Rumor: Browns interested in trading up for Mariota
-
Well...I'm for Winston. But don't let facts get in the way of your well-reasoned argument.Even IF that strategy is correct - and I don't think it is: Washington is fucked for 5 years because they did exactly what you promote -
MARIOTA SUCKS.
The unproven assertion within every post on this thread is that Mariota is some kind of Brady, Luck, or Wilson - and frankly he is not. Mariota wouldn't beat Manziel in a battle this offseason. He simply is not accurate.
But keep ignoring reality because your agenda is "Fuck everything, throw the entire draft away to own a replacement-level QB!"
That is RISKY. And the only way it's worthwhile is twofold: One, does the reward match the actual risk.. and two, is the % chance that the reward will pay off greater than 50%?
Frankly, the chance that Mariota is a savior is 5% AT BEST.
The risk is that the D departures mean the D sucks even more in 2015 than 2014, the QB depth chart includes 2 guys who would lose to Billy Volek, the OL still has to start Turnstile Schwartz, we still have no WR, and we have only blocking TE's.
That's the future if the Browns employ your strategy. And the ONLY defense of that move is the unproven assertion that Mariota equals savior. You have ZERO PROOF that will actually materialize... just bizarre platitudes about "taking a shot."
How many super bowls did Ricky Williams win the Saints? How did that Herschel Walker trade work out for Minnesota? How's RG3 doing?
Show the number of times the Steelers have mortgaged their future for one player.
Show the number of times the Ravens have mortgaged their future for one player.
Why do you think the consistently great teams DO NOT do this?
The point isn't mortgaging your future, it's doing what you can to take the guy you have rated as the best rather than waiting for a second-level someone to fall and then trading up to get them.
Consistently great teams don't draft quarterbacks at #1 because they are consistently not picking at #1...because consistently great teams have the luxury of waiting and scouting QB's over a period while their current QB continues to win games. Then they can take the guy they have at the top of their board rather than take shots in the dark on random guys just because the "value" is there.
Cleveland admitted that Manziel wasn't on top of their board. Weeden obviously wasn't the top of their board, seeing as Luck and RG3 were in that same draft. So why take them? And, more importantly...why move up?
If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because.
We can't all "luck" into a terrible year right after we lose a HOFer, only to get the #1 pick the same year there's a future HOFer available.
The Steelers didn't have to mortgage their future for Bradshaw because they were garbage and got him first overall - he then led them to four Super Bowls. They didn't have to mortgage their future for Roethlisberger because he was available at 11, and they had him rated higher than Rivers and almost even with Manning (according to some articles, which I'm not sure I entirely believe).
The Ravens didn't have to mortgage their future for Flacco because he, too, was available in the middle of the first due to the same reason as Roehtlisberger.
The Ravens brass liked Flacco more than Ryan, even though Ravens owner Steve Biscotti said "I told them there is nothing worse for an owner or for them to be managing a business without a franchise quarterback. I don't care what we have to pay for him to trade up. We're getting Matt Ryan."
So...you're right. They didn't have to mortgage their future. They just had their top rated guy fall into their lap in the middle of the first.
How many snaps did Ricky Williams play at QB? How about Herschel Walker? I fail to see the comparison. What's happening to RG3 is the same thing that happened to Couch. Mismanagement, poor coaching and terrible offensive line play are pushing him out of the door. He won't last another 4 years if they keep playing him his way.
I hope that my lack of all caps doesn't take away from my point.
You take your highest rated guy no matter what. If you have to mortgage your future, sack up and do it. Stop trying to value your way into a franchise QB.
Well...I'm for Winston. But don't let facts get in the way of your well-reasoned argument.
The Ravens didn't have to mortgage their future for Flacco because he, too, was available in the middle of the first due to the same reason as Roehtlisberger.
The Ravens brass liked Flacco more than Ryan, even though Ravens owner Steve Biscotti said "I told them there is nothing worse for an owner or for them to be managing a business without a franchise quarterback. I don't care what we have to pay for him to trade up. We're getting Matt Ryan."
I hope that my lack of all caps doesn't take away from my point.
You take your highest rated guy no matter what. If you have to mortgage your future, sack up and do it. Stop trying to value your way into a franchise QB.
UM that's exactly what teams like the Ravens and Steelers did. Value their way into a franchise quarterback. So did the Seahawks. Ditto the 49ers with Montana. No one plans for a Brady or Romo- but I'd rather be lucky than good- anytime.
For a team devoid of a QB, you have to place your emphasis on that position. If there's not a guy at that position rated as your #1 overall priority, then he's not your franchise guy. If he's the guy you think can turn your franchise around, you don't pass on him at #4, then again at #8.
However, if there is a guy like that, you do literally anything and everything to get him. Holmgren offered our entire draft to get Luck. They said no. I would have offered two whole drafts. I would have gladly forsaken Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, Mingo, Winn, Benjamin and all of the rest for Luck.
The Browns havent taken a quarterback to be the absolute, irrevocable, undeniable franchise guy since Couch. Not once. They've taken guys based on value and hope, which is what you don't do. You don't plan on having a Rodgers fall to you. You don't plan on finding a Wilson. You don't plan on finding a Brady.
Great- I happen to like Winston as a quarterback. I don't like him at the cost of three first round picks (minimum).
So how many absolute can't miss franchise guys have there been since Couch? Andrew Luck and? Damn few. Before that it was Elway. Sorry RG III was not, and it's out there for everyone to see selling the ranch on a bust sets your franchise back around 5 years. So blame the Browns scouting then for massive screw ups for passing on Rothlisberger and Rodgers.
I won't reiterate my list of players Cleveland passed on that are going to wind up in the HOF, or were (are) multi-time Pro Bowlers since 1999- that's where the Browns have screwed up.
-
In terms of the QB situation I suspect that will be answered well before the draft through FA. To jump and sell the farm for one of those two is a huge risk. Build that line with depth in front of Hoyer and he will at least get us some winning seasons going. If not him then take a chance on someone else in FA or eat it this year and take the best QB next year. I still have not given up on JM. Remember he also played with Mack on the sideline and got no help from the D that game. He has taken the one step I felt was absolutely crucial to having any chance to be the NFL QB he wants to be. I'd give him a season to prove it is working (not necessarily as starter-just showing he is learning and playing well in clean up time and practice while staying sober) . If not then go for the highest guy next year who would then have a great team built around him.
To jump and sell the farm for one of those two (QBs) is a huge risk.
Only "a huge risk" if you are not 100% convinced that neither is the one. But if you are, when you are, then you have to "sell the farm". To not do so is worse than risky; it's just stupid.
The problem is that this year most of us do not see convincing evidence in at least one of the two top guys. And, fair or not, the accumulative judgment of Browns' FOs when it comes to QBs, draftees or FAs, is not exactly comforting. While we can tell ourselves this is a new FO and the history is irrelevant, this FO's first swing looks no better than its predecessors'...
Quinn, Weeden, Manziel...value picks. Bad picks? Sure. But value-based nonetheless. The Browns haven't mortgaged their future and moved up to take the top rated QB once in the modern era.
The Browns have tried to shop for value and gotten fucked numerous times. Stop being pussies and trying to backdoor your way into the playoffs. Get a quarterback who can compete. You don't plan for a Wilson or a Brady.
As their #1 QB, but not their #1 guy.
For a team devoid of a QB, you have to place your emphasis on that position. If there's not a guy at that position rated as your #1 overall priority, then he's not your franchise guy. If he's the guy you think can turn your franchise around, you don't pass on him at #4, then again at #8.
And, the point I was trying to make, you certainly don't trade back up to get him at #22.
However, if there is a guy like that, you do literally anything and everything to get him. Holmgren offered our entire draft to get Luck. They said no. I would have offered two whole drafts. I would have gladly forsaken Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, Mingo, Winn, Benjamin and all of the rest for Luck.
Manziel wasn't the guy they took with the belief he could turn around the franchise. He was the guy they took because of the value and the hope that he could.
The Browns havent taken a quarterback to be the absolute, irrevocable, undeniable franchise guy since Couch. Not once. They've taken guys based on value and hope, which is what you don't do. You don't plan on having a Rodgers fall to you. You don't plan on finding a Wilson. You don't plan on finding a Brady.
First, Wheezy was a panic pick by an FO "on-the-clock", so he is in a class by himself. He was that tall, strong-armed AFCN prototypical QB. But, yes, it is the accumulation of swings, even if some are swinging bunts, that make things seem worse... bring out frustration... cloud judgment... and make folks think things like "stop being pussies."
Second, I think you have to plan to have shots at a Brady or Wilson by spending a pick on a QB every year if need be. The Pats under BB have picked the following QBs:
2000-Brady(6b); 2002-Rohan Davy(4a); 2003-Kliff Kingsbury(6); 2005-Matt Cassell(7a); 2008-Kevin O'Connell(3b); 2010-Zac Robinson(7d); and 2014-Jimmy Garoppolo(2)
Basically one pick invested in a QB search, every other year with few swings, one home run, one double(?) and a TBD, but a lot of misses. And their QB picks were all over the draft. Some were even "reaches", but they were reaches with picks they already had in their usually, very full pockets (pickpockets?).
The other thing the Pats have had a lot of... picks. In 15 years the Pats have made 7 or fewer picks only 4 times (in 2002 they had only 6 picks). By contrast in the same period we have had 7 or fewer six times, including 5 twice and 6 twice. Both the fives followed rushes to 22 from round two to nab our next great QB. At least we appear to be headed in the right direction here with our six-pick 2014 essentially by choice.
You know teams rank players either individually or, more often, in groups pre-draft. So sooner or later your top ranked QB is going to be the top player on your board. Then when your pick comes, you take that QB. The problem I think our FO has had is twofold;
- that QB has moved to #1 immediately after we spend our #1 and then stayed on the board until it was possible to "go get him"; and
- the "intel" concerning other teams' eagerness to take our targeted players has been predominantly flawed.
Exhibit A of the latter is the one-position trade up for Trent Richardson. Since reports were that Baltimore was trying to make a deal with Dallas so they could draft Quinn at the same time we were, that may be the one exception.
Just because something can be done does not mean you should do it... but they weren't pussies...
"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 -
Well...I'm for Winston. But don't let facts get in the way of your well-reasoned argument.
The Ravens didn't have to mortgage their future for Flacco because he, too, was available in the middle of the first due to the same reason as Roehtlisberger.
The Ravens brass liked Flacco more than Ryan, even though Ravens owner Steve Biscotti said "I told them there is nothing worse for an owner or for them to be managing a business without a franchise quarterback. I don't care what we have to pay for him to trade up. We're getting Matt Ryan."
I hope that my lack of all caps doesn't take away from my point.
You take your highest rated guy no matter what. If you have to mortgage your future, sack up and do it. Stop trying to value your way into a franchise QB.
UM that's exactly what teams like the Ravens and Steelers did. Value their way into a franchise quarterback. So did the Seahawks. Ditto the 49ers with Montana. No one plans for a Brady or Romo- but I'd rather be lucky than good- anytime.
For a team devoid of a QB, you have to place your emphasis on that position. If there's not a guy at that position rated as your #1 overall priority, then he's not your franchise guy. If he's the guy you think can turn your franchise around, you don't pass on him at #4, then again at #8.
However, if there is a guy like that, you do literally anything and everything to get him. Holmgren offered our entire draft to get Luck. They said no. I would have offered two whole drafts. I would have gladly forsaken Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, Mingo, Winn, Benjamin and all of the rest for Luck.
The Browns havent taken a quarterback to be the absolute, irrevocable, undeniable franchise guy since Couch. Not once. They've taken guys based on value and hope, which is what you don't do. You don't plan on having a Rodgers fall to you. You don't plan on finding a Wilson. You don't plan on finding a Brady.
Great- I happen to like Winston as a quarterback. I don't like him at the cost of three first round picks (minimum).
So how many absolute can't miss franchise guys have there been since Couch? Andrew Luck and? Damn few. Before that it was Elway. Sorry RG III was not, and it's out there for everyone to see selling the ranch on a bust sets your franchise back around 5 years. So blame the Browns scouting then for massive screw ups for passing on Rothlisberger and Rodgers.
I won't reiterate my list of players Cleveland passed on that are going to wind up in the HOF, or were (are) multi-time Pro Bowlers since 1999- that's where the Browns have screwed up.
UM that's exactly what teams like the Ravens and Steelers did. Value their way into a franchise quarterback. So did the Seahawks. Ditto the 49ers with Montana. No one plans for a Brady or Romo- but I'd rather be lucky than good- anytime.
So how many absolute can't miss franchise guys have there been since Couch? Andrew Luck and? Damn few. Before that it was Elway.
Agree... I think it gets lost that most of today's franchise QBs were not universally loved, #1-overall locks, but simply very good prospects that panned out.
-
I don't know who the Browns have graded higher, but the common themes in the our division are tall, strong quarterbacks who can sling the ball and take a hit (excluding Dalton, who has yet to win in the postseason).
I don't think Mariota fits that mold. I do think Winston does. I also think Cardale Jones does. For me, it's either go up and get Winston or stand pat with Manziel for a year and go for Cardale Jones next year.
What I don't want to see is us decide Winston is the guy, but that we can't get him, so then we pass on a QB at 12 because we've settled on not taking anyone, but then trade back up to get Mariota at 16 just because.
I don't think Mariota fits that mold. I do think Winston does. I also think Cardale Jones does. For me, it's either go up and get Winston or stand pat with Manziel for a year and go for Cardale Jones next year.
well this is exactly what i'd do. let's get the lines squared away, get some weapons for whoever is going to take the reigns this year and see how the team gels and grows from last year to this. who knows what will happen? god forbid another injury riddled season and we have to start looking at position players we thought were set with for a decade.
make the sundae, break out the whip cream this year and next year add the cheery on the top (with sprinkles).
-
To jump and sell the farm for one of those two (QBs) is a huge risk.
Only "a huge risk" if you are not 100% convinced that neither is the one. But if you are, when you are, then you have to "sell the farm". To not do so is worse than risky; it's just stupid.
The problem is that this year most of us do not see convincing evidence in at least one of the two top guys. And, fair or not, the accumulative judgment of Browns' FOs when it comes to QBs, draftees or FAs, is not exactly comforting. While we can tell ourselves this is a new FO and the history is irrelevant, this FO's first swing looks no better than its predecessors'...
Quinn, Weeden, Manziel...value picks. Bad picks? Sure. But value-based nonetheless. The Browns haven't mortgaged their future and moved up to take the top rated QB once in the modern era.
The Browns have tried to shop for value and gotten fucked numerous times. Stop being pussies and trying to backdoor your way into the playoffs. Get a quarterback who can compete. You don't plan for a Wilson or a Brady.
As their #1 QB, but not their #1 guy.
For a team devoid of a QB, you have to place your emphasis on that position. If there's not a guy at that position rated as your #1 overall priority, then he's not your franchise guy. If he's the guy you think can turn your franchise around, you don't pass on him at #4, then again at #8.
And, the point I was trying to make, you certainly don't trade back up to get him at #22.
However, if there is a guy like that, you do literally anything and everything to get him. Holmgren offered our entire draft to get Luck. They said no. I would have offered two whole drafts. I would have gladly forsaken Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, Mingo, Winn, Benjamin and all of the rest for Luck.
Manziel wasn't the guy they took with the belief he could turn around the franchise. He was the guy they took because of the value and the hope that he could.
The Browns havent taken a quarterback to be the absolute, irrevocable, undeniable franchise guy since Couch. Not once. They've taken guys based on value and hope, which is what you don't do. You don't plan on having a Rodgers fall to you. You don't plan on finding a Wilson. You don't plan on finding a Brady.
First, Wheezy was a panic pick by an FO "on-the-clock", so he is in a class by himself. He was that tall, strong-armed AFCN prototypical QB. But, yes, it is the accumulation of swings, even if some are swinging bunts, that make things seem worse... bring out frustration... cloud judgment... and make folks think things like "stop being pussies."
Second, I think you have to plan to have shots at a Brady or Wilson by spending a pick on a QB every year if need be. The Pats under BB have picked the following QBs:
2000-Brady(6b); 2002-Rohan Davy(4a); 2003-Kliff Kingsbury(6); 2005-Matt Cassell(7a); 2008-Kevin O'Connell(3b); 2010-Zac Robinson(7d); and 2014-Jimmy Garoppolo(2)
Basically one pick invested in a QB search, every other year with few swings, one home run, one double(?) and a TBD, but a lot of misses. And their QB picks were all over the draft. Some were even "reaches", but they were reaches with picks they already had in their usually, very full pockets (pickpockets?).
The other thing the Pats have had a lot of... picks. In 15 years the Pats have made 7 or fewer picks only 4 times (in 2002 they had only 6 picks). By contrast in the same period we have had 7 or fewer six times, including 5 twice and 6 twice. Both the fives followed rushes to 22 from round two to nab our next great QB. At least we appear to be headed in the right direction here with our six-pick 2014 essentially by choice.
You know teams rank players either individually or, more often, in groups pre-draft. So sooner or later your top ranked QB is going to be the top player on your board. Then when your pick comes, you take that QB. The problem I think our FO has had is twofold;
- that QB has moved to #1 immediately after we spend our #1 and then stayed on the board until it was possible to "go get him"; and
- the "intel" concerning other teams' eagerness to take our targeted players has been predominantly flawed.
Exhibit A of the latter is the one-position trade up for Trent Richardson. Since reports were that Baltimore was trying to make a deal with Dallas so they could draft Quinn at the same time we were, that may be the one exception.
Just because something can be done does not mean you should do it... but they weren't pussies...
Only "a huge risk" if you are not 100% convinced that neither is the one. But if you are, when you are, then you have to "sell the farm". To not do so is worse than risky; it's just stupid.
The problem is that this year most of us do not see convincing evidence in at least one of the two top guys. And, fair or not, the accumulative judgment of Browns' FOs when it comes to QBs, draftees or FAs, is not exactly comforting. While we can tell ourselves this is a new FO and the history is irrelevant, this FO's first swing looks no better than its predecessors'...
First, Wheezy was a panic pick by an FO "on-the-clock", so he is in a class by himself. He was that tall, strong-armed AFCN prototypical QB. But, yes, it is the accumulation of swings, even if some are swinging bunts, that make things seem worse... bring out frustration... cloud judgment... and make folks think things like "stop being pussies."
Second, I think you have to plan to have shots at a Brady or Wilson by spending a pick on a QB every year if need be. The Pats under BB have picked the following QBs:
2000-Brady(6b); 2002-Rohan Davy(4a); 2003-Kliff Kingsbury(6); 2005-Matt Cassell(7a); 2008-Kevin O'Connell(3b); 2010-Zac Robinson(7d); and 2014-Jimmy Garoppolo(2)
Basically one pick invested in a QB search, every other year with few swings, one home run, one double(?) and a TBD, but a lot of misses. And their QB picks were all over the draft. Some were even "reaches", but they were reaches with picks they already had in their usually, very full pockets (pickpockets?).
The other thing the Pats have had a lot of... picks. In 15 years the Pats have made 7 or fewer picks only 4 times (in 2002 they had only 6 picks). By contrast in the same period we have had 7 or fewer six times, including 5 twice and 6 twice. Both the fives followed rushes to 22 from round two to nab our next great QB. At least we appear to be headed in the right direction here with our six-pick 2014 essentially by choice.
You know teams rank players either individually or, more often, in groups pre-draft. So sooner or later your top ranked QB is going to be the top player on your board. Then when your pick comes, you take that QB. The problem I think our FO has had is twofold;
- that QB has moved to #1 immediately after we spend our #1 and then stayed on the board until it was possible to "go get him"; and
- the "intel" concerning other teams' eagerness to take our targeted players has been predominantly flawed.
Exhibit A of the latter is the one-position trade up for Trent Richardson. Since reports were that Baltimore was trying to make a deal with Dallas so they could draft Quinn at the same time we were, that may be the one exception.
Just because something can be done does not mean you should do it... but they weren't pussies...
Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
That's been my entire point. At no point did I say we need to mortgage the future for Mariota, Winston, or anyone. All I've said is that we need to get a guy if he's the #1 guy on our board and, if he isn't, then we don't need to take someone else just because of value.
This isn't frustration and clouded judgment. It's based in fact. The Browns have value shopped for for a quarterback in the draft for the past 14 years. They've taken exactly one quarterback with their first pick since 1971, and that guy had no team around him. Since Couch, we've tried to value pick Quinn, value pick Manziel, we've panic picked Weeden, and we've gone with developmental guys like Frye and McCoy. Then all of those guys have had the franchise thrust on their shoulders. That's clearly the wrong way.
The Pats have had the opportunity to take guys and develop them because they've had Brady. They also had the opportunity to take Brady and work on developing him (which was the plan) because they had Bledsoe. The Packers had the opportunity to take Rodgers and develop him because they had Favre. The Seahawks had the opportunity to take Wilson because they had just invested in Flynn as their franchise guy. We don't have that luxury, because bad quarterback play at the top will push that developmental guy into the spotlight immediately and the fans will tear him apart. Our Wilson, Brady, Rodgers could be Shaw, but it's doubtful.
The people who say we need to build the team before adding the quarterback aren't wrong. I've been saying the same thing for years. Except now it's shifted from "build the team" to "five first rounders along the offensive line, four first rounders along the defensive line, a first round WR, a first round ILB, a first round edge rusher, a first round corner, a first round tight end, etc." They key pieces are there. We have a solid offensive line. Nobody was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down. Our defensive line was riddled with injuries, but is still stocked with overall talent. Even with Rubin's eventual departure, our offensive line is just as talented as most others with the exception of Houston and a few others.
This isn't the same Browns team that took Couch. This isn't the same Browns team that took Quinn. I agree with Steve, this team would have looked markedly better with Couch at the helm. This team isn't a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, but they're certainly a quarterback away from being a competitive team.
The Steelers were a 6-10 team in 2003. The Ravens were 5-11 in 2007.
UM that's exactly what teams like the Ravens and Steelers did. Value their way into a franchise quarterback. So did the Seahawks. Ditto the 49ers with Montana. No one plans for a Brady or Romo- but I'd rather be lucky than good- anytime.
Great- I happen to like Winston as a quarterback. I don't like him at the cost of three first round picks (minimum).
So how many absolute can't miss franchise guys have there been since Couch? Andrew Luck and? Damn few. Before that it was Elway. Sorry RG III was not, and it's out there for everyone to see selling the ranch on a bust sets your franchise back around 5 years. So blame the Browns scouting then for massive screw ups for passing on Rothlisberger and Rodgers.
I won't reiterate my list of players Cleveland passed on that are going to wind up in the HOF, or were (are) multi-time Pro Bowlers since 1999- that's where the Browns have screwed up.
I don't like Winston at the cost of three first round picks. I also don't think it would take that, either, especially if you're including Manziel.
I don't look at players in terms of their investment, I look at them in terms of their worth. Manziel may have been a first round investment, but there isn't a team in the league that would give us that for him...so he's no longer equivalent to a first round pick in my book. Same way you wouldn't look at Richard Sherman as a fifth round pick at the current moment.
Ya did?
Maybe but my point is that with these guys as well as some other elite quarterbacks it was not a situation in which the FO knew who the guy was and spared no cost to get him. Matter of fact in that top bunch it seems to be fairly evenly distributed? Also I think that if Tim Couch would have been here at the beginning of this season we have looked a lot better with no other change.
WSS
Maybe not countered, but addressed.
I've repeatedly said you don't plan on finding a Brady. Going into a draft with the intention of finding a 6th round franchise quarterback is like planning your budget around winning the lottery. It's a good way to end up on the streets.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Only "a huge risk" if you are not 100% convinced that neither is the one. But if you are, when you are, then you have to "sell the farm". To not do so is worse than risky; it's just stupid.
The problem is that this year most of us do not see convincing evidence in at least one of the two top guys. And, fair or not, the accumulative judgment of Browns' FOs when it comes to QBs, draftees or FAs, is not exactly comforting. While we can tell ourselves this is a new FO and the history is irrelevant, this FO's first swing looks no better than its predecessors'...
First, Wheezy was a panic pick by an FO "on-the-clock", so he is in a class by himself. He was that tall, strong-armed AFCN prototypical QB. But, yes, it is the accumulation of swings, even if some are swinging bunts, that make things seem worse... bring out frustration... cloud judgment... and make folks think things like "stop being pussies."
Second, I think you have to plan to have shots at a Brady or Wilson by spending a pick on a QB every year if need be. The Pats under BB have picked the following QBs:
2000-Brady(6b); 2002-Rohan Davy(4a); 2003-Kliff Kingsbury(6); 2005-Matt Cassell(7a); 2008-Kevin O'Connell(3b); 2010-Zac Robinson(7d); and 2014-Jimmy Garoppolo(2)
Basically one pick invested in a QB search, every other year with few swings, one home run, one double(?) and a TBD, but a lot of misses. And their QB picks were all over the draft. Some were even "reaches", but they were reaches with picks they already had in their usually, very full pockets (pickpockets?).
The other thing the Pats have had a lot of... picks. In 15 years the Pats have made 7 or fewer picks only 4 times (in 2002 they had only 6 picks). By contrast in the same period we have had 7 or fewer six times, including 5 twice and 6 twice. Both the fives followed rushes to 22 from round two to nab our next great QB. At least we appear to be headed in the right direction here with our six-pick 2014 essentially by choice.
You know teams rank players either individually or, more often, in groups pre-draft. So sooner or later your top ranked QB is going to be the top player on your board. Then when your pick comes, you take that QB. The problem I think our FO has had is twofold;
- that QB has moved to #1 immediately after we spend our #1 and then stayed on the board until it was possible to "go get him"; and
- the "intel" concerning other teams' eagerness to take our targeted players has been predominantly flawed.
Exhibit A of the latter is the one-position trade up for Trent Richardson. Since reports were that Baltimore was trying to make a deal with Dallas so they could draft Quinn at the same time we were, that may be the one exception.
Just because something can be done does not mean you should do it... but they weren't pussies...
Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
That's been my entire point. At no point did I say we need to mortgage the future for Mariota, Winston, or anyone. All I've said is that we need to get a guy if he's the #1 guy on our board and, if he isn't, then we don't need to take someone else just because of value.
This isn't frustration and clouded judgment. It's based in fact. The Browns have value shopped for for a quarterback in the draft for the past 14 years. They've taken exactly one quarterback with their first pick since 1971, and that guy had no team around him. Since Couch, we've tried to value pick Quinn, value pick Manziel, we've panic picked Weeden, and we've gone with developmental guys like Frye and McCoy. Then all of those guys have had the franchise thrust on their shoulders. That's clearly the wrong way.
The Pats have had the opportunity to take guys and develop them because they've had Brady. They also had the opportunity to take Brady and work on developing him (which was the plan) because they had Bledsoe. The Packers had the opportunity to take Rodgers and develop him because they had Favre. The Seahawks had the opportunity to take Wilson because they had just invested in Flynn as their franchise guy. We don't have that luxury, because bad quarterback play at the top will push that developmental guy into the spotlight immediately and the fans will tear him apart. Our Wilson, Brady, Rodgers could be Shaw, but it's doubtful.
The people who say we need to build the team before adding the quarterback aren't wrong. I've been saying the same thing for years. Except now it's shifted from "build the team" to "five first rounders along the offensive line, four first rounders along the defensive line, a first round WR, a first round ILB, a first round edge rusher, a first round corner, a first round tight end, etc." They key pieces are there. We have a solid offensive line. Nobody was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down. Our defensive line was riddled with injuries, but is still stocked with overall talent. Even with Rubin's eventual departure, our offensive line is just as talented as most others with the exception of Houston and a few others.
This isn't the same Browns team that took Couch. This isn't the same Browns team that took Quinn. I agree with Steve, this team would have looked markedly better with Couch at the helm. This team isn't a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, but they're certainly a quarterback away from being a competitive team.
The Steelers were a 6-10 team in 2003. The Ravens were 5-11 in 2007.
UM that's exactly what teams like the Ravens and Steelers did. Value their way into a franchise quarterback. So did the Seahawks. Ditto the 49ers with Montana. No one plans for a Brady or Romo- but I'd rather be lucky than good- anytime.
Great- I happen to like Winston as a quarterback. I don't like him at the cost of three first round picks (minimum).
So how many absolute can't miss franchise guys have there been since Couch? Andrew Luck and? Damn few. Before that it was Elway. Sorry RG III was not, and it's out there for everyone to see selling the ranch on a bust sets your franchise back around 5 years. So blame the Browns scouting then for massive screw ups for passing on Rothlisberger and Rodgers.
I won't reiterate my list of players Cleveland passed on that are going to wind up in the HOF, or were (are) multi-time Pro Bowlers since 1999- that's where the Browns have screwed up.
I don't like Winston at the cost of three first round picks. I also don't think it would take that, either, especially if you're including Manziel.
I don't look at players in terms of their investment, I look at them in terms of their worth. Manziel may have been a first round investment, but there isn't a team in the league that would give us that for him...so he's no longer equivalent to a first round pick in my book. Same way you wouldn't look at Richard Sherman as a fifth round pick at the current moment.
Ya did?
Maybe but my point is that with these guys as well as some other elite quarterbacks it was not a situation in which the FO knew who the guy was and spared no cost to get him. Matter of fact in that top bunch it seems to be fairly evenly distributed? Also I think that if Tim Couch would have been here at the beginning of this season we have looked a lot better with no other change.
WSS
Maybe not countered, but addressed.
I've repeatedly said you don't plan on finding a Brady. Going into a draft with the intention of finding a 6th round franchise quarterback is like planning your budget around winning the lottery. It's a good way to end up on the streets.
Well (and I'm too lazy to make a list) you are still playing the lottery when you take a guy in the first round or reach way up to get him. Difference between buying one auto lotto and a dozen. John elway, maybe andrew luck...Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
Maybe not countered, but addressed.
I've repeatedly said you don't plan on finding a Brady. Going into a draft with the intention of finding a 6th round franchise quarterback is like planning your budget around winning the lottery. It's a good way to end up on the streets.
But the risk is almost as big that you will by yourself a disappointing player for too much money. Let's not even say money, let's say investment.
And you might hit that lottery put the guy on a shitty team and ruined his career. Actually I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I think we all want the same thing and all realize they don't grow on trees.
WSS
-
I don't think Mariota fits that mold. I do think Winston does. I also think Cardale Jones does. For me, it's either go up and get Winston or stand pat with Manziel for a year and go for Cardale Jones next year.
well this is exactly what i'd do. let's get the lines squared away, get some weapons for whoever is going to take the reigns this year and see how the team gels and grows from last year to this. who knows what will happen? god forbid another injury riddled season and we have to start looking at position players we thought were set with for a decade.
make the sundae, break out the whip cream this year and next year add the cheery on the top (with sprinkles).
well this is exactly what i'd do. let's get the lines squared away, get some weapons for whoever is going to take the reigns this year and see how the team gels and grows from last year to this. who knows what will happen? god forbid another injury riddled season and we have to start looking at position players we thought were set with for a decade.
make the sundae, break out the whip cream this year and next year add the cheery on the top (with sprinkles).
Hell, even some hot fudge.
-
Only "a huge risk" if you are not 100% convinced that neither is the one. But if you are, when you are, then you have to "sell the farm". To not do so is worse than risky; it's just stupid.
The problem is that this year most of us do not see convincing evidence in at least one of the two top guys. And, fair or not, the accumulative judgment of Browns' FOs when it comes to QBs, draftees or FAs, is not exactly comforting. While we can tell ourselves this is a new FO and the history is irrelevant, this FO's first swing looks no better than its predecessors'...
First, Wheezy was a panic pick by an FO "on-the-clock", so he is in a class by himself. He was that tall, strong-armed AFCN prototypical QB. But, yes, it is the accumulation of swings, even if some are swinging bunts, that make things seem worse... bring out frustration... cloud judgment... and make folks think things like "stop being pussies."
Second, I think you have to plan to have shots at a Brady or Wilson by spending a pick on a QB every year if need be. The Pats under BB have picked the following QBs:
2000-Brady(6b); 2002-Rohan Davy(4a); 2003-Kliff Kingsbury(6); 2005-Matt Cassell(7a); 2008-Kevin O'Connell(3b); 2010-Zac Robinson(7d); and 2014-Jimmy Garoppolo(2)
Basically one pick invested in a QB search, every other year with few swings, one home run, one double(?) and a TBD, but a lot of misses. And their QB picks were all over the draft. Some were even "reaches", but they were reaches with picks they already had in their usually, very full pockets (pickpockets?).
The other thing the Pats have had a lot of... picks. In 15 years the Pats have made 7 or fewer picks only 4 times (in 2002 they had only 6 picks). By contrast in the same period we have had 7 or fewer six times, including 5 twice and 6 twice. Both the fives followed rushes to 22 from round two to nab our next great QB. At least we appear to be headed in the right direction here with our six-pick 2014 essentially by choice.
You know teams rank players either individually or, more often, in groups pre-draft. So sooner or later your top ranked QB is going to be the top player on your board. Then when your pick comes, you take that QB. The problem I think our FO has had is twofold;
- that QB has moved to #1 immediately after we spend our #1 and then stayed on the board until it was possible to "go get him"; and
- the "intel" concerning other teams' eagerness to take our targeted players has been predominantly flawed.
Exhibit A of the latter is the one-position trade up for Trent Richardson. Since reports were that Baltimore was trying to make a deal with Dallas so they could draft Quinn at the same time we were, that may be the one exception.
Just because something can be done does not mean you should do it... but they weren't pussies...
Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
That's been my entire point. At no point did I say we need to mortgage the future for Mariota, Winston, or anyone. All I've said is that we need to get a guy if he's the #1 guy on our board and, if he isn't, then we don't need to take someone else just because of value.
This isn't frustration and clouded judgment. It's based in fact. The Browns have value shopped for for a quarterback in the draft for the past 14 years. They've taken exactly one quarterback with their first pick since 1971, and that guy had no team around him. Since Couch, we've tried to value pick Quinn, value pick Manziel, we've panic picked Weeden, and we've gone with developmental guys like Frye and McCoy. Then all of those guys have had the franchise thrust on their shoulders. That's clearly the wrong way.
The Pats have had the opportunity to take guys and develop them because they've had Brady. They also had the opportunity to take Brady and work on developing him (which was the plan) because they had Bledsoe. The Packers had the opportunity to take Rodgers and develop him because they had Favre. The Seahawks had the opportunity to take Wilson because they had just invested in Flynn as their franchise guy. We don't have that luxury, because bad quarterback play at the top will push that developmental guy into the spotlight immediately and the fans will tear him apart. Our Wilson, Brady, Rodgers could be Shaw, but it's doubtful.
The people who say we need to build the team before adding the quarterback aren't wrong. I've been saying the same thing for years. Except now it's shifted from "build the team" to "five first rounders along the offensive line, four first rounders along the defensive line, a first round WR, a first round ILB, a first round edge rusher, a first round corner, a first round tight end, etc." They key pieces are there. We have a solid offensive line. Nobody was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down. Our defensive line was riddled with injuries, but is still stocked with overall talent. Even with Rubin's eventual departure, our offensive line is just as talented as most others with the exception of Houston and a few others.
This isn't the same Browns team that took Couch. This isn't the same Browns team that took Quinn. I agree with Steve, this team would have looked markedly better with Couch at the helm. This team isn't a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, but they're certainly a quarterback away from being a competitive team.
The Steelers were a 6-10 team in 2003. The Ravens were 5-11 in 2007.
UM that's exactly what teams like the Ravens and Steelers did. Value their way into a franchise quarterback. So did the Seahawks. Ditto the 49ers with Montana. No one plans for a Brady or Romo- but I'd rather be lucky than good- anytime.
Great- I happen to like Winston as a quarterback. I don't like him at the cost of three first round picks (minimum).
So how many absolute can't miss franchise guys have there been since Couch? Andrew Luck and? Damn few. Before that it was Elway. Sorry RG III was not, and it's out there for everyone to see selling the ranch on a bust sets your franchise back around 5 years. So blame the Browns scouting then for massive screw ups for passing on Rothlisberger and Rodgers.
I won't reiterate my list of players Cleveland passed on that are going to wind up in the HOF, or were (are) multi-time Pro Bowlers since 1999- that's where the Browns have screwed up.
I don't like Winston at the cost of three first round picks. I also don't think it would take that, either, especially if you're including Manziel.
I don't look at players in terms of their investment, I look at them in terms of their worth. Manziel may have been a first round investment, but there isn't a team in the league that would give us that for him...so he's no longer equivalent to a first round pick in my book. Same way you wouldn't look at Richard Sherman as a fifth round pick at the current moment.
Ya did?
Maybe but my point is that with these guys as well as some other elite quarterbacks it was not a situation in which the FO knew who the guy was and spared no cost to get him. Matter of fact in that top bunch it seems to be fairly evenly distributed? Also I think that if Tim Couch would have been here at the beginning of this season we have looked a lot better with no other change.
WSS
Maybe not countered, but addressed.
I've repeatedly said you don't plan on finding a Brady. Going into a draft with the intention of finding a 6th round franchise quarterback is like planning your budget around winning the lottery. It's a good way to end up on the streets.
Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
That's been my entire point. At no point did I say we need to mortgage the future for Mariota, Winston, or anyone. All I've said is that we need to get a guy if he's the #1 guy on our board and, if he isn't, then we don't need to take someone else just because of value.
This isn't frustration and clouded judgment. It's based in fact. The Browns have value shopped for for a quarterback in the draft for the past 14 years. They've taken exactly one quarterback with their first pick since 1971, and that guy had no team around him. Since Couch, we've tried to value pick Quinn, value pick Manziel, we've panic picked Weeden, and we've gone with developmental guys like Frye and McCoy. Then all of those guys have had the franchise thrust on their shoulders. That's clearly the wrong way.
The Pats have had the opportunity to take guys and develop them because they've had Brady. They also had the opportunity to take Brady and work on developing him (which was the plan) because they had Bledsoe. The Packers had the opportunity to take Rodgers and develop him because they had Favre. The Seahawks had the opportunity to take Wilson because they had just invested in Flynn as their franchise guy. We don't have that luxury, because bad quarterback play at the top will push that developmental guy into the spotlight immediately and the fans will tear him apart. Our Wilson, Brady, Rodgers could be Shaw, but it's doubtful.
The people who say we need to build the team before adding the quarterback aren't wrong. I've been saying the same thing for years. Except now it's shifted from "build the team" to "five first rounders along the offensive line, four first rounders along the defensive line, a first round WR, a first round ILB, a first round edge rusher, a first round corner, a first round tight end, etc." They key pieces are there. We have a solid offensive line. Nobody was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down. Our defensive line was riddled with injuries, but is still stocked with overall talent. Even with Rubin's eventual departure, our offensive line is just as talented as most others with the exception of Houston and a few others.
This isn't the same Browns team that took Couch. This isn't the same Browns team that took Quinn. I agree with Steve, this team would have looked markedly better with Couch at the helm. This team isn't a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, but they're certainly a quarterback away from being a competitive team.
Agree... the team is far more ready for that QB now. We have a line that can protect and generate a complementary run game and a D that week in and out can allow the use of that run game for four quarters.
That said, I was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down... because Mitch was clearly the weak leak in the line. Then two things happened: Mitch got better and Mack's replacements were so atrocious that the spotlight left Mitch. Based on 2014 we can say that the D-line was two deep across the board, but the O-line was zero deep.
I was not letting other's replies shade your stance. I think this is where you muddied your "entire point" waters:
While I understand it is not the case, your language choice alone in the above makes you sound as frustrated as many others here. And when you additionally fail to address how you get that "competitive QB", it undermines your stance. That was the basis of my reply.The Browns have tried to shop for value and gotten fucked numerous times. Stop being pussies and trying to backdoor your way into the playoffs. Get a quarterback who can compete. You don't plan for a Wilson or a Brady.
As for not being able to shop for value QBs... bullshit. Any team at any time can do that. We've done it. Holding off their playing until they are ready? Different issue... and yes, much harder if you lack an established QB. But that's mostly resolve, with a dash of circumstance.
McCoy was going to be a red-shirt until Wallace followed DelHomme's ankle sprain example... hell, we even played a clearly still hobbled Jake after Seneca went down. And then McCoy had the temerity to not completely suck.
Manziel was going to be a red shirt until Hoyer player his way out of favor.
Wheezy's starting was just a continuation of the panic that made us pick him.
Quinn... well that was just fucked up to begin with... I don't think Romeo had a plan.
Maybe the better argument is around our failure to land better FA, "bridge" QBs. It's not like we haven't tried.
But in any case you can't use an example of a team having an established QB who never started a game for them... Flynn? C'mon man!
"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 -
Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
That's been my entire point. At no point did I say we need to mortgage the future for Mariota, Winston, or anyone. All I've said is that we need to get a guy if he's the #1 guy on our board and, if he isn't, then we don't need to take someone else just because of value.
This isn't frustration and clouded judgment. It's based in fact. The Browns have value shopped for for a quarterback in the draft for the past 14 years. They've taken exactly one quarterback with their first pick since 1971, and that guy had no team around him. Since Couch, we've tried to value pick Quinn, value pick Manziel, we've panic picked Weeden, and we've gone with developmental guys like Frye and McCoy. Then all of those guys have had the franchise thrust on their shoulders. That's clearly the wrong way.
The Pats have had the opportunity to take guys and develop them because they've had Brady. They also had the opportunity to take Brady and work on developing him (which was the plan) because they had Bledsoe. The Packers had the opportunity to take Rodgers and develop him because they had Favre. The Seahawks had the opportunity to take Wilson because they had just invested in Flynn as their franchise guy. We don't have that luxury, because bad quarterback play at the top will push that developmental guy into the spotlight immediately and the fans will tear him apart. Our Wilson, Brady, Rodgers could be Shaw, but it's doubtful.
The people who say we need to build the team before adding the quarterback aren't wrong. I've been saying the same thing for years. Except now it's shifted from "build the team" to "five first rounders along the offensive line, four first rounders along the defensive line, a first round WR, a first round ILB, a first round edge rusher, a first round corner, a first round tight end, etc." They key pieces are there. We have a solid offensive line. Nobody was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down. Our defensive line was riddled with injuries, but is still stocked with overall talent. Even with Rubin's eventual departure, our offensive line is just as talented as most others with the exception of Houston and a few others.
This isn't the same Browns team that took Couch. This isn't the same Browns team that took Quinn. I agree with Steve, this team would have looked markedly better with Couch at the helm. This team isn't a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, but they're certainly a quarterback away from being a competitive team.
Agree... the team is far more ready for that QB now. We have a line that can protect and generate a complementary run game and a D that week in and out can allow the use of that run game for four quarters.
That said, I was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down... because Mitch was clearly the weak leak in the line. Then two things happened: Mitch got better and Mack's replacements were so atrocious that the spotlight left Mitch. Based on 2014 we can say that the D-line was two deep across the board, but the O-line was zero deep.
I was not letting other's replies shade your stance. I think this is where you muddied your "entire point" waters:
While I understand it is not the case, your language choice alone in the above makes you sound as frustrated as many others here. And when you additionally fail to address how you get that "competitive QB", it undermines your stance. That was the basis of my reply.The Browns have tried to shop for value and gotten fucked numerous times. Stop being pussies and trying to backdoor your way into the playoffs. Get a quarterback who can compete. You don't plan for a Wilson or a Brady.
As for not being able to shop for value QBs... bullshit. Any team at any time can do that. We've done it. Holding off their playing until they are ready? Different issue... and yes, much harder if you lack an established QB. But that's mostly resolve, with a dash of circumstance.
McCoy was going to be a red-shirt until Wallace followed DelHomme's ankle sprain example... hell, we even played a clearly still hobbled Jake after Seneca went down. And then McCoy had the temerity to not completely suck.
Manziel was going to be a red shirt until Hoyer player his way out of favor.
Wheezy's starting was just a continuation of the panic that made us pick him.
Quinn... well that was just fucked up to begin with... I don't think Romeo had a plan.
Maybe the better argument is around our failure to land better FA, "bridge" QBs. It's not like we haven't tried.
But in any case you can't use an example of a team having an established QB who never started a game for them... Flynn? C'mon man!
Then two things happened: Mitch got better and Mack's replacements were so atrocious that the spotlight left Mitch. Based on 2014 we can say that the D-line was two deep across the board, but the O-line was zero deep.
As for not being able to shop for value QBs... bullshit. Any team at any time can do that. We've done it. Holding off their playing until they are ready? Different issue... and yes, much harder if you lack an established QB. But that's mostly resolve, with a dash of circumstance.
Schwartz finished in the top 10 in PBE according to our friends at PFF. One of the reasons I'd prefer to spend mid round picks on quality Oline backups as I feel, across the board our starting 5 are the tops in the NFL when healthy and together.
-
Somewhere along the line someone misinterpreted my post and started claiming that I said we should mortgage the future for someone just because we haven't. That's not what I've said. In fact, it's the antithesis.
"If the guy isn't at the top of your list, don't waste the pick on him. If he is at the top of your list, do whatever it takes to get him. If he's ungettable, then don't take a shot in the dark on another QB just because."
That's been my entire point. At no point did I say we need to mortgage the future for Mariota, Winston, or anyone. All I've said is that we need to get a guy if he's the #1 guy on our board and, if he isn't, then we don't need to take someone else just because of value.
This isn't frustration and clouded judgment. It's based in fact. The Browns have value shopped for for a quarterback in the draft for the past 14 years. They've taken exactly one quarterback with their first pick since 1971, and that guy had no team around him. Since Couch, we've tried to value pick Quinn, value pick Manziel, we've panic picked Weeden, and we've gone with developmental guys like Frye and McCoy. Then all of those guys have had the franchise thrust on their shoulders. That's clearly the wrong way.
The Pats have had the opportunity to take guys and develop them because they've had Brady. They also had the opportunity to take Brady and work on developing him (which was the plan) because they had Bledsoe. The Packers had the opportunity to take Rodgers and develop him because they had Favre. The Seahawks had the opportunity to take Wilson because they had just invested in Flynn as their franchise guy. We don't have that luxury, because bad quarterback play at the top will push that developmental guy into the spotlight immediately and the fans will tear him apart. Our Wilson, Brady, Rodgers could be Shaw, but it's doubtful.
The people who say we need to build the team before adding the quarterback aren't wrong. I've been saying the same thing for years. Except now it's shifted from "build the team" to "five first rounders along the offensive line, four first rounders along the defensive line, a first round WR, a first round ILB, a first round edge rusher, a first round corner, a first round tight end, etc." They key pieces are there. We have a solid offensive line. Nobody was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down. Our defensive line was riddled with injuries, but is still stocked with overall talent. Even with Rubin's eventual departure, our offensive line is just as talented as most others with the exception of Houston and a few others.
This isn't the same Browns team that took Couch. This isn't the same Browns team that took Quinn. I agree with Steve, this team would have looked markedly better with Couch at the helm. This team isn't a quarterback away from the Super Bowl, but they're certainly a quarterback away from being a competitive team.
Agree... the team is far more ready for that QB now. We have a line that can protect and generate a complementary run game and a D that week in and out can allow the use of that run game for four quarters.
That said, I was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down... because Mitch was clearly the weak leak in the line. Then two things happened: Mitch got better and Mack's replacements were so atrocious that the spotlight left Mitch. Based on 2014 we can say that the D-line was two deep across the board, but the O-line was zero deep.
I was not letting other's replies shade your stance. I think this is where you muddied your "entire point" waters:
While I understand it is not the case, your language choice alone in the above makes you sound as frustrated as many others here. And when you additionally fail to address how you get that "competitive QB", it undermines your stance. That was the basis of my reply.The Browns have tried to shop for value and gotten fucked numerous times. Stop being pussies and trying to backdoor your way into the playoffs. Get a quarterback who can compete. You don't plan for a Wilson or a Brady.
As for not being able to shop for value QBs... bullshit. Any team at any time can do that. We've done it. Holding off their playing until they are ready? Different issue... and yes, much harder if you lack an established QB. But that's mostly resolve, with a dash of circumstance.
McCoy was going to be a red-shirt until Wallace followed DelHomme's ankle sprain example... hell, we even played a clearly still hobbled Jake after Seneca went down. And then McCoy had the temerity to not completely suck.
Manziel was going to be a red shirt until Hoyer player his way out of favor.
Wheezy's starting was just a continuation of the panic that made us pick him.
Quinn... well that was just fucked up to begin with... I don't think Romeo had a plan.
Maybe the better argument is around our failure to land better FA, "bridge" QBs. It's not like we haven't tried.
But in any case you can't use an example of a team having an established QB who never started a game for them... Flynn? C'mon man!
Agree... the team is far more ready for that QB now. We have a line that can protect and generate a complementary run game and a D that week in and out can allow the use of that run game for four quarters.
That said, I was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down... because Mitch was clearly the weak leak in the line. Then two things happened: Mitch got better and Mack's replacements were so atrocious that the spotlight left Mitch. Based on 2014 we can say that the D-line was two deep across the board, but the O-line was zero deep.
I was not letting other's replies shade your stance. I think this is where you muddied your "entire point" waters:
While I understand it is not the case, your language choice alone in the above makes you sound as frustrated as many others here. And when you additionally fail to address how you get that "competitive QB", it undermines your stance. That was the basis of my reply.
As for not being able to shop for value QBs... bullshit. Any team at any time can do that. We've done it. Holding off their playing until they are ready? Different issue... and yes, much harder if you lack an established QB. But that's mostly resolve, with a dash of circumstance.
McCoy was going to be a red-shirt until Wallace followed DelHomme's ankle sprain example... hell, we even played a clearly still hobbled Jake after Seneca went down. And then McCoy had the temerity to not completely suck.
Manziel was going to be a red shirt until Hoyer player his way out of favor.
Wheezy's starting was just a continuation of the panic that made us pick him.
Quinn... well that was just fucked up to begin with... I don't think Romeo had a plan.
Maybe the better argument is around our failure to land better FA, "bridge" QBs. It's not like we haven't tried.
But in any case you can't use an example of a team having an established QB who never started a game for them... Flynn? C'mon man!juj
Regardless of what happened with Flynn, he was clearly their franchise quarterback choice. 3 years/ $26 million...that's not backup money.
You don't pay a guy $8 million a year in the offseason with the intention of him battling it out against a 3rd round rookie.
-
Agree... the team is far more ready for that QB now. We have a line that can protect and generate a complementary run game and a D that week in and out can allow the use of that run game for four quarters.
That said, I was complaining about Schwartz before Mack went down... because Mitch was clearly the weak leak in the line. Then two things happened: Mitch got better and Mack's replacements were so atrocious that the spotlight left Mitch. Based on 2014 we can say that the D-line was two deep across the board, but the O-line was zero deep.
I was not letting other's replies shade your stance. I think this is where you muddied your "entire point" waters:
While I understand it is not the case, your language choice alone in the above makes you sound as frustrated as many others here. And when you additionally fail to address how you get that "competitive QB", it undermines your stance. That was the basis of my reply.
As for not being able to shop for value QBs... bullshit. Any team at any time can do that. We've done it. Holding off their playing until they are ready? Different issue... and yes, much harder if you lack an established QB. But that's mostly resolve, with a dash of circumstance.
McCoy was going to be a red-shirt until Wallace followed DelHomme's ankle sprain example... hell, we even played a clearly still hobbled Jake after Seneca went down. And then McCoy had the temerity to not completely suck.
Manziel was going to be a red shirt until Hoyer player his way out of favor.
Wheezy's starting was just a continuation of the panic that made us pick him.
Quinn... well that was just fucked up to begin with... I don't think Romeo had a plan.
Maybe the better argument is around our failure to land better FA, "bridge" QBs. It's not like we haven't tried.
But in any case you can't use an example of a team having an established QB who never started a game for them... Flynn? C'mon man!juj
Regardless of what happened with Flynn, he was clearly their franchise quarterback choice. 3 years/ $26 million...that's not backup money.
You don't pay a guy $8 million a year in the offseason with the intention of him battling it out against a 3rd round rookie.
Regardless of what happened with Flynn, he was clearly their franchise quarterback choice. 3 years/ $26 million...that's not backup money.
You don't pay a guy $8 million a year in the offseason with the intention of him battling it out against a 3rd round rookie.
Which proves they really didn't know what they had in either QB?
Moving on...
The talk coming out about concerns that MM is not enough of an Alpha-Male to succeed in the NFL, got me wondering: How key is being an Alpha-Male to becoming a franchise grade, NFL QB? To being an elite NFL QB?
Off hand it seems more the latter than the former.
Elite:
Brady - Alpha
P. Manning - Alpha
Rogers - Alpha Major
Luck - Alpha Minor
Franchise:
E. Manning - not so Alpha
Flacco - not so Alpha
Dalton - Beta
Wilson - Alpha-ish?
-
Who's more likely to spend their downtime studying the art of playing QB then partying?
A - MM
B - JW
-
Who's more likely to spend their downtime studying the art of playing QB then partying?
A - MM
B - JW
Who's more likely to spend their downtime studying the art of playing QB then partying?
A - MM
B - JW
They will get drunk together, steal some crab legs and catch the crabs.
-
Answer C
Brian Hoyer, assuming he's not at Chuck E Cheese with his wife and kids.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Who's more likely to spend their downtime studying the art of playing QB then partying?
A - MM
B - JW
Who's more likely to spend their downtime studying the art of playing QB then partying?
A - MM
B - JW
There once was another 6'5" rushing quarterback who was one of the most humble, studious players to ever wear an NFL jersey. His teammates often called him "Coach", that's how much he studied the game. He kept a journal where he diagnosed every game immediately thereafter, basically debriefing himself on coverages, blitzes, etc. One writer even described him as having "all the equipment needed to fit in the modern NFL quarterback toolbox. He's 6-feet-6 and weighs 235 pounds. As Don Coryell often said, 'he runs like a deer.' He has plenty of arm. He's smart. He comes from a great background. He has a wonderful personality. He's a leader."
This guy studied the game all day every day and ended up being the highest drafted quarterback by the Bill Belichick Patriots.
That guy was Kevin O' Connell, he's now our QB coach. He had a real stellar career.
This just in- you're still a dumb fucking racist.
-
Oh relax tcpo, I thought he was taking a shot at Johnny. Everybody hates him for partying. And who is white.
WSS
-
Oh relax tcpo, I thought he was taking a shot at Johnny. Everybody hates him for partying. And who is white.
WSS
Oh relax tcpo, I thought he was taking a shot at Johnny. Everybody hates him for partying. And who is white.
WSS
Those initials he labeled would indicate a comparison between Marcus Mariota and Jameis Winston.
And this moron has already pulled the race card once before by saying he was surprised Winston didn't rob a KFC.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
I guess I missed that. I was thinking he meant of those two which one would be most likely to party and cause problems off the field. I think that would probably be Winston? From what I've heard Marcus Mariota is a choir boy and a work a holic which everyone here seems to want. Quite a few anyway. The reason I took it as a slight to Johnny is that that's the reason everyone has hated him since before the draft.
I have seen reports that Jameis Winston has put on a fair amount of weight recently and that in itself could be a red flag. But like the innuendo about Johnny I have no idea if those reports are bullshit or not.
WSS
-
Answer C
Brian Hoyer, assuming he's not at Chuck E Cheese with his wife and kids.
WSS
Answer C
Brian Hoyer, assuming he's not at Chuck E Cheese with his wife and kids.
WSS
Chuck e cheese is a hell hole man. Taking the kids there is horrible.
-
I guess I missed that. I was thinking he meant of those two which one would be most likely to party and cause problems off the field. I think that would probably be Winston? From what I've heard Marcus Mariota is a choir boy and a work a holic which everyone here seems to want. Quite a few anyway. The reason I took it as a slight to Johnny is that that's the reason everyone has hated him since before the draft.
I have seen reports that Jameis Winston has put on a fair amount of weight recently and that in itself could be a red flag. But like the innuendo about Johnny I have no idea if those reports are bullshit or not.
WSS
I have seen reports that Jameis Winston has put on a fair amount of weight recently and that in itself could be a red flag. But like the innuendo about Johnny I have no idea if those reports are bullshit or not.
WSS
Too much butter on the crab legs prolly.
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