Jonathan Paul Manziel
-
JF all the way.
-
Why is Cleveland always looking for a qb. Let's load the team with talent so a cripple could play the position. Pass on the qb this year let hoyer do the job and if it's a worry pick up a free agent.
No.Why is Cleveland always looking for a qb. Let's load the team with talent so a cripple could play the position. Pass on the qb this year let hoyer do the job and if it's a worry pick up a free agent.
-
your probably right...they'll take a nose tackle or guard...then use three different QBs, in route to a 6-10 season and the 8th pick next year.
-
I don't think anyone including Farmer know.
-
they showed an actual preseason draft and FA behind the scenes of the cowboys one night on NFL network.
they didn't have anything settled in stone until 7 days of the draft. and then as soon as you go into the war room and think you know how it's gonna go, someone in front of you does some stupid shit and then you wait for a phone call or give the intern the card.
tick tock.......tick tock........
-
@walterwhite said:
I can't wait until Manziel is a Cleveland Brown
Even if that is when the Raiders cut him after a poor four year run and he comes over to hold a clipboard and run the scout team?
Not sure why some folks are so convinced on this guy ... scouts seem to have a lot of questions.
Zombo
-
@walterwhite said:
I can't wait until Manziel is a Cleveland Brown
Even if that is when the Raiders cut him after a poor four year run and he comes over to hold a clipboard and run the scout team?
Not sure why some folks are so convinced on this guy ... scouts seem to have a lot of questions.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Even if that is when the Raiders cut him after a poor four year run and he comes over to hold a clipboard and run the scout team?
Not sure why some folks are so convinced on this guy ... scouts seem to have a lot of questions.
Zombo
Not sure why everyone else is convinced he's a bust.
-
Nobody but a dumbass would argue the fact rg3 was a better college qb than Johnny. He was bigger stonger fast, better thrower. At that time I was against bringing rg3 to Cleveland. In college he was fast than 95% of the d on the field, in the nfl it's maybe 30%. Johnny is is slower, smaller, weaker, and less arm strength. So what would make anyone think bring Johnny to Cleveland would be smart. Kyle has seen this before and I would imagine is telling everyone this is a bad ideal. Running qbs won't and don't last. Johnny is run first. Not to mention to pressure it puts on a front line. And finally to put it frankly if they do take Johnny football I'm out fuck the browns I hope they move again, because that shows me they have no interest in winning only filling a few seats. But I think there smarter than that. Mel kipper can eat a dick too.
Nobody but a dumbass would argue the fact rg3 was a better college qb than Johnny. He was bigger stonger fast, better thrower. At that time I was against bringing rg3 to Cleveland. In college he was fast than 95% of the d on the field, in the nfl it's maybe 30%. Johnny is is slower, smaller, weaker, and less arm strength. So what would make anyone think bring Johnny to Cleveland would be smart. Kyle has seen this before and I would imagine is telling everyone this is a bad ideal. Running qbs won't and don't last. Johnny is run first. Not to mention to pressure it puts on a front line. And finally to put it frankly if they do take Johnny football I'm out fuck the browns I hope they move again, because that shows me they have no interest in winning only filling a few seats. But I think there smarter than that. Mel kipper can eat a dick too.
JF reads the field ten times better coming out of college
1st Ezekiel Ansah, DE, BYU 3rd Darius Slay, CB, Mississippi State4th Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma5th Earl Wolff, S, N.C. State6th Lucas Reed, TE, New Mexico -
Zombo said:
Even if that is when the Raiders cut him after a poor four year run and he comes over to hold a clipboard and run the scout team?
Not sure why some folks are so convinced on this guy ... scouts seem to have a lot of questions.
Zombo
Not sure why everyone else is convinced he's a bust.
Not sure why everyone else is convinced he's a bust.
There seems to be a ton of us that think he's a good player but not at #4.
How many guys think he is a bust on this board ... one?
Zombo
-
If I had to make a 50-50 bet on JF... boom or bust... I'd bet bust. He doesn't look anything like what I think of when I think "NFL QB." I only hope he is not a bust if we draft him, but there is NO WAY if it's me drafting at #4 that I pick this guy. Give me Watkins, Bridgewater, or Bortles, or trade down and get more picks in the 2nd or maybe a 1st next year if we're lucky, because the value in this draft is in its depth, not the top 4
-
Nobody but a dumbass would argue the fact rg3 was a better college qb than Johnny. He was bigger stonger fast, better thrower. At that time I was against bringing rg3 to Cleveland. In college he was fast than 95% of the d on the field, in the nfl it's maybe 30%. Johnny is is slower, smaller, weaker, and less arm strength. So what would make anyone think bring Johnny to Cleveland would be smart. Kyle has seen this before and I would imagine is telling everyone this is a bad ideal. Running qbs won't and don't last. Johnny is run first. Not to mention to pressure it puts on a front line. And finally to put it frankly if they do take Johnny football I'm out fuck the browns I hope they move again, because that shows me they have no interest in winning only filling a few seats. But I think there smarter than that. Mel kipper can eat a dick too.
JF reads the field ten times better coming out of college
JF reads the field ten times better coming out of college
Sure, that's why he takes of running with receivers wide open.
And when he farts, it knocks defensive ends off their feet.
-
JF reads the field ten times better coming out of college
Sure, that's why he takes of running with receivers wide open.
And when he farts, it knocks defensive ends off their feet.
Sure, that's why he takes of running with receivers wide open.
And when he farts, it knocks defensive ends off their feet.
You seen that once in a highlight play on sportscenter and now it's embedded in your brain on playback. Go watch a full game
1st Ezekiel Ansah, DE, BYU 3rd Darius Slay, CB, Mississippi State4th Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma5th Earl Wolff, S, N.C. State6th Lucas Reed, TE, New Mexico -
Not sure why everyone else is convinced he's a bust.
There seems to be a ton of us that think he's a good player but not at #4.
How many guys think he is a bust on this board ... one?
Zombo
Zombo said:
There seems to be a ton of us that think he's a good player but not at #4.
How many guys think he is a bust on this board ... one?
Zombo
Judging from the "never in a million years", "fuck no", and "are you regarded"'s, if say there's upwards of five people who claim he's a bust.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
Personally, I'm in the camp that a QB, even of mild talent, can improve a team much more than any other positional player. Not that I necessarily believe that person to be Manziel.
I can see wanting to get the most value for your pick in terms of trading back but if you can't get a trade, then nut up and take the guy anyway, even if he's considered a reach.
I believe this about any pick in the draft, not just the first round picks. There's no such thing as a reach if you believe that guy to be a gamechanger. If he turns out to suck, blame your scouting department because they fucked up.
-
Zombo said:
There seems to be a ton of us that think he's a good player but not at #4.
How many guys think he is a bust on this board ... one?
Zombo
Judging from the "never in a million years", "fuck no", and "are you regarded"'s, if say there's upwards of five people who claim he's a bust.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
Personally, I'm in the camp that a QB, even of mild talent, can improve a team much more than any other positional player. Not that I necessarily believe that person to be Manziel.
I can see wanting to get the most value for your pick in terms of trading back but if you can't get a trade, then nut up and take the guy anyway, even if he's considered a reach.
I believe this about any pick in the draft, not just the first round picks. There's no such thing as a reach if you believe that guy to be a gamechanger. If he turns out to suck, blame your scouting department because they fucked up.
Judging from the "never in a million years", "fuck no", and "are you regarded"'s, if say there's upwards of five people who claim he's a bust.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
Personally, I'm in the camp that a QB, even of mild talent, can improve a team much more than any other positional player. Not that I necessarily believe that person to be Manziel.
I can see wanting to get the most value for your pick in terms of trading back but if you can't get a trade, then nut up and take the guy anyway, even if he's considered a reach.
I believe this about any pick in the draft, not just the first round picks. There's no such thing as a reach if you believe that guy to be a gamechanger. If he turns out to suck, blame your scouting department because they fucked up.
At his point in time, I am sensing four bonafide "difference makers" who have "can't miss" written on them: Clowney, Robinson, Mack and Watkins. Since we are fortunate to have the fourth pick, I think we need to come away with one of them. And two of them, Mack and Watkins, are at positions of deep need. It is almost a no-brainer to me.
I "like" the quarterbacks, but I am not "in love" with them. If the Browns feel the same way, then they certainly should grab a stud at 4 and then see what develops.
If, however, they think one of these QBs is "their guy", then by all means they should grab him at four, because it is the most important position by far.
The quarterbacks all look like 50/50 propositions to be franchise QBs to me, maybe Bridgewaer 60/40. Which means there is a good likelihood that one or two of them will be franchise QBs and we will pass which could lead our troubled franchise to more criticism, a la 2005 Winslow over Ben.
But there are other ways to skin a cat. None of the four teams in the Championship Games drafted their QB in the first round. You got Hoyer, you bring in Grossman and draft a rookie, later in round one, or in round two or three ... and you see what you've got. There will be other drafts, other Qbs. Maybe a 40% shot that Derek Carr is a franchise QB at 26 has more value than a 60% chance Teddy Twatwater is a franchise QB at #4 ... if it means you are getting Sammy Watkins or one of the other three studs of this draft*.
Zombo
*IMO
-
Judging from the "never in a million years", "fuck no", and "are you regarded"'s, if say there's upwards of five people who claim he's a bust.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
Personally, I'm in the camp that a QB, even of mild talent, can improve a team much more than any other positional player. Not that I necessarily believe that person to be Manziel.
I can see wanting to get the most value for your pick in terms of trading back but if you can't get a trade, then nut up and take the guy anyway, even if he's considered a reach.
I believe this about any pick in the draft, not just the first round picks. There's no such thing as a reach if you believe that guy to be a gamechanger. If he turns out to suck, blame your scouting department because they fucked up.
At his point in time, I am sensing four bonafide "difference makers" who have "can't miss" written on them: Clowney, Robinson, Mack and Watkins. Since we are fortunate to have the fourth pick, I think we need to come away with one of them. And two of them, Mack and Watkins, are at positions of deep need. It is almost a no-brainer to me.
I "like" the quarterbacks, but I am not "in love" with them. If the Browns feel the same way, then they certainly should grab a stud at 4 and then see what develops.
If, however, they think one of these QBs is "their guy", then by all means they should grab him at four, because it is the most important position by far.
The quarterbacks all look like 50/50 propositions to be franchise QBs to me, maybe Bridgewaer 60/40. Which means there is a good likelihood that one or two of them will be franchise QBs and we will pass which could lead our troubled franchise to more criticism, a la 2005 Winslow over Ben.
But there are other ways to skin a cat. None of the four teams in the Championship Games drafted their QB in the first round. You got Hoyer, you bring in Grossman and draft a rookie, later in round one, or in round two or three ... and you see what you've got. There will be other drafts, other Qbs. Maybe a 40% shot that Derek Carr is a franchise QB at 26 has more value than a 60% chance Teddy Twatwater is a franchise QB at #4 ... if it means you are getting Sammy Watkins or one of the other three studs of this draft*.
Zombo
*IMO
Zombo said:
At his point in time, I am sensing four bonafide "difference makers" who have "can't miss" written on them: Clowney, Robinson, Mack and Watkins. Since we are fortunate to have the fourth pick, I think we need to come away with one of them. And two of them, Mack and Watkins, are at positions of deep need. It is almost a no-brainer to me.
I "like" the quarterbacks, but I am not "in love" with them. If the Browns feel the same way, then they certainly should grab a stud at 4 and then see what develops.
If, however, they think one of these QBs is "their guy", then by all means they should grab him at four, because it is the most important position by far.
The quarterbacks all look like 50/50 propositions to be franchise QBs to me, maybe Bridgewaer 60/40. Which means there is a good likelihood that one or two of them will be franchise QBs and we will pass which could lead our troubled franchise to more criticism, a la 2005 Winslow over Ben.
But there are other ways to skin a cat. None of the four teams in the Championship Games drafted their QB in the first round. You got Hoyer, you bring in Grossman and draft a rookie, later in round one, or in round two or three ... and you see what you've got. There will be other drafts, other Qbs. Maybe a 40% shot that Derek Carr is a franchise QB at 26 has more value than a 60% chance Teddy Twatwater is a franchise QB at #4 ... if it means you are getting Sammy Watkins or one of the other three studs of this draft*.
Zombo
*IMO
That stat about the Championship games is all well and good, but it's a little skewed. Peyton was a first overall pick and the biggest Free Agent acquisition in the last decade and the 49ers had a first overall pick at QB for the five years prior while they built the team around him, before subbing in in.
But, the championship games prove your exact point, there are multiple ways to build a successful team. The only thing in common is a strong defense and solid to great QB play.
-
Judging from the "never in a million years", "fuck no", and "are you regarded"'s, if say there's upwards of five people who claim he's a bust.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
Personally, I'm in the camp that a QB, even of mild talent, can improve a team much more than any other positional player. Not that I necessarily believe that person to be Manziel.
I can see wanting to get the most value for your pick in terms of trading back but if you can't get a trade, then nut up and take the guy anyway, even if he's considered a reach.
I believe this about any pick in the draft, not just the first round picks. There's no such thing as a reach if you believe that guy to be a gamechanger. If he turns out to suck, blame your scouting department because they fucked up.
At his point in time, I am sensing four bonafide "difference makers" who have "can't miss" written on them: Clowney, Robinson, Mack and Watkins. Since we are fortunate to have the fourth pick, I think we need to come away with one of them. And two of them, Mack and Watkins, are at positions of deep need. It is almost a no-brainer to me.
I "like" the quarterbacks, but I am not "in love" with them. If the Browns feel the same way, then they certainly should grab a stud at 4 and then see what develops.
If, however, they think one of these QBs is "their guy", then by all means they should grab him at four, because it is the most important position by far.
The quarterbacks all look like 50/50 propositions to be franchise QBs to me, maybe Bridgewaer 60/40. Which means there is a good likelihood that one or two of them will be franchise QBs and we will pass which could lead our troubled franchise to more criticism, a la 2005 Winslow over Ben.
But there are other ways to skin a cat. None of the four teams in the Championship Games drafted their QB in the first round. You got Hoyer, you bring in Grossman and draft a rookie, later in round one, or in round two or three ... and you see what you've got. There will be other drafts, other Qbs. Maybe a 40% shot that Derek Carr is a franchise QB at 26 has more value than a 60% chance Teddy Twatwater is a franchise QB at #4 ... if it means you are getting Sammy Watkins or one of the other three studs of this draft*.
Zombo
*IMO
Zombo said:
At his point in time, I am sensing four bonafide "difference makers" who have "can't miss" written on them: Clowney, Robinson, Mack and Watkins.
add evans WR to that list as well as gibson and ha ha on defense.
guarantee half you guys will have evans on your fantasy league next year right after watkins, johnson, gordon and green.
i know i was all over clowney's dick for a month or so but i'm starting to think he just wants the big payday and might just turn into a haynesworth. the other 3 are the safest and prob least bust material in the top 5.
-
@walterwhite said:
Evans reminds of me of someone who will go to the Ravens or Steelers and have a Hall of Fame career.
I want him here and think he's going to be a good WR but I don't think he last till 26 and we won't take him at 4
no we won't take him at 4 unless he's their guy. nobody knows what will happen. that's why this moment in time before the draft is so fucking unbearable.
they might take manziel. i think they will see what players have been taken and then they go with who's left on their board after that, unless of course some team feels really froggy and wants to leap frog the teams between 4 and wherever with a nice 2nd or 3rd round pick thrown in. if mack, watkins and robinson (or QBs) are gone at the spot farmer traded down to, then i could see them going evans or gibson. looks like the need for a S is gone with the talk of signing whitens.
-
Zombo said:
There seems to be a ton of us that think he's a good player but not at #4.
How many guys think he is a bust on this board ... one?
Zombo
Judging from the "never in a million years", "fuck no", and "are you regarded"'s, if say there's upwards of five people who claim he's a bust.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
Personally, I'm in the camp that a QB, even of mild talent, can improve a team much more than any other positional player. Not that I necessarily believe that person to be Manziel.
I can see wanting to get the most value for your pick in terms of trading back but if you can't get a trade, then nut up and take the guy anyway, even if he's considered a reach.
I believe this about any pick in the draft, not just the first round picks. There's no such thing as a reach if you believe that guy to be a gamechanger. If he turns out to suck, blame your scouting department because they fucked up.
I don't understand this "he's good, but not at [insert draft position]". You take the player who you believe can help your team the most, regardless of draft position. If that's JF, then so be it. If it's Mack, then so be it. If it's Watkins, then so be it.
You know jack shit about football and the draft bro. It absofuckinlutely matters what position you are picking from when you draft players. The entire goal of a scouting department is to get the player of greatest value to the team available at your draft position that fills a team need and/or has potential to be a impact player that makes a difference (or develops into a solid depth pick for the later rounds ). Your a goddamn fool if you think just cause a FO is sold on a player they should just pick them regardless of where there drafting at. That's just fucking stupid. So if the browns are sold on Fales at quarterback one hundred and ten percent we should take him with the number four overall pick and just say fuck playing his projected round/value? Or take manziel, bortles, or bridewater at 4 when there at the very best mid to late first rounders and at worst top of the 3rd? Stupid. You draft the BPA at your draft position that is going to fill a team need, is going to impact games, AND has sold himself to the scouting department and FO. Not this garbage "well if we like a guy just pick him wherever it doesn't matter we like him that's all that matters". Get real.
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