Schefter: Browns still split between taking Garrett and Trubisky with #1 pick

htownbrown

@the-gipper said:
Buy the team, then you can make those decisions.

The only way to buy a decade of failure is to buy the Browns after picking another backup QB in the first round.

The Gipper

@htownbrown said:

The only way to buy a decade of failure is to buy the Browns after picking another backup QB in the first round.

Or worse yet, another DE that can't even a backup. Mingo, Courtney, Wimbley. Well, maybe Wimbley could be a backup.

htownbrown

@the-gipper said:
Or worse yet, another DE that can't even a backup. Mingo, Courtney, Wimbley. Well, maybe Wimbley could be a backup.

So which one do you want to compare Garrett to? Garrett is better than all 3 combined coming out of college. Mitchell isn't even as good as what we could of had last year.

LBC mike

No fucking Weeden, manziel, Brady ........repeat. BPA PLEASE

LBC mike

Next year QB class is better

TexasAg1969

Here is an interesting take. From the article: "If I’m going to believe anything, I’d lean toward Jackson wanting Garrett. He ruled out trading the No. 1 pick for a quarterback (read: Patriots backup Jimmy Garoppolo), and if the Browns are as hot for Garoppolo as I believe, why would Trubisky be worth the pick but not Garoppolo?"

That's an excellent point!

http://www.chroniclet.com/browns-notes/2017/04/12/Analysis.html

Flugel

@roycerolls said:
The Browns have drafted 6 1st round busts in the past five years, what's one more?

Last night on the NFL Channel - Heath Needs2exhale-Evans said 30 of the 32 first round picks from 2014 are still in the NFL. The only 2 that aren't are Justin Gilbert and Johnny Manziel.

hoorta

@texasag1969 said:

Here is an interesting take. From the article: "If I’m going to believe anything, I’d lean toward Jackson wanting Garrett. He ruled out trading the No. 1 pick for a quarterback (read: Patriots backup Jimmy Garoppolo), and if the Browns are as hot for Garoppolo as I believe, why would Trubisky be worth the pick but not Garoppolo?"

That's an excellent point!

http://www.chroniclet.com/browns-notes/2017/04/12/Analysis.html

Quarterback for our #1? I read Kirk Cousins Ag. Not that scrub from Chowder Land.

TexasAg1969

Either one his point remains the same. If they were not willing to give up #1 for more proven QB's, then why would they take one there in the draft?

This should sell ya! LOL!

Frenchie

@hoorta said:
I liked your line of thinking fine, until- you lost me trading back up into the first round. Say to #22 again? LOL. I have a feeling of more Bad Karma about that one. MHO? If we don't take or trade up to get Mitch- it's pass totally on a QB and roll with Kessler and the Ostrich behind a vastly improved o-line. Not saying you can't get lucky taking a QB in the second round like the Raiders did with Carr most recently- but you had better be 100% certain the guy has franchise potential before you waste a high pick on a second or third tier guy. I'm just not seeing it in Watson, Kizer, or Webb. If Quarterback Whisperer Hue thinks he can quickly fix Mahomes' horrible mechanics, he should be fired. Give me a defender like Budda Baker at the top of the second instead.

The trade-up to the first round gives you one more year with the player under a rookie contract. With this group of QB's that probably makes sense. Please not to #22 LOL.

The Gipper

@htownbrown said:

So which one do you want to compare Garrett to? Garrett is better than all 3 combined coming out of college. Mitchell isn't even as good as what we could of had last year.

Both things you say are wrong: A. You have no clue if Garrett is better or will be better, he might be, or he may not be. I don't think he is any more highly rated than Courtney Brown was...and B. My opinion aside, Trubisky has graded out better than either Goff or Wentz...by whomever does the grading.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

Here is an interesting take. From the article: "If I’m going to believe anything, I’d lean toward Jackson wanting Garrett. He ruled out trading the No. 1 pick for a quarterback (read: Patriots backup Jimmy Garoppolo), and if the Browns are as hot for Garoppolo as I believe, why would Trubisky be worth the pick but not Garoppolo?"

That's an excellent point!

http://www.chroniclet.com/browns-notes/2017/04/12/Analysis.html

Because....perhaps in their view MT is a much better QB prospect than Garropolo?

Again, all y'all are imputing your own thoughts and opinions on to others. Those others being the Browns FO...and all of us on here that may disagree with your opinion.

The Gipper

@flugel said:

Last night on the NFL Channel - Heath Needs2exhale-Evans said 30 of the 32 first round picks from 2014 are still in the NFL. The only 2 that aren't are Justin Gilbert and Johnny Manziel.

And some may wonder why Ray Farmer has no job now.

The Gipper

@texasag1969 said:

Either one his point remains the same. If they were not willing to give up #1 for more proven QB's, then why would they take one there in the draft?

The point is not the same. Garropolo specifically is not proven at all.

And the reason they may consider taking him is because they view him as a supreme talent.

What is it about this fact that you lunkheads don't understand?

YOUR opinions don't count for shit or shinola.

Only the Browns FO's opinions count...and they may be different than yours.

DOH!

(That is not to say they won't take Garrett....but it is also not to say that they may give it some serious thought about taking the QB. Lunkheads discount that possibility when they shouldn't)

Tour2ma

@the-gipper said:

@tour2ma said:

Well that's not fair... Trubs hasn't shown he can read a D either...

Not at a pro level,...no rookie has ever proven that....but at the college level it has been one of his strengths.

Someone needs to learn the difference between reading a defense and going through progressions.

And making up facts about "no rookie" doesn't help that person's cause..

@the-gipper said:
Every asshole has an opinion. This just happens to live it, he is an asshole and has an asshole opinion

I can handle that you are obstinate... to a point, but when you mix in this "Ghoolie-lite" act, it gets a lot harder.

I may have to rethink paroling you from the Ignore List...

@the-gipper said:
A non-QB who is way better at his position than any of the QBs in this draft are at their position is exactly the situation we have before us.

Purely a matter of opinion.

Thank you, Capt. Obvious..

Tour2ma

@cambridgeho said:
I thought Hue liked Kessler. Isnt that why he said "trust me on this" when they drafted him 3 rounds sooner then predicted?

Which is part of the reason the Hue-FO "split" flipped less than 24 hours after it surfaced.

First reported: Hue --- Trubs / FO --- Garrett

Then: Hue --- Garrett / FO --- Trubs

12.5 more days of this shit. Not... sure... I... can... take... it.... I'm not getting any younger.

TexasAg1969

@the-gipper said:

Because....perhaps in their view MT is a much better QB prospect than Garropolo?

Again, all y'all are imputing your own thoughts and opinions on to others. Those others being the Browns FO...and all of us on here that may disagree with your opinion.

And somehow I thought the purpose of a board was to express...........................wait for it................................opinions.

I've made no secret that I think Trubs is a choker when the important game is on the line. But the Browns should just go with your opinion and take a taller version of Romo 2.0.

And though Watson may not be the prototypical pro QB, he wins somehow. Go figure.

Tour2ma

@texasag1969 said:

Here is an interesting take. From the article: "If I’m going to believe anything, I’d lean toward Jackson wanting Garrett. He ruled out trading the No. 1 pick for a quarterback (read: Patriots backup Jimmy Garoppolo), and if the Browns are as hot for Garoppolo as I believe, why would Trubisky be worth the pick but not Garoppolo?"

That's an excellent point! http://www.chroniclet.com/browns-notes/2017/04/12/Analysis.html

Agree... in ESPN's abbreviated, and multi-reset, war room mock last nite, alternately acting as Sashi and then our player personnel head, Bill Pollian said, "Both Garropolo and McCarron have higher grades than any QB in this draft." McShay, playing our Head of College Scouting agreed.

At both 1 and 12 "we" made calls:

to the Pats to make a last stab at Jimmy G (we offered #12 and #52; their counter including the #1, was too high) and
Cinci (they answered with "No" in place of hello... damned caller ID... and did not even listen to our offer)

We ended up picking Garrett and Foster... I believe I had this months ago...

@texasag1969 said:

Either one his point remains the same. If they were not willing to give up #1 for more proven QB's, then why would they take one there in the draft?

This should sell ya! LOL!

FWIW... Damien Woody, the first Yates bench-press participant, exhibited much more "control"...

Tour2ma

@the-gipper said:
Both things you say are wrong: A. You have no clue if Garrett is better or will be better, he might be, or he may not be. I don't think he is any more highly rated than Courtney Brown was...and B. My opinion aside, Trubisky has graded out better than either Goff or Wentz...by whomever does the grading.

I continue to be amazed at how you know others are wrong when you have no more insight, and often considerably less, than they do...

@the-gipper said:
Or worse yet, another DE that can't even a backup. Mingo, Courtney, Wimbley. Well, maybe Wimbley could be a backup.

Please explain how missing on a #1 at QB is better than missing at any other position...

The Gipper

@tour2ma said:

I continue to be amazed at how you know others are wrong when you have no more insight, and often considerably less, than they do...

You are amazed because you are showing you are the one with no insight. I say they are wrong because they assert that X is an absolute truth....when all X is is their opinion. And I tell them that X is merely an opinion, and yet they continue to believe that their opinions are absolute facts.

They assert that Garret is by far and away the best player in this draft. And I say...no, it is the opinion of many that he is by far the best prospect in this draft....but the FACT is, we don't know that for sure. They discount the possibility that he could turn into another Courtney Brown/Mingo/Wimbley.

I do NOT discount that....because, simply, we are dealing with the Browns, and the Browns record of failure with high draft picks is astounding.

So, I am not going to buy someone's opinion that it is an absolute fact that this player is such a sure thing and will turn out oh so much better than another player.

Ya follow?

Please explain how missing on a #1 at QB is better than missing at any other position...

I don't think it is better, and I don't recall ever saying that it is better. Certainly it is probably worse.

You miss on a high pick defender, it is not big of a deal.

You miss on a high pick QB...and it is a much bigger deal.

I have always said: taking a QB high IS a big risk...because of that possibility of failure.

I have always said: taking Trubisky is by all means a risk....because unlike the Gays for Gayrett, I understand the potential that he could bust. The Gays never conceive that their guy could bust. But I know it is possible...just like a zillion other Browns first rounders.

(by saying...or worse yet....I am simply referring to the fact that the Gays will be far more mortified if their boy busts...because they refuse to acknowledge that possibility...and ergo it will be worse for them than say if a QB they didn't want were to bust)