"It's a passing league"
-
@mike-h said:
No, I mean they had Lynch running the ball, but had a shit sandwich at QB.
Saying passing or running is more important is a useless waste of typing or speaking. To win football you need to be able to do everything well.
Check.
While I am rooting for Seattle, I do detect from yesterday that their passing game is not first rate, though their defense and run game are.
Russell made a few good plays, and it was enough to beat San Fran at home......but I don't know if it will be enough to be Peyton Manning on a neutral field.
-
@mike-h said:
No, I mean they had Lynch running the ball, but had a shit sandwich at QB.
Saying passing or running is more important is a useless waste of typing or speaking. To win football you need to be able to do everything well.
Check.
While I am rooting for Seattle, I do detect from yesterday that their passing game is not first rate, though their defense and run game are.
Russell made a few good plays, and it was enough to beat San Fran at home......but I don't know if it will be enough to be Peyton Manning on a neutral field.
Cant pick a winner till the weather report is released. If its 35 and sunny its Denver's, if its 15 w/ snow, I think its Seattle.Check.
While I am rooting for Seattle, I do detect from yesterday that their passing game is not first rate, though their defense and run game are.
Russell made a few good plays, and it was enough to beat San Fran at home......but I don't know if it will be enough to be Peyton Manning on a neutral field.
-
The Watkins/Clowney thing is more about drafting BPA. And those BPAs happen to be at positions of need too.This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you.
Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers.
Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team.
The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter.
There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback.
There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl.
If that doesn't do it for you, try this:
Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason.
Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason.
Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason.
Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
Don't worry tho, I think Lombardi is 100% on the "do whatever it takes to get manziel and let other teams fool us into trading up for him" bandwagon.
The Watkins/Clowney thing is more about drafting BPA. And those BPAs happen to be at positions of need too.
Don't worry tho, I think Lombardi is 100% on the "do whatever it takes to get manziel and let other teams fool us into trading up for him" bandwagon.
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
-
Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either.
This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you.
Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers.
Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team.
The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter.
There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback.
There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl.
If that doesn't do it for you, try this:
Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason.
Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason.
Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason.
Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
-
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
Were in a position to get our favorite QB. Not our second, third, or fourth. Its our biggest need. I bet Nick Foles wasn't the Eagles favorite QB....they just got lucky. I guarantee, Johnny Manziel will be as good as Kaepernick.So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
-
I agree with everything but the last line. If they want Garappolo, they have to get a sense of others value on him. If he can be had in the second or third round, why draft him at 4?@mike-h said:
Can you guarantee every QB in this draft will flop?
No one said they have to take Manziel Bortles or Bridgewater, either.
And the fact 3/4 QBs weren't first round picks proves drafting is less of a science than wed like to think, not that drafting a QB in the first is a bad idea.
Especially when your QB situation is relying on a recovering ACL injured QB who has two decent starts to his name.
Sorry, Larry, there are no guarantees, but when I get done breaking it down, I'll be sure to let you know who they should take.
One last thing, how many times do people complain about draft picks as "reaches" and applaud "steals" based on pre-draft media projections?
It's all IRRELEVANT. You take the player your staff ranked , at the position you prioritized.
Hypothetical example:
I.e. if the Browns ranked Jimmy Garoppolo their no. 3 QB, and the top two are gone, they could pick him at four.
-
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
Can you guarantee me that there isn't? If you can put in writing that none of the top QB's in this draft will go in to have successful careers, I'm all for it.
You miss 100% of the shots you never take. Our past drafting history has absolute zero effect on this draft class. You can't let past mistakes paralyze you, that's the only way to guarantee we never get the right guy.
That's a great point about the quarterbacks, except that neither Wilson nor Kaepernick is the reason their respective teams made the postseason. When the game was put in Kaep's hands, you saw what happened.
4 of the 6 Pro Bowl quartebacks were taken in the first 32 picks. Three on the top five. Two were number one overall picks.
Yes, you can find talent later in the draft. But the odds are against it.
-
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
-
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
We've tried alternate ways.
It's like you people are being purposely dense.
Or you're just all pussies. I can't quite figure it out.
"Boo hoo, we once drafted Brady Quinn. Let's never draft a QB again."
-
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
And if you look at it from the team's perspective and where they found their QB:
Seattle: 3rd round
Denver: Free Agent
San Fran: 2nd round
New England: 6th round
Zombo
-
TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way.
-
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
I hate the term franchise QB also. I just want competent QB play. I dont think you can consider Wilson or Kaepernick "franchise QBs". So I guess the answer is yes, but you need good QB play and you have to be great everywhere else. My point is that we have to get one, and if the stooges favorite guy wont be there at 26, you have to take him at 4 (unless you trade).I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
-
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
-
TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way.
TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way.
No, I criticized people for being too afraid to act.
We tried the mainstream way. It didn't work. So we tried alternative ways, which also didn't work.
Teams can get lucky in the later rounds. It happens. Foles, Wilson, Brady. It happens. The common denominator in those three - fiery, good head coaches with innovative offenses or defenses.
We don't even have a coach, much less an innovator or fiery one.
Different circumstances dictate different strategies. If we didn't have any offensive weapons nor an offensive line, I wouldn't advocate taking anything less than Andrew Luck in the draft. But that's not the case.
We have a first round Pro Bowl LT. A first round Pro Bowl Center. A Pro Bowl, athletic receiving TE. A young Pro Bowl #1 WR. The key pieces are there.
-
This whole "passing league" bs is predicated on the notion that you can actually protect your qb. Year after year after year since 99 I've watched the Browns draft 1 qb after another, and with the exception of 2012 season....we've never really been able to protect our qb. There's zero point in drafting a high level qb that we can watch run for his life for 2 seasons. Then after that 2nd season, we get to watch an ESPN segment on how a once promising career died in Cleveland. And then we have to watch them rattle off the list of past promising young qb's who amounted to nothing in Cleveland. Qb's like Hoyer work here in Cleveland cause they've been in the game awhile and know what to mitigate a porous o line. Manziel will be a world class sprinter by season 2 if he stays even moderately healthy.
-
I THINK WE SHOULD KILL IT>
Don't fall down the well lassie
-
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
-
Really? You don't think anyone has supported the idea that getting an amazing QB and throwing like crazy is the only way to find success in the NFL? Maybe I'm hearing it all wrong. The Browns didn't even have a good QB this year and people STILL defended the decisions to throw more passes than any other team in the league.
-
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
At no point has anyone said that.
As a matter of fact, I've said the opposite. It's no coincidence that two of the three quarterbacks with the highest pass attempts per game average both went down with season injuries.
The thing is, having a QB that defenses will have to respect will open up running lanes.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
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