Cleveland Browns 2011 Super Awesome In-Season Thread

• Commander of Awesome

  

  If the browns were 4 and whatever, I'd pick Brady apart as well.
  
  I know Wallace isn't all that, but man he just looks better throwing the ball. The ball has more zip, faster reads, quicker throws. I think Colt is done.
• BR1986FB

  DeyDurkie5;1021434 wrote:one example completely destroys your perception of seneca? No one can win in your eyes can they br? Hell you would find a way to pick brady apart if he was on the browns.

  I guess my point, since you're thick as a brick in the head, is that the quarterback situation is "six of one, half dozen of the other." You've got a young, mediocre QB (McCoy) who has done nothing to impress and an 8+ year veteran who can come in and put up the same numbers with the same personnel. The "young gun" is obsolete if he can't play head & shoulders above an 8+ year vet who has been a career backup. Neither is the answer whether equipped with weapons, or not.
  
  You'll have to pardon me for wanting a WHOLE lot better for this offense than these scrubs they have been trotting out on the field. Some of you guys are so beaten down from all of this losing that even a mediocre QB, like McCoy, looks like "gold" (albeit "fools gold") to you. I have the bar set a liitle higher than just being "average." I'd like to see them DO something in my lifetime.
• BR1986FB

  Commander of Awesome;1021452 wrote:If the browns were 4 and whatever, I'd pick Brady apart as well.
  
  I know Wallace isn't all that, but man he just looks better throwing the ball. The ball has more zip, faster reads, quicker throws. I think Colt is done.

  Plus the tempo is more crisp. He's a confident veteran and is serviceable when they need a "change of pace/lightning in a bottle" type but he's not a long term answer (which I know you weren't implying).
• BR1986FB

  sleeper;1020167 wrote:I'd much rather have Barkley than RG111

  If they do go QB with that first pick you could have division within the ranks. Holmgren could want that traditional WCO pocket type passer (Barkley) where Heckert/Shurmur have familiarity grooming a Donovan McNabb (RG3 represents a closer skillset to that than Barkley).
• DeyDurkie5

  

  BR1986FB;1021457 wrote:I guess my point, since you're thick as a brick in the head, is that the quarterback situation is "six of one, half dozen of the other." You've got a young, mediocre QB (McCoy) who has done nothing to impress and an 8+ year veteran who can come in and put up the same numbers with the same personnel. The "young gun" is obsolete if he can't play head & shoulders above an 8+ year vet who has been a career backup. Neither is the answer whether equipped with weapons, or not.
  
  You'll have to pardon me for wanting a WHOLE lot better for this offense than these scrubs they have been trotting out on the field. Some of you guys are so beaten down from all of this losing that even a mediocre QB, like McCoy, looks like "gold" (albeit "fools gold") to you. I have the bar set a liitle higher than just being "average." I'd like to see them DO something in my lifetime.

  yeah your right, i don't want to browns to win and have a competant qb and become super bowl champs. I want colt mccoy to become the laughing stock of the nfl and them to bring back derek anderson to save the day:rolleyes:
  
  I like that you keep throwing out little jabs, means im actually gtting to you. We want the same things, I'm just a little more patient with them cuase im not old. And I said Seneca looked good, I just love that you say "now wait a minute he's not a good qb, he missed a wide open throw!!" like that defines him as a qb. Brady threw a pick in the end zone last week, should we say "now wait a minute, brady isn't that good!"
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Why are you arguing about Wallace VS McCoy? No one is arguing that except you. You're arguing with yourself in true rock fashion.
• ytownfootball

  

  If you really think that Seneca freaking Wallace is the answer at QB then there really is no hope for you. Of the options available he may be the better option, but certainly not long term...he's been in the league for eight years as a back-up for a reason.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Commander of Awesome;1021477 wrote:Why are you arguing about Wallace VS McCoy? No one is arguing that except you. You're arguing with yourself in true rock fashion.

  IM SAYING SENECA SHOULD BE THE STARTING QB. IM ALSO SAYING IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR TO GET DOWN ON SENECA AFTER MAKING HIS FIRST START IN HOW MANY YEARS AND MISSING ONE THROW.
  
  
  let me edit it so i make myself clear. I am done with the mccoy era, and I don't think seneca is our starter for the future. for now though, seneca should be the starter.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Who said that Wallace shouldn't be starting over McCoy for the rest of the year? Calm down little guy.
• BR1986FB

  DeyDurkie5;1021476 wrote:
  I like that you keep throwing out little jabs, means im actually gtting to you. We want the same things, I'm just a little more patient with them cuase im not old. And I said Seneca looked good, I just love that you say "now wait a minute he's not a good qb, he missed a wide open throw!!" like that defines him as a qb. Brady threw a pick in the end zone last week, should we say "now wait a minute, brady isn't that good!"

  You missed my whole point so I'll repeat it since you're S-L-O-W. Wallace IS a "serviceable" BACKUP QB for the Browns. He has been a BACKUP his 8+ years in the league. If he was a "long term" starter don't ya think someone would've nabbed him for that roll by now?
  
  And I've said "Seneca looked good" in that the offense runs at a much more crisp pace and he can make throws that McCoy can't. It only proves that backup can function at the same level the starter can! WOOHOO...SUPER BOWL, THE STARTER IS AS GOOD AS THE BACKUP!!! :rolleyes:
  
  Be as patient as you want and enjoy your misery. You make changes AS MANY times as you need to until you get it RIGHT. You don't mire in your own shit wasting another season away watching a noodle armed QB who can't see over his O-Linemen missing receivers, throwing behind them instead of hitting them in stride and getting passes knocked down repeatedly. Do you stay with a piece of shit girlfriend who fucks everything that moves because you think "she'll get better?"
  
  When there are stud, franchise QB's in the draft you STRIKE. You don't go "wishin' & hopin" that "Mr Good Guy", Colt McCoy, turns into something. He's given NO reason to believe he will.
  
  And for the record, I LOVE Wallace as the backup to whichever starter they decide to bring in.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  So you would give up the whole draft to get Barkley/Luck?
• Commander of Awesome

  

  DeyDurkie5;1021504 wrote:So you would give up the whole draft to get Barkley/Luck?

  Where the hell do you get that? LMAO, you're trying to hard.
• ytownfootball

  

  DeyDurkie5;1021504 wrote:So you would give up the whole draft to get Barkley/Luck?

  Wut? We don't have to give up the farm to get a better qb.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Commander of Awesome;1021507 wrote:Where the hell do you get that? LMAO, you're trying to hard.

  I am asking BR a simple question, not you ginger. I want to know what he thinks they should do in the draft. thanks for playing, though.
• BR1986FB

  DeyDurkie5;1021504 wrote:So you would give up the whole draft to get Barkley/Luck?

  Fuck no. You take the QB if he falls to 4-5 slot, which he likely will. I don't see the value or the significant difference between Luck & Barkley. I'm just not as hyped up on Luck as others are. You take the QB if he falls to you then fill in the weapons with picks after and through free agency. No way you dump three 1st's & more for Luck.
  
  What a lot of people don't seem to understand is, unless I'm wrong and I could be, Heckert should have a shit ton of draft picks to play with this year. He currently has, I believe 8, and I'm expecting that to be as high as 10-12. I'm expecting them, for ONCE, to get quite a few compensatory picks.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  ytownfootball;1021508 wrote:Wut? We don't have to give up the farm to get a better qb.

  IF we had too, would you do it? Fuck rg3. no thanks on that.
• like_that

  

  BR1986FB;1021491 wrote:You missed my whole point so I'll repeat it since you're S-L-O-W. Wallace IS a "serviceable" BACKUP QB for the Browns. He has been a BACKUP his 8+ years in the league. If he was a "long term" starter don't ya think someone would've nabbed him for that roll by now?
  
  And I've said "Seneca looked good" in that the offense runs at a much more crisp pace and he can make throws that McCoy can't. It only proves that backup can function at the same level the starter can! WOOHOO...SUPER BOWL, THE STARTER IS AS GOOD AS THE BACKUP!!! :rolleyes:
  
  Be as patient as you want and enjoy your misery. You make changes AS MANY times as you need to until you get it RIGHT. You don't mire in your own shit wasting another season away watching a noodle armed QB who can't see over his O-Linemen missing receivers, throwing behind them instead of hitting them in stride and getting passes knocked down repeatedly. Do you stay with a piece of shit girlfriend who fucks everything that moves because you think "she'll get better?"
  
  When there are stud, franchise QB's in the draft you STRIKE. You don't go "wishin' & hopin" that "Mr Good Guy", Colt McCoy, turns into something. He's given NO reason to believe he will.
  
  And for the record, I LOVE Wallace as the backup to whichever starter they decide to bring in.

  What your opinion if the Browns are in position again to make another killer trade in the draft?
• DeyDurkie5

  

  BR1986FB;1021518 wrote:Fuck no. You take the QB if he falls to 4-5 slot, which he likely will. I don't see the value or the significant difference between Luck & Barkley. I'm just not as hyped up on Luck as others are. You take the QB if he falls to you then fill in the weapons with picks after and through free agency. No way you dump three 1st's & more for Luck.
  
  What a lot of people don't seem to understand is, unless I'm wrong and I could be, Heckert should have a shit ton of draft picks to play with this year. He currently has, I believe 8, and I'm expecting that to be as high as 10-12. I'm expecting them, for ONCE, to get quite a few compensatory picks.

  I just don't see either of those two qb's falling to that range. I guess it depends on what happens with the rest of the year and draft positions, but if both of those qb's are taken before our pick, where do you go with it?
• Commander of Awesome

  

  DeyDurkie5;1021515 wrote:I am asking BR a simple question, not you ginger. I want to know what he thinks they should do in the draft. thanks for playing, though.

  Don't get your panties in a bunch midget, just asking where the hell you're coming up with this BS. No one said anything about giving up a draft for a QB, you made that shit up. Go back to your basement take drunk pics, they're better than this crap you're spreading now.
  
  Can't wait to see you QQ to your brother about how we're bullying you.
• BR1986FB

  DeyDurkie5;1021522 wrote:I just don't see either of those two qb's falling to that range. I guess it depends on what happens with the rest of the year and draft positions, but if both of those qb's are taken before our pick, where do you go with it?

  Barkley or RG3 will be there and I'd take either. The Colts, Rams & Minnesota should be picking in front of them, for sure. It's also possible that Tampa Bay will. The Colts will take Luck, STL & MINNY have their QB's, which leaves Tampa. Will Tampa take Barkley?
• Sonofanump

  Three of the teams worse or tied with the Browns all have drafted a QB in the first round in the last two years. We know Indy's situation, TB has Freeman, but maybe they will beat Carolina. Very plausible unless Miami, Washington or Seattle give up the farm to get Barkley.
• like_that

  

  DeyDurkie5;1021522 wrote:I just don't see either of those two qb's falling to that range. I guess it depends on what happens with the rest of the year and draft positions, but if both of those qb's are taken before our pick, where do you go with it?

  If the Browns are picking 4-5 Barkley and RGIII should be available, at least one of them will be. The teams picking ahead of the Browns as of right now are the Colts (will get Luck), Rams (already have their QB), and Vikings (already drafted a QB last draft). Teams with the same record as the Browns: Jags (play the colts so they might get to 5 wins, but regardless they also drafted a QB last draft), TB (they have josh freeman).
• BR1986FB

  like_that;1021521 wrote:What your opinion if the Browns are in position again to make another killer trade in the draft?

  If somehow all of the viable QB's are gone (other teams leapfrog them via trade), HELL YES you trade down...BUT, you don't do stupid shit and trade down into the 20's.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Commander of Awesome;1021532 wrote:Don't get your panties in a bunch midget, just asking where the hell you're coming up with this BS. No one said anything about giving up a draft for a QB, you made that shit up. Go back to your basement take drunk pics, they're better than this crap you're spreading now.
  
  Can't wait to see you QQ to your brother about how we're bullying you.

  I didn't say anyone said that. I asked br if he would do that given the oppurtunity in the draft...again, nice spin ging you are very much like automatik for how much you rip on him. and im calling my brother right now to QQ about this thread
• DeyDurkie5

  

  I would be happy with barkley. IF we take RG3 I'll be pissed. He may pan out to be unreal, but at the present moment no thanks on that.