Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Fail, Brandon Weeden, NFL, NFL Draft, Oklahoma State  
•       •       •

3381 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:39 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-27 11:46:18 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-27 11:50:58 AM  

downtownkid: 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?


The Browns would have been much better off taking Blackmon, Barron, or Claiborne. Richardson wouldn't have been worth the 4th overall pick even if you didn't help in your secondary or WR corp. Richardson's production can easily be found later in the draft (or UDFA for that matter), and I'd bet a wooden nickel to $5 that he's probably not the best rookie back next year.
 
2012-04-27 11:51:24 AM  

babysealclubber: 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."


No it wasn't. Not even close. You made the argument that he had major injuries that were potentially career threatening. The reality is that multiple reputable sources state that it was a minor injury. You know, distinctions that are pretty much the opposite of absolute.

Look, you came in here talking smack and have been proved wrong on just about every point but the Weeden pick. Quit while you're behind.
 
2012-04-27 11:53:41 AM  

redmid17: downtownkid: 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?

The Browns would have been much better off taking Blackmon, Barron, or Claiborne. Richardson wouldn't have been worth the 4th overall pick even if you didn't help in your secondary or WR corp. Richardson's production can easily be found later in the draft (or UDFA for that matter), and I'd bet a wooden nickel to $5 that he's probably not the best rookie back next year.


Problem is the Browns needed a sure thing. Claiborne is that but the need at running back is so much greater for them that they had to address it. The success/failure rate for receivers drafted high is abysmal across the league, they couldn't risk it with Blackmon.
 
2012-04-27 11:54:47 AM  

downtownkid: No it wasn't. Not even close. You made the argument that he had major injuries that were potentially career threatening. The reality is that multiple reputable sources state that it was a minor injury. You know, distinctions that are pretty much the opposite of absolute.

Look, you came in here talking smack and have been proved wrong on just about every point but the Weeden pick. Quit while you're behind.


Never said career threatening, I said something to be concerned about. And looking at the thread, the only people who seem to disagree with me are Browns fans. Looks like everybody agrees that RB's are not nearly the commodity they used to be and you can get an average RB to get the production you need with an adequate passing attack and offensive line.
 
2012-04-27 11:55:36 AM  

downtownkid: 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?


If someone cited BR as a definitive source as it had no links, then yes they would be a dumbass. If it had links to sources like a news bureau out of Tuscaloosa and ESPN, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
2012-04-27 11:56:12 AM  
TROLLED ENOUGH ALREADY!
 
2012-04-27 12:01:52 PM  
Hey, People!

We took a QB who is OLDER than the one we currently have, who has LESS EXPERIENCE than the one we currently have, who HOLDS ONTO THE BALL JUST AS MUCH as the one we currently have, and are putting him into THE SAME OFFENSE that we currently have.

How is this an upgrade again?
 
2012-04-27 12:04:23 PM  

downtownkid: redmid17: downtownkid: 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?

The Browns would have been much better off taking Blackmon, Barron, or Claiborne. Richardson wouldn't have been worth the 4th overall pick even if you didn't help in your secondary or WR corp. Richardson's production can easily be found later in the draft (or UDFA for that matter), and I'd bet a wooden nickel to $5 that he's probably not the best rookie back next year.

Problem is the Browns needed a sure thing. Claiborne is that but the need at running back is so much greater for them that they had to address it. The success/failure rate for receiver ...


The need at running back can be just as well address later in the first round or second round as it can with the 4th pick. Compare the production of guys like AP, McFadden, and Spiller (might be missing others) -- the RBs who were drafted top ten -- versus guys in the late first round and second round -- MJD, Ray Rice, McCoy, CJ -- versus the guys who were drafted late or not at all -- Turner, Foster, Charles, Blount. Point is you can find that production anywhere in the draft, and it is much more difficult to do that with elite CBs. That's why Barron would have been a good pick too. Hell the guy you were so desperate to replace was a 7th round pick.
 
2012-04-27 12:05:30 PM  

historycat: Hey, People!

We took a QB who is OLDER than the one we currently have, who has LESS EXPERIENCE than the one we currently have, who HOLDS ONTO THE BALL JUST AS MUCH as the one we currently have, and are putting him into THE SAME OFFENSE that we currently have.

How is this an upgrade again?


Less scrambled brains
 
2012-04-27 12:06:29 PM  
the article said he was talkid into leaving baseball because of a high ERA and an injury. if he's getting an injury in baseball i dont have high hopes for his NFL prospects, even with a better O-line.

and 29? that ginger looks almost 40. i guess they dont age well.
 
2012-04-27 12:07:18 PM  

redmid17: The need at running back can be just as well address later in the first round or second round as it can with the 4th pick. Compare the production of guys like AP, McFadden, and Spiller (might be missing others) -- the RBs who were drafted top ten -- versus guys in the late first round and second round -- MJD, Ray Rice, McCoy, CJ -- versus the guys who were drafted late or not at all -- Turner, Foster, Charles, Blount. Point is you can find that production anywhere in the draft, and it is much more difficult to do that with elite CBs. That's why Barron would have been a good pick too. Hell the guy you were so desperate to replace was a 7th round pick.


Exactly. Had the Browns stayed at 4 and selected Barron and then taken RBs with each of the picks they just traded they would probably get at least one that could be a threat and they would have dramatically improved their defense.
 
2012-04-27 12:07:47 PM  

IAmRight: Mainly because it's easy to find someone who will be "successful" at RB.


Truer words were never spoken. Other than retread kickers, I think it's the easiest position to fill on the team. Once in a while there's an AP or C Johnson who is a difference maker, but they usually aren't a difference maker for long and even the ones who are don't win a ton of titles do they? Good defense, good line play, decent qb and you can plug in any of a dozen hangers on at RB and win in the NFL. It's wonderful if you have a great RB. But is it necessary to have a tier 1 RB to make the playoffs? Not at all. In my admittedly non-expert opinion I think the dropoff in talent from the good rb's to the mediocre ones is not nearly as big as at qb and O&D linemen or even db and wr.
 
2012-04-27 12:09:59 PM  
How do the Browns ever plan on winning any games if they keep rotating Quarterbacks every 1.5 years? The QB is the backbone and captain for the whole damn team and if that spot keeps getting traded around, no leadership is ever going to develop.

I wish the team could trade for a better front office because they don't know what the hell they are doing in Berea...
 
2012-04-27 12:11:12 PM  
siddfinch: Just every reasonable scouting report on him (including ones still available from his baseball career.

Here is the first one I found:


4.bp.blogspot.com

Jeebus, would it have killed me to spend 30 seconds Googling? Damnitalltohell. I had no idea who Weeden was before the 2011 season, I liked his story when OKSt starting making national championship noise and have been following him and that's literally the first time I read about his shoulder problems during his baseball career.

/My face is red, I stand corrected
 
2012-04-27 12:13:09 PM  
You sort of expect it in this day and age, but Richardson is definitely saying all the right things thus far. And I will say this for the Browns: the Weeden pick takes a good deal of pressure off Richardson by making the trade to #3 less controversial by comparison.
 
2012-04-27 12:15:48 PM  

CavalierEternal: Harv72b: Meh...congrats if you prove me wrong, but I still think the Browns come away as the biggest losers of the first round this year. First for giving up two extra picks to move up one freaking spot & pick Richardson (greatest RB since Sanders, huge drop-off to 2nd best RB, had lotsa extra picks, etc), and then for reaching on Weeden (who would almost certainly have been there at #37). Like I said in the other thread, this is a team that has a lot of needs and I just don't see how drafting a running back, even a potential game-breaker, and pretty much moving laterally at QB is the best way to get competitive in the AFC North.

To compete in the AFC North, you have to be able to pound the ball first and foremost. If you don't have a back who can match up against the Ravens and Steelers defenses, you're going to fail. It's how the Bengals got to the top of the division a couple years ago and how the Steelers and Ravens have consistently dominated the division (Pittsburgh's recent pass-first reinvention not withstanding). I don't think there's any question that Richardson was the RB we needed.

Weeden is a better Quarterback than McCoy. He's bigger, he's got a stronger arm and he's crazy accurate. The obvious concern is his age and I don't think that's going to be a huge factor since he's going to be almost guaranteed to step in and start on day one instead of sitting back to be "mentored". Again, my big issue with the Weeden pick is that it takes us out of the running (which we'd probably be winning) for Matt Barkley at the top of the draft next year.



And this is why the browns...will be the Browns.

1) You need to keep your QB upright. If this means drifting 5 OL, do it. That is priority #1. IT doesn't matter who your QB is, or who you're receivers and RB are... if you can't keep the opposing defense out of the backfield you're screwed.

#2) From there, you need to build your front 7 on defense to disrupt the other team's QB. If you can pick up a darrelle revis or a young rodney harrison along the way....do it, but you need a solid front 7 and this should be priority #2.

From there ....you can start filling out WRs, RB, TE, and the secondary.

Drafting a RB so you can cram the ball down the throats of the Steelers and Raven is an exercise in stupidity. Instead of trying to run over ray lewis and Ngata...try avoiding them and throwing it their "meh" secondary(ed reed excluded).
 
2012-04-27 12:17:40 PM  
Meh. They took the value pick on Brady Quinn, who was a potential 1st overall pick and slid to 22, and it was an epic disaster. You look at it today and you'd say that Quinn was a huge reach in the 1st round.
 
2012-04-27 12:21:17 PM  

mrtoadswildride: Drafting a RB so you can cram the ball down the throats of the Steelers and Raven is an exercise in stupidity. Instead of trying to run over ray lewis and Ngata...try avoiding them and throwing it their "meh" secondary(ed reed excluded).


In all honesty, with the loss of Jarrett Johnson and Lewis & Reed slowing down a bit with age, the Ravens' pass defense looks like our bigger strength this season. Webb & Carr are coming off of very good seasons at CB, and with Jimmy Smith healthy that should give us 3 above-average corners. And you still have Pollard & Reed to man the safety positions.

If we can add another good pass rusher in the draft, I could legitimately see Baltimore being the #1 pass defense in the league this year. Not that I disagree with your points about drafting Richardson, just sayin'. :)
 
2012-04-27 12:22:53 PM  

Hang On Voltaire: babysealclubber: Trent

Trent is fine and never had injury issues at Bama. He is a special player.


He truly is a "beast".
 
2012-04-27 12:27:54 PM  

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.


I agree in principal.

Now, if Cleveland had taken him at 4 would you be okay?

Because I don;t persoanlly see a big gap between picking a player 3 or 4. 3 instead of 6 (a 3 pick differental, is my general rule of thumb).
 
2012-04-27 12:36:31 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: redmid17: The need at running back can be just as well address later in the first round or second round as it can with the 4th pick. Compare the production of guys like AP, McFadden, and Spiller (might be missing others) -- the RBs who were drafted top ten -- versus guys in the late first round and second round -- MJD, Ray Rice, McCoy, CJ -- versus the guys who were drafted late or not at all -- Turner, Foster, Charles, Blount. Point is you can find that production anywhere in the draft, and it is much more difficult to do that with elite CBs. That's why Barron would have been a good pick too. Hell the guy you were so desperate to replace was a 7th round pick.

Exactly. Had the Browns stayed at 4 and selected Barron and then taken RBs with each of the picks they just traded they would probably get at least one that could be a threat and they would have dramatically improved their defense.



Really? Here are the fourth round running backs chosen last year:

Roy Helu
Kendall Hunter
Delone Carter
Owen Marecic
Taiwan Jones
Bilal Powell
Jamie Harper
Joe McKnight
Jamie Harper

Fifth Round:

Johnny White
Anthony Sherman
Jacquizz Rogers

Seventh Round:

Shaun Chapas
Da'rel Scott
Shane Bannon
Anthony Allen
Baron Batch
Stanley Havili
Jay Finlay

Not quite the sure thing you claim it is, is it?
 
2012-04-27 12:39:25 PM  

downtownkid: Not quite the sure thing you claim it is, is it?


Tough to say guys can't produce because they haven't been given an opportunity to produce (largely because of where they were picked). Roy Helu was by far the best RB the Redskins had. Shanahan is just a moron. Taiwan Jones is pretty damn talented, there were just these guys named McFadden and Bush in front of him (and he was picked as a speed back).
 
2012-04-27 12:44:33 PM  

downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: redmid17: The need at running back can be just as well address later in the first round or second round as it can with the 4th pick. Compare the production of guys like AP, McFadden, and Spiller (might be missing others) -- the RBs who were drafted top ten -- versus guys in the late first round and second round -- MJD, Ray Rice, McCoy, CJ -- versus the guys who were drafted late or not at all -- Turner, Foster, Charles, Blount. Point is you can find that production anywhere in the draft, and it is much more difficult to do that with elite CBs. That's why Barron would have been a good pick too. Hell the guy you were so desperate to replace was a 7th round pick.

Exactly. Had the Browns stayed at 4 and selected Barron and then taken RBs with each of the picks they just traded they would probably get at least one that could be a threat and they would have dramatically improved their defense.


Really? Here are the fourth round running backs chosen last year:

Roy Helu
Kendall Hunter
Delone Carter
Owen Marecic
Taiwan Jones
Bilal Powell
Jamie Harper
Joe McKnight
Jamie Harper

Fifth Round:

Johnny White
Anthony Sherman
Jacquizz Rogers

Seventh Round:

Shaun Chapas
Da'rel Scott
Shane Bannon
Anthony Allen
Baron Batch
Stanley Havili
Jay Finlay

Not quite the sure thing you claim it is, is it?


I never said it was a sure thing. Those later round picks provide depth (something the Browns desperately need) and RB-by-committee is just as good as having a top tier RB. Plus, rookie RBs rarely excel since they need to adjust to the NFL game as well as learn to pass block. I don't expect Richardson to put up great numbers this year, whereas Barron could have provided immediate impact and in three years or so those RBs drafted in later rounds could - and I stress could - be making just as much of an impact as Richardson.
 
2012-04-27 12:47:15 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: 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.

I agree in principal.

Now, if Cleveland had taken him at 4 would you be okay?

Because I don;t persoanlly see a big gap between picking a player 3 or 4. 3 instead of 6 (a 3 pick differental, is my general rule of thumb).


It would have made more sense to take him at 4 and keep the later picks since the Browns need starters and depth all over their roster. Richardson is likely going to be a good RB but it doesn't matter if you have no QB, no receivers, and diminishing talent on defense with no depth.
 
2012-04-27 12:48:42 PM  

bhcompy: Meh. They took the value pick on Brady Quinn, who was a potential 1st overall pick and slid to 22, and it was an epic disaster. You look at it today and you'd say that Quinn was a huge reach in the 1st round.


What? They moved back up into the round to get him. They gave the Dallas Cowboys a 1st and 2nd to get him.

I don't think you can call it a "value" pick unless the person falls to you.
 
2012-04-27 12:52:58 PM  
A non BR reference for Richardson's knee injuries:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/will_carroll/04/23/draf t .red.flags/index.html

``In the rush to anoint him the best available back and a pick as high as No. 4, few note that Richardson didn't run at the Combine. He'd had knee surgery -- not his first -- and was also unavailable at the Alabama pro day. He held his own workouts in late March and showed good speed. There's some durability concerns, but those are long-term, ... ''

Now, if the Browns had a history of keeping running backs healthy, that wouldn't be an issue. Since the have the same track record keeping RB healthy as they do with QB, neither of these picks many any sense.

They certainly are not going to be part of the franchise for the long term. I would be surprised if both last, on the Browns, through their rookie contracts.
 
2012-04-27 01:02:24 PM  
The Cleveland have a long term stadium contract but their is a out clause related to attendance.

By fielding a crappy team, attendance will suffer, they will void the stadium contract and move to Los Angels.
 
2012-04-27 01:04:58 PM  

Buffalo77: The Cleveland have a long term stadium contract but their is a out clause related to attendance.

By fielding a crappy team, attendance will suffer, they will void the stadium contract and move to Los Angels.


I thought they were trying to move to Miami, another warm-weather city where there is no professional football team.
 
2012-04-27 01:05:54 PM  
That gong you heard last night was the death knell of the Mike Holmgren era in Cleveland.

/Sorry, Pat, you got a raw deal, just like Romeo.
 
2012-04-27 01:06:14 PM  

Treygreen13: bhcompy: Meh. They took the value pick on Brady Quinn, who was a potential 1st overall pick and slid to 22, and it was an epic disaster. You look at it today and you'd say that Quinn was a huge reach in the 1st round.

What? They moved back up into the round to get him. They gave the Dallas Cowboys a 1st and 2nd to get him.

I don't think you can call it a "value" pick unless the person falls to you.


It's a value pick because he slid as far as he did when he was projected in the top 10. Just like Green Bay taking Rodgers. And the Browns were praised for their first round, given a high draft rating, etc.
 
2012-04-27 01:10:42 PM  

iron_city_ap: Presence will light a fire under McCoy's ass.


Looks like they're not even gonna give him the chance.

/GONG!
 
2012-04-27 01:10:43 PM  

IlGreven: That gong you heard last night was the death knell of the Mike Holmgren era in Cleveland.

/Sorry, Pat, you got a raw deal, just like Romeo.


Some teams never learn. Homgren has never been a good personnel guy. Yet he'll likely find work again after he's done continuing Cleveland's mediocrity.
 
2012-04-27 01:11:02 PM  

bhcompy: Treygreen13: bhcompy: Meh. They took the value pick on Brady Quinn, who was a potential 1st overall pick and slid to 22, and it was an epic disaster. You look at it today and you'd say that Quinn was a huge reach in the 1st round.

What? They moved back up into the round to get him. They gave the Dallas Cowboys a 1st and 2nd to get him.

I don't think you can call it a "value" pick unless the person falls to you.

It's a value pick because he slid as far as he did when he was projected in the top 10. Just like Green Bay taking Rodgers. And the Browns were praised for their first round, given a high draft rating, etc.


Oh, well maybe you can. In Dallas we thought it was hilarious. Quinn had so. much. hype. that I felt the same about Quinn as I do about Tannehill in this draft.
 
2012-04-27 01:12:09 PM  

IlGreven: iron_city_ap: Presence will light a fire under McCoy's ass.

Looks like they're not even gonna give him the chance.

/GONG!


And this is why bad teams stay bad.
 
2012-04-27 01:14:28 PM  

bhcompy: Treygreen13: bhcompy: Meh. They took the value pick on Brady Quinn, who was a potential 1st overall pick and slid to 22, and it was an epic disaster. You look at it today and you'd say that Quinn was a huge reach in the 1st round.

What? They moved back up into the round to get him. They gave the Dallas Cowboys a 1st and 2nd to get him.

I don't think you can call it a "value" pick unless the person falls to you.

It's a value pick because he slid as far as he did when he was projected in the top 10. Just like Green Bay taking Rodgers. And the Browns were praised for their first round, given a high draft rating, etc.


And the only reason he was a "disaster" is because Mike Holmgren didn't want him from the start. He had barely enough time to get his bearings and then he was injured and shown the door. Pretty much like they're doing with McCoy now.
 
2012-04-27 01:14:37 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Some teams never learn. Homgren has never been a good personnel guy. Yet he'll likely find work again after he's done continuing Cleveland's mediocrity.


I was going to go back through his first rounds, but he actually wasn't THAT terrible in them. Got some good-to-great picks (Shaun Alexander, Steve Hutchinson, Joe Haden) and some bad ones, and some that did okay even though they weren't worth the pick (Koren Robinson).
 
2012-04-27 01:17:15 PM  

IAmRight: AdmirableSnackbar: Some teams never learn. Homgren has never been a good personnel guy. Yet he'll likely find work again after he's done continuing Cleveland's mediocrity.

I was going to go back through his first rounds, but he actually wasn't THAT terrible in them. Got some good-to-great picks (Shaun Alexander, Steve Hutchinson, Joe Haden) and some bad ones, and some that did okay even though they weren't worth the pick (Koren Robinson).


I realize he's not terrible, but compared to the reputation he has (it's as if he invented football, look at his coaching tree!) he's extremely overrated. He's not a bad coach and not a bad talent evaluator but I wouldn't want him as either if I had my druthers.
 
2012-04-27 01:18:12 PM  
I haven't really liked McCoy since the way he and/or his dad handled that national championship game.
 
2012-04-27 01:18:28 PM  

Treygreen13: IlGreven: iron_city_ap: Presence will light a fire under McCoy's ass.

Looks like they're not even gonna give him the chance.

/GONG!

And this is why bad teams stay bad.


A-freakin-men.
 
2012-04-27 01:26:44 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-04-27 01:33:37 PM  

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.


I never understood this logic. In the playoffs the winner of that crap division then beat the winner of the bestest division in the first play of overtime. (Or was Pit the wild card?)

Kind of like the previous year when the 7-9 winner of the worst division in the NFC took out the defending champions.

There are no cupcakes in the NFL. No cupcakes for you.
 
2012-04-27 01:39:03 PM  

patcarew: (Or was Pit the wild card?)


Pitt was playing with half of a team.
 
2012-04-27 01:44:20 PM  

patcarew: I never understood this logic. In the playoffs the winner of that crap division then beat the winner of the bestest division in the first play of overtime. (Or was Pit the wild card?)

Kind of like the previous year when the 7-9 winner of the worst division in the NFC took out the defending champions.


Both teams were wild cards. If you're facing a division winner in the first round of the playoffs, you didn't win your division.
 
2012-04-27 01:51:57 PM  

SigmaAlgebra: [fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 640x960]


This is amazing, not only because of the low success of each name, but also because it doesn't cover very many years.
Suddenly, Plunkett, Grogan, Eason, Millen, Hodson, Secules, Flutie, Zolak, (Bledsoe, Brady) doesn't feel very bad at all.
 
2012-04-27 02:10:18 PM  
Weird tack to take, on both counts. As things stand in the NFL these days, it's hard to figure how Blackmon wouldn't have made a bigger impact than almost any running back, and not just one available in this draft. So right off, they paid extra for a player who will likely improve the team less. Accumulated evidence would seem to point to the conclusion that very serviceable running backs can be had further down a draft. A good receiver or two and an improved offensive line would make McCoy (or Weeden, for that matter) look a lot better than a running back. And who's more likely to lose a lot of time from injury, a running back or a receiver? I don't get it. And then Weeden with the 22nd pick? I really don't get it.

Given all that, I hope the deal with Green Bay goes through for McCoy. If you're going to be a back-up, where would you rather be? There, or in Cleveland?
 
2012-04-27 02:13:05 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Jim from Saint Paul: 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.

I agree in principal.

Now, if Cleveland had taken him at 4 would you be okay?

Because I don;t persoanlly see a big gap between picking a player 3 or 4. 3 instead of 6 (a 3 pick differental, is my general rule of thumb).

It would have made more sense to take him at 4 and keep the later picks since the Browns need starters and depth all over their roster. Richardson is likely going to be a good RB but it doesn't matter if you have no QB, no receivers, and diminishing talent on defense with no depth.


And the Vikes sold the Browns on the idea we were willing to trade our pick to some team that Holmgren was convinced would take Richardson.

/brings us to full circle on this conversation, lol
 
2012-04-27 02:14:09 PM  
I love the pick for Cleveland. Thus far, they got a stud RB and stud QB.... With plenty of more picks to go.

He's not that far from Luck... just older.
 
2012-04-27 02:17:33 PM  

drkats: 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.


I agree with the wife... Seneca outplayed McCoy every chance he was given.
 
2012-04-27 02:20:31 PM  
This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | 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