Official Browns QB Prospect Discussion!
-
You can't "Rick Williams" when trading up to get a quarterback. One is senseless, the other is common wisdom across the NFL: If you don't have The Guy at QB, you do whatever it takes to get him because everything else added together still isn't as important in today's NFL.
The Browns with a really good quarterback would be a dramatically different team. Hell, the Browns with Brian Hoyer were a different team, imagine if we had a serious guy?!
The Browns have tons of equity to upgrade ordinary positions in the offseason. I dead solid guarantee you job #1 will be finding a way to finally get That Guy under center for the Browns (whoever they think that is). Getting That Guy (which, as the most valuable thing requires commitment of draft picks and dollars) is NOT "the kind of thing that keeps the Browns in the cellar."
The thing that keeps teams in the cellar is NOT having a great quarterback. Period. The Browns have started like 400 Not The Guys since the return, often trying to use castoffs (Dilfer, Garcia, Delhomme) or lower picks (Frye, McCoy, even Weeden) and then just wish real hard they play like elite signal callers.
It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB, or a RG. As Chuckie said, all that gets real easy when you have your QB. But this brass is different, just like our owner. The first thing they say, over and over and over, is, "We have to get our quarterback." They get it. They understand.
No need to punch strangers. The Browns will home in on the guy they think is the absolute best draftable quarterback for this team and find a way to get him (maybe not Bridgewater). And it's absolutely the right thing to do. We'll have scads of other picks and free agency dollars to upgrade a few other starting positions.
You can't "Rick Williams" when trading up to get a quarterback. One is senseless, the other is common wisdom across the NFL: If you don't have The Guy at QB, you do whatever it takes to get him because everything else added together still isn't as important in today's NFL.
The Browns with a really good quarterback would be a dramatically different team. Hell, the Browns with Brian Hoyer were a different team, imagine if we had a serious guy?!
The Browns have tons of equity to upgrade ordinary positions in the offseason. I dead solid guarantee you job #1 will be finding a way to finally get That Guy under center for the Browns (whoever they think that is). Getting That Guy (which, as the most valuable thing requires commitment of draft picks and dollars) is NOT "the kind of thing that keeps the Browns in the cellar."
The thing that keeps teams in the cellar is NOT having a great quarterback. Period. The Browns have started like 400 Not The Guys since the return, often trying to use castoffs (Dilfer, Garcia, Delhomme) or lower picks (Frye, McCoy, even Weeden) and then just wish real hard they play like elite signal callers.
It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB, or a RG. As Chuckie said, all that gets real easy when you have your QB. But this brass is different, just like our owner. The first thing they say, over and over and over, is, "We have to get our quarterback." They get it. They understand.
No need to punch strangers. The Browns will home in on the guy they think is the absolute best draftable quarterback for this team and find a way to get him (maybe not Bridgewater). And it's absolutely the right thing to do. We'll have scads of other picks and free agency dollars to upgrade a few other starting positions.
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
-
You can't "Rick Williams" when trading up to get a quarterback. One is senseless, the other is common wisdom across the NFL: If you don't have The Guy at QB, you do whatever it takes to get him because everything else added together still isn't as important in today's NFL.
The Browns with a really good quarterback would be a dramatically different team. Hell, the Browns with Brian Hoyer were a different team, imagine if we had a serious guy?!
The Browns have tons of equity to upgrade ordinary positions in the offseason. I dead solid guarantee you job #1 will be finding a way to finally get That Guy under center for the Browns (whoever they think that is). Getting That Guy (which, as the most valuable thing requires commitment of draft picks and dollars) is NOT "the kind of thing that keeps the Browns in the cellar."
The thing that keeps teams in the cellar is NOT having a great quarterback. Period. The Browns have started like 400 Not The Guys since the return, often trying to use castoffs (Dilfer, Garcia, Delhomme) or lower picks (Frye, McCoy, even Weeden) and then just wish real hard they play like elite signal callers.
It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB, or a RG. As Chuckie said, all that gets real easy when you have your QB. But this brass is different, just like our owner. The first thing they say, over and over and over, is, "We have to get our quarterback." They get it. They understand.
No need to punch strangers. The Browns will home in on the guy they think is the absolute best draftable quarterback for this team and find a way to get him (maybe not Bridgewater). And it's absolutely the right thing to do. We'll have scads of other picks and free agency dollars to upgrade a few other starting positions.
The Browns with a really good quarterback would be a dramatically different team. Hell, the Browns with Brian Hoyer were a different team, imagine if we had a serious guy?!
The Browns have tons of equity to upgrade ordinary positions in the offseason. I dead solid guarantee you job #1 will be finding a way to finally get That Guy under center for the Browns (whoever they think that is). Getting That Guy (which, as the most valuable thing requires commitment of draft picks and dollars) is NOT "the kind of thing that keeps the Browns in the cellar."
The thing that keeps teams in the cellar is NOT having a great quarterback. Period. The Browns have started like 400 Not The Guys since the return, often trying to use castoffs (Dilfer, Garcia, Delhomme) or lower picks (Frye, McCoy, even Weeden) and then just wish real hard they play like elite signal callers.
It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB, or a RG. As Chuckie said, all that gets real easy when you have your QB. But this brass is different, just like our owner. The first thing they say, over and over and over, is, "We have to get our quarterback." They get it. They understand.
so you would trade away picks to get brian hoyer? who before lomabardi brought him in was almost out of football? hell weeden looked good in college, so did your loverboy quinn (well, not THAT great) and din't we trade up to get him? just remember one thing when talking about drafting QBs: tom brady.
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
this^ 1000%
we have either hired the worse personnel in the biz since '99 or not paid enough attention to finishing one side of the line. instead we're picking all over the place. finish the defense. what are we 2 players away from being one of the best in the league? doesn't that make sense? then finish and replace half the OL, get another stud WR, see what we have sitting there in the 4th at RB and if by some miraculous act of god
'some golden-haired surfer boy QB" is staring at us in the face somewhere that doesn't cost us anything to pick, then i'm all for it.
don't we have a QB on our roster already that everbody loved? what are we going to do, cut him?
-
You can't "Rick Williams" when trading up to get a quarterback. One is senseless, the other is common wisdom across the NFL: If you don't have The Guy at QB, you do whatever it takes to get him because everything else added together still isn't as important in today's NFL.
The Browns with a really good quarterback would be a dramatically different team. Hell, the Browns with Brian Hoyer were a different team, imagine if we had a serious guy?!
The Browns have tons of equity to upgrade ordinary positions in the offseason. I dead solid guarantee you job #1 will be finding a way to finally get That Guy under center for the Browns (whoever they think that is). Getting That Guy (which, as the most valuable thing requires commitment of draft picks and dollars) is NOT "the kind of thing that keeps the Browns in the cellar."
The thing that keeps teams in the cellar is NOT having a great quarterback. Period. The Browns have started like 400 Not The Guys since the return, often trying to use castoffs (Dilfer, Garcia, Delhomme) or lower picks (Frye, McCoy, even Weeden) and then just wish real hard they play like elite signal callers.
It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB, or a RG. As Chuckie said, all that gets real easy when you have your QB. But this brass is different, just like our owner. The first thing they say, over and over and over, is, "We have to get our quarterback." They get it. They understand.
No need to punch strangers. The Browns will home in on the guy they think is the absolute best draftable quarterback for this team and find a way to get him (maybe not Bridgewater). And it's absolutely the right thing to do. We'll have scads of other picks and free agency dollars to upgrade a few other starting positions.
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
Exactly: The Browns ARE that team that makes it hard to find other positions BECAUSE they don't have Luck or Stafford or Wilson or Manning or Brady or Brees or Rodgers. That's exactly the point Chuckie was making: When you have a really good quarterback, suddenly your line and receivers look better.
Think of DA coming in for Frye. For about 8 games, we had great receivers and awesome pass protection. Think of Hoyer coming in for Weeden. Suddenly our line was "really improving." Well, fancy that!
The only way to make sure you DON'T find your franchise quarterback is to not try. Seriously talented QBs have been flowing into the league over the last 5-7 years and their time will come (Flacco's already did). Looks like the Bills got their guy last year. Starting to feel like Tampa did, too.
There isn't a GM alive living by your philosophy: "If we try to draft a great quarterback, we might miss, so we've decided as an organization to not try. We're gonna keep finding Delhommes and Fryes and Colts and Garcias and just keep fuckin' that chicken, okay? Okay."
The Browns absolutely will be crazy aggressive going after the quarterback they believe in come May. They will not sit back or decide what they really need is a really highly rated guard. Everybody anywhere near the Browns knows what they'll do in the next draft and why they accumulated all those picks. It's a matter of... which one?
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
-
hopefully not as aggressive as the redskins went after RG3. i bet you were slobbering all over geno smith too.
-
I was not "slobbering," no. Wasn't an enormous Geno fan, really feared the questions about his maturity and intelligence. Meanwhile, I did get some E.J. fever late in the game when he interviewed his ass off and killed at the board. I thought if the Browns did draft a quarterback, it might be Manuel. He's looking very good right now.
I loved Foles and Manuel for the Browns the last two drafts. Foles is now officially the top passer in the NFL by Passer Rating (just qualified) and Manuel is looking damn good. If not Tannehill, my second choice was Foles with our early 2nd round pick. Turns out we could've had him early third.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
-
I was not "slobbering," no. Wasn't an enormous Geno fan, really feared the questions about his maturity and intelligence. Meanwhile, I did get some E.J. fever late in the game when he interviewed his ass off and killed at the board. I thought if the Browns did draft a quarterback, it might be Manuel. He's looking very good right now.
I loved Foles and Manuel for the Browns the last two drafts. Foles is now officially the top passer in the NFL by Passer Rating (just qualified) and Manuel is looking damn good. If not Tannehill, my second choice was Foles with our early 2nd round pick. Turns out we could've had him early third.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
I was not "slobbering," no. Wasn't an enormous Geno fan, really feared the questions about his maturity and intelligence. Meanwhile, I did get some E.J. fever late in the game when he interviewed his ass off and killed at the board. I thought if the Browns did draft a quarterback, it might be Manuel. He's looking very good right now.
I loved Foles and Manuel for the Browns the last two drafts. Foles is now officially the top passer in the NFL by Passer Rating (just qualified) and Manuel is looking damn good. If not Tannehill, my second choice was Foles with our early 2nd round pick. Turns out we could've had him early third.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
I guess I am a QB guru too Shep, as I too thought Foles may make a good pick in the second round for the Browns. They of course went for Weeden instead. I thought Osweiler was intriguing as well...but who knows how that comes out.
Everyone was on the top two guys Luck/RG. Wilson was not really not on my radar, so that one slipped by me. I wasn't that high on Tannehill.
-
I was not "slobbering," no. Wasn't an enormous Geno fan, really feared the questions about his maturity and intelligence. Meanwhile, I did get some E.J. fever late in the game when he interviewed his ass off and killed at the board. I thought if the Browns did draft a quarterback, it might be Manuel. He's looking very good right now.
I loved Foles and Manuel for the Browns the last two drafts. Foles is now officially the top passer in the NFL by Passer Rating (just qualified) and Manuel is looking damn good. If not Tannehill, my second choice was Foles with our early 2nd round pick. Turns out we could've had him early third.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
Not discounting the opinion of either Brees or Aikman but what do you think the Manning family opinion is of young Johnny Cash Football?
-
You can't "Rick Williams" when trading up to get a quarterback. One is senseless, the other is common wisdom across the NFL: If you don't have The Guy at QB, you do whatever it takes to get him because everything else added together still isn't as important in today's NFL.
The Browns with a really good quarterback would be a dramatically different team. Hell, the Browns with Brian Hoyer were a different team, imagine if we had a serious guy?!
The Browns have tons of equity to upgrade ordinary positions in the offseason. I dead solid guarantee you job #1 will be finding a way to finally get That Guy under center for the Browns (whoever they think that is). Getting That Guy (which, as the most valuable thing requires commitment of draft picks and dollars) is NOT "the kind of thing that keeps the Browns in the cellar."
The thing that keeps teams in the cellar is NOT having a great quarterback. Period. The Browns have started like 400 Not The Guys since the return, often trying to use castoffs (Dilfer, Garcia, Delhomme) or lower picks (Frye, McCoy, even Weeden) and then just wish real hard they play like elite signal callers.
It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB, or a RG. As Chuckie said, all that gets real easy when you have your QB. But this brass is different, just like our owner. The first thing they say, over and over and over, is, "We have to get our quarterback." They get it. They understand.
No need to punch strangers. The Browns will home in on the guy they think is the absolute best draftable quarterback for this team and find a way to get him (maybe not Bridgewater). And it's absolutely the right thing to do. We'll have scads of other picks and free agency dollars to upgrade a few other starting positions.
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
Sheps love of Quarterbacks (Clausen, Sanchez, etc.) is pretty dismal.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
The Browns might draft two guys at QB. It's possible. I could see one in the top 10, another in round 5-ish.
Campbell looked so shitty yesterday, so much like I've seen him play before, I just pray it was the ribs and not a return to who he really is. But something tells me the Ravens game was Fool's Gold.
The Browns might draft two guys at QB. It's possible. I could see one in the top 10, another in round 5-ish.
Campbell looked so shitty yesterday, so much like I've seen him play before, I just pray it was the ribs and not a return to who he really is. But something tells me the Ravens game was Fool's Gold.
... and three days ago Campbell was the guy for the next three years...
I knew someone would cc the 'Skins sooner or later.
If that were to happen, I will throat punch the first stranger I see.
LOL...
But this last game shows some weaknesses that Cincy exploited. They manned-to-manned, knowing that they could intimidate Campbell into playing it safe with dumpoffs, because he doesn't give a crap.
Not to defend Campbell, but I assumed they went man because they knew our receivers could not separate.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel.
Floating? Is that what you call it?
-
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
Not discounting the opinion of either Brees or Aikman but what do you think the Manning family opinion is of young Johnny Cash Football?
Not discounting the opinion of either Brees or Aikman but what do you think the Manning family opinion is of young Johnny Cash Football?
They are from the South.....me thinks they like Johnny Cash.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
I never said the Browns should stick with Campbell for three years. I raised the discussion, the "what it?" We always struggle with the distinction on boards. If you say, "Hey, what about...?" It means you're 100% invested in that concept. It's really tough to deal in nuance!
Tour, I didn't get the, "That's what you call it?" You mean, it's bad to ponder a number of draftable quarterbacks in November, bounce between discussing each of their merits, consider the possibility, go down the road? Why is that bad? In what way? Or did I misunderstand you?
Diehard, you know compared to most my QB judging status is pretty spectacular. Even guys like Mayock (who moved Clausen into his top 20 late) have plenty of misses. Holmgren drafted David Greene and Colt McCoy and traded for Charlie Frye. In context, I'm among the best in the known universe and your mind cannot comprehend my powers. BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAH!
Mortals. Whatever.
-
-
You keep assuming that the guy we pick is automatically, by default, not even a question, going to be the next Andrew Luck, when he just as easy could be the next Tim Couch or Ryan Leaf, and in fact, the odds are better that he is nothing more than one of those two. As you said, look how much better the team looked with Hoyer. How do we know he's not the answer? We don't. I'm not saying he is, but it's as good of a possibility he is as the 1st QB taken in the draft will be. If we spend it all, and go all in on the next John Elway, and miss, it will set us back 5 more years, and that's being conservative.
"It's not hard for us to add a WR, a RB" Don't tell the Browns that, as we have failed pretty miserably so far at something that's supposed to be "not hard".
Sheps love of Quarterbacks (Clausen, Sanchez, etc.) is pretty dismal.
Yeah I get an "official" migraine reading this thread.Sheps love of Quarterbacks (Clausen, Sanchez, etc.) is pretty dismal.
-
mannings don't like spoiled get away with anything little brats.
-
I was not "slobbering," no. Wasn't an enormous Geno fan, really feared the questions about his maturity and intelligence. Meanwhile, I did get some E.J. fever late in the game when he interviewed his ass off and killed at the board. I thought if the Browns did draft a quarterback, it might be Manuel. He's looking very good right now.
I loved Foles and Manuel for the Browns the last two drafts. Foles is now officially the top passer in the NFL by Passer Rating (just qualified) and Manuel is looking damn good. If not Tannehill, my second choice was Foles with our early 2nd round pick. Turns out we could've had him early third.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel. Hearing Brees and Aikman both stand up for him sways me quite a bit. Aikman, especially, seriously understands football. I like the guy.
This year, I'm floating around a few guys but I think my favorite is Manziel.
floating around a floater. good call.
he might bust before the combines, definitely in them.
-
Exactly: The Browns ARE that team that makes it hard to find other positions BECAUSE they don't have Luck or Stafford or Wilson or Manning or Brady or Brees or Rodgers. That's exactly the point Chuckie was making: When you have a really good quarterback, suddenly your line and receivers look better. Shep
*****************************
Come on, man. You keep making a case for trading up to the
top of the draft, at any cost, to get that special qb to lead your offense.
Then you reference Wilson, who was a third round pick. Rodgers
was the 24th pick in the first round, Brees was the last pick in the second round,
and everybody knows that Brady was a sixth round pick.
And we all know the winner and loser qb picks in the top five.
If you're already picking in the top five, and you like Bridgewater, take him.
But trading up at a huge high price? nah. These qbs this year are Lucks or Mannings.
Trading up assumes that there is only one guy you need at qb. Like a Peyton, RGIII..
but the Browns. There are significant questions on all the qbs in this draft, so far.
Every time I've watched Petty, I see a superstar future, and I'd trade up to get him.
Until then, you let a guy fall to you in the first or second round. If RGIII was in
this next draft, at this point of Browns talent, yeah, I'd try to trade up to get him.
Nobody is calling Bridgewater, or any other qb this year, an RGIII or a Luck. It is
what it is this coming draft. I don't see it, that's all. But I'm easily wrong as
anybody else.
-
Exactly: The Browns ARE that team that makes it hard to find other positions BECAUSE they don't have Luck or Stafford or Wilson or Manning or Brady or Brees or Rodgers. That's exactly the point Chuckie was making: When you have a really good quarterback, suddenly your line and receivers look better. Shep
*****************************
Come on, man. You keep making a case for trading up to the
top of the draft, at any cost, to get that special qb to lead your offense.
Then you reference Wilson, who was a third round pick. Rodgers
was the 24th pick in the first round, Brees was the last pick in the second round,
and everybody knows that Brady was a sixth round pick.
And we all know the winner and loser qb picks in the top five.
If you're already picking in the top five, and you like Bridgewater, take him.
But trading up at a huge high price? nah. These qbs this year are Lucks or Mannings.
Trading up assumes that there is only one guy you need at qb. Like a Peyton, RGIII..
but the Browns. There are significant questions on all the qbs in this draft, so far.
Every time I've watched Petty, I see a superstar future, and I'd trade up to get him.
Until then, you let a guy fall to you in the first or second round. If RGIII was in
this next draft, at this point of Browns talent, yeah, I'd try to trade up to get him.
Nobody is calling Bridgewater, or any other qb this year, an RGIII or a Luck. It is
what it is this coming draft. I don't see it, that's all. But I'm easily wrong as
anybody else.
Petty lost the job last year to Nick Florence. Florence led the nation in pass yards. RG3 won a Heisman in that offense. The Big 12 is a historically weak conference in pass defense. I'm a bit weary on Petty still.Exactly: The Browns ARE that team that makes it hard to find other positions BECAUSE they don't have Luck or Stafford or Wilson or Manning or Brady or Brees or Rodgers. That's exactly the point Chuckie was making: When you have a really good quarterback, suddenly your line and receivers look better. Shep
*****************************
Come on, man. You keep making a case for trading up to the
top of the draft, at any cost, to get that special qb to lead your offense.
Then you reference Wilson, who was a third round pick. Rodgers
was the 24th pick in the first round, Brees was the last pick in the second round,
and everybody knows that Brady was a sixth round pick.
And we all know the winner and loser qb picks in the top five.
If you're already picking in the top five, and you like Bridgewater, take him.
But trading up at a huge high price? nah. These qbs this year are Lucks or Mannings.
Trading up assumes that there is only one guy you need at qb. Like a Peyton, RGIII..
but the Browns. There are significant questions on all the qbs in this draft, so far.
Every time I've watched Petty, I see a superstar future, and I'd trade up to get him.
Until then, you let a guy fall to you in the first or second round. If RGIII was in
this next draft, at this point of Browns talent, yeah, I'd try to trade up to get him.
Nobody is calling Bridgewater, or any other qb this year, an RGIII or a Luck. It is
what it is this coming draft. I don't see it, that's all. But I'm easily wrong as
anybody else.
-
Exactly: The Browns ARE that team that makes it hard to find other positions BECAUSE they don't have Luck or Stafford or Wilson or Manning or Brady or Brees or Rodgers. That's exactly the point Chuckie was making: When you have a really good quarterback, suddenly your line and receivers look better. Shep
*****************************
Come on, man. You keep making a case for trading up to the
top of the draft, at any cost, to get that special qb to lead your offense.
Then you reference Wilson, who was a third round pick. Rodgers
was the 24th pick in the first round, Brees was the last pick in the second round,
and everybody knows that Brady was a sixth round pick.
And we all know the winner and loser qb picks in the top five.
If you're already picking in the top five, and you like Bridgewater, take him.
But trading up at a huge high price? nah. These qbs this year are Lucks or Mannings.
Trading up assumes that there is only one guy you need at qb. Like a Peyton, RGIII..
but the Browns. There are significant questions on all the qbs in this draft, so far.
Every time I've watched Petty, I see a superstar future, and I'd trade up to get him.
Until then, you let a guy fall to you in the first or second round. If RGIII was in
this next draft, at this point of Browns talent, yeah, I'd try to trade up to get him.
Nobody is calling Bridgewater, or any other qb this year, an RGIII or a Luck. It is
what it is this coming draft. I don't see it, that's all. But I'm easily wrong as
anybody else.
Nobody is calling Bridgewater, or any other qb this year, an RGIII or a Luck. It is
what it is this coming draft. I don't see it, that's all. But I'm easily wrong as
anybody else.
Actually a lot of the scouting reports I've read are saying Bridgewater is second only to Luck in the last 5-10 years' worth of college QBs.
-
The Browns might draft two guys at QB. It's possible. I could see one in the top 10, another in round 5-ish.
Campbell looked so shitty yesterday, so much like I've seen him play before, I just pray it was the ribs and not a return to who he really is. But something tells me the Ravens game was Fool's Gold.
The Browns might draft two guys at QB. It's possible. I could see one in the top 10, another in round 5-ish.
Campbell looked so shitty yesterday, so much like I've seen him play before, I just pray it was the ribs and not a return to who he really is. But something tells me the Ravens game was Fool's Gold.
Yeah, he was pretty mediocre in OAK and CHI.
Jordan Lynch to the Browns!
-
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