Beware The Next Jeff George & David Carr Greatest Workouts Ever Types Today.

Flugel

@canton-dawg said:

Judging from the quality of 1st rounders selected, the Browns might as well trade the the first pick.

At least we're sure to get 2 guys with marginal NFL talent.

Maybe BB remembering some of his forgettable first rounds in Cleveland like Craig Powell or Touchdown-Free Tommy Vardell eventually got him thinking "why don't I just start trading back for more picks?" That's worked out pretty damn good for NE. TN's new front office guy (Jon Robinson) who came over from the NE Patriots last off season - did the same thing for TN by trading back and adding volume. They had 3 picks in round 2 ending with Derrick Henry. Ozzie said he learned a lot about the draft from BB in Cleveland.

Teams that let the draft fall to them or trade back do better than the ones that get knee jerky for trade-ups. The year we traded up for KWII we could have stayed put for Ben Roethlisberger. Another year we stayed put and went with what Savage called the safe route with Braylon Edwards at #3 overall we could have added picks while trading back as far as into the 20s to select Aaron Rodgers at QB.

nickers

Workouts and "Anal'Littix" mean absolute 0 to Me,,, can you play on game day?.. thats what concerns Me more than anything...

Canton Dawg

The definition of "franchise QB" is subjective, so here's the guys I consider franchise.

Franchise QB's NOT taken in the first round (pretty short list):

Brady 6th round

Brees 2nd round

Wilson 3rd round

Franchise QB's that were first rounders:

Luck

Newton

Ryan

Flacco

Rodgers

Manning

Rivers

Roethlesberger

I don't consider guys like Smith, Cutler, Palmer, Bradford, or Stafford (all first round picks) as "franchise" due to lack of post season success.

I also don't consider guys like Mariota, Winston (both first rounders) Prescott, or Carr as franchise due to not enough data. However, I would say Prescott and Carr look very good during their short tenure in the league.

Tour2ma

@canton-dawg said:

Luck ---- #1 overall

Newton- #1

Ryan---- #3

Flacco-- #18

Rodgers-#24

Manning-#1

Rivers----# 4

Roethlesberger- #11

So your list had three, untouchable, #1 overall picks. Every other pick, five in total, was within reasonable reach of a "6-win" team... although for some we'd have to reach/trade down.

And for the record your "not-franchise" list, Smith, Cutler, Palmer, Bradford, or Stafford, included four, overall #1's and an 11.

The Gipper

@flugel said:

While we want to see some accuracy and arm strength out there today - let's try to keep it all in perspective. That is there is no pass rush changing time to throw, releases and mechanics as ALL QBs coming to our T-shirt tradition have painfully experienced. There's also no DCs confusing the crap out of young WRs and QB tandems trying to be on the same page in adjustment to either a zone blitz or a brilliant disguise of one. There will be NO corners today to press a WR or challenge the QB to fit a tight window.

In essence, the combines as well as the scripted workouts (that often hide weaknesses) have often created a lot of false positives and fast risers over the years. In fact, the Combines took a guy like Tom Brady and buried him all the way down the pecking order to late round 6 not too long after a very impressive Bowl Game performance where erased a big deficit to win. Even Bill Walsh got confused and took a QB Gino Carmozzi from Hofstra instead of Brady so even Paul Brown's best pupil got confused by workouts. After not suiting up for about 90% of NE's games as a rookie - BB told Brady he needed to get stronger in the weight room if he wanted to make it in this league. Just 1 year later, he won his 1st of 5 Superbowl Championships. On the other hand, the combines made Jay Cutler a very overpaid QB that wins even less frequently than he did for a Bowl-less Vandy team.

I think it is a Captain Obvious statement that you don't pick a QB based on combine workouts.

The Gipper

@hoorta said:

Not disagreeing with your opinion. You've seen way more of Garrett than I have. One of the last JM survivors. If we draft Garrett I won't be disappointed (well, OK maybe a little). Yup, I've seen enough of Myles to believe he's the real deal. Potential Lawrence Taylor type.

Here's the funny thing Ag. The shoe is sort of on the other foot now. I was deadly cold blooded evaluating Manziel. Don't think you were on the Board pre draft, but I was the leader in the clubhouse in anti-Manziel rants. I could have puked when we drafted him. Every one of my fears about the guy came true, in spades. So now you're the one that's being objective about Mitch, and me and Gip are seeing things through the eyes of a Cleveland fan. Yeah- it's been 13 games, but I've seen everything I want to see out of a potential franchise qb. Accuracy, quick release, decent arm, good mobility, good pocket presence.

He goes to the Browns the hopes are going to be it's the second coming of that other hometown guy Bernie Kosar. (Yeah mom is worried about the pressure he'll be under) We love our local guys to make good. I can tell you this- if Trubisky wins a SB for the Browns, they'd take down the 80' poster of LeBron and put Mitch up there instead. He wins a couple, and they'll put his statue outside the stadium right next to Jim Brown's in 20 years.

The problem I have with Garrett is that of his like 32 career sacks, over half of them came against the like of cupcakes like Lamar, Rice, Northernwesternsoutherneastern Louisiana, McNeese State etc. When it came to playing Alabama....he was a ghost.

The Gipper

@mudfly said:

And Ill take it one further....

In addition to the 10 out of the last 20 drafts that did NOT produce a 1st round franchise QB....lets look at a few years that did...

2012 produced Luck.....but someone else drafted RG iii at #2...

2011 is the most comical mess Ive ever seen....Jake Locker at #8....Blaine Gabbert at #10.....Christian Ponder at #12

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha.....cant stop laughing long enough to list the rest....but it goes on and on and on.....

On the other hand of course you can get a year like 2004 where you may have 3 HOF QBs come out of that class.

You just never know with QBs.

And I am of the opinion that if you don't take a risk...you will get no reward.

The Gipper

@tour2ma said:

So your list had three, untouchable, #1 overall picks. Every other pick, five in total, was within reasonable reach of a "6-win" team... although for some we'd have to reach/trade down.

And for the record your "not-franchise" list, Smith, Cutler, Palmer, Bradford, or Stafford, included four, overall #1's and an 11.

Taking a QB anywhere anytime is a risk. Probably far more risky taking one later than earlier. Of course, the same can be said of any position...not just QBs. As Bad as the Browns track record has been at taking QBs...it is hardly any better taking players at any other position.

Are Quinn/Weeden/JMZ any bigger busts for the Browns than Gilbert, Mingo, Erving etc.? Difficult to quantify. It is just the importance of the QB position that makes it seem the QB picks have been more of a disaster.

Flugel

@the-gipper said:
I think it is a Captain Obvious statement that you don't pick a QB based on combine workouts.

Or, we could just remember the title of this thread I selected. I was just saying I didn't see the weak arm from Watson I read so much about from 1 guy in Camp Trubisky.

TexasAg1969

@the-gipper said:
The problem I have with Garrett is that of his like 32 career sacks, over half of them came against the like of cupcakes like Lamar, Rice, Northernwesternsoutherneastern Louisiana, McNeese State etc. When it came to playing Alabama....he was a ghost.

Give some credit to the SEC teams whose offensive game plans were set up to either stay away from him or double/triple team him. The injury from Ark. on made it easier to do this year. Add to that some of the worst LBs in the SEC backing him up. See any of them on anyone's radar? Nope.

calfoxwc

I watched these two youtubes this morning - for what it's worth... Voch Lombardi seems to know a lot....

That's on Watson, and Trubisky. One the the glaring things on Watson, is that he reads only half the field, as

Voch mentions....Trubisky certainly looks like he can be a terrific pocket passer... but I would want to

give up our 33 for Garappollo. That would give the stupid pats two picks in a row at the bottom of the round.

But give up our 12??? No way in hell.

I don't know. I don't see the Browns passing on Garrett - he's elite good. Maybe the Browns say "we can rush the passer

here, but we can't stop the pass".... and trade down with Chicago or something.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

Give some credit to the SEC teams whose offensive game plans were set up to either stay away from him or double/triple team him. The injury from Ark. on made it easier to do this year. Add to that some of the worst LBs in the SEC backing him up. See any of them on anyone's radar? Nope.

I don't know about the rest of the a/m Lbs. I only know that to be highly touted, you should be doing top performances against top competition.

And here, it seems that is not the case. He was handled by the "nearest to NFL quality" teams of the SEC....just not so much by the little sisters of the poor. And despite some teams seeming like it....there are no little sisters of the poor playing in the NFL.

hoorta

@flugel said:

Or, we could just remember the title of this thread I selected. I was just saying I didn't see the weak arm from Watson I read so much about from 1 guy in Camp Trubisky.

Weak? No, inaccurate? Maybe. Did look OK at the combine, but then again R Glass impressed Hue under similar circumstances.

TexasAg1969

@the-gipper said:

I don't know about the rest of the a/m Lbs. I only know that to be highly touted, you should be doing top performances against top competition.

And here, it seems that is not the case. He was handled by the "nearest to NFL quality" teams of the SEC....just not so much by the little sisters of the poor. And despite some teams seeming like it....there are no little sisters of the poor playing in the NFL.

He's gonna have the best OT in the business teaching him how to get by all the little sisters of the poor in the NFL. If Garrett arrives along with 2-3 more top D players, the Browns will be fun to watch again. Far better than watching them carting off yet another QB who has no D to back him up when games start to go south.

wargograw

No quality LBs by your own admission in year 5 and you still like Summy, Ag? Come on man.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

He's gonna have the best OT in the business teaching him how to get by all the little sisters of the poor in the NFL. If Garrett arrives along with 2-3 more top D players, the Browns will be fun to watch again. Far better than watching them carting off yet another QB who has no D to back him up when games start to go south.

Just because we don't take Garrett does not mean that the Browns would not have a D.

As I said, I have been equally impressed by Derek Barnett who had 52 tackles for loss and 32 sacks....both of which are more than Garrett over the same period and against the same SEC competition. In fact, he led the SEC in both categories...not Garrett.

I don't know specifically how they break down, i.e. did he, like Garrett get most of his sacks etc. vs. the multiple cupcakes that SEC invariably schedule, or were they against the more stiff competition.

TexasAg1969

@the-gipper said:

Just because we don't take Garrett does not mean that the Browns would not have a D.

As I said, I have been equally impressed by Derek Barnett who had 52 tackles for loss and 32 sacks....both of which are more than Garrett over the same period and against the same SEC competition. In fact, he led the SEC in both categories...not Garrett.

I don't know specifically how they break down, i.e. did he, like Garrett get most of his sacks etc. vs. the multiple cupcakes that SEC invariably schedule, or were they against the more stiff competition.

Don't know the answer on Barnett either, but they do play in the SEC East, not the much stronger West. I do know that Bama put up 49 on 'em though. A&M put up 45. Those were the only two from SEC West they played. Stats can sometimes deceive. Point is that it was not the same SEC competition.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-16/2016-tennessee-volunteers-football-schedule.php

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

Don't know the answer on Barnett either, but they do play in the SEC East, not the much stronger West. I do know that Bama put up 49 on 'em though. A&M put up 45. Those were the only two from SEC West they played. Stats can sometimes deceive. Point is that it was not the same SEC competition.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-16/2016-tennessee-volunteers-football-schedule.php

Well, of course, you can't expect him to be a one man team. And while the SEC east MAY be (or maybe not) the weaker of the two divisions....it is not as weak as the Lamar's Rice, Mcneese's where Garrett made his hay.

wargograw

There is no maybe. When it comes to OT play in the last three years, it is absolutely the weaker of the divisions. The comparison is not between the East and the cupcakes, it's between the East and the West.

RoyceRolls

This is basically a political discussion at this point. it's all ego and emotion parading around as logic. The truth is that Gipper read an article saying Trubisky was good several months ago and he jumped on board, now anything that goes against that emotional investment must be attacked in order to preserve the core belief. Its the same as when all the democrats who so strongly opposed the war fell silent once Obama took office even though he dropped more bombs on more countries than George Bush. Just the same as when the republicans so concerned about authoritarianism and "king Obama" said jack shit once Trump went on an executive order spree. Gipper has already staked his ground that Trubisky should be selected #1. Everyone on planet earth saying Garrett is the obvious choice is an affront to his ego, his overinflated, bitten by a radioactive Axl Rose ego. Just your run of the mill, garden variety cognitive dissonance.