@shep said:

That said, Tannehill is my new Rodgers, my feather to balance the other feather (!).

Rodgers (a guy some in the media though SF would take #1) doesn't balance out Leinart, Clausen, Sanchez, Kolb, A. Smith, Kafka....weathermen have a better success rate than 20%

Alex Smith is as much an answer to any teams QB question as Mark Sanchez is. Alex Smith in all his years in the NFL has as many 300+ passing yard games as Weeden had this year.

Los Angeles - had 2 teams and lost them both. They may have population but they don't have the fan support. There are far too many other options/choices of things to do than support pro-sports teams. The NFL has continued to get profitable w/o a single team in the NFL. It's not like the games are not on TV in the market. So the NFL is still getting TV revenue in LA. They'll put a team here again, but it won't stick or it will end up the Chargers moving north.

Orlando - They can barely get people to attend basketball games. It's not a pro-sports market. Frankly all of FLA isn't. See Jacksonville and Miami for how well they support their football teams.

Sacramento - Can barely keep their basketball team.

Portland - Another city that can barely keep their basketball team.

Population alone does not necessarily equal fans in the seats and money in the pockets.

How is the guy who only had 16 starts at RT out of his 51 college starts the best "pure RT" in the draft? Not saying I don't think they guy can play RT, but to say he was the best pure RT is a bit of a stretch.

Draft netted 4 starters????? That's a whole lot of wishfull thinking. As it stands today its one legit starter, then a whole lot of hoping that Weeden, Schwarts, and (not sure whose being counted as a starter) actually pan out. Unless we aren't talking about legit starters, rather just guys who happen to end up starting because there is no other option.

CLE didn't pay Delhomme anywhere close to 30M or 28M. The contract Delhomme signed with CLE was report to have him make $7 million in the 2010 season, including just under $900,000 in base salary. He was schedule to make 5.4M last year before CLE cut him.

@unsympathetic said:

Meachem will be much worse for us than he was last year in NO.. he's not worth it. Same with Garcon and Mario.

I can see where you are coming from with Meachem and Mario, but Garson? He's not all world, but did you see what he did last year with who was throwning the ball for Indy?

@jason-j said:

Later... I find it interesting that people seem to forget how good Jim Everett was for stretches of his 12 year career. I think his propensity to hover around a 1 to 1 TD to Int ratio belies the fact that he piloted an explosive offense, and he could sling it around.

-jj

I liked watch Everett ready to sling fists after being repeatedly called Chris Everett while being interviewed by Jim Rome.

That would mean CLE would have to work out a long term deal for him. Personally I would not want to give Jackson a bunch of money, simply because he seems to be a complete knuckle head. I can see a team giving him the contract he wants and him not living up to it. When a guy doesn't go all out when he's in a contract year why trust he will go all out after he gets that big contract.

@the-gipper said:

when he faced RGIII head to head, outplayed RGIII. And that is Keith Price, QB Washington.

Are you refering to this past bowl game where Baylor won by 11 and had one RB go for over 200 yards (5 rushing TD) and two other guys run for over 100 yards? That might be factor in why RG3 had less TD passes than Price and less passing yards. In the end when down in the 4th QTR RG3 completed the big pass and a second one to set his team to go up for good.

Heck, look at the scouting grades and RG3 is grading out better than the QBs in that list.

@the-gipper said:

See how little you know about the situation? It wasn't his team, it was Biscotti's team.

.

Actually it was still Models team in 2001. On March 27, 2000, NFL owners approved the sale of 49% of the Ravens to Bisciotti. In the deal, Bisciotti had an option to purchase the remaining 51% for $325 million in 2004 from Art Modell. On April 9, 2004 the NFL approved Steve Bisciotti's purchase of the majority stake in the club. So when the Ravens won the SB in 2001 Model still owned 51% of the team, thus it was still his team.

And of course there are also all the articles following that SB talking about Modell getting his first SB win as an owner, over his good friend Wellington Mara

And the current Browns are to some extent considered an expansion team (I mean they did get an expansion draft).

@nickers said:

Colt IMO has potentially better arm strength than Brees. did we forget he threw a couple of 50 yarders a couple years ago?....Sipe and Montana had spaghetti for arm strength...Chad Pennigton even worse....Im gonna laugh at all of you if Colt winds up on another team and finds success..hell...I'll still laugh if he gets his chance here...LOL

Watch Colt throw a 15~18 yard out then watch Brees throw the same pass. Colt does not have the same arm strength. When most people talk arm stregth, it's not about how far you can throw the ball with a wind up and a running start (Which colt had on that 50 yarder). It's about how quickly the ball gets there, especially in those tight 15~20 yard throws that have to be zipped in there with no chance for the defender to get a hand on the ball.

@typicalbrowns said:

okay, you're looking at colt individually and I get that. With a qb tho the rest of the team's state does matter and impact his performance.

I'd agree it impacts the end result/production you get out of the QB. Basically it impacts how good or bad a stat sheet looks (QBs, other players, drive log). What it doesn't impact though is how a QB is progressing as far as understanding how to play his position, nor the physical skill sets the QB already has.

@typicalbrowns said:

All the things I brought up about the teams problems in 2011, if anything, impact the quarterback the most. The position of QB is a tough cookie to cut. Its almost a domino effect if a RB is hurt, or a WR can't make a catch or get open, or if the line falters. The QB is involved with EVERY player and play, and the saying "the team is as good as it's worst player" couldnt be more true here. The holes on the team impact the QB's play. You look at Colt saying he cant make quick enough reads, or get through his progressions, or make the deep out throw. Im saying that Colt cant go through his prgressions cause the D doesnt expect/respect the run game, therefore blitzing, giving Colt less time to even itch his crotch. Or if he cant make a deep out throw because of pressure? or because since the run isnt expected the coverage is tightened on our best wr and Colt is forced to make margarita out of lemons instead of lemonade out of lemons. You see my point? Its a chain reaction of bad that happens if the team is not prepared/fully utilized with it's talent due to injuries.

They all impact the net result/production. Reads are reads. If the D is blitzing

a) the QB has to identify that pre-snap, which Colt far to often fails to do

b ) has to adjust his protection as best possible to counter that blitz, which Colt far to often fails to do

c) identify where the vacated area is because of the blitz, which Colt far to often fails to do

d) get rid of the ball quickly, which Colt far to often fails to do.

Then end result from properly executing those things can end up the same as what CLE had this past year because of the other issues. The problem here is Colt is not doing any of those things well, which only compounds the issues more. So now you are looking at holes at WR, the running game, and witht he QB. You fix the WR and running game, the QB is still an issue as switching out WR and running game won't make Colt do those four things any better.

On the deep outs, Colt has fluttered those even with time, which have resulted in balls knocked down, nearly picked, and picked. All because the ball gets there with no zip and the CB has time to get back to the ball.

@typicalbrowns said:

cincy didnt change anything with their personnel except ocho palmer and TO. cuz those guys were garbage.

I didn't say they did change more w/ their offensive personal than those 3 guys. Those were the starting QB and two starting WRs (bringing in Green is also a change). So they went from a Palmer, Ocho, and TO as their starting QB and WRs to Dalton, Green, and Simpson as their starting QB and WRs. That's a significant change on O though. Then there is the whole new offense (which is basically the same O CLE is implementing). Not sure I'd call all three of those guys garbage, and had Palmer not decided to force his way out of Cincy we wouldn't be talking about Dalton and Cincy in the same statements.

@typicalbrowns said:

i don't think colt is. why? cause he had the shittiest offense in the league to work with! if colt would've come into the bengals offense, would he of looked as bad? hell if he was on the colts even, do you really think he would've been just as bad? put colt on ANY TEAM other than the browns and I think he does much much better. why? cuz the browns O suckED.

Let me be clear, I do not think Colt is garbage. I simply don't think he is going to develop into an elite NFL QB and his ceiling looks to be a solid 2nd string QB. I think Colt looks only slightly better you put him in Cincy, only because a guy like Green can make a bad pass look like a good one by simply out jumping or out muscling a guy for the ball. He likely looks just as bad on the Colts as well, or any other team. Putting him on other teams doesn't make him stare down his first read less, read the D pre-snap any better, read the D post snap any better, realize the proper protection changes needed any better, get through his progressions any faster, make him throw behind receivers, or make him throw a deep out any better. Those are all items that have nothing to do with the talent around him. Those all come down to his decision making, arm strength, and ability to process the what he sees at NFL game speed.

@typicalbrowns said:

our offense was laughable with only Greg Little, a rookie wr without playing a senior year of college football, being our passing threat? and hillis missing 10 games didnt do anything to slow colt down. having a 3rd string rb try set up the pass with the run. NONE of us have any room to judge colt off this past year. its as simple as that. colt only threw 13 tds and 12 ints. with as bad a passing attack we had, Colt didn't do bad, just not as good as the expectations were that year. we were expectin 12-4 and the playoffs last year. no wonder ppl are saying Colts terrible. its not fair to colt at all. he will be fine. He's the next Drew Brees. Give. It. Time. Colt's head is dead set on improvement, he wants to win so bad. he has something to fight for

All of that has nothing to do with the issues I see with Colt. I am not looking at any stats. Colt could have thrown nothing but incompletes and INTs as far as I am concerned. The question would always come down to "were they the right throws?" The problem I see is Colt isn't progressing at his pre-snap or post snap reads.

What have you seen form Colt's actual play to make you believe he is the next Drew Brees? Colt being dead set on improvent and wanting to win bad are all admirable qualities. But none of those necessarily mean he can or will take his game to the level needed to be a top flight NFL QB, let a lone a middle of the pack one. Those are qualities shared with countless other players who get to the NFL and don't pan out. Heck those were all qualities of Charlie Frye and Brady Quinn.

@typicalbrowns said:

and think about colt leading Indianapolis, or Cincy, or a team that has SOMETHING. it would be different man, so different.

I can think about that all I want. When I do, I still see the same issues that have nothing to do with the talent around Colt. Talent at WR or RB has nothing to do with the issues I outlined that I see.

I'd love to have the plucky 3rd QB pan out. But to date I have seen little to believe that is going to happen.

The foundation didn't move? And here I thought CLE had to start all over in 1999 as an expension franchise from the ground up.

@bringbackbrownie2 said:

Brady Quinn does suck. We agree there. But Cam Newton didn't "blow up the system" because he's got it and some others don't. Newton was actually surrounded by talent on offense: DeAngelo Williams and Jon Stewart as RBs, Steve Smith as a true #1 WR, 2 starting caliber TEs in Jeremy Shockey and Greg Olsen, a 1st round LT (8th overall), and a 2nd round center. That is why he had success this past year. It is the same for any QB that has had any early success.

CAR also had almost every one of those pieces the year before and were near the bottom of the league in offense.

@typicalbrowns said:

sanchez with the jets? dalton with the bengals? smith with the 49ers? flacco with the ravens? those qbs had systems laid out for them, and they are mediocre qbs. but with solid recievers, a run game, and a decent line with a good defense they have all the right ingredients to "look good" at qb and put their team in the best position to win. best example of this is dalton. he has jermaine gresham, simpson, shipley, and aj frickin green to throw to in his rookie year. how can u say the QB makes the recievers? the qb looks like shit if the recievers drop the ball or dont get open. the bengals beat the browns cause they have a system that was set up with palmer and ocho. The browns switch things up every 2 years giving no stability to build on. its the opposite with cincy, and look, they made the playoffs

With Sanchez and Smith, I am not sure what exactly you are getting at, other than both of those guys aren't elite players, even with good surrounding parts. So in both of those case they neither made the players around them look better, nor did the players around them look better. Neither looks good as far as I am concerned (especially Sanchez whose shown no progress at all). Flacco, he's a decent QB, but I don't think he'll ever be in that upper elite catagory. He was still able to develop and perform long before BALT added Boldin and Smith this past year.

Yes, Dalton looked pretty decent as a rookie, and those two pieces around him helped with that.

I did not say the QB makes the receivers. What I said was "The good QBs far more often make the other parts around them look better than the other way around." You can't plug in any QB in NE and get the same production Brady gets w/ what ever they trot out for him. You don't get the NO offense with out Brees. You don't get Indys offensive production without Peyton (as we just saw). Look how MIN looked with and without Favre. Look how CHI looks with Cutler. Look how ARZ looked when you removed Warner. The list goes on.

Cincy last year ran a completely different offensive system than when Plamer and Ocho cinco were there. You really think changing OC who brings in a WCO (not what they ran before), changing the QB, and changing your two starting WRS is not switching everything up?

I don't judge how Colt or any QB looks based on what's in the stat sheet (which is impacted by the drops or guys not getting open). I look at a) could they identify the proper pre-snap read (where pressure is coming from, what coverage look they were given) did they make the proper protection call c) what did they do post snap read and where did they go with the ball. d) are they showing progress in development and understanding of all those things. When I look at a Colt or a Sanchez (as examples) I see a whole lot more of No's to those four items than yes. None of those items are impacted by the talent around them, as far as the decision making process. You can pull 4 guys off the street and have them run the routes. You can still evaluate if the QB is understanding what he sees and then reacting to it the way he needs to. You can throw 3 straight incompletes and them all still be the right play with the football. Just as you can get 3 straight completesion and all three of them be the wrong play with the football.

@typicalbrowns said:

So if that does happen, you have proof that McCoy isnt the answer because he does have weapons around him, but through film if we see that it his HIS fault we're losing games, then you draft a #1 QB who will already be in a system that, even with a mediocre QB, can win 7 games. this is why matt cassel took the pats to the playoffs with Brady gone, its the system. take big gay ben from the steelers and you STILL have a threatening offense that beat the browns. the qb is the crank that turns the rest of the polished parts in sequence. We dont have polished parts, making the crank that is the qb useless until it can run something pretty and worth watching. soooo, lets keep polishing our parts, not restart building the machine again!

You don't need all those weapons around him to tell on film what is his fault or not. Coaches can seperate the QBs mistakes from the other players mistakes. More so than any of us because a) they have game film from the endzone cam so they see the whole field they know what play was actually called and what every player was supposed to do. No coaching staff at any level requires a QB or any other position to be surrounded by "better talent" to evaluate the play of other players at their position.

On to the other part, so how do you drft that #1 QB w/o then having to sacrifice much more than you have to today? If you are a 6 or 7 win team you are sitting too far back in the draft order to have a shot at drafting one of the top QBs. Then you get into trading away much more to move up.

I'd agree NE showed there is a whole lot about their system which allowed Cassel to have the success he did. But you remove Ben from PIT and that offense is not very good at all.

The good QBs far more often make the other parts around them look better than the other way around.