Evaluation time
With almost all of our remaining games against teams over .500 and with a QB with only 1 game under his belt; with a 3-6 record including 1-4 at home and losses that mean we will lose a bunch of tie-breakers, it looks as if this season is over from a playoff or championship perspective. Now, this is football. Every game should still be played with one goal: victory. But even a frantic 7-0 record would merely get us back to 10-6 and hoping for help.
It is evaluation time. We must look at what we have and what we need to see from those on the roster as we continue through the second half of the season. What are you going to be looking for? These are my thoughts:
QB: I want to see Brady Quinn take every snap from here on out. Barring injury, I think he will. I really like thinking of Anderson as a backup. After something like 25 or 30 games, DA proved he is not a starting-caliber NFL QB. Quinn looked good through one game, lets see how he continues. I'm especially interested to see if he can throw the deep ball. Regardless, I'd like to bring back Anderson as a backup next year, unless we can net a early 4th rounder or better for him.
RB: I said before the season I thought Lewis was on his last leg. He often looks tired and old. It puts the Browns in a tough spot. In a way, I think he could still be effective as a guy that could get 10-15 carries a game. However, he wants 25-30 carries a game, and there is a common line of thinking that he is more effective the more he gets the ball. Maybe thats true, but I tend to think it is BS. In fact, where was he the last two games when we had a lead in the 2nd half? Yesterday in the second half, Lewis: 9 carries, 11 yards. Yuk. How can you sustain long, time-wasting, back-breaking, point scoring drives with that?? That was against a terrible run D too. Against Baltimore his second half was slightly better: 9 carries, 29 yards (3.2 YPC), still not good enough. I like Harrison and agree with the idea of getting him more touches. Split the carries between him and Lewis and you might have something. But Harrison must have a hard time with some of the intangibles, because it seems like we only have him in with special plays designed for him. Wright is a third down back, I guess, because he can pass block better than Harrison. Bottom line, unless Wright shows me something in the next several weeks or unless Harrison becomes an all around back, tailback becomes a high priority.
TE/FB: position of strength, all around. I'd love to see some Rucker. Heiden is the all around beast. Winslow has great hands (last play against Denver was the exception). Dinkins blocks very well. I like Vickers and Ali.
WR: This is a tough one. Edwards has all the physical tools, except the hands. Maybe he could play safety or linebacker? I still am happy with him as a number 1 WR. Hopefully Stallworth can stay healthy the rest of the year. I don't feel like he has shown us his value yet. Steptoe got a shot as a starter and didn't show us much. Cribbs isn't particluarly big or fast, so its tough to see him as a full time WR. Plus, he is so valuable as a part time running back/wild cat back/special team player/blocking WR and occaisionally pass catcher, I don't think I want to change him into a full time slot receiver anyway. Seems like we could use a better slot WR than Steptoe, but I guess I'll be watching to see what he does in that role now that he doesn't need to be starting.
OL: I really like the O-Line if everyone is healthy. I like having McKinney, Schaffer, Friedman as our 6, 7, and 8 guys. If Steinbach comes back strong and Tucker's injuries aren't career threatening, I like the idea of keeping this whole unit. I'll be watching Hadnot, but he has really stepped after a slow start. Fraley is solid. Thomas is a beast.
DL: Not sure what to think of this unit. First, its the best group we've had for awhile. I'm not sure if Courtney Brown/Gerrard Warren were ever on the field playing well at the same time. But with the amount we invested in the line, its hard not to be a little disappointed in the run defense and lack of pressure on the QB. I tend to blame the linebackers more for this. But Corey Williams has yet to fully adapt to the 3-4 and Robaire and Shaun Smith can't stay healthy. Luis Leonard is blah. Rogers is a beast and defensive player of the year so far. He is the only guy that can be counted on to get multiple pressures on the opposing QB in a game. He has exceeded all my expectations.
LB: they suck. Fire them. All of them. McGinist is old, like really old. He flat out whiffed on Cutler once last night, he did the same thing with Falco last week. He gets run around and through more than any linebacker should. he can't take on blocks and can't run around them. He's done. D'Qwell Jackson is ok. He seems a little small for middle LB in a 3-4 and he makes tackles, but the runner always seems to gain another 2-6 yards after Jackson makes his initial hit. Really, the guy has like 200 tackles the last 2 years, but can you remember the last time he drove a guy backwards, hit a guy hard, stood a guy up? I can't. Andra Davis has a little McGinist's problem (old and slow) and a lot of Jackson's problem (gets dragged along by offensive players). I want to see Beau Bell. Is he healthy? I believe I was excited about a player named Leon Williams once, but I have seen no evidence that he is still on the team. Kamerion Wimbley STILL only has one move. The creativity of blitzes is non existent. I'd love to see Wimbley come from the middle of the field or to do a stunt or something. Same with Hall, although its hard to be down on a 7th rounder that has done so much good on defense and special teams.
DB: At times they look like the strength of the team, other times the weakness. I want to see McDonald keep getting shots. He can be a good starting corner in this league, this past week aside. Wright is as close to we've had to a shutdown corner in a long time, if you ask me. The guy is good. Real good. But teams have found two ways to exploit our corners. One: lineup your big WR on the side of the field McDonald is on and just throw jump balls (DENVER GAME.) Or let your speedy slot WR burn our nickle back (WASHINGTON GAME). These tactics are particularly effective against us because Wright and McDonald don't cover based on who is out there, but based on the side of the field. It probably has its advantages, but it allows the offense to choose the matchups it wants, and we've been burned because of it. I like Pool and Jones. Just want them to stay healthy, because we don't have any depth. Adams is ok, I guess Sorenson would be ok too, but only if they don't have to play any extended time. We certainly need another safety. But I'm going to be watching McDonald very closely. Do we need a #2 corner so that McDonald can play nickle back against slot receivers (whcih he excelled at a bit last year, if memory serves) or do we need a nickle back only.
Specialists: Cribbs- unhumanly good football player. Dawson- stills got a good leg on him. Zastudil- solid. Pointbriand- cool name, and solid.
0 recs |
144 comments
Comments
McGinest was done when he arrived in Cleveland. I think it’s a reflection of how desperate this team is for help. But, to think that fans and media thought this was a playoff team, shows just how much Kool-Aid is swallowed every year by NFL homers. Even when Savage stocks the secondary, we won’t have the depth necessary to contend. Building a football team from zero is a slow process, yet the Browns need to sell tickets while doing it. And this 45 yrs and counting crap is myth. The franchise that won in 1964, won again as the Ravens. The clock starts over again for this expansion franchise, just so you understand the full weight of what the NFL owners did to this city.
by elsandito on Nov 7, 2008 5:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if any of this is relevant to my post or this team generally. The Browns have started over 3x since 1994 (under Palmer/Policy, then Davis, then Crennel/Savage). Many many teams can say that. I don’t know who said anything about 45 years and counting. Although don’t give me the franchise that won in 64 had anything to do with the Ravens team that won in 2000. There was what, a kicker and one d-lineman that was left from the Cleveland franchise?
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 7, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention. We are very far removed from the expansion status, that is no longer an excuse, at all. We went to the playoffs and have had 2 winning seasons. That ain’t great, but its something that some teams could only hope for (Cincinnati).
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 7, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
elsandito still makes a good point that when Savage and Crennell got there we had nothing. Ok, we had Dawson, Andra Davis, and Pontbriand….so pretty much nothing.
This shouldn’t excuse us from winning, nor does it wipe the slate clean of 4-12 teams since expansion, but it is good to appreciate how good the roster is versus even 4 years ago, which I think you did.
by rufio on Nov 7, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I apologize for straying from your central topic of evaluating where the team is, by position. Perhaps I do this because I’m more of a big picture focuser. I don’t offer this as an excuse as your intent is to drill down to finer detail.
by elsandito on Nov 7, 2008 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ozzie did a complete rebuild of the Ravens in1996. We won the 2000 SB on the backs of Ray, Sharper, Ogden, Boulware, C-Mac, Jermaine and Jamal Lewis (our top receivers were Brandon Stokley, Patrick Johnson and Q. Ismail)….All drafted or got on the cheap. We also spent cautiously with aging veterans such as Sharp, Saragusa, Woodson, Dilfer. I just don’t see this type of veteran leadership with Cleveland yet. I bet that is where Savage goes next. He develops his young guys, see’s what type of team he has and than buys a vet or two to put you over the top. Your almost there.
by raven on Nov 9, 2008 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been wondering all season why the Browns haven’t been mixing it up more with the RBs. And is it just me or does Lewis seem to hesitate more as he’s approaching the line? Not so much waiting for the blocks hesitate as just plain hesitate.
On the LB’s, since I consider this season over as far as a realistic shot at the playoffs is concerned, they ought to start playing Bell. Let’s find out before the next draft just how badly we are hurting at LB. I agree that it would be nice to see a Browns LB that could stop a runner rather than just slowing him down.
Might as well take a look at Rucker for TE as well because although Heiden is one of my favorite players, he’s not going to get any younger. If Rucker works out well as a receiver and can block, then maybe the Browns could trade Winslow for some high draft picks to build the LB corps. I don’t really like the idea of trading away talent, but right now all of our ballast is on one side of the cargo hold and we are listing heavily to starboard.
Acquiring a good DB would be a nice idea as well. We need a good corner and a safety who knows where he needs to be. Does anyone know why Abdullah hasn’t been activated? I can’t believe that he would be worse than Cousin. And I actually think the Browns’ secondary plays a bit better when Adams is in. No, I don’t have any numbers to back that up. It just seems that way to me.
Anyways, that’s my rambling input.
by JustBob on Nov 7, 2008 5:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I also have trouble understanding why Harrison doesn’t get more touches. He carries four times for 44 yards in one drive in the first half then doesn’t get any more carries the rest of the game. How can this happen? There has to be something else going on with him. I just don’t see how any offensive coordinator can keep a guy that productive on the bench so much. Maybe if we gave him the ball a few times in the second half we would have scored another TD and stopped the big comeback by the Broncos
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 7, 2008 5:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That is why I’m convinced its something we do not see/understand. Maybe he doesn’t have the capacity to know an entire playbook. Maybe he is too undersized to take more than a few hits a week. Maybe he just can’t pass block at all. But the only times he gets on the field is a play designed for him to do something with the ball. I don’t mind that approach with Cribbs, because, like I said, he is so valuable the way we use him elsewhere. I’m not sure what the reason for Harrison’s use is, but it must be something.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 7, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It can’t be anything more than BS. Even if they think Harrison will be less effective with more carries, can’t we at least test what that threshold is first? The guy is averaging 9.1 yards a touch
by Roger Dorn on Nov 7, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah he is explosive every time he touches is and might be our quickest offensive player. Our other guys are big and fast, but not as agile or quick as Harrison. He presents something different than the rest of our O and he can move the rock. What more do you need?
by rufio on Nov 7, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jamal Lewis is Done, Stick a fork in him!
by RayLewisForPresident on Nov 7, 2008 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Anderson will not stay on as a backup if we are committing to Quinn next season. His salary was structured in such a way that we will make a decision on him this offseason. There is no reason to pay a backup 9 million dollars plus a roster bonus
by Roger Dorn on Nov 7, 2008 6:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
It might be important to get another guy in Free Agency as a backup if we don’t want Dorsey to hit the field in an emergency, but I don’t think we are going to pay him that much to sit.
What did Houston give up for Schaub?
by rufio on Nov 7, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Complicated trade.
Houston and Atlanta swapped first round picks (Atlanta moved up, Houston Moved down) and Houston gave Atlanta two second round picks. Overall they traded down about 15 spots in the first round and gave up two top 10 2nd rounders.
We’ll be lucky to get a 3rd rounder for Anderson.
by gentryholdem on Nov 8, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would probably take a 3rd rounder for him. I think we can get a 2nd, though. There are a ton of teams for whom DA would be a big upgrade with upside.
by rufio on Nov 8, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I say high 3rd rounder or better. I’m not convinced that we can’t keep him as a backup. Hopefully we can see some sort of bidding war him.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Minnesota
Kansas City
Detroit
San Francisco
St. Louis
There is a starting point
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 10, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Other possibilities, especially for a 3rd rounder:
Miami
NYJ
St. Louis
Tampa
Oakland—Russel is far from ready and I am convinced Oakland as an organization can be duped in to anything.
Tennessee—if only as insurance for Young.
Is Rosenfels starting for Houston because Schaub got hurt? If not, include them.
There are not enough QBs to go around this league. Someone will give us something for a former Pro Bowler.
by rufio on Nov 10, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d scratch Tampa off that list… Gruden’s run-heavy, west-coast passing offense doesn’t play into any of DA’s strengths.
Oakland too… he’s not the big-splash Davis likes to make with draft picks and free agent signings.
and Houston… Schaub’s their guy, he’s just out for 4 weeks.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Nov 10, 2008 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t count Al Davis out for doing something stupid. He loves a big arm.
Tampa, you are right. Point is they need a real QB though.
by rufio on Nov 11, 2008 2:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have had it with K2
We need to see what Rucker can do because Winslow should be history. This guy is a clown that thinks he is so tough but is actually a big puss!
Wow look at me! I can point to my biceps after I score but I can’t keep a puny defensive back from ripping the ball out of my hands. Your all mouth, sonny!
Your offensive pass interferance in this and other games shows you don’t even know the effing rules!
Lastly, dropping the ball at crunch was a tri-fecta! I am sure you are proud of that one. Take your candy-ass act somewhere else.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 7, 2008 6:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As soon as they actually played Quinn, you had to rip on someone else who made the Pro Bowl for us, didn’t you.
by rufio on Nov 7, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry. Just calling it as I see it. I dont believe that was an “All Pro” performance. Do you?
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 7, 2008 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are really only a few TEs in the league who are even capable of having that kind of night. He had 2 bad plays. The only reason anyone thinks he had a bad game is because of 2 bad plays. If everyone responded like that to Edwards after a drop….
He fumbled the ball. Name one football player who hasn’t.
Winslow had 111yds on 10 catches with 2 TDs. He was consistently open for a new QB, and made some ridiculous catches. If he was really a “big puss” would he have caught the 1st TD where he knew he was going to get blasted by the safety?
The next closest receiver to Winslow: Stallworth with 4 catches for 48 yards. That’s less than half of Winslow’s production as a WR! Extrapolate 10 catches and 111 yards for 2TDs over 16 games…even if you include 16 lost fumbles and 16 drops, that’s a trip to Hawaii for a TE.
How about blaming someone like, say our safeties who were consistently lined up wrong, or our front 7 outside of Shaun Rogers who couldn’t get to Cutler if he held on to the ball for 5 minutes in the pocket?
The leading offensive player who caught our only receiving TDs en route to helping score 30 points seems a little unfair. Yes, he could have caught the last ball, yes he shouldn’t have fumbled. But those things are UN-characteristic of Winslow, they do not symptomatically plague him.
by rufio on Nov 8, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. We all like Heiden, but he simply could not make some of the plays that Winslow makes. Who cares if he points at his arms after he scores? I don’t like it, but I’m not going to trade him because of that. He’s a tough guy and plays hard every game. Calling him a “big puss” is simply ignorant.
Yes, he fumbled the ball, but it’s not like he wasn’t taking care of it. Sometimes you just have to credit the defender for stripping the ball. Every fumble isn’t the offensive player’s fault; sometimes he’s hit in just the right spot and the ball comes out. As far as the penalty, I didn’t see it but I’m guessing it’s one of those things that happens often but doesn’t usually get called. It just happened at a bad time in the game.
I think that blaming any offensive player for this game is ridiculous (although I’m still upset that we didn’t see Harrison at all in the second half). And too much blame is being place on McDonald — where was the safety help on the long TD? And where was the pressure on the QB? You can’t blame Winlow for this game.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 8, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Very well said. Winslow, now he lives up to the hype.
by fwembt on Nov 8, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about Pryor yesterday? 9-14, 197, 3TD’s. They didn’t ask him to throw much, but when he did he made some great plays. And he’s only a true freshman. He’s going to be a great one some day.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 9, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed. I wish he was more decisive. Hopefully that comes with more playing and practice time.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s gotta stop taking sacks, and start being able to throw mid-range passes. Flashing ENORMOUS talent, though.
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What good is all that offensive talent if his can’t harness it? Sure he can get you some incredibile catchs and scores ( but so far, not a ton). The point I am trying to make is he will hurt you more than he helps overall. That OPI penalty was not BS and given the game situiation probably cost us the game. Edwards catch would have had us deep in their territory with a 13 point lead. This was not his first OPI penalty. There have been several others. Some warrior.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 9, 2008 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If he doesn’t play against the Broncos then we lose by much more than we did. Don’t you get that?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 9, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding me? If I can find a way to load the video on to youtube, I will show you exactly how the penalty was a terrible call. It far from cost us the game. If you are really going to single one person or play that “cost us the game” you can go with either of McDonald’s dropped INTs, especially the second one.
But a game never boils down to one player.
Winslow gets penalized unfairly a lot because of his reputation. This hasn’t been his first OPI call, and it hasn’t been the first one that was bad. Against Baltimore, he saved an INT by committing an interference penalty, that’s a good play in my book. I would venture to say Heinz Ward would not have been penalized on the same play and if that was Marvin Harrison, Antonio Gates, or Jason Witten, etc. there is no way that gets called.
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Winslow had to pick a couple balls of his shoe strings to bail out Quinn, he’s held up on fallen player as two Broncos tug at the ball and Quinn fires a rocket from7 yards aways they slips through his hands..big deal. the guys great and I hope Cleveland dumps him so the Ravens can replace often injured Todd Heap. TE’s are asked to do more every year. Now everyone wants them to be 30 yard passing threats.
by raven on Nov 9, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to see you call Winslow a “big puss” to his face.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 7, 2008 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
of course he could kick the crap out of me! He’s a pro football player. What I was trying to say (although poorly because I am so pissed about it ) is that he will never be much value to the Browns because he is too inmature for the pro game. Besides the motorcycle exploits and his poorly timed complaints, he misses too many plays and does stupid things. How many times is he going to run over a DB before he realizes it is gonna result in a flipping offensive pass interf. penalty? Why can’t he block an end or LB if hes so damn tough?
Why does he act worse than Hines Ward when he scores and demonstrate like he’s in the WWF? Just play the game. Respect your opponents and let your play do the talking instead of your mouth. Shut up and catch the ball when it counts. I’d trade him this off season and get the D some help.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 7, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That pass interference penalty was BS. The ball was nowhere near him, and he was probably already blocking.
by rufio on Nov 8, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is nothing but knee-jerk absurdity. Go look at his career numbers.
by fwembt on Nov 8, 2008 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a silly overreaction. We aren’t in a position to win without Winslow. Not even close. The thought that we can get rid of one of the most talented guys on the team and be better for just doesn’t work. He plays hard. When healthy he is a top 3 TE in the game. If his antics make it so taht we put him on the trade block, it better be for a major haul coming our way. Yes, TE is a position of depth for us, but taht doesn’t make it ok to trade your best TE, who is also your best WR.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this is naive, but why not move Winslow into a slot receiver position? He’s clearly far more interested in catching passes than blocking and he’d be another receiver willing to go over the middle (where Braylon tends to drop a lot of balls, presumably because he’s looking for the hit or running room after the catch). That’d put Heiden and Winslow on the field at the same time and also get Rucker into the TE rotation with Heiden.
by dmadcat on Nov 10, 2008 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that we already do this on many plays. I’m not sure how often, maybe Chris or rufio could help, but I’ve seen Winslow many times line up in the slot.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 10, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we already do this, and honestly when we are going with 2WRs when Stallworth is hurt I don’t know why we don’t just line him up at the 2nd WR position. Dmadcat makes a good point: we need to do this more often. I don’t know what % of the time we do this, but it is no where near high enough, especially when Donte is hurt.
I think Chud likes utilizing the fact that Winslow is big and can effectively block a CB or S to his tactical advantage. Really, he should only have to block a CB or S really well or chip/slow down a LB. He can do that. He should also be able to beat almost every person who is covering him in 1 on 1 coverage and he does that all the time. The threat of the run is important, so even just keeping Winslow on the line and making the defense think “run formation” can work against their instincts when we pass.
by rufio on Nov 10, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason they don’t line up Winslow as the 2nd WR is because he loses the matchup advantage he has when a LB is covering him.
by dawginphilly on Nov 11, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying it would be ideal, I am saying it would be better than Steptoe. Its hard not to be.
Even if Winslow was slower than the CB he was up against, he could still make ridiculous catches.
by rufio on Nov 11, 2008 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They do this a lot already. He is on the field with Heiden a lot. Winslow is a possession receiver more than anything. The problem with making him a WR totally is that it ruins your chances at creating mismatches all over the field. I like moving him around, like they do.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 10, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a decent-sized fella that hits the gym 4 days a week. But I’m not going to call K2 a big puss, or his act “candy-ass”. You want to, go ahead.
I was harsh on him a couple weeks ago after the Wahington game and the PR pissing match that went with it. But I respect the hell out of the guy for how hard he plays and well he plays even at below 100% health at times.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Nov 7, 2008 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can I have some of what you’re smoking please?
by gentryholdem on Nov 8, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be “anger” laced with “disgust”.
Oh The People You Meet When Your Out of Ammo.........
by Juannieboy on Nov 9, 2008 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is immense talent on this football team, unfortunately it is not coached well. How in the world do you give up 21 4th quarter points and 228 total yards. The defense looks ragged in the 4th quarter, are they out of shape, out of position, not making there assignments? Hard to believe.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Nov 8, 2008 8:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
QB- We are set for now. See what happens this offseason, but I don’t think we draft a guy.
RB-We could use someone, here, even if its just a guy we pick up late who is bigger/faster/more something than J. Wright and who compliments Harrison and Lewis well. We don’t need a bell cow, at least not yet. I wouldn’t mind picking one up if someone fell in our lap because Lewis isn’t getting younger and we will need a guy in a few years at worst.
WR-I would like to see at least 1 draft pick here. Maybe a FA, too, but probably 2 additions total. We haven’t drafted a lot of WRs, and you can never have too many young guys who are NFL caliber here. Also, even if Joe J comes back next year and Stallworth stays healthy, WR is typically a position where you need to develop guys for a few years. Sanders and Steptoe can be cut to make room.
TE- We are set.
OT- We could use a young guy, but it isn’t our top priority. I have no problem cutting one of the guys who never sees the field if a late round rookie can beat them out.
OG/C-Draft 1 young guy. Fraley is 31. Steinbach is 28. Hadnot is our youngest interior lineman at 26.
DE-R. Smith will have to come back from surgery at age 31 if he is to play again. Shaun Smith will be 28 next year and Williams 29. Another area like RB where I wouldn’t mind drafting a guy, especially if someone fell in our laps. We should be looking for guys who are 300lbs and “3 technique” DTs. Leonard and/or Santonio Thomas can be cut.
DT-Rogers is huge. He will also be 30 next year. I like Rubin as a backup. He might be able to develop in to a force because he flashes the ability to make plays, I just don’t know if he has it mentally.
OLB- Willie is retiring. Alex Hall has been a nice surprise, but we clearly need an impact guy here. Wimbley is playing far below his potential, but even if he were to rebound next year, you can NEVER have too many pass rushers. Spend a high pick here.
ILB- I like Andra Davis and think he is a great guy. Unfortunately, he is not playing good football right now and hasn’t for a couple of years (if he ever did). Jackson is playing the best out of our LBs but that isn’t saying much. I would like to see what Beau Bell is like before I say we need a high pick here, but we should probably spend a draft pick on this position. Where has Leon Williams been?
CB- Wright and McDonald are good. They are young and will have the occasional bad game. I would love to bring in a big, physical, freaky fast CB as our #1 and we could be awesome at that position, but it isn’t a high priority. We do need someone to be our 3rd CB, though. Guys like Orlando Scandrick last year always can be had in round 4 or 5. We could probably also get a decent guy in FA without breaking the bank.
S- Sorensen and Mike Adams are ok, but don’t have much if any upside. They play hard on Special Teams, but I would rather have a young guy who does that and has the potential to start. Not a high priority but I would not mind seeing a pick spent here at all.
Priority:
ILB/OLB
WR
DB
RB/OG/C
by rufio on Nov 8, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with most everything here. Big inside LB would be my #1 priority. I’m not sold on a high pick for a speed rusher. Not since 1st round Wimbley is about equal to 7th round Hall. There should be more value picks there. Get a physical freak, not a name.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guys like Marcus Howard can be found outside the 1st round, and he was on everyone’s radar at Georgia. Woodley was a 2nd rounder, correct? The more of those guys we take, the better in my book.
You are right though, ILBs are a lot safer in the 1st round. Too bad we can’t clone Patrick Willis. I wouldn’t mind USC’s Maualuga. We could line him up all over, and he can get to the QB. Wake’s Aaron Curry looks like a good player, but at 6’1" 240, he is more like a ILB in our scheme and I don’t know how he projects there. Laurinaitis is really really smart, but I don’t know if he is fast enough to draft where I think we will be picking in the 1st round.
USC’s Cushing might fall to us in round 2, depending on his pre-draft season and where we end up picking. Texas’ Orakpo and Florida State’s Everette Brown are two DEs that would project to OLB for us, but I would not like risking another DE→OLB conversion on a pick as high as Orakpo. There are TONS of undersized DEs we could convert to OLBs coming out this year that we could pick in the later rounds.
I can’t say I would mind using a high pick on Crabtree….
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As an OSU fan, I think either Jenkins or Laurenitis would be great for our defense. Especially Jekins, but I doubt we’ll be picking high enough to get him. He seems to be the consesus top DB in next year’s draft. Laurenitis will probably be available, like you said he doesn’t have the physical tools but he’s a smart player. I don’t know how that will translate to the NFL.
I’m pretty sure Crabtree will go in the top 5, but if we had him to go with Winslow and Braylon that would be some passing game. We wouldn’t have to worry about defense!
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 9, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Crabtree makes my mouth water.
I’d pass on Laurenitis, not fast or big enough for inside LB.
I really like Jenkins.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No offense, but isn’t that what Lions fans and Matt Millen were thinking each time they drafted a wideout? We need to draft defense in round 1
by Roger Dorn on Nov 10, 2008 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I was obviously joking with that last statement. Of course we need defense. But if a guy like Crabtree is available when the Browns pick then you have to take him. He’s going to be a great WR and it’s not like the Browns are loaded at that position.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 10, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get that, but my point is I don’t we should take Crabtree no matter what. Having the best wide receivers in the league is not going to make you a good football team. We need defense no matter what and we need some physical players
by Roger Dorn on Nov 10, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t bypass ultra-talented players to draft for need. I agree if two guys are at equal skills, or near-equal, we should take defensive players. But if this guy is the next Randy Moss then you have to draft him. Again, it’s not like we’re overflowing with talent at reciever.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 10, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but its not as if they drafted a bunch of bad players. Calvin Johnson is still very good. Roy Williams is a solid player and they just traded him. Carlos Rogers (I think thats his name) fell in to some terrible luck breaking his collar bone twice and then getting addicted to all sorts of drugs.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 10, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ha, forgot about him completely. HEre is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Williams_(wide_receiver). He simply was a bad draft choice.
The guy I was thinking of was CHARLES Rogers. Unlucky and unfortunate, but it doesn’t make him a bad pick. (except that there was evidence that he had drug issues while in college).
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 10, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
of course rogers was a bad pick. he was a horrible pick. he was out of football in his 3rd year, and was the 2nd pick in the draft. by that logic, ryan leaf wasn’t a bad pick…nor was any pick of any player with good college stats, they just got unlucky if they didn’t succeed.
while i agree that best player available is typically a pretty great strategy, if there’s a game changer at a position of more need, i think you go with that. look at Joe T vs. Peterson. even knowing what we know today, i am quite sure that Joe T was the right pick for the franchise.
LB has to be the first priority in the draft. and if you break it down, top-10 LBs pan out more often than any other position on the field. if the best LB in the draft and crabtree are there when the browns pick, i think it has to be the LB.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 10, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, man, you have no ground to stand on saying Rogers was a bad pick unless you go with the character angle. He was dominating before he broke his first collar bone, and after he came back until he broke his second. Unless there was something in the medical reports that would have shown Millen he was an injury liability, he was working out.
Andre Johnson would have been a better pick, but even at that, he’s another WR! Its not the fact that Detroit drafted WRs that hurt them, its the fact that Millen is an idiot.
by rufio on Nov 11, 2008 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bro, the angle that i’m going with is that he sucked and played 15 career games after being the 2nd pick. whether it’s b/c he got hurt or not, 15 games = bad pick. as i said, by that logic, no one is ever a bad pick unless they didn’t have any stats in college. would you say that ki-jana carter was a bad pick? using the above argument, your answer is no. ask the bengals if they thought he was a bad pick. plus, 36 catches in 15 games isn’t exactly “dominating”.
good v. bad picks boil down to production at the pro level. period. every top-10 choice has dope college stats that can justify being taken at his slot. is jamarcus russell a good pick so far? reggie bush, who until the last couple of weeks had played every game of his career and set rookie and RB receiving records, was being viewed as a bust/wasted pick prior to this season. that’s the criteria, not your college highlight reel.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
*ask the bengals TODAY if they THINK he was a bad pick
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not about who was on a “college highlight reel”. There are a lot of great players in college who everybody knew wouldn’t make in the NFL (Charlie Ward, Tommie Fazier, etc.). The point is when you judge a whether a draft pick was good or not, you have to go with what information you know AT THE TIME. It’s not Millen’s fault that Charles Rogers got injured and it ruined his career. You don’t know what he would have done if he was healthy.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you.
If you redid drafts knowing what you know now, just about everyone’s pick would be different.
by rufio on Nov 11, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Collegefootballnews.com does that every year. It’s always an interesting read.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you are missing the point. There is a big difference between someone being drafted and not having skills to succeed and someone who got injured in a freak way twice. If you don’t see the difference between an unlucky pick and a bad pick, I don’t know what to tell you. The question HAS to be, was it a good pick AT THE TIME. Unless you are looking at the drug reports at MSU, Rogers was a good pick.
Saying now that it was a bad pick is pointless. If Andre Johnson broke his collar bone twice within a year and a half and then got involved in drugs, he would have been a bad pick too. Its silly to be reactionary after the fact. With all the information available AT THE TIME, that we know of, Rogers was NOT a bad pick.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 11, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i just couldn’t possibly disagree more…and i, similarly, think you guys are missing the point. with the logic that you’ve posited through this argument (which i’m actually kind of surprised we’re even having), i can’t find a single “bad” pick in the history of the NFL. please point out to me a “bad” pick.
you’re saying that taking the browns -3 against denver was an “unlucky” bet, not a “bad” one. or that buying goldman sachs stock last month was an “unlucky” investment, and not a “bad” one. there are lots of reasons to justify making a pick (or placing a bet or making an investment), and ultimately they’re all educated gambles, but if they don’t pan out, for whatever reason, then i think it’s safe to say they are bad and not just unlucky.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about? There were many bad picks that most people thought were bad at the time. There’s a big difference between picking a guy who’s a bust because he plays bad and a guy who’s career got ruined by injuries.
So you think we can evaluate only based on the outcome. What about this example? Let’s say I’m playing blackjack with $1000 on the the hand and the dealer gives me two 10’s and I choose to hit. Of course that’s a dumb move. But if I hit and get an Ace, then I win $1500 — so does that make it a good move? Of course not! You got lucky, but it was still a dumb move.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
first of all, you’d win $1000, not $1500. and that was a great hit. you won. great hit.
your argument is breaking down, though, at the “most people thought” level. in fact, that’s not even an argument. i guarantee you the people making the picks that “most people thought were bad” didn’t think they were bad. which is why we have to measure these things objectively…through examining results.
my point is this, your criteria “the information available at the time” is bullsh*t. you can’t value a pick on the pick itself. there has to be some objective criteria by which a pick is ultimately judged. the performance on the field, in the sports book, in your portfolio, or in your chip count. people don’t agree on what “the information available” means—i bet there were loads of people saying to beware of charles rogers at 2—but we can all agree on results. you call it unlucky? i say that’s purely a subset of, and indistinguishable from, bad.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, don’t be stupid. Football is far from objective.
Who were the top 10 players of all time at any position?
Go be objective about that. You can’t.
by rufio on Nov 11, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
great point. especially when you factor in that your top 10 players of all time question has no bearing on this argument whatsoever. b/w “everyone said so” and “you’re stupid”, this is discussion is taking on new heights.
WR “X” played in 15 games and had 36 catches. he was the 2nd pick in the draft. did that pick turn out to be “good” or “bad” for the team that drafted him? i think that those objective facts can certainly lead to a sensible answer. that is my only point, which you’re clearly missing. a subjective question would be, “is WR ‘X’ better than WR ‘Y’, who had 37 catches in 15 games?” try to focus.
also, you say mike williams was a bad pick. why was he worse than rogers? if you look at their college numbers, williams’ are superior, and he was taken later. i agree that williams was a bad pick, but how can you possibly say he was bad and rogers was not?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You said “…did that pick turn out to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for the team that drafted him”
The key phrase here is “turn out”. That changes the question completely. It is now asking whether the player had a good career or not, and not whether it was a smart pick or not. Results-oriented analysis like this is worth very little. You call it objective, but we are not evaluating the player’s career. We are evaluating the team’s selection of that player at the time of the draft. It is incredible to even consider what the player did at any point after that draft.
On Mike Williams- he was out of football for an entire year before he was drafted. That is the kind of information, known at the time of the draft, that would lessen a player’s value in my mind. I thought he was too big and too slow coming out of college to merit a top-10 selection anyway. (He ran a 4.56 at the combine, Rogers ran a 4.28- this is a RELEVANT objective factor).
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t say you were stupid, I said not to be stupid. Big difference.
Mike Williams tried to challenge the NFL to let him in early. He was out of football for over a year. He was slow. No one else had him in the top 10. He played on a great team in a crappy conference so his stats didn’t mean a whole lot. He had attitude problems.
Rogers’ NFL talent was there, it was freak injuries that kept him out of the game, and you can’t predict those. That’s the difference. Things like Bobby Hurley and Jay Williams’ motorcycle accidents don’t make them bad picks. They make them “no one will ever know” picks.
by rufio on Nov 12, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking of blackjack tables that pay 3 to 2, not 2 to 1 (and not including the money you already bet), of which there are many of in Vegas.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but you didn’t get a blackjack, you only drew to 21. what casino plays 3 to 2 when you don’t pull a blackjack?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, duh — you’re right. I’m an idiot.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Prime example: The day we drafter Frye when Orton was on the board, I wrote my buddy an email saying it was a huge error. I’m not paid to scout and draft players and even I could see this was insane. Orton was extremely productive in a much tougher conference. Bottom line: This was a BAD draft pick because we had an option that was so much better.
by elsandito on Nov 11, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You couldn’t be more wrong.
I thought Reggie Bush was a bad pick at #2 AT THE TIME. It isn’t interesting or worth anything to say that someone was a good pick years after the fact. That’s not what the draft is about. At the time, with the information you had then. If you want to be reactionary and results-oriented, fine. But that doesn’t get you anywhere.
Buying bad stock could be unlucky, or it could be a bad investment. The determining factor isn’t if it ultimately fails. The determining factor is if, when you bought the stock, there were good reasons to make the investment and if those good reasons outweighed the reasons to not buy it. Any idiot can say now that it was a bad move to buy Circuit City stock earlier this year, but what were you saying earlier this year?? Similarly, anyone can now say that it was smart to invest in Microsoft 25 years ago, but what is interesting, what is important is the factors that would have led you to that conclusion 25 years ago.. you know, without the luxury of knowing the future. This intelligent projection is what makes the stock market interesting and yet risky. Same with the draft.
Anyone can now say it was a pretty good pick by the Patriots to draft Tom Brady in the 7th round. But every single team past on him in that draft, somewhere around 7 times. Would it have been smart to draft him in the first round that year? NO! Not with the information we had then. That is the only thing you can base that judgment on. If you argue that your team should have drafted him because he would break single-season records and when a handful of superbowls, it is a non-argument. Nobody could have known that then.
The best GMs in the world have had picks fail. That doesn’t make the picks bad.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s try another mode of attack here, as you’re just insanely incorrect on this front.
What is the point of making a draft pick in the NFL? I would argue that it is to acquire the player who will have the most positive impact on your football team given the players available at that stage in the selection process. Determining that player is clearly a complicated calculus, and as such the selection of that player is but an educated gamble, as there is no way to know how good the next player selected will be, or the ability of the player you select to adapt to the professional game. Therefore, wouldn’t the value of a draft pick be best reflected in the contribution the player ultimately makes to your team? What value does evaluating whether or not the pick you made was “smart” or “reasonable” carry? How does that help the team, or help you, as selector, keep your job? The answer is it doesn’t, at all.
There are no consolation prizes or “nice effort” trophies in football. Results are all that matters. In your stock market example, what does maintaining that your decision to buy Circuit City stock in April was “smart at the time” do for your portfolio today? CC is still at 0. CC was a bad investment. Period.
Charles Rogers was a bad draft pick. Period. He did not meaningfully advance the goal of winning for the Detroit Lions, as evidenced by their draft position in subsequent years, nor did he contribute to the team’s performance, given that he played in 15 games over 3 years. Maybe you “thought it was a good pick at the time”, but that means absolutely nothing. Not one thing.
And Brady was a 6th rounder. Try not to be wrong about EVERYTHING.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 12, 2008 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it does mean something. i’ll take the guy that made an informed, reasoned educated decision that can explain to me why he made it over the guy who lucked into something that ended up being good. That’s true in stocks and in football. The guy that advises good investment reasoning and rationale will be right more than wrong. The guy that gets lucky, is only lucky and only lucky that one time. Sure, he will reap the reward of that luck (be it drafting a Tom Brady or the income from a good investment) but the guy that that is smart will be better in the long run.
Your argument seems to boil down to “better lucky than good.” You can cling to your results, but that does nothing to help you in the future. Put it this way: what does your analysis give to our greater conversation about drafting Crabtree? If the Browns are considering Crabtree and Maualuga- what exactly does your calculus add to the discussion? We won’t have the information you require to call one a better pick than the other until, what? 2014? If we end up with Maualuga, a big, stud ILB with a good resume from a great program, what will you say the day after the draft? Unless I read scouting reports that say he lacks something, news about his character or fitness turns up as negative, I’ll have no problem calling him a good pick at a position of need. It will be a good pick the second it happens. If he breaks both his legs and has 2,000 staph infections before the first game in 2009 or if he becomes the best linebacker in Browns history, the pick will be as smart or as stupid, as right or as wrong, as bad or as good as it was the night before the draft.
If a player had a good NFL career does not determine if he was a smart or good draft choice.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
seems like we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. my final point would be that i, as randy lerner, have no basis upon which to judge you, as phil savage, in your world. i would argue that every first round pick of the last 3 decades could be said to have been “reasonable”, by some definition…need receiver, took fast guy who caught td’s. how are there bad picks in your example? maybe i’ll concede that there’s a “defensible” quality to the charles rogers pick, but it was a bad pick.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 12, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But there is a difference between a player who’s drafted high and is a bust because they play poorly and someone who is drafted high but gets injured and never gets a chance to prove himself. I think that everyone would agree that Ryan Leaf was a terrible pick; at the time, most people couldn’t decide between Manning and Leaf so picking Leaf 2nd was a reasonable pick at the time by most experts. Looking back, of course, that was a bad pick.
Charles Rogers is different; it’s not that he was a bad player in the NFL, it’s that injuries ruined his career before he had a chance to do very much. You can’t call that a bad pick because you don’t know what he would have done if he was healthy. And you can’t criticize the GM for making the pick.
Mike Williams, now, that was a bad pick. I remember many people saying that at the time he was drafted.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you certainly can’t call rogers a good pick. if you want to cling to “unlucky”, so be it, but that is a subset of “bad” b/c the pick did not result in on-field performance.
on your leaf example, this is the point i was trying to make. i say that was a horrible pick, which you just confirmed, but in your world, that was a smart, reasonable, “good” pick. it was defensible, i guess, but it was still terrible, as you say.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 12, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t remember what I thought of Leaf at the time of that draft. I do remember saying that Mike Williams was a bad pick. That is an example of a bad pick. The Lions made a bad move by drafting him. He was too heavy, to slow and had been out of football for a full year for a 1st round pick to be spent on him.
Unlucky is not a subset of bad. It is totally a different thing. An unlucky pick says NOTHING about the quality of pick by the GM and team that made it. It says NOTHING about the quality of that selection at that time. And unlucky is all that the Rogers pick was (again assuming that there was not a lot of information available about his drug problems).
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When did I say Leaf was a good pick? I said he was a terrible pick.
Like Dogg said, unlucky is different than bad. What part of that don’t you get?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 12, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so i’m taking Dogg’s word as gospel now? i disagree that unlucky is different from bad…what don’t you get?
and if you read what i said…YOUR argument would hold that leaf was a good pick. based on the information available AT THE TIME (your words), you would say leaf was a good pick…he was the “consensus” #2 behind manning. but you yourself just said he was a terrible pick. you’ve contradicted yourself…which means i win…
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 12, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A reading from the book of Dogg: ha, I like the sound of that. I’m pretty sure Brad was simply saying he agreed with me.
I don’t know what to make of Leaf. Like I said, I don’t remember what I thought of him coming out of Wash St. He obviously had his share of ridiculously terrible play and injuries and just weird stuff happen with him.
But how is unlucky the same as bad? Are you saying that is always true, or just in this case?
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think in the case of gambling (which i’ll use as an umbrella term for taking a risk on a draft pick, stock, blackjack hand, or browns laying 3), there are two outcomes: good and bad. unlucky can qualify as a part of the “bad” circle on the venn diagram, but it is wholly contained w/in bad. for rogers, the situation was bad luck, for the lions, it was just bad b/c they didn’t have his services beyond 15 games. warren buffet will be unlucky if $2 trillion in CDS’ pop up from the nether regions of Goldman’s balance sheet, but for his portfolio, the result will be bad.
now, my being bumped to first class when the seat next to me in coach would have been a young josie maran, that’s just unlucky. not much bad about it.
so saith the Dogg…and it was good…
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 12, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s the problem. You are looking at a venn diagram which has a title: results. At the risk of speaking for Brad and rufio, we are talking looking at the idea of drafting a player in the future.
Now, the only relevance that the results of a player like Rogers has on our evaluation is if it helps us determine whether Crabtree would be a good pick or not. I submit that saying that Rogers was a bad pick, in the same way that Mike Williams was a bad pick, is not helpful. Instead, we need to look deeper. Rogers was very talented and successful in a pass happy system with good size and speed. He failed in his NFL career. Crabtree meets a lot of those characteristics, but I am arguing that Rogers pick cannot be appropriately categorized by only looking at his stats/results in the NFL. Instead, we should consider the fact that he had some nice games in the NFL. We should understand that he had two freak injuries to his collar bone. We should understand that he fell into a deep cycle of addiction of which little was known of at all and certainly not the seriousness of it.
When we consider all these things, it is not crazy to say, “you know, Rogers wasn’t really that bad of a pick. It wasn’t a terrible call in judgment by the Lions, its just that the team and the player had some bad breaks. We can take a similar player and not be doomed to repeat that same path.”
You are right, from a historical perspective there is no difference than a guy suffering injuries and drug addictions until he can’t play after 3 seasons and a guy that stinks so bad that he is out of league in 3 seasons. Their stats look exactly the same. They are “bad”. But without the narrative, without the circumstances, we don’t know the whole story. The whole story may not be important if doing data entry for football-reference.com, but it is relevant if you want to use those players as comparisons to other players. If you want to learn from those situations and apply the sitautions to the future. To make more informed draft decisions and opinions, whether you are Phil Savage, Mel Kiper, or a frequent commenter on a Browns website, you want more information and you can’t put players into neat venn diagrams of good and bad.
In your example, Warren Buffet’s portfolio might suffer a “bad” consequence for a certain investment, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop listening to his financial advise. It doesn’t make him a bad investor. It doesn’t really tell us anything if he was unlucky once, except that he was unlucky once. If you realize that he read all the forecasting correctly and that it was impossible to see the devaluing of his investment, then his misfortune is only that and not an indictment on the investment in the first place.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude you don’t even understand our argument.
Ends up being bad player = ends up being bad pick.
Reasoned, well thought out pick at the time = good pick at the time.
Player who had a freak accident ≠Bad pick.
People who make well-reasoned, thought out picks will make more good picks in the long run vs. someone who makes a few good picks but gets lucky.
by rufio on Nov 12, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bro, i promise you i understand your argument. simply b/c i don’t agree with you doesn’t mean i don’t understand.
let me say 2 things: 1. both you and Dogg are putting words in my mouth, i never said the Goldman investment (to stick with the example) was an indictment of Buffett as an advisor…rather, it’s just a bad investment; 2. my major issue with your contention is a statement like “i don’t know what to do w/ leaf”. i do. he was a bad pick. your argument would hold that he was a good pick, but you can’t even bring yourselves to say it.
as for the future, your argument does nothing more to inform future picks than mine. you’re making the best educated guess you can as to who will help your team most.
in the end, we’re not going to agree. let’s move on, right?
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 13, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is, not every player is a good pick or a bad pick. Sometimes there are unlucky picks and confusing picks.
Like I said, I don’t remember what I thought about Leaf at the time, so I’m not going to just look back with hindsight and declare it a terrible pick because the guy put up some putrid stats and had some obvious mental and physical problems.
Our argument IS ONLY about the future. It is the only point to evaluate an individual previous pick in the first place.
Oh well, moving on…
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 13, 2008 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I gotta side with Joey here (mostly) in that a reasonable argument of any kind can be made for most choices, but it’s results over a number of choices that proves true competence. The one exception I’d make is when choices have significant in game injuries that materially effect their careers. That cannot be hung around the chooser’s neck. So, yes there are highly competent drafters and acquirers of talent and people that don’t seem to understand as well what they are trying to do.
by elsandito on Nov 12, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don’t have as much a problem using “results over a number of choices”. But there is a big caveat here, the sample size has to be significant. This was my whole point in cautioning people for criticizing Detroit in selecting WRs. Its easy and lazy to say they were dumb for drafting all those WRs in the first round. But a more comprehensive and fair analysis would look at each of those picks. Such an analysis would say that Roy Williams was a good pick that also happened to work out pretty well for the Lions. Mike Williams was a questionable if not horrible pick at the time that turned into failure. Rogers was a solid pick that ended in personal and physical tragedy of a player with a bunch of talent to go along with multiple collar bone fractures and a drug addiction. Calvin Johnson is probably the most physically gifted receiver I’ve seen since David Boston and has turned into a budding all pro on a very bad team.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 12, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, the point as I mentioned above, is that having the best receiver core is not going to make you a good football team. Look at Tennessee, everyone assumed they would draft a wideout this year, and they went and took another RB. Conventional wisdom was that their passing game would be too weak to be a good team. They are now undefeated. We need defense. So do the Lions. That’s why taking the wideout was a bad choice
by Roger Dorn on Nov 10, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get your Tennesse comparison. They didn’t need a RB, but they took one anyways, and now they’re undefeated. Doesn’t that go against your point, that we don’t need a reciever?
You take the best football player (minus QB). We need a lot of help on this team.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 10, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My point all along has been that wide receivers will not make a good football team. This is not a need versus best player available player debate for me. My point is solely about the WR position and how it relates to successful teams. I don’t think we should be drafting WRs early
by Roger Dorn on Nov 11, 2008 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, WR is one of the “key” positions that a lot of GMs think you need to win a Super Bowl, if I am not mistaken.
My point (and Brad’s) is that you can’t pass up a phenomenal talent just because of his position. Yes, projecting WR talent is shaky, but that doesn’t just take all of them off of your draft board. It might move them down several slots, but you can’t just eliminate a position from your board.
If we hypothetically traded DA for a 1st rounder in the 20-25 range, and Crabtree fell that far, we would be nuts not to take him. If faced with a decision between a ridiculous WR or a ridiculous LB, we would take the LB for sure. But if it was ridiculous WR or Andra Davis II, you take the WR.
by rufio on Nov 11, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or the WR could turn out to be Andre Davis II
by Roger Dorn on Nov 11, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhh, Crabtree is NOT anything like Andre Davis. He’s the next Randy Moss. You don’t the the Browns could use him?
Like rufio said, if you’re comparing equal talent then the Browns should take a LB/DB over a WR. But if a guy like Crabtree is avaiable (which he won’t be) and no equal defensive player is, then you must take him.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That first “the” should be “think”
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2008 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw him against Ok St. this weekend and couldn’t help but picturing him in burnt orange. Great player. I do wonder if we need a linebacker more than another wideout.
by fwembt on Nov 11, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Crabtree is Andre Davis at all, I was making a lame joke pointing out we could end up with a crappy player named Andre(a) Davis. I still think having the best receiver core in the league won’t equate to wins
by Roger Dorn on Nov 12, 2008 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but they didn’t have a QB who could get them the ball and Megatron is the only one freak enough to put up good numbers without a decent QB and line.
Its less of a problem of “what position do we take” and its more about reaching. If we are drafting in the 20s and Crabtree, who should be a top-5 pick is sitting there, we take him. I like Phil’s drafting philosophy: don’t just take the best available player, and don’t take someone at a position of need just because we need that position. Weight your draft board to your team’s needs and draft the highest guy on your board.
Johnson was a steal where they got him; he should have gone 1st or 2nd overall.
I am really expecting us to have a better record from here on out and get to something in the 6-10 or 8-8 range, which would put us somewhere in the 6-12 range if we were drafting last year, I believe. Maualuga would probably be available, depending on who was above us and how he does in workouts. I think its still way way too early to tell about where guys will be valued and where we will end up, though.
by rufio on Nov 10, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its ok, we can just wait till Julio Jones comes out and draft him instead of Crabtree.
Jenkins would be $ in our D, especially if we lined him up at safety every now and then.
by rufio on Nov 10, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jenkins is a PLAYMAKER!! I would love to see him in Cleveland. He dominated the Purdue game with a blocked punt and tremendous coverage on defense.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 10, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On Braylond Edwards
Just some food for thought.
1996- 520 yards, 4 TD’s
1997- 936 yards, 8 TD’s
1998- 1097 yards, 14 TD’s
1999 (Through 8 games)- 456 yards, 3 TD’s
2005- 512 yards, 3 TD’s
2006- 884 yards, 6 TD’s
2007- 1289 yards, 16 TD’s
2008 (Through 8 games)- 457 yards, 3 TD’s
The top numbers are TO’s.
by Estonianzulu on Nov 8, 2008 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think it really is a fair comparison.
by gentryholdem on Nov 8, 2008 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like it. Do you have the drop passes numbers? I’d guess they are pretty close too. Neither TO nor Braylon have the best hands.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
QB- Set. Quinn and Anderson should at least turn into one good quarterback. Hard to say what we have in Quinn yet. Anderson’s first full year look a lot like Peyton Manning’s but, obviously, his second year does not. He still has the potential to be a starter or at least a very serviceable backup.
RB- When will we see Jerome Harrison? He averages 9.1 yards per touch and plays about 8 downs a game. Not good. He seems like he could be a poor man’s Eric Metcalf out of the backfield. Jason Wright is a dime a dozen in the NFL. Jamal Lewis is a mystery to me. He is on pace to barely break 1,000 yards and he is averaging 3.6 ypc. This season seems to mirror his 2005 in Baltimore, and that is not encouraging. He struggled in 2006 as well but seemed to rebound last year. He certainly doesn’t seem to be the long term (3+ years) answer. I think this is a position of focus in the draft.
WR- Edwards is a #1, no question. I think Estonianzulu’s numbers really showed that. Stallworth can be a #2 when healthy, JJ is a good #2/3 when healthy. In short, we need some more talent here. Steptoe is no one’s idea of a serviceable wideout. A FA would fit in well with what we need now, and some mid-low round picks could be developed.
TE- Set for as long as Winslow wants to play. Rucker, Dinkins and Heiden are all just a security blanket.
OL- I’ll confess that this is not my area of expertise. I like Rufio’s ideas.
DL- Rogers is an absolute beast. Fantastic trade. Williams is playing hurt but is also starting to play better. The Smiths are average to above. We could grab some depth here, but our starters are not a place we need to spend money or picks.
LB- Not good. McGinest is a shell of the player he once was but still prances about as if he can play. Davis has lost a step or six over the last year. (I remember being excited about him a couple of years ago). Hall has shown flashes, Bell is an enigma, Wimbley runs straight ahead very well but seems to be content to just run past the quarterback on every play, Jackson is developing but is still only average. We need help here and it doesn’t matter how we get it.
DB- Jones and Pool are going to be the starters here. Sean seems to be recovering slowly from his injury, but the ability is there. Pool is set in his spot, he can play. Adams is nice depth to have but Sorenson is just filler. Eric Wright is one of our starting corners for as long as he would like to be. On the other side, Brandon McDonald is starting to look like he needs another year of work. He’s inconsistent at best and just downright bad at his worst. Nickle and dime really present a problem.
Overall- This is a team doing very little with a lot of talent. We somehow manage to score 17.7 points per game (returns excepted) despite having guys who should be some of the best in the NFL at their spots. It might be playcalling, it might be we overrate them it might be a lot of things. Someone needs to figure it. Our defense is not near where they need to be for us to be a playoff team. Teams still run on us almost at will, we give up huge amounts of yardage in the air and allow our opposition to convert 44% of third downs.
by fwembt on Nov 8, 2008 7:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The more I think about it, I like the idea of drafting a RB very high. We need an infusion of talent here. Lewis is not worth much, and if another team thinks he is, lets trade his ass. (What is his contract status, anyone?)
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis signed a “3 year, 17 million deal” before this season. His cap value this year is estimated at 6.5 million (which includes a large chunk of bonuses according to usatoday.com). My guess is that some of those dollars are escalators that he will not earn because his production is down.
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yuk. I thought 3 years, but was hoping this was year two. Now I remember that last year was a 1-year deal. Rats.
Well, I still think he can be useful, if not given relied on for 30 carries a game.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Position by Position Breakdown
Okay, new poster but here goes.
QB—keep Quinn, sign veteran backup or two.
RB—play Harrison more, keep Lewis even as a backup, use draft pick on running back for future.
FB—keep Vickers and Ali.
OL—sign what we have and draft a road-grader in later rounds.
TE—if Rucker can’t work, keep Heiden and Winslow. If Rucker is a go, keep all three anyway (unless we can get at least a low second round pick for Winslow.)
WR—cut Travis Wilson (another Savage bust), cut Sanders, keep Steptoe, trade Stallworth if possible (can’t stay healthy), put Edwards on notice that if he can’t catch the ball, he will be traded or cut. Crennel has babied him and he has turned into an unreliable, overemotional near-bust. 3 TDS for a starting wide receiver of his talent? Give me a break.
DL—draft or trade for a wide load tackle. Go to 4-3 and keep Rogers, S. Smith, Williams, and R. Smith (if he comes back from injury). Keep Leonard and Rubin for depth. Make Wembley put on 20-25 pounds and make him a down lineman.
LB—let Willie retire. Trade Davis is anybody wants him. Keep Jackson and start him and Bell and Hall. If Bell and Hall aren’t ready, trade or sign some real linebackers.
DB—trade Sean Jones (he’s getting worse with each game when he’s healthy). Keep MacDonald, but if he can’t improve bench him. Keep Sorenson, Adams, and Wright. Cut Cousins and sign another veteran DB. Draft a DB who can tackle and cover.
K—We’re covered—don’t bother.
by NCBigBrown on Nov 8, 2008 10:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
- Wilson is on the Cowboys practice squad, we cut him before the season even started.
-There is no way we can just switch to a 4-3 now, this isn’t Madden. We’ve been drafting and scouting for a 3-4 for years now, we can’t just change horses again.
- Trading or cutting Edwards would be abhorrently stupid, he’s on the same career path as TO. We certainly don’t want to get rid of him so we can keep Steptoe.
-Sean Jones is not healthy and, even like this, is far better than Nick Sorenson.
by fwembt on Nov 8, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not Madden? WTF… I thought we are playing franchise mode and have the game saved back in week two… all we got to do is reset the game, start over and play all the teams we have already seen again… WE ARE GOLDEN! Superbowl FTW!
by vegasbrown on Nov 9, 2008 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I forgot to mention, just to make it competitive Dorsey is going to be our QB here on out and Edwards is going to have 72 touchdowns and 6800 yards by the time we are done with this shite.
by vegasbrown on Nov 9, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My Browns team in Madden is unreal by 2010.
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 5:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
4-3 defenses use guys a little bigger than Wimbley (6’3, 255) as DEs, and typically use one guy like Rogers and one smaller, faster guy (around 300 lbs) for DTs. Shaun Smith, Robaire Smith, and Corey Williams all would play DT in a 4-3, and Wimbley would probably be too small to play down. Adding 20-25 lbs to him would be darn near impossible at his age. If it were easy, he would be Merriman’s size and a much better player. Switching to the 4-3 would probably require getting rid of Rubin, Leonard, and Robaire Smith, and getting a Glen Dorsey type to develop behind Corey Williams as a DT. Much easier said than done.
Now something we could for the defense would be to switch to a blitzing, aggressive, one-gap type scheme like SD had and Dallas runs. It basically works like a 4-3 in that players have an assigned gap between Olinemen and they look to run through it/tackle RBs in it right off of the snap.
The system Romeo runs is one where Dlinemen grab the offensive lineman directly in front of them and then choose to go in the gap left or right of them. New England runs it, and they made it work.
Either way we need at least one more guy who can put pressure on a QB.
For being billed as a guy who only plays Special Teams, Sorensen has been decent in his limited playing time. I would like to see Bell start too. Especially late in the season. We need to find out what he can do.
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Grossi suggested the move to a 4-3 in today’s paper. I agree with you and fwembt above- it would be too hard and take too long. We have invested in the 3-4 and it has worked for other teams. I don’t like it personally. I think it is too easy to run on, unless you have elite D-Linemen AND elite LB’s. We only have one elite DL, and no LBs that can attack.
The strength of the 3-4 should be getting pressure on the QB. It should be confusing to offenses because the 4th rusher could come from anywhere and blitzes are easily disguised. Our problem is that our LBs blitz predictably and with a lack of stunts or countermoves. When the middle LBs blitz it looks like they run right into the offensive guard’s arms (or running back, who can physically dominate any of our LBs) and we have to bring a safety or corner to get any real pressure.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really we should be able to do a lot more disguising from the 3-4, yes.
If we did move to a 4-3, we would have Rogers and Williams, assuming Williams would be decent again. We would have to get both DEs in the offseason. At least one of our LBs would be able to play in the 4-3, but I wouldn’t count on more than that, meaning we would need 5 new front 7 players and we would have 2 quality guys with 2 quality backups at DT.
As it stands now, we need at least 2-3 LBs, and could probably use another good DL. Slight edge to staying in the 3-4.
Also, a lot of the best speed rushers in college are undersized guys who aren’t big enough to play in the 4-3. The big, versatile 4-3 DE is hard to find. Guys like Mario Williams are hard to get, while small ~250lbs pass rushers can be found through at least the first 3 rounds. Edge to staying in the 3-4.
The other possibility is a Cover-2 base D. Our front 7 is closer to adapting to a Colts-type system. We would need a pair of bigger DBs, a faster guy than Sean Jones and an Urlacher-like MLB, though.
Regardless of system, we need players.
by rufio on Nov 9, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree. Talent is the key. The 3-4 I usually think about is Pittsburgh’s or the Ravens because we see them the most. I know the philosophy isn’t the same, but the fundamental strengths should be similar. the physical ability of the linebackers seem to be the biggest difference.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 9, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say our D line is actually probably better than pitts. The ravens just seem to spend a high draft pick on a defensive front-7 guy every year. They both have a lot of guys who can get to the passer.
by rufio on Nov 10, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This season’s been pretty grim. But there have been flashes of light in the darkness, things to bring hope that the future will be alright. I really think its time for Romeo and his head coordinators to hit the bricks, though.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Nov 9, 2008 5:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Who is your choice?
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Nov 10, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK no Cowher.
Who is your choice? Keep Romeo, how is that working out? Jamal Lewis has to call out players for quitting on Thursday night against the Broncos. Really sounds like Romeo really has the heart beat of this team.
So since the Browns came back in the league in 1999, the Hall of Fame of coaches, ( drum roll please) Chris Palmer, really an imcomplete, he was dumped a team that was brutual thanks to the NFL and the poor player drafts of Dwight Clark. But has Chris Palmer surfaced anywhere?
Butch Davis, I give a C, got the Browns to the playoffs, and that was about it. Had horid drafts, William Green instead of Portis, Gerald Warren instead of Richard Seymore.
Romeo C-, or is that to high.
So lets bring in the new hot guy, that hot coordinator who has never held a head coaching postion. Yeah, screw Cowher, he is only passionate, gets in a players face on occasion, Has WON, and won a Super Bowl, and knows how to coach from the day he steps off the airplane.
And for all of Cowher haters, (rufio) He actually was not totally in agreement with Del Rio, he said it should of stayed in house and handled one on one. So your tight jaw or excuse me clinched jaw man is getting soft.
So sit back and throw around all the “hot” guys, and lets hope the Browns bring in another green, inexperienced coach, so in 4 years we can bitch about the same.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Nov 10, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
probably the wrong thread for this. try here: http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2008/11/10/657892/official-cowher-to-clevela
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 10, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m interested to know to whom people in here think lewis was referring (and now cribbs is on the record, as well, ) when he said he was pissed about people quitting. the offense has put up 30 2 weeks in a row, so it’s hard to say they quit. the defense just sucks, i’m not sure they can be accused of quitting? although, brandon mcdonald will have a hard time claiming he gave maximum effort on this play
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 10, 2008 7:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i keep hearing the thing about “check their egos at the door”, and i think of:
McDonald: 2nd-year player handed a starting job, and when he makes a good play, he makes sure everybody knows about it.
Corey Williams: High-priced FA signing who hasn’t carried his weight around here.
Of course, it’s pure speculation on my part…. he could be talking about offensive players (Edwards, K2,), but the timing of the comment leads me to believe it’s on the defensive side.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Nov 10, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It could be offense or defense. Sure, we put up points overall, but we also stopped scoring late in games. Hence the quitting. The comments aren’t that people didn’t show up, its that they were playing, but then they quit. That could define a number of players on offense, defense or special teams in the last two 2nd halfs that we watched.
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 10, 2008 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t buy any of this crap about players quitting. It’s tough for some players to accept defeat without shooting their mouth. Perhaps it’s even more difficult to accept that certain teammates just aren’t up to the job, period. I guess it sounds better to say that guys aren’t putting in a full effort than to say they just suck. When you allow Cutler, with no running game, to put up career high numbers, you flat suck.
by elsandito on Nov 10, 2008 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
apply the requisite grain of salt to the “random guy on the internet who says he has a source” nature of this comment…but i’ve got a few “people who know things” in the football world, and i’m hearing that the “quit” comment was directed an awful lot at edwards, especially this week. i surmise that he got fed up with not getting the rock and mailed it in…this last part being just my opinion.
by DontCallMeJoey on Nov 11, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Romeo has the worst losing record of any current NFL coach who has coached more than 3 years. I can’t see him coming back next year unless he finishes .500 or better for the year.
by palcal on Nov 11, 2008 12:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs



















