Heckert: Browns Have Contacted Rams About No. 1 Pick, Draft Pick Should Start
by Chris Pokorny on Apr 15, 2010 1:33 PM EDT
in General News
Email
PrintWhile addressing the media today, Cleveland Browns general manager Tom Heckert confirmed reports that the team has contacted the Rams about moving up to the first pick in the draft to select QB Sam Bradford. Team president Mike Holmgren emphasized the risk in making such a deal, hence why the team will inevitably probably stay away from the first pick:
"You'd have to mortgage the ranch. In the real world, we're probably going to go in a different direction."
Heckert also confirmed that the Browns have discussed trade options with all of the teams ahead of them and a few of the teams behind them.
Drafting a Starter at No. 7
The most interesting quote I heard was relayed by the OBR, where Heckert stated that they expected the player they choose at No. 7 to start.
"We hope so,"he said. "That’s why we would be taking him."
Which drafted position would warrant a starting role? I'd say that the leading candidates would be safety, defensive line, and wide receiver, in that order.
Jimmy Clausen Talk
Rumors have heated up that the Browns will consider drafting QB Jimmy Clausen. Holmgren talked a little about his differing opinions over the past few weeks regarding Clausen:
The first question was about quarterback Jimmy Claussen and Holmgren said he now likes Claussen after meeting him. "He’s a fine young guy and I wouldn’t read too much into my earlier comments," he said. "I like him. He was playing hurt for a lot of the year. I always like to meet any of the players because it helps me to evaluate him. He is what he is." Holmgren was quoted prior to the Browns meeting with Claussen that he didn’t particularly like him. "Don’t yell at me, and I’m not going to say why I said what I did," he said. "I had my reasons and I’ll leave it at that."
If there are any more quotes that the media shares later on from Heckert and Holmgren, I'll update this post accordingly.
159 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i’ve thought all along that holmgren might try this to get bradford. i think the price is too high, but i wouldn’t be devastated if he did it.
Holmgren might be willing, but both Heckert and Mangini seem like guys who really, really value draft picks, and I don’t think either of them would be for giving up the value it would take (minimum would be this year’s 1st & two of our 3rd’s and next year’s 2nd — and that’s minimum by far). Obviously, Holmgren has final say, but I don’t see him going for it if both Heckert and Mangini are not enthusiastic.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Apr 15, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m sure he has a say. while holmgren has the final word, he’d be foolish to completely ignore the desires of his head coach. he seems more wise than that.
Exactly. Kind of a dumb question. In any event, Holmgren has strongly implied that Mangini is the reason he got rid of Quinn.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Apr 15, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Whoa there, guy, I think the question is fair, even if it doesn’t jibe with one of your preconceived notions.
I think it’s possible Mangini gets to talk, but doesn’t necessarily get a say.
by Western Reserve on Apr 15, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
The Browns organization is very democratically run—or at least that’s what they are telling everyone—and Mangini will have a say. Holmgren always has the final say.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Interesting theory of democracy: Everyone gets a vote, but then one man has unrestrained decision making and veto power.
But I catch your drift: Mangini can offer input, at the very least. I thought it possible Holmgrem and his hand-picked man Heckert sort of boxed Mangini out.
by Western Reserve on Apr 16, 2010 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
By democratic, I meant related to democratic principles, not that it was actually a democracy.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Ah, so it’s a very fast and loose definition then. Nah, I was just being lighthearted there; I see your point.
by Western Reserve on Apr 16, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, but asking whether the head coach of an NFL team “has a say” in who gets drafted in the first round does not strike me as a very good question.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Apr 16, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d rather not debate the merits of the question with you.
As I explained:
I thought it possible Holmgrem and his hand-picked man Heckert sort of boxed Mangini out.
The theory being that Holmgrem and his own guy probably feel that they know best, at Mangini’s expense, and that if Mangini was actually any good at it, they wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.
by Western Reserve on Apr 16, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t assume to know the hierarchy of the FO, but I would think they would argue each others point on who they think is best, then collectively agree on the rankings. Atleast that’s the way they should be doing it.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
if Mangini was actually any good at it, they wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.
Wrong.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I know you are a big time Mangini apologist, but it certainly seems they wanted to segregate the roles and actually bring in someone serious to handle personnel to boot.
by Western Reserve on Apr 17, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m a Mangini aficionado. Being an ‘apologist’ presupposes that there is something to apologize for, which is clearly not the case.
it certainly seems they wanted to segregate the roles and actually bring in someone serious to handle personnel to boot.
Of course they did There have been very few GM/Coach hybrids in the league (our current Grand Poobah being one of the few — and he was stripped of his GM duties). Mangini was not hired to be both GM and Coach. He fell into the role after Kokinis flaked. The way to think of Mangini in 2009 is as an interim GM. That he would be replaced in that role was a certainty.
And while I agree that Heckert is a ‘serious’ GM, I don’t agree with the idea that Mangini, in his role as interim GM, was anything less than serious. I think he took the added responsibilities seriously and did a fine job setting the table for the new front office.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Apr 17, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Apologist doesn’t actually have anything to do with apologizing, although aficionado is probably a better term.
I agree, I love what Mangini did. I don’t think too many people would have wanted to go in there and do the dirty work of cutting out the cancerous guys in the locker room and endure such a difficult season.
Mangini is terrible on camera, I think he tries too hard to maintain that “Belicheck” demenor. Belicheck plans everything he is going to say to the press ahead of time and is careful to maintain a complete lack of personality, so the media knows that he is purposefully stonewalling and absolutely will not say anything controversial, no matter what they ask. Mangini just never looks comfortable when doing this.
The week 17 press conference last year was really kind of interesting. Mangini seemed like he was on the verge of tears the whole time. I’m sure this was partly because he was so proud of the team and what they’d accomplished but I’d guess it was also partly because he thought he was going to get fired again and he wanted to continue to be a part of this team going forward.
"Smokescreen."
I think he implied that mangini definitely had a say. He said the chemistry was important. However, I believe that if holmgren thought BQ was “The Guy” that he would have kept him on the roster in some fashion (whether starter or backup).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
He’s busy getting coffee….
It would seem to me, that you feel threatened by the Eric Ghiaciuc acquisition.
by johnnyphoenix on Apr 15, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think its a little premature to pick up Bradford in the first round. I like the idea of picking up Berry or Haden in the first round because they will make a difference at the start. The Browns should pick up McCoy in the second round and give him time to develop with Delhome as a third string
"We don't take no prisoners! I say we kill'em, every other team! THat way we don't got to feed them or nothing!
-Coach Kevin Hockett
I agree. Colt McCoy would be nice. Take a quarterback that can sit for a year or two. No more Quinn or Couch-like experiments, please. Let’s get Berry or Haden and turn our Secondary into a strength instead of a liability.
by BenRapelisberger on Apr 15, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure how McCoy wouldn’t be an experiment.
by Western Reserve on Apr 15, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m just saying let’s stop taking high profile prospects and throwing them to the wolves and ruining them.
by BenRapelisberger on Apr 15, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
We have one of the best offensive lines in the league now though, I don’t see the issue with getting a franchise QB at this point.
I wouldn’t say we have one of the best lines at all.
Mack and Thomas are solid, but Steinbach was one of the worst guards in the league after having to conform to Mangini’s crappy style of how Guards should play. Hadnot is gone, while Womack, St Claire and Pashos aren’t anything special. We could greatly benefit from a guard in the second or third
by The Licensed Pessimist on Apr 15, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
against teams that are in the bottom 10 of the league in run defense.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Apr 15, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
it surprises me that you’re taking a position of negativity.
by Dawg Nuts on Apr 15, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sarcasm surprises you?
"...maybe this year, there's no gorilla" - YoDaddyWags
by woodsmeister on Apr 15, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Roc….It would seem to me, that you feel threatened by the Eric Ghiaciuc acquisition.
It would seem to me, that you feel threatened by the Eric Ghiaciuc acquisition.
by johnnyphoenix on Apr 15, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Calling Stienbach one of the worst guards in the NFL is a stretch.
He had his issues, but he was still in the upper half.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 15, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Easily.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
He was in the bottom 5 in the entire league in allowing QB pressures. NFP ranked him the second worst guard last year. He was in no way in the top half, you must have confused him with hadnot
by The Licensed Pessimist on Apr 16, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
because “pressures allowed” is not a terribly subjective stat that doesn’t assume to know the teams blocking scheme, and the NFP ranking should be taken as fact. never mind what every other media outlet and coach has said.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 16, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Pressures allowed is a very good stat to look at when you’re talking about pass blocking actually, especially for an interior lineman.
You show me what “every other media outlet and coach as said” about steinbach this past year. He was terrible this past year. By not fault of his own, and I expect him to bounce back; but still terrible
by The Licensed Pessimist on Apr 16, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Pressures allowed is a very good stat to look at when you’re talking about pass blocking actually, especially for an interior lineman.
you completely missed my point. my point is the stat isn’t reliable. its like keeping track of “hits” in hockey.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 16, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
but Steinbach was one of the worst guards in the league after having to conform to Mangini’s crappy style of how
I don’t even know where to begin with this.
It would seem to me, that you feel threatened by the Eric Ghiaciuc acquisition.
by johnnyphoenix on Apr 15, 2010 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
thanks for agreeing Ben. by the way, I like the name
"We don't take no prisoners! I say we kill'em, every other team! THat way we don't got to feed them or nothing!
-Coach Kevin Hockett
Thanks. The NFL wouldn’t let me put the name on a custom jersey, I don’t think they liked it.
by BenRapelisberger on Apr 15, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
i can’t wait to see how many jerseys get taped over for this.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 15, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t kill me, don’t kill me, don’t kill me, I’d rather put a second round pick on McCoy than a first round pick on Bradford.
I don’t really want Claussen either. Remember what happened last time we traded to get a QB from Notre Dame? Yeah, it didn’t work out so much.
by macdowellm03 on Apr 15, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
We received a transient fan from Notre Dame who is now a Broncos fan, yet he hangs around here like a dog looking for scraps.
by gahnki on Apr 15, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
slim shady?
It would seem to me, that you feel threatened by the Eric Ghiaciuc acquisition.
by johnnyphoenix on Apr 15, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
No, BradyQuinnGotTradedForAFullback.
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 15, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
even though i don’t want claussen either, what happened with quinn has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should draft him. that he went to the same school means nothing.
I actually think it means a little. If Quinn appeared better on the surface because of Weis’s ability to coach a QB to have an inflated appearance prior to being drafted, there could be some merit to the same sort of inflated value happening for Clausen. It’s not the sort of thing that is discernable to myself.
then let me clarify; the fact that they went to the same school should mean nothing to a guy like holmgren, who is by all accounts, an outstanding evaluator of QB talent. the fact that quinn went to ND and failed for us has nothing to do with his evaluation of claussen and whether he feels he can be our QB of the future. it shouldn’t.
Just saw the tag – We’re 99% Sure SBN Is Awesome.
Way to have a go at SpecialBrownie everytime he logs in.
by skipkirk on Apr 15, 2010 6:49 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Wondered if anyone had noticed it.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Apr 15, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Touche.
BUT I WASN’T THROWING YOU UNDER THE BUS!
SBN is awesome.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Apr 15, 2010 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the Browns will go for
Clausen
or trade a 2nd rounder for Big Ben
He’s always open. He catches a lot of balls. He’s un-guardable, no matter how old he is
Flag.
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Apr 15, 2010 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Mangini doesn’t like players with character issues.
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 15, 2010 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/4/14/1420675/brandon-marshall-traded-to-miami#34759243
there is the link
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Where do you think the quote I used came from, bross?
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 16, 2010 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Ben holds the ball too long for Holmgrem to like him.
by OSUMoneyball on Apr 16, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
We need a QB but, if we need a rapist, we could trade a 2nd rounder for him.
by macdowellm03 on Apr 16, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
He does seem to be leading the league in this category, which might demand a first.
Mangini does value versatility, though, so being able to serve a dual role could make it worthwhile.
Actively seeking inspiration for a new handle
Ok, enlighten me cuz I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. What is the purpose of saying that they contacted the Rams about Bradford? It seems almost political, like assuring constituents of a desire to do something that can’t be done in order to appease people. Or is it a smokescreen to obscure whatever intentions others have been perceiving? Or is it a little of both?
The Drive, the Fumble, the Shot, the Meltdown...still hopefull.
Well someone asked Holmgren and co and they might as well have said ‘yes’. If they said ‘no’ then it could still be interpreted as a smokescreen.
Yeah, this was one of those questions which really only has one answer. If Holmgren says “Yes”, then it probably means yes. If he says “no”, it’s quite possibly a smokescreen, so it is likely to mean yes also. If he says “hell no, what kind of idiots do you think we are?”, then it definitely means yes. Even if the real answer was no, almost anything he said would be construed as yes. (“Your mouth is saying no, no, but your eyes are saying yes, yes”).
Your mouth is saying no, no, but your eyes are saying yes, yes
easy there ben
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 16, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
purpose might be to help the rams leverage contract talks with bradford by looking like they had other options… The browns benefit from helping the rams by deflecting attention from whatever other quarterback they are looking at. So someone won’t leapfrog their second round pick for Tebow or something like that.
"Smokescreen."
Yeah, it’s gotta be Berry or trade DOWN to get Earl Thomas. Do not trade up for Bradford or draft Clausen. No.
At that point, you have to make sure that after the 3rd round is over you have either McCoy or Tebow. Pick McCoy in R2 if you don’t think either will be available in R3. If Tebow will still be available in R3, I’d look at a CB like McCourty or a LB like Brandon Spikes.
Wow, that´s news. So Prez Holmgren has had a change of heart if not mind about Jimmy Clausen. The Browns have contacted the Rams about the possibility of trading up to slot number one, albeit supposedly regarding Sam Bradford at that slot.
This from NFL.com: “…Holmgren has shown a propensity for drafting quarterbacks. In the 17 drafts he was involved with as a coach in Green Bay and Seattle, he has selected a quarterback 11 times, but none of them before the third round…”
So looking at quarterbacks in round one is already an instance of an old dog working at new tricks, for Prez Holmgren.
We also have the trinity of coach Mike Mangini, GM Tom Heckert and Prez Mike Holmgren, representing somewhat of unknown quantities within the Browns fold, haven´t heard from Big O Randy Lerner in a while either.
If teams use their own evaluations rather than what´s proferred by the sports writer, Sam Bradford may drop beyond the top 10, depending on teams´ quarterback preferences.
Sam Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, Tim Tebow and Colt McCoy count as the top quarterbacks. People are finicky about their quarterbacks as they should be, who´s to say they won´t slight Sam Bradford and his constituents in favor of the guy they want? Similar to the Brady Quinn fiasco, Sam Bradford could be the embarrassed guy on day 1, slipping down the board. No?
Once again, how often do the Cleveland Browns have pick #7, along with the wishing well associated with being rewarded for being a losing team?
We trade up to slot #1 and take Jimmy Clausen over Sam Bradford.
Holmgren is loving every minute of this new job. Whenever he speaks or attends an NFL function he gets national headlines. It’s like he owns this league. And I sense that he has a strong inkling about what will go down at the draft.
I imagine he is going to feel a little like Louis Winthorpe when the draft starts (while Heckert is Billy Ray Valentine and Mangini is Coleman). Can’t wait for Thursday.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Apr 16, 2010 7:52 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 3 recs
I still don’t see what’s bad about addressing the safety and a corner in the first 2 rounds and take Lefevour in the 3rd
it would be a waste of a third round pick.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 16, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
The later we take a QB the better.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
That way Jake Delhomme can remain unchallenged for the keys to our team. I completely agree.
Actively seeking inspiration for a new handle
Fuck Delhomme. I just don’t want us reaching for a QB.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
He’s our starting QB for 2 years. Get used to it my friend.
My comments get flagged and washed away, while others' thrive from dystopia and get recommended.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 17, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
A lot of you guys hate Jake D. I just have a felling that he’ll be our best QB since Kosar.
I’m backin’ Jake.
My comments get flagged and washed away, while others' thrive from dystopia and get recommended.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 17, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t hate Delhomme at all. I just don’t think he’s necessarily going to be our starter for the next two years. If we pick a QB this year — either trade up for Bradford or McCoy in the second — then he should be the starting QB by at least the middle of next season (2011) if things go well.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 17, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
If Jake does good this year, he’ll start next year,
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, you own it. If it doesn’t, you don’t own it. And if it doesn’t, you’re an asshole. Just like you.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 17, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Not if we have a QB of the future in the wings. And not if Delhomme is mediocre-to-decent next year for the first few games.
Being our best QB since Kosar isn’t exactly being a world-beater.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not necessarily. And even if he does start at the beginning of the year that doesn’t mean he’ll be the starter at the end of the season.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 17, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re in denial.
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, you own it. If it doesn’t, you don’t own it. And if it doesn’t, you’re an asshole. Just like you.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 18, 2010 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
This from the guy who believes Jake Delhomme will be the best QB we have had since Kosar.
Do you realize that Jake Delhomme’s best season (’05) is damn near the same season Derek Anderson had in ’07?
The amount of people that over value Delhomme here is staggering. If we draft a QB in the first two rounds, I fully expect him to be starting by the end of this season.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 18, 2010 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I’m just trying to have faith in our QB.
Are you saying that DA was our best QB since Kosar? That’s some scarey stuff.
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, you own it. If it doesn’t, you don’t own it. And if it doesn’t, you’re an asshole. Just like you.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 18, 2010 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Couldn’t disagree more. Holmgren knows that it is much better to have your rookie quarterback ride the bench for at least one full season. I suspect the reason why we Brought in Delhomme and Wallace is because between the two of them they will keep the rookie quarterback on the bench at all costs at least until 2011. Possibly 2012
"Smokescreen."
Holmgren knows that it is much better to have your rookie quarterback ride the bench for at least one full season.
Show me where Holmgren has said anything like this. I am sure Holmgren will play a rookie when he is ready no matter if it is after week one or year one. I have never seen anything attributed to him where he has said that a rookie QB will never see the field in his rookie season.
Don’t cite Holmgrens past either. He has never drafted a QB as high as we all think he will Thursday. The previous QB’s Holmgren has drafted were complete projects.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 18, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
not to mention, eric mangini is our coach, not mike holmgren. holmgren’s job is to assemble the team, mangini’s job is to coach it once its assembled. if holmgren wants to decide when players will enter the starting lineup, he should just fire mangini and coach himself; and if he tries to make these decisions from the front office, the organization will be in a shambles.
If we draft a QB in the first two rounds there is NO WAY we are keeping him on the bench until 2012. None at all. That makes absolutely no sense.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 18, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Do we have a Hall of Fame QB for this rookie to play behind?
Can we find a more obscure correlation?
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 18, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow. Really?
Aaron Rodgers was sitting behind Brett Favre. Our rookie QB would be sitting behind Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. Please explain to me how those two situations are in any way similar.
Again, it would make no sense for the CLEVELAND BROWNS to let a rookie QB sit on the bench for two years. Not some other team in some other situation — this team, right now.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 19, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I mostly agree with this. If we draft a QB high he’ll probably be starting by the end of the year. that said, I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised to see Delhomme play well enough to keep his job. I don’t think its likely, but he’s got a realistic shot.
There’s no way he’s the starter for more than a few games next season.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 19, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
And McCoy, Lefevour or Pike wouldn’t challenge him? I’m not expecting a rookie to start, just sit behind Jake and learn for 2 seasons, or learn what not to do as the case may be…
I guess I don’t see this as news. If Heckert and Holmgren had not contacted all the teams above them to find out the price of moving up and all the teams around them about moving down, then, frankly, they’re not doing their job.
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
"...maybe this year, there's no gorilla" - YoDaddyWags
It’s news because it’s news.
Actually, I prefer to think of him as a magician. You know what he is doing is just trying to trick and fool you but you can’t resist watching him.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Apr 16, 2010 6:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
not sure where else to put this but the spam/virus ridden fanpost is up again.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
Is it still causing a virus? It’s not spam — the guy emailed me to ask why it was deleted and I told him that people reported it was causing a virus, but if he wanted to try posting it again maybe it won’t happen this time. So let me know if it’s still causing problems.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 16, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
oh i don’t really know, i was just assuming it was since a couple people had issues with it before.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 16, 2010 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions
upon trying to visit the fanpost google chrome blocked it and gave me this message:
The website at www.dawgsbynature.com contains elements from the site www.sportsattic2.com, which appears to host malware
it gave me the option to continue anyway, but i’d rather not take my chances.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 16, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
That is what I get also running Google Chrome.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 16, 2010 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
also, this guy hasn’t posted a single comment or fanshot, and has only been a member for about two weeks. isn’t it bad practice for him to be posting a fanpost anyway?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 17, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I still don’t know what you guys are talking about. I’ve never had a problem with this site.
My comments get flagged and washed away, while others' thrive from dystopia and get recommended.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 17, 2010 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s posted FanPosts and comments on many other sites. He’s not really a Browns fan, just a fan of football and he wanted to educate us about a former Browns great. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 17, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
What happens if the Rams try and get Jerkyberger?
Do they draft Suh or Okung at #1, or drop back?
I would love to see him in a Rams’ uniform. He would get his ass kicked and then eventually fad away.
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
In a heartbeat if they can get something in return-and not a 5th rounder, like for Holmes. But they know no teams would give anything meaningful in return.
Ben is living on borrowed time and the Steelers know he just a ball and chain to them.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Apr 16, 2010 9:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You have to look at the Steeler FO and the image they want to portray.
I don’t think anyone is buying a BB jersey any time soon. Plus he has lost the respect of his teammates in the last couple seasons. Lamar Woodley was on the radio the other day and was asked if BB lost control of the locker room. He didn’t say "no". He said "I’m not speaking for the other guys". Which means people are talking.
I’ve been hearing talks about St. Louis giving up a 2nd for him. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens. If it doesn’t happen before the draft it probably won’t happen.
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 16, 2010 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Theres no way any front office trades for him. Not only is he facing a suspension, but acquiring him would bring a massive PR hit on your organization. The steelers made an example of Santonio because I suppose they think they can replace him pretty easily. Franchise QBs are a little harder to come by. I really doubt a trade gets done.
"Smokescreen."
I can think of 10 teams that need him. I see a deal happening soon.
Franchise QBs are a little harder to come by.
Stop double talking.
My comments get flagged and washed away, while others' thrive from dystopia and get recommended.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 17, 2010 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Mike Vick was a PR hit too.
Didn’t stop the Eagles. If the Steelers want to trade BB there will be teams who will offer for him.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 17, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Of course. It might be a big PR hit at first but once he starts playing well and the team is winning the fans will be behind him. That’s how it always goes.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 17, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
They’ve said they’re willing to listen to offers. I’ve also heard that they’re also high on Dixon. Theoretically they could trade #7 and not even have to take a QB. If they traded him to the Rams for the #1 pick then it would be safe to say that they’ll take Bradford. Seriously doubt that would ever happen, though.
The Drive, the Fumble, the Shot, the Meltdown...still hopefull.
We signed Jake and Seneca to fill for a year. We aren’t taking a QB this year until at least the 3rd round. Wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t even take a QB in this draft. We might be looking at 2011 as a strike/labor strifre year.
We signed Jake and Seneca to fill for a year.
Who cares? If the right guy is there, take him.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Absolutely. I would contend that the exact reason that we got rid of Brady and Derek and replaced them with Seneca (career backup w/ wildcat possibilities) and Delhomme (short term fix) is because Holmgren plans to draft his QB of the future this year. And I’d be willing to wager that he has had his eye on a specific guy since before he took the job.
"Smokescreen."
Yeah it be nice to have that flashy NFL starting QB but I dont see Pasho as a long term deal at RT. Thats not the only hole we have. We Should take the best guy for the money at seven and look for talent that can be trained up in later rounds. As for BB I think the Redskins are trying to get rid of Campbell and Hanyneswortless maybe they can work a deal. BB can back up till DM goes down for his season ending injury.
By the way, how do you pronounce Pashos? As Pah-shos or Pay-shos?
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Apr 19, 2010 6:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Pah – shos
"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."
by SpecialBrownie on Apr 19, 2010 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
