That's right. Ryan Tannehill plays quarterback. He is not a project safety, or tackle, or wide reciever. He is a project quarterback, who is currently being groomed by the same guy that groomed Cam Newton (who himself thinks he's awesome).
The majority of people compartmentalize (easy on the "mental") way too much. Somebody says "You simply have to get an instant impact player with your first round pick, especially if it's a high one. They make way too much money not to contribute immediately". This becomes not the rule of thumb, but THE RULE.
Logic, reason, disengaged. No more thought required, no madder wudd! Nevermind the new ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE, for instance.
I read a brilliant article by this guy, and can't find it again, but he's right there with Terry Pluto. I'll try to dig it up again so I can give my audience of crickets a link.
Anyway, he points out that yes, picking quarterbacks in the first round is risky. Only 53% of them eventually emerge as "franchise" types. Then, he points out that it's more like about seven or eight percent of the quarterbacks taken in rounds 2 through 7.
Among the first round "failures" listed were Tim Couch and Brady Quinn. In the Couch draft, Achille Smith was the second quarterback taken (by the Bungles), making Donovan McNabb the third quarterback taken...
Couch compiled a pretty good rookie season on a brand-new team with a brand new system and brand new coaches and team mates. Then the chronic tendonitis in his elbow destroyed his accuracy and eventually his arm fell off. Tim Couch was not a bust. His elbow was--so shut up with that.
He wasn't helped any by head Coach Chris Palmer, who steadfastly refused to include ANY roll-outs or shotgun formations in his offense to take advantage of his enate skill-set and help him develop in the pocket.
But I digress: 53% doesn't make it a crapshoot. Tom Heckert was with the team that selected McNabb over Culpepper in the same first round. Some evaluators are better than others. I can't prove it, but I believe that the Eagles had McNabb targetted all along, and would have drafted him over Couch or Smith. I personally liked him better, but am clueless compared to these guys.
Aaron Rodgers' weakenesses included his Colt McCoy height and questionable arm strength. He was drafted low in his first round specificly to ride the pines behind Brett Favre. I'm sure that some of the Packer faithful thought that was idiotic at the time. There are many other examples of first round, including high first round picks, who were drafted to ride the bench for a year or longer.
These were not always dominant teams, either. If there is a rule among REAL NFL GM's, I have heard it articulated by Gil Brandt, Pat Kirwin, and others. In their exact words, this is it: "IF YOU SEE A GUY THAT YOU BELIEVE CAN BE A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK, YOU MUST TAKE HIM, EVEN IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A QUARTERBACK YOU LIKE."
Quarterback is unique. It's the most criticly important position on the team, and guys with franchise ability are very, very rare. A Ray Lewis or Adrian Peterson can help a team a whole lot, but a McNabb, Rodgers, or (yes) Roethsenberger can carry an otherwise average team into the playoffs and beyond.
All but two of the Superbowl quarterbacks over the last ten years were first round picks. The talent is evident. These guys know what they're doing. Of the failures, with Couch it was his arm--a purely physical issue. With others, it was arrogance, lack of commitment, other injuries, or even drugs.
NOTHING is a sure thing! What if you draft Richardson and he breaks his leg? He's a running back--the odds are that he won't even make it through his first season uninjured. What about Braylon Edwards? Stop yammering about "risk". Those who never take risks get beat by those with more guts and imagination. Every time.
This is all academic if Heckert and company don't think Tannehill has that sort of potential. They won't draft him. But if they feel he does, they will. I say WILL, regardless of fan polls etc.
#4 is too high, you say? Everybody agrees. But the market is the market, and McShea was right: Tannehill has the same kind of potential as Luck or RG3. No, he didn't say that he was just as good as those two. He said he had the same kind of talent and potential, so quit calling him an idiot. Dumb people always skip the thinking part, leap to conclusions, and hear what they want to hear.
Tannehill is a year or so behind the other two guys. The fact that he was a very good wide reciever before he was a quarterback is GOOD, not bad.
And listen: Part of the reason his stock has shot up after his Pro Day was due to the fact that he demonstrated great improvement in his mechanics, since being tutored by Chris Weinke and company. Don't make a big deal about his throwing "against air" to familiar recievers. All the talent scouts look for is mechanical proficiency and accuracy. These drills include throwing while rolling right and left, etc.
His stock has shot up because he's showed great progress physicly in a short time, and demonstrated franchise-type physical proficiency now...before the draft.
Take Tannehill at four, and you still have #22 and high second, third, and fourth round picks. With the four compensetories, they can use their original picks to trade up, and roll the dice on injured guys, small school kids, and projects in the lower rounds.
Nor is the "supporting cast" situation as "urgent", or "desperate" as it's being portrayed.
1: Massequoi played well when on the field and healthy. Those who say he didn't are watching the theatre of their minds, and seeing what they wanted to see. Lumping him in with Robiskie, and laying off some of Little's drops on him too.
2: Little dropped a bunch of passes early, but showed much better hands the later in the season he got. His season-long stat-line is almost horrific, but that's for lazy or stupid people. Break this stuff into halves and quarters, and you see progress. That's what Heckert and co. do: think with their brains.
3: You're writing off Cameron after his rookie season? Are you out of your damn mind?
4: The other tight ends are solid to exceptional as recievers, and this West Coast will use them a lot.
5: The next right tackle could be on the roster already, Steinbach could return at a lower salary, and Mitchell entering his third season should be ready to challenge for playing time at wide reciever-and HE could be a home-run threat. Whether any of this happens, who's to say? But Browns fans have the annoying tendancy to ignore all such positive variables.
I still love 4.4 running back David Wilson in the second or third round. If he had more experience pass-blocking, hadn't played in a spread offense, and hadn't outrun his blockers too often, he'd be right behind Richardson in the first round. ALL of this is fixable, though, and he's a home-run hitter with good hands.
If, by 2013 or 2014, Tannehill can start and become a franchise quarterback, DRAFT HIM, period. If McCoy turns into the next Joe Montana, all the better!
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Mayock, Tannehill, and Number Four
You are already doing it. You made up your mind that the Browns should draft one of your favorite 3 or 4 players or trade down, and that the notion of drafting Ryan Tannehill at number four is insane. NOTHING ANYBODY says will alter that decision you've made, because...well, nobody wants to be wrong, and thinking is just so HARD!
Skip back in this very blog, and you'll see me making fun of the idea, and even calling people who advocated it morons (I think. I might have pretended to be a moron suggesting it instead).
But you know what? Mike Mayock is NOT a moron, and unlike most of you barstool GM's, I listen to smart people, even when they make ME feel like a moron. Also, I RE-THINK things when new information comes to light.
Bub waitingfornextyear, I know that you'll eventually read this, and will be screaming "NONONOOOO!", but I submit to you that YOU are being a blockhead and have turned your brain off. You and Eman and Gman and your sister never listened to me when I tried to tell you how a true analyst thinks, and why they are usually right. You're all as smart or smarter than me, but you all say...NONONONOICAN'T HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE IN MY EARS NONONO".
Take your fingers out of your ears and shut up for a minute:
Mike Mayock has been an excellent judge of young football talent; in my opinion THE best there is. He's especially good with secondary guys and quarterbacks, because he was a secondary guy himself.
Mayock recently raved about Tannehill after watching his Pro Day, and said that the Browns might have to take him at four.
Admittedly, it's way, way too high for a guy who clearly needs at least one year on the bench because he's so raw. Nor is quarterback the "urgent need" that so many idiots are protraying it. McCoy hasn't had a fair chance, and (you'll see), with some help, he'll move this offense up and down the field.
And there it is: They need to DRAFT this wide reciever, right tackle, running back, and more, so you really don't want to use that top pick on a guy who won't do diddly in 2012; who needs a lot of polishing and work.
But as I did say in previous blogs, Tannehill has as much talent as Luck or RG3, only can't become a match for them for one or two years.
There it is: Clowns who say that next year they'll just draft Bradley are saying that either the Coach and front office will tank next season to make sure they draft at the top, or that they will mortgage most of their picks for him.
RYAN TANNEHILL COULD BE THAT GUY IN TRAINING CAMP 2013!!!
He's being trained by Chris Weinke, who worked with Cam Newton last off-season. Cam was another guy that literally everybody said would need "a year or two" on the bench before he could be a pro starter. (Wait wait--Newton was always a quarterback. He didn't play wide reciever for two years, okay? He was more polished and accomplished than Tannehill is now, so I'm NOT saying that Tannehill could be an instastarter as Newton was, ok?)
What I am saying is that he could be that guy in 2013. And what Mayock implies is that the Browns might not have this chance again. So, IF YOU the expert talent scout agree with Mayock that Tannehill is the real deal, and you don't take him at four, you won't have him on the roster, challenging for the start, in 2013. Instead, you might be drafting 11th or 15th with McCoy and no hope of anybody better.
Again--I LIKE McCoy--just doubt he'll be a franchise guy.
If they draft Tannehill at four, I won't be joining you with your ropes and pitchforks.
HOWEVER, I might have a better idea, and actually think it more likely than Tannehill at four:
Brock Osweiler! 6'7", 242. He went to Arizona to play basketball and football. He's even more raw than Tannehill. He doesn't have the same quick release, isn't as fast, and needs more work on his mechanics, but will get drafted much lower because of this.
Osweiler couldn't have played wide reciever, but probably could have played tight end. He's not immobile. However, when he did run around, he became less accurate. For a really good basketball player, this and other mechanical issues are correctable. It's harder for a skyscraper like this to quickly set his feet, and his height makes it hard for him.
He has a gun for an arm, but threw mainly crosses and slants (West Coast passes do you understand?). He demonstrated nice accuracy and touch.
This is another guy with franchise potential, and certainly the BRAINS for the West Coast, who, like Tannehill, needs work.
You like Tannehill's proven ability to throw on the run, his speed, and quicker release more, but hell--this is a guy that you could get asd low as the third round, and could turn into a real quarterback as early as 2013 himself. (More likely 2014).
And please in re Richardson, stop making an ass of yourself by saying "this is a passing league", as if that eliminates a running back. This running back caught a bunch of passes and averaged over 10 yards per catch. This is a West Coast offense in which the running back is the primary or secondary reciever in a number of plays. And this guy is exceptional at PASS-blocking.
Talk about how much running backs get injured--okay. Point out all the really good ones that were drafted lower--okay. But quit the 'diss izza bassinggg-oyee--leeeg" stuff!
Skip back in this very blog, and you'll see me making fun of the idea, and even calling people who advocated it morons (I think. I might have pretended to be a moron suggesting it instead).
But you know what? Mike Mayock is NOT a moron, and unlike most of you barstool GM's, I listen to smart people, even when they make ME feel like a moron. Also, I RE-THINK things when new information comes to light.
Bub waitingfornextyear, I know that you'll eventually read this, and will be screaming "NONONOOOO!", but I submit to you that YOU are being a blockhead and have turned your brain off. You and Eman and Gman and your sister never listened to me when I tried to tell you how a true analyst thinks, and why they are usually right. You're all as smart or smarter than me, but you all say...NONONONOICAN'T HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE IN MY EARS NONONO".
Take your fingers out of your ears and shut up for a minute:
Mike Mayock has been an excellent judge of young football talent; in my opinion THE best there is. He's especially good with secondary guys and quarterbacks, because he was a secondary guy himself.
Mayock recently raved about Tannehill after watching his Pro Day, and said that the Browns might have to take him at four.
Admittedly, it's way, way too high for a guy who clearly needs at least one year on the bench because he's so raw. Nor is quarterback the "urgent need" that so many idiots are protraying it. McCoy hasn't had a fair chance, and (you'll see), with some help, he'll move this offense up and down the field.
And there it is: They need to DRAFT this wide reciever, right tackle, running back, and more, so you really don't want to use that top pick on a guy who won't do diddly in 2012; who needs a lot of polishing and work.
But as I did say in previous blogs, Tannehill has as much talent as Luck or RG3, only can't become a match for them for one or two years.
There it is: Clowns who say that next year they'll just draft Bradley are saying that either the Coach and front office will tank next season to make sure they draft at the top, or that they will mortgage most of their picks for him.
RYAN TANNEHILL COULD BE THAT GUY IN TRAINING CAMP 2013!!!
He's being trained by Chris Weinke, who worked with Cam Newton last off-season. Cam was another guy that literally everybody said would need "a year or two" on the bench before he could be a pro starter. (Wait wait--Newton was always a quarterback. He didn't play wide reciever for two years, okay? He was more polished and accomplished than Tannehill is now, so I'm NOT saying that Tannehill could be an instastarter as Newton was, ok?)
What I am saying is that he could be that guy in 2013. And what Mayock implies is that the Browns might not have this chance again. So, IF YOU the expert talent scout agree with Mayock that Tannehill is the real deal, and you don't take him at four, you won't have him on the roster, challenging for the start, in 2013. Instead, you might be drafting 11th or 15th with McCoy and no hope of anybody better.
Again--I LIKE McCoy--just doubt he'll be a franchise guy.
If they draft Tannehill at four, I won't be joining you with your ropes and pitchforks.
HOWEVER, I might have a better idea, and actually think it more likely than Tannehill at four:
Brock Osweiler! 6'7", 242. He went to Arizona to play basketball and football. He's even more raw than Tannehill. He doesn't have the same quick release, isn't as fast, and needs more work on his mechanics, but will get drafted much lower because of this.
Osweiler couldn't have played wide reciever, but probably could have played tight end. He's not immobile. However, when he did run around, he became less accurate. For a really good basketball player, this and other mechanical issues are correctable. It's harder for a skyscraper like this to quickly set his feet, and his height makes it hard for him.
He has a gun for an arm, but threw mainly crosses and slants (West Coast passes do you understand?). He demonstrated nice accuracy and touch.
This is another guy with franchise potential, and certainly the BRAINS for the West Coast, who, like Tannehill, needs work.
You like Tannehill's proven ability to throw on the run, his speed, and quicker release more, but hell--this is a guy that you could get asd low as the third round, and could turn into a real quarterback as early as 2013 himself. (More likely 2014).
And please in re Richardson, stop making an ass of yourself by saying "this is a passing league", as if that eliminates a running back. This running back caught a bunch of passes and averaged over 10 yards per catch. This is a West Coast offense in which the running back is the primary or secondary reciever in a number of plays. And this guy is exceptional at PASS-blocking.
Talk about how much running backs get injured--okay. Point out all the really good ones that were drafted lower--okay. But quit the 'diss izza bassinggg-oyee--leeeg" stuff!
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Corrections
Pre-note: I was about to say how smart the Browns were for pursuing Manny Lawson, but it turns out they're not interested. I'm just...like...WHY T F NOT?
1: Marcus Bernard was a passrushing DE in college and is still here, now back at DE. He was not abducted by aliens. No spontaneous combustion here. He got too big, then got hurt, but he's back, and honest: He still exists.
2: Scott Fujita was torched by every tight end he faced last season. He is getting old and had already lost a step. The Browns do not need depth behind Fujita. They need a starter in front of him. This is reality. Deal with it.
3: Brian Schaefering is a great guy to have around. He can play DT vs the pass and DE vs the run. He has become a very solid rotational player, who makes a lot of plays in limitted playing time. This is what we call "Quality depth".
4: Owen Marecic had no offseason last year and was NOT a first round pick, ok? Vickers sucked as a rookie too. Give him a freaking MINUTE, OK?
Now: It's just possible that Miami will be desperate enough to trade up for Tannehill. Not because they think the Browns will, but because they're afraid somebody else will jump ahead of them to massively overdraft this gifted PROJECT.
Maybe not even because they think it's smart, but because the mobs are out with ropes and torches, know little about football, and they need a PR splash quick. It could buy this brand new Head Coach one year of grace and save the GM'S job.
The STARTING price for this move would be Miami's second round pick.
In contemplating missing out on Superback Richardson, I like David Wilson as a plan B, maybe even with that aforementioned pick (#42 overall).
Richardson is a more accomplished reciever with better hands, is much more powerful, and Wilson needs much work on blocking. He's 207 now, but should top out at 215 on a 5'10" frame.
He's maybe THE fastest (4.4) back in this draft; more of a home-run threat than Richardson, but his offense in college was a spread, and he hasn't proven that he can run between the tackles up here consistantly.
With the work he'll need on blocking and stuff, he won't be ready to be a workhorse right away, but has ideal tools for the West Coast. The pass-blocking isn't as simple as it sounds, but many backs can learn it fairly quickly. They can work on improving his hands as well.
Wilson isn't a wide reciever, but IS a big-time playmaker who can go to the slot after he learns it. He darts and dashes and even breaks tackles. If the Browns don't get Richardson, Wilson would be a great consolation prize, and could really turn into a stud once his rough edges get some sanding.
At eighth overall, the Browns could get a superstud guard/tackle, possibly Richardson, concievably Claiborne--but for sure a real stud who would instantly help a LOT.
YOU STAND CORRECTED.
1: Marcus Bernard was a passrushing DE in college and is still here, now back at DE. He was not abducted by aliens. No spontaneous combustion here. He got too big, then got hurt, but he's back, and honest: He still exists.
2: Scott Fujita was torched by every tight end he faced last season. He is getting old and had already lost a step. The Browns do not need depth behind Fujita. They need a starter in front of him. This is reality. Deal with it.
3: Brian Schaefering is a great guy to have around. He can play DT vs the pass and DE vs the run. He has become a very solid rotational player, who makes a lot of plays in limitted playing time. This is what we call "Quality depth".
4: Owen Marecic had no offseason last year and was NOT a first round pick, ok? Vickers sucked as a rookie too. Give him a freaking MINUTE, OK?
Now: It's just possible that Miami will be desperate enough to trade up for Tannehill. Not because they think the Browns will, but because they're afraid somebody else will jump ahead of them to massively overdraft this gifted PROJECT.
Maybe not even because they think it's smart, but because the mobs are out with ropes and torches, know little about football, and they need a PR splash quick. It could buy this brand new Head Coach one year of grace and save the GM'S job.
The STARTING price for this move would be Miami's second round pick.
In contemplating missing out on Superback Richardson, I like David Wilson as a plan B, maybe even with that aforementioned pick (#42 overall).
Richardson is a more accomplished reciever with better hands, is much more powerful, and Wilson needs much work on blocking. He's 207 now, but should top out at 215 on a 5'10" frame.
He's maybe THE fastest (4.4) back in this draft; more of a home-run threat than Richardson, but his offense in college was a spread, and he hasn't proven that he can run between the tackles up here consistantly.
With the work he'll need on blocking and stuff, he won't be ready to be a workhorse right away, but has ideal tools for the West Coast. The pass-blocking isn't as simple as it sounds, but many backs can learn it fairly quickly. They can work on improving his hands as well.
Wilson isn't a wide reciever, but IS a big-time playmaker who can go to the slot after he learns it. He darts and dashes and even breaks tackles. If the Browns don't get Richardson, Wilson would be a great consolation prize, and could really turn into a stud once his rough edges get some sanding.
At eighth overall, the Browns could get a superstud guard/tackle, possibly Richardson, concievably Claiborne--but for sure a real stud who would instantly help a LOT.
YOU STAND CORRECTED.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Olympic Conclusion Leaping
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)