Just A Reminder
-
This will be the sixth time in ten years that a Brady or Manning has won the SB ... superstar QBs don't grow on trees, if you've got a shot at one do you pass it up because your busy conducting an experiment on a third round guy? Zombo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Really ? You want us to draft a qb in the sixth round ?
This will be the sixth time in ten years that a Brady or Manning has won the SB ... superstar QBs don't grow on trees, if you've got a shot at one do you pass it up because your busy conducting an experiment on a third round guy? Zombo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Really ? You want us to draft a qb in the sixth round ?
Even if the Browns take RGIII, and I am not opposed to it, he will have to take the job, because I see no reason why McCoy would still not be here, why he still would not be the designated starting QB even if RGIII is here to challenge him.
And that is what it would be: a QB challenge. In fact, I look forward to that. Every team has to have 3 QBs on the roster, so if you have RGIII, McCoy, and Wallace on board, what is so bad about that?
As they say : BRING IT ON. May the best man win.
-
Zombo said:
So you don't really have anything specific you don't like about Griffin other than naming a bunch of guys that were busts. I guess this is the part where I name guys that weren't busts
Let's keep avoiding franchise quarterbacks ... that's been working well for us. Good plan of action.
Zombo
I don't like the fact most of his passes were to wide open receivers. I don't like the fact that he's 6'1 in heels. I don't like the fact that until this last season, he wasn't a "franchise QB" and nobody had even heard of him. I don't like the fact that he very rarely took snaps under center. I don't like the fact that he only played two defenses in the top 50, and that most of his wins came against teams ranked 100th or higher in defense. I don't like the fact that he's a Big 12 QB, where it seems like system QB's run rampant.
I don't like the fact that people are trying to find another Cam Newton in RG3, which isn't going to happen.
I don't want us to avoid taking a franchise QB, I just want us to stop making stupid draft picks. In three years, RG3 will be another one of those stupid draft picks.
-
Nope. Couldn't be more wrong. Very Rarely does a QB come into the league and tear it up in his first 22 starts.
The perfect example to compare Colt to is Drew Brees. It is perfect because they are both "undersized" and were/are in similar situations. Bad to average Oline, and no talent to throw to. The big difference was when Bree was given the starting job in year 2 he had LT in his second year as well. They also had very similar scouting reports coming out of college. Brees looked to be a huge bust in his first 2-3 years. His numbers in his first 2 years as a starter are almost identical to Colts through his first 2 years. Brees turned out rather well.
Not saying that Colt is the answer. What I am saying is changing from one young QB to another every other year isn't the answer. As it stands now we have no weapons on offense. We should fill those holes first to give whomever the QB is a chance to succeed. We should also go out and improve the line to give whomever the QB is a chance to survive. In the meantime though we should give Colt a full off season and with some actual talent around him to see if the offense can grow.
How many times do I have to say that comparing Colt to Drew Brees is extremely ignorant? His first two real years in the league were 2002-2003. This was the peak of the era of football where QB's needed time to develop because defense was stressed and offense was something not as important. Since Goddell and the gang has arrived The game of football has completely changed. Today's NFL is all about having an offensive, passing team that wins games and having a front four that can pressure the QB. Whether you think it's fair or not, the learning curve for QB's has risen due to these changes. Do you think it's a coincidence that all these franchise guys of the last 4 years started early and often? It's easy to see the pattern here: Ryan, Stafford, Flacco, Newton, Bradford (hurt about all this season), Dalton, Freeman and the like. They show from DAY 1 they can win or at least light it up on bad team to mediocre teams.
That's it, plain and simple. Holmgren obviously understands this and has made it clear that he's bringing in someone to compete with the guy. Does that scream like confidence from a guy who knows more about QB's than everyone on this board combined? So, stop comparing colt to Brees, Manning, Marino hell I even saw Bradshaw haha. The game then and the game now aren't the same and those who have their eyes open realize that. Just think if we had this same mentality with Quinn and Anderson. they both went to team with better talent and they sure shined didn't they?
How many times do I have to say that comparing Colt to Drew Brees is extremely ignorant? His first two real years in the league were 2002-2003. This was the peak of the era of football where QB's needed time to develop because defense was stressed and offense was something not as important. Since Goddell and the gang has arrived The game of football has completely changed. Today's NFL is all about having an offensive, passing team that wins games and having a front four that can pressure the QB. Whether you think it's fair or not, the learning curve for QB's has risen due to these changes. Do you think it's a coincidence that all these franchise guys of the last 4 years started early and often? It's easy to see the pattern here: Ryan, Stafford, Flacco, Newton, Bradford (hurt about all this season), Dalton, Freeman and the like. They show from DAY 1 they can win or at least light it up on bad team to mediocre teams.
That's it, plain and simple. Holmgren obviously understands this and has made it clear that he's bringing in someone to compete with the guy. Does that scream like confidence from a guy who knows more about QB's than everyone on this board combined? So, stop comparing colt to Brees, Manning, Marino hell I even saw Bradshaw haha. The game then and the game now aren't the same and those who have their eyes open realize that. Just think if we had this same mentality with Quinn and Anderson. they both went to team with better talent and they sure shined didn't they?
The Colt/Brees comparison was further then just a physical/statistical comparison. It was a comparison of situation. If you throw RGIII or even Luck into the same mess Colt has they would probably do shit. Like I said I don't know if Colt is the answer. I just know there are a ton of other holes on the offense that need to be addressed before another young QB can succeed so why not fix them first and lets see what Colt can do with them. Colt has shown both good and bad. NFL QB is the hardest position in pro sports to play. You have to atleast give him a shot to grow into the position ...changing QB every year or every other year is going to accomplish nothing. We just need to pick a direction and go.
-
How many times do I have to say that comparing Colt to Drew Brees is extremely ignorant? His first two real years in the league were 2002-2003. This was the peak of the era of football where QB's needed time to develop because defense was stressed and offense was something not as important. Since Goddell and the gang has arrived The game of football has completely changed. Today's NFL is all about having an offensive, passing team that wins games and having a front four that can pressure the QB. Whether you think it's fair or not, the learning curve for QB's has risen due to these changes. Do you think it's a coincidence that all these franchise guys of the last 4 years started early and often? It's easy to see the pattern here: Ryan, Stafford, Flacco, Newton, Bradford (hurt about all this season), Dalton, Freeman and the like. They show from DAY 1 they can win or at least light it up on bad team to mediocre teams.
That's it, plain and simple. Holmgren obviously understands this and has made it clear that he's bringing in someone to compete with the guy. Does that scream like confidence from a guy who knows more about QB's than everyone on this board combined? So, stop comparing colt to Brees, Manning, Marino hell I even saw Bradshaw haha. The game then and the game now aren't the same and those who have their eyes open realize that. Just think if we had this same mentality with Quinn and Anderson. they both went to team with better talent and they sure shined didn't they?
The Colt/Brees comparison was further then just a physical/statistical comparison. It was a comparison of situation. If you throw RGIII or even Luck into the same mess Colt has they would probably do shit. Like I said I don't know if Colt is the answer. I just know there are a ton of other holes on the offense that need to be addressed before another young QB can succeed so why not fix them first and lets see what Colt can do with them. Colt has shown both good and bad. NFL QB is the hardest position in pro sports to play. You have to atleast give him a shot to grow into the position ...changing QB every year or every other year is going to accomplish nothing. We just need to pick a direction and go.
The Colt/Brees comparison was further then just a physical/statistical comparison. It was a comparison of situation. If you throw RGIII or even Luck into the same mess Colt has they would probably do shit. Like I said I don't know if Colt is the answer. I just know there are a ton of other holes on the offense that need to be addressed before another young QB can succeed so why not fix them first and lets see what Colt can do with them. Colt has shown both good and bad. NFL QB is the hardest position in pro sports to play. You have to atleast give him a shot to grow into the position ...changing QB every year or every other year is going to accomplish nothing. We just need to pick a direction and go.
The thing you said that I take out is colt has shown both good and bad. That is just an unacceptable way of looking at the QB position today. You can have one good game and one bad game, you just can't. There has to be consistency of 5 or 6 great games to one bad one. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but I would strongly argue that QB is just as much a need on offense than any other position. The QB is the engine that makes the car go, even if you put fancy tires and a fresh paint job on the car if the engine is broke it isn't moving. Brees wasn't placed in a good situation in NO, Manning wasn't in Indy, Ryan in Atl Stafford in Detroit. They made the team around them better, that's just how it goes. I like Colt as a player, I really do. But it's obvious why he was a third round talent. When i see Colt, I see an Anderson, Quinn, Frye. They have some tools that can make them serviceable backups in the league but they just don't have what it takes to play as starters. He was a third round guy for a reason: all the things the scouts have said (the real ones, not the Kipers of the world) are evident.
-
The Colt/Brees comparison was further then just a physical/statistical comparison. It was a comparison of situation. If you throw RGIII or even Luck into the same mess Colt has they would probably do shit. Like I said I don't know if Colt is the answer. I just know there are a ton of other holes on the offense that need to be addressed before another young QB can succeed so why not fix them first and lets see what Colt can do with them. Colt has shown both good and bad. NFL QB is the hardest position in pro sports to play. You have to atleast give him a shot to grow into the position ...changing QB every year or every other year is going to accomplish nothing. We just need to pick a direction and go.
The thing you said that I take out is colt has shown both good and bad. That is just an unacceptable way of looking at the QB position today. You can have one good game and one bad game, you just can't. There has to be consistency of 5 or 6 great games to one bad one. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but I would strongly argue that QB is just as much a need on offense than any other position. The QB is the engine that makes the car go, even if you put fancy tires and a fresh paint job on the car if the engine is broke it isn't moving. Brees wasn't placed in a good situation in NO, Manning wasn't in Indy, Ryan in Atl Stafford in Detroit. They made the team around them better, that's just how it goes. I like Colt as a player, I really do. But it's obvious why he was a third round talent. When i see Colt, I see an Anderson, Quinn, Frye. They have some tools that can make them serviceable backups in the league but they just don't have what it takes to play as starters. He was a third round guy for a reason: all the things the scouts have said (the real ones, not the Kipers of the world) are evident.
The thing you said that I take out is colt has shown both good and bad. That is just an unacceptable way of looking at the QB position today. You can have one good game and one bad game, you just can't. There has to be consistency of 5 or 6 great games to one bad one. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but I would strongly argue that QB is just as much a need on offense than any other position. The QB is the engine that makes the car go, even if you put fancy tires and a fresh paint job on the car if the engine is broke it isn't moving. Brees wasn't placed in a good situation in NO, Manning wasn't in Indy, Ryan in Atl Stafford in Detroit. They made the team around them better, that's just how it goes. I like Colt as a player, I really do. But it's obvious why he was a third round talent. When i see Colt, I see an Anderson, Quinn, Frye. They have some tools that can make them serviceable backups in the league but they just don't have what it takes to play as starters. He was a third round guy for a reason: all the things the scouts have said (the real ones, not the Kipers of the world) are evident.
I agree that you need consistency. You can argue QB is the most important position in all of sports. The thing I am saying though is with most rookie/young QB's they aren't going to come in and be consistent. It takes time for most QB's to develop. I wouldn't be opposed to a new QB right now because I am not sold on Colt myself. I just wouldn't expect a rookie QB to come in and play well and improve the team if he inherits what Colt has to work with. I just think the surrounding components in the offense need a serious upgrade as well. With that being the case I would much rather see that stuff improve and see what Colt has to offer, If he fails, which is very possible, we bring in a rookie QB with weapons around him and every chance to succeed.
And you site Brees as being in a bad situation in NO when he got there ... its a huge difference for a QB going into his 6th year then a QB who has played 22 games. Brees already had a couple nice years under his belt. The game slowed down for him already, and he had 5 years experiance of reading defense. And he wasn't the only person brought into that offense that year. Colston and Bush were both rookies and had fine seasons. And obviously Sean Peyton was also brought a board. Brees in year 6 was a totally different animal the Colt after a year and a half
As far as Colt not being in a worse situation then Manning, Stafford, and Ryan ... That is just crazy talk. Ryan had a pro bowl RB and WR, Peyton had a HOF RB and pro bowl (potential HOF) WR, and Stafford had arguably the best WR in football to throw the ball to.
Colt literally has no play makers at all to help him out. I am not looking to make excuses for him because like I said I don't know what we have in him. I am just stating fact. We have crap around him. I would just like to see the Browns address everything else on offense before we address the QB. I wouldn't write Colt off as "he was a third round pick for a reason" A lot of good QB's weren't drafted in round 1.
-
Zombo said:
Alight ... now there's some good arguments.
I would say this:
I understand from multiple sources that he is 6'2. I would prefer taller, but it's not a deal-killer for a blue chip QB.
No one heard of Cam Newton before his senior season either. Lot's of QBs "come out of nowhere" to the average fan, actually he had a really good Junior year.
Snaps from under center ... is that so hard to learn?
Two defenses in the the Top 50 ... I understand your concern, but we can't go back and put him in the SEC. How did he do against those two defenses?
Big 12 "system" QBs ... Don't we have a "system"? ... Don't Oklahoma and Texas play in the Big 12? ...Does it really matter what conference you played in as opposed to how your skillset fits into the NFL?
You don't have to answer all these questions ... I'm just glad you gave me some decent reasons other than "I think he'll be a bust like these guys."
Zombo
Cam Newton was highly touted coming out of high school, and got screwed over by going to Florida and having to sit behind Tim Tebow. Then he screwed himself over by stealing shit and being a dumbass.
The biggest knocks on Tebow, McCoy, and most spread QB's are that they aren't used to taking snaps under center. One of the main reasons Bradford and these other "pro" style QB's are considered so NFL ready is because of their comfort under center coming out of college. It affects timing, as they're not used to 3 and 5 step drops.
Against #32 ranked TCU, RG3 went 21-27 for 359 yards and 5 TDs.
Against #11 ranked Texas RG3 went 15-22 for 320 yards, 2 TD's and 1 INT.
Oklahoma used to be considered one of the most pro-style offenses in the NCAA, but has moved slightly toward the shotgun as of late and Texas has always run mostly shotgun under Mack Brown. There were the same knocks on McCoy- that he couldn't take snaps under center, that he was a system QB. He's shown us firsthand that there is a definite growing pain for shotgun style QB's.
-
Bradford probably isn't the best example you can use for a pro style QB. Matt Ryan or Stafford would work better. Bradford was in the gun quite a bit. OU has played out of the gun for awhile. While they had AP they were more pro style but even as far back as Jason White OU has used a lot of the gun.
-
This is just funny!
So if someone gives 110% but still sucks donkey dick as a QB... many think we should still keep him? What kind of Cleveland logic is this?
The guy sucks...
I would love to be a top musician making millions... I gave it 20 years of hard work and traveled the USA playing in bands.....so if your logic is correct...
they should just say I wanted it bad enough and I gave it my all.... so just show me the money....
Do any of you colt lovers know anything about life... let alone football...?
Come on..... he just doesn't have franchise star ability!
Why shouldn't we want the best QB available.... instead of settling for someone who gave it 110% but SUCKS!!!!!
your musician analogy is Retarded
your musician analogy is Retarded
Ah come on.... I thought it was pretty good... Besides are you one of those that think even if the guy sucks so bad ...he at least hopes to be a good quarterback when he grows up...kinda of guy? If so... what an ass you are....Colt will never be good even if he really wants it... come on that is just so lame.... Its like saying Obama will be a good president because he really wants to be... same thing he sucks and so does Colt. Come on.... open your eyes people. Maybe re-watch some games where he throws at our receivers feet or over their heads... Any game will do.. well because...you guessed it HE SUCKS!!! Flynn me please!
-
The thing you said that I take out is colt has shown both good and bad. That is just an unacceptable way of looking at the QB position today. You can have one good game and one bad game, you just can't. There has to be consistency of 5 or 6 great games to one bad one. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but I would strongly argue that QB is just as much a need on offense than any other position. The QB is the engine that makes the car go, even if you put fancy tires and a fresh paint job on the car if the engine is broke it isn't moving. Brees wasn't placed in a good situation in NO, Manning wasn't in Indy, Ryan in Atl Stafford in Detroit. They made the team around them better, that's just how it goes. I like Colt as a player, I really do. But it's obvious why he was a third round talent. When i see Colt, I see an Anderson, Quinn, Frye. They have some tools that can make them serviceable backups in the league but they just don't have what it takes to play as starters. He was a third round guy for a reason: all the things the scouts have said (the real ones, not the Kipers of the world) are evident.
I agree that you need consistency. You can argue QB is the most important position in all of sports. The thing I am saying though is with most rookie/young QB's they aren't going to come in and be consistent. It takes time for most QB's to develop. I wouldn't be opposed to a new QB right now because I am not sold on Colt myself. I just wouldn't expect a rookie QB to come in and play well and improve the team if he inherits what Colt has to work with. I just think the surrounding components in the offense need a serious upgrade as well. With that being the case I would much rather see that stuff improve and see what Colt has to offer, If he fails, which is very possible, we bring in a rookie QB with weapons around him and every chance to succeed.
And you site Brees as being in a bad situation in NO when he got there ... its a huge difference for a QB going into his 6th year then a QB who has played 22 games. Brees already had a couple nice years under his belt. The game slowed down for him already, and he had 5 years experiance of reading defense. And he wasn't the only person brought into that offense that year. Colston and Bush were both rookies and had fine seasons. And obviously Sean Peyton was also brought a board. Brees in year 6 was a totally different animal the Colt after a year and a half
As far as Colt not being in a worse situation then Manning, Stafford, and Ryan ... That is just crazy talk. Ryan had a pro bowl RB and WR, Peyton had a HOF RB and pro bowl (potential HOF) WR, and Stafford had arguably the best WR in football to throw the ball to.
Colt literally has no play makers at all to help him out. I am not looking to make excuses for him because like I said I don't know what we have in him. I am just stating fact. We have crap around him. I would just like to see the Browns address everything else on offense before we address the QB. I wouldn't write Colt off as "he was a third round pick for a reason" A lot of good QB's weren't drafted in round 1.
if u look at the numbers doesn't colt show anyone any consistency with small improvement. he woulda thrown for 3k yards with 3 mediocrity games. with 17td. And 13 picks.I agree that you need consistency. You can argue QB is the most important position in all of sports. The thing I am saying though is with most rookie/young QB's they aren't going to come in and be consistent. It takes time for most QB's to develop. I wouldn't be opposed to a new QB right now because I am not sold on Colt myself. I just wouldn't expect a rookie QB to come in and play well and improve the team if he inherits what Colt has to work with. I just think the surrounding components in the offense need a serious upgrade as well. With that being the case I would much rather see that stuff improve and see what Colt has to offer, If he fails, which is very possible, we bring in a rookie QB with weapons around him and every chance to succeed.
And you site Brees as being in a bad situation in NO when he got there ... its a huge difference for a QB going into his 6th year then a QB who has played 22 games. Brees already had a couple nice years under his belt. The game slowed down for him already, and he had 5 years experiance of reading defense. And he wasn't the only person brought into that offense that year. Colston and Bush were both rookies and had fine seasons. And obviously Sean Peyton was also brought a board. Brees in year 6 was a totally different animal the Colt after a year and a half
As far as Colt not being in a worse situation then Manning, Stafford, and Ryan ... That is just crazy talk. Ryan had a pro bowl RB and WR, Peyton had a HOF RB and pro bowl (potential HOF) WR, and Stafford had arguably the best WR in football to throw the ball to.
Colt literally has no play makers at all to help him out. I am not looking to make excuses for him because like I said I don't know what we have in him. I am just stating fact. We have crap around him. I would just like to see the Browns address everything else on offense before we address the QB. I wouldn't write Colt off as "he was a third round pick for a reason" A lot of good QB's weren't drafted in round 1.
coulda easily beat cincy twice. and he played better against the division.
everyone sayin there not sold on him. its either u like him or u don't. there is not a big enough body of work to be sold on him. or vise verse.
now i like him but to me he's got to show me another consistent year with improvement. 3 yrs is about the norm in the nfl for dictating your next 5-7 (headcoaches wr rb and qb) all fall into this trend. The scary thing is that the browns and their fans have really gotten consistent of not even giving anyone a chance. learn how to win with the guy nobody thinks can do it before we get the guy everyone thinks can do it.
-
Zombo said:
So you don't really have anything specific you don't like about Griffin other than naming a bunch of guys that were busts. I guess this is the part where I name guys that weren't busts
Let's keep avoiding franchise quarterbacks ... that's been working well for us. Good plan of action.
Zombo
Drafting Tim Couch, Charlie Frye, and Brady Quinn sounds like we've been trying to find one and have failed. Brady was a 6th round pick and he's the best to ever play it in the NFL. Mediocre quarterbacks can win with talent around them and can even become great because of the talent around them.
-
your musician analogy is Retarded
Ah come on.... I thought it was pretty good... Besides are you one of those that think even if the guy sucks so bad ...he at least hopes to be a good quarterback when he grows up...kinda of guy? If so... what an ass you are....Colt will never be good even if he really wants it... come on that is just so lame.... Its like saying Obama will be a good president because he really wants to be... same thing he sucks and so does Colt. Come on.... open your eyes people. Maybe re-watch some games where he throws at our receivers feet or over their heads... Any game will do.. well because...you guessed it HE SUCKS!!! Flynn me please!
Ah come on.... I thought it was pretty good... Besides are you one of those that think even if the guy sucks so bad ...he at least hopes to be a good quarterback when he grows up...kinda of guy? If so... what an ass you are....Colt will never be good even if he really wants it... come on that is just so lame.... Its like saying Obama will be a good president because he really wants to be... same thing he sucks and so does Colt. Come on.... open your eyes people. Maybe re-watch some games where he throws at our receivers feet or over their heads... Any game will do.. well because...you guessed it HE SUCKS!!! Flynn me please!
It wasn't very good because you dont know the first thing about being a professional musician. Second, you don't know much about football either, so shh. Also, stop dogging Obama. You managed to knock our president, give a snap analysis of Colt and insult the integrity of musicians by using them in your analogy all in 2 posts.
-
Zombo said:
Charlie Frye was a third round nobody. Brady Quinn was Savage's folly: a reach that wasted not only that first round pick, but the first and second we traded to get him. One of the worst trades in NFL history for a QB that was dropping down the charts like he had a boulder strapped to his leg.
Couch is the only time we went out and drafted a franchise QB. He didn't work out, he go the shit beat out of him on that expansion team. Everybody else was a shot in the dark.
Meanwhile the Bungles drafted Palmer and Dalton, the Steelers drafted BGB and the Ravens drafted Flacco. Those teams were playing in January while we talking about giving the plucky third rounder some more weapons ... yay!
You want a sure-fire ticket to failure? Keep drafting your QBs in the late rounds hoping one of them is Tom Brady.
Zombo
Or you can be like the Bungles Z- let's take Dave Kingler spread qb (RGIII), or one year wonder fast riser Ah-kill-me Smith. (RGIII goes from nowhere to Irsay talking him up as a #1 overall) How how far did playing qb roulette set the Bengals back? Couple of years each time? BTW, the Bungles hit on second round picks Esiason and Dalton, so there. Griffin's had a couple of decent years, but also been injured twice, and he's not 250 pounds like Cam Newton- in fact no bigger than McCoy- just (slightly) more mobile with a better arm. Pro accuracy into covered receivers, and reading pro defenses yet to be determined. Jamarcus Russell & Duante Culpepper could throw the ball through a car wash, and have it come out dry on the other side, so pure physical attributes are over rated in my book.
Every time a team drafts a qb they hope they're drafting the next Manning or Brady- but it almost never works out. Gabbert and Ponder aren't doing any better than McCoy- with about an equal body of work- so should the Vikes take RGIII?
You me or anyone else can't say for certainty Tannehill won't be a better pro qb than RGIII.
-
Holmgren has built his reputation on QBs. He believes you build a team around a QB. He won't say Colt is the starter next year, but will name one soon after another QB is brought in. Hmmm.
If your going to bring in the Charlie Batch, Jordan Palmer, Luke McCown, Seneca Wallace types then why not call Colt the starter? Why wait til after you bring in a backup to call Colt the starter? Unless Holmgren is a stupid dick this isn't happening.
So then if you jump to bringing in starting level talent in FA your going to pay a lot of money. You don't spend that kind of money to 'compete' with a 3rd round project. Unless Holmgren is a stupid dick Colt won't start in that situation.
So then if you pick a top level prospect in the 1st or 2nd you get a guy that starts day one, unless Holmgren is a stupid dick.
The only other option is draft a raw rookie to compete with McCoy. So why not declare McCoy the starter since he 'should' be able to beat out raw talent just based off of system experience? Unless Holmgren is a stupid dick this isn't happening.
The ONLY way Colt starts next year is if and only if someone Holmgren is targeting is not there in the draft or signs elsewhere in FA. Colt is not his guy for the future. Every game he starts is a complete waste of time.
I have my fingers crossed that Homgren isn't a stupid dick.
-
Holmgren has built his reputation on QBs. He believes you build a team around a QB. He won't say Colt is the starter next year, but will name one soon after another QB is brought in. Hmmm.
If your going to bring in the Charlie Batch, Jordan Palmer, Luke McCown, Seneca Wallace types then why not call Colt the starter? Why wait til after you bring in a backup to call Colt the starter? Unless Holmgren is a stupid dick this isn't happening.
So then if you jump to bringing in starting level talent in FA your going to pay a lot of money. You don't spend that kind of money to 'compete' with a 3rd round project. Unless Holmgren is a stupid dick Colt won't start in that situation.
So then if you pick a top level prospect in the 1st or 2nd you get a guy that starts day one, unless Holmgren is a stupid dick.
The only other option is draft a raw rookie to compete with McCoy. So why not declare McCoy the starter since he 'should' be able to beat out raw talent just based off of system experience? Unless Holmgren is a stupid dick this isn't happening.
The ONLY way Colt starts next year is if and only if someone Holmgren is targeting is not there in the draft or signs elsewhere in FA. Colt is not his guy for the future. Every game he starts is a complete waste of time.
I have my fingers crossed that Homgren isn't a stupid dick.
Holmgren has built his reputation on QBs. He believes you build a team around a QB. He won't say Colt is the starter next year, but will name one soon after another QB is brought in. Hmmm.
see, this is a primary assumption for your entire post. and it has no basis in fact that i can see. the rest is just rambling...
-
Holmgren has built his reputation on QBs. He believes you build a team around a QB. He won't say Colt is the starter next year, but will name one soon after another QB is brought in. Hmmm.
see, this is a primary assumption for your entire post. and it has no basis in fact that i can see. the rest is just rambling...
see, this is a primary assumption for your entire post. and it has no basis in fact that i can see. the rest is just rambling...
((((((((((Holmgren backtracks on previous comments about not wanting a quarterback competition. "Sometimes circumstances dictate that," he said. "Last year the job was his. Competition will take place, but the decision I think probably will come earlier.")))))))))
The rest is logical deduction.
-
RGIII didn't come out of nowhere. College football fans like myself have known about him
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
But, there was plenty of talk earlier years, about Flacco, Eli being possible busts.
Bradshaw was railed about as being a bust.
It isn't the fault of the qb when the right side of the oline isn't getting the protection right,
and the wr's can't quickly get open and aren't burners to stretch the field.
How bad is it, that the closest thing to a stretch the field receiver, *before Little*, that the Browns had,
was Ben Watson? If Edwards had been a work ethic, smart, hard working football player who loved the game...
the Browns would have been in far better shape. If you keep this offense the same, and only add RGIII, he will be
sadly considered a bust too, and his stats will suck, and "his" record will suck.
So, fix the major weaknesses and get a qb next year. Or, draft RGIII, and fail to fill one the badly needed
weak spots on the offense... and defense.
Or, somehow come up with four first round freakin picks and I'd be happy to be in "Pick RGIII at #4".
Improving? at qb is hardly the same as fixing the offense's dire weaknesses. Fix, then improve, I think.
-
RGIII didn't come out of nowhere. College football fans like myself have known about him
RGIII didn't come out of nowhere. College football fans like myself have known about him
Oh, college football fans such as yourself, huh? We must all be so lucky to have a college football fan such as yourself in our midst.
I meant his draft stock wasn't nearly the same as it has become this year. Until this season, he was a mid-round project QB, even with the good numbers he was putting up.
-
But, there was plenty of talk earlier years, about Flacco, Eli being possible busts.
Bradshaw was railed about as being a bust.
It isn't the fault of the qb when the right side of the oline isn't getting the protection right,
and the wr's can't quickly get open and aren't burners to stretch the field.
How bad is it, that the closest thing to a stretch the field receiver, *before Little*, that the Browns had,
was Ben Watson? If Edwards had been a work ethic, smart, hard working football player who loved the game...
the Browns would have been in far better shape. If you keep this offense the same, and only add RGIII, he will be
sadly considered a bust too, and his stats will suck, and "his" record will suck.
So, fix the major weaknesses and get a qb next year. Or, draft RGIII, and fail to fill one the badly needed
weak spots on the offense... and defense.
Or, somehow come up with four first round freakin picks and I'd be happy to be in "Pick RGIII at #4".
Improving? at qb is hardly the same as fixing the offense's dire weaknesses. Fix, then improve, I think.
But, there was plenty of talk earlier years, about Flacco, Eli being possible busts.
Bradshaw was railed about as being a bust.
It isn't the fault of the qb when the right side of the oline isn't getting the protection right,
and the wr's can't quickly get open and aren't burners to stretch the field.
How bad is it, that the closest thing to a stretch the field receiver, *before Little*, that the Browns had,
was Ben Watson? If Edwards had been a work ethic, smart, hard working football player who loved the game...
the Browns would have been in far better shape. If you keep this offense the same, and only add RGIII, he will be
sadly considered a bust too, and his stats will suck, and "his" record will suck.
So, fix the major weaknesses and get a qb next year. Or, draft RGIII, and fail to fill one the badly needed
weak spots on the offense... and defense.
Or, somehow come up with four first round freakin picks and I'd be happy to be in "Pick RGIII at #4".
Improving? at qb is hardly the same as fixing the offense's dire weaknesses. Fix, then improve, I think.
Exactly.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login