Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Mar 19, 2012 12:08pm
Brent Sobleski ‏ @brentsobleski Any teams in need of a FB or TE? Tim Tebow is now apparently available for the right price.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 19, 2012 12:29pm
The lazy part I'd have an issue with...the bench press, I don't. If he's an ideal tackle specimen, he likely will have long arms. Long arms aren't conducive to a big bench press. It's all about leverage. Think Mike Kudla and his T-Rex arms. Shorter the arms, less distance to press.Commander of Awesome;1121153 wrote:Mike Adams can GTFO. Inconsistent lazy POS. Also 19 reps on the bench? LMAO, thats pathetic for a guy that big, athletically gifted and in OSU training program from 4 yrs.
S
Sonofanump
Mar 19, 2012 1:12pm
Weak twet. He would be so bitter to play TE somewhere else and not catch balls from Manning?Commander of Awesome;1121175 wrote:Brent Sobleski ‏ @brentsobleski Any teams in need of a FB or TE? Tim Tebow is now apparently available for the right price.
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 19, 2012 2:53pm
Here's some clarification on the redskins/rams/browns/rg3 situation...sorry if this has been posted, i just got around to reading it.
One clarification.
The other day, Browns president Mike Holmgren inferred strongly to his season ticket holders in a conference call that he felt the trade St. Louis made with Washington was influenced by the relationship between the two coaches involved -- good friend Mike Shanahan of the Redskins and Jeff Fisher of the Rams. What Holmgren said: "What we had offered for the pick was every bit the offer that was chosen. There are reasons I can't go into right now why it didn't happen, but there's a very close relationship between the people that were involved in getting the deal done, and the people eventually got it done. I'm not sure if any offer we made at the end of the day was going to be quite good enough."
But according to Rams GM Les Snead, that's not the whole story. He confirmed to me Sunday what I'd heard the night the trade broke. Snead said he told all teams interested on March 8 that he was going to have the trade done by the end of that day, and he was going to ask each team to give its best offer for the trade. At that point, he said, after listening to all the proposals, he was going to take the best offer -- unless the offer was not anywhere near what the Rams wanted for the pick.
Those were the rules, Snead said Sunday, that he made clear to each team. Snead asked for everyone's best offer in individual phone calls. It's unclear what Cleveland's offer was, but Washington offered three first-round picks and one second-round pick. That offer, Snead said, was better than Cleveland's offer. So he told Washington officials that they'd won the bidding and told the Browns they'd lost. At that point, Snead said, Cleveland tried to make another offer, and Snead said the window was closed; the Rams were taking Washington's offer.
Many of you have wondered why Snead did it that way. Wouldn't St. Louis have gotten a better return if it had let two or more teams play off against one another? Possibly. But I can see a scenario that would net a smaller haul. Suppose Cleveland and Washington go back and forth, back and forth. Cleveland, which had been been playing poker and saying it would never give a third first-round pick, finally relents and says, "That's it. We're not adding one ounce of value to the three ones we've offered. That's it.'' Washington hears that and says, "OK, we'll give you three ones and a fifth-round pick.'' Cleveland says fine, the pick's yours.
My point is simple: The Redskins knew the rules of the game -- that they'd have to blow St. Louis out of the water with one of the best trade offers in NFL history. They did. No team had ever bid three first-round picks for a draft choice before, and Washington threw in a second-rounder as well.
Looks like Snead got max value for the pick. And had he gone back on his word to take the best offer from each team by telling the Redskins he was re-opening the game, both teams would know they could never trust Snead in a trade again, and that reputation would spread.
[LEFT]
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/19/signings/index.html#ixzz1pagMoj4j
[/LEFT]
One clarification.
The other day, Browns president Mike Holmgren inferred strongly to his season ticket holders in a conference call that he felt the trade St. Louis made with Washington was influenced by the relationship between the two coaches involved -- good friend Mike Shanahan of the Redskins and Jeff Fisher of the Rams. What Holmgren said: "What we had offered for the pick was every bit the offer that was chosen. There are reasons I can't go into right now why it didn't happen, but there's a very close relationship between the people that were involved in getting the deal done, and the people eventually got it done. I'm not sure if any offer we made at the end of the day was going to be quite good enough."
But according to Rams GM Les Snead, that's not the whole story. He confirmed to me Sunday what I'd heard the night the trade broke. Snead said he told all teams interested on March 8 that he was going to have the trade done by the end of that day, and he was going to ask each team to give its best offer for the trade. At that point, he said, after listening to all the proposals, he was going to take the best offer -- unless the offer was not anywhere near what the Rams wanted for the pick.
Those were the rules, Snead said Sunday, that he made clear to each team. Snead asked for everyone's best offer in individual phone calls. It's unclear what Cleveland's offer was, but Washington offered three first-round picks and one second-round pick. That offer, Snead said, was better than Cleveland's offer. So he told Washington officials that they'd won the bidding and told the Browns they'd lost. At that point, Snead said, Cleveland tried to make another offer, and Snead said the window was closed; the Rams were taking Washington's offer.
Many of you have wondered why Snead did it that way. Wouldn't St. Louis have gotten a better return if it had let two or more teams play off against one another? Possibly. But I can see a scenario that would net a smaller haul. Suppose Cleveland and Washington go back and forth, back and forth. Cleveland, which had been been playing poker and saying it would never give a third first-round pick, finally relents and says, "That's it. We're not adding one ounce of value to the three ones we've offered. That's it.'' Washington hears that and says, "OK, we'll give you three ones and a fifth-round pick.'' Cleveland says fine, the pick's yours.
My point is simple: The Redskins knew the rules of the game -- that they'd have to blow St. Louis out of the water with one of the best trade offers in NFL history. They did. No team had ever bid three first-round picks for a draft choice before, and Washington threw in a second-rounder as well.
Looks like Snead got max value for the pick. And had he gone back on his word to take the best offer from each team by telling the Redskins he was re-opening the game, both teams would know they could never trust Snead in a trade again, and that reputation would spread.
[LEFT]
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/19/signings/index.html#ixzz1pagMoj4j
[/LEFT]
B
buckeyes_woowee
Posts: 512
Mar 19, 2012 2:56pm
The Browns need a runningback......Broncos looking for a 5th rounder for Tebow? 
shook_17
Posts: 3,023
Mar 19, 2012 3:00pm
gimme stewart from the panthers. 3rd rounder gets it donebuckeyes_woowee;1121320 wrote:The Browns need a runningback......Broncos looking for a 5th rounder for Tebow?
shook_17
Posts: 3,023
Mar 19, 2012 3:01pm
sooo pretty much, 1. we tried calling their bluff and 2. we low balled em and screwed ourselves. go H n HDeyDurkie5;1121318 wrote:Here's some clarification on the redskins/rams/browns/rg3 situation...sorry if this has been posted, i just got around to reading it.
One clarification.
The other day, Browns president Mike Holmgren inferred strongly to his season ticket holders in a conference call that he felt the trade St. Louis made with Washington was influenced by the relationship between the two coaches involved -- good friend Mike Shanahan of the Redskins and Jeff Fisher of the Rams. What Holmgren said: "What we had offered for the pick was every bit the offer that was chosen. There are reasons I can't go into right now why it didn't happen, but there's a very close relationship between the people that were involved in getting the deal done, and the people eventually got it done. I'm not sure if any offer we made at the end of the day was going to be quite good enough."
But according to Rams GM Les Snead, that's not the whole story. He confirmed to me Sunday what I'd heard the night the trade broke. Snead said he told all teams interested on March 8 that he was going to have the trade done by the end of that day, and he was going to ask each team to give its best offer for the trade. At that point, he said, after listening to all the proposals, he was going to take the best offer -- unless the offer was not anywhere near what the Rams wanted for the pick.
Those were the rules, Snead said Sunday, that he made clear to each team. Snead asked for everyone's best offer in individual phone calls. It's unclear what Cleveland's offer was, but Washington offered three first-round picks and one second-round pick. That offer, Snead said, was better than Cleveland's offer. So he told Washington officials that they'd won the bidding and told the Browns they'd lost. At that point, Snead said, Cleveland tried to make another offer, and Snead said the window was closed; the Rams were taking Washington's offer.
Many of you have wondered why Snead did it that way. Wouldn't St. Louis have gotten a better return if it had let two or more teams play off against one another? Possibly. But I can see a scenario that would net a smaller haul. Suppose Cleveland and Washington go back and forth, back and forth. Cleveland, which had been been playing poker and saying it would never give a third first-round pick, finally relents and says, "That's it. We're not adding one ounce of value to the three ones we've offered. That's it.'' Washington hears that and says, "OK, we'll give you three ones and a fifth-round pick.'' Cleveland says fine, the pick's yours.
My point is simple: The Redskins knew the rules of the game -- that they'd have to blow St. Louis out of the water with one of the best trade offers in NFL history. They did. No team had ever bid three first-round picks for a draft choice before, and Washington threw in a second-rounder as well.
Looks like Snead got max value for the pick. And had he gone back on his word to take the best offer from each team by telling the Redskins he was re-opening the game, both teams would know they could never trust Snead in a trade again, and that reputation would spread.
[LEFT]
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/19/signings/index.html#ixzz1pagMoj4j
[/LEFT]
Z
Zombaypirate
Posts: 581
Mar 19, 2012 4:13pm
Thank goodness for the Redskins they saved the Browns from a 5 year set back.DeyDurkie5;1121318 wrote:Here's some clarification on the redskins/rams/browns/rg3 situation...sorry if this has been posted, i just got around to reading it.
One clarification.
The other day, Browns president Mike Holmgren inferred strongly to his season ticket holders in a conference call that he felt the trade St. Louis made with Washington was influenced by the relationship between the two coaches involved -- good friend Mike Shanahan of the Redskins and Jeff Fisher of the Rams. What Holmgren said: "What we had offered for the pick was every bit the offer that was chosen. There are reasons I can't go into right now why it didn't happen, but there's a very close relationship between the people that were involved in getting the deal done, and the people eventually got it done. I'm not sure if any offer we made at the end of the day was going to be quite good enough."
But according to Rams GM Les Snead, that's not the whole story. He confirmed to me Sunday what I'd heard the night the trade broke. Snead said he told all teams interested on March 8 that he was going to have the trade done by the end of that day, and he was going to ask each team to give its best offer for the trade. At that point, he said, after listening to all the proposals, he was going to take the best offer -- unless the offer was not anywhere near what the Rams wanted for the pick.
Those were the rules, Snead said Sunday, that he made clear to each team. Snead asked for everyone's best offer in individual phone calls. It's unclear what Cleveland's offer was, but Washington offered three first-round picks and one second-round pick. That offer, Snead said, was better than Cleveland's offer. So he told Washington officials that they'd won the bidding and told the Browns they'd lost. At that point, Snead said, Cleveland tried to make another offer, and Snead said the window was closed; the Rams were taking Washington's offer.
Many of you have wondered why Snead did it that way. Wouldn't St. Louis have gotten a better return if it had let two or more teams play off against one another? Possibly. But I can see a scenario that would net a smaller haul. Suppose Cleveland and Washington go back and forth, back and forth. Cleveland, which had been been playing poker and saying it would never give a third first-round pick, finally relents and says, "That's it. We're not adding one ounce of value to the three ones we've offered. That's it.'' Washington hears that and says, "OK, we'll give you three ones and a fifth-round pick.'' Cleveland says fine, the pick's yours.
My point is simple: The Redskins knew the rules of the game -- that they'd have to blow St. Louis out of the water with one of the best trade offers in NFL history. They did. No team had ever bid three first-round picks for a draft choice before, and Washington threw in a second-rounder as well.
Looks like Snead got max value for the pick. And had he gone back on his word to take the best offer from each team by telling the Redskins he was re-opening the game, both teams would know they could never trust Snead in a trade again, and that reputation would spread.
[LEFT]
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/19/signings/index.html#ixzz1pagMoj4j
[/LEFT]
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 19, 2012 4:42pm
[h=1]Browns avoiding “winner’s curse” in free agency[/h]
March 19, 2012 By Craig
Lyndall 25
Comments
Burning money is for sociopaths
The Browns seem intent on not having that regretful morning after feeling in
free agency. This team obviously knows it needs to improve, thus the trade offer
to move up to #2 in this year’s draft. At the same time, they’re refusing to act
desperately. Just because they think Robert Griffin III has a chance to be a
franchise quarterback doesn’t mean that they are willing to throw bad money
around in an attempt to replace Colt McCoy with just anyone.
We all know they need a receiver or two. They even said so themselves. Yet,
we haven’t seen them engage in bidding wars to place #2 receivers on pedestals
with giant contracts that they probably won’t ever earn. It is very frustrating
in the short-term and seems at odds with the team’s statement that improving to
6-10 this year won’t be good enough. So, what’s going on here?
Whether the Browns front office is right or wrong, they obviously didn’t
believe Matt Flynn had a chance to be better than Colt McCoy or one of the other
alternatives available to them with their draft picks. More importantly though,
the Browns are limiting their activity in free agency, because frankly it is a
wholly inefficient way to build your team, almost by definition. Strangely
enough the draft has given us our best example of this because the Browns risked
so much trying to get Robert Griffin III. They took the “efficient” way of
building their team and made it inefficient by getting into a bidding war to try
and move up.
The price tag to move up ended up being very high, and there is no guarantee
that Robert Griffin III is going to be the player that so many think he will be.
What is pretty much guaranteed is the cap implication of making a move
like that. The Browns know for a fact that if they had landed RG3, it would have
been at-worst about the same as Cam Newton’s 4-year deal with $22 million
guaranteed. The Browns would have paid a high price in draft picks for that kind
of cap predictability.
Normally, the draft is a place where you build a team with maximum efficiency
because there is no bidding war. The Browns scrapped that by engaging in a
bidding war to move up. That says all you need to know about Robert Griffin III
and what Tom Heckert and Mike Holmgren think of him. The lack of activity in
free agency says all you need to know about free agency and the players
available. If the efficiency of building through the draft was higher than that
of building through free agency before the rookie wage scale, consider the
differences now.
Let’s talk about the winner’s curse and what that actually means. If a guy is
worth $5 million per year in actuality and more than one team is bidding for his
services, the likelihood of him getting more than his actual worth is high. That
also decreases the likelihood that he will succeed with the new team as
expectations become misaligned with ability.
The Browns aren’t being cheap. They handed out money to Joe Thomas, Ahtyba
Rubin, Chris Gocong and D’Qwell Jackson this off-season. To a man, I think most
Browns fans would agree these guys were worth bringing back. The key for the
Browns was that they were already here. They already know the culture,
personnel, coaches and direction of the team. The equivalent replacement players
to these guys probably doesn’t even exist in free agency, first of all.
Secondly, they would be more expensive as other teams would by vying for their
services as well. Third, when they get here there will be a learning curve that
could result in failure.
That’s why you build through the draft. It takes longer, but it should raise
the continuity level of the whole team. Guys come in on 4-year deals and at the
end of those deals the team decides if they’re worth paying to stay. In the case
of Ahtyba Rubin he gets paid well and the Browns never let him hit the open
market. The Browns also get to keep a guy that they presumably know is working
well in their system with his teammates.
Sometimes you can score a perfect hit in free agency like the Browns did with
Joe Jurevicius. Other times they bust out like they did with Donte’ Stallworth.
The point is that you’re much better off picking and choosing which free agents
to keep when their contracts are already within the confines of your team
structure. It is the best possible information for making a decision and it has
the special designation of contributing to continuity and reducing potential for
a “winner’s curse.”
Now, about drafting that roster full of guys worth keeping…
I might even buy the slow build if that’s what the Browns decided to try and
sell. The biggest problem comes with the Browns’ mixed messages to fans. Mike
Holmgren is taking a real risk saying that an improvement to 6-10 isn’t good
enough while also trying to build slowly and continuously through the draft.
I’ve written at length about the illusions of “overnight success” in the NFL,
but by saying 6-10 isn’t good enough, Holmgren is almost guaranteeing overnight
success of a team that won four games in each of the last two years.
Even if the Browns could argue their methodology is smart, the way they’re
(not) selling it to the fans isn’t.
http://networkedblogs.com/vmcwM
March 19, 2012 By Craig
Lyndall 25
Comments
Burning money is for sociopaths
The Browns seem intent on not having that regretful morning after feeling in
free agency. This team obviously knows it needs to improve, thus the trade offer
to move up to #2 in this year’s draft. At the same time, they’re refusing to act
desperately. Just because they think Robert Griffin III has a chance to be a
franchise quarterback doesn’t mean that they are willing to throw bad money
around in an attempt to replace Colt McCoy with just anyone.
We all know they need a receiver or two. They even said so themselves. Yet,
we haven’t seen them engage in bidding wars to place #2 receivers on pedestals
with giant contracts that they probably won’t ever earn. It is very frustrating
in the short-term and seems at odds with the team’s statement that improving to
6-10 this year won’t be good enough. So, what’s going on here?
Whether the Browns front office is right or wrong, they obviously didn’t
believe Matt Flynn had a chance to be better than Colt McCoy or one of the other
alternatives available to them with their draft picks. More importantly though,
the Browns are limiting their activity in free agency, because frankly it is a
wholly inefficient way to build your team, almost by definition. Strangely
enough the draft has given us our best example of this because the Browns risked
so much trying to get Robert Griffin III. They took the “efficient” way of
building their team and made it inefficient by getting into a bidding war to try
and move up.
The price tag to move up ended up being very high, and there is no guarantee
that Robert Griffin III is going to be the player that so many think he will be.
What is pretty much guaranteed is the cap implication of making a move
like that. The Browns know for a fact that if they had landed RG3, it would have
been at-worst about the same as Cam Newton’s 4-year deal with $22 million
guaranteed. The Browns would have paid a high price in draft picks for that kind
of cap predictability.
Normally, the draft is a place where you build a team with maximum efficiency
because there is no bidding war. The Browns scrapped that by engaging in a
bidding war to move up. That says all you need to know about Robert Griffin III
and what Tom Heckert and Mike Holmgren think of him. The lack of activity in
free agency says all you need to know about free agency and the players
available. If the efficiency of building through the draft was higher than that
of building through free agency before the rookie wage scale, consider the
differences now.
Let’s talk about the winner’s curse and what that actually means. If a guy is
worth $5 million per year in actuality and more than one team is bidding for his
services, the likelihood of him getting more than his actual worth is high. That
also decreases the likelihood that he will succeed with the new team as
expectations become misaligned with ability.
The Browns aren’t being cheap. They handed out money to Joe Thomas, Ahtyba
Rubin, Chris Gocong and D’Qwell Jackson this off-season. To a man, I think most
Browns fans would agree these guys were worth bringing back. The key for the
Browns was that they were already here. They already know the culture,
personnel, coaches and direction of the team. The equivalent replacement players
to these guys probably doesn’t even exist in free agency, first of all.
Secondly, they would be more expensive as other teams would by vying for their
services as well. Third, when they get here there will be a learning curve that
could result in failure.
That’s why you build through the draft. It takes longer, but it should raise
the continuity level of the whole team. Guys come in on 4-year deals and at the
end of those deals the team decides if they’re worth paying to stay. In the case
of Ahtyba Rubin he gets paid well and the Browns never let him hit the open
market. The Browns also get to keep a guy that they presumably know is working
well in their system with his teammates.
Sometimes you can score a perfect hit in free agency like the Browns did with
Joe Jurevicius. Other times they bust out like they did with Donte’ Stallworth.
The point is that you’re much better off picking and choosing which free agents
to keep when their contracts are already within the confines of your team
structure. It is the best possible information for making a decision and it has
the special designation of contributing to continuity and reducing potential for
a “winner’s curse.”
Now, about drafting that roster full of guys worth keeping…
I might even buy the slow build if that’s what the Browns decided to try and
sell. The biggest problem comes with the Browns’ mixed messages to fans. Mike
Holmgren is taking a real risk saying that an improvement to 6-10 isn’t good
enough while also trying to build slowly and continuously through the draft.
I’ve written at length about the illusions of “overnight success” in the NFL,
but by saying 6-10 isn’t good enough, Holmgren is almost guaranteeing overnight
success of a team that won four games in each of the last two years.
Even if the Browns could argue their methodology is smart, the way they’re
(not) selling it to the fans isn’t.
http://networkedblogs.com/vmcwM
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 19, 2012 4:57pm
Bring in Tebow, what the hell do the Browns have to lose at this point? Say what you want about him but all he does is win and all the Browns do is lose. Worst case scenario, he simply brings a winning mentality to the organization that is sorely needed. Some things you just can't rationalize.
Automatik
Posts: 14,632
Mar 19, 2012 5:11pm
"All he does is win"Y-Town Steelhound;1121395 wrote:Bring in Tebow, what the hell do the Browns have to lose at this point? Say what you want about him but all he does is win and all the Browns do is lose. Worst case scenario, he simply brings a winning mentality to the organization that is sorely needed. Some things you just can't rationalize.
Can we please stop saying this?
Getting Tebow is a lateral move. The Cleveland shot callers should and will save themselves the headache.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 19, 2012 5:11pm
No thanks. I've heard the same thing about the current QB and have yet to see it. No more "projects/reclamations." Get a LEGIT QB in here. If that means "sucking for the next big thing" at QB with the current incumbent, so be it.Y-Town Steelhound;1121395 wrote:Bring in Tebow, what the hell do the Browns have to lose at this point? Say what you want about him but all he does is win.
I KNOW they are going to suck, BAD, this year. If riding out McCoy at QB means they are going to suck even MORE and give the team the best chance to get a REAL QB with a very high draft pick, I guess that's something I can live with.
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 19, 2012 5:16pm
just stop it.Y-Town Steelhound;1121395 wrote:Bring in Tebow, what the hell do the Browns have to lose at this point? Say what you want about him but all he does is win and all the Browns do is lose. Worst case scenario, he simply brings a winning mentality to the organization that is sorely needed. Some things you just can't rationalize.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 19, 2012 5:18pm
Again, low risk high reward move. Tell me the exact downfalls of that move instead of just throwing out vague bullshit. But you're right, bringing in a quarterback who led a mediocre team to the playoffs and beat the Steelers (you know, something the Browns haven't exactly done well since '99) is such a laughable move. I'm sure Joe Haden wouldn't think as much.
All the Browns do is lose. All Tebow does is win. Case closed. Stop trying to rationalize it so much. Could he really be any worse than McCoy/Wallace? Would either of those quarterbacks have led the Broncos to the 2nd round of the playoffs? If your answer is yes, well then you're more insane than you think I am. If your answer is no, then there really is nothing to lose by bringing Tebow in. At the very least he can change the culture in the locker room. Even Elway admitted that much had happened in Denver.
All the Browns do is lose. All Tebow does is win. Case closed. Stop trying to rationalize it so much. Could he really be any worse than McCoy/Wallace? Would either of those quarterbacks have led the Broncos to the 2nd round of the playoffs? If your answer is yes, well then you're more insane than you think I am. If your answer is no, then there really is nothing to lose by bringing Tebow in. At the very least he can change the culture in the locker room. Even Elway admitted that much had happened in Denver.
Automatik
Posts: 14,632
Mar 19, 2012 5:20pm
That is some retarded thinking right there.Y-Town Steelhound;1121424 wrote:
All the Browns do is lose. All Tebow does is win. Case closed.
Denver made some major changes to their offense for Tebow? Do you honestly think Holmgren wants to fuck with that?
Denver also had a very good running game. Does Cleveland? Just because Tebow pulled shit out of his ass to win in Denver doesn't mean it will happen in Cleveland.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 19, 2012 5:21pm
Automatik;1121429 wrote:That is some retarded thinking right there.
Denver made some major changes to their offense for Tebow? Do you honestly think Holmgren wants to fuck with that?
Denver also had a very good running game. Does Cleveland? Just because Tebow pulled shit out of his ass to win in Denver doesn't mean it will happen in Cleveland.
Sorry if I like wins as opposed to losses. Yea I'm sure he'd have trouble running Shurmur's middle school 3 yard slant and a cloud of dust offense. Again, please use actual specific reasons. Pulled shit out of his ass? Must've had a lot of shit backed up then because he won multiple games. Running game? Sure it's shit now because the Browns let their starting running back walk away for practically nothing, but I doubt the Browns are rolling into September with Hardesty and Jackson and if they are then they deserve to lose. Whether they get a RB from someone else (Jonathon Stewart?) or in the draft (Richardson? Pead?) the running game will look a lot different/better by the start of the season.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 19, 2012 5:22pm
I can tell you now, Holmgren WON'T "fuck with that." He's as stubborn as they come with his 1988 offense. He wouldn't adapt for Tebow.Automatik;1121429 wrote:That is some retarded thinking right there.
Denver made some major changes to their offense for Tebow? Do you honestly think Holmgren wants to fuck with that?
Denver also had a very good running game. Does Cleveland? Just because Tebow pulled shit out of his ass to win in Denver doesn't mean it will happen in Cleveland.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Mar 19, 2012 5:23pm
Don't listen to Y-Town. He's the Browns fan that always thinks it's so easy. "guys, Tebow won high school state titles, and 2 titles at Florida, obviously all he does is win...Browns never win. Browns + Tebow = Super Bowl"Automatik;1121429 wrote:That is some retarded thinking right there.
Denver made some major changes to their offense for Tebow? Do you honestly think Holmgren wants to fuck with that?
Denver also had a very good running game. Does Cleveland? Just because Tebow pulled shit out of his ass to win in Denver doesn't mean it will happen in Cleveland.
He doesn't every actually take into account logic.
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 19, 2012 5:23pm
Let's see...Tebow is a terrible thrower, he makes slow, poor reads(hence the reason they went to basically one read per play), he is not a pocket QB, he was only affective because of the coaching staffs ability to change their offense for him and the excellent run game and defense, he doesn't have the pocket talent to come in an automatically save the browns, he's a lefty and we don't have a RT, we don't have a speedster lke demaryous thomas, we don't have the rub game like denver did, and we dont have john fucking fox as our coach.Y-Town Steelhound;1121424 wrote:Again, low risk high reward move. Tell me the exact downfalls of that move instead of just throwing out vague bullshit. But you're right, bringing in a quarterback who led a mediocre team to the playoffs and beat the Steelers (you know, something the Browns haven't exactly done well since '99) is such a laughable move. I'm sure Joe Haden wouldn't think as much.
All the Browns do is lose. All Tebow does is win. Case closed. Stop trying to rationalize it so much. Could he really be any worse than McCoy/Wallace? Would either of those quarterbacks have led the Broncos to the 2nd round of the playoffs? If your answer is yes, well then you're more insane than you think I am. If your answer is no, then there really is nothing to lose by bringing Tebow in. At the very least he can change the culture in the locker room. Even Elway admitted that much had happened in Denver.
Again, just stop it. You are sounding retarded by the minute
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 19, 2012 5:27pm
Except for the "ability to change the offense" part, sounds like pretty much like the current situation that we're in at QB. No thanks on either.DeyDurkie5;1121434 wrote:Let's see...Tebow is a terrible thrower, he makes slow, poor reads(hence the reason they went to basically one read per play), he is not a pocket QB, he was only affective because of the coaching staffs ability to change their offense for him and the excellent run game and defense, he doesn't have the pocket talent to come in an automatically save the browns,
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 19, 2012 5:27pm
Did I say acquire him and hand him the starting job? Please copy and paste where I said that. Guy threw for 316 yards on the Steelers. Name the last time a Browns quarterback did that....I'll wait.
All I said is it would be a low risk/high reward move to:
1. Bring in a proven locker room presence.
2. Give Colt SOME kind of competition in training camp
3. Give the fans something to be somewhat excited about in a lackluster offseason
If he's not good enough to start, don't start him. But in a league where wins matter, clearly he's doing something right. You don't quarterback a team to the playoffs off of pure luck.
All I said is it would be a low risk/high reward move to:
1. Bring in a proven locker room presence.
2. Give Colt SOME kind of competition in training camp
3. Give the fans something to be somewhat excited about in a lackluster offseason
If he's not good enough to start, don't start him. But in a league where wins matter, clearly he's doing something right. You don't quarterback a team to the playoffs off of pure luck.
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 19, 2012 5:28pm
yes, i know you hate mccoy. just stop too with that shit.BR1986FB;1121439 wrote:Except for the "ability to change the offense" part, sounds like pretty much like the current situation that we're in at QB. No thanks on either.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Mar 19, 2012 5:30pm
Might as well give it up. Some Browns fans would rather keep on sucking and hope to get the #1 pick and draft a QB and hope for the best...which never happens.Y-Town Steelhound;1121440 wrote:Did I say acquire him and hand him the starting job? Please copy and paste where I said that. Guy threw for 316 yards on the Steelers. Name the last time a Browns quarterback did that....I'll wait.
All I said is it would be a low risk/high reward move to:
1. Bring in a proven locker room presence.
2. Give Colt SOME kind of competition in training camp
3. Give the fans something to be somewhat excited about in a lackluster offseason
If he's not good enough to start, don't start him. But in a league where wins matter, clearly he's doing something right. You don't quarterback a team to the playoffs off of pure luck.
/TimCouch'd
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 19, 2012 5:31pm
When did I ever mention his high school/college career? (other than referencing Haden who played with him and would know what he could bring to a team better than any of us)...Please copy and past that....I'll wait.SportsAndLady;1121433 wrote:Don't listen to Y-Town. He's the Browns fan that always thinks it's so easy. "guys, Tebow won high school state titles, and 2 titles at Florida, obviously all he does is win...Browns never win. Browns + Tebow = Super Bowl"
He doesn't every actually take into account logic.
Logic? Was he really playing with that much better talent in Denver? Let me be clear AGAIN:
I am not saying bring him in and hand him the starting job. Let him compete, if he's not good enough then don't start him. Again the Browns have absolutely NOTHING to lose.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 19, 2012 5:33pm
I don't see how having Tebow hurts that crowd. Say Tebow comes in, somehow wins the starting job. If he's as terrible as many of you seem to think then the Browns would be bad enough to have a high enough pick to get Barkley. Problem solved no?Skyhook79;1121445 wrote:Might as well give it up. Some Browns fans would rather keep on sucking and hope to get the #1 pick and draft a QB and hope for the best...which never happens.
/TimCouch'd
You're all mentioning what he can't do and that's fine...that's completely fair. What I want to know is how does bringing him in HURT the Browns? No one has really managed to answer this question yet.