| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ochocinco4pres
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 21397
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Great Bengals pick
_________________
Big thanks to kacymcbryant18 for the sig....^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41594
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Brownies should realize that the Rams had a franchise QB for sale and you have a WR or CB for sale. That's why you only picked up a 3rd to move down 3 spots and they broke the bank. Even if Justin was a Megatron type prospect you're not cleaning house.
As for Tannehill, he will start day 1 over Colt, is a WCO QB, Beckett loves him, and this is the lowest spot you can get him as Miami and Seattle would both take him as well.
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hiero
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 7483
Location: Downtown Sacramento
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
you know I love the Dallas pick
_________________
Jason Garrett Bandwagon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrRay11
Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Posts: 2124
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I hate Barron in the first for the Lions. Bad pick with the injury plus he's similar in style to Spievey, and if they're looking to upgrade they better look for an all-around style player, which would be a better complement for Delmas.
_________________
Football is love, love is life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41594
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 49ers_52 wrote: | | Hill is a bit of a risk. Kendall Wright or Coby Fleener are my favorite choices at 30 but Hill would be up there. |
Yea I think you have to give Alex some talent other than Davis so all 3 would be viable options
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Its A Sabotage
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 28482
Location: Do. Your. Job.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Quick question...Why would we trade up for Blackmon when we could get Claiborne at that same pick? I get Receiver is a need, but a Receiver in the top-5, and one that can't really stretch the field, won't help Gabbert, when a blue chip prospect in Claiborne can pair with Cox in the secondary for the foreseeable future.
_________________
| green24 wrote: | | Sabo is the best poster on FF |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gameface
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 393
Location: Maple Ridge, BC
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I'm not necessarily opposed to a trade down for Seattle. In fact, it's quite likely come draft day. However, I'm just not sold on Poe there when NT is not the greatest need and some decent folks are still available who could fill real needs. Personally, I'd prefer Perry in that spot but would also consider Ingram, Brockers and Cox. Still, nice effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jumpgo692003
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 119
Location: ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Completely disagree with your Browns selection on several platforms
1. Browns definitely could get more then a 3rd to trade down, regardless of your logic. With a rookie scale, those top 5 picks are premium. They wont get the Rams type of trade as that was moreso desperation then compensation.
Browns would get a 2nd or combination of picks that are valued in that level (or above) to trade down to 7.
More importantly is your theology of Heckert or Holmgren (the one actually deciding when to get a qb) and its completely off base. No offense but there is absolutely no history of either taking a qb this high, let alone a project qb. It would be different if Tannehill was a top shelf prospect but he isnt. He is a project qb with some upside. We all know this. Do teams reach for players? Absolutely. There is no history OR NEED for the Browns to draft him at 4, 7 or even 22. Im sorry but qb is not the need people think it is. Its funny that Heckert supports McCoy but then the media comes out with reports of "speculated" offers for RGIII.
Browns will not draft Tannehill I can promise you that. I can also promise that the vanilla style WCO that Tannehill did have a bit of experience in, is not even close to the true WCO where timing is everything. The kid is not accurate which totally defies the WCO theology. McCoy at least is accurate.
People (and this isnt toward you but all in general),...the Browns are not down on McCoy. He was in his first year in the WCO with no receivers, no rb, no OL and new coaches. I think he did quite well and I expect him to improve.
So while I doubt you change the pick because you want to justify Tannehill going at the point he did,.....I will say that I bet you wouldnt bet on it because we both know he isnt BPA and qb isnt a need......and certainly isnt the need that OT, WR, DE, CB and possibly RB are.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stylish313
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 13818
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Browns got screwed big-time, ouch.
_________________
IAmPacman on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41594
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Its A Sabotage wrote: | | Quick question...Why would we trade up for Blackmon when we could get Claiborne at that same pick? I get Receiver is a need, but a Receiver in the top-5, and one that can't really stretch the field, won't help Gabbert, when a blue chip prospect in Claiborne can pair with Cox in the secondary for the foreseeable future. |
You wouldn't get either if you stay at 7
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Its A Sabotage
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 28482
Location: Do. Your. Job.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MaddHatter wrote: | | Its A Sabotage wrote: | | Quick question...Why would we trade up for Blackmon when we could get Claiborne at that same pick? I get Receiver is a need, but a Receiver in the top-5, and one that can't really stretch the field, won't help Gabbert, when a blue chip prospect in Claiborne can pair with Cox in the secondary for the foreseeable future. |
You wouldn't get either if you stay at 7 |
I know, I was trying to say, if we trade up it would be for Claiborne.
_________________
| green24 wrote: | | Sabo is the best poster on FF |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41594
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jumpgo692003 wrote: | Completely disagree with your Browns selection on several platforms
1. Browns definitely could get more then a 3rd to trade down, regardless of your logic. With a rookie scale, those top 5 picks are premium. They wont get the Rams type of trade as that was moreso desperation then compensation.
Browns would get a 2nd or combination of picks that are valued in that level (or above) to trade down to 7.
More importantly is your theology of Heckert or Holmgren (the one actually deciding when to get a qb) and its completely off base. No offense but there is absolutely no history of either taking a qb this high, let alone a project qb. It would be different if Tannehill was a top shelf prospect but he isnt. He is a project qb with some upside. We all know this. Do teams reach for players? Absolutely. There is no history OR NEED for the Browns to draft him at 4, 7 or even 22. Im sorry but qb is not the need people think it is. Its funny that Heckert supports McCoy but then the media comes out with reports of "speculated" offers for RGIII.
Browns will not draft Tannehill I can promise you that. I can also promise that the vanilla style WCO that Tannehill did have a bit of experience in, is not even close to the true WCO where timing is everything. The kid is not accurate which totally defies the WCO theology. McCoy at least is accurate.
People (and this isnt toward you but all in general),...the Browns are not down on McCoy. He was in his first year in the WCO with no receivers, no rb, no OL and new coaches. I think he did quite well and I expect him to improve.
So while I doubt you change the pick because you want to justify Tannehill going at the point he did,.....I will say that I bet you wouldnt bet on it because we both know he isnt BPA and qb isnt a need......and certainly isnt the need that OT, WR, DE, CB and possibly RB are. |
jumpgo - I appreciate your indepth argument and explanation, so I hope you'll consider mine.
Do I think he's a "LOCK" to the Browns, but Shurmur loved him, he interviewed extremely well, and his accuracy is incredibly impressive at all 3 levels and doesn't drop when he is on the move. His big weakness is his deep ball - he can hit all the NFL throws but a true deep ball with be underthrown or floated.
Mike and Todd, among many others, have all said he's going to be a Top 10 pick. Miami, Seattle, Cleveland all need a QB and while we don't know who will have Peyton or Flynn, I doubt either ends up in Cleveland.
As for the Trade itself, maybe you pick up a 2013 3rd as well - I'll think about it.
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41594
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Its A Sabotage wrote: | | MaddHatter wrote: | | Its A Sabotage wrote: | | Quick question...Why would we trade up for Blackmon when we could get Claiborne at that same pick? I get Receiver is a need, but a Receiver in the top-5, and one that can't really stretch the field, won't help Gabbert, when a blue chip prospect in Claiborne can pair with Cox in the secondary for the foreseeable future. |
You wouldn't get either if you stay at 7 |
I know, I was trying to say, if we trade up it would be for Claiborne. |
Ahh - misread your post - I'll keep that in mind
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sadjag
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 852
Location: jax
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jumpgo692003 wrote: | | Buccaneers wrote: | | The OUTLAW wrote: | | Awful trade and awful pick for the Browns. Stay at 4 and take Claiborne |
Uh no? |
Heck of a lot more likely then a trade down 3 spots for a 3rd????? just to draft Tannehill.
So aquiring a 3rd justifies reaching a bit less on a PROJECT qb when you have a qb that the GM just Wednesday says he believes in.
If there was a qb they were interested in,...it would be Flynn as he is accustomed to the true WCO...but I seriously doubt they attempt to even get him. Based on Heckert and Holmgrens history, a qb wont even be considered until the 3rd round or later. |
Shut up and give us Blackmon! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrownsDog23
Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Posts: 271
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MaddHatter wrote: | | jumpgo692003 wrote: | Completely disagree with your Browns selection on several platforms
1. Browns definitely could get more then a 3rd to trade down, regardless of your logic. With a rookie scale, those top 5 picks are premium. They wont get the Rams type of trade as that was moreso desperation then compensation.
Browns would get a 2nd or combination of picks that are valued in that level (or above) to trade down to 7.
More importantly is your theology of Heckert or Holmgren (the one actually deciding when to get a qb) and its completely off base. No offense but there is absolutely no history of either taking a qb this high, let alone a project qb. It would be different if Tannehill was a top shelf prospect but he isnt. He is a project qb with some upside. We all know this. Do teams reach for players? Absolutely. There is no history OR NEED for the Browns to draft him at 4, 7 or even 22. Im sorry but qb is not the need people think it is. Its funny that Heckert supports McCoy but then the media comes out with reports of "speculated" offers for RGIII.
Browns will not draft Tannehill I can promise you that. I can also promise that the vanilla style WCO that Tannehill did have a bit of experience in, is not even close to the true WCO where timing is everything. The kid is not accurate which totally defies the WCO theology. McCoy at least is accurate.
People (and this isnt toward you but all in general),...the Browns are not down on McCoy. He was in his first year in the WCO with no receivers, no rb, no OL and new coaches. I think he did quite well and I expect him to improve.
So while I doubt you change the pick because you want to justify Tannehill going at the point he did,.....I will say that I bet you wouldnt bet on it because we both know he isnt BPA and qb isnt a need......and certainly isnt the need that OT, WR, DE, CB and possibly RB are. |
jumpgo - I appreciate your indepth argument and explanation, so I hope you'll consider mine.
Do I think he's a "LOCK" to the Browns, but Shurmur loved him, he interviewed extremely well, and his accuracy is incredibly impressive at all 3 levels and doesn't drop when he is on the move. His big weakness is his deep ball - he can hit all the NFL throws but a true deep ball with be underthrown or floated.
Mike and Todd, among many others, have all said he's going to be a Top 10 pick. Miami, Seattle, Cleveland all need a QB and while we don't know who will have Peyton or Flynn, I doubt either ends up in Cleveland.
As for the Trade itself, maybe you pick up a 2013 3rd as well - I'll think about it. |
First off Shurmur reportedly loving Tannehill could and most likely is a smokescreen. Every thing you hear from coaches and GM this time of year should be taken with a grain of salt. Also the say his accuracy is incredibly impressive is a bit of a stretch don't you think? He is project QB in every since of the word. His mechanics need work, his decision making is below average, hasn't shown he can go through progressions ect... He just isn't a 1st round caliber QB and i doubt the Front Office that has NEVER spent a 1st round pick on a QB will be the one to reach for Tannehill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
