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)

Avoiding the LITTLE RASCALS dilemma

Posted: 2/15/2012 2:24 PM

Avoiding the LITTLE RASCALS dilemma 

You've set quite a table here.   Food for thought?  More like the Hometown Buffet for thought.

To keep one's head from exploding, it still boils down to evaluations.  The team may very well think that any or all the candidates mentioned are good, bad or ugly.  

It's not an either/or proposition, and because of that, the Browns may not be as entirely vulnerable as you might think.  If they like ONE of the players mentioned, but can't land him, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll go after one of the others, especially if they don't think highly of him.

It's a matter of evaluation and assigning a value to that player, and then not caving in to pressure and reaching by either offering a fa a cap killing contract, or trading the moon and stars (and a planet to be named later) to move up for a prospect.

About the only guarantee is if the club was actually lukewarm towards Flynn and Griffin, but loved Tannehill.
There's a more than reasonable expectation that he'll be there at #4, and the worst thing that can happen is your club takes flack as Minnesota and Tennessee did last year for making sizable reaches.  The club itself may not have regarded it as a reach, but that's public perception.

Still, risk is then re-introduced if the club gets cute and looks to trade down in the high teens with the hope of still picking Tannehill, only to be caught by another team with a hidden interest or trading up in front of them.

Being at #4 may carry with it some angst, but it's better than being at #6, or #12... especially now that bonuses are not quite so obscene as they were in the previous CBA.

Just hope the club has decided preferences, sees someone it loves,  and is bold enough to go after him.

What we don't want is a War Room where everyone is sitting around moping like it's a LITTLE RASCALS short... with slow, stilted exchanges and pregnant pauses in between.

"So who do we draft?"

[:5 music]

"I dunno.  Buckwheat, who do YOU like?

[:5 music]

I kinda like Wimbley.

[:5 music]

Well I like Ngata.

[:5 music]

Meeeee, too!

[:5 music]

Alfalfa likes Wimbley!

[:5 music]

So do we get the run stuffer...
or the pass rusher?

[:20 music with cutaway of Miss Crabtree spying the kids from behind a tree, looking quizzical, then giving a knowing nod]

A pass rusher or a run stuffer.... hey, let's ask Pete!"

[:5 music]

They then have Pete do his little dog trick, like jump in a somersault for Wimbley, or put his paws and ears over his eyes if he likes Ngata [:5 clarinet riff denoting zaniness], and go from there.

Uh, ya don't want that. 

I don't care if they love 'em or hate 'em all.  Just know what you want and make an effort to get it.   And if you don't want it, trade down for what you DO want.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/15/2012 6:29 PM

Re: Avoiding the LITTLE RASCALS dilemma 


It's been so long since the Browns invested in a stud QB prospect, that there's a ticking sound in the back of everyone's head. Could be a clock, might be a bomb.

There's Flynn and RG3 and the chorus line. Not sure if H&H are immune to the pressure to do something bold, but don't think they can deny that it exists, and exists for a reason.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/16/2012 10:58 AM

Re: Avoiding the LITTLE RASCALS dilemma 


There's Flynn and RG3 and the chorus line. Not sure if H&H are immune to the pressure to do something bold, but don't think they can deny that it exists, and exists for a reason.


And like any boss, they merely acknowledge that with "I share your concerns..." or "we hear you loud and clear..." and you can maybe count the beat to "one" before "one thousand" before you hear the "... but..."

I'd disagree with Gary to the extent that drafting qb at #4 would actually buy H&H some time.  Teams have made the investment, then seeing that it was good, then go in full tilt to surround that investment with weapons.
Reply | Quote