Mike

Bortles is a beast looking like Brees, not sure if I want him or Manziel more, but I definitely want both over Bridgewater.

Bridgewater makes nice plays but I don't like his mechanics as much and it looks like he'll get picked off a lot in the NFL.

@spectralcow said:

Were they? Maybe. Apparently they were not fine with SOMETHING, though...

They're not fine with being classy, upstanding businessmen.

The Haslam motto "it ain't cheating unless you're caught, and then just blame it on somebody else".

@spectralcow said:

So because the Browns chose to pick up a really old guy, it's okay that they made the running game less effective? What sense does that make? In that case, let's get rid of everyone, get a bunch of guys who are too old to be effective, and then it will ALL be okay!

I'm not saying that McGahee should have been better than Richardson, I'm saying that if they were going to get rid of Richardson, there should have been some kind of plan in place so that they didn't struggle to score just 4 rushing TDs on the year.

I think the plan was "use that pick to get our franchise quarterback".

It's proven that franchise runningbacks don't really do much without a good quarterback to help open the lanes for them, so I think the FO was fine with experiencing a drop in production in exchange for a first round pick to use as ammunition.

The fact that the drop in production wasn't that drastic just sweetens the deal.

to try to be effective without a running game.

They simply stacked the box, and watched Weedone and Campbell squirm,

and make mistakes.

Sure, the Browns could have run more, and had a whole lot more three and outs.

Either way, the Browns offense wouldn't function without Hoyer and Lewis. No other rb had

the burst, and no other qb could get their job done, either.

And that's a fact, Jack.

*wink* Thanks for the help.

Mike

@spectralcow said:

Lol, okay, I'm done arguing it. If you guys aren't willing to admit that the running game was less effective in 2013 than it was in 2012, then there's not even a logical enough basis to have a discussion. It's understandable to be disappointed in Richardson or to criticize his (lack of) abilities, but to refuse to acknowledge that the Browns didn't run as well in 2013 is just stubborn and irrational.

You guys are so blinded by your dislike for Richardson that (again) you're responding to something I didn't even say. I said, "The Browns run game was less effective in 2013." You responded with "Richardson sucks." Well done.

I'd blame a coach that gave up on running the ball, a regressed right tackle, and lousy backup guards.

Just the way you made it sound is Richardson is the sole reason it was significantly worse.

You guys are so blinded by your dislike for Richardson that (again) you're responding to something I didn't even say. I said, "The Browns run game was less effective in 2013." You responded with "Richardson sucks." Well done.

@spectralcow said:

So because the Browns chose to pick up a really old guy, it's okay that they made the running game less effective? What sense does that make? In that case, let's get rid of everyone, get a bunch of guys who are too old to be effective, and then it will ALL be okay!

I'm not saying that McGahee should have been better than Richardson, I'm saying that if they were going to get rid of Richardson, there should have been some kind of plan in place so that they didn't struggle to score just 4 rushing TDs on the year.

And by that I mean, not effective at all.

I'm not saying that McGahee should have been better than Richardson, I'm saying that if they were going to get rid of Richardson, there should have been some kind of plan in place so that they didn't struggle to score just 4 rushing TDs on the year.

@spectralcow said:

Lets see how effective TR is when he's 32. My guess is that we won't have the chance because when Trent is 32 he'll be celebrating the 6 year anniversary of his last NFL game.

@spectralcow said:

Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*

Really? A 30+ year old runningback was less effective than a Heisman trophy winner?

Oh, I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!

Trent sucks. Just because McGahee also sucks doesn't mean that Trent doesn't.

That what happened to Trent Richardson, Trent would go out on 3rd downs and other backs eating his time. Allowed Defense to focus on Trent in the games, in that moment. By the fourth quarter, if your pounding the defense, it's gonna wear down.

That being said, I'm not arguing against the notion that this is the direction in which the NFL is headed. I just think that its popularity marginalizes a certain kind of back who can be effective with a greater number of (frequent) carries. And maybe that's okay, too. Sometimes trends emerge that cause formerly popular positions/styles to seem less desirable to most teams (FBs, for instance). And then we call the teams/players that do still use those now unpopular methods anomalies (Lynch in Seattle).

@hoorta said:

So TC, what's your take on Tre Mason as our "pure " RB, and how high do you think he'll go in the draft?

I think Mason could go in the second half of round one, which isn't a shocking opinion, I know. I just haven't done enough research to complete a full mock yet. I like Mason, but I don't see the need for an every down back. The NFL is erring more and more towards an RBBC every season, with Lynch and Peterson being the exceptions.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

So TC, what's your take on Tre Mason as our "pure " RB, and how high do you think he'll go in the draft?

@miktoxic said:

i'm not unless they turn him into a CB.

I don't get it.