2012 Draft Thread - Page 2

keylime_5 · 12-06-2011, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Capwn

Depends on your opinion of RGIII. I'm not a fan, too short/small for the AFC North. Not a believer in him staying healthy either.

same size as Andy Dalton. 6'2"/220. He's bigger than Vick.

Al Capwn · 12-06-2011, 01:56 PM

Thats what he's listed at by Baylor. Most pundits say they'd be surprised if he measured 6' at the combine.

keylime_5 · 12-06-2011, 02:07 PM

Watching him play it's obvious that he's over 6'. He might measure in at around 6'1" though which would hurt his stock a bit. He was listed at 6'3" every year until this year though and he looks taller than Troy Smith or Colt McCoy on the field. 6'2" is widely regarded as the threshold for QBs.

Al Capwn · 12-06-2011, 02:40 PM

Well we shall see. If the browns draft him I wish nothing but the best for him, but I dont see it.

keylime_5 · 12-06-2011, 07:35 PM

if he is really 6'2" and if Barkley stays in school, they better take him if he's available. He's really gaining steam as a prospect right now amongst scout b/c of the season he has had. He's still a first round pick even if he is a tad under the 6'2" threshold, though I agree the chances of the Browns taking him that high if he is too short are a lot slimmer. I have no doubt that this offseason will be about finding a QB and some playmakers.

DeepThreat · 12-06-2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fear the elf

I've never heard anyone else say Landry Jones has a "rocket arm". A lot of people consider him a JAG with a good supporting cast. From what I understand they both have average arm strength and good accuracy (Colt's being better). Landry is bigger but less athletic.

Other than the JAG comment, you couldn't be more wrong. Landry's strength is his arm and his weakness is his accuracy.

Brown Leader · 12-07-2011, 12:07 AM

It'll be kind of funny if RGIII is taller than Barkley.

keylime_5 · 12-07-2011, 12:42 AM

Most people are expecting Barkley to measure in at 6'1" or so, maybe a little more. I really do not think he is 6'2". I really think Griffin is taller than Barkley, though there is a chance that he is a tall 6'1" as well instead of a short 6'2". Amazing how much hub-bub is made over fractions of an inch in height for NFL QBs.

Al Capwn · 12-07-2011, 02:43 PM

That can be the difference in a game.

Iamcanadian · 12-09-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

I have a sneaking suspicion that Barkley returns for his senior year. That won't be a problem if we can get Robert Griffin III instead. Kid has the potential to be the new face of our city from a sports standpoint.

RD1-QB (Barkley or RGIII)
RD1-OL, DE, CB, or WR
RD2-OL, DE, CB, or WR
RD3-OL, CB, LB, S, or RB

I think if Barkley returns to school, it will be another disaster for Cleveland. RG111's value in a trade up will increase considerably and there will be no way that he falls to us even if we draft #5 or #6. Holmgren will likely choose to go one more year with McCoy and draft accordingly.
I'm telling you this could be an awful long decade if McCoy doesn't develop and we fail to draft a solid QB this year.
I truly believe that Sanchez will have his breakout year next season. He was really inexperienced coming out of college so while he has been half decent, the best is yet to come and we could be crying in our milk over Mangini's decision to trade the pick for a long time to come.
God, I pray Barkley declares because it could be our last chance for many years to come, to secure a franchise QB for this team.

Brown Leader · 12-10-2011, 08:07 PM

Best scenario imo, to your dismay IAC, would be to trade down from our first pick with a team coveting Barkley or Griffin, draft Tannehill-first round, and acquire another first or a couple of picks, like a 2nd and 3rd , and just keep building.

Iamcanadian · 12-12-2011, 01:00 AM

Well, it is all up to our scouting department now, let's hope they know what they are doing and make the right choice.
Tannehill, Barkley and Griffin will show in the post season where they belong in the draft, if the team believes strongly in Tannehill, so be it, but they had better be right on. Tannehill would get 3 years to prove he has it in your scenario, but if he fails we will be waiting an awful long time before we will be competitive again. If all three are available when it is our pick or even 2, I want us to take the highest ranked guy on our board who they feel can be a franchise QB, I don't want them settling for 4th best just because you want some more picks.

j05son · 12-13-2011, 03:05 AM

I've heard some chatter and rumors that Indy would like to pass on Luck and grab a developmental guy for Manning as well as some weapons for a SB run. While I view it as highly unlikely, we are the only team that can really offer a package to obtain the first overall pick and luck. I'm usually all for getting picks but losing 3 firsts and another pick to grab the best QB prospect since Manning I'd do in a heartbeat.

I know a lot of people hate on our WR's or want upgrades, but I feel Colt is more of a bottleneck than our WR's. Yes they can use an upgrade but it seems as if other teams don't respect Colt enough to not play heavy in the box. We rarely see go routes or plays/attempts longer than 20 yards. That's either on Colt or on Shurmur.

Iamcanadian · 12-18-2011, 12:06 PM

Indy isn't about to trade their #1 overall pick, Luck, for any price. Any rumours at this point are shear rubbish, Peyton isn't that healthy and is getting on in years, and Luck sets them up, at least for the next decade.
However, a trade up for RG111 or Barkley still gets us a top franchise QB and any price will be worth it. This is very close to 2004 draft with Eli, Rivers and Roethlisberger, whichever one you get, you are set for a decade, as a contender, as long as your GM and HC are decent.
If we fail to acquire any of them, and McCoy isn't the answer, then this franchise is in deep trouble with a horrible immediate future.

armageddon · 12-29-2011, 01:10 PM

would you guys trade both your #1's and a 2nd to the Rams at #2 to take RG3 ?

j05son · 12-30-2011, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armageddon

would you guys trade both your #1's and a 2nd to the Rams at #2 to take RG3 ?

No./10characters

keylime_5 · 01-01-2012, 11:01 PM

The Rams aren't in any position to trade down. If a team wants RGIII they know that they can get him at #3 overall which is cheaper. If no one makes any trades then Griffin falls to the Browns at #4.....if anyone trades up for RGIII (Washington, Miami, or even the Browns) then it will be in the 3 spot.

ArkyRamsFan · 01-02-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

The Rams aren't in any position to trade down. If a team wants RGIII they know that they can get him at #3 overall which is cheaper. If no one makes any trades then Griffin falls to the Browns at #4.....if anyone trades up for RGIII (Washington, Miami, or even the Browns) then it will be in the 3 spot.

What you say may very well be the case; but what if the Rams themselves take RGIII and then make Sam Bradford available?

Would the Browns be interested in him and, if so, how much do you think they would be willing to give?

keylime_5 · 01-02-2012, 05:44 PM

The Rams aren't gonna trade Bradford, gimme a break. Too much money tied into him right now, that is not a contract that they can just dump in a trade. RGIII's chances of being a franchise QB aren't any less than Bradford's either, so it would be a lateral move. They would rather keep Bradford than take Griffin and eat all that dead money, it's a no brainer.

Rams are gonna take Kalil, I would be shocked if that isn't the case. If anyone makes a move in the top 5 picks it will be Minnesota at #3 - they are in prime position to trade down with a team who is desperate for RGIII.

j05son · 01-02-2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArkyRamsFan

What you say may very well be the case; but what if the Rams themselves take RGIII and then make Sam Bradford available?

Would the Browns be interested in him and, if so, how much do you think they would be willing to give?

My understanding is that STL would have to pay Bradford $21,000,000 to not play for them anymore.

Brown Leader · 01-03-2012, 09:54 PM

Given that I'm really liking the 2013 QB class now, with at least 4 prospects that I'm projecting next April I'd rate over RGIII now, (Matt Barkley, Tyler Bray, Tyler Wilson, and Logan Thomas) I'd have no problem with Seneca starting next season. I've always been a fan of Wallace and if not for about 2 inches, he would have been starting in the league well before now or at least had a legitimate shot. Before Wallace took over for Colt in week 15, McCoy actually had more career passes attempted than Seneca.

Imo the offense was more explosive, as far as plays over 20yds, (which we were last in the league in) with Seneca starting, and for the most part he was more adept at getting out of some of Shurmur's terrible play calls. I thought Little showed more yac ability, (possibly the ball getting there a few ticks sooner) and Cribbs looked like a legit WR, owing to the chemistry he and Wallace have.

From what I've seen on RGIII I'm really skeptical he's a franchise QB type, especially compared to those likely coming out next year. If the Browns miss on another first round QB.....well, you know.

keylime_5 · 01-04-2012, 12:04 PM

I think there's no question that we should go after either Griffin or Flynn this year. If we fall flat in those acquisitions then I would even try to get Ryan Tannehill later in the draft. We need to find our QB this year instead of going with Colt and Seneca for another year IMO - delaying it another year just sets the franchise back another year.

Remember what Holmgren said: It took him 5 years to get to the Super Bowl in Green Bay; it took him 7 years to get there in Seattle; the reason it took him 2 more years in Seattle was because he didn't find a QB until after 2 years.

lacotomo · 01-04-2012, 12:41 PM

Not too much being said about Richardson although McShay thinks he is our guy and the mock on this site(although outdated) has us taking Richardson too. With Hillis being questionable, and Hardesty being brittle, I like the idea of getting a 'go to' RB who is able to break long runs and is good between the tackles. For their 2nd #1 pick, I am good with Floyd too. I know defense is a priority, as we are once again last against the run, but for once can we be the team that gets the playmakers? I am tired of someone else getting the Adrian Peterson's, and Calvin Johnson's, and Dez Bryant/AJ Green's etc. Someone above said that playmakers can make an average QB look great, and lack of playmakers can make them look terrible. I agree with to a certain extent. I think Colt is good enough. Is he Brees/Brady/Manning? No. Is he good enough to win with talent around him? I think/hope so. I know it works both ways (great QB makes average players sweet - see Lance Moore, Devery Henderson, Meachem, etc), but he also has had Coleston, a good running game, and a good to great TE every year too....Brady is not of this world when it comes to this and does not count...

Anyway, I say go 'O' early, give Colt one more year to show he can be good enough, then find some 'D' in free agency, or God forbid, try and score with other teams if you can't stop them. (Here is where I would quote the Browns embarrassing percentages of scoring on their first drive, total points per game average, red zone TD percentage, # of red zone drives per game, 2nd half scoring totals, 3rd quarter scoring totals, # of quarters this year without a TD)- did I miss any :)....

lacotomo · 01-04-2012, 01:01 PM

I am not sold on RG3 being that guy. Of course I was wrong on Cam Cheater being as electric as he is this quick too...

Really not sold on Landry Jones either. He only threw one TD in his last four games, and that was in the bowl game. A great college QB would have found someone, at least the FB in the flat, or backup TE or someone! I know he lost his best WR at that time, but COME ON! I don't like to see a QB that you want to be the man for you for 10-12 years disintegrating as soon as one of his weapons goes down.

I like Barkley and Luck(duh). Tannyhill is not bad but I think would be a project and we don't want/have time for that right now. With Barkley staying in school, Luck would be the only can't miss IMO(duh again).

Iamcanadian · 01-04-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

I think there's no question that we should go after either Griffin or Flynn this year. If we fall flat in those acquisitions then I would even try to get Ryan Tannehill later in the draft. We need to find our QB this year instead of going with Colt and Seneca for another year IMO - delaying it another year just sets the franchise back another year.

Remember what Holmgren said: It took him 5 years to get to the Super Bowl in Green Bay; it took him 7 years to get there in Seattle; the reason it took him 2 more years in Seattle was because he didn't find a QB until after 2 years.

I agree, RG111 or Flynn, preferably RG111 although we will in all likelihood have to trade up to get the pick.
I also agree that Tannehill has to be in the picture if we fail to land the 1st 2. I'm not liking next year's crop of QB's one bit.
People forget that it takes time to develop a winning team capable of winning a Super Bowl, especially at QB. Every year you put off drafting one adds 2 or 3 years to your timetable for success.