Just A Reminder
-
you see it this way, I and others see it as "how many bad QB's are we going to bring it before we land a franchise one".
oh i see....i guess we didn't ruin couch, right? we had a franchise QB in him....im sorry, where's our lombardi again?
so i guess you just keep wasting picks hoping that you hit on one of them. sounds like a good plan to me....griffin and luck are likely to be the last franchise QB's ever, so we better do whatever we have to to get him.
oh i see....i guess we didn't ruin couch, right? we had a franchise QB in him....im sorry, where's our lombardi again?
so i guess you just keep wasting picks hoping that you hit on one of them. sounds like a good plan to me....griffin and luck are likely to be the last franchise QB's ever, so we better do whatever we have to to get him.
It's funny how you always miss the points. We missed on Couch, there's no doubt about that. But we haven't had a franchise QB in Cleveland in a long time either. I'm not even saying you're wrong, because unlike most people I don't claim to have even close to the knowledge it takes to properly rate a QB in the NFL. But I can see the trends of the NFL and I can hear what Holmgren has said directly and indirectly. He's not sold on Colt as a franchise guy and has stated more than once he's going to bring in competition. To me, I ask why bring in competition if it's a potential franchise guy? In all likelihood, if you asked my opinion today I see crazy ass Dan Synder selling his soul and draft to the Rams for luck/RGIII. But can you just accept that Holmgren knows what the hell he's doing and if he changes QB's which I think he will he's a lot more correct about it than anyone else.
-
oh i see....i guess we didn't ruin couch, right? we had a franchise QB in him....im sorry, where's our lombardi again?
so i guess you just keep wasting picks hoping that you hit on one of them. sounds like a good plan to me....griffin and luck are likely to be the last franchise QB's ever, so we better do whatever we have to to get him.
It's funny how you always miss the points. We missed on Couch, there's no doubt about that. But we haven't had a franchise QB in Cleveland in a long time either. I'm not even saying you're wrong, because unlike most people I don't claim to have even close to the knowledge it takes to properly rate a QB in the NFL. But I can see the trends of the NFL and I can hear what Holmgren has said directly and indirectly. He's not sold on Colt as a franchise guy and has stated more than once he's going to bring in competition. To me, I ask why bring in competition if it's a potential franchise guy? In all likelihood, if you asked my opinion today I see crazy ass Dan Synder selling his soul and draft to the Rams for luck/RGIII. But can you just accept that Holmgren knows what the hell he's doing and if he changes QB's which I think he will he's a lot more correct about it than anyone else.
It's funny how you always miss the points.
lmao...
We missed on Couch, there's no doubt about that.
actually there is. beyond that, we took the highest rated QB (a franchise guy as you like to call them) and utterly ruined him. why? cause the other 21 guys sucked so bad he literally got knocked the hell outta the league. after witnessing this first hand, you haven't let the lesson sink in.
and I can hear what Holmgren has said directly and indirectly.
oh yeah? ya mean, what you wanted to hear. gotcha.
To me, I ask why bring in competition if it's a potential franchise guy?
so because you cant answer the question, it means mccoy is done? lol...simple question to answer really. because you qualified him as "potential" franchise guy....you dont bring in competition for a bona fide franchise guy. quinn was a "potential" franchise QB as well....
But can you just accept that Holmgren knows what the hell he's doing
lmao....ah yes, blind faith. thats sure worked well in the past. i dont accept anything until its proven to me. at this point, holmgren has only proven that he can mold a QB to become good in this league, when he's on the sideline as a coach. he has not, despite whatever you think you know, shown an ability to FIND a QB. his reputation is built on the backs of others in that regard. he has not, thus far, brought a meaningful QB to this team in 2 years. delhomme, wallace, lewis and colt over 2 years. your faith has been rewarded handsomely, i see.
-
oh i see....i guess we didn't ruin couch, right? we had a franchise QB in him....im sorry, where's our lombardi again?
so i guess you just keep wasting picks hoping that you hit on one of them. sounds like a good plan to me....griffin and luck are likely to be the last franchise QB's ever, so we better do whatever we have to to get him.
It's funny how you always miss the points. We missed on Couch, there's no doubt about that. But we haven't had a franchise QB in Cleveland in a long time either. I'm not even saying you're wrong, because unlike most people I don't claim to have even close to the knowledge it takes to properly rate a QB in the NFL. But I can see the trends of the NFL and I can hear what Holmgren has said directly and indirectly. He's not sold on Colt as a franchise guy and has stated more than once he's going to bring in competition. To me, I ask why bring in competition if it's a potential franchise guy? In all likelihood, if you asked my opinion today I see crazy ass Dan Synder selling his soul and draft to the Rams for luck/RGIII. But can you just accept that Holmgren knows what the hell he's doing and if he changes QB's which I think he will he's a lot more correct about it than anyone else.
It's funny how you always miss the points. We missed on Couch, there's no doubt about that.
we didn't miss on couch....we (they) killed him. same as we're killing colt. 'you' guys think that going after some 'franchise' qb is the answer. put luck, rglll or little red riding hood behind our line and watch them get creamed.
watch peter's reaction at the end of the vid. that's the reaction any qb has had coming to cleveland since '99.
-
tim couch as #72
-
I call them as I see them... not all will agree with me...But when Colt is a backup QB and Flynn is in...you will see I wasnt too far off base...
Dude you don't know me...
-
Some of you will NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER feel comfortable drafting a top prospect QB. Next year you'll find another more pressing need and next year and the next year. Before you know it a decade of building/losing passes you by and your still talking about Tim Couch got the screws. According to Mike it takes 3-5 years for a QB to get his system to the point of contention. We're heading into year 3 and we still don't have a clear starter. We have 2 picks in the 1st, when are you going to be in a better position to take the necessary risks than now? You have guys in charge that are supposedly more qualified then anyone to evaluate QB talent. You have enormous QB talent at the top of the draft. Seems like the perfect storm.
Now I'm not saying they have to or they will draft a 1st round QB, but it IS a hole on this team just as much as the rest. If you won't admit that now you never will. No one position is going to take this team to the SB, but some of us are ready to start the 3-5 year process already.
-
baloney. It didn't take Brady 3-5 years. He already had the people around him.
Ugly stupid gay ben rothlicksbooger didn't take 3-5 years. He already REALLY had the people already in place around him.
Flacco had all the people around him, and he still sucked bilgewater.
Leinart had a lot of talent around him..... and guess what? He never helped the team that drafted him.
There isn't any guarantee.
It's easier to nab an all pro lb, etc. than qb. The Browns HAVE a qb who can play and make things happen.
But they only have one legit, bigtime wr, and he's Little, a rookie. The Browns don't NEED a new qb.
They NEED another bigtime wr, a bigtime RT, and a DE... and maybe CB. And rb. I really like Martin as a complement
to Hillis.
It's up to the Browns. If the value of the pick is only a qb, and they pick one, I'm cool with that.
But the better bet is to get a star player who can help right now, not a few years down the road.
The Browns do NOT have the luxury, I think, of drafting another qb, and not getting some star players in the draft.
If the Browns land Flynn... and he beats out Mccoy, it's fine by me. They'll have one helluva terrific backup qb.
I wouldn't pass up Blackmon for a qb fer nothin. Seriously. Colt is not the problem with the wr's not getting open.
We'll see. I think the combine and the draft need to be sooner....
-
baloney. It didn't take Brady 3-5 years. He already had the people around him.
Ugly stupid gay ben rothlicksbooger didn't take 3-5 years. He already REALLY had the people already in place around him.
Flacco had all the people around him, and he still sucked bilgewater.
Leinart had a lot of talent around him..... and guess what? He never helped the team that drafted him.
There isn't any guarantee.
It's easier to nab an all pro lb, etc. than qb. The Browns HAVE a qb who can play and make things happen.
But they only have one legit, bigtime wr, and he's Little, a rookie. The Browns don't NEED a new qb.
They NEED another bigtime wr, a bigtime RT, and a DE... and maybe CB. And rb. I really like Martin as a complement
to Hillis.
It's up to the Browns. If the value of the pick is only a qb, and they pick one, I'm cool with that.
But the better bet is to get a star player who can help right now, not a few years down the road.
The Browns do NOT have the luxury, I think, of drafting another qb, and not getting some star players in the draft.
If the Browns land Flynn... and he beats out Mccoy, it's fine by me. They'll have one helluva terrific backup qb.
I wouldn't pass up Blackmon for a qb fer nothin. Seriously. Colt is not the problem with the wr's not getting open.
We'll see. I think the combine and the draft need to be sooner....
baloney. It didn't take Brady 3-5 years. He already had the people around him.
Ugly stupid gay ben rothlicksbooger didn't take 3-5 years. He already REALLY had the people already in place around him.
Flacco had all the people around him, and he still sucked bilgewater.
Leinart had a lot of talent around him..... and guess what? He never helped the team that drafted him.
There isn't any guarantee.
It's easier to nab an all pro lb, etc. than qb. The Browns HAVE a qb who can play and make things happen.
But they only have one legit, bigtime wr, and he's Little, a rookie. The Browns don't NEED a new qb.
They NEED another bigtime wr, a bigtime RT, and a DE... and maybe CB. And rb. I really like Martin as a complement
to Hillis.
It's up to the Browns. If the value of the pick is only a qb, and they pick one, I'm cool with that.
But the better bet is to get a star player who can help right now, not a few years down the road.
The Browns do NOT have the luxury, I think, of drafting another qb, and not getting some star players in the draft.
If the Browns land Flynn... and he beats out Mccoy, it's fine by me. They'll have one helluva terrific backup qb.
I wouldn't pass up Blackmon for a qb fer nothin. Seriously. Colt is not the problem with the wr's not getting open.
We'll see. I think the combine and the draft need. to be sooner....
Again, you will never be willing take a qb in the top of the draft. If we draft at the top next year you'll find another hole somewhere else to fill. Its not that McCoy put up shitty numbers. He regressed in every way. Accuracy, confidence in arm, decision making, mechanics, and so on. The defenses around the league salivate at the thought of facing him.
On numerous occasions when Colt was blitzed he would tuck the ball, take off running, and not look downfield while the secondary was in man. So the brief instances his subpar receivers were open he wasn't looking to pass. He will be blitzed to death until he makes those plays. Talk about unfair, you want to draft a rookie RT to block 2 guys for 5 seconds so Colt can read a play a quality NFL qb would do in less than half the time. Colt creates problems all on his own. Therefore he is a hole to be filled.
βIt is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.β -
alright choco, I'm going to try and rationally explain my point one more time before I'm just done with beating my head against the wall with you. First off, it's vital to look past what NFL'ers say directly and try and determine the indirect result. The NFL is a game of smoke and mirrors, anyone with half a brain understands that. Front office guys say stuff they don't mean or intend all the time, especially around draft day. So no, it has nothing to do with me hearing what I want to hear. It's actually understanding how NFL jargon goes.
The fundamental argument is whether to get the QB first or build the team and get the QB last. I base my opinion on how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team. It's clear to me that people way more in the know than you and I that this is basis of building a team in more cases than not in the current NFL. Franchise QB's make the team around them better. This is basic knowledge and no one denies this. Look at Eli manning, outside of Hakeem Nicks he's working with 3rd round and undrafted WR's and making them look like pro-bowlers. This is same with Brady, it's really not that hard to see. Our offensive line isn't great and it's obvious RT is a need we need to address. But that doesn't excuse Colt for his failures.
When I see Colt this past year, I saw a guy who didn't go through reads, threw behind or too low to receivers constantly, struggled with deep passes, left the pocket early, and wasn't crisp on throws. That's not anyone's fault but his. There were plenty of times where the pocket was there and he just bolted.
As for Holmgren, he's had two years to make a QB and we haven't been in a position to really take a first round, franchise guy. I don't consider after bringing in backups to help a potential guy out a lack of faith. He's been known as a QB guru his whole career, but I'm sure those guys don't know what they're talking about right? If he thinks Colt is the franchise guy, I trust him. If he thinks RGIII or any other guy is the answer, i trust him too.
So what's my bottom line? I'm tired of hearing excuses for bad QB's. "oh he didn't have a run game", "oh his line sucked", "oh the WR core is bad". It's tiring to hear after a while. A franchise guy is a franchise guy and makes the team better. If peyton manning missing this season isn't a prime example of what I'm talking about, I don't know what is. the QB position makes or breaks the team, and you're living in a dream world if you don't see that. But I suppose we could have Anderson and Quinn and Frye still on our roster and wait until we have elite talent to see if they were actually good too.
-
alright choco, I'm going to try and rationally explain my point one more time before I'm just done with beating my head against the wall with you.
Too late...your whole post seems like self mutilation as it is.
-
baloney. It didn't take Brady 3-5 years. He already had the people around him.
Ugly stupid gay ben rothlicksbooger didn't take 3-5 years. He already REALLY had the people already in place around him.
Flacco had all the people around him, and he still sucked bilgewater.
Leinart had a lot of talent around him..... and guess what? He never helped the team that drafted him.
There isn't any guarantee.
It's easier to nab an all pro lb, etc. than qb. The Browns HAVE a qb who can play and make things happen.
But they only have one legit, bigtime wr, and he's Little, a rookie. The Browns don't NEED a new qb.
They NEED another bigtime wr, a bigtime RT, and a DE... and maybe CB. And rb. I really like Martin as a complement
to Hillis.
It's up to the Browns. If the value of the pick is only a qb, and they pick one, I'm cool with that.
But the better bet is to get a star player who can help right now, not a few years down the road.
The Browns do NOT have the luxury, I think, of drafting another qb, and not getting some star players in the draft.
If the Browns land Flynn... and he beats out Mccoy, it's fine by me. They'll have one helluva terrific backup qb.
I wouldn't pass up Blackmon for a qb fer nothin. Seriously. Colt is not the problem with the wr's not getting open.
We'll see. I think the combine and the draft need. to be sooner....
Again, you will never be willing take a qb in the top of the draft. If we draft at the top next year you'll find another hole somewhere else to fill. Its not that McCoy put up shitty numbers. He regressed in every way. Accuracy, confidence in arm, decision making, mechanics, and so on. The defenses around the league salivate at the thought of facing him.
On numerous occasions when Colt was blitzed he would tuck the ball, take off running, and not look downfield while the secondary was in man. So the brief instances his subpar receivers were open he wasn't looking to pass. He will be blitzed to death until he makes those plays. Talk about unfair, you want to draft a rookie RT to block 2 guys for 5 seconds so Colt can read a play a quality NFL qb would do in less than half the time. Colt creates problems all on his own. Therefore he is a hole to be filled.
Again, you will never be willing take a qb in the top of the draft. If we draft at the top next year you'll find another hole somewhere else to fill. Its not that McCoy put up shitty numbers. He regressed in every way. Accuracy, confidence in arm, decision making, mechanics, and so on. The defenses around the league salivate at the thought of facing him.
On numerous occasions when Colt was blitzed he would tuck the ball, take off running, and not look downfield while the secondary was in man. So the brief instances his subpar receivers were open he wasn't looking to pass. He will be blitzed to death until he makes those plays. Talk about unfair, you want to draft a rookie RT to block 2 guys for 5 seconds so Colt can read a play a quality NFL qb would do in less than half the time. Colt creates problems all on his own. Therefore he is a hole to be filled.
Not exactly. If the Browns had the #1 overall, I'd want Andrew Luck. And forget about that one- right now it looks like Irsay isn't going to trade out of that pick regardless of what anyone offers him for it. RGIII? Not so certain about him.
This difference is me and Cal don't fall in love with "this year's model". Superstud top of the first round qbs can, and do bust all the time- and if you take one of those mega busts- like say Ryan Leaf or Joey Harrington- you've totally shot yourself in the collective team's foot wasting about two seasons of starter time to find out they can't play worth a damn. The Bengals blew about 10 years that way trying to prove Dave Kingler and Akilli Smith were "the guy". Ponder and Gabbert were both 1st round picks, and did as poorly as McCoy on bad teams.
So sure, if H&H have decided Colt ain't "the guy", (they say they have enough tape on him to make that decision) then I have no problems with them drafting someone else to see if he is. For sure, Holmgren's forgotten more about football than I'll ever know.
-
alright choco, I'm going to try and rationally explain my point one more time before I'm just done with beating my head against the wall with you. First off, it's vital to look past what NFL'ers say directly and try and determine the indirect result. The NFL is a game of smoke and mirrors, anyone with half a brain understands that. Front office guys say stuff they don't mean or intend all the time, especially around draft day. So no, it has nothing to do with me hearing what I want to hear. It's actually understanding how NFL jargon goes.
The fundamental argument is whether to get the QB first or build the team and get the QB last. I base my opinion on how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team. It's clear to me that people way more in the know than you and I that this is basis of building a team in more cases than not in the current NFL. Franchise QB's make the team around them better. This is basic knowledge and no one denies this. Look at Eli manning, outside of Hakeem Nicks he's working with 3rd round and undrafted WR's and making them look like pro-bowlers. This is same with Brady, it's really not that hard to see. Our offensive line isn't great and it's obvious RT is a need we need to address. But that doesn't excuse Colt for his failures.
When I see Colt this past year, I saw a guy who didn't go through reads, threw behind or too low to receivers constantly, struggled with deep passes, left the pocket early, and wasn't crisp on throws. That's not anyone's fault but his. There were plenty of times where the pocket was there and he just bolted.
As for Holmgren, he's had two years to make a QB and we haven't been in a position to really take a first round, franchise guy. I don't consider after bringing in backups to help a potential guy out a lack of faith. He's been known as a QB guru his whole career, but I'm sure those guys don't know what they're talking about right? If he thinks Colt is the franchise guy, I trust him. If he thinks RGIII or any other guy is the answer, i trust him too.
So what's my bottom line? I'm tired of hearing excuses for bad QB's. "oh he didn't have a run game", "oh his line sucked", "oh the WR core is bad". It's tiring to hear after a while. A franchise guy is a franchise guy and makes the team better. If peyton manning missing this season isn't a prime example of what I'm talking about, I don't know what is. the QB position makes or breaks the team, and you're living in a dream world if you don't see that. But I suppose we could have Anderson and Quinn and Frye still on our roster and wait until we have elite talent to see if they were actually good too.
The fundamental argument is whether to get the QB first or build the team and get the QB last. I base my opinion on how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team.
See I would disagree with this. Sure most of these teams drafted a QB early in the draft but many of them already had playmakers at other positions on offense. Here are the weapons these QBs got to work with as soon as they got to the NFL:
Matt Ryan- Roddy White WR and Michael Turner RB
Andy Dalton- A.J. Green WR and Jermaine Gresham TE (plus a solid offensive line. People forget that the Bengals won the division in 2009. They had a bad 2010 but had many pieces still in place for 2011)
Cam Newton- Steve Smith WR, Greg Olsen TE, and DeAngelo Williams/Jonathan Stewart (several offensive pieces here)
Phillip Rivers- Antonio Gates TE and LaDainian Tomlinson RB (plus Vincent Jackson in Rivers' 2nd year. Rivers didn't start at QB until 2006 anyway- his 3rd year in the league)
Matt Stafford- Calvin Johnson WR
Eli Manning- Jeremy Shockey TE and Tiki Barber RB
Colt McCoy- ??? (Peyton Hillis if he is healthy?)
*Drew Brees is a strange exception. He didn't have much to work with when he started with the Saints, but he did already have 5 years of experience under his belt from playing in San Diego.
Anyway, my point is none of the teams you mentioned above truly drafted a QB before they had any other playmakers on offense. Look up Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger or any other QB who has had early success. Every one of those QBs had plenty of weapons to work with. And the QBs that won Super Bowls early in the career (Brady, Roethlisberger) had great defenses too. Now I'm not saying all of this to prove Colt McCoy is as good as any of these QBs. I am saying that no young QB would succeed with the players the Browns have on offense right now. We add talent on offense other than QB this year (WR, RB, RT) and then we can seriously look for a franchise QB in 2013 if Colt McCoy sucks in 2012.. Then if McCoy does suck next year, our new QB will actually have a chance to succeed..
-
alright choco, I'm going to try and rationally explain my point one more time before I'm just done with beating my head against the wall with you. First off, it's vital to look past what NFL'ers say directly and try and determine the indirect result. The NFL is a game of smoke and mirrors, anyone with half a brain understands that. Front office guys say stuff they don't mean or intend all the time, especially around draft day. So no, it has nothing to do with me hearing what I want to hear. It's actually understanding how NFL jargon goes.
The fundamental argument is whether to get the QB first or build the team and get the QB last. I base my opinion on how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team. It's clear to me that people way more in the know than you and I that this is basis of building a team in more cases than not in the current NFL. Franchise QB's make the team around them better. This is basic knowledge and no one denies this. Look at Eli manning, outside of Hakeem Nicks he's working with 3rd round and undrafted WR's and making them look like pro-bowlers. This is same with Brady, it's really not that hard to see. Our offensive line isn't great and it's obvious RT is a need we need to address. But that doesn't excuse Colt for his failures.
When I see Colt this past year, I saw a guy who didn't go through reads, threw behind or too low to receivers constantly, struggled with deep passes, left the pocket early, and wasn't crisp on throws. That's not anyone's fault but his. There were plenty of times where the pocket was there and he just bolted.
As for Holmgren, he's had two years to make a QB and we haven't been in a position to really take a first round, franchise guy. I don't consider after bringing in backups to help a potential guy out a lack of faith. He's been known as a QB guru his whole career, but I'm sure those guys don't know what they're talking about right? If he thinks Colt is the franchise guy, I trust him. If he thinks RGIII or any other guy is the answer, i trust him too.
So what's my bottom line? I'm tired of hearing excuses for bad QB's. "oh he didn't have a run game", "oh his line sucked", "oh the WR core is bad". It's tiring to hear after a while. A franchise guy is a franchise guy and makes the team better. If peyton manning missing this season isn't a prime example of what I'm talking about, I don't know what is. the QB position makes or breaks the team, and you're living in a dream world if you don't see that. But I suppose we could have Anderson and Quinn and Frye still on our roster and wait until we have elite talent to see if they were actually good too.
It's actually understanding how NFL jargon goes.
right, in other words...its left open for interpretation. thanks....
I base my opinion on how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team.
thats the majority of teams? or just the ones that prove your point? perception and reality mismatch....
There were plenty of times where the pocket was there and he just bolted.
there were plenty other times he was on the ground before he hit his third step.
As for Holmgren, he's had two years to make a QB and we haven't been in a position to really take a first round, franchise guy.
you know how many 1st round QB's holmgren has mentored? i believe zero is the correct answer there. i believe farve was his highest draft pick he worked with, and he didn't even draft him. you realize holmgren has made "franchise guys"? i think youre under the incorrect assumption that only 1st rounders are franchise guys. now wherre you should really blow a gasket is that holmgren isn't making the fucking personnel decisions. he pulled his trump card for colt....well, here you are dumping on your saviors hand picked QB.
He's been known as a QB guru his whole career, but I'm sure those guys don't know what they're talking about right? If he thinks Colt is the franchise guy, I trust him.
lol...youre just a clueless as the rest of the holmgren cheerleading parade. holmgren was a great QB mentor, meaning he could teach a guy that was provided to him. holmgren didn't draft or trade for farve, he didn't draft hasselbeck, he didn't draft brunnel. you say QB guru....is say mentor. cause he hasn't once demonstrated an ability to find a QB....which is what you contend this "QB guru" knows how to do. have you even looked at his resume and bio? or do you always believe what people tell you? mcfly?
A franchise guy is a franchise guy and makes the team better.
wow...genius. when you find the franchise QB tree, let us know. m'kay?
If peyton manning missing this season isn't a prime example of what I'm talking about, I don't know what is.
lmao....this is too easy. so, what about matt cassell stepping in when brady went down. please...give me a break with these flimsy arguments that suggest a trend can be lifted from a single season/person event.
the QB position makes or breaks the team, and you're living in a dream world if you don't see that. But I suppose we could have Anderson and Quinn and Frye still on our roster and wait until we have elite talent to see if they were actually good too.
you mean, the person that touches the ball the most has the greatest impact on the teams performance? you dont say? well, no need for the other 21 guys i guess. then why not draft a QB in every round till we get this franchise guy that seems to be the only thing that matters. surely, tim couch agrees.
-
alright choco, I'm going to try and rationally explain my point one more time before I'm just done with beating my head against the wall with you. First off, it's vital to look past what NFL'ers say directly and try and determine the indirect result. The NFL is a game of smoke and mirrors, anyone with half a brain understands that. Front office guys say stuff they don't mean or intend all the time, especially around draft day. So no, it has nothing to do with me hearing what I want to hear. It's actually understanding how NFL jargon goes.
The fundamental argument is whether to get the QB first or build the team and get the QB last. I base my opinion on how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team. It's clear to me that people way more in the know than you and I that this is basis of building a team in more cases than not in the current NFL. Franchise QB's make the team around them better. This is basic knowledge and no one denies this. Look at Eli manning, outside of Hakeem Nicks he's working with 3rd round and undrafted WR's and making them look like pro-bowlers. This is same with Brady, it's really not that hard to see. Our offensive line isn't great and it's obvious RT is a need we need to address. But that doesn't excuse Colt for his failures.
When I see Colt this past year, I saw a guy who didn't go through reads, threw behind or too low to receivers constantly, struggled with deep passes, left the pocket early, and wasn't crisp on throws. That's not anyone's fault but his. There were plenty of times where the pocket was there and he just bolted.
As for Holmgren, he's had two years to make a QB and we haven't been in a position to really take a first round, franchise guy. I don't consider after bringing in backups to help a potential guy out a lack of faith. He's been known as a QB guru his whole career, but I'm sure those guys don't know what they're talking about right? If he thinks Colt is the franchise guy, I trust him. If he thinks RGIII or any other guy is the answer, i trust him too.
So what's my bottom line? I'm tired of hearing excuses for bad QB's. "oh he didn't have a run game", "oh his line sucked", "oh the WR core is bad". It's tiring to hear after a while. A franchise guy is a franchise guy and makes the team better. If peyton manning missing this season isn't a prime example of what I'm talking about, I don't know what is. the QB position makes or breaks the team, and you're living in a dream world if you don't see that. But I suppose we could have Anderson and Quinn and Frye still on our roster and wait until we have elite talent to see if they were actually good too.
how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team.
wrong. wrong. wrong.
those teams (before landing their franchise qb) were stocked with first round picks year in and out. saints had one if not the best OL in the league. remember willie roaf? detroit had one of the best offenses with all those receivers they piled up while matt millen was gm. giants have been consistent for the past 2 decades so they do even belong in the mix. bengals built a great defense with their picks same as the chargers plus added offensive threats. uh oh yeah panthers just suck.
do you see any of those things in cleveland? exactly.
-
Again, you will never be willing take a qb in the top of the draft. If we draft at the top next year you'll find another hole somewhere else to fill. Its not that McCoy put up shitty numbers. He regressed in every way. Accuracy, confidence in arm, decision making, mechanics, and so on. The defenses around the league salivate at the thought of facing him.
On numerous occasions when Colt was blitzed he would tuck the ball, take off running, and not look downfield while the secondary was in man. So the brief instances his subpar receivers were open he wasn't looking to pass. He will be blitzed to death until he makes those plays. Talk about unfair, you want to draft a rookie RT to block 2 guys for 5 seconds so Colt can read a play a quality NFL qb would do in less than half the time. Colt creates problems all on his own. Therefore he is a hole to be filled.
Not exactly. If the Browns had the #1 overall, I'd want Andrew Luck. And forget about that one- right now it looks like Irsay isn't going to trade out of that pick regardless of what anyone offers him for it. RGIII? Not so certain about him.
This difference is me and Cal don't fall in love with "this year's model". Superstud top of the first round qbs can, and do bust all the time- and if you take one of those mega busts- like say Ryan Leaf or Joey Harrington- you've totally shot yourself in the collective team's foot wasting about two seasons of starter time to find out they can't play worth a damn. The Bengals blew about 10 years that way trying to prove Dave Kingler and Akilli Smith were "the guy". Ponder and Gabbert were both 1st round picks, and did as poorly as McCoy on bad teams.
So sure, if H&H have decided Colt ain't "the guy", (they say they have enough tape on him to make that decision) then I have no problems with them drafting someone else to see if he is. For sure, Holmgren's forgotten more about football than I'll ever know.
Not exactly. If the Browns had the #1 overall, I'd want Andrew Luck. And forget about that one- right now it looks like Irsay isn't going to trade out of that pick regardless of what anyone offers him for it. RGIII? Not so certain about him.
This difference is me and Cal don't fall in love with "this year's model". Superstud top of the first round qbs can, and do bust all the time- and if you take one of those mega busts- like say Ryan Leaf or Joey Harrington- you've totally shot yourself in the collective team's foot wasting about two seasons of starter time to find out they can't play worth a damn. The Bengals blew about 10 years that way trying to prove Dave Kingler and Akilli Smith were "the guy". Ponder and Gabbert were both 1st round picks, and did as poorly as McCoy on bad teams.
So sure, if H&H have decided Colt ain't "the guy", (they say they have enough tape on him to make that decision) then I have no problems with them drafting someone else to see if he is. For sure, Holmgren's forgotten more about football than I'll ever know.
No Im exactly right. If you can convince yourself, as Cal has, that McCoy is a legitimate QB it will always be someone else's fault. We will never fill this roster with all 1st round talent. Never is it going to happen for us or anybody else. No one position will change the capabilities of a team more than a QB. We may capitalize on our opportunities more so than this year, but our potential will be the exact same as this year. Our potential and capabilities are directly tied to the QB position.
βIt is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.β -
See, here is the thing......As long as it is Shurmur that is coaching us, I dont know why we are arguing about the QB. It is kinda like standing in the Titanic as it is sinking and complaining that the toilet is not flushing !
-
See, here is the thing......As long as it is Shurmur that is coaching us, I dont know why we are arguing about the QB. It is kinda like standing in the Titanic as it is sinking and complaining that the toilet is not flushing !
See, here is the thing......As long as it is Shurmur that is coaching us, I dont know why we are arguing about the QB. It is kinda like standing in the Titanic as it is sinking and complaining that the toilet is not flushing !
Fair enough, but we have to draft someone. Might as be the most talent we can get, right?
-
how the vast majority of teams have done it in the past 5-8 years. The Falcons, Saints, Lions, Bengals, Panthers, Bucs, Chargers and Giants all went and got the QB first or traded on a bad team.
wrong. wrong. wrong.
those teams (before landing their franchise qb) were stocked with first round picks year in and out. saints had one if not the best OL in the league. remember willie roaf? detroit had one of the best offenses with all those receivers they piled up while matt millen was gm. giants have been consistent for the past 2 decades so they do even belong in the mix. bengals built a great defense with their picks same as the chargers plus added offensive threats. uh oh yeah panthers just suck.
do you see any of those things in cleveland? exactly.
wrong. wrong. wrong.
those teams (before landing their franchise qb) were stocked with first round picks year in and out. saints had one if not the best OL in the league. remember willie roaf? detroit had one of the best offenses with all those receivers they piled up while matt millen was gm. giants have been consistent for the past 2 decades so they do even belong in the mix. bengals built a great defense with their picks same as the chargers plus added offensive threats. uh oh yeah panthers just suck.
do you see any of those things in cleveland? exactly.
Willie Roaf was long gone by the time Brees got to New Orleans.
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 π
Register Login