In today's edition of Around the Pound, we intentionally force many Browns fans to gouge their eyes out with the photograph of Tim Tebow and Mike Holmgren above, among other things including the new home of quarterback Derek Anderson.
Remember how the Cleveland Browns acquired an extra third-round draft pick, and that we don't have a young quarterback (excluding Brett Ratliff) on our roster? That could be where Florida QB Tim Tebow enters the picture. Has a college player ever been so hyped/discussed with the intention of them not being drafted in the first two rounds?
Both Mike Holmgren and Eric Mangini were in attendance for Tebow's Pro Day Wednesday, and Holmgren came away impressed after seeing Tebow's new throwing motion.
"Clearly, he's a special young man," Holmgren told the Associated Press. "You can tell he's trying to make adjustments to his motion. That seems to be what people are fired up about, and he's working very hard to do that, and it showed today. I thought he had a pretty good workout."
"Those of us that know the position a little bit and watch the position and have coached the position, you saw it," Holmgren said. "You saw he's worked hard on changing some of his technique, and I root for him. He's a wonderful young man. I pull for guys like that, and he's going to make some team very happy."
There are a collection of links in this Tebow FanShot, where several videos are available so you can take a look at Tebow yourself.
If there was one team right now in the NFL where I think Derek Anderson could re-live his 2007 Pro Bowl season, it would be with the Arizona Cardinals. The Cardinals signed Anderson to a two-year deal. At a minimum, Anderson will make $7.25 million over those two years, with $3.25 million guaranteed. If he becomes the starter and earns incentives, his contract could max out to $18.25 million. This is the type of structured contract I would've rather seen Delhomme receive, but perhaps we felt we'd lose him to New Orleans then.
You can check out the reaction from the fans of our Cardinals affiliate here. Here's one of their comments:
You can't judge based on one game. That’s like saying Warner wasn’t worthy because he threw too many INT’s in one game. Anderson had some outstanding games in 2007 that could easily counter a 2-fo-17 performance. You’ve got to judge on the whole and not one or two individual games.
How little they know about Mr. Derek Anderson ;) In the end though, I do anticipate Anderson becoming Arizona's starter either at the beginning or the middle of the season. It just always seems to happen.
As always, check out Pluto's column above for more of his thoughts. I selected my two favorite ones and have highlighted them below:
7. I believe the Browns will be a run-first team. That is Mangini's style for a team that plays in bad weather on grass. He'll use a multiple-back system with Jerome Harrison, Lawrence Vickers and newcomer Peyton Hillis. The Browns really like Hillis, who averaged 4.9 yards per carry in Denver. They also are working on packages with Joshua Cribbs and Seneca Wallace in the Wildcat formations. While Holmgren said he didn't want Delhomme to "just manage the game," they also won't want the veteran throwing the ball 35 times an outing, either.
8. Don't know if the Browns will draft Tim Tebow, but I wouldn't be shocked if they took him in the third round when the team has multiple picks. It's easy to imagine Holmgren and Mangini being impressed by Tebow's character and work ethic, along with his history of success. Holmgren drafted Wallace, who was considered far more of an athlete at Iowa State than a polished quarterback. But Holmgren liked Wallace's character.
The new 40-time for Joe Haden, according to his Pro Day? 4.39. That erases the concern of speed, but has his contention of being drafted by Cleveland taken a turn with the team's recent moves at quarterback?
0 recs | 412 comments
I hope we draft Tebow, just for the lulz. We’re well on our way to Japanese MMA level freak show status.
troy145 - March 18, 2010
Think of all the Jesus jokes…
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
The organization could save money on the post-game spread by setting out two fish and five loaves of bread.
rolub - March 18, 2010
Excellent.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
I just hope he doesn’t get too close to the water jugs on the sideline, or the whole team will be drunk by halftime.
Buckeye Brad - March 18, 2010
I hope it rains on every single Browns game because he can walk on top of water. Who needs cleats?!
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
Hahahaha.
emily522 - March 19, 2010
I don’t get it.
BrownDawg1409 - March 19, 2010
Jesus performed miracles.
Roger Dorn - March 19, 2010
as in turning the Browns from losers to winners
deemac3248 - March 19, 2010
Good one.
emily522 - March 19, 2010
tebow is gay for god.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
Total bromance.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsWg0bt9kp4
i found tim tebow’s favorite song. incredible.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
Dropkick B.Quinn to the Broncos
deemac3248 - March 19, 2010
btw how tall is Holmgren? He looks to have a few inches on Tim.
troy145 - March 18, 2010
If Tebow is 6’-3", what does that make Holmgren? For some reason, I thought Holmgren was much shorter than he actually is.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
Holmgren is huge dude. Size of an offensive tackle. 6’5 280 or 300.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
Joe Thomas better watch his back.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
blaspheme
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
how could you stoop to this level?
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
Thomas has the hearing of a dog and the eyesight of an owl. He’ll be fine.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
Im not a fan of seeing Holmgren in the same picture with Tebow.In fact,made me really uncomfortable.Ive never been a Tebow fan,
kevin122380 - March 18, 2010
me neither. but i really trust holmgren.
troy145 - March 18, 2010
this
North Coast Flea - March 18, 2010
Ok, I think I’ve changed my mind. I guess I wouldn’t mind Tebow if we waited until the 3rd round.
emily522 - March 18, 2010
But he probably won’t be there anyways.
emily522 - March 18, 2010
I like Tebow too. For me, since we’re probably not getting Bradford I would like to pick up Tebow with our first third rounder.
BrownDawg1409 - March 19, 2010
Getting a new Jersey this year. Only decision is between Berry or Tebow.
Please for the love of God I hope I never see the brown pants again, ever.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
You know there is a really good chance that we draft neither one of those players right?
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
You’d buy a Tebow jersey? That’s just sarcasm, right?
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
Ugh. Shut up.
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
I liked the brown pants. I hated seeing those all white uniforms all the time (it seems like).
BrownDawg1409 - March 19, 2010
I hate the brown pants, but I also hate the white shirts at home. No white Jersey’s at home ever.
This is football, you wear your colors at home, especially if you are a cold weather team. If we want alternate pants, bring the orange pants back like the Kardiac Kids era.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Dude, brown pants rock. They’re practical AND it’s easy to make some at home too.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Brown jerseys + orange pants = awesome, I like the orange jerseys too.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
Yeck, no thanks. Keep the orange on the hats, please!
….and maybe spray some on Rothlisberger’s back, preferably in the shape of a target. Can someone photoshop that for us?
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
you know why armies used brown pants right?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
So you wouldn’t see it when they shit themselves duh.
SpecialBrownie - March 20, 2010
exactly…No wonder it would be the browns to think of that idea…
Except that when Joe Thomas plays, the Defense needs to wear brown pants too…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Yeah but the lack of talent around Thomas negates some of the terror factor.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
yes. at least the DL is crapping their pants though.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I can’t believe how optimistic cardinals fans are about this move. everybody over there is saying things like “when he had weapons he was great!” completely ignoring that all those same “weapons” were back for 2008 and they sucked.
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
And he wasn’t even that great when he had weapons.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
yeah, his 29 TDs in 2007 stick out, but when you compare that to his 19 picks and the rest of his very average numbers, his 2007 wasn’t even that good.
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
I think those TDs were more associated with our OC suprising people that year. It sure didn’t work in ’08
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
thats what i would tend to think as well, but i don’t know how i’d go about proving it.
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
I love the fact that he destroyed some of the worst passing defenses in the league, but if you take away those game, he was pretty much pedestrian.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
This. DA had a great year in 2007. He certainly made some big mistakes (Bengals game), but at the end of the season, it looked like we had our guy. I can see why Cardinals fans are excited. Yes, he had the same guys in 2008, but one of them decided he no longer had to catch the passes thrown to him. If I had to predict, I see DA having some great games for the Cards after Leinart inevitably gets pulled, but then I see DA flaming out slowly and the Cards are stuck in the same QB controversy hell that we were in for 2 years.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 18, 2010
look it up.
Look at the games where he threw for over 100 passer rating. all of them were against teams that ranked in the bottom 5-7 in just about all categories at defending the pass…even QB rating.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
like i said in a different thread though, you can’t take away his best starts and say “look how bad he really is.” if you do that you have to take out his worst starts as well.
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
yes.
you cannot truly take out his good starts, but you DO have to take them with a grain of salt when he had 4 starts and 3 teams were 29th or below in opponent QB passer rating.
and if you look at his body of work in 2007, it was solid, but nothing great. the only reason he even was selected is b/c there are always QBs who decide not to play. He was eventually elected to the pro bowl, but he was the 4th QB.
people tout the pro bowl like he is some sort of savior but do people do the same with kerry collins? collins in ’08 and ’09 in a way mirrors what DA was like in ’07 and ’08. a replacement guy that made the pro bowl as a reserve. sucked the next year and was benched.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I am sure you are right on the stats. But we haven’t had a QB who played so well against those bad teams ever (post-99) except for 2007 DA. Playing real good against bad teams is where you start. And if you just look at 2007 DA, you see a pretty good QB who has a lot of potential. When you look at 2009 DA, you don’t see much. 2008 DA? at least you still see a QB.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 18, 2010
I agree.
I guess you can credit him for beating up on bad teams, but the guy did that in like 3 games, the rest of the year he wasn’t good. against competent defense he struggled….plus against similarly bad defenses he struggled the next year. I because of past and future performances, we should take those starts with a grain of salt. I am not completely dismissing them, but saying they may be a little misleading.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Hypothetically, if someone lit up several pass defenses, wouldn’t that help put them in the bottom 10?
rufio - March 19, 2010
I don’t see Leinhart getting pulled at all. I think he’s the full time starter for the whole season.
BrownDawg1409 - March 19, 2010
Oh I misread your message.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 18, 2010
Man, we really really like to dump on our guys once they are out the door.
dgcambridge - March 18, 2010
I have been dumping on this guy for a while…
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Haven’t you heard, we don’t deserve a winner?
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
We all wished Quinn the best in Denver, unless he’s playing us.
North Coast Flea - March 18, 2010
It’s not about that. Holgrem says it right we he implies that he’s not sure whether Quinn sucks or not, but that he wasn’t comfortable with the risk. Here, it’s plenty of people (not everyone) falling all over themselves to say how clearly crappy each of our former players are, and to downgrade any accomplishments they did have. It’s not accurate, and it’s petty.
dgcambridge - March 18, 2010
OK well how about Wimbley? No one here said he sucked, just that he never lived up to his potential. Brodney Pool, no one slammed on him either.
North Coast Flea - March 18, 2010
Yup. And even K2 — there are plenty of people who are not fond of him, but I haven’t read anywhere on here that he was/is not an excellent pass-catching Tight End.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 19, 2010
That may be, but it didn’t start once they became former players. DA’s accomplishments were downgraded while he was here and Quinn was doubted while he was here. I think that prevents it from being petty. It’s not like everyone was high on these guys and then started crapping on them after they left.
Villeslgr - March 18, 2010
What, exactly, accomplishments did Quinn have?
There’s a reason this team has been in perpetual suckitude since the re-inception. No one is going to fall over themselves praising disposable members of a 5-11 team.
gahnki - March 18, 2010
Dude, they sucked.
Roger Dorn - March 19, 2010
I don’t think anyone waited until they got out the door.
Villeslgr - March 18, 2010
“Our guys” is a relative term in pro sports. They stop being “our guys” when they are no longer collecting a paycheck from the Browns.
gahnki - March 18, 2010
2010 Arizona Cards = 2008 Cleveland Browns only the Role of Brady Quinn will be played by one Matt Leinart.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I seem to remember being really PO’d at DA one day for a performance vs Arizona. Could be off though.
troy145 - March 18, 2010
that was the game that inspired the change to the “WR getting forced out” rule. KW made a great catch, was forced out, and we got boned.
Dawg Nuts - March 18, 2010
oh yeah i remember that. They reviewed the play and it was obviously a force out but you can’t review forceouts so they had to rule in favor of the Cards. bye bye forcout rule.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
How could you forget that. I spent about 20 minutes yelling at the tv and the rest of the week bitching about it.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Just used to heartbreak i guess. Its insignificant compared to watching Jose Mesa blow game 7
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I hope to never be that used to heart break. I don’t watch much baseball so I can’t say I know who Jose Mesa is. I’ve been a Browns fan since ’01 though, so I have been dissapointed almost every season by them. I never even got to see them in their hay day.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Its tough being a cleveland fan. Lets just hope Holmgren leads us to the promised land.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
Jose Mesa was a douche, and he threatened to kill my fave guy on the team (after Sandy Alomar jr that is) Omar Vizquel.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
thank your lucky stars for this.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
Chris – “gouge there eyes out”? wow harsh. you are assuming that we wouldnt want Tebow. Why do we think that we know more about what Tim Tebow’s capabilities are than MIke Holmgren? I trust Mike Holmgren more than anyone we have had in our organization, ever. Tebow at the top of round 3 sounds like a damn good pick to me. You think LeFevour or Pike are better? For what reason? They all played in the same type of offense in college.
rockybrown - March 18, 2010
Yeah I agree. Being a guy who has always respected Tebow’s game I don’t see why he can’t succeed. His footwork needs reps to improve but having a goofy throwing motion does not necessarily mean a QB can’t have success in the NFL.
I think depending on who is there for pick #38 Tebow is a real possibility. If one of those good CBs is there watch out for the Browns to package a couple of lower picks and get another second round pick. If they come away with Berry, a QB and a McCourty or Kareem Jackson in the first two rounds, the rest of the draft is gravy. (especially if they keep that early 3rd pick and get a nice value) This seems like a great way to go, just have to find the team that is willing to sell its 2nd round pick for a couple of late thirds and a pick next year.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
The reason Tebow is such a “maybe” is because he needs to be totally rebuilt. It isn’t just his footwork, it goes all the way from him being able to take a snap under center. Add in his throwing motion, footwork and ability to read defenses, you finally realize what a task this is.
Being a QB in this league is hard enough without learning everything over. He has made some small strides already, but bad habits die hard and I am willing to bet that if he threw on pads on was being chased by Terrell Suggs, he would fall back into the slow wind-up motion.
That isn’t saying that Tebow can’t or won’t be successful, it’s just that it is a long hard road ahead and his chances at being successful are going to be small.
It damn well not better be.
The first two rounds are for players that can help right away. You do not draft projects in the first and second rounds. Tebow is the definition of a project right now. There will be better players that are more equipped for the NFL game available at 38.
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
Earliest I’d take Tebow is the 3rd. But I still don’t really want him anyways.
emily522 - March 18, 2010
He will probably go in the second, if he fell to the third I’d be very happy. But if holmgren wants him I see holmgren trading up. 12 rookies probably wont make this team, Watch out for one or two trades so we can get quality over quantity this year.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
Tebow can help right away
His freshman year; at the end of spring ball; his “team” for the blue/orange game chose him to be the anchor for the tug-o-war. The seniors chose HIM. Tebow is a stud. He brings so much energy, the entire team will step up. I agree that he shouldn’t be taking snaps for a few years, but Tebow will fire up the team. Maybe not the same as in Gainesville, but his work ethic and drive to succeed would be a positive for ANY team. The Browns would be lucky to get Tebow.
dawggonehawaiian - March 19, 2010
yep. He is a WINNER. and because he was a winner in college, he doesn’t have to play and he makes our team better. He just WINS.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
So he can help us in a game of tug of war?
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
I can’t remember a good natured athlete that has been so loved-to-be-hated ever
dawggonehawaiian - March 19, 2010
I am not saying anything about that.
Your reasons why he will make the Browns better are ridiculous. You really think Shaun Rogers is going to play harder because Tebow is a rah-rah guy?
By the way, Tuba Rubin has to be the first pick in a Browns tug of war.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
How can you lose tug of war with Tuba Rubin on your team. He could drag down another team just by himself.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Not if the other team has Joe Thomas.
skipkirk - March 19, 2010
Thank Tebow they don’t
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
if joe thomas was on the other team, the other team would consist of only joe thomas.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
If Joe Thomas went back in time, met himself and challenged himself to a game of Tug of War, Joe Thomas would win. Period.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
and joe thomas from the past would look exactly the same; he was, and always shall be, as he is now. because father time fears joe thomas.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
there are only three absolutes in life: death, taxes, and eventually getting pancaked by joe thomas; except for joe thomas, who will never experience any of these things.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
Not true. Joe Thomas is so fast he can run around the world and pancake himself!
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
i stand corrected. thank you, and my sincerest apologies to joe thomas.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
Joe Thomas doesn’t accept apologies. He just delays how long it takes him to pancake you.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
wow…every so often we should have a joe thomas fanshot like this. these things make my day.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
you’ve just insulted joe thomas by implying that he’s only deserving of a fanshot.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
In Soviet Russia, Joe Thomas fanshoots YOU!!!
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
ehhh…
Joe thomas jokes and Smirnov jokes are funny…but together they just don’t work as well…
Not bad, just not the sum of its parts
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Joe Thomas doesn’t have to study his scouting reports. He just stares at them until he gets the information he wants.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
that was good.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
i guess i’m safe for another .0000073 seconds.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
When it comes to Thomas, you’re never safe.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
unless he wants you to be, in which case you’ll never be touched.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
Joe Thomas’s work as a body guard inspired M C Hammer’s “Can’t Touch This”.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Nobody stands, even corrected, when Joe Thomas deals with them. You can only lay corrected.
Matt Y. - March 20, 2010
Google won’t search for Joe Thomas because it knows you don’t find Joe Thomas, he finds you..
Mr Orange - March 23, 2010
Would he use a hot tub time machine to go back in time?
Roger Dorn - March 20, 2010
Am I the only person who wants to see this movie?
Craig Robinson is hilarious.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
It might be funny. Rated R comedies usualy are.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
its got potential to be good, but i also feel like its got the potential to be one tired out slapstick joke after another. to be honest i haven’t looked past the previews.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
Isn’t this also known as the apocalypse?
Chief WaDrew - March 21, 2010
I’d take Rogers.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Its not that Tebow can’t succeed in the NFL, its that he has a lot of obstacles to overcome in order to do so. He has a much lower chance of turning in to an all pro than the first round guys. Its not just the throwing motion. His accuracy is OK, but not great. He won’t be able to run over guys the way he did in college, so he will be a less viable running threat—and make no mistake this was a huge part of his success in college. You have to wonder how quickly he can go through progressions if you are a GM, and how much he knows about defenses.
Obviously, any one of those things can be overcome by a QB. Stacking them on top of each other, and that’s why he shouldn’t be drafted in the first.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Rec.
The running part is so true.
emily522 - March 19, 2010
Whether we get Tebow or not, I’d really like to see the Browns get out in the forefront of offensive schemes. using your wildcat back to make run reads and actually veer people. The real success of the spread option at the college level came from eliminating that 11vs10 advantage the defense normally has in the running game. Holmgren is creative offensively, lets hope he goes all Andy Reid / Jon Grueden and embraces the unorthodox even more fully. I’d like to see the organization do something dramatic to turn around this team.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
I’d rather we not throw as often as Philly, and I’d hope that we do a better job than Gruden at finding a QB.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I’d like to see the organization do something smart.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Well said.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
For this franchise, that would be dramatic.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
REC!
emily522 - March 19, 2010
Damn right.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
We already have Cribbs, we can already run all of that stuff if we think it will work.
It won’t do what it did in college (turn bad programs into dangerous offenses), and if players and coaches don’t know how to stop the triple option, the zone read, etc. by now, they should all be fired.
Even college teams are prepared to stop those offenses now. Look at what OSU did to Oregon. Hell, if I wrote about it on this blog, it probably isn’t going to sneak up on any opposing DCs in the league.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t sound schemes that can’t work for us, just that we don’t need Tebow to run them and we probably won’t surprise anyone if/when we do.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Yeah I agree, but like I said I’d really like to see us do something different. It would make for interesting football to watch, and could really be effective for us. Plus it could generate some national buzz for a team that really hasn’t had much good said about it in the last few years. Not to mention like you said we have some personnel who could execute. It might not be much of a surprise but it doesn’t need to be, it is just sound math. Playing 11 vs 11 is better than 11 vs 10.
Don’t get me wrong I want the Browns to have success any way possible but I think the NFL is right on the edge of a move to a much greater variety of offensive sets.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
you seem to be way too interested in gimmicks and “new age cures.” what’s wrong with just drafting the best players and winning games?
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
The problem is that it’s the Browns we’re talking about, remember?
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
the browns of the past never had mike holmgren running things. the browns of the present do. thats why i’m optimistic we can win, and do it the right way.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
There is nothing about the organization itself that makes Dawg Nuts’ plan impossible.
rufio - March 20, 2010
I don’t care about buzz. I care about wins.
You never play 11 vs 10, even when you are talking about an immobile QB. All you need to do as an offense is keep the defense honest, and that has been done by immobile QBs for a very long time in the NFL.
I highly doubt the NFL is on the edge of a move to a much greater variety of offensive sets.
rufio - March 20, 2010
yeah, i’m getting more and more confused by this. the key, as you’ve mentioned before, is that teams figure out gimmicks pretty quickly. they may still produce yardage, but not when an entire offense is centered around them. many things are the same in football now as they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. i’d be tickled pink with us doing those old things effectively.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
The things that work and aren’t gimmicks are sound football schemes, and people use them all the time. There are also plenty of reasons why some “college” offenses stay in college.
Offenses win in the NFL by utilizing lots and lots of minute changes that have a huge impact on matchups and small-area numbers/alignment advantages. Can you make those small changes with a running QB? Absolutely. But it really doesn’t give your team an advantage unless you have superior personnel of the type necessary to run that stuff (Michael Vick, several really good, durable RBs of different sizes/speeds, etc.) In the same way, it wouldn’t make sense for us to run a lot of spread offense because our pass catchers are near the bottom of the league and our QBs are questionable at best.
If we can be good at some really “exotic” plays/packages, it could give us a legit advantage in one or two games. After that, people would be familiar with it. But why let the cat out of the bag to go from 5-11 to 7-9? If we really have something that good up our sleeves, I’d like to see us save it for a run into the playoffs or a run in the playoffs.
We need to be able to play good football—any kind of football—before we think about surprising people with something new (a la the wildcat), IMO. If the things we can be good at just happen to be “college”, fine. But I don’t see that being the case.
rufio - March 20, 2010
It was a statement meant only to reflect the many times I’ve seen the, “oh god no,” type of comments regarding Tebow on here.
Chris Pokorny - March 18, 2010
Holmgren is good, but he is no Paul Brown.
The majority of fans on this site do not want Tebow. If you think differently, that’s cool but you are in the minority. So Chris would be correct in his assumption that Browns fans don’t want Tim Tebow.
Who, pray tell, has said that they do? In fact, most of the people on this blog have said that they fully trust in Holmgren.
This I fully agree with. Only problem is that I really doubt that Tebow will still be on the board at that point.
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
I don’t fully trust Homlmemgmem…to tell the truth about his opinion on draft prospects this time of year.
rufio - March 19, 2010
I have a much higher opinion of Mangini’s and Heckerts ability to evaluate players (outside of QB).
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
Even if Holmgren makes good evaluations, do we really think he is giving away his board right now?
So far, I believe Holmgren likes about 12 people and thinks they are all “special”. The same 12 that are at/near the top of everyone else’s draft boards.
I definitely trust the others more when evaluating defense. Holmgren probably knows his OL pretty well, and RBs.
rufio - March 19, 2010
couldn’t agree more. Don’t believe anything Holmgren says. I really really doubt he has any real interest in acquiring bradford. He just can’t let every other team know what players he wants the most ahead of time. I really like the possibilities of this front office. We have some really good minds in there and specialists on both sides of the ball.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
i think he’s extremely interested in bradford and is working on ideas to get him; i just don’t think its going to work.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
The fact that this is debatable illustrates my point.
rufio - March 20, 2010
No. They played in very different versions of the spread. Florida spreads to run and get their smallish WR/RBs the ball in space. Cincy (when Pike was the QB) spread the field and had a lot of vertical routes. When I saw LeFevour, he was spreading the field and throwing a lot of short routes.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Yeah I agree with this. Florida’s offense is really not as unorthodox as most spread teams. They are a run first offense who likes to beat you with playaction. They employ a lot of west coast inspired route groupings. Some of their bread and butter plays (inside zone, outside zone, counter trey, gut trap) are just exotic permutations of plays that can be found in virtually every NFL playbook. They even run pretty standard pass protection stuff, nothing like Texas Tech.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Dear Visiting Cardinals fan,
DA is not good. Trust us.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
Yeah I keep thinking….
1. Lost job to BRADY QUINN. Brady-freakin’ Quinn
2. Released by the Browns. The BROWNS.
3. Replaced by Seneca Wallace and Jake Delomme.
Need we say more?
johnnyphoenix - March 18, 2010
Dear Visiting Broncos fan,
BQ is not good. Trust us.
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
1. Lost job to DEREK ANDERSON. Derek-freakin’ Anderson.
2. Traded for peanuts by the Browns. The BROWNS.
3. Replaced by Seneca Wallace and Jake Delomme.
Need we say more?
johnnyphoenix - March 18, 2010
Dear Visiting Browns Executives,
TT is no good. Trust us.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
Why are we wasting link space and driving traffic to anything at the SBN Ravens site? Seriously? As much as those guys come here and troll?
woodsmeister - March 18, 2010
He’s a very poor writer too.
gahnki - March 18, 2010
True, and not just because I hate the Ravens.
Two small paragraphs and a sentence are hardly convincing, most of which is comparing Boldin to Buzz “Light-year.”
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
What do expect from someone who thinks Modell is a good guy?
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
Anyone who publicly leads the reader into a certain type of feedback isn’t doing a very good job.
gahnki - March 18, 2010
Ultimately, I still remain committed to helping to cross-promote fellow SB Nation sites. Perhaps in the future I should consider doing “Around the NFL” and choose 3-4 interesting links as opposed to just limiting it to content from the AFC North.
Chris Pokorny - March 18, 2010
This.
woodsmeister - March 18, 2010
Please no Tebow. Draft Colt. I’ve seen nearly every game he’s played, and seeing Gil Brandt’s comments on Colt only reassured my beliefs. Under the tutelage of Holmgren and Delhomme, Colt can be our guy.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
I’ve wanted colt McCoy for a while, but will not be disappointed if we go another direction.
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
I also wanted to know everybody’s feelings on bringing T.O. in. He learned a lot of humility in Buffulo. He’d be another good “stop gap” while Massaquoi(sp) grows into the number 1 role, which I believe he is absolutely capable of. All it takes is a QB to actually throw the ball AT him.
If not T.O. what about Tory Holt?
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
TO + Eric Mangini = a / 0
TheDriveStillHurts - March 18, 2010
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
That’s awesome — I’d put that poster up in my classroom, except I think the school wouldn’t like that.
Buckeye Brad - March 18, 2010
The community college wouldn’t care ;]
I don’t get the sewer picture though. I understand the undefined thing of course though.
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
Dividing by zero caused a microscopic black whole that is now about to devour the earth.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
hole
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
you could try this one:
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
SpecialBrownie - March 19, 2010
Joe Thomas can divide by zero, no questions asked.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Joe Thomas is the singularity created from dividing by 0, he has skill so dense no DL can escape it.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
There is no such thing as evolution. Just a list of creatures that Joe Thomas decided not to pancake yet.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
You’re on a roll.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
It helps when you have a Chuck Norris poster on your wall. But I take full credit for applying them appropriately.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
(Joe Thomas’s face will soon replace Chuck Norris’s, BTW)
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Joe Thomas is the “Big Crunch”.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
The big bang happened when Joe Thomas decided to pancake himself in the manner mentioned before.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
A theory is that everything will fall in on itself into a singularity again. Joe Thomas is beyond are comprehension.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
Actually, anyone can divide by zero so long as they treat division as a unitary operator. /nerd
But still, Joe Thomas could do it better and faster.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
You’re going to have to explain this “unitary operator” thing to me.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Someone will have to explain it to me first. :) It’s been waaaay too long. It’s one of those things that you never again use once you’re out of school.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
Brad?
rufio - March 20, 2010
Brad.
SpecialBrownie - March 20, 2010
Brad!
Roger Dorn - March 20, 2010
Brad‽
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
01100010 || 01110010 || 01100001 || 01100100 || 00100001
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
Brad in binary?
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
(with the exclamation point)
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
nice
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
brad;
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
Tory Holt, sure. T.O, hell no.
gahnki - March 18, 2010
No chance for TO. Torry Holt probably wouldnt be a bad idea though.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I saw Torry Holt on NFL Live talking about the importance of route running. He’d be a great presence for young wide recievers.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Im out on Tebow.. please get Bradford
Southern Cali Dog - March 18, 2010
I’ll let Holmgren know.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 18, 2010
Welcome to DBN, my SoCal neighbor.
Brownie's Year - March 18, 2010
please no Bradford or any other qb with the 1st rd pic
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
I know. It would be a disaster to take a franchise qb in the first round. Because the Browns missed on Brady Quinn, they can never draft another qb in the first round.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 18, 2010
What wouldn’t be a disaster is drafting a fantastic safety, someone who will likely make an immediate +impact, which also happens to be a position where we are really lacking.
Then go on to draft a QB in a later round, for a lot less money, one our staff coach and mentor them until they’re ready to start.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
Or just plain taking the BPA if said safety is gone, and heaven forbid we try to trade down.
North Coast Flea - March 18, 2010
trade up, we need quality draft picks, not more. Already have too many. 12 rookies won’t make the roster.
Watch for us to trade away at least two or 3 picks, maybe even more. Holmgren is in great position to get the exact 4 or 5 players he likes in the first 3 rounds, and I like that.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
This is not true.
Picks in the NFL are currency. We need as many as possible.
Yes, 12 rookies probably won’t make the team, but we can start trading picks into next seasons draft. A 4th for a 3rd. A 5th for a fourth,
If we get an offer to trade down, I really hope we take it.
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
This draft is almost certain to be as good or better than next years. I trust holmgren to make good trades only. If theres 4 or 5 players that he wants specifically I think he can get them and still have at least 3 or 4 draft picks left to trade or find guys in the late rounds.
we need playmakers, if we can get two secondary starters in the first two rounds and trade back up into the 2nd and find our QB of the future we should definitely do it.
Teams have to really want a guy to trade you next years 4th for a 5th round pick, probably tough to get more than one of those trades.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
Happens every year.
Why do you think NE ends up with a multiple picks in the first and second rounds every year? Because they are smart and never become attached to any player. At the end of the ’09 draft, New England already had 9 picks in this draft.
If you don’t fully understand what I am talking about. read this article about the Eagles.
Picks are currency and smart teams always want more.
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
You can more readily do it in the 2nd and 3rd rounds because a team is more likely to be in love with a player up there.
Picks are currency but we have a bunch of currency this year, we need to spend it in this fantastic deep draft without bankrupting ourselves next year. we can get a guy in round one and 2 guys in 2nd and 1-2 guys in 3rd and have a couple picks left over that are just gravy man.
If there was ever a draft to have a lot of picks to help you move around in, this is the draft.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
A 2nd rounder next year is more valuable than a 3rd rounder this year.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
I agree, unless there is one guy you like and think is a 2nd rounder who falls to the early third. I like the idea of trading the third round picks if you dont have a guy you like.
But even that eagles draft room had a nervous moment waiting for your guy to fall to you. Its all a waiting game and how much you are willing to risk someone else picking your guy. The one guy you can’t risk is your QB. If holmgren is zeroed in on one particular QB, you can’t risk that too much.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
You make the trade even if there is a guy you like. Every time.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I sure as hell hope this is how Heckert works our drafts. To draft like the Eagles do would be amazing.
StuckInPa - March 19, 2010
yes, but do you pass on the QB b/c the safety isn’t there?
bross09 - March 18, 2010
You do still pass, because the CB (Haden) will be there.
It’s extremely unlikely that Berry AND Haden are gone, but Bradford is still there, so I’d take either of them over Bradford.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
the question is, is Haden the #1 CB in this draft? I am not sold on him being that. I would say if kyle wilson went to a large school like florida, he may well be drafted in an earlier spot. I am not sold on haden and I think there are much better options in the 2nd round. the thing I see it as:
a) I see a large dropoff between bradford (and somewhat clausen) and McCoy, Lefevour, and the rest at QB. With bradford, he has the ability to start right away or challenge for a starting role at some point. guy like McCoy or lefevour I feel will take quite a bit longer to adjust
b) I do not see a ton of dropoff at the CB position. it is not a one, and then everyone else kind of draft for CB. With this draft, I see one, and then about 10 1A CBs. I do not see much of a dropoff between haden and lets say kareem jackson. and I might even say jackson could end up being better. Haden is pretty short, even for a CB. and his vertical leap was somewhat unimpressive. Jackson’s however was about 3 inches higher and he is slightly taller than joe haden. I am not sold on their being the ONE CB. besides being from florida, I cannot think of major reasons haden is even projected that high.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Haden’s tape is really good. He is definitely the best. But kyle wilson, Kareem Jackson, or Devin McCourty could be solid NFL corners there for us at the 2nd
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I would probably call him the best, but the margin isn’t as wide IMO as it looks when you are drafting.
there is much more dropoff however between a bradford or clausen, and a mccoy, compared to the dropoff between a haden or a jackson/Wilson.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Its true this year I think about CB, Haden isn’t as strong of a #1 as people thought. McCourty and Jackson surprised some people.
You won’t convince me on bradford or clausen though, because Ive been a Tebow and McCoy fanboy. I think Tebow especially is the best pick this year because he is undervalued. Holmgren has set us up to take a Tebow, McCoy or LeFevour by bringing in Delhomme, and I think that’s exactly what he meant to do. Those later round guys can’t step right in for you but It’s sure nice to get your QB of the future later in the draft.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I am not huge on tebow or McCoy. I wouldn’t mind them in the third round but these are definitely guys that have to sit at least a year or two.
but if you had the opportunity, wouldn’t it be nice to get your franchise QB that can step in almost right away?
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Haden is the #1 CB going in to this draft. He covered good WRs, did a good job, and is solid in all aspects of the game.
There are 3-4 top tier CBs in this draft. The reason you don’t see a big dropoff between Haden and Jackson is because Jackson is in that tier. After him, it falls off pretty fast.
There is one top tier QB, and one “1-A” tier QB.
rufio - March 19, 2010
He’s also only been a DB for three years and hasn’t maxed out his potential. He has a much higher top end than any other CB in the draft.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I was with you until this point. Berry is the pick if he’s there. No effing way on Haden at 7.
rufio - March 19, 2010
I’d take Haden at 7.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I’m aware, I just really don’t want any CB at #7. I would much rather trade down. I am aware others here value CB more than I do.
Suh, Bradford, Berry, trade down in my book. If Holmgren thinks Clausen is legit, I’d be OK with throwing him in that group as well. Obviously, I am hoping people reach for OTs.
I think there is a lot better value at 12thish overall than where we are.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Yeah, I agree. I definitely think Suh or Berry are really the best options. I’m not a big fan of either Bradford or Clausen. Suh will be gone so its Berry or trade down for me.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
For me this scenario is Suh, Berry, Haden, trade down. I don’t want to risk losing Haden to someone else if we traded down with him still available.
Simmsinns - March 20, 2010
I agree. I value CB but
a) I do not see haden being truly worth the 7th pick
b) I think you can get similar value at CB in the 2nd.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I think those ‘similar value’ CBs you are thinking of will be gone.
And I think you mean similar talent, not similar value. Because we can get similar(ly bad) value at any point in the draft.
rufio - March 20, 2010
yes.
I meant similar talent.
I do not believe however that all the CBs of similar talent will be gone. Kyle wilson likely will be gone, but Kareem Jackson or McCourty might not be. it is very likely that one of those is available and although these guys ARE lesser prospects than Haden, there is not a huge difference (expecially a difference of a whole round in the draft).
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I really don’t see McCourty as being on Haden’s level. I believe Jackson will be gone, but I really like him.
This is exactly why I would love to be hunting for a CB at 20th+ overall. There seems like there are one or two guys with great value there every year, many of them turn out to be good players, and their price tag is tiny compared to locking in all that money with one guy.
rufio - March 20, 2010
Yes. I do agree…however, I do like McCourty…maybe better than you might…by the way, I think he has an older brother that is a CB in the NFL.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Definitely more than I like him.
rufio - March 21, 2010
I agree.
A lot of people on here think Wilson, McCourty and (hopefully) Jackson will be there in the second round, but I think that there will be a late run on CB’s, especially when you look at the needs of the teams late in the first.
Baltimore, Minnesota, Green Bay and New England all could easily go CB.
Even with this said, I don’t want Haden at 7.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
I would much rather trade down and have Kareem Jackson be to Baltimore as Alex Mack is to pittsburgh.
rufio - March 20, 2010
Yes sir.
I like Jackson more than I like Haden. Better coaching and better instincts IMO.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
yep. I agree.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Haden or Berry, db is what the Browns need. Also they won five games without a qb.
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
so you argue no QB and point out that the team won 5 games without one?
That is pretty contradictory. a good QB wins you more games than a good DT. they will even win you more games than a good S or CB. I am in favor of getting berry, but the QB can win you games.
so imagine if we play last season over again (hypothetically) and we get bradford in the draft? How many games do you think we would win? I would say, based on how we played near the end, at least 6-7.
if the QB is there, take him, but don’t trade up. the problem is that there is one elite QB and safety in this draft. Bradford is the elite QB (you could argue clausen but I’m not sold) and Berry is the elite Safety (you can argue earl thomas, but I think he would actually be better off as a CB b/c he is great in coverage and has great speed, but not great in run defense for a safety or blitzing, but he would be good for a CB in those categories).
With taking haden, I am not sold that he is even the best CB in this draft. the case can be made for Kyle Wilson, Kareem Jackson, and many others. while there are not a ton of elite players at CB like their are at DT (with first rounders like Dan Williams, McCoy, Suh, Odrick), there are many guys that can be very good players and taken in the 2nd. this is not a top heavy CB draft but extremely deep so I feel we can get more value taking another position at 7.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I believe Berry will produce immediately and Bradford will take awhile, also i think they can get a good qb in third round, considering they going to focus on the run.
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
well…they can get an equally good (porportionally to the round one player) or better safety.
the question is:
Would you rather have Eric Berry and Dan Lefevour
Or would you rather have Bradrord and Darrell Stuckey (or Morgan Burnett).
if you have to choose between the two and you want to make an impact immediately, you go the latter. burnett or stuckey can contribute right away in the safety spot next to elam. so can berry. however, if you draft a McCoy or a lefevour, you might not see them for a couple of years…with bradford he CAN make an impact this year.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I’ll take McCoy and Berry plz.
johnnyphoenix - March 18, 2010
this.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Personally, I am not sold on McCoy. He might not be there in the third. if you have to settle with lefevour I would no doubt take bradford and then take a stuckey or burnett.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
What’s their not to be sold on with McCoy. I don’t get it. How is Bradford so much better than McCoy. I’m not saying he isn’t, but I’d like an explanation.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
pocket presence, touch, decision making…etc.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Well, I don’t think Bradford is so much better that I’d trade our first round pick for him when I could possibly get McCoy in the second.
johnnyphoenix - March 18, 2010
I would not waste our second round pick on McCoy. I think he is only worth taking in the third round.
lets say you get berry, then in the 2nd, I want a CB. either way, there are so many great CBs that will be there.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I don’t think McCoy will still be there in the 3rd…although I could be wrong of course.
johnnyphoenix - March 18, 2010
I don’t think so either. Mostly because I think we trade back into the 2nd round to get him, though.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
I doubt that personally.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Well. My opinion is there are better players you could get with the second…especially with the browns pick.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I am not sold that McCoy is that much better than Lefevour.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I am.
rufio - March 19, 2010
He’s much better.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
plus McCoy might not even have a strong enough arm to make the kinds of throws you have to as an NFL QB.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
The armstrength argument’s getting old.
Here’s a 45 yd pass he practically flicks into the air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfSlzVrVgh8
My point is, we have a year to develop a solid QB, and McCoy can certainly develop in a year, if not less.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
..and nearly every highlight of saw of Bradford was a 10 to 20 yard pass. I only saw a couple long throws so you could argue on his arm strength as well.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
I disagree. McCoy is nowhere near as polished as bradford.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Bradford plays two full years and has a season ending injury his senior season and is more polished? Colt is a 4 year starter and I’m fairly certain he started every game. He’s the winningest QB in college football history.
I’d say this is an argument we will come to an agreement upon. How about we agree to disagree.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Edit: Not come to an agreement upon.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Oh yeah.
I forgot. HE IS A WINNER!!! We all know that translates to winning in the NFL
/sarc
The thing is, McCoy has played his whole career in a spread offense not having to make a ton of reads. He also hasn’t take snaps under center and has no experience in a pro style offense.
but HE IS A WINNER.
Bradford played for a full year in a pro style offense. In this offense he took snaps under center. plus, he took more snaps from center in the non-pro offense (spread-ish) that Oklahoma ran, then the one that McCoy ran.
but McCoy is a winner, his stats look gaudier in places, and started all 4 years…so he MUST be better,
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Oh riight, the system argument.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
well. it is a footwork thing. people use it for tebow and it is valid, they use it for lefevour, but you think its not a good argument b/c you like McCoy?
The fact is, it is a footwork issue. Bradford actually has experience taking snaps from center. Its the same reason Clausen is pro ready. he has learned how to take snaps from center. this can take a year or so just for this for QBs to learn.
oh, and that argument is so much worse than arguing HE IS A WINNER.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
They said.. B,Quinn was pro ready. Lets not fall for that again.
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
yep. because it happened to BQ we should never listen to it.
you know what. because Brady Quinn came from a pro style offense, lets just draft guys who aren’t from a pro style offense…right???
Also, since we drafted him in the first, we should NEVER draft a QB in the first…NO good QBs come from the first…
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Just because you come from a pro style offense don’t necessary mean you’re going to be successful
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
well.
Obviously.
To me this sounds like that BECAUSE of BQ, we should NOT draft a pro style QB. because of an EXCEPTION to the rule not the NORM.
2 people jump out of a plane. one has a parachute but it is faulty and dies. one doesn’t have a parachute and miraculously lives (it happens). by the logic you use, you would jump out of a plane without a parachute…good luck man!
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I’m not saying don’t draft a player who come from a pro style, just don’t let that be the deciding factor.
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
It is obviously not a deciding factor. just like I would not draft a guy b/c of 40 speed. It is definitely an IMPORTANT factor but not a deciding one. like judging any prospect, it is one piece of the puzzle. lets say ryan perriloux came from a pro style offense, I wouldn’t care b/c he STINKS.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
this is hilarious. rec.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
you argued Bradford was more polished, I’m curious as to why?
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
decision making, experience in a pro style offense, experience taking snaps, reading a defense, and I find him to be more accurate on his throws.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Pretty much all of this is untrue.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
What? He was in a pro style offense from what I read his freshman year. He also does take a fair amount of snaps from under center. I find his ability to read a defense and his decision makign better.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Pro-style in some aspects, but the Oklahoma offense is very unique. The tempo and play-calling style helped him out a lot.
gahnki - March 19, 2010
The tempo is huge and something I do not account for enough when people bring up “the system”.
rufio - March 19, 2010
yeah, florida has gotten a lot of press for the unique offense but Oklahoma under bradford really put up some crazy videogame numbers the last few years.
Certainly Bradford’s supporting cast was fantastic and that offense is a really potent scheme. people forget that Oklahoma is where Mike Leach came from.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
yep. He was OC there for 1 year 10 years ago so they must run the same offense, right?
All sooner QBs must have inflated stats b/c of that right?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I am not really referring to the stats being “inflated”, just what a defense must do when faced with a no huddle O. Less substitutions, more simplicity.
rufio - March 20, 2010
I was talking more to Jaws. I do not know a ton (I admit) about oklahoma’s system. From what i have seen, I think you are describing it accurately.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Mike Leach learned his offense from Hal Mumme at Kentucky. He is certainly not from Oklahoma. The scheme he runs is entirely different from the one Kevin Wilson runs now.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
I’m probably wrong, but I thought I remember Bradford looking to the sidelines alot.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
It seems college coaches like calling plays themselves more and more.
StuckInPa - March 20, 2010
like in the nfl?
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
Yea. Why don’t they just have recievers in the college QB’s helmets?
StuckInPa - March 20, 2010
I think it has to do with the size of receivers in the modern game (many are 6’-3" or taller). A Reciever that tall simply won’t fit inside a quarterback’s helmet.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
yeah. not even jay cutler has that big of a head.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
or ben roethlisberger.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I meant walking to the line and having the sideline call the play after reading the defense. I thought I saw Bradford doing this but it was probably another team.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
They don’t call the play, they either make checks or tell the QB what they read. Oklahoma does this, with the fake snap count (potentially), and then the whole team looking over there.
All you need to do as a defense is to shift late to completely eff this up.
rufio - March 20, 2010
Thank you, that’s what I was confused about.
So are they effectively taking the reading of the defense and making checks out of the QBs hand or are they just giving him help?
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
Could be either/or. West Virginia used to do the reads entirely from the sideline.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
Yep.
And sometimes, you have a QB who actually knows exactly what the coaches are checking to or reading, but the offense needs everyone to be on the same page.
And if the QB’s progression is based off of the coverage, he will still have to do some reading after the snap regardless of any “check with me”.
rufio - March 21, 2010
They have the ‘check with me’ read as a staple of the offense.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
My understanding is that the coaches call a play, offense quickly runs to the line, and then the coaches read the defense and decide whether or not run that play or switch it up.
If I am wrong, please set me straight.
So as for Bradfords ability to do any pre-snap reading of a defense, I would give it a question mark at best.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
My understanding of OC Kevin Wilson’s system, from reading an interview with him and watching OU play, is such:
1. The personnel packages and substitutions are handled by assistants on the sidelines.
2. The offensive line immediately sets up on the ball after the last play. The skill position players wait for the call.
3. Kevin Wilson makes a call through the headset to assistants on the sideline.
4. The initial call is relayed to the players through use of whiteboards/ color coded signs on the sidelines. Skill position players take their split.
4. Bradford takes an initial read where he can either run the play or check to the sideline. If he checks…
5. Wilson relays through the headset what "complementary"* play he wants.
6. Bradford/Skill position players receiver signal from sidelines, and Bradford relays it to his offensive line.
7. Adjusted play is run.
*The play adjustments are part of a complementary package based upon personnel/formation. Therefore, each package would be composed of a group of plays, likely in the 4-6 range. The goal is to be able to check into a ‘succesful’ scheme against any particular defense. The simplest example of this would be a ‘box read’ where Kevin Wilson counts the number of defensive players within the box between offensive tackles. adjusting the call to where the team has a numbers advantage.
Thus, a lot of the adjustments that Bradford will have to make in the NFL were handled by a coach in the sky.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
Makes you wonder how QB’s ever called their own game huh?
Bernie19Kosar - March 21, 2010
Where’d you get that interview? I am not up on OU’s offense.
rufio - March 21, 2010
Thanks for that info.
Villeslgr - March 21, 2010
This sounds like Clausen.
Matt Y. - March 19, 2010
not really. I am not sold on clausen on some of his progression reading.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Do you know if ND does progressions or coverage reads?
rufio - March 19, 2010
I’d bet they did under charlie Weis. Clausen could be an excellent quarterback but he really only had the one fantastic season and he came out early. Lots of NFL guys don’t like junior quarterbacks.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
rufio - March 20, 2010
also, although Bradford didn’t take snaps from center for most of his career, he DID play in a pro style offense as a freshman. he also throws more of the routes you have to throw as a pro. McCoy has experience in neither of these areas.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Arm, size, decision-making.
rufio - March 19, 2010
If I had to guess I would say its mostly arm and size, I doubt they’re that far apart in decision making, though it probably is still a factor.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
I’m not ‘sold’ on any of these quarterbacks…as a matter of fact, the only QB I was ‘sold’ on before the draft in the last 20 years or so was Payton Manning. That’s about it.
johnnyphoenix - March 18, 2010
Considering that there was widespread disagreement about whether Manning or Ryan Leaf was the better choice at the time, you must have exceptional vision about choosing a QB. Couldn’t be a little influenced by hindsight, could it?
drjeo - March 19, 2010
No, I wasn’t ‘sold’ on Leaf. Thought he had potential to be great, and thought he would be very good in the pros.
However, I didn’t think he was a ’can’t miss’ like manning. To me Manning was already playing with the maturity and demeanor of a seasoned nfl vet while still in college, and that made the difference to me.
johnnyphoenix - March 19, 2010
I agree. From what I heard, a lot of teams preferred manning. I even read the chargers tried to trade up to get him. manning WAS their first choice but they were stuck with leaf.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
I thought Leaf was going to be the better QB.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
i’m part of a recovery group every thursday night for people who felt the same way. feel free to join us.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
Don’t talk to me alright?
Knock it off.
johnnyphoenix - March 19, 2010
It’s okay, I heard he’s a QB coach at a High School.
Oh wait, I think he got caught with soliciting drugs to his students… nevermind.
SpecialBrownie - March 19, 2010
You solicit from; give, pander or sell to.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
It was probably going both ways I’d assume.
SpecialBrownie - March 19, 2010
No, Ryan Leaf only wanted the good stuff.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
Remember when he faked an injury so he could skip practice to go golfing.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Leaf played in a terribly simplistic offense at WSU. Not to sound arrogant, but I’m shocked that more NFL teams didn’t have reservations regarding his ability to play in an NFL offense.
gahnki - March 19, 2010
gotta have that cautionary tale of the “system” qb. Tim couch and Akili smith too.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
tim couch was not as much of a system QB. he had all the tools. the problem was that his supporting cast and protection was even worse than david carr’s.
and yes, they did have a high octane passing offense at kentucky…but is that why couch failed? I tend to believe not. Those early teams were dreadful. That offense was dreadful. the only competent receiver he ever had really was kevin Johnson. Johnson was a nice #1 but nothing that special. Northcutt was good but never anything better than a slot guy.
Even with William green, our running game was usually anemic. The protection was terrible. there is maybe only one player on the 2000 line that would even be a PASSABLE starter (wolabaugh) let alone anything good. Yes, the texans aren’t that great, but their FO was much more competent early on than the browns was. they ACTUALLY drafted offensive lineman. they actually tried to build up a line.
I don’t know how Carr would have been if he hadn’t gotten all those sacks. but I do believe that with a better supporting cast, even one like Carr’s, he would have been a bit better.
As it stands, his Passer rating isn’t terrible. it isn’t great either.
For the first few years of his career (basically through about 2002) he was sacked even more than Carr. He was sacked 3.3 times every game and carr was only sacked 3.1. He was also sacked more per pass attempt.
My point is, Yes, couch was from a “System” but I would not call him a bust on his own accord. If you put lets say a young Carson Palmer, or Donovan McNabb on that team, they would not be that great either.
Last year, My father was looking to see if the 0-16 lions were worse than the 99 cleveland browns. He looked at it position by position and he came to the conclusion that the browns that year were actually the worst team. the 2000 browns were a little better than that lions team, but not by much. THOSE are the kinds of teams that Couch was playing on. the kind who, if luck didn’t go their way, could end up being winless.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
With a decent supporting cast I think Couch could have been a serviceable starter for a good many years. Not great, mind you, but alright…certainly not #1 pick worthy, but not the ‘bust’ status he’s attained.
johnnyphoenix - March 20, 2010
Our line was horrific.
rufio - March 20, 2010
exactly….Even worse than the line that Houston had. in houston I could see a solid starter out of the bunch after a year or two (chester pitts, Steve McKinney). I cannot find a guy who I would even give a roster spot too for the O-Line during the first few years.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I agree. He might never have been a pro bowler but He could have had a career like a Matt Hasselbeck, or a Steve McNair. yes McNair was great, but except for a couple spectacular seasons, he was just a very servicable guy…not a superstar, but a guy who could win games and could definitely hold his own at the position.
I also think the bust status on couch is completely unfair when you look at it. from all of this, it might seem that I love couch…I really don’t. I am for objectivity and good analysis however. He is considered one of the biggest busts of all time, but when you look at it he really wasn’t.
He was never a good Quarterback and he never lived up to the pick, but he never had a “Bad” season. his seasons were all pretty much average, but not that bad IMO. He never got below a 73 Passer rating and his career passer rating was a 75. He also never had a passer rating over 78. He never really improved and started developing injuries. A lot of this I believe is part of taking 3.3 sacks a game for his career. That is not total QB hits but how many times they just completely owned him.
Just an example of the cleveland bias, there are some writers who say that David Carr’s problem was just that he got “rattled” from all the hits and he shouldn’t be labeled a huge bust because of it…however, Couch took almost .2 sacks more a game than Carr (which translates to 3-4 more big hits a season) and might have gotten hit more (I think carr was also a little more mobile). but it wasn’t because couch got rattled that he failed, it was because he sucked and the browns are incompetent.
Back to the point though, It does piss me off that on NFL network they always have him near the top of the lists of busts. They have him higher than Akili Smith…Akili Smith? Wow…
Also, joey harrington doesn’t even seemed to be as mentioned as much as a bust as Couch or Carr sometimes are…I guess for you to be a bust in the 21st century, you have to be drafted #1 overall. if you are terrible and drafted #3 overall (like akili smith and harrington both are) and you were even more terrible than the guy drafted #1, you were bad and a disappointment but not one to the extent the guy drafted 2 places ahead of you was.
it is not logical
Also, whenever they have these lists of busts, they mention couch, and courtney brown. One guy who is never mentioned is Mike Phipps. Mike Phipps was TERRIBLE and was one of the worst first round QBs in history. his QB rating and career was similar to Ryan Leafs, except that he wasn’t as much of a jerk (i don’t believe) and somehow lasted longer. Mike phipps is always passed over as a bust when i believe he might be one of the biggest in history.
In fact, he was drafted #3 overall…do I smell a conspiracy?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
This post may be a little long winded, but it echoes my feelings about the situation. rec
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
yeah. it was long winded…now it is out of my system…
It is weird how some guys are labeled as busts whereas no one talks about joey harrington as a bust surprisingly.
When they talk about the lions’ busts they focus on the recievers but their QB bust was terrible too.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Berry, Kareem Jackson and a 2nd or 3rd round QB. I’m a Tebow guy but whomever Holmgren likes down there is who we will get.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
But what about Troy Smith?
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
We have a qb now who can step right in next year. If holmgren has a guy he thinks has great upside later in the draft, then great I hope he gets him. I think Tebow is the ultimate upside guy, but Holmgren might have another guy in mind.
Delhomme is a good option considering he wanted a veteran leader who can stick around for a season or two and then relinquish the job to Holmgren’s new golden boy.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I do like that.
Consider however if berry is gone and bradford is still on the board. Do you go Haden, Safety (Nate Allen?), QB?
or do you go Bradford, Jackson, Darrell Stuckey (or morgan burnett).
If berry is gone, I favor going after bradford if he is there. If we go after a QB in the third, we are drafting a guy who won’t make an impact this year. if we go Bradford, Jackson, Stuckey, we have a QB who could quite possibly start by midseason, we have a starting CB, and we have a guy who can eventually (by midseason) start at safety…
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Bradford is going #1. The rams absolutely must draft a QB. I like bradford but I don’t love him. I’d rather trade up and get berry at #5, which would cost a late third pick or even a 4th, it depends on the chiefs. I hope pioli stays true to form and is happy to pass on berry and move down to #7 and take his LT (bulaga or williams) and pay him #7 money instead of #5. I really think that is how things go down. The Redskins are a wildcard though if they take clausen, then the chiefs might just jump on okung.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
I agree. but should and will are to different things. I do actually love Bradford and I do think he would be gone, but we don’t know yet.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Unless Okung though goes to the lions. the lions aren’t a lock to take a DT.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
I don’t think Holmgren is planning on any of the QBs he drafts having an impact this coming year. I think he wants him to watch, listen, and learn from Delomme.
johnnyphoenix - March 20, 2010
That’s what I’d like if we draft a guy.
rufio - March 20, 2010
this
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
Yes…that is true. however, I believe that bradford, if we have the opportunity to draft him, can push Delhomme for a starting job and may be the starter by the end of the season.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I don’t think Holmgren would pull Jake before the end of the season. He’s said more than once that the starter is “our guy.” And whether or not Bradford is the best prospect, he’s too expensive and we’d have to give up way too much for him. He’s not worth that much.
StuckInPa - March 20, 2010
I am saying IF bradford is there and berry isn’t…look at the conversation buddy.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Alright, my bad. You don’t need to give me shit, though. I don’t see him falling that far, but I have a feeling Holmgren would have to pull the trigger there. I still don’t feel he’d pull Delhomme before the end of the season.
StuckInPa - March 20, 2010
I am not giving you shit at all…
but I do agree that he is likely not to fall that far.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Yeah, there is no way he falls to us.
rufio - March 20, 2010
I bet that would change if we were mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs, had a struggling veteran starting and a top-10 pick QB waiting in the wings. He’s said he’d let Mangini coach the team, too.
And Bradford, if he can become a franchise QB is worth any amount of money it would take to get him.
rufio - March 20, 2010
Like this.
emily522 - March 19, 2010
If we take Bradford, I only want him making an impact on the bench this year.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Okay DBN fans, please stand by while I expose my ignorance again. I keep reading that the Browns are going to go WCO. I also keep hearing that they are going to pound the ball. My understanding of the WCO is that it relies on a lot of shorter passing routes. To me that means a lot of defenders close to the LoS. It sounds kind of like what the Browns looked like last year, and that really wasn’t very good. I’ll grant that there were likely issues with execution, but it still seems counterintuitive to me to try and focus on those two offensive elements. What am I missing?
JustBob - March 18, 2010
Shaun Alexander racked up plenty of yards in Holmgren’s offense.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
Added to the list:
Roger Craig and Ricky Watters
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
yep. no slouches either.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
The WCO has lots of running involved in it. I believe we are in a one or two year transition into a more west coast style offense, where the short pass is used to tire the defense out and set up the run. Our running game should be a strong suit with 3 healthy running backs, a powerful offensive line, and the best blocking fullback in the NFL.
Some WCO will definitely be in this year as the year goes along and I’d look for a more wholesale use of WCO philosophy by 2011. No matter what you have to gameplan to your personnel and right now our personnel look like more of a smashmouth team,
jaws. - March 18, 2010
and hillis fits the WCO as a running back. because:
a) he can run between the tackles
b) he can catch the ball effectively and has soft hands. the RB needs to be part of the passing game
c) he can block. the RB, more than other schemes (at least I believe so) has to be able to pass block at times.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
Yeah I love adding Hillis. he can platoon with Davis and Harrison at HB and come in for FB or H-Back in sub packages. Harrison and Hillis is a really nice WCO backfield because they both have good hands out of the backfield and can burn someone in the open field.
jaws. - March 18, 2010
yep. I agree. they work well with the system. now lets go get andre roberts who would be the perfect WCO receiver.
I was just looking at the scouting report on walterfootball…I hate to make the comparison but he reminds me a bit of jerry rice. solid vertical speed but not elite, sneaky athleticism, gluefingers (oh wait…that was a browns player…if you get the joke), superb route runner…the only thing is, Rice was bigger and was better at going up and getting the ball..still, I like Roberts for a WCO scheme.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Even Walsh’s version of the WCO involved deeper throws to 5- and 7- step drops. I still don’t think we’ll see anything close to that system, but even if we did, Walsh was not a dumb man. He knew how to play the “cat and mouse” game. You bring too many guys close to the LoS, we’ll still burn you over the top—or try to at least. In fact, if you put 9 in the box and we do it right, we throw a simple slant route and our WR is off to the races.
Every team now runs some of the concepts that Walsh ran—all slants, outs, double ins with the backside post, etc. If we were able to scheme the run last year, we can scheme the run at any time. Adding Holmgren’s knowledge to the passing game can only help (or further confuse Daboll, who didn’t give us much identity last year until we decided “ff you, we’re running”)
I am planning a post on the WCO soon, but it might be a while before I get some time to do it. Running + short passes can work in theory.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Yes please :)
emily522 - March 19, 2010
Actually. with the recent transaction with wimbley and the fact that there still are some nice FA CBs on the market, this is what I would like to see:
Phillip Buchannon (can be a solid #2 at times)
first round berry, 2nd pass rusher (or if bery is gone, pass rusher than safety) than third round, QB AND get a CB. I think we definitely need another edge rusher.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Not to sound like a jerk Chris,. but we’re in the month of March. The last 2 ATPs said February. hehe
Brownie's Year - March 18, 2010
Crap, thanks, lol.
Chris Pokorny - March 18, 2010
not so sure with Bradford considering injuries and showing up at camp on time.
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
he’ll be at camp on time and every indication is the injury isn’t a problem.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
agree
deemac3248 - March 18, 2010
with what?
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
On a seperate note, Ohio University just beat Georgetown. My bracket has already gone to sh*t.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Yours is messed up? I had GTown, Vandy, and ND going to the 16.
Brownie's Year - March 18, 2010
Wow dude. Stay away from the green beer.
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
I had ND going down in the first and Vandy JUST making it to the sweet 16.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I had Vandy and Georgetown in the 16. I also picked Florida. Pretty sure Iost another, too.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Meant to reply to your’s BY, oh well.
StuckInPa - March 18, 2010
Not sure if we have any FlashForward fans today, but I thought tonight’s return episode was a hit, primarily thanks to the work of Dominic Monaghan.
Chris Pokorny - March 18, 2010
I think they’re going to draft Tebow and I think I want them to.
DPS - March 18, 2010
So John Clayton said that the Browns are going to trade up at #3 and pick Clausen. He also said Berry was the most undervalued and most under the radar player in this draft. This dude is on some crazy sh^t!
Also, his face is just ugh. Who the hell said “Let’s put him in front of a camera!”?
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
LOL!!!!
Wait…why is clausen going to go #3?
Why would we trade up to there? The highest he is going to go (unless STL drafts him but they draft before 3 anyways) is 4, but more likely 6.
why would we trade up to 3??? Oh yeah, because Clayton is an idiot.
I am guessing he hasn’t payed attention to the draft boards. Yeah. no one who pays attention to the draft has heard of berry…he is SO under the radar.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
get to #3 to get ahead of the redskins. We could do this but it would cost. Its a possibility,
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Actually that makes sense because many people have the Redskins drating Clausen at 4, so IF the Browns wanted him they’d have to trade up to 3 to get him. I really doubt they do that, though.
Buckeye Brad - March 19, 2010
Smokescreen.
Clayton is a Seattle writer. Probably just doing his buddy a favor and floating this rumor out there.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
sounds likely.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
If Matt Leinart comes to play, Derek Anderson will not start.
I think it was a bad decision for a guy with starting potential, but I don´t blame him, he deserves a life.
Remember this, Mike Holmgren likes Tim Tebow at the bargain 3rd round level, and knowing him a little bit, that´s the law for every other NFL team.
mooncamping - March 19, 2010
Look Daddy! Teacher says every time Mooncamping makes sense, a Fullback is born!
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
This may very well be the single greatest post in the history of the internet. If I could, I’d rec it twice.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
Ya, now that I’ve figured out how to post pics, I’m having loads of fun with it. :)
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
yep. also best movie EVER (or one of the best)
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Awesome
Simmsinns - March 20, 2010
Very nice.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
Notre Dame QBs
No, no, NO… to Clausen. The last ND QB to be highly regarded (before Quinn) was Rick Mirer nearly 20 years ago and we all know how well that panned out. The last one before that was some guy named Montana, 30 plus years ago. ND has NEVER been a QB factory by any stretch of the imagination. Why would we gamble on consecutive ND QBs with first round picks?
Nuclear Power - March 19, 2010
Joe Thiesman was pretty good.
He’s a douche, but he was good.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
I just thought Theisman was too far to go back. Besides, I was worried about the kid that did not know about Jose Mesa. He may not even know who Joe Montana is.
Nuclear Power - March 19, 2010
Funny. I know who Joe Montana is.
StuckInPa - March 19, 2010
:)
Nuclear Power - March 19, 2010
He said Joe Montanya!
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Which reminds me. I need to post my Montana story.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
Yes, you do.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
It’ll be up tomorrow. Promise.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
that would be perfect saturday morning breakfast reading.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
Ya, it’d be like reading the back of a box of cereal only without the fun little mazes.
BrownDawg1409 - March 20, 2010
Why would we take any quarterback in the first round? Because we think he has first-round talent.
Yes, he’s from Notre Dame. No, that’s not relevant.
Matt Y. - March 19, 2010
I recommend this comment.
rufio - March 19, 2010
there was steve buerlein. He wasn’t that highly regarded but he had a good career and some nice seasons.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
I was going to mention Buerlein. In fact, I prefer drafting someone not as highly regarded since they have more upside and we don’t get our usual diappointment. As Brown’s fans we expect Tim Couch but hope for Brian Sipe. I should have stated that during Weiss’ tenure, I think Quinn’s and Clausen’s flaws were shielded somewhat by ND’s “pro-style” offense, and that they are viewed more positively as a result.
Nuclear Power - March 19, 2010
that may be true. I am not even huge on clausen as a prospect anyways.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
Does this site have a list of guidelines? If not, that seems like a necessary creation with the recent influx of people.
gahnki - March 19, 2010
see community guidelines, above right
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
Perhaps it is time this site reposts the guidelines to remind people.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
Do they really matter? Most of us regulars break them anyways.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
That is the problem.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
Upon registration to the site, the user gets a message telling them to read the guidelines before posting. Whether or not they actually do is apparent based on their first few posts.
Chris Pokorny - March 20, 2010
I just put up a quick refresher, I hope no one minds.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
Our father , who rocks in Cleveland
Shallow be thy grave
Byner fumbled at the Broncos one
Jose Mesa blew game seven
Jordan’s shot when the Cavs led
Cockroft missed and Sipe’s passes
Even Tommy Maddox gets off against us
In Rocky Colavito’s name we pray
SALTY DAWG - March 21, 2010
this post makes me salty!
notthatnoise - March 21, 2010
Your salt is rubbing off on me too.
North Coast Flea - March 21, 2010
Way to rub salt in the wounds.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 21, 2010
There’s enough salt on there to choke a horse.
Brownie's Year - March 21, 2010
this post isn’t worth its salt.
Dawg Nuts - March 21, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.