Posted: 1/22/2013 11:41 PM
Posted: 1/23/2013 1:08 PM
Posted: 1/23/2013 8:52 PM
poppa9601 wrote: Yeah I seen another one that had us reaching for Geno Smith. Like that is ever going to happen.It'll be interesting to see what they do. But I just don't think they will make a move at QB just b/c of ML past comments on Weeden. It would be different if there was someone out there that was a better fit in Chud's offense at the position, but there's not. Alex Smith isn't a fit and Ryan Mallett has the exact skill set as BW, so why bother.This team has precious little resourses to waste them making lateral moves. They should focus on things they can "for sure" fix, like CB and pass rusher and leave the QB question for another time and place. At most I see them taking someone in the 5-7 range in the draft.
• Turner, on Weeden: "As I said, I looked at things where I know he needs to improve, needs to get better to do the things we want him to do. But I think he has a lot of the skill set that we’re looking for. And again, this is early in terms of an evaluation. But he does have a big arm and he can throw the ball over the field.''
• Turner, on McCoy: "I am familiar with Colt, watching him come out (of Texas), watching him play when he played for Cleveland, he brings a different style than maybe Brandon. He’s been a productive player when he’s played.''
• Chudzinski, on whether or not they'll want a dual-threat quarterback like a Newton or Colin Kaepernick: “Well, I think it depends. You can have success with all different types of players and quarterbacks in particular. And you look at the teams and who’s scoring points and who’s moving the ball, and you can do it all different ways. So the good thing is that Norv and I really are coming from the traditional quarterback background.
Posted: 1/24/2013 11:20 AM
Posted: 1/24/2013 1:06 PM
Posted: 1/24/2013 4:25 PM
HeadHole wrote: "Norv and Chud , are setting a precedent , by serving notice at the top everybody has to put their work in ."-- And that's a good thing. Certainly new guys- backed up by a FO that didn't draft any of these players- have no dog in the fight going in. Replacing QBs- whether it's Jimmy Claussen or Alex Smith or Matt Flynn or whoever- isn't new and seems to happen more these days . While there are other spots that can be filled, the QB is still important.Much will depend on who is available when we draft and how they are rated. But Weeden's future just took a new turn when new guys took over with no old loyalties. I'll bet Chud and Norv take the QB position seriously.
Posted: 1/24/2013 6:54 PM
It is really going to be interesting what happens this off-season with the defense. Pieces Horton has to like are Rubin, Taylor, Rucker and Sheard. All of them translate to the 3-4 or 4-2 hybrid. He also has to like D'Qwell and our ILB youth. It would be pretty insane if our new FO didn't address OLB/DE or CB, where an impact player is needed badly. It could happen in free agency as we are no longer bound by the old paradigm of building only through the draft. If we can satisfy these positions by that route, the draft is more interesting. We have a pretty good team. I think Norv and Chud like our roster including the QB and know it was mis-managed. They simply cannot tell anyone that. By keeping open competition and never revealing their hand, they can get the most and best production from all.
Posted: 1/24/2013 8:12 PM
Posted: 1/25/2013 11:23 AM
SoulDawg74 wrote: If Banner and Lombardi are putting out this vibe , get the pitchforks, tar and feathers ready .Has us picking QB at 6 , Lacey going to the 49ers and teo going inbred , ( figures) if they get him expect him to plague us for a decade .http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Mock-Draft-Seni or-Bowl-EJ-Manuel-Ryan-Nassib-Tyler-Wilson-first-r ound-quarterbacks-012113A pox on them bastards if they waste our precious pick on not just a QB , but one of the lames in this draft masquerading as a QB especially that early .SoulDawg
Posted: 1/25/2013 11:28 AM
poppa9601 wrote: Welcome to the forum HH. Now a word of warning. GR can dish it out, but he can't take it. He's in the habit of deleting post that point out his asinine takes.Typical moderator.
Last edited 1/25/2013 11:30 AM by 0tter
Posted: 1/25/2013 12:02 PM
0tter wrote: poppa9601 wrote: Welcome to the forum HH. Now a word of warning. GR can dish it out, but he can't take it. He's in the habit of deleting post that point out his asinine takes.Typical moderator.Gary's programming does not allow him to delete a post just because it points out that his take is asinine. Otherwise I would have a lot fewer posts on this board.It does allow him to delete posts that make personal attacks. And posts that truly suck. You may want to re-evaluate your post and focus on which of those two categories your post fell under.Also worth mentioning that discussing moderation does not fall under the Pure Football charter. There is a separate forum that allows you to whine about the highly paid professional moderators and their unending efforts to thwart you from publishing your winning arguments.
Posted: 1/25/2013 12:03 PM
0tter wrote: SoulDawg74 wrote: If Banner and Lombardi are putting out this vibe , get the pitchforks, tar and feathers ready .Has us picking QB at 6 , Lacey going to the 49ers and teo going inbred , ( figures) if they get him expect him to plague us for a decade .http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Mock-Draft-Seni or-Bowl-EJ-Manuel-Ryan-Nassib-Tyler-Wilson-first-r ound-quarterbacks-012113A pox on them bastards if they waste our precious pick on not just a QB , but one of the lames in this draft masquerading as a QB especially that early .SoulDawg Your link sucks.http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/s...terbacks-012113SD none of these mocks are based on inside information. It's just the draftnick matching perceived need with perceived value. But Banner/Lombardi have certainly left open the possibility that they perceive QB as a need. I would expect any mock draft to focus on a 34 rushing LB, a FS, a CB, or a QB. Those are the perceived needs. And I also expect the draft to have QBs go earlier than most people would think so that mock isn't quite as crazy as they'll get. If Lombardi is as good as alleged at identifying BPA then there's no way he'll go QB at 6. There's too much value at the top of this draft in places of need to go with a QB that would be available 10-20 slots lower. His reaction to the Browns selection of Weeden was not one that indicated that he thought Weeden was a bad player - just that he felt he was a bad selection at the end of rnd 1. That speaks more to him being unwilling to reach for a QB at the top of rnd 1 than it speaks of his feel that they need to replace him at all costs.
Posted: 1/25/2013 1:45 PM
0tter wrote: poppa9601 wrote: Welcome to the forum HH. Now a word of warning. GR can dish it out, but he can't take it. He's in the habit of deleting post that point out his asinine takes.Typical moderator. Gary's programming does not allow him to delete a post just because it points out that his take is asinine. Otherwise I would have a lot fewer posts on this board.It does allow him to delete posts that make personal attacks. And posts that truly suck. You may want to re-evaluate your post and focus on which of those two categories your post fell under.Also worth mentioning that discussing moderation does not fall under the Pure Football charter. There is a separate forum that allows you to whine about the highly paid professional moderators and their unending efforts to thwart you from publishing your winning arguments.
Posted: 1/25/2013 1:53 PM
HeadHole wrote: "Welcome to PF. Okay. That's done."-- Thank you. As you say, that's done."Now I have to give you a hard time."-- I don't think I need to worry about that. "Your first statement is arguable. You go on to say "new guys" don't have a vested interest in these players. You didn't actually use vested interest, but I explained what you meant better than you did. Why is it a good thing to immediately tell a QB he's on shaky ground? Specifically. What does it accomplish?"-- When did Chud or Norv actually say Weeden was on "shaky ground"? I took the gist of what they were saying at their press conference as indicating the obvious that their evaluations were pending. A possible extension of that is that positions going forward may be impacted. In essence, any position in a competitive game is competitive or, in your terms, on shaky ground. (See Flynn, Smith, Tebow, Claussen, etc.) Nothing said was unusual or directly threatening. "See. I find it disheartening. I find it disheartening because that attitude is the exact one every other new coach took as they tore down the roster for our typical two steps back on the promise of a step forward. Usually we get the two steps back and a new coach."-- This is a different consideration. "Two steps back" can be disheartening if they don't need to be made. "Two steps back" can be two steps forward ultimately if they need to be made. That is a valid debate that will be dependent on future events. Guys trying to make valid changes is one thing. Guys making changes just to show how important they are is another thing. Something to be watched."So, why is it a good thing to immediately make your QB uncertain and do it in the press before speaking with him?"-- I believe the comments made were meant to be team-focused and fairly generic. Sometimes the context a question is asked in and then answered in can lead one to make assumptions that may have not been there. It's January. We'll know more down the road."Then you go on with some...chatter...water is wet...sun is hot...snow is cold...finally you end up with Chud will take the QB position seriously."-- Water isn't always wet, the sun isn't always hot (on Earth, at least) and snow can be cold or really cold, slushy or powdery. Actually, I didn't say those things. The comment about Chud and Turner, to make it clear if it needs to be, was meant to emphasize their offensive backgrounds and how it may impact Weeden's future. That is, things haven't changed with a new FO and new coaches. "Why do you believe Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmer weren't serious about the QB position?"-- I'm willing to believe they were. Like I said, things haven't now changed and Weeden- as all players are- is still to be evaluated. As we all know, Holmgren and Heckert and Shurmer are all gone. What matters now is what Chud and Norv think and do. If anything recently said upset Weeden's feelings, I'm not sure what to think of his mindset."More importantly, what is there about embarrassing a player you haven't even met yet that signals Chud is serious?"--You may see this as "more important", but I think you are making jumps in logic that don't exist. I don't see Chud's recent comments as a sign of seriousness about the QB position. I think they were fairly straightforward press conference stuff. I think his- and Turner's- seriousness (that is, value regarding) the QB position as something indicated by their past histories. Who knows where the team will go under the new regime? It is good- or valid- that a new HC says he wants to evaluate people at this point. Predictable, but good. And if a 1 year player can get upset by a new HC in January, then it's best to know that as soon as possible.
Posted: 1/25/2013 2:02 PM
Posted: 1/25/2013 3:14 PM
Posted: 1/25/2013 3:28 PM
HeadHole wrote: Having said all that, it would be wise not to reinvent the wheel if you don't have to. Stay with guys who fit your ideas and change only what needs to be changed.
Posted: 1/25/2013 3:32 PM
Gameface64 wrote: G,I have mixed feelings about Chud's statement that it would be premature to name Weeden the starter at this point. Absolutely agree that it would be nice not to have the Couch/Kelly, Frye/DA, DA/Quinn scenarios right off the bat, and really showing confidence and dedication to one QB would be soothing. On the other hand, I would like the QB of the Cleveland Browns to have a strong and competitive enough nature to welcome any challenge. Russell Wilson didn't need the Seattle front office to declare him the starter prior to TC in order to thrive. I do worry a bit about Weeden's failed baseball career. That was his first choice as a pro athelete, and he tanked. Not sure how much of that was physical talent, but seems to me a pitcher with a good arm who fails, probably failed at mastering his craft from a mental standpoint. He wasn't either smart enough or determined enough to harness his ability, throw with control, and have a strategy for getting hitters out. All similar attributes required for being a successful NFL QB. Just doesn't include the ability to shake off concussions. ; - )
Posted: 1/25/2013 3:53 PM
Posted: 1/25/2013 4:21 PM
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|