like_that
Posts: 26,625
Mar 27, 2012 1:08pm
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.Mr Miyagi;1129166 wrote:Like Robiski ? or Massaquoi? or Little?
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 27, 2012 1:19pm
Because this FO drafted both of them?Mr Miyagi;1129166 wrote:Like Robiski ? or Massaquoi?
/logic fail
B
buckeyes_woowee
Posts: 512
Mar 27, 2012 1:21pm
I think adding DeCastro will make the Browns oline possibly the best in the NFL. I would love to trade down and snag him.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 1:30pm
I'd suspect this will be to keep other teams on their toes but who knows?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
Benny The Jet
Posts: 2,987
Mar 27, 2012 1:32pm
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".
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Mar 27, 2012 1:32pm
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.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 27, 2012 1:37pm
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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 1:38pm
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.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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 1:40pm
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.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.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 27, 2012 1:43pm
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 starterBR1986FB;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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 1:50pm
Tannehill may very well turn into a good QB but taking him at 7, or earlier, says "panic move" to me.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
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Mar 27, 2012 1:55pm
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' QBBR1986FB;1129209 wrote:Tannehill may very well turn into a good QB but taking him at 7, or earlier, says "panic move" to me.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Mar 27, 2012 2:05pm
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.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 2:20pm
Now hearing that this may be false and the new order is below:BR1986FB;1128634 wrote:@ brentsobleski
Browns hold picks: 4, 22, 37, 68, 100, 118, 132, 164, 185, 204, 205, 245
& 247.
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.
Enforcer
Posts: 2,140
Mar 27, 2012 3:06pm
You forgot pick #22
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 3:15pm
Yes I did...:laugh:
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Mar 27, 2012 3:17pm
Traded it for 2 future firsts already huh BR?
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 3:20pm
Belichick taught me well...Commander of Awesome;1129275 wrote:Traded it for 2 future firsts already huh BR?
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Mar 27, 2012 3:28pm
10 pre-draft trade candidates and predictions...
http://rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/40184/59/offseason-low-down?pg=1
http://rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/40184/59/offseason-low-down?pg=1
OneBuckeye
Posts: 5,888
Mar 27, 2012 3:55pm
[video=youtube;wGfLFmlU8zo][/video]
hoops23
Posts: 15,696
Mar 27, 2012 4:11pm
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.Benny The Jet;1129195 wrote: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".like_that;1129172 wrote:If Little catches the ball, he can be a beast.
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.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Mar 27, 2012 4:29pm
OneBuckeye;1129306 wrote:[video=youtube;wGfLFmlU8zo][/video]
Mike Polk with another classic!
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Mar 27, 2012 4:51pm
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.
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!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.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Mar 27, 2012 5:11pm
Polk with a pwn.
IggyPride00
Posts: 6,482
Mar 27, 2012 5:16pm
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.
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.