North Carolina QB Mitch Trubisky headed to NFL draft
-
If I felt that Trubisky was the guy who would be worth keeping around as the franchise QB then I would totally be on board for spending the #1 on him. The Browns do need stability at QB. But I don't feel that Trubisky is that guy. If we drafted him and he went on to be great, I would happily eat crow. I want the Browns to succeed. I just don't see what some others are seeing with Trubisky. I think being a local has made some folks blind to any possible criticism of the kid.
OK, that's fair. I'm 95% convinced on Mitch. I totally understand if you're not. Let's wait until the after the Combine and Pro Days to make a final determination. A lot could change. There's a lot of Margaritas at Maya's riding on this.
My 0.02 right now is if we take Mitch #1, and get a pretty good (Ogbah level) DE at #12- say Solomon Thomas from Stanford I'd be happy. I absolutely agree- getting an effective pass rush is another high priority item for the Browns.Zombo said:
Mitch's Bitches
Gays for Garrett
Allen's Assholes
Debbie (Trade) Downers
Garappahomos
Are we missing anybody so far?
Zombo
LOL, There's a few Ma-homos out there too. I think TCPO is the only one in the Kizer Camp so far. No noted Deshawn Watson love here yet, though there's quite a bit on the other Board. That well could change after tonight if he blows up against Alabama.
OK, that's fair. I'm 95% convinced on Mitch. I totally understand if you're not. Let's wait until the after the Combine and Pro Days to make a final determination. A lot could change. There's a lot of Margaritas at Maya's riding on this.
My 0.02 right now is if we take Mitch #1, and get a pretty good (Ogbah level) DE at #12- say Solomon Thomas from Stanford I'd be happy. I absolutely agree- getting an effective pass rush is another high priority item for the Browns.LOL, There's a few Ma-homos out there too. I think TCPO is the only one in the Kizer Camp so far. No noted Deshawn Watson love here yet, though there's quite a bit on the other Board. That well could change after tonight if he blows up against Alabama.
We have a couple empty warehouses to rent out to Kizer's Kunts and Wussies for Watson if those clubs form.
Zombo
-
i think going Taking Mitch at 1 is not as much of a reach as everyone is making it out to be. Garrett/Allen/Barnett are all top players for the line and the second tier is Thomas/Williams/Harris/Lawson. Importantly ALL of these prospects could be top 20 guys. There will be an Edge/DL player at 12 that has good value and is not a big step down from the top 2. For QB's there's much much less. Mitch is the top Pro QB prospect This is pretty much universally accepted at this point. Taking Mitch and then Best Edge available is a fine plan and actually solidifies a posistion
-
If I felt that Trubisky was the guy who would be worth keeping around as the franchise QB then I would totally be on board for spending the #1 on him. The Browns do need stability at QB. But I don't feel that Trubisky is that guy. If we drafted him and he went on to be great, I would happily eat crow. I want the Browns to succeed. I just don't see what some others are seeing with Trubisky. I think being a local has made some folks blind to any possible criticism of the kid.
OK, that's fair. I'm 95% convinced on Mitch. I totally understand if you're not. Let's wait until the after the Combine and Pro Days to make a final determination. A lot could change. There's a lot of Margaritas at Maya's riding on this.
My 0.02 right now is if we take Mitch #1, and get a pretty good (Ogbah level) DE at #12- say Solomon Thomas from Stanford I'd be happy. I absolutely agree- getting an effective pass rush is another high priority item for the Browns.Zombo said:
Mitch's Bitches
Gays for Garrett
Allen's Assholes
Debbie (Trade) Downers
Garappahomos
Are we missing anybody so far?
Zombo
LOL, There's a few Ma-homos out there too. I think TCPO is the only one in the Kizer Camp so far. No noted Deshawn Watson love here yet, though there's quite a bit on the other Board. That well could change after tonight if he blows up against Alabama.
OK, that's fair. I'm 95% convinced on Mitch. I totally understand if you're not. Let's wait until the after the Combine and Pro Days to make a final determination. A lot could change. There's a lot of Margaritas at Maya's riding on this.
My 0.02 right now is if we take Mitch #1, and get a pretty good (Ogbah level) DE at #12- say Solomon Thomas from Stanford I'd be happy. I absolutely agree- getting an effective pass rush is another high priority item for the Browns.LOL, There's a few Ma-homos out there too. I think TCPO is the only one in the Kizer Camp so far. No noted Deshawn Watson love here yet, though there's quite a bit on the other Board. That well could change after tonight if he blows up against Alabama.
Whoa whoa whoa now - I've been in on Mitch since October. I just happen to also be in on Kizer.
If you were to file me into a camp, it would be "Camp Best Value", which I don't think Trubisky at #1 would fall into. I'm looking at the first three picks together and Garrett/BPA/Kizer is more enticing to me than Trubisky/BPA/BPA.
But if I had to choose between the three, I'd pick Trubisky over any of them.
As proof -
Mitch, Mitch, Mitch
I'm on the Trubisky train because I've been tepidly interested in him from the beginning of the season, but I was hoping he wouldn't cost the #1 overall to nab.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Mitch Trubisky is probably not #1 worthy for most teams. There are much better picks to be made at #1 this year. Given the way this board is laid out, we could stand to take a defensive player at #1 and hope Trubisky falls to us.
With all of that said....
Fuck him. Take him at #1. Let's do this shit.
Mitch Trubisky is probably not #1 worthy for most teams. There are much better picks to be made at #1 this year. Given the way this board is laid out, we could stand to take a defensive player at #1 and hope Trubisky falls to us.
With all of that said....
Fuck him. Take him at #1. Let's do this shit.
Again, it would be hope against hope. One mock I saw had 3 QBs going in the Top Ten.
That is just the way it is with QBs.
-
OK, that's fair. I'm 95% convinced on Mitch. I totally understand if you're not. Let's wait until the after the Combine and Pro Days to make a final determination. A lot could change. There's a lot of Margaritas at Maya's riding on this.
My 0.02 right now is if we take Mitch #1, and get a pretty good (Ogbah level) DE at #12- say Solomon Thomas from Stanford I'd be happy. I absolutely agree- getting an effective pass rush is another high priority item for the Browns.Again, the Bet is that he goes in the Top 5.
And thanks for piping in. I think I will need help drinking all those pitchers to be bought by Stan/Z/Logic etc.
-
i think going Taking Mitch at 1 is not as much of a reach as everyone is making it out to be. Garrett/Allen/Barnett are all top players for the line and the second tier is Thomas/Williams/Harris/Lawson. Importantly ALL of these prospects could be top 20 guys. There will be an Edge/DL player at 12 that has good value and is not a big step down from the top 2. For QB's there's much much less. Mitch is the top Pro QB prospect This is pretty much universally accepted at this point. Taking Mitch and then Best Edge available is a fine plan and actually solidifies a posistion
i think going Taking Mitch at 1 is not as much of a reach as everyone is making it out to be. Garrett/Allen/Barnett are all top players for the line and the second tier is Thomas/Williams/Harris/Lawson. Importantly ALL of these prospects could be top 20 guys. There will be an Edge/DL player at 12 that has good value and is not a big step down from the top 2. For QB's there's much much less. Mitch is the top Pro QB prospect This is pretty much universally accepted at this point. Taking Mitch and then Best Edge available is a fine plan and actually solidifies a posistion
Exactly. There is tons of depth on defense this draft, with only 3 potential franchise QBs. We simply CANNOT come out of this draft/offseason without a franchise QB
-
i think going Taking Mitch at 1 is not as much of a reach as everyone is making it out to be. Garrett/Allen/Barnett are all top players for the line and the second tier is Thomas/Williams/Harris/Lawson. Importantly ALL of these prospects could be top 20 guys. There will be an Edge/DL player at 12 that has good value and is not a big step down from the top 2. For QB's there's much much less. Mitch is the top Pro QB prospect This is pretty much universally accepted at this point. Taking Mitch and then Best Edge available is a fine plan and actually solidifies a posistion
Exactly. There is tons of depth on defense this draft, with only 3 potential franchise QBs. We simply CANNOT come out of this draft/offseason without a franchise QB
Mitch2Pryor said:
Exactly. There is tons of depth on defense this draft, with only 3 potential franchise QBs. We simply CANNOT come out of this draft/offseason without a franchise QB
i actually like Mitch and Davis Webb as franchise guys i think kizer is cardale jones 2.0 and watson is not a pro style qb period.
-
I think when it comes down to it, if we take Trubisky #1, then fine. That means he is their guy, for better or worse. If you believe in him take him. However it also sucks because we will then miss out on one of the true #1 players in the draft (Garrett/Allen) and they will then likely fall to teams to finished somewhere between 2-5.
Also with the QB's being rated so close together I wouldn't be surprised if he did fall to us at #12 if we didn't take him.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
OK, that's fair. I'm 95% convinced on Mitch. I totally understand if you're not. Let's wait until the after the Combine and Pro Days to make a final determination. A lot could change. There's a lot of Margaritas at Maya's riding on this.
My 0.02 right now is if we take Mitch #1, and get a pretty good (Ogbah level) DE at #12- say Solomon Thomas from Stanford I'd be happy. I absolutely agree- getting an effective pass rush is another high priority item for the Browns.LOL, There's a few Ma-homos out there too. I think TCPO is the only one in the Kizer Camp so far. No noted Deshawn Watson love here yet, though there's quite a bit on the other Board. That well could change after tonight if he blows up against Alabama.
Whoa whoa whoa now - I've been in on Mitch since October. I just happen to also be in on Kizer.
If you were to file me into a camp, it would be "Camp Best Value", which I don't think Trubisky at #1 would fall into. I'm looking at the first three picks together and Garrett/BPA/Kizer is more enticing to me than Trubisky/BPA/BPA.
But if I had to choose between the three, I'd pick Trubisky over any of them.
As proof -
Mitch, Mitch, Mitch
I'm on the Trubisky train because I've been tepidly interested in him from the beginning of the season, but I was hoping he wouldn't cost the #1 overall to nab.
Whoa whoa whoa now - I've been in on Mitch since October. I just happen to also be in on Kizer.
If you were to file me into a camp, it would be "Camp Best Value", which I don't think Trubisky at #1 would fall into. I'm looking at the first three picks together and Garrett/BPA/Kizer is more enticing to me than Trubisky/BPA/BPA.
But if I had to choose between the three, I'd pick Trubisky over any of them.
As proof -
Sorry guy if I can't remember everything you posted.
Selective memory when you ran through what you liked about Kizer. I watched a couple of his games and came away unimpressed.Here's my thinking. If Watson blows up tonight- there's a possibility all three (Trubisky, Watson, and Kizer) could all be gone by the time #12 rolls around. Anyone thinking Allen (from Wyoming) or Mahomes are going in the top 10 are #1 fanboys. WAY too many questions about them. OTOH we could land a very good DL with the #12. I don't see a Derrick Thomas or Mean Joe Green on the current incarnation of their respective teams. Hell, I'd have to go to NFL.com to even figure out who plays on the Patriots DL.
i actually like Mitch and Davis Webb as franchise guys i think kizer is cardale jones 2.0 and watson is not a pro style qb period.
What jumps out on Mitch for me is his TD\INT ratio,though he did toss a couple clunkers in the Stanford game. I haven't watched Webb yet- so I'll plead ignorance on that one. I've never thought about comparing Kizer to Cardale- but darn if that isn't an apt comparison. 100% agreed on Watson. There are no old running qbs in the NFL. Said it a bunch of times If you want another RG III, draft Watson. His arm isn't as strong as Griffin's- but hes just as inaccurate.
-
Here's a thought:
It's clear that Cody Kessler was an analytics pick, and Hue said 'trust me' to take some heat off the FO..
I don't see how analytics would point remotely towards a QB who has only played 13 games in college (Trubisky)
The only 'top' QB analytics would really point to is Watson
-
I think when it comes down to it, if we take Trubisky #1, then fine. That means he is their guy, for better or worse. If you believe in him take him. However it also sucks because we will then miss out on one of the true #1 players in the draft (Garrett/Allen) and they will then likely fall to teams to finished somewhere between 2-5.
Also with the QB's being rated so close together I wouldn't be surprised if he did fall to us at #12 if we didn't take him.
I think when it comes down to it, if we take Trubisky #1, then fine. That means he is their guy, for better or worse. If you believe in him take him. However it also sucks because we will then miss out on one of the true #1 players in the draft (Garrett/Allen) and they will then likely fall to teams to finished somewhere between 2-5.
Also with the QB's being rated so close together I wouldn't be surprised if he did fall to us at #12 if we didn't take him.
No....silliness.
While I don't believe so much in Watson or Kizer,...and I don't believe in what I am saying here should happen, I should make another bet that both Watson and Kizer would also be drafted in the Top Ten. Something to eat to go along with the margaritas.
-
Here's a thought:
It's clear that Cody Kessler was an analytics pick, and Hue said 'trust me' to take some heat off the FO..
I don't see how analytics would point remotely towards a QB who has only played 13 games in college (Trubisky)
The only 'top' QB analytics would really point to is Watson
Mitch2Pryor said:
Here's a thought:
It's clear that Cody Kessler was an analytics pick, and Hue said 'trust me' to take some heat off the FO..
I don't see how analytics would point remotely towards a QB who has only played 13 games in college (Trubisky)
The only 'top' QB analytics would really point to is Watson
Why not? I mean, what does "analytics" mean such that a guy like MT would not be considered?
I mean, I know that analytics is supposed to be the application of various algorithms and mathematical formula. Do you think a small sample size would invalidate the analytical conclusions?
-
If I felt that Trubisky was the guy who would be worth keeping around as the franchise QB then I would totally be on board for spending the #1 on him. The Browns do need stability at QB. But I don't feel that Trubisky is that guy. If we drafted him and he went on to be great, I would happily eat crow. I want the Browns to succeed. I just don't see what some others are seeing with Trubisky. I think being a local has made some folks blind to any possible criticism of the kid.
I like him as a late first round pick, definitely. He possesses all of the tools you'd like to see, he's just a question mark due to scheme fit and lack of starting time.
What don't you see in him? He has some mechanical flaws, primarily in his footwork under pressure, but for the most part he's pretty solid as a prospect. He's certainly not perfect and he'll be slotted in likely below Mariota/Winston/ Wentz and around the Bortles level by NFL.com when all is said and done.
I'm also not from Cleveland nor have I ever lived in Cleveland, so I don't care about him being local. Couldn't give a shit other than the fact that he WANTS to play in Cleveland, which is a hell of a lot different than some of these guys we've had in the past.
I like him as a late first round pick, definitely. He possesses all of the tools you'd like to see, he's just a question mark due to scheme fit and lack of starting time.
What don't you see in him? He has some mechanical flaws, primarily in his footwork under pressure, but for the most part he's pretty solid as a prospect. He's certainly not perfect and he'll be slotted in likely below Mariota/Winston/ Wentz and around the Bortles level by NFL.com when all is said and done.
I'm also not from Cleveland nor have I ever lived in Cleveland, so I don't care about him being local. Couldn't give a shit other than the fact that he WANTS to play in Cleveland, which is a hell of a lot different than some of these guys we've had in the past.
The issue is that I just don't see sure fire #1 talent out of Trubisky. At 12? No heartburn at all. The Browns would be walking out of the first round with Garrett or Allen and Trubisky. I would be content with that. I just don't want to see a top prospect passed on for a needs pick. Kizer at the beginning of the 2nd would sit alright with me.
The only early QB that I want zero part of is Watson.
-
Mitch2Pryor said:
Here's a thought:
It's clear that Cody Kessler was an analytics pick, and Hue said 'trust me' to take some heat off the FO..
I don't see how analytics would point remotely towards a QB who has only played 13 games in college (Trubisky)
The only 'top' QB analytics would really point to is Watson
Why not? I mean, what does "analytics" mean such that a guy like MT would not be considered?
I mean, I know that analytics is supposed to be the application of various algorithms and mathematical formula. Do you think a small sample size would invalidate the analytical conclusions?
In their analytical world, they place a huge emphasis on starting experience in college. The more the better. Hence taking Kessler and not Wentz.Why not? I mean, what does "analytics" mean such that a guy like MT would not be considered?
I mean, I know that analytics is supposed to be the application of various algorithms and mathematical formula. Do you think a small sample size would invalidate the analytical conclusions?
In fact, looking back at the 2016 draft, the majority of their picks were very experienced college players.
I'm not saying he won't be considered, in fact a Browns Org. Insider said MT is the #1 QB on their board.
I'm just stating observations
-
In their analytical world, they place a huge emphasis on starting experience in college. The more the better. Hence taking Kessler and not Wentz.Why not? I mean, what does "analytics" mean such that a guy like MT would not be considered?
I mean, I know that analytics is supposed to be the application of various algorithms and mathematical formula. Do you think a small sample size would invalidate the analytical conclusions?
In fact, looking back at the 2016 draft, the majority of their picks were very experienced college players.
I'm not saying he won't be considered, in fact a Browns Org. Insider said MT is the #1 QB on their board.
I'm just stating observations
Mitch2Pryor said:
In their analytical world, they place a huge emphasis on starting experience in college. The more the better. Hence taking Kessler and not Wentz.
In fact, looking back at the 2016 draft, the majority of their picks were very experienced college players.
I'm not saying he won't be considered, in fact a Browns Org. Insider said MT is the #1 QB on their board.
I'm just stating observations
Well, since per one ranking, not a single Browns draftee last year was rated anywhere in the Top 50 best rookies of 2016, they may want to start considering TALENT...and not so much experience.
I mean, I guess Chris Weinke and Brandon Weeden would have been dream picks for them....guys with lots of experience....28/29 year old. Not worth spit.
-
Gip, you have your official choice that you will grip on to for dear life until the draft.
If we pick the kid, I hope the best for him. I just haven't gotten any world beater vibes from him like you have. We shall see how this goes.
Its OK, we were able to afford to pass on BR, Rodgers, Carr etc. etc, etc.....and the Browns won all kinds of division titles and playoff games without them as well. So, obviously we can afford to pass on him, our record in this area has been so staunch.
FYI, see a lot of the mocks. They universally have him going to the 49ers or Bears
FYI, see a lot of the mocks. They universally have him going to the 49ers or Bears
... and therefore since the Mocks know best...
Zombo said:
Mitch's Bitches
Gays for Garrett
Allen's Assholes
Debbie (Trade) Downers
Garappahomos
Are we missing anybody so far?
AJ McCarryOnsMyWaywardSoldiers? Too long? To Boomer-ish? Not R-rated enough?
Zombo said:
We have a couple empty warehouses to rent out to Kizer's Kunts and Wussies for Watson if those clubs form.
I may be a Kunt, but I'm no Wussie...
If you were to file me into a camp, it would be "Camp Best Value", which I don't think Trubisky at #1 would fall into. I'm looking at the first three picks together and Garrett/BPA/Kizer is more enticing to me than Trubisky/BPA/BPA.
And therein lies the rub... there comes a point in every players rise where you say, "that's too high, the risk is too great."
Happened for me with Tannehill when he popped into R1... ditto for Bortles when he hit top 15. I just haven't been able to get to Mitch at #1... but now that he's declared, we'll see.
"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 -
I think when it comes down to it, if we take Trubisky #1, then fine. That means he is their guy, for better or worse. If you believe in him take him. However it also sucks because we will then miss out on one of the true #1 players in the draft (Garrett/Allen) and they will then likely fall to teams to finished somewhere between 2-5.
Also with the QB's being rated so close together I wouldn't be surprised if he did fall to us at #12 if we didn't take him.
No....silliness.
While I don't believe so much in Watson or Kizer,...and I don't believe in what I am saying here should happen, I should make another bet that both Watson and Kizer would also be drafted in the Top Ten. Something to eat to go along with the margaritas.
No....silliness.
While I don't believe so much in Watson or Kizer,...and I don't believe in what I am saying here should happen, I should make another bet that both Watson and Kizer would also be drafted in the Top Ten. Something to eat to go along with the margaritas.
The thing is, if you go look at, lets say the top 10, top 20 mock drafts, you will see that at the very least they have all the QB's going in different orders. At this point I have seen Watson, Kizer, Allen, Trubisky and Mahomes going anywhere from the top 5 to the 3rd round. That isn't to say most mocks don't have 2 or 3 going in the top half of the draft, but most are not in agreement who is the #1 guy is. Normally you might see people talking about 2 QB's who might be #1, but this year it seems that there is 4 or 5 guys.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
AJ McCarryOnsMyWaywardSoldiers? Too long? To Boomer-ish? Not R-rated enough?
Its "Carry on my Wayward Son". Sam and Dean Winchester would not appreciate you messing that up.
-
FYI, see a lot of the mocks. They universally have him going to the 49ers or Bears
... and therefore since the Mocks know best...
Zombo said:
Mitch's Bitches
Gays for Garrett
Allen's Assholes
Debbie (Trade) Downers
Garappahomos
Are we missing anybody so far?
AJ McCarryOnsMyWaywardSoldiers? Too long? To Boomer-ish? Not R-rated enough?
Zombo said:
We have a couple empty warehouses to rent out to Kizer's Kunts and Wussies for Watson if those clubs form.
I may be a Kunt, but I'm no Wussie...
If you were to file me into a camp, it would be "Camp Best Value", which I don't think Trubisky at #1 would fall into. I'm looking at the first three picks together and Garrett/BPA/Kizer is more enticing to me than Trubisky/BPA/BPA.
And therein lies the rub... there comes a point in every players rise where you say, "that's too high, the risk is too great."
Happened for me with Tannehill when he popped into R1... ditto for Bortles when he hit top 15. I just haven't been able to get to Mitch at #1... but now that he's declared, we'll see.
... and therefore since the Mocks know best...
And therein lies the rub... there comes a point in every players rise where you say, "that's too high, the risk is too great."
And that point is in no different place for Trubisky than it is for Garrett or Allen.
The ONLY difference is that he is a QB......and all the risks and rewards are admittedly greater for a QB than they are for DEs/OLBs.
I mean, look at the Browns history.
Most see the failure of Tim Couch to be a greater failure than that of Courtney Brown. Yet they were both #1 overall picks.
We just think that a failed high pick DE/OLB is much easier to replace, and much less devastating to the team than is a failed QB.
Happened for me with Tannehill when he popped into R1... ditto for Bortles when he hit top 15. I just haven't been able to get to Mitch at #1... but now that he's declared, we'll see.
And here you have mentioned a couple of underachieving high QB picks. Is a failed Bortles more devastating than a failed Dante Fowler?
Was a failed Jamarcus Russell more devastating than a failed Aaron Curry?
I think the answer is Yes....by virtue of the nature of the position.
But, you know, I don't think the Browns are in the position to take a chicken shit approach to this thing. "Well...lets take a DE, because if he fails, it won't be as bad as if our QB choice fails". That seems to be a lot of what I am hearing.
Chicken Shit.
-
No....silliness.
While I don't believe so much in Watson or Kizer,...and I don't believe in what I am saying here should happen, I should make another bet that both Watson and Kizer would also be drafted in the Top Ten. Something to eat to go along with the margaritas.
The thing is, if you go look at, lets say the top 10, top 20 mock drafts, you will see that at the very least they have all the QB's going in different orders. At this point I have seen Watson, Kizer, Allen, Trubisky and Mahomes going anywhere from the top 5 to the 3rd round. That isn't to say most mocks don't have 2 or 3 going in the top half of the draft, but most are not in agreement who is the #1 guy is. Normally you might see people talking about 2 QB's who might be #1, but this year it seems that there is 4 or 5 guys.
The thing is, if you go look at, lets say the top 10, top 20 mock drafts, you will see that at the very least they have all the QB's going in different orders. At this point I have seen Watson, Kizer, Allen, Trubisky and Mahomes going anywhere from the top 5 to the 3rd round. That isn't to say most mocks don't have 2 or 3 going in the top half of the draft, but most are not in agreement who is the #1 guy is. Normally you might see people talking about 2 QB's who might be #1, but this year it seems that there is 4 or 5 guys.
I have seen almost none that do not have MT in the Top 5. I was on the Walterfootball draft database, which has like 100 mocks on it. and like 90-95% had him in Top 5.
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