Luckapalooza

[mattvan1]

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. That's the point, H&H DID approach this offseason as if it was year 1, even though it's not. This is their second draft and second offseason without a true playmaker.

2. Yes I do disagree. Not sure other teams that changed HC's or co-ordinators are using that excuse. It's the same story we've seen here from 1999 "I need to get my guys" "We need players who fit our system" Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ya know, sometimes if you're good you can win with someone else's guys. I'm willing to give H&H a big break because of the absolute and complte clusterfuck that was Opie and then Kokinis/Mangini - the cupborad was truly bare. But sorry, 2010 counts and they don't get a do-over. Especially when they either selcted players who can fit in regardless of scheme (Haden, Ward, Hardesty, Lauvao) or drafted a guys expressly for the scheme they wanted all along (McCoy).

[HoodooMan]

2. Yes I do disagree. Not sure other teams that changed HC's or co-ordinators are using that excuse.

I think it's a pretty unique situation, so I'm not sure what you could be referring to. Can you really think of another situation in which a VP/GM team overhauled their team's coaching staff & schemes after their first year on the job?

[e0y2e3]

Remember how many FAs were on the 2001 Pats?

How many vets that fit they system were brought in just like the year before?

I honestly don't even know what you are going for there.

And yeah, cleaning house can sometimes take a FO a year (especially to clean the cap up, these guy came into this year w/ a blank canvas and running a system they supposedly know better than anyone in the league, not sure what screams "YEAR 1" about that.

[HoodooMan]

Remember how many FAs were on the 2001 Pats?

So do you not think we'll be more active in FA in 2012 than we were in 2011?

running a system they supposedly know better than anyone in the league,

I didn't address this above, because to me it seems completely irrelevant. Was Bill Belichick unsure of the new systems he was implementing in 2000? Is that why he did so little in FA that year and added so many draft picks & UDFAs to the roster?

[SoulDawg74]

Remember how many FAs were on the 2001 Pats?

How many vets that fit they system were brought in just like the year before?

I honestly don't even know what you are going for there.

And yeah, cleaning house can sometimes take a FO a year (especially to clean the cap up, these guy came into this year w/ a blank canvas and running a system they supposedly know better than anyone in the league, not sure what screams "YEAR 1" about that.

Nothing especially since the GM and president were allready in place and supposedly on the same page the year before .

Moreover they were some 35- 50 million under the cap had extra draft picks and a bounty at free agency talent creating a buyers market unparalleled in NFL history.


SoulDawg

[HoodooMan]

I'm willing to give H&H a big break because of the absolute and complte clusterfuck that was Opie and then Kokinis/Mangini - the cupborad was truly bare.

Also FTR, I don't believe the cupboard was truly bare for H&H. Thomas, Mack, Cribbs, Mom Ass, Rubin, DQ. Wimbley was still at least a tradable asset.

That isn't a core of players you're doing cartwheels over or anything, but this wasn't the kind of situation Clark, Butch, and Phil walked into.

[e0y2e3]

You do realize that half of the league was FAs this year though, right?

[HoodooMan]

So Belichick's approach in Year 1 was what it was because he didn't have enough FAs to pick from?

[e0y2e3]

I have no idea and I'm too lazy to go look.

I do know that this year they had a blank canvas w/ the cap and roster spots and were searching for talent to fill their own system. I don't understand how that yields sitting on your hands unless it is an intentional attempt to not win too many games and not have lightening strike and turn into last year's Chiefs.

[HoodooMan]

The idea wasn't to make you go look it up, it was to point out how the number of FAs available probably wasn't especially relevant.

Things that seem clear to me:

-H&H are treating 2011 as Year 1.

-A new HC & schemes justify this attitude.

-Our approach to FA in 2011 won't be repeated in 2012. See: 2010 FA

-What's dangerous about this situation is that if we can't manage at least a bare minimum Year 1 win total in Year 1+ (like 5-11), no matter how many things they get right, a real culture change could become really, really difficult going forward.

[mattvan1]

2. Yes I do disagree. Not sure other teams that changed HC's or co-ordinators are using that excuse.

I think it's a pretty unique situation, so I'm not sure what you could be referring to. Can you really think of another situation in which a VP/GM team overhauled their team's coaching staff & schemes after their first year on the job?

Red herring.

Doesn't matter when they decided - the 2010 draft was used to select players who were either scheme agnostic or fit the new scheme. Joe Haden is the same CB in a 4-3 or a 3-4. It's not as if they drafted a bunch of Jason Babin guys and then went "oops" we have to start over because we switched schemes.

Although that's what they would like us to believe.

[e0y2e3]

I'll just agree to disagree. I must have never been taught this long standing "don't sign any FAs even if you have a clean cap and roster in year 1 of a coaching regime" and I don't know how it's justified to act as if it is year 1 when they had planned for dumping Mangini all along.

[HoodooMan]

Red herring.

Doesn't matter when they decided - the 2010 draft was used to select players who were either scheme agnostic or fit the new scheme. Joe Haden is the same CB in a 4-3 or a 3-4. It's not as if they drafted a bunch of Jason Babin guys and then went "oops" we have to start over because we switched schemes.

Although that's what they would like us to believe.

All eleven guys on offense are playing in a new scheme under new coaches, the front seven on defense is playing in a new scheme in a new alignment under new coaches, but it's a red herring because the Back 4 on defense isn't impacted in the same way?

<--gives up

[e0y2e3]

I just guess you are going to have to explain why talent aquisition should be altered because they installed a new scheme (one that they had aquired talent for already and knew how to scout for).

Because I, for one, don't have a clue why the second should slam a damper on the first.

[peeker643]

As is typical I think we're somewhere between e0y2e3 and matt and where they've painted HooDoo (who simply isn't wrong).

As I often do, I look to Bruce Springsteen for answers and he once sang:

In the Bible Cain slew Abel, and east of Eden he was cast.
We're born ino this life paying, for the sins of somebody else's past.

H & H inherited shit. They're going to build their way trough drafts with some supplemental free agents thrown in right now. Regardless of the argument of YR1 or YR2 the 2011 Browns are playing under new systems on each side of the ball. ANd they had no time to implement it and are doing so against an NFL schedule. I don't see how that can be argued.

They have a core of DBs and DL that has made the defense, well, mediocre until more talent can be added.

You can arge H & H keeping Mangini. I don't see it as unreasonable given what Mangini showed the year before. I do see how you could look at it and say they never were sticking him and wasted a year.

And Matt and e0y2e3 are right in that the fan base is willing to swallow whatever goo the team throws out there. But HooDoo, IMO, isn't doing that and defending this regime isn't a ridiculous notion when you look at the fact that if building through the draft is the way tey're going, they're off to a pretty decent start.

You can't fault H&H for the fuckups before them. I think it's reasonable to fault them for not getting their own guys in here a year ago and accelerating the process. But I understand they wanted to be make sure on Mangini (however misguided that may have been) like they want to find out about McCoy this season. They also likely looked ahead at this QB class coming out next spring and liked a lot a lot more guys as their potential QBs going forward than they liked Locker and Dalton, etc.

I see the logic. I also understand the frustration.

My $0.02

[Gradysmanldy]

I think (and i'm just guessing/devil's advocate here, since the lack of reasonable, cheap, easy to get depth options for OL/DB seems ridiculous, in hind sight) that the effect they are trying to get away with is three-fold.

1) Don't spend ANY money on proven talent in the first year, and fill EVERY position you can with low draft/UDFA. If you can fill 5 of these spots on offense with playas (Skrine, Patterson, Bernard, Norwood, Marecic, etc) then you can save that money for established guys in "year 2". (And clearly they viewed the previous year as a bonus year, else the Jayme Mitchell saga and drafting ONLY guys that fit the new scheme would have gone differently.....it's definitely year 1 on their clocks, regardless of what we think) Bringing in those depth options will have the same affect on the W-L if you do it next year, and you'll have the added benefit of PT for the scrubs, some of which will stick. Apparently.

2) Prior to this draft, it was supposed to be a terrible draft class. Dalton and Newton are making that observation seem off in the early going. Regardless, I could see waiting till "year 2" and the supposed depth of that class, without a pending lockout, to get "the guy" if Colt didn't step up.

3) Front load all your core pieces with the money you didn't spend on depth.

4) Statements the team made prior to the season suggested they felt they were going to improve, and the schedule alone will accomplish that feat and make the fans, if not happy, then satisfied enough to give them time to work.

I don't see anything other than what I expected when Mangini was canned. If anything, i'm pleasantly surprised.....the defense is much better than expected (middle of the pack in the NFL....9th overall in yards, where they will stay with the shite schedule) D-line is 1 quality starter and some depth away from being set for years, if Sheard continues to prove useful. (which he may not)

Every unit on the team is half flush. Add two more solid hits on FA, keep the current crew healthy, and add depth. (if you've heard that before, it's because we've said it every 2-3 years in every rebuild in the history of ever. We're incapable of believing a regime can hit on 3 straight years)

Again, i'm with you guys. Don't care if they get the weapons or the QB first, as long as the guys they get are GOOD and WORK with the system and they show improvement from year to year enough to build some stability. Still frustrating to watch the kids struggle and know that the experience would be better for us with reliable cheap talent.

[Gradysmanldy]

Or Four-Fold. Or Eight-Fold. Bye week analysis makes me goddamn head hurt, i'm ready for the Browns to get back out there and give us something to judge, rather than guess.

[mattvan1]

Red herring.

Doesn't matter when they decided - the 2010 draft was used to select players who were either scheme agnostic or fit the new scheme. Joe Haden is the same CB in a 4-3 or a 3-4. It's not as if they drafted a bunch of Jason Babin guys and then went "oops" we have to start over because we switched schemes.

Although that's what they would like us to believe.

All eleven guys on offense are playing in a new scheme under new coaches, the front seven on defense is playing in a new scheme in a new alignment under new coaches, but it's a red herring because the Back 4 on defense isn't impacted in the same way?

<--gives up

You were (at least I thought) argiung that the 2010 draft should not be counted as Year 1 of the H&H regime because they had to "start over" in 2011. My point is that from a talent acquisition standpoint, the players selected in 2010 fit any scheme (except Colt was "made" for the WCO).

If you want to argue that switching to the 4-3 mandated different priorities in the 2011 draft then I would tend to agree, but to say that 2010 "doesn't count" is absurd.

If that is what you were origianlly saying.

And fuck you Brian for being all Swiss and shit

[leadpipe]

Back to Luckapoalooza for a second.....

Watching how this unfolds is going to be really interesting. First off, he's the biggest prize in a long time, and to the crowd that says, "you never really know....." understood, however, if Luck busts EVERYBODY is wrong. Name the last QB you could say that about? Hell, people wanted Leaf over Manning, Alex Smith or Aaaron Rodgers, and on and on. Universal on Luck.

Now, combine this with the modern NFL and the QB position. Can't hit em' high, can't hit em' low. Go ahead and hold on the offensive line. D-backs - don't you dare brush a finger on the eligible receivers. The game is geared to, thereby controlled by the QB - FAR more now than ever. Who's gonna win the Super Bowl? Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers....not really the team - it'll be the QB. (I think it's funny how many people will say no way New England wins it with that defense, who is worst in the league against the pass, and than turn around and say Green Bay will repeat - who is second worst.) Get an A+ stud at QB - and you win. Period. And, it becoming a requirement.

So, with this in mind, one could argue that Andrew Luck is the most valuable pick in the history of the draft. Get him, and you're staring at 15 years of relevance - with many of them going beyond that. Which means of course, the money that comes along with it.

Make no mistake about it, teams are going to tank toward the end of the season. And, of course, not "tank" in an obvious manner, but they will tank. Interesting to see who.

By the way, I look at Miami as a pretty good favorite here. You've got a veteran team - who understand where their season was at 0-3. So they'll lack some of the bravado, and some of the desperation to keep a job - traits that might rally a more youthful squad. They've got a coach that they basically told was dead man walking before the season began, so, if the front office doesn't want the coach anyway, it'll be that much easier to let him twist in the wind. And now, they've got a first string QB hurt - and a guy that they wanted in the pre-season is now available. Do they go out and get Kyle Orton - or do they suddenly say, "we're looking quite forward to the Moore/Devlin era under center. My guess is they give it a go with what they have. And as the season wears on, and the veterans start to sit out games, they'll just ride it out with the rummys they got behind um.

And it's probably the correct thing to do.

And yes, you could make a case for the Colts, in the sense that the front office could shang hai Weekend at Bernie's III and he wouldn't even know it.

[hiko]

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!

For me, this pretty much sums up 90% of the angst.

[e0y2e3]

But I don't have any pain from Browns losses. I find it comical.

[mattvan1]

Back to Luckapoalooza for a second.....

Watching how this unfolds is going to be really interesting. First off, he's the biggest prize in a long time, and to the crowd that says, "you never really know....." understood, however, if Luck busts EVERYBODY is wrong. Name the last QB you could say that about? Hell, people wanted Leaf over Manning, Alex Smith or Aaaron Rodgers, and on and on. Universal on Luck.

Now, combine this with the modern NFL and the QB position. Can't hit em' high, can't hit em' low. Go ahead and hold on the offensive line. D-backs - don't you dare brush a finger on the eligible receivers. The game is geared to, thereby controlled by the QB - FAR more now than ever. Who's gonna win the Super Bowl? Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers....not really the team - it'll be the QB. (I think it's funny how many people will say no way New England wins it with that defense, who is worst in the league against the pass, and than turn around and say Green Bay will repeat - who is second worst.) Get an A+ stud at QB - and you win. Period. And, it becoming a requirement.

Why the NFL is on the road to making itself irrelevant over the next 15 years, summed up nicely in two well written paragraphs.

[HoodooMan]

I just guess you are going to have to explain why talent aquisition should be altered because they installed a new scheme

I'll answer the question you should have asked instead: What's the rationale behind new regimes being inactive in FA in Year 1?

My answer: I honestly don't really F'ing know. I just refuse to be bothered by it, because it seems to be standard operating procedure. There must be a GM handbook somewhere that insists that it be so. Some of the things Gradys mentioned make a little bit of sense, I guess, I could half-heartedly argue that they want to know for sure that Ex-regime's guys don't work in their new schemes before replacing them with vets that will, I could half-heartedly argue that they want to build as much of a core through the draft as possible before supplementing that with FAs...but I really don't know.

SHRUG!

Also, while I'm assuming we'll be more active in FA going forward (and based on our approach in 2010, I think that's likely), I guess there's also the possibility that H&H will insist on the hardest of hard roads and try to build exclusively through the draft like a PIT or IND--Terrell Owens was the only high profile FA I can remember off the top of my head in Philly while Heckert was there, and that isn't exactly the kind of experience that demands a change in philosophy--in which case, yeah, we may very well be looking at a 5 year plan...but I don't think that's going to happen.

You can arge H & H keeping Mangini. I don't see it as unreasonable given what Mangini showed the year before.

It was only reasonable if they could have gotten away with the BONUS DRAFT(!!!) before starting their new regime in earnest in 2011, but based on fan reaction, I'd say it's safe to say that they didn't.

Of course, this assumes there was a real choice there. All the IMPROVEMENT!1!1!!!-screeching mouth breathers would have mutinied had they canned Mangini after that legendary four-game win streak.

2) Prior to this draft, it was supposed to be a terrible draft class. Dalton and Newton are making that observation seem off in the early going. Regardless, I could see waiting till "year 2" and the supposed depth of that class, without a pending lockout, to get "the guy" if Colt didn't step up.

Yep.

Even some of the people in this thread--e0!!!--acknowledge out one side of their mouth that QBs are all that matter, then trash the org out the other side for not putting something better on the field to this point...despite having what opportunities at QB, exactly?

They were willing to give up way too much for Sam Bradford. (Thank God STL said no, and I'm skeeered to see what we end up offering to move up for Luck) Anyone wish we'd have jumped on Tebow? Clausen, maybe?

No sane person--hi, SD--would argue we passed on Newton, and while I guess the hindsight champs have at least three shots at a winner in Locker, Gabbert, and Ponder, anyone want to go ahead say they'd prefer any of the three (go ahead and take the field if you like!) to Taylor, Little, Marecic (sigh), and ATL's 1st & 4th next year?

Anyone? Anyone?

Also, fuck Andy Dalton.

If you want to argue that switching to the 4-3 mandated different priorities in the 2011 draft then I would tend to agree, but to say that 2010 "doesn't count" is absurd.

The draft counts, sure. But to pretend that anything prior to major coaching & scheme changes reflected a full blown regime change clockstarter seems completely disingenuous to me.

And yes, you could make a case for the Colts, in the sense that the front office could shang hai Weekend at Bernie's III and he wouldn't even know it.

I think it'll be interesting to see if Peyton's selfish enough to force a return this year to ensure the Colts don't get Luck.

[hiko]

But I don't have any pain from Browns losses. I find it comical.

Then we'll have to fit you into the percentage of angst that comes from people who just enjoys bitching about stuff and annoying others.

Which, upon reflection, might be the 90%.

[hiko]

Back to Luckapoalooza for a second.....

Watching how this unfolds is going to be really interesting. First off, he's the biggest prize in a long time, and to the crowd that says, "you never really know....." understood, however, if Luck busts EVERYBODY is wrong. Name the last QB you could say that about? Hell, people wanted Leaf over Manning, Alex Smith or Aaaron Rodgers, and on and on. Universal on Luck.

Now, combine this with the modern NFL and the QB position. Can't hit em' high, can't hit em' low. Go ahead and hold on the offensive line. D-backs - don't you dare brush a finger on the eligible receivers. The game is geared to, thereby controlled by the QB - FAR more now than ever. Who's gonna win the Super Bowl? Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers....not really the team - it'll be the QB. (I think it's funny how many people will say no way New England wins it with that defense, who is worst in the league against the pass, and than turn around and say Green Bay will repeat - who is second worst.) Get an A+ stud at QB - and you win. Period. And, it becoming a requirement.

Why the NFL is on the road to making itself irrelevant over the next 15 years, summed up nicely in two well written paragraphs.

Whether or not that is true, we shall see. I know that I personally don't like it one bit, but it hardly keeps me from watching.

Chicks dig the long ball and the forward pass.

Regardless, the reality is exactly that - you HAVE to have an A list QB to have a shot in today's NFL. Which is why I've been blabbing ad nauseum "If you don't have a Franchise QB, you need one".

That hole is the first and foremost one that you fill.

[e0y2e3]

I wouldn't say I enjoy bitching about things either.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I wouldn't say I enjoy bitching about things either.

Bullshit. You love the attention.

[mattvan1]

Whether or not that is true, we shall see. I know that I personally don't like it one bit, but it hardly keeps me from watching.

Chicks dig the long ball and the forward pass.

Regardless, the reality is exactly that - you HAVE to have an A list QB to have a shot in today's NFL. Which is why I've been blabbing ad nauseum "If you don't have a Franchise QB, you need one".

That hole is the first and foremost one that you fill.

We watch because it reminds us of Madden.

And the only problem with Franchise QBs is that there are not enough of them to go around. The NFL is starting to be a league of "Haves" and "Have-Nots" which has nothing to do with revenue. I am ceratin that people far smarter than me have already figured this out and at some point over the next couple of years I would hope to see small rule changes to bring things a bit back into balance.

There is nothing wrong with the NFL being a throwing league. But when it becomes a league of elite QBs are the only ones that can win.........

[leadpipe]

Whether or not that is true, we shall see. I know that I personally don't like it one bit, but it hardly keeps me from watching.

Chicks dig the long ball and the forward pass.

Regardless, the reality is exactly that - you HAVE to have an A list QB to have a shot in today's NFL. Which is why I've been blabbing ad nauseum "If you don't have a Franchise QB, you need one".

That hole is the first and foremost one that you fill.

We watch because it reminds us of Madden.

And the only problem with Franchise QBs is that there are not enough of them to go around. The NFL is starting to be a league of "Haves" and "Have-Nots" which has nothing to do with revenue. I am ceratin that people far smarter than me have already figured this out and at some point over the next couple of years I would hope to see small rule changes to bring things a bit back into balance.

There is nothing wrong with the NFL being a throwing league. But when it becomes a league of elite QBs are the only ones that can win.........

It's to the point now that you've got to get yourself a great one.

The days of having a nice squad, and then getting yourself "a good solid, competant signal caller" are over.

Take Colt as an example. The question shouldn't be, Can Colt become a good solid NFL QB, the question needs to be, Can Colt be a great NFL QB. Cause the former is better than bad, but it's winning you jack shit. And just using Colt as an example, not picking on the guy - just that the standards of a few years ago have changed.

[SoulDawg74]

I just guess you are going to have to explain why talent aquisition should be altered because they installed a new scheme

Hoo>

I'll answer the question you should have asked instead: What's the rationale behind new regimes being inactive in FA in Year 1?

SD:

You should have just answered his question , because your answer is not germaine as this is not their first year , or their first draft after saddling Mangy with all pure 43 aquisitions including two converted 43 backers under the guise they could transition to the 34 .

Hoodoo>

My answer: I honestly don't really F'ing know. I just refuse to be bothered by it, because it seems to be standard operating procedure. There must be a GM handbook somewhere that insists that it be so. Some of the things Gradys mentioned make a little bit of sense, I guess, I could half-heartedly argue that they want to know for sure that Ex-regime's guys don't work in their new schemes before replacing them with vets that will, I could half-heartedly argue that they want to build as much of a core through the draft as possible before supplementing that with FAs...but I really don't know.

SHRUG!

SD:

Well then since you admit ignorance as to why they proceeded so ignorantly in regard to a free agency period in which we could hae gotten healthy quite quickly on the cheap , then perhaps you should keep an open mind to theorems you haven't considered .

How did Spock say it , when all possible explanations have been exhausted then only the impossible explanation is left no matter how improbable.

Hoodoo >

Also, while I'm assuming we'll be more active in FA going forward (and based on our approach in 2010, I think that's likely), I guess there's also the possibility that H&H will insist on the hardest of hard roads and try to build exclusively through the draft like a PIT or IND--Terrell Owens was the only high profile FA I can remember off the top of my head in Philly while Heckert was there, and that isn't exactly the kind of experience that demands a change in philosophy--in which case, yeah, we may very well be looking at a 5 year plan...but I don't think that's going to happen.

SD:

Do the math , If Colt fails we draft a guy this year at #1 All number one picks get more than a year and on average take three to round into shape .

Thats why QB should have been secured this year not next.

You can arge H & H keeping Mangini. I don't see it as unreasonable given what Mangini showed the year before.

It was only reasonable if they could have gotten away with the BONUS DRAFT(!!!) before starting their new regime in earnest in 2011, but based on fan reaction, I'd say it's safe to say that they didn't.

Of course, this assumes there was a real choice there. All the IMPROVEMENT!1!1!!!-screeching mouth breathers would have mutinied had they canned Mangini after that legendary four-game win streak.

SD:

Yeah Butt , real leaders make that call , Pimps getting paid a $50 million large over a five year period including $10 million large his first year if he did anything or not , DON'T make a move.

He had a built in scapegoat in the Mangy one and a Mulligan as folks think this year is their first year .

2) Prior to this draft, it was supposed to be a terrible draft class. Dalton and Newton are making that observation seem off in the early going. Regardless, I could see waiting till "year 2" and the supposed depth of that class, without a pending lockout, to get "the guy" if Colt didn't step up.

Hoodoo

Yep.

Even some of the people in this thread--e0!!!--acknowledge out one side of their mouth that QBs are all that matter, then trash the org out the other side for not putting something better on the field to this point...despite having what opportunities at QB, exactly?

They were willing to give up way too much for Sam Bradford. (Thank God STL said no, and I'm skeeered to see what we end up offering to move up for Luck) Anyone wish we'd have jumped on Tebow? Clausen, maybe?

No sane person--hi, SD--would argue we passed on Newton, and while I guess the hindsight champs have at least three shots at a winner in Locker, Gabbert, and Ponder, anyone want to go ahead say they'd prefer any of the three (go ahead and take the field if you like!) to Taylor, Little, Marecic (sigh), and ATL's 1st & 4th next year?

Anyone? Anyone?

Also, fuck Andy Dalton.

SD:

I'll take Dalton at the price Cincy paid for him for what he's doing for $500 Alex .

Unlike Colt the second year lost sheep , Dalton is a rookie outplaying many a vet in this league and has changed the culture in Cincy with his rookie side kick Green .

The Bungles unlike the cheap ass Browns realize you hae to spend money on that position to compete in this league .

They drafted Dalton inspite of the fact they'd be paying Palmer an additional $10 million this year and he might not play.

The so called QB guru failed to properly scout Newton along with other so called ex spurts in this league , he came in his pants for a Bradford coming off a shoulder inury but never got out of his easy chair for Newton .

Moreover the second best scenario which I also suggested by name , Tennesses employed drafting Locker and securing a vet Hasselback who knew this system .

A Cleveland Browns team with a Hasselback training a Locker and a Mccoy would have been set for the next decade and it wouldn't have cost us jack shit.

Now year two in this farce , we're finally grasping the notion Colt may not be all that ,, with no viable alternative should he fail , butt to revisit next years draft and start afresh .

Which makes Eo's time table spot on for this dog and pony orchestrated fuck show Holmgren and Heckert are putting on.

If you want to argue that switching to the 4-3 mandated different priorities in the 2011 draft then I would tend to agree, but to say that 2010 "doesn't count" is absurd.

SD74 :

Amen to that

Hoodoo >

The draft counts, sure. But to pretend that anything prior to major coaching & scheme changes reflected a full blown regime change clockstarter seems completely disingenuous to me.

SD74:

Well if hamstringing a 34 coach with 43 personnel seems disingenuous , then so be it .

And yes, you could make a case for the Colts, in the sense that the front office could shang hai Weekend at Bernie's III and he wouldn't even know it.

I think it'll be interesting to see if Peyton's selfish enough to force a return this year to ensure the Colts don't get Luck.

SD:

The Colts are toast and so is Manning , the only reason he's not on IR is because of ticket sales , soon as they're mathematically eliminated that farce will be over .


SoulDawg

[Gradysmanldy]

SD:

The Colts are toast and so is Manning , the only reason he's not on IR is because of ticket sales , soon as they're mathematically eliminated that farce will be over .


SoulDawg

I'm guessing that the Colts or Miami will end up with the first overall pick, and THAT will be the deciding factor. Manning wants to be on the field, there's probably money based incentives for him to do so, and will try to get out there. That neck surgery is a mother though.

If the Colts have the first pick and a guarantee of Manning being healthy next year, betcha they swap that pick for a BOATLOAD (read: making the Ditka Williams trade look paltry) of picks. If Manning isn't a full go, they'll take Luck and....@#&$ them for having two of them.

[leadpipe]

SD:

The Colts are toast and so is Manning , the only reason he's not on IR is because of ticket sales , soon as they're mathematically eliminated that farce will be over .


SoulDawg

I'm guessing that the Colts or Miami will end up with the first overall pick, and THAT will be the deciding factor. Manning wants to be on the field, there's probably money based incentives for him to do so, and will try to get out there. That neck surgery is a mother though.

If the Colts have the first pick and a guarantee of Manning being healthy next year, betcha they swap that pick for a BOATLOAD (read: making the Ditka Williams trade look paltry) of picks. If Manning isn't a full go, they'll take Luck and....@#&$ them for having two of them.

No way in holy hell the Colts trade that pick.

Trading away a good chance of 15 more years of success? What package is bringin' that?

That pick will not be traded - by ANYONE.

[e0y2e3]

FTR: When I was ranting about the NFL turning into a bitch ass league where parity is a lie and only QBs matter last year people said I was overreacting.

Now everyone agrees w/ me? When the fuck did this happen?!

[swerb]

SD:

The Colts are toast and so is Manning , the only reason he's not on IR is because of ticket sales , soon as they're mathematically eliminated that farce will be over .


SoulDawg

I'm guessing that the Colts or Miami will end up with the first overall pick, and THAT will be the deciding factor. Manning wants to be on the field, there's probably money based incentives for him to do so, and will try to get out there. That neck surgery is a mother though.

If the Colts have the first pick and a guarantee of Manning being healthy next year, betcha they swap that pick for a BOATLOAD (read: making the Ditka Williams trade look paltry) of picks. If Manning isn't a full go, they'll take Luck and....@#&$ them for having two of them.

No way in holy hell the Colts trade that pick.

Trading away a good chance of 15 more years of success? What package is bringin' that?

That pick will not be traded - by ANYONE.

This

[pup]

SD:

The Colts are toast and so is Manning , the only reason he's not on IR is because of ticket sales , soon as they're mathematically eliminated that farce will be over .


SoulDawg

I'm guessing that the Colts or Miami will end up with the first overall pick, and THAT will be the deciding factor. Manning wants to be on the field, there's probably money based incentives for him to do so, and will try to get out there. That neck surgery is a mother though.

If the Colts have the first pick and a guarantee of Manning being healthy next year, betcha they swap that pick for a BOATLOAD (read: making the Ditka Williams trade look paltry) of picks. If Manning isn't a full go, they'll take Luck and....@#&$ them for having two of them.

No way in holy hell the Colts trade that pick.

Trading away a good chance of 15 more years of success? What package is bringin' that?

That pick will not be traded - by ANYONE.

This

Only possibility:

[Gradysmanldy]

So, they are going to leave Luck on the bench for 4-6 years? Manning is only 34 years old, still arguably in the back side of his prime. Still good 3-4 years left of super bowl contention in him. If there's health concerns there, I understand it.....but the guy has had some of the best protection in the league.

There's no chance Aaron Rodgers sits behind a THEN 34 year old Brett Favre if he comes into the league with Luck's pedigree. Would have been like Manning going to a team that still had Johnny Unitas....only at 34 years old. I'm trying to come up with a precedent for something like that happening.

LP, i'm agreeing with you and Swerb in principal.....i'm thinking St. Louis trades that pick, and I think it's 50/50 whether the Colts do, and it all hinges on the health outlook of #18. Ymmv.

[pod2dawg]

No they will keep Luck on the bench for 2-4 yrs. depending on Manning's health, while inserting him into the 4th quarter if the Colts are hammering people rather than worrying about padding Payton's numbers so much. They will then trade Manning or he will retire. Manning will also be given the opportunity to be a coach or coordinator.

Luck is just that good.

[SoulDawg74]

No they will keep Luck on the bench for 2-4 yrs. depending on Manning's health, while inserting him into the 4th quarter if the Colts are hammering people rather than worrying about padding Payton's numbers so much. They will then trade Manning or he will retire. Manning will also be given the opportunity to be a coach or coordinator.

Luck is just that good.

SD:

Miami and Indy are so bad we possibly see two teams beat the Detroit record , both have played our sorry asses and lost so not even that will help them.

Manning might never play again , the last guy with a neck injury with that many surgeries was Steve Grogan and his shelf life was less than Green tomatoes.

Nope beating the Rams and adding Quaaludes to their drinking water is our only shot at Luck :)

Barring the Rams winning Miracle , gimme the stud safety with our #1 pick from LSU , and Russell Wilson with Atlanta's pick , or vice versa depending on who we need to take off the board first .

Indy and Miami won't disappoint they're on a Cavaliers lottery pick blood trail.


SoulDawg

[leadpipe]

So, they are going to leave Luck on the bench for 4-6 years? Manning is only 34 years old, still arguably in the back side of his prime. Still good 3-4 years left of super bowl contention in him. If there's health concerns there, I understand it.....but the guy has had some of the best protection in the league.

There's no chance Aaron Rodgers sits behind a THEN 34 year old Brett Favre if he comes into the league with Luck's pedigree. Would have been like Manning going to a team that still had Johnny Unitas....only at 34 years old. I'm trying to come up with a precedent for something like that happening.

LP, i'm agreeing with you and Swerb in principal.....i'm thinking St. Louis trades that pick, and I think it's 50/50 whether the Colts do, and it all hinges on the health outlook of #18. Ymmv.

There isn't 3 or 4 years of Super Bowl contention left for him. They wouldn't be in contention this year with him. That's what whiffing the last 5 first rounds will do for you. Go back 3 -4 years and look at the difference across the board in talent level and youth - the difference is alarming.

Not to mention there's a SLIM chance he's as effective at 37-38 (with a major injury now on the resume) as he was in his 20's - and as I've explained in above posts, if he regresses to good, that ain't good enough anymore.

People refused to believe they'd unseat Montana, but age sure makes the decision easier if you've got a viable candidate to fill the spot.

Actually, you could make a case that the Colts are the PERFECT spot - (with a caveat on Manning being a willing teacher to Luck, and not a dick like Favre) two year tutelage, and on to Luck.

To be clear - THEY DON'T TRADE THAT PICK IN A MILLION YEARS.

[motherscratcher]

So, they are going to leave Luck on the bench for 4-6 years? Manning is only 34 years old, still arguably in the back side of his prime. Still good 3-4 years left of super bowl contention in him. If there's health concerns there, I understand it.....but the guy has had some of the best protection in the league.

There's no chance Aaron Rodgers sits behind a THEN 34 year old Brett Favre if he comes into the league with Luck's pedigree. Would have been like Manning going to a team that still had Johnny Unitas....only at 34 years old. I'm trying to come up with a precedent for something like that happening.

LP, i'm agreeing with you and Swerb in principal.....i'm thinking St. Louis trades that pick, and I think it's 50/50 whether the Colts do, and it all hinges on the health outlook of #18. Ymmv.

There isn't 3 or 4 years of Super Bowl contention left for him. They wouldn't be in contention this year with him. That's what whiffing the last 5 first rounds will do for you. Go back 3 -4 years and look at the difference across the board in talent level and youth - the difference is alarming.

Not to mention there's a SLIM chance he's as effective at 37-38 (with a major injury now on the resume) as he was in his 20's - and as I've explained in above posts, if he regresses to good, that ain't good enough anymore.

People refused to believe they'd unseat Montana, but age sure makes the decision easier if you've got a viable candidate to fill the spot.

Actually, you could make a case that the Colts are the PERFECT spot - (with a caveat on Manning being a willing teacher to Luck, and not a dick like Favre) two year tutelage, and on to Luck.

To be clear - THEY DON'T TRADE THAT PICK IN A MILLION YEARS.

I'm not even sure Manning tutelage will matter. It will help, sure, but it's not as if Favre being a douche has made Rogers any worse.

Talent wins out. Luck seems to have it in spades. Fuck Manning, he's old shit.

Damn I wish the Browns could land that dude.

[FUDU]

Lead I disagree that Manning's clock has ran out, barring lingering injury he still has 3 virtual AP years left, and Manning receding to good is probably still better than all but 3 QB's in the league by the time it happens.

However I do agree 100% that there is no way the Colts trade that pick away. Manning is one of the instrumental QB's that has reformed that position into the significant piece of the puzzle it is. That franchise knows all to well the opportunity staring it right in the face with the chance at Luck.

[pup]

Lead I disagree that Manning's clock has ran out, barring lingering injury he still has 3 virtual AP years left, and Manning receding to good is probably still better than all but 3 QB's in the league by the time it happens.

However I do agree 100% that there is no way the Colts trade that pick away. Manning is one of the instrumental QB's that has reformed that position into the significant piece of the puzzle it is. That franchise knows all to well the opportunity staring it right in the face with the chance at Luck.

The question Lead is raising is not whether a good Manning is still a very good QB. He would be.

What the Colts need is Manning to be All World Peyton to win a SB because they have been about as bad as the folks in Berea at drafting. That team sucks. They are an 11 win team with a great #18. And a 2 win team without him. So a very good #18 puts them around 8 or 9.

[leadpipe]

Lead I disagree that Manning's clock has ran out, barring lingering injury he still has 3 virtual AP years left, and Manning receding to good is probably still better than all but 3 QB's in the league by the time it happens.

However I do agree 100% that there is no way the Colts trade that pick away. Manning is one of the instrumental QB's that has reformed that position into the significant piece of the puzzle it is. That franchise knows all to well the opportunity staring it right in the face with the chance at Luck.

The question Lead is raising is not whether a good Manning is still a very good QB. He would be.

What the Colts need is Manning to be All World Peyton to win a SB because they have been about as bad as the folks in Berea at drafting. That team sucks. They are an 11 win team with a great #18. And a 2 win team without him. So a very good #18 puts them around 8 or 9.

Exactly.

Very good, is not good enough - especially with that squad.

I think Manning's career will run out (if they take care of the neck) much like the other greats, it's just that winning Super Bowls in your twilight - on saavy as much as talent - those day are gone.

Nothing against him, just that we're all beter at 28 than 38. He'll be no different.

Again, as I mentioned above, you could put "aging great" along with "competant signal caller/game manager on a good team." In past years you could win it all with someone from those two groups, with today's rules - good luck.

[peeker643]

Lead I disagree that Manning's clock has ran out, barring lingering injury he still has 3 virtual AP years left, and Manning receding to good is probably still better than all but 3 QB's in the league by the time it happens.

However I do agree 100% that there is no way the Colts trade that pick away. Manning is one of the instrumental QB's that has reformed that position into the significant piece of the puzzle it is. That franchise knows all to well the opportunity staring it right in the face with the chance at Luck.

The question Lead is raising is not whether a good Manning is still a very good QB. He would be.

What the Colts need is Manning to be All World Peyton to win a SB because they have been about as bad as the folks in Berea at drafting. That team sucks. They are an 11 win team with a great #18. And a 2 win team without him. So a very good #18 puts them around 8 or 9.

Exactly.

He's clearly the difference-maker on that team but he's nowhere close to the difference-maker he needs to be anymore. Look at the last three years even before the injury at the regression.

[FUDU]

To that I agree completely. He's good enough to make their pass catchers work fine but they need (and have needed) improvements around him in order to contend for a ring the past couple years (OL is overrated, need RB, and their D always needs a piece). Their HC is also not helping, TD might not have been Bill Walsh but he was head & shoulders more capable than JC.

[sonoranreptile]

What good does it do this team to land any talent when they never want to hang around for more than 18 months??????

[peeker643]

What good does it do this team to land any talent when they never want to hang around for more than 18 months??????

Can you specify which of the talented guys got away?

[pup]

What good does it do this team to land any talent when they never want to hang around for more than 18 months??????

Can you specify which of the talented guys got away?

Duh. Cliff Lee.

[SoulDawg74]

Lead I disagree that Manning's clock has ran out, barring lingering injury he still has 3 virtual AP years left, and Manning receding to good is probably still better than all but 3 QB's in the league by the time it happens.

However I do agree 100% that there is no way the Colts trade that pick away. Manning is one of the instrumental QB's that has reformed that position into the significant piece of the puzzle it is. That franchise knows all to well the opportunity staring it right in the face with the chance at Luck.

The question Lead is raising is not whether a good Manning is still a very good QB. He would be.

What the Colts need is Manning to be All World Peyton to win a SB because they have been about as bad as the folks in Berea at drafting. That team sucks. They are an 11 win team with a great #18. And a 2 win team without him. So a very good #18 puts them around 8 or 9.

Exactly.

He's clearly the difference-maker on that team but he's nowhere close to the difference-maker he needs to be anymore. Look at the last three years even before the injury at the regression.

SD:

Look at all those choking performances in the clutch with the game on the line when the Colts needed him to step up and make the difference .

If Rex Grossman doesn't out choke him , Manning would whup Meebron James for the most overrated choke artist of our era.


SoulDawg