Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup
by Hikohadon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:41 pm
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:05 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:24 pm
by CleSportsTruth » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:31 pm
JCoz wrote:#4 - Stay at 4, draft Richardson if there, Claiborne if not. Obviously as I said before the draft, I would have been trying to trade with St Louis who wanted Blackmon or Kalil if that scenario happened, but that is moot for this excercise.
#22 - De Castro if I got T-Rich, Reiff if I got Claiborne.
#37 - Jon Martin (T Rich) Stephen Hill (Claiborne)
#67 - Best Available WR (T Rich) Lammar Miller (if I got Claiborne)or I would have thought long and hard if Weeden was still available, which I suspect with 20/20 hindsight he very well may have been. I think I would have taken him.
Its hard to do this honestly knowing the results, I did the best I could. I def can't say I would have considered Weeden before the third.

by gotribe31 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:37 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:JCoz wrote:#4 - Stay at 4, draft Richardson if there, Claiborne if not. Obviously as I said before the draft, I would have been trying to trade with St Louis who wanted Blackmon or Kalil if that scenario happened, but that is moot for this excercise.
#22 - De Castro if I got T-Rich, Reiff if I got Claiborne.
#37 - Jon Martin (T Rich) Stephen Hill (Claiborne)
#67 - Best Available WR (T Rich) Lammar Miller (if I got Claiborne)or I would have thought long and hard if Weeden was still available, which I suspect with 20/20 hindsight he very well may have been. I think I would have taken him.
Its hard to do this honestly knowing the results, I did the best I could. I def can't say I would have considered Weeden before the third.
So, let's review this Claiborne strategy: After the first round, you'd have added... ZERO offensive playmakers. At 37, you get the FOURTH best WR. And at 67, you get the FOURTH RB. And here I could have sworn the 2011 Browns' offense was hideously unwatchable.

by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:43 pm
by swerb » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:51 pm
by JCoz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:54 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:JCoz wrote:#4 - Stay at 4, draft Richardson if there, Claiborne if not. Obviously as I said before the draft, I would have been trying to trade with St Louis who wanted Blackmon or Kalil if that scenario happened, but that is moot for this excercise.
#22 - De Castro if I got T-Rich, Reiff if I got Claiborne.
#37 - Jon Martin (T Rich) Stephen Hill (Claiborne)
#67 - Best Available WR (T Rich) Lammar Miller (if I got Claiborne)or I would have thought long and hard if Weeden was still available, which I suspect with 20/20 hindsight he very well may have been. I think I would have taken him.
Its hard to do this honestly knowing the results, I did the best I could. I def can't say I would have considered Weeden before the third.
So, let's review this Claiborne strategy: After the first round, you'd have added... ZERO offensive playmakers. At 37, you get the FOURTH best WR. And at 67, you get the FOURTH RB. And here I could have sworn the 2011 Browns' offense was hideously unwatchable.
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:00 pm
swerb wrote:I would have, from day one, let Minnesota know that the top two players on my board were TRich and Kalil, and that we had absolutely no interest in #3, cause we'd gladly take whichever one fell to us. Would have taken all their leverage away. Instead, these assholes that think they're smarter than everyone else in the league were overselling TRich because their egos were bruised from getting RG3 swiped out from under their noses. Every insider in the league knew exactly who the Browns wanted. I heard the pompous pricks actually ran the card up there before Goodell announced the RG3 pick.
So Minnesota was able to just have their way with us. Three picks, buh-bye. For being idiots. They got fleeced. I would NOT have traded up. I would have traded down, ideally, and Jacksonville or Dallas woulda moved up. And gone BPA (Floyd, Gilmore with the Jax pick) and added another high pick.
I would have taken Reilly Reiff at #22 and made him my RT for the next decade. At #37, depending on who I got with my 1st pick, I woulda gone with Weeden one of the second tier of RBs (which I liked) or Stephen Hill or Joe Adams. With the pick I got from Jacksonville from trading down, I woulda taken someone from that group or Cousins.
By not getting fleeced out of three picks, I would have had a shitload of picks in rd 4-7. I would have used those picks on another offensive linemen, 3-4 wide recievers, 2-3 cornerbacks. And some D prospects with flaws but upside.
And taken John Hughes with our last pick in the 7th.

by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:05 pm
JCoz wrote:It definitely had the potential for another unwatchable offense. But it was drafting the best players that could be long term solutions at positions of need. If there were different players at the sexy positions I would be drafting those. It certainly wasn't a one year plan to fix everything....
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:06 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:14 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Ius Primae Noctis was never used.
by swerb » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:16 pm
by SoulDawg74 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:20 pm
peeker643 wrote:JCoz wrote:It definitely had the potential for another unwatchable offense. But it was drafting the best players that could be long term solutions at positions of need. If there were different players at the sexy positions I would be drafting those. It certainly wasn't a one year plan to fix everything....
This is the key.
The fact Walrus and Co. have wet themselves thus far means Jammies is geting pissy and H&H are getting squirrely.
JB told me last week Lane isn't wrong. And Lane said the Browns didn't have Weeden on their first round board.
They panicked, picked a guy who MAY have a better chance next year to win than Colt (although I'm pretty sure Wallace does too) even though he wasn't on their board.
You couldn't fix everything, you're right. And the spot they should have left for the next year was QB as many people here and in the know had believed after RG3 was lost.
They reached and cost this club better options.
The rest is all ashes.
by Madre Hill, Superstar » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:20 pm
swerb wrote:I would have, from day one, let Minnesota know that the top two players on my board were TRich and Kalil, and that we had absolutely no interest in #3, cause we'd gladly take whichever one fell to us.

by jta1975 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:31 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:32 pm
Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:swerb wrote:I would have, from day one, let Minnesota know that the top two players on my board were TRich and Kalil, and that we had absolutely no interest in #3, cause we'd gladly take whichever one fell to us.
At this point I had to stop reading, because my inner Vikings GM was rolling in laughter that we'd seriously think of drafting a RT at #4.
by pod2dawg » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 pm
by jta1975 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:44 pm
jta1975 wrote:The first thing I would have done is taken a muscle relaxer to prevent my butt cheeks from tightening up like H&H's did.
With the picks the way they happened so I don't create an unrealistic scenario I have 2 answers both without the trade up and assuming Richardson was taken at 3 like he was.
Weeden included I take: Blackmon,Doug Martin,Weeden then best RT in the 3rd or trade up back into the second if my guy is there in the later half.
No Weeden included I take: Claiborne,Martin,Hill, then RT with the 3rd or trade up back into the second if my guy is there.
There could be some trade downs in there but in this game I will keep it as close to realistic as possible.
This forced thing that everyone is feeling isn't made up, the first few rounds felt forced because it was by design.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:15 pm
by jta1975 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:20 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Bullshit. There is never a time when a muscle relaxer is not needed.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:21 pm
by CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:38 pm

by motherscratcher » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:47 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Avoiding the warnings on the labels is the key to fun.
by jta1975 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:47 pm
CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07! wrote:4. I would not have traded up, and I'm a gigantic TR fan. I go TR, and if he's gone then Claiborne.
22. Reiff is my choice, regardless of who we took earlier. I'm no OL expert, so if the FO had Schwartz rated higher than Reiff and planned on taking Schwartz to be the RT at 37, then I take DeCastro here as my RG, and set up the OL to be elite (on paper) for the next decade.
37. Best RT if we went DeCastro at 22, and Stephen Hill if we went Reiff.
67. Best WR if we didn't take Hill. If we have Hill/Claiborne, I trade down to 87 and take Lamar Miller, who wins ROY running behind that line. If we have Hill/TR, I take the best pass rusher available.
That leaves me with either:
TRich
Reiff/Schwartz
Hill/DeCastro
Pass Rusher/WR
OR
Claiborne
Reiff/Schwartz
Hill/DeCastro
Miller/WR
I still like any of those myriad scenarios better than what actually happened. Barely any hindsight in there. That's the draft plan I went in with, and was ecstatic when Reiff AND DeCastro were there at 22.
I'm not bitching about what did go down (although I have been plenty), just following the instructions given for this thread.
by Triple-S » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:51 pm
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

by jta1975 » Tue May 01, 2012 12:15 am
by comish » Tue May 01, 2012 11:00 am
by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 11:02 am
by rebelwithoutaclue » Tue May 01, 2012 11:12 am
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Avoiding the warnings on the labels is the key to fun.

by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 11:36 am
Triple-S wrote:how the hell do you get fleeced for late round picks?
just a flat out dumb take there.
Getting fleeced would be something like what could potentially happen with the Skins, if RG3 delivers anything less than a shot at a Super Bowl.
Getting fleeced is the 89 Vikings for trading away 3 Super Bowls worth of potential to get Herschel Walker.
You gave up next to nothing just to ensure you got the best guy available. And believe me, if the rumors were to be believed, this one did have legs. I, like Hiko said earlier, were prepping for the worst.
Sorry, I'm just tired of this take. Oh, and I bet good money, had someone else beat us to the punch, the same people with the "Getting fleeced" talk, would be the ones whining that Heckert and Holmgren idly sat on their hands, had someone in fact made the trade up.
by jerryroche » Tue May 01, 2012 1:32 pm
by JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 2:01 pm
peeker643 wrote:Except for the guys WE took in rounds 4-7. Those guys are interesting prospects who will surely provide depth and a couple of whom may blossom into All Pro types. That's what I hear from Browns fans anyway.
Not sure how we can say they're useless and potentially diamonds in the rough in the same breath.
Wait... yes I am...
by mattvan1 » Tue May 01, 2012 2:07 pm
by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 2:45 pm
JCoz wrote:peeker643 wrote:Except for the guys WE took in rounds 4-7. Those guys are interesting prospects who will surely provide depth and a couple of whom may blossom into All Pro types. That's what I hear from Browns fans anyway.
Not sure how we can say they're useless and potentially diamonds in the rough in the same breath.
Wait... yes I am...
Are there really any people here who think any of the guys 4-7 are going to be all pros? I guess I'm not reading enough posts lately.
I see people seeing a little LBer depth and a deep threat. Maybe people have entirely different opinions about what token speed guy gives.
I mean, I'm not sure you feel any differently than I do on this, but 4-7 is by and large- trash. I'm sure you don't think we were walking into camp with 13 draftees and 5-8 UDFA's right? Where those picks hurt in my view was turning John Hughes into a mid-late 2nd rounder like Hill/Jeffery or Lavonte David/Zach Brown....
I doubt you think differently but it gets lost in the late round hypocrisy angle, which I'm still not sure which person on the board has actually stated that late rounders are trash but ours will be all pro's......
by Erie Warrior » Tue May 01, 2012 2:46 pm


by mistero » Tue May 01, 2012 2:53 pm
by CleSportsTruth » Tue May 01, 2012 4:06 pm
by pup » Tue May 01, 2012 4:08 pm
by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 4:18 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:'Fer Fucks sake, people. It's amazing to me that swerb, peek, etc. are obsessed over losing a 4th, 5th and 7th rounder. Let's assume they're right and that the Browns "negotiated against themselves." Uh, SO WHAT? You still had another pick in those rounds, and really, if the future of the franchise hinges on Day 3 picks, we might as well go home and call the whole thing off anyway.
Now, what I would change doesn't start until Day 2. Take Hill at 37, RT at 67 OR move back up for Schwartz if you're that high on him. That negates Hughes at 87. Otherwise, that's it.
by OldDawg » Tue May 01, 2012 4:30 pm
pup wrote:Not even sure why there is a 4th round in drafts at this point.

by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 4:39 pm
OldDawg wrote:pup wrote:Not even sure why there is a 4th round in drafts at this point.
The NBA draft used to be 10 rounds. TEN!!
Now its two.
by OldDawg » Tue May 01, 2012 4:43 pm
peeker643 wrote:OldDawg wrote:pup wrote:Not even sure why there is a 4th round in drafts at this point.
The NBA draft used to be 10 rounds. TEN!!
Now its two.
I'm thinking Pup was being sarcastic since no one cares that picks after the 4th were dealt to move up a single spot.
BTW- I'd be willing to bet every single team in the league has a 4th through 7th round draft pick starting on it. And I'd bet nearly every single team has a lineman they think highly of who was drafted 4th-7th. That's where you find a lot of those guys.
Is CleSportsTruth telling me the Browns are good enough there? They're set. They don't need another bite at the apple or two to see if they can find those critical guys?

by pup » Tue May 01, 2012 4:45 pm
by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 4:51 pm
pup wrote:What I would have done:
1. Tannehill
2. Weeden
3. Big Brock
4. Cousins
Have to be right eventually, no?
by Gradysmanldy » Tue May 01, 2012 5:04 pm
by jb » Tue May 01, 2012 10:41 pm
SoulDawg74 wrote:peeker643 wrote:JCoz wrote:It definitely had the potential for another unwatchable offense. But it was drafting the best players that could be long term solutions at positions of need. If there were different players at the sexy positions I would be drafting those. It certainly wasn't a one year plan to fix everything....
This is the key.
The fact Walrus and Co. have wet themselves thus far means Jammies is geting pissy and H&H are getting squirrely.
JB told me last week Lane isn't wrong. And Lane said the Browns didn't have Weeden on their first round board.
They panicked, picked a guy who MAY have a better chance next year to win than Colt (although I'm pretty sure Wallace does too) even though he wasn't on their board.
You couldn't fix everything, you're right. And the spot they should have left for the next year was QB as many people here and in the know had believed after RG3 was lost.
They reached and cost this club better options.
The rest is all ashes.
SD:
You and Swerb nailed it .
They got beat like stoopid tricks .
giving up 5 picks for two guys when they were in position to turn two guys into five is all you need to know.
The only positive is the fact , these bitches are now on the clock .
randy put his foot up their asses , and they responded like stoopid hos who been pimped whipped .
Planes trains and automobiles they better get them donuts .(props to Delante)
SoulDawg
by jb » Tue May 01, 2012 10:43 pm
by peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 10:47 pm
jb wrote:Peeker, WTF are you talking about with Lane o any insider info from another board?
And hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
by jb » Tue May 01, 2012 10:50 pm
peeker643 wrote:jb wrote:Peeker, WTF are you talking about with Lane o any insider info from another board?
And hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
What insider info? It was posted here or on C-Town somewhere in the clusterfuck of Browns threads that Lane said the Browns didn't have Weeden in their 1st round group. Maybe bowwwwowww?
And you told me Lane is never wrong. He got TRich right.
Adding 2+2 is all.
Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests