappointing. I guess he can improve as he plays better competition, but I'd prefer a younger guy (who will be at a higher level when he's 28)
So in the end, I like Tannehill. And if Heckert loves him, i'm good with 4, if not, hope he's there at 22
Quote:
Quote:
I do like Wes Bunting. He puts out good, well thought out pieces. Stuff gleamed from watching tape, not gauged on what other GMs/Scouts are offering.
Slight digression....most of the ESPN people know very little and rely on their connections for their opinions. Once you peel back the onion on these guys, their backgrounds and their jobs now....
I can't think of one that was a legit scout who loved watching football.
Most of these guys like Mort, Shefter, Glazer and Clayton are wannabe gumshoes...guys who came up through journalism, got in with a team, then parlayed that into sources and brokers of inside information.
These aren't guys like Wes Bunting who want to spend time watching football! ugh, blech! football!
These are reporters. That's it. Finito.
There's 1 problem with Bunting...there are tape watchers with a backbone and there are Bunting's
I have follwed his rankings since the 1st day he released them and he has dropped (or upped) some prospects by as much as 1+ point without changing the text...how come? Me thinks he "heard" stuff and changed his rankings accordingly...without explaining any of them...he wants to be a "tape guy" but he's a weather vane as most of the others 1st and foremost
Right or wrong, THIS is a tape guy with a backbone:
http://footballdiner.com/ncaa2012underclassmen2.html
Are you really quoting this guy? LOL http://paul-emery.suite101.com/
Quote:
does anybody have any video of Ryan Tannehill looking like a 1st round QB that they can post so i can stop having nightmares please?
Check out youtube there are a few highlight videos and also a few package games where you can see every throw (which I really thought was cool)
I'm not blown away by Tannehill at all. I don't care about the position change, because he played in HS but just took a year or two off from QB (totally not the same as Weeden going baseball)
but the thing I do like about him, as it's been mentioned a million times, he runs the WCO under coach Sherman, and you can tell. You watch him play, and you can see some of the same stuff we're trying to do. He does it well. How it would fare in our offense, with our players, against NFL defenses? I don't know. I'm with most that I think 4 is too high, 22 he may not be there, and a trade down might be ideal if we can fall back into the right place.
He has a bit bigger size, he seems very durable, and has a stronger arm than Colt. He also throws very well on the run.
j/c
Just throwing this out there since I somewhat like historical lists....
obviously no prior pick influences this pick, but just for history....
Here is the list of QBs taken with the 2nd pick of the NFL draft SINCE 1965. I would have thought there would be more.
1999 Donovan McNabb (1st pick: QB Tim Couch)
1998 Ryan Leaf (1st pick: QB Peyton Manning)
1993 Rick Mirer (1st pick: QB Bledsoe)
1973 Bert Jones (1st pick: DE John Matuszak)
1971 Archie Manning (1st pick: QB Jim Plunkett)
1966 Rick Norton (1st pick: LB Tommy Nobis)
1965 Joe Namath (1st pick: WR Lawrence Elkins)
Only Joe Namath won championships (2) as a #2 pick. There were a couple of good QBs, but they proved that it takes more than a QB. Archie Manning is the poster child for good QB that couldn't win because of the crap around him.
Quote:
j/c
Just throwing this out there since I somewhat like historical lists....
obviously no prior pick influences this pick, but just for history....
Here is the list of QBs taken with the 2nd pick of the NFL draft SINCE 1965. I would have thought there would be more.
1999 Donovan McNabb (1st pick: QB Tim Couch)
1998 Ryan Leaf (1st pick: QB Peyton Manning)
1993 Rick Mirer (1st pick: QB Bledsoe)
1973 Bert Jones (1st pick: DE John Matuszak)
1971 Archie Manning (1st pick: QB Jim Plunkett)
1966 Rick Norton (1st pick: LB Tommy Nobis)
1965 Joe Namath (1st pick: WR Lawrence Elkins)
Only Joe Namath won championships (2) as a #2 pick. There were a couple of good QBs, but they proved that it takes more than a QB. Archie Manning is the poster child for good QB that couldn't win because of the crap around him.
Dunno for sure, but how many of those guys were picked out of settling? Like in San Diego's case. They hoped for Manning, didn't get him, and instead said they will just take the next best QB instead of taking the best player available.
Yikes.
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
Just throwing this out there since I somewhat like historical lists....
obviously no prior pick influences this pick, but just for history....
Here is the list of QBs taken with the 2nd pick of the NFL draft SINCE 1965. I would have thought there would be more.
1999 Donovan McNabb (1st pick: QB Tim Couch)
1998 Ryan Leaf (1st pick: QB Peyton Manning)
1993 Rick Mirer (1st pick: QB Bledsoe)
1973 Bert Jones (1st pick: DE John Matuszak)
1971 Archie Manning (1st pick: QB Jim Plunkett)
1966 Rick Norton (1st pick: LB Tommy Nobis)
1965 Joe Namath (1st pick: WR Lawrence Elkins)
Only Joe Namath won championships (2) as a #2 pick. There were a couple of good QBs, but they proved that it takes more than a QB. Archie Manning is the poster child for good QB that couldn't win because of the crap around him.
Dunno for sure, but how many of those guys were picked out of settling? Like in San Diego's case. They hoped for Manning, didn't get him, and instead said they will just take the next best QB instead of taking the best player available.
Yikes.
you can't consider SD "settling" for Leaf. they traded up and gave away a boatload of picks to draft the him.
That's true. Maybe not in SD's case, but I honestly think what we all saw in the draft last year when all those quarterbacks went higher thant hey should have was exactly what I am talking about. Taking a QB to get a QB.
I feel very safe in saying that our guys aren't those types. I don't think Heckert and Homgren (for example) take Tannehill at 4, unless he was rated that high even before the RG3/Washington thing. They're just not going to do it.
It sucks for us fans, but we're not cutting corners, and I'm really glad.
Quote:
you can't consider SD "settling" for Leaf. they traded up and gave away a boatload of picks to draft the him.
I think they did somewhat settle in a sense like the Redskins essentially will. They took whatever Indy left them:
From Wikipedia:
"The San Diego Chargers had the third pick of the draft, but traded two first round picks, a second round pick, and three time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf to the Arizona Cardinals to move up one spot and guarantee that the team would get one of the two quarterbacks."
I also think that you have to look at each year/player separately. After all, before the Rams found Kurt Warner, there were no guys signed from the checkout line who led their teams to a Super Bowl either. Before Tom Brady there were probably no 6th round QBs who led their team to 5 Super Bowl berths. There are always exceptions, and each player has to be looked at on his own merits.
Quote:
I also think that you have to look at each year/player separately. After all, before the Rams found Kurt Warner, there were no guys signed from the checkout line who led their teams to a Super Bowl either. Before Tom Brady there were probably no 6th round QBs who led their team to 5 Super Bowl berths. There are always exceptions, and each player has to be looked at on his own merits.
please redirect this thought to the Flynn thread
Well, I'm glad the Browns hung on to their picks. I could see giving up #22 and #4 to trade up to #2 at most, but anything beyond that is just crazy. The Rams might wind up with two top 10 picks again next year! Insane.
Anyways, I'm guessing that leaves the Browns to go after Matt Flynn. Better hope Peyton goes to Miami soon and strikes a deal so that Flynn loses an option and some leverage.
SWEET!!!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do like Wes Bunting. He puts out good, well thought out pieces. Stuff gleamed from watching tape, not gauged on what other GMs/Scouts are offering.
Slight digression....most of the ESPN people know very little and rely on their connections for their opinions. Once you peel back the onion on these guys, their backgrounds and their jobs now....
I can't think of one that was a legit scout who loved watching football.
Most of these guys like Mort, Shefter, Glazer and Clayton are wannabe gumshoes...guys who came up through journalism, got in with a team, then parlayed that into sources and brokers of inside information.
These aren't guys like Wes Bunting who want to spend time watching football! ugh, blech! football!
These are reporters. That's it. Finito.
There's 1 problem with Bunting...there are tape watchers with a backbone and there are Bunting's
I have follwed his rankings since the 1st day he released them and he has dropped (or upped) some prospects by as much as 1+ point without changing the text...how come? Me thinks he "heard" stuff and changed his rankings accordingly...without explaining any of them...he wants to be a "tape guy" but he's a weather vane as most of the others 1st and foremost
Right or wrong, THIS is a tape guy with a backbone:
http://footballdiner.com/ncaa2012underclassmen2.html
Are you really quoting this guy? LOL http://paul-emery.suite101.com/
So? Did I miss something? He's a nerd, so what...this guy watches tape since the mid-80s, Bunting maybe wasn't even born yet..as I said, he isn't the best, but he actually watches tape and makes his own big board without moving prospects rankings around for no reason and if he does he says why, at least I can respect that...Bunting did and does that all the time..he had several prospects rated 7.0 or even 7.5 who now are 6.0 or lower guys...so he "watches tape" and decides this prospect is really good and gives him a 2nd round grade, then he gets ridiculed by a scout who says said player is a day 3 guy at best and "suddenly" this guy drops to a 6.0 or lower....makes you go hmmm
I like the site, it's useful and Bunting is a useful weather vane, but he has no backbone, it is what it is...youngster has much to learn yet...probably Mangini was reading him when he selected Veikune, as I remember he was the only draftnik who had him even close to his Top50
Quote:
Mac, I'd like you and others who believe in that fallacy to explain in detail why that will give Tannehill an edge. Tell me what it exactly is that he's going to understand that the other 31 starting QB's in the NFL won't.
Toad...someone said the following...
“Even though it wasn’t at the quarterback position, I did get experience playing football and seeing the game out there,” he said. “I learned a lot from it, and fortunately I was able to get back to where I wanted to be under center.”
web page
You're quoting Tannehill. That's just
You didn't answer my question. All you did was quote the guy in question.
One personnel executive who agrees that Tannehill is on the right track is Seattle general manager John Schneider, who pointed to Tannehill this week as the perfect example of the kind of player he wants running his offense -- as much an athlete as a quarterback.
"First and foremost, that's what we're looking for," Schneider said on Thursday. "Especially at that position. Guys that have always been in the quarterback schools, the special camps, and all that kind of stuff. They make me a little nervous to a certain extent. This guy is a real football player.
web page
Again, you didn't answer my question. Again, you're spinning.
So I'm going to ask you again: What about playing WR is going to give him inside knowledge that any other NFL QB won't know?
Toad...anyone with a lick of football sense can see why Tannehill's experience at WR might help him become a better QB.
Instead of standing around for 2.5 yrs holding a clipboard, waiting his turn to play QB, Tannehill was gaining "football experience" on the football field. Tannehill not only played WR...he was good at that too, showing that he is more than just a QB...he is an athlete.
More spin, and you still haven't answered the question.
Tannehill improved himself as a football player and an athlete by playing WR rather than holding a clipboard, waiting for the opportunity to play QB.
Redundant spin without answering the question.
As for my comment "Tannehill has a unique perspective as a QB, being a very good WR for his team before returning to the QB position. That experience might lead to his quality of getting the ball out quickly once he sees his target..quick release."
...how could playing QB help Tannehill develop a quick release?...simple, his experience as WR allows him to envision the WRs pass pattern and better anticipate the timing and placement needed to complete the pass.
What, like no other QB in the league can do that?
My bad. I guess only a guy who used to play QB can know how to anticipate a route coming open...
Toad...anyone with a "lick of football sense" can see why Tannehill's experience at WR might help him become a better QB.
It doesn't matter if the QB himself says playing WR helped him become a better QB...toad knows better.
It doesn't matter if an NFL GM explains how Tannehill's experience at WR makes him a better athlete and a better QB...the toad knows better.
...sure toad.
I don't know Mac....and I like Tannehill...his playing couldn't hurt anything, but I don't see how his playing WR is going to make him a better QB.
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
Quote:
I don't know Mac....and I like Tannehill...his playing couldn't hurt anything, but I don't see how his playing WR is going to make him a better QB.
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
peen...but Cribbs didn't learn both positions in college..he was a QB.
If Cribbs had played well as a WR for 2.5 yrs, then became the team's starting QB, we might be able to make a comparison.
But in the case of Tannehill...if the kid himself says playing WR helped him become a better QB...we have folks on this message board that believe they know more about Tannehill's unique college career than Tannehill, himself knows about his own college career....
...that is just remarkable...
..and he would have nothing to gain from making himself sound better
Quote:
I don't know Mac....and I like Tannehill...his playing couldn't hurt anything, but I don't see how his playing WR is going to make him a better QB.
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
It certainly is not going to help him anticipate anything, but it will help him relate to his WR's when he talks to them about what they were both seeing on a play.
One could argue that it *might* help him make reads as he's already had to do it to a degree as a WR, but that's pretty thin.
If absolutely nothing else - it is experience, and that can never be overstated.
I'm relieved we didnt pull that trigger for RG3. Youre not outbidding Snyder! He's a spoiled kid and will not be outdone!
However RG3 turns out I'm not looking at a woulda, coulda, shoulda scenario. I dont choose to live that way.
It's time for this regime though to swing the pendulum to the winning side this year.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know Mac....and I like Tannehill...his playing couldn't hurt anything, but I don't see how his playing WR is going to make him a better QB.
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
It certainly is not going to help him anticipate anything, but it will help him relate to his WR's when he talks to them about what they were both seeing on a play.
One could argue that it *might* help him make reads as he's already had to do it to a degree as a WR, but that's pretty thin.
If absolutely nothing else - it is experience, and that can never be overstated.
I don't know if it helps him tremendously, but I am pretty sure you've hit the nail on the head Purp.. it's experience... he has to know a few things that a guy that never played receiver doesn't know.
Quote:
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
I'm curious how you think you know that. It may not have made him a GREAT NFL WR but how do you know it didn't make him better than he would have been? The guy had never played WR in his life and is now a servicable WR in the NFL... Not sure how you can say definitively that some of that success isn't because he played QB in college...
Quote:
But in the case of Tannehill...if the kid himself says playing WR helped him become a better QB...we have folks on this message board that believe they know more about Tannehill's unique college career than Tannehill, himself knows about his own college career....
I know that he played WR two years because he wasn't a good enough QB to beat out Jerrod Johnson.
Quote:
Quote:
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
I'm curious how you think you know that. It may not have made him a GREAT NFL WR but how do you know it didn't make him better than he would have been? The guy had never played WR in his life and is now a servicable WR in the NFL... Not sure how you can say definitively that some of that success isn't because he played QB in college...
STOP USING YOUR BRAIN
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cribbs played QB in college and it hasn't made him a better receiver.
I'm curious how you think you know that. It may not have made him a GREAT NFL WR but how do you know it didn't make him better than he would have been? The guy had never played WR in his life and is now a servicable WR in the NFL... Not sure how you can say definitively that some of that success isn't because he played QB in college...
STOP USING YOUR BRAIN
Please....I'll play Daman....Prove it made him better.
Like I said in my first post, it couldn't hurt anything which is my quick way of saying what Purp said....it is experience. And sure, as DC said, maybe it helps when talking to the QB or receivers, and something not mentioned, it is terminology...at least you are talking it and thinking it.
But...I still don't think it makes him a better QB....playing the position does.
Quote:
I'm relieved we didnt pull that trigger for RG3. Youre not outbidding Snyder! He's a spoiled kid and will not be outdone!
However RG3 turns out I'm not looking at a woulda, coulda, shoulda scenario. I dont choose to live that way.
It's time for this regime though to swing the pendulum to the winning side this year.
This.
If Snyder decides he wants someone, then he will get him. Outbidding him (if we even had that option) was not going to be easy. If we would have been given a chance to match his offer and decided to do so, then the Rams would have gone back to him and he would have thrown in another pick.
Quote:
Please....I'll play Daman....Prove it made him better.
Now your talkin
Ways in which playing receiver will help a QB
1. When flushed he becomes a 6-4 225lb receiver out in the flat not just a stumbling bumbling Qb. He will also understand how to use the blockers out in front of him more than a normal QB.
2. Not afraid to take the big hit to catch the ball. Not afraid to take the big hit to throw the ball.
3. Excellent balance and footwork. Nothing is worse than a flat footed QB. The footwork drills they go through has to translate.
4. I would think it would certainly give a better understanding of the routes the receivers are going to run, if you have been running them yourself.
5. I think it will be also be much easier to relate to the ego's of the NFL receiver since Tannehill was a very good college receiver in his own right
Ways in which playing receiver will help a QB
1. When flushed he becomes a 6-4 225lb receiver out in the flat not just a stumbling bumbling Qb. He will also understand how to use the blockers out in front of him more than a normal QB.
haha, yeah...most other NFL QB's are bumbling idiots who probably cant dress themselves.
2. Not afraid to take the big hit to catch the ball. Not afraid to take the big hit to throw the ball.
Who said he isnt afraid to take a hit (Little anyone?)...If its true that might change once he is wearing QB pads.
3. Excellent balance and footwork. Nothing is worse than a flat footed QB. The footwork drills they go through has to translate.
see point #1
4. I would think it would certainly give a better understanding of the routes the receivers are going to run, if you have been running them yourself.
These change, I doubt he'll be running the same routes once he gets drafted
5. I think it will be also be much easier to relate to the ego's of the NFL receiver since Tannehill was a very good college receiver in his own right
This is a stretch and a half..
I will just say that I don't think playing WR is that big of a deal. There might be some peripheral benefit to his understanding of the position but it's not a huge deal... I think the biggest positive about it is that it speaks to his athleticism. In fact, I'd MUCH rather have a couple more years of QB film to watch on him than a couple years of WR film to get an understanding of whether I think he can play at the next level...
And I think those who are trying to make it a big deal are just looking for reasons to rationalize taking him higher than we probably should because they are starved to get a QB... any QB...
It all started because I said he had 50 starts 30 of which just happened to be at receiver. It isn't the greatest experience but it is experience and there are some positives to be taken from it. Now the RG3 devotees took it upon themselves to rip anything and everything said about Tannehill.
I understand that. I just don't buy in to needing more film as some do. Sure it would be great, but the film doesn't tell me much. I am sure a few around here know more about it than I do, but I doubt they know as much as Heck or Homie.
If they like what they see, I don't have a problem taking him at #4....I'd rather it be later, but if he rates out, he won't be there later.
I am not sure how often teams simply reach because of need. There has to be something there that makes them bite.
Is 4 to early?? Sure if the guy ends up being drafted in the l20's. It's not if he is drafted at 15 or before. It would be nice if the player you draft matches exactly to the board you have in hand, but as we all know, it doesn't always work out that way.
QB is the only position i think it's OK to let need dictate a early pick. There just aren't that many of them. Yopu want one, you have to go get him. We just saw that with RGIII.
The team wants a QB. We just demonstrated that. We can't now simply say we are now good with Colt. Nothing has changed there. So what do we do now, Wait for next year to go all in for Barkley?? It will be even more expensive since we will improve some this season....(crossed fingers)
If Tannehill rates out in our eyes as a top 15 QB, then we better just go ahead and get him. It would be nice to move down a few slots, but if we can't, just do it.
I am not making any real commentary on his play because I don't know that much about it, so I don't need you coming back talking about footwork because as great a guy as you are, you don't know much about it either(probably less that I
)
Look at it this way, if we take him and Colt starts to shine, we can always dump Tannehill for a 1st round pick...2nd at worst. Other teams do it. So can we
Mourg, like I posted earlier, I want to like Tannehill since we may be getting him. I asked if someone would please post some video of him looking like a first round prospect.
My comment about him losing his QB competition at his own school for two years to a QB who is currently an NFL third stringer is just a fact, and would give me enough reason to be hesitant to take him in the first round, let alone at 4. Watching his performance in the NW and Arkansas games only reinforced my concerns about him.
to you Mourg for being able to answer the question. While I'm going to argue your thoughts, you did what Mac couldn't do on multiple occasions.
Quote:
1. When flushed he becomes a 6-4 225lb receiver out in the flat not just a stumbling bumbling Qb. He will also understand how to use the blockers out in front of him more than a normal QB.
His natural ability was what gave him the ability to transition to WR in the first place. Griffin never played WR but his natural instincts make him a good runner. Speed has a way of doing that. Besides, he isn't going to be a great or bad QB based on his running. He's going to make-or-break based on his throwing.
Quote:
2. Not afraid to take the big hit to catch the ball. Not afraid to take the big hit to throw the ball.
I haven't seen anything that said he isn't afraid to take a big hit. In fact, one of his knocks is that he falters under pressure. Besides, the good QB's in the NFL aren't afraid to stand in the pocket, and I'm fairly confident Bernie Kosar never played receiver. Can you imagine?
I can actually argue that because he's spent time at WR and not time at QB, these things have not been instilled into him. Can you suggest he is less afraid to be tackled? Ok, I can get on board with that. However, being tackled isn't the same as standing in the face of a blitz when you're unprotected and delivering the ball. That isn't something he has experience with, which I can argue stems from his time wasted as a WR.
Quote:
3. Excellent balance and footwork. Nothing is worse than a flat footed QB. The footwork drills they go through has to translate.
I disagree with that. He doesn't have excellent balance and footwork for a QB. He takes extra steps and has wasted motion in his throws more than he should. The footwork and agility drills for WR's and RB's are different than the agility drills QB's go through. So again, I can argue that his time as a WR has left him without the experience needed to fine-tune his mechanics.
Quote:
4. I would think it would certainly give a better understanding of the routes the receivers are going to run, if you have been running them yourself.
That's a thin one, Mourg. From a QB's standpoint, he doesn't need to have been in a receivers shoes to know when a receiver is supposed to break, whether or not a receiver is covered, and whether or not he has timing and anticipation with his receiver.
Put another way, what the receiver has to do to get open has no bearing on whether or not the QB makes a decision to throw the ball....unless he's throwing to himself.
Quote:
5. I think it will be also be much easier to relate to the ego's of the NFL receiver since Tannehill was a very good college receiver in his own right
Your first three were good arguments, though I disagree. You started reaching on #4 and #5, hehe.
NFL receivers aren't going to give a rats-ass if he played receiver. They will only care if he's a good leader and can make the throws.
Good discussion though.
Quote:
It all started because I said he had 50 starts 30 of which just happened to be at receiver. It isn't the greatest experience but it is experience and there are some positives to be taken from it. Now the RG3 devotees took it upon themselves to rip anything and everything said about Tannehill.
Well, I dunno if you're lumping me in with that crowd or not (I didn't see me named specifically so ) but in general terms, I'm arguing against two things with Tannehill:
1) I argue where he should get drafted. I view him as a 2nd round guy, not a first rounder, and certainly not a high first rounder.
2) I'm arguing whether or not his time as a WR gives him an edge to other QB's. Keep in mind that's how I got involved in the discussion.
Quote:
In fact, one of his knocks is that he falters under pressure.
IF you provided a link to that statement it would lead to Ytown's house lol.
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, one of his knocks is that he falters under pressure.
IF you provided a link to that statement it would lead to Ytown's house lol.
Yep. Let's see .... I want so desperately to have great players on the Browns that it actually hurts ...... and I see us chasing mediocrity and worse in some cases. (like the supposed offer to Flynn)
It's no wonder we lose every damn year. There is one position in the NFL that is absolutely vital to a team's success, and we shop in the bargain bin year after year. What absolutely stuns me is that so many fans are just perfectly fine with that.
Yea us.
The Flynn stuff all goes back to the same SunSentinel story from Miami. I will believe heckert in his saying that he wasn't going to go after the big names.
but as some will put out, 2 NFL starts does not necessarily translate into a "big name".
Quote:
Yep. Let's see .... I want so desperately to have great players on the Browns that it actually hurts ......
YTown, does it hurt so bad you are going to cry? Seriously man, pick yourself up and pull yourself together! Get a grip, Griffin is gone! Have patience and faith because there is nothing you can do to change it. This is their plan and we will be fine.
Quote:
Quote:
Yep. Let's see .... I want so desperately to have great players on the Browns that it actually hurts ......
YTown, does it hurt so bad you are going to cry? Seriously man, pick yourself up and pull yourself together! Get a grip, Griffin is gone! Have patience and faith because there is nothing you can do to change it. This is their plan and we will be fine.
Classy.
yeah, their plan has now produced 5-11 and 4-12 ...... pardon me if I'm not bowled over with the astonishing pace of improvement.
As far as your smart ass image .... you can stick it.
I seen a positive spin out of you the other day(followed up by a negative one) but it was good reading. I have to admit, I am tired of all the negativity not just from you. Try looking at the positives for once or comment on something positive. I can't tell you how to post but not sure you even realize the extent of it. All this worrying could be for not. We could have a killer draft, Put together a nice year 2 in the WC, and benefit from the experience and addition of a OC. Don't get all bent out of shape for stuff that those guys get paid to do for a living. Right or wrong they are doing it their way and we will see if it works. This is the first time I feel like we have some competent people and everyone is on the same page and I think this is it. I understand how passionate you are as I am but the fun is watching it come together and if you look there is a lot of pieces in place and I don't think we are far off especially after a strong draft this year.
Like it or not, there's not a whole lot of "positive" coming out of Berea.
There isn't a lot of great play on the field, and it has been, in fact, abysmal for quite some time.
As far as "watching it come together" .... well, we don't know what we've seen so far. If you go by record, it's been the same manure shoveling exercise that we've seen to decades. Adding a guy like Flynn as the centerpiece to our off-season doesn't exactly instill me with a great deal of hope. I honestly cannot figure out how it could make anyone really hopeful. However ..... this is what we are reduced to ..... hoping that our team can sign a guy who has been a career backup in both college and the pros ....... to be our starter. Pardon me if I don't see that as terribly hopeful.
What I want to know about Ytown & 'peen & a few others on suicide watch, is this: What Don't You Not Understand About Building Thru The Draft?
H&H have already came out & said we were not going to make a big splash in FA.
Rumors about RGIII are just that Rumors. I don't think we were all that thrilled about him. I think we made a token offer & left it there. Which is good. We are building thru the draft, and you don't do that giving away your draft picks, not when you need as much as we do.
Oh Yeah, Did I mention we are building thru the draft?
Suicide watch? Really?
Got any more personally insulting responses to throw out there?
I have a question.
What do you expect our record to be next year? What is acceptable to you? How long should we build before we see a payoff, and maybe even a division title?
Noone wants to hear but we have a target QB in the draft. He just isn't the one most wants but he is the one that is the right fit for this system.
There isn't a lot of positive....because there is nothing going on. Free agency started eight hours ago. The draft isn't for another month and a half. What would you like them to do to make things more positive for you?
I don't mind the occasional negative post. Like you have said, you are allowed to call to attention things that you perceive as bad. But to drag it into every post? That's just annoying. It is okay to comment on something and not be negative.
The problem with building for the future is I want to see progress and the roster to be upgraded. We seem to lose talent and just spend picks on replacing it.
It's like they are saying "Trust us we are building a Mansion" But all I see is a concrete slab and a blueprint for a storage shed.
Quote:
It's like they are saying "Trust us we are building a Mansion" But all I see is a concrete slab and a blueprint for a storage shed.
Quote:
The problem with building for the future is I want to see progress and the roster to be upgraded. We seem to lose talent and just spend picks on replacing it.
It's like they are saying "Trust us we are building a Mansion" But all I see is a concrete slab and a blueprint for a storage shed.
Ouch.
Unfortunately, that's true.
Quote:
The problem with building for the future is I want to see progress and the roster to be upgraded. We seem to lose talent and just spend picks on replacing it.
It's like they are saying "Trust us we are building a Mansion" But all I see is a concrete slab and a blueprint for a storage shed.
What you didn't notice or allude to was the ground was cleared, the basement dug, the utilities brought in, the underground work, the base and tamping, and the foundation walls and the re-bar put in before that Concrete slab was poured. Those are all proper steps to build the mansion according to that blueprint. It would be a pretty crappy Mansion if you cut any of those corners.
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with building for the future is I want to see progress and the roster to be upgraded. We seem to lose talent and just spend picks on replacing it.
It's like they are saying "Trust us we are building a Mansion" But all I see is a concrete slab and a blueprint for a storage shed.
What you didn't notice or allude to was the ground was cleared, the basement dug, the utilities brought in, the underground work, the base and tamping, and the foundation walls and the re-bar put in before that Concrete slab was poured. Those are all proper steps to build the mansion according to that blueprint. It would be a pretty crappy Mansion if you cut any of those corners.
I've watched enough Holmes on Homes to know that you can still do all of that stuff, and the house be really crappy...
But you, the carpenter, still get paid...
Interesting...
Quote:
Look at it this way, if we take him and Colt starts to shine, we can always dump Tannehill for a 1st round pick...2nd at worst. Other teams do it. So can we .
That's exactly what I was saying 2 weeks ago.
It comes down to this.
Tannehill might be bad? RG3 might be bad? but McCoy we Know what he can do.
There are two people I can't bear to watch start for the Browns in 2012, Colt McCoy and Kevin Kolb.
If they don't at least bring in some sort of competition, then they aren't trying to win games.
There comes a point in a " rebuilding process" where a team can say " We got our Quarterback, or We got our runningback, or We got our wide receiver" unless you are the Cleveland freaking Browns who never can say " We got our quarterack" " We got our runningback" or " We got our wide recevier".
This team has been " re-building" since 2006 .
I can not put into words how much..
Quote:
Quote:
Look at it this way, if we take him and Colt starts to shine, we can always dump Tannehill for a 1st round pick...2nd at worst. Other teams do it. So can we .
That's exactly what I was saying 2 weeks ago.
and..
Quote:
There are two people I can't bear to watch start for the Browns in 2012, Colt McCoy and Kevin Kolb.
Do NOT belong in the same thought process...
Quote:
I have a question.
What do you expect our record to be next year? What is acceptable to you? How long should we build before we see a payoff, and maybe even a division title?
I'l throw it back to you: Did you really believe we'd be a .500 or better team next season? Is this the same guy who would have given Mangini a 3rd and 4th season with an over-aging roster with no upside whatsoever?
Heckert had to start from 0 thanks to Mangini...all he left was a mauling C and big butt at NT...and Shurmur gets trashed...while his Offense stunk as bad as Mangini's in his 1st season (much younger and more injuries btw) and everyone is quick to blame him for it, I see nobody giving him props for the best D since rebirth...and they're young and have upside left, all amidst a system change...at least be fair when judging this regime
I can't think of any other regime that had at least 1 positive side of the ball after 2 seasons..that's a start and all those players are here to stay for the next seasons and there was an investment high in drafts
This regime asks for TIME but they actually have a right to do so, because they DO what they SAY and build through the draft....Mangini preached "process" and then trotted out Royal, Ventrone, Poteat, Barton etc..he left one of the oldest rosters when he was finally fired...now we have one of the youngest
Sure there are turnaround stories every season...and you forget that we had one ourselves in 2007, remember? How do those teams look the next season? Look at KC, TB...was their PO appearance for real?
Then look at Detroit, who did it the right way this time...it took them 3-4 season to get where they are now...and that's just PO-contender level
See, that's the main reason I wanted RG3...he was the best mix of upside and wow-factor to energize this fanbase....Brownsfans are losing it and YES, I do know why but pushing this regime to go into "win now" mode will be no good long term...they do it the right way, remains to be seen if the players they select are up to it...I'd rather see some homers call this regime "arrogant" than watch them deviate from their plan...a plan every homer cries for in the middle of every regime change and then are quick to cry about after 1 season, it's unbelievably stupid...that's human I guess
Quote:
Noone wants to hear but we have a target QB in the draft. He just isn't the one most wants but he is the one that is the right fit for this system.
yeah, and Nick Foles can be had with our 3rd rounder too, which is nice.
Quote:
Noone wants to hear but we have a target QB in the draft. He just isn't the one most wants but he is the one that is the right fit for this system.
By all reports we went pretty hard after RGIII.. so our target QB is now the guy that was plan B or C a week ago.
Quote:
I understand that. I just don't buy in to needing more film as some do. Sure it would be great, but the film doesn't tell me much. I am sure a few around here know more about it than I do, but I doubt they know as much as Heck or Homie.
Having a couple more years of film on him at QB would have helped show his development... plus 2 more years at QB would have been much better for him that 2 years at WR...
And we used to have posters who know more than Holmgren and Heckert but they stopped posting here because us mortals just couldn't grasp their depth of expertise...
I think it's funny that on one hand you say that none of us know more than Holmie and Heck and you put trust in them to make the right decision here.. but in the other thread you emphatically said that we will not go anywhere with this group in charge.
Quote:
Is 4 to early?? Sure if the guy ends up being drafted in the l20's. It's not if he is drafted at 15 or before. It would be nice if the player you draft matches exactly to the board you have in hand, but as we all know, it doesn't always work out that way.
I really don't care where he gets drafted or where he is projected to be drafted... if 2 years from now he looks like a legit 12 year franchise QB for this team, then no spot was too high or too low to draft him.
This has been my stance on the QB spot since about October... we need to go all in. It appears we made a good offer for RGIII but the Skins were willing to give up a lot more than even the Rams expected... and we were not given the opportunity to match... If you are reasonably confidant that Tannehill is the guy, go get him... if you have a lot of concerns about that, then let him go...
I honestly have to wonder what it feels like to be a fan of the Steelers or the Patriots or the Packers and go into off-season after off-season not even wondering who your starting QB will be next year... it's really getting old.
Quote:
I think it's funny that on one hand you say that none of us know more than Holmie and Heck and you put trust in them to make the right decision here.. but in the other thread you emphatically said that we will not go anywhere with this group in charge.
It isn't contradictory. I do trust their opinions on football talent. I just think Heck got caught with his pants down and that mistake is going to cost us big time.
I am fully aware those guys will probably be here 2 years from now, and if we are winning, all is good with the world as far as I am concerned.
It's to that point with me. No more trying to analyze it...if we win they are the greatest of all time. If they lose, they suck.
I will say this talk of Tate is positive. At least we are doing something. He would be a super addition, so see, I will give credit as easily as I will hammer them for dumb stuff.
Actually, given that the first thing Mangini did was strip down the roster, it makes sense that this team should be getting better from that time forward.
The Browns did tear down the defense to an extent last year, but they still started 2 DL who were on the team already, all of the LB, and the entire secondary. (although Adams was a backup/nickel/dime guy previously.
We supposedly had our QB, WRs, and RB ...... and a pretty good TE in Watson.
We added, what was by all estimations, a pretty solid draft again last year, with 2 instant starters in Taylor and Sheard. We also added eventual starters Little and Marecic, and a guy like Pinkston who was thrown in right from the start and didn't sink.
We had another free agency period, signing a safety and a backup RB.
We then went from playing one of the harder schedules in the league, to playing cupcakes.
I expected 7 or 8 wins last year, with the team showing growth by the end of the year.
This coming year we get the perpetually underachieving AFC West ...... and the NFC East, which has been really depressed in prior year, the Giants notwithstanding .... and we get the Bills and Chargers.
Regardless, I have no idea what to expect from this team. We should be showing improvement on the field by now. We are in to year 3 of Heckert/Holmgren. We did not strip the team down to its bones while they have been here. We should be showing improvement overall.
Of the players that Mangini left behind ...... starters ..... we still had (off the top of my head) Massaquoi, Cribbs, Watson, Thomas Steinbach (until he got hurt) Mack, Pashos (ugh, although not really a Mangini find) McCoy, and Hillis on offense. On defense we still started Rubin, Fujita, Gocong, Jackson (who was a holdover, but who never played for Mangini beyond a play here or there before being hurt for 2 seasons) Maiava, Brown, Haden, Adams, and Ward. Most of the starters last year were either starters, or at least on the team the year before. The cupboard wasn't completely empty. If we look at year 1 of the Shurmur regime as year 1 of the entire regime, as some are wont to do, then we have to include those guys. I don't know how you quantify guys that Heckert drafted while Mangini was coach.
Mangini. say what you want, (and I say this at the risk of again having certain posters go all childish on me ..... with idiotic statements) at least we could beat some damn good teams, and look like a good team doing so. We beat the Saints and Patriots with McCoy. We beat other teams with Jake Delhomme under Center.
To me that's astonishing. lol
Who did we beat last year?
We beat a Colts team that tried to go 0 for the season, and a Dolphins team that was in danger of going 0 for the 1st half. We beat an awful Seattle team by 3 ....... and a morose Jacksonville team by 4.
We damn near set a record for scoring inability in our history. We scored just over 13 points per game. Now I know that we are putting in a new system and all ....... but I went back and looked at the Rams ..... another team coached by Shurmur (as OC) and another team with a young QB and a lot of iffy "talent".
In 2010, they scored 289 points. In 2011, we scored 218. We reached our high point in scoring in week 2. In the last 12 games of the season, following the bye when you would expect us to have a lot of work on the offense especially, we scored 17, 6, 10, 12, 12, 14, 20, 10, 3, 17, 14, 9. Mangini's "caveman" offense did better than that. While not overwhelming, we did score 271 points in 2010 with 3 different QBs. (and yes I know that there were some defensive scores for that one poster who is sure to chime in with his normal stuff ....... but offense or defese, it was Mangini's schemes)
So here we are going into year 3 of the Heckert/Holmgren alliance, and the 2nd with Shurmur. We are a 4th place team in a division full of playoff teams. Do I expect us to get to 8-8 this year? Not a chance. I do think that we might get to 6-10 if we find a great RB to take the pressure off of McCoy, and let him make only pressure free throws.
However, even with that rather sunny proposition, I still expect us to go 0-fer the division, or maybe we get really lucky and steal 1 win if someone gets hurt for one of those teams. I suspect that we'll win 5-6 games ... and be stuck in draft limbo ......not able to get a great player at the top of the draft ...... but not a bottom of the draft team either.
Now, let me ask you a question. I Would a 5 or 6 win season be a huge improvement? I know that a reasonable person would add that a lot depends on how the team performs overall. However, if we win 4 or 5 games, and the offense looks horrific again, where are we at that point?
You bring up KC, but they lost their QB, and their enforcer on defense, Eric Berry, (after 1 game) yet still managed to go 7-9 last year. It's not like the bottom completely fell out. (although they did fire their coach)
You talk about what Heckert had left from Mangini, but Mangini wasn't left much from the previous regime either. We had a headcase underachieving WR who is now desperately looking for a job anywhere ....... a "me me" TE who wanted to be paid as the highest in the game, and what else? He had a mess at QB that we still haven't cleared up. We had no real RB option. What did we have at WR? The OL was OK ..... but not great by any means. Defensively we didn't really have a lot either. Mangini chose to go older guys to try and help teach his system. (which is kind of the defensive equivalent of the WCO on offense. It is very complicated, and players have to know what they are doing on every play specific to the play the offense runs) Every staff has their cross to bear. Every staff has certain areas where they make things easier for the players (as Jauron's defense did for the players) and every staff has areas where it becomes more difficult for the players. (like the WCO for offensive players)
In the end ...... I guess I have to wonder how long we have to wait for real improvement to take place. H&H are going into their 3rd draft. If we win 6 games, and 0 or 1 in division, and come in 4th again, is that good enough for their 3rd year here? I don't know. I don't want to keep making changes. However, what happens if we have a repeat of last year, and we stink up the joint, and the fans finally have had enough? What if season ticket sales and luxury box sales drop even more?
I just don't know.
How long should we expect to wait for a 1st place team? How long should we wait to make the playoffs? How long should we wait to have a consistently good team?
One other thing I am going to say, that will again bring out the idiots who want to throw around disparaging comments, but I am going to say it anyway ..... is this .........
One thing that I will always thank Mangini for is that for a couple of glorious weeks in 2010, we had coverage on every national sports show ........ and it wasn't because we were a joke. When we knocked off the Saints and Pats, we were the toast of the town on every sports network, website, and were the next big thing. Then, of course, we fell off the map. But, for a couple of weeks, people covered the Browns as something other than a national joke. That was kinda nice.
No one will ever talk you down off the ledge you're on. Unless, of course, it was Eric Mangini.
Give it a rest.....the guy was 10-22. He wasn't that freakin' good......
Kinda like RG3....he's a legend in your mind....lol
Quote:
No one will ever talk you down off the ledge you're on. Unless, of course, it was Eric Mangini.
Give it a rest.....the guy was 10-22. He wasn't that freakin' good......
Kinda like RG3....he's a legend in your mind....lol
As if on cue ...........
Quote:
Quote:
No one will ever talk you down off the ledge you're on. Unless, of course, it was Eric Mangini.
Give it a rest.....the guy was 10-22. He wasn't that freakin' good......
Kinda like RG3....he's a legend in your mind....lol
As if on cue ...........
With all due respect Ytown - he's right. Take it fwiw.
No, actually he;s not.
Obviously not everything went well during the Mangini years. However, to hear you tell it, we did absolutely nothing right . That's bull.
Quote:
No, actually he;s not.
Obviously not everything went well during the Mangini years. However, to hear you tell it, we did absolutely nothing right . That's bull.
He's not right? Mangini was good?
Look, was everything a complete unmitigated disaster? No. It wasn't for Davis or Crennel, either. But that doesn't mean we made a mistake in canning them or that we should look upon them fondly.
Mangini stumbled out of the gate like no one I've ever seen. He wanted to be Bill Belichick so badly, but he lacked the cunning. The 2009 draft set us back years. He completely wasted our assets and loaded the team with aging castoffs from the job he'd just been fired from. He was lucky to get a second year, and he didn't show a whole lot of willingness to bend for his new boss. Keeping Daboll on board was a big part of his demise, IMO.
I don't get why you feel the need to get defensive or call people idiots who point out that you're in love with a guy who won ten games in two seasons. I also don't understand your portrayal of how he was jobbed, either. The guy came in, completely blew a draft, had his handpicked GM fired, went 1-11 to start the year, and was kept on by his new boss, who could've/should've rightfully canned him. And despite Holmgren's stated preference for the WCO, Mangini sticks with his boy Daboll. Points for loyalty, but the writing was on the wall. He also didn't play a guy his GM traded for, whom he'd signed off on. And he went 5-11 again.
I don't like Shurmur, and I'm on the fence with Heckert, but I don't miss Eric Mangini one bit.
And the 2nd quarter is heard from ........
YT,
it's FACT that Mangini left one of the oldest roster and we now have one of the youngest..that's fact..we shaved something like 3-4years off that AVG
...I also have to highlight how you tried to sneak Rubin into some Mangini holdover...he wasn't, he inherited him from Savage...."we're getting better" BECAUSE of Mangini? Are you being serious? The only above AVG player Shurmur inherited from his Napoleon season is Mack...that's it...ALL OTHER PIECES are from Savage or Heckert...we're getting better DESPITE that black hole year with the moron
...you should also go back and look at the record of that "cupcake" schedule, you'll be surprised
Also, why do you bring the Offense stats but no defense stats? They play Offense AND Defense in the NFL right? and a HC is responsible for both, right? and why do you keep comparing Mangini's 2nd year Offense to Shurmur's 1st year O here?
Mangini inherited Thomas, Rubin, Steinbach, Winslow and Edwards...that's at least 4 good players, he DECIDED to trade Winslow and BE (2 valuable pices at the time) into NOTHING instead of trying to "manage" them, he signed Royal and we went from Top 10 TE play to pretty much the worst...Mangini left Mack, a decent C...oh look Jeff Faine just got cut and Myers, Brown and Birk are available again as FA...that's why you don't draft C in round 1...you can get them every offseason
How long to wait? Look at the Lions...and they're still not winning their Division...it took them 3 seasons to sniff the POs
Anyone on the team was a Mangini holdover, otherwise there would be no one left on the team.
He only had one year of player acquisition responsibility.
This is a stupid argument anyway.
He traded Winslow and they brought in Watson the next year. (a wash in my eyes)
They traded Edwards after he got arrested for the 2nd time. Big deal. I don't care if they got a bag of balls for him. He was an underachieving receiver who had been arrested twice in less than a year.
Should we have signed Winslow to an extension, making him the highest paid TE in NFL history? He was "implying" that he would sit out if they didn't. (and he signed such a deal when he was traded to Tampa) Should they have kept Edwards under those circumstances?
Quote:
He only had one year of player acquisition responsibility.
And what a year it was.
The only players remaining who he brought in are Alex Mack and Mohammed Massaquoi and Kaluka Maiava.
Quote:
Should we have signed Winslow to an extension, making him the highest paid TE in NFL history? He was "implying" that he would sit out if they didn't. (and he signed such a deal when he was traded to Tampa) Should they have kept Edwards under those circumstances?
Pointing to the warts of Edwards and Winslow doesn't take away from Mangini's ineptitude as a GM.
That offseason and draft was the worst we've had since '99. And that's saying something. That was the beginning of the end for Mangini.
The #5 for the #17, #52, Kenyon Coleman, Abe Elam, and Brett Ratliff. If Heckert pulled something like that, your head would explode.
Quote:
No, actually he;s not.
Obviously not everything went well during the Mangini years. However, to hear you tell it, we did absolutely nothing right . That's bull.
To hear me tell it????? Seriously?
I had no problem with mangini. He's not here now.
To hear me tell it???? Dude, get a grip.
Sorry, that was kind of a pass through comment to the other poster, since you agreed with him.
You may not have said anything like that. If that's the case, then I apologize.
I just get so sick of certain people blabbering anytime I make a comment on Mangini, no matter what it is.
Like I said in my original post ..... I knew that there were 2 posters who were definitely going to spew .... and I was right. They both did.
Quote:
I have a question.
What do you expect our record to be next year? What is acceptable to you? How long should we build before we see a payoff, and maybe even a division title?
I'd like to hear the answers to those questions from you.
As for me, I have no idea what our record will be next year. I don't know who we'll have drafted or added in the free agency period.
I'll be happy with improvement. I would rather not have a flash improvement and then back to mediocrity or worse. I'd would rather have a stable front office structure, improved coaching (which is why I think the Brad Childress hiring might be a good one) and incremental improvement and assembling pieces that fit the system at a reasonable cost.
Well, the current regime (the Holmgren/Heckert one) is now in the 'hump' year of their contracts. This is their third year at the helm of a five-year contract. Shouldn't we see what they put together before we call for their heads on a stick?
Now, back to answering your questions about what might be expected of the Browns record in the 2012 season? Judging by what who I would like to see them draft, the 'gut feeling' that I think they'll actually do and how well I think the team will come together and improve with the additions on the roster and improved play-calling, I think the Browns will probably go 7-9, with probably two (but maybe three) divisional wins.
Looking at the opponents, we have our usual rivals for 6 games but then we have the NFC East (at home vs. Philly & Washington and on the road vs. Dallas & NYG). Then we also get the AFC West (at home vs. KC & Denver and on the road vs. SD and Oakland). We also get the cellar dwellers (as we were) from the AFC East (Buffalo) and AFC South (Indy).
That schedule, on the surface, doesn't look very easy but there will be lots of off-season football activity between now and then. We'll have to see how things work out.
I didn't spew anything, sweetpea.
I just stated what everyone on here knows but you refuse to acknowledge.
Tell me what I said that was wrong. And I'd like a direct quote. Not what you THINK I meant.
I'll wait.
I said in my post that you would spew .... and you did.
I swear that the first thing you must do when you log in here is do a search for "Mangini".
Quote:
I said in my post that you would spew .... and you did.
You keep saying that like it proves something.
I imagine if I were constantly harping about how Crennel was a good coach, and that we shouldn't have let him go, and citing the MNF game against the Giants, I would probably hear it from other posters.
And the other one I knew would spew pops up again .......
You say constantly, but how often do I mention Mangini, that is not a reply to a question or comment about him?
Really? How often?
Of course, you don't care about that ..... you just spew whenever you get the chance .....
Quote:
And the other one I knew would spew pops up again .......
You say constantly, but how often do I mention Mangini, that is not a reply to a question or comment about him?
Really? How often?
Of course, you don't care about that ..... you just spew whenever you get the chance .....
I couldn't care less how often or little you talk about Mangini. I generally only say something when it's ridiculous statements, such as calling people idiots for questioning praise for a coach that went 10-22 and burned the barn down in the process, or saying that Brian Daboll did a 'great job' in Miami
Yeah, we've improved so much in the past year .,....... man ... look at the progress .......
I remember last year, in the playoffs, when the Browns ......
Oh. Never mind.
Well, look at how our offense improved last year. Look at how many more points we scored then the year befo ......
Oh. Never mind.
Well, at least we won more games than the year ....
Oh.
Oops.
And the endless rain of sunshine continues to shine. Frankly put, I'm sick and tired of hearing this doom and gloom message here. Ever since we didn't get a trade in place for RGiii, all I've been hearing from certain people have been doom and gloom with every move or non-move that the Browns do. And all those trade scenarios were speculative. Maybe we did offer 3 first round picks, maybe we didn't, but the fact remains is that we didn't and that's that. All I see is that this is just one big hissy fit based that we didn't get the prospect that they wanted and now they are magnifying every move and considering it as a bad move.
Frankly, we need to move on from this and stop sitting around in this negative light that continues to breed even more negativity. From this point on, I'm going to start placing certain users on Ignore for the next few months because frankly, I'm sick of hearing of their negativity on all aspects of every move or non-move.I can see being upset here and there, but this negativity is going beyond just a statement of being upset and turning more into an obsession of being negative.
So frankly put for the next few months, I'm going to actually have a few people on ignore just because I'm sick and tired of hearing them spew the same crap over and over again.
Quote:
And the endless rain of sunshine continues to shine. Frankly put, I'm sick and tired of hearing this doom and gloom message here. Ever since we didn't get a trade in place for RGiii, all I've been hearing from certain people have been doom and gloom with every move or non-move that the Browns do. And all those trade scenarios were speculative. Maybe we did offer 3 first round picks, maybe we didn't, but the fact remains is that we didn't and that's that. All I see is that this is just one big hissy fit based that we didn't get the prospect that they wanted and now they are magnifying every move and considering it as a bad move.
Frankly, we need to move on from this and stop sitting around in this negative light that continues to breed even more negativity. From this point on, I'm going to start placing certain users on Ignore for the next few months because frankly, I'm sick of hearing of their negativity on all aspects of every move or non-move.I can see being upset here and there, but this negativity is going beyond just a statement of being upset and turning more into an obsession of being negative.
So frankly put for the next few months, I'm going to actually have a few people on ignore just because I'm sick and tired of hearing them spew the same crap over and over again.
Dude, why are you being so negative...?
Quote:
Quote:
And the endless rain of sunshine continues to shine. Frankly put, I'm sick and tired of hearing this doom and gloom message here. Ever since we didn't get a trade in place for RGiii, all I've been hearing from certain people have been doom and gloom with every move or non-move that the Browns do. And all those trade scenarios were speculative. Maybe we did offer 3 first round picks, maybe we didn't, but the fact remains is that we didn't and that's that. All I see is that this is just one big hissy fit based that we didn't get the prospect that they wanted and now they are magnifying every move and considering it as a bad move.
Frankly, we need to move on from this and stop sitting around in this negative light that continues to breed even more negativity. From this point on, I'm going to start placing certain users on Ignore for the next few months because frankly, I'm sick of hearing of their negativity on all aspects of every move or non-move.I can see being upset here and there, but this negativity is going beyond just a statement of being upset and turning more into an obsession of being negative.
So frankly put for the next few months, I'm going to actually have a few people on ignore just because I'm sick and tired of hearing them spew the same crap over and over again.
Dude, why are you being so negative...?
Ok, I'll be a little more positive. It won't be a couple months, but one month.
There we go!
Quote:
Yeah, we've improved so much in the past year .,....... man ... look at the progress .......
I remember last year, in the playoffs, when the Browns ......
Oh. Never mind.
Well, look at how our offense improved last year. Look at how many more points we scored then the year befo ......
Oh. Never mind.
Well, at least we won more games than the year ....
Oh.
Oops.
No mention of our much improved defense or the development of some pretty good young players. That's weird.
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, we've improved so much in the past year .,....... man ... look at the progress .......
I remember last year, in the playoffs, when the Browns ......
Oh. Never mind.
Well, look at how our offense improved last year. Look at how many more points we scored then the year befo ......
Oh. Never mind.
Well, at least we won more games than the year ....
Oh.
Oops.
No mention of our much improved defense or the development of some pretty good young players. That's weird.
There's no doubt that the defense has improved ..... however the poster I responded to referred to the former offensive coordinator ...... and thus I addressed the ....... offense.
Quote:
And the endless rain of sunshine continues to shine. Frankly put, I'm sick and tired of hearing this doom and gloom message here. Ever since we didn't get a trade in place for RGiii, all I've been hearing from certain people have been doom and gloom with every move or non-move that the Browns do. And all those trade scenarios were speculative. Maybe we did offer 3 first round picks, maybe we didn't, but the fact remains is that we didn't and that's that. All I see is that this is just one big hissy fit based that we didn't get the prospect that they wanted and now they are magnifying every move and considering it as a bad move.
Frankly, we need to move on from this and stop sitting around in this negative light that continues to breed even more negativity. From this point on, I'm going to start placing certain users on Ignore for the next few months because frankly, I'm sick of hearing of their negativity on all aspects of every move or non-move.I can see being upset here and there, but this negativity is going beyond just a statement of being upset and turning more into an obsession of being negative.
So frankly put for the next few months, I'm going to actually have a few people on ignore just because I'm sick and tired of hearing them spew the same crap over and over again.
My being positive or negative isn't going to change things one bit.
I have been positive when others have been negative ...... and what did that do? As much as I might like to think that my words or feelings might have some mystical effect on the team ...... that they might actually do what I want them to do ..... they almost never do. In fact, the team doing what I want them to do almost defies statistical improbability. I want them to win every week ....... I have certain players I would like to see brought in, started, benched, etc. .......... but they usually aren't. If we don;t do the things that I think will make the team successful, and the team continues to lose, should I feign message board nirvana just so I don;t upset the sensibilities of some people? Heck, I thought that a message board was for expressing ourselves ..... not falling into some bizarre and cult like group think that defies logic. This team has been a really bad team for a very long time. How many years ... or decades ..... has it been since we won the division? (Here's a clue .... think ..... Bud Carson) How long has it been since we even just did something well from one year to the next? This team has been more psychotic than any woman I have ever known ....... and I have known a few who were really out there. lol This team has one personality one year ...... then is the complete opposite the next. The only things consistent about this team are inconsistency ....and losing. I'm not going to pretend that this doesn't frustrate the hell out of me. I've been a Browns fan for almost 40 years now, and I have seen a lot ...... and I mean a LOT of bad football. I want to see something that resembles the game the rest of the league plays once in a while, and maybe even for a few years in a row sometime before I die.
When the season starts, I will be here ... week in and week out ...... hoping against hope for victories that probably won't come ....... and cheering my ass off for the team I love ....... even if we start out 3-6 again this year ...... and are out of playoff contention by the midway point of the season.
I do reserve the right to be critical of the team's performance and individual players' performance if those performances warrant criticism. Somehow I don't think that the Browns will wither under my (occasionally) blistering message board critique. lol If they do, then they shouldn't be in the positions they're in.
Like I said ..... when the season starts, I will be cheering my butt off for the Browns ...... I will watch every game, no matter how painful they become ...... but my fandom does not mean that I have to give up a critical eye. Further, when I disagree vehemently with certain moves the team has made, or has not made, (and there have been both) I see no reason to pretend that I think that all is wonderful. I'm sorry if that upsets you so much.
Quote:
My being positive or negative isn't going to change things one bit.
YT...you are mostly negative..
..not much different than the radio/internet media in the Cleveland area.
I'm convinced the boys on KNR are boys for the most part...a bunch of wet behind the ears punks who have never done anything hard in their lives and cry about everything that happens contrary to their opinion.
They are immature and demand what they want now...and if they don't get what they want, they look for someone to blame...they use the airwaves to try to influence the fan base and IMO, it has worked.
It also be noted, the talking heads screen their calls...if you disagree with their opinions, kind of tough to get on their programs. It is a sort of brainwashing...
...this morning, the talking heads are trying to promote Browns fans to stop being Browns fans.
If you are listening to that kind of crap and you bring it to this message board...shame on you...you allow yourselfs to become followers and help to promote the talking heads agenda....jmho...mac
Actually, I never listen to sports radio ....... so you can forget that little conspiracy theory.
Actually I find most of your posts almost beyond the realm of reason, logic and reality ..... so I can see why you would not like mine.
I wonder why I am "negative" ...... yet you can blast away at our former RB and be positive .......?
Interesting.
Quote:
Thanks Rush...
Did he call ytown a slut? I must have missed that.
Quote:
Actually, I never listen to sports radio ....... so you can forget that little conspiracy theory.
yt...then that makes you a NATURALLY NEGATIVE...maybe born that way, who knows...
Actually I find most of your posts almost beyond the realm of reason, logic and reality ..... so I can see why you would not like mine.
yt...all folks have to do is look at your DT signature and mine to know that we are opposites.
I wonder why I am "negative" ...... yet you can blast away at our former RB and be positive .......?
I called out Hillis on this message board before the story about his teammates attempting to convince Hillis the best way to get a decent contract was to prove he was worthy by showing it on the field...
You might believe my viewpoint was negative because it was...I sided with Hillis' teammates and not Hillis and his agent...guess Joe Thomas was negative too.
Yet you are still blasting him today ..... months after any supposed, rumored, indiscretion on his part.
It's OK for you to blast someone .... but not for anyone else, if they disagree with you.
I understand you perfectly mac.
Quote:
Maybe we did offer 3 first round picks, maybe we didn't, but the fact remains is that we didn't and that's that.
YT...my DT signature is ...
....WOOF....GRRR....CHOMP....MAC
YT...what is your DT signature...is this it?
...The Factory of Sadness remains at full production.
His makes more sense than your does.
I don't understand what a dog biting mac has to do with it...
...But I'm not complaining...
I thought this was a draft thread
Quote:
I thought this was a draft thread
You were mistaken. It's a end of the world thread.
Quote:
Quote:
I thought this was a draft thread
You were mistaken. It's a end of the world thread.
Pack lightly...
j/c
From the conference call today, Holmgren said they were aggressively involved in trade talks. However, he said because of the close relationship between the 'Skins and Rams (his words), he didn't think any offer we made would be accepted.
He said that we offered every bit of the offer that was eventually accepted.
That's straight from the Walrus's mouth.
And, I'll say he didn't sound all that happy about it.
But how do you know that's what they offered.
Oh well, at least we still have plan A (Tannehill)
That's what made the whole thing unbelievable. I couldn't believe they would take less to just hook their buddy up. When I heard what we had offered and they turned it down to take the Skins offer it made no sense. O well. I was wrong and we did go hard at RG3.
Still does not sound good for Colt's future.
Quote:
j/c
From the conference call today, Holmgren said they were aggressively involved in trade talks. However, he said because of the close relationship between the 'Skins and Rams (his words), he didn't think any offer we made would be accepted.
He said that we offered every bit of the offer that was eventually accepted.
That's straight from the Walrus's mouth.
And, I'll say he didn't sound all that happy about it.
So, you mean the f.o. tried? They didn't bungle anything? They shouldn't be fired?
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
From the conference call today, Holmgren said they were aggressively involved in trade talks. However, he said because of the close relationship between the 'Skins and Rams (his words), he didn't think any offer we made would be accepted.
He said that we offered every bit of the offer that was eventually accepted.
That's straight from the Walrus's mouth.
And, I'll say he didn't sound all that happy about it.
So, you mean the f.o. tried? They didn't bungle anything? They shouldn't be fired?
Well, it's Holmgren's fault that he's not better friends with Jeff Fisher.
Browns president Mike Holmgren said the Browns were not outbid by the Redskins in an attempt to acquire the No. 2 pick in the NFL Draft in a trade with the St. Louis Rams. However, the Rams picked the Redskins as a trading partner, and they are expected to use the pick on Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III.
Holmgren said the relationship between the Rams and Redskins played a role in Washington making the deal.
“What we offered for the pick was every bit the offer that was chosen,” Holmgren said this afternoon on a conference call with season-ticket holders. “There’s a real close relationship with the people who eventually got the deal done. I’m not sure any offer we made at the end of the day would’ve been good enough.
“Rest assured we were aggressively involved in that. We didn’t fold up our tent.”
Holmgren said the Browns have a Plan B.
“Do we take our ball and go home? No. We go to the next step,” he said. “The draft picks we were going to use, now we have again. The other plan we talked about is we use those picks to make the team better immediately this year. Get starters and help the quarterback by surrounding that position with better players.”
link
What will people complain about now?
Quote:
What will people complain about now?
I guarantee the gripers will say "see? This is proof they don't like Colt".
*PREEMPTIVE STRIKE*
They can like both. But just like one more than the other.
Quote:
What will people complain about now?
First, H&H can't seem to close a deal.
Second, we are going to build around Colt (which I have no problem with) but they've already shown that they think the QB position needs to be upgraded.
Third, we need at least 2 OL, Safety and an RB now along with WR's... no way this mess gets fixed this year.
That might be a bit of short term memory loss in saying H&H can't close deals. We got our second first round pick being active on draft day last year.
In short, Holmgren says that our offer for RG was every bit as good as the Skins,
So, there you have it,, Proof.., all I ever wanted
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/03/cleveland_browns_mike_holmgren_13.html
And that offer was what ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Quote:
Inquiring minds want to know !
did you read the article, it was in there.. three firsts believed to be 4, 22 this year and a 1st next.. Whats funny is Holmgren didnt' say we threw in a 2nd this or next year..but we know the skins did.. so I'm not sure how that's every bit as good... FWIW
Quote:
That's just crazy.
Not if they felt that he is a franchise QB ...... and it's obvious now to anyone listening, that they did.
I would not make any trades with the Rams unless I can completely dismember them in the process. If Holmgren was as ...... upset ..... as it seemed, I can't imagine the Rams even calling though. If they do, I hope he just hangs up on them, and the player they want goes to someone else. I will wish, from this day forth, nothing good ever on that carpetbagging abomination of a red headed stepchild franchise. 
Other than that, I'm good. lol
We still need to find a franchise quality starting QB, but I don;t really see one in this draft. There are a couple of distant maybes ..... but i dunno.
I would take the high road. If they offer a deal that can help our team, take it. Taking a worse deal because you are friends with someone is immature. Holding grudges is also immature.
I doubt that St. Louis is looking to trade up two spots to get their boy Blackmon, but if they do you absolutely fleece them.
If they wanted Blackmon so bad, they should have traded with us. We look to get as much of that king's ransom Washington paid as possible.
If they wanted Blackmon so bad, they should've traded down with us.
Quote:
I doubt that St. Louis is looking to trade up two spots to get their boy Blackmon, but if they do you absolutely fleece them.
If they wanted Blackmon so bad, they should have traded with us. We look to get as much of that king's ransom Washington paid as possible.
If they wanted Blackmon so bad, they should've traded down with us.
Exactly.
That draft trade chart ..... look it up .... and triple your side of the equation and we'll start from there.
I really, truly, and completely hate the Rams now. I hope they're a 1-15 team 3 years from now, with all of their top picks having busted .... only to go on to incredible success elsewhere when they leave.
4 to 6 ..... we start with a 1st and 2nd this year. Add in a 1st and a 3rd next year and we can start haggling from there.
Quote:
If they wanted Blackmon so bad, they should have traded with us.
That is the point I was going to make.. surely if they wanted Blackmon that badly they would have calculated into the trade what it would cost to move back up and given us at least that discount...
It means they don't want him.
Fisher is a run type coach. I think they like Richardson and want him to serve as back-up to Steven Jackson since Jackson is down to his last few years. The two of them(Jackson and Richardson) could make a nice tandem for the next couple of seasons.
They have Amendola coming back this year. Two years ago he caught about 80 balls from Bradford, so I don't think receiver is high on the wish list.
Yep, the Rams have Richardson targeted.
considering we didn't get the 2nd pick.. Holmgren should have just remained quiet about it or said something like "we inquired about getting the pick, but as you can see another team got it"..
Wonder how Colt feels.
Amendola is an RFA.
Restricted free agent Danny Amendola spotted in New England
Posted by Evan Silva on March 15, 2012, 11:05 AM EDT
Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England recently speculated that the Patriots might have interest in Rams restricted free agent receiver Danny Amendola. Amendola played for new Pats offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels in St. Louis last season.
Curran’s thinking might have some merit.
Scott Zolak of 98.5 The Sports Hub/Patriots All Access tweeted Thursday morning that Amendola was spotted at a Boston bar called “The Place,” last night.
Amendola isn’t the first former undrafted free agent slot receiver type from Texas Tech in which New England may have had interest. During the 2007 offseason, the Patriots traded second- and seventh-round picks to the Dolphins to acquire Wes Welker’s rights. Like Amendola, Welker was an undrafted free agent slot receiver who played college ball for Mike Leach.
The Patriots are also scheduled to host free agent Anthony Gonzalez, another slot receiver, on Friday night.
web page
I have a strong feeling that Holmgrem believes nepotism played a factor here,which he should be aware of himself..it seems that when you read it ,it appears the Browns found themselves in the same situation they did against the Bengals when the D was in the huddle and the Bengals ran their play..odd that they thought they had a deal only to see the Skins throw their chip in and win..plus the comments throughout the week that Holmgrem wanted to keep #22...
Quote:
That's just crazy.
But hey, I'm sure they still believe in McCoy. They just wanted....REALLY wanted...RG3 to mentor McCoy to make him better.
Nepotism...I don't know exactly what the offer was, but it clearly was a helluva an offer, and we clearly wanted him to be the new starter. I'd have a hard time believing that if our offer was even one draft spot better than the 'Skins that they'd pass ours over because of some relationship.
I choose to believe we made a huge offer (boy, does Lombardi look like a flip-floppin', wafflin', rolly-polly no-source-havin' idiot or what?! ) but it wasn't quite good enough.
Now the real question is this: Where are we going to get our next QB from? They can blow sunshine up Colt's ass until the cows come home, but the ugly, dirty secret is out of the bag.
Tannehill? Osweiler? Cousins? Someone else?
I think taking someone in the 2-3 range is a waste this year, Unless you think Weeden can come in and start/be productive right away..
I only think we draft Tannehill if we think he can come in and start right away.
I think we're going with McCoy, hoping either he breaks out, or craps out. Possibly solving our QB conundrum with a Barkley or someone next year.
The only problem would be if he does JUST GOOD ENOUGH to get us to like 6-10/8-8
Then I dunno.
This Year:
Take Tanehill in the 1st(I don't wanna, that's where we'd have to probably)
Weeden in the 2nd
NOTHING ELSE.
Next Year:
Who knows...
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
Quote:
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
I think if Colt wins 7+ games were "stuck" with him for another season...
It also depends on how those games go in and of themselves. If he's awesome but our D gives up alot and we keep losing (aka Newton at the beginning of this last year) and we only win 5-7 games you can sell me on him for another year...
But I think part of it won't be wins, or even stats to a point, he has to pass the eye test.
When I watch a guys like Rodgers and Brady, they make you say "wow" as QBs...
I don't expect that level from Colt now (if ever) but right now he's not even at Matt Cassel level...
j/c
Since it appears we're rolling with Colt again, I'm going to look to the positive side.
There was once a 6'2" QB who started his NFL career with a really bad offensive football team. He started 19 games in 2 seasons and won only 3, completing 11 TD's and 21 INT's, he had less than a 55% completion ratio.
This guy sucked and had bust written all over him. Was it really him? Was it the fact he had no weapons around him? No matter, he was traded away to a WCO team that had some weapons. That QB was HOF'er Steve Young.
Am I saying that Colt is Steve Young? Nope. Looking at the positive side of things though, after a rocky start to his career, somewhere along the way it clicked for Young and it could click for Colt, with a few weapons to work with he just might turn out to be a decent player.
Since I can't do anything about what we don't have, I think I'll just try and look positively at what we do have and maybe daydream a bit. Come game day though, all bets are off.
...then there are this 999 other 6'2 QBs that sucked through their 1st 20 games....and kept sucking
This argument is as "good" as saying you can find your franchise QB in the 6th round...might as well just say: there are wonders !
It's a personal choice but at least give an umbrella a try while you're walking under that black cloud!
I dunno what happened between January of 2011 and September...
But I think if 2010-11 Colt plays this last year instead of 2011-12 Colt, we take the Bengals spot and make the playoffs...
He may not have all the physical skills. But there was a confidence about him, seen mostly at the end of the Jets game, that he just didn't have this year...
If we can get that guy back, I think we'll be "ok" for now...
JC ...
Holmgren gripes about Griffin tradePosted by Mike Florio on March 16, 2012, 6:00 AM EDT
Last week at this time, the Rams were working out a deal to send the second overall pick in the 2012 draft to the Redskins for the sixth overall selection plus two other first-round picks and a second-round pick. The Browns were in the running for the pick that most likely will become the rights to Robert Griffin III, but in the end the Rams decided not to do business with the Browns.
Browns president Mike Holmgren isn’t happy that a franchise that was once headquartered in Cleveland dissed the team that currently plays there. He seems to think it was an inside job by the Rams to steer the pick to the Redskins.
“Honestly, when it didn’t happen I think there are reasons that I can’t go into right now, but there is a very close relationship between the people getting the deal done and the people who offered. And I’m not sure anything we offered would have been good enough. We were very, very aggressive and it didn’t work,” Holmgren said during a Thursday conference call for season-ticket holders, via Tony Grossi of ESPN Cleveland. (With all the football players getting new jobs lately, I forgot to point out that Grossi has a new job, too — he’s back on the Browns beat with ESPN Cleveland, which to its tremendous credit wasn’t troubled by Grossi’s Twitter malfunction from late January.)
As Grossi explains it, Rams coach Jeff Fisher and Redskins coach Mike Shanahan have a friendship. That friendship, in Holmgren’s view, ensured that the Redskins would get the pick. (As a league source explains it, Holmgren may have been referring to Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen and Rams COO Kevin Demoff, who were colleagues and close friends with the Buccaneers.)
But while Holmgren claimed that the Browns made “every bit the offer” that the Rams accepted from the Redskins, Holmgren didn’t disclose the terms. Was it three first-round picks and a second-round pick? Or was it some other package that Holmgren believes the Rams should have regarded as equivalent?
Peter King of SI.com reports via Twitter that Rams G.M. Les Snead instructed teams to make their best offer. The Redskins did and the Browns did. Then, the Browns wanted to make another offer, but the Rams had already decided to accept what the Redskins had offered.
Holmgren’s comments seem misguided, for several reasons.
First, the Rams had the right to trade the pick to anyone to whom they wanted to trade the pick. There are no rules in this regard apart from the two interested teams coming to a mutual agreement and the league providing its approval.
Second, absent specific disclosure by Holmgren of the offer that was made in response to the Rams’ request for the “best offer,” there’s simply no way to assess the validity of Holmgren’s complaint.
Third, if Holmgren knew the Redskins were at the table and knew that the relationships involved pointed to St. Louis doing the deal with D.C., why bother to even try? Or, even better, why not offer more than what the Redskins were expected to put on the table?
Fourth, it wasn’t in the Rams’ interests to keep Griffin in the conference. All things being equal, it made more sense to ship the pick to the AFC, since the Rams will now face Griffin at least once every three years, and possibly any year in the six-team NFC playoff field. Thus, if it truly was a tie (and since Holmgren didn’t disclose the offer we don’t know that), the Rams would have been more inclined to trade Griffin to the Browns.
Fifth, the comments will do little to shore up the confidence of Colt McCoy, or to allow the team to sell whoever the starter may be in 2012 as the first choice. The first choice was Griffin, and now everyone knows it.
Sixth, whining about the situation serves no purpose. Browns fans won’t get mad at the Rams or the Redskins; they’ll assume that the failure to land Griffin is the latest new product rolling off the assembly line at the “factory of sadness.”
Seventh, Holmgren has surely benefited from his own friendships and relationships many more times than he has been burned by those maintained by others. The Godfather of what once was known loosely as the Green Bay Mafia (Jon Gruden perhaps was Luca Brasi), Holmgren knows how to call in favors and/or throw his weight around when he needs to.
He’s frustrated primarily because he wasn’t able to do it this time. He would have wise, in our view, to keep those frustrations to himself.
And with that I’ll officially withdraw my application for employment with the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/holmgren-gripes-about-griffin-trade/
I'd like to personally thank the Rams & Redskins for NOT letting us make that trade.
Quote:
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
What kind of talent can we add to get 5 more wins if the QB sucks? You think a couple mid level FA's is going to do that? You think rookies at CB and WR or RB can get us 5 more wins than we had last year?
All I've heard is that you CAN'T WIN WITHOUT GOOD QB PLAY... so now you are saying what if we DO win without good QB play?
I can't imagine any scenario in which we even sniff 9 wins without Colt really picking it up...
From the PFT article:
Quote:
Les Snead instructed teams to make their best offer. The Redskins did and the Browns did. Then, the Browns wanted to make another offer, but the Rams had already decided to accept what the Redskins had offered.
This is not exactly the way Holmgren tells it. He claims that existing relationships between the Rams and Redskins took precedent over an equal or superior offer by the Browns. Why would the Rams settle for less than they could get? It sounds to me like our "best offer" didn't match Snyder's and we tried to up it. But the Rams decided it wouldn't be right or fair to allow the Browns a second bite at the apple.
jcing...
Holmgren had to let the fans know what happened in part due to the fact that the local media took off on a rage without knowing all the facts, writing and talking as if they knew what went down and assuming the Browns didn't even try to make the deal happen.
We had fans here dumping on Holmgren and Heckert for the same reason when in fact, like the local Cleveland media, many of our fans didn't know the truth.
As for the Rams taking the Pig's deal...it might very well cost them a shot at drafting Blackmon, since they are now setting behind the Browns at #6.
They could have had the #4 pick and likely a shot at Blackmon, but they wanted to take care of their buddies. That's just the cost of doing business in the NFL...just when you think you have made a great deal...suddenly you find out it might not have been such a great deal.
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a "what if" for ya:
What if Colt starts and we win 9 games but it is obvious that the new talent was the reason? Do we keep getting more talent and keep Colt or do we go QB next year?
What kind of talent can we add to get 5 more wins if the QB sucks? You think a couple mid level FA's is going to do that? You think rookies at CB and WR or RB can get us 5 more wins than we had last year?
All I've heard is that you CAN'T WIN WITHOUT GOOD QB PLAY... so now you are saying what if we DO win without good QB play?
I can't imagine any scenario in which we even sniff 9 wins without Colt really picking it up...
My post is a what if in referral to Holmgren's statement that we will be better than 6-10... Then the poster before me said 8-8...
So what if...
Quote:
... but they wanted to take care of their buddies.
I don't think a team would accept less than they could feasibly get to help a division rival. They have to face the Redskins twice a year. I also don't think a team could allow another team (the Browns) a "last look" in what amounted to a sealed bid auction, and maintain their reputation in the league as an organization worth doing business with. It would be incredibly short-sighted and damaging to the Rams to operate that way.
Edit for brain cramp: Rams & Redskins are not divisional rival. 
I still don't think they would intentionally help another team at their own expense, if they knew they could have gotten a better deal from the Browns.
(I'll preface this by saying we coulda/shoulda been 1-16 as the Colts game is the only won we emphatically won.)
We won 4 games.
If you subtract Defensive/Special Teams mistakes we're up to 6-10
Then the other Bengals and Cardinals games where we lost by 3 (one in OT) and we're already up to 8 possible wins.
THIS IS HOW BAD WE WERE LAST YEAR. AND HOW CRAPPY OF A SCHEDULE WE PLAYED.
Had we played above average this year, We probably would have made the playoffs...
Yes I understand we have a more difficult schedule on paper next year.
But we should also be more talented, and better suited to the system...
I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying...
Quote:
(I'll preface this by saying we coulda/shoulda been 1-16 as the Colts game is the only won we emphatically won.)
I don't think you make the playoffs at 1-15. Maybe in the NFC west.
I have a few issues with Florio's take:
These two things make sense:
Quote:
First, the Rams had the right to trade the pick to anyone to whom they wanted to trade the pick. There are no rules in this regard apart from the two interested teams coming to a mutual agreement and the league providing its approval.
Second, absent specific disclosure by Holmgren of the offer that was made in response to the Rams’ request for the “best offer,” there’s simply no way to assess the validity of Holmgren’s complaint.
Then you have this:
Quote:
Third, if Holmgren knew the Redskins were at the table and knew that the relationships involved pointed to St. Louis doing the deal with D.C., why bother to even try? Or, even better, why not offer more than what the Redskins were expected to put on the table?
I have a feeling that's why Holmgren is PO'd. He's probably looking back now thinking that we never should have even tried. As he said, he feels no offer we made would have been accepted. I'm guessing he came to that realization too late (likely after the trade was done).
And, as Florio stated several times, we don't know what our offer was. How do we know our offer WASN'T better than the 'Skins? Now, maybe the Rams will come out and say what our offers were. But, without knowing that, it's hard to say that we should have just offered more than what we expected the 'Skins to offer. Heck, we may have done just that, but the 'Skins surprised us.
Quote:
Fourth, it wasn’t in the Rams’ interests to keep Griffin in the conference. All things being equal, it made more sense to ship the pick to the AFC, since the Rams will now face Griffin at least once every three years, and possibly any year in the six-team NFC playoff field. Thus, if it truly was a tie (and since Holmgren didn’t disclose the offer we don’t know that), the Rams would have been more inclined to trade Griffin to the Browns.
[conspiracy theory] Unless Holmgren is right and it wouldn't have mattered what we offered, meaning some sort of "intangible" was the real reason for the trade. [/conspiracy theory]
Quote:
Fifth, the comments will do little to shore up the confidence of Colt McCoy, or to allow the team to sell whoever the starter may be in 2012 as the first choice. The first choice was Griffin, and now everyone knows it.
Yes, because before Holmgren said it, everyone was of the mindset that we hadn't been involved at all and had put our total faith behind McCoy.
Quote:
Sixth, whining about the situation serves no purpose. Browns fans won’t get mad at the Rams or the Redskins; they’ll assume that the failure to land Griffin is the latest new product rolling off the assembly line at the “factory of sadness.”
I think this is just wrong. I've seen a change in the fanbase since this came out. Yeah, people might still be PO'd, but I think people are a little "happier" to show we didn't totally muck this up. At the worst, we guessed wrong as to what the Rams wanted. It wasn't like we offered them a 7th rounder, thinking that's what they expected.
And, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the "we're only going to take one offer" situation has been used before, and then more offers are taken. Heck, in all of my negotiations, there is almost ALWAYS a point where someone says this is the last best offer, and then they listen to more offers. So, now people know when the Rams say it, they mean it. We just happened to be on the wrong side of it this time.
Quote:
Seventh, Holmgren has surely benefited from his own friendships and relationships many more times than he has been burned by those maintained by others. The Godfather of what once was known loosely as the Green Bay Mafia (Jon Gruden perhaps was Luca Brasi), Holmgren knows how to call in favors and/or throw his weight around when he needs to.
I don't have a problem with that. You know that deals happen all the time that maybe "shouldn't" because of relationships. However, this is probably Holmgren's last hurrah, so maybe he doesn't care as much about it anymore. Just a (poor) guess.
Quote:
He’s frustrated primarily because he wasn’t able to do it this time. He would have wise, in our view, to keep those frustrations to himself.
I agree that Holmgren is frustrated because of how this turned out. He probably thought that we put together a ridiculous offer and was surprised when it came out that (apparently) another team made a ridiculouser offer. Like I said in another thread, you could hear the anger in his voice on the call.
But, as I said above, I've seen a "change" in Browns fans after he said that. Like maybe our FO didn't just sit on their hands and screw the pooch. They were aggressive and just didn't make it.
JMHO
Quote:
I don't think a team would accept less than they could feasibly get to help a division rival. They have to face the Redskins twice a year.
That's just plain wrong. Rams are in NFC West. 'Skins are in NFC East. They only play each other sporadically, similar to how we might only play the Jets or the Broncos once every couple years.
And, I maintain that I admire the Rams for doing it this way. They stuck to their word. The issue I have is, maybe they shouldn't have done it that way if they wanted to maximize value.
It's great to be a nice guy, but in this league, as with life, you have to do what's best for you. Having the two teams play against each other is the best way to do that, and, I wouldn't be surprised if it's expected.
Quote:
They have to face the Redskins twice a year
the Rams are in the NFC-W, Redskins in the NFC-E
BF79, NLR - see my edit of my mistake.
no worries. I agree they wouldn't help out a buddy at their own expense, but they may have used it as a tie-breaker.
Quote:
(I'll preface this by saying we coulda/shoulda been 1-16 as the Colts game is the only won we emphatically won.)
Every teams record would be worse if you took away games they didn't "emphatically win".. but then that would mean that the other team won a game less than emphatically.. Winning close games, even ugly games is what the NFL is about, not blowing people out.
Quote:
THIS IS HOW BAD WE WERE LAST YEAR. AND HOW CRAPPY OF A SCHEDULE WE PLAYED.
By record at the end of the year, we played the 6th hardest schedule in the NFL. But here is the thing about SoS, the fact that we lost to every team in our division twice, makes our schedule look harder than theirs even though the rest of our schedule was largely similar... So by default, most of the teams with hard SOS are not very good and all of the teams with easier SoS are better teams... it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy...
I think Florio's suggestion that the Browns made their "best offer" and then tried to improve it rings true. The Rams would have taken a beating for double-dealing, inside league circles, if they had allowed that.
adjusted-SOS rankings fix that. they do it for college football and basketball, I assume they have it somewhere for the NFL
There is nothing wrong with a bidding war and that's what that would have been.
Quote:
I think Florio's suggestion that the Browns made their "best offer" and then tried to improve it rings true. The Rams would have taken a beating for double-dealing, inside league circles, if they had allowed that.
I don't see why it would be so bad for them to actually negotiate with both teams.. Since when did blind bid trades become the "ethical" thing to do?
Now I could see if they LIED and told H&H that the Redskins had offered 3 #1s a #2 and a #3 just to up the Browns bid if that is NOT what the Skins had offered.. that I think would be unethical but to try to play the 2 against each other in a bidding war to get the best deal... I sort of thought that was the idea.
But having asked for best offers means the Rams were trying to foreshorten the process. Best offer means best offer - what part of that didn't H&H understand?
Quote:
Colt is done for.
No doubt. The team wouldn't make a play like that if we though Colt could be the guy with a little more help.
Quote:
But having asked for best offers means the Rams were trying to foreshorten the process. Best offer means best offer - what part of that didn't H&H understand?
I haven't seen anything that shows they didn't understand it. I have a feeling they just didn't think it would seriously be only a one offer thing. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the "we're only taking one offer" has been used a lot but never followed.
Again, I admire the Rams for sticking to their word. But, I don't think it was a good idea (from a Rams team standpoint) to set it up that way.
Now, arbitration is baseball is like that. Each side offers their best offer and then the arbitrator picks one. There's merit to that. But, that's only when it gets to arbitration.
If I'm a GM or an owner, if I'm shopping a pick, I go to teams and say, "start bidding." I play teams against each other, just like I would expect teams to play me against another team if I'm bidding for their pick. It's just how the game is played. The Rams threw in a curveball by being honest.
I don't know... I think they saw an opportunity to make a significant upgrade at the position with a special player and tried to make it happen. They may not see the remaining options as significant upgrades. I think the fact that they were willing to give up so much for Griffin (more than I would have wanted to) supports that fact. I think if they thought they could make a significant upgrade outside Luck and Griffin they would not have offered so much for the pick.
My order of preference went:
1. Luck
2. Griffin
3. Stick with Colt/Seneca and add players around them (+ time in the system for Colt).
It sounded from the interview that that may be the org's strategy, too.
Quote:
But having asked for best offers, means the Rams were trying to foreshorten the process. Best offer means best offer - what part of that didn't H&H understand?
If the Browns were the only team bidding then their best offer would have been something the Rams would have taken or passed on. But when your best offer has to be judged as bidding against another bidder then it gets more difficult.
Washington knew we had 2 firsts this year. They may have figured we'd give both this year and our #1 next year. That would trump Washington's 3 firsts in each of three years since ours would be had in two and this year's first was higher.
If Washington does not know the Browns offer but figure it would be 3 firsts then they figure they have to throw in another pick to trump the Browns.
The Browns, not knowing Washington's offer, maybe figure it will be 3 firsts and know their own three firsts beats that.
How were the Browns to know Washington would offer up so much? Do they suppose that might be the case so offer our 3 firsts plus a 2nd plus a 3rd? When does it stop? Should they have thrown in a 4th and a 5th just to make sure?
When you offer 2 extra firsts to move up 2 spots that should be enough. As it went down, in my opinion, the winning bid was ridiculous.
There's usually a bidding war. This time there wasn't.
I don't know that we will do anything about it this year because as you say, there may not be a option we want, but in the long run they have sent a message to camp McCoy.
I will say we still need to see where Manning goes. Once he picks a team, there is a good chance a current starter is going to be available.
I think if the Titans land Manning, Hasselback ends up here.
WOW Os,, I'm in shock.. The way I read your post, I really felt as if it was a rather positive lookback.
Holmgren made mention of something similar., it was either yesterday or maybe at his end of the year presser.
basically, eliminate some dumb mistakes, dropped passes and add in a running game, and we win 2 to 4 more games. He's probably right..
That's not really saying anything.. because a couple of breaks we did get, if they go the other way, maybe we don't win 1 game...
I prefer the more optomistic outlook
And Butch Davis once said that if we just eliminated those 1 or 2 plays in the run defense, we'd win 2 or 3 extra games ..........
Almost every team can claim the "If onlys" for a few games per year. Unfortunately, "if onlys" almost never translate to more wins the next year.
Quote:
I will say we still need to see where Manning goes. Once he picks a team, there is a good chance a current starter is going to be available.
I think if the Titans land Manning, Hasselback ends up here.
Since the Dolphins are no longer an option.. that leaves Tebow, Hasselbeck, or Kolb I guess... I don't think there is any way Shurmur envisions Tebow being able to run his offense and not likely to change our offense the way Fox did.. so Hasselbeck or Kolb. Not sure what it would take to get Kolb, he just signed a big deal a year ago and the Cards would take a heck of a hit if they just cut him. Hasselbeck is going into his 14th year so while he might stabilize the position and upgrade it, it would obviously only be a short term fix and that's not what H&H seem to want..
Quote:
Not sure what it would take to get Kolb, he just signed a big deal a year ago and the Cards would take a heck of a hit if they just cut him.
It's actually the opposite.
Because of the Bonus deadline. If they give it to him, he's their QB. If they don't, He's gone. Same as was Manning.
j/c..
yall need to stop dissing my QB..
Quote:
Offer to the Rams
#4 for #6, 2012 2nd & 5th, 2014 1st
Saw this in your sig and I'm wondering why in the world would the Rams trade for that?
If reports are true that we offered at the least #4, #22 and 2013 1st but the Redskins was (3) 1st and this years 2nd. The difference is only a 2nd round pick.
So why would they give up a 2nd and 5th this year a 2014 1st to move up two spots when they could of traded with us to begin with and came out better?
I keep thinking about this Hasslebeck thing .... and while it makes some sense, I also think that it doesn't.
How much longer is he going to play at a high level? Maybe this year? Maybe, at best, next year?
Let's say that the brass really isn't completely decided one way or the other on McCoy. I would think that they would give him one more chance, unless they can clearly upgrade the position for a long, long time. (Like they could have with Luck or RG3) I just have trouble seeing them go for a 1 year fix, unless they have a guy in place to take over in a year or 2.
Now maybe if they have decided to go Tannehill, then signing a guy like Hasselbeck makes sense. However, I have trouble seeing that kind of move if Colt McCoy is the fallback again in a year or 2.
Quote:
j/c..
yall need to stop dissing my QB..
I like Aaron Murray though.
j/c
In light of 2001 Hasselbeck trade, Holmgren’s complaints are hollow
Posted by Mike Florio on March 16, 2012, 1:37 PM EDT
Browns president Mike Holmgren isn’t happy that his team wasn’t selected to make a deal with the Rams for the second overall pick in the draft.
“Honestly, when it didn’t happen I think there are reasons that I can’t go into right now, but there is a very close relationship between the people getting the deal done and the people who offered. And I’m not sure anything we offered would have been good enough,” Holmgren told season-ticket holders on Thursday.
To the extent the fix was in, Holmgren would know. Eleven years ago, Holmgren finagled a trade with his old team and his old boss for quarterback Matthew Hasselbeck.
As explained at the time by Don Banks of SI.com, the Dolphins were ready to send the 26th pick in round one to the Packers for Hasselbeck. Then, at the last minute, Holmgren’s Seahawks offered a flip-flop of first-round picks, with the Packers moving from No. 17 to No. 10 and the Seahawks sliding from No. 10 down to No. 17.
“I figured if it got done today, I’d be a Miami Dolphin,” Hasselbeck told Banks. “The Packers called and said, ‘You’re traded, but it’s not quite official yet until Mike Holmgren does some paperwork.’ And I said, ‘Mike Holmgren? It’s Seattle?’”
And so, thanks to his relationship with G.M. Ron Wolf, Holmgren was able to swoop in and swipe Hasselbeck, without even giving up a draft pick. Under the now-outdated draft trade chart, the flip-flop of picks No. 10 and 17 was worth 350 points.
The No. 26 pick in the first round was worth twice that.
So there’s yet another reason to not like Holmgren’s comments. They’re hypocritical.
link
1) Why is Florio so worked up about this?
2) Was the Dolphins' offer switching the 17th and 26th pick? Or just giving the 26th pick?
Quote:
2) Was the Dolphins' offer switching the 17th and 26th pick? Or just giving the 26th pick?
That's what I'm wondering. The way it's written makes it looks like the Dolphins offered 26, and the Seahawks offered #10. If that's the case, how did Holmgren screw anyone?
Florio must have been given a mean look by Holmgren at some point, and hasn't gotten over it.
I personally love the fact Holmgren speaks his mind, appearing genuine and honest.
I personally really wish he'd learn to STFU when it comes to blabbing to the media.
He looks like a whiner, and more-so, a hypocrite.
I'm wondering if maybe the Dolphins offered 26 straight up, not a swap. So, the Packers would have ended up with 2 first rounders. Maybe?
Who cares? Are we really discussing something that happened 11 years ago and has nothing to do with anything that is currently going on in the NFL?
Quote:
Who cares? Are we really discussing something that happened 11 years ago and has nothing to do with anything that is currently going on in the NFL?
Some of us are. Those who don't want to really don't have to. That's the beauty of a message board!
Quote:
Quote:
j/c..
yall need to stop dissing my QB..
I like Aaron Murray though.
I'm still a lil iffy with Murray. I like him, but sometimes he makes me scratch my head. Fortunate for him he has plenty time to grow.
JC
I find it very interesting this is now the 2nd time that supposedly Holmgren has offered the Rams the keys to Browns future Draft picks and lost?
Heck they could have taken at least 2 first round picks from us according to him twice. Bradford and now RG3.
Something smells rotten in Denmark to me and its not a shady back door handshake deal with Washington. To bad the League didnt nix the deal then Mike would be forced to show his hand so to speak instead of saying We had just as good a deal on the table, or we tried hard to get him offering alot.
We did offer them two huge trades, but the first was to the Spagnuolo regime and this one was to Fisher.
the trade is what it is... could actually benefit us more that we kept our picks.. you never know the type of talent to come out each year..
Quote:
I keep thinking about this Hasslebeck thing .... and while it makes some sense, I also think that it doesn't.
How much longer is he going to play at a high level? Maybe this year? Maybe, at best, next year?
Let's say that the brass really isn't completely decided one way or the other on McCoy. I would think that they would give him one more chance, unless they can clearly upgrade the position for a long, long time. (Like they could have with Luck or RG3) I just have trouble seeing them go for a 1 year fix, unless they have a guy in place to take over in a year or 2.
Now maybe if they have decided to go Tannehill, then signing a guy like Hasselbeck makes sense. However, I have trouble seeing that kind of move if Colt McCoy is the fallback again in a year or 2.
No doubt he is no long term answer, nor even a guy I really want.
He would give a proven leader at a position lacking, and he would know how to run the O.
Now that the team didn't get it's "glitz" QB who could sustain them a few years no matter how he played, they are now in a position of pinning their careers to Colt McCoy, or something else.
Given all of that, I would rather head in to next season with Hasselback at the helm.
The Homie and Heck show needs to worry one season at a time. They know they can't keep posting up 4-5 win seasons and expect to stick around long....
Quote:
I personally love the fact Holmgren speaks his mind, appearing genuine and honest.
I personally really wish he'd learn to STFU when it comes to blabbing to the media.
He looks like a whiner, and more-so, a hypocrite.
Toad...why should Holmgren shut up?
Because a fan with keyboard courage types tough?...
The Browns fans and local media were all over the Browns for not making a serious run at RGIII...and the fans and media were dead wrong!!!
The media and fans had little information to go on, so Holmgren simply filled his Browns fans in on what really went down...what is wrong with that?
What I find funny as heck...by taking the Redskins offer, the Rams now set at #6 instead of at the Browns #4 draft slot...by taking the Redskins offer, they likely lost a very good chance to make a mega deal and still get the guy they wanted in the draft...Justin Blackmon.
Maybe the Rams would like to work a trade with Holmgren for our #4, so they can draft Blackmon...
Quote:
What I find funny as heck..
We agree here, I find heck pretty comical myself.
Quote:
Toad...why should Holmgren shut up?
Because no fan of any team likes seeing the President of the entire enchilada whining, and thus giving major media outlets fuel to call him a ....wait for it.....wait...for...it....a whiner.
I wonder where you're weird, warped sense of perspective comes from, because more often than not you just can't see the big picture.
But don't take my word for it...
Quote:
Holmgren should have remained quiet
Browns' Holmgren needed to remain quiet
March, 16, 2012
Mar 16
12:30
PM ET
Email
Print
Comments699
By Jamison Hensley
Browns president Mike Holmgren created a stir Thursday in a conference call with season-ticket holders when he said Cleveland didn't get a fair shot to trade up in the draft because of a close relationship between the Rams and Redskins.
Some are angered by the fact that the Browns were blocked at a chance to get quarterback Robert Griffin III. Others see this as sour grapes by Holmgren.
Holmgren
Whatever perspective you choose to take, the result is the same: Holmgren turned a personal frustration into a public embarrassment. Even if Holmgren felt slighted -- and my take was the Rams should have given the pick to the Browns if it was the best deal -- he needed to remain quiet. Take your lumps and move on. This is the NFL, not a fantasy football league with your buddies.
Holmgren's complaining about the Rams and Redskins leaves himself open to scrutiny for the times he benefited from personal relationships. As NFC West blogger Mike Sando pointed out, Holmgren used his connections to help the Seattle Seahawks acquire Matt Hasselbeck from Green Bay in 2001 when it looked like a deal was nearing between the Packers and Dolphins. Funny, I never heard Dave Wannstedt crying foul.
The worst fallout from all of this is what it does to the Browns' quarterback situation. His comments make it clear that RG3 was Cleveland's first choice. If the Browns thought Colt McCoy was a franchise quarterback, they wouldn't have been trying to trade multiple first-round picks to get RG3. Calling out the Redskins and Rams wasn't worth a vote of no confidence in McCoy.
The Browns can stick to Plan B and use draft picks to build up talent around McCoy. In the end, they're building around a quarterback that they didn't intend to start in 2012.
The other problem is Holmgren can't say Cleveland made "every bit the offer" as the Redskins and not reveal what the offer was. As NFC East blogger Dan Graziano explained: If you really think your offer was better, let's hear it and everyone can make a judgment.
It was a bad call for Holmgren to grumble about losing out on the trade. Let's see if his decision-making is better when it comes to finding a starting running back, a fast wide receiver and a starting right tackle.
That's two major media players stating Holmgren embarrassed himself and the organization by flapping his gums like he did. I bet they aren't the last.
If you wanna keep living back there in the old days where speaking your mind is productive, hey, it's your sand. Stick your head back down there if you like. That won't make reality what you dream it to be.
Quote:
The Browns fans and local media were all over the Browns for not making a serious run at RGIII...and the fans and media were dead wrong!!!
What fans and local media? Where is this "all over" the Browns that you're talking about?
Most people BELIEVED the Browns went after RG3. You didn't, even when the overwhelming mountain of evidence shoulda told you they did. But I digress. You're minority viewpoint, a few local bloggers and Youtube crazies don't really count. They sure as Hell don't represent what anyone could characterize as being "all over" the Browns.
I think I may have to find a unique language that has a fun pronunciation for the word "ostrich." That'd be a great new handle for you.
My biggest problem with Holmgren speaking out is it my affect future negotiations. I mean if Holmgren doesn't win is he going through my organization under the bus? Thank god the Rams have taken the high road so far about this.
I could care less what Hensely or Florio think but it makes a huge difference what 31 other GMs think. He hurt the Browns with that comment. Hopefully Holmgren called and apologized to the Rams and the Redskins and will do so in the media soon.
Here's another ESPN writer calling what Holmgren did an embarrassment:
#3 Of Mike Holmgren and sour grapes
March, 15, 2012
Mar 15
6:40
PM
By Dan Graziano
Here's one being polite by just saying Holmgren was wrong:
#4
ESPN's Mike Sando.
Want me to keep going? Sand feeling nice, cool, and comfy down there, isn't it, Mac...
On the other hand ...... maybe other organizations will take note that if they do something that could be considered underhanded, they might just find their names out there in the press.
In the end, the only people this really matters to are the high up muckity mucks ... the ones who get together once a year ...... and the ones who probably have their own little cliques .... and who will tell each other what "those other guys" do anyway. In the end, I doubt that it has much effect at all.
The presser wasn't a big deal, he whined to the media. Umm its professional sports, everyone cries about something nonstop. It should be news when they have a presser and someone isn't bitching about something.
He should however be embarrassed for making a trade offer equal to the redskins. Hell my opinion of the man has dropped considerably.
Quote:
Wonder how Colt feels.
I suspect that he's going on like Howard Roark would. The pain only goes far and then it stops hurting.
Quote:
Here's another ESPN writer calling what Holmgren did an embarrassment:
#3
Of Mike Holmgren and sour grapes
March, 15, 2012
Mar 15
6:40
PM
By Dan Graziano
Here's one being polite by just saying Holmgren was wrong:
#4
ESPN's Mike Sando.
Want me to keep going? Sand feeling nice, cool, and comfy down there, isn't it, Mac...
ESPN writers? Seriously? Who gives an <expletive> what an ESPN writer thinks?!
I'm certain that Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmur don't. I'm rather certain that nearly every player in the NFL doesn't care what these morons write about them.
there is one thing to keep in mind here Toad and that is this was not a press conferance it was a private to season ticket holders conference and they allowed the press to sit in on it.
He was talking to season ticket holders and was telling them what they wanted to hear. He acted like one would expect someone to act when addressing possibly unhappy clients, with passion and fire.
I believe we made an offer for RG3 but not to the extent he says, which I believe is alot of other peoples thoughts because otherwise he would have said what we offered. He did the same with Bradford. This is the 2nd time I heard this type of talk from him and 2nd time after nothing happened to the same team and people are mopping this stuff up. Not to mention his "DONT CALL ME FOR PLAYOFF TICKETS rant. Hes a good actor Ill give him that gets people off his back.
When the Indians were trying to keep Thome they put what they offered up for all to see he chose Philly. When the Cavs tried to keep LeBron everyone knew what the offer was he went to Miami for less money. Why is it that everyone is buying what Mike is saying without actually saying what the offer was?
I dare say that there isn't likely to be a trade between Cleveland and St. Louis anytime soon. I don't think the Browns would seek one and if St. Louis did, the price demanded from them would be prohibitively higher than what would be expected of other teams. St. Louis might as well be in the AFC North if they desire a trade with the Browns.
Well ..... I don't know what the offer was, or wasn't ......
But one thing I know for certain is that Holmgren knows that you don't win without a great QB, and he had tried, and failed to obtain one 2 years in a row.
I think that he believes that the team can improve some this year, but that our upper limit will always be limited by the QB. Further, I know that a rookie QB could need a year to become acclimated to the WCO, and the longer we wait, the longer it will be until we get a great QB who is 100% acclimated to the WCO.
I think that's why he's gone hard after guys he sees as franchise guys. It wouldn't surprise me if we make an even larger offer to the Colts trying to get that top pick, and hoping against hope that they will take an offer. They won't ...... but if he comes out with some offer of 4 first round picks, and a pair of seconds ..... or something like that .... I think that Heckert might keel over, and that the Colts would, at least, have to consider it.
The best thing the Browns can do is carry on like they have a chip on their shoulder instead of saying anything..get the best deals U can in the draft and take the best players ..thereby leaving scraps for other teams//and field a competitive team and win some games..
You need to cut back on your pain meds. Seriously.
Re-read what you just posted.
In the end, the upper guys have their own cliques at the meetings and such. Watch the NFL meetings news, and see who is always hanging out with whom. I'm sure that guys who are friends/allies on most issues talk about the "other" guys, and those other guys talk about them.
II think that there will definitely be an impact if the Rams were to call the Browns about a trade this year. There will probably be an impact if it happens next year. However, if the Rams have an asset that the Browns covet, they'll make a call to them.