Want a real QB competition? Draft 2 in the first 10 picks.
-
Hell Hue can't even whisper to one QB, so what the fk do you think he would do with two?
Poor QB play is unacceptable. If Hue can't coach 'em up, then he has to go. The next Sean McVay is out there somewhere.
Poor QB play is unacceptable. If Hue can't coach 'em up, then he has to go. The next Sean McVay is out there somewhere.
We have been trying for 20 years through at least a half dozen or more choices to find him...and haven't yet.
-
@boo-fagley said:
Unless you want to carry 4 QBs. Draft a QB, get a Vet to start in 2018 and keep Kizer even though he has given almost no reason to hang on to him
I would love to draft 2 QBs, but if Kizer starts and doesnt get better, youre right back to playing a rookie QB.
Both Kessler and Hogan would be gone. Hell, both are likely gone anyway....regardless of what the Browns do.
-
All I heard a year ago was that this upcoming QB class was the one to wait for. If that's the case, drafting two up top reduces the risk of missing on the next great one. Or trade for Luck.
All I heard a year ago was that this upcoming QB class was the one to wait for. If that's the case, drafting two up top reduces the risk of missing on the next great one. Or trade for Luck.
If you pick them you have to sign them. 2x first round money is a lot of lettuce that could be used to improve other areas of the team.
-
@boo-fagley said:
Unless you want to carry 4 QBs. Draft a QB, get a Vet to start in 2018 and keep Kizer even though he has given almost no reason to hang on to him
I would love to draft 2 QBs, but if Kizer starts and doesnt get better, youre right back to playing a rookie QB.
Both Kessler and Hogan would be gone. Hell, both are likely gone anyway....regardless of what the Browns do.
Both Kessler and Hogan would be gone. Hell, both are likely gone anyway....regardless of what the Browns do.
Hogan will remain because he is the best QB on the roster.
We are tanking and taking a QB #1 or will trade it for a king's ransom..
Hogan would have won too many games.
The secret of getting ahead is getting started. The secret of getting started is breaking your complex overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks, and then starting on the first one. -Mark Twain- "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." -Mark Twain- -
Both Kessler and Hogan would be gone. Hell, both are likely gone anyway....regardless of what the Browns do.
Hogan will remain because he is the best QB on the roster.
We are tanking and taking a QB #1 or will trade it for a king's ransom..
Hogan would have won too many games.
-
If we pick Rosen at #1, there will be no need to get another QB. He’s the guy.
-
Drafting 2 QBs early just insures one less weapon to help either one. Not a good idea when we need a prime time receiver and RB or the QB is set up for failure.
Drafting 2 QBs early just insures one less weapon to help either one. Not a good idea when we need a prime time receiver and RB or the QB is set up for failure.
This team is set up for failure. They passed on Julio Jones. They traded up for Trent Richardson. Which crappy regime drafted them doesn't matter. Take two top-10 QB's, find someone who can coach them and then go from there. One starts, one sits. The return in trade for the one that sits pales in any comparison to the one that starts and potentially leads this team to greatness. But there needs to be a legit competition. Kizer, Kessler and Hogan are bums. 0-16 teams need to take drastic measures. Teams with garbage QB's need to take drastic measures. Buck conventional thinking and make this move. Until you have Pro Bowl starting QB, young depth at the position is a great start.
-
Both Kessler and Hogan would be gone. Hell, both are likely gone anyway....regardless of what the Browns do.
Hogan will remain because he is the best QB on the roster.
We are tanking and taking a QB #1 or will trade it for a king's ransom..
Hogan would have won too many games.
Hogan will remain because he is the best QB on the roster.
We are tanking and taking a QB #1 or will trade it for a king's ransom..
Hogan would have won too many games.
-
If we pick Rosen at #1, there will be no need to get another QB. He’s the guy.
If we pick Rosen at #1, there will be no need to get another QB. He’s the guy.
The guy that very well might have bust written all over him. I don’t want the guy various scouts and coaches referred to as “a prick” and “the Rosen one”
-
Drafting 2 QBs early just insures one less weapon to help either one. Not a good idea when we need a prime time receiver and RB or the QB is set up for failure.
This team is set up for failure. They passed on Julio Jones. They traded up for Trent Richardson. Which crappy regime drafted them doesn't matter. Take two top-10 QB's, find someone who can coach them and then go from there. One starts, one sits. The return in trade for the one that sits pales in any comparison to the one that starts and potentially leads this team to greatness. But there needs to be a legit competition. Kizer, Kessler and Hogan are bums. 0-16 teams need to take drastic measures. Teams with garbage QB's need to take drastic measures. Buck conventional thinking and make this move. Until you have Pro Bowl starting QB, young depth at the position is a great start.
This team is set up for failure. They passed on Julio Jones. They traded up for Trent Richardson. Which crappy regime drafted them doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter.
Quit diluting your argument with the irrelevant failures of past regimes. Stick to "increase the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation".
-
This team is set up for failure. They passed on Julio Jones. They traded up for Trent Richardson. Which crappy regime drafted them doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter.
Quit diluting your argument with the irrelevant failures of past regimes. Stick to "increase the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation".
Yes, it does matter.
Quit diluting your argument with the irrelevant failures of past regimes. Stick to "increase the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation".
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
-
Yes, it does matter.
Quit diluting your argument with the irrelevant failures of past regimes. Stick to "increase the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation".
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
I would agree on that if having too many good QBs in the roster wouldn't mean that we would keep one more hole in the team. No #1 pick team only misses a QB, we need a lot more than that.
-
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
I would agree on that if having too many good QBs in the roster wouldn't mean that we would keep one more hole in the team. No #1 pick team only misses a QB, we need a lot more than that.
I would agree on that if having too many good QBs in the roster wouldn't mean that we would keep one more hole in the team. No #1 pick team only misses a QB, we need a lot more than that.
Logic is not supposed to enter the conversation on QBs. Only panic and/or desperation should prevail.
-
I would agree on that if having too many good QBs in the roster wouldn't mean that we would keep one more hole in the team. No #1 pick team only misses a QB, we need a lot more than that.
Logic is not supposed to enter the conversation on QBs. Only panic and/or desperation should prevail.
Logic is not supposed to enter the conversation on QBs. Only panic and/or desperation should prevail.
Logically, drafting a QB in the first round is a 50-50 proposition. Every NFL team needs a leader at QB and there are very few of those individuals walking the planet. Bringing in two potential blue-chip candidates to compete for the most important position in the sport hardly seems like panic or desperation.
-
If we drafted two in the first round, we would probably end up with a combination of like Akili Smith and Cade McNown.
-
If we drafted two in the first round, we would probably end up with a combination of like Akili Smith and Cade McNown.
If we drafted two in the first round, we would probably end up with a combination of like Akili Smith and Cade McNown.
Or you get the next Jared Goff and Carson Wentz. If you have NO quarterback and have a chance to bring in two of the top 3 prospects without trading up, the rest of the roster can wait.
-
If we drafted two in the first round, we would probably end up with a combination of like Akili Smith and Cade McNown.
Or you get the next Jared Goff and Carson Wentz. If you have NO quarterback and have a chance to bring in two of the top 3 prospects without trading up, the rest of the roster can wait.
Or you get the next Jared Goff and Carson Wentz. If you have NO quarterback and have a chance to bring in two of the top 3 prospects without trading up, the rest of the roster can wait.
Probably not with our luck. Like I said, we could get a combination of Brady Quinn and Brandon Weeden.
-
Or you get the next Jared Goff and Carson Wentz. If you have NO quarterback and have a chance to bring in two of the top 3 prospects without trading up, the rest of the roster can wait.
Probably not with our luck. Like I said, we could get a combination of Brady Quinn and Brandon Weeden.
Probably not with our luck. Like I said, we could get a combination of Brady Quinn and Brandon Weeden.
Maybe. Or if it's 2005 you could get Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers. Smith went #1. Rodgers went #24. Smith would have backed up Rodgers. What's the problem with that scenario? It's as likely as drafting a superstar with Houston's pick.
-
Yes, it does matter.
Quit diluting your argument with the irrelevant failures of past regimes. Stick to "increase the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation".
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
It's not so much HAVING two blue chippers, it's proving either one can play. First, you know you're going to start off with the dreaded "QB Competition", and then you're going to split reps between 2 guys until one looks better, and you KNOW as soon as the "winner" starts to stink it up, everybody will be clamoring for the OTHER guy. And then you have a full-fledged crap show on your hands.
The other side of the coin is taking 2 qb's that early means we aren't filling another giant hole on the roster. WR? FS? CB? RB? Those are some heavy needs. While granted, we all know the QB position is the most vital cog of the NFL team, an 0-11 (0-16?) team has a bunch of needs. I think Jared Goff is the best example of what it means to add talent and how it helps a young QB.
No matter how Kizer finishes the year, take Rosen. There isn't a "Myles Garrett" type defensive prospect, so take the best qb. That gives us a blue chipper and a 22 year old Kizer with a year under his belt. Sign a veteran to bring experience, and then add weapons with draft picks and free agency. Boom, done.
-
Excellent point. Mostly just venting about the past. You're right. Increasing the odds of solving the most important part of the NFL success equation is the topic. Having two blue-chip QB prospects on your roster is the best problem to have. When the hell has a GM tossed and turned at night because he had too many good QB's on his roster.
It's not so much HAVING two blue chippers, it's proving either one can play. First, you know you're going to start off with the dreaded "QB Competition", and then you're going to split reps between 2 guys until one looks better, and you KNOW as soon as the "winner" starts to stink it up, everybody will be clamoring for the OTHER guy. And then you have a full-fledged crap show on your hands.
The other side of the coin is taking 2 qb's that early means we aren't filling another giant hole on the roster. WR? FS? CB? RB? Those are some heavy needs. While granted, we all know the QB position is the most vital cog of the NFL team, an 0-11 (0-16?) team has a bunch of needs. I think Jared Goff is the best example of what it means to add talent and how it helps a young QB.
No matter how Kizer finishes the year, take Rosen. There isn't a "Myles Garrett" type defensive prospect, so take the best qb. That gives us a blue chipper and a 22 year old Kizer with a year under his belt. Sign a veteran to bring experience, and then add weapons with draft picks and free agency. Boom, done.
It's not so much HAVING two blue chippers, it's proving either one can play. First, you know you're going to start off with the dreaded "QB Competition", and then you're going to split reps between 2 guys until one looks better, and you KNOW as soon as the "winner" starts to stink it up, everybody will be clamoring for the OTHER guy. And then you have a full-fledged crap show on your hands.
The other side of the coin is taking 2 qb's that early means we aren't filling another giant hole on the roster. WR? FS? CB? RB? Those are some heavy needs. While granted, we all know the QB position is the most vital cog of the NFL team, an 0-11 (0-16?) team has a bunch of needs. I think Jared Goff is the best example of what it means to add talent and how it helps a young QB.
No matter how Kizer finishes the year, take Rosen. There isn't a "Myles Garrett" type defensive prospect, so take the best qb. That gives us a blue chipper and a 22 year old Kizer with a year under his belt. Sign a veteran to bring experience, and then add weapons with draft picks and free agency. Boom, done.
All the top QB prospects have question marks. There aren't any can't miss prospects at the other positions. Due diligence. Competition at QB isn't ideal unless you haven't had a good one for 30 years. This team is 5 years away from being competitive. Rebuild in the meantime, QB first.
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