Why we need a QB in Top 5
-
As for ruining QBs... clearly we had a hand in ruining a couple, but more failures were due to the over-drafting of marginal talent or over-recruiting of vets on the decline. No better example of the former that Wheezy; no better example of the latter that Delhomme. Both moves were fueled by desperation as were many more in each category. Tour
*******************************************************
TRUE. Take Weeden -
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2011/profiles/brandon-weeden?id=2532970
"
WEAKNESSES
Despite his baseball background, Weeden is only an average athlete and is very limited when scrambling. He has a tough time getting outside the pocket, and his accuracy and touch decrease immensely when he scrambles. He seems to grasp route concepts and looks for his second option, but he will hold the ball for extended periods of times and could be a product of his quick-read offensive scheme."
Why would any NFL team think he was the guy, when the big question was about his slowness in seeing complex reads in
the NFL?
lack of comprehensive criteria on that point. -
So 50% of franchise qbs are found in the top 10 and the other 50% are found after. I can go with those numbers, but obviously drafting a guy higher than his skill doesn't increase his chances of succeeding. I understand this is a qb league and qbs go higher, but even taking that into account I find it hard to see any of these guys as top 10 talent.
-
So 50% of franchise qbs are found in the top 10 and the other 50% are found after. I can go with those numbers, but obviously drafting a guy higher than his skill doesn't increase his chances of succeeding. I understand this is a qb league and qbs go higher, but even taking that into account I find it hard to see any of these guys as top 10 talent.
So 50% of franchise qbs are found in the top 10 and the other 50% are found after. I can go with those numbers, but obviously drafting a guy high than his skill doesn't increase his chances of succeeding. I understand this is a qb league and qbs go higherror, but even taking that into account I find it hard to see any of these guys as top 10 talent.
I guarandamntee you that NFL GMs will not find it quite so hard as you do.
-
Over the last 10 drafts 2007 to 2016, here is the breakdown by position of the players chosen in the Top 5 of these drafts:
Quarterbacks: 13 or 26%
Offensive Tackles: 11 or 22%
Defensive Ends: 7 or 14 %
Wide Receivers: 5 or 10 %
Defensive Tackles: 4 or 8%
Linebackers: 4 or 8%
Running backs: 3 or 6%
Defensive backs: 3 or 6%
-
So 50% of franchise qbs are found in the top 10 and the other 50% are found after. I can go with those numbers, but obviously drafting a guy high than his skill doesn't increase his chances of succeeding. I understand this is a qb league and qbs go higherror, but even taking that into account I find it hard to see any of these guys as top 10 talent.
I guarandamntee you that NFL GMs will not find it quite so hard as you do.
I guarandamntee you that NFL GMs will not find it quite so hard as you do.
Obviously, look at (insert shit QB here). I just see more questions marks than some of the previous top 10 QBS than in years past.
-
Breaking it down further:
2016: QBs taken #1 and #2...Goff/Wentz
2015: QBs taken #1 and #2...Winston/Mariota
2014: QB taken #3...Bortles
2013: none taken top 5
2012: QBs taken #1 and #2 Luck/Griffin
2011: QB taken #1 Newton
2010: QB taken #1 Bradford
2009: QB taken #1 and #5 Stafford/Sanchez
2008: QB taken #3 Matt Ryan
2007: QB taken #1: Russell
I think the "hit vs. bust" rate on QBs taken Top 5 over these last 10 years seems quite a bit over 50%. Russell and Sanchez may be only certified busts (though Sanchez did take his team to two AFC title games...for what that's worth)
-
-
Wel, this isn't basketball. MT isn't a generational player. So other than that, fine analogy....
Mitchy has one year starting experience. One...1...
I don't know how else to classify this other than blind homerism...Kids got tools, sure. Has he learned to use them enough to pass on a blue chip talent elsewhere. No imo
-
Zombo, can this forum be programed so that when someone (Hoorta & Gipper) type in "LeBron James" that it comes up "STFU about LeBron James already"?
just asking.
-
Wel, this isn't basketball. MT isn't a generational player. So other than that, fine analogy....
Mitchy has one year starting experience. One...1...
I don't know how else to classify this other than blind homerism...Kids got tools, sure. Has he learned to use them enough to pass on a blue chip talent elsewhere. No imo
Wel, this isn't basketball. MT isn't a generational player. So other than that, fine analogy....
Mitchy has one year starting experience. One...1...
I don't know how else to classify this other than blind homerism...Kids got tools, sure. Has he learned to use them enough to pass on a blue chip talent elsewhere. No imo
You classify it as a person having an instinct about talent. That is what is evident.
And what blue chip talent is out there? I don't see any talent that is any more blue chip than he is.
-
Zombo, can this forum be programed so that when someone (Hoorta & Gipper) type in "LeBron James" that it comes up "STFU about LeBron James already"?
just asking.
Zombo, can this forum be programed so that when someone (Hoorta & Gipper) type in "LeBron James" that it comes up "STFU about LeBron James already"?
just asking.
Funny story......my daughter just graduated from college. There was a graduate student who was also receiving a Masters degree whose name was "LeBon James". He clearly was not named after our boy, as he was close to the same age.
-
You are a glue head with virtually every one of those statements.
Right....actual facts are not something you have any kind of ability to understand.
The Steelers are one the most talent laden teams in the NFL.
Only if you take those 3-4 players. Otherwise their talent level is pedestrian. If they were so talented besides those guys, ALL that talent would have run over the "Very little talented Browns". Pretty much the opposite happened.
Who's to say the playing for the Browns didn't ruin the QB's?
I say so.....anyone who has seen them play says so. You think they were all so good? Why don't you go ahead an bench BR in favor of Brandon Weeden or Colt McCoy or Derek Anderson or Johnny Manziel or any of those guys. You think they are so good...but I venture you would not went them as the starting QB of your team.
There is VERY little talent on the Browns, AT ANY POSITION,
And yet, without fuckup after fuckup they would have been in position to hammer the Steelers. You prove my point. Steelers have about as little talent as the Browns without those 3-4 guys. (Who, yes, indeed do make a great deal of difference)
and the few key players which are talented are on their way to retirement.
Browns players on way to retirement? Who are you talking about?
Only guy I know who would be retiring is Josh McCown....hardly a key player.
Joe Thomas could play another 7-8 years. Joe Haden probably 3-4 more...unless injuries do him in.
The most key player closest to retirement on either team is your most key player: BR.
When a guy like Pryor stands out, it's not because he is great or even good, it's because he looks head and shoulders better than the void around him.
Or, maybe he is actually pretty good. From what I see, the Steelers would take him in a heartbeat and he would be your top notch 2d receiver.
Could you imagine BR throwing to him? If you say that you wouldn't want that, you would be lying to yourself.
You are a glue head with virtually every one of those statements.
Right....actual facts are not something you have any kind of ability to understand.
The Steelers are one the most talent laden teams in the NFL.
Only if you take those 3-4 players. Otherwise their talent level is pedestrian. If they were so talented besides those guys, ALL that talent would have run over the "Very little talented Browns". Pretty much the opposite happened.
Who's to say the playing for the Browns didn't ruin the QB's?
I say so.....anyone who has seen them play says so. You think they were all so good? Why don't you go ahead an bench BR in favor of Brandon Weeden or Colt McCoy or Derek Anderson or Johnny Manziel or any of those guys. You think they are so good...but I venture you would not went them as the starting QB of your team.
There is VERY little talent on the Browns, AT ANY POSITION,
And yet, without fuckup after fuckup they would have been in position to hammer the Steelers. You prove my point. Steelers have about as little talent as the Browns without those 3-4 guys. (Who, yes, indeed do make a great deal of difference)
and the few key players which are talented are on their way to retirement.
Browns players on way to retirement? Who are you talking about?
Only guy I know who would be retiring is Josh McCown....hardly a key player.
Joe Thomas could play another 7-8 years. Joe Haden probably 3-4 more...unless injuries do him in.
The most key player closest to retirement on either team is your most key player: BR.
When a guy like Pryor stands out, it's not because he is great or even good, it's because he looks head and shoulders better than the void around him.
Or, maybe he is actually pretty good. From what I see, the Steelers would take him in a heartbeat and he would be your top notch 2d receiver.
Could you imagine BR throwing to him? If you say that you wouldn't want that, you would be lying to yourself.
Referring to one game as your measuring stick for the talent on the Browns proves your stupidity.
Thinking that one year of above average play on a team with the least talent in the NFL makes Pryor great cements it.
You continue to forget that despite 3 or 4 players (which isn't valid in the first place) the difference between the Steelers and Browns is that one is a top 3 organization and the other is clearly the worst organization in the NFL.
It's like saying that if you put the best tire you can buy on a junker it could compete in NASCAR.
-
I've mentioned it in another thread- around 12 years ago the ping pong balls spit out another NE Ohio kid LeBron James. I think this just might be the year where history is going to repeat itself. The Brown's #1 overall IMHO is playing with house money- we still have the #12 to go for the "safe" pick.
C'mon Shep wannabee, Mitch Trubisky is not the next LeBron James. Don't go getting all senile on us for fucksake.
C'mon Shep wannabee, Mitch Trubisky is not the next LeBron James. Don't go getting all senile on us for fucksake.
He's not an Andrew Luck either- who had the highest grade in recent draft memory. Other than that, every quarterback drafted since like forever has flaws. Do you want us to wait forever until the Browns draft #1 overall again, and there's another Andrew Luck sitting there for us? OK, I'll drop the LeBron analogy. He was a prodigy in the 8th grade, and should he play around 5 more years, He might challenge Jordan as the GOAT. He's already on the Mount Rushmore of basketball greats- BUT.
OK, no, perhaps not LeBron James....but as I said, I think I see a lot of Aaron Rodgers in him......and I think we can use that.
Fair to say?
Yup, I do too Gip. We don't need the GOAT at qb, but having someone on Rodger's level would be refreshing for a change. If he needs time to sit and learn, we give him that time. You don't start your #1 overall pick until you think he's ready.
http://nfldraftcontent.blogspot.com/2016/12/mitch-trubisky-scouting-report-look-at.html
Obviously, look at (insert shit QB here). I just see more questions marks than some of the previous top 10 QBS than in years past.
MHO? The only question is the limited body of work. And Atenears not wanting poor widdle Mitchie to get hurt playing for the Browns.
-
Zombo, can this forum be programed so that when someone (Hoorta & Gipper) type in "LeBron James" that it comes up "STFU about LeBron James already"?
just asking.
Funny story......my daughter just graduated from college. There was a graduate student who was also receiving a Masters degree whose name was "LeBon James". He clearly was not named after our boy, as he was close to the same age.
Funny story......my daughter just graduated from college. There was a graduate student who was also receiving a Masters degree whose name was "LeBon James". He clearly was not named after our boy, as he was close to the same age.
I bet that guy gets picked first in pick-up basketball games.
-
C'mon Shep wannabee, Mitch Trubisky is not the next LeBron James. Don't go getting all senile on us for fucksake.
He's not an Andrew Luck either- who had the highest grade in recent draft memory. Other than that, every quarterback drafted since like forever has flaws. Do you want us to wait forever until the Browns draft #1 overall again, and there's another Andrew Luck sitting there for us? OK, I'll drop the LeBron analogy. He was a prodigy in the 8th grade, and should he play around 5 more years, He might challenge Jordan as the GOAT. He's already on the Mount Rushmore of basketball greats- BUT.
OK, no, perhaps not LeBron James....but as I said, I think I see a lot of Aaron Rodgers in him......and I think we can use that.
Fair to say?
Yup, I do too Gip. We don't need the GOAT at qb, but having someone on Rodger's level would be refreshing for a change. If he needs time to sit and learn, we give him that time. You don't start your #1 overall pick until you think he's ready.
http://nfldraftcontent.blogspot.com/2016/12/mitch-trubisky-scouting-report-look-at.html
Obviously, look at (insert shit QB here). I just see more questions marks than some of the previous top 10 QBS than in years past.
MHO? The only question is the limited body of work. And Atenears not wanting poor widdle Mitchie to get hurt playing for the Browns.
MHO? The only question is the limited body of work. And Atenears not wanting poor widdle Mitchie to get hurt playing for the Browns.
I never said anything EVER about him getting physically hurt ... you just took the longevity comment and applied it to injury. There are plenty of other ways to have a shortened career besides physical injury.
-
You are a glue head with virtually every one of those statements.
Right....actual facts are not something you have any kind of ability to understand.
The Steelers are one the most talent laden teams in the NFL.
Only if you take those 3-4 players. Otherwise their talent level is pedestrian. If they were so talented besides those guys, ALL that talent would have run over the "Very little talented Browns". Pretty much the opposite happened.
Who's to say the playing for the Browns didn't ruin the QB's?
I say so.....anyone who has seen them play says so. You think they were all so good? Why don't you go ahead an bench BR in favor of Brandon Weeden or Colt McCoy or Derek Anderson or Johnny Manziel or any of those guys. You think they are so good...but I venture you would not went them as the starting QB of your team.
There is VERY little talent on the Browns, AT ANY POSITION,
And yet, without fuckup after fuckup they would have been in position to hammer the Steelers. You prove my point. Steelers have about as little talent as the Browns without those 3-4 guys. (Who, yes, indeed do make a great deal of difference)
and the few key players which are talented are on their way to retirement.
Browns players on way to retirement? Who are you talking about?
Only guy I know who would be retiring is Josh McCown....hardly a key player.
Joe Thomas could play another 7-8 years. Joe Haden probably 3-4 more...unless injuries do him in.
The most key player closest to retirement on either team is your most key player: BR.
When a guy like Pryor stands out, it's not because he is great or even good, it's because he looks head and shoulders better than the void around him.
Or, maybe he is actually pretty good. From what I see, the Steelers would take him in a heartbeat and he would be your top notch 2d receiver.
Could you imagine BR throwing to him? If you say that you wouldn't want that, you would be lying to yourself.
Referring to one game as your measuring stick for the talent on the Browns proves your stupidity.
Thinking that one year of above average play on a team with the least talent in the NFL makes Pryor great cements it.
You continue to forget that despite 3 or 4 players (which isn't valid in the first place) the difference between the Steelers and Browns is that one is a top 3 organization and the other is clearly the worst organization in the NFL.
It's like saying that if you put the best tire you can buy on a junker it could compete in NASCAR.
Referring to one game as your measuring stick for the talent on the Browns proves your stupidity.
That one game was between the Browns and Steelers. How else are you to measure two teams?
Thinking that one year of above average play on a team with the least talent in the NFL makes Pryor great cements it.
Whoever said he was great? I said he would have been the second best WR on the Steelers roster...and he would be....and BR would love to throw to him.
If you dispute that...you are a bigger douche nozzle than even anyone could guess.
You continue to forget that despite 3 or 4 players (which isn't valid in the first place) \
Yes, it is....the Steelers talent level over the Browns consists of those 3-4 players.
the difference between the Steelers and Browns is that one is a top 3 organization and the other is clearly the worst organization in the NFL.
OK, I am the one that said that. Why are Steeler fans so stupid as to have such poor reading comprehension. Look at my original post.
I said the difference between the Browns and Steelers is those 3-4 players...and the culture of winning vs. the culture of losing.
The difference between Browns fans and Steeler fans is that Browns fans are smart and can read and Steeler fans are stupid and apparently can't read.
It's like saying that if you put the best tire you can buy on a junker it could compete in NASCAR.
No, its like saying, you take the racing tires off the racecar, and it turns into a junker.
Without BR/Brown/Bell/Pouncey, the Steelers are pretty much the same level of junker, talentwise, as the Browns.
(Browns just can't help from doing whatever it takes to lose...see Sunday)
-
MHO? The only question is the limited body of work. And Atenears not wanting poor widdle Mitchie to get hurt playing for the Browns.
I never said anything EVER about him getting physically hurt ... you just took the longevity comment and applied it to injury. There are plenty of other ways to have a shortened career besides physical injury.
I never said anything EVER about him getting physically hurt ... you just took the longevity comment and applied it to injury. There are plenty of other ways to have a shortened career besides physical injury.
Well, OK sorry.....but if we think he is Aaron Rodger and he turns out to be Fred Rogers, so be it.
The thing that would shorten his career is if he is not the QB we think he will become. No team he goes and plays for will save him then. If instead of Rogers, he turns out to be Joey Harrington or Blaine Gabbert or Kelly Stouffer or Heath Shuler...it would mean he just actually sucks....and it won't matter if it is the Browns or anyone else that takes him.
The list of QBs we have had suck because they suck....not because they played for the Browns.
Going to Dallas or Houston didn't save Weeden from being a sucky Browns QB. Going to KC didn't save Quinn from being a sucky QB. Going to the Redskins didn't make Colt McCoy a premier NFL QB.
Etc. etc. These QBs sucked because they sucked.
If Mitch doesn't suck, then he might as well not suck as a member of the Browns. The Browns do not have metaphysical cosmic powers to turn gold or silver into talcum powder.....nor vice versa.
-
MHO? The only question is the limited body of work. And Atenears not wanting poor widdle Mitchie to get hurt playing for the Browns.
I never said anything EVER about him getting physically hurt ... you just took the longevity comment and applied it to injury. There are plenty of other ways to have a shortened career besides physical injury.
I never said anything EVER about him getting physically hurt ... you just took the longevity comment and applied it to injury. There are plenty of other ways to have a shortened career besides physical injury.
I think Gip nailed it. the other option is- if you're confident he's got great potential, then he'll show it when he's on the Browns. If he's a bum- he'll be a bum anywhere.
Mitch isn't on LeBron's level but is basically Aaron Rodgers, quite possibly the most talented QB in the league.
And you wonder why people keep calling you homers.....
DeShone Kizer is from Ohio too- you don't see me and Gip giving him any love do you? I wouldn't care if Mitch was from Alaska or Mars for that matter, right now he's the top rated QB prospect. Homers? I think not. There's a difference discussing similarities, as opposed to saying he is on that level. Yeah- it's dangerous to fall in love with a prospect, and I plead guilty to that. But other than Andrew Luck, there isn't any qb potentially coming out in the last 10 years that I've been as high on as Trubisky.
I'll give you another example. Deshawn Watson has a lot of traits in common with RG III. It's why I don't like him. He's going to have to play like Superman against Alabama to jump Mitch.
Its pretty simple, if you remember what DePodesta said earlier this year. They passed on Wentz because they thought he wasn't a potential top 15 qb. If they think Mitch is- do you think they're going to pass this time around, considering how much flack they took for that one? Considering the Browns had the whole crew at the Sun Bowl, I'd have to say they're at least seriously interested.
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