Hoyer trade rumor
-
my concern is that even though we 'beat the vikings' hoyer hasn't proven himself one way or the other. but how do you know what you got in a guy until you field him and let him play? putting all our chips on the table for a twig or a fidget i don't get. i do believe bortles will be there @4, if not that means take the DE and change your scheme accordingly. pick up that vaunted CB or SS with the second first. then how does our defense look to you? if hoyer sucks, then play the season to find out who we have and suck it for hundley or marriotta next year just like the colts layed down for luck.
While I believe that the Browns will and should take a QB at four (or higher) this year, I'm not totally opposed to this route either. I've been waiting since '99 for a competent QB, what's one more year, right?
While I believe that the Browns will and should take a QB at four (or higher) this year, I'm not totally opposed to this route either. I've been waiting since '99 for a competent QB, what's one more year, right?
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
-
While I believe that the Browns will and should take a QB at four (or higher) this year, I'm not totally opposed to this route either. I've been waiting since '99 for a competent QB, what's one more year, right?
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
I'd certainly be disappointed if Clowney was there @ #4 and we passed on him. I don't think he will be though.
At #4 I think you take the biggest difference maker available. IMO right now that is Clowney/Watkins.
We already have a "competent" QB called Brian Hoyer. If we draft one at #4 he better be "very highly competent"
-
While I believe that the Browns will and should take a QB at four (or higher) this year, I'm not totally opposed to this route either. I've been waiting since '99 for a competent QB, what's one more year, right?
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
I'm all for an elite defense, but if we find a QB who can extend drives the Browns D (even with zero personnel changes) will play much better than it did last year. I have a similar stance to the O-line issue, any O-line will look bad with Weeden holding the ball for 5 seconds before throwing it at the ILB's nutsack.
And you're 100% correct that we need upgrades on the O-line and in the running game, as well as in the defensive backfield and lb corps. Fortunately, all of these upgrades can be made in rounds 2-7 or free agency. When it comes to finding a franchise QB your options are early 1st round or getting lucky.
edit: normally there aren't a whole lot of franchise QBs on the FA Market, but if the Texans do let Schaub go, bring him to Cleveland!!! Schaub had a lot of success under Shanahan before, why not now, why not here?
-
While I believe that the Browns will and should take a QB at four (or higher) this year, I'm not totally opposed to this route either. I've been waiting since '99 for a competent QB, what's one more year, right?
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
I think you're head's in the right spot, as far as "finishing" off the defense, but no matter how many great players we have on defense they have no chance without an efficient offense. We do need to improve the running game somehow, but seriously the position we've been missing for 14 years now is QB. There are 3 potential starting QBs (maybe even 4) in this draft. How can we justify passing them all up?? I get the fact that you don't want to trade up, but we have to do something about that position... there really is no way around it...
#Justsayin' -
Although I am not a Browns fan, I do listen to WKNR radio during the mornings and afternoons(Rizzo & Goldhammer) when my favorite Baltimore sports radio show ends. I listen because I do enjoy their entertainment and insight. With that said, I do like to follow all things NFL, and especially the AFC North Division since I am a Ravens fan.Lately, I have been hearing rumblings about the Browns potentially trading Hoyer and picks to move up to 1st pick in the draft to select Johnny Manziel. With that said, I would like to make two things known. Number 1, I don't really think Manziel is that great of a quarterback...and with that, I don't think he is the right quarterback for the Cleveland Browns or the AFC North black and blue division. Number 2, since when was Brian Hoyer worth a hoot? I mean he has a 2 game resume (which includes beating the freaking Vikings). Why would anyone think the Texans would make that trade (saying Hoyer is their quarterback of the future?) I know the whole Bill O'Brien connection, but that's more smoke than fire.I wanted everyone's opinion on Manziel, the Browns and Hoyer because I just can't see how anyone who is a smart football person would sit here and say "Browns don't need to necessarily draft a QB in the 1st round, as they have Hoyer)...c'mon man! And with that said, why on earth would the Texans want a guy with no resume? He's Matt Flynn...and hows that worked out?I know most of you will be like "F this guy, hes a Ravens fan", but honestly, I would like to see the Browns competitive and relevant. I understand your sorrows as I am an Orioles fan and we deal with very similar issues and concerns.Look forward to hearing from everyone, later.
-
when you say it like that it DOES suck that we haven't seen or sniffed a guy that could get the job done.
until we fix the right side of the line and get a competent running game i don't believe any rookie or vet will take us to the playoffs.
i just like the idea of finishing off one side of the ball where all the coaches are confident with the players (let's say on D since we are closer there than on O) then concentrate on the other side of the ball. i'm not saying we pass on a WR or RB or T if they are there when we pick but i think we are seriously only a couple of guys away from finishing and moving up to be an elite defense. of course i don't want to see the FO do something stupid and reach for a guy way above his ranking either.
too bad krueger doesn't have the speed to cover, because that would make the clowney pick even more sensible. sheard and clowney and mingo. yikes!
I think you're head's in the right spot, as far as "finishing" off the defense, but no matter how many great players we have on defense they have no chance without an efficient offense. We do need to improve the running game somehow, but seriously the position we've been missing for 14 years now is QB. There are 3 potential starting QBs (maybe even 4) in this draft. How can we justify passing them all up?? I get the fact that you don't want to trade up, but we have to do something about that position... there really is no way around it...
There are 3 potential starting QBs (maybe even 4) in this draft. How can we justify passing them all up?? I get the fact that you don't want to trade up, but we have to do something about that position... there really is no way around it...
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
-
There are 3 potential starting QBs (maybe even 4) in this draft. How can we justify passing them all up?? I get the fact that you don't want to trade up, but we have to do something about that position... there really is no way around it...
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
1. Bridgewater and Bortles play in the same conference
2.Watch the '13 Sugar Bowl between Lousiville and the Florida Gators. Bridgewater shit all over them, and that was when Florida was ranked 3rd in the nation due to their "world class sec defense". Louisville was ranked 21 at the time and NO ONE thought they'd win.
The fact of the matter is that Teddy's OC handed him the keys to Lousiville's pro-style offense and he did nothing but make good reads, go through progressions and get the ball out quickly. I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
-
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
1. Bridgewater and Bortles play in the same conference
2.Watch the '13 Sugar Bowl between Lousiville and the Florida Gators. Bridgewater shit all over them, and that was when Florida was ranked 3rd in the nation due to their "world class sec defense". Louisville was ranked 21 at the time and NO ONE thought they'd win.
The fact of the matter is that Teddy's OC handed him the keys to Lousiville's pro-style offense and he did nothing but make good reads, go through progressions and get the ball out quickly. I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
yeah that's where we differ. when i mentioned bortles, i meant he was big enough to withstand the pounding he'll probably get. bridgewater might be smart but when you got a lineman driving your shoulder 10 yds deep into the ground what are you going to out-genious the hit?
the competition reference was a joke (ref: my comment about weeden).
-
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
1. Bridgewater and Bortles play in the same conference
2.Watch the '13 Sugar Bowl between Lousiville and the Florida Gators. Bridgewater shit all over them, and that was when Florida was ranked 3rd in the nation due to their "world class sec defense". Louisville was ranked 21 at the time and NO ONE thought they'd win.
The fact of the matter is that Teddy's OC handed him the keys to Lousiville's pro-style offense and he did nothing but make good reads, go through progressions and get the ball out quickly. I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
He can always add some weight. He has a decent size frame to do so.1. Bridgewater and Bortles play in the same conference
2.Watch the '13 Sugar Bowl between Lousiville and the Florida Gators. Bridgewater shit all over them, and that was when Florida was ranked 3rd in the nation due to their "world class sec defense". Louisville was ranked 21 at the time and NO ONE thought they'd win.
The fact of the matter is that Teddy's OC handed him the keys to Lousiville's pro-style offense and he did nothing but make good reads, go through progressions and get the ball out quickly. I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
I like teddy the most in this draft of QBs. Very smart player. He has most of the qualities you'd want in a day 1 rookie starter. Over some of the other prospects who may take a little longer to develop.
I don't think he'll get past the Jags though if Houston passes on him. But ya never know.
I'd be happier with him or Bortles than manziel, if we take a QB at 4.
-
He can always add some weight. He has a decent size frame to do so.1. Bridgewater and Bortles play in the same conference
2.Watch the '13 Sugar Bowl between Lousiville and the Florida Gators. Bridgewater shit all over them, and that was when Florida was ranked 3rd in the nation due to their "world class sec defense". Louisville was ranked 21 at the time and NO ONE thought they'd win.
The fact of the matter is that Teddy's OC handed him the keys to Lousiville's pro-style offense and he did nothing but make good reads, go through progressions and get the ball out quickly. I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
I like teddy the most in this draft of QBs. Very smart player. He has most of the qualities you'd want in a day 1 rookie starter. Over some of the other prospects who may take a little longer to develop.
I don't think he'll get past the Jags though if Houston passes on him. But ya never know.
I'd be happier with him or Bortles than manziel, if we take a QB at 4.
He can always add some weight. He has a decent size frame to do so.
I like teddy the most in this draft of QBs. Very smart player. He has most of the qualities you'd want in a day 1 rookie starter. Over some of the other prospects who may take a little longer to develop.
I don't think he'll get past the Jags though if Houston passes on him. But ya never know.
that's why I'd be fine if the Browns moved up to 1 overall to draft him. I know most on the board think of "trade up" as a four letter word, but there is a reason the FO stockpiled draft picks
-
He can always add some weight. He has a decent size frame to do so.
I like teddy the most in this draft of QBs. Very smart player. He has most of the qualities you'd want in a day 1 rookie starter. Over some of the other prospects who may take a little longer to develop.
I don't think he'll get past the Jags though if Houston passes on him. But ya never know.
that's why I'd be fine if the Browns moved up to 1 overall to draft him. I know most on the board think of "trade up" as a four letter word, but there is a reason the FO stockpiled draft picks
that's why I'd be fine if the Browns moved up to 1 overall to draft him. I know most on the board think of "trade up" as a four letter word, but there is a reason the FO stockpiled draft picks
You are right. There is a reason they stockpiled picks. I am hoping that reason was to fill a lot of holes instead of a couple.
-
that's why I'd be fine if the Browns moved up to 1 overall to draft him. I know most on the board think of "trade up" as a four letter word, but there is a reason the FO stockpiled draft picks
You are right. There is a reason they stockpiled picks. I am hoping that reason was to fill a lot of holes instead of a couple.
You are right. There is a reason they stockpiled picks. I am hoping that reason was to fill a lot of holes instead of a couple.
They can fill a lot of holes with 7 or 8 picks, plus FA. 2 pro-bowlers in the secondary, 2 pro-bowl receivers, 2 pro-bowl O-linemen, pretty stout front seven..... The single biggest 'hole' is QB, and if addressing that glaring weakness and still being left with 7 or so picks to fill the other holes is stupid, then I guess I'm a true-blue mongoloid.
-
There are 3 potential starting QBs (maybe even 4) in this draft. How can we justify passing them all up?? I get the fact that you don't want to trade up, but we have to do something about that position... there really is no way around it...
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
key word: potential. the only one i can see playing in the AFCN is bortles. then you've got your carrs and your fales. do we judge a QB because of the comp. they played? if so bridgewater shouldn't even be in the discussion. there's plenty of great QBs who've played shitty opponents. hell take weeden for example........................everyone was sooooo high on the ginger!
And Clowney is "potentially" a great pass-rusher. I don't know, but his 3 sacks and 41 total tackles last year aren't exactly awe-inspiring...
-
http://draftbreakdown.com/video/teddy-bridgewater-vs-florida-2012-bowl/
for those doubting Bridgewater's ability against quality competition.
-
I don't care if he's a little skinny, he can run a pro style offense and he has the brain power to be successful.
yeah that's where we differ. when i mentioned bortles, i meant he was big enough to withstand the pounding he'll probably get. bridgewater might be smart but when you got a lineman driving your shoulder 10 yds deep into the ground what are you going to out-genious the hit?
the competition reference was a joke (ref: my comment about weeden).
yeah that's where we differ. when i mentioned bortles, i meant he was big enough to withstand the pounding he'll probably get. bridgewater might be smart but when you got a lineman driving your shoulder 10 yds deep into the ground what are you going to out-genious the hit?
the competition reference was a joke (ref: my comment about weeden).
I'm not too concerned about it. Our O-line will look like a brick wall because they'll only need to block for a few seconds, and bridgewater has the mobility to get out of the pocket and find receivers when he needs to. Of course he'll take some hits (not even close to half as many as weeden) but he's a pretty tough kid and I'll take a slight frame over a slight mind/arm any day of the week.
-
You are right. There is a reason they stockpiled picks. I am hoping that reason was to fill a lot of holes instead of a couple.
They can fill a lot of holes with 7 or 8 picks, plus FA. 2 pro-bowlers in the secondary, 2 pro-bowl receivers, 2 pro-bowl O-linemen, pretty stout front seven..... The single biggest 'hole' is QB, and if addressing that glaring weakness and still being left with 7 or so picks to fill the other holes is stupid, then I guess I'm a true-blue mongoloid.
They can fill a lot of holes with 7 or 8 picks, plus FA. 2 pro-bowlers in the secondary, 2 pro-bowl receivers, 2 pro-bowl O-linemen, pretty stout front seven..... The single biggest 'hole' is QB, and if addressing that glaring weakness and still being left with 7 or so picks to fill the other holes is stupid, then I guess I'm a true-blue mongoloid.
lol no man it just means you have an opinion and we all have a lot of those
-
The last mobile QB in this division was who? Kordell Stewart? How can we say it hasn't been, or cant be successful when it hasn't been tried (guys that weren't garbage picks or free agent pickups)? The NFC West is where Wilson plays. A revolution just may be happening before our very eyes that goes right along with the pussification of this league. QBs are protected like never before which is why these smaller guys can be successful. Like it or not.
-
Mingo, Sheard and Kruger could all start over at weak side linebacker over Malcolm Smith. All had similar stat lines and played nearly the same amount.
Agree that the different schemes complicate the comparison, but I think your definition of "similar" needs work...
Smith in 15 games ( 8 starts) had 1.0 sack - 2 INTs - 6 PDs - 47 Tkls - 30 Assts - 1 FF
Kruger in 16 games (16 starts) had 4.5 sacks - 0 INTs - 5 PDs - 26 Tkls - 21 Assts - 2 FF
Sheard in 13 games (13 starts) had 5.5 sacks - 0 INTs - 4 PDs - 19 Tkls - 17 Assts - 1 FF
Generally when you suck, it means you don't have a quarterback. And you should draft the best one you can because without a great one, nothing else much matters.
Let us begin again...
Which means burning a #1 year after year after year until you get your guy... and by then the rest of your team is crap.
No thanks...
Agree that the different schemes complicate the comparison, but I think your definition of "similar" needs work...
Smith in 15 games ( 8 starts) had 1.0 sack - 2 INTs - 6 PDs - 47 Tkls - 30 Assts - 1 FF
Kruger in 16 games (16 starts) had 4.5 sacks - 0 INTs - 5 PDs - 26 Tkls - 21 Assts - 2 FF
Sheard in 13 games (13 starts) had 5.5 sacks - 0 INTs - 4 PDs - 19 Tkls - 17 Assts - 1 FF
I'm adding in 1 tackle per game for Kruger and Sheard (which I believe to be generous), that's how I came to the "similar" conclusion. I'll tell you why.
Like I said before, the schemes are different. Malcolm Smith is Carroll's prototypical Will linebacker. He's quick, he's big enough to take on glancing blocks and he has good instincts. In the basic 4-3, your Will linebacker is the one who plays flow and basically follows the ball. That's what Smith is, he's a flow backer tasked with getting his hat on the ball. Plays are funneled to the Will.
In Carroll's defense, he is even more of a rover. Seattle plays the 4-3 under routinely, dropping Bruce Irvin down to the line and shifting Smith to the "middle" of the formation. He's essentially playing Will but has the freedom of being lined up directly over the runningback, shadowing him to either side.
The same happened with David Hawthorne before Smith, and you're telling me that he's not better than Sheard or Kruger?
There's no doubt that Smith has talent. He runs a 4.4 and has great instincts. But put him in another situation, another position, another scheme, and he's not as good.
So, in truth, I revoke what I previously said. Sheard or Kruger wouldn't start over Smith at weak side in Seattle. They're not right for that position. But I do believe them to be better linebackers in general.
-
http://draftbreakdown.com/video/teddy-bridgewater-vs-florida-2012-bowl/
for those doubting Bridgewater's ability against quality competition.
http://draftbreakdown.com/video/teddy-bridgewater-vs-florida-2012-bowl/
for those doubting Bridgewater's ability against quality competition.
anyone who watches that video and still wants Manziel over Bridgewater is nuts.
-
I didn't see anything overwhelming in the video, so call me nuts!
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