2013 Cleveland Browns Thread: RIP Chud

• SportsAndLady

  

  GoChiefs;1372370 wrote:It's called sarcasm. Smh. No, I don't think he's a douche. Wow.
  
  Please stay on topic.

  All of my infractions were sarcasm..please erase them.
• like_that

  

  se-alum;1372386 wrote:Holy shit is that optimistic.

  
  Terry Tate always tries to pull the good ol reverse jinx on the Browns.
• Terry_Tate

  

  like_that;1372391 wrote:Terry Tate always tries to pull the good ol reverse jinx on the Browns.

  
  Lol. There is no reverse jinx there. Maybe not top 10 but at least top half of the league no doubt. I gave my honest opinions just like always. I told a huge Browns fan in my office that the Browns would be the most improved offensive team in the league and he looked at me like I had two heads, haha.
• se-alum

  

  Terry_Tate;1372398 wrote:Lol. There is no reverse jinx there. Maybe not top 10 but at least top half of the league no doubt. I gave my honest opinions just like always. I told a huge Browns fan in my office that the Browns would be the most improved offensive team in the league and he looked at me like I had two heads, haha.

  Certainly hope your right, but I don't see Weeden being accurate down the field when he struggled to make the simplest throws this year.
• Ironman92

  

  Terry_Tate;1372398 wrote:Lol. There is no reverse jinx there. Maybe not top 10 but at least top half of the league no doubt. I gave my honest opinions just like always. I told a huge Browns fan in my office that the Browns would be the most improved offensive team in the league and he looked at me like I had two heads, haha.

  
  Hopefully you do.
• lhslep134

  

  Terry_Tate;1372384 wrote: Also had I think 2 chances to beat Alabama that year and screwed them both up by throwing interceptions. I know you're supposed to look at the big picture but its hard to forget a guy ****ting the bed twice when the game is on the line..

  Big picture was he had a great game up to that point. He threw interceptions to Robert Lester who was 2nd in the nation in INTs that year with 8 and Dre Kirkpatrick of the Bengals. His performance (splendid early and faltering late) is exactly what Matt Ryan did when the game was on the line against the 49ers. It happens to good QBs.
  
  Mallett was a great QB at Arkansas playing against significantly higher caliber defensive players than Weeden. Give me him any day of the week over BW3.
• se-alum

  

  Let's also not forget that Mallet has spent two years under Belichek.
• Pick6

  

  se-alum;1372419 wrote:Let's also not forget that Mallet has spent two years under Belichek.

  and the GOAT qb
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Pick6;1372422 wrote:and the GOAT qb

  Calm down there buddy, last time I looked Otto Graham wasn't in NE.
• Terry_Tate

  

  se-alum;1372419 wrote:Let's also not forget that Mallet has spent two years under Belichek.

  
  Matt Cassel had 4 and we've seen how well that worked out minus one fluke year. Mallett is the definition of anti-clutch if there is even such a thing. He passes the looks test and could probably have good stats and be solid but the dude will never win anything important as a starting QB.
• lhslep134

  

  Terry_Tate;1372427 wrote:Matt Cassel had 4 and we've seen how well that worked out minus one fluke year.

  Yes. Let's compare a QB under Belicheck who started 0 games in college to one that competed at the highest level for 3 years.
  
  Makes sense
  
  /sarcasm
  
  
  FWIW I don't put any stock into the "played under Belicheck" argument.
• Terry_Tate

  

  lhslep134;1372429 wrote:Yes. Let's compare a QB under Belicheck who started 0 games in college to one that competed at the highest level for 3 years.
  
  Makes sense
  
  /sarcasm

  
  Just saying just because someone has been in New England doesn't mean they're going to be great when they leave there. I don't care whether you guys get Mallett or stick with Weeden, I just think Mallett is overhyped and Weeden will have a good year.
• CLEconomically Speaking

  

  I still think these guys want to pick their own QB, not just plug in someone elses reject. Remember Banner bragging about finding Andy Reid? Think about the Chudzinski hire this year. Trading for Mallet would probably cost our 6th overall pick for their 29th (30th maybe?) Why would we make that deal for an unproven guy. You don't know how much time he spent with Belechik. You also don't know what his relationship with Brady was like.
  
  If this staff brings someone in this year, he can work behind Weeden for a year or two and Chud and Norv can mold the next franchise QB of the Cleveland Browns.
  
  I still think it will be Bray. He's been compared strongly with Mallet.
• Pick6

  

  CLEconomically Speaking;1372490 wrote:I still think these guys want to pick their own QB, not just plug in someone elses reject. Remember Banner bragging about finding Andy Reid? Think about the Chudzinski hire this year. Trading for Mallet would probably cost our 6th overall pick for their 29th (30th maybe?) Why would we make that deal for an unproven guy. You don't know how much time he spent with Belechik. You also don't know what his relationship with Brady was like.
  
  If this staff brings someone in this year, he can work behind Weeden for a year or two and Chud and Norv can mold the next franchise QB of the Cleveland Browns.
  
  I still think it will be Bray. He's been compared strongly with Mallet.

  Not sure anybody in their right mind would think of taking that for Mallett.
• CLEconomically Speaking

  

  Pick6;1372492 wrote:Not sure anybody in their right mind would think of taking that for Mallett.

  Can you explain this? I gave an estimate of the cheapest we could get Mallet and you say that we wouldn't be giving enough to land him in that scenario. My point was he costs too much for an unproven commodity. What is your point?
• Rotinaj

  

  Pick6;1372492 wrote:Not sure anybody in their right mind would think of taking that for Mallett.

  You had to of meant nobody would even think about trading that for Mallet not taking right? Because that would be the trade rape of the century if we basically gave up our first rounder for him.
• BR1986FB

  Keith Britton ‏ @ KeithBritton86 From what I've been told, I would not expect the # Browns to pursue any deal for Ryan Mallett. # bogus
  
  
  
  Keith Britton ‏ @ KeithBritton86 Hearing # Chiefs dir pro player personnel Ray Farmer likely to be in # Browns front office, perhaps in GM role
• BR1986FB

  Terry_Tate;1372384 wrote: I don't see Mallett as an upgrade at all, and I would be scared of Alex Smith away from San Fran. I think Weeden will be good with Norv and Chud, and the Browns will be a top 10 offense.

  I agree with all of this. Mallett would cost way too much and you know that Belichick would take his old "buddy" Lombardi's pants down in a deal.
  
  If Chudzinski is going to run a vertical offense, scratch Alex Smith. Chud supposedly wants someone with a "big arm."
  
  As far as Weeden goes, I think he'll be better in Chud's system, should they go that route. Truth be told, for Shurmur's "dink & dunk" offense, they should've went with another quarterback for his system, square peg/round hole. Weeden is not a dink & dunk QB. He needs to be able to stretch the field vertically. Chud's offense is more suited to him. I hope he gets the chance to show it.
  
  I've said it before, I really don't think there's an upgrade that's out there in free agency or the draft that will make an immediate impact or be better than Weeden. Ride Weeden out one more year and if he shits the bed, dump him in 2014. Next years draft looks a little better for QB's than this years.
• se-alum

  

  CLEconomically Speaking;1372501 wrote:Can you explain this? I gave an estimate of the cheapest we could get Mallet and you say that we wouldn't be giving enough to land him in that scenario. My point was he costs too much for an unproven commodity. What is your point?

  I'm definitely not cool with giving up the 6th pick for Mallet, but whomever is drafted in that position is also an unproven commodity.
• SportsAndLady

  

  CLEconomically Speaking;1372501 wrote:Can you explain this? I gave an estimate of the cheapest we could get Mallet and you say that we wouldn't be giving enough to land him in that scenario. My point was he costs too much for an unproven commodity. What is your point?

  Rotinaj;1372503 wrote:You had to of meant nobody would even think about trading that for Mallet not taking right? Because that would be the trade rape of the century if we basically gave up our first rounder for him.

  I thought his post made sense..not sure anyone would be happy with trading our 6th overall pick for Ryan Mallett. And I def agree.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Terry_Tate;1372436 wrote:Just saying just because someone has been in New England doesn't mean they're going to be great when they leave there. I don't care whether you guys get Mallett or stick with Weeden, I just think Mallett is overhyped and Weeden will have a good year.

  We're not just saying "*Insert QB here* was in New England, he must be pretty good!" There are other factors.
  
  Honest question--how many games did you watch of Weeden last year? A full game.
• Pick6

  

  Rotinaj;1372503 wrote:You had to of meant nobody would even think about trading that for Mallet not taking right? Because that would be the trade rape of the century if we basically gave up our first rounder for him.

  correct. my bad on the wording
• Dr. KnOiTaLL

  

  Keep in mind that Derek Anderson, a career backup minus his time in Cleveland, was a pro bowler in Chud's offense. He is very similar to Weeden IMO. Gun slinger, strong arm, less-than-desireable touch... Who knows, maybe Weeden can compete in the offense. However, for a rebuilding team, trading picks to get unproven players from another team simply doesn't make sense.
• BR1986FB

  Dr. KnOiTaLL;1372573 wrote:Keep in mind that Derek Anderson, a career backup minus his time in Cleveland, was a pro bowler in Chud's offense. He is very similar to Weeden IMO. Gun slinger, strong arm, less-than-desireable touch... Who knows, maybe Weeden can compete in the offense. However, for a rebuilding team, trading picks to get unproven players from another team simply doesn't make sense.

  If Chud runs the same offense as 2007, and they go with Weeden, Weeden should do better than Anderson. Once teams took away DA's deep ball, he was screwed. He couldn't adjust and hit the underneath routes. That's not Weeden's problem. He can hit those routes so defenses should have to play him honest.
• CLEconomically Speaking

  

  I like weeden as the starter. But the dude's thirty.. perfect stop gap for Chuds offense but its time to start looking for a long term solution. If not this draft, next year for sure. And it better not be a baptism by fire. I want my QB to be comfortable with the offense before he becomes a starter.