Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup
by Prosecutor » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:19 am
by comish » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:14 am
by justmebd » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:16 am
by jerryroche » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:00 am
by Gradysmanldy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:06 am
jerryroche wrote:The overriding impression that fans are getting is that Holmgren and Heckert believe they're the smartest guys in the room. They've hit on some nice choices that were considered unconventional at the time (Sheard, Taylor, Ward), but they've also missed badly on others (Marecic and Hardesty being the poster children).
With so many unconventional draft choices this year, their reputations are hanging in the balance. No worry for Holmgren, who can retire a wealthy man at any time. But Heckert is still young and has a lot to lose.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but I agree with Peeker: Their time to give us a winner is running out.
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:38 am
Prosecutor wrote:http://www.theclevelandfan.com/cleveland-browns/1-browns-archive/9397-the-weekend-wrap
The Browns were well aware that if they did not re-sign Hillis they would have to use a valuable draft pick on a RB. They didn't even make him an offer, if I'm not mistaken. They had a chance to see this guy every day for two years and didn't want him back, even after he had the best season any Browns back has had STR. To label that decision as a mistake is premature, IMO.
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:03 am
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:03 am

by FUDU » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:13 am
JCoz wrote:To me hiring Paddy and keeping Mangini for a year too long look like the most egrigous errors in hindsight. 1000x more detrimental to the franchise IMO.
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:15 am
JCoz wrote:McCoy was a bottom of the 3rd round QB pick. He is what you get when you draft 2nd/3rd tier QB prospects.
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:24 am
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:31 am
peeker643 wrote:And if people are going to get cramps over Hillis just change the name to Hardesty.
He cost far more and was a far bigger fuck-up.
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:33 am
Like I said, bitch all you want about the draft, this really comes down to Mike keeping Mangini, and then hiring Paddy, then drafting Weeden.
by comish » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:34 am
peeker643 wrote:JCoz wrote:McCoy was a bottom of the 3rd round QB pick. He is what you get when you draft 2nd/3rd tier QB prospects.
But it all turned around Thursday. I'm sure they needed to spend four picks on a RB and that their intel was Weeden was gone at 23 to one of the teams that had already passed him up or didn't need him at all and were interested in a 29 yr old with no NFL experience to backup someone else.
There was one team in the league that wanted Weeden there. That team got him.
Although, I heard last week many times that Lane is the expert and isn't wrong. He said the Browns didn't have Weeden as 1st round material.
First time ever Lane's wrong or did they reach? Simple question really.
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:44 am
comish wrote:peeker643 wrote:JCoz wrote:McCoy was a bottom of the 3rd round QB pick. He is what you get when you draft 2nd/3rd tier QB prospects.
But it all turned around Thursday. I'm sure they needed to spend four picks on a RB and that their intel was Weeden was gone at 23 to one of the teams that had already passed him up or didn't need him at all and were interested in a 29 yr old with no NFL experience to backup someone else.
There was one team in the league that wanted Weeden there. That team got him.
Although, I heard last week many times that Lane is the expert and isn't wrong. He said the Browns didn't have Weeden as 1st round material.
First time ever Lane's wrong or did they reach? Simple question really.
Again, it doesn't matter that they took him in the first round, it doesn't. They got the RT they were targetting next anyway. Unless you think Weeden would have been there with their 3rd round pick OR you just hate the idea of drafting Weeden period. Would you have been upset had they drafted Schwartz (22) and then Weeden at 37?
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:27 pm
JCoz wrote:I just think you are too focused on the draft. He was the thrid pick in that 3rd round. come on, that shit is moot.
by Fire Marshall Bill » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:32 pm
Hikohadon wrote:Fuck Peyton Hillis.
Fuck that guy every which way. For every reason you can think of, fuck that guy.
That's all the effort I feel like giving to a Peyton Hillis discussion.
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:41 pm
peeker643 wrote:JCoz wrote:I just think you are too focused on the draft. He was the thrid pick in that 3rd round. come on, that shit is moot.
The point is that guys that are paid handsomely to make these selections would have been (and were) wrong about that guy they took regardless of the round.
A third round McCoy selection was an egregious error. A 6th round McCoy selection would have been slightly less egregious but still the wrong choice. Which ultimately forces your hand in this draft to reach for a QB you likely wouldn't have reached for otherwise.
That's my issue in general.
by FUDU » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:43 pm
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:57 pm
FUDU wrote:I can see peeker's point in that this regime has created two of the bigger holes they had going into this draft. They weren't holes created from the inevitable good player's careers ending or not wanting to pay a high price to retain your own FA.
by FUDU » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:04 pm
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:05 pm
peeker643 wrote:A third round McCoy selection was an egregious error. A 6th round McCoy selection would have been slightly less egregious but still the wrong choice. Which ultimately forces your hand in this draft to reach for a QB you likely wouldn't have reached for otherwise.
That's my issue in general.
by comish » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:22 pm
FUDU wrote:
Heckert seems to have accumulated some players while he's been here, yet nothing to show for it.
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:29 pm
FUDU wrote:Fair enough, I think them not addressing those holes correctly puts them on the clock as being responsible for having those holes THIS year though.
So yeah, I get the attitude toward thinking this regime has suddenly "figured it out".
Heckert seems to have accumulated some players while he's been here, yet nothing to show for it.
by CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:31 pm

by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:33 pm
comish wrote:FUDU wrote:
Heckert seems to have accumulated some players while he's been here, yet nothing to show for it.
Which may be even more of an indication as to how bad things were from a talent standpoint before Heckert got here.
Seems to me that he has had two decent drafts already leading into this one...there were some misses, but overall he has done pretty ok.
by Gradysmanldy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:53 pm
CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:I agree wholeheartedly with Peeker's take. Too many people are exulting in the fact that they filled QB/RB/RT, ignoring why and how they were done. Its as if the Hughes pick was made to make the other picks look better in comparison.
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:05 pm
JCoz wrote:peeker643 wrote:A third round McCoy selection was an egregious error. A 6th round McCoy selection would have been slightly less egregious but still the wrong choice. Which ultimately forces your hand in this draft to reach for a QB you likely wouldn't have reached for otherwise.
That's my issue in general.
Peek, if you are going to call missed 3rd round draft picks egregious errors, then your standards are too far out of whack to have a rational conversation about it.
Taking developmental QB Prospects in the bottom of the third round, just ain't that big a miss in the grand scheme of things. They didn't take the guy to be starting a couple months later, that's just the way it worked out.
I mean dont get me wrong, by and large taking any QB prospect outside the top couple prospects is generally a shit-canned pick, and a mistake that seems to be something done by alot of teams over time. Some people thought McCoy could be a 1st round draft pick and they thought they were getting good value and were fooled in that. And when the kid got a shot, I think a MAJORITY of people ended up either cautiously or overly optimistic regarding his future prospects as an NFL starting QB.
If you want to argue that NFL teams should never take 2nd tier and below QB prospects before the 6th round then fine, but to call it an "egregious" error considering that 3rd round picks in general have exponentially less potential to develop into stars at ANY position...is just harping on the wrong things IMO.
Like I said I agree these guys have fucked up plenty, but this soap box about Hardesty, Colt, and Hillis is just not where the meat is IMO.
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:24 pm
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:26 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:34 pm
Hikohadon wrote:In yet another vain attempt at logic...
You don't assume that there was a trade partner. You don't assume there wasn't. Could there have been? Yes. Did they get fooled? Did they make a great move? No one knows. Stupid to assume either way.
Fact - they wanted Richardson and they got him.
There is certainly no doubt that they have made some poor choices in the draft past. Everyone does. They have also made some good ones.
Fucking wasting my breath... as long as the Browns continue to lose, every move they make is "the wrong one" and no one will be able to see anything other than the mistakes they've made.
PS - 28 is definitely closer to 27 than 30.
PSS - Fuck Hillis.
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:38 pm
comish wrote:peeker643 wrote:JCoz wrote:McCoy was a bottom of the 3rd round QB pick. He is what you get when you draft 2nd/3rd tier QB prospects.
But it all turned around Thursday. I'm sure they needed to spend four picks on a RB and that their intel was Weeden was gone at 23 to one of the teams that had already passed him up or didn't need him at all and were interested in a 29 yr old with no NFL experience to backup someone else.
There was one team in the league that wanted Weeden there. That team got him.
Although, I heard last week many times that Lane is the expert and isn't wrong. He said the Browns didn't have Weeden as 1st round material.
First time ever Lane's wrong or did they reach? Simple question really.
Again, it doesn't matter that they took him in the first round, it doesn't. They got the RT they were targetting next anyway. Unless you think Weeden would have been there with their 3rd round pick OR you just hate the idea of drafting Weeden period. Would you have been upset had they drafted Schwartz (22) and then Weeden at 37?
by comish » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:57 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:15 pm
comish wrote:The fact they didn't address the WR situation adequately is more due to the fact they had too many situations to address adequately than to their inadequacies of addressing situations.
by comish » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:35 pm
peeker643 wrote:comish wrote:The fact they didn't address the WR situation adequately is more due to the fact they had too many situations to address adequately than to their inadequacies of addressing situations.
And the issue I have is if they weren't so inadequate all the time they wouldn't have so many holes to fill that they can't do it.![]()
It's also made more difficult when you're trading additional picks to move up a spot and additional picks to take a RB with one ligament hoping the NFL is the place where he'll suddenly not be injury prone.
Or when you're using valuable resources to draft a less than physical FB to fill the spot of a cheap and far more capable FB.
Those aren't two isolated instances either.
It's easy to say they got the guys they wanted and justify it that way. I'd be far more comfortable if the Browns actually got guys other teams wanted instead of leaving them on the table. Because at the end of the day the Browns are the Browns precisely because they've gotten the guys they wanted.
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm
peeker643 wrote:He's closer to 29 than 28. That puts him closer to 30 than 27 Mr. Shurmur![]()
Everything's fine. I'm sure of it. Thursday they flipped the scripts 180* and started making the proper decisions.
by motherscratcher » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:31 pm
comish wrote:I understand your point....letting Vickers walk in retrospect was epic fail at its finest
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Hikohadon wrote:peeker643 wrote:He's closer to 29 than 28. That puts him closer to 30 than 27 Mr. Shurmur![]()
Everything's fine. I'm sure of it. Thursday they flipped the scripts 180* and started making the proper decisions.
OK, you might need to either clarify your calculations or maybe take a 1st grade refresher course, since he's currently 28, will be all year. As he was 27 until 10/14/2011 and won't turn 30 until 10/14/2013, that means he's 199 days from 27 and 532 days from 30. In the Akron area, 199 < 532... well, I think you get the point.
Now if you want to say he's closer to his 30th birthday than his 27th birthday, that would work. It's almost equidistant, but technically true. But I'm sure it just sounded better the way you originally put it as it pertained to trying to make your point.
Is everything fine? No. I don't know who you think is blowing sunshine up your ass. I know that when people finally lose perspective they won't hear anything that isn't a total outright condemnation. Yes, the Browns probably made some mistakes in this draft, just like they do every draft, just like every team does in every draft.
If not enough of these players pan out, they will suck again and they will lose their jobs. If they do, then they've improved the team at essential positions.

by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:26 pm
JCoz wrote:Hikohadon wrote:peeker643 wrote:He's closer to 29 than 28. That puts him closer to 30 than 27 Mr. Shurmur![]()
Everything's fine. I'm sure of it. Thursday they flipped the scripts 180* and started making the proper decisions.
OK, you might need to either clarify your calculations or maybe take a 1st grade refresher course, since he's currently 28, will be all year. As he was 27 until 10/14/2011 and won't turn 30 until 10/14/2013, that means he's 199 days from 27 and 532 days from 30. In the Akron area, 199 < 532... well, I think you get the point.
Now if you want to say he's closer to his 30th birthday than his 27th birthday, that would work. It's almost equidistant, but technically true. But I'm sure it just sounded better the way you originally put it as it pertained to trying to make your point.
Is everything fine? No. I don't know who you think is blowing sunshine up your ass. I know that when people finally lose perspective they won't hear anything that isn't a total outright condemnation. Yes, the Browns probably made some mistakes in this draft, just like they do every draft, just like every team does in every draft.
If not enough of these players pan out, they will suck again and they will lose their jobs. If they do, then they've improved the team at essential positions.
Its one of Peeks favorite rituals...to make up a seemingly gigantic segment of make believe fans who all in concert believe something he thinks is utterly ridiculous, so he can go on a soapbox about why they are idiots or hypocrites or whatnot...
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:48 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:56 pm
JCoz wrote:I'm all good here Peeks. Im fairly well adjusted your shtick at this point. I neither think that "everyone" is picking on the buckeyes nor do I think that the process in the berea brain trust is on point. So "all us phuckwads" only serves to comically illustrate the point I just made regarding your MO when it comes to your tirades/lectures. Just like was admitted to today, holmgren seems to be giving the browns a big ole taste of his GM skills and it's far from my opinion that that is a good thing.
Hope he's right, that's -probably- best case scenario, second best is that he wrong on an epic scale so that it flushes this regime out quickly. It is what it is at this point. It's def not what I would have done.
But please, carry on, maybe if you bitch and whine enough they will fire them all before the season starts, you think? Or maybe we can get a fan-driven do over?
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:59 pm
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:08 pm

by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:10 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:lol. "Shtick".
If only it was.
Really funny article though. Good read like always.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:11 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:13 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:That's how you respond to a compliment?
Uncouth Irish..........
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:24 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:26 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:That's better.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:28 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:36 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Absolutely.
Maybe a bit vulgar, but who am I to judge?
Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL
Users browsing this forum: gbot and 1 guest
