The browns had 2 first rounders and wasted one I think.
Anyone disagree?
0
Browns draft
Started by OG fan for life, Apr 28 2012 05:49 PM
12 replies to this topic
#1
-
- Members
- 54 posts
All League
- Location:OG
Joined: 30-January 11
Member No.: 7827
Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:49 PM
#2
-
- Members
- 2,055 posts
Hall of Fame
Joined: 31-August 09
Member No.: 5013
Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:14 PM
OG fan for life, on 28 April 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:
The browns had 2 first rounders and wasted one I think.
Anyone disagree?
Anyone disagree?
Should have stayed at 4 and draft Claiborne. Then taken the best available WR or RB at 22. Then taken Weeden where he should have been drafted at 37. It's not like anyone else would have taken him before then, cause he will be 29 when season starts. Could any other team done less when they get 3 of the top 37 players?
Edited by lepiota, 28 April 2012 - 07:15 PM.
#3
-
- Members
- 54 posts
All League
- Location:OG
Joined: 30-January 11
Member No.: 7827
Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:23 PM
Y would they want another corner when every team in the division is a run first team usauly Trent Richardson was the right pick
Edited by OG fan for life, 28 April 2012 - 08:26 PM.
#4
-
- Members
- 2,055 posts
Hall of Fame
Joined: 31-August 09
Member No.: 5013
Posted 28 April 2012 - 08:52 PM
I think Claiborne is as good as Richardson, but has a longer shelf life because RB's dont last long and Richardson is a pounder. If they had two shutdown corners, that makes the pass rush much better. Plus a running back in the West Coast Offense is not as crucial as in other offenses. I always thought Roger Craig in the great San Fransisco years was just an average back in a good situation. He could have never been a main back in a running offense
#5
-
- Members
- 151 posts
All District
Joined: 08-November 11
Member No.: 9094
Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:14 AM
Disappointed with our drafting of a QB without looking ahead to schedule. Toughest schedule of non-playoff team this year should of had us playing for calling Matt Barkley next April but no we will put our 21 game plan 
in the hands of Joe Bauserman 2.0 
in the hands of Joe Bauserman 2.0
"Our objective is simple, to make the great state of Ohio proud" Urban F. Meyer
2014 BVC Football Prediction Champ
2014 BVC Football Prediction Champ
#6
-
- [M] Moderator
- 7,940 posts
Stinkys Legend
Joined: 07-February 06
Member No.: 368
Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:28 PM
Hate the Browns but think Richardson was the right pick.....
You'll be proud of our young people in the classroom, in the community, and most especially in 310 days in Ann Arbor, Michigan on the football field. - Jim Tressel
#7
-
- Members
- 54 posts
All League
- Location:OG
Joined: 30-January 11
Member No.: 7827
Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:56 PM
Thank you joe
#8
-
- Members
- 1,648 posts
Hall of Fame
Joined: 07-August 08
Member No.: 3689
Posted 29 April 2012 - 06:08 PM
First off, the Browns didn't need to send the ransom to Minnesota to move up one spot. I have no doubts it was a ruse concocted by the Vikings to try and pull a bit out of the Browns to move up one spot or even Richardson's agent to try and get his client more money.
In terms of Weeden, I don't know who else was going to draft him other than the Browns! He is a player who is essentially going to have to be drafted to be a started NOW and not someone to be "groomed for the future." The Browns were the only team that fit that bill. I think they would have been wise to trade back as often as they could in the first round with their 2nd pick if they wanted Weeden and then when they had traded back to the furthest spot back in the first round they could, take Weeden IF their concern was ensuring he is under contract for that extra year that 1st Rd players get as opposed to 2nd year players, as I think getting that extra year of him under contract was important to the Browns at a decent price. If they weren't concerned about that, they could have easily waited until their 2nd round pick and he should have been there.
In terms of Weeden, I don't know who else was going to draft him other than the Browns! He is a player who is essentially going to have to be drafted to be a started NOW and not someone to be "groomed for the future." The Browns were the only team that fit that bill. I think they would have been wise to trade back as often as they could in the first round with their 2nd pick if they wanted Weeden and then when they had traded back to the furthest spot back in the first round they could, take Weeden IF their concern was ensuring he is under contract for that extra year that 1st Rd players get as opposed to 2nd year players, as I think getting that extra year of him under contract was important to the Browns at a decent price. If they weren't concerned about that, they could have easily waited until their 2nd round pick and he should have been there.
#9
-
- Members
- 307 posts
All District
Joined: 12-November 09
Member No.: 5312
Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:21 AM
Like the running back pick, too early to tell on the QB.
#10
-
- Members
- 625 posts
All State
Joined: 28-July 08
Member No.: 3674
Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:01 AM
Trent was the right pick. Clairborne would have not impacted the offensive side of the ball, and last i checked the Browns were terrible on offense. Didn't necessarily think they needed to move up, but it didn't cost them alot, and they got the guy they needed to take. He is an everydown back, and that's what they needed especially playing in Cleveland in the winter.
Torn on the QB, I agree that I think they reached, but the receivers, they wanted were gone, so they were going to be taking a Lineman in Weeden's spot. Then we would have all said why in the hec didn't we get an offensive player. he was the the next skilled player on the their list i believe. Not saying He couldn't have been taken the next rd, but they weren't drafting a receiver in that spot anway. If 29 is the only thing that he has against him, then I will take him for 4 years. At this point just would like to see a QB, that can actually keep that position for more than a year or two. 5 would be the holy grail, for Cleveland!
Torn on the QB, I agree that I think they reached, but the receivers, they wanted were gone, so they were going to be taking a Lineman in Weeden's spot. Then we would have all said why in the hec didn't we get an offensive player. he was the the next skilled player on the their list i believe. Not saying He couldn't have been taken the next rd, but they weren't drafting a receiver in that spot anway. If 29 is the only thing that he has against him, then I will take him for 4 years. At this point just would like to see a QB, that can actually keep that position for more than a year or two. 5 would be the holy grail, for Cleveland!
#11
-
- Members
- 2,055 posts
Hall of Fame
Joined: 31-August 09
Member No.: 5013
Posted 16 May 2012 - 06:51 AM
If Weeden is good, it won't matter when they picked him. It could have been 3 overall and no one will care. But if he is bad, (Remember, Derek Anderson had a rifle arm too), any pick is too high.
This post brought to you by Lepiota ; CEO of Captain Obvious LLC.
This post brought to you by Lepiota ; CEO of Captain Obvious LLC.
#12
-
- Members
- 625 posts
All State
Joined: 28-July 08
Member No.: 3674
Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:21 PM
This post brought to you by Lepiota ; CEO of Captain Obvious LLC. Okay that was funny.....
Edited by gamekeeper, 16 May 2012 - 02:24 PM.
#13
-
- Members
- 625 posts
All State
Joined: 28-July 08
Member No.: 3674
Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:33 PM
I just can't believe the last good QB cleveland has had was Bernie Kosar. 
That's like almost 15 years of ....... not good QB play.
Since Bernie, Cleveland has had a different starting QB every year. Except for Couch, and he well, should have never been drafted by the browns.
That's like almost 15 years of ....... not good QB play.Since Bernie, Cleveland has had a different starting QB every year. Except for Couch, and he well, should have never been drafted by the browns.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
