@hoorta said:

 I see WAY too much of what Deshone looked like at Notre Dame in Allen at Wyoming. Tune in tomorrow 4PM EDT, ESPN and see if you don't agree.   

Ooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, Central Michigan.....................scary. They actually beat Kansas this year.....................oh wait.......................not basketball. This game can only prove he is Sheet or nothing at all.  Wyoming has already played at the stadium in Boise this year so they have that advantage of knowing the blue turf.

But Central Michigan did beat URI which I think is Urology Institute or something. I hear they can either play like pussies or ball breakers on any given day.

@tour2ma said:

Then for balance you should look at Kizer's strike to Gordon for a TD vs. GB...

I disagree our chances vs. the Bears are increased at all with Hogan... or Kessler.

RIght now I see Kizer headed in the direction of Jason Campbell. Where is he in 2019? I have no idea...

Tour, that's the problem I have with Kizer. He'll make a beautiful throw like that, and follow it up with 2 WTF ones.... The Ghoul would say he chokes in the Red Zone big time too...  I'd (almost) bet the ranch Deshone will never be consistent enough to ever crack the top half level of starting qbs. Had to look up his stats, but comparing him to Jason Campbell is being mighty charitable... 

Yeah, Deshone was a "value" pick that I never liked from the get go, though some pundits had him as the top QB prospect. Speaking of- ahem. Old Cal loves him some Josh Allen, and some pundits currently have him as a high first round pick. I see WAY too much of what Deshone looked like at Notre Dame in Allen at Wyoming. Tune in tomorrow 4PM EDT, ESPN and see if you don't agree.   

@westside-steve said:

Heh, not really but putting in Hogan early in the game would be the surprise. It seems like he did look good coming off the bench before?

WSS

IF  Kizer shits the bed in the first half....I could see Hogan being put in later.   I fully expect Kizer to throw 1 Int. and fumble the ball once in the first half of that game.  He has what?  almost 30 turnovers so far?   

Wonder what the "prop" bet would be on that.....Kizer....2 TO's in first half.  (make it any combination of Ints/fumbles).  I suspect that would be a "pic em" bet.

@tour2ma said:

Kizer sh!tting the bed would be a surprise?

Heh, not really but putting in Hogan early in the game would be the surprise. It seems like he did look good coming off the bench before?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

The only aadvantage we might have over the Bears is the element of surprise if Kizer were to shjt the bed early.

Kizer sh!tting the bed would be a surprise?

@tour2ma said:

Then for balance you should look at Kizer's strike to Gordon for a TD vs. GB...

I disagree our chances vs. the Bears are increased at all with Hogan... or Kessler.

I have to agree with that. At this stage of the game we probably don't gain anything by announcing Hogan. My point is only whether or not Hogan would be better than Kizer if he'd been the starter for the last 14 games. The only aadvantage we might have over the Bears is the element of surprise if Kizer were to shjt the bed early.

WSS

@hoorta said:

No I don't. Hogan will probably bounce around as a third string QB for a few years- (shades of Connor Shaw). But I see Kizer's ceiling as so low- I'm willing to sacrifice any future development he might have for the (slightly) improved chance Hogan could win against the Bears. At best Tour- I see Deshone on multiple teams after the Browns cut him (GMs and coaches just love guys with athletic talent and big arms- shades of Hue with RG III)  for 4-5 years, and hopefully he "gets it" later on. Shades of Jim Plunkett (BTW, looking at pro football reference Jim was never great- he just played on some great teams). Personally, I don't see Kizer on the Browns roster in 2019, and starting him the last two games will make the Parade a virtual certainty..  

PS- I just saw Kizer's Red Zone interception against the Ravens again. I'll now rate it as the worst I've ever seen. Threw it into a sea of purple, and it had zero chance of being a completion. 

Then for balance you should look at Kizer's strike to Gordon for a TD vs. GB...

I disagree our chances vs. the Bears are increased at all with Hogan... or Kessler.

RIght now I see Kizer headed in the direction of Jason Campbell. Where is he in 2019? I have no idea...

@hoorta said:

No I don't. Hogan will probably bounce around as a third string QB for a few years- (shades of Connor Shaw). But I see Kizer's ceiling as so low- I'm willing to sacrifice any future development he might have for the (slightly) improved chance Hogan could win against the Bears. At best Tour- I see Deshone on multiple teams after the Browns cut him (GMs and coaches just love guys with athletic talent and big arms- shades of Hue with RG III)  for 4-5 years, and hopefully he "gets it" later on. Shades of Jim Plunkett (BTW, looking at pro football reference Jim was never great- he just played on some great teams). Personally, I don't see Kizer on the Browns roster in 2019, and starting him the last two games will make the Parade a virtual certainty..  

PS- I just saw Kizer's Red Zone interception against the Ravens again. I'll now rate it as the worst I've ever seen. Threw it into a sea of purple, and it had zero chance of being a completion. 

When he released that I thought he was throwing out of the end zone...you know...to the blonde in the third row. But then....it ended being right in, as you say, a sea of purple.  And I thought "did he mean to throw it away and just short armed it or what?  I still believe that that HAS to be what happened...because there was no way that he should have actually been trying to throw that to a receiver.

So....with that, we should have Z autocorrect the name Kizer any time it is typed to "Scarecrow"....because he clearly doesn't seem to have a brain.

@tour2ma said:

Not if their future potential is seen as equal. I don't think it is. Do you?

No I don't. Hogan will probably bounce around as a third string QB for a few years- (shades of Connor Shaw). But I see Kizer's ceiling as so low- I'm willing to sacrifice any future development he might have for the (slightly) improved chance Hogan could win against the Bears. At best Tour- I see Deshone on multiple teams after the Browns cut him (GMs and coaches just love guys with athletic talent and big arms- shades of Hue with RG III)  for 4-5 years, and hopefully he "gets it" later on. Shades of Jim Plunkett (BTW, looking at pro football reference Jim was never great- he just played on some great teams). Personally, I don't see Kizer on the Browns roster in 2019, and starting him the last two games will make the Parade a virtual certainty..  

PS- I just saw Kizer's Red Zone interception against the Ravens again. I'll now rate it as the worst I've ever seen. Threw it into a sea of purple, and it had zero chance of being a completion. 

@hoorta said:

... does it really matter who the hell the starting qb is the next two games?

Not if their future potential is seen as equal. I don't think it is. Do you?

@tour2ma said:

I can't go that far. I only know I can't count on Kizer to be "the guy". Does that mean he never will develop? Possibly...

1. No... I'm only discussing Kizer because Hogan is a complete non-factor.
2. "Winning the job" had everything to do with who started. Shitcan #1, McCown, was never in the competition. Shitcan #2, Osweiler, had his shot. Would either have won more than zero games? It's possible, but it would have been at the cost of learning whether or not Kizer could be the guy going forward. Kizer won the job because of the combination of his physical promise (which earned him his draft position) and rapid mastery of the basics, i.e., working under Center, play-calling, etc.

I said a long time ago that playing Kizer was a win-win that was going to involve losing... possibly a lot of losing. If:

• at some point Kizer "got it" and we began to win, then we had our QB going forward and that was a win.
• Kizer never "got it" and we piled loss upon loss, then we had the #1 overall and our pick of the litter, a/k/a, a win.

Turned out the 2nd option was the one that that came to pass.

OK, I'll bite. if Hogan is a "non factor", same could be said at this point- so is Kizer. Deshone is going to get more "development time" in the last two games? To develop what? Perfecting getting strip sacked, throwing balls over Gordon's head or into the dirt, and ints into triple coverage? Honestly, some of Deshone's follies have been so predictable, they're almost funny- if it wasn't so sad. I called that Red Zone atrocity before it happened, "Here it comes!" Really- what's the sense in trotting him out there, only to have him embarrass himself further? Shut him down- I know, Hue is letting him play against the Bears. Kizer even said postgame Ravens he about 1\2 expected to get benched again. 

The point I really want to make Tour is we KNOW  we're drafting a QB (95%- 99%+ probability) with the #1 overall come April, so does it really matter who the hell the starting qb is the next two games? Dorsey should have scouted the Muni Lot before the Ravens game- "hey kid, you throw a nice spiral, wanna play against the Bears"? 

@westside-steve said:

If you are saying that an almost perfect losing seasons is a good idea because of the draft picks then why in the world would Sashi get fired? If that's such a great strategy what say we tank one more season! 

"Good idea" is not what I am saying. I am saying ending up with the #1 overall was one of two probable outcomes once we went with Kizer.

As for Sashi.... Hard for me to believe that these two possibilities were not discussed, understood and agreed to prior to final cuts. So I suspect Jimmah had help in forgetting his buy in which led to the "AJ Trade" which led to Sashi's dismissal.

@mark-o said:

in the butt with a pinecone sounds awfully painful.

I"m with you though...  screw 0-16.  Win a damn game...just one at this point is all I ask.  Would love it to be the squeelers and screw up their week off for round 1.    But Huey Cueball seems to only win games on Xmas eve, so maybe it will be this week against the Bears.

Funny thing is the we go against our untapped "savior" QB and have a better shot at that game than we do against the Pukes in the last game.

@tour2ma said:

I can't go that far. I only know I can't count on Kizer to be "the guy". Does that mean he never will develop? Possibly...

1. No... I'm only discussing Kizer because Hogan is a complete non-factor.
2. "Winning the job" had everything to do with who started. Shitcan #1, McCown, was never in the competition. Shitcan #2, Osweiler, had his shot. Would either have won more than zero games? It's possible, but it would have been at the cost of learning whether or not Kizer could be the guy going forward. Kizer won the job because of the combination of his physical promise (which earned him his draft position) and rapid mastery of the basics, i.e., working under Center, play-calling, etc.

I said a long time ago that playing Kizer was a win-win that was going to involve losing... possibly a lot of losing. If:

• at some point Kizer "got it" and we began to win, then we had our QB going forward and that was a win.
• Kizer never "got it" and we piled loss upon loss, then we had the #1 overall and our pick of the litter, a/k/a, a win.

Turned out the 2nd option was the one that that came to pass.

Here's where I disagree with your gambling. No Brock Osweiler never got a chance he played what a handful of snaps with an early Joe Thomas free line. I understand some people didn't think Josh McCown was the long-term answer but he was the best quarterback on the roster.

But let's talk about the bums we wound up with.

As far as finding out whether Kizer could play at all or was a complete bust its the same roll of the dice as finding out if Hogan could play or was a complete bust. Well we gambled and found out. I can't guarantee that Hogan would have won two or three games by now but we at least know that Kizer didn't.

If you are saying that an almost perfect losing seasons is a good idea because of the draft picks then why in the world would Sashi get fired? If that's such a great strategy what say we tank one more season! 

WSS

@mark-o said:

Pretty much...   Now we know.  Kizer isn't the answer other than as a future backup QB.  

I can't go that far. I only know I can't count on Kizer to be "the guy". Does that mean he never will develop? Possibly...

@westside-steve said:

1. So number one you are saying that if Hogan started he might well have won more games and the front office and coaching staff might possibly be confused as to whether he's the quarterback of the future?
2. As for number two I don't think winning the job had anything to do with it. I don't think we had a better chance to win with Kizer then we did with either of the quarterbacks we shitcanned. He got the start because of his draft position.

1. No... I'm only discussing Kizer because Hogan is a complete non-factor.
2. "Winning the job" had everything to do with who started. Shitcan #1, McCown, was never in the competition. Shitcan #2, Osweiler, had his shot. Would either have won more than zero games? It's possible, but it would have been at the cost of learning whether or not Kizer could be the guy going forward. Kizer won the job because of the combination of his physical promise (which earned him his draft position) and rapid mastery of the basics, i.e., working under Center, play-calling, etc.

I said a long time ago that playing Kizer was a win-win that was going to involve losing... possibly a lot of losing. If:

• at some point Kizer "got it" and we began to win, then we had our QB going forward and that was a win.
• Kizer never "got it" and we piled loss upon loss, then we had the #1 overall and our pick of the litter, a/k/a, a win.

Turned out the 2nd option was the one that that came to pass.

@westside-steve said:

At this point who cares I prefer to win one and still get the number one pick. Since the 49ers have their quarterback they'd be happy to trade that number one probably to the Giants and leave us holding the bag. It would still be nice to beat the Steelers.

Still screw O and 16 and screw anybody that wants to have a parade.

In the butt.

With a Pinecone.

WSS

Edit if we did go 0 and 16 it would be that much more fun to win the Superbowl in a couple of years.

in the butt with a pinecone sounds awfully painful.

I"m with you though...  screw 0-16.  Win a damn game...just one at this point is all I ask.  Would love it to be the squeelers and screw up their week off for round 1.    But Huey Cueball seems to only win games on Xmas eve, so maybe it will be this week against the Bears.

Still screw O and 16 and screw anybody that wants to have a parade.

In the butt.

With a Pinecone.

WSS

Edit if we did go 0 and 16 it would be that much more fun to win the Superbowl in a couple of years.

@the-gipper said:

And Stan?

Yuppers Gip there's still a few screen names of guys who left when the other board started up on autocorrect.

@westside-steve said:

Here's a case scenario. Kizer blows the game against the bears, Hogan gets the start and knocks the Steelers out of their sweet position.

WSS

@hoorta said:

ditto. I'm just the night watchman, making sure nothing terrible happens after 11PM. Zombo is the only one who can auto correct and change screen names. 

And Stan?

@poeticg said:

The Giants are 2-12... so theoretically if Hogan won two games and the NY lost the next two it would be a two way tie at 2-14.

The question is would you guys rather start Hogan to have a chance at a 2-14 record and pick #2 or keep playing Kizer to tank the rest of the season and remove all doubt that we're going 0-16- I mean there is the parade sponsored by Excedrin, because you know- they feel our pain...

Here's a case scenario. Kizer blows the game against the bears, Hogan gets the start and knocks the Steelers out of their sweet position.

WSS

@hoorta said:

Thought I heard that somewhere Steve. But it's possible if we would win the last two and the Giants lost the last two. Strength of schedule comes into play...

Took some digging but here's how it stands as of today. . Of course one more loss and we have the #1 overall locked up. Giants are at .541 with the Cardinals (6-8) and Redskins (6-8) left (.420%). The Browns are .510 with the Bears (4-10) and Steelers (11-3) left (.535%) . 

In that scenario, if my math is correct, Browns would end up 2-14 with a .513 SOS and Giants 2-14 with a .526 SOS. Bear in mind the pct will change for every team in these 2 weeks, but I don't think it'll change that much to lose #1.

@clevfan4life said:

Heh? Why? Theres zero question at this point we're going qb with the 1st and getting a vet qb to start infront of our shiny new pick. Best kizer can do is be 3rd string. Do u really think kizer is backup material? 

We invested a 2nd round on him and he has a 4 year contract which doesn't take a lot of salary space. The logic move would be to trade him in Year 3 for a 5th round or something like that.

@dutch-oven said:

I really, really do not want the Browns to go 0-16. NO ONE forgets 0-16. 1-15 gets forgotten.

Completely agreed. The mission is 'avoid 0-16 at all costs'. Though they'll probably make fun of the 2-30 Browns, anyway.

@mark-o said:

I'm a mod in name only....  i'm kinda like the vice president.  I have a title but no real power to do anything.

ditto. I'm just the night watchman, making sure nothing terrible happens after 11PM. Zombo is the only one who can auto correct and change screen names.