Official Browns QB Prospect Discussion!
-
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!
-
-
Someone was saying Manziel looks like someone but he can't think who:
-
Someone was saying Manziel looks like someone but he can't think who:
Good one! Mariota strikes me as a darker, clean-shaven version of Michael Imperioli. Hundley sort of looks like Brandon T. Jackson. None of the other top QBs strike me as resembling anybody, maybe we could turn this into a game?
-
They are from the South.....me thinks they like Johnny Cash.
Let's put it this way, the Mannings may like Johnny Cash....but they definitely need to leave the singing to him, as evidenced herein:
-
OMG. That pic of Manziel... life is good, man.
Cal, I'm not advocating trading anything and everything to get to the top of the draft. That's way too broad and assumes the Browns couldn't get the guy they want at, say, #9, where they draft now. For instance, Matt Miller's new mock (he's pretty good) has the Browns taking Carr at #9 and Beckham at #27. That would be a great first round with the QB and Other Skill Position in the correct order, unlike 2012.
We don't know where the Browns will end up drafting but I will say this: If they were at 9 and had decided that Manziel (12th in Miller's draft) or Carr or Mariota is exactly the right guy to quarterback the Browns for the next decade... and they fear missing out on him? They'll be aggressive. When you're talking about QB, you don't let the cosmos decide. You take action, which the Browns already have in trades to get an extra first, third, and fourth round pick. Again, QB is the real reason they did that.
I don't think we need to worry about the Browns "trading their entire draft" to get to #1... because either Jacksonville or Minnesota wouldn't be seriously auctioning the pick anyway. They'll take Bridgewater. As someone else said, he's seen as one of the top 2 or 3 prospects of the last five years. He's a lock #1 and there will be multiple teams drafting ahead of the Browns who want him.
If Minnesota drafts second, I think the same is true there. They won't move out of that spot and risk losing out on the QB they want, especially with the rookie cap. I can't say for absolutely certain whether they'd take Mariota or Johnny Cash but I'm betting it's one or the other.
-
-
Someone was saying Manziel looks like someone but he can't think who:
Hugh Hefner maybe?
-
I think the FO will have in place plans to trade up with a team (atlanta?) that has their QB in place and could use a couple extra picks, if and only if the QB of their choice is still on the board at that point. Say atlanta are drafting at 4 (for no logical reason), and the draft goes Teddy B, Mariota, Clowney - With Houston, Minnesota or some QB needy team at 5/6. They'll pull the trigger.
Point is, they'll have a level of how high they're happy to go, and if the guy is there, they'll go. Like last year with mingo - if he wasn't there, they were happy to trade down, but he was so they took him. But in reverse.
-
-
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".
^+1
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.
And where did Foles get drafted Shep? THIRD ROUND. Ok, we were unlucky with Frye and McCoy there, San Fran did pretty well in that round with a guy by the name of Joe Montana, no?
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.
Shep, your quarterback misses are legendary. I can add Matt Leinart and Joey Harrington to Diehard's list. Sure, throw enough mud at a wall and eventually some of it sticks.
OMG. That pic of Manziel... life is good, man.
Cal, I'm not advocating trading anything and everything to get to the top of the draft. That's way too broad and assumes the Browns couldn't get the guy they want at, say, #9, where they draft now. For instance, Matt Miller's new mock (he's pretty good) has the Browns taking Carr at #9 and Beckham at #27. That would be a great first round with the QB and Other Skill Position in the correct order, unlike 2012.
We don't know where the Browns will end up drafting but I will say this: If they were at 9 and had decided that Manziel (12th in Miller's draft) or Carr or Mariota is exactly the right guy to quarterback the Browns for the next decade... and they fear missing out on him? They'll be aggressive. When you're talking about QB, you don't let the cosmos decide. You take action, which the Browns already have in trades to get an extra first, third, and fourth round pick. Again, QB is the real reason they did that.
I don't think we need to worry about the Browns "trading their entire draft" to get to #1... because either Jacksonville or Minnesota wouldn't be seriously auctioning the pick anyway. They'll take Bridgewater. As someone else said, he's seen as one of the top 2 or 3 prospects of the last five years. He's a lock #1 and there will be multiple teams drafting ahead of the Browns who want him.
If Minnesota drafts second, I think the same is true there. They won't move out of that spot and risk losing out on the QB they want, especially with the rookie cap. I can't say for absolutely certain whether they'd take Mariota or Johnny Cash but I'm betting it's one or the other.
Finally showing some sense. Your whole premise is based on the Browns seeing someone who IS a surefire, can't miss guy in the top 10. What if they don't, huh? And I'm not buying the draft guru crap- they slobber over and tend to overrate every qb class coming out. Of late, (we're talking the last couple years) teams have hit on quarterbacks OUTSIDE of the first round (Foles, Kaepernic, Wilson) as in it.
-
Or Maybe he is a little cross between DeNiro and Harvey Keitel:
-
Clearly, he's James Badge Dale
-
Thankfully, most of the guys I missed on (including hometown favorites Leinart and Clausen) were missed on by plenty of people. That's my point: My hits are legendary, too, if you wanna go that way. And my batting average is better than a lot of experts.
Sorry. I'm a superhuman motherfuckin' guru. Deal.
But seriously... or not... the Browns have said it's a very good quarterback draft. The Browns openly said acquiring another first round pick gave them the ability to move up to get a quarterback, if they love one and/or NEED to move up. It's not a huge mystery or anything. If they need to, they'll be aggressive.
It happens, finding a guy in round 3 (Russell, Foles)... just not very often. Some of those guys don't succeed simply because they never get a shot, as Alo once very astutely observed. But the stats are horrifying for QBs picked after #37. It's like that monkey throwing darts to assemble your portfolio.
What I will say those two guys had in common: I think they fell WAY too far. Both should've been 2nd round picks.
-
Thankfully, most of the guys I missed on (including hometown favorites Leinart and Clausen) were missed on by plenty of people. That's my point: My hits are legendary, too, if you wanna go that way. And my batting average is better than a lot of experts.
Sorry. I'm a superhuman motherfuckin' guru. Deal.
But seriously... or not... the Browns have said it's a very good quarterback draft. The Browns openly said acquiring another first round pick gave them the ability to move up to get a quarterback, if they love one and/or NEED to move up. It's not a huge mystery or anything. If they need to, they'll be aggressive.
It happens, finding a guy in round 3 (Russell, Foles)... just not very often. Some of those guys don't succeed simply because they never get a shot, as Alo once very astutely observed. But the stats are horrifying for QBs picked after #37. It's like that monkey throwing darts to assemble your portfolio.
What I will say those two guys had in common: I think they fell WAY too far. Both should've been 2nd round picks.
Thankfully, most of the guys I missed on (including hometown favorites Leinart and Clausen) were missed on by plenty of people. That's my point: My hits are legendary, too, if you wanna go that way. And my batting average is better than a lot of experts.
Sorry. I'm a superhuman motherfuckin' guru. Deal.
But seriously... or not... the Browns have said it's a very good quarterback draft. The Browns openly said acquiring another first round pick gave them the ability to move up to get a quarterback, if they love one and/or NEED to move up. It's not a huge mystery or anything. If they need to, they'll be aggressive.
It happens, finding a guy in round 3 (Russell, Foles)... just not very often. Some of those guys don't succeed simply because they never get a shot, as Alo once very astutely observed. But the stats are horrifying for QBs picked after #37. It's like that monkey throwing darts to assemble your portfolio.
What I will say those two guys had in common: I think they fell WAY too far. Both should've been 2nd round picks.
Exactly right Shep- the gurus and everyone else could be dead wrong about how great Teddy will be in the pros. Funny how RG III suddenly came back to earth, and all of a sudden even teams with "franchise qbs" have crashed and burned this year. Unlike someone else I know, I don't fall in love with the Flavor of the Month.
Hey, I'm not denying everyone and their uncle is saying 2014 is a pretty good qb draft. Some of the top underclassmen may stay in school for exactly that reason- we'll see. I really don't care where the Browns take a qb- and they will somewhere, it's a given. Just be right for a change, it's #20 since 1999, and counting. PS, seems like Carr would be a good pick- we win a couple more games (and I think we will) Bridgewater and Mariotta will be out of affordable reach.
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