Charlie Casserly says Browns offered a first round pick for Bradford
-
Here's something I wonder though-Say Mariota is available at 12, how would you feel about this?
Eagles move to 12 for Mariota
We get 20 and Bradford
I dislike Bradford and have about 3% faith he'll ever play elite level, but if he did? I like that scenario better than drafting Mariota.
Here's something I wonder though-Say Mariota is available at 12, how would you feel about this?
Eagles move to 12 for Mariota
We get 20 and Bradford
I dislike Bradford and have about 3% faith he'll ever play elite level, but if he did? I like that scenario better than drafting Mariota.
So you'd rather us lose 8 positions and take a guy that, in your eyes, has a 97% chance to never play at the elite level?
Why wouldn't we just stay at #12, not pick Mariota, and pick someone else? Why drop 8 positions and take a guy who is probably no better than the guy we currently have?
Further, does this mean that you think Mariota has a > 3% chance of being elite and, if so, what percent chance do you think he'll have of being elite? And, even further, what % chance did you feel RG3 had of being elite when he declared? What about Kyle Boller? What about Daunte Culpepper? What about Russell Wilson? What about Ryan Tannehill? What about Ben Roethlisberger? What about Joe Flacco? What about Aaron Rodgers?
That's the level I put Mariota at. He's no sure-thing prospect and neither were those guys. Some turned out to be franchise-level quarterbacks. Others turned out to be fizzles. However, they all had the "potential" to be franchise-level guys, yet had differing knocks against them - size, speed, intelligence, scheme, competition...each one had some sort of knock against them in some way. However, even at their worst, all of the aforementioned QB's are better than what we've had on our roster over the past fifteen years.
I don't put him at the Weeden/Manziel/Quinn/Leinart/ Losman/Grossman/McNown level. He possesses too many of the attributes and intangibles of a franchise quarterback to fail that hard.
In the most general of scouting, I value six overall attributes for a quarterback. Athletic ability, personality, production, scheme/fundamentals, intelligence and physical stature. Mariota excels in five of six of those categories.
To me, that's certainly worth a pick at #12. I'd even package both firsts to move up for him. Anything past that...it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. He's not a "give up the farm" prospect...but he's certainly not a "trade away for damaged goods" prospect either.
I could handle that.....though Id like that scenario a LOT more with NO and Brees.....
Keep dreaming. Brees isn't going anywhere.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Here's something I wonder though-Say Mariota is available at 12, how would you feel about this?
Eagles move to 12 for Mariota
We get 20 and Bradford
I dislike Bradford and have about 3% faith he'll ever play elite level, but if he did? I like that scenario better than drafting Mariota.
So you'd rather us lose 8 positions and take a guy that, in your eyes, has a 97% chance to never play at the elite level?
Why wouldn't we just stay at #12, not pick Mariota, and pick someone else? Why drop 8 positions and take a guy who is probably no better than the guy we currently have?
Further, does this mean that you think Mariota has a > 3% chance of being elite and, if so, what percent chance do you think he'll have of being elite? And, even further, what % chance did you feel RG3 had of being elite when he declared? What about Kyle Boller? What about Daunte Culpepper? What about Russell Wilson? What about Ryan Tannehill? What about Ben Roethlisberger? What about Joe Flacco? What about Aaron Rodgers?
That's the level I put Mariota at. He's no sure-thing prospect and neither were those guys. Some turned out to be franchise-level quarterbacks. Others turned out to be fizzles. However, they all had the "potential" to be franchise-level guys, yet had differing knocks against them - size, speed, intelligence, scheme, competition...each one had some sort of knock against them in some way. However, even at their worst, all of the aforementioned QB's are better than what we've had on our roster over the past fifteen years.
I don't put him at the Weeden/Manziel/Quinn/Leinart/ Losman/Grossman/McNown level. He possesses too many of the attributes and intangibles of a franchise quarterback to fail that hard.
In the most general of scouting, I value six overall attributes for a quarterback. Athletic ability, personality, production, scheme/fundamentals, intelligence and physical stature. Mariota excels in five of six of those categories.
To me, that's certainly worth a pick at #12. I'd even package both firsts to move up for him. Anything past that...it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. He's not a "give up the farm" prospect...but he's certainly not a "trade away for damaged goods" prospect either.
I could handle that.....though Id like that scenario a LOT more with NO and Brees.....
Keep dreaming. Brees isn't going anywhere.
So you'd rather us lose 8 positions and take a guy that, in your eyes, has a 97% chance to never play at the elite level?
Why wouldn't we just stay at #12, not pick Mariota, and pick someone else? Why drop 8 positions and take a guy who is probably no better than the guy we currently have?
Further, does this mean that you think Mariota has a > 3% chance of being elite and, if so, what percent chance do you think he'll have of being elite? And, even further, what % chance did you feel RG3 had of being elite when he declared? What about Kyle Boller? What about Daunte Culpepper? What about Russell Wilson? What about Ryan Tannehill? What about Ben Roethlisberger? What about Joe Flacco? What about Aaron Rodgers?
That's the level I put Mariota at. He's no sure-thing prospect and neither were those guys. Some turned out to be franchise-level quarterbacks. Others turned out to be fizzles. However, they all had the "potential" to be franchise-level guys, yet had differing knocks against them - size, speed, intelligence, scheme, competition...each one had some sort of knock against them in some way. However, even at their worst, all of the aforementioned QB's are better than what we've had on our roster over the past fifteen years.
I don't put him at the Weeden/Manziel/Quinn/Leinart/ Losman/Grossman/McNown level. He possesses too many of the attributes and intangibles of a franchise quarterback to fail that hard.
In the most general of scouting, I value six overall attributes for a quarterback. Athletic ability, personality, production, scheme/fundamentals, intelligence and physical stature. Mariota excels in five of six of those categories.
To me, that's certainly worth a pick at #12. I'd even package both firsts to move up for him. Anything past that...it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. He's not a "give up the farm" prospect...but he's certainly not a "trade away for damaged goods" prospect either.
Well, I do respect your opinion but to make a long story short I don't see Mariota ever being good in the NFL. He's got some positives but I just really feel strongly he's never going to have the tools to adjust to the pro game. I actually don't think he's going to be injury prone or anything, btu at the end of the day it's not there for me. I really think he's going to fall at the draft but I'll eat crow if I'm wrong. As I understand his pro day was mediocre too.
To make it clear I wouldn't want this trade in the slightest. I think Bradford is almost undoubtedly going to get hurt again. It seems like the story of the Browns wanting Bradford had some legs and I don't believe for a second Chip doesn't want Marcus.
-
Here's something I wonder though-Say Mariota is available at 12, how would you feel about this?
Eagles move to 12 for Mariota
We get 20 and Bradford
I dislike Bradford and have about 3% faith he'll ever play elite level, but if he did? I like that scenario better than drafting Mariota.
So you'd rather us lose 8 positions and take a guy that, in your eyes, has a 97% chance to never play at the elite level?
Why wouldn't we just stay at #12, not pick Mariota, and pick someone else? Why drop 8 positions and take a guy who is probably no better than the guy we currently have?
Further, does this mean that you think Mariota has a > 3% chance of being elite and, if so, what percent chance do you think he'll have of being elite? And, even further, what % chance did you feel RG3 had of being elite when he declared? What about Kyle Boller? What about Daunte Culpepper? What about Russell Wilson? What about Ryan Tannehill? What about Ben Roethlisberger? What about Joe Flacco? What about Aaron Rodgers?
That's the level I put Mariota at. He's no sure-thing prospect and neither were those guys. Some turned out to be franchise-level quarterbacks. Others turned out to be fizzles. However, they all had the "potential" to be franchise-level guys, yet had differing knocks against them - size, speed, intelligence, scheme, competition...each one had some sort of knock against them in some way. However, even at their worst, all of the aforementioned QB's are better than what we've had on our roster over the past fifteen years.
I don't put him at the Weeden/Manziel/Quinn/Leinart/ Losman/Grossman/McNown level. He possesses too many of the attributes and intangibles of a franchise quarterback to fail that hard.
In the most general of scouting, I value six overall attributes for a quarterback. Athletic ability, personality, production, scheme/fundamentals, intelligence and physical stature. Mariota excels in five of six of those categories.
To me, that's certainly worth a pick at #12. I'd even package both firsts to move up for him. Anything past that...it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. He's not a "give up the farm" prospect...but he's certainly not a "trade away for damaged goods" prospect either.
I could handle that.....though Id like that scenario a LOT more with NO and Brees.....
Keep dreaming. Brees isn't going anywhere.
Keep dreaming. Brees isn't going anywhere.
yeah...I know.....though I would've said the same about Graham......
just saying Id do THAT trade.....Brees and #31 for our #12
-
So you'd rather us lose 8 positions and take a guy that, in your eyes, has a 97% chance to never play at the elite level?
Why wouldn't we just stay at #12, not pick Mariota, and pick someone else? Why drop 8 positions and take a guy who is probably no better than the guy we currently have?
Further, does this mean that you think Mariota has a > 3% chance of being elite and, if so, what percent chance do you think he'll have of being elite? And, even further, what % chance did you feel RG3 had of being elite when he declared? What about Kyle Boller? What about Daunte Culpepper? What about Russell Wilson? What about Ryan Tannehill? What about Ben Roethlisberger? What about Joe Flacco? What about Aaron Rodgers?
That's the level I put Mariota at. He's no sure-thing prospect and neither were those guys. Some turned out to be franchise-level quarterbacks. Others turned out to be fizzles. However, they all had the "potential" to be franchise-level guys, yet had differing knocks against them - size, speed, intelligence, scheme, competition...each one had some sort of knock against them in some way. However, even at their worst, all of the aforementioned QB's are better than what we've had on our roster over the past fifteen years.
I don't put him at the Weeden/Manziel/Quinn/Leinart/ Losman/Grossman/McNown level. He possesses too many of the attributes and intangibles of a franchise quarterback to fail that hard.
In the most general of scouting, I value six overall attributes for a quarterback. Athletic ability, personality, production, scheme/fundamentals, intelligence and physical stature. Mariota excels in five of six of those categories.
To me, that's certainly worth a pick at #12. I'd even package both firsts to move up for him. Anything past that...it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case situation. He's not a "give up the farm" prospect...but he's certainly not a "trade away for damaged goods" prospect either.
Well, I do respect your opinion but to make a long story short I don't see Mariota ever being good in the NFL. He's got some positives but I just really feel strongly he's never going to have the tools to adjust to the pro game. I actually don't think he's going to be injury prone or anything, btu at the end of the day it's not there for me. I really think he's going to fall at the draft but I'll eat crow if I'm wrong. As I understand his pro day was mediocre too.
To make it clear I wouldn't want this trade in the slightest. I think Bradford is almost undoubtedly going to get hurt again. It seems like the story of the Browns wanting Bradford had some legs and I don't believe for a second Chip doesn't want Marcus.
Well, I do respect your opinion but to make a long story short I don't see Mariota ever being good in the NFL. He's got some positives but I just really feel strongly he's never going to have the tools to adjust to the pro game. I actually don't think he's going to be injury prone or anything, btu at the end of the day it's not there for me. I really think he's going to fall at the draft but I'll eat crow if I'm wrong. As I understand his pro day was mediocre too.
To make it clear I wouldn't want this trade in the slightest. I think Bradford is almost undoubtedly going to get hurt again. It seems like the story of the Browns wanting Bradford had some legs and I don't believe for a second Chip doesn't want Marcus.
I can understand that. To each his own.
It was "confirmed" by Caplan just a bit ago that it was us that offered a pick for Bradford and that the pick was #19.
I don't know how I feel about the Eagles going for Mariota, but I just don't see them trading for Bradford unless they had some other plans in mind. I don't see Bradford as an improvement over Foles in the least.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
let's not forget that our new QB coach is also Mariotas trainer and ran his pro day.....so the Browns should have a very strong insiders opinion(one way or the other) on Mariota....
I'm gonna defer to them on this one...if they pass on him, Im good with it.....and if they go after him, then Im down with that too....
-
Well, I do respect your opinion but to make a long story short I don't see Mariota ever being good in the NFL. He's got some positives but I just really feel strongly he's never going to have the tools to adjust to the pro game. I actually don't think he's going to be injury prone or anything, btu at the end of the day it's not there for me. I really think he's going to fall at the draft but I'll eat crow if I'm wrong. As I understand his pro day was mediocre too.
To make it clear I wouldn't want this trade in the slightest. I think Bradford is almost undoubtedly going to get hurt again. It seems like the story of the Browns wanting Bradford had some legs and I don't believe for a second Chip doesn't want Marcus.
I can understand that. To each his own.
It was "confirmed" by Caplan just a bit ago that it was us that offered a pick for Bradford and that the pick was #19.
I don't know how I feel about the Eagles going for Mariota, but I just don't see them trading for Bradford unless they had some other plans in mind. I don't see Bradford as an improvement over Foles in the least.
I can understand that. To each his own.
It was "confirmed" by Caplan just a bit ago that it was us that offered a pick for Bradford and that the pick was #19.
I don't know how I feel about the Eagles going for Mariota, but I just don't see them trading for Bradford unless they had some other plans in mind. I don't see Bradford as an improvement over Foles in the least.
And see that's the thing-on its face the Bradford for Foles trade makes little to no sense to me. It seems like Chip thinks Bradford is a better trade bait which maybe he is, I don't know. Of course using the Occam's Razor approach maybe he just thinks Foles had a fluke year and Bradford is better.
It's hard not to look at the situation and think there's a much bigger plan to include Mariota.
-
Two firsts for a qb in a meager qb draft?
Not happenin. Bank on it.
Not again, hopefully.
The Browns "gave up" much more than 2 First Round Picks to draft Tim Couch (the best of a weak QB class).
How did that work out?
I hope that lesson has been learned, although I understand it is a different organization.
"God is great. Beer is good. People are crazy." -
There has only ever been one "sure thing".
In the real, awake world, Gip, somebody CAN actually fck up a wet dream.
-
Two firsts for a qb in a meager qb draft?
Not happenin. Bank on it.
Not again, hopefully.
The Browns "gave up" much more than 2 First Round Picks to draft Tim Couch (the best of a weak QB class).
How did that work out?
I hope that lesson has been learned, although I understand it is a different organization.
Not again, hopefully.
The Browns "gave up" much more than 2 First Round Picks to draft Tim Couch (the best of a weak QB class).
How did that work out?
I hope that lesson has been learned, although I understand it is a different organization.
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Not again, hopefully.
The Browns "gave up" much more than 2 First Round Picks to draft Tim Couch (the best of a weak QB class).
How did that work out?
I hope that lesson has been learned, although I understand it is a different organization.
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
"God is great. Beer is good. People are crazy." -
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
More appropriate for a Bengals fan, I'd say...
-
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
Sure, but IF we're comparing first round QB busts, I hardly thing our re-inaugural QB fits the bill. Couch was as much of a bust as Clevfan4life is a Browns fan.
-
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
If only "Ifs and But's" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
so the browns are re-incarnated and they pick QB with their #1 pick. then a DE.
no OL, a couple of rookie WR weapons, a whiff of any type or sense of any offensive scheme to get them through years of buidling a line on either side of the ball and couch sucks.
GTFO. couch on the browns right now we'd be picking parker @19 and IN the playoffs.
-
Not again, hopefully.
The Browns "gave up" much more than 2 First Round Picks to draft Tim Couch (the best of a weak QB class).
How did that work out?
I hope that lesson has been learned, although I understand it is a different organization.
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
Dude was sacked 56 TIMES his rookie season. He had absolutely no protection. He was fucked from the get-go.
-
What did they give up to get Couch?
Couch is still one of the highest rated QB prospects entering the NFL of the last 20 years. Put him on a team that doesn't suck absolute shit, and he's probably a top-10 QB and franchise-level guy.
Dude was sacked 56 TIMES his rookie season. He had absolutely no protection. He was fucked from the get-go.
Dude was sacked 56 TIMES his rookie season. He had absolutely no protection. He was fucked from the get-go.
So..........................how did it work out?
-
Dude was sacked 56 TIMES his rookie season. He had absolutely no protection. He was fucked from the get-go.
So..........................how did it work out?
So..........................how did it work out?
well it worked out that fans thinking that those 'awesome' #1 and 2's first round picks meant nothing because there was no 'team' to place them into.
it's like the sammy watkins debate. you're going to pick a WR with the #4 overall pick when you don't even have a QB? GTFO.
football, baseball and soccer are all field sports where most professionals know you build from the middle out. in baseball it's the catcher, the second baseman the center fielder then a pitcher. you don't just sign a pitcher without the other three. it's fucking common sense man. then you add the other components....short stop, 3rdbaseman etc etc
-
I'm just glad this thread has conclusively shown that OL before either QB or WR is the way to go.
So, we're in agreement that we should go DT and OL in the first this year, yes? Good.
-
I'm just glad this thread has conclusively shown that OL before either QB or WR is the way to go.
So, we're in agreement that we should go DT and OL in the first this year, yes? Good.
I'm just glad this thread has conclusively shown that OL before either QB or WR is the way to go.
So, we're in agreement that we should go DT and OL in the first this year, yes? Good.
No. But nice try.
With Mack, we had a top-five OL last year. We have two first round picks, a second round pick and a third round pick invested into this line. They are solid to great players at their individual positions. Adding a first round G won't put this offensive line over the edge, continuity will. We need depth and an offseason together. Nobody was complaining about the offensive line in Week 3 last year.
As for defensive line: The Rams had four first round picks on their defensive line last year. How did they fare? The Bills had three first round picks on their defensive line last year. How did they fare?
The Seahawks had one of, if not the best, defensive line last season... and they have two undrafted players, a third round pick and a first round pick.
If the best overall run-stuffing DL is a first round prospect, then sure - let's go get him. Because that's what we need, a run-stuffer. But don't take a guy in the first just because a handful of people rate him as the best prospect. That's an idiot's way of drafting and you're not maximizing your spend.
OL and DL are huge, you can't win with poor play at either position. However, a stellar DL/ OL and no QB isn't a recipe for success either. You've got to have both of them together.
We have a solid to great corps of offensive linemen and a solid corps of defensive linemen. Get a run stuffing NT, play an entire season with the same offensive linemen in the same positions, and get an ILB who can sniff out a play and has the nuts to stop it at the mesh point and nobody will be complaining about our production from either line.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
The Browns could intentionally spark World War III, cause the deaths of 300,000,000 people, shoot my mother and rape my dog, and I would still be a fan. You're just a Steelers convert waiting to happen. Get the fuck out, bitch.
It's funny that the only person that has "Cleveland fan" and "4 life" in their name is the one that's being a big ass whiny bitch.
More like Clevfanuntilimaketheswitchtopittsburgh
Ahem... I believe you forgot the original...It's funny that the only person that has "Cleveland fan" and "4 life" in their name is the one that's being a big ass whiny bitch.
More like Clevfanuntilimaketheswitchtopittsburgh
once a fan, always a fan. married to a steeler fan. aaaaaaaaah! --andy -
I'm just glad this thread has conclusively shown that OL before either QB or WR is the way to go.
So, we're in agreement that we should go DT and OL in the first this year, yes? Good.
No. But nice try.
With Mack, we had a top-five OL last year. We have two first round picks, a second round pick and a third round pick invested into this line. They are solid to great players at their individual positions. Adding a first round G won't put this offensive line over the edge, continuity will. We need depth and an offseason together. Nobody was complaining about the offensive line in Week 3 last year.
As for defensive line: The Rams had four first round picks on their defensive line last year. How did they fare? The Bills had three first round picks on their defensive line last year. How did they fare?
The Seahawks had one of, if not the best, defensive line last season... and they have two undrafted players, a third round pick and a first round pick.
If the best overall run-stuffing DL is a first round prospect, then sure - let's go get him. Because that's what we need, a run-stuffer. But don't take a guy in the first just because a handful of people rate him as the best prospect. That's an idiot's way of drafting and you're not maximizing your spend.
OL and DL are huge, you can't win with poor play at either position. However, a stellar DL/ OL and no QB isn't a recipe for success either. You've got to have both of them together.
We have a solid to great corps of offensive linemen and a solid corps of defensive linemen. Get a run stuffing NT, play an entire season with the same offensive linemen in the same positions, and get an ILB who can sniff out a play and has the nuts to stop it at the mesh point and nobody will be complaining about our production from either line.
We have a solid to great corps of offensive linemen and a solid corps of defensive linemen. Get a run stuffing NT, play an entire season with the same offensive linemen in the same positions, and get an ILB who can sniff out a play and has the nuts to stop it at the mesh point and nobody will be complaining about our production from either line.
agreed BUT now that the browns have seen what can happen when one of the 'corp' goes down to injury then i'd think they'd like to bolster both lines with either first day starters or depth to balance that issue.
so an OL with one of the 2 picks in the first round would be a solid move IMO.
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