The Next Cam Newton?
-
I think Rhodes will be gone. As another person who watched E.J. play the last 2 seasons, will give some input. For all the weapons he had around him, he was not that great. Im not saying he will be bad, but I think there is just to much hype around the guy. If he sits for 2 years at best, and can get a grasp of the Offense he very well could be ok, but he will not be the option QB that Newton is. Also, who even says the Chud is going to want an option type Qb, Turner has never had one to coach, so Im pretty sure they want a cannon of an arm and a smart QB. You either have mobility or you dont. Its not required to be a mobile QB, look at the greats in the League now, Brees, The Mannings, Brady. I know you cant compare future hall of famers to what we have but there is a pattern of greatness to them. Great leaders and perfectionists to their offensive schemes. We need to build our Defense, something that is feared, shit something that you draft in fantasy football.
-
I hate to keep saying this....but I think the Browns need to follow the Pittsburgh Steelers model of the early to mid-2000s...i.e. you plug in the "franchise QB" as the LAST component of your championship team.
The 2005 Steeler team that won the title was built first and foremost upon their defense....then their running game and offensive line, then their receiving corps...then finally with a QB.
Do you think the 2004 team with BR as a rookie that went 15-1 and the title the following year in 2005 with BR as a sophomore QB won because BR was so good? Frak no. Tommy Maddox or Charlie Batch could have probably led those teams.
2008 was a different matter...BR was the major component in that teams success....but not the earlier years.
Right here, right now the Browns need to build their defense and offensive lines and run game and WR/TE corps.
If BW3 becomes successful with those top components around him...wonderful.
If not, then he can become Tommy Maddox or Charlie Batch....and in a year or two maybe the Browns will find their version of BR.
Browns need a couple of killer DBs, maybe another LB, maybe an OG...and depth all along the way. We are invested with 2 QBs now, leave them be and build the rest of the team up. When its winning time...and that may be very soon...the Browns will be in position to plug in a QB.
I want my Sundae built first with the ice cream, hot fudge, whipped cream and nuts put on first.....then we can put the cherry on top.
Do you think the 2004 team with BR as a rookie that went 15-1 and the title the following year in 2005 with BR as a sophomore QB won because BR was so good? Frak no. Tommy Maddox or Charlie Batch could have probably led those teams.
2008 was a different matter...BR was the major component in that teams success....but not the earlier years.
This is a really dumb statement. Even though there defense was good and their running game was good there is NO WAY they win that title without BR. And no way they finish 15-1 the season prior. Ben even in the early years added another dimension to the offense.
-
Do you think the 2004 team with BR as a rookie that went 15-1 and the title the following year in 2005 with BR as a sophomore QB won because BR was so good? Frak no. Tommy Maddox or Charlie Batch could have probably led those teams.
2008 was a different matter...BR was the major component in that teams success....but not the earlier years.
This is a really dumb statement. Even though there defense was good and their running game was good there is NO WAY they win that title without BR. And no way they finish 15-1 the season prior. Ben even in the early years added another dimension to the offense.
This is a really dumb statement. Even though there defense was good and their running game was good there is NO WAY they win that title without BR. And no way they finish 15-1 the season prior. Ben even in the early years added another dimension to the offense.
Were you alive when that was played? Or are you thinking of 2008?
Because those Steelers won in 2005 in spite of BR, not because of him. It is documented that he had THE worst game statistically of ANY Super Bowl winning QB in history. And I don't know, but this compilation has him ranked as the #30 QB in the league that year:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2005/passing.htm
-
This is a really dumb statement. Even though there defense was good and their running game was good there is NO WAY they win that title without BR. And no way they finish 15-1 the season prior. Ben even in the early years added another dimension to the offense.
Were you alive when that was played? Or are you thinking of 2008?
Because those Steelers won in 2005 in spite of BR, not because of him. It is documented that he had THE worst game statistically of ANY Super Bowl winning QB in history. And I don't know, but this compilation has him ranked as the #30 QB in the league that year:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2005/passing.htm
Were you alive when that was played? Or are you thinking of 2008?
Because those Steelers won in 2005 in spite of BR, not because of him. It is documented that he had THE worst game statistically of ANY Super Bowl winning QB in history. And I don't know, but this compilation has him ranked as the #30 QB in the league that year:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2005/passing.htm
The difference is that Roethlisberger has a bad game and we remember it for years, because its an aberration.
McCoy/Weeden/etc. have a good game, and we remember that for years...for the same reason.
That's where the problem lies.
-
Were you alive when that was played? Or are you thinking of 2008?
Because those Steelers won in 2005 in spite of BR, not because of him. It is documented that he had THE worst game statistically of ANY Super Bowl winning QB in history. And I don't know, but this compilation has him ranked as the #30 QB in the league that year:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2005/passing.htm
The difference is that Roethlisberger has a bad game and we remember it for years, because its an aberration.
McCoy/Weeden/etc. have a good game, and we remember that for years...for the same reason.
That's where the problem lies.
The difference is that Roethlisberger has a bad game and we remember it for years, because its an aberration.
McCoy/Weeden/etc. have a good game, and we remember that for years...for the same reason.
That's where the problem lies.
I am not saying that BR didn't turn into a quality QB. I am saying that for that entire 2005 season...he was an average QB....and that team won its title on defense and rushing. BR managed the situation...but based on what the rest of that team did, yes, Charlie Batch could have done about the same thing that particular year.
Defense won that title....just like defense won the Ravens title in 2000. Just like defense won the Bucs title in 2002.
That's a fact. That's football.
-
The difference is that Roethlisberger has a bad game and we remember it for years, because its an aberration.
McCoy/Weeden/etc. have a good game, and we remember that for years...for the same reason.
That's where the problem lies.
I am not saying that BR didn't turn into a quality QB. I am saying that for that entire 2005 season...he was an average QB....and that team won its title on defense and rushing. BR managed the situation...but based on what the rest of that team did, yes, Charlie Batch could have done about the same thing that particular year.
Defense won that title....just like defense won the Ravens title in 2000. Just like defense won the Bucs title in 2002.
That's a fact. That's football.
I am not saying that BR didn't turn into a quality QB. I am saying that for that entire 2005 season...he was an average QB....and that team won its title on defense and rushing. BR managed the situation...but based on what the rest of that team did, yes, Charlie Batch could have done about the same thing that particular year.
Defense won that title....just like defense won the Ravens title in 2000. Just like defense won the Bucs title in 2002.
That's a fact. That's football.
That doesn't make it true for the whole. Defense doesn't win championships. Offense doesn't win championships. Special teams don't win championships.
Good football teams win championships. There have been just as many teams win because of great offense as there have teams win because of defense. Some could argue that the Saints win was because if special teams.
It's all about the matchup. You can build an all world defense and it won't mean jack shit if you're facing a team with another great defense. Then it will just come down to whoever makes the first mistake.
The teams to win the Super Bowl are the teams that play their game and play it well.
We need a franchise QB regardless.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Weeden is the QB, he's 30 this year. The only way to recoup what we put into him are to either play him or trade him for a first rounder. Seems as how we're not going to get a first rounder for him we are going to play him.
I'm about 90% sure we don't even look at QBs until the 5th round at the earliest.
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- -
I am not saying that BR didn't turn into a quality QB. I am saying that for that entire 2005 season...he was an average QB....and that team won its title on defense and rushing. BR managed the situation...but based on what the rest of that team did, yes, Charlie Batch could have done about the same thing that particular year.
Defense won that title....just like defense won the Ravens title in 2000. Just like defense won the Bucs title in 2002.
That's a fact. That's football.
That doesn't make it true for the whole. Defense doesn't win championships. Offense doesn't win championships. Special teams don't win championships.
Good football teams win championships. There have been just as many teams win because of great offense as there have teams win because of defense. Some could argue that the Saints win was because if special teams.
It's all about the matchup. You can build an all world defense and it won't mean jack shit if you're facing a team with another great defense. Then it will just come down to whoever makes the first mistake.
The teams to win the Super Bowl are the teams that play their game and play it well.
We need a franchise QB regardless.
That doesn't make it true for the whole. Defense doesn't win championships. Offense doesn't win championships. Special teams don't win championships.
Good football teams win championships. There have been just as many teams win because of great offense as there have teams win because of defense. Some could argue that the Saints win was because if special teams.
It's all about the matchup. You can build an all world defense and it won't mean jack shit if you're facing a team with another great defense. Then it will just come down to whoever makes the first mistake.
The teams to win the Super Bowl are the teams that play their game and play it well.
We need a franchise QB regardless.
Yes, I am saying that we need a complete, full, balanced team. And yes, we need a franchise QB.
All I am saying is that this team in the past has foolishly popped for the cherry on top before having the the ice cream (offensive line, defensive front 7) in the bowl, and before having its whipped cream applied (defensive backfield) or its hot fudge (WR/TE corps) hot, or having applied the nuts (RB/FB).
No, they went straight for the cherry....and the cherry got buried under melted ice cream, cold fudge, and silly sprinkles instead of decent nuts.
-
I've watched this guy for 5 yrs(I guess I should say 3yr since that's when he became a starter) at FSU and he is going fall flat on his face. He is NOT a good QB. He may be big and throw the ball a long way, but wait till he plays against competition. He's terrible!
-
Weeden is the QB, he's 30 this year. The only way to recoup what we put into him are to either play him or trade him for a first rounder. Seems as how we're not going to get a first rounder for him we are going to play him.
I'm about 90% sure we don't even look at QBs until the 5th round at the earliest.
Weeden is the QB, he's 30 this year. The only way to recoup what we put into him are to either play him or trade him for a first rounder. Seems as how we're not going to get a first rounder for him we are going to play him.
I'm about 90% sure we don't even look at QBs until the 5th round at the earliest.
I think that is correct for this year. It certainly looks like Weeden will get one year with offensive coaches who want to build the offense around his strengths. If he can't get it done this year, he's done and we draft someone early next season and start over. God willing...Weeden will be the guy and we don't need a QB for 10 more years.
-
Weeden is the QB, he's 30 this year. The only way to recoup what we put into him are to either play him or trade him for a first rounder. Seems as how we're not going to get a first rounder for him we are going to play him.
I'm about 90% sure we don't even look at QBs until the 5th round at the earliest.
I think that is correct for this year. It certainly looks like Weeden will get one year with offensive coaches who want to build the offense around his strengths. If he can't get it done this year, he's done and we draft someone early next season and start over. God willing...Weeden will be the guy and we don't need a QB for 10 more years.
I think that is correct for this year. It certainly looks like Weeden will get one year with offensive coaches who want to build the offense around his strengths. If he can't get it done this year, he's done and we draft someone early next season and start over. God willing...Weeden will be the guy and we don't need a QB for 10 more years.
I am wondering on what kind of stat line will make or break Weeden's season. Is it going to be a well he did better than last year or does he have to throw for 25-30 tds and 10 ints and get 10 wins. With the schedule we have this year, there is a real possibility that he has a great year.
-
I think that is correct for this year. It certainly looks like Weeden will get one year with offensive coaches who want to build the offense around his strengths. If he can't get it done this year, he's done and we draft someone early next season and start over. God willing...Weeden will be the guy and we don't need a QB for 10 more years.
I am wondering on what kind of stat line will make or break Weeden's season. Is it going to be a well he did better than last year or does he have to throw for 25-30 tds and 10 ints and get 10 wins. With the schedule we have this year, there is a real possibility that he has a great year.
I am wondering on what kind of stat line will make or break Weeden's season. Is it going to be a well he did better than last year or does he have to throw for 25-30 tds and 10 ints and get 10 wins. With the schedule we have this year, there is a real possibility that he has a great year.
I would think number 1 has to be the consistency has to be there all season. Win or lose, he can still put up decent numbers each week. He played some good games and played some atrocious games. He has to show he can play at a high level each week. I wouldn't think it's so much as a number of wins as it is how he looks playing the position.
-
I am wondering on what kind of stat line will make or break Weeden's season. Is it going to be a well he did better than last year or does he have to throw for 25-30 tds and 10 ints and get 10 wins. With the schedule we have this year, there is a real possibility that he has a great year.
I would think number 1 has to be the consistency has to be there all season. Win or lose, he can still put up decent numbers each week. He played some good games and played some atrocious games. He has to show he can play at a high level each week. I wouldn't think it's so much as a number of wins as it is how he looks playing the position.
I would think number 1 has to be the consistency has to be there all season. Win or lose, he can still put up decent numbers each week. He played some good games and played some atrocious games. He has to show he can play at a high level each week. I wouldn't think it's so much as a number of wins as it is how he looks playing the position.
Here's to hoping we can some wins with him looking good.
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