@gunz41 said:

There have been discussions of either Keenum or McCoy being their starter. OL is more than just running into people, there are complex schemes. And none of us know why he isn't playing the way everyone wants right now. Maybe he is a bust, or maybe he is having trouble understanding the schemes (especially when considering the moving around) and maybe once he is getting it he is thinking too much.

Have never heard me say what the Browns should do with Austin, just that he may be different in development and he hasn't played much at all. But I wouldn't have said anything about any of this if people weren't calling his a p***y because he isn't reaching their expectations

Somebody who can't post here anymore never got the finer points of line play- they're all just untalented dime a dozen fat asses.    

@gunz41 said:

He MAY be a bad pick. He has not played enough to be judged as of now.

Again, would you consider RG3 a bad pick? Most probably would, yet he was the Rookie of Year. One year (and in Austin case little time on field) and 2 preseason games doesn't give an answer.

Again, I am NOT saying he will be good or was the right pick. But there are NUMEROUS examples of guys needing some time to work, and there are NUMEROUS examples of guys who came out of the gates on fire and then fizzled out

IDK, he looks nothing like the guy they drafted, for whatever reason. 

@mudfly said:

So, Ill just revisist this comment, as it has played out exactly......Corbett was just replaced with a 6th round pick that has only played 8 games and graded out as "fair", at best.....

We should just agree that he is terrible and the Browns dont see enough there to give him the "time" to get better.....

Hey....someday he might be good....perhaps.....but it will most likely be on some other team that isnt looking to win "NOW"

I seem to recall a solid 2 years of hand wringing and griping about one Mitchell Schwartz, and then suddenly he was good, and there was much desire to resign him, but we didn’t. Corbett isn’t getting near the playing time Schwartz got, but perhaps a late bloomer like Schwartz? Not saying Corbett will or won’t pan out, or for whom he might pan out. 

@mudfly said:

.....most high picks(1st & 2nds for sure) get the benefit of the doubt and will get playing time to see where they are....in the case of Corbett, the fact that he cant even get a starting nod(when we have NO decent alternative) tells me he's pretty bad......Id say an average or even below average guy might get the start in this situation(no good alternate) .....but not so with Corbett....

So....until I hear(and see) otherwise, I have to assume he looks "terrible" to our coaching staff.....

How many guys on your list were so bad they were not even given a chance as a starter in their first 2 years.....any?

So, Ill just revisist this comment, as it has played out exactly......Corbett was just replaced with a 6th round pick that has only played 8 games and graded out as "fair", at best.....

We should just agree that he is terrible and the Browns dont see enough there to give him the "time" to get better.....

Hey....someday he might be good....perhaps.....but it will most likely be on some other team that isnt looking to win "NOW"

Oh....and Ill add I did imply I thought he came off like a pussy....has nothing to do with his meeting expectations and everything to do with how he acts and plays......(personally, I did not have high expectations for this one)(and he met my expectations exactly)

@jiggins7919 said:

Oh, one more thing.  Although entertaining, our former OL coach Bob Wylie was not thought to be a top-tier coach (per some articles I read).  I forget his name, but the guy we have now is a definite improvement.  Again, this is just the opinion of some sportwriters in the country, but I think it's probably valid.  We improved our special teams coach and our OL coach, and I believe we'll see the improvements.  

Haven't seen an improved OL yet. It may get there but right now it is worse, not better. 

@icecube said:

It doesn't help matters that Hubbard has turned out to be pretty bad, now the entire right side of the OL is pretty weak. 

This move was definitely a miss, without question. They traded Zeitler like he was easy to replace and assumed Corbett would fill his shoes.

Not even close, and, as mentioned, it doesn't help that Hubbard was overrated. You can't have any part of your OL to be weak and succeed. Not the left, not the middle and not the right. Don't you think The DL would have been strong without Vernon? I do. This was a flat out blunder. 

Austin Corbett

Austin Reiter

Austin Seibert

None of these guys have yet earned their spurs imo.

Probably about the same time that Dallas became a girl's name?

I REALLY don't like knee-jerk reactions after preseason games, BUT this past game was the 3rd exhibition contest, and that one is generally the game people pay the most attention to.  Much has been made of Suh getting the best of Kush a few times, but that wasn't the only issue that surfaced.  Hubbard got beat badly by Nassib one time (why'd we let him go again?), and Greg Robinson definitely had his patented holding penalty and got beat inside a time or two.  

What gives me hope is that our OL play was borderline spectacular in the second half of last season, and we've only lost ONE player.  Granted, he was a big time player, but he's still one guy.  The other 4 are in place, and Tretter is actually healthy.  I actually have a feeling that we're going to be pleasantly surprised by Greg Robinson.  I don't ever see him as being a "probowler" or anything, but I really do believe Greg has the ability to hold down the job for multiple years.  Of course, "hold down" is the key phrase because Greg panics and holds way too much, but the guy has the physical talent.  He's more susceptible to speed and inside moves, but when Greg drops the anchor, you're not going to bull-rush him.  

Oh, one more thing.  Although entertaining, our former OL coach Bob Wylie was not thought to be a top-tier coach (per some articles I read).  I forget his name, but the guy we have now is a definite improvement.  Again, this is just the opinion of some sportwriters in the country, but I think it's probably valid.  We improved our special teams coach and our OL coach, and I believe we'll see the improvements.  

The guy looks to be a stumble bum.  It's like his shoes are made of lead.  Herman Munster had better moves.

@mudfly said:

Again I am not suggesting anything, he may be a bust. But he also has had little playing time. That is the main point. 

And yes last year he was behind veterans in Bitonio and Zeitler and if looking at him now playing some center then Tretter. So the point is that there was a reason why he didn't play much last year. Aaron Rodgers sat for 3 years behind Brett, I imagine he learned over that time. Its also the reason that teams want to start a vet over a rookie at the QB position, even if they view the rookie as going to be better. Just look at the homegrown Haskins. There have been discussions of either Keenum or McCoy being their starter. OL is more than just running into people, there are complex schemes. And none of us know why he isn't playing the way everyone wants right now. Maybe he is a bust, or maybe he is having trouble understanding the schemes (especially when considering the moving around) and maybe once he is getting it he is thinking too much.

Have never heard me say what the Browns should do with Austin, just that he may be different in development and he hasn't played much at all. But I wouldn't have said anything about any of this if people weren't calling his a p***y because he isn't reaching their expectations

@riffer-x said:

The excuse going around now is the Browns ruined him by playing him at too many positions. I am here to tell you that is bullshit. Good football players know how to execute the basics

.....can't argue with that!

1. He sucks -- at any position. He is a horrible football player. 
2. See number one
3. I have tracked every snap of his all preseason on GamePass and quite frankly, it pisses me off how much he sucks balls. 
4. I got PFF stats from last year and this year -- they all blow.
5. Some dudes can ball and some are in on the masquerade. Austin is the latter. Some folks have caught on that you can find a dude living under an overpass who is better than homes. Trust me, there are dudes at Mount who are way better football players than this kid.

The excuse going around now is the Browns ruined him by playing him at too many positions. I am here to tell you that is bullshit. Good football players know how to execute the basics, this clown can barely sustain a block more than a second anywhere on the field. He is Junkin bad, but that said, Forbes makes up for it.

@gunz41 said:

O

Again, you seem to be missing my bigger point. Anyone can say early they can be good or not good. The point is that while he may look bad/bust, that he could be someone who takes time to develop.

I get that, but you'd hope it's a developmental guy(like a 5th rounder) and, I think everyone(including the team) has higher expectations for higher picks

Its not uncommon for guys with ability to sit early, as the coaches think a veteran presence will help more.

But there is NO veteran presence in this instance.....just one high pick and a bunch of also rans....so, who should we "expect or hope" would seize the position???

But go ahead and really think back and answer the other point honestly. If this were couple years ago when the team went 0-16 and a higher pick wasn't looking good would the talk be needing to get rid of him? If your answer is no, then you are wanting to expedite his maturation because of the lofty expectations for the team. 

Obviously my answer is not no......I think you're implying we want him gone because we look better on paper? And in past years we'd keep him because we were bad???  If you look back over the recent years you'll see high picks like Trent Richardson, Johnny Manziel, Brandon Weeden, Justin Gilbert,  Danny Shelton, Cam Erving, Corey Coleman, etc....all gone in 2 years......And this was when we were desperate. So, we did not keep the bad ones then......do we have room to house "projects" now? Especially at a position we are desperate to fill???

I think they will keep him, but there a thousands of guys who get cut before they ever see any starts or serious playing time......why?.....because they dont practice well enough to get on the field. Many of those guys are cut the first week....month....year....etc.....and some, like Corbett, get an extra year or so because they cost more. Just how it is, but does not make Corbett any better than a guy like Sheehy(for example).

So....when a player isnt good enough to play....when do you decide that? And when you have to cut 40 to get down to roster, how do you determine which ones will develop over time(as you suggest) and which ones just aren't good enough?...... it seems like your giving(or wanting to extend) Corbett an opportunity that 40 others wont get and Im curious what the criteria is....has he outworked?...outplayed?....outhustled? the others?.......or just someone that was picked way too high?

Mike

@mudfly said:

Right....he could get better or he could be a bust.....I think everyone gets that and can agree to a point.

I see the examples you gave of both and my one argument would be that those other guys could at least get on the field.....most high picks(1st & 2nds for sure) get the benefit of the doubt and will get playing time to see where they are....in the case of Corbett, the fact that he cant even get a starting nod(when we have NO decent alternative) tells me he's pretty bad......Id say an average or even below average guy might get the start in this situation(no good alternate) .....but not so with Corbett....

So....until I hear(and see) otherwise, I have to assume he looks "terrible" to our coaching staff.....

How many guys on your list were so bad they were not even given a chance as a starter in their first 2 years.....any?

Ok, well some SHOULDN'T have been on field in 1st 2 years, and for different reasons some didn't see the field in 1st 2 seasons. And I didn't go through everyone, I didn't even look up drafts, I found a web page with 10 for each.

Again, you seem to be missing my bigger point. Anyone can say early they can be good or not good. The point is that while he may look bad/bust, that he could be someone who takes time to develop. We have certainly seen guys who ended up really good look bad in preseason and guys who have looked like studs in preseason end up out of the game quickly. And it certainly doesn't help the young man to get in a groove (if he can) when he is moving around without a set position.

Its not uncommon for guys with ability to sit early, as the coaches think a veteran presence will help more.

But go ahead and really think back and answer the other point honestly. If this were couple years ago when the team went 0-16 and a higher pick wasn't looking good would the talk be needing to get rid of him? If your answer is no, then you are wanting to expedite his maturation because of the lofty expectations for the team. And people can't just change themselves like that. I'm sure Corbett or anyone else would love to greatly improve every day from the start.

But take football out of it. Let's use a typical office job. I don't remember the guys exact snap number for last year I just remember it was low, let's use 30 as the example. Anyway,  say you got a new job at a sales company. They sell multiple things. You have daily meetings and practice runs on how to sell whatever the product is. You are shadowing others to get the hang of it. You get 30 phone calls where you aren't being the assistant to the guy you are shadowing. You don't make a Sale in those 30 calls. You continue to work in the meetings on improving your salesmanship. Then as you are trying to improve and learn how to sell that product, you are moved to a different product. I'm not saying you will ever be a good salesman, but considering the circumstances I don't think that customers who for a good amount of time have no clue how to do your job, and are just a user of the product should say you suck at your job.

Hopefully that makes a little sense haha. 

@gunz41 said:

He MAY be a bad pick. He has not played enough to be judged as of now.

Again, would you consider RG3 a bad pick? Most probably would, yet he was the Rookie of Year. One year (and in Austin case little time on field) and 2 preseason games doesn't give an answer.

Again, I am NOT saying he will be good or was the right pick. But there are NUMEROUS examples of guys needing some time to work, and there are NUMEROUS examples of guys who came out of the gates on fire and then fizzled out

Right....he could get better or he could be a bust.....I think everyone gets that and can agree to a point.

I see the examples you gave of both and my one argument would be that those other guys could at least get on the field.....most high picks(1st & 2nds for sure) get the benefit of the doubt and will get playing time to see where they are....in the case of Corbett, the fact that he cant even get a starting nod(when we have NO decent alternative) tells me he's pretty bad......Id say an average or even below average guy might get the start in this situation(no good alternate) .....but not so with Corbett....

So....until I hear(and see) otherwise, I have to assume he looks "terrible" to our coaching staff.....

How many guys on your list were so bad they were not even given a chance as a starter in their first 2 years.....any?

@ballpeen said:

On Corbett...the only thing worse than making a bad pick is sticking with a bad pick.  We will soon find out if Dorsey allows his ego to interfere with making sound football decisions.

He MAY be a bad pick. He has not played enough to be judged as of now.

Again, would you consider RG3 a bad pick? Most probably would, yet he was the Rookie of Year. One year (and in Austin case little time on field) and 2 preseason games doesn't give an answer.

Again, I am NOT saying he will be good or was the right pick. But there are NUMEROUS examples of guys needing some time to work, and there are NUMEROUS examples of guys who came out of the gates on fire and then fizzled out

@hoorta said:

It might have been me- but right now, most folks would prefer having Hernandez over Corbett, yes? And there certainly could  have been the possibility of either Tampa or Detroit (who both took running backs in the second round- OK I had to look) swinging a trade with the Giants to move up and draft Chubb if they valued him higher than we did. In that regard, we got lucky.   

I'm still not saying he was the right pick, just the thinking behind it for going OL first. 

And yes, a trade can always happen but that isn't something you can predict. And just as easily can see that Dorsey had talked to Gettleman. 

One thing is for sure though, it doesn't mean a whole lot to say Hernandez is a starter in NY. Their line play has been atrocious haha

@louisville-slugger said:

I'm down like syndrome. How do we make this happen?

Rumors are the LA Chargers want to make this happen too..Another high draft pick won't hurt us..We can't keep getting much younger? Winning window is now open for 2 years..Throw in a hot personal nurse  ?to our medical staff for Williams..We can wrap this thing up.. 

@gumby73 said:

Trent Williams--Bitonio-Tretter-Robinson-Hubbard...who's in? 

I'm down like syndrome. How do we make this happen?