@canton-dawg said:Which only proves that not all coordinators & assistants are head coach material. Possibly but I believe it proves that these guys when given talent produce.

@shep said: Pot is fine. Pot all day, every day? Mmmm... maybe not so much. lol

@shep said: Hoyer is such a fantastic Cleveland sports story waiting to happen, right on the heels of the Indians amazing run. He even LOOKS like Cleveland, like several kinds of Eastern European all mixed up together. But I see it, what all those "insiders" see (and now Kosar, too). It's not all intangibles. He processes fast, sees the field, understands what's happening. He has a quick, compact release and a clock in his head (unlike pretty much the last 17 Browns QBs since Kosar). He has above average mobility and can get out of trouble pretty damn well. He can zip it and he can go over the top. Short of a cannon, I'd say he has a good arm. Belicheck used to say he has a really good arm. I think it's getting underrated because of Weeden's cannon. A lot of people who spend a lot of time around football watch Hoyer and say, "He's got it." It's just a rare combination of tangibles and intangibles that add up to "it." Let's hope they're right, because it would be a blast. I think you're glorifying him a bit. He has a quick, compact release but I would hardly qualify him as above average in the mobility department nor would I say he has a really good arm. He's certainly passing the eyeball test as far as his ability to make quick decisions and scan the field and he doesn't seem to predesignate his receiver before the snap. His biggest attribute, in my opinion, is his ability to throw receivers open, something Weeden has not exhibited once in his stint in Cleveland.

@browns149 said: The 2 reasons Shurmur was hired are: 1. He had ties to Holmgren 2. He is a west coast off. guy other then that he had NO resaon to be hired. I don't recall ANY other team interviewing him. BUH-BYE Shurmer/Holmgren. #3...he had Bob LaMonte as his agent.

@beefjerky said: As far as I'm aware, Tom Heckert would remain the GM. I want him to playcall games, not make roster decisions. I don't care. Anyone dumb enough to make that trade doesn't deserve to be water boy.

@dawg4life said: Put Larry Fitzgerald on the Browns, same thing. He would give the offense exactly what they need, spped and the ability to spread the defense out, hence slowing the blitz against McCoy and opening up the run game. If you haven't noticed the Eagles are as bad as the Browns because Vick couldn't hit a philly cheesesteak from the Linc. Fitzgerald is far from fast. He almost runs slower that Robiskie. What makes him great is that he is an fantastic route running, catcher, and can make great moves after the catch. Not every great WR is a burner, that's why the bitching about needing one is stupid. Having 2 good WR's would open up the whole offense as much as having one good WR and one good Speedy WR.

Its not always the QB that the coach doesn't trust. Sometimes its the other offensive players that couldn't grasp the audible. lol. This is Cleveland we are talking about here.

@beefjerky said: I'm almost positive he'd be better in another role, when he got some direct snaps last year and maybe the year before, he'd run for a solid or large gain half the time, so I'm pretty sure that translates when mccoy passes him a screen pass(it also would apply attention to cribbs near by, opening up others). Exactly, Cribbs should probably be thrown those "bubble screens" 3-4 times a game. Get him out into open space and see what he can do. Its probable that on half of them he will only get a yard or two, but then on the other half he can get 15-20 yards, if not more. Plus the occasional downfield throw like yesterday's TD.

@beefjerky said: Well, I usually bet every 2-3 weeks(sometimes just doing it twice in a row if there's a game I'm very confident about) and have came out winning more than losing every single year I've done it, although in the first year I was just above break even, and with enough variance, that can happen any year in theory. I normally make my picks Monday or Tuesday, after seeing an injury report, because the initial lines are almost always better than the ones you get later in the week. This year I'm not doing it because I'm strict on not betting if I feel there's even a chance I can't afford to lose(which everyone should do the same, just for fun, excitement and supplemental unreliable income at worst), and I also don't bet below $80-$100(unless its just a friendly bet), because there's no point. I will update the thread on which picks I got right and which picks I got wrong. I decided to write this out because I'm stuck at the airport right now and am pretty bored. anyway I like the following picks for this Sunday*disclaimer I'm not responsible if you're bad at managing your money, nor do I expect anyone to go off of my word, the NFL is very unpredictable a lot of the times, never bet more than you can afford to lose*: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bucs +3 Bucs to cover(loss by less than 3 or win outright, PUSH if within a FG) @Min -3 Covered. Bucs were down 0-17 at half, came back to win 24-20. Mcnabb played much better, Peterson had a big game, but they folded and the Bucs were clutch. Donovan McNabb looks totally out of sync, just had a game reminiscent of Derek Anderson @ Buffalo a few years ago, except McNabb played on a clear sunny day in San Diego and Anderson was in a snowstorm in Buffalo(which the Browns won). Bucs are a young solid competitive team which lost to a team quite similar to them last week(Lions, who I picked over the Bucs), they also have a great CB in Aqib Talib, so that makes it even less likely for Donovan to get any rhythm going. If not for Adrian Peterson, the line would be +8 Min, but keep in mind lines are designed in a way where betting on either side looks attractive(so sportsbooks and bookies can get close to 50-50 on each bet, collecting vig, profitting), not necessarily how many points it'll be apart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @BUF -3 Bills to cover(win by more than 3, PUSH if within a FG) Push at 38-35 Bills. Although the Bills were down 3-21 at half, the Raiders lost pretty much how I thought they would, making too many mistakes and being too inconsistent. Fitzpatrick was clutch in the 4th with dwindling time converting a 4th and 3(or 2, I don't remember), and a 4th and 1 to pass a game winning TD. Bills are an underrated team who have been held back by Trent Edwards and instability at coaching, Ryan Fitzpatrick is actually a solid QB and they have weapons all over. They have a pro bowl safety Jairus Byrd(made all-pro in 2009), and an average/slightly below average defense. The Raiders are also not as bad as everyone thinks(McFadden is a beast, average defense, best kicker in the world, lacking WRs), but I don't expect them to be able to win on the road at Buffalo, they also make too many mistakes, and are too inconsistent(sound familiar?). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Browns -2 Browns to cover(win by more than 2, PUSH if within 2 somehow) @IND +2 Covered 27-19 Browns. Pretty much by the reasoning I put. Although the Bears are probably the team with the worst Oline at this point. I very reluctantly would make this bet because the Browns lost in a very weird fashion(they just love to find ways to lose games don't they?), they have a new punter which we'll assume won't be shanking punts (25 yards average by McGee , gave the Bengals free points), and we'll assume a Colts snap doesn't happen during a defensive huddle. The Browns D actually played rather well besides that huge blunder(they were shutting down Benson and Haden was playing at an all-pro level against AJ Green until that happened). As a side note, I think Bruce Gradkowski(who played once for the Browns at one point) is an underrated QB who is better than Dalton at this point, so that just makes you what if? What if Dalton didn't get injured would have they have still won? would have he enough awareness to quick snap? Doesn't matter, Browns blew it, and deserved to lose for that reason. The Colts have probably the worst offensive line in football, very likely will finish bottom 3 in overall defense, don't have Peyton Manning(although Collins deserves more credit, he was at the helm for a 13-3 and 11-5 Titans team recently, not even Peyton could play under the Oline he played last Sunday, but he's just not comparable obviously). They might possibly be the worst team in football by the end of the year. All of this just indicates it becoming a solid bet, and well, if you lost this bet, then at least you'd know to avoid betting Browns games like the plague for the rest of the year, there was more to judge the Colts being a bad team than there was to judge the Browns being a bad team in week 1(The Colts were bad in every phase of the game and didn't just make 1 or 2 big mistakes, nearly every snap they were dominated). I normally did, they are very unpredictable, they beat Super bowl champs and lose to chumps(I actually bet on them the year after the Giants won the superbowl, the MNF game had a very favorable spread, that was my last time betting on a Browns game, quit while ahead you know? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MNF Rams +6 @NYG -6 Giants to cover (win by more than 6, PUSH if within 2 FGs) Covered 28-16 Giants. Pretty much by the reasoning I put, although the Rams would have possibly been closer if not for two blunders, but then the Giants offense would have been different later on in the game. Easy pick. Giants just lost away to an underrated Redskins team(who I picked over the Giants last week, although I broke even on the pick em league 7-7, most of those games I wouldn't have bet on anyway heh), they might be on a down year due to all the starters they lost on offense(steve smith, nyg, boss, a few others), but maybe the players in their place might step up. Justin Tuck and Osi out as well. But they're still solid enough to score points and their defense is still above average, Rams just lost pretty handily to the Eagles at home after Steven Jackson got injured, their defense is below average, Steven Jackson will be limited or may not even play at all. Giants shouldn't have much of a problem. I'd be a bit wary if Hakeem Nicks doesn't play though. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jags -10.5 Jags to cover(lose by less than 10 or win by any) @NYJ +10.5 Wrong. Jets 32-3. Jags were no where near losing by less than 10. "unless the Jets completely blow out the Jags", well, they did. Got this one quite wrong, and in hindsight there wasn't enough to judge the Jags yet to involve betting yet(hypothetical or not), but it was on my judgment of the Jets. This just seems like a great value bet, unless the Jets completely blow out the Jags, I find it hard to believe the Jags won't be within by at least 10. Say what you want about Luke McCown(who was also with the Browns at one point), but the Jags play as much mistake-free football as possible, and have an above average defense. Not to mention they have MJD. Offensively the Jets were very overrated last week when playing the Cowboys, they looked very lackluster up until the Cowboys somehow managed to lose both their starting CBs to injury; a situation which almost every QB in the league would flourish in. *note the Vegas line has been reduced to -9 Jets 9 Jags 3-1 with picks with 1 push(3-1-1 if you wanna list the push), lost on the side bets 1-2 but those were just on the side anyway. Colt had 211 yards surprisingly, o/u was 216.5, Ray rice was under as I underestimated the Titans D, Peyton did indeed score a TD which was an easy pick. Picks to avoid were correct to avoid as well since both of them pretty much ended on coinflips(push on DAl/SF). @the-gipper said: I understand it almost happened. He got whacked in the knee, but I think a brace he was wearing prevented a serious injury. Not that it matters. BR has never been the real key to that team's success. Yeah when he came down I thought he was going to be out for at least half the year, I've never been a fan of Roflsberger for numerous reasons, but he's a tough big guy who seems like he'll almost never be down due to injury.

@gips said: At only 5'9" the bigger question to me would be can he catch because there is no doubt he can get separation out of the backfield on a LB or S.. As a blocker he will likely not fare to well.. yes he is definitely a speed guy and not a power guy. If he can't catch, he will be almost useless to the browns since he most likely won't be a great blocker. And even though I do have confidence that he will be able to catch the ball out of the backfield, Hardesty is the #2 back as of now, and the guy I am more anxious to see play in the regular season..

@earl34 said:Can anyone name a special teams star who held a team hostage then went to another team and the original club regretted it? I know it's not that simple and that Cribbs actually contributes to the offense but imagine that the offense improves next year and has a legit passing and running attack. Those plays are going to marginalize the use of the WildDawg. I would love to keep Josh Cribbs. I think he's a good person and a good player but I don't like the idea of anyone holding the team hostage; I don't want to call him expendable because he's not exactly but I just don't see how we'd regret calling his bluff. He signed a contract that has three years left and I think it's awfully generous of any employer to consider reworking such a deal because Deion Sanders said so on NFL network. The point of the matter is that two parties entered an agreement and he did so willingly. He's on the short end of a discrepancy. What if the tables were turned and he was stealing money from the club (Oh no, THAT's never happened before)?? Would we be begging the player to give his money back? If so, I'm sure the Jets want to speak to Mr. Gholston. The Raiders want to redo JaBustus Russell. Contracts are contracts and I can see the goodwill in reworking them....I just hate it when the agents screw it all up. This may sound like heresy, and I love Cribbs & want to have him finish his career as a Brown- but his contract makes him very tradeable. If a team comes calling with a high second, or a second and a player, Holmgren will certainly listen to an offer like that.

It's not quite true that the only reason Hass was hurt so much is his pocket's collapsing. He's not a great decision-maker. He has lost a great deal of athleticism, but he still plays as if he has that ability to escape and make plays. Consider that he was sacked 32 times in 520 dropbacks. That's one per 16 dropbacks. Quinn was sacked, by comparison, once per 14.5 dropbacks. Why think that Hasselbeck would see better protection with Cleveland? Plus, Seattle has better receivers. Nonetheless, Hasselbeck threw 17 picks compared to 17 TDs and posted a rating of 75.1. Over the past two seasons, he has 22 TDs, 27 INTs, has hit on 58% of his passes, and has been sacked 51 times in 21 games. His rating is 69.9 in that time. Compare it with Quinn, whom so many believe has nothing to offer a NFL team: He has 10 TDs vs 9 INTs, has hit on 52.5% of his passes, and has been sacked 25 times in 13 games. His rating is 67.0 in that time. I'm a Notre Dame fan. I follow Notre Dame players in the NFL. With Seattle having Julius Jones and John Carlson in the starting lineup, I watched at least half of Seattle's games this year and last year. I think Hass was once a very gutsy player (actually, he's still incredibly tough and gutsy) with a big arm, was a risk-taker, and had the improvisational abilities to make things happen. Now he's older, slower, but still makes decisions like he's more physically gifted. For comparison, Seneca Wallace has posted a better comp%, TD:INT ratio, and passer rating over the past two seasons. So if you want to bring him in to mentor BQ, that's fine if he comes at a relative bargain. Can't see it happening though.

@calfoxwc said:I disagree. C. J. Spiller is an oustanding talent, but he's only 195 lbs. He would be a great compliment to an offense that already has a big, dominating bruising rb, which the Browns do not have. He shared carries with Davis because he isn't a big guy. In Cleveland winters, you have to be able to pound the ball down the field. His size isn't a hinderance to his potential. Just because he's small doesn't mean he can't take a hit. To tell you the truth, he's probably more "big and bruising" than the RB's we have on our current roster. I'd love to see him in Cleveland, to re-create the "Thunder and Lightning" ground attack that worked for them in Clemson.

@gips said:In my opinion getting rid of edwards was one of only 2 things mamweenie has got right...even then he failed to anticipate the move and didnt have a viable replacement groomed and ready..instead momass is thrown to the wolves with little preparation and expected to play like a 3 year veteran.... he didn't have a viable replacement because he knew there wasn't going to be one until next year, that's why he waited to trade Braylon to see if the team would be competitive at all, once he saw that it wouldn't be, it wasn't worth keeping Braylon around.

This is the worst team I've seen. Other Browns teams that were nearly as bad were 1990 & 1974. The early expansion teams were bad, in 1999 & 2000, but we expected that at the time.

@brownindian said:We do not and should not draft a QB this draft. The only reason Flacco and Sanchez look so good is cos they are in a team that is already built. WRONG

Cribbs is a great talent to have as a special teams player/WildDawg. but he is to green as a wr to be the #2 man Is Mangini smoking crack?

@beefjerky said:btw I am not "Zombo", Thanks for clearing that up! Did you set your clocks ahead yet? You better hurryup before it's time to set them back. - Tom F.

@dtbh said:It was a joke... someone else said Pre-Madonna instead of prima-donna in another thread and got absolutely torched for it. That's all. Missed that one - I'm sure he got lit up for it!