Jump to content

All those draft pick Browns 0–10


kevinc855

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm confused by the general point of the thread.

Wouldn't the tank crowd still think Browns are doing it right?  They've stock piled picks, have a ton of young talent they're actually playing, are playing a terrible rookie QB and are poised for the #1 overall pick.  If you're trying to stick it to the tank crowd, I think you're doing it wrong.

Unless this is a, "hey guys, at least we're not the Browns thread" and if that's the case, then lets throw a mother ******* party in here!!! WHOOOOHOOOO. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JiF said:

I'm confused by the general point of the thread.

Wouldn't the tank crowd still think Browns are doing it right?  They've stock piled picks, have a ton of young talent they're actually playing, are playing a terrible rookie QB and are poised for the #1 overall pick.  If you're trying to stick it to the tank crowd, I think you're doing it wrong.

Unless this is a, "hey guys, at least we're not the Browns thread" and if that's the case, then lets throw a mother ******* party in here!!! WHOOOOHOOOO. 

 

All that young talent and picks have resulted in 1 win in 2 years is my point. It’s a terrible philosophy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

“But they have a plan” “ their front office gets it” “they have a good coach”  and my favorite best from the cluseless tank crowd “they are years ahead of the jets in development” hahahhahahaha

“Because we aren’t as bad as the browns “ is not a good argument ?. I think the jets should win 6 games every yr, just enough not to make the playoffs, but in a draft position where BPA says another dback ?. Or if mac is thinking of trading up, more wins means more draft picks we have to give up ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

“But they have a plan” “ their front office gets it” “they have a good coach”  and my favorite best from the cluseless tank crowd “they are years ahead of the jets in development” hahahhahahaha

Hopefully this will explain it to you:

The Green Bay Packers with Aaron Rodgers are a legit Superbowl contender. 

The Green Bay Packers without Aaron Rodgers are probably a 5-6 win team.

The Browns are in line to get the #1 pick in the draft that has a potential FQB.

Any questions?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

“But they have a plan” “ their front office gets it” “they have a good coach”  and my favorite best from the cluseless tank crowd “they are years ahead of the jets in development” hahahhahahaha

You're super clueless but in a cute, but he's just a boyyy, sorta way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Let's look at the recent history of the 2017 World Series Champion Houston Astros.  In 2014, you could've argued "the've had 3 consecutive 106+ loss seasons and followed it up with a 92 loss season.  This proves tanking isn't worth it".

image.png

I will confess to being stupid in this scenariom

Did the Astros plan to be bad, and it was in their blueprint for those years? What did they do in 2010 (and subsequent offseasons) that guaranteed them having the worst records?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I will confess to being stupid in this scenariom

Did the Astros plan to be bad, and it was in their blueprint for those years? What did they do in 2010 (and subsequent offseasons) that guaranteed them having the worst records?

Forget the Underdog Label—the Astros Got to the World Series by Tanking

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/10/24/houston-astros-jeff-luhnow-jim-crane-tanking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Forget the Underdog Label—the Astros Got to the World Series by Tanking

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/10/24/houston-astros-jeff-luhnow-jim-crane-tanking

That reads less like a "tank", but more so ineptitude. I am less willing to believe that they were "smart" and had a plan around draft pick lotteries (which in baseball is a VERY risky proposition). Now, they probably realized that their minors were bare, and decided to not go after free agent talent and to spend wisely. Seems sensible with a new owner.

More relevant to this point, the differences between building a baseball team vs a football are so stark in contrast, that an analogy really can't be made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

That reads less like a "tank", but more so ineptitude. I am less willing to believe that they were "smart" and had a plan around draft pick lotteries (which in baseball is a VERY risky proposition). Now, they probably realized that their minors were bare, and decided to not go after free agent talent and to spend wisely. Seems sensible with a new owner.

More relevant to this point, the differences between building a baseball team vs a football are so stark in contrast, that an analogy really can't be made. 

Huh?  Did you miss this line:

They fielded a team with a $22 million payroll, by far the lowest in baseball, with a 34-year-old Erik Bedard the only player earning more than $1 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Let's look at the recent history of the 2017 World Series Champion Houston Astros.  In 2014, you could've argued "the've had 3 consecutive 106+ loss seasons and followed it up with a 92 loss season.  This proves tanking isn't worth it".

image.png

They are the one team that has made it work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Forget the Underdog Label—the Astros Got to the World Series by Tanking

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/10/24/houston-astros-jeff-luhnow-jim-crane-tanking

Big deal. They were an abomination for 4 years and it worked out for them. There are plenty of examples where teams are bottom feeders for a decade and getting those high draft picks doesn't translate into a championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP is absolutely right. 

You know why the Browns are 0-6? Lack of heart. They just don’t want it enough. Culture. They have to be more like that guy from the Steve Hanft movie that Beck samples in “Loser.”

All right, they’re bad because they have crummy players. Some of them young and promising, but crummy (especially at quarterback). Which brings us to the core of this whole computer-generated, draft-pick-hoarding rebuild: Can you take a group of young players, break them in on teams that lose 13-plus games every season, and ever turn it around? As we’re reminded of on a weekly basis, the difference between, say, the NFL’s fifth-best team and 25th-best team is razor-thin. If you have Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, or if you have a historically great defense as a whole, you can consistently win. Otherwise . . .

But I think there’s something to be said for the psychological beatdown of getting your butt handed to you on a weekly basis, something that causes players to lose a little bit of that edge, to trust guys around them just a little less than they should (Do Your Job!) and figure out ways to lose games that they should win. It's something that, for the lack of more specific reasoning, makes the core of a franchise rotten. The Browns are going to be really bad this year. They’ll probably be bad next year. They’ve been collecting all these draft picks, stockpiling talented young players, but even if they’re ready to compete for a playoff spot in three years (an optimistic timetable) these guys are going to be coming off their rookie deals. Are they going to flush out large parts of the team when that happens and replace them with more of those stockpiled draft picks? If they do that, will they ever surround their next franchise quarterback with a group of home-grown players who have done anything besides lose a lot of games? And if so, will they ever stop inspiring runs of poorly written rhetorical questions?

Maybe Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen is the next Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers, they single-handedly lift the franchise and then all this losing is forgotten forever. But, in all likelihood, the next quarterback’s ceiling will fall somewhere on that second tier, someone who needs a strong team around him. And then what do you have? (I ask that rhetorically.)

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/21/week-7-brett-hundley-first-start-packers-saints-atlanta-falcons-tom-brady-super-bowl-rematch

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RevisIsland610 said:

Big deal. They were an abomination for 4 years and it worked out for them. There are plenty of examples where teams are bottom feeders for a decade and getting those high draft picks doesn't translate into a championship. 

There is nothing wrong with tanking. But you still need to draft well and make some good free agent moves. And you can't tank for 5 years. You can tank for one or two years Max. After that the guys you originally tanked for will be up for big contracts already or worn down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...