The Browns went after RG3, therefore they think Colt McCoy is a bumb.
San Fransisco is pursuing Peyton Manning, therefore they think Alex Smith is a bumb, right? A year after Jim Harbaugh took a bunch of flak for not only retaining him, but naming him the starter for the next season.
Smith did a nice job, and San Fran won thirteen games. So why does Harbaugh now think Smith is a bumb? Well, he doesn't. He just thinks Manning is better. See how that works?
This is a difficult concept for many Browns fans to master, but I'll try again: There are bad, below average, average, above average, good, and great quarterbacks...not just great and bad ones, you see?
Last season, McCoy was under fire and had little help, and yet managed to be okay--as in maybe average. No-no--stay with me here! Average means that he threw one more touchdown than interception, completed over 55% of his passes, and had an adequate quarterback rating. Is this sinking in--I mean that this was not bad, but instead was between bad and good?
So: Just as Harbaugh likes Alex Smith, but LOVES future Hall-of-Famer Peyton Manning, doesn't mean he thinks Smith is a bumb. Because H/H went after SuperGriffin doesn't mean they think McCoy is a bumb, either.
So soon after causing you that headache, I really hate to do this, but here is another complex notion for you to begin to think about thinking about: Young players tend to IMPROVE with experience. In fact, this happens like 80% of the time, and for the first three or four years of their carreer!
When you call NFL Radio and proclaim that the Browns now need two guards, one tackle, two wide recievers, etc. you are being what I call a Memorex Moron (MM). Two young first-time guards were thrown to the wolves all season, and were bad.
This can be deceptive. Were they as bad in the second half of the season as they were in the first half? Isolate the last, most important, four games of the season, and compare.
Well, I don't have all the films and we can't really do that, but you see Tom Heckert and Pat Shurmer can. They will know stuff like:
Did they fall for the same sucker moves they did before?
Did they maybe punch the defender's pads quicker and harder to arrest their momentum better?
Were they more decisive about who should handle that delayed blitze, or how quick to disengage the lineman and hunt linebackers?
How good were they in the LAST few games, and how much had they improved? And now that they had a whole off season to look at their own tapes and know for real exactly what they needed to get better at, how much better will they be this season?
Now, do the Browns need new guards? I can't honestly tell you. Unlike many of YOU, I know what I don't know. But I CAN tell you that the Coach and Personel guy probably DO know.
What did Heckert say about McCoy? About "having enough" to know if he can play? He meant game-films. Every player has isolated films that are studied. There are DATES on the films, which are NOTED, because they're looking for IMPROVEMENT.
Full circle here: Alex Smith was conservative/careful, per Harbaugh's instructions. He marched the Niners up and down the field as half of a balanced attack. He didn't have to come from more than three or seven points behind very often. He proved to be a solid, intelligent quarterback.
Peyton Manning runs his own offense. He can carry a team on his back. He can attack deep and not throw interceptions. He can come back. He is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer who could make SURE a 13-3 team goes to the Superbowl. So Harbaugh wants him more than he wants Smith.
For the Browns, RG3 was the brand-new version of that for a 4-12 team that's rebuilding. McCoy can become Alex Smith. RG3 can become more. But niether McCoy nor Smith suck, ok?
Now for a huge, massive sleeper in this draft that...I just don't get why this guy is so hugely underrated:
Arkansas wide reciever Joe Adams.
Ok well he's 5'10 1/2, 178. That weight is the main reason why he's so low among this class of recievers. He's also had some fumbles, and scouts say he'll need to work on precision routes if a West Coast team like the Browns STEAL him in the third round or below.
While NFL strength trainers will probably pump him up some, I know that he just lit up the Senior Bowl. He was unstoppable. It didn't matter who was throwing the ball to him, or which cornerback was trying to stop him. Yeah, he outran them, but he also broke tackle after tackle after tackle!
I mean, he's light, but must be made of baling wire or something!
Adams can go vertical and beat most man cornerbacks, but more often shakes them off--getting lots of separation with sudden moves. With the ball, he's just plain lethal, which is why he's an excellent returner as well.
This is a guy the Browns could get pretty cheap later in the draft. His route-running issue is purely mental. He simply must learn the West Coast reads, and the mental discipline to make his moves at the correct depths. He's physicly ideal for the system (except for his size) because he can CONSISTANTLY get separation, has very good hands, and racks up yards with the ball in his hands.
As a rookie, he'd be introduced gradually in the slot and as a fourth reciever. Jordan Norwood already knows the routes and has proven reliable. I would also take some returns off of Cribbs and use him that way.
The most important thing about Adams is that he is a certified "play maker" who can go all the way from anywhere on the field. Further, if he gains some weight and can defeat press coverage, he just might be able to play X or Y (outside) down the road--although that's not ideal. Norwood is actually bigger than he is.
Now, the Browns re-signed Smith. There's also this tight end named Cameron on the roster. He had very little experience at tight end in college, which is why he was drafted lower. The Browns knew that he was very raw, and would take awhile to develop.
While many of YOU MM'S have written him off already, I'm here to point out that he's now had a year of practice and coaching, and is right on schedule to challenge for playing time. I also need to point out to you conclusion-leapers that he is NOT Evan Moore, and was projected to become a decent (or better) in-line blocker (ie a REAL tight end).
While I have misgivings about Watson and his concussions/age, Smith is a very solid all-around tight end that I feel good about. He's not just a blocker, but a very good reciever as well.
Wide recievers aren't the only recievers. Last season, New England had mainly Welker and tight ends. Now, they're going after Brandon Lloyd, and I suspect that if they don't nab him, they'll turn their low first round pick into Mike Wallace. But they won a lot of games without "that guy", just as they have in other seasons.
My point? That if the Browns trade down rather than drafting the best wide reciever, and take Richardson instead, and then a right tackle rather than a wide reciever or something, don't starts throwing bricks at your TV.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Idiots
Holmgren and Heckert have taken a bunch of flak for not getting RG3, and Mike was sick of it. So he said (much to my surprise) that his offer was just as stupi...I mean as good as Washington's, but the Rams went with old friend Shanahan.
Holmgren EXPLAINED the closer relationship between the parties as the probable reason why the Rams chose to deal with the Skins rather than the Browns.
Now IDIOTS are coming out, calling this "whining", and "playing the blame-game". Look, IDIOT, he wasn't saying "it's not fair!". He was telling his season ticket holders that he made a huge offer, and the tie-breaker wasn't his fault.
Anybody could ASK Holmgren: "Was there anything wrong with that?" And I'm positive he would tell you: It was the Rams pick to deal. Even if they'd taken a worse deal, that was their right. Just don't keep saying that he-Mike Holmgren-didn't make a strong effort to grab this guy.
You clowns parse every two words anybody says and read all sorts of deep hidden meanings into them. Invariably, if there are five potential interpretations, you will chose the worst one--even when it makes no sense. You are gossip columnists pretending you know something about sports. You are idiots.
Now for the Browns FA moves:
1: Dimitri Patterson has turned into a pretty decent cornerback, and I'm glad they kept him. He's not like Joe Haden, but he's solid.
2: Frostee Rucker isn't really what the Browns needed on the right side. But he's a good all-around player who can be used several ways. He's only recently showed up as a decent passrusher (nothing special but decent), but has always been very good against the run.
He can spell Sheard on the strong side and play inside on passing downs. While he might be the nominal starter at RDE (for now, Frostee...for now...), he'll still be a rotational player sharing time with other guys at different spots. He IS a very solid total-package DE/maybe rush DT, and a good signing.
3: Jaqua Parker is really, really old and this bothers me. At least they signed him for only one year and can cut him if they get somebody better. Meanwhile, they can use him as a situaional passrusher if they keep the oxygen handy. Between these two guys, some of the other guys can get some rest and share the load.
Carter CAN still get after the quarterback.
I hear ya! But dammit free agency starts and BANG! There goes Garcon, just like that! Gimme a break! Think Holmgren's a crybaby? You didn't hear him crying about obvious TAMPERING, did you?
I think the Browns should be (and possibly are) in pursuit of Flynn, but his initial salary demands were a non-starter. They probably told him (more diplomaticly than this) to check back with the Browns if the market deflates that huge massive head of his a little.
Read a rarely well-thought-out article recently: The Browns should pretend they want Blackmon really bad, then hope the Rams call on draft day and offer #6 and a second-rounder to move up two slots. Take a high third if that's all you can get.
Then take Richardson or Claiborne at 6 (I prefer the SUPER-running back) and load up after that.
One correction: One amateur referred to Richardson as the most "complete" back since Peterson. Here's somebody else who regurgitates stuff and gets the words wrong sometimes. Peterson was not an accomplished reciever, and still isn't. He is a super-stud, but Richardson is far more "complete" (and ideal for a West Coast offense...which Peterson isn't).
Now that KC has overpaid Peyton Hillis (and yes, I do think so. As much as I love him, I am worried about his injuries and do stipulate that he's not a home-run hitter--which are the only two things wrong with him)...now that he's gone, I want Richardson for sure.
Richardson can do everything Hillis did, only do it faster and deeper. That includes stoning blitzers, catching passes ten yards downfield, or turning little dump-offs into big yardage.
Yes yes, Colt could really use a faster wide reciever, but for the umpteenth time I point you to the fact that McCoy was way more effective with Hillis than without him; that whenever the offensive attack had even a little bit of BALANCE to it, he kicked butt.
I really like Obi and can still have some fading hope for Mister Mash unit, but Richardson...oh wow. And I repeat: The BEST WR might get the ball 6 or 7 times in a game. Richardson might catch just as many passes, and run it 20-25 more times.
Finally, I wouldn't mind Manning signing with Tennessee and the Browns grabbing Hasselbeck. For just one year. He could really teach McCoy a lot, and I doubt that Colt would be too shattered if that guy started out the season instead of him. He's got a very similar skill-set, and he's a class individual/team player.
Finally (again), I reckon Steinbach's recovery wasn't as complete as I'd been told. Damn that hurts.
But young players improve with experience. I really want a good right tackle, and now I want another Steiny too, but am not ready to panic just yet.
Holmgren EXPLAINED the closer relationship between the parties as the probable reason why the Rams chose to deal with the Skins rather than the Browns.
Now IDIOTS are coming out, calling this "whining", and "playing the blame-game". Look, IDIOT, he wasn't saying "it's not fair!". He was telling his season ticket holders that he made a huge offer, and the tie-breaker wasn't his fault.
Anybody could ASK Holmgren: "Was there anything wrong with that?" And I'm positive he would tell you: It was the Rams pick to deal. Even if they'd taken a worse deal, that was their right. Just don't keep saying that he-Mike Holmgren-didn't make a strong effort to grab this guy.
You clowns parse every two words anybody says and read all sorts of deep hidden meanings into them. Invariably, if there are five potential interpretations, you will chose the worst one--even when it makes no sense. You are gossip columnists pretending you know something about sports. You are idiots.
Now for the Browns FA moves:
1: Dimitri Patterson has turned into a pretty decent cornerback, and I'm glad they kept him. He's not like Joe Haden, but he's solid.
2: Frostee Rucker isn't really what the Browns needed on the right side. But he's a good all-around player who can be used several ways. He's only recently showed up as a decent passrusher (nothing special but decent), but has always been very good against the run.
He can spell Sheard on the strong side and play inside on passing downs. While he might be the nominal starter at RDE (for now, Frostee...for now...), he'll still be a rotational player sharing time with other guys at different spots. He IS a very solid total-package DE/maybe rush DT, and a good signing.
3: Jaqua Parker is really, really old and this bothers me. At least they signed him for only one year and can cut him if they get somebody better. Meanwhile, they can use him as a situaional passrusher if they keep the oxygen handy. Between these two guys, some of the other guys can get some rest and share the load.
Carter CAN still get after the quarterback.
I hear ya! But dammit free agency starts and BANG! There goes Garcon, just like that! Gimme a break! Think Holmgren's a crybaby? You didn't hear him crying about obvious TAMPERING, did you?
I think the Browns should be (and possibly are) in pursuit of Flynn, but his initial salary demands were a non-starter. They probably told him (more diplomaticly than this) to check back with the Browns if the market deflates that huge massive head of his a little.
Read a rarely well-thought-out article recently: The Browns should pretend they want Blackmon really bad, then hope the Rams call on draft day and offer #6 and a second-rounder to move up two slots. Take a high third if that's all you can get.
Then take Richardson or Claiborne at 6 (I prefer the SUPER-running back) and load up after that.
One correction: One amateur referred to Richardson as the most "complete" back since Peterson. Here's somebody else who regurgitates stuff and gets the words wrong sometimes. Peterson was not an accomplished reciever, and still isn't. He is a super-stud, but Richardson is far more "complete" (and ideal for a West Coast offense...which Peterson isn't).
Now that KC has overpaid Peyton Hillis (and yes, I do think so. As much as I love him, I am worried about his injuries and do stipulate that he's not a home-run hitter--which are the only two things wrong with him)...now that he's gone, I want Richardson for sure.
Richardson can do everything Hillis did, only do it faster and deeper. That includes stoning blitzers, catching passes ten yards downfield, or turning little dump-offs into big yardage.
Yes yes, Colt could really use a faster wide reciever, but for the umpteenth time I point you to the fact that McCoy was way more effective with Hillis than without him; that whenever the offensive attack had even a little bit of BALANCE to it, he kicked butt.
I really like Obi and can still have some fading hope for Mister Mash unit, but Richardson...oh wow. And I repeat: The BEST WR might get the ball 6 or 7 times in a game. Richardson might catch just as many passes, and run it 20-25 more times.
Finally, I wouldn't mind Manning signing with Tennessee and the Browns grabbing Hasselbeck. For just one year. He could really teach McCoy a lot, and I doubt that Colt would be too shattered if that guy started out the season instead of him. He's got a very similar skill-set, and he's a class individual/team player.
Finally (again), I reckon Steinbach's recovery wasn't as complete as I'd been told. Damn that hurts.
But young players improve with experience. I really want a good right tackle, and now I want another Steiny too, but am not ready to panic just yet.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Heckert on Truth Serum
I finally cornered Tom and got some sodium pentathol in him. Once he was cooperative, I led him to a dark corner for an interview. Here is the transcript:
What do you think of the Redskins jumping over you for the number two pick and RG3?
That was idiotic. Three firsts and a second? I mean, we really wanted the guy, and think he'll be great, but you've got to be kidding me! I just KNEW some clown would go insane and screw this thing up! Good ole' Tom Schneider--
So what are you going to do now?
Not sure--lots of contingencies. Colt had some screw-ups yeah, but he's young. You've got to be brain-dead to dismiss no off-season, new west coast offense, dropped passes, unrelenting pressure, no Hillis most of the time. I mean, the balls were on-target and on time most of the time--how the hell can you blame the thrower for the drop? Arm-arm-arm stop it! I mean--
So you won't do anything at quarterback?
No, we will, but I'm not sure what. We'd like Flynn, but some OTHER idiot will probably overpay him, or he goes to Miami for the weather, no state income taxes, and his old coaches. We're taking a stab at him, but we won't blow our whole damn salary cap on him. Like I said, Colt will be good. Maybe DAMN good--we just don't know yet.
Forget anybody who's 36 with two fused discs in his neck, no matter how good he is.
With RG3 off the table--dammit--our best option is trading down, and if we do, we'll try for Tannehill, and Colt starts. That is, we'll take a shot at Orton. I think we could sign him and save a bunch releasing Wallace. Orton is another popgun, but he's accurate and he WINS, his whole carreer. HE would be Colt's competition in camp. Tannhill is a Holmgren guy to develop--sky-high potential, if you're careful and patient with him.
What about Weeden?
Like I said before you shot me up with this stuff. Being 28 is the only thing wrong with him, and we'd think hard about nabbing him in the second round if we didn't have Tannehill.
What if none of that happens?
Well, it's only a bunch of ignorant fans that think a young quarterback is supposed to step onto a bad team with a new complex system and take them to the promised land out of the gate! Elway, Montana, Young, Manning, Manning, et cetera all sucked at first! What IS it with these Cleveland fans? I mean I thought Philly fans were juvenile, but jeez--
You know I'm going to publish this.
Yeah and I wish you wouldn't, but I'm full of truth serum so I can't be diplomatic and deceptive like I usually have to be. I'm really pissed off at you, by the way, you--
How far would you trade down from four?
Depends on the deal. Hell, ten spots of there's another Tom Schneider idiot out there!
Whitney Mercilus?
Oh HELL yes! At 22. Might not be there. Trade-down, more ammo--variables here, but that guy opposite Sheard would be monsterous.
Would you take Claiborne if you're stuck at four?
Not sure. There are some really good corners in this draft, and even quality free agents. The pass rush is more important than coverage, too. Coverage was pretty good last season, and while Claiborne would give us a dominant secondary, the fifth-ranked draftee or fourth-ranked young free agent could approximate that as well. And Skrine is a special guy against anybody but the skyscrapers--why are you writing him off? I mean--
Richardson?
We're trying to re-sign Hillis but he might be plan B.
I thought you preferred to find your running backs--
Look, shut up. There was nobody as GOOD as Richardson in the previous drafts I've been involved with. Yeah, usually you can find some running back gems later in the draft, but not guys who can just take over games. Not total-package guys who are recieving threats and home-run hitters all at once. Isn't that obvious? Richardsons are RARE, you idiot! Why can't you guys--
Blackmon?
Hell no. I mean he'll be really good, no question, but we have a good shot of landing a young veteran burner in free agency. Might have to learn the west coast, but can hit the ground running. There are also some pretty good ones lower in this draft. One of them sounds a lot like MITCHELL. Remember MITCHELL, moron? We're kind of expecting him to show up in his third season, ya know?
What about right tackle?
That's partly why I'd like to trade down. Left tackle--you gotta pay, or at least wait for one to develop out of raw materieal. Right tackles will be there into the third round, and there are three free agents who could help. We could have one on the roster--played left guard last season, but I'm not sure. Left tackle in college, maybe...Pashos was okay when he was healthy, but I lied a lot about him in the presser. He might be just done. But if we signed Geathers, for instance...cross your fingers and hope one of the two are healthy each week--
So you'd trade down first?
Of course. It now looks like Claiborne, Richardson, Blackmon, and Kalil--just pick three of those--will be there, and however much I lie, most of the other GM's will know that I'll take Richardson or Claiborne if I don't get a deal.
Not Kalil?
Read my lips: "Joe Thomas". Kalil would be wasted at right tackle, and you can't pay a right tackle like that. Good way to max out your cap. Good thing you clowns aren't running--
Would you consider a right tackle in the first round at all?
It would be awesome if Johnny Martin slid. He's just about as good as Kalil. Him at 22? Oh yeah, unless Mercelius is there. Trade-down, maybe more than once, is best. Even at ten or twelve, we could be looking at Mercelius, Martin, Tannehill...if we did it right we might get two of those guys, and still have lots of picks left. Move down twice, move up once--we've been going over all the variables. We'll be ready.
So again, you think Tom Scheider is an idiot for giving up three firsts and a second to move up four slots?
That's not what I meant. I mean, for him, he has a pretty talented team, so--
Ah. I see the sodium pentathol is wearing off. Better go back to work, Tom.
Say, wait a minute---
(I'm running away with my recorder).
What do you think of the Redskins jumping over you for the number two pick and RG3?
That was idiotic. Three firsts and a second? I mean, we really wanted the guy, and think he'll be great, but you've got to be kidding me! I just KNEW some clown would go insane and screw this thing up! Good ole' Tom Schneider--
So what are you going to do now?
Not sure--lots of contingencies. Colt had some screw-ups yeah, but he's young. You've got to be brain-dead to dismiss no off-season, new west coast offense, dropped passes, unrelenting pressure, no Hillis most of the time. I mean, the balls were on-target and on time most of the time--how the hell can you blame the thrower for the drop? Arm-arm-arm stop it! I mean--
So you won't do anything at quarterback?
No, we will, but I'm not sure what. We'd like Flynn, but some OTHER idiot will probably overpay him, or he goes to Miami for the weather, no state income taxes, and his old coaches. We're taking a stab at him, but we won't blow our whole damn salary cap on him. Like I said, Colt will be good. Maybe DAMN good--we just don't know yet.
Forget anybody who's 36 with two fused discs in his neck, no matter how good he is.
With RG3 off the table--dammit--our best option is trading down, and if we do, we'll try for Tannehill, and Colt starts. That is, we'll take a shot at Orton. I think we could sign him and save a bunch releasing Wallace. Orton is another popgun, but he's accurate and he WINS, his whole carreer. HE would be Colt's competition in camp. Tannhill is a Holmgren guy to develop--sky-high potential, if you're careful and patient with him.
What about Weeden?
Like I said before you shot me up with this stuff. Being 28 is the only thing wrong with him, and we'd think hard about nabbing him in the second round if we didn't have Tannehill.
What if none of that happens?
Well, it's only a bunch of ignorant fans that think a young quarterback is supposed to step onto a bad team with a new complex system and take them to the promised land out of the gate! Elway, Montana, Young, Manning, Manning, et cetera all sucked at first! What IS it with these Cleveland fans? I mean I thought Philly fans were juvenile, but jeez--
You know I'm going to publish this.
Yeah and I wish you wouldn't, but I'm full of truth serum so I can't be diplomatic and deceptive like I usually have to be. I'm really pissed off at you, by the way, you--
How far would you trade down from four?
Depends on the deal. Hell, ten spots of there's another Tom Schneider idiot out there!
Whitney Mercilus?
Oh HELL yes! At 22. Might not be there. Trade-down, more ammo--variables here, but that guy opposite Sheard would be monsterous.
Would you take Claiborne if you're stuck at four?
Not sure. There are some really good corners in this draft, and even quality free agents. The pass rush is more important than coverage, too. Coverage was pretty good last season, and while Claiborne would give us a dominant secondary, the fifth-ranked draftee or fourth-ranked young free agent could approximate that as well. And Skrine is a special guy against anybody but the skyscrapers--why are you writing him off? I mean--
Richardson?
We're trying to re-sign Hillis but he might be plan B.
I thought you preferred to find your running backs--
Look, shut up. There was nobody as GOOD as Richardson in the previous drafts I've been involved with. Yeah, usually you can find some running back gems later in the draft, but not guys who can just take over games. Not total-package guys who are recieving threats and home-run hitters all at once. Isn't that obvious? Richardsons are RARE, you idiot! Why can't you guys--
Blackmon?
Hell no. I mean he'll be really good, no question, but we have a good shot of landing a young veteran burner in free agency. Might have to learn the west coast, but can hit the ground running. There are also some pretty good ones lower in this draft. One of them sounds a lot like MITCHELL. Remember MITCHELL, moron? We're kind of expecting him to show up in his third season, ya know?
What about right tackle?
That's partly why I'd like to trade down. Left tackle--you gotta pay, or at least wait for one to develop out of raw materieal. Right tackles will be there into the third round, and there are three free agents who could help. We could have one on the roster--played left guard last season, but I'm not sure. Left tackle in college, maybe...Pashos was okay when he was healthy, but I lied a lot about him in the presser. He might be just done. But if we signed Geathers, for instance...cross your fingers and hope one of the two are healthy each week--
So you'd trade down first?
Of course. It now looks like Claiborne, Richardson, Blackmon, and Kalil--just pick three of those--will be there, and however much I lie, most of the other GM's will know that I'll take Richardson or Claiborne if I don't get a deal.
Not Kalil?
Read my lips: "Joe Thomas". Kalil would be wasted at right tackle, and you can't pay a right tackle like that. Good way to max out your cap. Good thing you clowns aren't running--
Would you consider a right tackle in the first round at all?
It would be awesome if Johnny Martin slid. He's just about as good as Kalil. Him at 22? Oh yeah, unless Mercelius is there. Trade-down, maybe more than once, is best. Even at ten or twelve, we could be looking at Mercelius, Martin, Tannehill...if we did it right we might get two of those guys, and still have lots of picks left. Move down twice, move up once--we've been going over all the variables. We'll be ready.
So again, you think Tom Scheider is an idiot for giving up three firsts and a second to move up four slots?
That's not what I meant. I mean, for him, he has a pretty talented team, so--
Ah. I see the sodium pentathol is wearing off. Better go back to work, Tom.
Say, wait a minute---
(I'm running away with my recorder).
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Tannehill, #22
If the Browns maneuver around and draft Tannehill, it won't be with with the expectation of his starting this season. With the lone exception of Cam Newton, (and including Mark Sanchez), less experienced quarterbacks NEVER do well when started as rookies.
Tannehill's completion percentage and TD/INT ratios are weak. A recent report describing his arm as "weak" is inaccurate, and I suspect written by a Phil Simms follower. He has a decent arm.
He has mechanical flaws which can be corrected, made some bad reads, and tended to be too stubborn to throw the ball away. Practice, coaching, and experience may well refine this raw ore into gold.
That's the process: Before you melt it into ingots, you have to remove the sand, quartze, and other impurities. If you toss it in the smelter and just start pouring, you've got a mess. Three coaches and ex-coaches are standing by the smelters with the flux and shovels. Tannehill is a potential project.
He does have the intelligence, including football intelligence, and the work ethic to succeed in the NFL. He has the tools to be great.
His comparatively low completion percentage doesn't tell the whole story. In what admittedly brief tapes I saw of him, I saw a number of off-balance throws. I also saw some absolutely PERFECT downfield passes into tight windows.
PS I saw some bullets to the sidelines, and many intermediates barely too high for linebackers to deflect, and too low for safeties to get a piece of.
But the Browns probably don't take him at four, and he may well not be there at 22. If they take Tannehill, they may well sign a Kyle Orton or even Jason Campbell to duke it out with Colt, and more than likely help him out. I believe Seneca Wallace's salary makes him vulnerable to release.
The Browns AT THIS TIME won't give the Rams #22 to move up. The Redskins AT THIS TIME won't include this year's second rounder. Do you know bargaining when you see it?
Some Rams fans have been talking about #22, the Browns second rounder, and 2013 picks! Heckert is putting the brakes on this hysterical greed-fest, and lowering expectations. None of the other teams want to commit prior to free agency because Matt Flynn and Peyton Manning will probably change everything, including leverage.
And no--Peyton Manning here? If the Browns had gone 10-6 last season and seemed ready for the next step, ok. But 4-12? A 36-year old guy, neck injury or no? Grow UP would you!
Flynn, ok. But money may rule him out. More greed.
I HAVE SPOKEN.
Tannehill's completion percentage and TD/INT ratios are weak. A recent report describing his arm as "weak" is inaccurate, and I suspect written by a Phil Simms follower. He has a decent arm.
He has mechanical flaws which can be corrected, made some bad reads, and tended to be too stubborn to throw the ball away. Practice, coaching, and experience may well refine this raw ore into gold.
That's the process: Before you melt it into ingots, you have to remove the sand, quartze, and other impurities. If you toss it in the smelter and just start pouring, you've got a mess. Three coaches and ex-coaches are standing by the smelters with the flux and shovels. Tannehill is a potential project.
He does have the intelligence, including football intelligence, and the work ethic to succeed in the NFL. He has the tools to be great.
His comparatively low completion percentage doesn't tell the whole story. In what admittedly brief tapes I saw of him, I saw a number of off-balance throws. I also saw some absolutely PERFECT downfield passes into tight windows.
PS I saw some bullets to the sidelines, and many intermediates barely too high for linebackers to deflect, and too low for safeties to get a piece of.
But the Browns probably don't take him at four, and he may well not be there at 22. If they take Tannehill, they may well sign a Kyle Orton or even Jason Campbell to duke it out with Colt, and more than likely help him out. I believe Seneca Wallace's salary makes him vulnerable to release.
The Browns AT THIS TIME won't give the Rams #22 to move up. The Redskins AT THIS TIME won't include this year's second rounder. Do you know bargaining when you see it?
Some Rams fans have been talking about #22, the Browns second rounder, and 2013 picks! Heckert is putting the brakes on this hysterical greed-fest, and lowering expectations. None of the other teams want to commit prior to free agency because Matt Flynn and Peyton Manning will probably change everything, including leverage.
And no--Peyton Manning here? If the Browns had gone 10-6 last season and seemed ready for the next step, ok. But 4-12? A 36-year old guy, neck injury or no? Grow UP would you!
Flynn, ok. But money may rule him out. More greed.
I HAVE SPOKEN.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Peyton Hillis
As Tom Heckert said, a lot of stuff last season was blown up in the media. The whole soap-opera Hillis thing was manufactured by old ladies yammering over the fence. Any intel analyst or real journalist recognized it as such instantly. Now some goober comes up with this retiring for the CIA crap...and everybody swallowed it hook/line/sinker.
Now that Hillis finally, at long last, has come out and defended himself, he just confirmed what I've been saying: It's about money, period. I hadn't known that the contract offer he'd refused was so heavily back-loaded. 1.25 mil/year for the first 2-3 years with no guarantees? If that's true, of COURSE he was right to turn it down!
Sure, Hillis might have exhaggerated and/or left some stuff out, but now we have a ballpark estimate. Now he's looking a lot more reasonable/less greedy than we'd been told by the old gossips. He said it wasn't money, but terms. I can offer you, a physical running back who takes a severe pounding, 15 million over 3 years...so long as you collect the bulk of it in the third year...and so long as I can release you out of your hospital bed and not have to pay you another dime. Sound good to you?
I'm not bashing Heckert, either. It's business. It was a first offer. Hillis probably fired his agent for walking out, and assuring Hillis "They'll come around. You'll see. For now we need to wait for another offer and not seem anxious".
The ASS umption by many is that Hillis fired this third agent because he'd advised him not to play a game with severe strep throat, but I really doubt that. I would have advised MYSELF not to infect my team and play like shit, and if Shurmer didn't agree I'd have to advise myself that my coach was insane. I would have fired my agent on the spot if he had advised me to play.
"Intervention" by other players? If a player DID use that word (which I doubt), he wasn't an english major. More likely, two or three of them caught him on the way out and asked him what was up with all this bullcrap they're reading in the PD, and he told them don't believe everything you read.
Ok-ok: Some of them might have been ticked off over his raising his contract before the season, or even skeptical about his hamstring thing, which can't be verified. "C'mon--you doggin' it for the money? That for real? We NEED you, man!"
Intervention--oh puh-leez!
Need him they do. Charlie Casserly recently said that Hillis would recieve little interest in free agency. He's about right, but for the wrong reasons. He was injured last season, he will always take a lot of hits, and he did average 3.6 YPC in his most recent season.
But Casserly added that he only runs between that tackles, so if you force him to bounce outside he's dead. These guys on TV are legit experts, but do almost zero homework. The guys on NFL Radio have to talk to fans of all 32 teams--people who WATCH their teams and players closely. They have to study tapes and interview people so that they know what they're talking about.
Casserly's analysis was knee-jerk and shallow. The only way to force Hillis outside is to stack the line--same as any other big powerful back. That put all the recievers in single coverage, which is one of the reasons why, whenever Hillis was in the game, Colt and Massequoi looked a whole lot better, and the tight ends caught more passes.
Another reason for that is the fact that Hillis would stone blitzers in protection, or take flare outlet passes for big gains against small people. Play-action worked. Screens worked.
Casserly was really only half right about Hillis bouncing outside. Absolutely that's the best way to stop him/he's much less effective that way. So he often only gets one or two yards. OR he stiff-arms somebody and runs over somebody else and gets four ANYWAY. OR he occasionally gets a BIG gain because most of the front seven have charged into every gap to stop him inside and can't get back out! The only guys left to head him off at the pass are speed-bump DB's!
The biggest single reason the Browns sucked last season was the fact that this player was injured. The whole offense is significantly better when this guy is healthy. Check it out: it GLARES at you!
Injuries are a legit concern with Hillis, but that's the ONLY real concern. He will test free agency and get some offers. He will come back and show Heckert what he's been offered. And Heckert will most likely make his final offer, which will include a number of incentives like Jackson's contract did. And I hope Hillis signs.
Trent Richardson is everything everybody says he is, and is the only running back who could replace Hillis and do everything he does as well as he does it. I even admit that Richardson would make more huge, game-changing plays.
But sign Hillis, and #4 can be used for something the Browns need more.
The Cleveland Browns offense with Peyton Hillis gets first downs and touchdowns, on the ground and through the air. Without him, they don't. That's the truth, and the rest is bullcrap.
Now that Hillis finally, at long last, has come out and defended himself, he just confirmed what I've been saying: It's about money, period. I hadn't known that the contract offer he'd refused was so heavily back-loaded. 1.25 mil/year for the first 2-3 years with no guarantees? If that's true, of COURSE he was right to turn it down!
Sure, Hillis might have exhaggerated and/or left some stuff out, but now we have a ballpark estimate. Now he's looking a lot more reasonable/less greedy than we'd been told by the old gossips. He said it wasn't money, but terms. I can offer you, a physical running back who takes a severe pounding, 15 million over 3 years...so long as you collect the bulk of it in the third year...and so long as I can release you out of your hospital bed and not have to pay you another dime. Sound good to you?
I'm not bashing Heckert, either. It's business. It was a first offer. Hillis probably fired his agent for walking out, and assuring Hillis "They'll come around. You'll see. For now we need to wait for another offer and not seem anxious".
The ASS umption by many is that Hillis fired this third agent because he'd advised him not to play a game with severe strep throat, but I really doubt that. I would have advised MYSELF not to infect my team and play like shit, and if Shurmer didn't agree I'd have to advise myself that my coach was insane. I would have fired my agent on the spot if he had advised me to play.
"Intervention" by other players? If a player DID use that word (which I doubt), he wasn't an english major. More likely, two or three of them caught him on the way out and asked him what was up with all this bullcrap they're reading in the PD, and he told them don't believe everything you read.
Ok-ok: Some of them might have been ticked off over his raising his contract before the season, or even skeptical about his hamstring thing, which can't be verified. "C'mon--you doggin' it for the money? That for real? We NEED you, man!"
Intervention--oh puh-leez!
Need him they do. Charlie Casserly recently said that Hillis would recieve little interest in free agency. He's about right, but for the wrong reasons. He was injured last season, he will always take a lot of hits, and he did average 3.6 YPC in his most recent season.
But Casserly added that he only runs between that tackles, so if you force him to bounce outside he's dead. These guys on TV are legit experts, but do almost zero homework. The guys on NFL Radio have to talk to fans of all 32 teams--people who WATCH their teams and players closely. They have to study tapes and interview people so that they know what they're talking about.
Casserly's analysis was knee-jerk and shallow. The only way to force Hillis outside is to stack the line--same as any other big powerful back. That put all the recievers in single coverage, which is one of the reasons why, whenever Hillis was in the game, Colt and Massequoi looked a whole lot better, and the tight ends caught more passes.
Another reason for that is the fact that Hillis would stone blitzers in protection, or take flare outlet passes for big gains against small people. Play-action worked. Screens worked.
Casserly was really only half right about Hillis bouncing outside. Absolutely that's the best way to stop him/he's much less effective that way. So he often only gets one or two yards. OR he stiff-arms somebody and runs over somebody else and gets four ANYWAY. OR he occasionally gets a BIG gain because most of the front seven have charged into every gap to stop him inside and can't get back out! The only guys left to head him off at the pass are speed-bump DB's!
The biggest single reason the Browns sucked last season was the fact that this player was injured. The whole offense is significantly better when this guy is healthy. Check it out: it GLARES at you!
Injuries are a legit concern with Hillis, but that's the ONLY real concern. He will test free agency and get some offers. He will come back and show Heckert what he's been offered. And Heckert will most likely make his final offer, which will include a number of incentives like Jackson's contract did. And I hope Hillis signs.
Trent Richardson is everything everybody says he is, and is the only running back who could replace Hillis and do everything he does as well as he does it. I even admit that Richardson would make more huge, game-changing plays.
But sign Hillis, and #4 can be used for something the Browns need more.
The Cleveland Browns offense with Peyton Hillis gets first downs and touchdowns, on the ground and through the air. Without him, they don't. That's the truth, and the rest is bullcrap.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Politics and RGIII
First, I need to address some shallow thinking:
Skin-deep, it's smart to be interested in Matt Flynn. Most of the pros buy him as the real thing, and he'd fit right in here.
But when you think just a LIITTTLE harder, you come up with more to that story. First, I'm hearing rumors of some truly undoable salary demands. He was awesome in those two games, ok. Would he be that awesome every week with THIS team?
How MUCH? More than half the quarterbacks in the NFL? More than 2/3rds? Well, I'm hearing that his camp will want more than two thirds of the STARTING quarterbacks in the NFL, for at least five years.
This would gobble up the bulk of the Browns cap dollars, at a time when the ideal answer at wide reciever is a VETERAN, and veteran X-RECIEVERS are there in numbers. So are good-to-excellent free agent cornerbacks. (X-reciever: demands double-coverage. Tends to run deeper routes and challenge safeties. Primary reciever--not a slot guy GET IT?)
Meanwhile, Colt McCoy enters only his second season in the West Coast, after his first actual preseason with that system, and with much more real-game experience than Flynn. And if he DOES beat out Flynn, we've got a massively-overpaid backup quarterback who we CAN'T trade because nobody wants to pay that much for a guy who couldn't beat out Colt McCoy!
Meanwhile, RGIII is right in front of us, with an astronomicly higher upside than either Flynn or McCoy. True, trading that extra first round pick would hurt a lot, but with the new rookie salary structure, Griffin would cost much less than Flynn. The monies some shallow thinkers had earmarked for Flynn, along with the the salary they would have had to pay #22, is now available for some truly GOOD young free agents (26 and younger).
This brings up part one of the politics of it: Rightly or wrongly, free agent X-recievers will be reluctant to sign with the Browns with Colt McCoy projected at quarterback. They would for Robert Griffin III.
More importantly, if Heckert, Shurmer, Childress, and Holmgren feel that RG III is for real, and will kick ass in the NFL, they HAVE to try to get him.
Why? What if they don't, and Grif does a Cam Newton, or at least an Andy Dalton? The fans will be out with the ropes and torches by about game three.
Get me right: I fully expect that IF McCoy gets some better protection, Hillis re-signed, and one reciever with real deep speed, he will do well. I just don't believe he can do as well as Griffin. He can't put the ball in a one yard window 40 yards downfield. He can't break out of a collapsing pocket and run for 30 yards, and he can't be near as accurate on the run and throwing all-arm, off-balance.
Even if statisticly they're similar, that won't matter to the Cleveland lynch mob. We could have had Saint Robert, and they just let him go.
Of course, if they disagree with Mayock, Kuiper, Miller, Wilcotts, Gannon, Brandt, etc. and don't believe that Griffin will be that good, they're ok. It's just that they're betting their futures on that judgement.
...and I doubt that they disagree with all these guys.
PS I was impressed by Griffin defending his college offense, insisting that he usually had at least three reads and looked foreward to showing that in his team interviews. I believe him--he'd be stupid to make the assertion of it wasn't true.
Because I believe him, I'm really encouraged. I was kind of shocked to hear him say that he could learn a West Coast offense quickly at first-- but then he said what I said about the difference between book-learning and learning by doing. He seems to me supremely confident, but with both his feet on the ground.
Pat Kirwin, Gil Brandt, and ALL the other REAL experts on NFL Radio agree on one thing:
IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A GUY YOU THINK CAN BE A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK, YOU TAKE HIM, EVEN IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A QUARTERBACK. THE QUARTERBACK IS TTHHEEEEE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON YOUR TEAM.
Some clowns are saying that they can just get Bradley next season. Yeah, when they don't have two first rounders and aren't just two slots away. All it will take is the following season's first rounder, the current second round pick and a bunch more, is all--SHUT T F UP YOU IDIOTS! If you expect 4-12 again you are retarded, and if they win six it's over. Morons.
Get him now, spend 20 mil on free agents, draft eight more players, keep McCoy, and don't WORRY about the most important player on your team for ten years!
BUB: Sure, the season before last he was a third or fourth-rounder. Part of the reason he's so white-hot right now is the drastic improvement he showed between 2010 and 2011. Mayock is a brutal judge of quarterbacks, and all he could find wrong with him was that he didn't anticipate well (yet).
Isn't such rapid improvement indicative of FURTHER rapid growth? I'd rather have that than rock-solid, gradually growing Andrew Luck (not that I don't think Luck can be as good or better, mind you--just opining that Griffin is there with him.)
Skin-deep, it's smart to be interested in Matt Flynn. Most of the pros buy him as the real thing, and he'd fit right in here.
But when you think just a LIITTTLE harder, you come up with more to that story. First, I'm hearing rumors of some truly undoable salary demands. He was awesome in those two games, ok. Would he be that awesome every week with THIS team?
How MUCH? More than half the quarterbacks in the NFL? More than 2/3rds? Well, I'm hearing that his camp will want more than two thirds of the STARTING quarterbacks in the NFL, for at least five years.
This would gobble up the bulk of the Browns cap dollars, at a time when the ideal answer at wide reciever is a VETERAN, and veteran X-RECIEVERS are there in numbers. So are good-to-excellent free agent cornerbacks. (X-reciever: demands double-coverage. Tends to run deeper routes and challenge safeties. Primary reciever--not a slot guy GET IT?)
Meanwhile, Colt McCoy enters only his second season in the West Coast, after his first actual preseason with that system, and with much more real-game experience than Flynn. And if he DOES beat out Flynn, we've got a massively-overpaid backup quarterback who we CAN'T trade because nobody wants to pay that much for a guy who couldn't beat out Colt McCoy!
Meanwhile, RGIII is right in front of us, with an astronomicly higher upside than either Flynn or McCoy. True, trading that extra first round pick would hurt a lot, but with the new rookie salary structure, Griffin would cost much less than Flynn. The monies some shallow thinkers had earmarked for Flynn, along with the the salary they would have had to pay #22, is now available for some truly GOOD young free agents (26 and younger).
This brings up part one of the politics of it: Rightly or wrongly, free agent X-recievers will be reluctant to sign with the Browns with Colt McCoy projected at quarterback. They would for Robert Griffin III.
More importantly, if Heckert, Shurmer, Childress, and Holmgren feel that RG III is for real, and will kick ass in the NFL, they HAVE to try to get him.
Why? What if they don't, and Grif does a Cam Newton, or at least an Andy Dalton? The fans will be out with the ropes and torches by about game three.
Get me right: I fully expect that IF McCoy gets some better protection, Hillis re-signed, and one reciever with real deep speed, he will do well. I just don't believe he can do as well as Griffin. He can't put the ball in a one yard window 40 yards downfield. He can't break out of a collapsing pocket and run for 30 yards, and he can't be near as accurate on the run and throwing all-arm, off-balance.
Even if statisticly they're similar, that won't matter to the Cleveland lynch mob. We could have had Saint Robert, and they just let him go.
Of course, if they disagree with Mayock, Kuiper, Miller, Wilcotts, Gannon, Brandt, etc. and don't believe that Griffin will be that good, they're ok. It's just that they're betting their futures on that judgement.
...and I doubt that they disagree with all these guys.
PS I was impressed by Griffin defending his college offense, insisting that he usually had at least three reads and looked foreward to showing that in his team interviews. I believe him--he'd be stupid to make the assertion of it wasn't true.
Because I believe him, I'm really encouraged. I was kind of shocked to hear him say that he could learn a West Coast offense quickly at first-- but then he said what I said about the difference between book-learning and learning by doing. He seems to me supremely confident, but with both his feet on the ground.
Pat Kirwin, Gil Brandt, and ALL the other REAL experts on NFL Radio agree on one thing:
IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A GUY YOU THINK CAN BE A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK, YOU TAKE HIM, EVEN IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A QUARTERBACK. THE QUARTERBACK IS TTHHEEEEE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON YOUR TEAM.
Some clowns are saying that they can just get Bradley next season. Yeah, when they don't have two first rounders and aren't just two slots away. All it will take is the following season's first rounder, the current second round pick and a bunch more, is all--SHUT T F UP YOU IDIOTS! If you expect 4-12 again you are retarded, and if they win six it's over. Morons.
Get him now, spend 20 mil on free agents, draft eight more players, keep McCoy, and don't WORRY about the most important player on your team for ten years!
BUB: Sure, the season before last he was a third or fourth-rounder. Part of the reason he's so white-hot right now is the drastic improvement he showed between 2010 and 2011. Mayock is a brutal judge of quarterbacks, and all he could find wrong with him was that he didn't anticipate well (yet).
Isn't such rapid improvement indicative of FURTHER rapid growth? I'd rather have that than rock-solid, gradually growing Andrew Luck (not that I don't think Luck can be as good or better, mind you--just opining that Griffin is there with him.)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Plan B
OK so if Tom and Mike's secretaries are again screening my emails, they might not know that I said they should go get RG3. I have to allow for this. So what do they do if thusly deprived of my advice?
Well, there's always Richardson. I addressed this before and won't repeat the whole thing. The summary is: best since Adrian Peterson AND an excellent RECIEVER. R E C I E V E R DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D? West Coast ready. Playmaker. Much bigger impact than Peterson had in Minnesota due to those sticky fingers of his.
But only if they don't re-sign Hillis.
Claiborne? No argument. Other positions are needed much more, but he's rare and worth that pick.
Blackmon? No. He's not a burner. He'll probably be really good, but the Browns already have Little, Moore, and the true tight ends. At ten, maybe. Not at four.
Trading down is always good. Don't be a blockhead! They could go down a long, long way and still get Tannehill, a STUD right tackle, and--well---everything else, too! You guys think it's got to be one or two superstars and nine guys named Joe. Better: 2 guys named Joe, 4 pretty good guys, 3 REALLY good guys, Joe Thomas, and yes: a healthy Peyton Hillis.
Trade down. Get two really good ones instead of one great one who might get hurt (and of course a staph infection) anyway. How 'bout ALL above average players?
I'd trade for Griffin. OK so they might not. Part of that is that they already have a quarterback well-suited to this system, who's only now had his chance to learn it (without much support). Griffin could set them back (temporarily).
This is Cleveland, so it wouldn't matter how well McCoy played, or how long Griffin would take to master it real-time. Colt would throw one bad pass, and somebody would start with the "ARR-GEE! ARR-GEE!", and God help him if he threw a pick! Even if they WANT RG3, YOU people might scare them off him. They don't like being told how to run their team by a bunch of hero-worshipping...
This is how good football people get fired.
And you know, that Tannehill guy has many of RG's traits. He's much less experienced, and only last season Griffin projected in the third or fourth round. Tannehill is ahead of where Griffin was at the same stage.
He's safer. You could get away with stashing him on the bench while McCoy continues to grow on the field; making some more mistakes, as all young players do.
And for all we know, the next Matt Ryan might already be here. Thadeus Lewis, if not McCoy. Probably not, but could be! McCoy might not morph into Joe Montana or Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers or Brian Sipe (ps I used those four for good reasons), but then...?
FREE AGENT fast wide reciever first! Garcon! Any drafted wide-out has to learn it all. You bring in a vet and he can help right away. A tackle, running back, man corner, etc. can help as rookies. No QB here, including Griffin, can succeed without a pocket, some sort of running game, and a two-pronged outside recieving threat.
Sign the wide reciever, and you can draft the rest. Especially if you trade down.
Well, there's always Richardson. I addressed this before and won't repeat the whole thing. The summary is: best since Adrian Peterson AND an excellent RECIEVER. R E C I E V E R DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D? West Coast ready. Playmaker. Much bigger impact than Peterson had in Minnesota due to those sticky fingers of his.
But only if they don't re-sign Hillis.
Claiborne? No argument. Other positions are needed much more, but he's rare and worth that pick.
Blackmon? No. He's not a burner. He'll probably be really good, but the Browns already have Little, Moore, and the true tight ends. At ten, maybe. Not at four.
Trading down is always good. Don't be a blockhead! They could go down a long, long way and still get Tannehill, a STUD right tackle, and--well---everything else, too! You guys think it's got to be one or two superstars and nine guys named Joe. Better: 2 guys named Joe, 4 pretty good guys, 3 REALLY good guys, Joe Thomas, and yes: a healthy Peyton Hillis.
Trade down. Get two really good ones instead of one great one who might get hurt (and of course a staph infection) anyway. How 'bout ALL above average players?
I'd trade for Griffin. OK so they might not. Part of that is that they already have a quarterback well-suited to this system, who's only now had his chance to learn it (without much support). Griffin could set them back (temporarily).
This is Cleveland, so it wouldn't matter how well McCoy played, or how long Griffin would take to master it real-time. Colt would throw one bad pass, and somebody would start with the "ARR-GEE! ARR-GEE!", and God help him if he threw a pick! Even if they WANT RG3, YOU people might scare them off him. They don't like being told how to run their team by a bunch of hero-worshipping...
This is how good football people get fired.
And you know, that Tannehill guy has many of RG's traits. He's much less experienced, and only last season Griffin projected in the third or fourth round. Tannehill is ahead of where Griffin was at the same stage.
He's safer. You could get away with stashing him on the bench while McCoy continues to grow on the field; making some more mistakes, as all young players do.
And for all we know, the next Matt Ryan might already be here. Thadeus Lewis, if not McCoy. Probably not, but could be! McCoy might not morph into Joe Montana or Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers or Brian Sipe (ps I used those four for good reasons), but then...?
FREE AGENT fast wide reciever first! Garcon! Any drafted wide-out has to learn it all. You bring in a vet and he can help right away. A tackle, running back, man corner, etc. can help as rookies. No QB here, including Griffin, can succeed without a pocket, some sort of running game, and a two-pronged outside recieving threat.
Sign the wide reciever, and you can draft the rest. Especially if you trade down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)