Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Crack Adled Mock draft

Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 11:41 PM

Crack Adled Mock draft 


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-012113

A 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
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 1:08 PM

Re: Crack Adled Mock draft 


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.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/23/2013 8:52 PM

Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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.
SD:

Which is fine with me , third if they find a hottie .

Norv and Chud , are setting a precedent , by  serving notice at the top everybody has to put their work in .

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/

They even threw McCoy a bone , , kinda like a frat pet , he fits with their system like a stone in your shoes.

"""

• 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.

"I’ve had some experience with Cam in the last two years and some of the newer things and just sitting down and watching some tape with Norv and talking through some things yesterday and how we’re going to merge these systems,""""""

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2013/01/ cleveland_browns_coach_rob_chu_2.html

SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 11:20 AM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


"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.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 1:06 PM

RE: Crack Adled Mock draft 


SD,they know the scheme was horrible and really didn't put any of the offense in a position to succeed.
Plus Weeden never progressed upward..he sputtered..too many mouths in his ear.
Turner wants to work with him and see if he can bring the best out of him.
Fine..don't need to waste 1st rd picks by throwing a guy away just because U can.

If it were me I would bring in a FA QB to compete and roll that way for a year while I fix the D.

We only have 6 picks this year..thats not a lot to be using redundantly..so I hope they are shrewed enough to cop another 2nd rounder.
The 34 is more urgent because they need backers to fill the outside holes.
I want that first pick if they stay there to get a pass rusher or corner.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 4:25 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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.
Welcome to PF. Okay. That's done. Now I have to give you a hard time.

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? 

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. 

So, why is it a good thing to immediately make your QB uncertain and do it in the press before speaking with him?

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.

Why do you believe Holmgren, Heckert and Shurmer weren't serious about the QB position? More importantly, what is there about embarrassing a player you haven't even met yet that signals Chud is serious?
Reply | Quote
  • vdubble
  • Homework Muncher
  • 362 posts this site

Posted: 1/24/2013 6:54 PM

Re: Crack Adled Mock draft 


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. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 8:12 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


"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. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:23 AM

Re: Crack Adled Mock draft 



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-012113

A 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-012113

SD 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.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:28 AM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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.

Last edited 1/25/2013 11:30 AM by 0tter

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 12:02 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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.
He knows all that. Poppa is of the opinion the charter doesn't apply to him.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 12:03 PM

Re: Crack Adled Mock draft 



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-012113

A 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-012113

SD 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.
SD:

First of all thanks for fixing the link , second my post backed up your summation , as I ascribed to the philosophy if they followed this course it would suck .

We don't need to expend valuable resources at 6 on QB especially with a suspect crop of signal callers there is not even a Dalton much less a Luck or RG3 which gives you an instant starter .

I pity the fools forced to have to go early and pick from an orchard which has frost damage to find something palatable , that I believe is not us .

There are some more reasonable mocks which address your points on the value of defense in this draft , with us picking a DE at six no less .

Hard to say without going thru FA , if we'll pick there or move down and try and recoup our second but I'd be dismayed if they wasted any resources on any QB in this draft before the third round with so many other needs , as such a pick would compare to 5th or sixth round project grade talents compared to similar talent found in other drafts.

6th round roster filler vs a sixth round overall , would gve you more bang for your buck so poor is the quality at the position this year .


Defense defense and more defense and fix your offense in free agency including adding another arm if you must.


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 1:45 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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.
The reward for deleting poppas tripe is payment enough , it allows me to donate my checks to build libraries just like Carnegie.

Without him , my trigger finger would run out of practice and I'd lose my atypical label.

sheeet now the secret is out .


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 1:53 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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. 

SD:

So HeadHole , , do you have a direction you would like to see Chud pursue in course of this rebuild , which you see them doing in deference to what you perceive as the correct course .

Are you buying into the 34 changeover from the 43 and who do you project as an elephant blue chip at the 5th hole if we go that route with our top pick .

SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 2:02 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


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. ; - )
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:14 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


"So HeadHole , , do you have a direction you would like to see Chud pursue in course of this rebuild , which you see them doing in deference to what you perceive as the correct course ."

-- Just to keep on trying to be clear, the only "correct course" I see so far is that Chud's comments seem to indicate that no spot is a foregone conclusion and evaluations need to be made.

I think it's logical that a new regime- again backed by a new FO- will naturally be a bit distant from guys they didn't draft in the first place and who may be better suited for other schemes or fit the criteria of some other coach. And I think the resistance to any favor towards any player that can effect his evaluation is a good thing.

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. 

"Are you buying into the 34 changeover from the 43 and who do you project as an elephant blue chip at the 5th hole if we go that route with our top pick"

-- 3-4s, blue chips, 5th hole. I've got little to add to that conversation at this point. My take would boil down to the simple command to make the team better. Chud and company would seem to have their hands full over the next few months as they figure out who to keep and who to draft.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:28 PM

trying to follow along here 



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. 


I'm just curious what the new staff has done or said that makes you think this is not the case.  They've been pretty up front about wanting to watch tape and evaluate skills and existing talent as it fits or doesn't fit into the system they want to implement.  Presuming they will just dump someone of value because he wasn't "their guy" appears to be a gigantic stretch - not to mention giving no credit to the coaches proven ability to evaluate talent and adapt winning strategies.

I'd say Cam Newton here, as a case in point, but that's just me.
It's like magic....only real.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:32 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 



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. ; - )

Need swb to come out of the weeds but his problem in baseball was that he couldn't develop s secondary pitch.  He had a good 4 seam fastball in the low 90s with movement but nothing more than that.  He was hurt in 2006 and at that point he was either going to college or he could try to make the majors as a reliever. 

But he was a ptbnl in a very big trade and was also picked up in the rule 5 draft at a point when MLB scouts would know if it's a character problem.  He just could never control a breaking ball.  Not so much a requirement for NFL QBs.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 3:53 PM

Re: trying to follow along here 


"I'm just curious what the new staff has done or said that makes you think this is not the case.  They've been pretty up front about wanting to watch tape and evaluate skills and existing talent as it fits or doesn't fit into the system they want to implement."

-- I'm sorry that what I've said has been confusing. Not the first time that's happened.

I think I said- or I certainly meant to say- that what Chud et al. have said so far indicates to me the hope that- while no position is set in stone prior to in-house evaluations- they will see which guys are "of value" to them and how best to utilize their abilities. 

In other words, I imagine they will see that it would be in their best interests if they go forward while avoiding reinventing the wheel. To do otherwise- especially in a flexible and competitive environment like the NFL- would be foolish. Although, if the adage "a new broom sweeps clean" is true, we might indeed see some questionable changes.

My writings were just the sideline ramblings of a not very bright fan. Trying to follow them might not have too much payback.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/25/2013 4:21 PM

Re: Weeds not gifted the spot ..................... 


"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."

-- Thanks for your post. I'm hazy about any politics surrounding this forum. I'll try to avoid electronically crossing paths with anyone who can up and delete my posts. 

"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."

-- A "personal attack" can often be defined differently by different people in different contexts and on days when they feel differently. A flexible item that is open to manipulation. 

Deciding that a post "truly sucks" could be influenced by several factors as well. Some for the greater good and some- perhaps- formed by personal opinions. 

We all do what we think is right. 

I do think it's wise to avoid personal attacks and truly sucking as I define those things. Not that I always can, I'm sure. Do you think I somehow "personally attacked" this Gary person or that my posts were bad enough to "truly suck"? I ask for information and direction.

But if someone feels the need to delete my posts, please do so. It's hardly the worst that can happen. And it will be a learning experience. 
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >