Official Browns QB Prospect Discussion!
-
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
I'd bristle, because I want to see entertainment from my team. I'd rather win 41-40 than 10-9. An elite D is a great thing to have, but you still need to be able to put up points.
-
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
#Justsayin' -
TCPO...
You're missing the fact that the guy who would pull the trigger on the trades, is the f***ing CEO. Who is he going to fire if he makes the wrong pick?? himself?? You think Haslam will fire him?? That's a joke. Job security is not the problem.
If they trade up, it will be to make sure they don't miss the next great. Passing on a guy who turns out great, looks worse than being aggressive and having it flop...
Either way. Can't we at least agree that we need a new QB on this roster...? Or, are there really people here willing to go into next season riding the Hoyer train... WOW...
TCPO...
You're missing the fact that the guy who would pull the trigger on the trades, is the f***ing CEO. Who is he going to fire if he makes the wrong pick?? himself?? You think Haslam will fire him?? That's a joke. Job security is not the problem.
If they trade up, it will be to make sure they don't miss the next great. Passing on a guy who turns out great, looks worse than being aggressive and having it flop...
Either way. Can't we at least agree that we need a new QB on this roster...? Or, are there really people here willing to go into next season riding the Hoyer train... WOW...
I'm positive Haslam would fire him. Haslam is a bottom line guy. If the Browns aren't winning, the fans aren't happy. If the fans aren't happy, Haslam's earning potential takes a hit.
There's no doubt in my mind Haslam would fire him.
I have no problem trading up to get the next great. The problem is, I don't see a great anywhere in the draft. I see about five guys who have an equal stake at being either great or garbage. To me, that's not worth a trade up.
I'm willing to go into next season riding the Hoyer train if, and only if, we take a QB with our late first, second, or early third and let him sit and learn.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.
What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?
Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.
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
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.
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.
that certainly could be true but as we remember from your namesake who was number one in the first throwing him into the fire was a terrible terrible idea. And the guy we would be trading up for is he going to be a middle-of-the-road prospect compared to Andrew Luck or someone else actually worthy of two number ones.
I'm just crossing my fingers that Hoyer comes back and kicks ass.
WSS
-
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.
What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?
Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.
What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?
Literal lol............. Followed by a figurative lmao
-
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 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.
Can you help me with my algebra homework?
-
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
On the other hand, with a great D, maybe we turn it around and frequently be the beneficiary of a 4-5 TO day.
Let's face it, the greatest defenses in history are probably the ones that got the most Turnovers. Check this article out:
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS: TURNOVERS ARE KEY TO VICTORYWinning the turnover battle is one of the keys to success in the National Football League.
“It’s all about the number of possessions,” says NFL Network analyst and former head coach STEVE MARIUCCI about the importance of turnovers. “It’s about possession time, clock time and the number of chances to score points. If you give the ball away three times a game, that’s three opportunities out of 12 or 13 that you don’t have a chance to score. Plus, you’re providing the other team with a short field. It’s quite evident that if you lose the turnover battle, then you lose a very high percentage of those games.”
Statistics show that in the NFL, teams with positive turnover ratios have a significantly higher probability of winning. Over the past five full seasons, clubs with more takeaways than giveaways have a combined 810-220-2 (.786) record.
A breakdown of teams’ records within varying degrees of turnover ratio and the total for clubs with a positive differential:
SEASON
+1
+2
+3 OR MORE
TOTAL
WIN PCT.
2008
66-28
46-12
44-8-1
156-48-1
.763
2009
64-31
49-14
51-2
164-47
.777
2010
66-27
49-10
57-3
172-40
.811
2011
63-33
56-9
37-1
156-43
.784
2012
64-30-1
43-9
55-3
162-42-1
.793
TOTAL
323-149-1
243-54
244-17-1
810-220-2
.786
The trend has continued this season as teams with a positive turnover differential have a 72-17 (.809) record.
SEASON
+1
+2
+3 OR MORE
TOTAL
WIN PCT.
2013
29-11
26-5
17-1
72-17
.809
“Turnovers play a big role in football,” says former NFL head coach DICK VERMEIL. “When I was coaching, turnovers were something I would emphasize, emphasize some more, and then keep emphasizing. On the field, in the meeting room, in training camp, in minicamp. All the time. We always stressed the importance of ball security and taking the ball away.
“I used to put up charts detailing the numbers every week. When you stress the importance of turnovers, the players understand. I used to hear players on the sidelines saying ‘Hey, we’re +1.’ They knew exactly what the turnover differential was. And they knew their chances of winning the game were better.”
This season, the Kansas City Chiefs have used a league-best +12 turnover differential (20 takeaways, eight giveaways) to help build an NFL-best 8-0 record.
“Turnovers can be demoralizing to the opposing team, especially when points are scored as a result of them,” says Chiefs head coach ANDY REID. “It can be a real momentum swing during the course of the game.”
Last year, five of the seven teams with a turnover differential of at least +10 – New England (+25), Washington (+17), Seattle (+13), Atlanta (+13) and Houston (+12) – made the playoffs and combined for a 58-22 record (.725).
Those seven teams all finished with a winning record and combined for a 77-35 (.688) mark.
The seven teams with a +10 or better turnover differential in 2012:
TEAM
TAKEAWAYS
GIVEAWAYS
DIFFERENTIAL
RECORD
New England*
41
16
+25
12-4
Chicago
44
24
+20
10-6
Washington*
31
14
+17
10-6
New York Giants
35
21
+14
9-7
Seattle*
31
18
+13
11-5
Atlanta*
31
18
+13
13-3
Houston*
29
17
+12
12-4
TOTAL
77-35 (.688)
*Qualified for playoffs
“You win games when you force turnovers on defense,” says St. Louis Rams head coach JEFF FISHER. “You never get tired of preaching turnovers, that’s one of the key factors in wins and losses.”
This season, the top five teams in turnover differential have combined for a 40-13 (.755) record.
TEAM
TAKEAWAYS
GIVEAWAYS
DIFFERENTIAL
RECORD
Kansas City
20
8
+12
8-0
Dallas
19
10
+9
4-4
Seattle
21
12
+9
7-1
New Orleans
15
7
+8
6-1
Indianapolis
13
6
+7
5-2
New England
16
9
+7
6-2
Chicago
18
11
+7
4-3
TOTAL
40-13 (.755)
“Forcing a turnover is an impact play,” says Carolina Panthers head coach RON RIVERA. “It gets your offense back on the field and it swings momentum.”
-
Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
The D scored points and didn't get two kicks blocked. Quit talking like you don't know anything.
I don't agree we need a new QB. I think Hoyer can be a good player. I will say I won't mind if we bring in a new QB, be it a polished high rounder or a 2nd or 3rd rounder. To me it's all about improving the team is the best possible way. If that means we have a QB and he actually works out, great. If that means we don't like any we can get, then improve in another area.
It's easy to say get a QB. The problem is sometimes there aren't any to get.
You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.
What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?
Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.
Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.
What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?
Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.
I think the point being made here is that while the D is elite, or close to, they still couldn't help us overcome the giant turd laid by offence and ST. ST are normally fine, so I'm happy writing that off as an aberration, but the O clearly needs to be improved in a big way. The D is there, but they can't win games on their own. They put us in a position to win, and if the offence could get the touchdown on a red zone trip we would have been 21-0 up instead of 13-0.
-
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
The D scored points and didn't get two kicks blocked. Quit talking like you don't know anything.
I don't agree we need a new QB. I think Hoyer can be a good player. I will say I won't mind if we bring in a new QB, be it a polished high rounder or a 2nd or 3rd rounder. To me it's all about improving the team is the best possible way. If that means we have a QB and he actually works out, great. If that means we don't like any we can get, then improve in another area.
It's easy to say get a QB. The problem is sometimes there aren't any to get.
You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.
I freely admit that I was. What's not to like? Notre Dame who I love when they're not playing the Buckeyes or the University of Akron Zips, Irish guy, from Ohio, Browns fan... What the fucks not to like? Same with Charlie Frye even though he seemed a little bit more hillbilly that Quinn he's one of our own and I went to Akron. So there. So they didn't work out. Sorry if I was disappointed.You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.
but let's not pretend that the number one factor in being a Cleveland Browns fan, or at least way way way near the top, isnt territorial loyalty.
WSS
-
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.”
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.”
those quotes aren't even close to what shep said came out of the FO. but you guys can still try to make things up.
Someone was saying Manziel looks like someone but he can't think who:
Hugh Hefner maybe?
yeah he looks like this 'DICK":
acts like him too.
fuck both those pieces of shit.
just what we'd need in cleveland, a QB with the skills of donovan mcnabb, the morals of pacman jones and would show up to the game as drunk as bernie is now.
-
Who was that child actor red head kid with the big schnoz... looks just like freakin Manziel.
Can't think of any movies he was in and no idea what his name is.. I think he might have been on some tv show.
-
AHA! I fuckin found it god damn I love the internet...remember this dude?
-
AHA! I fuckin found it god damn I love the internet...remember this dude?
AHA! I fuckin found it god damn I love the internet...remember this dude?
Not really .... but, yes, looks just like him.
Zombo
-
AHA! I fuckin found it god damn I love the internet...remember this dude?
Not really .... but, yes, looks just like him.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Not really .... but, yes, looks just like him.
Zombo
For some reason the photo is not coming up for me.
-
Zombo said:
Not really .... but, yes, looks just like him.
Zombo
For some reason the photo is not coming up for me.
For some reason the photo is not coming up for me.
-
Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.
What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?
Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.
I think the point being made here is that while the D is elite, or close to, they still couldn't help us overcome the giant turd laid by offence and ST. ST are normally fine, so I'm happy writing that off as an aberration, but the O clearly needs to be improved in a big way. The D is there, but they can't win games on their own. They put us in a position to win, and if the offence could get the touchdown on a red zone trip we would have been 21-0 up instead of 13-0.
I think the point being made here is that while the D is elite, or close to, they still couldn't help us overcome the giant turd laid by offence and ST. ST are normally fine, so I'm happy writing that off as an aberration, but the O clearly needs to be improved in a big way. The D is there, but they can't win games on their own. They put us in a position to win, and if the offence could get the touchdown on a red zone trip we would have been 21-0 up instead of 13-0.
Yes. The only person who understood my post.
Our D is excellent, and they play great game-in and game-out, but D alone is not enough to win games. We need to get some sembelance of an offense... right now there is nothing...
#Justsayin' -
Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?
Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...
The D scored points and didn't get two kicks blocked. Quit talking like you don't know anything.
I don't agree we need a new QB. I think Hoyer can be a good player. I will say I won't mind if we bring in a new QB, be it a polished high rounder or a 2nd or 3rd rounder. To me it's all about improving the team is the best possible way. If that means we have a QB and he actually works out, great. If that means we don't like any we can get, then improve in another area.
It's easy to say get a QB. The problem is sometimes there aren't any to get.
You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.
The D scored points and didn't get two kicks blocked. Quit talking like you don't know anything.
I don't agree we need a new QB. I think Hoyer can be a good player. I will say I won't mind if we bring in a new QB, be it a polished high rounder or a 2nd or 3rd rounder. To me it's all about improving the team is the best possible way. If that means we have a QB and he actually works out, great. If that means we don't like any we can get, then improve in another area.
It's easy to say get a QB. The problem is sometimes there aren't any to get.
You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.
This is funny... I pretty much had Quinn as overrated and undraftable...
And... there are plenty of QBs. We need to get one...
-
I think the point being made here is that while the D is elite, or close to, they still couldn't help us overcome the giant turd laid by offence and ST. ST are normally fine, so I'm happy writing that off as an aberration, but the O clearly needs to be improved in a big way. The D is there, but they can't win games on their own. They put us in a position to win, and if the offence could get the touchdown on a red zone trip we would have been 21-0 up instead of 13-0.
Yes. The only person who understood my post.
Our D is excellent, and they play great game-in and game-out, but D alone is not enough to win games. We need to get some sembelance of an offense... right now there is nothing...
Yes. The only person who understood my post.
Our D is excellent, and they play great game-in and game-out, but D alone is not enough to win games. We need to get some sembelance of an offense... right now there is nothing...
I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with that.
We just don't need to break the bank on a QB who, quite frankly, will probably not be any better than his peers in the draft.
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