Nothing shattering, Corey Williams not happy in Cleveland

[Spaulding]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/03/corey-williams-not-happy-in-cleveland/

Wasn't he initially excited about the move to 3-4 and it was being described as a perfect fit for him given his size and pass rushing capabilities from the DT position?

Now it describes him as desiring to move back to a 4-3 and details the Lose-Lose situation it was for both teams (moreso for the Browns who not only gave up a draft choice but are sadled with his terrible contract).

Granted the pick for Brohm didn't turn out, but I quite glad we don't have another Joe Johnson salary on the plate for years to come.

As much as I sometimes wish TT would make a splash in FA, I'm reminded by things such as this that it backfires almost as often as it works and it's always far better to stick to the conservative approach as along as you draft well.

If Raji, Matthews, Lang and Jones from this years draft continue to improve and Nelson, Finley, Sitton and Flynn continue to improve from last year we'll have the money to resign the players of merit.

With regard to contracts, what high cost ones currently exist? Even Grant's contract (currently looking a bit overpaid) doesn't count that much moving forward. I'm only aware of ARod and Jennings in 2010 with the need to resign Collins, Pickett, and possibly Jolly and Kampman if not overpriced. College and Dr. Jerkyl/Mr. Hyde ways and Spitz might be tempting as well.

[Fritz]

TT blew that pick in Brohm when Henne was sitting there, but that's in hindsight. One might also argue that by picking Brohm and trying to develop him, it allowed TT to draft guys like Nelson and Finley and Lang or whomever instead of having kept Williams, having one less draft pick, and subsequently using a pick on a QB instead of one of the aforementioned guys, all of whom are contributing pretty well.

Plus, the Packers did not have to pay big money to a player who has not performed to the level of his new, big contract.

TT did well to get rid of Williams and get a # 2 for him; he didn't do well with the pick itself.

[Pugger]

Its unfortunate that Brohm didn't work out at all. Isn't it unreal how a QB can look so great in college but struggle mightily in the NFL? I can understand why Williams is unhappy - he's in Cleveland! :wink:

[ThunderDan]

TT blew that pick in Brohm when Henne was sitting there, but that's in hindsight. One might also argue that by picking Brohm and trying to develop him, it allowed TT to draft guys like Nelson and Finley and Lang or whomever instead of having kept Williams, having one less draft pick, and subsequently using a pick on a QB instead of one of the aforementioned guys, all of whom are contributing pretty well.

Plus, the Packers did not have to pay big money to a player who has not performed to the level of his new, big contract.

TT did well to get rid of Williams and get a # 2 for him; he didn't do well with the pick itself.

Well...if BF didn't retire leaving us with 1 QB on the roster we wouldn't have drafted Brohm.

[Brandon494]

TT did well to get rid of Williams and get a # 2 for him; he didn't do well with the pick itself.

+1

[rbaloha1]

Thank goodness CW did not resign with the packers. What about Jolly -- worth the gamble?

[retailguy]

Well...if BF didn't retire leaving us with 1 QB on the roster we wouldn't have drafted Brohm.

Doesn't this ignore the whole BPA concept? If that concept is really true, I'd challenge you to accept the fact that Favre retiring really didn't matter at all. The draft board should be unaffected in this case.

[ThunderDan]

Well...if BF didn't retire leaving us with 1 QB on the roster we wouldn't have drafted Brohm.

Doesn't this ignore the whole BPA concept? If that concept is really true, I'd challenge you to accept the fact that Favre retiring really didn't matter at all. The draft board should be unaffected in this case.

As much as BPA is wonderful, when you don't have a QB that has started an NFL game on the roster BPA may have to be forgotten for a pick.

[retailguy]

Well...if BF didn't retire leaving us with 1 QB on the roster we wouldn't have drafted Brohm.

Doesn't this ignore the whole BPA concept? If that concept is really true, I'd challenge you to accept the fact that Favre retiring really didn't matter at all. The draft board should be unaffected in this case.

As much as BPA is wonderful, when you don't have a QB that has started an NFL game on the roster BPA may have to be forgotten for a pick.

There were several here that touted that Ted never ignores BPA. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I don't believe that Favre retiring affected anything Ted did at all.

[Lurker64]

There were several here that touted that Ted never ignores BPA. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I don't believe that Favre retiring affected anything Ted did at all.

Ted himself is on record as saying that you can't always go with BPA because (in his words) "otherwise you might end up drafting six quarterbacks."

[ThunderDan]

Well...if BF didn't retire leaving us with 1 QB on the roster we wouldn't have drafted Brohm.

Doesn't this ignore the whole BPA concept? If that concept is really true, I'd challenge you to accept the fact that Favre retiring really didn't matter at all. The draft board should be unaffected in this case.

As much as BPA is wonderful, when you don't have a QB that has started an NFL game on the roster BPA may have to be forgotten for a pick.

There were several here that touted that Ted never ignores BPA. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I don't believe that Favre retiring affected anything Ted did at all.

Really....Really?

BF left us with 1 QB on the roster and no NFL starts. ARod had major durablility issues going into 2008.

We know TT doesn't like FA so he has to pick up 2 QBs in the draft and he has to have 1 that might be a stop-gap if ARod gets hurt.

I thought we would package our 1st plus the CWill 2nd to trade up for Flacco. In fact when we traded CWill I was sure that meant we were drafting a QB in the 1st that year.

[retailguy]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

[ThunderDan]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

No way, with BF and ARod on the team they don't use a 2nd to draft Brohm. That is when you pick a QB in the 7th to develop.

[mraynrand]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

No way, with BF and ARod on the team they don't use a 2nd to draft Brohm. That is when you pick a QB in the 7th to develop.

Gotta go with Thunder on this one - Two QBs on your roster - you either pick up a flyer in the late rounds or sign a veteran clipboard holder off the FA scrap pile.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

No way, with BF and ARod on the team they don't use a 2nd to draft Brohm. That is when you pick a QB in the 7th to develop.

100% on the money. You don't waste a high draft pick if you have a starter and a former 1st round pick who you are EXTREMELY high on (and, based on what transpired we KNOW they were high on Arod).

That is exactly when you take a low pick and hope to develop him.

We know you dislike TT retail, but you have enough legitimate reasons without stooping to moronic arguments like this.

[woodbuck27]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

No way, with BF and ARod on the team they don't use a 2nd to draft Brohm. That is when you pick a QB in the 7th to develop.

100% on the money. You don't waste a high draft pick if you have a starter and a former 1st round pick who you are EXTREMELY high on (and, based on what transpired we KNOW they were high on Arod).

That is exactly when you take a low pick and hope to develop him.

We know you dislike TT retail, but you have enough legitimate reasons without stooping to moronic arguments like this.

Tyrone Bigguns. What do you feel gives you the right to label anyone (as a moron) or specifically any stance by a poster here as moronic?

Furthermore. How can you continue to get away with your stinking attitude and overall negative conrtribution to this forum? Who do you imagine you are mister to go on and on as you do and are allowed to?

[mraynrand]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

No way, with BF and ARod on the team they don't use a 2nd to draft Brohm. That is when you pick a QB in the 7th to develop.

100% on the money. You don't waste a high draft pick if you have a starter and a former 1st round pick who you are EXTREMELY high on (and, based on what transpired we KNOW they were high on Arod).

That is exactly when you take a low pick and hope to develop him.

We know you dislike TT retail, but you have enough legitimate reasons aside from this argument..

Tyrone Bigguns. I would appreciate it if you used less incendiary language. I will do so as well.


Edited by Mary Poppins

[Fritz]

Really. I don't believe it affected that draft. I think we'd still have Brohm. You could build a case that we wouldn't have Flynn, but you can't build it that we wouldn't have Brohm.

No way, with BF and ARod on the team they don't use a 2nd to draft Brohm. That is when you pick a QB in the 7th to develop.

100% on the money. You don't waste a high draft pick if you have a starter and a former 1st round pick who you are EXTREMELY high on (and, based on what transpired we KNOW they were high on Arod).

That is exactly when you take a low pick and hope to develop him.

We know you dislike TT retail, but you have enough legitimate reasons without stooping to moronic arguments like this.

Tyrone Bigguns. What do you feel gives you the right to label anyone (as a moron) or specifically any stance by a poster here as moronic?

Furthermore. How can you continue to get away with your stinking attitude and overall negative conrtribution to this forum? Who do you imagine you are mister to go on and on as you do and are allowed to?

Me, I'm perfectly fine with one poster labeling another's post as moronic or asinine. People make idiotic posts all the time, and if you focus on the idiocy of the post and have good reasons to explain why the post is moronic or idiotic or asinine, and you don't assail the person, then why not?

[get louder at lambeau]

Me, I'm perfectly fine with one poster labeling another's post as moronic or asinine. People make idiotic posts all the time, and if you focus on the idiocy of the post and have good reasons to explain why the post is moronic or idiotic or asinine, and you don't assail the person, then why not?

That's asinine. What a moronic post.

[mraynrand]

Me, I'm perfectly fine with one poster labeling another's post as moronic or asinine. People make idiotic posts all the time, and if you focus on the idiocy of the post and have good reasons to explain why the post is moronic or idiotic or asinine, and you don't assail the person, then why not?

That's asinine. What a moronic post.

Expletive deleted by Administrator

[TennesseePackerBacker]

With a name like The Administrator I feel like we're all in a bad 1980's movie inspired futuristic prison.

[Guiness]

Me, I'm perfectly fine with one poster labeling another's post as moronic or asinine. People make idiotic posts all the time, and if you focus on the idiocy of the post and have good reasons to explain why the post is moronic or idiotic or asinine, and you don't assail the person, then why not?

That's asinine. What a moronic post.

I know. He's a big fat jerk, really.

Hey Fritz...You suck!

:lol: :lol: :lol: (for the humour impaired)

[SnakeLH2006]

There were several here that touted that Ted never ignores BPA. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I don't believe that Favre retiring affected anything Ted did at all.

Ted himself is on record as saying that you can't always go with BPA because (in his words) "otherwise you might end up drafting six quarterbacks."

Lurker, that is worth a sig.