Sideline Scouting Seven Round Mock
-
I think we have a team that has so many holes, that when you draft #4 overall and there are that many playmakers available, you have to take one that can come right in and make a difference. Doesn't matter if its Richardson, Blackmon or Claiborne. Any one of those 3 make the Browns better in 2012. Tannehill might be the next Dan Marino, but if he's sitting on his ass on the bench, what good is he?
I think we have a team that has so many holes, that when you draft #4 overall and there are that many playmakers available, you have to take one that can come right in and make a difference. Doesn't matter if its Richardson, Blackmon or Claiborne. Any one of those 3 make the Browns better in 2012. Tannehill might be the next Dan Marino, but if he's sitting on his ass on the bench, what good is he?
Good response. IMO, he'd only sit on the bench for a season, so it's good for the next decade after that. It's a move for the future. And the Browns aren't really in the position to compete next year no matter how you look at it. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the situation. but I can understand why a fan base would want a playmaker who can come in and have a difference. Can't be fun watching the current offense that the front office has been trotting out there.
-
Close mindedness like this on prospects and strategies is why I can't debate with you. Teams don't even listen to media hype, they have their own scouting reports and people that they look to for personnel decisions. The fact that ESPN is hyping up Tannehill has nothing to do with the Browns' possible interest in him. Tannehill is a better prospect than you're giving him credit for. I'm not a Cousins fan, he'll probably go second round, but he's not starting material. I'm on record as saying that if I were the GM, I would take Richardson. He's the BPA, which is the strategy I like to go by. However, it's not unfathomable that the Browns would take Tannehill. It's a mock draft, we try to have fun with it. The selection of Tannehill isn't as crazy as you make it sound. I wouldn't do it, but I can see it happening, so we went with it.
It's not going to happen, I'm not close minded, I just know the Browns better than you and absolutely know they will not take Tannehill at four.
If you are going to come to our board and post a mock at least put some thought into it from the Browns point of view, the Browns would not spend the fourth pick in the draft on such a questionable prospect. It's just not going to happen.
Your mock is a lazy man's mock, no attempt to scout the guys making the picks and not just the picks.
BTW, just for shits and giggles, I copied Harry Buffalo's response verbatim and you never noticed, you responded to both of them with totally different tones.
You're weak, lazy and you bore me ... other than that your mock sucked.
Z
Zombo said:
It's not going to happen, I'm not close minded, I just know the Browns better than you and absolutely know they will not take Tannehill at four.
If you are going to come to our board and post a mock at least put some thought into it from the Browns point of view, the Browns would not spend the fourth pick in the draft on such a questionable prospect. It's just not going to happen.
Your mock is a lazy man's mock, no attempt to scout the guys making the picks and not just the picks.
BTW, just for shits and giggles, I copied Harry Buffalo's response verbatim and you never noticed, you responded to both of them with totally different tones.
You're weak, lazy and you bore me ... other than that your mock sucked.
Z
Zing!
-
A year is one year too long. There are always QB's to pick. RGIII wasn't on the radar before the season started and now he's the #2 pick in the draft. I'd rather run Colt out there another year with Richardson or Blackmon to help, or just build a fantastic defense with Claiborne and worry about offense later. But I don't pick a guy at #4 who can't help this year. Mid to late 1st round for a project and I wouldn't be as opposed to it, just not at #4.
-
Zombo said:
It's not going to happen, I'm not close minded, I just know the Browns better than you and absolutely know they will not take Tannehill at four.
If you are going to come to our board and post a mock at least put some thought into it from the Browns point of view, the Browns would not spend the fourth pick in the draft on such a questionable prospect. It's just not going to happen.
Your mock is a lazy man's mock, no attempt to scout the guys making the picks and not just the picks.
BTW, just for shits and giggles, I copied Harry Buffalo's response verbatim and you never noticed, you responded to both of them with totally different tones.
You're weak, lazy and you bore me ... other than that your mock sucked.
Z
Zing!
Zing!
Not really a zing. I don't take it personally. I do this for a living. All fans have their opinions.
-
Zombo said:
It's not going to happen, I'm not close minded, I just know the Browns better than you and absolutely know they will not take Tannehill at four.
If you are going to come to our board and post a mock at least put some thought into it from the Browns point of view, the Browns would not spend the fourth pick in the draft on such a questionable prospect. It's just not going to happen.
Your mock is a lazy man's mock, no attempt to scout the guys making the picks and not just the picks.
BTW, just for shits and giggles, I copied Harry Buffalo's response verbatim and you never noticed, you responded to both of them with totally different tones.
You're weak, lazy and you bore me ... other than that your mock sucked.
Z
I did notice. I just responded to them both because you're two different people. Responded to you on the part that you copied. Responded to him on the whole post.
No attempt to scout the prospects? I watch games all year, I attend post-season all-star games, speak with agents and scouts. Not sure what you're getting at. You do more than that?
I did notice. I just responded to them both because you're two different people. Responded to you on the part that you copied. Responded to him on the whole post.
No attempt to scout the prospects? I watch games all year, I attend post-season all-star games, speak with agents and scouts. Not sure what you're getting at. You do more than that?
I said no attempt to scout the guys making the picks, I.e. Heckert & Holmgren ... no way do they spend 4 overall on such a questionable prospect. They either get a surefire Top 5 quality starter or they trade out of there ... they would never take Tannehill at 4 ... Heckert likes to bring in guys that start right away and Holmgren isn't going to spend that high of a pick on a QB project ... he just isn't.
Z
-
A year is one year too long. There are always QB's to pick. RGIII wasn't on the radar before the season started and now he's the #2 pick in the draft. I'd rather run Colt out there another year with Richardson or Blackmon to help, or just build a fantastic defense with Claiborne and worry about offense later. But I don't pick a guy at #4 who can't help this year. Mid to late 1st round for a project and I wouldn't be as opposed to it, just not at #4.
A year is one year too long. There are always QB's to pick. RGIII wasn't on the radar before the season started and now he's the #2 pick in the draft. I'd rather run Colt out there another year with Richardson or Blackmon to help, or just build a fantastic defense with Claiborne and worry about offense later. But I don't pick a guy at #4 who can't help this year. Mid to late 1st round for a project and I wouldn't be as opposed to it, just not at #4.
That's not really true. RG3 was a top 5 pick back in October... and was a "future first round pick" two years ago before his bad injury. It's really hard to find quarterbacks. There's really only 10-12 QBs in the world that make teams feel comfortable going into the playoffs. If you think you found a guy who can enter that top grouping, then you make the move to get him.
But I understand not wanting to see your #4 pick on the bench in year one. I think it's a more probable scenario than some people on this board are willing to recognize. But it makes sense why you'd rather take Richardson.
-
I'd rather take anyone at 4 other than Tannehill. Blackmon would be fine and so would Claiborne. I don't want a project with a top 5 draft pick.
I'd rather take anyone at 4 other than Tannehill. Blackmon would be fine and so would Claiborne. I don't want a project with a top 5 draft pick.
The thing with Tannehill is that he's not a "project" in the same way that a guy like John Skelton is/was a project. He's raw, but not as raw as most think he is. People harp on the "converted WR" thing too much. He was a quarterback in high school and a quarterback to start his career at Texas A&M. He converted to WR for one season because Jerrod Johnson was doing so well and it didn't look like Tannehill was going to get playing time. Johnson tore a bicep and Tannehill started and never gave up the job.
He has all of the tools and should be a good NFL quarterback. But he's just not a guy I'd want to start in year one. Give him a year to learn the offense, get acclimated with the speed of the NFL. I felt the same way about Blaine Gabbert last year. Give that guy a year on the bench to learn and he can be great. But if you throw him to the wolves, you run the risk of ruining him because he doesn't develop any confidence.
This is what I just said on Twitter and I wanted to bring it here: The longer I do this, the more I start to understand why teams reach for QBs. If you think a guy can be your franchise guy, you take him. Quarterbacks affect the win column infinitely more than any other position. If you think a guy can do it, reach for him and coach him. But on the other hand, you have to believe said player can be THAT guy. Don't take a QB just to take a QB.
I understand your position on the matter. But just wanted to clarify about my opinion on Tannehill being a "project". There's a lot of project quarterbacks out there. Tannehill isn't like them, he's just a guy you wouldn't want to throw to the wolves in year one.
-
The big question is simply this:
Can the Browns afford to give up an immediate, dynamic impact player in the first few draft picks, because
they drafted a qb that may/could be an elite, starting qb in a few years?
I don't think so.
But I defer to the Browns coaches and FO.
-
On further review- Tannehill @ #4 IMHO would be the biggest reach in the history of the first round. Much moreso than Gabbert or Ponder last year. Most Browns fans aren't buying into the ESPN hype machine. Six weeks ago the kid was low first round talent - at best- now fourth overall with Richardson, Claiborne, or Blackmon on the board? Please!!!
Suck it up this year with McCoy, get him some weapons, and if he flops, go for the franchise qb in 2013.
On further review- Tannehill @ #4 IMHO would be the biggest reach in the history of the first round. Much moreso than Gabbert or Ponder last year. Most Browns fans aren't buying into the ESPN hype machine. Six weeks ago the kid was low first round talent - at best- now fourth overall with Richardson, Claiborne, or Blackmon on the board? Please!!!
Suck it up this year with McCoy, get him some weapons, and if he flops, go for the franchise qb in 2013.
Agreed. I don't get the "desperation" attitude toward QBs in this year's draft. I agree we should take one somewhere, & I'll defer to Heckert on who & when, but Tannehill IS a project & that's not 4th pick material. I don't give a damn WHAT his upside is....Leak, Marinovich, Akili Smith & others all had GREAT upside, but the "down" got 'em. I see 3 slam dunks available, at least 2 of whom will be available to us at #4...Trich, kahlil, & Claiborne. We have so many holes to fill that we CANNOT afford a question mark at 4.....PERIOD!! That pick, barring unforeseen serious injury, MUST produce immediately.
Mike
-
Minnifield will be around on the last day of the draft - his pro day was horrible, 40 was in the mid-4.6 range and he didn't finish the rest of the workout. Maybe the knee surgery held him back, but I hope Cleveland picks him up with our first pick in round 5 - he won't go before then.
Throw out all those drafts from a month ago that had Cleveland picking him up in rd 3.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
Minnifield will be around on the last day of the draft - his pro day was horrible, 40 was in the mid-4.6 range and he didn't finish the rest of the workout. Maybe the knee surgery held him back, but I hope Cleveland picks him up with our first pick in round 5 - he won't go before then.
Throw out all those drafts from a month ago that had Cleveland picking him up in rd 3.
Minnifield will be around on the last day of the draft - his pro day was horrible, 40 was in the mid-4.6 range and he didn't finish the rest of the workout. Maybe the knee surgery held him back, but I hope Cleveland picks him up with our first pick in round 5 - he won't go before then.
Throw out all those drafts from a month ago that had Cleveland picking him up in rd 3.
What about the ones that had them picking him up with the #22 overall pick?
-
Minnifield will be around on the last day of the draft - his pro day was horrible, 40 was in the mid-4.6 range and he didn't finish the rest of the workout. Maybe the knee surgery held him back, but I hope Cleveland picks him up with our first pick in round 5 - he won't go before then.
Throw out all those drafts from a month ago that had Cleveland picking him up in rd 3.
Minnifield will be around on the last day of the draft - his pro day was horrible, 40 was in the mid-4.6 range and he didn't finish the rest of the workout. Maybe the knee surgery held him back, but I hope Cleveland picks him up with our first pick in round 5 - he won't go before then.
Throw out all those drafts from a month ago that had Cleveland picking him up in rd 3.
He fell to the 3rd round after his combine/pro day. He isn't going to make it into round 4 let alone 5.
-
I'd rather take anyone at 4 other than Tannehill. Blackmon would be fine and so would Claiborne. I don't want a project with a top 5 draft pick.
The thing with Tannehill is that he's not a "project" in the same way that a guy like John Skelton is/was a project. He's raw, but not as raw as most think he is. People harp on the "converted WR" thing too much. He was a quarterback in high school and a quarterback to start his career at Texas A&M. He converted to WR for one season because Jerrod Johnson was doing so well and it didn't look like Tannehill was going to get playing time. Johnson tore a bicep and Tannehill started and never gave up the job.
He has all of the tools and should be a good NFL quarterback. But he's just not a guy I'd want to start in year one. Give him a year to learn the offense, get acclimated with the speed of the NFL. I felt the same way about Blaine Gabbert last year. Give that guy a year on the bench to learn and he can be great. But if you throw him to the wolves, you run the risk of ruining him because he doesn't develop any confidence.
This is what I just said on Twitter and I wanted to bring it here: The longer I do this, the more I start to understand why teams reach for QBs. If you think a guy can be your franchise guy, you take him. Quarterbacks affect the win column infinitely more than any other position. If you think a guy can do it, reach for him and coach him. But on the other hand, you have to believe said player can be THAT guy. Don't take a QB just to take a QB.
I understand your position on the matter. But just wanted to clarify about my opinion on Tannehill being a "project". There's a lot of project quarterbacks out there. Tannehill isn't like them, he's just a guy you wouldn't want to throw to the wolves in year one.
If you think a guy can be your franchise guy, you take him. Quarterbacks affect the win column infinitely more than any other position. If you think a guy can do it, reach for him and coach him. But on the other hand, you have to believe said player can be THAT guy. Don't take a QB just to take a QB.
I understand your position on the matter. But just wanted to clarify about my opinion on Tannehill being a "project". There's a lot of project quarterbacks out there. Tannehill isn't like them, he's just a guy you wouldn't want to throw to the wolves in year one.
Sorry- you don't draft a qb @ #4 overall to sit him for a year, doesn't happen anymore. Especially since in the Browns case guys like Richardson or Claiborne would be starters from the first day of training camp. This isn't Green Bay where Rodgers had the luxury of sitting behind Bret Favre for years. Tannehill is far, far from a sure-fire can't miss prospect. FWIW, Browns fans are damn tired of seeing high picks bust or underachieve.
Speaking of Rodgers, should Tannehill do a similar free fall down the board taking him @ #22 is another story. Though I'd still rather go franchise qb shopping in 2013, should McCoy flop this year.
-
If you think a guy can be your franchise guy, you take him. Quarterbacks affect the win column infinitely more than any other position. If you think a guy can do it, reach for him and coach him. But on the other hand, you have to believe said player can be THAT guy. Don't take a QB just to take a QB.
I understand your position on the matter. But just wanted to clarify about my opinion on Tannehill being a "project". There's a lot of project quarterbacks out there. Tannehill isn't like them, he's just a guy you wouldn't want to throw to the wolves in year one.
Sorry- you don't draft a qb @ #4 overall to sit him for a year, doesn't happen anymore. Especially since in the Browns case guys like Richardson or Claiborne would be starters from the first day of training camp. This isn't Green Bay where Rodgers had the luxury of sitting behind Bret Favre for years. Tannehill is far, far from a sure-fire can't miss prospect. FWIW, Browns fans are damn tired of seeing high picks bust or underachieve.
Speaking of Rodgers, should Tannehill do a similar free fall down the board taking him @ #22 is another story. Though I'd still rather go franchise qb shopping in 2013, should McCoy flop this year.
Sorry- you don't draft a qb @ #4 overall to sit him for a year, doesn't happen anymore. Especially since in the Browns case guys like Richardson or Claiborne would be starters from the first day of training camp. This isn't Green Bay where Rodgers had the luxury of sitting behind Bret Favre for years. Tannehill is far, far from a sure-fire can't miss prospect. FWIW, Browns fans are damn tired of seeing high picks bust or underachieve.
Speaking of Rodgers, should Tannehill do a similar free fall down the board taking him @ #22 is another story. Though I'd still rather go franchise qb shopping in 2013, should McCoy flop this year.
You have the same feeling as myself, sure H&H will pick a QB this year but I dont see it before the 3rd round at the earliest and if you look at some of the possible QB's that will be in next years Draft there are some big sized QB's likely to be declaring for the Draft in 2013 so going all out for the best available then might be the best way for the Browns to go, If again like everyone thinks McCoy doesnt come through.
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