Marcus Mariotta?
-
BLARFKKKK!!!
-
It shouldn't have made for an interesting conversation
The picks+players it would take to move up to get him would be far, far too prohibitive.
DL and OL are far, far more of a need.
It shouldn't have made for an interesting conversation
The picks+players it would take to move up to get him would be far, far too prohibitive.
DL and OL are far, far more of a need.
Are they? They are needs for sure, but "far,far" greater than that of QB? What's the most important piece to have to be a playoff team?
My personal stance is that we need a QB more than we need a DT, however I'm not sure how I feel about Mariota or Winston being that guy. I'd personally love for one of them to be the guy, but that's neither here nor there. There's been a few arguments rolling around about who to take, when to take them, and what's more important, so I just compiled something during my lunch break to show both sides.
(Keep in mind, the following isn't an argument about draft position, it's purely about what is more of a need for the Cleveland Browns in today's NFL. )
Argument #1: You don't need to invest heavily in a defensive line for it to be good.
The top 5 defensive lines last season (against the run) were Detroit, Denver, St. Louis, Buffalo, and Seattle.
- Detroit has three first round picks(#2, #5, #13 )and a second rounder (#54) along their defensive line. (ADP= 18.5)
- Denver has two first round picks (#11, #28), a second round pick (#36) and a third round pick (#72) on their defensive line. (ADP = 46.5)
- St. Louis has four first round picks (#2, #13, #13, #14) along their defensive line. (ADP 10.75)
- Buffalo had three first round picks (#1, #3, #31) and a fifth round pick (#134) on their defensive line (ADP= 42.25)
- Seattle had one first round pick (#9), one third round pick (#72) and two undrafted players on their defensive line. (ADP=153.75)
It's clear that, in order to have an elite defensive line, it helps to invest heavily in it...as evidenced by the fact that most of the top 5 have multiple, if not all, of their positions filled by first round talent.
Seattle, the only team in the top 5 to make it to their conference championship (and, by extension, the Super Bowl), has only one first round player along their defensive front. So, while investing heavily in your defensive line is clearly a good way to make it "elite", it's not the only way.
The Browns clearly don't have many highly drafted players across their defensive line. Assuming Rubin returns, which isn't going to happen, that still only leaves Cleveland with one first-round player, two sixth-round players, and one undrafted player across a four-man front. That's why, as most analysts have been saying, Cleveland's biggest hole is likely DT.
Average top-5 defensive line ADP: 54.35
What the Cleveland Browns currently have: 168
Differential= 113.65
Conclusion: Busted. The top defensive lines are mostly composed of solid first and second round talent.
Argument #2: You don't need an elite defensive line to win a Super Bowl
The defensive line rankings of all playoff teams (against run, then pass, then averaged):
- Patriots (18th, 19th, 19th)
- Broncos (2nd, 23rd, 12th)
- Steelers (20th, 20th, 20th)
- Colts (22nd, 9th, 16th)
- Bengals (27th, 31st, 29th)
- Ravens (7th, 5th , 6th)
- Seahawks (5th, 14th, 10th)
- Packers (26th, 13th, 20th)
- Cowboys (17th, 29th, 18th)
- Panthers (10th, 7th, 9th)
- Cardinals (6th, 28th, 17th)
- Lions (1st, 18th, 10th)
- Average (run, pass): 13th, 23rd
- Overall average: 18th
*bolded teams are teams that made it to their respective conference championships.
It doesn't seem like a truly dominant defensive line is something that any of the top playoff teams had last season. Playoff teams averaged together had the 13th ranked defensive line in rushing and 23rd in passing. Overall, playoff teams had the 18th ranked defensive lines.
Further, the top defensive lines didn't necessarily result in top playoff performances. For example, Detroit and Denver, who finished #1 and #2 in defensive line production last year, respectively, of course did not have favorably playoff performances.
Cleveland's defensive line performance last year was less-than-stellar, to say the least. Some can be attributed to injuries, sure. However, there is an argument to be had that there simply isn't enough talent. Rubin is likely gone and that leaves a 350 pound hole to be filled (and I'm not talking about Ghoolie's mom).
Average playoff team defensive line performance (run, pass, overall): (13th, 23rd, 18th)
Cleveland Browns 2014 performance: (29th, 25th, 27th)
Conclusion: Based off of last season, true. Basically none of the "premier" (read: full of first round picks + top performing) defensive lines made it very far in the playoffs, with Detroit losing immediately and Denver losing in the divisional round. St. Louis, obviously, didn't even make to the playoffs. Seattle, the 5th ranked defensive line, of course made it to the Super Bowl.
Argument #3: Good teams have good quarterbacks.
The QB rankings of all playoff teams:
Patriots (10th)
Broncos (4th)
Steelers (T-1st)
Colts (3rd)
Bengals (16th)
Ravens (12th)
Seahawks (15th)
Packers (7th)
Cowboys (14th)
Panthers (21st)
Cardinals (31st)
Lions (9th)
Average: 11th
Nearly all of the playoff teams had solid to exceptional play from their quarterbacks, with the exception of Arizona. Six of the 12 playoff teams (50%) had top-10 QB play. Nine of the 12 teams (75%) had QB play better than league average.
Average playoff QB rank: 11th
Cleveland Browns QB rank: Hoyer - 18th, McCown - 28th, Manziel - 55th (I included both Hoyer and McCown just to show the difference in their performances last season.)
Conclusion: QB play is very important to the success of a team, obviously. Hoyer has been the best, and most stable, Browns QB since 1999 and he was still significantly worse than the average NFL playoff QB in 2014.
Argument #4: You have to invest in franchise quarterbacks.
Patriots (6th round pick)
Broncos (1st round pick - acquired through FA)
Steelers (1st round pick)
Colts (1st round pick)
Bengals (2nd round pick)
Ravens (1st round pick)
Seahawks (3rd round pick)
Packers (1st round pick)
Cowboys (undrafted)
Panthers (1st round pick)
Cardinals (2nd round pick - acquired through FA)
Lions (1st round pick)
More than half of the teams in the playoffs (59%) had first round quarterbacks. Nine of them (75%) had a quarterback taken in the first two rounds. Nearly every playoff team (83%) had a quarterback they drafted.
Conclusion: While there are different ways to skin a cat, there has to be one way that's proven to be more effective than the rest. In this case, that's taking a QB in the first round. The biggest thing to acknowledge here is that taking a first round QB doesn't automatically guarantee success, especially when he's slotted for a later draft round (I'm looking at you, Brandon Weeden). It would be nice to find a Tom Brady or a Russell Wilson, but that isn't something you plan for. If there is a guy there that you believe possesses the tool set to turn your franchise around, you take him. You don't balk simply because you've fucked up in the past.
Both positions (DT, QB) are clearly needs, for sure. And, at the end of the day, I'll be happy as long as we address both positions. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's much harder to win a Super Bowl with first round talent at every position and shit at QB than it is the other way around, but Brad Johnson and Tim Couch do like to prove me wrong on that front.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
As a Browns fan, I don't think we should trade up for a QB. We should spend more time developing Manziel, with McNown as an insurance policy before really going out and getting yet another QB. If you look at how the Patriots have succeeded, it's not by using high draft picks to acquire high risk skill positions like QB/WR, but rather using these picks to find value in diamond in the rough OL and DL assets. Successful teams start at the core and then build around it, by first finding players capable of protecting the QB and stopping the run. Without this first taken care of, doesn't matter who you get. The chances of hitting on a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck in a draft are rare...while Mariotta has a lot of skill that translates at the college level, so did many other high profile college QBs who never made it big in the NFL. Taking yet another gamble on a "high profile" QB before addressing the deficiencies at OL and DL would be a mistake, especially before giving Manziel a chance.
-
TB-Winston.. Tenn.-- Goes Williams(which I would, Beast can't miss). Jacksonville is Baling to Rams at 4 or Skins at 5 and Chip Kelly's on line 2. No Way We get There. We have no Foles to offer either team. At this point would you take Foles if philly wants your 12?? I go no (Shelton, Brown or Beasley). But at 19 with our O-line. Got me thinking..
-
As a Browns fan, I don't think we should trade up for a QB. We should spend more time developing Manziel, with McNown as an insurance policy before really going out and getting yet another QB. If you look at how the Patriots have succeeded, it's not by using high draft picks to acquire high risk skill positions like QB/WR, but rather using these picks to find value in diamond in the rough OL and DL assets. Successful teams start at the core and then build around it, by first finding players capable of protecting the QB and stopping the run. Without this first taken care of, doesn't matter who you get. The chances of hitting on a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck in a draft are rare...while Mariotta has a lot of skill that translates at the college level, so did many other high profile college QBs who never made it big in the NFL. Taking yet another gamble on a "high profile" QB before addressing the deficiencies at OL and DL would be a mistake, especially before giving Manziel a chance.
As a Browns fan, I don't think we should trade up for a QB. We should spend more time developing Manziel, with McNown as an insurance policy before really going out and getting yet another QB. If you look at how the Patriots have succeeded, it's not by using high draft picks to acquire high risk skill positions like QB/WR, but rather using these picks to find value in diamond in the rough OL and DL assets. Successful teams start at the core and then build around it, by first finding players capable of protecting the QB and stopping the run. Without this first taken care of, doesn't matter who you get. The chances of hitting on a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck in a draft are rare...while Mariotta has a lot of skill that translates at the college level, so did many other high profile college QBs who never made it big in the NFL. Taking yet another gamble on a "high profile" QB before addressing the deficiencies at OL and DL would be a mistake, especially before giving Manziel a chance.
It's hard to compare strategies with the Patriots because they haven't had to worry about their quarterback since 1992. They haven't had to worry about investing high picks in WR/RB/etc. because Brady has made anyone around him good, just as Bledsoe before him.
Building from the core is all well and good, but people will continue to complain about the offensive line production until we actually get a QB who doesn't play like garbage. No one was complaining for the first 6 games this season because Hoyer was playing well, then it suddenly became "oh his offensive line is letting him down".
Good QB play overcomes mediocre everything else play. Bad QB play overshadows good everything else play.
-
Three #1's + a #2 . . . and maybe more - so that's #12, #19, and #43 this year, and then the #1 from next year.
That's the word on the street price to tag the #2 from the Titans.
Now add in the Heisman performances in the NFL :
http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap2000000297440
Whaddya think ?
-
Three #1's + a #2 . . . and maybe more - so that's #12, #19, and #43 this year, and then the #1 from next year.
That's the word on the street price to tag the #2 from the Titans.
Now add in the Heisman performances in the NFL :
http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap2000000297440
Whaddya think ?
Three #1's + a #2 . . . and maybe more - so that's #12, #19, and #43 this year, and then the #1 from next year.
That's the word on the street price to tag the #2 from the Titans.
Now add in the Heisman performances in the NFL :
http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap2000000297440
Whaddya think ?
If that's the "word on the street", then the Titans are stupid. No one will offer that and they'll be forced to take Mariota, when they're already supposed to be evaluating Mettenberger.
The Titans are in a bad spot, I don't think they necessarily want Mariota, but they're not going to get what they want via a trade, either.
-
If any of you guys are in need of a good automobile, I have a 2011 Subaru Outback, Premium Edition for sale. $435,000. Let me know if you're interested.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I still don't think the Browns are ready to give up on Manziel just yet. Has an NFL front office ever admitted that they whiffed on a 1st round QB prospect after a game and a half?
That being said, if a team was going to trade up to grab a mobile, Heisman winning QB in two consecutive years it would probably be the Browns.
If they do draft a QB this year I hope they stay put and grab a guy like Hundley in the 2nd.
I still don't think the Browns are ready to give up on Manziel just yet. Has an NFL front office ever admitted that they whiffed on a 1st round QB prospect after a game and a half?
No.... that's our job.
Are they? They are needs for sure, but "far,far" greater than that of QB? What's the most important piece to have to be a playoff team?
Good effort, but there are many ways to succeed. It's just that none include bad players in key roles.
ADP = average draft position?
If that's the "word on the street", then the Titans are stupid. No one will offer that and they'll be forced to take Mariota, when they're already supposed to be evaluating Mettenberger.
The Titans are in a bad spot, I don't think they necessarily want Mariota, but they're not going to get what they want via a trade, either.
Or they will be forced to lower their price...
It does not look to me that the price is being driven by the need to make it worth it for TN to hand over the pick. The price will be driven by what it takes to get them to give the pick to you vs. the "other guy". Same scenario in which StL found itself in '011.
In an auction it only take to determined bidders to drive the price up.
"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 trade up again for a QB I will personally kill our entire front office.
-
If any of you guys are in need of a good automobile, I have a 2011 Subaru Outback, Premium Edition for sale. $435,000. Let me know if you're interested.
WSS
If any of you guys are in need of a good automobile, I have a 2011 Subaru Outback, Premium Edition for sale. $435,000. Let me know if you're interested.
WSS
Would you take $14,500?
-
I've been away for awhile and haven't payed much attention to the college game this past year but isn't MM basically a taller version of JM, sans the partying/media attention?
I'm sure a more astute student of the game could give a much better assessment than myself but I don't see much upside in trading a shit ton of assets for a similar asset we already have.
What I do know is my Thunder will be in the Finals and win, especially against your Cavs, and the Injury All-stars (aka the Wes Mantooth's) are making a late season push into the top half of the Browns Board Fantasy basketball league.
-
It shouldn't have made for an interesting conversation
The picks+players it would take to move up to get him would be far, far too prohibitive.
DL and OL are far, far more of a need.
Are they? They are needs for sure, but "far,far" greater than that of QB? What's the most important piece to have to be a playoff team?
My personal stance is that we need a QB more than we need a DT, however I'm not sure how I feel about Mariota or Winston being that guy. I'd personally love for one of them to be the guy, but that's neither here nor there. There's been a few arguments rolling around about who to take, when to take them, and what's more important, so I just compiled something during my lunch break to show both sides.
(Keep in mind, the following isn't an argument about draft position, it's purely about what is more of a need for the Cleveland Browns in today's NFL. )
Argument #1: You don't need to invest heavily in a defensive line for it to be good.
The top 5 defensive lines last season (against the run) were Detroit, Denver, St. Louis, Buffalo, and Seattle.
- Detroit has three first round picks(#2, #5, #13 )and a second rounder (#54) along their defensive line. (ADP= 18.5)
- Denver has two first round picks (#11, #28), a second round pick (#36) and a third round pick (#72) on their defensive line. (ADP = 46.5)
- St. Louis has four first round picks (#2, #13, #13, #14) along their defensive line. (ADP 10.75)
- Buffalo had three first round picks (#1, #3, #31) and a fifth round pick (#134) on their defensive line (ADP= 42.25)
- Seattle had one first round pick (#9), one third round pick (#72) and two undrafted players on their defensive line. (ADP=153.75)
It's clear that, in order to have an elite defensive line, it helps to invest heavily in it...as evidenced by the fact that most of the top 5 have multiple, if not all, of their positions filled by first round talent.
Seattle, the only team in the top 5 to make it to their conference championship (and, by extension, the Super Bowl), has only one first round player along their defensive front. So, while investing heavily in your defensive line is clearly a good way to make it "elite", it's not the only way.
The Browns clearly don't have many highly drafted players across their defensive line. Assuming Rubin returns, which isn't going to happen, that still only leaves Cleveland with one first-round player, two sixth-round players, and one undrafted player across a four-man front. That's why, as most analysts have been saying, Cleveland's biggest hole is likely DT.
Average top-5 defensive line ADP: 54.35
What the Cleveland Browns currently have: 168
Differential= 113.65
Conclusion: Busted. The top defensive lines are mostly composed of solid first and second round talent.
Argument #2: You don't need an elite defensive line to win a Super Bowl
The defensive line rankings of all playoff teams (against run, then pass, then averaged):
- Patriots (18th, 19th, 19th)
- Broncos (2nd, 23rd, 12th)
- Steelers (20th, 20th, 20th)
- Colts (22nd, 9th, 16th)
- Bengals (27th, 31st, 29th)
- Ravens (7th, 5th , 6th)
- Seahawks (5th, 14th, 10th)
- Packers (26th, 13th, 20th)
- Cowboys (17th, 29th, 18th)
- Panthers (10th, 7th, 9th)
- Cardinals (6th, 28th, 17th)
- Lions (1st, 18th, 10th)
- Average (run, pass): 13th, 23rd
- Overall average: 18th
*bolded teams are teams that made it to their respective conference championships.
It doesn't seem like a truly dominant defensive line is something that any of the top playoff teams had last season. Playoff teams averaged together had the 13th ranked defensive line in rushing and 23rd in passing. Overall, playoff teams had the 18th ranked defensive lines.
Further, the top defensive lines didn't necessarily result in top playoff performances. For example, Detroit and Denver, who finished #1 and #2 in defensive line production last year, respectively, of course did not have favorably playoff performances.
Cleveland's defensive line performance last year was less-than-stellar, to say the least. Some can be attributed to injuries, sure. However, there is an argument to be had that there simply isn't enough talent. Rubin is likely gone and that leaves a 350 pound hole to be filled (and I'm not talking about Ghoolie's mom).
Average playoff team defensive line performance (run, pass, overall): (13th, 23rd, 18th)
Cleveland Browns 2014 performance: (29th, 25th, 27th)
Conclusion: Based off of last season, true. Basically none of the "premier" (read: full of first round picks + top performing) defensive lines made it very far in the playoffs, with Detroit losing immediately and Denver losing in the divisional round. St. Louis, obviously, didn't even make to the playoffs. Seattle, the 5th ranked defensive line, of course made it to the Super Bowl.
Argument #3: Good teams have good quarterbacks.
The QB rankings of all playoff teams:
Patriots (10th)
Broncos (4th)
Steelers (T-1st)
Colts (3rd)
Bengals (16th)
Ravens (12th)
Seahawks (15th)
Packers (7th)
Cowboys (14th)
Panthers (21st)
Cardinals (31st)
Lions (9th)
Average: 11th
Nearly all of the playoff teams had solid to exceptional play from their quarterbacks, with the exception of Arizona. Six of the 12 playoff teams (50%) had top-10 QB play. Nine of the 12 teams (75%) had QB play better than league average.
Average playoff QB rank: 11th
Cleveland Browns QB rank: Hoyer - 18th, McCown - 28th, Manziel - 55th (I included both Hoyer and McCown just to show the difference in their performances last season.)
Conclusion: QB play is very important to the success of a team, obviously. Hoyer has been the best, and most stable, Browns QB since 1999 and he was still significantly worse than the average NFL playoff QB in 2014.
Argument #4: You have to invest in franchise quarterbacks.
Patriots (6th round pick)
Broncos (1st round pick - acquired through FA)
Steelers (1st round pick)
Colts (1st round pick)
Bengals (2nd round pick)
Ravens (1st round pick)
Seahawks (3rd round pick)
Packers (1st round pick)
Cowboys (undrafted)
Panthers (1st round pick)
Cardinals (2nd round pick - acquired through FA)
Lions (1st round pick)
More than half of the teams in the playoffs (59%) had first round quarterbacks. Nine of them (75%) had a quarterback taken in the first two rounds. Nearly every playoff team (83%) had a quarterback they drafted.
Conclusion: While there are different ways to skin a cat, there has to be one way that's proven to be more effective than the rest. In this case, that's taking a QB in the first round. The biggest thing to acknowledge here is that taking a first round QB doesn't automatically guarantee success, especially when he's slotted for a later draft round (I'm looking at you, Brandon Weeden). It would be nice to find a Tom Brady or a Russell Wilson, but that isn't something you plan for. If there is a guy there that you believe possesses the tool set to turn your franchise around, you take him. You don't balk simply because you've fucked up in the past.
Both positions (DT, QB) are clearly needs, for sure. And, at the end of the day, I'll be happy as long as we address both positions. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's much harder to win a Super Bowl with first round talent at every position and shit at QB than it is the other way around, but Brad Johnson and Tim Couch do like to prove me wrong on that front.
Are they? They are needs for sure, but "far,far" greater than that of QB? What's the most important piece to have to be a playoff team?
My personal stance is that we need a QB more than we need a DT, however I'm not sure how I feel about Mariota or Winston being that guy. I'd personally love for one of them to be the guy, but that's neither here nor there. There's been a few arguments rolling around about who to take, when to take them, and what's more important, so I just compiled something during my lunch break to show both sides.
(Keep in mind, the following isn't an argument about draft position, it's purely about what is more of a need for the Cleveland Browns in today's NFL. )
Argument #1: You don't need to invest heavily in a defensive line for it to be good.
The top 5 defensive lines last season (against the run) were Detroit, Denver, St. Louis, Buffalo, and Seattle.
- Detroit has three first round picks(#2, #5, #13 )and a second rounder (#54) along their defensive line. (ADP= 18.5)
- Denver has two first round picks (#11, #28), a second round pick (#36) and a third round pick (#72) on their defensive line. (ADP = 46.5)
- St. Louis has four first round picks (#2, #13, #13, #14) along their defensive line. (ADP 10.75)
- Buffalo had three first round picks (#1, #3, #31) and a fifth round pick (#134) on their defensive line (ADP= 42.25)
- Seattle had one first round pick (#9), one third round pick (#72) and two undrafted players on their defensive line. (ADP=153.75)
It's clear that, in order to have an elite defensive line, it helps to invest heavily in it...as evidenced by the fact that most of the top 5 have multiple, if not all, of their positions filled by first round talent.
Seattle, the only team in the top 5 to make it to their conference championship (and, by extension, the Super Bowl), has only one first round player along their defensive front. So, while investing heavily in your defensive line is clearly a good way to make it "elite", it's not the only way.
The Browns clearly don't have many highly drafted players across their defensive line. Assuming Rubin returns, which isn't going to happen, that still only leaves Cleveland with one first-round player, two sixth-round players, and one undrafted player across a four-man front. That's why, as most analysts have been saying, Cleveland's biggest hole is likely DT.
Average top-5 defensive line ADP: 54.35
What the Cleveland Browns currently have: 168
Differential= 113.65
Conclusion: Busted. The top defensive lines are mostly composed of solid first and second round talent.
Argument #2: You don't need an elite defensive line to win a Super Bowl
The defensive line rankings of all playoff teams (against run, then pass, then averaged):
- Patriots (18th, 19th, 19th)
- Broncos (2nd, 23rd, 12th)
- Steelers (20th, 20th, 20th)
- Colts (22nd, 9th, 16th)
- Bengals (27th, 31st, 29th)
- Ravens (7th, 5th , 6th)
- Seahawks (5th, 14th, 10th)
- Packers (26th, 13th, 20th)
- Cowboys (17th, 29th, 18th)
- Panthers (10th, 7th, 9th)
- Cardinals (6th, 28th, 17th)
- Lions (1st, 18th, 10th)
- Average (run, pass): 13th, 23rd
- Overall average: 18th
*bolded teams are teams that made it to their respective conference championships.
It doesn't seem like a truly dominant defensive line is something that any of the top playoff teams had last season. Playoff teams averaged together had the 13th ranked defensive line in rushing and 23rd in passing. Overall, playoff teams had the 18th ranked defensive lines.
Further, the top defensive lines didn't necessarily result in top playoff performances. For example, Detroit and Denver, who finished #1 and #2 in defensive line production last year, respectively, of course did not have favorably playoff performances.
Cleveland's defensive line performance last year was less-than-stellar, to say the least. Some can be attributed to injuries, sure. However, there is an argument to be had that there simply isn't enough talent. Rubin is likely gone and that leaves a 350 pound hole to be filled (and I'm not talking about Ghoolie's mom).
Average playoff team defensive line performance (run, pass, overall): (13th, 23rd, 18th)
Cleveland Browns 2014 performance: (29th, 25th, 27th)
Conclusion: Based off of last season, true. Basically none of the "premier" (read: full of first round picks + top performing) defensive lines made it very far in the playoffs, with Detroit losing immediately and Denver losing in the divisional round. St. Louis, obviously, didn't even make to the playoffs. Seattle, the 5th ranked defensive line, of course made it to the Super Bowl.
Argument #3: Good teams have good quarterbacks.
The QB rankings of all playoff teams:
Patriots (10th)
Broncos (4th)
Steelers (T-1st)
Colts (3rd)
Bengals (16th)
Ravens (12th)
Seahawks (15th)
Packers (7th)
Cowboys (14th)
Panthers (21st)
Cardinals (31st)
Lions (9th)
Average: 11th
Nearly all of the playoff teams had solid to exceptional play from their quarterbacks, with the exception of Arizona. Six of the 12 playoff teams (50%) had top-10 QB play. Nine of the 12 teams (75%) had QB play better than league average.
Average playoff QB rank: 11th
Cleveland Browns QB rank: Hoyer - 18th, McCown - 28th, Manziel - 55th (I included both Hoyer and McCown just to show the difference in their performances last season.)
Conclusion: QB play is very important to the success of a team, obviously. Hoyer has been the best, and most stable, Browns QB since 1999 and he was still significantly worse than the average NFL playoff QB in 2014.
Argument #4: You have to invest in franchise quarterbacks.
Patriots (6th round pick)
Broncos (1st round pick - acquired through FA)
Steelers (1st round pick)
Colts (1st round pick)
Bengals (2nd round pick)
Ravens (1st round pick)
Seahawks (3rd round pick)
Packers (1st round pick)
Cowboys (undrafted)
Panthers (1st round pick)
Cardinals (2nd round pick - acquired through FA)
Lions (1st round pick)
More than half of the teams in the playoffs (59%) had first round quarterbacks. Nine of them (75%) had a quarterback taken in the first two rounds. Nearly every playoff team (83%) had a quarterback they drafted.
Conclusion: While there are different ways to skin a cat, there has to be one way that's proven to be more effective than the rest. In this case, that's taking a QB in the first round. The biggest thing to acknowledge here is that taking a first round QB doesn't automatically guarantee success, especially when he's slotted for a later draft round (I'm looking at you, Brandon Weeden). It would be nice to find a Tom Brady or a Russell Wilson, but that isn't something you plan for. If there is a guy there that you believe possesses the tool set to turn your franchise around, you take him. You don't balk simply because you've fucked up in the past.
Both positions (DT, QB) are clearly needs, for sure. And, at the end of the day, I'll be happy as long as we address both positions. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's much harder to win a Super Bowl with first round talent at every position and shit at QB than it is the other way around, but Brad Johnson and Tim Couch do like to prove me wrong on that front.
yo,i think flugel ran away.
you scared him with a 5+ paragraph retort.
-
I still don't think the Browns are ready to give up on Manziel just yet. Has an NFL front office ever admitted that they whiffed on a 1st round QB prospect after a game and a half?
No.... that's our job.
Are they? They are needs for sure, but "far,far" greater than that of QB? What's the most important piece to have to be a playoff team?
Good effort, but there are many ways to succeed. It's just that none include bad players in key roles.
ADP = average draft position?
If that's the "word on the street", then the Titans are stupid. No one will offer that and they'll be forced to take Mariota, when they're already supposed to be evaluating Mettenberger.
The Titans are in a bad spot, I don't think they necessarily want Mariota, but they're not going to get what they want via a trade, either.
Or they will be forced to lower their price...
It does not look to me that the price is being driven by the need to make it worth it for TN to hand over the pick. The price will be driven by what it takes to get them to give the pick to you vs. the "other guy". Same scenario in which StL found itself in '011.
In an auction it only take to determined bidders to drive the price up.
No.... that's our job.
Good effort, but there are many ways to succeed. It's just that none include bad players in key roles.
ADP = average draft position?
Or they will be forced to lower their price...
It does not look to me that the price is being driven by the need to make it worth it for TN to hand over the pick. The price will be driven by what it takes to get them to give the pick to you vs. the "other guy". Same scenario in which StL found itself in '011.
In an auction it only take to determined bidders to drive the price up.
True, and there are very few teams with the summon took that we have right now. Offering solely draft picks, Philly can't compare with us.
We're in the driver's seat. If TN wants to set the bar at 3 firsts + a second...walk away. However, there aren't other teams who have the same draft ammo we have this year.
-
What I read when the average performance from a playoff team at QB ranks as #11 - you need a sound team with few holes or weaknesses and a slightly above average QB to challenge for a Super Bowl.
Sounds about what the Browns are shooting for here. Minus McCown being a slightly above average QB.
Fact is, in a draft as such - Shelton takes premise over MM. Again, if there was that sure - fire, can't miss QB ... I'll trade my entire draft and then some.
If an Andrew Luck clone pops up next year, whatever franchise has the #1 pick, I'd offer my whole draft, the following years 1st, The Jake, The Gund and Lebrons first son.
-
of course there's no way to prove this but I would venture a guess that if you traded the top 10 quarterbacks for the bottom 10 quarterbacks the teams at the top would not be quite as good as they were before but those bottom 10 quarterbacks would have better ratings then they had with their bottom 10 teams.
WSS
-
of course there's no way to prove this but I would venture a guess that if you traded the top 10 quarterbacks for the bottom 10 quarterbacks the teams at the top would not be quite as good as they were before but those bottom 10 quarterbacks would have better ratings then they had with their bottom 10 teams.
WSS
of course there's no way to prove this but I would venture a guess that if you traded the top 10 quarterbacks for the bottom 10 quarterbacks the teams at the top would not be quite as good as they were before but those bottom 10 quarterbacks would have better ratings then they had with their bottom 10 teams.
WSS
Replace shitty players with good players? That.... might have some merit.
-
of course there's no way to prove this but I would venture a guess that if you traded the top 10 quarterbacks for the bottom 10 quarterbacks the teams at the top would not be quite as good as they were before but those bottom 10 quarterbacks would have better ratings then they had with their bottom 10 teams.
WSS
Replace shitty players with good players? That.... might have some merit.
Replace shitty players with good players? That.... might have some merit.
Well that's not quite The point as I'm sure you know.
I'm saying Josh McCown on the Patriots would mean the Patriots would suffer but McCown's record would be better.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Well that's not quite The point as I'm sure you know.
I'm saying Josh McCown on the Patriots would mean the Patriots would suffer but McCown's record would be better.
WSS
I know, bud. Just having a bit of sarcastic fun this morning.
-
~nevermind~
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