Luckapalooza

[mattvan1]

Slow news day.....

To win Luck, a team has to have a true suckability factor. Its management has to be willing to put out the full zero percent. Everybody has to be sure not to do their part.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7067286/rick-reilly-andrew-luck-sweepstakes

[mistero]

Yeah, I think we're out of it. Too many truly horrific teams this year. We've already won one too many games. The Colts and Dolphins are not going to screw this up by winning. Indy tossed one in the can this week, folding after leading all game against the Chiefs.

It's a two horse race.

[hiko]

Denver's tossing it's hat in the ring by starting Tebow. Wish we had a Tebow that we could appease the fans by playing whilst knowing that he'll suck enough to get us into the Luckfest.

But maybe we do...

[mattvan1]

Denver's tossing it's hat in the ring by starting Tebow. Wish we had a Tebow that we could appease the fans by playing whilst knowing that he'll suck enough to get us into the Luckfest.

But maybe we do...

Colt? Wait, no, that's not what I meant............

[SoulDawg74]

Denver's tossing it's hat in the ring by starting Tebow. Wish we had a Tebow that we could appease the fans by playing whilst knowing that he'll suck enough to get us into the Luckfest.

But maybe we do...

Colt? Wait, no, that's not what I meant............

Think of him as a puppy , not paper trained

[hiko]

Denver's tossing it's hat in the ring by starting Tebow. Wish we had a Tebow that we could appease the fans by playing whilst knowing that he'll suck enough to get us into the Luckfest.

But maybe we do...

Colt? Wait, no, that's not what I meant............

Here Colt. We're giving you the reins. But we're not giving you any special weapons to help you look better, no crutches to hide your shortcomings. You either prove your worth or lose your way to your replacement.

Either way, we win.

[scott]

Our schedule is too soft to be in the Luck sweepstakes.

[hiko]

Our schedule is too soft to be in the Luck sweepstakes.

Probably. But they might be in the Landry Jones sweepstakes.

I don't care how soft this schedule is, if Colt doesn't play better, the Browns will be a threat to lose against everyone they play.

Like I said, Colt has his chance. He can either play his way to solidifying his job, or he can play his way to his replacement.

[Triple-S]

no chance in hell the 2 first rounders are able to net us luck somehow?

[e0y2e3]

Here Colt. We're giving you the reins. But we're not giving you any special weapons to help you look better, no crutches to hide your shortcomings. You either prove your worth or lose your way to your replacement.

Either way, we win.

Yep, getting a rookie QB in year 3 of a rebuild w/ no other weapons in place on offense is certainly a big win.

IT'S GONNA BE AWESOME..... WAR: 5 YEAR PLANS

[hiko]

It's not hard. If you don't have a Franchise QB, you need one.

This team goes nowhere ever until they have the QB situation settled. I don't care if that sets them back a year or not. They need to have the Franchise QB on the roster.

[hiko]

no chance in hell the 2 first rounders are able to net us luck somehow?

If the team that gets the #1 overall pick is somehow in position to not take Luck (and I guarantee the Colts take Luck if they get the pick), then maybe. But that team would be able to command a King's ransom. Two #1 picks probably won't get it done.

[e0y2e3]

Sure, but recent success for young QBs has shown that bringing them in to a situation w/ weapons is massively helpful and can inspire a quick turn around. Punting aquiring weapons to dick around w/ Colt McCoy is foolish and silly, but that was their big plan.

And let's not forget how many players away they still are on D too.

I am 100% on board w/ the QB being the most important position, I'm not on board w/ building a shitty team to dick around w/ shitty Colt McCoy. If your GM and President needed to trot him out their w/ no weapons to tell if he was good or not they shouldn't have a job.

5 year plan... WOOHOO

[Triple-S]

McCoy hasn't had that moment yet to me that proves he doesn't belong in the NFL.

He's yet to go Charlie Frye where he starts acting like Uncle Cliff from the Mooninites anytime he drops back to pass.

He's not bad. We know that much, he can win you football games, and not be the reason you've lost them. He's led a game tying drive against the Jets, and a game winning one against the Dolphins.

His first game was against the Steelers, which itself should have been a recipe for disaster, yet he hung tough and put up some okay stats. He didn't melt.

So the Browns are probably more than likely in NFL QB purgatory at the moment. They're not in hell (DA, Charlie Frye, Brady Quinn), but they sure are not in heaven in either (Manning, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rodgers,etc).

[hiko]

Sure, but recent success for young QBs has shown that bringing them in to a situation w/ weapons is massively helpful and can inspire a quick turn around. Punting aquiring weapons to dick around w/ Colt McCoy is foolish and silly, but that was their big plan.

And let's not forget how many players away they still are on D too.

I am 100% on board w/ the QB being the most important position, I'm not on board w/ building a shitty team to dick around w/ shitty Colt McCoy. If your GM and President needed to trot him out their w/ no weapons to tell if he was good or not they shouldn't have a job.

5 year plan... WOOHOO

The constant GM/President noise bores the crap out of me. Yawn.

[e0y2e3]

You can thank the NBA for forcing me to pay attention to this regime and their turn at running this team in a ridiculous manor.

[mattvan1]

Punting aquiring weapons to dick around w/ Colt McCoy is foolish and silly, but that was their big plan.

Greg Little and Owen Marecic would like to have a word with you

[e0y2e3]

Silly me, 4th round fullbacks replacing elite FBs and project WRs that just sat out a year and have all of two years experience in their lives at the position are big moves.

Especially more important than any vets and fielding a shit right side of the O-line.

[hiko]

You can thank the NBA for forcing me to pay attention to this regime and their turn at running this team in a ridiculous manor.

Au contraire. No one is forcing you to do anything.

You coming onto a board and bitching and moaning about anything/everything about a team and league that you obviously have bitterness towards apparently has become your M.O. Congrats - you're THAT guy.

You know what other NFL team has fans that say the exact same things you do? Every single one.

Vickers wasn't a weapon. He helped the power run game, but the WCO apparently doesn't use that as much. I wish he had stayed, there's a reasonable beef about not retaining him.

Little could be good. We'll have to wait and see. With a competent QB, he could already be a game breaker. If you want to assume that Colt's competent, fine. I'm not so sure.

Were there some other guys in the draft they passed on that you would've chosen differently? Who, specifically? Would you have passed on the trade and taken Julio Jones? Where was the major fuck-up in the draft?

And free agency? People that bitch about not picking up weapons in free agency make me laugh. They had Hillis. Hardesty was coming back, and they obviously thought highly of him (the book is way out on how good he can be). They picked up Jackson. Seems like the RB position was OK.

Free agent WR's? Who specifically was this awesome game-changing WR that they should've picked up? Rice? You would've paid more for him than the Seahawks did? Who did the Browns pass up on in FA that would've made this Offense sing and Colt McCoy look like Drew Brees?

No front office is going to make 100% correct personnel decisions. If you make better than 50%, then you're already doing better than any of your post-1999 predecessors.

[e0y2e3]

Okay, how about the O-line? How about D-line depth, how about the 2000 LBs that were FAs? How about a safety (THERE WERE PLENTY).

I'm just pointing out what is clearly a very flawed plan. It's a five year plan at the shortest. Seriously, how many franchises grab their franchise QB in year three of a rebuild and have massive holes at practicly every position on the field at the same time? In year 3?

[e0y2e3]

And I have no problem being that guy since I've got nothing else to follow in sports and everyone and their mother wants to crown this FO for doing, well nothing but drafting okay twice.

[mattvan1]

You can thank the NBA for forcing me to pay attention to this regime and their turn at running this team in a ridiculous manor.

Au contraire. No one is forcing you to do anything.

You coming onto a board and bitching and moaning about anything/everything about a team and league that you obviously have bitterness towards apparently has become your M.O. Congrats - you're THAT guy.

You know what other NFL team has fans that say the exact same things you do? Every single one.

Vickers wasn't a weapon. He helped the power run game, but the WCO apparently doesn't use that as much. I wish he had stayed, there's a reasonable beef about not retaining him.

Little could be good. We'll have to wait and see. With a competent QB, he could already be a game breaker. If you want to assume that Colt's competent, fine. I'm not so sure.

Were there some other guys in the draft they passed on that you would've chosen differently? Who, specifically? Would you have passed on the trade and taken Julio Jones? Where was the major fuck-up in the draft?

And free agency? People that bitch about not picking up weapons in free agency make me laugh. They had Hillis. Hardesty was coming back, and they obviously thought highly of him (the book is way out on how good he can be). They picked up Jackson. Seems like the RB position was OK.

Free agent WR's? Who specifically was this awesome game-changing WR that they should've picked up? Rice? You would've paid more for him than the Seahawks did? Who did the Browns pass up on in FA that would've made this Offense sing and Colt McCoy look like Drew Brees?

No front office is going to make 100% correct personnel decisions. If you make better than 50%, then you're already doing better than any of your post-1999 predecessors.

Before I step back and enjoy the show, I'll just throw this out there, even though I hate these types of comparisons

The Detroit Lions have done it (what exactly not sure, but at least climbed up toward contender status) in 3 years. That's pretty much it. Don't like the Lions and don't have the inclination to do the research, but it doesn't seem as if they have too many players left from the wasteland era of Matt Millen. They pretty much had to start from scratch with the 2009 draft. Last year they showed flashes and then gagged, so maybe that's where we'll be by November. Long way to go, no doubt.

But the clock is already running on the H&H era AFAIAC. So far, color me non-plussed.

ETA - I did the research because it was so easy. The answer is "3".

The entire roster of the 5-0 Lions has been built from scratch beginning with the 2009 draft with the exception of 3 players. Maybe God has taken mercy on Detroit. Maybe they are the luckiest team in the history of the NFL. Maybe Stafford will get hurt and they'll end up 5-11.

But as of right now, H&H have about 12 months remaining before the natives become more restless.

[e0y2e3]

The Lions had CJ, who is far more than just a left-over, some meh guys, got a QB in year 1 of their rebuild opposed to year three and started signing impact FAs early on in the development process as well. They didn't just leave massive holes anywhere they couldn't fill via draft pick and built via FA as well as the draft every step of the way.

Not to mention, you know, not waiting until the third year to get a QB so they could see how Colt plays w/ zero weapons, which is what Hiko mentioned as the great plan earlier in this thread and is possibly the dumbest concept of franchise development in the history of sport.

[hiko]

Okay, how about the O-line? How about D-line depth, how about the 2000 LBs that were FAs? How about a safety (THERE WERE PLENTY).

I'm just pointing out what is clearly a very flawed plan. It's a five year plan at the shortest. Seriously, how many franchises grab their franchise QB in year three of a rebuild and have massive holes at practicly every position on the field at the same time? In year 3?

We weren't discussing the Defense. I would tend to agree with you there.

Specifically, we were talking Offense. The O-Line? That's what you want to bitch about? You have an 2 Pro Bowlers, Steinbach who's been solid forever, Lauvao whom they had drafted to start RG. The only area where you could really fault them is maybe RT, where they thought Pashos was going to be healthy. I'd have to assume they'll address him this offseason since the guy clearly is injury-prone at this point.

As to your QB point... YOU GET THE FREAKIN' FRANCHISE QB WHEN YOU CAN GET HIM! YEAR ONE, YEAR TWO, YEAR THREE, YEAR THIRTY... IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, GET ONE. WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU HAVE OTHER HOLES, THE HOLE AT QB IS THE BIGGEST FUCKING ONE!

Sorry, didn't mean to yell. It's just that if you're making a "don't draft a franchise QB until you draft big-time WR's" argument, then I am so completely not on the same page as you.

[hiko]

Not to mention, you know, not waiting until the third year to get a QB so they could see how Colt plays w/ zero weapons, which is what Hiko mentioned as the great plan earlier in this thread and is possibly the dumbest concept of franchise development in the history of sport.

I was JOKING!

Geezus...

[e0y2e3]

Not to mention, you know, not waiting until the third year to get a QB so they could see how Colt plays w/ zero weapons, which is what Hiko mentioned as the great plan earlier in this thread and is possibly the dumbest concept of franchise development in the history of sport.

I was JOKING!

Geezus...

No, honestly, it feels like that is what the wanted to do.

RB, I'll give them (although the Vickers situation still confuses me, guys can lose weight) but any sort of pro caliber WR (Steve Breston, James Jones, etc) could have been huge just as a rotation player, same w/ a depth signing on the O-line and a RT (seriously, Pashos hasn't been healthy since 2005) and the defense, my lord. More and more these good teams are trotting out four and five good WRs (or the pass happy rules are making those WRs good, who knows) we decided to trot out, MoMass, Little and Robo?

It really does feel like they are leaving holes intentionally to get a good draft pick. It's the weirdest strategy to team building in the NFL` I have ever seen and seriously can only work if you move it forward as a five (six? seven?) year plan.

The defense, while not part of the QB evaluation process, was left bare for some reason (I'm pretty sure to suck for draft position).

You may have been joking, but you actually hit on what I think was the FOs strategy and why they suck ass cobbler despite showing an ability to draft fairly well.

[hiko]

Before I step back and enjoy the show, I'll just throw this out there, even though I hate these types of comparisons

The Detroit Lions have done it (what exactly not sure, but at least climbed up toward contender status) in 3 years. That's pretty much it. Don't like the Lions and don't have the inclination to do the research, but it doesn't seem as if they have too many players left from the wasteland era of Matt Millen. They pretty much had to start from scratch with the 2009 draft. Last year they showed flashes and then gagged, so maybe that's where we'll be by November. Long way to go, no doubt.

But the clock is already running on the H&H era AFAIAC. So far, color me non-plussed.

A. Calvin Johnson was already there. So Heckert must thank Mangini/Savage for not leaving us any all-world WR's on the roster.

B. They have their Franchise QB. If you have a Franchise QB, it makes all your offensive players look better.

C. They got 3 drafts, which, at my last count, Heckert hasn't had yet. All 3 they were really high up there.

The Lions are contenders now because Johnson & Stafford are good enough to make up for their mediocre O line and non-existent running game. They also have a very good defensive line that puts enough pressure on the opposing QB that it makes up for a weak secondary.

It's not like they don't have holes. They just got the right holes filled.

When the Lions FO was in Year 2 and heading into the last 4 games at a whopping 2-10, I'm guessing there were a few guys calling for their jobs.

And the biggest one is QB.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I think the biggest problem with the Browns is that they're not very good.

[e0y2e3]

The Lions FO signed FA's though and didn't just toss aside the entire process to suck for draft picks intentionally, they filled holes via both means possible while moving forward.

[hiko]

Not to mention, you know, not waiting until the third year to get a QB so they could see how Colt plays w/ zero weapons, which is what Hiko mentioned as the great plan earlier in this thread and is possibly the dumbest concept of franchise development in the history of sport.

I was JOKING!

Geezus...

No, honestly, it feels like that is what the wanted to do.

RB, I'll give them (although the Vickers situation still confuses me, guys can lose weight) but any sort of pro caliber WR (Steve Breston, James Jones, etc) could have been huge just as a rotation player, same w/ a depth signing on the O-line and a RT (seriously, Pashos hasn't been healthy since 2005) and the defense, my lord. More and more these good teams are trotting out four and five good WRs (or the pass happy rules are making those WRs good, who knows) we decided to trot out, MoMass, Little and Robo?

It really does feel like they are leaving holes intentionally to get a good draft pick. It's the weirdest strategy to team building in the NFL` I have ever seen and seriously can only work if you move it forward as a five (six? seven?) year plan.

The defense, while not part of the QB evaluation process, was left bare for some reason (I'm pretty sure to suck for draft position).

You may have been joking, but you actually hit on what I think was the FOs strategy and why they suck ass cobbler despite showing an ability to draft fairly well.

I will admit that I believe that they didn't pick up mediocre "depth" guys like Breaston & Jones because they wanted to get younger players more experience, knowing full well that they might suffer a few more losses this year because of it.

Which, as I've stated before, I'm fine with, because Steve Breaston or no Steve Breaston, this isn't a playoff team.

Now, do I think that they are losing on purpose? No. I think that's ridiculous.

If they were bad enough that they had a legit shot at Luck, I'd think they were losing on purpose (and I'd applaud them for it, because I fully believe that the Browns would be a championship contender for the next 10 years with Luck).

But, to me, it looks like this team is really young and will look bad while they try and learn to win. That's it.

1 year and 4 games is not enough for me to judge a regime. 4 games is not enough for me to judge a coach. 10 games is not even enough for me to judge a QB (although I'm definitely starting to lean in a direction on that one).

[e0y2e3]

Okay, sure, but my point re: years of development is getting some vets in hand now may cost you a win (or two!!!) but it is one less vet spot you need to fill in the future. There is going to come a point when this team is going to want to contend and we are looking at a team that will be in year 3 breaking in a new QB and then relying on a bunch of rookies and taking whatever the market gives them for vet plugs. It is possible to sign vet plugs (on D as well) that are quality players while still developing youth, that is why I keep bringing up five years. I don't see how it doesn't break down at that number w/ the sheer number of holes roster wide they chose to leave.

And IMO, they chose to leave those holes becaues they saw the biggest joke schedule ever and didn't want to risk winning too make games to grab a top ten pick.

*and I will admit had they plugged a few holes and Colt been some crazy diamond in the rough they could have theoreticly won their way out of that top ten pick, so they made sure to suck just enough even if Colt was "the future"

[mattvan1]

Before I step back and enjoy the show, I'll just throw this out there, even though I hate these types of comparisons

The Detroit Lions have done it (what exactly not sure, but at least climbed up toward contender status) in 3 years. That's pretty much it. Don't like the Lions and don't have the inclination to do the research, but it doesn't seem as if they have too many players left from the wasteland era of Matt Millen. They pretty much had to start from scratch with the 2009 draft. Last year they showed flashes and then gagged, so maybe that's where we'll be by November. Long way to go, no doubt.

But the clock is already running on the H&H era AFAIAC. So far, color me non-plussed.

A. Calvin Johnson was already there. So Heckert must thank Mangini/Savage for not leaving us any all-world WR's on the roster.

B. They have their Franchise QB. If you have a Franchise QB, it makes all your offensive players look better.

C. They got 3 drafts, which, at my last count, Heckert hasn't had yet. All 3 they were really high up there.

The Lions are contenders now because Johnson & Stafford are good enough to make up for their mediocre O line and non-existent running game. They also have a very good defensive line that puts enough pressure on the opposing QB that it makes up for a weak secondary.

It's not like they don't have holes. They just got the right holes filled.

When the Lions FO was in Year 2 and heading into the last 4 games at a whopping 2-10, I'm guessing there were a few guys calling for their jobs.

And the biggest one is QB.

Cannot disagree with anything you wrote (which is why it's unfair to cherry pick the Lions 2011 success.) Maybe the Lions will implode and finish the way the Josh McDaniels broncos did a couple of years ago. But it can be done in 3 years.

All I'm saying is that the jury is out on more than just Colt. The jury is out on H&H as well. I'm not gonna ledge after 20 games of the new FO, but I'm not waiting 3 more seasons either.

[hiko]

The Lions FO signed FA's though and didn't just toss aside the entire process to suck for draft picks intentionally, they filled holes via both means possible while moving forward.

They did a pretty good job of sucking for draft picks until this season.

[hiko]

Cannot disagree with anything you wrote (which is why it's unfair to cherry pick the Lions 2011 success.) Maybe the Lions will implode and finish the way the Josh McDaniels broncos did a couple of years ago. But it can be done in 3 years.

All I'm saying is that the jury is out on more than just Colt. The jury is out on H&H as well. I'm not gonna ledge after 20 games of the new FO, but I'm not waiting 3 more seasons either.

The jury's out on the whole lot of 'em. I tend to have more faith in H&H than I do in Colt, but there's no guarantee any of them will succeed.

Perhaps I defend decisions they make b/c it is so imperative that H&H succeed. You can get a new QB and turn it around right away, but a whole new regime is a lot messier.

I too was frustrated they didn't go after more vets to fill out the depth. I don't know why they did it. Maybe they tried and the guys they went after went elsewhere. Maybe the guys they went after only wanted one year contracts. Maybe H&H didn't think they were worth it. Maybe they wanted to reserve all that cap space this year to re-up their own guys in frontloaded extensions. I don't know.

But they had a master plan (I hope) for this season, so I want to let it play out quite a bit more before I pass judgement.

[hiko]

PS - I agree that it can be done in 3 years, and would even go so far as saying you really SHOULD see marked improvement by year 3. One could argue that they set themselves back a year by keeping Mangini on, but that was their doing, so they have to own that mistake.

[That_Guy™]

You can thank the NBA for forcing me to pay attention to this regime and their turn at running this team in a ridiculous manor.

... Congrats - you're THAT guy.

Wait a minute...
I thought I was That Guy

[hiko]

You can thank the NBA for forcing me to pay attention to this regime and their turn at running this team in a ridiculous manor.

... Congrats - you're THAT guy.

Wait a minute...
I thought I was That Guy

Dammit, sorry. And you've even got it trademarked. My bad.

[e0y2e3]

FWIW: Hiko, you also have very correctly shown that the Lions are running the current plan to win in this suck ass version of the NFL. It's easy (not really but...) you need a franchise QB, two offensive weapons around him, a line that can stand up for a few minutes and a ridiculous D-line.

We've, in two years, invested any assets we have in one WR draft pick (project) and the interior of the line. That is it.

In the same regard we, as a franchise haven't even attempted to fill any position w/ any kind of depth and have decided trotting UDFAs out there is the way to go.

Heading into year three no position on the team (except maybe RB) is complete.

I get a lot of your perspective when you say that they have to succeed (and I've given them a five year plan), I'm just sick and tired of watching these fools get a free pass when other franchises out there have built depth and youth at the same time and/or hired coaches w/ an immediate impact.

This franchise has to show some other than 2-2 against the shit stuck under the NFL's shoe and they have to do it fast, because the clock should be hitting midnight in year three, but w/ this beaten fanbase it's just barely hitting 6PM.

[e0y2e3]

Oh and my point was never you have to build the team then find the QB, it was just that there a plenty of examples where that is very possible, leaving blanks for a year because you have no QB is... well... the silly part.

[e0y2e3]

Also, FWIW: I think the reason this regime is so infuriating is that they do seem to be able to draft and draft well. It's the same reason I've questioned dumping Mangini. Mangini had a system that was starting to really work and did so w/ H & H draft picks. It seems like they have Savage syndrome in that they need to control every aspect of the team and have only their drafted (or UDFAs) playing. It's shooting your foot to spite your face and stuff.

Hopefully you are right and there is some master plan aside from handpicking a meh coach to run a system they only inflate w/ their hand-picked guys, but I have to think attempts to lure FAs (BIG AND SMALL) would have leaked out at some point. It feels like we are being told (as a fan-base) fuck you, wait until we can win the way we decided to win and if we can't, fuck you some more.

[HoodooMan]

IMO, the disconnect between this regime and most of the fans right now: H&H think they're effectively in Year 1 of their rebuild (and I agree) while many fans are of the opinion that we're in Year 2, OMFGSAJWYWJSKS!!1!11!1!!!1! WHERZOURFREEEAGENTZ!?1?!1!!, WHYAREN"TWETHEIRYET!!11!1!!1!!! etc.

Also, H&H most likely don't appreciate the extent to which Browns fans are scarred from decades of losing and how stupidly negative, irrational, and impatient this has made us. Welcome to Cleveland, guys!

[e0y2e3]

I don't understand, aren't you the one who trumpeted them drafting for their own system, no Mangini's in a 100% sign they were aquiring talent for their own rights and not his?

I mean I don't even see how you can pretend to be in year 2 from a pure talent aquisition angle.

I guess if you are free to just pretend like years didn't happen I'm wrong about that five year plan thing.

[HoodooMan]

I think they hedged their bets in the 2010 offseason by drafting players that wouldn't be impacted by scheme switches. But the coaching staff they wanted, the scheme switches, the Year 1-style approach to FA, the Year 1-style step back...none of that was going on in 2010.

I think it's effectively Year 1...just with the added benefit of a bonus draft class (which, granted, is a significant benefit). So, I don't know, maybe call it Year 1.5? Closer to Year 1 than Year 2, IMO.

[e0y2e3]

That's pretty amazing. I've never seen a front office get a free year because they kept a coach on board for a year they effectively didn't want.

You've gone full on fanboi, eh?

[SoulDawg74]

FWIW: Hiko, you also have very correctly shown that the Lions are running the current plan to win in this suck ass version of the NFL. It's easy (not really but...) you need a franchise QB, two offensive weapons around him, a line that can stand up for a few minutes and a ridiculous D-line.

We've, in two years, invested any assets we have in one WR draft pick (project) and the interior of the line. That is it.

In the same regard we, as a franchise haven't even attempted to fill any position w/ any kind of depth and have decided trotting UDFAs out there is the way to go.

Heading into year three no position on the team (except maybe RB) is complete.

I get a lot of your perspective when you say that they have to succeed (and I've given them a five year plan), I'm just sick and tired of watching these fools get a free pass when other franchises out there have built depth and youth at the same time and/or hired coaches w/ an immediate impact.

This franchise has to show some other than 2-2 against the shit stuck under the NFL's shoe and they have to do it fast, because the clock should be hitting midnight in year three, but w/ this beaten fanbase it's just barely hitting 6PM.

SD:

There is nothing to argue with here .

The Browns are giving the Cleveland fans a hand job and a piss poor one at that.

There is zero excuse for not upgrading linebacker safety and RT with legit cost efficient free agents in this summers buyers market .

Young talent at cheap rates was plentiful .

But the most egregious crime this front office has perpetrated on the fans is their attempt to man the QB position on the cheap .

While it was ok to draft McCoy the project pick in the third in the Mangy draft where QB talent was poor it was arrogant assinine stupidity to by pass a trade up for Newton Jake Locker at six Dalton in the second Mallet in the third and even the kid from VT who backs up Flacco , in the fourth over that waste that is Marecic,,all of which had more talent than Colt and would have brought legit NFL physical talent to the QB position .

To trot out Colt McCoy without challenge after watching his three game season ending implosion tossing picks to our division opponents like they were halloween candy because his hands were too small to properly grip the balll and spin it in the cold is inexcusable and undefendable .

He showed nothing to warrant such faith , he can make it , and certainly less to be gifted a position in the NFL which demands the best in the bidness , not wannabee pretenders and cheap pathetic substitute fakes because their cheap
cute distractions trotted out under the disguise of fan favorites.

This position should have solidified this year not next year.


SoulDawg

[HoodooMan]

So where is it exactly that you disagree?

Do you disagree that we approached this offseason like it was Year 1 of a new regime?

Do you disagree that a new coach, a new offensive scheme, and a new defensive scheme justifies treating 2011 like it's Year 1 of a new regime?

(Do me a favor and answer those precise questions rather than merely repeating your feigned anger at our approach to FA this offseason.)

[e0y2e3]

BTW: if nothing else, I think they should pay up an extra year for keeping a coach onboard and then not drafting talent directly suited for his system.

[e0y2e3]

So where is it exactly that you disagree?

Do you disagree that we approached this offseason like it was Year 1 of a new regime?

Do you disagree that a new coach, a new offensive scheme, and a new defensive scheme justifies treating 2011 like it's Year 1 of a new regime?

(Do me a favor and answer those precise questions rather than merely repeating your feigned anger at our approach to FA this offseason.)

1) Since when does FA (especially the biggest FA period in history) have to be ignored in year one? Especially when aquiring talent for a system that both of these guys have ran for 200 years? Are they so piss poor as talent evaluaters they couldn't identify depth at any position?

2) Treating the coaching (even though he looks terrible) like year one is fine, talent aquisition is not. They know the system, know the coach (he is one of their trained bitch boys) and ultimately regardless of all that they own last year as well. I cannot understand where keeping a coach they didn't want for a year justifies not aquiring any talent outside of the draft. Not to mention that you have said yourself they were hedging (I would argue setting up) to dump Mangini last year and IMO, it was done to leave a built in excuse. An excuse you are eating up.

3) You keep acting like screaming about FA is absurdity, but this is the NFL, the league defined by FA. I wasn't asking for much out of it either, but they openly chose to ignore building through it while supposedly aquiring talent for a system they both have masters in. And trotting out a depth chart litered w/ UDFA's is punting a year.

4) Where do you disagree that this isn't a five year plan? One more draft, one year after that w/ all these young people playing together, two years of QB development and two years of vet development?

5) Do you disagree that they intentionally set this team up to not have a chance at landing a pick outside of the top ten?

[e0y2e3]

BTW: I think the biggest absurdity in your claims re: treating the talent aquisition this year like year one is that this team was set up thanks to Mangini and H & H to have a clean slate going into this off-season. Typically year one regimes have to spend cleaning house and that is the main reason they delay "massive talent aquisition." This year they had like six people on the roster total.

[HoodooMan]

1) Since when does FA (especially the biggest FA period in history) have to be ignored in year one?

Have to be? I guess never, but it's a pretty common approach, as far as I can tell.

For example, Bill Belichick's first FA class* in NE (as best as I can patch it together from Wiki):

WR Chris Calloway (only year in NE)
TE Eric Bjornson (only year in NE)
TE Chris Fontenot (not even worthy of a Wiki page)
OG Sale Isaia (not even worthy of a Wiki page)
OT Grant Williams (played 2 years there)
DE Bobby Hamilton (played 4 years there!!!)
OLB Rob Holmberg (played 2 years there)
CB Antonio Langham (only year in NE)
CB Otis Smith (played 3 years there!!!)

Also, there were 13 combined draft picks & UDFAs on the 2000 opening day roster (w/o a first round pick that year)

*-or at least "list of guys that weren't on 1999's final roster, but were on the 2000 opening day roster"

We have the same number of new guys who fit that^ description on our roster this year (NINE!!1!1!!! CAIN!1!1!!!!!!), as well as 11 combined draft picks & UDFAs.

BTW: I think the biggest absurdity in your claims re: treating the talent aquisition this year like year one is that this team was set up thanks to Mangini and H & H to have a clean slate going into this off-season. Typically year one regimes have to spend cleaning house and that is the main reason they delay "massive talent aquisition." This year they had like six people on the roster total.

On this, you're just high.