Footwedge wrote:

Non wrote: Jack Tatum only played 10 years. 1971-1980

He made all of those crushing hits and highlights in a short time frame, mostly from like 1973-1977.

Huh? Tatum was a beast every year he played. 10 years is pretty damn good.

Well he only played nine years for Oakland the team that drafted him.

His peak years were from 1973 to 1977. He was awesome in those years but that's more like a guy like Ed Reed if Reed were to retire soon than say Ronnie Lott who played for 15 years and had about 10 Pro Bowl years.

You would still take Eric Berry if he had a stretch like the mid-70s Tatum even if he doesn't have the longevity of a Ronnie Lott. That's my point.

OK....looked it up...Rod Woodson. He was a effin beast. Played with the Steelers, but also the Ravens. Sorry for the delay folks...but you did get the Rodney part right ...LOL

Non wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Non wrote: Jack Tatum only played 10 years. 1971-1980

He made all of those crushing hits and highlights in a short time frame, mostly from like 1973-1977.

Huh? Tatum was a beast every year he played. 10 years is pretty damn good.

Well he only played nine years for Oakland the team that drafted him.

His peak years were from 1973 to 1977. He was awesome in those years but that's more like a guy like Ed Reed if Reed were to retire soon than say Ronnie Lott who played for 15 years and had about 10 Pro Bowl years.

You would still take Eric Berry if he had a stretch like the mid-70s Tatum even if he doesn't have the longevity of a Ronnie Lott. That's my point.

I understand the point completely.....but you can't "not draft" a guy because he might get hurt. Anybody can get hurt. I've posted a handful of guys that hardly ever got injured and they destroyed people. Just like TP and Ed Reed.

The Steelers had a couple of head hunters back in the 70's too. I think Mike Wagner was one of them. GB had a good and durable free safety in Willie Wood.

Yeah that's my point, too. We agree.

The idea that you draft someone hoping to have them as cornerstones for 12-15 years is too high of an expectation IMO.

Maybe 6 to 8 years ahead is a better way to think about it.

Non wrote: Yeah that's my point, too. We agree.

The idea that you draft someone hoping to have them as cornerstones for 12-15 years is too high of an expectation IMO.

Maybe 6 to 8 years ahead is a better way to think about it.

Agreed.

Footwedge wrote:

Non wrote: Yeah that's my point, too. We agree.

The idea that you draft someone hoping to have them as cornerstones for 12-15 years is too high of an expectation IMO.

Maybe 6 to 8 years ahead is a better way to think about it.

Agreed.

I think virtually everyone on this thread is agreeing with you. 99% of Browns fans want Berry. Injuries at the safety position doesn't mean you stop drafting safeties. Now if Berry had injuries in college, then it would be a different story, but I don't think anyone is saying don't draft Berry because he 'might' get hurt.

Big Red Monster wrote: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/11/holmgren-may-have-been-dropping-a-hint-regarding-a-possible-move-up/

This came fromt he same article

"As Balzer sees it, Holmgren possibly was saying that he'd be inclined to give up the seventh overall pick, the 38th pick, the 85th pick, and the 92nd pick for an opportunity to trade up with the Rams and land Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford."

I like Bradford a lot but if Holmgren were to surrender our first 5 picks (which was what I read) to get a player that won't see the field for probably a year, myself and the rest of the fan base would probably flip their lids.

I think if they draft right this team can be VERY competitive THIS year. If they blow their first 5 picks on a QB, they won't.

am i the only one that thinks bradford is going to be a bust?

Crimson_Streak wrote: am i the only one that thinks bradford is going to be a bust?

Add me to that list.

Weak qb draft....I don't see a "cornerstone" in this draft.

sleeper wrote:

Crimson_Streak wrote: am i the only one that thinks bradford is going to be a bust?

Add me to that list.

Don't think he'll be a total bust. I think he'll be a bust because of all the expectations he's got so far. He might not be the next Peyton Manning, but he should be a nice starter in the NFL.

I think he'll be a quality starter, I don't think he'll be a Hall of Famer that some claim he will be. But I do think Bradford is good and will be a franchise QB for quite a few years. If he can stay healthy...

All other QB's in this draft are terrible and should be nothing more than backups their entire careers

I think the reports that the Browns will draft Clausen are bogus. From what I've read, Holmgren didn't even show up for his pro day, and has publicly stated he does not like Clausen that much. For those who say this is 'smokescreen' and part of the Browns' strategy to get him are crazy. You don't publicly denounce the player and not show up to his pro day if you like him and want him to be your franchise qb. Clausen will not be in Cleveland.

pkebker wrote: I think the reports that the Browns will draft Clausen are bogus. From what I've read, Holmgren didn't even show up for his pro day, and has publicly stated he does not like Clausen that much. For those who say this is 'smokescreen' and part of the Browns' strategy to get him are crazy. You don't publicly denounce the player and not show up to his pro day if you like him and want him to be your franchise qb. Clausen will not be in Cleveland.

Umm, isn't acting like you don't want him a smokescreen?

I agree, I don't want Clausen or any QB drafted not named Colt McCoy(and only in the 2nd round), but I wouldn't be shocked if we end up with Bradford or Clausen.

OhioStatePride2003 wrote:

sleeper wrote:

Crimson_Streak wrote: am i the only one that thinks bradford is going to be a bust?

Add me to that list.

Don't think he'll be a total bust. I think he'll be a bust because of all the expectations he's got so far. He might not be the next Peyton Manning, but he should be a nice starter in the NFL.

I really don't even understand why people even think he will be any better than Brady Quinn coming out of college. Was he really that great of a QB at Oklahoma?

I don't like QB's drafted in the first round, I think history shows that most end up as a bust, and Bradford/Clausen are no different.

sleeper wrote:

OhioStatePride2003 wrote:

sleeper wrote:

Crimson_Streak wrote: am i the only one that thinks bradford is going to be a bust?

Add me to that list.

Don't think he'll be a total bust. I think he'll be a bust because of all the expectations he's got so far. He might not be the next Peyton Manning, but he should be a nice starter in the NFL.

I really don't even understand why people even think he will be any better than Brady Quinn coming out of college. Was he really that great of a QB at Oklahoma?

I don't like QB's drafted in the first round, I think history shows that most end up as a bust, and Bradford/Clausen are no different.

Major differences between Bradford & Quinn. Bradford is ACCURATE and has a stronger arm. I would have had NO issue with the Browns moving forward with Quinn if he could have hit the broad side of a barn.

I agree on your comment about wanting McCoy. He's the only QB, besides Bradford, in this draft that I'd want and I DON'T want to give up the asking price for Bradford. So....McCoy it is (hopefully).

sleeper wrote:

OhioStatePride2003 wrote:

sleeper wrote:

Crimson_Streak wrote: am i the only one that thinks bradford is going to be a bust?

Add me to that list.

Don't think he'll be a total bust. I think he'll be a bust because of all the expectations he's got so far. He might not be the next Peyton Manning, but he should be a nice starter in the NFL.

I really don't even understand why people even think he will be any better than Brady Quinn coming out of college. Was he really that great of a QB at Oklahoma?

I don't like QB's drafted in the first round, I think history shows that most end up as a bust, and Bradford/Clausen are no different.

Problem is...there are even fewer QBs that actually go on to solid careers that are picked outside the 1st round. Reghi was talking about this the other day. There are very few "diamonds in the rough" at the qb position like Tom Brady.....if you look back through history.

There are a lot of franchise QBs right now that were picked in the first round.

If you look at the top teams competing for the Super Bowl only a few like Tom Brady and Tony Romo were sleepers.

The second round QBs were mostly picked right at the beginning of the second round, like 30-35.

The Browns do pick No. 38 so they could wait until the second round and take McCoy. I don't know if he'll be better than Bradford and Clausen. I'm not sold on any of them.


Here are some of the starting QBs on teams that might compete for the playoffs next year

Tom Brady - 6th
Mark Sanchez - 1st
Ben Roethlisberger - 1st
Joe Flacco - 1st
Carson Palmer - 1st
Peyton Manning - 1st
Matt Schaub - 3rd
Vince Young - 1st
Philip Rivers - 1st
Kyle Orton - 4th
Tony Romo - undrafted
Eli Manning - 1st
Donovan McNabb - 1st
Kevin Kolb - 2nd
Aaron Rodgers - 1st
Brett Favre - 2nd
Drew Brees - 2nd
Matt Ryan - 1st
Matt Leinart - 1st
Alex Smith - 1st

For further information, here is the draft information of all the 1st round QB's taken since 2000:

1. Matt Stafford- Potential
2. Mark Sanchez- Potential
3. Josh Freeman- Unknown
4. Matt Ryan- Boom
5. Joe Flacco- Boom
6. Jamarcus Russell- Bust
7. Brady Quinn- Bust
8. Vince Young- OK
9. Matt Leinhart- Bust
10. Jay Cutler- OK
11. Alex Smith- Bust
12. Aaron Rodgers- Boom
13. Jason Campbell- Bust
14. Eli Manning- Boom
15. Phillip Rivers- Boom
16. Ben Roethlisberger- Boom
17. JP Losman- Bust
18. Carson Palmer- Boom
19. Byron Leftwich- Bust
20. Kyle Boller- Bust
21. Rex Grossman- Bust
22. David Carr- Bust
23. Joey Harrington- Bust
24. Patrick Ramsey- Bust
25. Michael Vick- Boom
26. Chad Pennington- OK

Booms-8
Busts-12
OK-3
Unknown/Potential-3

Alex Smith isn't a bust....yet

sleeper wrote:

pkebker wrote: I think the reports that the Browns will draft Clausen are bogus. From what I've read, Holmgren didn't even show up for his pro day, and has publicly stated he does not like Clausen that much. For those who say this is 'smokescreen' and part of the Browns' strategy to get him are crazy. You don't publicly denounce the player and not show up to his pro day if you like him and want him to be your franchise qb. Clausen will not be in Cleveland.

Umm, isn't acting like you don't want him a smokescreen?

I agree, I don't want Clausen or any QB drafted not named Colt McCoy(and only in the 2nd round), but I wouldn't be shocked if we end up with Bradford or Clausen.

umm no not at all actually. Putting up a smokescreen would be if they liked Clausen and pretended they didn't. That's not the case, they simply don't like him. They wouldn't have taken it so far if they really intended on drafting him. Like I said before, they have publicly stated he's not good, and no showed his pro day. If Clausen is drafted by the Browns, he would already feel dissed by the management, because management has stated he's not that good.

Alex Smith bounced back a little bit last year towards the end. He's ok now.

Sanchez will be a boom. I'd say it already.

Leinart was just behind Warner but now will get his shot. He's more like unknown.

Leftwich is ok. He went to the playoffs one year as a starter.

Quinn has a better arm than Leinart.

I agree that Sanchez will be a boom, but I don't want to officially call him one until he's been under the center in the NFL for 2 years.

Alex Smith has been so up and down I don't know what to call him.

Yeah, obviously sometimes it's the system and the players around the QB.

Teams have had success with great defenses and a QB that just managed things. Or a young QB like the Steelers in 2004, Ravens in 2008 and Jets in 2009. All three teams made the AFC Championship with a rookie QB.

But those teams had great defenses.

The Browns have quite a ways to go if they're going to have a situation like that.

They were 22 in scoring defense last year, 31 in total yards, 28 in rush defense and 29 in pass defense. If they're going to be a defensive-led team they'll need to be Top 5 in run defense, top 5 in scoring defense, top 5 in total yards and somewhere around 10-15 in pass defense at worst. They were eighth in sacks, which is a positive sign.