"It's a passing league"
-
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
We've tried alternate ways.
It's like you people are being purposely dense.
Or you're just all pussies. I can't quite figure it out.
"Boo hoo, we once drafted Brady Quinn. Let's never draft a QB again."
-
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
And if you look at it from the team's perspective and where they found their QB:
Seattle: 3rd round
Denver: Free Agent
San Fran: 2nd round
New England: 6th round
Zombo
-
TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way.
-
I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
I hate the term franchise QB also. I just want competent QB play. I dont think you can consider Wilson or Kaepernick "franchise QBs". So I guess the answer is yes, but you need good QB play and you have to be great everywhere else. My point is that we have to get one, and if the stooges favorite guy wont be there at 26, you have to take him at 4 (unless you trade).I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)?
The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?"
-
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
-
TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way.
TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work."
Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way.
No, I criticized people for being too afraid to act.
We tried the mainstream way. It didn't work. So we tried alternative ways, which also didn't work.
Teams can get lucky in the later rounds. It happens. Foles, Wilson, Brady. It happens. The common denominator in those three - fiery, good head coaches with innovative offenses or defenses.
We don't even have a coach, much less an innovator or fiery one.
Different circumstances dictate different strategies. If we didn't have any offensive weapons nor an offensive line, I wouldn't advocate taking anything less than Andrew Luck in the draft. But that's not the case.
We have a first round Pro Bowl LT. A first round Pro Bowl Center. A Pro Bowl, athletic receiving TE. A young Pro Bowl #1 WR. The key pieces are there.
-
This whole "passing league" bs is predicated on the notion that you can actually protect your qb. Year after year after year since 99 I've watched the Browns draft 1 qb after another, and with the exception of 2012 season....we've never really been able to protect our qb. There's zero point in drafting a high level qb that we can watch run for his life for 2 seasons. Then after that 2nd season, we get to watch an ESPN segment on how a once promising career died in Cleveland. And then we have to watch them rattle off the list of past promising young qb's who amounted to nothing in Cleveland. Qb's like Hoyer work here in Cleveland cause they've been in the game awhile and know what to mitigate a porous o line. Manziel will be a world class sprinter by season 2 if he stays even moderately healthy.
-
I THINK WE SHOULD KILL IT>
Don't fall down the well lassie
-
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
-
Really? You don't think anyone has supported the idea that getting an amazing QB and throwing like crazy is the only way to find success in the NFL? Maybe I'm hearing it all wrong. The Browns didn't even have a good QB this year and people STILL defended the decisions to throw more passes than any other team in the league.
-
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
Right, TCPO, which makes the "let's try to get a good QB" plan a good plan. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the insistence that "there is no other way, under any circumstances, to win, other than firing the ball into the air on 85% of a team's plays!"
At no point has anyone said that.
As a matter of fact, I've said the opposite. It's no coincidence that two of the three quarterbacks with the highest pass attempts per game average both went down with season injuries.
The thing is, having a QB that defenses will have to respect will open up running lanes.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
-
Thank you, Mike H! I get the feeling not everyone agrees with us. Also, I'm not sure what the division of responsibility was for the offense, but I feel like Chud bears some responsibility for the inappropriate passing, too. When I brought this up during the Chud discussions, I was met with "It's a passing league!"
My thing is, if you know you don't have a good QB, and you're going to use that as your excuse for why you can't win, you definitely don't throw the ball more than the team that has Peyton Manning. And you certainly don't do it late in the game when you're ahead. That's just bad coaching.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
I think people mis-understand the passing league thing. Its being said because, rule changes have made throwing easier than ever and teams are passing way more than they used to. I dont think anyone ever said you dont need a good run game to win. Good QB play will lead you farther than a good ground game for sure though.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
-
Right, DaBuckeye, and I agree with all that. I'm not talking about the reasonable folks. I'm talking about the folks who, when I ask, "Why are the Browns not making any attempt to run time off the clock when they are ahead in the 4th quarter?!", respond with "It's a passing league!"
In my mind, one-dimensional is not the way to go regardless of whether it is run or pass (unless you have someone like a Manning, Brees, or Brady). But it seems like every time I mention the Browns paying a little more attention to running needs, I'm told that passing is all that matters.
Oh, and I'm SURE people said you don't need a running game to win. I know this was said directly (if not verbatim) during the Trent Richardson discussions.
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
We also need some bruiser OGs to open up lanes for the RBs.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
When we had hoyer we still couldn't run the ball.
-
We also need some bruiser OGs to open up lanes for the RBs.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
When we had hoyer we still couldn't run the ball.
-
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
-
Well, I started the thread, so I'll answer that. The answer is: "kind of". Someone hit the nail on the head earlier when they pointed out that it depends on what people mean when they say it. If a person means that "the rules of the league benefit the passing game", or if they mean that "the majority of the league prefers a passing offense to a rushing offense", then I don't think there's room for much debate about that. What I was actually arguing against was the group that exists (at least in my mind?) that seems to believe that a nearly purely vertical offense is the ONLY means of finding success in the league.
I think most of us have come to the agreement now that the first version (the rule and teams favor passing) is basically true, that a good QB is definitely beneficial to the success of a team, and that the last version (only passing is the only answer) is a little extreme.
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