The Josh Gordon Epic Continues | Page 10 | Barking Hard

The Josh Gordon Epic Continues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shep said:
No doubt the loss of Gordon is a pisser. At this point, we just don't know how long he's gone. I think the real debate is whether losing Gordon but getting way better QB play ends up as a sum gain... and I think it clearly does.

After all, the team WITH Josh Gordon went 4-12. The team without him (who got very efficient QB play) won the Super Bowl. I mention that team over the other 30 who didn't have Josh Gordon because they seem to be doing what the Browns plan to do: Run the ball really well, throw it less but more efficiently, and spread it around (Seattle's leading receiver was in the 800s).

The first variable is how long Gordon's out, and as Grossi said today... nobody has a fucking clue. Yes, the long radio silence indicates that it's complicated and there are mitigating factors we don't know about just yet. So like the Browns, we have no choice but to wait for it all to go public.

(The team would like it settled before camp because if it's a year, they get him back right before camp in 2015.)

But the question is, how do the Browns win games without Gordon? Well, the same way 12 playoff teams won without Gordon, for starters. But Seattle is probably the best model, as stated earlier.

Someone has to play WR. Andre Johnson is making it clear that he won't be playing in Houston and the team is almost certainly getting to the point they'd like to move him for as much as they can get. He's 33 so that won't be a 1st round pick. Grossi today guessed a third would get it done. For the Browns, he'd be a short-term fix... and he's familiar with our OC. I think it could happen.

The other two names being bandied about are Nate Washington (who may or may not be available) and Denarius Moore (who probably is). My wild guess says one of those three becomes a Brown.

The challenge is to find two outside WRs to play with Jordan Cameron and Andrew Hawkins while Gordon is out. The contenders might be (for example) Andre Johnson, Miles Austin, Anthony Armstrong, Nate Burleson, Charles Johnson, Chandler Jones, Paul Krause, and Willie Snead.

Only four of those guys are gonna dress on Sundays, along with Hawk. That's some pretty robust competition. I think the four who come out of it will be a good group.
Click to expand...

Shep, you mentioning the Seattle Seahawks as one of the teams that do not have Josh Gordon on their roster. And that is true. However, the Seattle Seahawks have a few things we don't have, such as an outstanding running attack behind probably the best offense line in the league, and, without doubt, the top defense.

Unfortunately, we are not in their class in so many ways and from the looks of things, they are gaining on us with respect to their receiver corps. It should be obvious that they are not sitting still and that they valve good receivers. Last year, they signed Percy Harvin to a 6 year $65,000,000 contract.

In other words, in the one area that you can truthfully say that they are relatively weak and that, in your opinion, it really doesn't matter, they have spent the money to greatly improve. It is true that a hip injury kept Harvin from contributing significantly last year. But assuming he returns to his prior form--and his 85 yard kickoff return at the beginning of the second half of the Super Bowl in January would seem to indicate that those chances are good--the Seattle Seahawks will have a seriously upgraded receiver corps with Percy Harvin as their primary wide receiver.

Given a choice between a healthy Harvin and a suspension free Gordon, I would have a very difficult time choosing. Since we obviously can't have Harvin, we really, really, really need a suspension free Gordon.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that AO's argument is more persuasive than yours.
 
AO, the issue isn't whether we SHOULD get better at WR, the question is how FAST do we need to get better at WR?

And I'm simply saying that of all the position groups, WR and RB are probably the easiest to get better, and fast ("better" being a relative term, I know, but still).
 
damajuki said:
AO, the issue isn't whether we SHOULD get better at WR, the question is how FAST do we need to get better at WR?

And I'm simply saying that of all the position groups, WR and RB are probably the easiest to get better, and fast ("better" being a relative term, I know, but still).
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand why it should be a question of when. It would seem to me that ASAP is the best answer. :)

And, BTW, I don't think it is so easy. If it was so easy, why have we tarried so? If it is so easy, why didn't we make said improvements last year or the year before. If it was so easy, why did we trade up to draft Trent Richardson. If it is so easy, why did we start the 2012 season with Greg Little and Mohamed Massaquoi as our primary receivers?

Regarding WR, the only significant improvements were the addition of Gordon and the development of Cameron. If we lose Gordon... As for RB, how many on this board really believes that Tate is an improvement over Richardson? (Sorry to say this, but I have a deep, dark suspicion that Richardson will have a much better year in 2014 than Tate.)
 
TRENT Richardson?

Yikes. Maybe on "Dancing with the Stars."

If you have the quarterback, WRs tend to show up. Just the way it is.
 
I keep coming back to two things on this "need a WR' debate.

#1 - This quote from Ray Farmer:

"I would say 'how important are those guys?''' Farmer told radio partner 92.3 The Fan. "Name the last big-time receiver to win a Super Bowl. Name the last mega-guy. (Gordon) matters to me because I like the guy and I think he's a really good player, but at the end of the day, when you look at the teams that have these mega-receivers, name the last guy that won a Super Bowl?... There are none. The last guy that really helped his team get there was T.O. (Terrell Owens).''

#2 - I keep thinking of the Patriots and how their team approach, along with excellent QB play, has resulted in no-names becoming household names and also resulted in perennial playoff appearances. I think I'm in the minority here, but I've always felt Wes Welker is the luckiest WR in the NFL. Went from Brady and the Pats to Manning and the Broncos - how lucky is he? I truly have no idea if he's that good, or if he's an average WR who has been in the right place at the right time. I strongly suspect the latter.

A third rounder for Andre Johnson seems reasonable IF Flash get the full year. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm up for much more than what's on the roster.

I've said it before, more than WR play, I'm really excited to see the D, the O-line, and Tate and T-West bang out some yards.
 
OconRecon said:
I keep coming back to two things on this "need a WR' debate.

#1 - This quote from Ray Farmer:

"I would say 'how important are those guys?''' Farmer told radio partner 92.3 The Fan. "Name the last big-time receiver to win a Super Bowl. Name the last mega-guy. (Gordon) matters to me because I like the guy and I think he's a really good player, but at the end of the day, when you look at the teams that have these mega-receivers, name the last guy that won a Super Bowl?... There are none. The last guy that really helped his team get there was T.O. (Terrell Owens).''

#2 - I keep thinking of the Patriots and how their team approach, along with excellent QB play, has resulted in no-names becoming household names and also resulted in perennial playoff appearances. I think I'm in the minority here, but I've always felt Wes Welker is the luckiest WR in the NFL. Went from Brady and the Pats to Manning and the Broncos - how lucky is he? I truly have no idea if he's that good, or if he's an average WR who has been in the right place at the right time. I strongly suspect the latter.

A third rounder for Andre Johnson seems reasonable IF Flash get the full year. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm up for much more than what's on the roster.

I've said it before, more than WR play, I'm really excited to see the D, the O-line, and Tate and T-West bang out some yards.
Click to expand...

I like this post. Expresses your perspective without dismissing the things hundreds of players around the league do for their team. Well said.

The quote from Farmer is an interesting one given he attempted to trade up for a WR in the first round, and rumors suggest trying to trade up and back in to the first on more than three occasions to address the position. For a guy who doesn't prioritize WR, not selecting one in the first round was far from a lack of trying.

I'm very disappointed by his statement though. To come out and say in regards to a position on your football team "How important are those guys?" before saying they won't help win a Superbowl is unprofessional and disrespectful. Call me sentimental but I'd rather someone in my front office telling players they are the difference, they are what makes us great and they have the chance to achieve something special - I don't give a fuck it's the QB or the kicker. I'd never piss on my players like that.

But, to answer his question, in recent years amazing receivers have indeed been to, and won, the Superbowl. The Seahawks don't have anyone mind numbing (Although to be fair they throw the football a whole lot less than anyone and thus Wilson's numbers aren't mind numbing either) but the year before most recent we've seen Smith (164 receptions, 3 years) and Boldin (857 career catches) win it. The year before Nicks (311 catches, 5 years) and Cruz (241 catches, 3 years) won it. The year before that Jennings (495 catches, 8 years), Jordy Nelson (302 catches, and Donald Driver (743 career catches) won it. The list goes on. Those are all just the winning teams, the teams that lost also had a long list of impressive receivers like Mike Wallace, Larry Fitzgerald, Santonio Holmes, Wes Welker, Hines Ward, Ochocinco, Demaryius Thomas and more. You show me a Superbowl, I'll show a wide receiver I've thoroughly enjoyed watching.

But do any of them count as a 'Mega-receiver' which doesn't seem to have a clear definition? They're talented as fuck, if that's what it means.

Now, on to Wes Welker, I agree he wouldn't be the same guy without Brady or Manning. Probably why it took Manning to get him away from Brady, he's not stupid. That said though the guy has 841 catches, 99 touchdowns and 9,358 yards in his career. His route running, agility in his breaks/footwork, glue hands, ability to catch in traffic, understanding of defenses, catching on the hit and more have been second to none. The guy is an amazing receiver and would have success anywhere in the past, present and future. The guy gets open, simple and plain.

With that said I agree that seeing the line, RB position and defense is more exciting than our WR corps is depressing. I really think we could have great success there.

Our wide receivers aren't useless though, frankly I love the approach - especially if Johnny wins the QB position. In Krause, Jones, Hawkins, Benjamin and Armstrong we have the smallest guys but the most speed. It's like a fucking Madden dream team and the same logic applies here as it does in the video game - You have to put a linebacker or safety on to one of them unless you REALLY trust your corner depth. On top of that we've got a QB who quite literally ran circles around everyone in college so you have to stop that too. Oh, and our run game that's behind a line that collectively makes a "Your momma so fat" joke look under-exaggerated. That's hard to stop. Then add in our defense, delicious. I can say that without mentioning Cameron or Gordon who, outside of Thomas, are the best two individual players we have on offense - so I get the point, I just don't entirely agree with it. I don't want to be weak at any position, especially WR, because a great QB can't do much with guys who cannot get open, drop the passes when they do and get injured more often than not. I'll take greatness every day of the week.
 
Last edited:
OldDawgCliff said:
As for RB, how many on this board really believes that Tate is an improvement over Richardson? (Sorry to say this, but I have a deep, dark suspicion that Richardson will have a much better year in 2014 than Tate.)
Click to expand...

I think Tate is an upgrade, for sure. I can see why you question it though.

Richardson has been the prospect that fooled me, by far, more than anyone else. Everything on his tape pointed to greatness. There was hardly any weakness outside of 'you do not take a RB that high' or some other variation. He was killing it, impossible to stop, and wildly productive. I've gone back several times and I still stand by my personal evaluations.

In his first year I really liked what I saw, and it reminded me of Adrian Peterson NOT in how he played but how it happened. AP has a motto towards the position - "Famine, famine, feast!" to remind himself to be patient, that the big run will come but his primary concern is making yards. If he averages 3/4 yard per carry AP legit bangs out 3/4 yards every single time. Trent was the exact same, which is why he was so great in the red zone where he scored all his touchdowns, but the feast never came for him where it does for AP (A lot). Going through the tape there was no doubt the run blocking was horrible, there were very few holes as they never opened and it was about as uncreative as can get. As I said during the season our run blocking looked like pass blocking, there was no push and it was kept really tight.

This past season with both the Browns and Colts Trent was just a completely different guy. The holes were there that time but he didn't hit them, often moving away from them. He was easy to bring down. Had none of the speed or agility I'd previously seen. He was fumbling and carrying loose. He was seeing ghosts when he thought the block wasn't good (I didn't even know there was a RB version of that). So much was bad about his play. There was mumblings in camp that apparently the coaching staff thought Dion Lewis was simply a much better running back than Trent and it didn't take long before they'd seen enough. Even in Indy he eventually got replaced. Some say learning the new playbook was a problem but surely it didn't take him that long to learn it enough to be efficient at least.

I don't know if it's injury, a lack of determination or confidence - whatever - Trent Richardson isn't the same guy we got, let alone the guy we thought we were getting.

Our running game is in a much better position now than it was on both the line and the runners. If Indy called right now and offered Trent for West or Tate I'd laugh my ass off and suggest Irsay might have fallen off the wagon.
 
So..Then we shouldnt try to draft guys like Jerry Rice,Paul Warfield,Lynn Swann or John Stallworth.. Lets just be average at WR. that spells BORING football... Sorry..I want to be entertained by the best while winning... winning ugly is... ugly.
 
Farmer's not saying anything most GMs don't say about WRs.

OconRecon said:
I keep coming back to two things on this "need a WR' debate.

#1 - This quote from Ray Farmer:

"I would say 'how important are those guys?''' Farmer told radio partner 92.3 The Fan. "Name the last big-time receiver to win a Super Bowl. Name the last mega-guy. (Gordon) matters to me because I like the guy and I think he's a really good player, but at the end of the day, when you look at the teams that have these mega-receivers, name the last guy that won a Super Bowl?... There are none. The last guy that really helped his team get there was T.O. (Terrell Owens).''

#2 - I keep thinking of the Patriots and how their team approach, along with excellent QB play, has resulted in no-names becoming household names and also resulted in perennial playoff appearances. I think I'm in the minority here, but I've always felt Wes Welker is the luckiest WR in the NFL. Went from Brady and the Pats to Manning and the Broncos - how lucky is he? I truly have no idea if he's that good, or if he's an average WR who has been in the right place at the right time. I strongly suspect the latter.

A third rounder for Andre Johnson seems reasonable IF Flash get the full year. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm up for much more than what's on the roster.

I've said it before, more than WR play, I'm really excited to see the D, the O-line, and Tate and T-West bang out some yards.
Click to expand...
 
Again, Strawmen, it's not about wanting to suck at WR!!! I know you guys can think somewhere between black and white. It's saying...

1. Having an "elite" or franchise WR isn't the talisman to the Super Bowl. If so, Josh Gordon, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, A.J. Green, Andre Johnson, et al, would be champions over and over.

2. It's a very common personnel philosophy to say if you get it right at quarterback, getting it right at WR suddenly gets a lot easier. You "steal" guys later in the draft and turn good f/a acquisitions into great ones.

3. A lot of teams don't WANT to have a clear-cut #1, and the Packers have said so out loud on several occasions. They don't draft WRs in round one and don't "owe" looks to any one guy. As Farmer said, in recent years you haven't seen teams with that one mega receiver drafted in the top 10 going to the Super Bowl.

I think if we talk about it long enough, BDU and AO will just keep rephrasing those points to mean WRs can be found in retirement homes. I think BDU just went Freedom Fries on me and said I'm disrespectful to the honorable duty of playing WR (!).

The point is, can the Browns be a better team this year WITHOUT Josh Gordon? Sure. They weren't very good WITH Josh Gordon putting up a monster year. It isn't the key. The key is getting really good quarterback play.

Can you get really good quarterback play without an elite WR (or two)? Yes. Factually, positively yes. If your QB plays well, makes the right reads, and throws accurately, you can pass the ball really well with relatively unknown WRs, TEs, and backs on the other end of the missive.

So if the Browns get even "pretty damn good" play from Hoyer/Manziel but don't have Gordon, they can absolutely be better than last year on offense. No doubt.

Do they currently have a situation at WR that could turn into an anchor? Maybe. Possibly. But it would require everything going wrong. When healthy, Austin and Burleson are very productive WRs, especially matched with a Pro Bowl TE and a really promising slot receiver. Anthony Armstrong has looked fantastic. And then there's all the young guys. Can we find two quality outside WRs from that group?

Probably. But I'd still like to see one more move near the top of that list.
 
nickers said:
So..Then we shouldnt try to draft guys like Jerry Rice,Paul Warfield,Lynn Swann or John Stallworth.. Lets just be average at WR. that spells BORING football... Sorry..I want to be entertained by the best while winning... winning ugly is... ugly.
Click to expand...

Yes, we're told good receivers aren't all that important, but would Montana thrown a TD pass late to win against Cincy without good reciefvers? Would the Steelers have won the SB against Arizona without Holmes making that great play in the end zone at the end of the game? Would the Steelershave won some of those SBs without Stallworth and Swann? The answer: of course. Or would the Rams have won without isacc Bruce? Or Brady without Welker?

You need a good QB, but you need good receivers, too. Even the Seahawks will tell you that, but Farmer and Pttine won't! These new guys are just one more Browns management group with a huge blind spot.
 
Shep said:
I think if we talk about it long enough, BDU and AO will just keep rephrasing those points to mean WRs can be found in retirement homes. I think BDU just went Freedom Fries on me and said I'm disrespectful to the honorable duty of playing WR (!).
Click to expand...

Naw, did someone not agree with you? Poor Sheppers.
 
The last man who called me Sheppers is... well, he's alive and well, just really bad at nicknames.
 
It's hard to think of empathetic nicknames that help heel your luddle fewwings when I don't particularly give a shit. I'll let you know if something comes to mind.
 
brownsdownunder said:
It's hard to think of empathetic nicknames that help heel your luddle fewwings when I don't particularly give a shit. I'll let you know if something comes to mind.
Click to expand...

???

I think you lost the tone of the thread. We were joking around, not being heinous penis heads.

When did my "luddle fewwings" come into play? Are you saying I'm tender and you're a sociopath? Did I say somebody hurt my feelings? Was I blacked out at the time? You've totally lost me, pal. Feels like you went uber-random on me.
 
brownsdownunder said:
I think Tate is an upgrade, for sure. I can see why you question it though.

Richardson has been the prospect that fooled me, by far, more than anyone else. Everything on his tape pointed to greatness. There was hardly any weakness outside of 'you do not take a RB that high' or some other variation. He was killing it, impossible to stop, and wildly productive. I've gone back several times and I still stand by my personal evaluations.

In his first year I really liked what I saw, and it reminded me of Adrian Peterson NOT in how he played but how it happened. AP has a motto towards the position - "Famine, famine, feast!" to remind himself to be patient, that the big run will come but his primary concern is making yards. If he averages 3/4 yard per carry AP legit bangs out 3/4 yards every single time. Trent was the exact same, which is why he was so great in the red zone where he scored all his touchdowns, but the feast never came for him where it does for AP (A lot). Going through the tape there was no doubt the run blocking was horrible, there were very few holes as they never opened and it was about as uncreative as can get. As I said during the season our run blocking looked like pass blocking, there was no push and it was kept really tight.

This past season with both the Browns and Colts Trent was just a completely different guy. The holes were there that time but he didn't hit them, often moving away from them. He was easy to bring down. Had none of the speed or agility I'd previously seen. He was fumbling and carrying loose. He was seeing ghosts when he thought the block wasn't good (I didn't even know there was a RB version of that). So much was bad about his play. There was mumblings in camp that apparently the coaching staff thought Dion Lewis was simply a much better running back than Trent and it didn't take long before they'd seen enough. Even in Indy he eventually got replaced. Some say learning the new playbook was a problem but surely it didn't take him that long to learn it enough to be efficient at least.

I don't know if it's injury, a lack of determination or confidence - whatever - Trent Richardson isn't the same guy we got, let alone the guy we thought we were getting.

Our running game is in a much better position now than it was on both the line and the runners. If Indy called right now and offered Trent for West or Tate I'd laugh my ass off and suggest Irsay might have fallen off the wagon.
Click to expand...

Just one last note since this is really off topic about a player who is no longer a Brown, but I think the problem with Trent last year was that he was still recovering from his injuries during the off season and wasn't paying enough attention when the offense changed--figuring that football is football, and he didn't realize the significance of the change on his game until it too late. And after being traded mid-season, he didn't have a chance to learn the offense in Indianapolis. But talent is talent. And from what I have read, he is serious about learning the offense this year. I think he will know what to do when he gets the ball this year and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Alabama Trent again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom