Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. Santonio Holmes was waived

Santonio Holmes was waived

The Browns Board
31 19 1.1k
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    Pettine has already said they have no interest in bringing someone back who only contributes on one phase of the game like that, when the Cribbs question was raised. Holmes would fall under the same category, especially with Gordon coming back.

    OsirisO Osiris wrote on
    #6

    @gftchris said:

    Pettine has already said they have no interest in bringing someone back who only contributes on one phase of the game like that, when the Cribbs question was raised. Holmes would fall under the same category, especially with Gordon coming back.

    Agree, I don't see why they don't give Marlon Moore or Taylor Gabriel a shot at PR. Once Gordon comes back, Gabriel becomes what, the #4 receiver? I think we can risk that for the sake of better PR.

    "I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta
  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #7

    When we played the bears in preseason I felt he still had some juice. You guys feel like he can't go? I think he was just out shined by the bears receiving corps which theoretically should be pretty good

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
    hoortaH 1 Reply
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    Stop it now...

    ManzierM Manzier wrote on
    #8

    @gftchris said:

    Stop it now...

    ^^^ this^^^

    Tour2maT 1 Reply
  • The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on
    #9

    My major issue with him is that he was a steeler

    This shit ain't nothing to me, man.
  • ManzierM Manzier wrote on
    #10

    Thats the beauty of finally having a good(deep) team. The grass is no longer greener on the other side.

    Sorry, but the Browns are just too good of a team to chase these types of retreads anymore. Let someone else have em.

  • ManzierM Manzier

    @gftchris said:

    Stop it now...

    ^^^ this^^^

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on
    #11

    @manzier said:

    ^^^ this^^^

    3rd-ed...

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    Pettine has already said they have no interest in bringing someone back who only contributes on one phase of the game like that, when the Cribbs question was raised. Holmes would fall under the same category, especially with Gordon coming back.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #12

    @gftchris said:

    Pettine has already said they have no interest in bringing someone back who only contributes on one phase of the game like that, when the Cribbs question was raised. Holmes would fall under the same category, especially with Gordon coming back.

    Not that I am advocating it, but why do you think Holmes would only be able to contribute on special teams? He is, after all, an accomplished WR. Winning catch in the SB and all that. I don't even remember him much as a PR.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @gftchris said:

    Pettine has already said they have no interest in bringing someone back who only contributes on one phase of the game like that, when the Cribbs question was raised. Holmes would fall under the same category, especially with Gordon coming back.

    Not that I am advocating it, but why do you think Holmes would only be able to contribute on special teams? He is, after all, an accomplished WR. Winning catch in the SB and all that. I don't even remember him much as a PR.

    gftChrisG gftChris wrote on
    #13

    @the-gipper said:

    Not that I am advocating it, but why do you think Holmes would only be able to contribute on special teams? He is, after all, an accomplished WR. Winning catch in the SB and all that. I don't even remember him much as a PR.

    Well our WRs are doing pretty well, and we're about to get Gordon back. I doubt they disrupt that for Holmes, for several reasons, both performance and personality.

  • gftChrisG gftChris

    @the-gipper said:

    Not that I am advocating it, but why do you think Holmes would only be able to contribute on special teams? He is, after all, an accomplished WR. Winning catch in the SB and all that. I don't even remember him much as a PR.

    Well our WRs are doing pretty well, and we're about to get Gordon back. I doubt they disrupt that for Holmes, for several reasons, both performance and personality.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on
    #14

    @gftchris said:

    Well our WRs are doing pretty well, and we're about to get Gordon back. I doubt they disrupt that for Holmes, for several reasons, both performance and personality.

    Yes, I understand all that. That is why I would not necessarily be in favor of the Browns getting him. But that was not my question. My question is that someone said they thought Holmes would ONLY be a PR......but in his career, with all its ups and downs, he has primarily been a WR. Why would someone think he would not be used at WR IF he were brought here? He would play WR....and maybe return punts.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    @gftchris said:

    Well our WRs are doing pretty well, and we're about to get Gordon back. I doubt they disrupt that for Holmes, for several reasons, both performance and personality.

    Yes, I understand all that. That is why I would not necessarily be in favor of the Browns getting him. But that was not my question. My question is that someone said they thought Holmes would ONLY be a PR......but in his career, with all its ups and downs, he has primarily been a WR. Why would someone think he would not be used at WR IF he were brought here? He would play WR....and maybe return punts.

    gftChrisG gftChris wrote on
    #15

    @the-gipper said:

    Yes, I understand all that. That is why I would not necessarily be in favor of the Browns getting him. But that was not my question. My question is that someone said they thought Holmes would ONLY be a PR......but in his career, with all its ups and downs, he has primarily been a WR. Why would someone think he would not be used at WR IF he were brought here? He would play WR....and maybe return punts.

    I don't think they would disrupt the WR rotation we have currently for someone like Holmes. With Gordon back, we have a very decent group that doesn't need a disruptive influence like Holmes.

    So that would just leave PR/KR, which is not something you 'disrupt' by changing a player, but the regime isn't bringing in someone for that specific role.

  • LogicIsForSquaresL LogicIsForSquares wrote on
    #16

    At the heart of it, I just want someone who isn't going to make half of my face droop every time they line up to return a punt.

  • LogicIsForSquaresL LogicIsForSquares

    At the heart of it, I just want someone who isn't going to make half of my face droop every time they line up to return a punt.

    cvcanedyC cvcanedy wrote on
    #17

    @logicisforsquares said:

    At the heart of it, I just want someone who isn't going to make half of my face droop every time they line up to return a punt.

    Bell's palsy?

    LogicIsForSquaresL 1 Reply
  • dawg2fanD dawg2fan wrote on
    #18

    Santonio Holmes? He is way past his prime. I say no thanks, but good luck.

  • upper lipU upper lip wrote on
    #19

    I'd be in on signing him, but there's no chance we do

  • ThaakT Thaak wrote on
    #20

    fuck no.

    I'm an OSU homer, but this guy is a cancer, no fucking way do we want him.

  • bbedwardB bbedward wrote on
    #21

    We don't need another < 6' receiver.

    I still believe we have plenty of people who can return punts, we just haven't made the change yet.

    Why not gilbert, Gabriel, Moore, Hawkins?

    miktoxicM 1 Reply
  • Z Zombo wrote on
    #22

    Why is this a thread?

    Zombo

  • bbedwardB bbedward

    We don't need another < 6' receiver.

    I still believe we have plenty of people who can return punts, we just haven't made the change yet.

    Why not gilbert, Gabriel, Moore, Hawkins?

    miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on
    #23

    @bbedward said:

    We don't need another < 6' receiver.

    we don't. what we need is another OL.

    call in incognito.

  • bbedwardB bbedward wrote on
    #24

    Incognito may be a bit too slow for zone scheme, but if McDonald is out who knows. Lawd knows we could use the depth.

  • A Andruw u wrote on
    #25

    I thought part of drafting Gilbert so high was he could return punts/kicks too.

Log in to reply