Written by Chris Hutchison

---

The Draft is finally here.  Whoopee.  

Too bad I'm sick to death of it.

Have been for weeks.

There seems so little to talk about at this point.  Everything that could've been said has been said 5000 times before.  No new news, nothing but manufactured or planted stories from this expert and that.

Nowadays, fans of bad teams start discussing the draft in mid-October.  Browns fans are so progressive that they have already begun discussing the 2013 draft in anticipation of another horrific season.

By the time the Draft actually rolls around, everyone has beaten every topic to death, and everyone has suddenly become an "expert" who KNOWS that the team must take Player X and will burn down Berea if they take Player Y.

Draft overload came a month ago (when the Draft should've been - for the love of Zeus, move that shit up).  Now, it's just overflow.

So, naturally, I feel compelled to provide even more white noise.  If you're hopelessly addicted as I am, you'll probably read it anyway.

_____________________

Regarding The Options At #4

There are 5 gentlemen commonly perceived to be the top candidates to walk onstage at Radio City Music Hall at pick #4 on Thursday: Justin Blackmon (WR - Oklahoma State), Morris Claiborne (CB - LSU), Matt Kalil (T - USC), Trent Richardson (RB - Alabama), and Ryan Tannehill (QB - Texas A&M).

Here's a brief breakdown, in reverse order of how I'd select them. 

_____________________

#5 - Ryan Tannehill

Pros - Good arm.  Nice touch over the middle.  Very dangerous on the run, both passing and running.  Good size, athleticism.  Seems like he can take a beating.  Came from a West Coast type offense.

Cons - Stares down his receivers.  Seems to wind up on some throws.  Makes some bad decisions.  Not accurate on outside passes (high or low).  Throws some wobblers.  Does not perform well under big-game pressure.

QB is the most important position in the NFL, and if there is a Franchise QB available, the Browns MUST take him.

But I don't think there's one left in this Draft.

You can hide high pick mistakes at almost all other positions, but not QB.  You screw up there, you be intercoursed.

Whether or not to pick Tannehill has NOTHING to do with Colt McCoy.  Colt McCoy is not the answer.  We know this.  This is not about whether or not Tannehill is an upgrade over Colt or putting faith in Colt or any such nonsense.

This is about whether or not Tannehill is The Answer.

If he's not, taking him at #4 not only robs you of taking a different impact player, it sets you back 3 to 4 years at that essential position. As a GM, there's really no bigger mistake you can make.  Kicking a blind nun is more acceptable.

If you draft Tannehill at #4, then Year One has him gradually working his way into the starting lineup, Year Two has him starting and "learning the ropes", and Year Three is "he needs to take a step forward".  If he takes that step forward, great, he's your Franchise guy.  If he doesn't, then Year Four is "last chance" and Year Five is "New QB, New Regime, Clean House, Start Over Again".  If you even get that far.

If they stick with Colt and he sucks again (which is likely), then it only cost them one season.  Colt's easily expendable - late 3rd rounder, QB's don't fall that far if teams think it probable that they'll be franchise starters.

Most experts feel that Tannehill will need a year to "develop" on the bench.  Let's set aside that #4 is WAY too high to be taking project guys... What the shag is Tannehill going to learn watching Colt McCoy from the bench?  Colt isn't good, doesn't have a great grasp of the system, isn't a veteran, and will get pulled amidst "Tan-ny!" chants by Game 5 if he's blowing goats.

What I'm saying is that Tannehill might be able to ease into the role of franchise QB somewhere else, but the chances of that happening here are low.

Since the RG3 fiasco, I've watched a lot of Tannehill tape, hoping desperately (like many of you) that he was a viable alternative.  What I see is what I saw from Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder last year - 2nd round developmental types that shot up the charts LATE because of the hellish need and importance of that position.  I don't even like him as much as Brandon Weeden, straight-up.

It's called Forcing a Pick.  (Which, ironically, is what lots of teams did to Gabbert and Ponder.)

Guys like Gabbert and Ponder and Tannehill... there are a few available in every Draft.  You don't have to force the picks when you could just pick one up in the 2nd/3rd round.  Or next year.  Just not in the Top 5, thank you very much.  That's reserved for the Andrew Lucks and the Robert Griffin III's of the world.

I will say this - Heckert is well aware that taking Tannehill would be a huge gamble, a Do-or-Die type selection, and if he was so sold on the guy anyway, it would have to be because he was ABSOLUTELY DAMN SURE that he was the real deal.  And if Heckert feels that strongly about the dude, then I'd have to give it my skeptical "you better be right" seal of approval.  And get ready for a really scary ride that has every chance of flying off the rails into a tsunami full of piranhas.

Fortunately, I highly doubt it'll come to that.  Too risky - plenty to lose.

_____________________

#4 - Matt Kalil

Pros - Very talented Tackle that will fill a position of huge need.  A stellar backup at LT should anything happen to Joe Thomas (God forbid).

Cons - #4 overall is a really high to be taking a Right Tackle.  Plays Left Tackle, so switching to Right Tackle is not a sure-fire success.  Run blocking is not his forte, which is considered essential for a RT.

Realistically, I don't think he'll be available.  Minnesota would be foolish to pass up a franchise Left Tackle prospect.  But if Kalil does fall to the Browns, I believe they will try to use him as trade bait.  I don't see them actually taking the guy.  Yes, they desperately need to address the Right Tackle position, but there are plenty of guys that could probably play the position just as well - if not better - later in the Draft.  Guys like Cordy Glenn (Georgia) and Jonathan Martin (Standford) are top prospects that will very possibly be available at 22.

Yet I can't/won't cry if Cleveland takes him.  Solving a position like that for the next 8-10 years is nothing to wring our hands over, and instantly gives the Browns one of the top Offensive Lines in the NFL.

Don't put money on it, though.

_____________________

#3 - Morris Claiborne

Pros - You can never have too many Corners, and Claiborne is a really good one.  Bookending him with Joe Haden gives you one of the top CB tandems in the league and allows you to blitz the Safeties with more frequency since you assume you can trust those 2 to lock down the primary Receivers a second or two longer than the norm.

Cons - Claiborne isn't all that big, nor is he all that fast.  He's not as good a prospect as last year's Patrick Peterson.  Pass rush is what drives QB mistakes - any Corner can be beaten if you aren't getting pressure on the passer, making a pick like this one that is somewhat low-impact.

I'm really torn on this one.  Corners ARE valuable, and taking Claiborne allows you to move Sheldon Brown to Safety, giving the team a formidable secondary for an already decent Pass Defense.

But I do agree with the theory that he will make far less of a splash overall than some of the premiere offensive weapons available.  And with an Offense as bad as Cleveland's, it almost seems shameful to ignore it with a high pick that you hope that you don't have again anytime soon.

Chances are real good that Mo's the selection, though, especially if someone trades up to snatch Richardson at #3.

_____________________

#2 - Justin Blackmon

Pros - Incredibly productive WR that plays bigger and faster than his measurables.  Uses his body well to create position.  A playmaker that will instantly elevate the Browns' WR corps to "Good", giving whomever plays QB less excuses for sucking.  A position of great need.

Cons - Not a physical freak as you'd like for a WR at #4 overall.  May have trouble gaining separation at the NFL level.  Might have an attitude issue about coming to Cleveland.

I wanted this guy last year before he declared he was returning to school, and I still want him.  I know that he's not super-fast or super-big, but he makes plays consistently.  Detractors argue that he would've been the 3rd WR in last year's draft, but I don't necessarily buy that since he was ahead of Julio Jones on most people's 2011 mock drafts before he pulled himself out of the running.

Could Jones have passed him after his fantabulous, dreamy Combine?  Yeah, maybe.

I just don't think it's a slam-dunk assumption. It's safer to say that Blackmon and Jones would be in a 2A/2B discussion, mainly b/c the smaller/slower Blackmon was crazy-more-productive, and Larry Fitzgerald has shown that measurables don't always trump productivity. If it were all about size/speed, Stephen Hill would be a Top 5 pick and Darius Heyward-Bey wouldn't suck.

Not that I at all think Blackmon will be Fitzgerald... Blackmon likely won't be a Top 10 WR, but neither is Jones. I think he'll be right around that Jones area, - more receptions, less yards per catch, about the same TD's (54 catches, 950 yds, 8 TD's).

So even though Blackmon fills a huge need and will instantly upgrade the Offense, you just don't feel like you're getting #4 overall value with him.  Especially when the difference between him and the 3 or 4 guys after him isn't incredibly noticeable.

_____________________

#1 - Trent Richardson

Pros - By far the best RB in the Draft, possibly since Adrian Petersen.  Catches the ball well, is tough, durable, strong, fast, and fills a position of great need.  A good blocker.  Considered by many to be one of the best 3 prospects in the entire draft (along with Luck & RG3).  Can be plugged in and expected to be productive immediately.

Cons - Effective RB's can be taken later in the draft.  RB's have a short shelf life, so reasoning has it that you only pick one this high if you feel you are ready to make a strong Playoff run, which the Browns clearly are not.

I do get that RB has become a devalued position in today's pass-giddy NFL, and that decent backs can be had all over the first 3 rounds.  But if your mission is to truly get better as soon as you possibly can, Trent Richardson is the man that will most enable that.

Unlike Blackmon and even Morris, Richardson is the clear-cut #1 RB.  He's a terrific prospect, a perennial Pro Bowl-type guy.  The Browns cleared the runways for a pick like this by not bothering to re-sign Peyton Hillis, perhaps deciding they wanted a long-term upgrade at that position.

If you draft a guy like Richardson, you make him the focal point of your Offense.  More runs, more screens, don't have to replace him on 3rd down... your only worry is that you use him too much.

Plus, factor in the concept that of all the gentlemen available at this spot, he not only makes the biggest immediate impact but also has likely the lowest bust factor.

And if you're the Cleveland Browns, you need to be taking a guy at that spot that won't shame you.  Safe, solid, fills a need, no one else available there is so spectacular that you would bemoan taking a RB before him... it almost feels like a no-brainer selection.

If he's there.

_____________________

Regarding Which One It Will Be

I tend to dislike Mike Holmgren press conferences.  He can be blustery and a lot of what he says just feels like lip flapping.  I don't mind the half-assed explanations or downright lying as much as most people - it's part of his job to do that stuff.  Telling the truth isn't necessarily any more productive than pure spin, and there's a lot of stuff that it's just not productive to have the general public know about.  Still... not fun.

But I do like Tom Heckert pressers.  When he talks, it makes sense, and I get the feeling that his reasoning is sound and that he's as straight-forward as he can be.

As this is Draft time, complete honesty is hard to come by.  As it should be.

For instance, very early in Thursday's pre-Draft press conference, he said:

"There is more than one guy and they don't know who we are thinking about taking. It really wouldn't affect us that much if they did because we are happy with one of a few guys. It wouldn't be a big deal to us to be honest with you."

Much later, he stated:

"When you are talking about top guys it's probably not going to be a tie. There are definitely guys who are one, two, three and four for us. There is not a tie."

Translation - his first statement about not caring is like when I goad other players to "go ahead and call my raise" when I have a 2 and a 10 off-suit.  He has someone in mind, and he wants that guy bad. 

He tried to clarify that like this:

“There might be five guys we are considering, but we know we are going to get one out of the two guys. Do you know what I’m saying? Our top two guys, we are going to get one of them.”

Well no shit.  An aardvark could do that math.  But one is #1 and one is #2.  There are no ties.  And I'm bettin' that you're desperate to not end up with the guy that was ultimately the 4th best player in a 3 star draft.

(On if he would have any hesitations taking a running back with the fourth pick)- "No."

Not much else was said on the Trent Richardson front (and what he said was lukewarm), but clearly a possibility, especially if he's trying to undersell the guy.

"Defensive backs wise, it's not a great group. There are a couple guys that are really good and he is obviously a really, really good player. You have to have corners. You have to have three legit corners to survive in this league and that's why corners are such a big deal. He is a really, really good one."

That all could be hyperbole, but I think it would be no shock to see Morris Claiborne taken.  Heckert has said before that the positions he values above all others are QB, CB, LT, and Pass Rushers.

(On the reasoning for working out Matt Kalil)- "Anybody that we are thinking about taking at four, we want to know the most we can about them.

(On how high a priority is the right tackle position)- "I don't know. It would be great. Obviously, if you can get a really good one, it's great. Now, if you look in the league, there are a lot teams playing with guys that you've never heard of, to be honest with you. We think we have guys who can step in and play. Oniel (Cousins) played a little bit last year and we have (John) Greco who could play there. We do have guys who can play there, we are not saying we don't. But yes, we are looking for one."

It seems unlikely that the team would take a Right Tackle at 4, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to guess that they plan to address that position early, since not even Heckert can sell that he would be fine with Cousins or Greco as a starter.  Still...

"Left tackle is probably not where we would go."

How about Justin Blackmon?

(On if Justin Blackmon stacks up to other recent top five receivers like A.J. Green and Calvin Johnson)- “From a college standpoint, yeah they stack up. But those guys you are talking about, Calvin Johnson, those guys have had great careers. A.J. Green had a great rookie year so it’s tough to compare them. From a college standpoint, he stacks up. Heck yeah. You are talking about a guy in the top five, everybody is talking about him, or wherever top 10, then yeah he is a good player.”

Translation - He's a good Receiver.  But he's not special. 

And on the last guy that all the experts believe could possibly be on the Browns list at 4:

"People talk about Ryan Tannehill flying up the draft board after his workout. That is simply not true. With most players, where they are now is the same where they were after the season. He had a good workout, but to be honest with you, I haven't seen a lot of people have bad workouts. It's a workout, it's not a game. So, wherever somebody had him, that's probably where they still have him. He is a good player and he's obviously very new to the position having played wide receiver.

(On if he views the top three or four picks as starters for this season)- "Yes. That's always the case. Definitely."

"If you are drafting a kid early you are probably going to play him, in my opinion. If you draft a kid early, whatever first round, you are probably going to want to start him.”

(On how big of a setback it is to miss on a top five draft pick)- “It’s a big setback because obviously you are hoping for a good player for a long time. You are talking about what is supposed to be a really good football player. Everybody wants the 10 year Pro Bowler, which is fine, but I’ll take the two year Pro Bowler rather than a bust. You don’t want a bust, you can’t have a bust. That’s what you are trying to avoid.”

Unless he's got me completely fooled, the Browns are not taking Ryan Tannehill.

Part of me believes the choice will be Richardson, not only because many experts think it makes sense, but, well, because it confirms my personal opinion.

But if I were to go by his past statements about positions of importance and take the presser at face value and read between the lines, the choice will be Claiborne.

_____________________

Regarding Teams Trading Up

Speculation has run rampant that the Browns will take Richardson at 4, so now teams that want him and believe the hype must ask themselves if it's worth it to trade up.  Teams like the Jets, Tampa, and, yes, St. Louis.

The last couple days has been rife with thoughts about the Rams trading up from 6 to 3 and nabbing Richardson, breaking Cleveland's collective heart again.  Obviously, they'd jettison Steven Jackson (who wants a long-term contract) at that juncture.

It would probably take one of their 2nd round picks to move from 6 to 3, which means that they netted two 1st round picks in their 2 trades to move down from #2 but still get Richardson.

Had they taken the Browns alleged offer for the #2 pick, they would have netted two 1st round picks and also been in position to get Richardson.

Which gives Holmgren's assertion that the offer they made was "every bit as good as Washington's" some credence.  Guess it's good to have friends.

_____________________

Regarding Some Other Stuff Heckert Said

"We always like to stay where we're at, but if we think we can get a similar type of player and get something for it I just don't understand why not. Why wouldn't you do that? It has nothing to do with building for the future, I think it's just smart. The more draft picks you have the better off you are going to be."

Agree completely.  If they can trade down and pick up an extra 2nd rounder, I would embrace it with all the fondness of a long-lost brother returning home from a war with space vampires.

"I would say I wouldn’t do that trade (last year's trade with Atlanta) this year. I think we are further along than last year in terms of talent. Moving all the way down to that pick, it would be tough for me to do this year.”

Good.  I liked last year's trade, but they need to get a guy who's at or near the top of his position now.

"Colt (McCoy) looks great by the way. We like Colt, we do. I think at any position... if we find somebody that we think is a really good player and is better than that guy then we are going to do it. That’s all positions, it’s not Colt."

For all the public whining from people worried about Colt's psyche, this is the exact thing they need to hear.  And if Colt is privately whining, then he needs to hear it too.  If you want to secure your job, earn it. 

_____________________

Regarding Brandon Weeden

If you're into Heckert underselling guys he wants and trying to hide his hand, check out some of the defensive quotes he made about Weeden:

(On if they factor in Brandon Weeden’s age when evaluating him)- “You have to, you just have to. Is it a big deal? No, but it’s there. It’s like anything else. You want all your draft picks to play 10 years and if he plays 10 years, he’s going to be 39 years old. It’s a factor... It’s something that you have to use your head and (see) if you want a guy who is older. The other question is whether you think the guy is a starter or a guy that can start. That’s where some teams are going to say, ‘Do you want a 29 year old backup rookie quarterback?’ Whoever decides to take him, that’s what they are going to have to decide.”

(On if he thinks Weeden is good enough to start)- “I have my opinion on it, but I can’t tell you that. I’ll tell you that when the draft is over Saturday night (joking).”

(On what he thinks about Weeden as a quarterback)- “I’m not telling you. I’ve got a draft here in a week. Do you want me to tell you where we have these guys rated? There are a lot of stories out there right now that I like and I want to keep a lot of them where they’re at.

I'm calling bluff.

I think they think Weeden is the clear #3 QB in this Draft, a guy that would be a Top 10 QB easy if he were 23 and that they feel they can get as a super-bargain instant-starter just because he's a little older.

I'm down with that logic (assuming it's shared and not something I just projected on them).  Weeden throws a much nicer ball than Tannehill, more accurate.  He beat Tannehill, Luck, and RG3 head-to-head, so he performs in big games.  His age is a bit of deterrent, but if he can be solid for 6 years... well, that would be 5 more solid years than we've gotten from any other QB since '99.  And it means that he won't need maturing.  He's older and he's already played pro sports (MLB).

As with Tannehill, I'm unconvinced that he's a "Franchise" QB, especially since his window is narrower time-wise.  But at, say, 37, he's much less of a risk.  And if they were to take Blackmon at 4, pairing Weeden up with him is a very crafty move.

Weeden or no-Weeden, I'm fine.  If they pass on him, it's to get some other player which will likely be a huge help for the team, and it's not like there won't be a Weeden-like guy available next year too.  But upgrading that QB spot in this Draft also lessens the likelihood that 2012 is yet another throw-away season, so it's got that going for it.  Which is nice.

_____________________

Regarding The Schedule

The release of the 2012 Browns schedule caused much hand-wringing across the tri-state area.  "Woe!" many shouted from various rooftops.  "How will they win a game?  0-16!  Who can they possibly beat?"

Listen, there aren't many teams that the Browns are clearly better than, if any.

There are many teams that they're just about as good as (or should I say that are about as bad as them).

Of the teams that are clearly better than they are, some will have bad days when they play. Some will lose key players. Do the Broncs scare you without Manning? Giants without the other Manning? Take any team that has a franchise/elite QB off their starting roster and see what happens.

You can't claim that the 2012 schedule is harder than the 2011 schedule based on how those teams did in 2011. What happens if the Steelers hit a bad patch and go 6-10? Giants suffer post SB fever and flounder at 7-9 (hardly hard to imagine since they were 9-7 last year)? Would you be shocked if any of the AFC West bombed? The "harder schedule" concept is, to me, illogical since the actual accumulated quality of the teams on it is unknowable. Schedules almost always hover around the median over a 17 game schedule.

So if the 2012 schedule ends up being about the same as the 2011 schedule, you have to look at the Browns themselves. Why were they 4-12 in 2011? New Coach, who sucked. Colt was bad in the new system. RB's were in and out, hurt most of the year. Not much in the WR dept. Bad bad bad play at RT. Inability to stop the run.

Let's say they draft Richardson at 4, Cordy Glenn or Jonathan Martin at 22, and maybe Hill at 37. Is that not a significant upgrade at RB from Hillis? Is it not safe to assume that the 1st rd RT will be more effective than Pashos? Would not another playmaking WR help that position?

In addition, isn't it safe to assume that Shurmur in his 2nd year will be a little bit better? That Colt, with a full offseason and better weapons, won't suck quite so much?

Thus, I find it illogical to assume the Browns will be worse than last year, a team that won 4 games and quite easily could've pulled out several others.

And that is why I find a 2 win assumption also illogical, just as illogical as a 9 win prediction. Believable, yes. But illogical.