Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

2012 Cleveland Browns thread: AKA Pat Shurmur Memorial thread

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ 2012 Cleveland Browns thread: AKA Pat Shurmur Memorial thread
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:08 PM
Mr Miyagi;1129166 wrote:Like Robiski ? or Massaquoi? or Little?
If Little catches the ball, he can be a beast. I don't recall anyone saying Robiskie or Massquoi had first round talent. Both picks were a reach, and thats why Womangini and Kokinis no longer have jobs. They can go to hell for that draft.
Mar 27, 2012 1:08pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:19 PM
Mr Miyagi;1129166 wrote:Like Robiski ? or Massaquoi?
Because this FO drafted both of them?

/logic fail
Mar 27, 2012 1:19pm
B

buckeyes_woowee

Senior Member

512 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:21 PM
I think adding DeCastro will make the Browns oline possibly the best in the NFL. I would love to trade down and snag him.
Mar 27, 2012 1:21pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:30 PM
Commander of Awesome;1129167 wrote:Mary Kay Cabot ‏ @MaryKayCabot

#Browns will bring in Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill as one of their 30 pre-draft visits, league source said
I'd suspect this will be to keep other teams on their toes but who knows?
Mar 27, 2012 1:30pm
Benny The Jet's avatar

Benny The Jet

Senior Member

2,987 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:32 PM
like_that;1129172 wrote:If Little catches the ball, he can be a beast.

Ha, isn't that a rather important thing for a WR to do? That's like saying "if Colt could throw the ball, he'd be a QB".
Mar 27, 2012 1:32pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:32 PM
I've asked a few draft guys through twitter, everyone thus far has said that Tannehill is a better QB prospect than Mark Sanchez was. I don't think the Browns drafting him is that far fetched.
Mar 27, 2012 1:32pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:37 PM
There are at least 20 players I'd rather take in the 1st over Tannehill even in that scenario where our top targets are gone by pick #7. Tannehill is more of a reach at 7 than taking Stephen Hill would be, because at least Hill has elite potential. What exactly has Tannehill done? Decent numbers in only 1.5 years of starting in the same conference that has produced 0 elite NFL QBs in recent memory. No thanks.
Mar 27, 2012 1:37pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:38 PM
Commander of Awesome;1129194 wrote:I've asked a few draft guys through twitter, everyone thus far has said that Tannehill is a better QB prospect than Mark Sanchez was. I don't think the Browns drafting him is that far fetched.
Well, if this happens they'd better go pick up a veteran QB who is well versed in the WCO so Tannehill can learn from him because a) you know Seneca isn't teaching anyone anything and b) McCoy teaching it is the blind leading the blind in that he's still learning it himself.
Mar 27, 2012 1:38pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:40 PM
lhslep134;1129198 wrote:There are at least 20 players I'd rather take in the 1st over Tannehill even in that scenario where our top targets are gone by pick #7. Tannehill is more of a reach at 7 than taking Stephen Hill would be, because at least Hill has elite potential. What exactly has Tannehill done? Decent numbers in only 1.5 years of starting in the same conference that has produced 0 elite NFL QBs in recent memory. No thanks.
Unless Tannehill is starting from day 1, I definitely don't like him at #7 (OR EARLIER) because you want that player to contribute immediately. Drafting a QB that will sit at that spot is giving you no immediate impact.
Mar 27, 2012 1:40pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:43 PM
BR1986FB;1129200 wrote:Unless Tannehill is starting from day 1, I definitely don't like him at #7 (OR EARLIER) because you want that player to contribute immediately. Drafting a QB that will sit at that spot is giving you no immediate impact.
That's a secondary argument to mine, and I agree with you on that as well. I was more speaking to his mediocrity, than the value of the #7 pick in drafting a starter
Mar 27, 2012 1:43pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:50 PM
lhslep134;1129201 wrote:That's a secondary argument to mine, and I agree with you on that as well. I was more speaking to his mediocrity, than the value of the #7 pick in drafting a starter
Tannehill may very well turn into a good QB but taking him at 7, or earlier, says "panic move" to me.
Mar 27, 2012 1:50pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 27, 2012 1:55 PM
BR1986FB;1129209 wrote:Tannehill may very well turn into a good QB but taking him at 7, or earlier, says "panic move" to me.
Like Gabbert or Ponder last year? I don't see anything to distinguish Tannehill from Gabbert, and I would take Ponder over both, and want none of them as the Browns' QB
Mar 27, 2012 1:55pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Mar 27, 2012 2:05 PM
I don't care if the Browns trade all of their picks this year for every pick in the 2015 draft, no chance I want Tannehill anywhere on this team. Not even in the 7th round.
Mar 27, 2012 2:05pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 2:20 PM
BR1986FB;1128634 wrote:@ brentsobleski
Browns hold picks: 4, 22, 37, 68, 100, 118, 132, 164, 185, 204, 205, 245
& 247.
Now hearing that this may be false and the new order is below:

Round Pick Overall
1 4 4 Cleveland
2 5 37 Cleveland
3 4 67 Cleveland
4 5 100 Cleveland
4 23 118 Cleveland from Atlanta
5 4 139 Cleveland
5 25 160 Cleveland from Denver
6 35 204 Cleveland (Compensatory Selection)
6 36 205 Cleveland (Compensatory Selection)
7 4 211 Cleveland
7 38 245 Cleveland (Compensatory Selection)
7 40 247 Cleveland (Compensatory Selection)

The difference is in that instead of 164, we'll have 160 from Denver for the Brady Quinn trade. So instead of three 6th's, we'll have two 5th's and two 6th's.
Mar 27, 2012 2:20pm
Enforcer's avatar

Enforcer

Senior Member

2,140 posts
Mar 27, 2012 3:06 PM
You forgot pick #22
Mar 27, 2012 3:06pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 3:15 PM
Yes I did...:laugh:
Mar 27, 2012 3:15pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Mar 27, 2012 3:17 PM
Traded it for 2 future firsts already huh BR?
Mar 27, 2012 3:17pm
B

BR1986FB

Senior Member

24,104 posts
Mar 27, 2012 3:20 PM
Commander of Awesome;1129275 wrote:Traded it for 2 future firsts already huh BR?
Belichick taught me well...:D
Mar 27, 2012 3:20pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Mar 27, 2012 3:55 PM
[video=youtube;wGfLFmlU8zo][/video]
Mar 27, 2012 3:55pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Mar 27, 2012 4:11 PM
Benny The Jet;1129195 wrote:
like_that;1129172 wrote:If Little catches the ball, he can be a beast.
Ha, isn't that a rather important thing for a WR to do? That's like saying "if Colt could throw the ball, he'd be a QB".
Little showed a lot of potential, especially towards the tail end of the season. There have been some very good WR's who have trouble making every catch. TO comes to mind.

Little is a physical beast. He's going to be a good one, IMO. As a rookie, he was the top WR on a team that lacked any threats and a QB who could consistently get him the ball. He finished with 709 yards on the season, again, not bad for a rookie.
Mar 27, 2012 4:11pm
Y-Town Steelhound's avatar

Y-Town Steelhound

Underrated

1,388 posts
Mar 27, 2012 4:29 PM
OneBuckeye;1129306 wrote:[video=youtube;wGfLFmlU8zo][/video]

Mike Polk with another classic!
Mar 27, 2012 4:29pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 27, 2012 4:51 PM
bases_loaded;1129120 wrote:Do I want a franchise QB? Yes

Will we get one in this draft...not anymore. And because Washington has overpaid to get the 2nd best QB in the draft(regardless of who they get), we should now get playmakers to put around our current QB and if he's not the answer...blam, we get our franchise guy NEXT year and the weapons are already in place.
BR1986FB;1129127 wrote:I am of this belief now. There is no sense in trying to bring in something that may not be better than what you have. That's why I'm not opposed to a trade down to 14 or 15 to get a Falcons/Julio Jones-type raping of the Cowboys or Eagles.
I've been saying all offseason that we need to get weapons in place, stick with mccoy another year, and build around him. If he's not the answer then you go after a qb high in the draft/free agency next year. I'm glad people are starting to realize I'm always right!
Mar 27, 2012 4:51pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Mar 27, 2012 5:11 PM
Polk with a pwn.
Mar 27, 2012 5:11pm
IggyPride00's avatar

IggyPride00

Senior Member

6,482 posts
Mar 27, 2012 5:16 PM
I wonder what changed in Berea in the past 3 weeks that we went from McCoy/Wallace having a QB competition at camp along with an outside person to be brought in to now McCoy being the defacto starter according to Shumur today as reported by Tony Grossi.

Wallace may need to be cut at this point because he is going to be a cancer if he doesn't feel like he was given a legit shot to win the job as Holmgren seemed to suggest earlier this off-season. He hasn't been helpful mentoring Colt, and the last thing this locker room needs is a malcontent who feels jipped.
Mar 27, 2012 5:16pm