Official Browns QB Prospect Discussion!
-
Can you point me to a link where a Browns front office official said this? I seemed to have missed it.
I found this, which is a more restrained version of that:
On if the 2014 quarterback class is as great as most people assume it is: “It’s too early to say that. I think there’s a number of prospects out there. It’s too early to say what the storytelling versus the eventual assessments are going to be.”
On if he still believes the 2014 draft would be better than the 2013 draft: “I was optimistic that that was the case. I think from what we’re seeing that I still believe this is going to be a draft that is going to a fairly strong draft. It’s too early to say that conclusively, but the optimism we had about that in April, I’d say we’re even more optimistic now.”
-
Honestly, no, because I doubt they said it directly. I know Banner insinuated it fairly heavily... and then both national and local beat writers said it was obvious the Browns were continuing to accumulate draft assets to move up and get a QB (as opposed to an ostrich or a RG).
Can you point me to a link where a Browns front office official said this? I seemed to have missed it.
-
Honestly, no, because I doubt they said it directly. I know Banner insinuated it fairly heavily... and then both national and local beat writers said it was obvious the Browns were continuing to accumulate draft assets to move up and get a QB (as opposed to an ostrich or a RG).
Can you point me to a link where a Browns front office official said this? I seemed to have missed it.
Honestly, no, because I doubt they said it directly. I know Banner insinuated it fairly heavily... and then both national and local beat writers said it was obvious the Browns were continuing to accumulate draft assets to move up and get a QB (as opposed to an ostrich or a RG).
Ah, as long as a writer wrote about it, that should certainly make it so.
-
Honestly, no, because I doubt they said it directly. I know Banner insinuated it fairly heavily... and then both national and local beat writers said it was obvious the Browns were continuing to accumulate draft assets to move up and get a QB (as opposed to an ostrich or a RG).
Ah, as long as a writer wrote about it, that should certainly make it so.
-
Honestly, no, because I doubt they said it directly. I know Banner insinuated it fairly heavily... and then both national and local beat writers said it was obvious the Browns were continuing to accumulate draft assets to move up and get a QB (as opposed to an ostrich or a RG).
Ah, as long as a writer wrote about it, that should certainly make it so.
Depends on how much you like the source, I guess. And unless I'm "misremembering," I think some of it was insider stuff, like, "Uh, off the record... duh, it's about artillery to get the quarterback we want." You can't really say it openly, even if it's kind of obvious, for multiple reasons (mood of current team, competition with other teams for draft picks, leverage, etc.).
Ah, as long as a writer wrote about it, that should certainly make it so.
-
I think somebody else put it this way: The Browns don't want to draft 10 guys. That wasn't really the point of adding extra picks. They have the 2nd youngest team in the NFL as it is. They'd certainly like to add some experience and maturity in free agency, young-ish veterans and key contributors like Kruger and Bryant. Probably a proven RG, a quality WR, a legit CB with size... something like that.
The point of adding picks was to create possibilities. I doubt we'll draft more than 6 or 7 guys, but higher than our current positions. They can go get players they covet. Last year, we settled at corner after that really fast guy was taken just ahead of us... and then missed out on Vance McDonald.
EDIT: Robert Alford, taken late 2nd by Falcons, rumored to have fried the panties of the Browns' brass. He has 17 tackles, 2 picks, and 6 PDs.
-
Depends on how much you like the source, I guess. And unless I'm "misremembering," I think some of it was insider stuff, like, "Uh, off the record... duh, it's about artillery to get the quarterback we want." You can't really say it openly, even if it's kind of obvious, for multiple reasons (mood of current team, competition with other teams for draft picks, leverage, etc.).
Ah, as long as a writer wrote about it, that should certainly make it so.
Depends on how much you like the source, I guess. And unless I'm "misremembering," I think some of it was insider stuff, like, "Uh, of the record... duh, it's about artillery to get the quarterback we want." You can't really say it openly, even if it's kind of obvious, for multiple reasons (mood of current team, competition with other teams for draft picks, leverage, etc.).
The issue for me Shep is throughout this, and other threads you make post after post saying things like "The Browns openly said acquiring another first round pick gave them the ability to move up to get a quarterback" when in fact, they have not said anything close to this, and if they did I would lose all faith in them as it's no one's business what the Browns intentions for draft day actually are.
You write as though you were in the board room talking with the boys, and it's a forgone conclusion that they will be "aggressively trading up with all their extra picks, and targeting their coveted QB of the future". When in fact it's just your opinion, based on what you'd like to see them do, as well as reading other writers opinions.
The bottom line is you know nothing more about what the Browns are going to do than I, or anyone else on this forum knows. You having an opinion on what they should do is great, and welcomed, just as anyone else's is. But when you write your posts as though it is fact, and you somehow have inside knowledge, comes off as condescending, to me at least.............You are probably a great guy and someone whom I would hang out with, but your QB insider posts, well they irritate me.
-
Right. I think the Browns made it about as clear as they could and "insiders" took it the rest of the way. In my humble (not really) opinion, it's fairly obvious when a team without a franchise QB starts accumulating draft assets.
They "all but said it," is the way I think I've put it a few times. The Browns flirted with the idea of E.J. Manuel, passed, saw all they needed to see of Weeden, then traded Richardson for a first round pick. It's pretty clear and I think it was spoken of, at least in the hypothetical.
I think Hoyer had a chance to change the plans... but then he blew out his knee. At this point, I think the chances of the Browns NOT taking a quarterback with their highest chip(s) are at 0.0003.
-
Petty passes McCarron...
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2013/11/2013_college_quarterback_repor_2.html
-
They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.
We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.
I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...
-
Is there a noodle-armed college QB with loose tangential connections to the Cleveland area? If so, that's our guy. Bonus points if he has pictures of himself as a kid dressed up in one of those old Bernie Kosar uniforms.
-
They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.
We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.
I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...
Great post. Agree with everything.
They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.
We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.
I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...
-
Is there a noodle-armed college QB with loose tangential connections to the Cleveland area? If so, that's our guy. Bonus points if he has pictures of himself as a kid dressed up in one of those old Bernie Kosar uniforms.
-
Shep you probably spend more time considering the situation than anyone here. If you were the GM and no one to argue with who do you take and where? We are assuming things that should be assumed in the real world. That means you can't get Bridgewater but you could possibly give two firsts and a second for anyone else in the draft. Or you can trade one of your firsts or wait for round 2. or whatever you decide.
(I assume you are going quarterback before anything else? Or would you take a qb with your lower first or your second and take another position at number one?)
Which is the one you want and what do you give?
WSS
-
I feel like this has been said, then rehashed, and the rehashing has been then repeated, copied, pasted, linked to, broken down, analyzed, disagreed with, agreed with, admonished, and then ignored:
Trading up for a QB would be a worse move than not selecting one at all.
I'll just break it down into simple scenarios.
By trading up to get a QB, we are basically guaranteeing two things:
1) This is THE GUY of this FO.
2) The careers, in Cleveland, of the FO essentially rest in his hands.
With those two things guaranteed, let's look at the possibilities of what can happen.
Now, there's four general scenarios that could possibly play out regarding the QB. These are generalizations. Specific scenarios will, of course, fall under the umbrella of one of these four general scenarios.
a) He blows up and proves he is a franchise pick.
b) He plays mediocre football.
c) He blows absolute dick.
d) He, for some odd reason, doesn't start day one.
Of those four scenarios, fans will be pissed for three of them (b, c and d).
If a happens, we have our franchise pick. The trade up was successful.
If b happens, fans will be upset and the questioning of the trade up will begin. Unfortunately, there won't be enough evidence to make a decision after one season, so they will get another season. The result is undetermined.
If c happens, fans will be upset, the questioning of the trade up will begin, and the FO may all lose their jobs by seasons end. The trade up was unsuccessful.
If d happens, fans will be upset and question why he's not starting, and will voice their disapproval until the new guy gets put in. The results are undetermined.
Now, of those four scenarios, two of them require further investigating (b and d).
Assuming b happens, and the QB gets another year, then three things will then happen:
b1) He is amazing.
b2) He is mediocre.
b3) He blows absolute dick.
If b1 happens, we have our franchise pick. The trade up was successful.
If b2 happens, fans will be even more upset, and the FO will probably be fired. The trade up was unsuccessful.
If b3 happens, fans will be very upset, and the FO will definitely be fired. The trade up was unsuccessful.
Assuming d happens, and the new guy comes in after a few games, there are three outcomes:
d1) The new guy comes in and does well.
d2) The new guy comes in and does mediocre.
d3) The new guy comes in and blows absolute dick.
If d1 happens, we will have found our franchise QB. The trade up was successful.
If d2 happens, the fans will be upset that we traded up for him only to have him sit, and then will be upset that he isn't a gamechanger. Honestly, the FO would probably get another year, but I'm tired of doing this, so I'll call it a wash. The results of the trade up were neither bad nor good.
If d3 happens, the fans will be upset that we traded up for him only to have him sit, and then will be upset because he's awful. The trade up was unsuccessful.
So, of the possible 10 outcomes, 3 of them are successful, 4 are unsuccessful, and one is neither successful nor unsuccessful. For a draft where there's no surefire franchise QB but a handful of guys who might be good, trading up to take one wouldn't make any logical sense.
Now, taking the best QB available at our regular first or second draft pick would lessen the pressure for the QB to be great. This leaves the chance that, assuming the QB doesn't turn out to be a franchise caliber player, the FO can claim there wasn't a player they liked available. This would save their jobs.
At the end of the day, its about their job security.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
I don't think the fans are upset about option D. I'd guess most people expressed the desire to have the rookie sit on the bench especially in one of two instances:
A Campbell recovers from his shitty game on Sunday and looks okay for the rest of the season. And B Hoyer comes back 100 percent next season. Or a combination of a and b..
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I don't think the fans are upset about option D. I'd guess most people expressed the desire to have the rookie sit on the bench especially in one of two instances:
A Campbell recovers from his shitty game on Sunday and looks okay for the rest of the season. And B Hoyer comes back 100 percent next season. Or a combination of a and b..
WSS
I don't think the fans are upset about option D. I'd guess most people expressed the desire to have the rookie sit on the bench especially in one of two instances:
A Campbell recovers from his shitty game on Sunday and looks okay for the rest of the season. And B Hoyer comes back 100 percent next season. Or a combination of a and b..
WSS
Right, but I think that all flies out of the window if we trade up to get him. If we take a guy at our normal draft position, I don't think people would mind him sitting. But a trade up? That's different.
-
They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.
We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.
I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...
They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.
We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.
I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...
Amen to that. Has to be the #1 goal of the next draft. Get their guy, but don't use the following years picks.
-
RG3's passing is the same level as Cleveland's 4-headed monster. Yes, RG3 gets a few more rushing yards.. but all those picks by Washington has got them nothing more than our passing level this year.
So don't waste all the picks to trade up...
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