Cleveland Browns (2012 season)

[Bucks21]

Pluto offers solid perspective.

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2012/05/performance_not_draft_placemen.html

 

[AKAK]

No one I know is pissed they are trying to upgrade the position in general except maybe Colt's mom and people who stocked up on Colt Browns merchandise. The problem is everyone throws around the phrase "franchise QB" and we burned a #1 pick on the 4th best QB (according to draft boards) of this draft, who based on a number of factors is highly questionable to be an upgrade at all, let alone a franchise QB (such as it is anymore). Would anyone like to go back and trade Mack for Sanchez now? I doubt it, and if we had done anything with those extra picks we got in round 2, we would have raped the hell out of the Jets in that trade. Sanchise was a lot more highly touted coming out than Weeden, and he is, at best, average. It's true there were no additional #1s given up to take Weeden, which of course is good...I just don't think Weeden is going to be any more of a long term answer than McCoy, and we could have had a guard for example that may be a 10x Pro Bowler if the projections are right. Of course no one ever knows for sure going in, and hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but I don't see RT or BW as any kind of high quality QB prospect. Like I say, I hope I'm wrong.

Well, at least we're down to 10x Pro Bowler at Guard. I mean, we had some, "We just passed on a HOFer at guard" earlier.... 'cuz, you know all those surefire HOFers at any position are there at 22...

But, you know if the Projections are right.

Kind of like they were with Sanchez.

I guess you pick your poison. If you think QB is your weakest position. And if you think QB is the most important position on the field, I think you have to try to fix it. I mean which shows more incompetence?

Of course, RB was probably the weakest position. Addressed... then RT... addressed... then QB. Not to knock the Guard position, and if the kid is out there pulling around and flattening LB's for Pittsburgh, it will suck... but, QB is QB. Not Guard.

Thing is, if Weeden is no more of a long term answer, I really don't care... if we know Colt's not it. Move on.

 

[Bucklion]

Well, at least we're down to 10x Pro Bowler at Guard. I mean, we had some, "We just passed on a HOFer at guard" earlier.... 'cuz, you know all those surefire HOFers at any position are there at 22...

But, you know if the Projections are right.

Kind of like they were with Sanchez.

I guess you pick your poison. If you think QB is your weakest position. And if you think QB is the most important position on the field, I think you have to try to fix it. I mean which shows more incompetence?

Of course, RB was probably the weakest position. Addressed... then RT... addressed... then QB. Not to knock the Guard position, and if the kid is out there pulling around and flattening LB's for Pittsburgh, it will suck... but, QB is QB. Not Guard.

Thing is, if Weeden is no more of a long term answer, I really don't care... if we know Colt's not it. Move on.

I don't recall saying anything about HOFers. The best guard on the board, and by many analysts (not just the draft wonks) assessments, the best guard since Hutchinson came out, was sitting there. You can make fun of people who like that pick all you want. I'd rather have the best young guard in football to put between Thomas and Mack rather than the sloppy 4ths at QB because we didn't have enough to offer to get the guy we really wanted. Especially after we, you know, just drafted a RB 3rd. Who needs holes. Our guard play sucks antelope testicles right now. Nothing against the kids personally, but I don't think Lavao or Pinkston could open a hole if they were knocking ants off of styrofoam cups. Now do we know DiCastro will be the best young guard in football? No, but the chances of him being a 10 year quality starter are a great deal higher than that for Weeden in my estimation. And a servicable QB looks a hell of a lot better behind a fantastic line (especially on his blind side) than even an above average QB can look behind a really [Mark May]ty line. Tim Couch. David Carr. Hell Archie Manning. How good could they have been? We'll never [censored]ing know, because they got ape[censored]ed every time they dropped back to pass. One of the reasons that teams like the Steelers are good every year is because they commit resources to the trenches. We have started to do that (Thomas, Mack, Taylor, Rubin, Sheard, the 2 guys we signed as FAs) but we haven't finished it yet on the offensive side.

Put this way, if a great QB like Griffin had been there (i.e. we had the #2 pick) then [censored] yes, we take him. Short of that, going from terrible to semi-terrible or even semi-average behind a still suspect line with no star or even above average WRs is not enough of an upgrade to justify a first round pick. IMO of course.

 

[JCOSU86]

Pluto offers solid perspective.

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2012/05/performance_not_draft_placemen.html

Good read, thanks Bucks21.

I'm just resigned. We will find out how good these picks will turn out to be. There is nothing we can do about it now. And maybe Terry has a point: H&H have drafted winners before and while I can't speak for everyone on here, I know I haven't. Like BL said, it's their asses on the line. If this is a monumental fail like some believe, I don't see them surviving much longer. But if they prove to be geniuses (thinking Sheard pick here) then the Browns are on their way back.

I'll go with that, just to stay sane.

 

[NFBuck]

Oh yeah because Cleveland fans didnt bitch when they were the old Cleveland Browns.....Bill ran out of town etc etc

You're acting as if we have bitched about a consistent playoff team. Since 1990, excluding the glorious three years they were not embarrassing themselves, they have participated in 19 seasons. They have had three winning seasons: 1994 (11-5), 2002 (9-7), and 2007 (10-6). They have made the playoffs twice (1994, 2002), and have won one playoff game (1994). The remaining 16 seasons have seen the following loss totals:
14: 1 (1999)
13: 2 (1990, 2000)
12: 4 (2004, 2006, 2008, 2011)
11: 4 (1995, 2003, 2009, 2010)
10: 2 (1991, 2005)
9: 3 (1992, 1993, 2001)

That's 13 10+ loss seasons in 19 years. That is a nearly incomprehensible level of futility. So, lets not pretend the fan's bitching is misplaced.

I think demanding a winner is what a fan base should do but instead of stepping back and taking a look to see what happens its

You take a step back and see what happens after 4-5 years...not 19 years of pretty sustained failure. People become jaded, it's human nature.

Belicheck sucks...

He did in Cleveland.

Mangino sucks....

He did, but I think Shurmur is actually worse.

Colt Sucks..

Might be a little early on that, but, um, he has looked pretty bad after a respectable start. Though, admittedly, his supporting cast was laughably bad.

and in the case of this draft, while flawed....before anyone even gets into town

I don't know about anybody else, but I've stated the case for my disappointment. I think picking Weeden was incredibly short sighted. Especially considering the other directions they could have gone. And, regardless of who was supposedly interested in Hughes, that was a plum dumb pick.

 

[jlb1705]

Why don't you guys just wait to see how the drafted players perform before jumping off the innerbelt bridge.

Waiting to see how a Browns draft will turn out is like waiting to see what happens when somebody jumps off that bridge. I've seen enough thing fall down rather than up, and I've seen enough lousy bums play for the Browns to be able to reliably predict the outcome of each of those events.

 

[JCOSU86]

if brandon weeden was the same age as ryan tannehill, he'd have probably gone #4 to cleveland, or at worst #8 to miami. cleveland simply doesn't weigh his age as the deterrent that other teams did, mostly because their qb is far worse than most teams.

I believe this to be a very good point. In addition about the age argument: Is having 7-9 years of good to great QB play worth a first round pick? Wouldn't it be great if Quinn was in his prime leading Cleveland to yearly playoff runs?

I think so. I'm sorry about what happened to Colt McCoy. I believe could be a decent starter in the league. But it just isn't happening. So - Welcome Brandon!

 

[tsteele316]

Waiting to see how a Browns draft will turn out is like waiting to see what happens when somebody jumps off that bridge. I've seen enough thing fall down rather than up, and I've seen enough lousy bums play for the Browns to be able to reliably predict the outcome of each of those events.

and this goes back to distinguishing the failures of past regimes and projecting it on this one. thus far, the guys they've picked in the first two rounds in the past two drafts have all panned out. so, i'll wail and see if weeden and schwartz are turds before slitting my wrists over them being drafted.

 

[Bucklion]

and this goes back to distinguishing the failures of past regimes and projecting it on this one. thus far, the guys they've picked in the first two rounds in the past two drafts have all panned out. so, i'll wail and see if weeden and schwartz are turds before slitting my wrists over them being drafted.

I'm not sure I would put Hardesty in the "panned out" category. But Haden looks good so far, and Ward, Sheard and Taylor do as well. Jury is still out on Little. It is still the case I believe that this year's draft will define this regime, so we'll see.

 

[exhawg]

I'm not sure I would put Hardesty in the "panned out" category. But Haden looks good so far, and Ward, Sheard and Taylor do as well. Jury is still out on Little. It is still the case I believe that this year's draft will define this regime, so we'll see.

I think Hardesty was a high risk high reward player. If he could have stayed healthy we would look at him better than we do now. He'll be 2 years off of the ACL this season so we'll see if he gets better. If not cut him loose.

 

[billmac91]

sounds like Holmgren may be hanging it up pretty shortly according to some people in the know...TIFWIW

 

[Bucklion]

I think Hardesty was a high risk high reward player. If he could have stayed healthy we would look at him better than we do now. He'll be 2 years off of the ACL this season so we'll see if he gets better. If not cut him loose.

Well I guess the good news is now with Richardson he doesn't really have to do anything. Jackson can play on 3rd down, so really all he'll need to do is give TR a series or 2 off when he needs a rest. I doubt he can do much more than that, but at least now he doesn't have to. If he can handle 4 carry, 14 yard games, might as well keep him and address other areas.

 

[Bucklion]

sounds like Holmgren may be hanging it up pretty shortly according to some people in the know...TIFWIW

And...why would he be doing that?

 

[exhawg]

Well I guess the good news is now with Richardson he doesn't really have to do anything. Jackson can play on 3rd down, so really all he'll need to do is give TR a series or 2 off when he needs a rest. I doubt he can do much more than that, but at least now he doesn't have to. If he can handle 4 carry, 14 yard games, might as well keep him and address other areas.

I don't see taking Richardson out much regardless of the down. He is a great blocker and pretty good in the passing game IIRC. Might be an opportunity to go 2 back with Jackson and put Moore in the slot. If anything it would be nice to replace one of the RB's with a Sproles type of back for the passing game. But I can live with Richardson, Hardesty and Jackson this year.

 

[Buckrock]

And...why would he be doing that?

I've heard health issues and the fact he would like to reside out West.