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 386
    More: Fail, Brandon Weeden, NFL, NFL Draft, Oklahoma State  
•       •       •

3380 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:39 AM (3 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 02:23:38 PM  

CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.


Most of us love our team no matter where we live. Then there's AdmirableSnackbar.
 
2012-04-27 02:27:37 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: 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


I guess the other lesson from this - one that the Browns failed on twice in the first round - is that you can't just fall in love with a player because it makes you do stupid things. If someone else wanted to trade up for Richardson then the Browns should have let that happen and taken any of the impact players available at 4 since they could have used any number of them. I was just watching NFLN and there was a report that the Browns were intent on taking Kendall Wright at 22 and yipped it when he got taken two picks earlier.
 
2012-04-27 02:28:16 PM  

T.rex: 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.


Seneca is everything Tavaris jackson wishes he could be.

Outsanding off the bench, less then mediocre as a starter.

Oh and just because:



Being a backup in the NFL get's you hot, grumpy chicks apparently.
 
2012-04-27 02:28:37 PM  

CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.


About multiple draft picks. And people like making fun of the Browns. Plus, it's the only Weeners-round draft thread.
 
2012-04-27 02:29:19 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: T.rex: 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.

Seneca is everything Tavaris jackson wishes he could be.

Outsanding off the bench, less then mediocre as a starter.

Oh and just because:

Link

Being a backup in the NFL get's you hot, grumpy chicks apparently.

 
2012-04-27 02:29:41 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Seneca is everything Tavaris jackson wishes he could be.

Outsanding off the bench, less then mediocre as a starter.


The Seahawks would've been just fine last year with Jackson starting. Damn Whitehurst couldn't even manage 6 points against the Browns.
 
2012-04-27 02:31:12 PM  

historycat: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

Most of us love our team no matter where we live. Then there's AdmirableSnackbar.


Huh? I've never liked the Browns. As I said in the draft thread, I like to laugh at the tactical errors teams make when they crack under the pressure of making their first round picks.
 
2012-04-27 02:32:53 PM  

IAmRight: The Seahawks would've been just fine last year with Jackson starting.


Ok. So the thing is I think you meant that, so I really don't want to post the "laugh even harder" pics I was thinking of.

I will respectfully disagree. Tavaris Jackson is not an effective starter in the NFL. Period. He has proven it over and over again.
 
2012-04-27 02:36:40 PM  

T.rex: 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.


Earlier in the thread someone said a franchise left tackle won't make a big impact on the team, and now someone is comparing Wheeden to Luck in a positive way.

[wtfamireading.jpg]
 
2012-04-27 02:38:12 PM  
there are Cleveland Browns fans?

go 9ers
 
2012-04-27 02:38:25 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: historycat: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

Most of us love our team no matter where we live. Then there's AdmirableSnackbar.

Huh? I've never liked the Browns. As I said in the draft thread, I like to laugh at the tactical errors teams make when they crack under the pressure of making their first round picks.


You keep saying this, and you're still wrong about the Richardson trade. Do you really not "get" that it is pretty rare to acquire quality starters with fourth round picks? Is that so difficult for you to understand? You may be able to cherry pick the names of some quality players taken that low, but I can counter with thousands of others taken that low who never panned out. Bottom line, the Browns gave up very little to guarantee that they got the guy they wanted.
 
2012-04-27 02:43:45 PM  

downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: historycat: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

Most of us love our team no matter where we live. Then there's AdmirableSnackbar.

Huh? I've never liked the Browns. As I said in the draft thread, I like to laugh at the tactical errors teams make when they crack under the pressure of making their first round picks.

You keep saying this, and you're still wrong about the Richardson trade. Do you really not "get" that it is pretty rare to acquire quality starters with fourth round picks? Is that so difficult for you to understand? You may be able to cherry pick the names of some quality players taken that low, but I can counter with thousands of others taken that low who never panned out. Bottom line, the Browns gave up very little to guarantee that they got the guy they wanted.


You clearly have reading comprehension problems. I never said they needed a quality starter. In fact, I've been saying the opposite of that. I'm a proponent of RB-by-committee instead of having one stud RB and you can definitely find rotational RBs in the later rounds. Plus, the Browns need depth at every position which means they should be more careful with those mid- and late-round picks. They got snookered in that trade and they gave away those picks needlessly, that much should be obvious.
 
2012-04-27 02:45:59 PM  

Jubeebee: T.rex: 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.

Earlier in the thread someone said a franchise left tackle won't make a big impact on the team, and now someone is comparing Wheeden to Luck in a positive way.

[wtfamireading.jpg]


The musings of the Cleveland fan base.
 
2012-04-27 02:51:12 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: historycat: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

Most of us love our team no matter where we live. Then there's AdmirableSnackbar.

Huh? I've never liked the Browns. As I said in the draft thread, I like to laugh at the tactical errors teams make when they crack under the pressure of making their first round picks.

You keep saying this, and you're still wrong about the Richardson trade. Do you really not "get" that it is pretty rare to acquire quality starters with fourth round picks? Is that so difficult for you to understand? You may be able to cherry pick the names of some quality players taken that low, but I can counter with thousands of others taken that low who never panned out. Bottom line, the Browns gave up very little to guarantee that they got the guy they wanted.

You clearly have reading comprehension problems. I never said they needed a quality starter. In fact, I've been saying the opposite of that. I'm a proponent of RB-by-committee instead of having one stud RB and you can definitely find rotational RBs in the later rounds. Plus, the Browns need depth at every position which means they should be more careful with those mid- and late-round picks. They got snookered in that trade and they gave away those picks needlessly, that much should be obvious.


I listed the RB's selected in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds last year upthread. Makes a pretty clear case for you being wrong. As for them being snookered, it's widely reported that Tampa Bay was trying to trade up. Given that TB only had two running backs on the roster and went on to grab one deeper in the first round evidence would suggest they were in the mix fot T Rich. What do you have to support your conclusion that his wasn't the case?
 
2012-04-27 02:52:48 PM  

babysealclubber: Jubeebee: T.rex: 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.

Earlier in the thread someone said a franchise left tackle won't make a big impact on the team, and now someone is comparing Wheeden to Luck in a positive way.

[wtfamireading.jpg]

The musings of the Cleveland fan base.


Do I really need to repost the several things you got dead wrong in this thread, or do people have to scroll up to laugh at you?
 
2012-04-27 02:52:56 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: I will respectfully disagree. Tavaris Jackson is not an effective starter in the NFL. Period. He has proven it over and over again.


I'm not saying he's good, but he was effective enough to lead the Seahawks to mediocrity. He was better than Whitehurst, and we might have had a winning record if he had been healthy for the whole year.

/which is why I'm excited to get Flynn - if we had a realistic chance of a winning record with Jackson, imagine the possibilities with a real QB!
 
2012-04-27 02:56:52 PM  

downtownkid: I listed the RB's selected in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds last year upthread. Makes a pretty clear case for you being wrong.


Indeed. Nothing proves that guys can't contribute like coaching staffs and GMs putting them on the bench because they're not expected to contribute, because they were picked so low.
 
2012-04-27 02:57:07 PM  

CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.


I was thinking about that phenomenon when I look at the low count MLB threads with a full slate of action. We certainly do love football.
 
2012-04-27 02:57:11 PM  

downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: downtownkid: AdmirableSnackbar: historycat: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

Most of us love our team no matter where we live. Then there's AdmirableSnackbar.

Huh? I've never liked the Browns. As I said in the draft thread, I like to laugh at the tactical errors teams make when they crack under the pressure of making their first round picks.

You keep saying this, and you're still wrong about the Richardson trade. Do you really not "get" that it is pretty rare to acquire quality starters with fourth round picks? Is that so difficult for you to understand? You may be able to cherry pick the names of some quality players taken that low, but I can counter with thousands of others taken that low who never panned out. Bottom line, the Browns gave up very little to guarantee that they got the guy they wanted.

You clearly have reading comprehension problems. I never said they needed a quality starter. In fact, I've been saying the opposite of that. I'm a proponent of RB-by-committee instead of having one stud RB and you can definitely find rotational RBs in the later rounds. Plus, the Browns need depth at every position which means they should be more careful with those mid- and late-round picks. They got snookered in that trade and they gave away those picks needlessly, that much should be obvious.

I listed the RB's selected in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds last year upthread. Makes a pretty clear case for you being wrong. As for them being snookered, it's widely reported that Tampa Bay was trying to trade up. Given that TB only had two running backs on the roster and went on to grab one deeper in the first round evidence would suggest they were in the mix fot T Rich. What do you have to support your conclusion that his wasn't the case?


You listed them from one year. However, if you look across the league you will find that there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players. It's not about having one franchise RB anymore, it's about using RBs for 3-4 years and then moving on to the next guy. And if you pick correctly (like the Redskins did with Helu) then you get exactly what you're looking for in a rotational RB for a few years.

Also, there are reports out now that Tampa never had interest in trading up and was looking to trade back in order to do what they ultimately did. It's all smoke and mirrors leading up to the draft and the Browns bit hard. It happens, especially to continually bad franchises.
 
2012-04-27 02:58:22 PM  

IAmRight: downtownkid: I listed the RB's selected in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds last year upthread. Makes a pretty clear case for you being wrong.

Indeed. Nothing proves that guys can't contribute like coaching staffs and GMs putting them on the bench because they're not expected to contribute, because they were picked so low.


Especially when they're rookies and need to learn to pass protect and adjust their vision to the speed of the NFL game.
 
2012-04-27 03:01:32 PM  

Jubeebee: T.rex: 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.

Earlier in the thread someone said a franchise left tackle won't make a big impact on the team, and now someone is comparing Wheeden to Luck in a positive way.

[wtfamireading.jpg]


Put your money where your mouth is... What skills does Luck have that Weeden does not, aside from youthful exuberance?
 
2012-04-27 03:06:44 PM  

downtownkid: Do I really need to repost the several things you got dead wrong in this thread, or do people have to scroll up to laugh at you?


Dude, don't even start. You're the only one who believes the shiat you type. Here I'll even give you a recap of everything I said:

-Trading three picks to swap spots was stupid
-RB's aren't the commodity they used to be
-Richardson's past injuries could be a concern, especially since he is going to Cleveland.
-Cleveland needs to quit wasting early round picks on hot names when they have numerous needs in other positions
-Cleveland's o-line sucks, especially on the right side
-Getting Weeden in the 1st was stupid. He would have been there in the 2nd round
-Cleveland is horribly managed, and it shows every year come draft day.

Did I miss anything, chief?
 
2012-04-27 03:06:53 PM  

downtownkid: As for them being snookered, it's widely reported that Tampa Bay was trying to trade up. Given that TB only had two running backs on the roster and went on to grab one deeper in the first round evidence would suggest they were in the mix fot T Rich. What do you have to support your conclusion that his wasn't the case?


This. The Browns had a shiatload of lower draft picks to bargain with. Why not give some away to get the guy you want, especially when the Vikes were actively selling the pick, and someone may have taken them up on it? With all the lower draft picks they had, they were playing with house money. That's a win-win.
 
2012-04-27 03:07:59 PM  

CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.


They'd just trade away that second to move up two spots in the third round.

/Too good a setup, etc.
 
2012-04-27 03:10:38 PM  

Harv72b: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

They'd just trade away that second to move up two spots in the third round.

/Too good a setup, etc.


That was funny, I don't care who you are.
 
2012-04-27 03:10:56 PM  

T.rex: Jubeebee: T.rex: 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.

Earlier in the thread someone said a franchise left tackle won't make a big impact on the team, and now someone is comparing Wheeden to Luck in a positive way.

[wtfamireading.jpg]

Put your money where your mouth is... What skills does Luck have that Weeden does not, aside from youthful exuberance?


He's more mobile and better than Weeden when mobile. He also seems to read defenses a little better, and Weeden has kind of a slow warmup. And he has like 7 years of time on his side. Luck also seems to have better footwork.
 
2012-04-27 03:13:38 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: 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


Which means that Holmgren is gullible in addition to not realizing how overpriced of a pick Richardson would be.
 
2012-04-27 03:15:06 PM  

oh_please: This. The Browns had a shiatload of lower draft picks to bargain with. Why not give some away to get the guy you want, especially when the Vikes were actively selling the pick, and someone may have taken them up on it? With all the lower draft picks they had, they were playing with house money. That's a win-win.


I don't know. Seems to me that outside of a marquee qb that your rebuilding teams should focus on linemen and depth and forego the big name skill position players - especially if it means trading up to get them. Trent Richardson will be solid. Will he be a game changer kind of dude? I doubt it. But just ignore me - I always say you build with the fat guys. I just think they make the whole team better more than a name receiver or rb do.
 
2012-04-27 03:16:52 PM  

Harv72b: CavalierEternal: This is now a 200 post thread about a Cleveland Browns draft pick. Take that in for a second.

They'd just trade away that second to move up two spots in the third round.

/Too good a setup, etc.


nice work.
 
2012-04-27 03:17:20 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Especially when they're rookies and need to learn to pass protect and adjust their vision to the speed of the NFL game.


It's not even always that - there's just such a self-feeding cycle that requires injuries, really, for guys to get a chance.

If you draft a guy early, then you have money in him, so you're going to put him out there, so he's going to get a chance. If you draft a guy late, you don't have much investment in him, so you're just going to leave him behind everyone. If a guy gets hurt and you put in the high-round draft pick and he succeeds, then everyone's super-excited about the high-round draft pick and there's pressure to keep him in. If a guy gets hurt and you put in the low-round draft pick and he succeeds, people are happy to call it "stepping up in the situation" but are fine with seeing him go back on the bench.

Honestly, the whole thing starts really, really early. Why are recruits 5-star recruits? Sure, they're talented. A lot of it, though, depends on who is recruiting them. If someone thinks someone's a three-star kid, but the whole SEC is recruiting him, they're probably going to bump him up a whole star just based on that. Nah, he didn't get any better, but hey, Team X thinks he's good, therefore he must be!

It's why I'm comfortable with the Seahawks' pick - other guys might've had other players above him, sure. But the team needed a pass rusher. The fact that they went for one tells me that the front office has a good handle on what the team needs. The fact that they know what the team needs makes me feel better about their ranking of players based on their needs. The criticisms Kiper had are completely irrelevant to the Seahawks.

"He's not good against the run." Cool, we have the 4th best run defense in the league and some beasts in the middle of our line. He doesn't have to stop the run. He just has to kill QBs.

"He's had run-ins with the law," yeah, he failed out of school and started dealing drugs at 17, going to jail for it. After that, he went back, got his GED, moved, found a good mentor, went to community college and then college. I f*cked up and dropped out of school at 17 too (though I was in college). He realized his mistake and fixed it. His current "trouble" was two charges for smacking a delivery sign off a car. Holy sh*t, I want to take those off cars every time I see them! Who knew you get two charges for that? They were dropped, BTW.

So I guess the only other negative is that he's not that big. Well, he went from S to DE/LB in two years. I think he's capable of working on power and moves. It's not like he's not going to get coached in the NFL. Especially in Seattle, where we've basically taken nothing but young guys that others didn't want and made 'em into a team over the past couple of years.
 
2012-04-27 03:19:49 PM  
AdmiralSnackbar You listed them from one year. However, if you look across the league you will find that there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

There are certainly a number of RB's drafted later who have had success. If you actually take the time to look at previous drafts however you will see that probably 95%+ of the RB's drafted in later rounds are out of the league within a year or two. You can keep saying that it's easy to find late round quality RB's but when faced with clear proof to the contrary you just start to look silly.
 
2012-04-27 03:20:06 PM  

babysealclubber: He's more mobile and better than Weeden when mobile. He also seems to read defenses a little better, and Weeden has kind of a slow warmup. And he has like 7 years of time on his side. Luck also seems to have better footwork.


Aside from being smarter, more talented, younger and more athletic, what does Luck have that Weeden doesn't? C'mon, I dare you to name something!
 
2012-04-27 03:21:30 PM  

IAmRight: It's why I'm comfortable with the Seahawks' pick - other guys might've had other players above him, sure. But the team needed a pass rusher. The fact that they went for one tells me that the front office has a good handle on what the team needs. The fact that they know what the team needs makes me feel better about their ranking of players based on their needs. The criticisms Kiper had are completely irrelevant to the Seahawks.


I love they took someone they actually need and not someone they wanted. That's how teams get better. One day Cleveland will figure it out. I mean, even Cincinnati has been drafting quite well the past couple of seasons, so surely it's not that hard.
 
2012-04-27 03:23:11 PM  

downtownkid: however you will see that probably 95%+ of the RB's drafted in later rounds are out of the league within a year or two.


Of course, a reason that they're out of the league in a year or two is because they aren't owed much money and required no investment.

I guess, to compare it to actually being a RB in football, in order to succeed, first-rounders are playing regular football - they're allowed to keep going at it until they're down and given every opportunity to nudge forward. Late-rounders and undrafted guys have to play "touch" rules - the first sign you show us that you're not great and you're done.
 
2012-04-27 03:25:57 PM  

babysealclubber: downtownkid: Do I really need to repost the several things you got dead wrong in this thread, or do people have to scroll up to laugh at you?

Dude, don't even start. You're the only one who believes the shiat you type. Here I'll even give you a recap of everything I said:

-Trading three picks to swap spots was stupid
-RB's aren't the commodity they used to be
-Richardson's past injuries could be a concern, especially since he is going to Cleveland.
-Cleveland needs to quit wasting early round picks on hot names when they have numerous needs in other positions
-Cleveland's o-line sucks, especially on the right side
-Getting Weeden in the 1st was stupid. He would have been there in the 2nd round
-Cleveland is horribly managed, and it shows every year come draft day.

Did I miss anything, chief?


Yes, all of this:

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?


You remember now, the several completely moronic things you said, each of which was easily rebutted? That clear enough for you, Chief? You know fark-all about the game.
 
2012-04-27 03:26:34 PM  

downtownkid: AdmiralSnackbar You listed them from one year. However, if you look across the league you will find that there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

There are certainly a number of RB's drafted later who have had success. If you actually take the time to look at previous drafts however you will see that probably 95%+ of the RB's drafted in later rounds are out of the league within a year or two. You can keep saying that it's easy to find late round quality RB's but when faced with clear proof to the contrary you just start to look silly.


Where did I say it was easy to find quality RBs in the later rounds? I'm only saying that it's better value to draft RBs in the mid- to late-rounds than at the top of the draft. You're giving that strawman you've built an impressively vicious beating.
 
2012-04-27 03:29:30 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: downtownkid: AdmiralSnackbar You listed them from one year. However, if you look across the league you will find that there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

There are certainly a number of RB's drafted later who have had success. If you actually take the time to look at previous drafts however you will see that probably 95%+ of the RB's drafted in later rounds are out of the league within a year or two. You can keep saying that it's easy to find late round quality RB's but when faced with clear proof to the contrary you just start to look silly.

Where did I say it was easy to find quality RBs in the later rounds? I'm only saying that it's better value to draft RBs in the mid- to late-rounds than at the top of the draft. You're giving that strawman you've built an impressively vicious beating.


Strawman? You said: there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.
 
2012-04-27 03:32:24 PM  

JohnBigBootay: oh_please: This. The Browns had a shiatload of lower draft picks to bargain with. Why not give some away to get the guy you want, especially when the Vikes were actively selling the pick, and someone may have taken them up on it? With all the lower draft picks they had, they were playing with house money. That's a win-win.

I don't know. Seems to me that outside of a marquee qb that your rebuilding teams should focus on linemen and depth and forego the big name skill position players - especially if it means trading up to get them. Trent Richardson will be solid. Will he be a game changer kind of dude? I doubt it. But just ignore me - I always say you build with the fat guys. I just think they make the whole team better more than a name receiver or rb do.


I agree with your general philosophy, but I can see why they went after Richardson. In a world of disposable RB's, this guy is a freaking BEAST. I can't fault the Brownies for doing what they had to to get him.
 
2012-04-27 03:33:22 PM  
And how old was Staubach when he was drafted by the Cowboys?
 
2012-04-27 03:33:36 PM  

IAmRight: t's why I'm comfortable with the Seahawks' pick - other guys might've had other players above him, sure. But the team needed a pass rusher. The fact that they went for one tells me that the front office has a good handle on what the team needs. The fact that they know what the team needs makes me feel better about their ranking of players based on their needs. The criticisms Kiper had are completely irrelevant to the Seahawks.


One thing I liked is that they traded back to take the guy that fit what they wanted. I don't know much about the guy they drafted but I do know that I'm not big on guys from WVU, so I'm skeptical right off the bat. But trading down for the guy you want is much, much preferable to trading up for the guy you fell in love with and have convinced yourself that you need like the Browns did. At least if Irvin doesn't pan out the Seahawks still have other picks to use that they can maybe make up for their (in that case) failure.

That's not to say that it's always bad to trade up, but I think at least three teams that traded up (Cleveland, Dallas, and Philly) made mistakes in doing so and at least three teams that traded down (Tampa, St. Louis, and Minnesota) played their hands very, very well.
 
2012-04-27 03:35:38 PM  

downtownkid: If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.


Luckily someone has done the work for you guys...

http://thexlog.com/201204250634/xtra-point-football/nfl/the-myth-of-a - running-backs-draft-value/
 
2012-04-27 03:35:39 PM  
downtownkid, at least quote everything in context you little twit.

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



to get past BR as a source, the source has nothing to do with it except it says something you don't want to believe.

They gave up very little to move Unless you count in the fact they gave up potential additional depth to their roster, maybe get someone who might work, all for nothing (1 spot, for nothing) then yes. they gave little.


/you's trollin at this point, just stop.
 
2012-04-27 03:36:11 PM  

downtownkid: Strawman? You said: there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.


Those two statements are completely different. There are a lot of mid- and late-round RBs that have made impacts and even more that never did. I never said they were easy to find, that's something you added in your own head. I stand behind my own words but not the words you put in my mouth.
 
2012-04-27 03:37:03 PM  

JohnBigBootay: downtownkid: If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.

Luckily someone has done the work for you guys...

http://thexlog.com/201204250634/xtra-point-football/nfl/the-myth-of-a - running-backs-draft-value/


Don't give him that. That won't meet his journalistic standards, so even the concrete facts are worthless.
 
2012-04-27 03:37:30 PM  

JohnBigBootay: downtownkid: If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.

Luckily someone has done the work for you guys...

http://thexlog.com/201204250634/xtra-point-football/nfl/the-myth-of-a - running-backs-draft-value/


Note - this guy doesn't really take into account free agents - where I DO think you can find a decent back for cheap. But they are usually first or second or third rounders originally.... but only because most of the nfl is first or second rounders originally.
 
2012-04-27 03:38:03 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: downtownkid: Strawman? You said: there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.

Those two statements are completely different. There are a lot of mid- and late-round RBs that have made impacts and even more that never did. I never said they were easy to find, that's something you added in your own head. I stand behind my own words but not the words you put in my mouth.


So you're saying that there are a ton of successful RB's drafted low, but they are hard to find? Got it, that makes sense.
 
2012-04-27 03:38:07 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: downtownkid: Strawman? You said: there are, and have been, a ton of RBs drafted in the later rounds that have made impacts as both starters and rotational players.

If there are a ton of them, it must be easy to find, right? At least stand behind your own words dude, don't be a weasel.

Those two statements are completely different. There are a lot of mid- and late-round RBs that have made impacts and even more that never did. I never said they were easy to find, that's something you added in your own head. I stand behind my own words but not the words you put in my mouth.


Dude, he won't even quote people correctly and try to take things you say out of context and add to the narrative in his head. This dude has to work at ESPN.
 
2012-04-27 03:39:03 PM  

downtownkid: So you're saying that there are a ton of successful RB's drafted low, but they are hard to find? Got it, that makes sense.


Oh my god you are so stupid it literally hurts.
 
2012-04-27 03:44:09 PM  

IAmRight: AdmirableSnackbar: Especially when they're rookies and need to learn to pass protect and adjust their vision to the speed of the NFL game.

wall of text


I just watched you trying to talk yourself into being OK with a horrible first round pick by your team. Delicious.
 
2012-04-27 03:44:12 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: One thing I liked is that they traded back to take the guy that fit what they wanted. I don't know much about the guy they drafted but I do know that I'm not big on guys from WVU, so I'm skeptical right off the bat.


Yeah, all I know I read about last night. I'm just going on the fact that they knew they needed a DE, they had all those DE's available, and they chose that guy. So I'm going to assume there's a reason for that and not worry about what Kiper has to say. The Seahawks' staff is replete with guys with solid college backgrounds - I like that they're from an FCS school (NDSU), which means that they're used to dealing with the guys that are projects, guys that the other programs didn't want.

If there's one thing that's awesome to have in football, it's the idea that everyone else thinks you're not good. (Though it's not quite as good if you're ACTUALLY not good, to boot).
 
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 »
Advertisement
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