Best Browns #1 draft pick ever
-
Top 5
1) Jim Brown
2)Ozzie Newsome
3)Bernie Kosar
4)Clay Matthews
5)Hanford Dixon
I have to admit I'm showing my age here, I know Gary Collins was a stud, but I never saw him play (same with Jim Brown). I was 7 when my Dad took me to my first game in 1970 vs Cincy. I put Clarence Scott & Thom Darden in that "honorable mention" class.
Bottom 5
1)Mike Junkin
2) Willis Adams
3) Mack Mitchell
4) Craig Powell
5)Charles White
-
Here is my other 5 Duds. These picks were all prior to 1963 so they are less well known and their impact, or lack thereof is a bit lost, but they should still be counted. Jim Brown was drafted in the 50s, so these guys taken in the 50s have to be compared to that:
Harry Agannis. QB. Never played a down for the Browns. Accepted to take an offer with the Red Sox to play baseball. Two years later, he got pneumonia, developed a pulmonary embolism, and died.
John Bauer. OL Never played a down for the Browns. Played all of two games with the Giants. That was it for his NFL career.
Kurt Burris. CB. Never played a down in the NFL. Went to play in Canada where he did pretty well apparently. Played for 2 Grey Cup Champions.
Bobby Crespino. TE. Played 3 years with the Browns, but only caught 6 passes in all those years. Not the kind of production you would expect. ..considering Browns shortly thereafter had good TEs in John Brewer and Milt Morin.
Leroy Jackson. RB. Never played a down with the Browns. Played 2 years with Redskins where he had all of 52 carries and 142 yards in his career. Part of the Ernie Davis deal, so perhaps he should get some slack. But, if we are doing this objectively, then his place on the dud list should probably be taken by:
Ernie Davis. RB. Never played a down (except in preseason). Died of Leukemia.
Ernie Davis. RB. Never played a down (except in preseason). Died of Leukemia.
Guys whose lives are cut short by leukemia are duds? In my opinion, a 'dud' is either someone who they should have known couldn't play (see Smith, Akili) or someone who failed to deliver when given the opportunity (see Thomas, Blair). There are people who fit the latter who battled injuries (see Bosworth, Brian) but to see a man cut down in his youth and to label him this way is tough for me to swallow.
Have you ever met a leukemia patient? I'm sure the last thing on their minds is whether they can play football or not.
Just my .02
-
OK, but, I think I have documented at least 10 others that gave us less.
And, you can make your own list if you want. That is what you were asked to do. Go do it.
Yeah I will get on that just because that is what you asked O great one. I found a list that I liked, yours, you should be happy, except for the one glarring flaw. No WAY IN HELL WARREN COMES CLOSE TO MAKING THAT LIST! You can try to justify it away by saying he was a bigger bust for the Browns, but actually some of his best numbers came when he was with the Brown's. And go do a little research and you will find out that their numbers are almost identical for the time they were with the Browns. (See Below) Courtney' only good season was 2000. And Warren is going on his 10th year in the league and Brown is doing what? Not playing thats for sure. Maybe he didn't live up to expected potential but definately NOT A BUST! you have named like 20 busts/duds now and you have him at #5 Just ridiculous IMO.
Warren 116 tackles 16.5 sacks 34 assists 4 forced fumbles and 4 fumble recoveries (9 passes defended)
Brown 134 tackles 17 sacks 36 assists 6 forced fumbles and 6 fumble recoveries 1td (8 passes defended)
So in the 4 years for both the difference is.......
In favor of Brown mostly.....
18 tackles
.5 sacks
2 assists
2 ff
2 fumble recoveries
1td
-1 pass defended
But also keep in mind one was a DE (Brown) And one IS a DT (Warren)
Warren also ranks 1532th overall since 1950
Brown ranks 3329th overall since 1950
According to Pro Football Reference.com with is the closest thing we have to scientifically rank players based on their performance over time.
Yeah I will get on that just because that is what you asked O great one. I found a list that I liked, yours, you should be happy, except for the one glarring flaw. No WAY IN HELL WARREN COMES CLOSE TO MAKING THAT LIST! You can try to justify it away by saying he was a bigger bust for the Browns, but actually some of his best numbers came when he was with the Brown's. And go do a little research and you will find out that their numbers are almost identical for the time they were with the Browns. (See Below) Courtney' only good season was 2000. And Warren is going on his 10th year in the league and Brown is doing what? Not playing thats for sure. Maybe he didn't live up to expected potential but definately NOT A BUST! you have named like 20 busts/duds now and you have him at #5 Just ridiculous IMO.
Warren 116 tackles 16.5 sacks 34 assists 4 forced fumbles and 4 fumble recoveries (9 passes defended)
Brown 134 tackles 17 sacks 36 assists 6 forced fumbles and 6 fumble recoveries 1td (8 passes defended)
So in the 4 years for both the difference is.......
In favor of Brown mostly.....
18 tackles
.5 sacks
2 assists
2 ff
2 fumble recoveries
1td
-1 pass defended
But also keep in mind one was a DE (Brown) And one IS a DT (Warren)
Warren also ranks 1532th overall since 1950
Brown ranks 3329th overall since 1950
According to Pro Football Reference.com with is the closest thing we have to scientifically rank players based on their performance over time.
OK, I will replace Warren with C. Brown on my Dud list of 10. Does that make you happy?
-
Ernie Davis. RB. Never played a down (except in preseason). Died of Leukemia.
Guys whose lives are cut short by leukemia are duds? In my opinion, a 'dud' is either someone who they should have known couldn't play (see Smith, Akili) or someone who failed to deliver when given the opportunity (see Thomas, Blair). There are people who fit the latter who battled injuries (see Bosworth, Brian) but to see a man cut down in his youth and to label him this way is tough for me to swallow.
Have you ever met a leukemia patient? I'm sure the last thing on their minds is whether they can play football or not.
Just my .02
Guys whose lives are cut short by leukemia are duds? In my opinion, a 'dud' is either someone who they should have known couldn't play (see Smith, Akili) or someone who failed to deliver when given the opportunity (see Thomas, Blair). There are people who fit the latter who battled injuries (see Bosworth, Brian) but to see a man cut down in his youth and to label him this way is tough for me to swallow.
Have you ever met a leukemia patient? I'm sure the last thing on their minds is whether they can play football or not.
Just my .02
Well, yes, it is a question I stuggled with somewhat, but like you said, should we not put someone on the "Dud" list whose career was curtailed by injury? Those persons are often included in the various "bust" lists. I am not trying to make a moral judgment on Ernie Davis considering the way he perished. Nevertheless, should an illness be considered differently than an injury? Like I said, I struggled with it, but, objectively, you have to say that the team's investment in him was "wasted" albeit tragically.
We could say the same about Don Rogers. He might have become a serious stud, but because he died of a cocaine overdose, he really ends up being a dud. Should the manner of Davis's death vs. the manner of Roger's death affect our evaluation strictly as an asset to the team? I don't know.
-
Top Five
Jim Brown
Paul Warfield
Gary Collins
Bernie Kosar
Mike Pruitt
Eric Metcalf
Ozzie
Worst
John Bauer
Craig Powell
Brady Quinn
Ted Connally
Kurt Burris
Top Five
Jim Brown
Paul Warfield
Gary Collins
Bernie Kosar
Mike Pruitt
Eric Metcalf
Ozzie
Worst
John Bauer
Craig Powell
Brady Quinn
Ted Connally
Kurt Burris
How come your top 5 has 7?
-
Top Five
Jim Brown
Paul Warfield
Gary Collins
Bernie Kosar
Mike Pruitt
Eric Metcalf
Ozzie
Worst
John Bauer
Craig Powell
Brady Quinn
Ted Connally
Kurt Burris
How come your top 5 has 7?
-
can't decide between Tommy Vardell or Willie Green. guess i'll go with....NEITHER. lol
plenty of fun to poke in that list.
i'm gonna hafta say Erocc. in his prime he'd start on any team today...but so would Jim Brown, Clay, Ozzie, Hanford, and Bernie would certainly get consideration.
but i still like the excitement Turner brought to every game. he was like a trump card.
now they just drafted two hitters for our backfield. you know i'm stoked to see how this years draft class plays out.
-
Guys whose lives are cut short by leukemia are duds? In my opinion, a 'dud' is either someone who they should have known couldn't play (see Smith, Akili) or someone who failed to deliver when given the opportunity (see Thomas, Blair). There are people who fit the latter who battled injuries (see Bosworth, Brian) but to see a man cut down in his youth and to label him this way is tough for me to swallow.
Have you ever met a leukemia patient? I'm sure the last thing on their minds is whether they can play football or not.
Just my .02
Well, yes, it is a question I stuggled with somewhat, but like you said, should we not put someone on the "Dud" list whose career was curtailed by injury? Those persons are often included in the various "bust" lists. I am not trying to make a moral judgment on Ernie Davis considering the way he perished. Nevertheless, should an illness be considered differently than an injury? Like I said, I struggled with it, but, objectively, you have to say that the team's investment in him was "wasted" albeit tragically.
We could say the same about Don Rogers. He might have become a serious stud, but because he died of a cocaine overdose, he really ends up being a dud. Should the manner of Davis's death vs. the manner of Roger's death affect our evaluation strictly as an asset to the team? I don't know.
Well, yes, it is a question I stuggled with somewhat, but like you said, should we not put someone on the "Dud" list whose career was curtailed by injury? Those persons are often included in the various "bust" lists. I am not trying to make a moral judgment on Ernie Davis considering the way he perished. Nevertheless, should an illness be considered differently than an injury? Like I said, I struggled with it, but, objectively, you have to say that the team's investment in him was "wasted" albeit tragically.
We could say the same about Don Rogers. He might have become a serious stud, but because he died of a cocaine overdose, he really ends up being a dud. Should the manner of Davis's death vs. the manner of Roger's death affect our evaluation strictly as an asset to the team? I don't know.
A fine point you make but perhaps it needs a little more teasing out: Don Rogers died of a choice he made. That (to me, at least) leaves you on far worse moral ground than someone who was injured in the course of NFL duty or someone who had a serious illness that happened outside of the sports career...(e.g., Lou Gehrig). There is a certain amount of tragedy that we as fans are willing to accept if it's not related to something they chose to do.
-
Top 10
1. Jim Brown
2. Bernie Kosar
3. Paul Warfield
4. Joe Thomas
5. Ozzie Newsome
6. Hanford Dixon
7. Eric Metcalf
8. Alex Mack
9. Clay Matthews
10. Mike Pruitt
Bottom 10 (notice most from new Browns)
1. Gerard Warren
2. Tim Couch
3. Brady Quinn
4. William Green
5. Jeff Faine
6. Courtney Brown
7. Mack Mitchell
8. Mike Phipps
9. Charles White
10. Kellen Winslow Jr.
-
Bottom 10 (notice most from new Browns)
No wonder since most around here don't remember players like:
Preston Carpenter
Bobby Crespino
Pete Adams
Willis Adams.
Hands down the worst pick was Couch.
That may have been the most important pick in out history, and it was totally flubbed.
#1...the guy sucked.
#2..as a new team, we had no business selecting a QB with a line and skill players that totally sucked.
The pick sucked from every aspect possible.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
Well, yes, it is a question I stuggled with somewhat, but like you said, should we not put someone on the "Dud" list whose career was curtailed by injury? Those persons are often included in the various "bust" lists. I am not trying to make a moral judgment on Ernie Davis considering the way he perished. Nevertheless, should an illness be considered differently than an injury? Like I said, I struggled with it, but, objectively, you have to say that the team's investment in him was "wasted" albeit tragically.
We could say the same about Don Rogers. He might have become a serious stud, but because he died of a cocaine overdose, he really ends up being a dud. Should the manner of Davis's death vs. the manner of Roger's death affect our evaluation strictly as an asset to the team? I don't know.
A fine point you make but perhaps it needs a little more teasing out: Don Rogers died of a choice he made. That (to me, at least) leaves you on far worse moral ground than someone who was injured in the course of NFL duty or someone who had a serious illness that happened outside of the sports career...(e.g., Lou Gehrig). There is a certain amount of tragedy that we as fans are willing to accept if it's not related to something they chose to do.
A fine point you make but perhaps it needs a little more teasing out: Don Rogers died of a choice he made. That (to me, at least) leaves you on far worse moral ground than someone who was injured in the course of NFL duty or someone who had a serious illness that happened outside of the sports career...(e.g., Lou Gehrig). There is a certain amount of tragedy that we as fans are willing to accept if it's not related to something they chose to do.
OK, but, strictly, this thread is about which draft choices that #1 picks were used on contributed the MOST to the Browns success, and which contributed the LEAST to the Brown success. And in reality, I don't think from that narrow viewpoint we can judge something like: Davis had a good death and Rogers had a bad death. I didn't intend this thread to judge their lives or the manner they died, just what they gave to this team.
Davis gave nothing, and Rogers gave little. The demise of each of them, regardless of the manner hurt the team just as much as Bobby Garrett who couldn't play because he couldn't control his stutter.
Bottom line: they were both failed picks from the football standpoint.
Talking about the manner of their deaths or the way they led their lives is a whole other train track to be riding on.
-
Formerly Stone said:
WOW! You guys draft really early! No wonder the teams have been so talent laden?Early? What? Like 7:00 A.M.?
Or do you mean early in the draft like in high in the draft?
Do you think we are as stupid as you that we don't know how poorly some of those high pick have failed to pan out?
What do you think was the point of this exercise?
If you were paying one bit of attention, you would have noted that there were more bad #1 picks taken back in the 50s than there have been lately.
Why don't you go to your own team's board and conduct the same exercise. Go list all their first round draft picks since they began doing this in 1936 and have your group over there figure out who were Studs and who were Duds and report back to us what yinzers came up with. It is probably easy to do the studs. You probably have the likes of Green, Bradshaw, Harris, Dudley, Woodson. But what about the Duds. You tell us.
-
Bottom 10 (notice most from new Browns)
No wonder since most around here don't remember players like:
Preston Carpenter
Bobby Crespino
Pete Adams
Willis Adams.
Hands down the worst pick was Couch.
That may have been the most important pick in out history, and it was totally flubbed.
#1...the guy sucked.
#2..as a new team, we had no business selecting a QB with a line and skill players that totally sucked.
The pick sucked from every aspect possible.
No wonder since most around here don't remember players like:
Preston Carpenter
Bobby Crespino
Pete Adams
Willis Adams.
Hands down the worst pick was Couch.
That may have been the most important pick in out history, and it was totally flubbed.
#1...the guy sucked.
#2..as a new team, we had no business selecting a QB with a line and skill players that totally sucked.
The pick sucked from every aspect possible.
Couch would probably NOT be in my bottom 20 or 25. In fact he would barely be in the bottom 10 of picks just since 1999! The ONLY guys taken in the first round since 1999 in fact who have been more productive than Couch for this team have perhaps been K2, JT and Mack....and Mack is only there based on his perceived quality potential. Couch has certainly been more productive than Quinn, Wimbley, Edwards, Green, Warren, Faine, or C. Brown. And all those guys from the 50s that I detailed!
Nevertheless, I completely agree with your point #2. They had no business taking a QB #1 overall if they weren't going to give him any help.
-
OK, but, I think I have documented at least 10 others that gave us less.
And, you can make your own list if you want. That is what you were asked to do. Go do it.
You documented nothing..........copied my replies for the two biggest busts.............get down from your exalted horse of ether
Offense Wins.......Franchise QB's are the key.............Defense keeps you in the game.........Go Buckeyes -
No wonder since most around here don't remember players like:
Preston Carpenter
Bobby Crespino
Pete Adams
Willis Adams.
Hands down the worst pick was Couch.
That may have been the most important pick in out history, and it was totally flubbed.
#1...the guy sucked.
#2..as a new team, we had no business selecting a QB with a line and skill players that totally sucked.
The pick sucked from every aspect possible.
Couch would probably NOT be in my bottom 20 or 25. In fact he would barely be in the bottom 10 of picks just since 1999! The ONLY guys taken in the first round since 1999 in fact who have been more productive than Couch for this team have perhaps been K2, JT and Mack....and Mack is only there based on his perceived quality potential. Couch has certainly been more productive than Quinn, Wimbley, Edwards, Green, Warren, Faine, or C. Brown. And all those guys from the 50s that I detailed!
Nevertheless, I completely agree with your point #2. They had no business taking a QB #1 overall if they weren't going to give him any help.
Couch would probably NOT be in my bottom 20 or 25. In fact he would barely be in the bottom 10 of picks just since 1999! The ONLY guys taken in the first round since 1999 in fact who have been more productive than Couch for this team have perhaps been K2, JT and Mack....and Mack is only there based on his perceived quality potential. Couch has certainly been more productive than Quinn, Wimbley, Edwards, Green, Warren, Faine, or C. Brown. And all those guys from the 50s that I detailed!
Nevertheless, I completely agree with your point #2. They had no business taking a QB #1 overall if they weren't going to give him any help
.I don't agree about his production, but that isn't the point I wish to debate as there is no real way to conclude such discussion.
The last point is how I arrive at Couch being the worst pick.
To me, your question isn't simply limited to the player and his production. It also encompasses what the pick meant to the organization. That first pick after our return was the biggest pick, as in most important in team history....and it was TOTALLY blown. To me it was as much a PR move as it was anything else.
If we were to limit the factors simply to production, then Ernie Davis was the worst pick since he had zero production because he died. It doesn't get much worse than that as far as production.
Really, we are still reeling from that pick. No other blown pick had lingering effects 10-11 years later.
Nope...the Couch pick set this whole thing rolling and it has snow balled from there.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
OK, but, I think I have documented at least 10 others that gave us less.
And, you can make your own list if you want. That is what you were asked to do. Go do it.
You documented nothing..........copied my replies for the two biggest busts.............get down from your exalted horse of ether
You documented nothing..........copied my replies for the two biggest busts.............get down from your exalted horse of ether
OK, I gave a synopsis of their contribution to the team....or lack thereof. I guess if you don't want to call that "documentation" that is up to you. I didn't think it was necessary to give each players complete resume.
But I think it is still by any objective measure a fact that a person that played and produced for this team for maybe 5 years was a better pick than someone who didn't play a down, or played very little.
You may have your subjective view on why you may not have liked the Couch pick, but the fact is, under objective standards, he gave a lot more for this team than tons of others of the Browns 1st round picks.
(and excuse me if I have you confused with someone else. Correct me if I am wrong about what you were talking about)
-
Couch would probably NOT be in my bottom 20 or 25. In fact he would barely be in the bottom 10 of picks just since 1999! The ONLY guys taken in the first round since 1999 in fact who have been more productive than Couch for this team have perhaps been K2, JT and Mack....and Mack is only there based on his perceived quality potential. Couch has certainly been more productive than Quinn, Wimbley, Edwards, Green, Warren, Faine, or C. Brown. And all those guys from the 50s that I detailed!
Nevertheless, I completely agree with your point #2. They had no business taking a QB #1 overall if they weren't going to give him any help
.I don't agree about his production, but that isn't the point I wish to debate as there is no real way to conclude such discussion.
The last point is how I arrive at Couch being the worst pick.
To me, your question isn't simply limited to the player and his production. It also encompasses what the pick meant to the organization. That first pick after our return was the biggest pick, as in most important in team history....and it was TOTALLY blown. To me it was as much a PR move as it was anything else.
If we were to limit the factors simply to production, then Ernie Davis was the worst pick since he had zero production because he died. It doesn't get much worse than that as far as production.
Really, we are still reeling from that pick. No other blown pick had lingering effects 10-11 years later.
Nope...the Couch pick set this whole thing rolling and it has snow balled from there.
I don't agree about his production, but that isn't the point I wish to debate as there is no real way to conclude such discussion.
The last point is how I arrive at Couch being the worst pick.
To me, your question isn't simply limited to the player and his production. It also encompasses what the pick meant to the organization. That first pick after our return was the biggest pick, as in most important in team history....and it was TOTALLY blown. To me it was as much a PR move as it was anything else.
If we were to limit the factors simply to production, then Ernie Davis was the worst pick since he had zero production because he died. It doesn't get much worse than that as far as production.
Really, we are still reeling from that pick. No other blown pick had lingering effects 10-11 years later.
Nope...the Couch pick set this whole thing rolling and it has snow balled from there.
But, you have to consider the counterargument that...in fact, the Browns with Couch as their primary QB made the playoffs in his 4th year as starting QB, and in fact if the team is reeling, it was not from the pick of him at QB. He did fine. It was the poor performance of the front office and coaching staff thereafter. To me, it was the poor picks of Courtney Brown, Gerrard Warren, William Green and others, and the failure of that front office to obtain a decent OLine and the meltdown/megalomania of Butch Davis that were far more the cause of this franchise "reeling" than the pick and performance of Tim Couch. Hell, in my view, selecting him may in fact have been the best move they made during those first 5 years after 1999. Though I agree picking him was as much a PR move as anything, I believe to this day his selection was probably one of the better ones made in the last 11 years.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login