Official Browns QB Prospect Discussion!
-
I don't remember ever hearing Faulk was that good. I heard he was a damn good guy to take a late round flier on, but in no way a plug and play guy. And he played tackle in college so now he has to learn a whole new position. If we don't draft a guy in the second or third, or go hard after the top free agent I'd be shocked. Luavou is a plodder who stands his ground in pass pro but has no ability to pull for any kind of outside run. Greco may be the best of the bunch at that and he's not very good. Luavou also sucks at getting to the second level on interior runs when asked to. Pinkston is inconsistent but I do think he's got starting guard ability. Greco is valuable because we can move him around.
-
Luavou is as good as gone, he's a UFA and if we re-sign him we'd be dumb. As far as Faulk, he was a great UDFA pick-up IF he can get/stay healthy. I wouldn't count on him starting at RT next year. I think I'm one of the only people who don't see the line as a major problem. We need a better run game, but I think getting a legit FB and legit RB can change that. Look at the guys who have been carrying the ball all year... garbage... We could get another G, but I'm not thinking it's top 5 in needs. 1-QB, 2-WR, 3-RB, 4-ILB, 5-CB, 6-FS, then maybe a G, FB, or another LB
-
Luavou is as good as gone, he's a UFA and if we re-sign him we'd be dumb. As far as Faulk, he was a great UDFA pick-up IF he can get/stay healthy. I wouldn't count on him starting at RT next year. I think I'm one of the only people who don't see the line as a major problem. We need a better run game, but I think getting a legit FB and legit RB can change that. Look at the guys who have been carrying the ball all year... garbage... We could get another G, but I'm not thinking it's top 5 in needs. 1-QB, 2-WR, 3-RB, 4-ILB, 5-CB, 6-FS, then maybe a G, FB, or another LB
I don't think a FB is in their plans. There were plenty of options they wanted no part of. My guess is they're happy with dual RB's, an HBack type and bringin in Billy Winn in goal line situations. A guard will be added this year.Luavou is as good as gone, he's a UFA and if we re-sign him we'd be dumb. As far as Faulk, he was a great UDFA pick-up IF he can get/stay healthy. I wouldn't count on him starting at RT next year. I think I'm one of the only people who don't see the line as a major problem. We need a better run game, but I think getting a legit FB and legit RB can change that. Look at the guys who have been carrying the ball all year... garbage... We could get another G, but I'm not thinking it's top 5 in needs. 1-QB, 2-WR, 3-RB, 4-ILB, 5-CB, 6-FS, then maybe a G, FB, or another LB
-
I don't think a FB is in their plans. There were plenty of options they wanted no part of. My guess is they're happy with dual RB's, an HBack type and bringin in Billy Winn in goal line situations. A guard will be added this year.Luavou is as good as gone, he's a UFA and if we re-sign him we'd be dumb. As far as Faulk, he was a great UDFA pick-up IF he can get/stay healthy. I wouldn't count on him starting at RT next year. I think I'm one of the only people who don't see the line as a major problem. We need a better run game, but I think getting a legit FB and legit RB can change that. Look at the guys who have been carrying the ball all year... garbage... We could get another G, but I'm not thinking it's top 5 in needs. 1-QB, 2-WR, 3-RB, 4-ILB, 5-CB, 6-FS, then maybe a G, FB, or another LB
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I don't think a FB is in their plans. There were plenty of options they wanted no part of. My guess is they're happy with dual RB's, an HBack type and bringin in Billy Winn in goal line situations. A guard will be added this year.
I hear ya. I just wish these guys could recognize the benefit of having a good FB on the roster. Unless you have a QB like Brady or Manning, It really helps to have a good FB on your team, or at least a FB/TE hybrid, or even a FB/RB hybrid (sorry, Barnidge and/or Ogby just don't cut it). I've seen too many 3rd & 2's stopped b/c we couldn't keep it on the ground, or hit that guy wide open out of the backfield. We saw it a couple times with Ogby in the redzone, and the 1 TD to Barnidge against NE, but look at BAL, CAR, CHI, GB, KC, MIA, PIT, SF, and SEA. All good teams, and all use a FB, or at least a hybrid guy, in a variety of ways but especially in short yardage. Those teams don't get stopped on 3rd & 2 very often, and many of them will be in the playoffs b/c of it....
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I don't think a FB is in their plans. There were plenty of options they wanted no part of. My guess is they're happy with dual RB's, an HBack type and bringin in Billy Winn in goal line situations. A guard will be added this year.
I hear ya. I just wish these guys could recognize the benefit of having a good FB on the roster. Unless you have a QB like Brady or Manning, It really helps to have a good FB on your team, or at least a FB/TE hybrid, or even a FB/RB hybrid (sorry, Barnidge and/or Ogby just don't cut it). I've seen too many 3rd & 2's stopped b/c we couldn't keep it on the ground, or hit that guy wide open out of the backfield. We saw it a couple times with Ogby in the redzone, and the 1 TD to Barnidge against NE, but look at BAL, CAR, CHI, GB, KC, MIA, PIT, SF, and SEA. All good teams, and all use a FB, or at least a hybrid guy, in a variety of ways but especially in short yardage. Those teams don't get stopped on 3rd & 2 very often, and many of them will be in the playoffs b/c of it....
true story.I hear ya. I just wish these guys could recognize the benefit of having a good FB on the roster. Unless you have a QB like Brady or Manning, It really helps to have a good FB on your team, or at least a FB/TE hybrid, or even a FB/RB hybrid (sorry, Barnidge and/or Ogby just don't cut it). I've seen too many 3rd & 2's stopped b/c we couldn't keep it on the ground, or hit that guy wide open out of the backfield. We saw it a couple times with Ogby in the redzone, and the 1 TD to Barnidge against NE, but look at BAL, CAR, CHI, GB, KC, MIA, PIT, SF, and SEA. All good teams, and all use a FB, or at least a hybrid guy, in a variety of ways but especially in short yardage. Those teams don't get stopped on 3rd & 2 very often, and many of them will be in the playoffs b/c of it....
-
I don't remember ever hearing Faulk was that good. I heard he was a damn good guy to take a late round flier on, but in no way a plug and play guy. And he played tackle in college so now he has to learn a whole new position. If we don't draft a guy in the second or third, or go hard after the top free agent I'd be shocked. Luavou is a plodder who stands his ground in pass pro but has no ability to pull for any kind of outside run. Greco may be the best of the bunch at that and he's not very good. Luavou also sucks at getting to the second level on interior runs when asked to. Pinkston is inconsistent but I do think he's got starting guard ability. Greco is valuable because we can move him around.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I don't remember ever hearing Faulk was that good. I heard he was a damn good guy to take a late round flier on, but in no way a plug and play guy. And he played tackle in college so now he has to learn a whole new position. If we don't draft a guy in the second or third, or go hard after the top free agent I'd be shocked. Luavou is a plodder who stands his ground in pass pro but has no ability to pull for any kind of outside run. Greco may be the best of the bunch at that and he's not very good. Luavou also sucks at getting to the second level on interior runs when asked to. Pinkston is inconsistent but I do think he's got starting guard ability. Greco is valuable because we can move him around.
Just do a little googling...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1664212/chris-faulk
Overshadowed by all of the talent on the defensive line coming out of LSU in recent years was the development of Faulk as one of the best-looking pro prospects on the offensive line in the entire country.
The baby-faced Faulk might not look the part of today's NFL left tackle, but he played the part well in 2011 - his first full season as a starter after earning the nod at right tackle in LSU's final two regular-season games as a redshirt freshman.
However, Faulk's ascension was curtailed by a season-ending torn ACL suffered in practice following the 2012 season opener. He then surprised many by opting to enter the 2013 NFL Draft.
Despite his less-than-ideal frame, Faulk has demonstrated surprising agility and the length necessary to perform well in the SEC, earning second-team all-conference honors in his first season at left tackle. His play, in fact, was so impressive that he ranked No. 24 on Rob Rang's Big Board entering the 2012 season.
http://walterfootball.com/draft2013OT.php
Faulk had an excellent sophomore season at left tackle for LSU. He was a good pass-blocker and a road grader of a run-blocker. Faulk has a lot of athletic ability and the potential to be a special player. He had some issues in pass protection in the National Championship Game against Alabama. His first performance of the year against the Crimson Tide was much better.
Kiper said Faulk and senior tackle Alex Hurst both began the season projected to be “early-round” picks, but neither finished the season.
Right now [aug 2012] Faulk brings a lot to the table and is the #1 OT in the 2013 class. With his great size and athleticism he has everything teams look for in a tackle. The run blocking concerns are with merit, but over time and with proper coaching, they can be worked out and Faulk could become one of the top LT’s in the NFL. Some questions will be raised if he’s going to stay at LT, but they are truly ludicrous as he’s purely a LT and will be one in the NFL. I have a top 15 grade on Faulk and the only other tackle I have rated as high as him is DJ Fluker of Alabama, but right now I give the edge to Faulk in terms of technique and overall ability. http://www.thefootballstandard.com/scouting/scouting-report-chris-faulk/
-
Thanks, Chris. I just remember when the Browns signed Faulk a lot of people said it could really pay off down the line because going into 2012 he was seen as a probable first round pick.
Just recently, I read that the Browns like Faulk very much and see him as a right tackle candidate, not a guard (especially at 6'6"). He's played a lot of left tackle and is seen as a better pass protector than run blocker, which has become the prescription at right tackle these days (with all the pass rushers).
I'm not saying we won't bring in more competition on the OL. My point is that with Thomas, Greco, Mack, Pinkston, Schwartz, and Faulk, we'll hardly be starting over. We won't likely draft anybody high but I could see a young ascending veteran AND an early 4th round draft pick added to the mix.
Again, lines tend to struggle when they block for bad quarterbacks and a stable of UDFA running backs. That said, I've seen holes for Obie AND Baker now. We just don't run the ball very much and we could certainly get better at running back. Bringing in Carlos Hyde and getting Dion back would be a great start.
-
Thanks, Chris. I just remember when the Browns signed Faulk a lot of people said it could really pay off down the line because going into 2012 he was seen as a probable first round pick.
Just recently, I read that the Browns like Faulk very much and see him as a right tackle candidate, not a guard (especially at 6'6"). He's played a lot of left tackle and is seen as a better pass protector than run blocker, which has become the prescription at right tackle these days (with all the pass rushers).
I'm not saying we won't bring in more competition on the OL. My point is that with Thomas, Greco, Mack, Pinkston, Schwartz, and Faulk, we'll hardly be starting over. We won't likely draft anybody high but I could see a young ascending veteran AND an early 4th round draft pick added to the mix.
Again, lines tend to struggle when they block for bad quarterbacks and a stable of UDFA running backs. That said, I've seen holes for Obie AND Baker now. We just don't run the ball very much and we could certainly get better at running back. Bringing in Carlos Hyde and getting Dion back would be a great start.
Thanks, Chris. I just remember when the Browns signed Faulk a lot of people said it could really pay off down the line because going into 2012 he was seen as a probable first round pick.
Just recently, I read that the Browns like Faulk very much and see him as a right tackle candidate, not a guard (especially at 6'6"). He's played a lot of left tackle and is seen as a better pass protector than run blocker, which has become the prescription at right tackle these days (with all the pass rushers).
I'm not saying we won't bring in more competition on the OL. My point is that with Thomas, Greco, Mack, Pinkston, Schwartz, and Faulk, we'll hardly be starting over. We won't likely draft anybody high but I could see a young ascending veteran AND an early 4th round draft pick added to the mix.
Again, lines tend to struggle when they block for bad quarterbacks and a stable of UDFA running backs. That said, I've seen holes for Obie AND Baker now. We just don't run the ball very much and we could certainly get better at running back. Bringing in Carlos Hyde and getting Dion back would be a great start.
man you never give up. it's always the QBs fault or the RBs fault. never the OLs.
you are stuck on montana mode and need to be rebooted. meanwhile when montana was great he always had the best lines in front of him (at least in san fran). those battles between the gints and 9ers were based in the trenches man.
doesn't anyone get it?
sure we have some great talent on our lines but our Rside OL sucks cock and not being able to compress the opposing offensives pocket from our DL comes from playing this fucking horton scheme.
-
Thanks, Chris. I just remember when the Browns signed Faulk a lot of people said it could really pay off down the line because going into 2012 he was seen as a probable first round pick.
Just recently, I read that the Browns like Faulk very much and see him as a right tackle candidate, not a guard (especially at 6'6"). He's played a lot of left tackle and is seen as a better pass protector than run blocker, which has become the prescription at right tackle these days (with all the pass rushers).
I'm not saying we won't bring in more competition on the OL. My point is that with Thomas, Greco, Mack, Pinkston, Schwartz, and Faulk, we'll hardly be starting over. We won't likely draft anybody high but I could see a young ascending veteran AND an early 4th round draft pick added to the mix.
Again, lines tend to struggle when they block for bad quarterbacks and a stable of UDFA running backs. That said, I've seen holes for Obie AND Baker now. We just don't run the ball very much and we could certainly get better at running back. Bringing in Carlos Hyde and getting Dion back would be a great start.
man you never give up. it's always the QBs fault or the RBs fault. never the OLs.
you are stuck on montana mode and need to be rebooted. meanwhile when montana was great he always had the best lines in front of him (at least in san fran). those battles between the gints and 9ers were based in the trenches man.
doesn't anyone get it?
sure we have some great talent on our lines but our Rside OL sucks cock and not being able to compress the opposing offensives pocket from our DL comes from playing this fucking horton scheme.
man you never give up. it's always the QBs fault or the RBs fault. never the OLs.
you are stuck on montana mode and need to be rebooted. meanwhile when montana was great he always had the best lines in front of him (at least in san fran). those battles between the gints and 9ers were based in the trenches man.
doesn't anyone get it?
sure we have some great talent on our lines but our Rside OL sucks cock and not being able to compress the opposing offensives pocket from our DL comes from playing this fucking horton scheme.
It's a good point, but you do realize that the Broncos have a patchwork offensive line and they are still ranked as the best line in football right now?
It's not always the talent of the players. It's also the calls of the coordinator and the play of those around them.
I, personally, think both of our guards should be replaced and Schwartz should move inside. We can start Faulk at RT and get a FA guard since this draft isn't as deep at interior line.
-
man you never give up. it's always the QBs fault or the RBs fault. never the OLs.
you are stuck on montana mode and need to be rebooted. meanwhile when montana was great he always had the best lines in front of him (at least in san fran). those battles between the gints and 9ers were based in the trenches man.
doesn't anyone get it?
sure we have some great talent on our lines but our Rside OL sucks cock and not being able to compress the opposing offensives pocket from our DL comes from playing this fucking horton scheme.
It's a good point, but you do realize that the Broncos have a patchwork offensive line and they are still ranked as the best line in football right now?
It's not always the talent of the players. It's also the calls of the coordinator and the play of those around them.
I, personally, think both of our guards should be replaced and Schwartz should move inside. We can start Faulk at RT and get a FA guard since this draft isn't as deep at interior line.
It's a good point, but you do realize that the Broncos have a patchwork offensive line and they are still ranked as the best line in football right now?
It's not always the talent of the players. It's also the calls of the coordinator and the play of those around them.
I, personally, think both of our guards should be replaced and Schwartz should move inside. We can start Faulk at RT and get a FA guard since this draft isn't as deep at interior line.
i agree.
but to your first point all that shows me is that denver had good OL depth, whereas we maybe since the 80's never had.
-
It's a good point, but you do realize that the Broncos have a patchwork offensive line and they are still ranked as the best line in football right now?
It's not always the talent of the players. It's also the calls of the coordinator and the play of those around them.
I, personally, think both of our guards should be replaced and Schwartz should move inside. We can start Faulk at RT and get a FA guard since this draft isn't as deep at interior line.
i agree.
but to your first point all that shows me is that denver had good OL depth, whereas we maybe since the 80's never had.
i agree.
but to your first point all that shows me is that denver had good OL depth, whereas we maybe since the 80's never had.
The guy filling in for Clady is a UDFA who had only played in 226 plays previously.
The guy filling in for Koppen was a 4th round pick.
They have two second round picks and a 3rd round pick filling our the rest of the line.
They're not exactly filled with top talent along the line. They're just jelling.
-
And it also helps to have a QB who gets rid of the ball quickly and can read a defense.
Remember how crappy the OL looked the first 2 weeks with dipshit playing QB. They suddenly got a whole lot better with Hoyer playing because he wasn't staring down receivers and getting rid of the ball quickly.
-
Get out of here with these, well we have Chris Faulk comments lmao. Faulk, Pinkston and Gilkey are all long shots to be average NFL guards let alone real difference makers in the run game.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
Get out of here with these, well we have Chris Faulk comments lmao. Faulk, Pinkston and Gilkey are all long shots to be average NFL guards let alone real difference makers in the run game.
Agree... thinking we have the guard personnel we need is just whacked...
Faulk??? He may come back to be something, but none of that google post says he was expected to be a first round pick. The bit or two that hints at it is based upon a a couple games before he was hurt. Not much of a sample size there...
It does not matter what round we took our current OGs in. It's clear to me that we do not have what we need for the scheme we are trying to run... whatever that is. We still seem to be stuck between classic pull and drive block, and the more fashionable zone scheme.
Schwartz has to be replaced as well and I do not see him working out at guard.
It's time to pony up pick(s) and FA money.
I'd pick neither and wait for Jameis.
Like Jameis a great deal and loved seeing him with the other Heisman nominees on CBS Saturday at Army/ Navy halftime. Strikes me a a really good kid and very comfortable "on the big stage".
Just one thing...
I look at him and something inside me says "weight problem".
also i question whether watkins is the best WR. only thing missing on that list is 3 OL.
I don't... I love the kid. AS I've said before he reminds me of Fitzgerald. I'm tickled that he is showing up in so many mocks.
Peter King seems to think the Browns would be willing to trade their 2nd first round pick to the skins for Cousins if they make him available.
Loved Dilfer's comment on the INT Cousins threw roughly 20 yards down-field.
"Twenty yards is right where his arm starts to run out."
-
Agreed: It always seems like the lines playing in front of Montana, Rodgers, Brady, and Manning are good. No matter who the actual players are. Get it?
Like our line was just horrible and poor, plucky Charlie Frye was getting killed by his shitty line. Then Derek Anderson steps in... line suddenly not so shitty.
Weeden's getting killed and our pricey, highly-drafted line must be overrated. Then Brian Hoyer steps in and the line's just fine.
Guys, we're never gonna Superstar OL our way to a Super Bowl. Let it go. Reboot yourselves. The Browns could take this exact team and win 10 games with really good QB play. Then they could spend all those draft picks and f/a money to upgrade a few other spots and win 13 games.
Considering the Chiefs #1 overall pick has really struggled, let me list all their big offseason moves: Alex Smith. I'm done. They got Eric Barry back from injury, too. Okay, now I'm done. They went from 1-15 to 11-4 by adding Alex Smith.
There. Is. No. Other. Way. The Browns will be relevant if and when they have a top 10-12 quarterback, or one on his way there. Everything else is bullshit.
-
BTW, the question keeps coming up: If this Browns brass could go back and redo the 2012 draft, would they take Ryan Tannehill at #4? The answer is: Duh. Yes. Just about anybody would. He's 25, he has 3,600 and 24 TDs, and his team is 8-6 on the verge of the playoffs after beating New England.
Yes, yes, and yes, the GMs who don't have great quarterbacks would say. Of course I'd take him. Banner would, Lombardi would, Chorv would, they all would. And they'd obviously be right.
Biggest leap for QBs usually happens in their third year... and Tannehill is already pretty damn good. But his ceiling is high with a big arm, great wheels, and high IQ (Academic Heisman Finalist). Browns ear-fucked themselves, overthought it. Should've taken Tannehill, then a WR, then Bernard Pierce, then the OL. They drafted like it was 1978.
-
""Ive spoken to a team thats likely to have a top 10 pick, and they like him better than any quarterback in this draft," King added. The fact that the aforementioned team could be in need of a quarterback is an important point. Bortles' movement skills and strength in the pocket are reminiscent of Andrew Luck and Ben Roethlisberger. He will wait to make his announcement until after the school's bowl game against Baylor."
Here's to hoping that Gip's right and that King and Lombardi are texting buddies, and that King's talking about Cleveland.
-
Agreed: It always seems like the lines playing in front of Montana, Rodgers, Brady, and Manning are good. No matter who the actual players are. Get it?
Like our line was just horrible and poor, plucky Charlie Frye was getting killed by his shitty line. Then Derek Anderson steps in... line suddenly not so shitty.
Weeden's getting killed and our pricey, highly-drafted line must be overrated. Then Brian Hoyer steps in and the line's just fine.
Guys, we're never gonna Superstar OL our way to a Super Bowl. Let it go. Reboot yourselves. The Browns could take this exact team and win 10 games with really good QB play. Then they could spend all those draft picks and f/a money to upgrade a few other spots and win 13 games.
Considering the Chiefs #1 overall pick has really struggled, let me list all their big offseason moves: Alex Smith. I'm done. They got Eric Barry back from injury, too. Okay, now I'm done. They went from 1-15 to 11-4 by adding Alex Smith.
There. Is. No. Other. Way. The Browns will be relevant if and when they have a top 10-12 quarterback, or one on his way there. Everything else is bullshit.
Agreed: It always seems like the lines playing in front of Montana, Rodgers, Brady, and Manning are good. No matter who the actual players are. Get it?
Like our line was just horrible and poor, plucky Charlie Frye was getting killed by his shitty line. Then Derek Anderson steps in... line suddenly not so shitty.
Weeden's getting killed and our pricey, highly-drafted line must be overrated. Then Brian Hoyer steps in and the line's just fine.
Guys, we're never gonna Superstar OL our way to a Super Bowl. Let it go. Reboot yourselves. The Browns could take this exact team and win 10 games with really good QB play. Then they could spend all those draft picks and f/a money to upgrade a few other spots and win 13 games.
Considering the Chiefs #1 overall pick has really struggled, let me list all their big offseason moves: Alex Smith. I'm done. They got Eric Barry back from injury, too. Okay, now I'm done. They went from 1-15 to 11-4 by adding Alex Smith.
There. Is. No. Other. Way. The Browns will be relevant if and when they have a top 10-12 quarterback, or one on his way there. Everything else is bullshit.
Can we say the biggest difference in the Chiefs is they got rid of Krispy Kreme, and hired a real coach? Put Shur-loss in there, they';re still 8-8, and that's being charitable. .
Regarding All-star o-line "Remember the Titans". Never say never Shep. The Falsons & Texans thought they'd be playing in the SB this year- didn't happen. Da Bungles are going to the playoffs with your favorite mediocre qb Andy Dalton. So shades of mediocre Trent Dilfer.
So sure- just draft another Brady or Manning to guarantee long term success. Having a great qb doesn't even guarantee short term success in the NFL anymore- the other pieces, and a fair amount of luck have to fall into place. Guess Brees was a total bum last year without Payton, Rothlisberger, Flacco, Rivers, (and likely) Stafford will be sitting at home watching the playoffs with the Browns. Suddenly Little Manning, Shaub, and Ryan decide to have bad years and having "your guy" don't mean squat.
-
Agreed: It always seems like the lines playing in front of Montana, Rodgers, Brady, and Manning are good. No matter who the actual players are. Get it?
Like our line was just horrible and poor, plucky Charlie Frye was getting killed by his shitty line. Then Derek Anderson steps in... line suddenly not so shitty.
Weeden's getting killed and our pricey, highly-drafted line must be overrated. Then Brian Hoyer steps in and the line's just fine.
Guys, we're never gonna Superstar OL our way to a Super Bowl. Let it go. Reboot yourselves. The Browns could take this exact team and win 10 games with really good QB play. Then they could spend all those draft picks and f/a money to upgrade a few other spots and win 13 games.
Considering the Chiefs #1 overall pick has really struggled, let me list all their big offseason moves: Alex Smith. I'm done. They got Eric Barry back from injury, too. Okay, now I'm done. They went from 1-15 to 11-4 by adding Alex Smith.
There. Is. No. Other. Way. The Browns will be relevant if and when they have a top 10-12 quarterback, or one on his way there. Everything else is bullshit.
Agreed: It always seems like the lines playing in front of Montana, Rodgers, Brady, and Manning are good. No matter who the actual players are. Get it?
Like our line was just horrible and poor, plucky Charlie Frye was getting killed by his shitty line. Then Derek Anderson steps in... line suddenly not so shitty.
Weeden's getting killed and our pricey, highly-drafted line must be overrated. Then Brian Hoyer steps in and the line's just fine.
Guys, we're never gonna Superstar OL our way to a Super Bowl. Let it go. Reboot yourselves. The Browns could take this exact team and win 10 games with really good QB play. Then they could spend all those draft picks and f/a money to upgrade a few other spots and win 13 games.
Considering the Chiefs #1 overall pick has really struggled, let me list all their big offseason moves: Alex Smith. I'm done. They got Eric Barry back from injury, too. Okay, now I'm done. They went from 1-15 to 11-4 by adding Alex Smith.
There. Is. No. Other. Way. The Browns will be relevant if and when they have a top 10-12 quarterback, or one on his way there. Everything else is bullshit.
Biggest difference in the Chiefs this year? Please- they got rid of Krispy Kreme, and hired a real coach. the Tomahawks aren't even .500 with Shur-loss at the helm.
Superstar OL? "Remember the Titans".
You can make the playoffs with an Alex Smith. You can sit at home with a Shaub, Flacco, Rothlisberger, Eli, or Ryan. 'Nuff said. Takes more than a stud qb to get you where you want to go- it takes a fair amount of luck on top of it.
-
BTW, the question keeps coming up: If this Browns brass could go back and redo the 2012 draft, would they take Ryan Tannehill at #4? The answer is: Duh. Yes. Just about anybody would. He's 25, he has 3,600 and 24 TDs, and his team is 8-6 on the verge of the playoffs after beating New England.
Yes, yes, and yes, the GMs who don't have great quarterbacks would say. Of course I'd take him. Banner would, Lombardi would, Chorv would, they all would. And they'd obviously be right.
Biggest leap for QBs usually happens in their third year... and Tannehill is already pretty damn good. But his ceiling is high with a big arm, great wheels, and high IQ (Academic Heisman Finalist). Browns ear-fucked themselves, overthought it. Should've taken Tannehill, then a WR, then Bernard Pierce, then the OL. They drafted like it was 1978.
BTW, the question keeps coming up: If this Browns brass could go back and redo the 2012 draft, would they take Ryan Tannehill at #4? The answer is: Duh. Yes. Just about anybody would. He's 25, he has 3,600 and 24 TDs, and his team is 8-6 on the verge of the playoffs after beating New England.
Yes, yes, and yes, the GMs who don't have great quarterbacks would say. Of course I'd take him. Banner would, Lombardi would, Chorv would, they all would. And they'd obviously be right.
Biggest leap for QBs usually happens in their third year... and Tannehill is already pretty damn good. But his ceiling is high with a big arm, great wheels, and high IQ (Academic Heisman Finalist). Browns ear-fucked themselves, overthought it. Should've taken Tannehill, then a WR, then Bernard Pierce, then the OL. They drafted like it was 1978.
Would they not probably take Wilson over Tannehill? Which would you rather have to build your franchise around?
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