QB is the TOP Pick. What Happens if the Hoyer Experiment Fails?
-
It's very simple... If they like a QB, they draft him at #4. It could be any of the 4 QBs. We have so many damn picks and this is such a deep draft, why not use our pick on a QB? Sure, we'd be missing out on guys like Mack, Clowney, Watkins, and the top OTs, but we don't need #1s at any of those positions... we already have them.
So, to all you QB-haters, I already feel bad for you b/c we're using that 1st pick on a QB... We'll still be able to get a great WR2, a good ILB and RB, and probably even a CB2 somewhere else in the draft, so calm down. I just hope whichever QB they pick, he gets a chance to sit behind Hoyer until he's ready...
It's very simple... If they like a QB, they draft him at #4. It could be any of the 4 QBs. We have so many damn picks and this is such a deep draft, why not use our pick on a QB? Sure, we'd be missing out on guys like Mack, Clowney, Watkins, and the top OTs, but we don't need #1s at any of those positions... we already have them.
So, to all you QB-haters, I already feel bad for you b/c we're using that 1st pick on a QB... We'll still be able to get a great WR2, a good ILB and RB, and probably even a CB2 somewhere else in the draft, so calm down. I just hope whichever QB they pick, he gets a chance to sit behind Hoyer until he's ready...
Care to place a wager on that scenario? I see it as very simple too. We are not taking a QB at #4. We may not even take one at #26 but it is possible at that slot.
-
^ Thanks, h.... saved me the time...
The hell with next year. Last year everyone thought this was the year of the QB in the draft. There's starting NFL quarterbacks in this draft, and we have the picks now to get one.
"Starting" is not the bar I am looking to clear. We already have a starter IMO.
I get this. Thing is, everyone who is saying that we should wait until next year to draft a QB is unintentionally hoping that the team is BAD enough to get another high pick in the first round in order get their man at that point.
And the problem with grabbing a QB in the later rounds this season, is that it's a waste of a pick. We don't have a franchise guy now and looking to the future to replace him. We have Hoyer, who at best will serve as a decent stop-gap for a year or two. We take a flyer on a guy and cross fingers that he's the future franchise player, we're going to end up in a cycle of perpetually looking for that guy.
As mik already has pointed out, not saying that at all... unintentionally or otherwise.
Crossed-fingers is your plan? Holy shit!
Crossed-fingers is your plan? Holy shit!
Nope. That's the plan I'm criticizing. A later-round QB pick is a waste of a pick.
-
So basically, you don't think we have a shot of improving next season at all? Is that where others are coming from too?
Not sure where you made that connection? Are you just trying to make it for into you're argument against not picking a QB at 4?
I definitely think we could be better, we could also be a wash and break about where we did this year. There are a lot of holes that need filled.
To the point you've been making through the thread. I think taking a QB at 4 -IS- taking a flyer, not drafting Watkins/Mack. This year there are no 'sure things' at QB but there are at OT, WR, LB. Bortles. Manziel and Bridge could suck balls like Weeden did and McCarron and Garropollo could become studs like Flacco and Wilson.
I don't think drafting Watkins is taking a flyer nor is drafting Mack, drafting 1 of the 3 QBs is taking a flyer. It's a decision F&P might make but I still think it's a flyer.
I want them to draft Watkins instead of a QB because I think they could be really good next year and the immediate future. If I wanted them to draft a QB it would be because I don't think they will be much for the next year or two and they can throw those to grooming a rookie QB.
Hope that cleared things up.
Not sure where you made that connection? Are you just trying to make it for into you're argument against not picking a QB at 4?
I definitely think we could be better, we could also be a wash and break about where we did this year. There are a lot of holes that need filled.
To the point you've been making through the thread. I think taking a QB at 4 -IS- taking a flyer, not drafting Watkins/Mack. This year there are no 'sure things' at QB but there are at OT, WR, LB. Bortles. Manziel and Bridge could suck balls like Weeden did and McCarron and Garropollo could become studs like Flacco and Wilson.
I don't think drafting Watkins is taking a flyer nor is drafting Mack, drafting 1 of the 3 QBs is taking a flyer. It's a decision F&P might make but I still think it's a flyer.
I want them to draft Watkins instead of a QB because I think they could be really good next year and the immediate future. If I wanted them to draft a QB it would be because I don't think they will be much for the next year or two and they can throw those to grooming a rookie QB.
Hope that cleared things up.
And fair point. I would ask what your plan would be for getting that player at that position?
I can see this argument from both sides. I don't think there's a QB of the quality of a Manning in this draft. But I DO think that someone like Bortles COULD be an adequate starter for some time, provided the other pieces are in place. An asset, not a detriment... And could end our search for a QB for now. Not the BPA... But if the team does what I hope it does, the Browns won't be in a position to grab that guy in the future anyway, unless they're lucky with a future late-round selection.
I'm also coming from the perspective of not believing that Hoyer is that player.
-
Not sure where you made that connection? Are you just trying to make it for into you're argument against not picking a QB at 4?
I definitely think we could be better, we could also be a wash and break about where we did this year. There are a lot of holes that need filled.
To the point you've been making through the thread. I think taking a QB at 4 -IS- taking a flyer, not drafting Watkins/Mack. This year there are no 'sure things' at QB but there are at OT, WR, LB. Bortles. Manziel and Bridge could suck balls like Weeden did and McCarron and Garropollo could become studs like Flacco and Wilson.
I don't think drafting Watkins is taking a flyer nor is drafting Mack, drafting 1 of the 3 QBs is taking a flyer. It's a decision F&P might make but I still think it's a flyer.
I want them to draft Watkins instead of a QB because I think they could be really good next year and the immediate future. If I wanted them to draft a QB it would be because I don't think they will be much for the next year or two and they can throw those to grooming a rookie QB.
Hope that cleared things up.
And fair point. I would ask what your plan would be for getting that player at that position?
I can see this argument from both sides. I don't think there's a QB of the quality of a Manning in this draft. But I DO think that someone like Bortles COULD be an adequate starter for some time, provided the other pieces are in place. An asset, not a detriment... And could end our search for a QB for now. Not the BPA... But if the team does what I hope it does, the Browns won't be in a position to grab that guy in the future anyway, unless they're lucky with a future late-round selection.
I'm also coming from the perspective of not believing that Hoyer is that player.
I like Bortles, I don't expect him to get past the jags though.And fair point. I would ask what your plan would be for getting that player at that position?
I can see this argument from both sides. I don't think there's a QB of the quality of a Manning in this draft. But I DO think that someone like Bortles COULD be an adequate starter for some time, provided the other pieces are in place. An asset, not a detriment... And could end our search for a QB for now. Not the BPA... But if the team does what I hope it does, the Browns won't be in a position to grab that guy in the future anyway, unless they're lucky with a future late-round selection.
I'm also coming from the perspective of not believing that Hoyer is that player.
The others though like manziel and teddy probably aren't much better than a guy like garrapolo or Murray in the 2nd. We might even go for like a tajh boyd in the 4th or 5th.
I hope Hoyer can be the guy though, I'm pulling for him anyway.
-
bb... agree on Bortles and all, but remember... Avoid the Boyd!
Nope. That's the plan I'm criticizing. A later-round QB pick is a waste of a pick.
Want me to list the "wasted late picks" either in or on their way to the HOF?
There are QBs throughout the 2014 draft that have a chance to be quality starters in the NFL. Thing is if all you get with a top ten pick is a quality starter, then you have failed.
Do some work on this year's QB crop and maybe you'll quit making ridiculous statements.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
bb... agree on Bortles and all, but remember... Avoid the Boyd!
Nope. That's the plan I'm criticizing. A later-round QB pick is a waste of a pick.
Want me to list the "wasted late picks" either in or on their way to the HOF?
There are QBs throughout the 2014 draft that have a chance to be quality starters in the NFL. Thing is if all you get with a top ten pick is a quality starter, then you have failed.
Do some work on this year's QB crop and maybe you'll quit making ridiculous statements.
There are QBs throughout the 2014 draft that have a chance to be quality starters in the NFL. Thing is if all you get with a top ten pick is a quality starter, then you have failed.
I like this statement.
I actually prefer a QB not start as a rookie but, as a top 10 pick, they had better develop into an all pro type QB fairly early in their careers. The key is to have the right folks evaluating & selecting the right draftees in the right spots. I believe we have that now. I'll support THEIR choices, not ours (thank GOD! LOL).
Mike
-
What separates a quality starter from an all pro qb? I'll take a quality starter from the #4 pick. If the team plays good enough, the starting qb will be an all pro. It works hand in hand. I also prefer a qb to develop that first season, but that will be up to the health of the guy in front of him.
-
Mike H
Today, 01:56 PM
"None of us is as dumb as all of us. Think on it."
Truer words have never been spoken.
-
It's very simple... If they like a QB, they draft him at #4. It could be any of the 4 QBs. We have so many damn picks and this is such a deep draft, why not use our pick on a QB? Sure, we'd be missing out on guys like Mack, Clowney, Watkins, and the top OTs, but we don't need #1s at any of those positions... we already have them.
So, to all you QB-haters, I already feel bad for you b/c we're using that 1st pick on a QB... We'll still be able to get a great WR2, a good ILB and RB, and probably even a CB2 somewhere else in the draft, so calm down. I just hope whichever QB they pick, he gets a chance to sit behind Hoyer until he's ready...
-
@mike-h said:
None of us is as dumb as all of us. Think on it.
thought you were gone until May?
geez that was quick. little over an hour and a half.
betcha you lost every game of 'can't say a word until.........".
-
This draft doesn't really have the "elite" qbs that are worth a #4 pick. What it does have aarea bunch of sleeper QBs that may be elite. While its hard to find that Russell Wilson or tom Brady, I rather take my chances later in the draft on one of these guys than waste a top pick on a qb who isn't worth the pick.
BPA! Load the draft. Pick up mccarron, mettwnberger, Murray or whoever later.
This draft doesn't really have the "elite" qbs that are worth a #4 pick. What it does have aarea bunch of sleeper QBs that may be elite. While its hard to find that Russell Wilson or tom Brady, I rather take my chances later in the draft on one of these guys than waste a top pick on a qb who isn't worth the pick.
BPA! Load the draft. Pick up mccarron, mettwnberger, Murray or whoever later.
I like that Mettwurstburger. Gotta go out and get one.
It's very simple... If they like a QB, they draft him at #4. It could be any of the 4 QBs. We have so many damn picks and this is such a deep draft, why not use our pick on a QB? Sure, we'd be missing out on guys like Mack, Clowney, Watkins, and the top OTs, but we don't need #1s at any of those positions... we already have them.
So, to all you QB-haters, I already feel bad for you b/c we're using that 1st pick on a QB... We'll still be able to get a great WR2, a good ILB and RB, and probably even a CB2 somewhere else in the draft, so calm down. I just hope whichever QB they pick, he gets a chance to sit behind Hoyer until he's ready...
So you're into wasting the #4 overall pick on potentially inferior talent just becaue you have qb fixation? How does having two #1 wideouts (Watkins) on the same team sound? Sure let's pass on another potential Brian Urlacher (Mack) for Jimmy Clausen or Joey Harrington.
-
WR is a shiny hood ornament.
Jerry Rice was not the centerpiece of the offense, he completed it. The year before Jerry was drafted by SF, the leading receiver was Roger Craig.. but SF lost in the NFC title game that year. Rice opened up the offense, he was NOT the foundation of it.
You absolutely cannot draft WR high in round 1.. that has to be either QB or something else foundational.
I'm not seeing any foundational players for us --- We already have a great DL, we have an adequate crop of OLB [ and drafted Mingo in the same spot last year].
Yes we need more WR but a good-to-great QB is far more beneficial than a WR who touches the ball at most 6 times a game. Is Bortles the next Brees? Probably not, but he's good enough to take us to the AFC title game.
Cleveland's D is better than New England's even with Revis.
Cleveland's O is better than New England's.... except for one position. QB.
"When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
It's all a Matter if F&P feel there is a franchise QB at 4. If not ... you load up on talent, draft a mid-round rookie, sign a vet backup and move on.
Again ... not one of last year's "Final Four" got their QB by drafting him in the first round. Sometimes it can pay off when you lay off.
Grab the guy if you love him ... but please just don't make a panic pick.
Zombo
Zombo said:
It's all a Matter if F&P feel there is a franchise QB at 4. If not ... you load up on talent, draft a mid-round rookie, sign a vet backup and move on.
Again ... not one of last year's "Final Four" got their QB by drafting him in the first round. Sometimes it can pay off when you lay off.
Grab the guy if you love him ... but please just don't make a panic pick.
Zombo
This. 100% agree.
-
Johnny Football in da house
-
WR is a shiny hood ornament.
Jerry Rice was not the centerpiece of the offense, he completed it. The year before Jerry was drafted by SF, the leading receiver was Roger Craig.. but SF lost in the NFC title game that year. Rice opened up the offense, he was NOT the foundation of it.
You absolutely cannot draft WR high in round 1.. that has to be either QB or something else foundational.
I'm not seeing any foundational players for us --- We already have a great DL, we have an adequate crop of OLB [ and drafted Mingo in the same spot last year].
Yes we need more WR but a good-to-great QB is far more beneficial than a WR who touches the ball at most 6 times a game. Is Bortles the next Brees? Probably not, but he's good enough to take us to the AFC title game.
Cleveland's D is better than New England's even with Revis.
Cleveland's O is better than New England's.... except for one position. QB.
WR is a shiny hood ornament.
Jerry Rice was not the centerpiece of the offense, he completed it. The year before Jerry was drafted by SF, the leading receiver was Roger Craig.. but SF lost in the NFC title game that year. Rice opened up the offense, he was NOT the foundation of it.
You absolutely cannot draft WR high in round 1.. that has to be either QB or something else foundational.
I'm not seeing any foundational players for us --- We already have a great DL, we have an adequate crop of OLB [ and drafted Mingo in the same spot last year].
Yes we need more WR but a good-to-great QB is far more beneficial than a WR who touches the ball at most 6 times a game. Is Bortles the next Brees? Probably not, but he's good enough to take us to the AFC title game.
Cleveland's D is better than New England's even with Revis.
Cleveland's O is better than New England's.... except for one position. QB.
1) I'll beg to differ with you about Rice.
2) Sorry it can be the other way around too. AJ Green makes Andy Dalton look way better than he is. Opens things up for the other wideouts and TEs too. Once again, the qb huggers are throwing Hoyer under the bus- prematurely IMHO. And dammit, I'm not saying don't draft a qb- just proceed with extreme caution in this draft class.
3) You absolutely can draft a wr high- if he's an exceptional talent. Hate to tell you, more than one scout has Watkins as the best wr prospect since AJ Green- possibly better. Let me refresh your memory about wide receivers that got drafted in the top 6 over the last 10 years. Green, Julio Jones, Megatron, Larry Fitzgerald. Only busts? Butterfingers Braylon- who never should have been drafted in the top 10, and Blackmon, who may yet come around if he can stay off booze and drugs. That's a 66% success rate (maybe 80%) of drafting a stud- and it's damn better odds than taking a flyer on questionable QB talent.
4) I notice you didn't mention the glaring hole at ILB that is Crag Robertson either. Mack, Clowney or Watkins. There's your short list of sure-fire All-pros. Bortles is the surest of the qbs, but he won't be on the board unless the Browns stupidly do an RGIII sell the ranch deal to move up and get him. Incidentally, the Lions drafted Stafford after Megatron, the Steelers drafted Ben after everything else was in place- Gips had a stat that you don't necessarily have to draft your stud qb in the top 5.
-
WR is a shiny hood ornament.
Jerry Rice was not the centerpiece of the offense, he completed it. The year before Jerry was drafted by SF, the leading receiver was Roger Craig.. but SF lost in the NFC title game that year. Rice opened up the offense, he was NOT the foundation of it.
You absolutely cannot draft WR high in round 1.. that has to be either QB or something else foundational.
I'm not seeing any foundational players for us --- We already have a great DL, we have an adequate crop of OLB [ and drafted Mingo in the same spot last year].
Yes we need more WR but a good-to-great QB is far more beneficial than a WR who touches the ball at most 6 times a game. Is Bortles the next Brees? Probably not, but he's good enough to take us to the AFC title game.
Cleveland's D is better than New England's even with Revis.
Cleveland's O is better than New England's.... except for one position. QB.
1) I'll beg to differ with you about Rice.
2) Sorry it can be the other way around too. AJ Green makes Andy Dalton look way better than he is. Opens things up for the other wideouts and TEs too. Once again, the qb huggers are throwing Hoyer under the bus- prematurely IMHO. And dammit, I'm not saying don't draft a qb- just proceed with extreme caution in this draft class.
3) You absolutely can draft a wr high- if he's an exceptional talent. Hate to tell you, more than one scout has Watkins as the best wr prospect since AJ Green- possibly better. Let me refresh your memory about wide receivers that got drafted in the top 6 over the last 10 years. Green, Julio Jones, Megatron, Larry Fitzgerald. Only busts? Butterfingers Braylon- who never should have been drafted in the top 10, and Blackmon, who may yet come around if he can stay off booze and drugs. That's a 66% success rate (maybe 80%) of drafting a stud- and it's damn better odds than taking a flyer on questionable QB talent.
4) I notice you didn't mention the glaring hole at ILB that is Crag Robertson either. Mack, Clowney or Watkins. There's your short list of sure-fire All-pros. Bortles is the surest of the qbs, but he won't be on the board unless the Browns stupidly do an RGIII sell the ranch deal to move up and get him. Incidentally, the Lions drafted Stafford after Megatron, the Steelers drafted Ben after everything else was in place- Gips had a stat that you don't necessarily have to draft your stud qb in the top 5.
1) I'll beg to differ with you about Rice.
2) Sorry it can be the other way around too. AJ Green makes Andy Dalton look way better than he is. Opens things up for the other wideouts and TEs too. Once again, the qb huggers are throwing Hoyer under the bus- prematurely IMHO. And dammit, I'm not saying don't draft a qb- just proceed with extreme caution in this draft class.
3) You absolutely can draft a wr high- if he's an exceptional talent. Hate to tell you, more than one scout has Watkins as the best wr prospect since AJ Green- possibly better. Let me refresh your memory about wide receivers that got drafted in the top 6 over the last 10 years. Green, Julio Jones, Megatron, Larry Fitzgerald. Only busts? Butterfingers Braylon- who never should have been drafted in the top 10, and Blackmon, who may yet come around if he can stay off booze and drugs. That's a 66% success rate (maybe 80%) of drafting a stud- and it's damn better odds than taking a flyer on questionable QB talent.
4) I notice you didn't mention the glaring hole at ILB that is Crag Robertson either. Mack, Clowney or Watkins. There's your short list of sure-fire All-pros. Bortles is the surest of the qbs, but he won't be on the board unless the Browns stupidly do an RGIII sell the ranch deal to move up and get him. Incidentally, the Lions drafted Stafford after Megatron, the Steelers drafted Ben after everything else was in place- Gips had a stat that you don't necessarily have to draft your stud qb in the top 5.
I like the above, other than I question Clowney's work/performance ethic & I'm still not sold on Bortles. Mack or Watkins are the ONLY players in this draft I would be totally comfortable without question at 4, & I still think the safest QB picks are McCarron & Garoppolo a little further down in the draft. Those are just my opinions & the REAL experts will surely differ. I defer to their better judgement, whatever that may be. Who knows? They may trade #4 for a #1 next year along with another lower #1 or #2 this year, or ??? Guess we'll see in May, hunh?
Mike
-
I would love JF in Cleveland we need some SWAG, but i am convinced we will take Sammy if he is still on the board.
-
This draft doesn't really have the "elite" qbs that are worth a #4 pick. What it does have aarea bunch of sleeper QBs that may be elite. While its hard to find that Russell Wilson or tom Brady, I rather take my chances later in the draft on one of these guys than waste a top pick on a qb who isn't worth the pick.
BPA! Load the draft. Pick up mccarron, mettwnberger, Murray or whoever later.
I like that Mettwurstburger. Gotta go out and get one.
It's very simple... If they like a QB, they draft him at #4. It could be any of the 4 QBs. We have so many damn picks and this is such a deep draft, why not use our pick on a QB? Sure, we'd be missing out on guys like Mack, Clowney, Watkins, and the top OTs, but we don't need #1s at any of those positions... we already have them.
So, to all you QB-haters, I already feel bad for you b/c we're using that 1st pick on a QB... We'll still be able to get a great WR2, a good ILB and RB, and probably even a CB2 somewhere else in the draft, so calm down. I just hope whichever QB they pick, he gets a chance to sit behind Hoyer until he's ready...
So you're into wasting the #4 overall pick on potentially inferior talent just becaue you have qb fixation? How does having two #1 wideouts (Watkins) on the same team sound? Sure let's pass on another potential Brian Urlacher (Mack) for Jimmy Clausen or Joey Harrington.
So you're into wasting the #4 overall pick on potentially inferior talent just becaue you have qb fixation? How does having two #1 wideouts (Watkins) on the same team sound? Sure let's pass on another potential Brian Urlacher (Mack) for Jimmy Clausen or Joey Harrington.
put your money where your mouth is.
i'm bettin we don't.
don't feel sorry for me when you're sending me a six of suds, that is of course, if you've got the balls.
I'm not doing the drafting, and I'm not fixated on QB, but I won't be surprised when we draft one. And Hoorta... how the hell can you compare Mack to Urlacher... Mack has never once played ILB, which is the position everybody wants him at. Makes no sense.
Sure, you want Watkins?? He's the next Charles Rogers. How about Matthews?? He's the next Robert Gallery. Quit acting like you or me are doing the drafting... I don't know where Farmer ranks these guys, but you bet if he sees a QB as a potential franchise guy, he's drafting him... plain and simple
#Justsayin' -
We need to take this draft for what it is. A bountiful one full of talented players, but unfortunately not at the QB position. Draft best player available, rounds 1 through 3; then look for your QB and add depth. If Hoyer pans out, we are in good shape. If he doesn't, pull a Ditka next year and package all of our picks for #1 and get Mariota. That is, unless we are soooo bad, we get in the top 5 again next year.
-
So you're into wasting the #4 overall pick on potentially inferior talent just becaue you have qb fixation? How does having two #1 wideouts (Watkins) on the same team sound? Sure let's pass on another potential Brian Urlacher (Mack) for Jimmy Clausen or Joey Harrington.
put your money where your mouth is.
i'm bettin we don't.
don't feel sorry for me when you're sending me a six of suds, that is of course, if you've got the balls.
I'm not doing the drafting, and I'm not fixated on QB, but I won't be surprised when we draft one. And Hoorta... how the hell can you compare Mack to Urlacher... Mack has never once played ILB, which is the position everybody wants him at. Makes no sense.
Sure, you want Watkins?? He's the next Charles Rogers. How about Matthews?? He's the next Robert Gallery. Quit acting like you or me are doing the drafting... I don't know where Farmer ranks these guys, but you bet if he sees a QB as a potential franchise guy, he's drafting him... plain and simple
I'm not doing the drafting, and I'm not fixated on QB, but I won't be surprised when we draft one. And Hoorta... how the hell can you compare Mack to Urlacher... Mack has never once played ILB, which is the position everybody wants him at. Makes no sense.
~exactly, were drafting a QB....but where? Urlacher was a Safety in college.~
Sure, you want Watkins?? He's the next Charles Rogers. How about Matthews?? He's the next Robert Gallery. Quit acting like you or me are doing the drafting... I don't know where Farmer ranks these guys, but you bet if he sees a QB as a potential franchise guy, he's drafting him... plain and simple
~Everyone wants to act like they know more than the rest this time of year, and they were probably right, lets hope this year is different.~
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