Browns to make pitch for Jimmy G // Trubisky #1 QB on their board
-
Mitch2Pryor said:
If Sashi and Company want job security, they will draft a QB #1. It will give them an automatic 3 years.. You can't fire a regime and coaching staff when they have a developing QB. Maybe I'm wrong, but when was the last time a regime got fired the year after they drafted their "franchise" guy?
If we take Mitch #1 and he plays all season and we go 3-13, I don't think anyone is getting fired because we have a franchise QB who is growing who needs continuity around him.
If we take Garrett #1 and go 3-13, more than likely heads will roll.
Assumes a lot...
Say Mitch sits the first 12 games, then wins one of 4 and looks like a raw rookie doing it?
Say Garrett starts 16, hits double digit sacks, hurries and knock-downs on his way to DROY?
Assumes a lot...
Say Mitch sits the first 12 games, then wins one of 4 and looks like a raw rookie doing it?
Say Garrett starts 16, hits double digit sacks, hurries and knock-downs on his way to DROY?
Yes, you are assuming a lot, both ways.
Maybe Garrett is the second coming of Aaron Curry or Aundray Bruce. Just because he went to A&M people are ASSuming that he will be Von Miller. That is like assuming that Tee Martin was going to be as good as Peyton Manning just because they were both Tennesse QBs (and, after all Tee Martin took UT to a national title where Peyton didn't).
I am not convinced that Barnett or Williams are not better prospects.
-
Obvious that Barnett and Williams are as good as Garrett...yep.
-
I prefer that Myles makes them eat those words, but hopefully on our team.
-
I prefer that Myles makes them eat those words, but hopefully on our team.
I prefer that Myles makes them eat those words, but hopefully on our team.
Hey if we draft Garrett @ #1, I want to see a disruptive force. Von Miller good- that's the standard he's going to be held to. I won't have any problems with that.
-
Here's their plan (that I thunk up).
They're making people think that they like the QB for the #1 pick in the draft. (they really don't)
They don't trade for JG, to reinforce this theory.
Some team trades up with them for the #1 pick to take the QB.
We traded back just far enough so that all of the elite players are picked off the board.
...sound like us?
Sounds like the hillbilly way to me...Here's their plan (that I thunk up).
They're making people think that they like the QB for the #1 pick in the draft. (they really don't)
They don't trade for JG, to reinforce this theory.
Some team trades up with them for the #1 pick to take the QB.
We traded back just far enough so that all of the elite players are picked off the board.
...sound like us?
-
Sounds like the hillbilly way to me...Here's their plan (that I thunk up).
They're making people think that they like the QB for the #1 pick in the draft. (they really don't)
They don't trade for JG, to reinforce this theory.
Some team trades up with them for the #1 pick to take the QB.
We traded back just far enough so that all of the elite players are picked off the board.
...sound like us?
Sounds like the hillbilly way to me...
Uh, or maybe 2016? I swear if we trade down below Garrett/Allen then fire the whole damn analytic group of baseball pickers.
-
If Sashi and Company want job security, they will draft a QB #1. It will give them an automatic 3 years.. You can't fire a regime and coaching staff when they have a developing QB. Maybe I'm wrong, but when was the last time a regime got fired the year after they drafted their "franchise" guy?
If we take Mitch #1 and he plays all season and we go 3-13, I don't think anyone is getting fired because we have a franchise QB who is growing who needs continuity around him.
If we take Garrett #1 and go 3-13, more than likely heads will roll.
Mitch2Pryor said:
If Sashi and Company want job security, they will draft a QB #1. It will give them an automatic 3 years.. You can't fire a regime and coaching staff when they have a developing QB. Maybe I'm wrong, but when was the last time a regime got fired the year after they drafted their "franchise" guy?
If we take Mitch #1 and he plays all season and we go 3-13, I don't think anyone is getting fired because we have a franchise QB who is growing who needs continuity around him.
If we take Garrett #1 and go 3-13, more than likely heads will roll.
Well Jeff Fisher was fired less than 16 games after drafting Goff, if that counts.
-
From a pure PR perspective taking Mitch #1 overall is a better move than Garrett. Most fans will give the hometown kid some time. There will always be a few idiots screaming he isn't playing like Elway or Manning right out of the gate.Mitch2Pryor said:
If Sashi and Company want job security, they will draft a QB #1. It will give them an automatic 3 years.. You can't fire a regime and coaching staff when they have a developing QB. Maybe I'm wrong, but when was the last time a regime got fired the year after they drafted their "franchise" guy?
If we take Mitch #1 and he plays all season and we go 3-13, I don't think anyone is getting fired because we have a franchise QB who is growing who needs continuity around him.
If we take Garrett #1 and go 3-13, more than likely heads will roll.
Isn't this supposed to be a deep defensive draft? Better odds of getting a defensive stud than a great QB there @ #12.
From a pure PR perspective taking Mitch #1 overall is a better move than Garrett. Most fans will give the hometown kid some time. There will always be a few idiots screaming he isn't playing like Elway or Manning right out of the gate.
Isn't this supposed to be a deep defensive draft? Better odds of getting a defensive stud than a great QB there @ #12.
Silly season is here. I would take Mitch at #33. I don't give a shit if he is from Cleveland. The team can't make stupid decisions based on that.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
From a pure PR perspective taking Mitch #1 overall is a better move than Garrett. Most fans will give the hometown kid some time. There will always be a few idiots screaming he isn't playing like Elway or Manning right out of the gate.
Isn't this supposed to be a deep defensive draft? Better odds of getting a defensive stud than a great QB there @ #12.
Silly season is here. I would take Mitch at #33. I don't give a shit if he is from Cleveland. The team can't make stupid decisions based on that.
-
From a pure PR perspective taking Mitch #1 overall is a better move than Garrett. Most fans will give the hometown kid some time. There will always be a few idiots screaming he isn't playing like Elway or Manning right out of the gate.
Isn't this supposed to be a deep defensive draft? Better odds of getting a defensive stud than a great QB there @ #12.
Silly season is here. I would take Mitch at #33. I don't give a shit if he is from Cleveland. The team can't make stupid decisions based on that.
Silly season is here. I would take Mitch at #33. I don't give a shit if he is from Cleveland. The team can't make stupid decisions based on that.
I would take him at #33 too, but, you are right peen. It is silly season. It is silly of you to think he would last that long. Even if Browns don't take him, he will go Top 5.
-
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/01/should_the_browns_trade_for_ji.html
An insight into Jimmy G
-
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/01/should_the_browns_trade_for_ji.html
An insight into Jimmy G
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/01/should_the_browns_trade_for_ji.html
An insight into Jimmy G
Good stuff. There is also three years of preseason film on him, and he has played well.
Certainly more polished and quicker release than Kessler.
Certainly more patient and accurate than Griffin.
We can have Myles Garrett and Jimmy G.
And we'd be instantly better on both sides of the ball.
If you're into that sort of thing.
Zombo
-
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/01/should_the_browns_trade_for_ji.html
An insight into Jimmy G
Good stuff. There is also three years of preseason film on him, and he has played well.
Certainly more polished and quicker release than Kessler.
Certainly more patient and accurate than Griffin.
We can have Myles Garrett and Jimmy G.
And we'd be instantly better on both sides of the ball.
If you're into that sort of thing.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Good stuff. There is also three years of preseason film on him, and he has played well.
Certainly more polished and quicker release than Kessler.
Certainly more patient and accurate than Griffin.
We can have Myles Garrett and Jimmy G.
And we'd be instantly better on both sides of the ball.
If you're into that sort of thing.
Zombo
Well, that would be an acceptable Plan B for me if they don't go for MT. However...NOT at the price the Pats want.
Highest I would give is our 2d second round pick....#52? Plus maybe a lower pick thrown in.
NOT #1 certainly. NOT #12, NOT #33. If we go the Garropolo route, then I want those draft picks for defense.
-
Zombo said:
Good stuff. There is also three years of preseason film on him, and he has played well.
Certainly more polished and quicker release than Kessler.
Certainly more patient and accurate than Griffin.
We can have Myles Garrett and Jimmy G.
And we'd be instantly better on both sides of the ball.
If you're into that sort of thing.
Zombo
Well, that would be an acceptable Plan B for me if they don't go for MT. However...NOT at the price the Pats want.
Highest I would give is our 2d second round pick....#52? Plus maybe a lower pick thrown in.
NOT #1 certainly. NOT #12, NOT #33. If we go the Garropolo route, then I want those draft picks for defense.
Well, that would be an acceptable Plan B for me if they don't go for MT. However...NOT at the price the Pats want.
Highest I would give is our 2d second round pick....#52? Plus maybe a lower pick thrown in.
NOT #1 certainly. NOT #12, NOT #33. If we go the Garropolo route, then I want those draft picks for defense.
So you're saying a QB with one year of college experience and 0 NFL experience is worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown he can perform extremely well in the NFL with limited opportunities, and has 3 years of experience isn't worth the #12, or even the #33 pick?
-
This ought to be good... Popcorn time!
"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 -
Well, that would be an acceptable Plan B for me if they don't go for MT. However...NOT at the price the Pats want.
Highest I would give is our 2d second round pick....#52? Plus maybe a lower pick thrown in.
NOT #1 certainly. NOT #12, NOT #33. If we go the Garropolo route, then I want those draft picks for defense.
So you're saying a QB with one year of college experience and 0 NFL experience is worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown he can perform extremely well in the NFL with limited opportunities, and has 3 years of experience isn't worth the #12, or even the #33 pick?
Mitch2Pryor said:
So you're saying a QB with one year of college experience and 0 NFL experience is worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown he can perform extremely well in the NFL with limited opportunities, and has 3 years of experience isn't worth the #12, or even the #33 pick?
Yes. I did not stutter.
I don't see where JGs talent evaluation now is any different than when he was drafted in the middle of the second round. So, to me, a mid 2d round pick is what we should at most give up. (and maybe throw in a bone of a later round pick)
Scott Mitchell performed "extremely well" in his limited opportunities before he was given a starting job.
Unless you can guarantee me that he will have a Brett Favre like career, yes, I would rather take a risk on a draftee than on another team's reject.
If he was that good, we should have taken him the year he came out.
Sure, he is probably better than what we have now, but, he will also be in the last year of his contract.
-
-
Mitch2Pryor said:
So you're saying a QB with one year of college experience and 0 NFL experience is worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown he can perform extremely well in the NFL with limited opportunities, and has 3 years of experience isn't worth the #12, or even the #33 pick?
Yes. I did not stutter.
I don't see where JGs talent evaluation now is any different than when he was drafted in the middle of the second round. So, to me, a mid 2d round pick is what we should at most give up. (and maybe throw in a bone of a later round pick)
Scott Mitchell performed "extremely well" in his limited opportunities before he was given a starting job.
Unless you can guarantee me that he will have a Brett Favre like career, yes, I would rather take a risk on a draftee than on another team's reject.
If he was that good, we should have taken him the year he came out.
Sure, he is probably better than what we have now, but, he will also be in the last year of his contract.
Yes. I did not stutter.
I don't see where JGs talent evaluation now is any different than when he was drafted in the middle of the second round. So, to me, a mid 2d round pick is what we should at most give up. (and maybe throw in a bone of a later round pick)
502 yds, 4 TDs and 0 INTs in two games against the Cardinals and the Dolphins hardly sounds like 2nd round talent to me.
Scott Mitchell performed "extremely well" in his limited opportunities before he was given a starting job.
I'm 24, idk who Scott Mitchell is. I googled him and got a guy from The Biggest Loser. Looks like he was a 4th round pick... not 2nd.
Unless you can guarantee me that he will have a Brett Favre like career, yes, I would rather take a risk on a draftee than on another team's reject.
Are you guaranteeing Trubisky to be Favre? Because he better be if we take him instead of Garrett.
And any QB behind Brady is hardly a "reject". They are simply stuck behind a fucking Alien. My dad once told me Michael Jordan was an alien. I believe it, and so is Tom Brady. 30 of the starting QBs would be stuck behind Brady, and the Patriots would be looking to trade them. Shit, even Aaron Rodgers would be sitting on the bench behind Brady. I'd love Aaron Rodgers to be a reject behind Brady that we could trade for.
If he was that good, we should have taken him the year he came out.
I'll just leave this here. https://www.google.com/amp/www.patspulpit.com/platform/amp/2016/4/28/11525384/browns-coaching-staff-wanted-to-take-jimmy-garoppolo-instead-of-manziel?client=safari
Sure, he is probably better than what we have now, but, he will also be in the last year of his contract.
And that's a beautiful thing. He's not a rookie, so he has no excuse of needing years to develop. If he's gonna be good in this league, he will be good instantly. If not, we drop him at the end of the season.
If he shows flashes, but is still iffy (ala Kirk Cousins), we franchise him for one year and make him prove it. All the while we can use this draft to build the defense and o line.
Look, I think Mitch is the best QB in the draft, but the absolute best thing for this team is to trade for Garoppolo.
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