Camp Trade Down
-
That's simply not true.
Models require tuning and understanding of what, exactly, is being interpreted.
No model is ever "plug and play" - it's simply about having more data to understand the things you're choosing between.
Analytics does not [and will not] "tell the FO what to think" - that's not how models are implemented.
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
As if it EVER does...
Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market.
Pretty sure he wanted both...
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Agree with the stance, but hope what was said was, "Mitch, we live in a different world than we did 24 hours ago..."
"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 -
Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception.
Get the QB and the rest will fall in line.
Get the QB.
Get the.
Get.
Say it with me
-
I think it would be a reach for Goff, but I don't care which one they pick. As long as they take the step they need to in order to address the most important position in the game, when they have the chance to do so -- there shouldn't be any talk about a Top 5 pick in the future.
Say it with me, Tour.... Get the freaking QB when you have the chance!
-
I don't think there will be a trade down.. not because I don't agree, but because no other team will want to give enough picks to appropriately value the #2 spot.
Better to get both Wentz and Michael Thomas [to become our Bortles-Robinson] and let them grow together than the pu-pu platter of midround picks that never pan out.
I don't think there will be a trade down.. not because I don't agree, but because no other team will want to give enough picks to appropriately value the #2 spot.
Better to get both Wentz and Michael Thomas [to become our Bortles-Robinson] and let them grow together than the pu-pu platter of midround picks that never pan out.
This makes too much sense to actually happen, Wentz to Thomas. I like it but I'm just an old woman who's loved the Browns far too long!
And Blake Bortles has 2 of the best receivers Hurns & Robinson, Malik Jackson, Tashaun Gipson, this team will win their division.
-
I think it would be a reach for Goff, but I don't care which one they pick. As long as they take the step they need to in order to address the most important position in the game, when they have the chance to do so -- there shouldn't be any talk about a Top 5 pick in the future.
Say it with me, Tour.... Get the freaking QB when you have the chance!
-
In short, nothing Tour said needs to be fixed.
As if it EVER does...
Browns' first offer was the highest bid, but Schwartz rejected that in search of endless riches. So, he didn't "want to be here" -- rather, he wanted money, and misjudged his own market.
Pretty sure he wanted both...
Schwartz got an offer, his agent then turned around and shopped that offer around to other teams in order to get Schwartz more money. Then, once Mitch found out nobody would pay much more, Mitch came back ready to accept the offer and the Browns said "sorry, Charlie. Offer's gone."
Does it suck that we lost Mitch? Sure. But I don't hate the stance that this FO is taking.
Agree with the stance, but hope what was said was, "Mitch, we live in a different world than we did 24 hours ago..."
-
Agree, it's always #1. take the QB if he has ability to play in this league. Old or new, but at this point, now were at, #2. can you protect your investment? #3. Does he have weapons to perform as a QB? #4. Can your Defense keep your QB in a position to win games? Right now our QB has been a piñata waiting to happen. Yea, You can draft one, but we sure the hell have ruined them putting them on the field not prepared or weapons..
-
Agree, it's always #1. take the QB if he has ability to play in this league. Old or new, but at this point, now were at, #2. can you protect your investment? #3. Does he have weapons to perform as a QB? #4. Can your Defense keep your QB in a position to win games? Right now our QB has been a piñata waiting to happen. Yea, You can draft one, but we sure the hell have ruined them putting them on the field not prepared or weapons..
Agree, it's always #1. take the QB if he has ability to play in this league. Old or new, but at this point, now were at, #2. can you protect your investment? #3. Does he have weapons to perform as a QB? #4. Can your Defense keep your QB in a position to win games? Right now our QB has been a piñata waiting to happen. Yea, You can draft one, but we sure the hell have ruined them putting them on the field not prepared or weapons..
2- Yes, they can find suitable OL in the remainder of FA or in the draft
3- Yes, see No. 2
4- Shouldn't be a factor. Goff lost a ton of games at Cal because he defense was shit and he's not ruined because of it
-
-
There's nobody to trade up for.
There's nobody to trade up for.
Maybe not in your mind....but maybe in the mind of the Cowboys, or others, there could be. If a team is absolutely in love with one of these QBs, and the Browns are not (which they may not be), then they may want to make the trade.
-
Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception.
Get the QB and the rest will fall in line.
Get the QB.
Get the.
Get.
Say it with me
Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception.
Get the QB and the rest will fall in line.
Get the QB.
Get the.
Get.
Say it with me
But if you have no OL, no defense, no weapons, getting the QB gets you Tim Couch or David Carr.
Honestly, I prefer the Ravens 2000/Bucs 2002/Steelers 2005 approach....and to an extent the 2015 Broncos: get the meanest nastiest defense in creation...and the best running game possible....then get a competent game manager QB to lead you.
Our "get the QB" first approach has failed so many times: Couch/Quinn/Weeden/JMZ that I am gunshy of that approach.
-
There's nobody to trade up for.
Maybe not in your mind....but maybe in the mind of the Cowboys, or others, there could be. If a team is absolutely in love with one of these QBs, and the Browns are not (which they may not be), then they may want to make the trade.
Maybe not in your mind....but maybe in the mind of the Cowboys, or others, there could be. If a team is absolutely in love with one of these QBs, and the Browns are not (which they may not be), then they may want to make the trade.
Sure. And if the Browns are in love with a QB (which they just as equally may be), they stay at #2 and pick him.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Get the QB and win some games to shut some dickfaces up in 2016. It'll go a long way to changing that perception.
Get the QB and the rest will fall in line.
Get the QB.
Get the.
Get.
Say it with me
But if you have no OL, no defense, no weapons, getting the QB gets you Tim Couch or David Carr.
Honestly, I prefer the Ravens 2000/Bucs 2002/Steelers 2005 approach....and to an extent the 2015 Broncos: get the meanest nastiest defense in creation...and the best running game possible....then get a competent game manager QB to lead you.
Our "get the QB" first approach has failed so many times: Couch/Quinn/Weeden/JMZ that I am gunshy of that approach.
But if you have no OL, no defense, no weapons, getting the QB gets you Tim Couch or David Carr.
Honestly, I prefer the Ravens 2000/Bucs 2002/Steelers 2005 approach....and to an extent the 2015 Broncos: get the meanest nastiest defense in creation...and the best running game possible....then get a competent game manager QB to lead you.
Our "get the QB" first approach has failed so many times: Couch/Quinn/Weeden/JMZ that I am gunshy of that approach.
And both the 2001 Ravens and probably the 2016 Broncos completely faltered after they shot their wad on defense. Because you don't win consistently in the NFL without a QB. Period.
One off success from Baltimore, Tampa Bay and now Denver is the only thing the anti-QB camp has to harp on, and it's not even that good of an argument.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Maybe not in your mind....but maybe in the mind of the Cowboys, or others, there could be. If a team is absolutely in love with one of these QBs, and the Browns are not (which they may not be), then they may want to make the trade.
Sure. And if the Browns are in love with a QB (which they just as equally may be), they stay at #2 and pick him.
Sure. And if the Browns are in love with a QB (which they just as equally may be), they stay at #2 and pick him.
Or.....if as I suspect, there is really little difference perhaps between Wentz and Goff.....you do the trade down, get the extra picks, and still get Goff/Wentz at #4 (and you have picked up a #34 to add with it...if the Dallas deal is done).
-
But if you have no OL, no defense, no weapons, getting the QB gets you Tim Couch or David Carr.
Honestly, I prefer the Ravens 2000/Bucs 2002/Steelers 2005 approach....and to an extent the 2015 Broncos: get the meanest nastiest defense in creation...and the best running game possible....then get a competent game manager QB to lead you.
Our "get the QB" first approach has failed so many times: Couch/Quinn/Weeden/JMZ that I am gunshy of that approach.
And both the 2001 Ravens and probably the 2016 Broncos completely faltered after they shot their wad on defense. Because you don't win consistently in the NFL without a QB. Period.
One off success from Baltimore, Tampa Bay and now Denver is the only thing the anti-QB camp has to harp on, and it's not even that good of an argument.
And both the 2001 Ravens and probably the 2016 Broncos completely faltered after they shot their wad on defense. Because you don't win consistently in the NFL without a QB. Period.
One off success from Baltimore, Tampa Bay and now Denver is the only thing the anti-QB camp has to harp on, and it's not even that good of an argument.
Well, OK.....but I will take a one off Super Bowl Championship that has relied on defense. You saying you wouldn't?
-
@tim-couch-pulls-out said:
Of the four you mentioned, only one fits your argument.
I don't think so.
Ravens....great defense, great running game, Dilfer competent game manager.
Bucs....great defense, great running game with Alstott/Dunn, Brad Johnson game manager.
Broncos....great defense, good running game, with Peyton being a competent game manager at that point.
Steelers...great defense, great running game with Bettis, second year/learning QB with BR.
(perhaps the Steelers are the one that doesn't exactly fit the scenario)
-
@tim-couch-pulls-out said:
Of the four you mentioned, only one fits your argument.
I don't think so.
Ravens....great defense, great running game, Dilfer competent game manager.
Bucs....great defense, great running game with Alstott/Dunn, Brad Johnson game manager.
Broncos....great defense, good running game, with Peyton being a competent game manager at that point.
Steelers...great defense, great running game with Bettis, second year/learning QB with BR.
(perhaps the Steelers are the one that doesn't exactly fit the scenario)
I don't think so.
Ravens....great defense, great running game, Dilfer competent game manager.
Bucs....great defense, great running game with Alstott/Dunn, Brad Johnson game manager.
Broncos....great defense, good running game, with Peyton being a competent game manager at that point.
Steelers...great defense, great running game with Bettis, second year/learning QB with BR.
(perhaps the Steelers are the one that doesn't exactly fit the scenario)
He was talking about the Browns QB's you listed. Only Couch was taken with the Browns first pick. Couch was the also the only one of the four you listed that was the first QB taken in the draft. Quin/Weeden/JM all were the 2nd pick of the Browns and all had other QB's drafted before them. Quin/JM were the 2nd QB taken and Weeden 4th QB taken in their drafts.
-
Sure. And if the Browns are in love with a QB (which they just as equally may be), they stay at #2 and pick him.
Or.....if as I suspect, there is really little difference perhaps between Wentz and Goff.....you do the trade down, get the extra picks, and still get Goff/Wentz at #4 (and you have picked up a #34 to add with it...if the Dallas deal is done).
Or.....if as I suspect, there is really little difference perhaps between Wentz and Goff.....you do the trade down, get the extra picks, and still get Goff/Wentz at #4 (and you have picked up a #34 to add with it...if the Dallas deal is done).
Except you have absolutely zero evidence of them thinking that.
So this theory means exactly as little as mine.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
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