Weeden Conspiracy
-
throw him in the water and let him sink or swim. let him play until he gets it (mentally) or gets it (physically ala tim couch).
only the browns deserve this shit with all the fucked up hires/fires/ and bad picks we've made in the past.
but let's at least see these guys play before we start talking about tanking the season for someone who could quite possibly be as bad or dumb as what we've got right now.
-
Luck should have been our QB but the damn Colts threw that season so they could get him... They knew what they were doing.
Luck should have been our QB but the damn Colts threw that season so they could get him... They knew what they were doing.
Browns didn't have the luxury of tanking it last year or this year. They have to use all of their picks to go after a near sure thing QB regardless if Weedon looks good or not. He only has a handfull of years left. They can use their cap money to fill the remaining holes.
-
Yep, they tanked on purpose, but the NFL allowed it.
Would an NBA lottery style draft to see who gets the top picks be something the NFL should do?
Maybe, but only for the worst 5 teams. That way, at least there is no "slam dunk" #1 pick at the end of the season. Just a thought but what do I know?
Mike
-
Well I certainly wouldn't hate Teddy Twatwater in 2014.
-
To be honest, I don't care who is QB as long as we win.
To be honest, I don't care who is QB as long as we win.
Winner winner; could not agree more! Wouldn't it be refreshing if Weeden goes out this season and is really effective and efficient thus rendering conversations of mortgaging an entire draft on yet another college kid to the waste bin
Man that would be liberating for the organization; I will most certainly be pulling for this kid to grow from last year and be successful
-
Luck should have been our QB but the damn Colts threw that season so they could get him... They knew what they were doing.
Browns didn't have the luxury of tanking it last year or this year. They have to use all of their picks to go after a near sure thing QB regardless if Weedon looks good or not. He only has a handfull of years left. They can use their cap money to fill the remaining holes.
Browns didn't have the luxury of tanking it last year or this year. They have to use all of their picks to go after a near sure thing QB regardless if Weedon looks good or not. He only has a handfull of years left. They can use their cap money to fill the remaining holes.
This is dumb...
If he has a handful of years left, why would we give up a whole draft for a QB now?, supposing he plays well this year.
If he plays terribly this year, we will be able to draft one of probably 4 or 5 quality QBs next year.
BUT, nobody can speculate that far ahead right now. A couple years ago Jake Locker was the next "surefire" #1 QB pick, and look what happened to him after his senior year in college... What about JaMarcus Russell, boy I'd love to trade a whole draft for him...
This entire thread is idiotic. The team wants to win. (period) It's their job. They NEED Weeden to play well in order to do that, their just NOT SURE yet if he can put the team over the edge... DUHHH, only has played 15 games... this is a non-story...
-
Yep, they tanked on purpose, but the NFL allowed it.
Would an NBA lottery style draft to see who gets the top picks be something the NFL should do?
The NFL won't do it, because then aN 8-8 or,9-7 or, maybe even a 10-6 team might get the first pick. Just imagine a 10-6 Ravens team or Squeelers team getting a top 3 pick. NO THANKS
The NFL won't do it, because then aN 8-8 or,9-7 or, maybe even a 10-6 team might get the first pick. Just imagine a 10-6 Ravens team or Squeelers team getting a top 3 pick. NO THANKS
Then make the lottery apply to only the teams with the worst 5 or 6 records...or some such.
-
Well I certainly wouldn't hate Teddy Twatwater in 2014.
Well I certainly wouldn't hate Teddy Twatwater in 2014.
Teddy should continue to shine this season. The Ville has an amazingly soft schedule.
-
Well I certainly wouldn't hate Teddy Twatwater in 2014.
Teddy should continue to shine this season. The Ville has an amazingly soft schedule.
-
I wanted Tannehill and Martin (which is what THIS administration would've done)... but honestly, I was a Weeden fan going into the draft and saw that as a backup plan. I didn't love picking a running back at #3. I still don't get it. I think Lombardi and Banner probably have to groan about it every day. In this league, it was at best "against the grain."
But... it's done and we do have a ton of young talent. Let's just hope we have it in the right places. Left tackle and pass rushers certainly make sense.
-
Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?
I think they would have bit hard on RG3.
And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.
God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.
Zombo
-
Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?
I think they would have bit hard on RG3.
And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.
God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?
I think they would have bit hard on RG3.
And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.
God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.
Zombo
Tannehill didn't look very good in the HOF game... not that it says much. I just don't see the NFL game in him. I do see it in Weeden, but he needs to become more consistent...
As far as Martin vs Richardson... If healthy, Richardson will out TD, out receive, and outrun Martin this year... problem is "IF healthy." TB has a respected deep threat on their team in VJax which opened up the line of scrimmage for Martin to run. CLE had a respected deep threat for a couple game, and I already put Richardson's statistics in those games on this board in another thread...
-
Zombo said:
Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?
I think they would have bit hard on RG3.
And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.
God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.
Zombo
Tannehill didn't look very good in the HOF game... not that it says much. I just don't see the NFL game in him. I do see it in Weeden, but he needs to become more consistent...
As far as Martin vs Richardson... If healthy, Richardson will out TD, out receive, and outrun Martin this year... problem is "IF healthy." TB has a respected deep threat on their team in VJax which opened up the line of scrimmage for Martin to run. CLE had a respected deep threat for a couple game, and I already put Richardson's statistics in those games on this board in another thread...
Tannehill didn't look very good in the HOF game... not that it says much. I just don't see the NFL game in him. I do see it in Weeden, but he needs to become more consistent...
As far as Martin vs Richardson... If healthy, Richardson will out TD, out receive, and outrun Martin this year... problem is "IF healthy." TB has a respected deep threat on their team in VJax which opened up the line of scrimmage for Martin to run. CLE had a respected deep threat for a couple game, and I already put Richardson's statistics in those games on this board in another thread...
Also. it can't be stated enough that from day 1 it was known Trent was 'the guy'. I'm not knocking Martin, but I guarantee teams weren't scouting for him as hard as you said Jackson or their passing game. Couple that with the worst offensive scheme I've possibly ever seen and you're not gonna have a fantastic statisical year.
-
So if weeden gora 8-8 or 9-7 how would everyone feel if Lombarffff went a new direction at qb. I forsee a qb contraversy in2014 with weeds and a 2nd rounder.
"We are Americans. We don't quit doing something because it's wrong. We just keep doing the wrong thing till it turns out right." Browns maybe the most American Football team ever. -
So if weeden gora 8-8 or 9-7 how would everyone feel if Lombarffff went a new direction at qb. I forsee a qb contraversy in2014 with weeds and a 2nd rounder.
So if weeden gora 8-8 or 9-7 how would everyone feel if Lombarffff went a new direction at qb. I forsee a qb contraversy in2014 with weeds and a 2nd rounder.
It would be dumb... and I don't see Banner letting that happen. Drafting a QB and developing him is never a bad idea, but there is no controversy when your guy won 8 or 9 games... unless the team won despite Weeden playing terrible...
-
I would have been down for a Richardson/Tannehill combo. The only player who was more valuable than Trent was Luck in that draft, I'm glad we got him. We could have tried to trade back down into the top ten to get Tannehill but that would have been pricey. I'm okay with how it worked out, let's just hope Weeden worked out the bugs in his game. He was decent for being a rookie, if only he was 24 years old instead of 30 but that's how the cookie crumbled. I think he'll be fine until we find a QB good enough to be the long term answer.
-
So if weeden gora 8-8 or 9-7 how would everyone feel if Lombarffff went a new direction at qb. I forsee a qb contraversy in2014 with weeds and a 2nd rounder.
-
I would have been down for a Richardson/Tannehill combo. The only player who was more valuable than Trent was Luck in that draft, I'm glad we got him. We could have tried to trade back down into the top ten to get Tannehill but that would have been pricey. I'm okay with how it worked out, let's just hope Weeden worked out the bugs in his game. He was decent for being a rookie, if only he was 24 years old instead of 30 but that's how the cookie crumbled. I think he'll be fine until we find a QB good enough to be the long term answer.
It's become almost impossible for a running back to have top five value in any draft. They've become too easy to find and mean less to team success than ever.
In retrospect, I would've taken Bernard Pierce at the top of round 3 (almost 600 yards last year, 5.0 a carry). Hell, the Packers were desperate for RBs and reached really high for one... in late round 2. I would've taken Tannehill with our #4 and probably a WR with our #22. Still Schwartz in 2.
If you compare Pierce and Richardson in Cleveland, there's only so much one can do better than the other in a passing league to really affect the bottom line, create more wins. Damn near impossible, in fact.
I would have been down for a Richardson/Tannehill combo. The only player who was more valuable than Trent was Luck in that draft, I'm glad we got him. We could have tried to trade back down into the top ten to get Tannehill but that would have been pricey. I'm okay with how it worked out, let's just hope Weeden worked out the bugs in his game. He was decent for being a rookie, if only he was 24 years old instead of 30 but that's how the cookie crumbled. I think he'll be fine until we find a QB good enough to be the long term answer.
-
It's become almost impossible for a running back to have top five value in any draft. They've become too easy to find and mean less to team success than ever.
In retrospect, I would've taken Bernard Pierce at the top of round 3 (almost 600 yards last year, 5.0 a carry). Hell, the Packers were desperate for RBs and reached really high for one... in late round 2. I would've taken Tannehill with our #4 and probably a WR with our #22. Still Schwartz in 2.
If you compare Pierce and Richardson in Cleveland, there's only so much one can do better than the other in a passing league to really affect the bottom line, create more wins. Damn near impossible, in fact.
I would have been down for a Richardson/Tannehill combo. The only player who was more valuable than Trent was Luck in that draft, I'm glad we got him. We could have tried to trade back down into the top ten to get Tannehill but that would have been pricey. I'm okay with how it worked out, let's just hope Weeden worked out the bugs in his game. He was decent for being a rookie, if only he was 24 years old instead of 30 but that's how the cookie crumbled. I think he'll be fine until we find a QB good enough to be the long term answer.
It's become almost impossible for a running back to have top five value in any draft. They've become too easy to find and mean less to team success than ever.
In retrospect, I would've taken Bernard Pierce at the top of round 3 (almost 600 yards last year, 5.0 a carry). Hell, the Packers were desperate for RBs and reached really high for one... in late round 2. I would've taken Tannehill with our #4 and probably a WR with our #22. Still Schwartz in 2.
If you compare Pierce and Richardson in Cleveland, there's only so much one can do better than the other in a passing league to really affect the bottom line, create more wins. Damn near impossible, in fact.
Except Tannehill, as far as I am concerned, will not turn out to be nearly as good as Weeden. The only factor would have been age.
-
Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?
I think they would have bit hard on RG3.
And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.
God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.
Zombo
But what if it's Aaron Rodgers, my biggest draft crush ever???
Tannehill was very good last night, but not Weeden good. I thought Weeds looked fantastic.
We'll disagree here: Sure, anybody's happy to inherit Richardson... but if you think they or about 31 other GMs would trade up to take him at #3, you're nuts. You'd have to be drunk to do that. (Heckert joke.)
Just can't have enough impact on the bottom line from that position anymore. They get hurt, they have short careers, and the top teams prove you don't need a great one to win it all. Been going on for a decade now.
Zombo said:
Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?
I think they would have bit hard on RG3.
And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.
God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.
Zombo
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