Jonothan harrison

[OLD FAN MAN]

I guess my question is then why wasn't Shipley a long term solution? 

bruce arians thinks so

[throwing BBZ]

That was the article I read... that he and Holmes were splitting snaps.

 

IMO, Harrison was terrible and I said as much even after his first game.  His technique was bad, he may be strong but he did not play strong,  And every team knew that if you put the DTs over the guards and bring up a LB over Harrison that Harrison would snap and step towards the LB and open a hole between he and the guard which another LB would run through.  This happened two or three times a game.

 

His biggest weakness however was his line calls.  Many times a defender would come free and at first I thought it was the blocking scheme but it did not happen anywhere near as often with Shipley or Holmes in there and it is, IMO, the biggest reason why the line looked so much better after Holmes came in.  Holmes played well but it was his ability to put the lineman on the proper guy that made the biggest difference.  And some people, mistakenly, think that line calls are something that can be taught but only somewhat.  It's more like QB accuracy, some improvement can be made but a center either has it or he doesn't and I don't think Harrison has it.

 

Lastly, the Colts don't have anyone on the team named Jonothan Harrison, he has two T's in his name Jonotthan.  Not trying to pick on anyone, I just believe if you are going to talk about a player, the courtesy of spelling his name correctly should be extended.

 

 ! With all these Regular posters who still can`t spell Castonzo correctly after 4 years. It is Meaningless!

[throwing BBZ]

I think Harrison starting last year is one of a number of questionable OL moves over the last few years.  I think I understand what we were thinking: based on what the OL coach saw in TC, they felt that Harrison just needed experience to be a better option than Shipley.  So, they hoped that Harrison would steadily improve with the PT and be the best option by the playoffs.  However, he never improved one bit during the year, and it took them 10 games to bench him.  Now, much of it probably has to do with the fact that Holmes' injury took that long to sufficiently heal.  Since we were somewhat running away with the division, there was no real need to bring Khaled back too soon and risk that he wouldn't be available for the playoffs.  It was a risky move to bench the obviously superior Shipley in favor of a rookie FA, knowing that Harrison was not yet "ready" to start.  It was a risk that pretty much bit us in the butt.  All that being said, I'm sure that Harrison is a better player from having started 10 games.  I expect Holmes to win the center competition, but Harrison should be much more ready to step in with another TC/preseason if something should happen to Holmes...

 

 Agree 100%.

 And our team needs a backup center for the game day roster that also plays Guard. That is where Shipley Fails.

 For this season Harrison will be given every opportunity to develop into a Starting center or be that game day multi position backup.

 I wonder, is, will Thomas also get snaps at center?

[Coffeedrinker]

He has bounced around the league so far in his career. Short arms, lack of strength and explosion off the ball. Decent backup, low potential guy, but doesn't drive his man backwards often enough. His technique is solid though, and hes a smart dude.

A few comments:  One, who cares if he's bounced around the league, that has no bearing on whether or not he's a long term answer.

 

Short arms:  Yup he has short arms and it's an attribute that has some bearing on how well an NFL lineman does.

Lack of strength:  This comment is not true at all

Lack of explosion off the ball:  Again not true.  He doesn't have the explosion of a Hudson or Pouncey but his explosion is in the range of what an NFL lineman needs to have.

Low potential:  As I asked in another post (of someone else) define potential and how you know what his potential is?

Drive his man backwards often enough:  I assume you know that not every time he run blocks he's supposed to push his guy backwards, there are schemes where, depending on who is reading the center, they may actually have him make it look like he's pass blocking rather than run blocking.  So, how many times did he not drive his man backwards when he was supposed to?  

[horseshoeblue22]

A few comments: One, who cares if he's bounced around the league, that has no bearing on whether or not he's a long term answer.

Short arms: Yup he has short arms and it's an attribute that has some bearing on how well an NFL lineman does.

Lack of strength: This comment is not true at all

Lack of explosion off the ball: Again not true. He doesn't have the explosion of a Hudson or Pouncey but his explosion is in the range of what an NFL lineman needs to have.

Low potential: As I asked in another post (of someone else) define potential and how you know what his potential is?

Drive his man backwards often enough: I assume you know that not every time he run blocks he's supposed to push his guy backwards, there are schemes where, depending on who is reading the center, they may actually have him make it look like he's pass blocking rather than run blocking. So, how many times did he not drive his man backwards when he was supposed to?

Define potential? In the NFL its synonymous with general athletic ability. Guys like Donte Moncrief and Justin Hunter have it, guys like Griff Whalen don't. By NFL standards, Shipley is not a good athlete. But he has made a solid career out of good technique and intangibles. He does all the little things well.

The Ravens moved on from Shipley because they didnt see him as a long term answer. It was obvious when Indy benched him for Harrison because Jon was a better athlete.

Theres a general sense in the NFL that you can teach an athlete to be better at football, but you cant teach a football player to be a better athlete. Harrison didnt work out because his texhnique was poor and he couldnt remember the snap count or blocking assignments. But theres the reason they benched Ship and gave Harrison a shot.

[akcolt]

 Agree 100%.

 And our team needs a backup center for the game day roster that also plays Guard. That is where Shipley Fails.

 For this season Harrison will be given every opportunity to develop into a Starting center or be that game day multi position backup.

 I wonder, is, will Thomas also get snaps at center?

Harrison certainly offers more versatility he even started a game at LT vs Penn St in the Outback Bowl in college.

 

I think he is our starting C this year. The game slows down for him. He can just play not have to over think everything and he wins the job. I see Holmes not making it to week 1 for the 3rd year in a row.

 

If coach rah rah is saying you can't stay off the trainers table there is a problem.

[Coffeedrinker]

Define potential? In the NFL its synonymous with general athletic ability. Guys like Donte Moncrief and Justin Hunter have it, guys like Griff Whalen don't. By NFL standards, Shipley is not a good athlete. But he has made a solid career out of good technique and intangibles. He does all the little things well.

The Ravens moved on from Shipley because they didnt see him as a long term answer. It was obvious when Indy benched him for Harrison because Jon was a better athlete.

Theres a general sense in the NFL that you can teach an athlete to be better at football, but you cant teach a football player to be a better athlete. Harrison didnt work out because his texhnique was poor and he couldnt remember the snap count or blocking assignments. But theres the reason they benched Ship and gave Harrison a shot.

Nice circular logic, Shipley is not a long term answer because teams got rid of him and the reason teams got rid of him is because he's not a long term answer.  

 

Additionally, potential is nothing more than athletic ability? Give me a break.

 

Just Colts related, here are some things I have heard about potential over the years:

 

Leaf has a higher ceiling than Peyton Manning.

 

Ricky Williams has more potential than E. James.

 

Key Johnson has more potential than Marvin Harrison.

 

Tony Ugoh has the potential to be a long time LT in this league.

 

RGIII has more potential than Luck.

 

TY Hilton doesn't have the tools to be a #1 WR in the NFL.

 

The list goes on.  Potential is the word fans and reporters use when they can't justify their opinion on a player.

[horseshoeblue22]

Nice circular logic, Shipley is not a long term answer because teams got rid of him and the reason teams got rid of him is because he's not a long term answer.

Additionally, potential is nothing more than athletic ability? Give me a break.

Just Colts related, here are some things I have heard about potential over the years:

Leaf has a higher ceiling than Peyton Manning.

Ricky Williams has more potential than E. James.

Key Johnson has more potential than Marvin Harrison.

Tony Ugoh has the potential to be a long time LT in this league.

RGIII has more potential than Luck.

TY Hilton doesn't have the tools to be a #1 WR in the NFL.

The list goes on. Potential is the word fans and reporters use when they can't justify their opinion on a player.

I don't get your arguement. RG3 is more athletic than Luck. Ricky was more athletic than James. "Potential" just means more athletic, better measurables, combine performance, etc. Potential alone doesn't make you a superstar, you have to work hard, stay healthy, be tough, be committed and have intelligence and memory retention. These are often referred to as "intangibles".

They do the combine to gauge speed, size, agility, etc aka "measurables". They do interviews to gauge the intangibles. Often times, a player wont succeed without all of the above.

Shipley has the intangibles, but he is limited athleticly. He has made a nice career, but tends to get replaced because there has been a bigger, stronger, faster guy breathing down his neck chomping at the bit to get NFL experience. You can teach a young guy how to play football, but you cant teach a guy like Shipley how to be bigger, faster and stronger.

Right or wrong, any coach with confidence in his own ability to teach will follow this theory. Shipley is like the OL version of Griff Whalen. Griff is a solid player, does everything right, but he will never be a pro bowler. He will never be a starter. He just isn't an athlete on par with other NFL WRs. A guy like Moncrief comes in, pushes Whalen down the depth chart. A guy like Dorsett comes in, pushes Whalen off the team.

Every team Shipley has ever played for has passed him over for a bigger, stronger, faster option. Except ARI, who will be looking to replace him in another year or two.

I have nothing against the guy. Hes probably better than Holmes or Harrison now. Just shedding light on why the staff replaced him and why he wasnt considered a "long term solution".

[krunk]

Does anybody think Brandon Vitabile can give Holmes or Harrison a challenge? Can he win a roster spot from either of them?

[Coffeedrinker]

I don't get your arguement. RG3 is more athletic than Luck. Ricky was more athletic than James. "Potential" just means more athletic, better measurables, combine performance, etc. Potential alone doesn't make you a superstar, you have to work hard, stay healthy, be tough, be committed and have intelligence and memory retention. These are often referred to as "intangibles".

They do the combine to gauge speed, size, agility, etc aka "measurables". They do interviews to gauge the intangibles. Often times, a player wont succeed without all of the above.

Shipley has the intangibles, but he is limited athleticly. He has made a nice career, but tends to get replaced because there has been a bigger, stronger, faster guy breathing down his neck chomping at the bit to get NFL experience. You can teach a young guy how to play football, but you cant teach a guy like Shipley how to be bigger, faster and stronger.

Right or wrong, any coach with confidence in his own ability to teach will follow this theory. Shipley is like the OL version of Griff Whalen. Griff is a solid player, does everything right, but he will never be a pro bowler. He will never be a starter. He just isn't an athlete on par with other NFL WRs. A guy like Moncrief comes in, pushes Whalen down the depth chart. A guy like Dorsett comes in, pushes Whalen off the team.

Every team Shipley has ever played for has passed him over for a bigger, stronger, faster option. Except ARI, who will be looking to replace him in another year or two.

I have nothing against the guy. Hes probably better than Holmes or Harrison now. Just shedding light on why the staff replaced him and why he wasnt considered a "long term solution".

You didn't shed any light on why he's not a long term solution.  All you did was state that Indy and Baltimore did not think he was.  I believe (because there is no way for me to prove it) that if a young Saturday (1 or 2 years in the league), this current FO would not have given him the chance to be a 12 year starter and one of the best centers in the first decade of the millennium.

 

And my argument was that you using potential and athletic ability as synonyms is ridiculous.  Potential is the ability to improve beyond your current level.  Athletic ability does not mean you will improve beyond your current level, as you mentioned above, it takes hard work, study, be tough, committed to improving, all of that equals potential and that cannot be measured, at least by fans who have no idea what the players do when they are not on the field.

[horseshoeblue22]

I stated why they did not think he was. Because they thought the other guys were superior athletes.

Some guys play to their "potential", others don't. Justin Hunter has all the physical tools to be successful, but hasnt been productive. But when you look at his measurables, you see a guy who isn't playing at his "full potential". He just doesn't "get it." Whether its a lack of commitment or whatever, hes a guy seen as someone who could have a huge year once he "gets it." Whalen "gets it" but doesnt have the raw physical tools to be successful.

[Jim H.]

I think he can be.... Keep in mind he was a UDFA. He played very well at Florida in college.

He played well in the NFL for an UDFA! He's got potential! I think he is strong and very athletic. Just lacks some technique and coaching can usually help or fix that!

!

[Archer]

You didn't shed any light on why he's not a long term solution.  All you did was state that Indy and Baltimore did not think he was.  I believe (because there is no way for me to prove it) that if a young Saturday (1 or 2 years in the league), this current FO would not have given him the chance to be a 12 year starter and one of the best centers in the first decade of the millennium.

 

And my argument was that you using potential and athletic ability as synonyms is ridiculous.  Potential is the ability to improve beyond your current level.  Athletic ability does not mean you will improve beyond your current level, as you mentioned above, it takes hard work, study, be tough, committed to improving, all of that equals potential and that cannot be measured, at least by fans who have no idea what the players do when they are not on the field.

 

Look, I don't think we all disagree very much on this "potential" issue.  HSB22 put it well when he made the point that you can teach a great athete to be a better football player, but you can't teach a football player to be a better athlete.  These technique guys like Shipley consistently outplay much better athletes, but they reach a ceiling based upon their athletic limitations.  Those ceilings can be quite high (maybe Jeff Saturday???), but with the way these guys work, the overachievers (yeah, that's the term I'll use) usually get replaced by better athletes.  As far as Shipley goes, I think we tossed him out too soon.  He should have been allowed to keep his job until someone beat him out (which wouldn't have happened last year).  He's going to be a good player in this league, largely because center is one of the most cerebral positions on the team and the mental game is more important...

[horseshoeblue22]

Look, I don't think we all disagree very much on this "potential" issue. HSB22 put it well when he made the point that you can teach a great athete to be a better football player, but you can't teach a football player to be a better athlete. These technique guys like Shipley consistently outplay much better athletes, but they reach a ceiling based upon their athletic limitations. Those ceilings can be quite high (maybe Jeff Saturday???), but with the way these guys work, the overachievers (yeah, that's the term I'll use) usually get replaced by better athletes. As far as Shipley goes, I think we tossed him out too soon. He should have been allowed to keep his job until someone beat him out (which wouldn't have happened last year). He's going to be a good player in this league, largely because center is one of the most cerebral positions on the team and the mental game is more important...

Thanks. I really don't want to explain this again.

[akcolt]

Does anybody think Brandon Vitabile can give Holmes or Harrison a challenge? Can he win a roster spot from either of them?

Seeing that Holmes has yet to make it to week 1 healthy I'd say he has a shot

[Coffeedrinker]

Look, I don't think we all disagree very much on this "potential" issue.  HSB22 put it well when he made the point that you can teach a great athete to be a better football player, but you can't teach a football player to be a better athlete.  These technique guys like Shipley consistently outplay much better athletes, but they reach a ceiling based upon their athletic limitations.  Those ceilings can be quite high (maybe Jeff Saturday???), but with the way these guys work, the overachievers (yeah, that's the term I'll use) usually get replaced by better athletes.  As far as Shipley goes, I think we tossed him out too soon.  He should have been allowed to keep his job until someone beat him out (which wouldn't have happened last year).  He's going to be a good player in this league, largely because center is one of the most cerebral positions on the team and the mental game is more important...

If what you say about potential is true (which it is not), for WRs and CBs why do teams draft guys that played WR and CB in college?  Why not draft track stars?  The answer is simple, it takes more than athletic ability, just because someone has great athletic ability does not mean they have the potential to be a good football player.  And just because someone his a better athlete does not mean they have a higher ceiling than a less athletic person.  There are examples of that all over the NFL.  A prime example, the Dolphins wanted to trade Vontae Davis because they felt he was an CB who was somewhat limited atheltically (he is in the average range for speed for an NFL CB) and had they figured he had reached the ceiling of his potential.  He comes to the Colts and they work on his technique, diet and dedication to the game and now he is arguably a top 3 CB in the NFL.  Miami replaced Davis with better athletes that are not better football players.

 

Jeff Saturday is another one.  Considered an overachiever (which my definition means achieved beyond the expected level, the expected level is the ceiling of potential), too small and too weak to play in the NFL.  

Another example the other way.  DHB was considered a great athlete.. he has size, speed, agility, etc.  Coaches thought they could teach him how to become and NFL WR.

 

The whole point is athletic ability does NOT equal potential.  And the fans that talk about someone's potential and equating it to athletic ability don't know what they are talking about.  There are very few examples of a great athlete being turned into a good to great players in the NFL but there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of guys with limited athletic ability (compared to their peers of the same positions) that became good to great NFL players

[krunk]

Seeing that Holmes has yet to make it to week 1 healthy I'd say he has a shot

 

I'm not saying I'm some big Vitable fan or anything, but since you mention that one of Vitable strengths is durability according to his NFL.com draft profile.

[akcolt]

I'm not saying I'm some big Vitable fan or anything, but since you mention that one of Vitable strengths is durability according to his NFL.com draft profile.

Sounds like a bigger stronger Shipley to me knock on short arms but played 98% of snaps last 3 yrs as you said durable.

I think the staff is growing tired of Holmes I know I am if he ends up injured again I hope we cut bait.

Pagano saying he spends to much time on the trainers table says. He never has a harsh word guy is soft plain and simple.

Last year coaches say he maybe ready week one he can't get back for like 14,weeks remember he was injured in the first preseason game. Harrison will start at C no doubt in my mind

[horseshoeblue22]

If what you say about potential is true (which it is not), for WRs and CBs why do teams draft guys that played WR and CB in college? Why not draft track stars? The answer is simple, it takes more than athletic ability, just because someone has great athletic ability does not mean they have the potential to be a good football player. And just because someone his a better athlete does not mean they have a higher ceiling than a less athletic person. There are examples of that all over the NFL. A prime example, the Dolphins wanted to trade Vontae Davis because they felt he was an CB who was somewhat limited atheltically (he is in the average range for speed for an NFL CB) and had they figured he had reached the ceiling of his potential. He comes to the Colts and they work on his technique, diet and dedication to the game and now he is arguably a top 3 CB in the NFL. Miami replaced Davis with better athletes that are not better football players.

Jeff Saturday is another one. Considered an overachiever (which my definition means achieved beyond the expected level, the expected level is the ceiling of potential), too small and too weak to play in the NFL.

Another example the other way. DHB was considered a great athlete.. he has size, speed, agility, etc. Coaches thought they could teach him how to become and NFL WR.

The whole point is athletic ability does NOT equal potential. And the fans that talk about someone's potential and equating it to athletic ability don't know what they are talking about. There are very few examples of a great athlete being turned into a good to great players in the NFL but there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of guys with limited athletic ability (compared to their peers of the same positions) that became good to great NFL players

Vontae Davis was a first rd pick because he was a great athlete coming out of college. Bad example for you. Consider this:

Player A is 6'5" runs a 4.3 40 and bench presses 25 reps.

Player B is 5'9" runs a 4.7 40 and benches 9 reps.

It is possible for Player B to have a more successful career than player A, yes. But Player B is considered to have more "potential". Potential doesnt promise a great career.

[Coffeedrinker]

Vontae Davis was a first rd pick because he was a great athlete coming out of college. Bad example for you. Consider this:

Player A is 6'5" runs a 4.3 40 and bench presses 25 reps.

Player B is 5'9" runs a 4.7 40 and benches 9 reps.

It is possible for Player B to have a more successful career than player A, yes. But Player B is considered to have more "potential". Potential doesnt promise a great career.

Davis is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, Miami got rid of him because they saw he is not an elite athlete and thought he reached his full potential.

 

Second your example is not realistic, I'm talking about those that have the athletic ability to play in the NFL.  Additionally, you are wrong, Usain Bolt, who is 6'5", 207lbs does not have the potential to be a better WR in the NFL than Griff Whalen. 

[wig]

Davis is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, Miami got rid of him because they saw he is not an elite athlete and thought he reached his full potential.

 

Second your example is not realistic, I'm talking about those that have the athletic ability to play in the NFL.  Additionally, you are wrong, Usain Bolt, who is 6'5", 207lbs does not have the potential to be a better WR in the NFL than Griff Whalen. 

 

That is not why they got rid of him.

 

Yes, Usain has more potential than Griff. 

[horseshoeblue22]

Vontae Davis is, and was always considered a great athlete. Miami gave up on him because of immaturity, bad diet, lack of commitment, not physical ability.

DHB was a great athlete and coaches said "hey all we gotta do is improve his concentration and we got a superstar"

Ricky was a great athlete, and coaches said "all we gotta do is get him off the dope and commit"

There are dozens of NFL players that have came from track, basketball, rugby or limited football backgrounds. Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham, Erik Swoope, Daniel Adongo, Ziggy Ansah, Jeff Demps, the list goes on and on.

At this point Im convinced you are just being argumentive. You asked me to define potential because you didnt understand what that meant. I did, and you called my definition rediculous and wrong. Care to share with us what your definition of potential is?

There are countless examples of players with potential that didnt make it because they werent committed. Commitment is arguably more important than raw physical ability, yes. Potential alone gets you in the door, not a guaranteed spot.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that more potential means you are a better player. Thats not always the case. Shipley is a better player than Harrison, yes, but the coaches thought they could improve Harrison to the point where he would be more effective. It just didnt work out.

[Coffeedrinker]

Vontae Davis is, and was always considered a great athlete. Miami gave up on him because of immaturity, bad diet, lack of commitment, not physical ability.

 

I didn't say physical ability, I said because they thought he reached the ceiling of his potential.

DHB was a great athlete and coaches said "hey all we gotta do is improve his concentration and we got a superstar"

Ricky was a great athlete, and coaches said "all we gotta do is get him off the dope and commit"

 

Exactly, both of them had low potential because of things other than athletic ability

There are dozens of NFL players that have came from track, basketball, rugby or limited football backgrounds. Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham, Erik Swoope, Daniel Adongo, Ziggy Ansah, Jeff Demps, the list goes on and on.

 

Dozens compared to hundreds if not thousands.  You do the math.

At this point Im convinced you are just being argumentive. You asked me to define potential because you didnt understand what that meant. I did, and you called my definition rediculous and wrong. Care to share with us what your definition of potential is?

 

I've stated my definition several times in this thread.  But I will see if I can make it simple for you.  Potential equals  measurables (athletic ability if you want) + dedication + intelligence + commitment to improve + coachability.  And my point from the very beginning is that fans can only see measurables so they mistakenly make that synonymous with potential.  And they they say, definitively, things like Harrison has more potential than Shipley.  When, as fans, we don't know how the person approaches the other aspects needed to reach one's potential.

There are countless examples of players with potential that didnt make it because they werent committed. Commitment is arguably more important than raw physical ability, yes. Potential alone gets you in the door, not a guaranteed spot.

 

Again, that is exactly what I've been saying.  Athletic ability is only one small part of reaching one's potential.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that more potential means you are a better player. Thats not always the case. Shipley is a better player than Harrison, yes, but the coaches thought they could improve Harrison to the point where he would be more effective. It just didnt work out.

 

No, I'm not stuck in the idea that potential means better, I'm stuck in the idea that fans that claim some player has more potential than another because one player is more athletic, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

[horseshoeblue22]

Vontae Davis is, and was always considered a great athlete. Miami gave up on him because of immaturity, bad diet, lack of commitment, not physical ability.

I didn't say physical ability, I said because they thought he reached the ceiling of his potential.

DHB was a great athlete and coaches said "hey all we gotta do is improve his concentration and we got a superstar"

Ricky was a great athlete, and coaches said "all we gotta do is get him off the dope and commit"

Exactly, both of them had low potential because of things other than athletic ability

There are dozens of NFL players that have came from track, basketball, rugby or limited football backgrounds. Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham, Erik Swoope, Daniel Adongo, Ziggy Ansah, Jeff Demps, the list goes on and on.

Dozens compared to hundreds if not thousands. You do the math.

At this point Im convinced you are just being argumentive. You asked me to define potential because you didnt understand what that meant. I did, and you called my definition rediculous and wrong. Care to share with us what your definition of potential is?

I've stated my definition several times in this thread. But I will see if I can make it simple for you. Potential equals measurables (athletic ability if you want) + dedication + intelligence + commitment to improve + coachability. And my point from the very beginning is that fans can only see measurables so they mistakenly make that synonymous with potential. And they they say, definitively, things like Harrison has more potential than Shipley. When, as fans, we don't know how the person approaches the other aspects needed to reach one's potential.

There are countless examples of players with potential that didnt make it because they werent committed. Commitment is arguably more important than raw physical ability, yes. Potential alone gets you in the door, not a guaranteed spot.

Again, that is exactly what I've been saying. Athletic ability is only one small part of reaching one's potential.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that more potential means you are a better player. Thats not always the case. Shipley is a better player than Harrison, yes, but the coaches thought they could improve Harrison to the point where he would be more effective. It just didnt work out.

No, I'm not stuck in the idea that potential means better, I'm stuck in the idea that fans that claim some player has more potential than another because one player is more athletic, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Except when fans and media talk about potential, they are referring to athletic potential. Just because you have a definition for potential than everyone else doesnt mean everyone else is wrong and they don't know what they are talking about.

[bap1331]

If we were in development mode, like cleveland has been for 60 years, id say lets try. But we are a championship ready team and cant afford holes on offense or defense.