Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2013 Browns QB
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Sorry, all, I just don't see enough in Weeden. Even though he was H&H&s' "guy", he doesn't seem to have "it". Very Happy


Hey bruce, Luck just threw his 2nd pick 6 of the game and he's getting blown out by the Pats 29th ranked pass defense.

Guess that he's no good, is poorly coached, AND has bad plays called for him huh?


This is just silly......why do so many people attempt to compare Weeds to Luck, RG3, or even Tannehill....the most obvious difference being their age....but, even outside of that, Luck and RG3 have both shown they were deserving of the #1 and #2 picks of the draft. Especially Luck who is having a scary similiarity to Peyton Manning's production this year. I believe before the game with the Pats, Luck had the 4th best QBR, and has already broke the most passing yards by rookie in a single game.

Also, you should know by now that the Colts vs. Pats are usually good games to watch so no surprise how it turned out.

As for the topic, I see Weeds being the QB for 2013 as their aren't really any sure fire QBs this draft and the fact that Kansas will most likely be drafting #1 and I can gurantee they don't think Quinn or Caslle is their future.......Weeden will most likely be given one more year to prove himself....or they bring in another QB....dont (hope not) see us drafting a QB in the 1st this year.


Hi, you obviously weren't the subject of the post...the "Hey bruce" part should have clued you in, don't know why it didn't.

But...since you replied to it...

Comparing players is always a good way to discuss football, insinuating that it is "silly" to compare players is usually a sign of a weak opinion.

And hey, the "big difference" between Luck, RG3, Tannehill, and Weeden is that that only one of those guys is playing on the team with the least experienced starters in the NFL.

Aside from that, they have all played well at times and badly at others...they are all rookies, they were all 1st round picks, they all have their best years ahead of them, and you are flat out wrong to suggest comparing them is silly.


Hi, yes, I can read, but as you said, this is to discuss football so I read all 3 pages of the topic before actually replying to yours.

Let me rephrase what I meant.....it's silly that people always want to compare Weeden to Luck and RG3 or even Tannehill when obviously he isn't going to get the luxury of normal rookie QBs who are much younger than him.

It's also silly because for the most part both Luck and RG3 have shown consistency in their games and have for the most part lived up to their hype....also I'm not holding anything against Weeden when our WRs drop balls or run the wrong routes....but I am holding him responsible for missing wide open WRs, which he has done a lot this season, or under/over throwing to his receivers.

Weeden has shown flashes, as most rookies often do, but the difference, again, is that he is not going to be given the luxury of younger rookies....especially since he is constantly missing wide open WRs, or has been inconsistent with his accuracy, as in over/under throwing and not leading his receivers....today's game is a perfect example....all thru out the 1st half when he was being given a lot of time, he kept throwing behind our WRs instead of leading them....


Dude, what do you mean by "luxury"? He is expected to be a 5 year vet right away?

Also, I know the announcers, who clearly know everything, talked about Weeden throwing some passes too high (or behind receivers) today. But, if you really look at a few of those passes, the defense required those passes to be thrown high or behind. Do you "lead" the WR into a tackle (like McCoy often would)? WRs absolutely need to catch passes that are thrown behind them and all QBs do it. Also, there were a couple of bad routes run by the WRs...and YES, of course there were some mistakes by Weeden.

Did he "constantly" miss the open WRs when he completed 20 passes for 210 yards and 2 TDs and helped to convert 40% of our 3rd downs today?

Perhaps you are exaggerating a little?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Onizuka


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 683
Location: Austin, TX
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Sorry, all, I just don't see enough in Weeden. Even though he was H&H&s' "guy", he doesn't seem to have "it". Very Happy


Hey bruce, Luck just threw his 2nd pick 6 of the game and he's getting blown out by the Pats 29th ranked pass defense.

Guess that he's no good, is poorly coached, AND has bad plays called for him huh?


This is just silly......why do so many people attempt to compare Weeds to Luck, RG3, or even Tannehill....the most obvious difference being their age....but, even outside of that, Luck and RG3 have both shown they were deserving of the #1 and #2 picks of the draft. Especially Luck who is having a scary similiarity to Peyton Manning's production this year. I believe before the game with the Pats, Luck had the 4th best QBR, and has already broke the most passing yards by rookie in a single game.

Also, you should know by now that the Colts vs. Pats are usually good games to watch so no surprise how it turned out.

As for the topic, I see Weeds being the QB for 2013 as their aren't really any sure fire QBs this draft and the fact that Kansas will most likely be drafting #1 and I can gurantee they don't think Quinn or Caslle is their future.......Weeden will most likely be given one more year to prove himself....or they bring in another QB....dont (hope not) see us drafting a QB in the 1st this year.


Hi, you obviously weren't the subject of the post...the "Hey bruce" part should have clued you in, don't know why it didn't.

But...since you replied to it...

Comparing players is always a good way to discuss football, insinuating that it is "silly" to compare players is usually a sign of a weak opinion.

And hey, the "big difference" between Luck, RG3, Tannehill, and Weeden is that that only one of those guys is playing on the team with the least experienced starters in the NFL.

Aside from that, they have all played well at times and badly at others...they are all rookies, they were all 1st round picks, they all have their best years ahead of them, and you are flat out wrong to suggest comparing them is silly.


Hi, yes, I can read, but as you said, this is to discuss football so I read all 3 pages of the topic before actually replying to yours.

Let me rephrase what I meant.....it's silly that people always want to compare Weeden to Luck and RG3 or even Tannehill when obviously he isn't going to get the luxury of normal rookie QBs who are much younger than him.

It's also silly because for the most part both Luck and RG3 have shown consistency in their games and have for the most part lived up to their hype....also I'm not holding anything against Weeden when our WRs drop balls or run the wrong routes....but I am holding him responsible for missing wide open WRs, which he has done a lot this season, or under/over throwing to his receivers.

Weeden has shown flashes, as most rookies often do, but the difference, again, is that he is not going to be given the luxury of younger rookies....especially since he is constantly missing wide open WRs, or has been inconsistent with his accuracy, as in over/under throwing and not leading his receivers....today's game is a perfect example....all thru out the 1st half when he was being given a lot of time, he kept throwing behind our WRs instead of leading them....


Dude, what do you mean by "luxury"? He is expected to be a 5 year vet right away?

Also, I know the announcers, who clearly know everything, talked about Weeden throwing some passes too high (or behind receivers) today. But, if you really look at a few of those passes, the defense required those passes to be thrown high or behind. Do you "lead" the WR into a tackle (like McCoy often would)? WRs absolutely need to catch passes that are thrown behind them and all QBs do it. Also, there were a couple of bad routes run by the WRs...and YES, of course there were some mistakes by Weeden.

Did he "constantly" miss the open WRs when he completed 20 passes for 210 yards and 2 TDs and helped to convert 40% of our 3rd downs today?

Perhaps you are exaggerating a little?


Luxury.....as in....."hey he is a young QB, who has shown flashes his first year in the NFL, but still needs time to develop due to his age"......this was supposed to be his advantage over the other 3 QBs taken before him, was his maturity......it's not against him, but, its the truth....most QBs, outside of complete busts, will be given 3 years if they show flashes since they would still be young after 3 years experience in the NFL....Weeden wouldn't get that, my opinion and others on and off the forum, because of his age, especially if there was a young potential franchise QB coming out and within reach of our draft spot....and to add that a new owner and potential new FO would want to try to build around a younger QB....

Yes, I saw his passes and now it just seems like your making excuses....funny you bring up McCoy when Weeden has defintely put his WRs in dangerous spots as well....like when little had to adjust his body (exposing his ribs) to make a catch on what should of been an easy throw....if Cowboys secondary wasn't so bad in the 1st half, that could of ended ugly.....and a few of those back passes....are you kidding me? Both Little and Gordon would of gotten more yardage off some of those passes had he led them since the defenders weren't as close as you suggest....

Yes, I'm glad he contritbuted to the game, but don't take anything away from TRich and the WRs who made plays to get a few of those 3rd down converts....also, in case your not understanding....I'm talking about how Weeden has been so far thru 10 games.....which is inconsistent....I don't understand how some of you guys get all hurt when some of us call it as we see it.....10 games is enough to say he has been inconsistent, we aren't saying he can't improve.....try to understand that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Onizuka wrote:


Luxury.....as in....."hey he is a young QB, who has shown flashes his first year in the NFL, but still needs time to develop due to his age"......this was supposed to be his advantage over the other 3 QBs taken before him, was his maturity......it's not against him, but, its the truth....most QBs, outside of complete busts, will be given 3 years if they show flashes since they would still be young after 3 years experience in the NFL....Weeden wouldn't get that, my opinion and others on and off the forum, because of his age, especially if there was a young potential franchise QB coming out and within reach of our draft spot....and to add that a new owner and potential new FO would want to try to build around a younger QB....

Yes, I saw his passes and now it just seems like your making excuses....funny you bring up McCoy when Weeden has defintely put his WRs in dangerous spots as well....like when little had to adjust his body (exposing his ribs) to make a catch on what should of been an easy throw....if Cowboys secondary wasn't so bad in the 1st half, that could of ended ugly.....and a few of those back passes....are you kidding me? Both Little and Gordon would of gotten more yardage off some of those passes had he led them since the defenders weren't as close as you suggest....

Yes, I'm glad he contritbuted to the game, but don't take anything away from TRich and the WRs who made plays to get a few of those 3rd down converts....also, in case your not understanding....I'm talking about how Weeden has been so far thru 10 games.....which is inconsistent....I don't understand how some of you guys get all hurt when some of us call it as we see it.....10 games is enough to say he has been inconsistent, we aren't saying he can't improve.....try to understand that.


He "needs time to develop due to his age"? Most people would say that he needs to develop due to his never playing in the NFL before, but I think I understand you. You don't like that he is 29, right?

His age actually is an advantage over the 3 QBs taken before him. His age allowed him to experience a professional career while the others knew little to nothing about it before they were drafted. What did you think the advantage was supposed to be? More TDs or a higher CMP or something? God, I hope you didn't think that.

All QBs can (and do) put their receivers in bad positions. Some do it rather frequently, like McCoy, and others less often.

Us over here see thing differently than you guys over in wherever you are, we see Luck's inconsistent play as well as Weeden's. Actually, we even see areas where RG3 has been inconsistent, like avoiding sacks.

But we also need to look at how inconsistent Luck and Tannehill were...not too different than Weeden, by the way.

We can also look at their first 10 games, like I did in a previous post, and pretend that it will predict the future...well, it doesn't.

RG3 can still bomb and he wouldn't be the first. Of course that doesn't seem very likely right now. But Tannehill, Luck , and Weeden? None of them have played that great this year, but who expected them to?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Sorry, all, I just don't see enough in Weeden. Even though he was H&H&s' "guy", he doesn't seem to have "it". Very Happy


Hey bruce, Luck just threw his 2nd pick 6 of the game and he's getting blown out by the Pats 29th ranked pass defense.

Guess that he's no good, is poorly coached, AND has bad plays called for him huh?


This is just silly......why do so many people attempt to compare Weeds to Luck, RG3, or even Tannehill....the most obvious difference being their age....but, even outside of that, Luck and RG3 have both shown they were deserving of the #1 and #2 picks of the draft. Especially Luck who is having a scary similiarity to Peyton Manning's production this year. I believe before the game with the Pats, Luck had the 4th best QBR, and has already broke the most passing yards by rookie in a single game.

Also, you should know by now that the Colts vs. Pats are usually good games to watch so no surprise how it turned out.

As for the topic, I see Weeds being the QB for 2013 as their aren't really any sure fire QBs this draft and the fact that Kansas will most likely be drafting #1 and I can gurantee they don't think Quinn or Caslle is their future.......Weeden will most likely be given one more year to prove himself....or they bring in another QB....dont (hope not) see us drafting a QB in the 1st this year.


Hi, you obviously weren't the subject of the post...the "Hey bruce" part should have clued you in, don't know why it didn't.

But...since you replied to it...

Comparing players is always a good way to discuss football, insinuating that it is "silly" to compare players is usually a sign of a weak opinion.

And hey, the "big difference" between Luck, RG3, Tannehill, and Weeden is that that only one of those guys is playing on the team with the least experienced starters in the NFL.

Aside from that, they have all played well at times and badly at others...they are all rookies, they were all 1st round picks, they all have their best years ahead of them, and you are flat out wrong to suggest comparing them is silly.


Hi, yes, I can read, but as you said, this is to discuss football so I read all 3 pages of the topic before actually replying to yours.

Let me rephrase what I meant.....it's silly that people always want to compare Weeden to Luck and RG3 or even Tannehill when obviously he isn't going to get the luxury of normal rookie QBs who are much younger than him.

It's also silly because for the most part both Luck and RG3 have shown consistency in their games and have for the most part lived up to their hype....also I'm not holding anything against Weeden when our WRs drop balls or run the wrong routes....but I am holding him responsible for missing wide open WRs, which he has done a lot this season, or under/over throwing to his receivers.

Weeden has shown flashes, as most rookies often do, but the difference, again, is that he is not going to be given the luxury of younger rookies....especially since he is constantly missing wide open WRs, or has been inconsistent with his accuracy, as in over/under throwing and not leading his receivers....today's game is a perfect example....all thru out the 1st half when he was being given a lot of time, he kept throwing behind our WRs instead of leading them....


Dude, what do you mean by "luxury"? He is expected to be a 5 year vet right away?

Also, I know the announcers, who clearly know everything, talked about Weeden throwing some passes too high (or behind receivers) today. But, if you really look at a few of those passes, the defense required those passes to be thrown high or behind. Do you "lead" the WR into a tackle (like McCoy often would)? WRs absolutely need to catch passes that are thrown behind them and all QBs do it. Also, there were a couple of bad routes run by the WRs...and YES, of course there were some mistakes by Weeden.

Did he "constantly" miss the open WRs when he completed 20 passes for 210 yards and 2 TDs and helped to convert 40% of our 3rd downs today?

Perhaps you are exaggerating a little?


What game did you watch?
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
Onizuka wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Sorry, all, I just don't see enough in Weeden. Even though he was H&H&s' "guy", he doesn't seem to have "it". Very Happy


Hey bruce, Luck just threw his 2nd pick 6 of the game and he's getting blown out by the Pats 29th ranked pass defense.

Guess that he's no good, is poorly coached, AND has bad plays called for him huh?


This is just silly......why do so many people attempt to compare Weeds to Luck, RG3, or even Tannehill....the most obvious difference being their age....but, even outside of that, Luck and RG3 have both shown they were deserving of the #1 and #2 picks of the draft. Especially Luck who is having a scary similiarity to Peyton Manning's production this year. I believe before the game with the Pats, Luck had the 4th best QBR, and has already broke the most passing yards by rookie in a single game.

Also, you should know by now that the Colts vs. Pats are usually good games to watch so no surprise how it turned out.

As for the topic, I see Weeds being the QB for 2013 as their aren't really any sure fire QBs this draft and the fact that Kansas will most likely be drafting #1 and I can gurantee they don't think Quinn or Caslle is their future.......Weeden will most likely be given one more year to prove himself....or they bring in another QB....dont (hope not) see us drafting a QB in the 1st this year.


Hi, you obviously weren't the subject of the post...the "Hey bruce" part should have clued you in, don't know why it didn't.

But...since you replied to it...

Comparing players is always a good way to discuss football, insinuating that it is "silly" to compare players is usually a sign of a weak opinion.

And hey, the "big difference" between Luck, RG3, Tannehill, and Weeden is that that only one of those guys is playing on the team with the least experienced starters in the NFL.

Aside from that, they have all played well at times and badly at others...they are all rookies, they were all 1st round picks, they all have their best years ahead of them, and you are flat out wrong to suggest comparing them is silly.


Hi, yes, I can read, but as you said, this is to discuss football so I read all 3 pages of the topic before actually replying to yours.

Let me rephrase what I meant.....it's silly that people always want to compare Weeden to Luck and RG3 or even Tannehill when obviously he isn't going to get the luxury of normal rookie QBs who are much younger than him.

It's also silly because for the most part both Luck and RG3 have shown consistency in their games and have for the most part lived up to their hype....also I'm not holding anything against Weeden when our WRs drop balls or run the wrong routes....but I am holding him responsible for missing wide open WRs, which he has done a lot this season, or under/over throwing to his receivers.

Weeden has shown flashes, as most rookies often do, but the difference, again, is that he is not going to be given the luxury of younger rookies....especially since he is constantly missing wide open WRs, or has been inconsistent with his accuracy, as in over/under throwing and not leading his receivers....today's game is a perfect example....all thru out the 1st half when he was being given a lot of time, he kept throwing behind our WRs instead of leading them....


Dude, what do you mean by "luxury"? He is expected to be a 5 year vet right away?

Also, I know the announcers, who clearly know everything, talked about Weeden throwing some passes too high (or behind receivers) today. But, if you really look at a few of those passes, the defense required those passes to be thrown high or behind. Do you "lead" the WR into a tackle (like McCoy often would)? WRs absolutely need to catch passes that are thrown behind them and all QBs do it. Also, there were a couple of bad routes run by the WRs...and YES, of course there were some mistakes by Weeden.

Did he "constantly" miss the open WRs when he completed 20 passes for 210 yards and 2 TDs and helped to convert 40% of our 3rd downs today?

Perhaps you are exaggerating a little?


What game did you watch?


I watched the Browns play the Cowboys in Dallas. Perhaps you should watch it too?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TypicalBrowns10


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1094
Location: Ohio
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could've just watched the Steelers Ravens game to understand leading your receiver into trouble. Leftwich got Miller and Cotchery killed on nearly back to back plays. And hes been in the league awhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fatpig


Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 2262
Location: cleveland
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weeden needs to throw deep more often. he has the arm and the deep accuracy. Dallas got a million PI calls their way partly because they threw deep often to pick on our CBs. we never get such calls because we never throw deep. i don't know whether its the play call, Weeden being hesitant or our WRs are always covered but we need to take more shots down field. i still think we have not yet seen Weeds fully unleashed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DawgX


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 10897
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Weeden will get another year. There really aren't any first-round-caliber QBs worth taking besides Geno Smith, and he'll likely be taken by the Chiefs if they pick before the Browns.

If the Browns draft a QB, I hope it's someone like Derek Carr, as long as he's not selected in the first round. I also wouldn't be opposed to trading for a veteran depending on who it is and for how much. Someone like Matt Flynn would make sense.

It's an interesting situation. Weeden has definitely played well enough to start next year and beyond, but considering there's a new regime, they might want their own guy. Especially depending on who the head coach is next year and if Weeden fits that coach's scheme.
_________________
Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group