Jonathan Paul Manziel
-
alright mike 'the manziel lover' unbiased reporter.
if you want to be serious about what you want to achieve in journalism you have to let 'your' feelings stay out of your editorials.
-
Hoorta's anti-Johnny bias is laid on so thick, that I've actually had to stop reading his posts about quarterbacks for a while.
He's like bizarro POG when it comes to a player.
I don't give a shit who we get as long as his talents mesh with the system in place. Judging by Pettine's comments, it seems likely that we'll be drafting "BPA by position" and not by scheme. Meaning we're going to take the best QB available, no matter what scheme he fits, and adjust accordingly. Whoever is available at #4, be it Bortles or Manziel, will be our next QB.
That's something I can get behind, personally.
Hoorta's anti-Johnny bias is laid on so thick, that I've actually had to stop reading his posts about quarterbacks for a while.
He's like bizarro POG when it comes to a player.
I don't give a shit who we get as long as his talents mesh with the system in place. Judging by Pettine's comments, it seems likely that we'll be drafting "BPA by position" and not by scheme. Meaning we're going to take the best QB available, no matter what scheme he fits, and adjust accordingly. Whoever is available at #4, be it Bortles or Manziel, will be our next QB.
That's something I can get behind, personally.
Sorry if you can't stand me debunking a bullshit internet rumor. I would have done the same if (Insert Bortles or Bridgewater) in that horse crap instead of Manziel. Yup, if anyone else high on the list doesn't interview well, scratch them off too. Happy now?
What I'm really tired of is all this premature Manziel love. There's more spew on this board about him than all the other potential qb draftees combined.
“We’re going to spend thousands of hours researching whether to pick a quarterback in the draft or NOT,” Haslam said Clear enough? Really TC, spend more time researching other qbs than bitching about me bitching about Johnny Football. I've already seen enough of Bridgewater & Bortles to say I'd take either of them over Football in a heartbeat. Carr I'm not so certain about, so back off .
And if they have a non-qb rated higher, you going to start whining?
-
this is really gonna turn ugly before the combines.
when that happens we might get some real answers, that is if everyone participates which should be mandatory by now.
-
Judging by Pettine's comments, it seems likely that we'll be drafting "BPA by position" and not by scheme. Meaning we're going to take the best QB available, no matter what scheme he fits, and adjust accordingly.
Link?
Link?
It's all in his introductory press conference.
"I’ve always been of the mindset that you never fit your players to your system; you fit your system to your players. So again, once we hit the ground running and get the staff hired, the first task will be to evaluate the roster from top to bottom and see what we have here, what we do well, maybe what holes we need to fill"
"[W]hen you prioritize the positions of the National Football League, there’s the quarterback and then there’s about 10 open spots, and then you start talking about the next open position. It would be foolish, even being a defensive guy, to ignore that issue."
"To win in this league you have to have a great quarterback and that’s something we’re going to put our full focus and attention on.”"
From the mouth of babes.
Sorry if you can't stand me debunking a bullshit internet rumor. I would have done the same if (Insert Bortles or Bridgewater) in that horse crap instead of Manziel. Yup, if anyone else high on the list doesn't interview well, scratch them off too. Happy now?
What I'm really tired of is all this premature Manziel love. There's more spew on this board about him than all the other potential qb draftees combined.
“We’re going to spend thousands of hours researching whether to pick a quarterback in the draft or not,” Haslam said Clear enough?
And if they have a non-qb rated higher, you going to start whining?
Probably, because that is a dumb decision. I trust this scouting department about as far as I can throw them, which is to say, not far.
Clowney won't turn this four win team into an eight win team. Neither will Watkins. Teams with a glaring hole at QB like the Browns currently have don't add a positional player and magically turn things around a year later, it just doesn't happen.
As I've been saying all year, I'm a big fan of Bortles. Moreso than Manziel. I just want to see a fair and rational argument debunking Manziel, not the same bullshit everybody throws around: "Oh, he's a dick and I don't want his weasel face on my team." You say that you're against the premature Manziel love, yet you're spewing premature Manziel hate just as often. Same story, just opposite ends of the spectrum.
Interviews don't win football games. Players do. I couldn't care less about how Manziel or Bortles or Bridgewater interviews. I don't care if they can barely form sentences. I don't care if they grab Suzy Kolber's titties, yelp, and go climb a tree. If they can play, and win, then that should be all that matters.
We have three different quarterbacks with three different physical attributes and three different styles of play that will probably all go in the top five. It's not going to be a brain buster pick. We need to take the one that grades out highest according to the style of play that our HC and OC envision the team running. That's it.
If we're going to run a Pro-style, PA pass predicated system, take Bortles. If we're going to run a spread based read option, take Manziel. That's what it should come down to.
Personally, I'd rather see us take Bortles for a multitude of a reasons, but that is neither here nor there.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Well, good/bad to see all of the arguments haven't changed much in the couple of days I've been gone...
-
It isn't hate to not jump on the media hype bandwagon this early.
And every qb in this draft is no Luck.
So you'd take Manziel at 4? I wouldn't.
I'd be happier taking a blue chip difference making stud at 4, and drafting
a Garoppolo a few? picks later. In fact, you may have to trade up to the top
pick in the second round to get hiim, and maybe a late first round pick
might nab him, as some team really doesn't need much, except another really
smart, accurate, super quick release qb to their roster.
It's early. I'll be all in on Manziel if he makes a believer out of the scouts and coaches
at the comine.
Showboating/improvising doesn't necessarily help a young rookie qb to be coachable
when he steps up into the NFL. Some of us just aren't sold on Manziel. That's all.
I wonder how many Ryan Leaf fans there were back in the day, "all in" on his talent....
-
Link?
It's all in his introductory press conference.
"I’ve always been of the mindset that you never fit your players to your system; you fit your system to your players. So again, once we hit the ground running and get the staff hired, the first task will be to evaluate the roster from top to bottom and see what we have here, what we do well, maybe what holes we need to fill"
"[W]hen you prioritize the positions of the National Football League, there’s the quarterback and then there’s about 10 open spots, and then you start talking about the next open position. It would be foolish, even being a defensive guy, to ignore that issue."
"To win in this league you have to have a great quarterback and that’s something we’re going to put our full focus and attention on.”"
From the mouth of babes.
Sorry if you can't stand me debunking a bullshit internet rumor. I would have done the same if (Insert Bortles or Bridgewater) in that horse crap instead of Manziel. Yup, if anyone else high on the list doesn't interview well, scratch them off too. Happy now?
What I'm really tired of is all this premature Manziel love. There's more spew on this board about him than all the other potential qb draftees combined.
“We’re going to spend thousands of hours researching whether to pick a quarterback in the draft or not,” Haslam said Clear enough?
And if they have a non-qb rated higher, you going to start whining?
Probably, because that is a dumb decision. I trust this scouting department about as far as I can throw them, which is to say, not far.
Clowney won't turn this four win team into an eight win team. Neither will Watkins. Teams with a glaring hole at QB like the Browns currently have don't add a positional player and magically turn things around a year later, it just doesn't happen.
As I've been saying all year, I'm a big fan of Bortles. Moreso than Manziel. I just want to see a fair and rational argument debunking Manziel, not the same bullshit everybody throws around: "Oh, he's a dick and I don't want his weasel face on my team." You say that you're against the premature Manziel love, yet you're spewing premature Manziel hate just as often. Same story, just opposite ends of the spectrum.
Interviews don't win football games. Players do. I couldn't care less about how Manziel or Bortles or Bridgewater interviews. I don't care if they can barely form sentences. I don't care if they grab Suzy Kolber's titties, yelp, and go climb a tree. If they can play, and win, then that should be all that matters.
We have three different quarterbacks with three different physical attributes and three different styles of play that will probably all go in the top five. It's not going to be a brain buster pick. We need to take the one that grades out highest according to the style of play that our HC and OC envision the team running. That's it.
If we're going to run a Pro-style, PA pass predicated system, take Bortles. If we're going to run a spread based read option, take Manziel. That's what it should come down to.
Personally, I'd rather see us take Bortles for a multitude of a reasons, but that is neither here nor there.
@mike-h said:
I've said it so many times. I have no stance... It's January. I just think it's way too early to be so adamant, and that some of the reasons people are using are a little absurd. Tis all, good sir.
Fair enough... still awaiting your breakdowns.
It's all in his introductory press conference.
"[W]hen you prioritize the positions of the National Football League, there’s the quarterback and then there’s about 10 open spots, and then you start talking about the next open position. It would be foolish, even being a defensive guy, to ignore that issue."
"To win in this league you have to have a great quarterback and that’s something we’re going to put our full focus and attention on.”"
Thanks. I remembered all the bits. They just did not coalesce in my mind the way you originally summarized them... and they still do not.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to draft a QB at #4.
Nothing says they are even going to draft their "great QB" vs. trading for or signing him.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to let the percieved need for a QB influence their analysis of the QBs that are available.
But in fairness, nothing says they won't...
Clowney won't turn this four win team into an eight win team. Neither will Watkins. Teams with a glaring hole at QB like the Browns currently have don't add a positional player and magically turn things around a year later, it just doesn't happen.
No one player is going to be added to the exclusion of all others, so that's no basis for an argument.
That a great QB has more impact tham adding a great WR is not the argument.
That Watkins will not be a great WR is not an argument I have heard.
That any of the top QB prospects have shortcomings (pun unintended) that may prevent their greatness is in arguments against each that I have read.
You apparently love the path to 8 wins with Bortles, but would settle for liking the Manziel path, presumably with a WR added later in the draft.
I love my path with Hoyer and Watkins.
I just want to see a fair and rational argument debunking Manziel, not the same bullshit everybody throws around: "Oh, he's a dick and I don't want his weasel face on my team."
Which has never been my argument not that of several others. Unless it's in a thread I've yet to read this morning, I'm still awaiting your reasoned counter to my injury potential rationale.
"I’ve always been of the mindset that you never fit your players to your system; you fit your system to your players."
We have three different quarterbacks with three different physical attributes and three different styles of play that will probably all go in the top five. It's not going to be a brain buster pick. We need to take the one that grades out highest according to the style of play that our HC and OC envision the team running. That's it.
If we're going to run a Pro-style, PA pass predicated system, take Bortles. If we're going to run a spread based read option, take Manziel. That's what it should come down to.
Not sure how you square your analysis with Pettine's words.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
"If we're going to run a Pro-style, PA pass predicated system, take Bortles. If we're going to run a spread based read option, take Manziel. That's what it should come down to."
You DO NOT need a Manziel type player to run a read option offense.
There's this kid who was drafted in the 3rd round of the 2012 draft who finally got a chance to start this season.
He's doesn't run like Vick
Does not have impressive stats like Manziel coming out of college
Stands at 6'5"
Has a good NFL arm
Named to his first Pro-Bowl and finished as the Pro-Bowl MVP
In 11 starts this season:
2,800 yards
64% completion
27 TD passes w/ 2 INT
230 rushing yards and 3 rushing TD
We can conclude that this kid have a bright future ahead of him. I would take him over Cam, Kaep and Wilson any day.
-
That 2012 draft still makes me sick in my stomach. 28 year old Brandon Weeden??? WTF!
Rd. Overall Team QB Role 1 1 IND Andrew Luck 1st 1 2 WAS Robert Griffin III 1st 1 8 MIA Ryan Tannehill 1st 1 22 CLE Brandon Weeden 1st 2 57 DEN Brock Osweiler 3rd 3 75 SEA Russell Wilson 1st or 2nd 3 88 PHI Nick Foles 3rd 4 102 WAS Kirk Cousins 3rd 6 185 ARI Ryan Lindley 3rd 7 243 GB B.J. Coleman 3rd 7 253 IND Chandler Harnish 3rd -
2012 joe banner was still in philly for the draft even though i doubt he had any influence on the draft, even though he was lurie's right hand man.
-
@mike-h said:
I've said it so many times. I have no stance... It's January. I just think it's way too early to be so adamant, and that some of the reasons people are using are a little absurd. Tis all, good sir.
Fair enough... still awaiting your breakdowns.
It's all in his introductory press conference.
"[W]hen you prioritize the positions of the National Football League, there’s the quarterback and then there’s about 10 open spots, and then you start talking about the next open position. It would be foolish, even being a defensive guy, to ignore that issue."
"To win in this league you have to have a great quarterback and that’s something we’re going to put our full focus and attention on.”"
Thanks. I remembered all the bits. They just did not coalesce in my mind the way you originally summarized them... and they still do not.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to draft a QB at #4.
Nothing says they are even going to draft their "great QB" vs. trading for or signing him.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to let the percieved need for a QB influence their analysis of the QBs that are available.
But in fairness, nothing says they won't...
Clowney won't turn this four win team into an eight win team. Neither will Watkins. Teams with a glaring hole at QB like the Browns currently have don't add a positional player and magically turn things around a year later, it just doesn't happen.
No one player is going to be added to the exclusion of all others, so that's no basis for an argument.
That a great QB has more impact tham adding a great WR is not the argument.
That Watkins will not be a great WR is not an argument I have heard.
That any of the top QB prospects have shortcomings (pun unintended) that may prevent their greatness is in arguments against each that I have read.
You apparently love the path to 8 wins with Bortles, but would settle for liking the Manziel path, presumably with a WR added later in the draft.
I love my path with Hoyer and Watkins.
I just want to see a fair and rational argument debunking Manziel, not the same bullshit everybody throws around: "Oh, he's a dick and I don't want his weasel face on my team."
Which has never been my argument not that of several others. Unless it's in a thread I've yet to read this morning, I'm still awaiting your reasoned counter to my injury potential rationale.
"I’ve always been of the mindset that you never fit your players to your system; you fit your system to your players."
We have three different quarterbacks with three different physical attributes and three different styles of play that will probably all go in the top five. It's not going to be a brain buster pick. We need to take the one that grades out highest according to the style of play that our HC and OC envision the team running. That's it.
If we're going to run a Pro-style, PA pass predicated system, take Bortles. If we're going to run a spread based read option, take Manziel. That's what it should come down to.
Not sure how you square your analysis with Pettine's words.
Fair enough... still awaiting your breakdowns.
Thanks. I remembered all the bits. They just did not coalesce in my mind the way you originally summarized them... and they still do not.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to draft a QB at #4.
Nothing says they are even going to draft their "great QB" vs. trading for or signing him.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to let the percieved need for a QB influence their analysis of the QBs that are available.
But in fairness, nothing says they won't...
No one player is going to be added to the exclusion of all others, so that's no basis for an argument.
That a great QB has more impact tham adding a great WR is not the argument.
That Watkins will not be a great WR is not an argument I have heard.
That any of the top QB prospects have shortcomings (pun unintended) that may prevent their greatness is in arguments against each that I have read.
You apparently love the path to 8 wins with Bortles, but would settle for liking the Manziel path, presumably with a WR added later in the draft.
I love my path with Hoyer and Watkins.
Which has never been my argument not that of several others. Unless it's in a thread I've yet to read this morning, I'm still awaiting your reasoned counter to my injury potential rational.
Not sure how you square your analysis with Pettine's words.
Hoyer & Watkins? I love the idea too.
No one is saying we shouldn't draft a qb- but there can be discussion if any of the top 4 are worth spending that #4 pick on, much less throwing multiple picks to move up to draft one. Damn near certainty one of them will be there @ #4.
Oh, I'll live with Johnny Football should the Browns decide he's the man- like I have any choice in the matter. But I like Watkins, Mason, and Garrapolo in the Hoorta mock draft v 1.0 .I could do a Rich4Eagle and blow my own horn showing my superior draft acumen as opposed to the Browns FO since 1999. (Incidentally, my only two major mistakes were falling in love with Couch prematurely, and seriously under rating Ngata's potential as a DL.) Haslam and Baner have made it abundantly clear they are not locked in on Manziel, so whoever started that BS rumor ought to be taken out and shot for spreading false information.
-
@mike-h said:
I've said it so many times. I have no stance... It's January. I just think it's way too early to be so adamant, and that some of the reasons people are using are a little absurd. Tis all, good sir.
Fair enough... still awaiting your breakdowns.
It's all in his introductory press conference.
"[W]hen you prioritize the positions of the National Football League, there’s the quarterback and then there’s about 10 open spots, and then you start talking about the next open position. It would be foolish, even being a defensive guy, to ignore that issue."
"To win in this league you have to have a great quarterback and that’s something we’re going to put our full focus and attention on.”"
Thanks. I remembered all the bits. They just did not coalesce in my mind the way you originally summarized them... and they still do not.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to draft a QB at #4.
Nothing says they are even going to draft their "great QB" vs. trading for or signing him.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to let the percieved need for a QB influence their analysis of the QBs that are available.
But in fairness, nothing says they won't...
Clowney won't turn this four win team into an eight win team. Neither will Watkins. Teams with a glaring hole at QB like the Browns currently have don't add a positional player and magically turn things around a year later, it just doesn't happen.
No one player is going to be added to the exclusion of all others, so that's no basis for an argument.
That a great QB has more impact tham adding a great WR is not the argument.
That Watkins will not be a great WR is not an argument I have heard.
That any of the top QB prospects have shortcomings (pun unintended) that may prevent their greatness is in arguments against each that I have read.
You apparently love the path to 8 wins with Bortles, but would settle for liking the Manziel path, presumably with a WR added later in the draft.
I love my path with Hoyer and Watkins.
I just want to see a fair and rational argument debunking Manziel, not the same bullshit everybody throws around: "Oh, he's a dick and I don't want his weasel face on my team."
Which has never been my argument not that of several others. Unless it's in a thread I've yet to read this morning, I'm still awaiting your reasoned counter to my injury potential rationale.
"I’ve always been of the mindset that you never fit your players to your system; you fit your system to your players."
We have three different quarterbacks with three different physical attributes and three different styles of play that will probably all go in the top five. It's not going to be a brain buster pick. We need to take the one that grades out highest according to the style of play that our HC and OC envision the team running. That's it.
If we're going to run a Pro-style, PA pass predicated system, take Bortles. If we're going to run a spread based read option, take Manziel. That's what it should come down to.
Not sure how you square your analysis with Pettine's words.
Fair enough... still awaiting your breakdowns.
Thanks. I remembered all the bits. They just did not coalesce in my mind the way you originally summarized them... and they still do not.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to draft a QB at #4.
Nothing says they are even going to draft their "great QB" vs. trading for or signing him.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to let the percieved need for a QB influence their analysis of the QBs that are available.
But in fairness, nothing says they won't...
No one player is going to be added to the exclusion of all others, so that's no basis for an argument.
That a great QB has more impact tham adding a great WR is not the argument.
That Watkins will not be a great WR is not an argument I have heard.
That any of the top QB prospects have shortcomings (pun unintended) that may prevent their greatness is in arguments against each that I have read.
You apparently love the path to 8 wins with Bortles, but would settle for liking the Manziel path, presumably with a WR added later in the draft.
I love my path with Hoyer and Watkins.
Which has never been my argument not that of several others. Unless it's in a thread I've yet to read this morning, I'm still awaiting your reasoned counter to my injury potential rationale.
Not sure how you square your analysis with Pettine's words.
I just don't subscribe to the notion that Watkins is a flawless prospect. Every prospect, no matter the position, has inherent risks.
If you recall, Watkins was arrested for possession of drugs in the offseason. People are quick to judge Manziel for his off-the-field issues, yet dismiss Watkins' arrest. Not that they're in the same league, as far as attitude goes, but it's still an issue nonetheless.
It's hard to win in this league without a quarterback, that's proven. I don't think anyone will argue that. The quarterback is the keystone position of a football team. To me, taking the best one available as early as possible is a no brainer.
I understand people are wary of taking a QB based on our previous success, or lack thereof. It's frustrating to see us follow in the same path as we do every year, however.
There were 20 first round quarterbacks (1st 32 picks) taken in the drafts between Tim Couch and Brady Quinn (2000-2006). 11 of those quarterbacks have earned at least 1 Pro Bowl nomination. 13 have made it to the playoffs at least once. At least 4 have Super Bowl rings.
We've take exactly one quarterback in the top ten in the last 15 years, and he was arguably the best and most talented quarterback we've had since the 80's. Unfortunately, he didn't have an offensive line or any playmakers. That's not going to be the case with whoever we bring in now. We have the leagues best WR, a Pro Bowl LT, a Pro Bowl C, and a Pro Bowl TE along with a mediocre-to-decent rest of the offensive line that, regardless of what people believe, finished in the middle of the league in production.
Exactly how far has the waiting game gotten us? I'm not saying take a quarterback early solely because they are available early, I'm saying take the best quarterback you have rated, no matter the cost. Don't play the waiting game and say "Oh, well there's a serviceable guy we can get later in the draft". Serviceable doesn't win Super Bowls, ask Chad Pennington.
I square my analysis with Pettine's words in that it's exactly what he said. He said they would evaluate the roster and make a determination of the scheme to be implemented.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Despite my unwavering insistence that the Browns could benefit by making more of an effort in the run game than they did in 2013, I do agree that the Browns may as well use the #4 pick on a QB. I also agree that it is an appropriate time to take that chance again. For this team right now, I really like a BPA approach, but the QB situation does need to be addressed. If the Browns have a very good reason to believe that some QB they can get at #26 is going to have the potential to be great, then I wouldn't complain if they waited until then. I do think that a substantial effort has to be made to address the problem in the draft, though, and I agree that the earlier they take that shot, the better chance they have of getting a guy who can be great.
I do find the statistic about the 20 first round QBs a little alarming, though. Only 11 have ever made a Pro Bowl? That's just over half. Derek Anderson made a Pro Bowl. Josh Freeman made a Pro Bowl. You mean to tell me that (according to that stat) the Browns have just slightly over a 50% chance of selecting a QB in the first round that ever does as well as Anderson or Freeman? That's not really encouraging. In fact, it is kind of scary.
-
Despite my unwavering insistence that the Browns could benefit by making more of an effort in the run game than they did in 2013, I do agree that the Browns may as well use the #4 pick on a QB. I also agree that it is an appropriate time to take that chance again. For this team right now, I really like a BPA approach, but the QB situation does need to be addressed. If the Browns have a very good reason to believe that some QB they can get at #26 is going to have the potential to be great, then I wouldn't complain if they waited until then. I do think that a substantial effort has to be made to address the problem in the draft, though, and I agree that the earlier they take that shot, the better chance they have of getting a guy who can be great.
I do find the statistic about the 20 first round QBs a little alarming, though. Only 11 have ever made a Pro Bowl? That's just over half. Derek Anderson made a Pro Bowl. Josh Freeman made a Pro Bowl. You mean to tell me that (according to that stat) the Browns have just slightly over a 50% chance of selecting a QB in the first round that ever does as well as Anderson or Freeman? That's not really encouraging. In fact, it is kind of scary.
Despite my unwavering insistence that the Browns could benefit by making more of an effort in the run game than they did in 2013, I do agree that the Browns may as well use the #4 pick on a QB. I also agree that it is an appropriate time to take that chance again. For this team right now, I really like a BPA approach, but the QB situation does need to be addressed. If the Browns have a very good reason to believe that some QB they can get at #26 is going to have the potential to be great, then I wouldn't complain if they waited until then. I do think that a substantial effort has to be made to address the problem in the draft, though, and I agree that the earlier they take that shot, the better chance they have of getting a guy who can be great.
I do find the statistic about the 20 first round QBs a little alarming, though. Only 11 have ever made a Pro Bowl? That's just over half. Derek Anderson made a Pro Bowl. Josh Freeman made a Pro Bowl. You mean to tell me that (according to that stat) the Browns have just slightly over a 50% chance of selecting a QB in the first round that ever does as well as Anderson or Freeman? That's not really encouraging. In fact, it is kind of scary.
Yeah, the success rate of first round quarterbacks hovers around 50%. Mike or Tour or someone else posted a stat in the same vein and the results were similar.
It's far and away a better percentage than QB's taken outside of the first round.
Freeman and Anderson never made it to the postseason as starters, and that's the only stat I care about. I couldn't care less if a Browns QB ever goes to the Pro Bowl, so long as we make it to the Super Bowl.
-
Despite my unwavering insistence that the Browns could benefit by making more of an effort in the run game than they did in 2013, I do agree that the Browns may as well use the #4 pick on a QB. I also agree that it is an appropriate time to take that chance again. For this team right now, I really like a BPA approach, but the QB situation does need to be addressed. If the Browns have a very good reason to believe that some QB they can get at #26 is going to have the potential to be great, then I wouldn't complain if they waited until then. I do think that a substantial effort has to be made to address the problem in the draft, though, and I agree that the earlier they take that shot, the better chance they have of getting a guy who can be great.
I do find the statistic about the 20 first round QBs a little alarming, though. Only 11 have ever made a Pro Bowl? That's just over half. Derek Anderson made a Pro Bowl. Josh Freeman made a Pro Bowl. You mean to tell me that (according to that stat) the Browns have just slightly over a 50% chance of selecting a QB in the first round that ever does as well as Anderson or Freeman? That's not really encouraging. In fact, it is kind of scary.
Yeah, the success rate of first round quarterbacks hovers around 50%. Mike or Tour or someone else posted a stat in the same vein and the results were similar.
It's far and away a better percentage than QB's taken outside of the first round.
Freeman and Anderson never made it to the postseason as starters, and that's the only stat I care about. I couldn't care less if a Browns QB ever goes to the Pro Bowl, so long as we make it to the Super Bowl.
Yeah, the success rate of first round quarterbacks hovers around 50%. Mike or Tour or someone else posted a stat in the same vein and the results were similar.
It's far and away a better percentage than QB's taken outside of the first round.
Freeman and Anderson never made it to the postseason as starters, and that's the only stat I care about. I couldn't care less if a Browns QB ever goes to the Pro Bowl, so long as we make it to the Super Bowl.
Pretty much what I'm saying TC- if we think the talent is there, you use that #4 pick on a qb, if not, you wait a bit. Rothlisberger, Rodgers, Marino, Brees, and Farve are proof just because you don't draft a guy top 5 doesn't mean you can't get a top qb. Just no 29 year old rookies this time, OK?
My fear is Lombardi wouldn't know what talent was if it walked up to him and bit him in the ass.
-
Right. I wasn't disagreeing at all. I just think the stat puts some things in perspective, especially for those who may assume that the chances that a QB drafted in the first round will be amazing are pretty high. They are definitely highER, but it obviously isn't unusual for a QB drafted in the first round to never be "great." Don't read that the wrong way, though; I'm all for taking a QB at #4 if that's where we need to take a QB with the best chance for success.
-
Fair enough... still awaiting your breakdowns.
Thanks. I remembered all the bits. They just did not coalesce in my mind the way you originally summarized them... and they still do not.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to draft a QB at #4.
Nothing says they are even going to draft their "great QB" vs. trading for or signing him.
Nothing in the quotes says they are going to let the percieved need for a QB influence their analysis of the QBs that are available.
But in fairness, nothing says they won't...
No one player is going to be added to the exclusion of all others, so that's no basis for an argument.
That a great QB has more impact tham adding a great WR is not the argument.
That Watkins will not be a great WR is not an argument I have heard.
That any of the top QB prospects have shortcomings (pun unintended) that may prevent their greatness is in arguments against each that I have read.
You apparently love the path to 8 wins with Bortles, but would settle for liking the Manziel path, presumably with a WR added later in the draft.
I love my path with Hoyer and Watkins.
Which has never been my argument not that of several others. Unless it's in a thread I've yet to read this morning, I'm still awaiting your reasoned counter to my injury potential rationale.
Not sure how you square your analysis with Pettine's words.
I just don't subscribe to the notion that Watkins is a flawless prospect. Every prospect, no matter the position, has inherent risks.
If you recall, Watkins was arrested for possession of drugs in the offseason. People are quick to judge Manziel for his off-the-field issues, yet dismiss Watkins' arrest. Not that they're in the same league, as far as attitude goes, but it's still an issue nonetheless.
It's hard to win in this league without a quarterback, that's proven. I don't think anyone will argue that. The quarterback is the keystone position of a football team. To me, taking the best one available as early as possible is a no brainer.
I understand people are wary of taking a QB based on our previous success, or lack thereof. It's frustrating to see us follow in the same path as we do every year, however.
There were 20 first round quarterbacks (1st 32 picks) taken in the drafts between Tim Couch and Brady Quinn (2000-2006). 11 of those quarterbacks have earned at least 1 Pro Bowl nomination. 13 have made it to the playoffs at least once. At least 4 have Super Bowl rings.
We've take exactly one quarterback in the top ten in the last 15 years, and he was arguably the best and most talented quarterback we've had since the 80's. Unfortunately, he didn't have an offensive line or any playmakers. That's not going to be the case with whoever we bring in now. We have the leagues best WR, a Pro Bowl LT, a Pro Bowl C, and a Pro Bowl TE along with a mediocre-to-decent rest of the offensive line that, regardless of what people believe, finished in the middle of the league in production.
Exactly how far has the waiting game gotten us? I'm not saying take a quarterback early solely because they are available early, I'm saying take the best quarterback you have rated, no matter the cost. Don't play the waiting game and say "Oh, well there's a serviceable guy we can get later in the draft". Serviceable doesn't win Super Bowls, ask Chad Pennington.
I square my analysis with Pettine's words in that it's exactly what he said. He said they would evaluate the roster and make a determination of the scheme to be implemented.
Hey Z..... can we lose the Chud autocorrect now?
I just don't subscribe to the notion that Watkins is a flawless prospect. Every prospect, no matter the position, has inherent risks.
I understand people are wary of taking a QB based on our previous success, or lack thereof.Exactly how far has the waiting game gotten us? I'm not saying take a quarterback early solely because they are available early, I'm saying take the best quarterback you have rated, no matter the cost. Don't play the waiting game and say "Oh, well there's a serviceable guy we can get later in the draft". Serviceable doesn't win Super Bowls, ask Ch(a)d Pennington.
I square my analysis with Pettine's words in that it's exactly what he said. He said they would evaluate the roster and make a determination of the scheme to be implemented.Thanks for the reply... just to clarify a couple points.
While off-field issues have to be considered, I am not concerned about Sammy's. My Manziel concern is an on-field one.
Past history has absolutely nothing to do with my perception of the upcoming draft. Frustration impairs judgement... if you are sure it is not shading your evaluation of this QB draft class, that's good enough for me.
I do not think Pennington is a good case in point. Barring injury he had greatness in his future... at least that is what I saw.
As for squaring words... it's a chicken and egg thing. You wrote it was the scheme they wanted to run that would determine which of two QBs they would (should) take. What I read (hear) in Pettine's words is that could only be true in case of a tie.
-
Hey Z..... can we lose the Chud autocorrect now?
I just don't subscribe to the notion that Watkins is a flawless prospect. Every prospect, no matter the position, has inherent risks.
I understand people are wary of taking a QB based on our previous success, or lack thereof.Exactly how far has the waiting game gotten us? I'm not saying take a quarterback early solely because they are available early, I'm saying take the best quarterback you have rated, no matter the cost. Don't play the waiting game and say "Oh, well there's a serviceable guy we can get later in the draft". Serviceable doesn't win Super Bowls, ask Ch(a)d Pennington.
I square my analysis with Pettine's words in that it's exactly what he said. He said they would evaluate the roster and make a determination of the scheme to be implemented.Thanks for the reply... just to clarify a couple points.
While off-field issues have to be considered, I am not concerned about Sammy's. My Manziel concern is an on-field one.
Past history has absolutely nothing to do with my perception of the upcoming draft. Frustration impairs judgement... if you are sure it is not shading your evaluation of this QB draft class, that's good enough for me.
I do not think Pennington is a good case in point. Barring injury he had greatness in his future... at least that is what I saw.
As for squaring words... it's a chicken and egg thing. You wrote it was the scheme they wanted to run that would determine which of two QBs they would (should) take. What I read (hear) in Pettine's words is that could only be true in case of a tie.
Hey Z..... can we lose the Chud autocorrect now?
Was not aware of that one. I always wondered why Gipper always referred to Pennington as "Chud" when doing his lists.
I don't know what the possible motivation was to change "Chad" to "Chud" unless it stems from the Chud Johnson days.
I changed it.
But now A.J. Green will be A.J. Pink
Zombo
-
Hey Z..... can we lose the Chud autocorrect now?
Was not aware of that one. I always wondered why Gipper always referred to Pennington as "Chud" when doing his lists.
I don't know what the possible motivation was to change "Chad" to "Chud" unless it stems from the Chud Johnson days.
I changed it.
But now A.J. Green will be A.J. Pink
Zombo
-
If we can't grab manziel we the 4th pick, we shouldn't take a qb in the first round. I mean if manziel is gone before the 4th, we can take an exceptional player in watkins or clowney. Then we go cornerback with the 26th (passing league).
Then here's the point. We have a high second round draft pick. I watched garoppolo in the east-west shrine game and in the senior bowl and i absolutly fell in love with him. He's smart, a good guy, very fast on his feet and on his decision making. He's accurate, has a great vision, he is use to north climat.
I understant the point that says : "we have to draft a qb high because it has never worked before with late rounds qb". But we have a really good qb in hoyer. He's only 29. Everybody in the league praise his game. I trust him. The coach loves him. Grab garoppolo and put him behind Brian for the year to make him learn the game.
I'm sur that we can have a great year with hoyer at qb. We shouldn't reach for a qb outside of johnny football in the first round.
Thoughts ?
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