Text Size

Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Talk Browns football and discuss the NFL here.

Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup

Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby jb » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:24 pm

jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:46 pm

Don't look for Shurmur to break any attendance records at his press conferences. He and Mangini went to the same school of talking without saying anything.

"The West Coast system obviously starts with two backs," Shurmur said. "Because we will throw the ball, the halfback has to be able to catch the ball out of the backfield as well as run with it. The fullback is a guy that needs to be able to block, win one-on-one battles on linebackers and then be able to catch the ball out of the backfield.

"It sounds trite, but we're going to hand it to them and throw it to them. It's important that they're able to beat linebackers in one-on-one coverage and catch the football — that's the important piece. And when they're asked to pass protect. The running backs in this system, they're key positions because they're going to touch the football.

"It obviously will work itself into three receivers and one back. There's going to be a considerable amount of four-receiver sets. It's very multiple from that standpoint. But when you teach the system, it starts with a two-back set."


So here's what we've learned: RB's are important. Sometimes they will run the ball. Sometimes they will catch it. Sometimes they will block. Sometimes they'll run 2 back formations, but sometimes it'll be 1 back and 3 wide, while at other times it might be 4 wide, depending on the circumstance.

I would assume that we'll see lots of 2 back sets with Hillis at FB and Hardesty at HB (even if they get Vickers back), which means the Browns will need at least 2 more competent backs.
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby motherscratcher » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:14 pm

^^I thought the same thing. Paddy didn't really say anything. That actually describes every offense in the league right now.

Then again, Im not sure what he could say that would explain an NFL offense in any meaningful way without getting too in depth.

As far as running back. Do we pick some up off the scrap heap or draft one? If Devine is the guy, is he considered a running back?
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby mattvan1 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:32 pm

motherscratcher wrote:^^I thought the same thing. Paddy didn't really say anything. That actually describes every offense in the league right now.

Then again, Im not sure what he could say that would explain an NFL offense in any meaningful way without getting too in depth.

As far as running back. Do we pick some up off the scrap heap or draft one? If Devine is the guy, is he considered a running back?


I keep thinking Hillis and Hardesty. Vickers maybe stays 'cause he's a stud, but I don't envision a lot of 24 powers with the FB as the lead blocker. And I'll disagree slightly - there really are not too many teams that run an old school 2 back set most of the time. I don't think we will either, but apparently that's how you start.

How effectively we execute the quick slant will be interesting - as none of our wides are a deep threat so last year we saw a lot of man and the CBs tended to either sit on the slant or close down quickly. Gotta find a way to loosen up the DBs and throw something down the field other than a TE seam.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:25 pm

motherscratcher wrote:As far as running back. Do we pick some up off the scrap heap or draft one? If Devine is the guy, is he considered a running back?


One of both?

And Devine... I think he can be useful, but I don't think you pick him in the draft and say "That's one of our RB's down". I see him more as a Receiving threat.
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:53 pm

hiko wrote:
motherscratcher wrote:As far as running back. Do we pick some up off the scrap heap or draft one? If Devine is the guy, is he considered a running back?


One of both?

And Devine... I think he can be useful, but I don't think you pick him in the draft and say "That's one of our RB's down". I see him more as a Receiving threat.



SD:

man but can you see if that was Ingram , fastest first ten steps in the combine against everybody even vs the guys who ran sub 4.4 in the running backs and has very nice hands , cradles those catches like a carees and then puts it awayand starts heading up.

Man will run inside , lives in the paint.

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:55 pm

Hey, I'd love Ingram. I think that guy's legit.

But then there's like 10 other guys I'd love too. Wouldn't complain about Peterson, Fairley, Dareus, Green, Jones, Newton, Bowers, etc. either.
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby Erie Warrior » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:05 pm

Kendall Hunter
This natural coozy comes free with every Miller Time
Image
User avatar
Erie Warrior
Goose Slayer
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: Hampton, VA
Favorite Player: 1995 Indians
Least Favorite Player: Global Warming

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby pup » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm

Cat from Virginia Tech
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby jb » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:15 am

Jaquizz on day three as a 3rd down back.

They key piece of info I ead lately is that the Browns are the slwest team in the NFL. Heckert is gonna try like hell to remake that this draft I think.

The other thing this article suggests is that whether you, I, SD or anyone like it or not, McCoy is QB not only in cement, but diamond encrusted granite.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:22 am

jb wrote:
(1)Jaquizz on day three as a 3rd down back.

They key piece of info I ead lately is that the Browns are the slwest team in the NFL. Heckert is gonna try like hell to remake that this draft I think.

(2)The other thing this article suggests is that whether you, I, SD or anyone like it or not, McCoy is QB not only in cement, but diamond encrusted granite.


1. I'll buy that for a buck

2. True, but this would really be exhibit 3 or 4 in that. It has been stated pretty firmly several times that this was the case. That anyone could have had real doubt by even before this is a bit crazy IMO, SD's POV aside.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:13 pm

jb wrote:Jaquizz on day three as a 3rd down back.

They key piece of info I ead lately is that the Browns are the slwest team in the NFL. Heckert is gonna try like hell to remake that this draft I think.

The other thing this article suggests is that whether you, I, SD or anyone like it or not, McCoy is QB not only in cement, but diamond encrusted granite.


SD:

There is no real advantage to for vacillation on this issue from a public perspective while entering the draft .

Doesn't stop them from doing their due diligence regardless if they change their mind at 6 should providence drop them a gift in their laps or between 2 and seven , should they land a Dalton in the second who is much more than a project or a Tyrod taylor in the 5th who is all project.

Mumbles had no intention of replacing Bledsoe when he lucked into Brady at the sixth , but I doubt he's got a bitch about how that turned out.

Until this draft is over , any thing coming out of their pie holes must be taken literally with a grain of salt.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:17 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote:
jb wrote:Jaquizz on day three as a 3rd down back.

They key piece of info I ead lately is that the Browns are the slwest team in the NFL. Heckert is gonna try like hell to remake that this draft I think.

The other thing this article suggests is that whether you, I, SD or anyone like it or not, McCoy is QB not only in cement, but diamond encrusted granite.


SD:

There is no real advantage to for vacillation on this issue from a public perspective while entering the draft .

Doesn't stop them from doing their due diligence regardless if they change their mind at 6 should providence drop them a gift in their laps or between 2 and seven , should they land a Dalton in the second who is much more than a project or a Tyrod taylor in the 5th who is all project.

Mumbles had no intention of replacing Bledsoe when he lucked into Brady at the sixth , but I doubt he's got a bitch about how that turned out.

Until this draft is over , any thing coming out of their pie holes must be taken literally with a grain of salt.


SoulDawg


IMO, that's bullshit with regards to QB in this draft.

Holmgren said they would draft a QB later in the draft.

I don't believe there is anyone at the QB position that they think is out of thier range right now in the 1st that they would jump on if they had the chance.

I think Holmgren and Co have been extremely clear: No controversies, and they will draft a QB late in the draft.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:27 pm

JCoz wrote:
SoulDawg74 wrote:
jb wrote:Jaquizz on day three as a 3rd down back.

They key piece of info I ead lately is that the Browns are the slwest team in the NFL. Heckert is gonna try like hell to remake that this draft I think.

The other thing this article suggests is that whether you, I, SD or anyone like it or not, McCoy is QB not only in cement, but diamond encrusted granite.


SD:

There is no real advantage to for vacillation on this issue from a public perspective while entering the draft .

Doesn't stop them from doing their due diligence regardless if they change their mind at 6 should providence drop them a gift in their laps or between 2 and seven , should they land a Dalton in the second who is much more than a project or a Tyrod taylor in the 5th who is all project.

Mumbles had no intention of replacing Bledsoe when he lucked into Brady at the sixth , but I doubt he's got a bitch about how that turned out.

Until this draft is over , any thing coming out of their pie holes must be taken literally with a grain of salt.


SoulDawg


IMO, that's bullshit with regards to QB in this draft.

Holmgren said they would draft a QB later in the draft.

I don't believe there is anyone at the QB position that they think is out of thier range right now in the 1st that they would jump on if they had the chance.

I think Holmgren and Co have been extremely clear: No controversies, and they will draft a QB late in the draft.


SD:

Read my reply again , before you start carping like a fool , and you'll see we ain't that far apart.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:30 pm

Doesn't stop them from doing their due diligence regardless if they change their mind at 6 should providence drop them a gift in their laps or between 2 and seven


Ok, can you try and clarify this?
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:36 pm

JCoz wrote:
Doesn't stop them from doing their due diligence regardless if they change their mind at 6 should providence drop them a gift in their laps or between 2 and seven


Ok, can you try and clarify this?


SD:

They'll take the BPA at six , if they projected Newton or Gabbert persay to be better and off the board prior to the draft but unexpectedly find either and they rate them higher than the player they projected to be there they'll pick em .

Praise the lord. and tell anybody listening they didn't go in looking for them there and were surprised they dropped and when they did , felt it was just too good an option to pass up.

If they miss Colt will never know and there are no mix signals , ill feelings ,or fences to mend.

if they're r targeting green persay and Peterson lands in their laps , they'll pick em .

By openly stating they're not looking for a QB they open the door for others willing to trade up in their spot if they want to take a Mallet persay because they envision an INDY type system .

By saying their off the market early for a QB they increased their options , and later in the draft could come at any time , whereas a Jake locker may not be palatable at 6 he might be very attractive at 38 in lieu of a waiting until the fifth round to add another signal caller.

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:11 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote:
JCoz wrote:
Doesn't stop them from doing their due diligence regardless if they change their mind at 6 should providence drop them a gift in their laps or between 2 and seven


Ok, can you try and clarify this?


SD:

They'll take the BPA at six , if they projected Newton or Gabbert persay to be better and off the board prior to the draft but unexpectedly find either and they rate them higher than the player they projected to be there they'll pick em .


That's what I thought.

And that's what I'm saying isn't true. I don't think they like ANY QB at #6 or anywhere in the 1st rd.

I think they have made it clear, and like Holmgren wasn't BSing when he talked about Clausen and Bradford....
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:18 pm

Despite the fact that it is very unlikely that they are smokescreening, nothing any exec says before the draft should be held as gospel.

I don't know if they feel Cam is worth it, but if Luck were still in this draft and somehow fell to #6, I'd bet anything that they would jump on him regardless of what they may have said previously.
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:26 pm

hiko wrote:Despite the fact that it is very unlikely that they are smokescreening, nothing any exec says before the draft should be held as gospel.

I don't know if they feel Cam is worth it, but if Luck were still in this draft and somehow fell to #6, I'd bet anything that they would jump on him regardless of what they may have said previously.


Luck isn't in this draft.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby pup » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:32 pm

JCoz wrote:
hiko wrote:Despite the fact that it is very unlikely that they are smokescreening, nothing any exec says before the draft should be held as gospel.

I don't know if they feel Cam is worth it, but if Luck were still in this draft and somehow fell to #6, I'd bet anything that they would jump on him regardless of what they may have said previously.


Luck isn't in this draft.


So are they happy with their QB?

Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?

Because those are worlds apart. According to Mike, they are happy with Colt. But nobody would pass on Luck, so they must not be too happy with Colt.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:51 pm

pup wrote:
JCoz wrote:
hiko wrote:Despite the fact that it is very unlikely that they are smokescreening, nothing any exec says before the draft should be held as gospel.

I don't know if they feel Cam is worth it, but if Luck were still in this draft and somehow fell to #6, I'd bet anything that they would jump on him regardless of what they may have said previously.


Luck isn't in this draft.


So are they happy with their QB?

Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?

Because those are worlds apart. According to Mike, they are happy with Colt. But nobody would pass on Luck, so they must not be too happy with Colt.


Thank you for clearing up my point.

They are solidly behind Colt... unless they find someone better.

They have to say what they are saying. Doesn't make it true. Probably it is, but you'd be foolish to 100% heed the word of a football exec this time of year.
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:20 pm

hiko wrote:
pup wrote:
JCoz wrote:
hiko wrote:Despite the fact that it is very unlikely that they are smokescreening, nothing any exec says before the draft should be held as gospel.

I don't know if they feel Cam is worth it, but if Luck were still in this draft and somehow fell to #6, I'd bet anything that they would jump on him regardless of what they may have said previously.


Luck isn't in this draft.


So are they happy with their QB?

Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?

Because those are worlds apart. According to Mike, they are happy with Colt. But nobody would pass on Luck, so they must not be too happy with Colt.


Thank you for clearing up my point.

They are solidly behind Colt... unless they find someone better.

They have to say what they are saying. Doesn't make it true. Probably it is, but you'd be foolish to 100% heed the word of a football exec this time of year.


100%? Yes that would be foolish.

But there is more than post combine/predraft comments contributing to the thought that they aren't looking to draft a QB this year.

I do feel its a case of this "Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?"just a bit more than straight confidence in Colt.

Kind of to be expected with less the half a season of starts and no HUGE contract strapped to him like cement shoes.

Thats the kind of situation where you have options.

But Mike has been awfully forthcoming with regards to how he feels about QBs on the team, in the draft, and the dynamic of the QB depth chart.

I think adding up everything says they dont have a you-can't-pass-this-guy-up to look at this season.

Its enough that talking about the Browns drafting Cam or Gabbert is just an egregious waste of your time and energy, IMO.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:50 pm

JCoz wrote:But there is more than post combine/predraft comments contributing to the thought that they aren't looking to draft a QB this year.

I do feel its a case of this "Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?"just a bit more than straight confidence in Colt.

Kind of to be expected with less the half a season of starts and no HUGE contract strapped to him like cement shoes.

Thats the kind of situation where you have options.

But Mike has been awfully forthcoming with regards to how he feels about QBs on the team, in the draft, and the dynamic of the QB depth chart.

I think adding up everything says they dont have a you-can't-pass-this-guy-up to look at this season.

Its enough that talking about the Browns drafting Cam or Gabbert is just an egregious waste of your time and energy, IMO.


I tend to agree with most of what you say. I'm not personally talking up Cam constantly (and no way in hell would I be talking Gabbert) - that's not my angle. But the way I feel about it is this - if you don't have a Franchise QB, then you need one. Every year you spend developing a guy that turns out to be not the answer is a year wasted.

Likely Colt'll get every chance to show us whether he is isn't b/c of the reasons you mentioned. If Holmgren & Heckert are truly as bully about Colt as they proclaim, then that's awesome. And if Colt actually ends up justifying that support, then that's even more awesome.

But I think it's fair to say that Cam Newton clearly has a much higher ceiling than Colt McCoy. He many never get anywhere near it, but if Holmgren & Heckert (no matter what they say publicly) feel uneasy about Colt's chances and would rather take their chances with Cam, I can't fault their logic or their choice.
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:54 pm

JCoz wrote:
hiko wrote:
pup wrote:
JCoz wrote:
hiko wrote:Despite the fact that it is very unlikely that they are smokescreening, nothing any exec says before the draft should be held as gospel.

I don't know if they feel Cam is worth it, but if Luck were still in this draft and somehow fell to #6, I'd bet anything that they would jump on him regardless of what they may have said previously.


Luck isn't in this draft.


So are they happy with their QB?

Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?

Because those are worlds apart. According to Mike, they are happy with Colt. But nobody would pass on Luck, so they must not be too happy with Colt.


Thank you for clearing up my point.

They are solidly behind Colt... unless they find someone better.

They have to say what they are saying. Doesn't make it true. Probably it is, but you'd be foolish to 100% heed the word of a football exec this time of year.


100%? Yes that would be foolish.

But there is more than post combine/predraft comments contributing to the thought that they aren't looking to draft a QB this year.

I do feel its a case of this "Or just feel he is better than Cam Gabbert?"just a bit more than straight confidence in Colt.

Kind of to be expected with less the half a season of starts and no HUGE contract strapped to him like cement shoes.

Thats the kind of situation where you have options.

But Mike has been awfully forthcoming with regards to how he feels about QBs on the team, in the draft, and the dynamic of the QB depth chart.

I think adding up everything says they dont have a you-can't-pass-this-guy-up to look at this season.

Its enough that talking about the Browns drafting Cam or Gabbert is just an egregious waste of your time and energy, IMO.



SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.

and

I wouldn't be as proud as punch as you seem to be when you realize you've just advocated your in favor of this front office applying a "Maginot Line " train of thought in regards to their plans .

That type of one dimensional thinking got us to this point in the first place.

Didn't we already go threw that with Dwight Clark and Butchum havin a fixation over shinny objects.

Gimme the front office confident enough and versatile enough to adapt to an ever changing landscape and continuously find the high ground.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:15 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote:
SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.

and

I wouldn't be as proud as punch as you seem to be when you realize you've just advocated your in favor of this front office applying a "Maginot Line " train of thought in regards to their plans .

That type of one dimensional thinking got us to this point in the first place.

Didn't we already go threw that with Dwight Clark and Butchum havin a fixation over shinny objects.

Gimme the front office confident enough and versatile enough to adapt to an ever changing landscape and continuously find the high ground.


SoulDawg


Don't really have any intention of deciphering that post SD.

I'm not "proud" of anything.

Just processing the information I'm given. I say that they wont take any QB that "falls" to them at #6. End of story for me, really shouldn't have engaged you in this, I just am not interested in debating QB's with you.

Carry on.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:26 pm

JCoz wrote:
SoulDawg74 wrote:
SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.

and

I wouldn't be as proud as punch as you seem to be when you realize you've just advocated your in favor of this front office applying a "Maginot Line " train of thought in regards to their plans .

That type of one dimensional thinking got us to this point in the first place.

Didn't we already go threw that with Dwight Clark and Butchum havin a fixation over shinny objects.

Gimme the front office confident enough and versatile enough to adapt to an ever changing landscape and continuously find the high ground.


SoulDawg


Don't really have any intention of deciphering that post SD.

I'm not "proud" of anything.

Just processing the information I'm given. I say that they wont take any QB that "falls" to them at #6. End of story for me, really shouldn't have engaged you in this, I just am not interested in debating QB's with you.

Carry on.


SD:

They didn't say they wouldn't take a QB at #6 , they said prior to the combines and pro days they weren't targeting QB early and were happy with Colt.

Which I contend to be smoke which allows them to operate quietly behind the scenes to explore all their possibilities without tipping their hand.

BTW if you think they only went to Auburn's pro day to see Fairley and that receiver whatever his name is , contact me later by PM , I've got property in Florida i want to discuss with ya .


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:55 pm

I agree that they are looking at the QB's in this draft and doing due diligence.

But I also believe they have tipped their hand and will not draft a QB in the 1st round and change their mind because of a Proday workout.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:03 pm

JCoz wrote:I agree that they are looking at the QB's in this draft and doing due diligence.

But I also believe they have tipped their hand and will not draft a QB in the 1st round and change their mind because of a Proday workout.


SD:

Then you won't want to read this .....

Thanks to Triple SSS


#Browns will research Newton, Gabbert, Mallett, Dalton, etc. Don't overreact to them being at every QB pro day. Will bring some in, too.

********************************************

You don't have to surrender , remember we're still on the same team ...

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:50 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote:
JCoz wrote:I agree that they are looking at the QB's in this draft and doing due diligence.

But I also believe they have tipped their hand and will not draft a QB in the 1st round and change their mind because of a Proday workout.


SD:

Then you won't want to read this .....

Thanks to Triple SSS


#Browns will research Newton, Gabbert, Mallett, Dalton, etc. Don't overreact to them being at every QB pro day. Will bring some in, too.

********************************************

You don't have to surrender , remember we're still on the same team ...

SoulDawg


I said I agree they are looking at QB's and doing due diligence in the post you quoted.

That's basically what that tweet says.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:54 pm

JCoz wrote:
SoulDawg74 wrote:
JCoz wrote:I agree that they are looking at the QB's in this draft and doing due diligence.

But I also believe they have tipped their hand and will not draft a QB in the 1st round and change their mind because of a Proday workout.


SD:

Then you won't want to read this .....

Thanks to Triple SSS


#Browns will research Newton, Gabbert, Mallett, Dalton, etc. Don't overreact to them being at every QB pro day. Will bring some in, too.

********************************************

You don't have to surrender , remember we're still on the same team ...

SoulDawg


I said I agree they are looking at QB's and doing due diligence in the post you quoted.

That's basically what that tweet says.


SD:

You also said you don't see them looking at QB at 6 .

which belies the point you'll find Newton Gabbert or Mallet in the scratch and dent project category which before this post you insisted was the only bin they were looking.

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:13 pm

JCoz wrote:
SoulDawg74 wrote:
JCoz wrote:I agree that they are looking at the QB's in this draft and doing due diligence.

But I also believe they have tipped their hand and will not draft a QB in the 1st round and change their mind because of a Proday workout.


SD:

Then you won't want to read this .....

Thanks to Triple SSS


#Browns will research Newton, Gabbert, Mallett, Dalton, etc. Don't overreact to them being at every QB pro day. Will bring some in, too.

********************************************

You don't have to surrender , remember we're still on the same team ...

SoulDawg


I said I agree they are looking at QB's and doing due diligence in the post you quoted.

That's basically what that tweet says.


SD:

You also said you don't see them looking at QB at 6 .

which belies the point you'll find Newton Gabbert or Mallet in the scratch and dent project category which before this post you insisted was the only bin they were looking.

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby mattvan1 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:33 pm

::doh::

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Browns will perform a bit of due dilligence on talented players at key positions which they have no intention of drafting. You never know. Will those guys get cut in 2012? Do we look at them in FA? Great idea to be prepared, to get a file started on some of these cats now. Just like guys will always try and hit on the hottest chick in the place - because you never know. Worked for SoulDawg's fav-o-rite QB (Tim Couch.)

Besides, one day, 3 years from now, Cam Newton might just be willing to walk west on I-90 all the way from Buffalo to Cleveland because he wants to play for Coach Mike Holmgren. :hide:
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:51 pm

mattvan1 wrote:::doh::

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Browns will perform a bit of due dilligence on talented players at key positions which they have no intention of drafting. You never know. Will those guys get cut in 2012? Do we look at them in FA? Great idea to be prepared, to get a file started on some of these cats now. Just like guys will always try and hit on the hottest chick in the place - because you never know. Worked for SoulDawg's fav-o-rite QB (Tim Couch.)

Besides, one day, 3 years from now, Cam Newton might just be willing to walk west on I-90 all the way from Buffalo to Cleveland because he wants to play for Coach Mike Holmgren. :hide:



SD:

I doubt a single kid in this draft would get up and make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwitch just because Mike Holmgren would like it , but they'd slap their mommas out the way enroute to making that sandwhich for Mr.Benjamin Franklin .

Agree Newton is gone before six , but that a lot differnt from those who contend we'd turn up our nose at the thought of picking him should he drop , just because we like little ole Colt.

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:57 pm

jb wrote:Jaquizz on day three as a 3rd down back.

They key piece of info I ead lately is that the Browns are the slwest team in the NFL. Heckert is gonna try like hell to remake that this draft I think.

The other thing this article suggests is that whether you, I, SD or anyone like it or not, McCoy is QB not only in cement, but diamond encrusted granite.



SD:

latest news is Mayock touting some kid outta Eastern Washington (Taiwon sumpthin or ther) reputed to be in that 4.3 category as a running back saying he could go all the way to the second round if those numbers are right.
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby mattvan1 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:27 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:::doh::

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Browns will perform a bit of due dilligence on talented players at key positions which they have no intention of drafting. You never know. Will those guys get cut in 2012? Do we look at them in FA? Great idea to be prepared, to get a file started on some of these cats now. Just like guys will always try and hit on the hottest chick in the place - because you never know. Worked for SoulDawg's fav-o-rite QB (Tim Couch.)

Besides, one day, 3 years from now, Cam Newton might just be willing to walk west on I-90 all the way from Buffalo to Cleveland because he wants to play for Coach Mike Holmgren. :hide:



SD:

I doubt a single kid in this draft would get up and make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwitch just because Mike Holmgren would like it , but they'd slap their mommas out the way enroute to making that sandwhich for Mr.Benjamin Franklin .

Agree Newton is gone before six , but that a lot differnt from those who contend we'd turn up our nose at the thought of picking him should he drop , just because we like little ole Colt.

SoulDawg


After 3 years (or whatever the new rookie min contract is) in Beefalo or Cincitucky, Cam would deep throat a PBJ just to get away.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:22 pm

This is exactly where I am with Newton.

“Would I take him at No. 1? Absolutely not. In this league, the athletic quarterbacks don't last long.

"It's the quarterbacks (like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees) that can sit in the pocket and take a picture of whatever defense we're in and know in 0.3 seconds that a hot slant is going to be open. … It's those guys that (teams) are looking for, and I don't think Cam is that player yet. If he comes into the league doing what he did in college, he won't be in this league for very long."


Who said it?

Justin Tuck did. Now, maybe Cam is the guy that takes the pic and delivers balls on target and on time. If he is then I'm in.

But Justin Tuck is dead nuts right because athletic QB or not, Cam ain't running over LBs in the NFL and playing 16 games while doing it.

Gotta throw. If he's Christ in Converse with the football in his hand then bring him to us here on the Lakefront. Otherwise, no thank you.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:22 pm

mattvan1 wrote:
SoulDawg74 wrote:
mattvan1 wrote:::doh::

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Browns will perform a bit of due dilligence on talented players at key positions which they have no intention of drafting. You never know. Will those guys get cut in 2012? Do we look at them in FA? Great idea to be prepared, to get a file started on some of these cats now. Just like guys will always try and hit on the hottest chick in the place - because you never know. Worked for SoulDawg's fav-o-rite QB (Tim Couch.)

Besides, one day, 3 years from now, Cam Newton might just be willing to walk west on I-90 all the way from Buffalo to Cleveland because he wants to play for Coach Mike Holmgren. :hide:



SD:

I doubt a single kid in this draft would get up and make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwitch just because Mike Holmgren would like it , but they'd slap their mommas out the way enroute to making that sandwhich for Mr.Benjamin Franklin .

Agree Newton is gone before six , but that a lot differnt from those who contend we'd turn up our nose at the thought of picking him should he drop , just because we like little ole Colt.

SoulDawg


After 3 years (or whatever the new rookie min contract is) in Beefalo or Cincitucky, Cam would deep throat a PBJ just to get away.



SD:

Straight up right between the eyes no bullshit .

I plain flat ou disagree.

I like Galley as coach , he's homespun and hardnosed , and he's the one who designed the slash concept in Pissburgh which meshed with a hardnosed running game ,caused havoc.


There only Problem Kordell was an infant and that offense needed a man.



A sick infant at that.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby mattvan1 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:03 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote: I like Galley as coach , he's homespun and hardnosed , and he's the one who designed the slash concept in Pissburgh which meshed with a hardnosed running game ,caused havoc.


He was also fired by Todd Haley. Back to the point on which we can agree -

The Browns should talk to a bunch of talent at key positions - even if they do not plan on drafting those players.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:49 pm

mattvan1 wrote:
SoulDawg74 wrote: I like Galley as coach , he's homespun and hardnosed , and he's the one who designed the slash concept in Pissburgh which meshed with a hardnosed running game ,caused havoc.


He was also fired by Todd Haley. Back to the point on which we can agree -

The Browns should talk to a bunch of talent at key positions - even if they do not plan on drafting those players.



SD:

His Pro day is on tape at ESPN 3 for all to see.

Kid has an arm a bazzoka with touch when needed to feather it over a linebacker or make that sidelin catch over the outside shoulder of his receiver the one a cornerback has no play on and the one Manning perfected .

Note the pro day was outside in the cool and the wind , and it was never brought up as a factor , he shredded it .

Kids Won at every level , All he needs is couple thousand reps in the pros and you got money.

Shurmur and Heckert were in attendance , and I doubt they were there to spot that long snapper :)

SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby jb » Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:26 am

SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.



Wrong quote. It was Mike Vick who once said, "Every dog has a plan until it gets bit."

One, you know what I think about Cam, so I hope like bloody hell they do major due dilligence.

Two, you couldn't do it now, couldjah?

Had to have this thrad, too, eh? :pb:
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:55 pm

jb wrote:
SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.



Wrong quote. It was Mike Vick who once said, "Every dog has a plan until it gets bit."

One, you know what I think about Cam, so I hope like bloody hell they do major due dilligence.

Two, you couldn't do it now, couldjah?

Had to have this thrad, too, eh? :pb:



SD:

Wasn't me matt and Jcoz got off track and the train has to stay on the rails .

You'll notice i tried bringing it back with mention of the ewu kid .


Hell I quit trying a month ago to convince anybody about Newton , my focuss has been on the stoopidity of their naivity in regards to taking shit strewn out of the mouths of front office personnel at this time a year as gospel.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby hiko » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:31 pm

SD, quick question... if the Browns had the 1st pick in the draft, do you still take Cam?
User avatar
hiko
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:13 am
Favorite Player: Gray
Least Favorite Player: Black and White

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:48 pm

hiko wrote:SD, quick question... if the Browns had the 1st pick in the draft, do you still take Cam?




SDL

Months ago I caught hell fire around here and elsewhere when I suggested the Browns should see if Carolina is amenable to trading out of the #1 pick , with the intent of aquiring Newton , the past days events have done nothing but reinforce that original premiss.

Yeah Cam Newton is worth next years #1 and more , so if I had that pick it wouldn't take me 15 seconds to make that selection.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby JCoz » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:59 am

jb wrote:
SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.



Wrong quote. It was Mike Vick who once said, "Every dog has a plan until it gets bit."

One, you know what I think about Cam, so I hope like bloody hell they do major due dilligence.

Two, you couldn't do it now, couldjah?

Had to have this thrad, too, eh? :pb:


Yeah I think I have to take some responsibility in that. Sometimes I just get sucked into it.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby jb » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:47 am

JCoz wrote:
jb wrote:
SD:

Like Mike Tyson says , everybody has a plan until they get hit.



Wrong quote. It was Mike Vick who once said, "Every dog has a plan until it gets bit."

One, you know what I think about Cam, so I hope like bloody hell they do major due dilligence.

Two, you couldn't do it now, couldjah?

Had to have this thrad, too, eh? :pb:


Yeah I think I have to take some responsibility in that. Sometimes I just get sucked into it.



Like Michael Corleone, eh?

Don't be like Mike.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby Prosecutor » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:58 pm

"It obviously will work itself into three receivers and one back. There's going to be a considerable amount of four-receiver sets. It's very multiple from that standpoint. But when you teach the system, it starts with a two-back set." - Pat Shurmur

If nobody objects to moving off Fig Newton for a moment, I think this quote is extremely important. Especially the part about "a considerable amount of four-receiver sets." Let me emphasize "considerable amount".

Do we have four NFL caliber receivers on the roster? Three? Any takers? Two? C'mon, two? Going, going...
Prosecutor
Plutonian Outliers
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:59 am

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:06 pm

Prosecutor wrote:"It obviously will work itself into three receivers and one back. There's going to be a considerable amount of four-receiver sets. It's very multiple from that standpoint. But when you teach the system, it starts with a two-back set." - Pat Shurmur

If nobody objects to moving off Fig Newton for a moment, I think this quote is extremely important. Especially the part about "a considerable amount of four-receiver sets." Let me emphasize "considerable amount".

Do we have four NFL caliber receivers on the roster? Three? Any takers? Two? C'mon, two? Going, going...


SD:

Jake Delhomme was the only guy who used the wideouts, so do we have anybody who can develop what we got much less whomever we add.

We might have two if we could beat Ozzie at signing plexico Burress to bookend Mo Mass, then we'd have resources left to draft somebody who might be able to hit em.


SoulDawg
Last edited by SoulDawg74 on Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby Fire Marshall Bill » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:47 pm

SoulDawg74 wrote:
Prosecutor wrote:"It obviously will work itself into three receivers and one back. There's going to be a considerable amount of four-receiver sets. It's very multiple from that standpoint. But when you teach the system, it starts with a two-back set." - Pat Shurmur

If nobody objects to moving off Fig Newton for a moment, I think this quote is extremely important. Especially the part about "a considerable amount of four-receiver sets." Let me emphasize "considerable amount".

Do we have four NFL caliber receivers on the roster? Three? Any takers? Two? C'mon, two? Going, going...


SD:

Jake Delhomme was the3 only guy who used the wideouts so do qwe have anybody who can develop what we got much less whomever we add.

We'd have two if we could beat Ozzie at signing plexico Burress to bookend Mo Mass, then we'd have resources left to draft somebody who might be able to em.


SoulDawg



:pop:

This shit would make Rod Sterling drool
Hope is a moment now long past
The Shadow of Death is the one I cast
Koo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus
User avatar
Fire Marshall Bill
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:00 pm
Favorite Player: Killer Bean
Least Favorite Player: Charcoal&Piss

Re: Shurmur talks O - discuss?

Unread postby Prosecutor » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:12 pm

Bill, I take it you think SD's posts are right out of the Twilight Zone? Like maybe that bidding war between the Browns and Ravens to sign Burress? Or the Browns trading up to #1 to draft Cam? Cue Rod...

Actually, Shurmur might be inhabiting the TZ if he thinks he's going to be able to deploy four NFL level WRs next year. Although the Browns do seem to have a ton of cap space if they can just get free agency going at some point, so maybe they can pull if off. On second thought, PS said four "receivers", which could include tight ends, right?
Prosecutor
Plutonian Outliers
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:59 am


Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hikohadon and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: Hikohadon and 2 guests