Browns to make pitch for Jimmy G // Trubisky #1 QB on their board
-
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.
-
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.Scott Mitchell is a guy who in his first two game had like 502 yards, 4 TDs and 0 ints.......but then became "The Biggest Loser.
And any QB behind Brady is hardly a "reject".
Hoyer, Cassell, Mallet were eminently "rejectable.
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.
If you invest a first round pick in him, and you can't keep him or he turns out a bust....that is far worse in my opinion than drafting a QB.
I ain't giving up a first round pick for a one year rental.
-
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.Scott Mitchell is a guy who in his first two game had like 502 yards, 4 TDs and 0 ints.......but then became "The Biggest Loser.
And any QB behind Brady is hardly a "reject".
Hoyer, Cassell, Mallet were eminently "rejectable.
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.
If you invest a first round pick in him, and you can't keep him or he turns out a bust....that is far worse in my opinion than drafting a QB.
I ain't giving up a first round pick for a one year rental.
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.
Scott Mitchell is a guy who in his first two game had like 502 yards, 4 TDs and 0 ints.......but then became "The Biggest Loser.
And any QB behind Brady is hardly a "reject".
Hoyer, Cassell, Mallet were eminently "rejectable.
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.
If you invest a first round pick in him, and you can't keep him or he turns out a bust....that is far worse in my opinion than drafting a QB.
I ain't giving up a first round pick for a one year rental.
Way to edit out parts of my arguement, only leaving what fits your narrative.
-
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.
Scott Mitchell is a guy who in his first two game had like 502 yards, 4 TDs and 0 ints.......but then became "The Biggest Loser.
And any QB behind Brady is hardly a "reject".
Hoyer, Cassell, Mallet were eminently "rejectable.
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.
If you invest a first round pick in him, and you can't keep him or he turns out a bust....that is far worse in my opinion than drafting a QB.
I ain't giving up a first round pick for a one year rental.
Way to edit out parts of my arguement, only leaving what fits your narrative.
Mitch2Pryor said:
Way to edit out parts of my arguement, only leaving what fits your narrative.
Welcome to the world of grownups.
I only quoted the pieces of what you said that I wished to respond to. Your post can stand on its own without me having to regurgitate the whole thing.
-
Mitch2Pryor said:
Way to edit out parts of my arguement, only leaving what fits your narrative.
Welcome to the world of grownups.
I only quoted the pieces of what you said that I wished to respond to. Your post can stand on its own without me having to regurgitate the whole thing.
Oh ok, now it makes sense why as a kid I always knew grown ups were full of shit.Welcome to the world of grownups.
I only quoted the pieces of what you said that I wished to respond to. Your post can stand on its own without me having to regurgitate the whole thing.
I mean your post was almost as bad as MSNBC.
-
The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
-
The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
Mitch2Pryor said:
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
I guess you are a young one
-
The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
Oh, Jeezus. Watch the film.The problem with your argument for JG is that it completely disregards the fact that every QB who has filled in for Brady has performed exceedingly well for the most part, which makes a true evaluation of JG awfully hard.
He's worth no later than a second round pick, however I wouldn't sacrifice a top 15 pick for a guy in the last year of his contract. It doesn't make any sense from a cap perspective. You're essentially sacrificing four years of rookie wages for a guy that, in all honesty, is still almost as much of an unknown.
Could he be great? Sure. But so could the rookie you draft at #12. I'm not going to trade away four years of cheap "could" for one year of cheap "could".
He is better than our QBs.
He is 25 and can paid an incentive based contact.
What is wrong with you homos?
Z
:lol:
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