Text Size

Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Peeker's draft Wrap

Talk Browns football and discuss the NFL here.

Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:16 pm

Berry loving fucks.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Prosecutor » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:19 pm

Let's say the Browns followed Peeker's advice and decided to live dangerously, holding off on Weeden until #37. Who would they have taken at #22? I think the most likely guy by far is Reiff. We know they needed a RT who can start immediately, and Reiff went with the very next pick at #23.

So if Weeden is there at #37 they won the gamble and ended up with Reiff at RT instead of Schwartz. That's the best case scenario. The big payoff for living dangerously. A somewhat better RT. The tackle who went at #23 instead of the tackle who went at #37. How many extra wins is that going to be worth?

The worst case scenario is if Weeden was picked before #37 and the Browns are all dressed up with nowhere to go, looking at another year of McCoy at QB like we looked at another year of Mangini after H&H showed up. Dead man walking.

I understand a strong case can be made that nobody would have traded up for Weeden, but even so, was it worth the risk considering the importance of the QB position? And considering the upside was Reiff rather than Schwartz?

I think the chances of somebody jumping ahead of us for Weeden were real. KC hosted him and I was reading rumors that they were very interested. They're stuck with Matt Cassell and by this point I can't imagine they have any hope he'll lead them to a Super Bowl. Same with Arizona and Kolb. Same with Buffalo and Fitzpatrick.

Those guys are just OK as starting QB's. They all should ideally be backups, which they all were for years before coming to their current teams. It's realistic to think one of those three teams may have fallen hard enough for Weeden to move up a few spots to #36. There was a ton of trading going on.

IMO it wasn't worth taking the risk, even a remote risk, of losing a potential franchise QB to try and get a slightly better right tackle.

Just like it wasn't worth the risk of trying to save a 2nd round pick by lowballing the RG3 offer. They tried to get their franchise QB on the cheap and it blew up in their faces. They weren't going to risk having it happen again in the same draft class.

They ended up with 10 picks instead of 13, but they got the main guys they wanted and there's no way 13 rookies make the 53 man roster. Yeah they gave up a 4th and 5th to make sure they got Richardson. BFD. We're talking guys like Cameron Jordan, Owen Marecic, and Buster Skrine. That's what you get in rounds 4 and 5.

Peeker wanted the Browns to sign Hillis, draft Blackmon (I assume), then Reiff, then Weeden. Well, that might have been a better package than Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and whoever starts opposite Little. That's assuming Hillis stays healthy and doesn't let whoever his agent is this week decide when he plays or calls in sick.

Grossi reported in January that Hillis wanted a lot more money than the Browns were willing to offer:

Before contract negotiations broke down, the sides were wide apart in their estimation of Hillis' value. Reportedly, Hillis was looking for $10 million in guarantees and the Browns were offering about $4 million.


Would you have given him the $10 million guaranteed and go with him as our primary RB rather than drafting Trent Richardson?
Prosecutor
Plutonian Outliers
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:59 am

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby motherscratcher » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:34 pm

peeker643 wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Absolutely.

Maybe a bit vulgar, but who am I to judge?


I'm eating venison smokies and venison and cheddar smokies while talking sports here. Doesn't get much more manly than that. I bet FUDU and mscratcher are eating salads w/walnuts and raisins in them and picking out needlepoint patterns right now.


Fuck you, im a man. Salad with walnuts? You must be out of your mind if you thnk I'm using weight watchers points on walnuts.

What's needlepoint?
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby FUDU » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:49 pm

The only needlepoint I'd partake in would be making your epitaph.

Peeker: 1950 something - Not soon enough.

:obligatorywink
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13359
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby comish » Tue May 01, 2012 5:25 am

motherscratcher wrote:
peeker643 wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Absolutely.

Maybe a bit vulgar, but who am I to judge?


I'm eating venison smokies and venison and cheddar smokies while talking sports here. Doesn't get much more manly than that. I bet FUDU and mscratcher are eating salads w/walnuts and raisins in them and picking out needlepoint patterns right now.


Fuck you, im a man. Salad with walnuts? You must be out of your mind if you thnk I'm using weight watchers points on walnuts.

What's needlepoint?


A half cup of walnuts are about 12 points....I'd definitely steer clear :thumb up:
"Get busy living, or get busy dying."
User avatar
comish
Champion of Mediocrity
 
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: A local Pub

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 9:41 am

Prosecutor wrote:Let's say the Browns followed Peeker's advice and decided to live dangerously, holding off on Weeden until #37. Who would they have taken at #22? I think the most likely guy by far is Reiff. We know they needed a RT who can start immediately, and Reiff went with the very next pick at #23.

So if Weeden is there at #37 they won the gamble and ended up with Reiff at RT instead of Schwartz. That's the best case scenario. The big payoff for living dangerously. A somewhat better RT. The tackle who went at #23 instead of the tackle who went at #37. How many extra wins is that going to be worth?

The worst case scenario is if Weeden was picked before #37 and the Browns are all dressed up with nowhere to go, looking at another year of McCoy at QB like we looked at another year of Mangini after H&H showed up. Dead man walking.

I understand a strong case can be made that nobody would have traded up for Weeden, but even so, was it worth the risk considering the importance of the QB position? And considering the upside was Reiff rather than Schwartz?

I think the chances of somebody jumping ahead of us for Weeden were real. KC hosted him and I was reading rumors that they were very interested. They're stuck with Matt Cassell and by this point I can't imagine they have any hope he'll lead them to a Super Bowl. Same with Arizona and Kolb. Same with Buffalo and Fitzpatrick.

Those guys are just OK as starting QB's. They all should ideally be backups, which they all were for years before coming to their current teams. It's realistic to think one of those three teams may have fallen hard enough for Weeden to move up a few spots to #36. There was a ton of trading going on.

IMO it wasn't worth taking the risk, even a remote risk, of losing a potential franchise QB to try and get a slightly better right tackle.

Just like it wasn't worth the risk of trying to save a 2nd round pick by lowballing the RG3 offer. They tried to get their franchise QB on the cheap and it blew up in their faces. They weren't going to risk having it happen again in the same draft class.

They ended up with 10 picks instead of 13, but they got the main guys they wanted and there's no way 13 rookies make the 53 man roster. Yeah they gave up a 4th and 5th to make sure they got Richardson. BFD. We're talking guys like Cameron Jordan, Owen Marecic, and Buster Skrine. That's what you get in rounds 4 and 5.

Peeker wanted the Browns to sign Hillis, draft Blackmon (I assume), then Reiff, then Weeden. Well, that might have been a better package than Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and whoever starts opposite Little. That's assuming Hillis stays healthy and doesn't let whoever his agent is this week decide when he plays or calls in sick.

Grossi reported in January that Hillis wanted a lot more money than the Browns were willing to offer:

Before contract negotiations broke down, the sides were wide apart in their estimation of Hillis' value. Reportedly, Hillis was looking for $10 million in guarantees and the Browns were offering about $4 million.


Would you have given him the $10 million guaranteed and go with him as our primary RB rather than drafting Trent Richardson?



Well, if you don't give away your wallet to move up to 4 and you really want Weeden despite your own draft board saying he's not a first round guy, then use your draft ammo there and move back up to get him.

And even though they gave up their wallet to move up one spot they could have still packaged their 2, 3 and 4, 5, 6, 6, 7 to make that move.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 9:45 am

I'm sure this will get poo-pooed by those unwilling to get a grip on reality , but when you shock and surprise the guy you take in the 3rd round.... I mean stun him and cause him to move his Sunday party to Saturday night because he never thought in a million years someone was taking him on Saturday, well, you mighta reached.

Forget us, forget the experts, they stunned the shit outta the guy they picked.

But I'm sure they turned it all around. :lmfao:
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby motherscratcher » Tue May 01, 2012 10:20 am

peeker643 wrote:I'm sure this will get poo-pooed by those unwilling to get a grip on reality , but when you shock and surprise the guy you take in the 3rd round.... I mean stun him and cause him to move his Sunday party to Saturday night because he never thought in a million years someone was taking him on Saturday, well, you mighta reached.

Forget us, forget the experts, they stunned the shit outta the guy they picked.

But I'm sure they turned it all around. :lmfao:


Yeah, it's going to stun all of the people around here posting that the Hughes pick wasn't a reach. Those guys are stupid.

I was wondering what he did with his draft party. I wondered if it got moved, or cancelled, or what. I figured it would have just gone on as planned. I mean, what else are you supposed to do with all of those tiny little ham/turkey/roast beef sandwich things they make at Giant Eagle?

Besides, I can't imagine the logistics involved in moving a draft party, and if there's one thing the scouting report made clear, it's that Hughes is a lazy fuck who takes off plays.

But, not any more. I know that becasue he said so.
According to my sources CDT farts in the tub and bites the bubbles.
User avatar
motherscratcher
Little Larry Sellers
 
Posts: 7748
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: La La Land
Favorite Player: Ernie Camacho
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 10:29 am

motherscratcher wrote:
peeker643 wrote:I'm sure this will get poo-pooed by those unwilling to get a grip on reality , but when you shock and surprise the guy you take in the 3rd round.... I mean stun him and cause him to move his Sunday party to Saturday night because he never thought in a million years someone was taking him on Saturday, well, you mighta reached.

Forget us, forget the experts, they stunned the shit outta the guy they picked.

But I'm sure they turned it all around. :lmfao:


Yeah, it's going to stun all of the people around here posting that the Hughes pick wasn't a reach. Those guys are stupid.

I was wondering what he did with his draft party. I wondered if it got moved, or cancelled, or what. I figured it would have just gone on as planned. I mean, what else are you supposed to do with all of those tiny little ham/turkey/roast beef sandwich things they make at Giant Eagle?

Besides, I can't imagine the logistics involved in moving a draft party, and if there's one thing the scouting report made clear, it's that Hughes is a lazy fuck who takes off plays.

But, not any more. I know that becasue he said so.


A 7th rd draft party has to blow. Chips and a veggie tray at best. Maybe a Coors Light Beer Ball?

Glad there's consensus they reached there.

Lot of agreement because of expert opinions. Wondering why those expert opinions don't carry weight on Weeden being a reach though. I mean, by definition if a guy isn't on your 1st RD draft list and you take him in the middle part of the 1st round ( closer to dead middle than very end, Hiko :lmfao: ) then isn't that a reach?
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue May 01, 2012 1:15 pm

Image
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 1:15 pm

I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 1:29 pm

JCoz wrote:I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.


Agreed. But that's why it concerned me in the first place. That's why I called it 'panic'.

The reaching and the questionable decision making in general is very worrisome. Unless you're sleeping ;-) ;) :wink:
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 1:41 pm

Yah, I guess its one thing to have fans thinking that's what's happening - Sometimes the view simply looks different from another altitude, and you dont have the proper perspective - and its another thing to listen to the Walrus essentially tell you thats what he did.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue May 01, 2012 1:45 pm

peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.


Agreed. But that's why it concerned me in the first place. That's why I called it 'panic'.

The reaching and the questionable decision making in general is very worrisome. Unless you're sleeping ;-) ;) :wink:


I agree it's worrisome. Still, I really wanted Richardson and Weeden, so I can't bring myself to cry myself to sleep about it. Holmgren should not be involved in personnel decisions. They reached some on Weeden. They'll probably suck regardless. Wah.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 1:50 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.


Agreed. But that's why it concerned me in the first place. That's why I called it 'panic'.

The reaching and the questionable decision making in general is very worrisome. Unless you're sleeping ;-) ;) :wink:


I agree it's worrisome. Still, I really wanted Richardson and Weeden, so I can't bring myself to cry myself to sleep about it. Holmgren should not be involved in personnel decisions. They reached some on Weeden. They'll probably suck regardless. Wah.


You guys think JCoz's sig is regarding the trade up or the Weeden selection? I believe it's the trade up for TR myself. Just wondering if that's the prevailing sentiment given they didn't give up 'too much' in terms of picks, etc for Weeden.

And I don't cry myself to sleep anymore, Hiko. There's bourbon for the sleep issues.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby comish » Tue May 01, 2012 1:53 pm

They may have reached, but if you like the fact that they drafted Weeden the only beef is...will Schwartz end up being a better tackle than Reiff. Here's hoping Riley finds a blackjack table he likes at the MGM and never leaves.....EVER
"Get busy living, or get busy dying."
User avatar
comish
Champion of Mediocrity
 
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: A local Pub

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 1:57 pm

I think that it could be both, or serveral times Peek. He used the word "typical" with regards to that scenario. We already know he's all over QB decisions. Do you really think it was Heckert pulling the trigger on Weeden at #22 if you think he didn't want a part of trading up for T-Rich?

That's the part that gives me the creeps. If its for T-Rich, that means his grubby little fingers are on a LOT more than just an overriding opinion on QB's, that means essentially we have a multiheaded GM and the one with the veto power is the one who doesn't have GM in his job description.

And its also the one with a pretty shitty record in that dept.

Whatever you think of this draft, and I'm in the middle of the pack probably, it felt different in some regards to previous years, and not in a good way. And it looks like the Walrus has taken resonsibility for that not-so-good feeling I'm getting.

Sink or swim fatty, thats all I can say. It's on you now.
Last edited by JCoz on Tue May 01, 2012 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 2:06 pm

JCoz wrote:I think that it could be both, or serveral times Peek. He used the word "typical" with regards to that scenario. We already know he's all over QB decisions.

That's the part that gives me the creeps. If its for T-Rich, that means his grubby little fingers are on a LOT more than just an overriding opinion on QB's, that means essentially we have a multiheaded GM and the one with the veto power is the one who doesn't have GM in his job description.

And its also the one with a pretty shitty record in that dept.

Whatever you think of this draft, and I'm in the middle of the pack probably, it felt different in some regards to previous years, and not in a good way. And it looks like the Walrus has taken resonsibility for that not-so-good feeling I'm getting.

Sink or swim fatty, thats all I can say. It's on you now.


Didn't see when, specifically, he said it. Wondered if it between first and 2nd rounds or after the draft completely.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 2:09 pm

Why would that matter? Between Weeden and Richardson selections I mean?

I edited above, do you really think Heckert pulled that trigger on Weeden at #22 after he wanted no part of the Richardson trade up?
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 2:17 pm

JCoz wrote:Why would that matter? Between Weeden and Richardson selections I mean?

I edited above, do you really think Heckert pulled that trigger on Weeden at #22 after he wanted no part of the Richardson trade up?



My thinking is that Heckert is more competent than Holmgren and that my faith in Heckert would be somewhat restored if that trade up for TR was forced down his throat. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean shit at this point. Just wondering if Heckert was for either pick. I have a hard time believing he wanted to trade up for Richardson or draft Weeden where he did given his history.

I think (right or wrong) he'd have been fine with Claiborne at #4, the OL at 22 and Weeden at 37 (because there's value then IMO) and with Pead or someone like that w/their own pick in 3rd.

That seems more like what he's done in the past. That's all. In some meaningless world I want to believe Chubby's hands were all over this.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 2:19 pm

It was Saturday after the last Browns selections....

Here was a little more context.

(On looking back on the trade with Atlanta in last year's draft):

Holmgren: "If you remember, I kind of banged Tom on that last year because I really liked the player I thought we were going to get with the pick. But, he said I can make this deal and it is a monumental deal. We spent a couple days talking about it and I just wanted him to make sure. I was just playing my role a little bit. He convinced me and he knew why he wanted to do it and it was a great, great deal for us. He did a nice job. We haven't been together very long, but he has great connections in the league. People like him, his cohorts in other places. He can get deals done and he can do this. They trust him. He is good at it. It worked out for us."

(On if there is a greater sense of urgency because this is his third year):

Holmgren: "It's funny you should say that Tom (Withers) because I thought it was just the opposite. First off, I have tremendous trust in Tom and in Pat, and while we had all those meetings that I was kind of watching it, smiling and enjoying it as much as anything else. If I'm going to suggest something or push it's going to happen long before this weekend. A discussion as an example, I won't tell you exactly what it was about, but this is typical of what might happen. I said Tom, 'Do you want to do this?' He said I don't think I do. I think it's too much or too strong or whatever. Then I said well we may have to. Then he goes well if we have to then you have to tell me because I won't do it. I said okay, then I might have to tell you. Fine. But that's a healthy way to go about it, no one's strangling anybody or pushing anybody and we've talked about that. Pat is kind of the peace maker in the group, but we all have our moments. It's real healthy and I trust him a lot."



So essentially, Holgren was against trading down last season, and probably forced the trade for Richardson and Weeden picks this season IMO.

Lots of Browns fans didn't like that trade down and did like the trade up and Weeden picks so we will see what happens. I would just have assumed let Heckert work with assets he he had instead of essentially taking the steering wheel halfway through that drive, ut Mike felt differently.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 2:20 pm

peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:Why would that matter? Between Weeden and Richardson selections I mean?

I edited above, do you really think Heckert pulled that trigger on Weeden at #22 after he wanted no part of the Richardson trade up?



My thinking is that Heckert is more competent than Holmgren and that my faith in Heckert would be somewhat restored if that trade up for TR was forced down his throat. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean shit at this point. Just wondering if Heckert was for either pick. I have a hard time believing he wanted to trade up for Richardson or draft Weeden where he did given his history.

I think (right or wrong) he'd have been fine with Claiborne at #4, the OL at 22 and Weeden at 37 (because there's value then IMO) and with Pead or someone like that w/their own pick in 3rd.

That seems more like what he's done in the past. That's all. In some meaningless world I want to believe Chubby's hands were all over this.


Yah I meant what would the timing of the presser matter as those were both 1st round picks. Poor wording on my part. We are on the same page with the rest here.

Although it doesn't make me feel much better, its not like they are going to fire Mike and Paddy and retain Heckert if it all goes down in flames, and if it doesn't then the Walrus is going to feel he has carte blanche on future picks.
Last edited by JCoz on Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue May 01, 2012 2:22 pm

peeker643 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.


Agreed. But that's why it concerned me in the first place. That's why I called it 'panic'.

The reaching and the questionable decision making in general is very worrisome. Unless you're sleeping ;-) ;) :wink:


I agree it's worrisome. Still, I really wanted Richardson and Weeden, so I can't bring myself to cry myself to sleep about it. Holmgren should not be involved in personnel decisions. They reached some on Weeden. They'll probably suck regardless. Wah.


You guys think JCoz's sig is regarding the trade up or the Weeden selection? I believe it's the trade up for TR myself. Just wondering if that's the prevailing sentiment given they didn't give up 'too much' in terms of picks, etc for Weeden.

And I don't cry myself to sleep anymore, Hiko. There's bourbon for the sleep issues.


Excellent. Bourbon keeps me up.

The Holmgren quote could regard either. Could be Hughes as well, though I doubt Holmgren has heard of anyone outside the 1st round.

Here's the thing I'm not getting - why are so many people acting like Holmgren (and possibly Heckert's) actions are just now worrisome and concerning?

Shit, shit been going on for a while that's worrisome and concerning.

Nothing about the draft said "Holy tomatoes! I now see this regime in a totally different light!" Not to me, anyway. I have no more/less confidence in this regime than I did beforehand. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised they didn't lose Richardson (whether YOU personally wanted him there or not is irrelevant, if they wanted a guy badly and lost out on him - again - it would've been par for the course).

Not that I think there's much chance that they build a winner. I gave up that dream a long time ago for my own mental protection, so I didn't find myself using the interwebs as my own personal bitch session.

It does help that I went into the draft wanting Richardson, Weeden, a Starting RT, and a Starting WR (in some order), and got 3 of those. But I was even ready to accept a Tannehill pick (which I guarantee I would think of as a MUCH worse pick than you think about any of the ones they did make) b/c that would just be standard ops for the Cleveland Browns - figure out what the worst possible decision is and choose it.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue May 01, 2012 2:26 pm

peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:Why would that matter? Between Weeden and Richardson selections I mean?

I edited above, do you really think Heckert pulled that trigger on Weeden at #22 after he wanted no part of the Richardson trade up?



My thinking is that Heckert is more competent than Holmgren and that my faith in Heckert would be somewhat restored if that trade up for TR was forced down his throat. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean shit at this point. Just wondering if Heckert was for either pick. I have a hard time believing he wanted to trade up for Richardson or draft Weeden where he did given his history.

I think (right or wrong) he'd have been fine with Claiborne at #4, the OL at 22 and Weeden at 37 (because there's value then IMO) and with Pead or someone like that w/their own pick in 3rd.

That seems more like what he's done in the past. That's all. In some meaningless world I want to believe Chubby's hands were all over this.


I would feel that way too, but it's meaningless since I don't think Heckert survives a Holmgren firing. So we'll probably never know.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 2:27 pm

Hiko, for me, I always thought Mike's deal regarding the personnell was almost entire relegated to the QB position.

Call me as dumb as a rock for believing that, but thats why it bothers me. Now I know for sure that is not the case at all, and it was far more apparent in 2011 than the last two drafts that Mike was using his muscle in the draft room IYAM.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby pup » Tue May 01, 2012 2:28 pm

Two times I can recall Walrus making a statement after the draft.

1. Telling us he used his authority to make the Colt pick.
2. This one.

Without telling us what is was about, I have to guess it is the QB. Both times it is rumored to be around the time the guy we wanted to take went a pick or two in front.

Not sure if Mike is "protecting" Heckert or if he does just decide when to interject. I just hope this time his interjection works better than last time.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue May 01, 2012 2:31 pm

JCoz wrote:Hiko, for me, I always thought Mike's deal regarding the personnell was almost entire relegated to the QB position.

Call me as dumb as a rock for believing that, but thats why it bothers me. Now I know for sure that is not the case at all, and it was far more apparent in 2011 than the last two drafts that Mike was using his muscle in the draft room IYAM.


I wouldn't be surprised. It's really the only position he knows well.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 2:40 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:Why would that matter? Between Weeden and Richardson selections I mean?

I edited above, do you really think Heckert pulled that trigger on Weeden at #22 after he wanted no part of the Richardson trade up?



My thinking is that Heckert is more competent than Holmgren and that my faith in Heckert would be somewhat restored if that trade up for TR was forced down his throat. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean shit at this point. Just wondering if Heckert was for either pick. I have a hard time believing he wanted to trade up for Richardson or draft Weeden where he did given his history.

I think (right or wrong) he'd have been fine with Claiborne at #4, the OL at 22 and Weeden at 37 (because there's value then IMO) and with Pead or someone like that w/their own pick in 3rd.

That seems more like what he's done in the past. That's all. In some meaningless world I want to believe Chubby's hands were all over this.


I would feel that way too, but it's meaningless since I don't think Heckert survives a Holmgren firing. So we'll probably never know.


Maybe not. I'd hate to think so but maybe not. I do think he survives a Holmgren 'retirement' though. Semantics? Maybe. But I still have a respect for Heckert while I don't have any for Holmgren.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Gradysmanldy » Tue May 01, 2012 3:02 pm

JCoz wrote:I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.


I'm praying that the pick Holmie got involved on is the Hughes pick, not the Weedon pick. I dont mind blowing a third rounder, I mind blowing the first rounder and then giving him the keys to the teams success the following season.

(because lets face it, this year basically hangs on whether Weedon is the real deal or not)
Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.
User avatar
Gradysmanldy
 
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:58 pm
Favorite Player: Melts Parmageddon
Least Favorite Player: The East Coast media

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby mattvan1 » Tue May 01, 2012 3:04 pm

Regarding the Holmgren quote - I wonder who he "really liked" at the #6 overall last year?
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby mattvan1 » Tue May 01, 2012 3:07 pm

Gradysmanldy wrote:
JCoz wrote:I don't know that its that people dont think it was a reach as much as maybe people are accustomed to seeing reaches at the QB position.

Reach or no reach I think Walrus hitting the red button and using veto power with one or both of the first two picks is much more concerning to me.


I'm praying that the pick Holmie got involved on is the Hughes pick, not the Weedon pick. I dont mind blowing a third rounder, I mind blowing the first rounder and then giving him the keys to the teams success the following season.

(because lets face it, this year basically hangs on whether Weedon is the real deal or not)


I would seriously doubt that, especially based on the above quotes. First round picks, first round trades, and QBs regardless of the round. That's my felling on when Holmgren gets involved.
I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever.
- CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3720
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 3:14 pm

^^^what he said.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Gradysmanldy » Tue May 01, 2012 3:31 pm

Unfortunately, I agree....which is gulp-worthy.
Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.
User avatar
Gradysmanldy
 
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:58 pm
Favorite Player: Melts Parmageddon
Least Favorite Player: The East Coast media

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Prosecutor » Tue May 01, 2012 5:03 pm

Well, if you don't give away your wallet to move up to 4 and you really want Weeden despite your own draft board saying he's not a first round guy, then use your draft ammo there and move back up to get him.

And even though they gave up their wallet to move up one spot they could have still packaged their 2, 3 and 4, 5, 6, 6, 7 to make that move.


Sorry, not sure I follow. Are you saying they should have stayed at 4, drafted Blackmon (thus not giving away their wallet to move up to 4), then taken Reiff at 22 and used their wallet to move up from 37 to take Weeden?

If they did that we would have Blackmon, Reiff, and Weeden. Instead we have Richardson, Schwartz, and Weeden. And fewer draft picks on the back end in both cases.

Either scenario would be a big improvement, but what makes yours so much better than what the Browns chose to do?

They chose Richardson over Blackmon even though they had to cough up some draft picks that could have been used to accumulate more Marecic and Skrine and Hagg types. Lane said before the draft they had Blackmon rated about the same as Floyd and they weren't going to take Blackmon at #4 regardless of how it played out.

They could have stayed at 4 and tried to trade down with a team that wanted Kalil, but that would have taken them out of immediate impact player range, which they decided well before the draft not to do. So their only logical recourse was to move up for TR.

As for Weeden, if Lane is correct about the 2nd round grade then they did reach for him. Holmgren explained that sometimes you reach for a QB. It's the key position on the team and these guys simply cost more. Which is why the Redskins gave up three 1sts and a 2nd for RG3.

Holmgren pulled rank on Heckert on the McCoy pick two years ago. My guess is Heckert wanted to take a chance on Weeden being there at 37 or maybe move up just a bit but Holmgren overruled him out of fear somebody else might jump in first. I don't think it matters much. Maybe they could have gotten Reiff instead of Schwartz if they were willing to gamble, but Holmgren is sold on Weeden and wasn't willing to take that risk.
Prosecutor
Plutonian Outliers
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:59 am

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby Hikohadon » Tue May 01, 2012 5:14 pm

peeker643 wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:
peeker643 wrote:
JCoz wrote:Why would that matter? Between Weeden and Richardson selections I mean?

I edited above, do you really think Heckert pulled that trigger on Weeden at #22 after he wanted no part of the Richardson trade up?



My thinking is that Heckert is more competent than Holmgren and that my faith in Heckert would be somewhat restored if that trade up for TR was forced down his throat. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean shit at this point. Just wondering if Heckert was for either pick. I have a hard time believing he wanted to trade up for Richardson or draft Weeden where he did given his history.

I think (right or wrong) he'd have been fine with Claiborne at #4, the OL at 22 and Weeden at 37 (because there's value then IMO) and with Pead or someone like that w/their own pick in 3rd.

That seems more like what he's done in the past. That's all. In some meaningless world I want to believe Chubby's hands were all over this.


I would feel that way too, but it's meaningless since I don't think Heckert survives a Holmgren firing. So we'll probably never know.


Maybe not. I'd hate to think so but maybe not. I do think he survives a Holmgren 'retirement' though. Semantics? Maybe. But I still have a respect for Heckert while I don't have any for Holmgren.


He'd better do it soon then (hoping for June). They crash and burn this year... blech.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby rk » Tue May 01, 2012 5:27 pm

pup wrote:Not sure if Mike is "protecting" Heckert or if he does just decide when to interject. I just hope this time his interjection works better than last time.


I think it's less about protecting Heckert and more about taking responsibility. Something that Holmgren has never had a problem doing.

They seem to have formed a 'best case' plan for the draft where they were targeting Richardson, Weeden, and a tackle or a WR. That's based on the strengths of this draft, the needs of the team before the draft, and their actions during the draft.

So they knew those were the guys they wanted. Holmgren basically told Heckert that if those were the guys he wanted then do what it takes to make sure you get them. Basically telling him if there was any chance of TR being gone by 4 then trade up. If there was any chance of someone taking Weeden between 22 and 37 then take him.

He basically would have trusted Heckert if he said he could wait. But since he didn't he ok'd the tradeup and the earlier pick of Weeden.

Walrus was willing to take the responsibility of the tradeup but not the responsibility of missing out on those two guys. Heckert got the message and it made his job easy.

So these are Heckert's choices but the way they were drafted were more Holmgren's, IMHO. Meaning there is little chance of any separation when it comes to who is responsible if those two do not pan out.
"If your mouthpiece is strong, she’ll give you some money." - D. West
User avatar
rk
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:06 pm
Favorite Player: Ozzie Newsome
Least Favorite Player: Ray Lewis

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby JCoz » Tue May 01, 2012 5:33 pm

I don't think his quote says that at all rk. If Heckert said he specifically would not pull a trade, then he didn't REALLY want those guys.

I just dont believe that take for a second.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby pup » Tue May 01, 2012 6:50 pm

Of all the rosy glasses, rk seems to be sporting the rosiest in this regard.

I got Tom thought the price was too high of the trade

or

22 was too early for Weeden

Not sure it matters which it was at this point, since they did both. I do not think it was the Richardson pick though, because Heckert had every intention of using those picks to move up somewhere and decided that was the best spot (even though I disagree with the need to do it, I understand his choice.)
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Peeker's draft Wrap

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue May 01, 2012 7:54 pm

Prosecutor wrote:
Well, if you don't give away your wallet to move up to 4 and you really want Weeden despite your own draft board saying he's not a first round guy, then use your draft ammo there and move back up to get him.

And even though they gave up their wallet to move up one spot they could have still packaged their 2, 3 and 4, 5, 6, 6, 7 to make that move.


Sorry, not sure I follow. Are you saying they should have stayed at 4, drafted Blackmon (thus not giving away their wallet to move up to 4), then taken Reiff at 22 and used their wallet to move up from 37 to take Weeden?

If they did that we would have Blackmon, Reiff, and Weeden. Instead we have Richardson, Schwartz, and Weeden. And fewer draft picks on the back end in both cases.

Either scenario would be a big improvement, but what makes yours so much better than what the Browns chose to do?

They chose Richardson over Blackmon even though they had to cough up some draft picks that could have been used to accumulate more Marecic and Skrine and Hagg types. Lane said before the draft they had Blackmon rated about the same as Floyd and they weren't going to take Blackmon at #4 regardless of how it played out.

They could have stayed at 4 and tried to trade down with a team that wanted Kalil, but that would have taken them out of immediate impact player range, which they decided well before the draft not to do. So their only logical recourse was to move up for TR.

As for Weeden, if Lane is correct about the 2nd round grade then they did reach for him. Holmgren explained that sometimes you reach for a QB. It's the key position on the team and these guys simply cost more. Which is why the Redskins gave up three 1sts and a 2nd for RG3.

Holmgren pulled rank on Heckert on the McCoy pick two years ago. My guess is Heckert wanted to take a chance on Weeden being there at 37 or maybe move up just a bit but Holmgren overruled him out of fear somebody else might jump in first. I don't think it matters much. Maybe they could have gotten Reiff instead of Schwartz if they were willing to gamble, but Holmgren is sold on Weeden and wasn't willing to take that risk.


My way they get the best OL and the QB they wanted as well as one of the alleged 'elite' players in the draft at #4 (and I would have taken Claiborne personally at #4 if TRich gone.

And I already advised I was willing to pass on a QB this year because they missed on the two game changers. If I don't get Trich at #4 and Weeden is gone at 37 then I can take Isaiah Pead or LaMike James or even another OL. I can also grab Jeffery or Hill there too.

Point is I have options. I have solidified my DBs for 8 yrs and can solidify my OL for 8 years. Or I can mix and match with weapons and explosive players.

And again, I'm fine with TRich. Far finer at #4 w/o trade up but he can be a great player. What he won't be is an explosive one.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Previous

Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gbot and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: gbot and 1 guest