Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup
by comish » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:56 am
by OldDawg » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:15 am

by comish » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:21 am
by swerb » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:26 am
by andrew6586 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:38 am
by OldDawg » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:51 am

by Fire Marshall Bill » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:02 am
by Gradysmanldy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:13 pm
OldDawg wrote:You can make a case that every significant pick was a reach:
TR: Could have gotten him at 4 without losing picks?
....And even if we lose TR, Blackmon was a huge need.
Weeden: Could have gotten him at 37, and addressed WR or OL at 22
Schwartz: Higher rated tackles available at the time
Hughes: Never mind
I like 3 of these 4 players, but all may have been drafted too high.
And how do you not seriously address possibly your biggest need, WR, in a draft that was thought to be deep there.
Time will tell
by justmebd » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:04 pm
by Hikohadon » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:29 pm
swerb wrote:D
Hoodwinked by the Vikings. And for a team like the Browns with no depth, giving up three picks is no chump change.
by Fire Marshall Bill » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:30 pm
by Hikohadon » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:41 pm
OldDawg wrote:Schwartz: Higher rated tackles available at the time
by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:25 pm
justmebd wrote:C-
I'm still trying to figure out who was going to trade ahead of Cleveland at 37 to take Weeden, and I'm coming up with nothing. Taking Weeden at 22 was a message to McCoy and the fans From that arrogant ass Holmgren that Weeden is the starter, nothing more.
When you're using first-round picks to send messages, it means you're not focusing on improving the team to win a Super Bowl. Nothing against Weeden, I'm hoping he's a star here for the next 5-10 years, but we would've been better off taking DeCastro at 22 and getting Weeden in the second round. My opinion, I could be wrong.
Love all the Wide Receivers we took high in the draft . . . wait, nevermind.
Start scouting WRs this year, the Browns will be targeting one in the first round next year after Weeden has 500 passes dropped this year. Although I'm sure Holmgren will find some way to blame that on Colt McCoy's father.
by Hikohadon » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:34 pm
by Xukuth » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:57 pm
by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:00 pm
Xukuth wrote:Report cards are given for results, not anticipation of results.
by comish » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:12 pm
Xukuth wrote:Report cards are given for results, not anticipation of results.
by justmebd » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:25 pm
motherscratcher wrote:justmebd wrote:C-
I'm still trying to figure out who was going to trade ahead of Cleveland at 37 to take Weeden, and I'm coming up with nothing. Taking Weeden at 22 was a message to McCoy and the fans From that arrogant ass Holmgren that Weeden is the starter, nothing more.
When you're using first-round picks to send messages, it means you're not focusing on improving the team to win a Super Bowl. Nothing against Weeden, I'm hoping he's a star here for the next 5-10 years, but we would've been better off taking DeCastro at 22 and getting Weeden in the second round. My opinion, I could be wrong.
Love all the Wide Receivers we took high in the draft . . . wait, nevermind.
Start scouting WRs this year, the Browns will be targeting one in the first round next year after Weeden has 500 passes dropped this year. Although I'm sure Holmgren will find some way to blame that on Colt McCoy's father.
Dude, you need to take a walk around the block, grab a beer, and relax, because you've obviously fried some wiring at some point. You cannot possibly believe this.
Reread what you just wrote. You wrote that the Browns could have had Weeden at 37 and knew they could have had him there for sure. But, instead they chose to take him at 22 because it sends a message to Colt McCoy.
Again, you are saying they picked Weeden so that McCoy gets the message. I'm not sure what message they felt they needed to send, but that was the purpose of the pick.
I think the entire city of Cleveland needs to take a vacation to Jamaica or something.
by bac5665 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:27 pm
by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:29 pm
justmebd wrote:
I think it came out wrong because I'm not upset in the way you think I am. I'm more upset about losing out on a guy like DeCastro than I am taking Weeden higher than I think we needed to.
Not a fan of Holmgren because I think his ego will not bring this team a Super Bowl, but I've resigned myself to the reality nothing probably will change until we have new ownership. Some of that frustration probably is bleeding out.
The only thing I'm really upset about is the fact WR just didn't get addressed properly.
. . . and I did drink several beers last night. I was going to drink scotch, but funds are kind of low right now and I wasn't raised to drink cheap scotch.
by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:44 pm
by CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:09 pm

by Hikohadon » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:31 pm
by CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:45 pm

by Madre Hill, Superstar » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:56 pm
Hikohadon wrote:Little and Cribbs/Mo start. Norwood and Benjamin see a lot of time on the field too.

by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:57 pm
CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:Put another way: entering the 2013 draft, would you prefer Schwartz (the assumed best of the remaining RT bunch) + Travis Benjamin, or one of the lesser aforementioned RTs + Stephen Hill? The former pair leaves you with a RT but a hole at WR to fill in that draft; the latter hopefully lets you concentrate on other positions of need.
by Madre Hill, Superstar » Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:09 pm

by FUDU » Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:32 pm
Hikohadon wrote:The Browns were NEVER for one instant considering taking a Guard (DiCastro) at that 22 pick. If Weeden were beamed up by aliens the day before the draft, the Browns STILL weren't going to take DiCastro.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:12 pm
Fire Marshall Bill wrote:Every team in the division improved more than the Browns improved....
That's my take and I'll stick to it
by FUDU » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:19 pm
by Gradysmanldy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:53 pm
Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:Hikohadon wrote:Little and Cribbs/Mo start. Norwood and Benjamin see a lot of time on the field too.
Given Heckgrin's pursuit of Floyd and Wright, I'm thinking the future plan is TheGuy and Little start with Norwood, Benjamin, and MoMass fighting it out for slot and fourth. Which is why they didn't grab anyone between Wright and Benjamin, if they're going for a starting WR they want him to be The Guy and not another #2 or #3.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:55 pm
FUDU wrote:In terms of reviewing the draft just hours after it ends I'm with JB.
They didn't just address 3 major needs, they attacked those needs. Sure every single player could under achieve but that isn't necessarily what makes a draft grade. For once, in what feels like a very long time, they seemed to set up a straight forward plan AND they executed it. We just have to hope Heckert and his scouts are correct about these particular players, so far Heckert and his crew have a respectable track record so there is a little reason for optimism.
by Gradysmanldy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:57 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:FUDU wrote:In terms of reviewing the draft just hours after it ends I'm with JB.
They didn't just address 3 major needs, they attacked those needs. Sure every single player could under achieve but that isn't necessarily what makes a draft grade. For once, in what feels like a very long time, they seemed to set up a straight forward plan AND they executed it. We just have to hope Heckert and his scouts are correct about these particular players, so far Heckert and his crew have a respectable track record so there is a little reason for optimism.
Yeah..... they attacked them, like a goddamn puma cat.

by Cerebral_DownTime » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:12 pm
by Gradysmanldy » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:17 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Don't you ever try and tell me anything about goddamn Puma cats.
I'm the master.
I wrote Holmgren and told him he should use a live goddamn Puma Cat during training camp. Running around stupid little cones and tires is one thing, running for your life will teach you something.
He didn't respond.
by FUDU » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:47 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:52 pm
by OldDawg » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:35 pm
motherscratcher wrote:There seems to be a lot of consternation about the lack of attention payed to the WR corp in the draft. I get that, but I think it's a bit overblown.
The Browns had 4 gaping holes to fill and 3 picks to fill them. They needed a WR, QB, RT, and RB. I do think that RB is the least important of those to fill, but in this draft, with what was available at #4, it's hard to argue with the conclusion that TR is the right pick in that spot.
As far as QB, it was addressed with the best QB option that was realistically available to them.
That leaves 1 pick to address both RT and WR. If they had gone with Hill instead of Schwartz there would no doubt be a lot of teeth gnashing about the swinging door on the right side of the line that hasn't been addressed in 3 years.
So, 4 holes...3 picks. What else can be done?
Unless they trade down from #4, but where o they go to add another 2nd rounder? If they trade with Dallas maybe they end up with something along the lines of Reiff, Weeden, Martin, and Hill. That's not bad, but none of those are the supposed transcendent talent that TR is.
Truth be told, I think that if you have one spot to fill a hole between RT and WR, I fill the RT spot.
A better line, better QB, and better running game does have the potential to make the previously intolerable receiving corp tolerable.
There's nothing that can make the the Cousins/Pashos/moundofrefriedbeans right side tolerable if that position isn't addressed early in the draft.
I think they made the right call.

by CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:42 pm
motherscratcher wrote:CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:Put another way: entering the 2013 draft, would you prefer Schwartz (the assumed best of the remaining RT bunch) + Travis Benjamin, or one of the lesser aforementioned RTs + Stephen Hill? The former pair leaves you with a RT but a hole at WR to fill in that draft; the latter hopefully lets you concentrate on other positions of need.
Maybe, but it's not like people are exactly writing odes to the current 3rd and 4th round selections starting at guard. I'm not sure why you are assuming that if the Browns went Hill and took a RT in the 3/4th that the problem is solved.

by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:35 pm
OldDawg wrote:What else can be done?
How about not trade down in the 4th round. And then don't draft possibly the worst player selected in any round with that now-even-lower 4th round pick. At a position where there was no great need.
Instead, how about even possibly trading up with that 4th. I don't even care how far you trae up... just up. And then actually draft the best WR available with that now-higher pick.
That's clearly what else can be done.
And there are two kinds of NFL people right now that result from that transgression.
1) Cleveland fans that are once again bewildered about crap like this.
2) The rest of the NFL people that are laughing their collective heads off at the Browns.
I mean, did Hughes's mom have some incriminating pictures of Holmgren or something? That's what inquiring minds want to know.
by e0y2e3 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:42 pm

by Prosecutor » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:43 pm
by motherscratcher » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:51 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:WR is the slowest developing position in the NFL, which makes both of your arguments silly and a waste of bandwidth.
Instant impact WRs are rare to say the least.
by FUDU » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:53 pm

by OldDawg » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:49 am
motherscratcher wrote:OldDawg wrote:What else can be done?
How about not trade down in the 4th round. And then don't draft possibly the worst player selected in any round with that now-even-lower 4th round pick. At a position where there was no great need.
Instead, how about even possibly trading up with that 4th. I don't even care how far you trae up... just up. And then actually draft the best WR available with that now-higher pick.
That's clearly what else can be done.
And there are two kinds of NFL people right now that result from that transgression.
1) Cleveland fans that are once again bewildered about crap like this.
2) The rest of the NFL people that are laughing their collective heads off at the Browns.
I mean, did Hughes's mom have some incriminating pictures of Holmgren or something? That's what inquiring minds want to know.
*I assume you meant the 3rd, not the 4th.
Yeah, that's great. The old, "we should have traded up and got our receiver!" argument. Of course you neglect to tell us how far to trade up, who we would pick, and how it's a clear upgrade over what we already have.
So I did a little digging.
In 2010 and 2011 I took a quick look at the receivers selected in mid 2nd through the 3rd rounds to see what kind of guy we could expect to get there. Most of them had receptions in the 50-60 range with total yards in the 600-700 range.
39th pick Arrelius Benn had 23 starts over 2 seasons.
78th pick Brandon LaFell had only 7 starts but 74 receptions for 1081 yards over 2 seasons.
88th pick Andre Roberts had 18 starts and 75 /893 over 2 seasons
58th pick Torrey Smith had 14 starts and 50/841
These guys were the top performers. Most picks have performed well below those numbers.
Mohammed Massequoi over the last 2 seasons had 27 starts and 67/867
This is not an example of me singing the praises of MoMass. He clearly needs to be upgraded. This is me trying to explain that the number one receiver that we want to match up with Greg Little is probably not coming in the mid 2nd-3rd rounds.
Sure, maybe we could have traded up (we have no way of knowing if they thought about it, if they tried, or what the cost would be) and snatched Alshon Jeffery, Ryan Broyles, or Rueben Randle...the receivers that were selected in the second round.
We could have stayed at 67 and picked DeVier Posey, TJ Graham, or Mohamed Sanu.
We could have traded back and still picked Ty Hilton.
But you know what those guys most likely are?...Most likely those guys are Mohammed Massequoi.
I'm not excusing the Hughes pick. It was a confusing mind fuck of a stupid pick. I'd much rather have any of those receivers I just mentioned on the roster. What I'm not going to do is pretend we just passed over Larry Fitzgerald.
What I'm railing against here is the idea that the draft is completely fucked because we didn't address the WR situation by trading up to the mid 2nd or 3rd round.
Because the answer to all of our prays and solution to all of our problems was probably not sitting there to be taken. A #2/#3 receiver is a nice valuable asset. But we have those. What we need is a #1 receiver.
So, I ask you...which of those guys is the man?

by Gradysmanldy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:55 am
by justmebd » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:04 am
by Gradysmanldy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:07 am
by justmebd » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:12 am
Gradysmanldy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hughes_(filmmaker)
by motherscratcher » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:01 am
OldDawg wrote:Damn, MS, you win. I am not willing to do that kind of digging. I mean, is there any reasonable reason why we take Hughes as opposed to the best WR on your board. We agree. The Hughes pick still sucks. And if you want to make me feel better about drafting a DT, how about he be rated in the top 25 of all DTs in the draft.
Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest
