Jonathan Paul Manziel
-
-
@mike-h said:
Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.
it a shame that so many people here are so quick to pass on this guy.The guy will be very comparable to Tark...here or somewhere else...
-
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
-
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
So do I..
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
Crap- The Browns passed on Ladanian Tomlinson, Ben Rothlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers. I'm not going to lose sleep if they pass on Johnny Football.
-
@mike-h said:
Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.
it a shame that so many people here are so quick to pass on this guy.The guy will be very comparable to Tark...here or somewhere else...
-
Mike H.
Just because my thinking is inconsistent with yours you think my thinking is insane. Hahaha right.
What's wrong with givin' WRs some love? It's not like QBs are perfect in their throws regardless of how sexy that sounds from sports casters...and you evidently.
-
I think he was being sarcastic.
I was being 100% serious
-
No it isn't. A wide receiver who runs his routes accurately extends to catch the ball and doesn't drop the son of a bitch makes a quarterback look a lot better. If he doesn't he makes the quarterback look like a chump. But yes, kindergarten logic aside, it's always best to have both positions playing well.@mike-h said:
That's insane.
WSS
-
@mike-h said:
Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.
a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.
got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.
-
-
Check your calendar amigo. Its 2014. Yes unfortunately today Fran Tarkenton is probably too small to play in today's NFL. I think Broadway Joe Namath was only 6'1.@mike-h said:
Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.
WSS
-
@mike-h said:
Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.
a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.
got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.
a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.
got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.
He went back to the Vikings.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
@mike-h said:
Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.
a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.
got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.
-
He went back to the Vikings.
yeah and did shit again.
Zombo said:
Lost three Super Bowls = Made three Super Bowls.
Tarkenton 3 Browns 0
Z
jim kelly 4 browns 0
dan marino 1 browns 0
need i go on?
so i guess the point is a great QB does not make a team great or a sure thing.
-
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
According to Tony Rizzo on The Really Big Show, he "talked" to people close to Ray Farmer and there is 90% chance they will NOT be drafting Manziel. Sorry to burst people's bubbles, but then again, you never know what will happen. Personally I think not picking Manziel is consistent with what Farmer has been saying and what the Chiefs did with their draft picks while Farmer was there.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
Manziel is more likely to be a bust in Cleveland than he would be in Houston, so I don't buy this logic. In other words, his success somewhere else doesn't mean he'd have succeeded in Cleveland. In my opinion, the safest QB at this position is Bridgewater, and if he's not available, I would either take BPA or trade down with the Vikings so they can pick a QB and we can pick up Watkins at #8.
-
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
bullshit.
if they miss on a QB with their first or second pick we will go down in history as having more QBs than any other team in a 14 year period that have all been busts. how can you say it won't set us back or it's no big deal? holmgren's pick of both mccoy and weeden set us back a decade and you're advocating doing the same thing? hell let the vikings trade up and swap picks with us for a christian ponder the 3rd and let them be the laughing stock when julius peppers plants manziel into the astroturf in his home dome.
farmer looks pretty smart to me and all of these so-called top 5 QBs look like a dumb move for a defensive player turned GM with a DC turned HC.
-
Nobody tips there hand before the draft. They will try and mislead you, confuse you, etc. Hell, they do trades when the clock is running on a particular draftee. It's all bullshit.
-
...
After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:
I want the Browns to pick fourth.
If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.
But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.
Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.
If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.
bullshit.
if they miss on a QB with their first or second pick we will go down in history as having more QBs than any other team in a 14 year period that have all been busts. how can you say it won't set us back or it's no big deal? holmgren's pick of both mccoy and weeden set us back a decade and you're advocating doing the same thing? hell let the vikings trade up and swap picks with us for a christian ponder the 3rd and let them be the laughing stock when julius peppers plants manziel into the astroturf in his home dome.
farmer looks pretty smart to me and all of these so-called top 5 QBs look like a dumb move for a defensive player turned GM with a DC turned HC.
bullshit.
if they miss on a QB with their first or second pick we will go down in history as having more QBs than any other team in a 14 year period that have all been busts. how can you say it won't set us back or it's no big deal? holmgren's pick of both mccoy and weeden set us back a decade and you're advocating doing the same thing? hell let the vikings trade up and swap picks with us for a christian ponder the 3rd and let them be the laughing stock when julius peppers plants manziel into the astroturf in his home dome.
farmer looks pretty smart to me and all of these so-called top 5 QBs look like a dumb move for a defensive player turned GM with a DC turned HC.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're advocating for here. I don't agree with your assessment of the quarterbacks in this draft, I suppose... But that's not the big issue.
I think there are pieces on the Browns roster right NOW that will be part of a good situation going forward. If you don't want to take a quarterback with that first pick, I kind of get what you're getting at. But Hoyer isn't likely going to be the answer either, so that leaves the Browns in an even stevens position.
I fail to see how making an attempt to fix this positional hole is somehow worse than leaving it status quo.
-
bullshit.
if they miss on a QB with their first or second pick we will go down in history as having more QBs than any other team in a 14 year period that have all been busts. how can you say it won't set us back or it's no big deal? holmgren's pick of both mccoy and weeden set us back a decade and you're advocating doing the same thing? hell let the vikings trade up and swap picks with us for a christian ponder the 3rd and let them be the laughing stock when julius peppers plants manziel into the astroturf in his home dome.
farmer looks pretty smart to me and all of these so-called top 5 QBs look like a dumb move for a defensive player turned GM with a DC turned HC.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're advocating for here. I don't agree with your assessment of the quarterbacks in this draft, I suppose... But that's not the big issue.
I think there are pieces on the Browns roster right NOW that will be part of a good situation going forward. If you don't want to take a quarterback with that first pick, I kind of get what you're getting at. But Hoyer isn't likely going to be the answer either, so that leaves the Browns in an even stevens position.
I fail to see how making an attempt to fix this positional hole is somehow worse than leaving it status quo.
People either think Hoyer os the answer or anyone we get in the second or third can be the next Kaepernick/Wilson/Dalton/Foles. I dont buy it. Were in a position now to get the guy we think is the best available....which is exactly what we have to do (While we can). My biggest fear is ignoring the position in the draft then have Hoyer be the best hes capable of being (mediocre), and winning 7 or 8 games the next three seasons while all our pro bowlers leave for greener pastures (teams with better QB situations). If you dont think Hoyer can be a top 10 QB (does anyone REALLY believe that), we need to add someone we think can be. Otherwise, were rebuilding again in three years.I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're advocating for here. I don't agree with your assessment of the quarterbacks in this draft, I suppose... But that's not the big issue.
I think there are pieces on the Browns roster right NOW that will be part of a good situation going forward. If you don't want to take a quarterback with that first pick, I kind of get what you're getting at. But Hoyer isn't likely going to be the answer either, so that leaves the Browns in an even stevens position.
I fail to see how making an attempt to fix this positional hole is somehow worse than leaving it status quo.
-
Kudos DaBuckeye on a well-made and reasonable point. I don't know if I agree with it 100% (because I don't necessarily think a 1st round QB is a guarantee either), but I definitely don't disagree with it. Hoyer most likely is not the answer, and the chances of getting exactly the right guy in the 3rd or 4th round are slim. People like to look at successful picks in those rounds and act like teams were depending on those QB picks the way we would be depending on the QB we're picking in the draft pick this year. It's like the "Chud started Hoyer" argument. You can't look at it in hindsight and act like it was intentional and it was the master plan all along. In at least some of those cases, those teams took a guy they thought had some potential, and he worked out, but they (some of them) didn't pick him with the insistence, "this guy is our future!".
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