@ballpeen said:

The last point is how I arrive at Couch being the worst pick.

To me, your question isn't simply limited to the player and his production. It also encompasses what the pick meant to the organization. That first pick after our return was the biggest pick, as in most important in team history....and it was TOTALLY blown. To me it was as much a PR move as it was anything else.

If we were to limit the factors simply to production, then Ernie Davis was the worst pick since he had zero production because he died. It doesn't get much worse than that as far as production.

Really, we are still reeling from that pick. No other blown pick had lingering effects 10-11 years later.

Nope...the Couch pick set this whole thing rolling and it has snow balled from there.

But, you have to consider the counterargument that...in fact, the Browns with Couch as their primary QB made the playoffs in his 4th year as starting QB, and in fact if the team is reeling, it was not from the pick of him at QB. He did fine. It was the poor performance of the front office and coaching staff thereafter. To me, it was the poor picks of Courtney Brown, Gerrard Warren, William Green and others, and the failure of that front office to obtain a decent OLine and the meltdown/megalomania of Butch Davis that were far more the cause of this franchise "reeling" than the pick and performance of Tim Couch. Hell, in my view, selecting him may in fact have been the best move they made during those first 5 years after 1999. Though I agree picking him was as much a PR move as anything, I believe to this day his selection was probably one of the better ones made in the last 11 years.

@rich4eagle said:

OK, I gave a synopsis of their contribution to the team....or lack thereof. I guess if you don't want to call that "documentation" that is up to you. I didn't think it was necessary to give each players complete resume.

But I think it is still by any objective measure a fact that a person that played and produced for this team for maybe 5 years was a better pick than someone who didn't play a down, or played very little.

You may have your subjective view on why you may not have liked the Couch pick, but the fact is, under objective standards, he gave a lot more for this team than tons of others of the Browns 1st round picks.

(and excuse me if I have you confused with someone else. Correct me if I am wrong about what you were talking about)

@the-gipper said:

Nevertheless, I completely agree with your point #2. They had no business taking a QB #1 overall if they weren't going to give him any help

I don't agree about his production, but that isn't the point I wish to debate as there is no real way to conclude such discussion.

The last point is how I arrive at Couch being the worst pick.

To me, your question isn't simply limited to the player and his production. It also encompasses what the pick meant to the organization. That first pick after our return was the biggest pick, as in most important in team history....and it was TOTALLY blown. To me it was as much a PR move as it was anything else.

If we were to limit the factors simply to production, then Ernie Davis was the worst pick since he had zero production because he died. It doesn't get much worse than that as far as production.

Really, we are still reeling from that pick. No other blown pick had lingering effects 10-11 years later.

Nope...the Couch pick set this whole thing rolling and it has snow balled from there.

@the-gipper said:

And, you can make your own list if you want. That is what you were asked to do. Go do it.

You documented nothing..........copied my replies for the two biggest busts.............get down from your exalted horse of ether

@ballpeen said:

Preston Carpenter

Bobby Crespino

Pete Adams

Willis Adams.

Hands down the worst pick was Couch.

That may have been the most important pick in out history, and it was totally flubbed.

#1...the guy sucked.

#2..as a new team, we had no business selecting a QB with a line and skill players that totally sucked.

The pick sucked from every aspect possible.

Couch would probably NOT be in my bottom 20 or 25. In fact he would barely be in the bottom 10 of picks just since 1999! The ONLY guys taken in the first round since 1999 in fact who have been more productive than Couch for this team have perhaps been K2, JT and Mack....and Mack is only there based on his perceived quality potential. Couch has certainly been more productive than Quinn, Wimbley, Edwards, Green, Warren, Faine, or C. Brown. And all those guys from the 50s that I detailed!

Nevertheless, I completely agree with your point #2. They had no business taking a QB #1 overall if they weren't going to give him any help.

Formerly Stone said:

Early? What? Like 7:00 A.M.?

Or do you mean early in the draft like in high in the draft?

Do you think we are as stupid as you that we don't know how poorly some of those high pick have failed to pan out?

What do you think was the point of this exercise?

If you were paying one bit of attention, you would have noted that there were more bad #1 picks taken back in the 50s than there have been lately.

Why don't you go to your own team's board and conduct the same exercise. Go list all their first round draft picks since they began doing this in 1936 and have your group over there figure out who were Studs and who were Duds and report back to us what yinzers came up with. It is probably easy to do the studs. You probably have the likes of Green, Bradshaw, Harris, Dudley, Woodson. But what about the Duds. You tell us.

@earl34 said:

OK, but, strictly, this thread is about which draft choices that #1 picks were used on contributed the MOST to the Browns success, and which contributed the LEAST to the Brown success. And in reality, I don't think from that narrow viewpoint we can judge something like: Davis had a good death and Rogers had a bad death. I didn't intend this thread to judge their lives or the manner they died, just what they gave to this team.

Davis gave nothing, and Rogers gave little. The demise of each of them, regardless of the manner hurt the team just as much as Bobby Garrett who couldn't play because he couldn't control his stutter.

Bottom line: they were both failed picks from the football standpoint.

Talking about the manner of their deaths or the way they led their lives is a whole other train track to be riding on.

No wonder since most around here don't remember players like:

Preston Carpenter

Bobby Crespino

Pete Adams

Willis Adams.

Hands down the worst pick was Couch.

That may have been the most important pick in out history, and it was totally flubbed.

#1...the guy sucked.

#2..as a new team, we had no business selecting a QB with a line and skill players that totally sucked.

The pick sucked from every aspect possible.

1. Jim Brown

2. Bernie Kosar

3. Paul Warfield

4. Joe Thomas

5. Ozzie Newsome

6. Hanford Dixon

7. Eric Metcalf

8. Alex Mack

9. Clay Matthews

10. Mike Pruitt

Bottom 10 (notice most from new Browns)

1. Gerard Warren

2. Tim Couch

3. Brady Quinn

4. William Green

5. Jeff Faine

6. Courtney Brown

7. Mack Mitchell

8. Mike Phipps

9. Charles White

10. Kellen Winslow Jr.

@the-gipper said:

We could say the same about Don Rogers. He might have become a serious stud, but because he died of a cocaine overdose, he really ends up being a dud. Should the manner of Davis's death vs. the manner of Roger's death affect our evaluation strictly as an asset to the team? I don't know.

A fine point you make but perhaps it needs a little more teasing out: Don Rogers died of a choice he made. That (to me, at least) leaves you on far worse moral ground than someone who was injured in the course of NFL duty or someone who had a serious illness that happened outside of the sports career...(e.g., Lou Gehrig). There is a certain amount of tragedy that we as fans are willing to accept if it's not related to something they chose to do.

plenty of fun to poke in that list.

i'm gonna hafta say Erocc. in his prime he'd start on any team today...but so would Jim Brown, Clay, Ozzie, Hanford, and Bernie would certainly get consideration.

but i still like the excitement Turner brought to every game. he was like a trump card.

now they just drafted two hitters for our backfield. you know i'm stoked to see how this years draft class plays out.

@thaak said:

Poetic license I guess. Where are your picks?

@rich4eagle said:

Jim Brown

Paul Warfield

Gary Collins

Bernie Kosar

Mike Pruitt

Eric Metcalf

Ozzie

Worst

John Bauer

Craig Powell

Brady Quinn

Ted Connally

Kurt Burris

How come your top 5 has 7?

@earl34 said:

Have you ever met a leukemia patient? I'm sure the last thing on their minds is whether they can play football or not.

Just my .02

Well, yes, it is a question I stuggled with somewhat, but like you said, should we not put someone on the "Dud" list whose career was curtailed by injury? Those persons are often included in the various "bust" lists. I am not trying to make a moral judgment on Ernie Davis considering the way he perished. Nevertheless, should an illness be considered differently than an injury? Like I said, I struggled with it, but, objectively, you have to say that the team's investment in him was "wasted" albeit tragically.

We could say the same about Don Rogers. He might have become a serious stud, but because he died of a cocaine overdose, he really ends up being a dud. Should the manner of Davis's death vs. the manner of Roger's death affect our evaluation strictly as an asset to the team? I don't know.

@browns57 said:

Warren 116 tackles 16.5 sacks 34 assists 4 forced fumbles and 4 fumble recoveries (9 passes defended)

Brown 134 tackles 17 sacks 36 assists 6 forced fumbles and 6 fumble recoveries 1td (8 passes defended)

So in the 4 years for both the difference is.......

In favor of Brown mostly.....

18 tackles

.5 sacks

2 assists

2 ff

2 fumble recoveries

1td

-1 pass defended

But also keep in mind one was a DE (Brown) And one IS a DT (Warren)

Warren also ranks 1532th overall since 1950

Brown ranks 3329th overall since 1950

According to Pro Football Reference.com with is the closest thing we have to scientifically rank players based on their performance over time.

OK, I will replace Warren with C. Brown on my Dud list of 10. Does that make you happy?

@the-gipper said:

Guys whose lives are cut short by leukemia are duds? In my opinion, a 'dud' is either someone who they should have known couldn't play (see Smith, Akili) or someone who failed to deliver when given the opportunity (see Thomas, Blair). There are people who fit the latter who battled injuries (see Bosworth, Brian) but to see a man cut down in his youth and to label him this way is tough for me to swallow.

Have you ever met a leukemia patient? I'm sure the last thing on their minds is whether they can play football or not.

Just my .02

1) Jim Brown

2)Ozzie Newsome

3)Bernie Kosar

4)Clay Matthews

5)Hanford Dixon

I have to admit I'm showing my age here, I know Gary Collins was a stud, but I never saw him play (same with Jim Brown). I was 7 when my Dad took me to my first game in 1970 vs Cincy. I put Clarence Scott & Thom Darden in that "honorable mention" class.

Bottom 5

1)Mike Junkin

2) Willis Adams

3) Mack Mitchell

4) Craig Powell

5)Charles White

@the-gipper said:

And, you can make your own list if you want. That is what you were asked to do. Go do it.

Yeah I will get on that just because that is what you asked O great one. I found a list that I liked, yours, you should be happy, except for the one glarring flaw. No WAY IN HELL WARREN COMES CLOSE TO MAKING THAT LIST! You can try to justify it away by saying he was a bigger bust for the Browns, but actually some of his best numbers came when he was with the Brown's. And go do a little research and you will find out that their numbers are almost identical for the time they were with the Browns. (See Below) Courtney' only good season was 2000. And Warren is going on his 10th year in the league and Brown is doing what? Not playing thats for sure. Maybe he didn't live up to expected potential but definately NOT A BUST! you have named like 20 busts/duds now and you have him at #5 Just ridiculous IMO.

Warren 116 tackles 16.5 sacks 34 assists 4 forced fumbles and 4 fumble recoveries (9 passes defended)

Brown 134 tackles 17 sacks 36 assists 6 forced fumbles and 6 fumble recoveries 1td (8 passes defended)

So in the 4 years for both the difference is.......

In favor of Brown mostly.....

18 tackles

.5 sacks

2 assists

2 ff

2 fumble recoveries

1td

-1 pass defended

But also keep in mind one was a DE (Brown) And one IS a DT (Warren)

Warren also ranks 1532th overall since 1950

Brown ranks 3329th overall since 1950

According to Pro Football Reference.com with is the closest thing we have to scientifically rank players based on their performance over time.

@browns57 said:

OK, but, I think I have documented at least 10 others that gave us less.

And, you can make your own list if you want. That is what you were asked to do. Go do it.

@the-gipper said:

Quinn gave us NOTHING and I doubt if he ever sees the field again in the NFL unless there is a freak rash of injuries!

The reason: Uncontrollable stuttering. He couldn't hardly communicate the plays in the huddle or do the snap count. So he was let go and never played again.

Needless to say, the scouting system wasn't as good then as it is now. Such a problem would have obviously been ferreted out before he was drafted. The big question was: how was he able to play so successfully at Stanford with such a problem?

@browns57 said:

He was a dud for us, and what he did with the Browns is what counts. If you take him off, then YOU have to take Quinn off. For all we know in the future he may lead a team to a Super Bowl.....after all, he is still playing too. Quinn gave the Browns as much as Warren did.