Pluto Article on QB
-
Fair point, Grossi.
What he's forgetting to mention is the fact that the Seahawks, Ravens and 49ers built top defenses all the while having capable QB's handling the reigns in the meantime.
The 49ers had 1st overall pick Alex Smith, who hasn't finished the season with a rating lower than 81 since 2007. They took Kaep as a project QB, tailored the offense to him and eased him in. He wasn't thrown to the wolves immediately.
The Ravens had 3rd overall pick Steve McNair for two years, who's worst season rating of 73.9 is better than any rating Weeden has ever had.
The Seahawks had a decently solid, established veteran in Hasselbeck when Carroll took over. Carroll then tried the Tarvaris Jackson experiment for a season, which yielded better results than anything the Browns have tried in the past 5 years. Then they shelled out big bucks for Flynn before striking gold on Wilson. It's not as if they just sat on their hands and waited for Wilson. The plan was for Flynn all along, Wilson was just a good value pick.
What I'm trying to say is that the Seahawks and 49ers were able to field serviceable talent while building a solid team, and then either got lucky or eased in their QB's.
The Ravens are the only applicable team in this situation, as Flacco was picked to be their guy from the get-go and was handed the reigns immediately. And he was still a mid-1st round pick.
The Browns aren't and haven't been in that position. We've had garbage quarterbacking for the past decade. Our situation isn't like theirs.
There's correlation, I guess. But no causation. Poor reporting, Grossi.
Fair point, Grossi.
What he's forgetting to mention is the fact that the Seahawks, Ravens and 49ers built top defenses all the while having capable QB's handling the reigns in the meantime.
The 49ers had 1st overall pick Alex Smith, who hasn't finished the season with a rating lower than 81 since 2007. They took Kaep as a project QB, tailored the offense to him and eased him in. He wasn't thrown to the wolves immediately.
The Ravens had 3rd overall pick Steve McNair for two years, who's worst season rating of 73.9 is better than any rating Weeden has ever had.
The Seahawks had a decently solid, established veteran in Hasselbeck when Carroll took over. Carroll then tried the Tarvaris Jackson experiment for a season, which yielded better results than anything the Browns have tried in the past 5 years. Then they shelled out big bucks for Flynn before striking gold on Wilson. It's not as if they just sat on their hands and waited for Wilson. The plan was for Flynn all along, Wilson was just a good value pick.
What I'm trying to say is that the Seahawks and 49ers were able to field serviceable talent while building a solid team, and then either got lucky or eased in their QB's.
The Ravens are the only applicable team in this situation, as Flacco was picked to be their guy from the get-go and was handed the reigns immediately. And he was still a mid-1st round pick.
The Browns aren't and haven't been in that position. We've had garbage quarterbacking for the past decade. Our situation isn't like theirs.
There's correlation, I guess. But no causation. Poor reporting, Grossi.
Absolutely. I have often said that we should build a very, very solid defense, offensive line/wr/rb set.....then have the QB be the cherry on top to complete the entire team.
The prime example of this was the Steelers of the mid 2000s. They had their defense, offensive line and running game in prime condition when they took BR as their QB......who, though he really was NOT that good of a QB those first 2 years, was still capable enough not to lose games for them....and they went to finish 15-1 his rookie season and won the SB his 2d season.
I mean, this team tried the opposite with Tim Couch......got the cherry, but then the sundae bowl was just filled with mud and gravel underneath. So what good was a cherry.
-
Yes. It means you are wrong.
This looks like a textbook example of cherry picking.
Consider this list of names:
• Andrew Luck (#1, 2012, Indianapolis).
• Robert Griffin III (# 2, 2012, Washington).
• Ryan Tannehill (# 8, 2012, Miami).
• Cam Newton (#1, 2011, Carolina).
• Jake Locker (#8, 2011, Tennessee).
• Blaine Gabbert (#10, 2011, Jacksonville).
• Sam Bradford (#1, 2010, St. Louis).
• Matt Stafford (#1, 2009, Detroit).
• Mark Sanchez (#5, 2009, Jets).
• Matt Ryan (#3, 2008, Atlanta).
This is a list of the the quarterbacks among the top 10 picks in the last six drafts.
I made the list covering six years, because no quarterback was in the top 10 in 2013.
What's the point?
OK, answer this question: How many of those quarterbacks have played in a Super Bowl?
That's right -- None.
Here are 10 quarterbacks -- all top 10 draft picks since 2008 -- and not one has reached a Super Bowl. Granted, some have just entered the league in the last few years. But it's still revealing that none instantly turned around a franchise.
He is pointing to a specific stat - 0 SB appearances from top 10 picks in the last six drafts. Then comes to that idiotic conclusion in the bold.
Per wiki - I helped by adding the stuff in () and italics.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data (SB appearances) that seem to confirm a particular position (watch out taking those risky top 10 QBs!!!), while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data (like other measures to indicate the franchise instantly turned around, e.i. wins, playoff appearances etc) that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
If you still think I am wrong, its cool. Figured I owed an explanation after those short posts. You are getting the last word if you want. I wont reply again.
Peace
-
Fair point, Grossi.
What he's forgetting to mention is the fact that the Seahawks, Ravens and 49ers built top defenses all the while having capable QB's handling the reigns in the meantime.
The 49ers had 1st overall pick Alex Smith, who hasn't finished the season with a rating lower than 81 since 2007. They took Kaep as a project QB, tailored the offense to him and eased him in. He wasn't thrown to the wolves immediately.
The Ravens had 3rd overall pick Steve McNair for two years, who's worst season rating of 73.9 is better than any rating Weeden has ever had.
The Seahawks had a decently solid, established veteran in Hasselbeck when Carroll took over. Carroll then tried the Tarvaris Jackson experiment for a season, which yielded better results than anything the Browns have tried in the past 5 years. Then they shelled out big bucks for Flynn before striking gold on Wilson. It's not as if they just sat on their hands and waited for Wilson. The plan was for Flynn all along, Wilson was just a good value pick.
What I'm trying to say is that the Seahawks and 49ers were able to field serviceable talent while building a solid team, and then either got lucky or eased in their QB's.
The Ravens are the only applicable team in this situation, as Flacco was picked to be their guy from the get-go and was handed the reigns immediately. And he was still a mid-1st round pick.
The Browns aren't and haven't been in that position. We've had garbage quarterbacking for the past decade. Our situation isn't like theirs.
There's correlation, I guess. But no causation. Poor reporting, Grossi.
Absolutely. I have often said that we should build a very, very solid defense, offensive line/wr/rb set.....then have the QB be the cherry on top to complete the entire team.
The prime example of this was the Steelers of the mid 2000s. They had their defense, offensive line and running game in prime condition when they took BR as their QB......who, though he really was NOT that good of a QB those first 2 years, was still capable enough not to lose games for them....and they went to finish 15-1 his rookie season and won the SB his 2d season.
I mean, this team tried the opposite with Tim Couch......got the cherry, but then the sundae bowl was just filled with mud and gravel underneath. So what good was a cherry.
I mean, this team tried the opposite with Tim Couch......got the cherry, but then the sundae bowl was just filled with mud and gravel underneath. So what good was a cherry.
I hear ya there. Like the one stinking year I DIDNT want the Browns to take a QB top 10 is the year they did!
-
I like Pluto but that was a hack job. A lot of cherry picking going on.
I don't think it was a hack job. It was pure fact.
Though, I will say this: I would like to go back a little further to analyze the situation. Lets go back and see who has gone to the SB in a longer period.
In fact, here it is. These are the ONLY QBs taken in the First round of the draft since 1999 to take their team to a Super Bowl, win or lose:
1999 #2 Donovan McNabb
2003 #22 Rex Grossman
2004 #1 Eli Manning
2004 #11 Ben Roethlisberger
2005 #24 Aaron Rodgers
2008 #18 Joe Flacco
I don't think it was a hack job. It was pure fact.
Though, I will say this: I would like to go back a little further to analyze the situation. Lets go back and see who has gone to the SB in a longer period.
In fact, here it is. These are the ONLY QBs taken in the First round of the draft since 1999 to take their team to a Super Bowl, win or lose:
1999 #2 Donovan McNabb
2003 #22 Rex Grossman
2004 #1 Eli Manning
2004 #11 Ben Roethlisberger
2005 #24 Aaron Rodgers
2008 #18 Joe Flacco
Well look at Super Bowls and almost every SB has a first round QB and most have 2 first round QBs playing. You are far more likely to find a SB caliber QB in the first round than any other round. Also the article states none of the recent QBs changed any of the franchises, which is incorrect I would say that Matt Ryan certainly helped changed the direction of that team. And the argument that our line is bad is overblown. Its middle of the pack and it has two Pro Bowlers on it. RG is a definite need, RT and LG are serviceable right now. Its not as bad as some make it out to be. I am not advocating for us to pick a QB with 4th pick. But I am arguing that you cannot pass up a QB who can get you to win games becuase maybe he is just the 8th player on your board or you have more holes to fill. If you believe there is a guy who can be a franchise guy you get him, period. Who the hell cares about the RG spot then.
-
Of course he uses facts. I did not argue otherwise. I said he was cherry picking. Do you understand what that means?
-
Yes. It means you are wrong.
This looks like a textbook example of cherry picking.
Consider this list of names:
• Andrew Luck (#1, 2012, Indianapolis).
• Robert Griffin III (# 2, 2012, Washington).
• Ryan Tannehill (# 8, 2012, Miami).
• Cam Newton (#1, 2011, Carolina).
• Jake Locker (#8, 2011, Tennessee).
• Blaine Gabbert (#10, 2011, Jacksonville).
• Sam Bradford (#1, 2010, St. Louis).
• Matt Stafford (#1, 2009, Detroit).
• Mark Sanchez (#5, 2009, Jets).
• Matt Ryan (#3, 2008, Atlanta).
This is a list of the the quarterbacks among the top 10 picks in the last six drafts.
I made the list covering six years, because no quarterback was in the top 10 in 2013.
What's the point?
OK, answer this question: How many of those quarterbacks have played in a Super Bowl?
That's right -- None.
Here are 10 quarterbacks -- all top 10 draft picks since 2008 -- and not one has reached a Super Bowl. Granted, some have just entered the league in the last few years. But it's still revealing that none instantly turned around a franchise.
He is pointing to a specific stat - 0 SB appearances from top 10 picks in the last six drafts. Then comes to that idiotic conclusion in the bold.
Per wiki - I helped by adding the stuff in () and italics.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data (SB appearances) that seem to confirm a particular position (watch out taking those risky top 10 QBs!!!), while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data (like other measures to indicate the franchise instantly turned around, e.i. wins, playoff appearances etc) that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
If you still think I am wrong, its cool. Figured I owed an explanation after those short posts. You are getting the last word if you want. I wont reply again.
Peace
This looks like a textbook example of cherry picking.
Consider this list of names:
• Andrew Luck (#1, 2012, Indianapolis).
• Robert Griffin III (# 2, 2012, Washington).
• Ryan Tannehill (# 8, 2012, Miami).
• Cam Newton (#1, 2011, Carolina).
• Jake Locker (#8, 2011, Tennessee).
• Blaine Gabbert (#10, 2011, Jacksonville).
• Sam Bradford (#1, 2010, St. Louis).
• Matt Stafford (#1, 2009, Detroit).
• Mark Sanchez (#5, 2009, Jets).
• Matt Ryan (#3, 2008, Atlanta).
This is a list of the the quarterbacks among the top 10 picks in the last six drafts.
I made the list covering six years, because no quarterback was in the top 10 in 2013.
What's the point?
OK, answer this question: How many of those quarterbacks have played in a Super Bowl?
That's right -- None.
Here are 10 quarterbacks -- all top 10 draft picks since 2008 -- and not one has reached a Super Bowl. Granted, some have just entered the league in the last few years. But it's still revealing that none instantly turned around a franchise.
He is pointing to a specific stat - 0 SB appearances from top 10 picks in the last six drafts. Then comes to that idiotic conclusion in the bold.
Per wiki - I helped by adding the stuff in () and italics.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data (SB appearances) that seem to confirm a particular position (watch out taking those risky top 10 QBs!!!), while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data (like other measures to indicate the franchise instantly turned around, e.i. wins, playoff appearances etc) that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
If you still think I am wrong, its cool. Figured I owed an explanation after those short posts. You are getting the last word if you want. I wont reply again.
Peace
You are saying he is cherry picking by suppressing evidence or providing incomplete evidence. His premise was that NONE of these QBs took their teams to a SB...yet. That is a fact. That evidence is complete. That is what I am going on.
Now, you may say that he is wrong about none of these QBs instantly turning a franchise around. Then I would say that you are right and he is wrong. Some of these QBs have definitely helped turn losing franchises into winning ones.
Andrew Luck is the best example, but also Stafford, Ryan, and Cam Newton are turning losers into winners.
But, his basic point is still accurate and complete.....none have taken their team to a Super Bowl.
I think his ultimate point is this: Browns fans should not panic. If we don't get a QB at #4, or somewhere in the top 10, it is not the end of our potential Super Bowl hopes....as SB QBs have come from lower in the draft besides the Top 10. Flacco 18, Rodgers 24, BR at 11.
And the point of my follow up is to confirm this. In this century, only 3 QBs who have been taken in the Top 10 of the draft who were not named Manning have taken a team to a Super Bowl. So, all I am saying is that it would not be the end of the world IMO to not take a QB in the top 10. We have about a 50/50 chance of getting a SB QB at some point later.
-
I don't think it was a hack job. It was pure fact.
Though, I will say this: I would like to go back a little further to analyze the situation. Lets go back and see who has gone to the SB in a longer period.
In fact, here it is. These are the ONLY QBs taken in the First round of the draft since 1999 to take their team to a Super Bowl, win or lose:
1999 #2 Donovan McNabb
2003 #22 Rex Grossman
2004 #1 Eli Manning
2004 #11 Ben Roethlisberger
2005 #24 Aaron Rodgers
2008 #18 Joe Flacco
Well look at Super Bowls and almost every SB has a first round QB and most have 2 first round QBs playing. You are far more likely to find a SB caliber QB in the first round than any other round. Also the article states none of the recent QBs changed any of the franchises, which is incorrect I would say that Matt Ryan certainly helped changed the direction of that team. And the argument that our line is bad is overblown. Its middle of the pack and it has two Pro Bowlers on it. RG is a definite need, RT and LG are serviceable right now. Its not as bad as some make it out to be. I am not advocating for us to pick a QB with 4th pick. But I am arguing that you cannot pass up a QB who can get you to win games becuase maybe he is just the 8th player on your board or you have more holes to fill. If you believe there is a guy who can be a franchise guy you get him, period. Who the hell cares about the RG spot then.
Well look at Super Bowls and almost every SB has a first round QB and most have 2 first round QBs playing.
NO, did you read my post? In ONLY 3 out of 14 SBs in this century have the SBs matched 2 first round QBs. I don't know your definition of most...but in my world 3 out of 14 is not most.
You are far more likely to find a SB caliber QB in the first round than any other round.
Again, no, you are not. Again, my post shows that. Of 28 starting QBs in the SB, only one-half were first round picks. That is 50%....and NOT "far more likely"....it is exactly even....but yes, it is more likely to get one in the first round than any other particular round...but not in all other rounds altogether.
Also the article states none of the recent QBs changed any of the franchises, which is incorrect I would say that Matt Ryan certainly helped changed the direction of that team.
I would agree with you here. See above, Luck, Ryan, Newton and others.
-
Let me make a certain matter clear....I am by NO means opposed to trying to get a franchise QB with our #4 pick.
The Browns have tried the way of the lower first round to take QBs.....and that has fizzled badly.....see Quinn/Weeden.
We have tried the 3rd round method. No soap. See Frye/McCoy.
We have tried the "old winning veteran" approach. Dilfer/Garcia/Delhomme/Campbell....crapola.
We have tried the trade route or pick up a young free agent: Anderson/Holcomb.....a few flashes at most there.
So, OK, lets go back to the thing we only tried once in 30 years (Couch, since Kosar)......get a QB very high in the draft and hope he is the Coca Cola of QBs, i.e. The Real Thing.
It is worth another shot. It may be 50/50 at best.....but we are batting about .000 since Kosar, so it is about time that the odds turned in our favor.
-
When I seen this post I thought Mickey's dog was evaluating QB's
-
Let me make a certain matter clear....I am by NO means opposed to trying to get a franchise QB with our #4 pick.
The Browns have tried the way of the lower first round to take QBs.....and that has fizzled badly.....see Quinn/Weeden.
We have tried the 3rd round method. No soap. See Frye/McCoy.
We have tried the "old winning veteran" approach. Dilfer/Garcia/Delhomme/Campbell....crapola.
We have tried the trade route or pick up a young free agent: Anderson/Holcomb.....a few flashes at most there.
So, OK, lets go back to the thing we only tried once in 30 years (Couch, since Kosar)......get a QB very high in the draft and hope he is the Coca Cola of QBs, i.e. The Real Thing.
It is worth another shot. It may be 50/50 at best.....but we are batting about .000 since Kosar, so it is about time that the odds turned in our favor.
Let me make a certain matter clear....I am by NO means opposed to trying to get a franchise QB with our #4 pick.
The Browns have tried the way of the lower first round to take QBs.....and that has fizzled badly.....see Quinn/Weeden.
We have tried the 3rd round method. No soap. See Frye/McCoy.
We have tried the "old winning veteran" approach. Dilfer/Garcia/Delhomme/Campbell....crapola.
We have tried the trade route or pick up a young free agent: Anderson/Holcomb.....a few flashes at most there.
So, OK, lets go back to the thing we only tried once in 30 years (Couch, since Kosar)......get a QB very high in the draft and hope he is the Coca Cola of QBs, i.e. The Real Thing.
It is worth another shot. It may be 50/50 at best.....but we are batting about .000 since Kosar, so it is about time that the odds turned in our favor.
Yep, nothing has worked. our top 2 QBs in my (and most Browns fans') generation were Sipe (13th round), Kosar (supplemental pick). With our combination of stupid decisions, bad luck, etc., I would just stand pat and pick the top players the staff has rated on draft day(s).
I'd take Watkins at 4, a MLB at 26, and Garrappolo at 35.
-
Of the 10 guys he points out, I'd take 7 of them.
Pluto is an idiot if he is saying only guys to win a SB are good QBs.
I'd take Andrew Luck in a heartbeat.
-
Of the 10 guys he points out, I'd take 7 of them.
Pluto is an idiot if he is saying only guys to win a SB are good QBs.
I'd take Andrew Luck in a heartbeat.
I think the point is more about you don't need an Andrew luck or top 10 QB to go to or win a super bowl. A lot of teams with top 10 QBs haven't had so much SB luck.Of the 10 guys he points out, I'd take 7 of them.
Pluto is an idiot if he is saying only guys to win a SB are good QBs.
I'd take Andrew Luck in a heartbeat.
Andrew Luck is quite possibly a whole different story than the Stafford/Bradford/Flacco first round QBs. Andrew Luck impacts his team in a much bigger way than the others.
Of the guys he pointed out though, I'd probably take Luck/Newton/Ryan/Stafford/Bradford over what we have now. But you take Stafford/Bradford/Ryan (I only really ljke Ryan from these 3) or the other guys and their impact isn't enough to make us playoff worthy anyway.
-
Formerly Sane said:
The odds don't turn just because you want them to. The odds will turn when the Browns organization turns them, and that will take some serious doing given the current status of the organization. As you pointed out, nothing has worked! Because they have tried multiple flavors of whipped cream on the turd......they gotta get rid of the turd first.
They have gotten rid of all the turds....sometimes many times over. Including a couple of turd owners: Modell/Randy.
And turd GMs: Clark/Savage/Davis/Heckert/Lombardi etc
And turd coaches: Palmer/Davis/Crennel/Mangini/Shurmur/Chud etc.
This team has acted like Romans at a vomitorium. They keep eating and puking and shitting every thing they have.
So, just which turd are you talking about?
-
Formerly Sane said:
Yes, they have gotten rid of everybody many times over....and that is part of the problem; successful NFL franchises don't do it that way. They need a flush of everything from the owner down to the ball-boy and they need an owner who is willing to build something successful in-spite of the city where it will exist. Time will tell if this is the guy.....I don't see it.
A billion dollars says he is the guy we will have to stick with.....unless he gets suspended. (but even then we would still have his family)
-
...
I still fail to see how not addressing an organizational hole is somehow considered BETTER than making an attempt to fix it. I don't see the Browns taking a RB with the 4th overall, so what exactly is the point of this pondering? Would we rather see Sammy Watkins taken in that spot and Fales (as an example) with a second rounder?
-
Can I get a fuckin' aye?
WSS
Can I get a fuckin' aye?
WSS
AYE! (can't believe no one else Ayed...)
Okay this is kind of off topic...
As you may have figured by now... it's better to start your own thread than expect replies to your self-acknowledged derail.
It's a worthwhile convo... just no place for it here.
There's correlation, I guess. But no causation. Poor reporting, Grossi.
Good way of putting it...
With his examples so heavily skewed to the last three drafts, his attempt to preempt any criticism with "Granted, some have just entered the league in the last few years," showed that even he understood how thin his case was.
-
The fallacy of this whole debate is using the Super Bowl wins as the measure of success. No single player is responsible for winning Super Bowls. The value of a QB should be found in measuring wins and losses before and after the player is selected.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
Formerly Sane said:
But the question is...
1. Are you and all the other radical Browns fans willing to be patient, or do you expect results this year just because worst to first has happened before?
It doesn't matter what we want. We just want wins. The only person whose patience is warranted is the owner...as he makes the ultimate decisions.
We can express what we would like, but it is totally irrelevent to what happens.
2. Are you and all the other radical Browns fans willing to admit that the Browns have sucked because the Browns have sucked, not because the other teams cheat, not because the refs hate the Browns, not because the NFL is against the Browns, blah, blah, blah.
I don't know....how about "all of the above"?
3. Are you and all the other radical Browns fans willing to admit that good players, coaches, and management are not going to come here of their own free will until the Browns earn that consideration, (which is not easy with the city of Cleveland hanging around the Browns neck like an albatross) or are you going to continue to expect Bill Cowher and top named free agents to come in and rescue the Browns from themselves?
Yes, I admit that winning starts with good players/coaches/management, what other way is there? Oh, yea...it is ONLY fucking idiot Steeler fans that think fans have anything to do with winning......and I don't care how those good players/coaches/managers get here.....it can be big names like Cowher, it can be free agents, it can be draft choices. It can be complete unknowns. Everyone was a complete unknown once. The choices of Noll and Cowher were second guessed because they were both fairly unknown quantities at the time. Same with Mike Tomlin.
-
The fallacy of this whole debate is using the Super Bowl wins as the measure of success. No single player is responsible for winning Super Bowls. The value of a QB should be found in measuring wins and losses before and after the player is selected.
I dont even think thats fair. Its his stats and the 'ol reliable eyeball test.The fallacy of this whole debate is using the Super Bowl wins as the measure of success. No single player is responsible for winning Super Bowls. The value of a QB should be found in measuring wins and losses before and after the player is selected.
-
Formerly Sane said:
2. Are you and all the other radical Browns fans willing to admit that the Browns have sucked because the Browns have sucked, not because the other teams cheat, not because the refs hate the Browns, not because the NFL is against the Browns, blah, blah, blah.
Karlis Missed, I was there. ..and yes, the refs hate the Browns. But you are indeed correct that we've sucked mostly on our own with bonehead front office moves and crappy play on the field.
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