If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   The Cleveland Browns make the Cleveland Browniest move in the history of the Cleveland Browns, make Brandon Weeden the oldest first round pick in the history of the NFL   (latimes.com) divider line 386
    More: Fail, Brandon Weeden, NFL, NFL Draft, Oklahoma State  
•       •       •

3375 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



386 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-27 10:30:55 AM  

vonschiller: Jim from Saint Paul: AdmirableSnackbar: downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: babysealclubber: I still can't believe they gave up so many picks for Richardson.

And they didn't even do that since Richardson would have been there at 4. The trade was completely pointless since the Vikings were going to go with Kalil anyway. I gotta give the Vikings front office props for that one, they acquired a bunch of picks and still got the guy they should have picked.

You don't know that. The Browns obviously believed the Vikings had another team ready to trade up for the pick and grab Richardson. Given how highly rated he was it is entirely plausible. While I don't love giving up those picks it was well worth it to get the guy they loved. It's not like they were going to find thirteen starters in the draft. Only downside is that they have less ammunition to move up today or tomorrow if they wanted to.

Let's focus on the real travesty, which was taking Weeden at 22.

The Browns believed it but I don't. Who else would have traded to 3 for a RB? Tampa, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Carolina and Buffalo are all set at RB to the point where they didn't need to invest a 1st round pick at RB, much less trade up for one. It was a silly trade for the Browns to make, but one of many silly trades (Dallas and Philly, I'm looking at you).

But you're right, Weeden is tactically one of the worst 1st round picks in recent memory. There aren't enough bad things that could be said about it.

You could make cases for Tampa and St Louis wanting to go RB. Blount had an off year and wanting a backup that is garunteed to see the field in St Louis since Jackson never plays a full year.

Completely legit points.

And if we lose out on Richardson, we take Blackmon, get an OL with #22, and take an RB at #37.


And Browns management obviously thought they needed a guy to fill the void that Hillis filled for, like, half a season.
 
2012-04-27 10:33:37 AM  

babysealclubber: downtownkid: Bullshiat. The Browns need impact players more than depth. They have thirteen frigging draft choices. The right move was to use some of them to position themselves to get the player they really wanted. Unless you completely disbelieve the Tampa Bay rumors it was the smart move. You MAY get lucky and land a player with fourth round picks but statistically you're basically trading away a special teams player that low.

Your claim would make sense if that's what they did. Instead, they traded away later picks for a RB (Which I still don't understand, no offensive line, WR's that can't catch usually mean a bad running game) one spot above, they drafted an aging quarterback they could have gotten in the next round, and I bet they will find a way to screw it up. They could have taken a WR, they could have addressed the line, but instead they continued to be the Browns, and they will continue to suck. Enjoy going 6-10 next year.


I agree that they reached for Weeden, but you are dead wrong on the rest of it. Richardson was graded much higher than any other running back. Receivers have an exponentially higher washout rate than RB's when picked early. In their position you need to go for the sure thing. As for no offensive line, guess you have never heard of perennial all-pro LT Joe Thomas and top five center Alex Mack? I would have loved to have drafted help for the right side of the line but they have two young players that they like in those positions.
 
2012-04-27 10:34:37 AM  

bhcompy: babysealclubber: downtownkid: Tampa Bay rumors it was the smart move

Even IF the Tampa Bay rumors are true, it was still not a smart move. You can't have an effective running attack without a passing attack or a good offensive line in the AFC North.

Err, the Steelers had it for years with Bettis and co. If Rapey threw more than 10 passes a game it was national news. And the line was never great.


Actually, the years that the Steelers were a run first team with Roethlisberger, 2004-2005, they had All-Pros Faneca and Hartings anchoring the line. The running game hasn't been the same since they left.
 
2012-04-27 10:38:49 AM  

bhcompy: Err, the Steelers had it for years with Bettis and co. If Rapey threw more than 10 passes a game it was national news. And the line was never great.


Yeah, it wasn't like the Super Bowl XL winner was a WR or anything. Plus, it helps when you have a defense like the Steelers, something the Browns do not have.
 
2012-04-27 10:42:20 AM  

SigmaAlgebra: bhcompy: babysealclubber: downtownkid: Tampa Bay rumors it was the smart move

Even IF the Tampa Bay rumors are true, it was still not a smart move. You can't have an effective running attack without a passing attack or a good offensive line in the AFC North.

Err, the Steelers had it for years with Bettis and co. If Rapey threw more than 10 passes a game it was national news. And the line was never great.

Actually, the years that the Steelers were a run first team with Roethlisberger, 2004-2005, they had All-Pros Faneca and Hartings anchoring the line. The running game hasn't been the same since they left.


Willie Parker had 1400 yards in 06 and 1300 in 07. The running game wasn't the same because Bettis was the best short yardage bruiser in the league and Najeh Davenport is awful.
 
2012-04-27 10:42:34 AM  

downtownkid: I agree that they reached for Weeden, but you are dead wrong on the rest of it. Richardson was graded much higher than any other running back. Receivers have an exponentially higher washout rate than RB's when picked early. In their position you need to go for the sure thing. As for no offensive line, guess you have never heard of perennial all-pro LT Joe Thomas and top five center Alex Mack? I would have loved to have drafted help for the right side of the line but they have two young players that they like in those positions.


What I do know is 39 allowed sacks. And that is for a team that ran the ball 100 more times than it threw it. Like I said, until they address the right side of the line, they're not going to make progress.
 
2012-04-27 10:49:05 AM  

SigmaAlgebra: Actually, the years that the Steelers were a run first team with Roethlisberger, 2004-2005, they had All-Pros Faneca and Hartings anchoring the line. The running game hasn't been the same since they left.


And all they've done since is win two Super Bowls, compared to the none they had when they were run-first for two decades before that.
 
2012-04-27 10:49:23 AM  
Trent Richardson already has injury issues. He will not make it in Cleveland.
 
2012-04-27 10:50:06 AM  
siddfinch: Weeden has shoulder issues (that is what pushed him out of baseball)

Source? Because you don't think every scouting report on him that mentioned his age (OMG! Gramps Weeden!) would have brought up shoulder issues? Did you see his pro day at OKState, the man can zip a football. Or watch this, the dude can bring it.

No, what pushed him out of baseball was that even if you throw in the low-90's like he did, without a reliable breaking ball, you're just a batting practice pitcher, even in AA ball. It's like he said on the Gruden show, when they started hitting balls in to the gap regularly, he knew he was in trouble. Plus, he was sick of riding around on buses in the minors leagues when he might never make the big leagues. He made the wrong choice about what sport to pursue, he can make up for it now.

Weeden + Richardson + OL line help = Browns go 9-7 in 2013.

/Not that I'd bet money on that or anything
 
2012-04-27 10:50:23 AM  

IAmRight: SigmaAlgebra: Actually, the years that the Steelers were a run first team with Roethlisberger, 2004-2005, they had All-Pros Faneca and Hartings anchoring the line. The running game hasn't been the same since they left.

And all they've done since is win two Super Bowls, compared to the none they had when they were run-first for two decades before that.


Run-first offenses are dead.
 
2012-04-27 10:51:09 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: You could make cases for Tampa and St Louis wanting to go RB. Blount had an off year and wanting a backup that is garunteed to see the field in St Louis since Jackson never plays a full year.

Completely legit points.


Those points could also be used to show why you shouldn't take a RB that high in the draft. I realize that Blount wasn't a high draft pick but that (and guys like LeSean McCoy, Arian Foster, MJD, Michael Turner, etc) shows that you can find good RBs anywhere in the draft or even outside of the draft. It's one thing to stand pat and take the best player available if he falls to you, but trading up in the first round when you have so many holes on your roster to take a player at a position with a very limited shelf life is clearly a mistake. It's better to take mid-round RBs every other year or so to chew them up and spit them out while using your top picks to fill other holes on the roster.
 
2012-04-27 10:53:03 AM  

Henry Holland: Weeden(IR) + Richardson(IR) + No OL line help = Browns go 5-11 in 2013.


FTFY. Not until management finally learns.

Plus, ANY pitcher who spent time in the major/minor league circuits are going to have some sort of shoulder issues.
 
2012-04-27 10:53:48 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: but trading up in the first round when you have so many holes on your roster to take a player at a position with a very limited shelf life is clearly a mistake. It's better to take mid-round RBs every other year or so to chew them up and spit them out while using your top picks to fill other holes on the roster.


Not according to some of these people.
 
2012-04-27 10:54:40 AM  

babysealclubber: Run-first offenses are dead.


Dead? No. Not the most successful in today's NFL where the rules favor pass offenses against defense? Sure. The Raiders are a run-first team with Bush and McFadden
 
2012-04-27 10:56:28 AM  

SuburbanSound: Everyone saying the line is awful is an idiot. You had an old, injured Tony Pashos as your right tackle. He is gone now. You had rookies playing at the guard sports because of injury. They now have a year under their belts and actually improved towards the end of the year. When Hillis's vagina wasn't hurting last year he put up some decent numbers behind that line. I expect Richardson to hit 1200-1300 total yards this year. I say grab Hill at 37 then hit OL and LB in the rest of the draft. Greg Little is only going to get better this year. While I don't love Weeden, I am actually excited to see an actual NFL offense this year.


Nail on the head here folks. The Browns were an injury away from having a well above average O-Line.
 
2012-04-27 10:57:55 AM  

IAmRight: Richardson will be serviceable but trading up to get a RB in today's NFL is absolutely retarded.

Getting a 28-year-old QB who wasn't even the best QB in his conference, well, that's just icing on the cake.


THIS. There's a reason the Bears aren't giving in to Forte, who is one of the better backs in the league. RBs just aren't worth what they used to be, given that it is now a pass-first league, and wear and tear make a long term investment in a RB unwise.
 
2012-04-27 10:58:23 AM  

bhcompy: babysealclubber: Run-first offenses are dead.

Dead? No. Not the most successful in today's NFL where the rules favor pass offenses against defense? Sure. The Raiders are a run-first team with Bush and McFadden


That's what I mean. Bush and McFadden work because they can catch the ball out of the backfield. The rules and the size and speed of defenses these days make the smash-mouth run up the middle football plan extremely difficult to execute.
 
2012-04-27 10:58:47 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Jim from Saint Paul: You could make cases for Tampa and St Louis wanting to go RB. Blount had an off year and wanting a backup that is garunteed to see the field in St Louis since Jackson never plays a full year.

Completely legit points.

Those points could also be used to show why you shouldn't take a RB that high in the draft. I realize that Blount wasn't a high draft pick but that (and guys like LeSean McCoy, Arian Foster, MJD, Michael Turner, etc) shows that you can find good RBs anywhere in the draft or even outside of the draft. It's one thing to stand pat and take the best player available if he falls to you, but trading up in the first round when you have so many holes on your roster to take a player at a position with a very limited shelf life is clearly a mistake. It's better to take mid-round RBs every other year or so to chew them up and spit them out while using your top picks to fill other holes on the roster.


You "can" find quality players at any position on the field in later rounds. You can list a handful of RB's who were late round finds and I can list hundreds of RB's drafted in the later rounds who were busts. What part of "a fourth round choice is statistically almost guaranteed to be a special teams player and nothing more" do you still fail to understand? They gave up very little to lock into a player they loved who happens to be as close as you can get to a sure thing at a position of need for the team.
 
2012-04-27 10:59:31 AM  

karmaceutical: Nail on the head here folks. The Browns were an injury away from having a well above average O-Line.


And the Patriots were one catch away from a Super Bowl. That's why you have depth, that's why you plan for injuries, that's why you don't waste draft picks.
 
2012-04-27 10:59:55 AM  

babysealclubber: bhcompy: babysealclubber: Run-first offenses are dead.

Dead? No. Not the most successful in today's NFL where the rules favor pass offenses against defense? Sure. The Raiders are a run-first team with Bush and McFadden

That's what I mean. Bush and McFadden work because they can catch the ball out of the backfield. The rules and the size and speed of defenses these days make the smash-mouth run up the middle football plan extremely difficult to execute.


Richardson is an excellent receiver as well. Something that is key in the WCO.
 
2012-04-27 11:00:05 AM  

bhcompy: babysealclubber: Run-first offenses are dead.

Dead? No. Not the most successful in today's NFL where the rules favor pass offenses against defense? Sure. The Raiders are a run-first team with Bush and McFadden


How's that working out for 'em? Can't muster a winning record and their RBs get injured every year? Seems like a great idea.

BTW, if your rationale for doing something is "The Raiders do it," you're probably doing things wrong.
 
2012-04-27 11:00:53 AM  
Oh and apparently the Browns are shopping Colt McCoy. They are truly the gift that keeps giving.
 
2012-04-27 11:02:50 AM  

babysealclubber: IAmRight: SigmaAlgebra: Actually, the years that the Steelers were a run first team with Roethlisberger, 2004-2005, they had All-Pros Faneca and Hartings anchoring the line. The running game hasn't been the same since they left.

And all they've done since is win two Super Bowls, compared to the none they had when they were run-first for two decades before that.

Run-first offenses are dead.


While you are certainly not wrong the reason they are dead isnt because you can't run and win football games - its because teams were able to scheme defenses to shut down the run.

This led some teams to start playing offenses with significantly greater higher percentages of pass plays and pass players - teams built to stop the run suddenly couldnt stop 5-wide. If 3/4ths of the teams you play design their defenses to stop the pass (with the new requirement that you must have a 'shut down corner') a team that CAN run effectively will have a certain amount of success.

The wing-T or wishbone offenses died because tons of teams ran them and thus every team learned (and practiced) to defend it - but if you're the one team in D1 college that still runs it you can have some success.

I'm not saying the surest way to be a world beater is the ground game but these things move in cycles and fads.
 
2012-04-27 11:03:50 AM  

babysealclubber: karmaceutical: Nail on the head here folks. The Browns were an injury away from having a well above average O-Line.

And the Patriots were one catch away from a Super Bowl. That's why you have depth, that's why you plan for injuries, that's why you don't waste draft picks.


I'm just saying that the line problem in Cleveland is as dire as people are making it out to be.
 
2012-04-27 11:04:30 AM  

Fizpez: D1 college that still runs it you can have some success.


My original statement was for the NFL only, but yeah I agree with everything you say. Plus you have to take into account the effect rules changes have had on defenses.
 
2012-04-27 11:05:15 AM  

babysealclubber: Oh and apparently the Browns are shopping Colt McCoy. They are truly the gift that keeps giving.


You really are a moron. They took Weeden to start, they clearly have given up on Colt and now he's disgruntled. Why, exactly, would it be smart to keep him?
 
2012-04-27 11:05:58 AM  
I just don't understand what was wrong with Justin Blackmon. Richardson has had some serious injury issues.
 
2012-04-27 11:08:04 AM  

downtownkid: babysealclubber: Oh and apparently the Browns are shopping Colt McCoy. They are truly the gift that keeps giving.

You really are a moron. They took Weeden to start, they clearly have given up on Colt and now he's disgruntled. Why, exactly, would it be smart to keep him?


Oh yeah, I forgot, Colt McCoy dropped 23 passes last year. Clearly, he is the problem with the offense. Better bring in another Draft Pick to start in his place.
 
2012-04-27 11:08:27 AM  

Fizpez: I'm not saying the surest way to be a world beater is the ground game but these things move in cycles and fads.


The only way they're going back to the run is if the NFL wants to start letting DBs manhandle WRs up the field again.

/at least Richardson is a good pass receiver, if he couldn't do that, it would've been galactically stupid. At least now it's secondary in stupidity to getting Weeden
 
2012-04-27 11:09:04 AM  

karmaceutical: babysealclubber: karmaceutical: Nail on the head here folks. The Browns were an injury away from having a well above average O-Line.

And the Patriots were one catch away from a Super Bowl. That's why you have depth, that's why you plan for injuries, that's why you don't waste draft picks.

I'm just saying that the line problem in Cleveland is as dire as people are making it out to be.


Is NOT as dire... sheesh.
 
2012-04-27 11:09:35 AM  

babysealclubber: downtownkid: babysealclubber: Oh and apparently the Browns are shopping Colt McCoy. They are truly the gift that keeps giving.

You really are a moron. They took Weeden to start, they clearly have given up on Colt and now he's disgruntled. Why, exactly, would it be smart to keep him?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Colt McCoy dropped 23 passes last year. Clearly, he is the problem with the offense. Better bring in another Draft Pick to start in his place.


My statement is for the fact they were already planning to shop him before the draft.
 
2012-04-27 11:10:30 AM  

babysealclubber: I just don't understand what was wrong with Justin Blackmon. Richardson has had some serious injury issues.



Once again, receivers chosen high have an exponentially greater failure rate than RB's taken high. Is that hard for you to understand?

Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.
 
2012-04-27 11:11:11 AM  

IAmRight: bhcompy: babysealclubber: Run-first offenses are dead.

Dead? No. Not the most successful in today's NFL where the rules favor pass offenses against defense? Sure. The Raiders are a run-first team with Bush and McFadden

How's that working out for 'em? Can't muster a winning record and their RBs get injured every year? Seems like a great idea.

BTW, if your rationale for doing something is "The Raiders do it," you're probably doing things wrong.


Bush was the right RB for the job, but McFadden is made of glass. If the Raiders weren't missing their top 4 offensive starters for the bulk of last season they would have made the playoffs. As it was, they were in control of their own destiny until the last week of the season.

/Bush was the best value draft pick the Raiders made in years. First round talent in the fourth round.
//Bush to the Bears for 4/14 is also a steal
 
2012-04-27 11:12:04 AM  

downtownkid: Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.


Oh, I don't know, Link there's a start. You have to love a RB with previous knee injuries. Take into account like the article I linked says, he will be the main target, good luck getting him through the season.
 
2012-04-27 11:12:25 AM  

downtownkid: Once again, receivers chosen high have an exponentially greater failure rate than RB's taken high. Is that hard for you to understand?

Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.


Mainly because it's easy to find someone who will be "successful" at RB. Success requires 80 yards/game, and you can usually carry 25 times to get there. Not a good average, not really that helpful to the team, but you count as successful.

Also, receivers depend on other players/defenses a lot more than RBs do
 
2012-04-27 11:12:30 AM  

babysealclubber: downtownkid: babysealclubber: Oh and apparently the Browns are shopping Colt McCoy. They are truly the gift that keeps giving.

You really are a moron. They took Weeden to start, they clearly have given up on Colt and now he's disgruntled. Why, exactly, would it be smart to keep him?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Colt McCoy dropped 23 passes last year. Clearly, he is the problem with the offense. Better bring in another Draft Pick to start in his place.


The Browns felt they couldn't win with McCoy. Personally I would have stuck with him but they felt differently. Holmgren and Heckert have a better track record evaluating QB's than you or I do.
 
2012-04-27 11:13:50 AM  

bhcompy: As it was, they were in control of their own destiny until the last week of the season.


Not because they were good, but because they were in a sh*t division. The Browns aren't in a sh*t division, so they can't rely on that to help 'em.
 
2012-04-27 11:15:01 AM  

babysealclubber: downtownkid: Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.

Oh, I don't know, Link there's a start. You have to love a RB with previous knee injuries. Take into account like the article I linked says, he will be the main target, good luck getting him through the season.



Thank you very much for using Bleacher Report as a source to support your argument. We now know better than to take anything you say seriously ever again.
 
2012-04-27 11:17:07 AM  

downtownkid: Thank you very much for using Bleacher Report as a source to support your argument. We now know better than to take anything you say seriously ever again.


Indeed, because Bleacher Report had a story about it, that means his knees weren't injured and he didn't have surgery that caused him to miss the combine. Who cares that ESPN, SEC blogs, and the LA Times reported on it, too?
 
2012-04-27 11:17:08 AM  

downtownkid: babysealclubber: downtownkid: Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.

Oh, I don't know, Link there's a start. You have to love a RB with previous knee injuries. Take into account like the article I linked says, he will be the main target, good luck getting him through the season.


Thank you very much for using Bleacher Report as a source to support your argument. We now know better than to take anything you say seriously ever again.


Oh yes, the old "I don't like your source, therefore your argument is invalid." Here's an idea, read what it says about his injuries. Those are facts. Sorry if it has an anti-Browns spin. Quit being such a tool.
 
2012-04-27 11:19:13 AM  

IAmRight: bhcompy: As it was, they were in control of their own destiny until the last week of the season.

Not because they were good, but because they were in a sh*t division. The Browns aren't in a sh*t division, so they can't rely on that to help 'em.


Before injuries completely wrecked their season they lost to a hot Bills team and a playoff bound Pats team, beat a SB contender Texans@Houston, West champ Donks, and a decent Jets team. They had potential to be a good team. They'd have been an 11 win team with Campbell and McFadden healthy, rather than an 8 win team.
 
2012-04-27 11:23:42 AM  

Henry Holland: siddfinch: Weeden has shoulder issues (that is what pushed him out of baseball)

Source? Because you don't think every scouting report on him that mentioned his age (OMG! Gramps Weeden!) would have brought up shoulder issues? Did you see his pro day at OKState, the man can zip a football. Or watch this, the dude can bring it.

No, what pushed him out of baseball was that even if you throw in the low-90's like he did, without a reliable breaking ball, you're just a batting practice pitcher, even in AA ball. It's like he said on the Gruden show, when they started hitting balls in to the gap regularly, he knew he was in trouble. Plus, he was sick of riding around on buses in the minors leagues when he might never make the big leagues. He made the wrong choice about what sport to pursue, he c an make up for it now.


Just every reasonable scouting report on him (including ones still available from his baseball career.

Here is the first one I found:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1272538

"Dealing with a torn labrum and tendinitis in his rotator cuff in 2006, he decided to pursue football rather than undergo major arm surgery."

He has also talked about it on interviews, etc. So, he was a sore armed pitcher that didn't want to work through coming back from arm surgery. So, he quit and played football and doesn't like people talking about his age.

So, yes. He does have a shoulder issues that OSU worked with and the Browns will have to deal with. Plus, he has shown a willingness to give to and go to the next thing.
 
2012-04-27 11:24:12 AM  

babysealclubber: downtownkid: babysealclubber: downtownkid: Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.

Oh, I don't know, Link there's a start. You have to love a RB with previous knee injuries. Take into account like the article I linked says, he will be the main target, good luck getting him through the season.


Thank you very much for using Bleacher Report as a source to support your argument. We now know better than to take anything you say seriously ever again.

Oh yes, the old "I don't like your source, therefore your argument is invalid." Here's an idea, read what it says about his injuries. Those are facts. Sorry if it has an anti-Browns spin. Quit being such a tool.


A tool? Me?

Let's see, you were dead wrong about the Browns giving up too much to trade up, as it was really just a few special teams players to be had with those picks.

You claimed that Tampa Bay didn't want a RB despite the fact that they drafted one in the first round as they only had two on their roster.

You had no idea what was going on with the Browns O-line but felt free to opine on it until once again your ignorance was pointed out.

You cannot grasp the concept that receivers chosen high have a MUCH higher failure rate than RB's chosen high.

You cited Bleacher Report as a source. BR is an aggregation of bloggers that specializes in throwing as much content as possible up there without concern for quality. You can find five conflicting opinions on any given situation on that site. Only an idiot uses it as a source.

So yes, I may be a bit of a tool but you my friend are a blathering idiot.
 
2012-04-27 11:29:15 AM  

downtownkid: babysealclubber: downtownkid: babysealclubber: downtownkid: Please explain Richardson's serious injury issues.

Oh, I don't know, Link there's a start. You have to love a RB with previous knee injuries. Take into account like the article I linked says, he will be the main target, good luck getting him through the season.


Thank you very much for using Bleacher Report as a source to support your argument. We now know better than to take anything you say seriously ever again.

Oh yes, the old "I don't like your source, therefore your argument is invalid." Here's an idea, read what it says about his injuries. Those are facts. Sorry if it has an anti-Browns spin. Quit being such a tool.

A tool? Me?

Let's see, you were dead wrong about the Browns giving up too much to trade up, as it was really just a few special teams players to be had with those picks.

You claimed that Tampa Bay didn't want a RB despite the fact that they drafted one in the first round as they only had two on their roster.

You had no idea what was going on with the Browns O-line but felt free to opine on it until once again your ignorance was pointed out.

You cannot grasp the concept that receivers chosen high have a MUCH higher failure rate than RB's chosen high.

You cited Bleacher Report as a source. BR is an aggregation of bloggers that specializes in throwing as much content as possible up there without concern for quality. You can find five conflicting opinions on any given situation on that site. Only an idiot uses it as a source.

So yes, I may be a bit of a tool but you my friend are a blathering idiot.


They did give too much to trade up. ONE spot, on an unsubstantiated rumor, when there were more quality players to get in more needed positions. This is even worse when you take into account Richardson's injuries.

I have no idea about the Browns o-line, except that the right side is super effective at blocking fence posts.

You can't grasp the concept that run-first offenses get you no where, and you can get a successful RB anywhere.

It doesn't matter if I pulled Bleacher Report. It was the first thing that came up, and using it doesn't mean he didn't miss games and the combine due to knee issues. Plus, a site that aggregates from other sources? Welcome to Fark.
 
2012-04-27 11:30:02 AM  

downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: Jim from Saint Paul: You could make cases for Tampa and St Louis wanting to go RB. Blount had an off year and wanting a backup that is garunteed to see the field in St Louis since Jackson never plays a full year.

Completely legit points.

Those points could also be used to show why you shouldn't take a RB that high in the draft. I realize that Blount wasn't a high draft pick but that (and guys like LeSean McCoy, Arian Foster, MJD, Michael Turner, etc) shows that you can find good RBs anywhere in the draft or even outside of the draft. It's one thing to stand pat and take the best player available if he falls to you, but trading up in the first round when you have so many holes on your roster to take a player at a position with a very limited shelf life is clearly a mistake. It's better to take mid-round RBs every other year or so to chew them up and spit them out while using your top picks to fill other holes on the roster.

You "can" find quality players at any position on the field in later rounds. You can list a handful of RB's who were late round finds and I can list hundreds of RB's drafted in the later rounds who were busts. What part of "a fourth round choice is statistically almost guaranteed to be a special teams player and nothing more" do you still fail to understand? They gave up very little to lock into a player they loved who happens to be as close as you can get to a sure thing at a position of need for the team.


But RB's are really plug and play more than almost another other position. An average RB + a good line = a good RB. You spend your picks on high impact, long term players. Lineman (generally easy to pick great lineman in the first round, 10+ years each), QB's (duh, although harder to pick), CB's, a passrusher (depends on your alignment), a mike. Then you start looking at the shiny toys.
 
2012-04-27 11:32:00 AM  
Regarding the o-line, what used to be easy to evaluate and draft for on the high end isn't so much anymore. Robert Gallery, Jake Long, Joe Thomas, Winston Justice, etc haven't really lived up to their draft position through their impact on the team. Sure, Thomas and Long make Pro Bowls, but what happens to their teams and QBs? Miss the playoffs every year and the QBs get injured. Why continue to waste top draft picks on linemen?
 
2012-04-27 11:35:42 AM  

CavalierEternal: I think McCoy stays. He's still under contract through 2014 and we're not paying him sh*t. Seneca, on the other hand, not only makes more than McCoy but was also recently outed for being a huge sh*tbag and refusing to tutor McCoy on the WCO in order to try and better his chances of becoming the starting QB.


I have a friend who is related to one of the O lineman of the Browns. Said friend went to the Houston/Cleveland game last year and sat in the Browns family section. I asked her what it was like and the first thing she said is that she hated Wallace's wife. During the game, she said that his wife was constantly saying that Seneca should start and he's better than McCoy because he proved it in Seattle.
 
2012-04-27 11:40:53 AM  

babysealclubber: Trent


Trent is fine and never had injury issues at Bama. He is a special player.
 
2012-04-27 11:42:29 AM  
babysealclubber:

They did give too much to trade up. ONE spot, on an unsubstantiated rumor, when there were more quality players to get in more needed positions.

What part of "the vast majority of fourth round picks are either out of the league after a season or are at best special teams players" don't you understand? They gave up very little to move and they had a surplus of choices.

This is even worse when you take into account Richardson's injuries.

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to get past BR as a source, you'll fine multiple sources who are actually qualified evaluators who describe the injury as minor.

I have no idea about the Browns o-line,

Then why were you speaking authoritatively about it upthread? They had two rookies playing there last year that they liked, but you had no idea of that because you're a moron.

You can't grasp the concept that run-first offenses get you no where

I've never said anything remotely indicating that I advocate for a run first offense

and you can get a successful RB anywhere

You have a greater likelihood of finding a RB lower in the draft but there are more washouts than successes there, too. When RB is a need and the top ranked guy is there you take him.

Plus, a site that aggregates from other sources? Welcome to Fark.

If someone cited Fark as a definitive news source we would mock them for being a dumbass. You catch my drift?
 
2012-04-27 11:44:45 AM  

downtownkid: If someone cited Fark as a definitive news source we would mock them for being a dumbass. You catch my drift?


Quit being so obtuse. I wasn't citing the source to support my claims on particle physics. Nor was the claim something to be disputed. It was a state of absolute, whether or not Richardson had had previous injuries or not. You might as well say, "I don't like Fox News, so since they covered 9/11, 9/11 never happened."
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report