Schefter: Browns still split between taking Garrett and Trubisky with #1 pick
-
This jives with what was being said earlier as well ("we don't believe our QB will be available at 12"). I don't doubt the validity of this rumour.
And... I'd officially be happy with either pick.
-
Von Miller EASILY did that in the Super Bowl. Come on man.
Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.
You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.
Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.
2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.
Nor the 1985 Bears.
-
He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.
Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!
A person is a reach only if they are ultimately unsuccesful. Spergon Wynn was a HUGE reach as a 6th round pick.
No one thought Ryan Leaf was a reach...some thought he should have gone #1 ahead of Peyton.
It only matters how one actually performs, not how they are projected to perform.
If say, Garrett turns into Courtney Brown 2.0..then HE would be a "huge reach".
And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.
Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..
No, you don't. Browns have as bad or worse record at taking pass rushers. Courtney Brown, Kam Wimbley. Barkevious Mingo. Shouldn't we take this poor track record into account as much as we do for the QBs.
Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.
IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.
Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?
Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.
There is NO sure guarantee that Garrett could beat out Nassib or whomever in camp.
You think you know something, but you don't know shit.
Every player taken is a risk.
And now the Browns do NOT have a "makeshift" OL.....they have a super solid OL....or at least it seems they should.
And as far as I am concerned, even if they take MT, NO, he should not start right away, even if he is #1 overall.
Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..
I would rather go the route of having MT be our Aaron Rodgers.
Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..
However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.
Again...you don't know shit about if it would be a mistake. It may be a mistake not to draft him. You don't know the future.
Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..
Trubisky will NOT be there at 12. You have not been watching the NFL and how it operates this century if you think that.
He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.
Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!
A person is a reach only if they are ultimately unsuccesful. Spergon Wynn was a HUGE reach as a 6th round pick.
No one thought Ryan Leaf was a reach...some thought he should have gone #1 ahead of Peyton.
It only matters how one actually performs, not how they are projected to perform.
If say, Garrett turns into Courtney Brown 2.0..then HE would be a "huge reach".
And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.
Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..
No, you don't. Browns have as bad or worse record at taking pass rushers. Courtney Brown, Kam Wimbley. Barkevious Mingo. Shouldn't we take this poor track record into account as much as we do for the QBs.
Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.
IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.
Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?
Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.
There is NO sure guarantee that Garrett could beat out Nassib or whomever in camp.
You think you know something, but you don't know shit.
Every player taken is a risk.
And now the Browns do NOT have a "makeshift" OL.....they have a super solid OL....or at least it seems they should.
And as far as I am concerned, even if they take MT, NO, he should not start right away, even if he is #1 overall.
Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..
I would rather go the route of having MT be our Aaron Rodgers.
Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..
However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.
Again...you don't know shit about if it would be a mistake. It may be a mistake not to draft him. You don't know the future.
Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..
Trubisky will NOT be there at 12. You have not been watching the NFL and how it operates this century if you think that.
I know enough Gip.
I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.
I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.
The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.
Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?
It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.
But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!
Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.
Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..
Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
-
Von Miller EASILY did that in the Super Bowl. Come on man.
Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.
You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.
Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.
2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.
Nor the 1985 Bears.
Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.
You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.
Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.
2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.
Nor the 1985 Bears.
Michael Strahan
-
He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.
Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!
A person is a reach only if they are ultimately unsuccesful. Spergon Wynn was a HUGE reach as a 6th round pick.
No one thought Ryan Leaf was a reach...some thought he should have gone #1 ahead of Peyton.
It only matters how one actually performs, not how they are projected to perform.
If say, Garrett turns into Courtney Brown 2.0..then HE would be a "huge reach".
And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.
Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..
No, you don't. Browns have as bad or worse record at taking pass rushers. Courtney Brown, Kam Wimbley. Barkevious Mingo. Shouldn't we take this poor track record into account as much as we do for the QBs.
Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.
IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.
Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?
Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.
There is NO sure guarantee that Garrett could beat out Nassib or whomever in camp.
You think you know something, but you don't know shit.
Every player taken is a risk.
And now the Browns do NOT have a "makeshift" OL.....they have a super solid OL....or at least it seems they should.
And as far as I am concerned, even if they take MT, NO, he should not start right away, even if he is #1 overall.
Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..
I would rather go the route of having MT be our Aaron Rodgers.
Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..
However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.
Again...you don't know shit about if it would be a mistake. It may be a mistake not to draft him. You don't know the future.
Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..
Trubisky will NOT be there at 12. You have not been watching the NFL and how it operates this century if you think that.
I know enough Gip.
I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.
I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.
The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.
Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?
It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.
But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!
Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.
Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..
Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
I know enough Gip.
I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.
I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.
A. Those experts are NOT the ones doing the drafting for the Cleveland Browns. the Browns experts think they are more expert than any other experts.
B. You still have to take a Risk......be it at QB or at DE. The one guy is JUST as big a risk at the other guy. If you don't want to take a risk, take a seat on the couch.
The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.
Maybe to a point...but, the fact is, all these past Browns QBs didn't exactly go anywhere and light it up when they did get shots, now did they?
Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?
Because he has a ton more talent. Much better arm, legs, quicker release, etc. etc.
Brandon Weeden had a lot more height and experience than either of him...that didn't help him, now did it?
It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.
But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!
They will win MORE with a franchise QB than they will with a DE. You think that a DE will magically fix things? that is ignorance.
Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.
And that best player may in fact be the QB. You just never think about that, do you.
Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..
Not as a rookie, I doubt it. And who knows if he ever does.
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..
Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
Again, you are making asshole assumptions about a player that you really have no clue about how he will perform. That is as big an asshole assumption as an assumption I would make that MT will be the next Tom Brady.
We don't know about either. Garrett could be Barky Mingo 2.0 as easily as MT could be a washup.
-
Von Miller says no one in the AFC North can handle Garrett.
-
Apologies my uploading went a bit haywire there so it's over two posts
Apologies my uploading went a bit haywire there so it's over two posts
That was worth waiting for... was chuckle after chuckle... (COL?)
Should have been it's own thread...
-
Von Miller EASILY did that in the Super Bowl. Come on man.
Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.
You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.
Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.
2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.
Nor the 1985 Bears.
Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.
You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.
Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.
2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.
Nor the 1985 Bears.
'85 Bears? The greatest D on the greatest team ever?
Lotta great defenders... Dent, McMichaels, Fridge, Duerson... none of whom would argue with the labeling of Singletary as their leader. Ditto for "Sweetness" on Offense...
Looking for an undisputed, team-leading DE? Start with JJ Watt... especially since LT wasn't a hybrid anything. He was all 3-4 OLB...
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib. Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
Not a matter of "how", Dom... It's "why"?
And the answer is because it fits his narrative.
-
von miller did not do it alone. at least he had some decent players surrounding him.
neither is a safe pick. we've seen many a sure-pick #home out the locker room hallways onto the field and bust all over the place.
as usual i'll let the professional scouts and FO deal with it.........hee hee.
-
I know enough Gip.
I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.
I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.
A. Those experts are NOT the ones doing the drafting for the Cleveland Browns. the Browns experts think they are more expert than any other experts.
B. You still have to take a Risk......be it at QB or at DE. The one guy is JUST as big a risk at the other guy. If you don't want to take a risk, take a seat on the couch.
The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.
Maybe to a point...but, the fact is, all these past Browns QBs didn't exactly go anywhere and light it up when they did get shots, now did they?
Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?
Because he has a ton more talent. Much better arm, legs, quicker release, etc. etc.
Brandon Weeden had a lot more height and experience than either of him...that didn't help him, now did it?
It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.
But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!
They will win MORE with a franchise QB than they will with a DE. You think that a DE will magically fix things? that is ignorance.
Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.
And that best player may in fact be the QB. You just never think about that, do you.
Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..
Not as a rookie, I doubt it. And who knows if he ever does.
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..
Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
Again, you are making asshole assumptions about a player that you really have no clue about how he will perform. That is as big an asshole assumption as an assumption I would make that MT will be the next Tom Brady.
We don't know about either. Garrett could be Barky Mingo 2.0 as easily as MT could be a washup.
I know enough Gip.
I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.
I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.
A. Those experts are NOT the ones doing the drafting for the Cleveland Browns. the Browns experts think they are more expert than any other experts.
B. You still have to take a Risk......be it at QB or at DE. The one guy is JUST as big a risk at the other guy. If you don't want to take a risk, take a seat on the couch.
The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.
Maybe to a point...but, the fact is, all these past Browns QBs didn't exactly go anywhere and light it up when they did get shots, now did they?
Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?
Because he has a ton more talent. Much better arm, legs, quicker release, etc. etc.
Brandon Weeden had a lot more height and experience than either of him...that didn't help him, now did it?
It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.
But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!
They will win MORE with a franchise QB than they will with a DE. You think that a DE will magically fix things? that is ignorance.
Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.
And that best player may in fact be the QB. You just never think about that, do you.
Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..
Not as a rookie, I doubt it. And who knows if he ever does.
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..
Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
Again, you are making asshole assumptions about a player that you really have no clue about how he will perform. That is as big an asshole assumption as an assumption I would make that MT will be the next Tom Brady.
We don't know about either. Garrett could be Barky Mingo 2.0 as easily as MT could be a washup.
No one is a lock. Whether they are drafted #1 or #101. They all need to earn their stripes.
Bark Mingo was a bust from the get go. He didn't really have the size to handle quality olineman in the NFL. Garrett at least has the intangibles..
But you are right.. He could not pan out.. He could very easily be the next Courtney Brown.
Im just not sure I see the potential for bust as high in MG, as I do in MT.
Hell with all of the picks we have we could trade up and nab MT, if Cleveland feels so strongly about him, but doesn't want to pass up a potentially great DE..
Jets and Niners are teams that could be interested in trading with us on draft day..
-
I would be enamored if Trubisky was a 3 year starter @ UNC and we took him @ 1. He had one good year @ UNC. What makes you think he won't be Mark Sanchez 2.0?
Because he is much more talented by all accounts. What makes you think he won't be Aaron Rodgers 2.0?
Garrett is the consensus pick @ 1. He has the size, intangibles, and numbers to back himself up. He is what we need to make our D more competitive.
There is NO such thing as a consensus #1 pick. The consensus is the consensus of ONE, i.e. the Cleveland Browns front office. Nothing that anyone else on the planet thinks matters.
I would consider Trubisky @ 12, if he's there.
I would too....but he won't be there. Not at all.
If not, fucking take a good pass catcher and be done! If they really want another QB im sure Webb/Kizer/Dobbs will be there on Day 2
What they want is a franchise QB...not another backup QB, which is what these other guys basically would be. ONLY MT or possibly Watson have in them imo to be quality NfL starting QBs.
It would be a mistake to throw another rookie QB to the wolves.. Fix the team and take Sam Darnold next year if Kessler isn't the answer..
a. What makes you think Darnold would be there next year.
B. What makes you think Darnold would be any better
C. Why would you throw Darnold to the wolves any more than anyone you take this year?
Besides, you don't "throw him to the Wolves". What do you think the moves to improve the OL line were all about? Wolf bane. What do you think the acquisition of Oswieler was all about? Wolf bane. All moves meant to protect a future franchise QB. Get super protection up front...and have a "bridge QB" on hand to start the year.
He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.
Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!
And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.
Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..
Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.
IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.
Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?
Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.
Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..
Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..
However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.
Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..
He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.
Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!
And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.
Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..
Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.
IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.
Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?
Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.
Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..
Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..
However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.
Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..
Weedeen, Quinn and Manziel were fails because they ALL had glaring flaws- the only knocks on Mitch are he only played one year and has some minor footwork issues. As Gip has said- poor drafting. We did OK in 2007 taking Joe Thomas ahead of Quinn, but to take yet another trip down memory lane in 2012- we took Trent Richardson instead of Luke Keuchly or Dontari Poe, and Donta Hightower was still there when we drafted Wee-Done. There's the core of our D- IF we had drafted correctly. Another epic fail in 2014 with Gilbert and Manziel. Could have been any of the following instead- enough to make you want to puke. Kalil Mack, Aaron Donald, Odell Beckham, Ryan Shazier, Jason Verrett, Derek Carr.
We haven't drafted a quarterback high since Tim Couch in 1999, and gone bargain shopping instead, if you want to talk about fail following that method. That the Browns are even talking about drafting a a qb, and brought in Ostrich (maybe secondary to the draft pick they got) should tell you they're not 100% sold on Kessler- short of being a short term solution.
This jives with what was being said earlier as well ("we don't believe our QB will be available at 12"). I don't doubt the validity of this rumor.
And... I'd officially be happy with either pick.
It's well known I started the Trubisky Train, and I'm still on it to a certain extent. Caught Mitch again last night on Gruden's QB camp. He's got everything I want to see in a QB, accuracy, quick release, decent arm, good mobility & pocket awareness. FWIW, Gruden broke down (in great detail and film) both of Mitch's big interceptions against Stanford. An NFL defense level drop a DL into coverage with a few other tricks- the first time Trubs had seen it. Learning experience, and you can bet he'll learn from that- he was taking notes.
BTW MMB, assuming we take Garrett @ #1 (I'm not against it) and Trubs somehow gets past the 49ers and Bears, and assuming we want him, we're going to have to do a deal with the Titans to get ahead of the Jets, they've made no secret of their love for Mitch. One link to follow, but a quick Google search will probably dig up a dozen others. Our #12, giving Tennessee back their #52, and one of our seconds in 2018 might be enough. Man, I do that trade in a heartbeat.
-
How much, Gip, do you think it would take to trade up from #12 to lets say. 2 or 6?
A 1st next year? Two 2nd rounders this year? Two second rounders next year?
I would be happy with Garrett @ 1, and trading with SF to take MT, IF they are 100% sure he is "the guy"
SF receives our #12, #52 and our 1st next year
We receive the #2 pick.
-
It's going to be a very interesting draft night. Snooze and you lose.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
-
It's going to be a very interesting draft night. Snooze and you lose.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
It's going to be a very interesting draft night. Snooze and you lose.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
I would be angry if Im a Jets fan and they do this, they need to trade down not up!
-
It's going to be a very interesting draft night. Snooze and you lose.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
NYJ still is working under the delusion that they are only a QB away.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
That fits with one of the hottest rumors going... that SF is looking to trade down multiple times and accumulate picks.
With both Shanny and Lynch on fresh, 6-year deals they are in no need of shortcuts... just a bunch of really good prospects.
EDIT: Holy shit... PFF has Adams falling to us at 12? Color me ecstatic...
"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 -
He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.
Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!
And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.
Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..
Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.
IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.
Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?
Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.
Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..
Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..
However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.
Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..
Weedeen, Quinn and Manziel were fails because they ALL had glaring flaws- the only knocks on Mitch are he only played one year and has some minor footwork issues. As Gip has said- poor drafting. We did OK in 2007 taking Joe Thomas ahead of Quinn, but to take yet another trip down memory lane in 2012- we took Trent Richardson instead of Luke Keuchly or Dontari Poe, and Donta Hightower was still there when we drafted Wee-Done. There's the core of our D- IF we had drafted correctly. Another epic fail in 2014 with Gilbert and Manziel. Could have been any of the following instead- enough to make you want to puke. Kalil Mack, Aaron Donald, Odell Beckham, Ryan Shazier, Jason Verrett, Derek Carr.
We haven't drafted a quarterback high since Tim Couch in 1999, and gone bargain shopping instead, if you want to talk about fail following that method. That the Browns are even talking about drafting a a qb, and brought in Ostrich (maybe secondary to the draft pick they got) should tell you they're not 100% sold on Kessler- short of being a short term solution.
This jives with what was being said earlier as well ("we don't believe our QB will be available at 12"). I don't doubt the validity of this rumor.
And... I'd officially be happy with either pick.
It's well known I started the Trubisky Train, and I'm still on it to a certain extent. Caught Mitch again last night on Gruden's QB camp. He's got everything I want to see in a QB, accuracy, quick release, decent arm, good mobility & pocket awareness. FWIW, Gruden broke down (in great detail and film) both of Mitch's big interceptions against Stanford. An NFL defense level drop a DL into coverage with a few other tricks- the first time Trubs had seen it. Learning experience, and you can bet he'll learn from that- he was taking notes.
BTW MMB, assuming we take Garrett @ #1 (I'm not against it) and Trubs somehow gets past the 49ers and Bears, and assuming we want him, we're going to have to do a deal with the Titans to get ahead of the Jets, they've made no secret of their love for Mitch. One link to follow, but a quick Google search will probably dig up a dozen others. Our #12, giving Tennessee back their #52, and one of our seconds in 2018 might be enough. Man, I do that trade in a heartbeat.
Weedeen, Quinn and Manziel were fails because they ALL had glaring flaws- the only knocks on Mitch are he only played one year and has some minor footwork issues.
It's well known I started the Trubisky Train, and I'm still on it to a certain extent.
OK... I'll play. What was Wheezy's glaring flaw? Brady-kins'?
I'll spot you Manziel... after all you likely have other things to do today.
Will also spot you that none could read a Defense when they were drafted... although I think Brady Q was close. Kind of a determinative factor and a skill Trubs hasn't demonstrated to any extent I've seen. Also one that comes with "experience"...
When did Gip steal your train? 🥷
"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 -
Weeden didn't make progressions or read defenses, he simply played catch with the best receiver in the country. If my memory serves me, the big 12 didn't have a single top 80 defense that year while the big ten had 7 in the top 40, which was part of my reasoning for taking either Wilson or Cousins late as opposed to reaching for Weeden or Tannehill. 2012 was they year to draft 1 overall.
-
I know enough Gip.
I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.
I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.
A. Those experts are NOT the ones doing the drafting for the Cleveland Browns. the Browns experts think they are more expert than any other experts.
B. You still have to take a Risk......be it at QB or at DE. The one guy is JUST as big a risk at the other guy. If you don't want to take a risk, take a seat on the couch.
The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.
Maybe to a point...but, the fact is, all these past Browns QBs didn't exactly go anywhere and light it up when they did get shots, now did they?
Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?
Because he has a ton more talent. Much better arm, legs, quicker release, etc. etc.
Brandon Weeden had a lot more height and experience than either of him...that didn't help him, now did it?
It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.
But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!
They will win MORE with a franchise QB than they will with a DE. You think that a DE will magically fix things? that is ignorance.
Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.
And that best player may in fact be the QB. You just never think about that, do you.
Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..
Not as a rookie, I doubt it. And who knows if he ever does.
How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..
Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.
Again, you are making asshole assumptions about a player that you really have no clue about how he will perform. That is as big an asshole assumption as an assumption I would make that MT will be the next Tom Brady.
We don't know about either. Garrett could be Barky Mingo 2.0 as easily as MT could be a washup.
No one is a lock. Whether they are drafted #1 or #101. They all need to earn their stripes.
Bark Mingo was a bust from the get go. He didn't really have the size to handle quality olineman in the NFL. Garrett at least has the intangibles..
But you are right.. He could not pan out.. He could very easily be the next Courtney Brown.
Im just not sure I see the potential for bust as high in MG, as I do in MT.
Hell with all of the picks we have we could trade up and nab MT, if Cleveland feels so strongly about him, but doesn't want to pass up a potentially great DE..
Jets and Niners are teams that could be interested in trading with us on draft day..
No one is a lock. Whether they are drafted #1 or #101. They all need to earn their stripes.
Bark Mingo was a bust from the get go. He didn't really have the size to handle quality olineman in the NFL. Garrett at least has the intangibles..
But you are right.. He could not pan out.. He could very easily be the next Courtney Brown.
Im just not sure I see the potential for bust as high in MG, as I do in MT.
Hell with all of the picks we have we could trade up and nab MT, if Cleveland feels so strongly about him, but doesn't want to pass up a potentially great DE..
Jets and Niners are teams that could be interested in trading with us on draft day..
I am on board with that. Get both of them. Trade up. Though, I don't know about the Jets and 49ers. Jets, it has been reported, are in line to want a QB, and MT is top of their list. That is why in another thread I talked about moving up from 12 to 5 with the Tits. Though...I have seen some reports that both the Niners and Bears may still be in the QB market, even with recent signings.
Moving from 12 to 2 with SF? A. That presumes that SF doesn't want a QB there, and B....WTF would it take to do that? A lot I suspect.
-
How much, Gip, do you think it would take to trade up from #12 to lets say. 2 or 6?
A 1st next year? Two 2nd rounders this year? Two second rounders next year?
I would be happy with Garrett @ 1, and trading with SF to take MT, IF they are 100% sure he is "the guy"
SF receives our #12, #52 and our 1st next year
We receive the #2 pick.
How much, Gip, do you think it would take to trade up from #12 to lets say. 2 or 6?
A 1st next year? Two 2nd rounders this year? Two second rounders next year?
I would be happy with Garrett @ 1, and trading with SF to take MT, IF they are 100% sure he is "the guy"
SF receives our #12, #52 and our 1st next year
We receive the #2 pick.
I outlined this on another thread. To move up to #5, under the Jimmy Johnson chart, we would have to give up #52 plus a lower pick. Under the Harvard chart, a #4-5 should do it.
Of course, that is assuming the trade partner wants to stick strictly with those charts, which they likely sure as hell would not want to do. They would want a premium.
To go from #12 to #2?
I don't know per the charts..but what you say could certainly be the Niners asking price.
-
It's going to be a very interesting draft night. Snooze and you lose.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
It's going to be a very interesting draft night. Snooze and you lose.
And just to add more smoke and mirrors.https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mock-draft-5-0-jets-trade-up-to-take-a-qb/
Jets trade from #6 to #2 to get MT? Wouldn't discount the possibility.
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