Mike Holmgren to leave Browns, Joe Banner named team CEO/President - Page 2

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

The problem with weeden is he falls apart when things start falling apart around him, if the protection goes his footwork and mechanics go to **** and his accuracy fails. Because of that he isn't going to elevate the players around him and a franchise QB has to do that. Weeden can't n if he learns in 3-4 years it'll be too late.

you can say the same thing about a lot of quarterbacks. if you've seen him play at all, he has lead some pretty promising drives and made throws that i would have been surprised to see out of luck or RG3.

they are middle-of-the-road in points scored this season (obviously some teams have had a bye, but they are not the jaguars), and their defense has plenty of excuses for why they have surrendered so many points and yards, but clearly depth is an issue on that side of the ball. much has been said about their receivers, but josh gordon has shown some promise lately and greg little didn't drop a pass last game... if they are picking in the top five next year i think they have to be leaning toward linebacker or secondary, but then there are still ten games to be played and a bigger issue could present itself.

like anyone, they could benefit from a can't miss receiver prospect, but they have basically already addressed the position with a second round pick from the upcoming draft with gordon. if they do take a quarterback, hopefully they aren't doing it just because weeden didn't lead the team to a lot of wins when it is clear that their passing game is miles ahead of what it was last season.

dannyz · 10-16-2012, 06:51 PM

So does this mean if The Browns get a New Coach and they have a top 3 Pick they are taking a QB or Trading down to get as much Talent as possible on the Team?

I admit I never liked Weeden but he has been pretty good but I think if they have a chance to get Smith/Barkley/Wilson they will do it. I like the Young Talent the Browns have but let's say it takes 3 or 4 years for the Browns to turn into a Playoff Contender Weeden will be 32 and people say that age doesn't matter but as he gets older his body might start to break down.

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 06:55 PM

the browns are 1-5 and their schedule is pretty rough so they could easily be picking top 3-5, but their defense has no depth at all. when one or two guys go down they can't stop the run or the pass, so if they do take a quarterback that early then they will have to wait until round 3 to do anything about their defensive depth since they used their second round pick on josh gordon.

this is a defense that misses chris ******* gocong, a guy who shouldn't even be a starter to begin with.

ChiFan24 · 10-16-2012, 07:20 PM

Holmgren drafted a 29 year old QB in the first round. That bears repeating.

WCH · 10-16-2012, 07:25 PM

You have to be a serious homer or a mentally challenged person if you think that it's wise to use a first round pick on a 29 year old, so-so QB, with a low ceiling.

BeerBaron · 10-16-2012, 07:35 PM

But guys, guys....imagine for a minute that you have Weeden rated as a top 10 prospect...

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WCH

You have to be a serious homer or a mentally challenged person if you think that it's wise to use a first round pick on a 29 year old, so-so QB, with a low ceiling.

"you'd have to be XXX to have opinion YYY"

do people actually think like this? i thought this sort of logic was exclusive to political discussion or seventh grade.

seriously, resorting to using this syntax is self-defeating, it doesn't bolster your argument in any way and just makes you sound close-minded.

Brown Leader · 10-16-2012, 07:52 PM

I hated the Weeden pick but he has been better then expected. Although, in a year like these rookies are having, it's relative. The longevity is an issue but setting that aside for a moment, you could treat him as any other rookie QB as far as his progression in 1 to 3yrs. The league is obviously win now. In 5yrs, if he actually progresses, is when you worry about deterioration and age. In a sense, it's no different then your franchise guy suddenly dealing with some sort of lingering injury-it's not ideal but you manage it, whether you have to acquire a new QB or roll with what you have. No homer-I think I'd feel the same if he was on another squad. ;/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

The problem with weeden is he falls apart when things start falling apart around him, if the protection goes his footwork and mechanics go to **** and his accuracy fails. Because of that he isn't going to elevate the players around him and a franchise QB has to do that. Weeden can't n if he learns in 3-4 years it'll be too late.

To a degree he has elevated others. He's throwing to a supplemental pick, a practice squad guy, a journey man, and 2nd yr bust Greg Little, who probably had his best game as a Brown against the Ravens, even while dropping a tying TD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-keep-his-job/

Shurmur is next unless the Browns go drastically in a "positive direction."

As I see it, this team has shown credible improvement the last 3 starting with that Thur game against the Ravens. I've always been a Shurmur critic but I'd hate to see a new system thrown at a host of young players unless the new coach is absolutely proven. (i.e. Andy Reid.)

Rosebud · 10-16-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

you can say the same thing about a lot of quarterbacks. if you've seen him play at all, he has lead some pretty promising drives and made throws that i would have been surprised to see out of luck or RG3.

they are middle-of-the-road in points scored this season (obviously some teams have had a bye, but they are not the jaguars), and their defense has plenty of excuses for why they have surrendered so many points and yards, but clearly depth is an issue on that side of the ball. much has been said about their receivers, but josh gordon has shown some promise lately and greg little didn't drop a pass last game... if they are picking in the top five next year i think they have to be leaning toward linebacker or secondary, but then there are still ten games to be played and a bigger issue could present itself.

like anyone, they could benefit from a can't miss receiver prospect, but they have basically already addressed the position with a second round pick from the upcoming draft with gordon. if they do take a quarterback, hopefully they aren't doing it just because weeden didn't lead the team to a lot of wins when it is clear that their passing game is miles ahead of what it was last season.

********, if they're picking in the top 5 the new GM and Coach are going to pick a franchise QB. Weeden's only way to save his job is to play them out of position to get a replacement, which just won't happen for a myriad of different reasons.

Rosebud · 10-16-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

"you'd have to be XXX to have opinion YYY"

do people actually think like this? i thought this sort of logic was exclusive to political discussion or seventh grade.

seriously, resorting to using this syntax is self-defeating, it doesn't bolster your argument in any way and just makes you sound close-minded.

How about we phrase it like this. "Only a ****** or homer would think drafting a 29 year old QB, with a limited ceiling and a lot to learn, in the first round is anything but a bad idea."

ChiFan24 · 10-16-2012, 08:03 PM

29. 29 years old. Not 25. Not even 26. 29.

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

********, if they're picking in the top 5 the new GM and Coach are going to pick a franchise QB. Weeden's only way to save his job is to play them out of position to get a replacement, which just won't happen for a myriad of different reasons.

not many people expected the browns to do much better than 5-6 wins this year as a best case scenario given their inexperience and difficult schedule; again, their defense is among the worst in the league, while their offense has shown great improvement. if weeden regresses and plays like he did week one, then i'll agree. if he plays as he has the past few weeks, there is no urgency to address the quarterback position. people talk about new coaches "bringing in their guy" and it's definitely a possibility, but that isn't to say that they should typecast themselves into drafting geno smith or whomever for the hell of it.

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

How about we phrase it like this. "Only a ****** or homer would think drafting a 29 year old QB, with a limited ceiling and a lot to learn, in the first round is anything but a bad idea."

again, i'm not sure that i've ever even defended the pick so i'm not sure to whom your argument/phrase is directed, but if making alienating statements that attempt to attack the other person by throwing in condescending rhetoric is the best way you have of making a point then so be it.

Rosebud · 10-16-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

again, i'm not sure that i've ever even defended the pick so i'm not sure to whom your argument/phrase is directed, but if making alienating statements that attempt to attack the other person by throwing in condescending rhetoric is the best way you have of making a point then so be it.

It's not an alienating statement any more than saying that the world is round, or that evolution and gravity exist. Sure there's some people who don't share the opinion, but they're wrong, demonstrably so, and treating their opinions as anything other than wrong opinions does a disservice to everyone involved.

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

It's not an alienating statement any more than saying that the world is round, or that evolution and gravity exist. Sure there's some people who don't share the opinion, but they're wrong, demonstrably so, and treating their opinions as anything other than wrong opinions does a disservice to everyone involved.

better to be "wrong" than be close-minded. and to clarify, i've never defended drafting weeden in the first round, i've merely looked for reasons why it may not have been such a bad decision rather than completely discrediting the pick at face value. that and i've watched the team's defense and it's lack of depth, which is why i think they should probably add to that side of the ball with some impact. if that makes me a "******" or a "homer" or "mentally-challenged" then i guess i am all three.

not to mention how arrogant it comes off; like people who happen upon your post can't come to their own conclusion whether or not it was a good pick/they should draft a quarterback in the top five without you telling them that they are XXX if they don't agree with you.

Rosebud · 10-16-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

better to be "wrong" than be close-minded. and to clarify, i've never defended drafting weeden in the first round, i've merely looked for reasons why it may not have been such a bad decision rather than completely discrediting the pick at face value. that and i've watched the team's defense and it's lack of depth, which is why i think they should probably add to that side of the ball with some impact. if that makes me a "******" or a "homer" or "mentally-challenged" then i guess i am all three.

not to mention how arrogant it comes off; like people who happen upon your post can't come to their own conclusion whether or not it was a good pick/they should draft a quarterback in the top five without you telling them that they are XXX if they don't agree with you.

I'm just stating my opinion that anyone that comes to another conclusion just hasn't thought it through at all and so is either being willfully ignorant, like a homer, or is incapable of doing so, like a ******.

We've gone through the pick countless times on this board, it's not close minded to have examined something and come to an informed conclusion about it, and sharing that conclusion is what message boards are all about.

EDIT#2: Why do you keep bringing up the defensive depth like that does anything but make the Weeden pick look worse? If their defense has so little depth, why rush the offensive rebuild by forcing a bad pick just because he might be a competent starter in the not too distant future? Hell their potential on defense as well as the limited shelf life of Trent Richardson were the main point for the pick and the idea that they could turn it around quick with a real QB, any real QB.

robert pancake gallery · 10-16-2012, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

I'm just stating my opinion that anyone that comes to another conclusion just hasn't thought it through at all and so is either being willfully ignorant, like a homer, or is incapable of doing so, like a ******.

We've gone through the pick countless times on this board, it's not close minded to have examined something and come to an informed conclusion about it, and sharing that conclusion is what message boards are all about.

EDIT#2: Why do you keep bringing up the defensive depth like that does anything but make the Weeden pick look worse? If their defense has so little depth, why rush the offensive rebuild by forcing a bad pick just because he might be a competent starter in the not too distant future? Hell their potential on defense as well as the limited shelf life of Trent Richardson were the main point for the pick and the idea that they could turn it around quick with a real QB, any real QB.

you are claiming the weeden pick was bad, and i'm not making any claims to the contrary because doing so would be based purely off speculation into the future and engaging in such an argument based on punditry would be completely idiotic. if you want to get into some stupid mel kiper/todd mcshay debate then look elsewhere, i am saying that it is not a foregone conclusion that they should draft a quarterback in the top five because they have bigger concerns that are more urgent.

really it is no more complicated than that. there are no conclusions to be made in regard to whether or not it was a "terrible pick" when the pick was made less than six months ago, so don't kid yourself. it will either play out as such or not, i have no personal investment in the outcome other than i hope weeden does well because he is on the team that i am rooting for. the fact that you think it was a terrible pick is fine, i don't disagree. the fact that you think that your opinion somehow holds up as fact because you are "informed" (his age, his "ceiling", the fact that he is "so-so" as you put it) is where i take issue, not as a defender of the pick, but as a defender of reason. i haven't even said that i would vehemently be against them taking a quarterback in the first round this year, i have just questioned the idea that "OMG THEY NEED A QB IF THEY'RE IN THE TOP FIVE".

oh yeah, in case you didn't read the other thousand times, i'm not defending the pick.

Rosebud · 10-16-2012, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

you are claiming the weeden pick was bad, and i'm not making any claims to the contrary because doing so would be based purely off speculation into the future and engaging in such an argument based on punditry would be completely idiotic. if you want to get into some stupid mel kiper/todd mcshay debate then look elsewhere, i am saying that it is not a foregone conclusion that they should draft a quarterback in the top five because they have bigger concerns that are more urgent.

really it is no more complicated than that. there are no conclusions to be made in regard to whether or not it was a "terrible pick" when the pick was made less than six months ago, so don't kid yourself. it will either play out as such or not, i have no personal investment in the outcome other than i hope weeden does well because he is on the team that i am rooting for.

No, I'm stating that the Weeden pick was terrible at the time, no speculation on the future needed. It was a terrible bet, even if it "pays off" because you're essentially banking on god deciding to love you...which being based in cleveland should make it obvious that he doesn't...and turn everything you touch into gold to maybe make a run or two before you need to find a new QB and running game. It was a dumb bet, and if cleveland finds another GM done enough to make it again, I'll laugh my ass off.

robert pancake gallery · 10-17-2012, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

No, I'm stating that the Weeden pick was terrible at the time, no speculation on the future needed. It was a terrible bet, even if it "pays off" because you're essentially banking on god deciding to love you...which being based in cleveland should make it obvious that he doesn't...and turn everything you touch into gold to maybe make a run or two before you need to find a new QB and running game. It was a dumb bet, and if cleveland finds another GM done enough to make it again, I'll laugh my ass off.

i'll just ignore the obvious trollbait to get back to the original point, are we talking about the browns plans for the 2013 draft or are you still hung up on the sunk cost of drafting a 29 year old rookie in the first round? because that did indeed happen, and nobody is defending the pick here. weeden is under contract, to stick with the incumbent starter next year has nothing to do with the future regime making any "bets". i'm sure they will address the position sometime in the next several years if only because weeden is at the age he is and they want to start grooming someone new for the future, but i'm not sure they need someone to come in and start right away. if they decide to address the position right away with the very-likely-to-be-new head coaching scheme getting a guy they think highly of, they won't be faulted by most for doing so. that is an obvious fact and it hasn't been disputed once.

again, if weeden regresses and plays like he did week one, then i would say he is not a serviceable option for an NFL quarterback and the position is definitely an area to be addressed right away; but i have also watched the past five games and there are plenty of other teams who seem to be worse off at the position. also, i'm not saying that they shouldn't draft an "andrew luck" caliber prospect if the opportunity presents itself, this should be common sense; but there is no reason to draft an alex smith or david carr (not that either were "bad" coming out, but they obviously didn't generate the same amount of buzz as Luck or RG3) and i think it's too early to make any calls on barkley and geno smith, or anyone else who might sneak into the equation.

the team is 16th in passing yardage in the nfl this season; given their style of offense there is still plenty of room for improvement, but obviously that is not all on the quarterback if you have happened to watch a browns game this season. conversely, the defense is 30th in the nfl in total yardage surrendered at 425 yards per game... you can't simply discount this fact because you think the weeden pick sucked, and i don't think the new regime will either. matt barkley isn't going to suddenly make lj fort a viable starter in the nfl as an undrafted rookie.

--

if i might add, the only reason the topic deviated to talking about whether or not the pick was good in the first place was because some guy attempted to pass off some lazy schoolyard vernacular as proof for a point about the pick that has more or less been beaten like a dead horse on these forums, which i called him out on because it was a lame comment, not because i agreed with them taking weeden in the draft. subsequently you decided that you wanted to stir the pot for what i can only assume was your own amusement. i mean maybe the scenario the way he described it was plausible, but that is hardly an all-encompassing description of weeden as a prospect coming out; the concept of a "ceiling" is so arbitrary that anyone can simply say "he has a low ceiling" and attempt to pass it off as fact when it is really an insubstantial claim on its own. but that had nothing to do with any discussion regarding the 2013 draft.

robert pancake gallery · 10-17-2012, 02:32 AM

since you probably won't read any of the above as you likely haven't done anything other than skim over any of my previous posts and selectively conceptualize from them whatever best suits you, i'll summarize and i'll use big font for emphasis:

they can draft a quarterback next year,
or they can draft a quarterback in a few years.
they don't have to wait until weeden's career is over
to have someone waiting in the wing
when he gets too old,
but it isn't urgent
if he keeps playing the way he is.
their defense sucks.
and they need defensive players.
they will make their decision accordingly.
they haven't made their decision yet
to your or my knowledge.

Rosebud · 10-17-2012, 04:28 AM

Nah. Weeden still sucks n needs to be replaced. If they get a chance to replace him with a quality prospect, any new management would be complete morons not to.

Matthew Jones · 10-17-2012, 07:15 AM

Prorated over an entire season, Weeden's statistics over the past five games emerge as

374/627 (59.6%)*, 4,483 yards (7.2), 22 TD, 19 INT, 80.1 QBR

* 11.2% of passes dropped.

Burn him at the stake.

keylime_5 · 10-17-2012, 10:23 AM

I think the Weeden situation is like this:

-He's good enough to be a starting NFL QB. The Browns look like they are on their way to having a pretty decent offense with him and the young talent they have started to surround him with.

-He's 29 years old and a rookie, so if there is a franchise QB available in the draft that is too good to pass up, then they take him.....but they don't have to panic and draft one because they can be pretty good with Weeden for a few years in the meantime.

WinslowBodden · 10-17-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

And Mike holmgren was one of the main reasons the Packers were so consistently good in the 90s, or the Seahawks were consistently good in the early 2000s. It's cleveland. Doesn't matter who they get, the team's going to suck.

When was Holmgren ever the team president for Packers?

He was worthless for us here, absolutely worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

********, if they're picking in the top 5 the new GM and Coach are going to pick a franchise QB. Weeden's only way to save his job is to play them out of position to get a replacement, which just won't happen for a myriad of different reasons.

Have you actually watched Weeden play or are you just assuming he sucks and only looking at stat lines and bringing up the over used 29 year old qb argument.

Weeden has made some pretty incredible throws this year with a mediocre offense. He doesn't look like a QB that needs "3 or 4 years to get it". He's been playing pretty well and as the team around him grows in the next 2 years, we should be extremely competitive. Unless an RG3 type QB comes out in the draft I see no reason for them to spend another first round pick right away on a QB.

Also, for those of you who are bitching about using a first round pick on him, go look at the past 22nd picks in the draft and tell me how ******* game changing those players have been for their teams. People tend to forget that the first round isn't a guaranteed thing.

BuckeyeDan17 · 10-17-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

I think the Weeden situation is like this:

-He's good enough to be a starting NFL QB. The Browns look like they are on their way to having a pretty decent offense with him and the young talent they have started to surround him with.

-He's 29 years old and a rookie, so if there is a franchise QB available in the draft that is too good to pass up, then they take him.....but they don't have to panic and draft one because they can be pretty good with Weeden for a few years in the meantime.

That's the thing, would you rather just "shoot for being pretty good" for like, 3 years then he retires? Or take your prospect with potential to be great?

I'm not big on settling for mediocrity but that's just me. He needs to go if we want to be great, I think.

If we pass on Geno Smith or Tyler Wilson for ******* Mingo or Jarvis Jones or something I'm going to go buy a rope and find a tree with a high, sturdy branch.