Therapy for Mud....good decisions...
-
To everyone who keeps saying bring in high-priced FA's... How's that Houston quarterback situation this morning?
Point being.. There is no quick fix if the objective is becoming a long-term contender.
Sure, you can throw money at people for a couple years.. but then what? Consider NY's D.. they'll be around for 1-2 seasons at which point their OL could move from being a terrible liability to occasionally useful.. and then when those FA players leave again, the team will be right back where they were before because the FO still can't draft.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
To everyone who keeps saying bring in high-priced FA's... How's that Houston quarterback situation this morning?
Point being.. There is no quick fix if the objective is becoming a long-term contender.
Sure, you can throw money at people for a couple years.. but then what? Consider NY's D.. they'll be around for 1-2 seasons at which point their OL could move from being a terrible liability to occasionally useful.. and then when those FA players leave again, the team will be right back where they were before because the FO still can't draft.
To everyone who keeps saying bring in high-priced FA's... How's that Houston quarterback situation this morning?
About the same as the Jets with their high priced FA QB. It's the one position where I'm really reluctant to get a guy in free agency. If a guy is that good, he won't be available. Maybe in trade, but mostly it'll be through the draft.
-
FA QBs get irresistibly attractive when a team is a "QB away". That was Houston this year, especially after Miller answered their RB prayer. In past years we've seen Chicago go this route with Cutler, Denver go this route with P. Manning.
FA QBs generally mean little otherwise. Most of the movement is shuffling the deck of back-ups and seeing if maybe a starter emerges because his new surroundings (players, system, etc.) consistently bring out something that's only been flashed before. There is a long list of these including more than a few that have shuffled thru our roster.
If you look at the track record it seems that only when a quality starter gets crowded out by an embarrassment of QB riches does it work out. Again P. Manning is the most recent example. The next one may be Romo. Hard pressed to think of a back-up that worked out.
Trade route? Pretty much the same mixed bag. Two positive examples spring to mind, Smith in KC and Brees in NO. But again back-ups? I got nothing...
"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 -
I'd throw Palmer in there as a trade working out, for the Cards, though he's an example of not working out for the Raiders.
Bradford is probably one that works out, and out of that might come another, Teddy B.
-
FA QBs get irresistibly attractive when a team is a "QB away". That was Houston this year, especially after Miller answered their RB prayer. In past years we've seen Chicago go this route with Cutler, Denver go this route with P. Manning.
FA QBs generally mean little otherwise. Most of the movement is shuffling the deck of back-ups and seeing if maybe a starter emerges because his new surroundings (players, system, etc.) consistently bring out something that's only been flashed before. There is a long list of these including more than a few that have shuffled thru our roster.
If you look at the track record it seems that only when a quality starter gets crowded out by an embarrassment of QB riches does it work out. Again P. Manning is the most recent example. The next one may be Romo. Hard pressed to think of a back-up that worked out.
Trade route? Pretty much the same mixed bag. Two positive examples spring to mind, Smith in KC and Brees in NO. But again back-ups? I got nothing...
FA QBs get irresistibly attractive when a team is a "QB away". That was Houston this year, especially after Miller answered their RB prayer. In past years we've seen Chicago go this route with Cutler, Denver go this route with P. Manning.
FA QBs generally mean little otherwise. Most of the movement is shuffling the deck of back-ups and seeing if maybe a starter emerges because his new surroundings (players, system, etc.) consistently bring out something that's only been flashed before. There is a long list of these including more than a few that have shuffled thru our roster.
If you look at the track record it seems that only when a quality starter gets crowded out by an embarrassment of QB riches does it work out. Again P. Manning is the most recent example. The next one may be Romo. Hard pressed to think of a back-up that worked out.
Trade route? Pretty much the same mixed bag. Two positive examples spring to mind, Smith in KC and Brees in NO. But again back-ups? I got nothing...
Tour- the above is exactly what scares me about the crowd that's saying "Go for Garropolo". He's not only a backup that's flashed in a couple of games, but there's a bunch of other reasons to be real leery of Bill being willing (at least from reports) to auction off Jimmy to the highest bidder.
-
FA QBs get irresistibly attractive when a team is a "QB away". That was Houston this year, especially after Miller answered their RB prayer. In past years we've seen Chicago go this route with Cutler, Denver go this route with P. Manning.
FA QBs generally mean little otherwise. Most of the movement is shuffling the deck of back-ups and seeing if maybe a starter emerges because his new surroundings (players, system, etc.) consistently bring out something that's only been flashed before. There is a long list of these including more than a few that have shuffled thru our roster.
If you look at the track record it seems that only when a quality starter gets crowded out by an embarrassment of QB riches does it work out. Again P. Manning is the most recent example. The next one may be Romo. Hard pressed to think of a back-up that worked out.
Trade route? Pretty much the same mixed bag. Two positive examples spring to mind, Smith in KC and Brees in NO. But again back-ups? I got nothing...
FA QBs get irresistibly attractive when a team is a "QB away". That was Houston this year, especially after Miller answered their RB prayer. In past years we've seen Chicago go this route with Cutler, Denver go this route with P. Manning.
FA QBs generally mean little otherwise. Most of the movement is shuffling the deck of back-ups and seeing if maybe a starter emerges because his new surroundings (players, system, etc.) consistently bring out something that's only been flashed before. There is a long list of these including more than a few that have shuffled thru our roster.
.
Nick Foles is a FA, only signed a one year deal with KC. Certainly an upgrade over RG3, even thought we're not a QB away. I'd definitely consider signing him,nudging McCown to a staff position, keeping Kessler, and drafting a QB.
-
FA QBs get irresistibly attractive when a team is a "QB away". That was Houston this year, especially after Miller answered their RB prayer. In past years we've seen Chicago go this route with Cutler, Denver go this route with P. Manning.
FA QBs generally mean little otherwise. Most of the movement is shuffling the deck of back-ups and seeing if maybe a starter emerges because his new surroundings (players, system, etc.) consistently bring out something that's only been flashed before. There is a long list of these including more than a few that have shuffled thru our roster.
.
Nick Foles is a FA, only signed a one year deal with KC. Certainly an upgrade over RG3, even thought we're not a QB away. I'd definitely consider signing him,nudging McCown to a staff position, keeping Kessler, and drafting a QB.
Nick Foles is a FA, only signed a one year deal with KC. Certainly an upgrade over RG3, even thought we're not a QB away. I'd definitely consider signing him,nudging McCown to a staff position, keeping Kessler, and drafting a QB.
Nick, my original, BrownsBoard, darkhorse QB... Over the Cap shows him under contract thru 2017? But he's shown as being too expensive to keep as a back-up, so is a likely cap casualty. Just can't shake the feeling that at this point he has been ruined.
http://overthecap.com/player/nick-foles/773/
As a whole the 2017 QB FA class is underwhelming. One name near the bottom that is intriguing is Matt Barkley. What I have seen of his current run of Bears' starts shows a good head for the game, but some wildness getting in the way.
McC as a staffer in the QB room, and emergency activation option, makes a lot of sense to me. He is under contract tho for 2017 with a $5mm price tag, so I think he'd have to retire as a first step.
EDIT: ... and the "peasant" thing was a joke...
"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 -
Nick Foles is a FA, only signed a one year deal with KC. Certainly an upgrade over RG3, even thought we're not a QB away. I'd definitely consider signing him,nudging McCown to a staff position, keeping Kessler, and drafting a QB.
Nick, my original, BrownsBoard, darkhorse QB... Over the Cap shows him under contract thru 2017? But he's shown as being too expensive to keep as a back-up, so is a likely cap casualty. Just can't shake the feeling that at this point he has been ruined.
http://overthecap.com/player/nick-foles/773/
As a whole the 2017 QB FA class is underwhelming. One name near the bottom that is intriguing is Matt Barkley. What I have seen of his current run of Bears' starts shows a good head for the game, but some wildness getting in the way.
McC as a staffer in the QB room, and emergency activation option, makes a lot of sense to me. He is under contract tho for 2017 with a $5mm price tag, so I think he'd have to retire as a first step.
EDIT: ... and the "peasant" thing was a joke...
Nick, my original, BrownsBoard, darkhorse QB... Over the Cap shows him under contract thru 2017? But he's shown as being too expensive to keep as a back-up, so is a likely cap casualty. Just can't shake the feeling that at this point he has been ruined.
http://overthecap.com/player/nick-foles/773/
As a whole the 2017 QB FA class is underwhelming. One name near the bottom that is intriguing is Matt Barkley. What I have seen of his current run of Bears' starts shows a good head for the game, but some wildness getting in the way.
McC as a staffer in the QB room, and emergency activation option, makes a lot of sense to me. He is under contract tho for 2017 with a $5mm price tag, so I think he'd have to retire as a first step.
EDIT: ... and the "peasant" thing was a joke...
No worries, it's an open forum lol. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pompousness
Who knows if Foles is ruined. He wasn't Chip Kelly's guy, and Andy Reid likes Alex Smith better. Foles had that one good year in Philly, so that's why I brought it up.
-
To everyone who keeps saying bring in high-priced FA's... How's that Houston quarterback situation this morning?
Point being.. There is no quick fix if the objective is becoming a long-term contender.
Sure, you can throw money at people for a couple years.. but then what? Consider NY's D.. they'll be around for 1-2 seasons at which point their OL could move from being a terrible liability to occasionally useful.. and then when those FA players leave again, the team will be right back where they were before because the FO still can't draft.
Not always. November of 2014, we were 7-4 and the Raiders were 0-11. November 2016, raiders in the playoffs, Browns 0 fer.To everyone who keeps saying bring in high-priced FA's... How's that Houston quarterback situation this morning?
Point being.. There is no quick fix if the objective is becoming a long-term contender.
Sure, you can throw money at people for a couple years.. but then what? Consider NY's D.. they'll be around for 1-2 seasons at which point their OL could move from being a terrible liability to occasionally useful.. and then when those FA players leave again, the team will be right back where they were before because the FO still can't draft.
2 years and smart picks. Both FA and draft.
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