Report: Browns Are Targeting 5 Players With the Fourth Pick
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 19, 2012 8:44 PM EST
Email
PrintMary Kay Cabot has done something that Tony Grossi never did: She did a little reporting.
She is reporting that the Browns are targeting five different players for the fourth pick in this April's draft. In no particular order: Robert Griffin III, Trent Richardson, Morris Claiborne, Justin Blackmon and Ryan Tannehill.
The combine gets started on Tuesday, the most important factor is probably going to be the interview process, the one thing that we will not be able to witness on the NFL Network.
Going off that list it really doesn't tip the hand of the Browns' front office. You would have to imagine the Browns would have to trade up for RG3. If the Browns decide to stay at the fourth spot, between Richardson, Blackmon and Claiborne one of those guys would definitely be on the board. So if the Browns decide not to trade up and stay at the four spot, they would have their choice between those three guys.
Tannehill is the odd inclusion here. If the Browns get a huge offer to trade out of the #4 pick, it seems like the Browns would be targeting the Texas A&M Quarterback.
By the way, this list makes me want to punch a baby in the face. Let us all pray to the Mighty Joe Thomas that RG3 has the greatest interview of all time and the Browns trade up to #2 ASAP.
333 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lets pray we find a QB before the draft and we fill some other holes from all the picks….anyone else sick of RG3 already?
"There's a gleam men, there's a gleam!" Marty
Sure, lets keep applying duct tape to the gaping hole in our roster.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 19, 2012 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Don’t forget the Bondo.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 19, 2012 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
Yup. Sick of RG3. If history has shown me anything, its that when Browns’ fans are screaming for a QB, it always explodes in our faces. Pagel over Kosar, Holcomb over Couch, Frye over anyone, Quinn over anyone. Let’s actually address the weakest receiving corps in the NFL and give whoever is our QB someone with fingers on their hands and something other than revolving doors on the right side of the line. If a good line and good receivers can make Mark Rypien a Pro Bowl QB than when we get our franchise guy maybe we can actually make it to the promise land.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Remember kids, the lesson here is: If you’ve had bad quarterbacks, the logical thing to do is never get another quarterback ever.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 19, 2012 9:28 PM EST via Android app up reply actions 11 recs
The lesson is that RG3 is a question mark that would be coming into a situation that sets him up to fail. If the goal is to ruin potential franchise QBs please continue to use high 1st round picks to put them on a team with just the left side of the line, WRs that couldn’t make a pee-wee squad and a backfield full of Mr. Glass imitators.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 9:44 PM EST up reply actions
continue to use high 1st round picks
So, since we’ve come back: Tim Couch and… Tim Couch?
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
Quinn cost us a lot (Two first round picks). I’m just saying I’d rather see us get the pieces in place before pulling the trigger on “THE GUY”. And I don’t see RG3 as a can’t miss one of those.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
So, one high 1st round pick in 1999 and a guy we drafted with the 22nd pick eight years later means that we continually use our high first rounders on QBs? Even though we did it once?
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
Quinn cost us a 2nd and the next year’s 1st, which seeing as how we finished that season at 10-6 was not a high 1st rounder. We’ve spent all of one high first round draft pick on a QB.
I’m just saying I’d rather see us get the pieces in place before pulling the trigger on "THE GUY".
Ever heard of the phrase: “Putting the cart before the horse”?
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 19, 2012 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
When we got Quinn, we had no O-Line like we do now. We had just drafted JT. This is the best situation we have ever had to bring in a rookie QB.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I don’t know about that, we had a pretty awesome O Line, but Quinn didn’t play as a rookie and then sporadically after that. You can’t develop as a QB playing 2 games at a time. Still I didn’t think he was that great in college, but I was excited about drafting him at the time, just because at least we were trying to get someone who wasn’t Garcia or Dilfer (WTF have we been doing for the last decade?)
Our O-Line has overall better individual pieces than it did in 2007. We could use a RT, but everything else is probably better overall than 2007 when we did get Quinn.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
This is completely false. I believe we had the top pass ranked pass protecting line in the NFL in 2007. If it wasn’t the best, it was at minimum top 3.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Feb 20, 2012 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
And they had a QB that actually got the ball out and threw the WRs open for 15 games. Apples to Oranges.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
FO says we were 5th that year on pass blocking, but as I said, we had WRs that could catch the ball, an actual ground game, and a QB who could actually get rid of the ball(for 15 games).
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
A lot of that was Joe Thomas and the fact that we didn’t have a QB who held onto the ball for 5+ seconds each play helped.
I will stand by the fact that we had better individual pieces. Outside of Ryan Tucker, all our pieces are about equal or better than 2007. JT=JT, Steiny=Steiny (he has maybe dropped off a tiny bit), mack>>Fraley, Lauvao/Pinkston=Seth mckinney, Pashos<Tucker.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
How dare you bring up something positive about the Browns!
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 20, 2012 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is not correct, Quinn did not cost 2 1st round picks… think it through.
by Mal Reynolds on Feb 20, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Right, we swapped first round picks to get him. The net result was that we came out even on the number of first round picks, but lower in the order.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
I may be misunderstanding but that was the year we took Thomas with our natural first round pick then used the following years first rounder to move back into the first to get Quinn so we only used the 2008 first rounder.
correct. We used one first round pick on Quinn.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
In college.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
But yet all the Colt apologists want to lead off their arguments with “winningest college QB ever.”
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
The only piece of argument I use is the fact that he has been given 1 1/2 years to run a offense. With his first year being during the lockout where he had little time to learn the whole playbook without the help of coaches, yet he took the initiative to learn as much as he could with what he was given, and he tried to teach the whole offense so that way they weren’t cometary lost.
by lightninmcqueen on Feb 20, 2012 12:40 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
That’s all admirable, yes, but his initiative isn’t something we can win on.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 20, 2012 1:02 AM EST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
My problem with Colt isn’t how he ran this offense. It’s with his lack of ability to make any sort of play.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 20, 2012 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The only piece of argument I use is the fact that he has been given 1 1/2 years to run a offense. With his first year being during the lockout where he had little time to learn the whole playbook without the help of coaches, yet he took the initiative to learn as much as he could with what he was given, and he tried to teach the whole offense so that way they weren’t completely lost.
by lightninmcqueen on Feb 20, 2012 12:40 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
first full year adding that before I got torn for it.
by lightninmcqueen on Feb 20, 2012 12:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Oh dear god. This is all just a fail. I hate coming on here with my I-pod. Sorry for the subject line.
by lightninmcqueen on Feb 20, 2012 12:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Oh dear god. This is all just a fail. I hate coming on here with my I-pod. Sorry for the subject line.
by lightninmcqueen on Feb 20, 2012 12:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Haha this is epic.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
by Adrock2099 on Feb 20, 2012 1:15 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 1:46 AM EST up reply actions
Not apologizing for Colt McCoy. I just would rather stay put at No. 4 and keep the 22nd overall, than trade for RG3. If he’s there at 4 and we draft him great, Then at 22nd and 36th overall we can address the other 2 glaring holes on draft day.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 20, 2012 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
Well yeah I think we would all love to stay at 4 and get him. That’s probably unrealistic at this point in time.
i really can’t comprehend the obsession with this 22 pick. why is this pick going to be the magic salve that cures all that ails the browns? last year’s 22 pick was anthony castonzo. the year before it was demaryius thomas. in 2007 it was … wait for it … brady quinn!
if you’re honestly telling me that you would not trade any of these clowns above for rg3 then i just think you’re completely crazy. the 22 pick is less likely to be a good player than the 2 pick is, and considering the 2 pick could be a qb for the future, why in the world do we care about sacrificing the 22 pick?
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 22, 2012 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
the 22nd pick has produced 3 bust QBs in the last decade and a slew of other mediocre players (mark clayton, bryan thomas, lamar king)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Seems that a lot of draft picks come from college.
"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 Feb 20, 2012 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
At least half.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
The lesson is that RG3 is a question mark that would be coming into a situation that sets him up to fail.
What is setting him up to fail? The top ten defense? The All-World LT? The Pro Bowl Center?
Does anyone remember ’99? That was setting a QB up to fail. Tim Couch would crawl across broken glass followed by a swim in acid to be put in this situation.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 19, 2012 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Don’t you get it? If Colt couldn’t succeed here, no mortal has a prayer.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 19, 2012 10:16 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
No receivers, a bunch of guys who can’t block on the right side, and an anemic running game, other than that nothing.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
Fantastic.
Cleveland: Where we need 10 All-Pro’s before we even think about addressing Quarterback.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 19, 2012 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
A WR and RT would be a good start.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
Cleveland: where the putting an All Pro at the least important position on the line defines a perfect season.
XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.
by SpecialBrownie on Feb 19, 2012 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
A franchise QB would be a better start.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 19, 2012 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
No, an LT is a start. A QB not having to worry about this blind side . . . just about ever . . . is about as good as it gets in the NFL. The rest of the line needs to be average or good. We have that. A very good Center, a good Left Guard, and a promising young LG/RG. Do we need an upgrade at RT? Yes. Do we have six rounds of the draft and free agency to address it? Yes. Same with WR.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 20, 2012 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
Franchise QBs succeed despite the obstacles around them. It’ also not like we would be throwing him to the wolves like they did to Couch. He’d have the best LT of all time at his blindspot.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 19, 2012 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
He’d have the best LT of all time at his blindspot.
This can’t be repeated enough. LT is not the whole O-line, but it is by far the most important piece. Our team has the best LT in the game.
Why do you get an LT if you don’t want to take a quarterback? It’s fuc7ing insanity. Did we draft Joe Thomas to make sure a bunch of late round crap does not get injured??
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 20, 2012 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The lesson is that RG3 is a question mark
Colt isn’t, but the evidence points it to almost certain that Colt isn’t the long term answer.
situation that sets him up to fail.
No situation that gives a QB the best LT in the league is “setting him up to fail”
please continue to use high 1st round picks
Ok, that works because most elite QBs who consistently win come from the 1st round. Tom Brady is an anomaly.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I second this.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
Thirded.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 20, 2012 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
If a good line and good receivers can make Mark Rypien a Pro Bowl QB than when we get our franchise guy maybe we can actually make it to the promise land.
This isn’t 1986.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 19, 2012 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
It sure isn’t.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 19, 2012 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Pagel over Kosar
Fail. That never happened.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 20, 2012 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-01/sports/sp-5131_1_cleveland-fans/2
It happened in 1990, the worst season in franchise history to that point. Bud Carson caved to the fans screaming for Pagel and benched Kosar. Which was Bud Carson’s last game as head coach.
"I don't know what no means"
by BenRapelisberger on Feb 20, 2012 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
“Cleveland fans aren’t used to losing”
Oh the irony
by BuenosAires_Dawg on Feb 21, 2012 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The “set up to fail” mentality is for losers. It’s weak to assume everything will automatically just because… Your setting a limit on success without even trying. Why?
"A drug person can learn to cope with things like seeing their dead grandmother crawling up their leg with a knife in her teeth. But no one should be asked to handle this trip." Thompson
I’m not naming names, Red, but people sick of the RG3 debates could maybe just stop going into every thread and bringing up how they don’t want RG3, thereby preventing the debate from starting up all over again.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 19, 2012 9:35 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Clap!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 19, 2012 11:53 PM EST up reply actions
I get excited every time I think about it.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure why some are still so gun shy on drafting Griffin. Not wanting to draft a QB because the prior ones have sucked doesn’t make sense. But I do understand that the unfortunate history of the new Browns serves as the platform for the rational of some fans on almost every topic.
Unless the combine reveals something glaringly wrong with Griffin’s game/attitude/intelligence I can’t see the Browns passing him up. Even if it takes the other pick to get him.
He seems like the type of quarterback worth investing time, money and picks. If “building through the draft” is the theme after all, the Browns have the tools and materials to sure up a rather important position this year… plus all the other picks.
But anyway, as fans, we should feel lucky. Not every year are their two potential career QBs available around our selection(s).
"A drug person can learn to cope with things like seeing their dead grandmother crawling up their leg with a knife in her teeth. But no one should be asked to handle this trip." Thompson
Didn’t Carolina draft Newton the year after drafting Claussen? I’m sure they regret that decision.
by Chief WaDrew on Feb 20, 2012 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
they regret Clausen, not Newton. Just like the Lions regret mike williams and not Calvin Johnson.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
by bross09 on Feb 20, 2012 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve been hearing rumors that Minnesota might just quit on Ponder and take Griffin if he’s there. I could see it as I thought Ponder was sort of a reach. Personally I would groom Joe Webb first.
I don’t see it happening, mostly because Ponder showed legitimate flashes. Now I can see Jacksonville trying to go after some QB. Gabbert showed nothing and was clearly a reach. Ponder had some games where he was overwhelmed, but looks like he may be a good NFL QB. Honestly, he showed more to get excited about than Colt did in his rookie year.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
wouldn’t they get much better value out of trading the #2 pick though? Than taking RG3 and then shopping Bradford?
chance, but not likely. Same with minny.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I don’t think Minn would give up on their #1 especially with the promise he showed last season. He’s physically gifted and has big time skills worth investing time.
I know Carolina did just this, but Ponder is light years better than Clausen. That was a huge waste of a pick. Clausen is horrible.
"A drug person can learn to cope with things like seeing their dead grandmother crawling up their leg with a knife in her teeth. But no one should be asked to handle this trip." Thompson
Ponder was taken in the early first round. Clause was taken in the middle of the second. Not even comparable situations at all.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 21, 2012 1:23 AM EST up reply actions
I think even if you think McCoy is “okay” if you think RGIII is “f***ing gr8!” you gotta pull the trigger. “Okay” might get us out of the cellar from time to time, but it stalls out before it sniffs the playoffs.
"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.
I’m sick of talking about Colt McCoy, honestly.
"A drug person can learn to cope with things like seeing their dead grandmother crawling up their leg with a knife in her teeth. But no one should be asked to handle this trip." Thompson
by LocalMan on Feb 20, 2012 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Everything I’ve read or seen of Tannehill says he is a project. I wouldn’t spend either first round pick on a QB unless I was sure that he was a significant upgrade from McCoy.
Why wouldn’t we target Luck… I mean there is basically a 0% chance we could get him but his name should be on the list.
I’m sure they’ll interview him and everything, but I think these five are more like the guys they actually think they can get.
I also don’t know how much faith I would put in this list. These types of things aren’t normally spread around the media.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 19, 2012 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I saw the article as a sort of: The Plain Dealer’s look at 5 most likely prospects to look at before the combine.
Ya, I until I hear Heckert quoted as we are going at player x x and x then I dont really believe it too much.
During the off-season, I don’t believe any word any GM says.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 19, 2012 11:56 PM EST up reply actions
Unless those words are said about Jayme Mitchell.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
What about us having the best starting LB core in the NFL?
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
We all know that, just look at all the play time he got when we were still a 3-4 team
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Do you guys think if Joe Thomas and Jayme Mitchell ever had to line up against one another in a scrimmage or something, on impact we would all see the face of God and all the mysteries of generations passed would be revealed in a glorious moment of cosmic certainty?
Just something to think about.
Steel Nick
Jayme Mitchell jokes are funny; but this crossed the line, and you will be summarily pancaked.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
I’m a Death Star general, mouthing off to Joe Thomas in the conference room, when suddenly I start to choke and slowly flatten to the ground as he stares at me from the other side of the room.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 20, 2012 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Mouthing off to JT is like showing up on (original) Star Trek wearing a red jersey. It won’t end well for you.
"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 Feb 22, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I can think of two names to replace with his. (Richardson and Tannehill)
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 19, 2012 11:55 PM EST up reply actions
I was reading that piece this afternoon and thought it didn’t really seem like a report of any news. Instead, she was just looking into 5 possible targets, the questions surrounding them as they relate to the Browns, and some general Kiper/McShay analysis.
I only bring it up because I was specifically looking to see if she cited a source for these 5 names being of interest.
With all of that said, the list makes sense if we’re assuming Luck and Kalil are locks to go elsewhere. If they’re gone, it’s essentially the consensus BPA, with the exception of Tannehill.
by Jon @ DBN on Feb 19, 2012 9:14 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I don’t disagree that the language of the article is unclear, but if it’s not just her speculation, you weren’t actually looking for her to name her source, were you?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 19, 2012 9:33 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
No, I wasn’t looking for he to name a source. I was looking to see if she cited a source (for these specific 5 players as Browns’ targets) at any point in the article, even if the extent of the attribution was simply “a source.”
I completely understand that someone in her position wouldn’t name a source for this kind of information unless the source explicitly requested to be named.
The reason I was looking for it within the article after initially reading the headline was because I would have been surprised for a team to ever leak that sort of information this early before the actual draft.
I’m concerned that MKC is getting manipulated by agents, scouts and the team. This has the same feel as the article in which she stated that the Browns were interested in retaining Hillis and then nothing really came of it. I think Hillis’ agent might have planted some info for her to stir up interested. The team might also be planting false info to steer other teams away from their actual plans. So far I haven’t seen a lot from her sources to make be believe that they are any better than Joe bar-stool at the corner pub. What you said Jon@ about leaking is true to an extent unless they are leaking it on purpose to either float what might be said of them or to mislead other teams.
Saying that the Browns are interested in this particular list is not hot news… and the Tannehill pick would never be with the 4th unless Holmgren/Heckert want to make one of the dumbest moves ever. Tannehill would definitely be a project and not much of an upgrade over McCoy.
Brownsyup
What do you mean nothing came of it? Free agency hasn’t even started.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 19, 2012 10:19 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
unless they are leaking it on purpose to either float what might be said of them or to mislead other teams.
Right, but even in that case, it would never come as specific as the top 5 on the team’s board in order and what the team liked or didn’t like about them.
Again, I just think this an article where a writer is exploring some of the possible targets themselves and timely with the combine starting on Tuesday.
Right, that’s what I hoped you meant. I would think this is just her speculation, but I also doubt it’s far off anyway. Sometimes reporters have a deadline and no news.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 19, 2012 10:20 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Exactly, this is not news at all. Notice that the Browns didn’t list 4 guys (which would make it clear who we wanted if we’re on the clock on 3 of them are gone). They listed four guys, omitted Andrew Luck, and then threw Tannehill in to make Washington, Miami, and Seattle sweat a little. That puts it at six guys and we pick at four. This means nothing.
If we draft Tannehill with #4 I will drive down to Berea and light the Holmgren’s office on fire
by tr1betime on Feb 19, 2012 11:17 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Let me get my car out of there first.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 20, 2012 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
By the way, this list makes me want to punch a baby in the face.
I didn’t know your neighbor was a baby. They must be real loose about the emancipation laws in Minnesota.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 12:01 AM EST reply actions
Only news to me is Quinton Coples is out of the equation. He seemed a stud at a glaring need, RE. Now we know both his consistency issues and our more pressing offensive needs have put him off the radar at the 4th slot.
I find it interesting because that was the guy that Pluto kept saying the Browns liked.
I have no idea where the PD is getting any of this. Jon could be correct in the fact that MKC is getting this info from the agents.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 20, 2012 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
I wonder what Simmsinns would think of this?
"They kept throwing it at me. I don’t know why. They just kept trying, and I just kept knocking it down." -- Joe Haden
Last I heard he followed mooncamping to the Lions blog to continue learning about fullbacks.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
by Adrock2099 on Feb 20, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Jon could be correct in the fact that MKC is getting this info from the agents.
Of course, I don’t know for sure, but in general, a lot of the time when you’re hearing about “interests” and contract related talk where the organization isn’t the source, but rather unnamed, it’s an agent trying to do what he thinks is in the best interest of his client.
That said, I’d never criticize a reporter for running a story based on an agent’s (who prefers to be unnamed) comments on contract issues and the like. If they offer an insight on what’s happening, it’s probably news worth reporting.
I don’t like Coples anyway… Mike Adams owned him in the Senior Bowl…
plus he has a huge brand on his arm… those went out of style in ’94
And Whitney Mercilus owned Mike Adams. I would love if he fell to 22, assuming we don’t get another DE in FA.
Are you some type of fungus?
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 21, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
seems like we should draft him simply b/c of his name. merciless
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 22, 2012 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
If this is legit, I could see it being a nice ploy to try to bait people into trading up for a ton of picks. I’m guessing the consensus will end up being RGIII, but if the price is too high to get him then this sets us up nicely to make out like bandits with another team’s picks. If an Atlanta-type team wants one of those 5 players and they’re around at our pick, they might want to trade up to eliminate the possibility we take that player.
Are there really people out there that the Browns should draft RG3? Let alone TRADE UP to get him?!?! Jesus… No wonder our managementnever gets it right. They must think like you…
This just in:
RG3 will still not have any targets. You will not get a #1 receiver anywhere in this draft but with #4. So, you get a QB that will still do nothing like every other year for the past 10 years because you have absolutely no one to throw it to, or you get a WR that can actually solve your problem of not having targets and you can really see what Colt McCoy can do… If McCoy still doesn’t look good. You get the ’Next Peyton Manning" that will come out next year.
Drafting Bust QB’s = dime a dozen. WR in the top 5 have a history of working out…
Please, Almighty Jim Brown, don’t let us draft a QB at #4…
or mike williams? or Charles Rodgers?
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
How many wins did all of those Detroit WRs lead to under Millen? How many did Matt Stafford lead to now that he’s healthy?
by Legoman0721 on Feb 20, 2012 2:43 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
well they made Joey Harrington look really good
by PaduaDSP on Feb 20, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Looks like he’s been lurking for about a year and a half. Only two comments since joining.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
You’d think if he’d been lurking for so long he would’ve read one of the freaking millions of posts that completely discredit his argument.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
That would make too much sense though.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
Drafting Bust QB’s = dime a dozen. WR in the top 5 have a history of working out…
You should do stand up. Your bit about WRs being more important/ a safer bet high in the draft is pretty funny.
That’s really just what we all want, a good WR with no one that can get the ball to him. We could be the next Detroit Lions, drafting WRs every year for 5 seasons only to remain in the cellar!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
We could be the next Detroit Lions, drafting WRs every year for 5 seasons only to remain in the cellar!
You’ll never guys what position they had to draft for before turning it around and making the playoffs. (Hint: before Suh)
It was totally another WR! Duh.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t do this anymore. I’m over it.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
If McCoy still doesn’t look good. You get the ’Next Peyton Manning" that will come out next year.
The premise of this is fine; I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to seeing what Colt can do with better weapons and a full offseason with Shurmur. However, you’re saying it like it’s fine if he doesn’t pan out. “Next Peyton Manning”s don’t come along very often, (probably once or twice a decade) and when they do, it’s not like they’re easy to get.
We have a unique opportunity here. I honestly don’t think this team is that far off—with a few WRs, maybe a LB and a solid OL for the right side, this could be a respectable team. But none of that can come together without a franchise QB. I’m not saying Colt is or is not one of those, but Griffin’s ceiling is lightyears ahead of anything we’ve seen in Cleveland since Kosar. We have the firepower (draft picks) and the opportunity to get him. Why not?
I’m not saying Colt is or is not one of those
I am.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 21, 2012 1:29 AM EST up reply actions
let’s be serious … rg3’s ceiling is miles and miles higher than bernie’s was.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 22, 2012 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
You will not get a #1 receiver anywhere in this draft but with #4.
You realize that almost all of the “big-name” WR’s available in Free Agency this year were not 1st rounders? Wes Welker, DeSean Jackson, Vincent Jackson, Mike Wallace, Stevie Johnson, Brandon Lloyd, etc.
But you’re right, we can only get an impact WR in the first round.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 20, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
don’t forget Colston.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
The fact that Mike Wallace was drafted after we’d drafted MoMass and Robiskie makes me want to light myself on fire. Dammit, Kokinis.
When you see teams like GB and Pittsburgh continue to hit on every receiver they pick you have to start wondering if its the receivers or the QB always putting the ball in the easiest place to make the catch while our receivers put in the general area at best.
by HenryDawg on Feb 20, 2012 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I believe it’s spelled Kotnkus.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 20, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
Fact: it has been so long since I’ve seen it spelled correctly I wasn’t sure what his actual name was for a second.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 20, 2012 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
But we got Veikune.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 21, 2012 1:30 AM EST up reply actions
Veikunage!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
That’s funny stuff, golan.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 21, 2012 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
ISWYDT Golan!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Also true that in 7 of the past 13 Superbowls (dating back to 2000), the winning QB was not a 1st round pick.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
But that’s really only 4 players out of 13 and one of them was taken with the first pick in the second round, so pretty high (and a first rounder in today’s league).
4 out of 8. The Manning brothers, Big Ben and Rodgers were the 1st rounders.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry, actually only 4 out of 9 were 1st rounders…
1st: Roethlisberger, Manning, Manning, Rodgers
Not: Warner, Dilfer, Johnson, Brady, Brees
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
Dilfer was most certainly a 1st rounder, and Brees was picked with the first pick in the 2nd round.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Oops you’re right about Trent. My point, still, is that only 5 of 9 of those were first-rounders. also, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Brees were either mid-first to second-rounders.
Something interesting I ran across while doing some research was the box score from Baylor vs. Texas A&M this past season. Check it out. Makes the RG3 vs. Tannehill discussion a bit more interesting. The rushing yards, especially.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
My point, still, is that only 5 of 9 of those were first-rounders.
But what IS your point?
Something interesting I ran across while doing some research was the box score from Baylor vs. Texas A&M this past season. Check it out. Makes the RG3 vs. Tannehill discussion a bit more interesting.
How is that interesting?
Steel Nick
Point is that you don’t have to take a QB that high in the first round to be successful, as many have claimed.
People keep hyping RG3’s athleticism, which is cool. No doubt about that. But Tannehill has played WR and obviously has loads of athleticism, also. And for someone who has played the QB position for only a season, I don’t know how you couldn’t be intrigued by the prospect of Tannehill, as well.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
We don’t need another prospect, we need a franchise QB. That intrigues me much more than “taking a shot” at someone.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
However “taking a shot” is exactly what you’re doing with RG3, then.
He rushed for 15 yards on 12 carries against the #66 ranked team defense (A&M) in that game, and one of those carries was for 11 yards. So other than that run, he rushed 11 times for 4 yards.
I never hear what makes RG3 so great that makes me want to draft him. All I keep hearing is “franchise quarterback,” but based on what? Huge numbers against horrible defenses? Sorry, not buying into that.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not drafting RG3 because of his rushing ability.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
He was 28-40 for 430 yds and 3 TDs in that game. He isn’t a running QB, he’s a passing QB who has a great ability to run.
Do you like Andrew Luck better? Check out some of the defenses he played against.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
and Tannehill was 25-37 for 415 and 6 TDs in that game.
Luck’s not in the discussion. We all know the Colts are taking him.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE GAME.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=313280245
Who does this? Who tries to prove a point about someone’s NFL prospects based on the box score to a single game? Literally no one, until now.
Steel Nick
You can look at the season statistics, also.
Tannehill’s numbers overall weren’t as great (except that he took 18 fewer sacks), but he played against much better teams than RG3 did, overall.
And for a kid transitioning to QB from WR, I’m pretty impressed.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
No, it’s actually saying he acclimated himself to a new position very quickly, but I suppose it’s easier for you to post something random and witty.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
No, it means little and makes for a nice factoid that has nothing to do with how he’ll fare in the NFL.
Steel Nick
Then you’re missing the point. But keep those blinders on. They’re more comfortable for you, I suppose.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
You totally aren't being condescending or insulting.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
That font is ugly.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
He took 18 fewer sacks because he was pressured much less. I don’t know if you’ve actually watched RG3 play, but he is great at escaping the rush and not taking a sack…which says something about that O-Line.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
His O Line was terrible and his defense was much worse than A&Ms. Also how did A&M play a much tougher schedule despite them being in the same division of the same conference?
Because they had to play Southern methodist and not TCU
(in case you look up how good those teams were, this is complete sarcasm)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
If that box score tells me anything, it’s that we need to trade for Jordan Shipley to be our QB.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 21, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Your argument is that RG3 played against shitty defenses; look at most other QB prospects, they also played against shitty defenses.
The scouts are looking for more than numbers to evaluate players anyway, so this argument is pointless. I"ll just believe in people who spend their lives scouting these kids over people who are afraid to take a QB because Tim Couch didn’t work out.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
So you admit that you’re just going by what others say then? I don’t get that. You “know” RG3 is “light years ahead” of Tannehill based on what others say? Just trying to get this straight.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
I know he is light years ahead based on my own eyes. I watch as he melted in the second half of games.
I watched as he struggled to throw deep. I watched as he struggled to throw deep outs.
He very may well end up being a good QB, but he isn’t on the level of RG3. Never was.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough. Just curious how many games you saw RG3 and Tannehill play this past season?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Texas A&M: OSU, Ark, TT, Baylor, Mizzou, OU, KState, Texas and the some of the Northwestern bowl game.
Baylor: TCU, KSU, Texas A&M, OSU, Mizzou, OU, Texas and the bowl game against Washington.
Any other questions you need me to answer?
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
Boy, a lot of those teams are the same in both lists. And here we’ve been told that RGIII played bad defenses and Tannehill played good ones.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
I thought I watched a solid amount of RG3…but you really have watched a lot. Never watched ksu or mixxou
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I watched them both play, but only a few games each.
I’m absolutely saying that my opinion is based largely on what others say. Why wouldn’t it be? I get a kick out of all the armchair scouts who think they know better than actual scouts who make a lot of money and spend a lot of time scouting. Sometimes they’re wrong, but most times they’re right.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
We’re all armchair scouts. I’m not saying I know more. I was just discussing in this thread. People on this site get sooo defensive.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Insulting people is my favorite defense mechanism when I’m losing an argument, too.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
by Adrock2099 on Feb 21, 2012 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Who insulted someone?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
most certainly not you
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
RG3 is light years ahead in a lot of ways…first, watch both play Texas, Oklahoma, and Ok St (if you can find those games) and tell me RG3 is not light years ahead.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Tannehill thrived against shitty Ds. He forgot how to play when the Ds knew how to play.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Like I pointed out, that was against one of the 10 worst Ds in the league. I pointed out that RG3 was 5-1 in close games. You know what Tannehill was? 1-5. Close games are where your QB can win or lose it for you. Tannehill was 0-2 in crunch time. He couldn’t execute with the game on the line.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Also, you’re taking a shot on any player you draft in any round. It’s about playing the percentages.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
I don’t get the second part of what you’re saying here, really.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Someone of RG3’s talent has a better chance of succeeding than someone of Tannehill’s talent. Take the player with a greater chance of success.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
By what are you measuring and comparing their talent, though?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
This is a good answer to that question. Thanks.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
RG3 had absolutely no D. Baylor had one of the 10 worst scoring Ds in the country. You would think with that kind of D, they wouldn’t be that good. Wrong, they were 10-3. RG3 was 5-1 in close games. When the D kept him in games, they won.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
where they are drafted in the 1st doesn’t matter as much. they were clear 1st round talents but because teams only play 1 QB, they often may fall a bit when there aren’t teams drafting that need a 1st round QB.
Haha, you picked out the one game where Tannehill faced one of the 10 worst Ds in the NCAA? Baylor was ranked 113th in PPG. He also destroyed Kansas’ 120th ranked D and Idaho’s 98th ranked D.
When he actually played legitimate Ds like Okie St, OU, UT, he was crap (like under 70 QBR on the NFL scale). RG3 tore apart OU and UT and was still decent against OK St.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I don’t need to open a link and look at a box score to know that RG3 is light years ahead of Tannehill as a prospect.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Light years ahead based on what, though?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
Play on the field, potential, and most importantly, that every single expert that knows about football has RG3 as a close second to Luck, some are even saying he could surpass Luck.
I’m not an expert on scouting by any means, but I know what I saw. RG3 is way better than Tannehill. And if every NFL scouting expert says something, it’s probably true.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Play on the field against bad defenses.
Did you know Tannehill also took only 9 sacks last season, as opposed to RG3’s 27?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t think I said that. But taking 9 sacks is much better than taking 27 sacks. That’s what I know.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
This is crazy. We all know that, but what that number doesn’t show is how those sacks were made.
Were they coverage sacks in which RG3 hung on to the ball too long? Did he run around for 7 seconds trying to get someone open? Did he eat a sack instead of forcing a throw into coverage? Did the LT blow an assignment and let a blitzer come in free?
Giving me sack numbers does nothing for me.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
You said you watched him play all season. You should know that answer.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not the one citing the numbers.
And I do.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Did you know Tannehill also took only 9 sacks last season, as opposed to RG3’s 27?
What does this help prove?
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
To me, it means he doesn’t get the ball out quickly enough, or can’t read defenses well.
I don’t care that he has a cannon arm and great straight-line speed. Those don’t make a QB in the NFL. You need much more than that.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Experience playing wide receiver, that’s what makes a QB in the NFL.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 21, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Nick, I already explained what I meant by that. If you don’t want to try to respond constructively, you’re better off not posting in this argument.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t feel a huge burden to take this seriously when you started this discussion with
Something interesting I ran across while doing some research was the box score from Baylor vs. Texas A&M this past season. Check it out. Makes the RG3 vs. Tannehill discussion a bit more interesting. The rushing yards, especially.
Steel Nick
I think you’re taking it too seriously, tbh.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Take a look in this for the one taking this convo too seriously.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Nah this is just good old discussion for me. Posters on this site go to the extreme in favor of RG3, just trying to understand the underlying philosophy for that.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Generally when discussing something with a group of people, you don’t make insulting blanket statements about said group. You want to know why no one is putting any credence to your argument? Tannehill is widely accepted (by everyone but you it seems) as a project QB.
We as a team have way too many pressing needs to pick a project QB in the 1st round, even if it is a lower pick. To me it’s either RG3/Luck (there’s been talk of G3 taking over Luck lately) or build up around McCoy and see what he’s got.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Was calling you “defensive” insulting? If that’s what you meant, then really you guys need to grow much thicker skin. C’mon.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Or, and this is a novel idea, you could not fling poo over the internet at people you don’t know.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
I will give you a few reasons.
RG3 showed serious accuracy and ability to make the right decisions
He is extremely skilled
He didn’t choke against the good Ds
He was 5-1 in close games and led a team with one of the worst Ds in the NCAA to a 10-3 record.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
For someone that doesn’t care about this, you keep posting an awful lot.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Come here on your first day eligible to post comments and start calling people out. Nice strategy. I’m sure this will end well.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
I’m ok with it. Just having some healthy discussion. Not calling anyone out.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Play on the field against bad defenses.
Are they playing in separate conferences now?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 21, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Didn’t you hear? Baylor doesn’t play any conference games. Instead they exclusively play against local high schools.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 21, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Post something constructive. I’m trying to compare the 2 quarterbacks. You’re trolling this thread.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
I also don’t think he understands constructive.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t see anything constructive you’ve added to this. Your cases for Tannehill over RG3 started from one box score, an argument that the Big 12 defense RG3 plays against is weaker than the Big 12 defense Tannehill plays against, and chastising people for dismissing it.
Steel Nick
Who’s chastising anyone? Grow thicker skin if you think anything I’ve written has been “chastising” or “insulting.”
For me, this is a discussion over whether it’s more cost-effective to trade up to #2 for RG3, or sit back and take Tannehill at #22.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
For me, this is a discussion over whether it’s more cost-effective to trade up to #2 for RG3, or sit back and take Tannehill at #22.
Yet this is the first time you’ve said that in around 10 or so comments. By the way, cost-effectiveness should be the last thing in a team’s mind when shopping for a potential franchise QB.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
What else would it be? No one’s talking about taking Tannehill at 4, or trading up to 2 to take Tannehill.
So we should just throw cost-to-benefit out the window as it pertains to drafting? I think that’s what Ditka did several years ago, but ok.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
So we could have a potential franchise at 4 or a project at 22. Choices, choices.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
How is Tannehill not a “potential franchise QB?”
I’m sure many thought Tom Brady was a “project” or he wouldn’t have been drafted in the 6th round.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
You’ve just lost the argument.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Stupid b/c it goes against what you’re arguing? Stupid how?
What about Drew Brees at the top of the 2nd round then? That stupid too?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
I’m guessing you’ve never heard the phrase: Exception to the rule.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
What about Kurt Warner then? There are many exceptions to this “rule.”
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
You are basing your want of a QB on hope of nabbing the exception to the rule. Shit in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills up first. You know who else was always seeking the diamond in the rough? Phil Savage.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Really no different than wanting to trade up for someone who’s had a torn ACL, one above-average college season and never played a down in the NFL… except that I have more draft picks.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Where in this thread did i say I wanted to trade up? Sit tight and see what falls to us. If it’s not one of the top two QBs than wait til next year. Start working on the O and add the finishing touches to the D.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
67 Comp%, 3,500 yards and 22-8 ratio is just average?
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
And the ACL injury being a red flag on a QB is the icing on the cake.
Why did the Steeler fan grow a mustache? So he could look like his mother.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 21, 2012 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
My favorite part was:
and never played a down in the NFLBecause Tannehill has already had so many NFL snaps.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Keep thinking that.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
I wanted to respond about Tannehill, but I am now convinced you are legitimately insane if you want to argue Tom Brady
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
That’s your opinion, and why forum discussions exist.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
So we should just throw cost-to-benefit out the window as it pertains to drafting?
If we follow this logic, we should just draft 3rd round projects all the time because there is little cost and hey, maybe one out of 20 turns into matt schaub.
I think you are seriously underestimating the benefit of getting RG3 and him turning into a potential franchise QB.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Then you’re missing the point. But keep those blinders on. They’re more comfortable for you, I suppose.
Sorry we can’t all hold ourselves to the high standards of discourse you do, friend, where people who disagree with you are simply willfully ignorant and missing your clear-as-day point.
If you want my serious response, no, Tannehill is not better than RG3, nothing about that box score you posted is interesting, nothing about the defenses they both played against is interesting, and I don’t care about Tannehill’s sack numbers.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 21, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
seriously stop talking out of your ass then. You talk up Tannehill, but then say RG3 hasn’t faced any good Ds when in fact they have faced essentially the same schedule.
Not only that, but the top 3 Ds on that conference schedule, Tannehill lost to all of them in close games where he played poorly, especially down the stretch. RG3 led Baylor to victory in 2 of those games.
Also, RG3 beat #18 TCU in non-conference play.
So in short, stop talking out of your ass because that isn’t constructive and just pisses people off
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
seriously stoptalking out of your assnot agreeing with us then
fixed
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 22, 2012 4:45 AM EST up reply actions
oooh…so clever.
Where is the evidence that Tannehill faced better Ds? Could it be he faced the 28th best D in the country in non-conference play? Could it be that he played well against the Big-12s best Ds? No, I forgot, those things apply to RG3, not Tannehill.
Tannehill had essentially the same conference schedule and played the same “heavy hitters”
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
choking like he only has 75 cents in his pocket
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Light years ahead based on what, though?
upon what basis are you basing the argument that rg3 is not light years ahead of tannehill? a single-game box score?
so far, all i’ve seen from you is that tannehill is “intriguing” and that it’s “more cost effective” to draft tannehill. nothing substantive about if/why tannehill is a similar nfl prospect to rg3.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 22, 2012 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
You realize
a) That’s still a majority
b) 3 out of those 6 that won it not from the 1st round were Tom Brady. No 6th round (or even 3rd round) pick will ever be Tom Brady. That is a once in a generation grab.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
55%, but yeah, a majority :)
All I’m saying is that it’s possible that you can find franchise-type quarterbacks down the line sometimes. I know it’s easy, living in Cleveland, to be pessimistic and want the hype and excitement of an RG3. I get that. The fans are sick of the Tim Couches, Charlie Fryes and Derek Andersons, etc.
There is hope, though… :)
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
You realize the number of QBs taken in rounds 2-7 compared to round 1? And then throw in all the fliers people take on UDFA QBs.
Success rate of turning into a good QB in the 1st round is 50%. Outside of the 1st, its 5%. Among UDFAs, its probably lower, maybe like 2% (and they will have a lower threshold of success…i.e. matt moore may be considered one).
Where does it look like the odds are best to get a good player.
All I’m saying is that it’s possible that you can find franchise-type quarterbacks down the line sometimes.
It’s more likely that we get a QB outside of the 1st round who develops Bladder cancer than becomes a very good QB.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
So Tannehill at #22 would be ok then?
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think he’s worth the 22. I’d rather not draft a QB in the 1st just to say he’s a 1st round pick.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Tannehill is not a 1st round talent, that’s the problem. Tannehill is a 1st rounder based pretty much on the fact that
a) a lot of teams need a QB
b) there are only two 1st round talents at QBs. He is kind of 1st round by default. He was projected in mocks as a 2nd rounder when people still thought Barkley and Jones would enter the draft.
Tannehill there isn’t ok to me because I don’t see him as a legitimate 1st round QB in most other drafts which is often the case with a late 1st round QB. Unlike a guy like Rodgers who was debated at #1 overall and fell,
Tannehill has just kind of snuck in like Cade mcnown did and JP Losman (who wasn’t projected as a 1st rounder but Buffalo panicked and traded up).
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
before you say “oh, well you said 1st round picks have the best success rate”, I want a 1st round talent, not drafting a guy in the 1st just to draft him. The reason the success rate isn’t higher than 50% for first rounders is every couple years some team drafts a Cade mcnown, or a JP Losman or a Tannehill in the 20s.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I said this and saw exactly what you are talking about. It’s probably just great minds thinking alike.
And, if you read what I said about RG3 being 5-1 in close games this year. If you look at his career, it’s 8-1 if you only look at close, winnable games. Not fair to hold it against him for losing when he is down by 17 in the 4th.
(included that bit b/c i know you really like RG3)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Just something about RG3 shines. I was watching some highlights so I could better remember how often he ran out of bounds on running plays and they had that one insane play where the game is tied and he just goes all out and throws it deep. Super clutch
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Just something about RG3 shines
lol what a fanboy
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 22, 2012 4:47 AM EST up reply actions
lol, what a troll. I forgot “under pressure” to finish the quote shines under pressure.
But with all your talk up of Tannehill and talking so much crap about RG3, please enlighten everyone on how much RG3 you have watched and how much Tannehill? Tannehill never made a clutch play to win a game like the one I described by RG3 above and that’s just a taste.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
of course it’s possible, that has nothing to do with anything. it’s only possible in the sense that it’s possible that i win the lottery this week.
you talk about cost effective … what’s more cost effective: trading up to take rg3 at 2 and having the qb position settled for the next decade OR taking tannehill at 22 and seeing him go down the tubes then trading the farm to go up and get barkley next year? or taking a series of fliers on a late-first or second or third round qb for the next 5 years in hopes of finding the next schaub or tom brady or kurt warner?
it’s about playing the percentages, my friend.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 22, 2012 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
This thread is huge now. I’m a catalyst!!
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 1:11 PM EST reply actions
This is still a pretty small thread. Look up the OT: Music thread. I think that’s one of the largest ones that wasn’t a game thread or a recap thread (after a game).
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just bored waiting for the combine. Stoked that it starts tomorrow.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
It’s my favorite ever thread. The fact that I’m the one who started it is just icing on the cake.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
This thread is huge now. I’m acatalyst!!____________ !!
DBN Fill-in-the-Blank Contest.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
That’s not nice, guy.
by More passing yards than Dan Fouts on Feb 21, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 21, 2012 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
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.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
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
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- 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
