Schefter: Browns still split between taking Garrett and Trubisky with #1 pick

The Gipper

@flugel said:

Last night on the NFL Channel - Heath Needs2exhale-Evans said 30 of the 32 first round picks from 2014 are still in the NFL. The only 2 that aren't are Justin Gilbert and Johnny Manziel.

And some may wonder why Ray Farmer has no job now.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

Either one his point remains the same. If they were not willing to give up #1 for more proven QB's, then why would they take one there in the draft?

The point is not the same. Garropolo specifically is not proven at all.

And the reason they may consider taking him is because they view him as a supreme talent.

What is it about this fact that you lunkheads don't understand?

YOUR opinions don't count for shit or shinola.

Only the Browns FO's opinions count...and they may be different than yours.

DOH!

(That is not to say they won't take Garrett....but it is also not to say that they may give it some serious thought about taking the QB. Lunkheads discount that possibility when they shouldn't)

Tour2ma

@the-gipper said:

@tour2ma said:

Well that's not fair... Trubs hasn't shown he can read a D either...

Not at a pro level,...no rookie has ever proven that....but at the college level it has been one of his strengths.

Someone needs to learn the difference between reading a defense and going through progressions.

And making up facts about "no rookie" doesn't help that person's cause..

@the-gipper said:
Every asshole has an opinion. This just happens to live it, he is an asshole and has an asshole opinion

I can handle that you are obstinate... to a point, but when you mix in this "Ghoolie-lite" act, it gets a lot harder.

I may have to rethink paroling you from the Ignore List...

@the-gipper said:
A non-QB who is way better at his position than any of the QBs in this draft are at their position is exactly the situation we have before us.

Purely a matter of opinion.

Thank you, Capt. Obvious..

Tour2ma

@cambridgeho said:
I thought Hue liked Kessler. Isnt that why he said "trust me on this" when they drafted him 3 rounds sooner then predicted?

Which is part of the reason the Hue-FO "split" flipped less than 24 hours after it surfaced.

First reported: Hue --- Trubs / FO --- Garrett

Then: Hue --- Garrett / FO --- Trubs

12.5 more days of this shit. Not... sure... I... can... take... it.... I'm not getting any younger.

TexasAg1969

@the-gipper said:

Because....perhaps in their view MT is a much better QB prospect than Garropolo?

Again, all y'all are imputing your own thoughts and opinions on to others. Those others being the Browns FO...and all of us on here that may disagree with your opinion.

And somehow I thought the purpose of a board was to express...........................wait for it................................opinions.

I've made no secret that I think Trubs is a choker when the important game is on the line. But the Browns should just go with your opinion and take a taller version of Romo 2.0.

And though Watson may not be the prototypical pro QB, he wins somehow. Go figure.

Tour2ma

@texasag1969 said:

Here is an interesting take. From the article: "If I’m going to believe anything, I’d lean toward Jackson wanting Garrett. He ruled out trading the No. 1 pick for a quarterback (read: Patriots backup Jimmy Garoppolo), and if the Browns are as hot for Garoppolo as I believe, why would Trubisky be worth the pick but not Garoppolo?"

That's an excellent point! http://www.chroniclet.com/browns-notes/2017/04/12/Analysis.html

Agree... in ESPN's abbreviated, and multi-reset, war room mock last nite, alternately acting as Sashi and then our player personnel head, Bill Pollian said, "Both Garropolo and McCarron have higher grades than any QB in this draft." McShay, playing our Head of College Scouting agreed.

At both 1 and 12 "we" made calls:

to the Pats to make a last stab at Jimmy G (we offered #12 and #52; their counter including the #1, was too high) and
Cinci (they answered with "No" in place of hello... damned caller ID... and did not even listen to our offer)

We ended up picking Garrett and Foster... I believe I had this months ago...

@texasag1969 said:

Either one his point remains the same. If they were not willing to give up #1 for more proven QB's, then why would they take one there in the draft?

This should sell ya! LOL!

FWIW... Damien Woody, the first Yates bench-press participant, exhibited much more "control"...

Tour2ma

@the-gipper said:
Both things you say are wrong: A. You have no clue if Garrett is better or will be better, he might be, or he may not be. I don't think he is any more highly rated than Courtney Brown was...and B. My opinion aside, Trubisky has graded out better than either Goff or Wentz...by whomever does the grading.

I continue to be amazed at how you know others are wrong when you have no more insight, and often considerably less, than they do...

@the-gipper said:
Or worse yet, another DE that can't even a backup. Mingo, Courtney, Wimbley. Well, maybe Wimbley could be a backup.

Please explain how missing on a #1 at QB is better than missing at any other position...

The Gipper

@tour2ma said:

I continue to be amazed at how you know others are wrong when you have no more insight, and often considerably less, than they do...

You are amazed because you are showing you are the one with no insight. I say they are wrong because they assert that X is an absolute truth....when all X is is their opinion. And I tell them that X is merely an opinion, and yet they continue to believe that their opinions are absolute facts.

They assert that Garret is by far and away the best player in this draft. And I say...no, it is the opinion of many that he is by far the best prospect in this draft....but the FACT is, we don't know that for sure. They discount the possibility that he could turn into another Courtney Brown/Mingo/Wimbley.

I do NOT discount that....because, simply, we are dealing with the Browns, and the Browns record of failure with high draft picks is astounding.

So, I am not going to buy someone's opinion that it is an absolute fact that this player is such a sure thing and will turn out oh so much better than another player.

Ya follow?

Please explain how missing on a #1 at QB is better than missing at any other position...

I don't think it is better, and I don't recall ever saying that it is better. Certainly it is probably worse.

You miss on a high pick defender, it is not big of a deal.

You miss on a high pick QB...and it is a much bigger deal.

I have always said: taking a QB high IS a big risk...because of that possibility of failure.

I have always said: taking Trubisky is by all means a risk....because unlike the Gays for Gayrett, I understand the potential that he could bust. The Gays never conceive that their guy could bust. But I know it is possible...just like a zillion other Browns first rounders.

(by saying...or worse yet....I am simply referring to the fact that the Gays will be far more mortified if their boy busts...because they refuse to acknowledge that possibility...and ergo it will be worse for them than say if a QB they didn't want were to bust)

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

And somehow I thought the purpose of a board was to express...........................wait for it................................opinions.

I've made no secret that I think Trubs is a choker when the important game is on the line. But the Browns should just go with your opinion and take a taller version of Romo 2.0.

And though Watson may not be the prototypical pro QB, he wins somehow. Go figure.

Yes, certainly it IS a place for opinions.

But you Gays for Gayrett apparently are intolerant of differing opinions.

As I stated, I understand the risks and rewards of taking a QB such as MT high. Sure....50% of first round QBs bust.

(but then, so do 50% of first round DEs)

And should the Browns go with my opinion? Why not? But, you see, you don't seem to respect any opinion but your own on this matter.

The Browns are more likely to go by your opinion than mine. So be it.

But....I have always said.....the Browns FO is the ONLY opinion that counts.....and just don't be so certain that their opinion coincides with yours.

So...tell us this. What will be your reaction if the Browns don't take Gayrett? I suspect you will be mortified.

I on the other hand, not expecting them to take MT, will not be.

I will hope Garrett will turn into the next LT...or Von Miller, if you prefer that comparison (but without the PED suspensions).

What will be your aspirations for the Browns if MT is #1?

Me, I would actually like to see them get both...then it is the best of both worlds.

Or, if the Browns DO a trade down...then I can certainly live with that...as I see potential in the likes of Barnett and others to perhaps match the performance you expect of Garrett.

(one other thing....this is the first time I have seen MT compared to Romo...where do you come up with that?)

TexasAg1969

Or they can just be the Browns as usual. I halfway expect them to do what they did last year. More idiocy from smart people.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/04/cleveland_browns_nfl_draft_201_8.html

And just for the record I have no problem with them cashing in some chips to move up for Trubs if that is who they see as QB. Just don't get stupid about leaving MG on the table for someone else. Do that and we will be going thru the staff change game within 2 years once again.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

Or they can just be the Browns as usual. I halfway expect them to do what they did last year. More idiocy from smart people.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/04/cleveland_browns_nfl_draft_201_8.html

And just for the record I have no problem with them cashing in some chips to move up for Trubs if that is who they see as QB. Just don't get stupid about leaving MG on the table for someone else. Do that and we will be going thru the staff change game within 2 years once again.

I agree about the too much time on their hands. I have railed about that in other threads.

That said, again, it is just an opinion that it would be stupid if they didn't get Garrett. If they did the trade down with the Tits for 5 and 18, I would basically be all for that.

You are overly emotionally invested in Garrett. I am not.

But I agree that getting Garrett #1 then MT later would be the best option...the best of both worlds. Even if they traded up to do that.

But, if they traded down, got MT, got Barnett or some such, I would be satisfied.

Beyond the QB position, and beyond the pass rush position....this team is in far more desperate shape in the DB than anywhere else IMO, an area that has NOT been addressed in Free Agency. So serious attention to is is needed in this draft.

Tour2ma

@the-gipper said:
Or worse yet, another DE that can't even a backup. Mingo, Courtney, Wimbley. Well, maybe Wimbley could be a backup.

Here you say in reply to busting on another QB, that busting on a DE is "worse yet."

@the-gipper said:

@tour2ma said:

I continue to be amazed at how you know others are wrong when you have no more insight, and often considerably less, than they do...

You are amazed because you are showing you are the one with no insight. I say they are wrong because they assert that X is an absolute truth....when all X is is their opinion. And I tell them that X is merely an opinion, and yet they continue to believe that their opinions are absolute facts.

They assert that Garret is by far and away the best player in this draft. And I say...no, it is the opinion of many that he is by far the best prospect in this draft....but the FACT is, we don't know that for sure. They discount the possibility that he could turn into another Courtney Brown/Mingo/Wimbley.

I do NOT discount that....because, simply, we are dealing with the Browns, and the Browns record of failure with high draft picks is astounding.

So, I am not going to buy someone's opinion that it is an absolute fact that this player is such a sure thing and will turn out oh so much better than another player.

Ya follow?

Please explain how missing on a #1 at QB is better than missing at any other position...

I don't think it is better, and I don't recall ever saying that it is better. Certainly it is probably worse.

You miss on a high pick defender, it is not big of a deal.

You miss on a high pick QB...and it is a much bigger deal.

I have always said: taking a QB high IS a big risk...because of that possibility of failure.

I have always said: taking Trubisky is by all means a risk....because unlike the Gays for Gayrett, I understand the potential that he could bust. The Gays never conceive that their guy could bust. But I know it is possible...just like a zillion other Browns first rounders.

(by saying...or worse yet....I am simply referring to the fact that the Gays will be far more mortified if their boy busts...because they refuse to acknowledge that possibility...and ergo it will be worse for them than say if a QB they didn't want were to bust)

First, if you say that A is worse than B. That B is better than A is axiomatic. Therefore in the first quote you are saying it is better to bust on a QB.

Then you say missing on a QB is a much bigger deal... which I, and the rest of humanity, equate to "worse".

So which is it?

That you fail to distinguish between supporting an opinion and claiming an opinion is a fact is obvious.

That you consistently retreat to this position is predictable.

That I repeatedly get sucked into these non-football discussions with you is why I end up putting you on my Ignore List.

Kvoethe

What good is a first rnd qb if hes damages after 3 games. Qb should be the least of our worries

Clevfan4life

@the-gipper said:

In MY opinion, you are right. I think there is actually little difference in talent between Garrett and some of the other pass rushers in this draft.

In fact, I will make this prediction: Even if the Browns take him Gayrett will prove to be only perhaps the 3rd or 4th best pass rusher to come out of this draft. Thomas, Barnett and others could easily surpass him.

I believe, however, that there is a bigger gap between MT and the other QBs than there is between Garrett and the other pass rushers.

And let me ask this question: Can Garrett, if we take him, move to the OLB slot? We have more depth at DE than we do at OLB.

If he and Obgah and Nassib and etc. could all be on the field at once (Garrett taking over the OLB slot held by Schobert), that, to me would be a better combination than having Garrett replace Nassib and leaving that OLB spot for Schobert.

Could Garrett cover a TE or a RB? Can he stop the rush at the edges? As poor as the Browns were at sacks, they may have been worse at stopping the edge rushing. Can Garrett do that task?

Gip did u just suggest the browns take a 6'4 275 lb hands in the dirt 4-3 blue chip DE......and make him a 4-3 olb'er? U know i love ya gip but please put the bottle down. Didnt we see how taking Front 4 players and making them play cover 1 is the worst idea in football history?

The Gipper

@tour2ma said:

Here you say in reply to busting on another QB, that busting on a DE is "worse yet."

First, if you say that A is worse than B. That B is better than A is axiomatic. Therefore in the first quote you are saying it is better to bust on a QB.

Then you say missing on a QB is a much bigger deal... which I, and the rest of humanity, equate to "worse".

So which is it?

Again...pay attention. A QB is a bigger bust. I said the one thing about the DE because so many people here are invested in the Browns drafting a particular DE, so I said to them "worse yet...A DE busts".

Sorry, I guess I should have posted it in pink. And I am sorry that you didn't follow the nuance of that sarcasm.

That you fail to distinguish between supporting an opinion and claiming an opinion is a fact is obvious.

That you consistently retreat to this position is predictable.

That I repeatedly get sucked into these non-football discussions with you is why I end up putting you on my Ignore List.

What I think is that you just confuse yourself because you are hung up on your own opinions. You fret like an old lady over something that varies with your opinion, and you confuse yourself because you think your opinions are facts and that everyone else's opinions are crap.

The failure is on your part. You accuse others of doing exactly what you do.

Get this: I don't worry about your opinions, I don't worry about what you have to say, I don't nitpick what you have to say. You can say whatever you want, it won't bother me.

If you want to be a weenie and put me on ignore so that you don't confuse yourself, that is your prerogative. But remember, it is a cause and effect brought about solely by your own actions, not mine.

The Gipper

@the-gipper said:
Or worse yet, another DE that can't even a backup. Mingo, Courtney, Wimbley. Well, maybe Wimbley could be a backup.

Here, I have posted it in pink. I hope you all can sleep at night now.

The Gipper

@clevfan4life said:
Gip did u just suggest the browns take a 6'4 275 lb hands in the dirt 4-3 blue chip DE......and make him a 4-3 olb'er? U know i love ya gip but please put the bottle down. Didnt we see how taking Front 4 players and making them play cover 1 is the worst idea in football history?

Well, I don't think I suggested it, but I did ask the question if it is possible....for, as I said, in my opinion we are in more dire need of an OLB with those skills than of a hands in the dirt DE.

And I just wondered if Garrett could fit that bill.

So, I assume, you think not?

hoorta

@texasag1969 said:

And somehow I thought the purpose of a board was to express...........................wait for it................................opinions.

I've made no secret that I think Trubs is a choker when the important game is on the line. But the Browns should just go with your opinion and take a taller version of Romo 2.0.

And though Watson may not be the prototypical pro QB, he wins somehow. Go figure.

You're forgetting he had an epic two minute drill in the Stanford game where his receivers were dropping passes left and right that were hitting them in the hands. He was a missed two point conversion of tying the game.

Watson might have "won" in college, but he also had 2X the talent at his disposal than Trubs. Flip the qb positions, and I'd put my money on Mitch to win a National Championship at Clemson.

TexasAg1969

@hoorta said:

You're forgetting he had an epic two minute drill in the Stanford game where his receivers were dropping passes left and right that were hitting them in the hands. He was a missed two point conversion of tying the game.

Watson might have "won" in college, but he also had 2X the talent at his disposal than Trubs. Flip the qb positions, and I'd put my money on Mitch to win a National Championship at Clemson.

He couldn't even hit his open receivers at the end of the rivalry game with NC St. A far cry from what we saw against what was considered to be an unbeatable BAMA defense. Sorry, he's a choker.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

He couldn't even hit his open receivers at the end of the rivalry game with NC St. A far cry from what we saw against what was considered to be an unbeatable BAMA defense. Sorry, he's a choker.

I saw that game and he had drop after drop after drop. And his receivers alligator armed a few of those late passes....and in fact he threw multiple beautiful passes to get them back into position...all the while basically scrambling for his life the whole game.