Colt McCoy "Fully Recovered", and Mike Holmgren is Enamored With Some QB

by Chris Pokorny on Jan 19, 2012 11:35 AM EST

I stumbled upon a tweet made by the Plain Dealer's Mary Kay Cabot yesterday, which simply stated the following: "QB Colt McCoy fully recovered from concussion and feeling good, league source said." That's good news, because the Pro Bowl is in two weeks, and when McCoy gets named as a last-second tenth alternate, he'll be ready.

In all seriousness, it's good to hear that McCoy is good-to-go again, even though there weren't really any fears about his availability for next season. Seneca Wallace did not distance himself from McCoy in his three starts by any means, so until we officially hear that the organization has signed or drafted a new quarterback, it is best to continue giving McCoy the support we gave him most of the season.

While we're on the topic of quarterback, our Washington Redskins affiliate just posted a story regarding Mike Holmgren's fascination with a quarterback in this year's draft class.

I had one chance to ask him a question, and I had to think quick. After introducing myself as a Redskins fan, I asked Holmgren, "Do the Redskins have any business trading up for a quarterback given all the holes they have on their roster right now?"

Without ANY hesitation, Mike Holmgren answered, "Absolutely...oh yeah. For that quarterback? Definitely." It just seemed to be implied that we were talking about Robert Griffin III.

Read the rest of the story for some more commentary on the author's encounter with Holmgren. The author states that he believes because of Holmgren's demeanor when making the comment, he believes Holmgren loves RG III so much that the Browns will most certainly do anything to draft him, including trading up.

I have a couple of issues with making that assumption. First off, how do we know Holmgren was referring to Griffin III and now Andrew Luck? I know the Colts seem set on Luck, but to me it is Luck who seems to be the clear cut guy you would make that type of statement about. Second, the question was about the Redskins, not the Browns. The Redskins had no quarterback that they were set on last year, while the Browns at least had a full-year (mostly) commitment to McCoy, a guy who could very well start again next season.

Interesting stuff, but as is the case with most rumors, I'm not going to jump out of my seat and buy it until I hear something more concrete.

Tweet Comment 137 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It could be that Holmgren wants RG3… or it could be that he wants the Redskins to trade up (say with us perhaps) to get him. 99% of what comes out of peoples mouths about the draft is smokescreen, the other 1% just flat out lies. Its a fun time of year, much like election season.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 11:42 AM EST reply actions

Yeah if he doesn’t thing RG3 is the guy but he’s there at 4 he would definitely trade down 2 spots for at least another 2nd rounder and still pick an OK player.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

And adding another high 2nd round pick would be perfect for us. We have alot of positions of need and ending up with 4 of the top 40 picks (10%) would really help with that.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

Personally I don’t think we have as many positions of need as most people. QB, WR, RT, WLB and RDE.

But if you’re a Colt fan QB wouldn’t be counted so so you’re then talking 4 high picks to fill 4 positions the most in need, assuming we do nothing in FA. If I’m a Colt fan I’m super happy about that.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

I think we need depth. And the higher the pick that depth comes from the better. I still think we need a Safety opposite Ward too, a ballhawk.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

If there is one, there’s talk of Sheldon moving over there. Despite the need for depth, which is built over time when you have good drafts, you still need a QB so if you think Colt is the guy then this is optimum. Of course if you’re a non-Colt guy then you could get Flynn and do this too. Both are risky, but so is trading up for RG3.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

I agree. I would really love to see Colt get a full offseason to learn the WCO. Alot of it is timing: Timing routes, throws, drops etc and he had what 2 weeks to learn it? Its not an easy system to pick up.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

I’m in favor of giving a couple of picks, if needed, for RG3 but I could also be really happy with this scenario too. About the only thing that would bum me out would be to just take T-Rich at #4. blah

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

I hate the thought of a RB. especially in what is quickly becoming a pass happy league. Its also why I like taking another CB high. Sheldon at Safety would help alot too as he is physical enough to take on TEs and pretty good at playing the ball in the air without penalties.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions

Pass rush would help pass coverage more than another CB. True story.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:28 PM EST up reply actions

I like taking both. Mercilius out of Illinois is one of my picks. Pair him with Sheard, Taylor, Rubin and we have a very young DL with some good pass rushers.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

I like getting either Griffin or Blackmon @4. But I don’t want to trade up to get either of them. Richardson is bad value @4 and RB is not a primary need.

I'm entitled to my opinion. Especially if I'm wrong.

by Aussie Brown on Jan 19, 2012 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

One question, and I don’t mean to bust your chops here. Is anyone besides DBN posters talking about Brown moving over to FS? (NOTE: Grossi and MKC don’t count as sources since they just make their shit up.)

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
I have the best wife - ever.

by JustBob on Jan 20, 2012 5:01 PM EST up reply actions

Hmm, hate to be the guy who never has sources, but I read stuff and can never remember where. However what I did read struck me as significant because it said Brown was amenable to moving over. Again, no idea where I read it so take it with a grain of salt.

by HenryDawg on Jan 20, 2012 10:15 PM EST up reply actions

Its been talked about for a while.

I don’t know, Brown is older and a good tackler so it makes some sense, but he was really good at CB last year. Unless the coaching staff is predicting he’ll fall off a cliff in terms of performance, I don’t see why we shouldn’t let him play corner.

We need a young guy to emerge at CB and FS anyway, whichever one Brown is playing doesn’t really matter that much to me. Play him where he’ll play well, which looks like its CB right now.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 20, 2012 11:22 PM EST up reply actions

That is where I am at. Leave Brown at corner unless he falls off too much.

by SBP on Jan 21, 2012 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

Lots of writers and media types have thrown it around for a while, but I don’t think the team has ever said anything about it.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jan 21, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for that. I stopped sifting through so many sites since all of the worthwhile info seemed to end up here anyways. Then it finally struck me that relying on fan posts makes it a bit harder to determine fact from informed opinion and less informed (like mine) opinion.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
I have the best wife - ever.

by JustBob on Jan 22, 2012 2:05 PM EST up reply actions

G, S, RB, SLB?

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

our G play got better as the season went along. Weakest spot on the line was easily RT.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

Steinback (I know he sucks, right), Pinkston (nice development), TJ Ward? RB – anyone? Chris Polk, LeMichael James, Ogbannya, Hardesty, BJax, maybe Hillis, does it really matter that much? Pick one and run him. SLB is Gocong, we need a WLB.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:27 PM EST up reply actions

Wasn’t Gocong originally on the weak side and then moved to the strong side because of injury?? He played much better once he moved over, imo. If I remember correctly, then I agree we need a WLB

by OldTimeDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

He moved there because of the injury to Fujita, but his play was also more consistent.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 1:19 PM EST up reply actions

I had assumed that he was the eventual strong side backer just because of his size, but maybe I just imagined it.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

Pinkston had one good game at the end of the year. Don’t know if he’s ready to be crowned starting material yet. Steinbach is coming off injury and sucked prior to leaving, I wouldn’t call him an instant upgrade yet. Usama Young? RB; yes it does matter that much. How well did this team perform without a running game? Gocong sucks.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions

One good game? How often did the pressure come from the left side of our line? Not often at all. Pinkston for having a shortened offseason and being forced into a starting role his rookie year played very well. Granted being between 2 pro bowl caliber lineman helped, but he held his own against some very good DL this year.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

but he held his own against some very good DL this year.

And both he and Luvao got dismantled by some very average DLs this year also. The hands down two best positions on this line was from the tackle spots who were both two of the best in the league. And since this line was average overall, that would indicate some serious deficiencies in the interior line, which was exemplified by the horrible play at times this year. And one or two good games at the end of the year doesn’t change that.

The question that remains is if the FO expects improvement from the players going forward. I’m willing to bet G isn’t one of the focal points in the upcoming draft

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

If you really think Pashos played well then you were not watching the games at all.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

Pashos played pretty well. I just don’t think you properly understand blocking dynamics.

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Jan 19, 2012 12:49 PM EST up reply actions

I watched Pashos fall over without contact being made by the end and he flew by to blow up a play in the backfield. I watched Pashos consistently get pushed back at the LOS allowing his rusher to get inside position on both run and pass plays. I watched him whiff on screen blocks allowing them to be stopped for a loss. He played awful. yes PFF has him rated highly, but I dont buy it. He got beat almost every game on multiple plays.

And the fact that he, unlike Lauvao and Pinkston, has a ton of experience made it more disheartening. If we dont upgrade RT next years offense will look alot like this years.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

I think the problem is that when Pashos actually did get beat, he got dismantled and it was memorable. But other than those times, he was extremely solid.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions

I mean being labeled the third best RT in the league means nothing, right?

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Jan 19, 2012 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

I dont trust PFFs rankings if thats what you are referring to. They said he had only allowed 14 pressures heading into the Pitt game which was about 6-8 less then I counted watching them. I was curious if they took into account plays where the QB ran for positive yardage since that technically became a running play.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

I take their subjective results over yours. Also, I would attribute some messups to Lauvao being awful and honestly, some blocking assignments you saw as bad but were made worse by McCoy

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Jan 19, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

I think the concern with Pashos has more to do with injury and age, which is why it would make sense to draft a RT.

by batard on Jan 20, 2012 1:01 AM EST up reply actions

He was also playing pretty injured again.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

I’m not even having this argument with you, you think all our players suck so what’s the point?

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 1:52 PM EST up reply actions

and by our players, I mean ones we haven’t even drafted yet.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 1:54 PM EST up reply actions

I think Gocong is an adequate SLB. His problem last year was when he played weakside which is not what his skill set is good for. I agree with the others mostly.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

I think Gocong gets a pass because of that amazing goal line stance, but he he was so bad for the rest of the game that he still got a negative grade.

I admit he has made some key plays a couple of times late in the year, and probably would be okay as a rotational guy. But he is in no way a starting caliber LB imo on this defense.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 1:27 PM EST up reply actions

I think Gocong is kinda like Pashos in reverse, he is so bad most of the time you barely notice he is on the field but then every once in a while he makes 3 straight tackles at the goal line or sacks the QB and that is what sticks out in peoples mind about him. Where as Pashos is totally invisible most of the time and then when he gets destroyed by Terrel Suggs twice in a game that is what everyone remembers. Both guys seem middle of the road at best and are probably easily replaced.

by PaduaDSP on Jan 19, 2012 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

I can agree with this. I am fine temporarily with a middle of the road SLB

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

This is something I can agree on

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t totally disagree. Gocong is not great, but I feel he looked much better on the Strong Side and maybe is at worst a marginal starter on a solid D. I can live with that for a couple years because we have bigger holes to fill, like on the weakside where our best player may be maiava.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

would it be feasible to draft/sign in FA a better MLB and slide DQ over to WLB?

by PaduaDSP on Jan 19, 2012 2:32 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t know if DQ has the athleticism/coverage ability to play WLB. We can just as easily draft/sign a guy who can play WLB as well as I think DQ could and keep him at his most valuable (imo) position.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

Imagine Washington’s 2013 first rounder on top of that. Yes, please.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah if they want him I’ld bleed them like a turnip.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

This.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

Would they really give up that much to move 2 spots? Thats a high asking price.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

Right but its not just two spots – its the difference between getting RG3 and Ryan Tannehill, assuming they don’t get a FA QB.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Very true. And Snyder has been known to value draft picks less then other coaches.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:24 PM EST up reply actions

whoops meant owners

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:24 PM EST up reply actions

On that (value of draft picks), I think amassing these 1st and 2nd rounders is a key to turning it around for the long term. That’s part of the reason I don’t like banking it all on one player.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions

Another thing I agree with. You dont get better by putting everything on one player. We tried that and Brady Quinn happened.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

But you also don’t get better by not taking the best talent when its available.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I don’t think they would trade with us. I think they trade with the Rams or Vikings, just to be sure.

I'm entitled to my opinion. Especially if I'm wrong.

by Aussie Brown on Jan 19, 2012 10:53 PM EST up reply actions

We would get more than that for RGIII with Washington. Next years first perhaps.

Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen

by realmccoy on Jan 19, 2012 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

I agree with you. heres what i think holmgren wants: redskins trade up to get RG3 (rams move down the draft and ultimately lose out to getting justin blackmon) , vikings draft matt khalil, browns get justin blackmon.

by Jonngotti on Jan 20, 2012 2:20 PM EST up reply actions

Why do you think that’s what Holmgren wants?

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

Holmgren was also talking about a QB for Washington, right?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 19, 2012 11:53 AM EST reply actions

Uhhh…yah…..your reading into that one bud.

by Joel Sykes Hobson on Jan 19, 2012 11:55 AM EST reply actions

Completely agree. Reading into that one.

by Jchapman18 on Jan 19, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

That’s what we do in the pre-draft off-season. We read into EVERYTHING.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

WTF do you think everyone is doing this time of year. Thanks Captain Obvious and Boy Blatant.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

If you read through the comments on the story someone noted they thought RGIII was working out in Arizona

by SBP on Jan 19, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

I wouldn’t but these two guys were pretty rude about Chris making the same observations all of us are doing, including the Redskin fans.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions

I didn’t think they were referring to me, but rather the author of the article on Hogs Haven.

Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.

by Chris Pokorny on Jan 19, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

My apologies guys if so.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

Those guys seem pretty brain dead over there.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 2:19 PM EST up reply actions

That’s good news, because the Pro Bowl is in two weeks, and when McCoy gets named as a last-second tenth alternate, he’ll be ready.

Aha!

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 11:59 AM EST reply actions

Yeah, I see this as a ruse to get Snyder to give us a 2nd rounder to switch spots. I am in…

by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Jan 19, 2012 12:06 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

I like it.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

You think Heckert would only pull for a second?

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Jan 19, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe a 2nd and a 4th but, as other folks here have pointed out, Snyder might go all in for RG3 and indeed give us a 2013 1st as well.

by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Jan 19, 2012 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

Also, knowing the Vikings’ and Rams’ situations at QB (having recently drafted them in the 1st), and wanting the Kalil/Blackmon’s, we’ll offer the best trade up opportunity.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

I would hold out. If we are trading down and RG3 is on the board—assuming we don’t draft him ourselves—I would take at least this year’s first and another first.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 19, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions

Applebee’s coupons!

I should have made my screen name DerekAndersonIsMyBrother

by Doc's Kid on Jan 19, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions

I would be ecstatic with 4 picks in the top 40.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:07 PM EST reply actions

Robert Griffin is the quarterback after Luck that other teams may want, maybe even including us. Holmgren is not going to down play any player at this point. Until they all get together and evaluate the top players I don’t think anyone but the Colts know who they want. Lets look at it this way. Say the Colts pass on Luck, what do you think the Redskins or Dolphins may offer St. Louis for Luck?? Probably a helluva alot more for Luck than for Griffin. So I dont think until the Coaches and Holmgren get together in March they are going to have a definitive plan who they want. Nothing will happen in their (Heckert&Holmgren&Shurmur) minds before the combine. It is all hearsay now. Look before we drafted Couch, everyone wanted Couch, or Williams, or Akili Smith and not McNabb. When McNabb was drafted ahead of Williams and Smith he was booed. He was the only decent player of the group. The combine is not the only thing they look at but it matters. These teams have to be able to work these guys out.

If the Rams do not want a QB they maybe in the best spot in the draft after the Colts, if Robert Griffin really impresses. They may get a King’s ransom if that is the case.

by champion64 on Jan 19, 2012 12:08 PM EST reply actions

The Colts aren’t just going to pass on Luck, they’re going to get someone to give away a kings ransom of picks over the next 2 years to trade up. They’re not just going to hand that opportunity to the Rams.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

The Colts aren’t just going to pass on Luck, ~~they’re going to get someone to give away a kings ransom of picks over the next 2 years to trade up. They’re not just going to hand that opportunity to the Rams.~~ They’re going to draft him.

Fixed

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

Well if Manning can play, I could see them doing this to help re-set. They have major issues with free agency and cap problems, plus they suck, they need more than just Luck and if you could get 3 #1s and 2 #2s from us (not saying we would) and still draft #4 I would do it.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

I could see them doing this to help re-set.

I don’t see it. With the Polian’s and Caldwell kicked to the curb, I think a Manning trade is next. Even if they keep Manning, I think it’s smarter to draft Luck anyway.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

I agree, I’m just playing Devils Advocate

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

Even if they keep Manning, I think it’s smarter to draft Luck anyway.

I think that’s all contingent on how long Manning intends to play. I can understand Rodgers sitting out for 3 years, for the fact that he dropped and was the 3rd QB taken.

But Luck has been hyped to hell and back. And considering how bad of a team the Colts are right now, it would seem to make sense for them to draft support, then grab a high risk QB later in the draft.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions

If the hype turns out to be justified, not drafting Luck will be the biggest mistake the team that gave up could make.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:35 PM EST up reply actions

Conversely, if the hype turns out to not be justified, they could make a big mistake, lol. It’s all such a crap shoot.

by OldTimeDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

True.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

You know what though? There are very few QBs that have hype over multiple college seasons, and are hugely awaited by droooling NFL scouts. Most of the misses come on guys that are fast risers, weak classes where people get desperate. The guys that I remember with serious, long awaited hype are Elway, Manning, and Luck. I personally would not consider trading the pick under any circumstances.

Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen

by realmccoy on Jan 19, 2012 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

Good point. From everything I’ve heard, Luck is as much of a sure thing as you can get in the draft. That said, even then, it’s still not 100%.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree. Pimping out Luck to the highest bidder is the best thing they could do here IMO. Even if Luck does turn out to be Unitas in the long run, I’d accept that loss if the result was the potential to fill 3-4 other positions with top round talent.

November 6, 1995 is unforgiveable.

by WYBHaden? on Jan 19, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

This is so wrong. Anyone could care less about 3-4 other positions if you could draft “Unitas”

by RyanBr on Jan 19, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions

That team needs to rebuild…. so i guess they either do it around Luck, or a gaggle core of young players. I think they win either way, but I would take volume considering we’re talking about unproven NFL players.

November 6, 1995 is unforgiveable.

by WYBHaden? on Jan 19, 2012 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

But, as opposed to unproven you were going on the assumption that he turns into the next “Unitas.” Anyone would trade a gaggle core of young players for Johnny Unitas.

by RyanBr on Jan 19, 2012 2:19 PM EST up reply actions

if Luck is Unitas like in the long run, you don’t give up the pick. No freakin’ way. This is a QB league.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

I believe Manning is like 36. In addition, the Colts are soft selling those surgeries – they are some serious deals. Fused vertebrae, cleanups, etc could seriously impact his ability to be a great QB. They would really be foolish to not to draft Luck and count on a Manning return to greatness.

Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen

by realmccoy on Jan 19, 2012 1:44 PM EST up reply actions

Or if they trade with someone they are decently sure will be picking in the top 10 next year, they can get a ton of draft picks from them. Use that as ammo to trade up and take Barkley next year. Peyton gets his weapons this year, and the Colts get their QB next year. I could see it happening.

by shep615 on Jan 19, 2012 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

I get the reasoning, I just don’t see Irsay and the Colt’s doing that, given what they’ve done so far.
I could be wrong.

"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."

by Simmsinns on Jan 19, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

I agree with you. It seems logical on their part, I just don’t see it happening.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 19, 2012 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

I really think the gutting of the entire organization is a sign that change is coming on the Peyton front.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 19, 2012 10:34 PM EST up reply actions

The Colts need to blow it up IMO. Rebuild around Luck, trade Freeny and Mathis. Get younger across the board.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Hmmm, anyone think Freeney would be a good fit for us at LDE? How is his run support?

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry I meant RDE

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

I always thought he was more of a passrusher then a run support guy. But i really never payed much attention to it.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

Prolly one of the fastest edge rushers in the history of the game. Could track down MoMass from behind. He couldnt give one chit about run support.

Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen

by realmccoy on Jan 19, 2012 1:52 PM EST up reply actions

He is a great 4-3 DE. He is not a long term fix.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 19, 2012 10:35 PM EST up reply actions

I agree the Colts are going to draft him, and if not, they will be asking the King’s Ransom

by champion64 on Jan 19, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

Heckert was on a couple stations a week or two ago and he said they would have their big board set in mid February that their would only be minor shuffling after that between the combine, pro days, etc. So I think in the next 2-3 weeks everything will be set. Remember back to 2009 when right about this time everyone thought Joe Haden would be our pick and then the next 10 weeks were all about why Joe Haden wouldn’t be our pick? I think we as fans make it way more complicated than it actually is.

by PaduaDSP on Jan 19, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

The fans or the local media? Because someone gets these fans riled up.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

probably both.

by PaduaDSP on Jan 19, 2012 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

Kinda unrelated but I had the chance to meet two local sports media figures during the OSU/Florida game a few weeks ago. One is a former NFL player. He actually played under Pat at one of his stops and said he is the most clueless coach he has ever had at any level. Said his adjustments are terrible.

The other media member talked about the HC search that led to Pats hiring. Said 6 other people turned down the chance to interview for the job before Pat was even considered.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 1:12 PM EST up reply actions

I believe all of this, but I’m hanging my hopes on the fact that he pulls a Tressell. Most OSU fans won’t admit it, but when they hired him, he was unknown, not their first choice and not many people knew much about him.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

the difference being Tressel was an incredibly successful coach at YSU before going to Ohio State. Shurmur wasn’t really a successful anything at any level before becoming our head coach.

by PaduaDSP on Jan 19, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

I thought about that actually, but he was on Philly’s staff for a decade and turned STL around a little when he was there.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 6:10 PM EST up reply actions

Did he really turn them around though? In terms of QB play it was very similar to what we got from McCoy this year, 76.5 QBR, 5.95 yds per completion, 3 more TDs then INTs.

McCoy this year 74.6 QBR, 5.90 yds per completion, 3 more TDS then INTS.

In terms of team offense:
STL: 26th in total yds, 18.1 PPG
CLE: 29th in total yds, 13.6 PPG.

basically a 1td difference and he definitely had more playmakers in STL then he had here in Cleveland. I mean he got 1200yds from Steven Jackson.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions

It just worries me that a guy who played under him as well as other coaches had nothing but negatives on Pat and atleast something positive to say about other coaches/coordinators. The more I hear about Pat the more it looks like a “hey your dad was a friend of mine” type of hire, and that worries me.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 19, 2012 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

technically uncle, and that may be true, for all we know he’s a puppet coach for Holmgren. I would think it would be hard to be an NFL OC if you didn’t have some talent.

by HenryDawg on Jan 19, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

Who was this guy?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 19, 2012 10:37 PM EST up reply actions

Not giving up my source as he currently has press access to the Browns. He avoids discussing the bias in his media outlet but is a bit more open off the record.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 12:44 AM EST up reply actions

So you have an “unnamed league source,” basically.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 20, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

Not a league source, a local media source who played in the league (he is out of football right now). I know quite a few local media guys, one of whom I grew up with.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

Ignorance is bliss, and we all love to spout off and see if we are right in the end. It is the right of being a fan. And it is fun

by champion64 on Jan 19, 2012 1:13 PM EST up reply actions

If H&H think that RG3 is a difference maker at QB, then we damn well better be willing to pay any price.

We aren’t going to get any better by drafting Kalil or Blackmon as long as our QB’s suck.

by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 19, 2012 9:41 PM EST reply actions

And we arent going to get any better drafting RG3 if MoMass and Little drop passes.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 12:45 AM EST up reply actions

yeah we are. Rodgers’ WRs drop passes like crazy…also Colt may not throw the most catchable ball, as evidenced by few drops when Wallace was passing.

I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013

by bross09 on Jan 20, 2012 1:05 AM EST up reply actions

The Browns had 10 more drops then the Packers on 40 less pass attempts. And the team still had quite a few drops while Wallace was playing, although they also dont count a drop when the pass is nowhere near the WR, and Wallace had some serious accuracy issues.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 1:14 AM EST up reply actions

The Browns had 20 more pass attempts than the Packers. I’m guessing you only looked at McCoy’s numbers.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jan 20, 2012 9:20 AM EST up reply actions

This is actually frightening considering we don’t have the QB to be passing that much.

by Roger Dorn on Jan 20, 2012 9:25 AM EST up reply actions

Its Pat. He wanted a pass heavy offense despite the fact we didnt have the players to run it. Good coaches force a round style when they have square pegs.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

Good coaches do that?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jan 20, 2012 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

Sarcasm my friend. Sarcasm.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

We also didn’t have a healthy running back capable of giving this team a real running threat for a good portion of the year.

by Legoman0721 on Jan 21, 2012 12:46 AM EST via Android app up reply actions

Yes I did. Why the hell did we attempt more passes then the Packers. good god thats frightening.

by Justin Kowalczyk on Jan 20, 2012 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

b/c we were constantly playing from behind and became one dimensional? Either that or because we had absolutely no running game for most of the season.

by PaduaDSP on Jan 20, 2012 10:58 AM EST up reply actions

The Browns had 10 more drops then the Packers on 40 less pass attempts.

Its still a hell of a lot and you don’t hear Rodgers complaining, because he doesn’t need excuses.

And the team still had quite a few drops while Wallace was playing, although they also dont count a drop when the pass is nowhere near the WR

Sure, let’s take away uncatchable balls. They still dropped a larger percentage of passes easily with Colt. The number under Wallace was low enough that it was hard to blame his play on the WRs.