Blake and The Flying J's
-
-
How late do people expect him (Seastrunk) to be available?
The fact that Taliaferro went to a smaller school and played against lesser competition could mean that he's available later.
He could be had in the later rounds or even as a UDFA. What I like about him is that he's a smart player and individual. He had a comment at the Senior Bowl about his education and was quoted saying "As much as I love the game, it's only temporary. One day I'll have to walk away but my degree lasts forever".
He could be had in the later rounds or even as a UDFA. What I like about him is that he's a smart player and individual. He had a comment at the Senior Bowl about his education and was quoted saying "As much as I love the game, it's only temporary. One day I'll have to walk away but my degree lasts forever".
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?
-
He could be had in the later rounds or even as a UDFA. What I like about him is that he's a smart player and individual. He had a comment at the Senior Bowl about his education and was quoted saying "As much as I love the game, it's only temporary. One day I'll have to walk away but my degree lasts forever".
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?
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.
-
I'm not in love with RBBC because I think it disrupts the running game for some backs. And then the whole argument kind of feeds itself (feature running backs become less effective because we use them less often, and we use them less often because they become less effective). A certain type of back needs a chance to gain some momentum and wear down a defense. Regardless of my opinion on him, a lot of people think Jerome Bettis was a good back. He wouldn't have been very good in a RBBC situation. He needed carries and repetition to wear defenses 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).
-
What happened to Trent is that he's really not that good. That's what happened to Trent.
-
Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*
-
Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*
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.
-
Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*
Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*
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.
-
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.
-
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.
McGahee was just as effective as Richardson.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.
-
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.
-
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.
Obviously it was less effective in 2013. But not because of Richardson.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.
-
I will not beat the TR/McGahee thing up. Fact is, an offense that is 67% pass & 33% run (2013) is NOT going to be effective. Hang the "we don't have talent" stuff, there must be more balance.Yes, we need QB, RB & other important pieces, but I feel we will be much more balanced in '14. I also prefer a "feature" back so, if for no other reason, you're not tipping the next play by changing to a different back.
Mike
-
I'm perfectly willing to accept that coaching was the reason that the Browns were less effective at running the ball in 2013, but the people on these boards tend to not want to blame Chud for any shortfalls, either. So you can hate Richardson and/or you can support Chud, but somehow the run game got worse between 2012 and 2013. I mentioned the dropoff in reference to the Richardson thing specifically to point out that, assuming Richardson sucked and was so useless to the team, the decline in the running game has to be explained by something other than his departure. To me, that makes the next prime candidate the coaching/playcalling.
*wink* Thanks for the help.
-
The Browns qb position led defenses to force pressure on qb's
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.
-
That doesn't explain the difference. The Browns didn't have a better QB in 2012; they had Weeden. Josh Gordon and Jordan Cameron made a whole lot more noise in 2013, and the Browns called a greater percentage of pass plays, so there was actually less reason for teams to stack the box against them in 2013, not more. I'm not buying that reasoning.
-
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.
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.
-
Were they? Maybe. Apparently they were not fine with SOMETHING, though...
-
Were they? Maybe. Apparently they were not fine with SOMETHING, though...
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".
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