G
I think you’re forgetting the helmet to helmet hit on Higgins late in the game at the goal line.
The ball went out of bounds in the end zone, which was a turnover.
I forgot about this one (being brought up multiple times) and I haven't read anyone correct it.
It wasn't late in the game, it was late in the FIRST HALF.
I think you should post more. I may disagree with some of your points but they are good and thought out.
1. I didn't bring up he already didn't play last season. I think people do that because he was not indicted and the league is so inconsistent with their penalties....never know.
2. I believe the Hopkins deal got him on fire, he signed it, then the Texans kept doing dumb things ....I think a Pastor runs their football operations. They are one if not the worst ran franchise in sports. See what JJ Watt did...
3. No matter how a team got there....they there. Elite QB with very talented teammates at all costs.Brady brought AB, Gronk...etc. By all means necessary Rather picks or salaries. Remember all the chatter about the Rams mortgaging their future? Giving up the world for Stafford...getting this guy, that guy...still doing it. They are now the reigning Superbowl Champions. All of the contenders have elite QBs and very talented teammates. The rest have no chance.
4. I think it's moot point. if you don't have a elite QB...you have no chance in today's NFL. The fact that Watson is elite, Baker isn't...is kinda the bottomline
5. I agree
6. If Allen, Mahomes, Wilson, Allen, Watson, Burrows, Lamar, Stafford, Tom, Russell, Herbert were in the exact same situation as Baker....would they still be without a team? The answer to that question is what I am getting at. Baker had a top 5 oline, defense, and rushing attack with OBJ, Landry, Hooper and Njoku....what else do you need? For comparison in our own division Jackson had no running backs because of torn ACLs, bottom oline, bottom defense, bottom and hurt receivers...yet the Ratbirds were 7-3 and was 8-5 till he got injured. Why? Cuz their QB was top 10 in passing and rushing yards at the time.
7. Let's assume that's true.....how many present day players on our team who are presently at their peak can wait for a rookie of next season?
You speak as if the Browns have to get pieces. Their team is ready to win right now. It's not at a building stage. I use Brady because at the end of the day...Tampa is built just like all the other contenders....elite QB at all costs with very talented teammates
Nothing is ever clear cut.....but forth your best effort...that's all we can ask.
Ill have to push back on a few of them.
Tampa isn't built by Elite QB at all costs, Brady went there because of the talent they already had. The only team really built by getting rid of picks and go all in every year is the Rams.
And the other major thing I will have to challenge is calling OBJ, Landry, Hooper as having major weapons and being the same person pointing out nobody wanting Baker. As of this moment, all 3 of those weapons were available for trade and nobody wanted to. Then all 3 are FAs and still don't have a job. We can certainly point out that OBJ is injured, so is Baker. Now if we want to say look what OBJ did when he went to Rams, I have 2 views on that. 1 is obvious, Stafford is much better than Baker, BUT 2. He also wasn't the #1 guy.
Now you can view #2 differently, but that kind of goes to your 1st sentence in the reply, I should post more. One, during the season I am pretty busy as I have coached for 20 years (the part I am referring to above), 2 I am just not a person that enjoys getting into long back and forths especially when people think they are the smartest guy in the room, and some don't mind telling you or reminding you (even if they are correct). Sure, I have a lot of experience and knowledge, but I don't assume I know more than someone else, especially on a subject I don't think I am proficient in.
And I absolutely wouldn't call Njoku elite and certainly not the defense.
As for the waiting for the rookie next year, I believe you are missing my point. 1. If the assumed suspension does come, that is what is already going to happen, but I wouldn't assume that a Bryce Young/CJ Stroud/ex would be Watson, or Burrow, Herbert, etc. My point is that FO have to take those things into the equation when making decisions, are you win at all costs now or continue to build and even if/when Baker isn't the answer, you have the rest of the pieces in place.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am someone who values draft picks much lower than most.
The picks don't bother me that much, the money bothers me some (especially fully guaranteed with his history ((not the girl stuff)), the part that bothers me most is how they did the deal to make his base 1 million this year so he can lose the least amount possible. But on top of that, it makes it increase the rest of remaining years, which then hurts the ability to upgrade other parts of the team.
The Browns have to have Watson be near MVP caliber to have any shot after next year I believe. There is an easy correlation between Mahomes/Rodgers and Adams/Hill. Once the QB got paid (obviously worth it), you are going to lose others.
As for the Ravens comment, sure they lost guys, when are we going to give the Browns the same? In fact, I know for me, I would rather know if someone is going to be out then my players in and out from multiple injuries. And the Ravens scheme is more predicated on the blocking/misdirection/QB over having a GREAT running back. Their goal is to get more people to the point of attack than you have.
But anyway, the Browns were the most "healthy" Week 1 vs. Chiefs. A bobbled snap lost that game, not BM. Next game BM gets hurt (not because of him having a great line, but by making a bad throw and trying to be the one to stop it).
Now Baker looked bad A LOT last year. However much you want to credit the injury is up to the individual.
He looked pretty bad in wins too, but since its all about winning, lets leave them out.
L1: Chiefs- Baker didn't lose than game
L2: Chargers- 47-42, certainly not BM
L3: Cardinals- Baker wasn't terrible, wasn't great, but Chubb out, Landry out, as well as both starting OT
L4: Steelers- EVERYTHING was bad, but point out that Hunt and Ward were out.
L5: Patriots- No needs to assign blame, the players kids and wives were embarrassed
L6: Ravens- Baker was inefficient, but the Browns (a running team who needs that for Baker to succeed), ran it 17 times for 40 yards. That game is on the staff to me.
L7: Raiders- Nick Mullens
L8: Packers- Baker, Baker, Baker
L9: Steelers- Baker was bad, but again the game strategy was poor to me (38 passes, Chubb 12 carries)
Last thing I will say, we really need to define what elite is. How many QBs can be considered elite vs. Just being really good/great?
And I can't say that you need an elite QB to win (or even reach SB):
Since 2010: Eli, Flacco, Kaepernick, Peyton/Osweiler (PM that year), Newton, Ryan (that year he was elite), Wentz/Foles, Goff, Jimmy G. 8 out of 26 total (Brady, Mahomes, Wilson, Ben, Peyton were there multiple times and counted each time).
Either way, enjoyed it. Have a great evening
I've been reading and debating on whether to post anything or not, but here goes
Watson is a better QB than Baker, I don't think anyone can question that. If that is the only part of it, then a very clear A+.
But there is so much more to consider, and to reply to things that have been said. They wont be word for word or linked to them
1. When discussing DW and potential suspension, it has been discussed about him already missing a year. But that wasn't because of suspension AT ALL. He said he wouldn't play for Texans and they didn't play him. So exactly why should that matter in his potential suspension?
2. DW wanted out of Houston because they got rid of Hopkins. Well, he did sign his original extension AFTER the trade, so I don't know that was the reason.
3. Using Tampa and Rams as what teams are doing now and how that shows it works. 1- Tampa didn't trade picks for Brady (in fact, they have made 1st round picks both years since they got Brady), and the difference with the Rams is they did so for multiple players. They also started with a good base of players before.
4. In assessing how impactful the trade is, it has many different values, not just how good DW is with the Browns. If you are one who believes that Berry in company are good talent evaluators and drafters, then you have to ask yourself the question: What would help more Deshaun or lets use Dallas (Baker, Parsons, Lamb, and the upcoming draft). And lets say Baker is worth half of Watson (I would probably agree), what could you also add with that extra cap space.
5. I am not going to get into the accusations. Maybe they are all true, all false, or somewhere in the middle. I don't claim to have an idea like some.
6. Pointing out that the NFL is telling you what they think of Baker with him not going somewhere, first he isn't a FA and don't know what offers they have received, second some of these guys that are being pointed at as the Browns having so much talent are actual FAs and not getting jobs.
Let's look at that a bit further though, don't even factor in Cooper since Baker never played with him. Who are the elite players that Baker had on the team that made it "perfect" for him?
I would answer Chubb, Garrett, and really good guards with Bitonio and Teller. All of whom have missed time each year I believe.
7. Let's assume that a trade isn't done, and the Browns then have their picks. Now lets assume that all the people who are out on Baker are 100% right and they don't even make the playoffs this coming year. How do they fare with a #13th pick this year (lets just use Garrett Wilson) and one of the Top QB in a very good assumed draft? Or what if Baker would return to his 2020 form (with what would appear to be a better roster)?
For me, I don't think Watson is a Top 5 QB, but he is way closer to Top 5 then Baker is to Top 10, where I would put below top half. But it also isn't about having THE top guy at a certain position (even the most important position). It is about having a well rounded TEAM. And that is where you can't use Brady who for whatever reason you want to give takes way less money to improve the team around him. The other 2 top paid QBs have both lost Top 5 WR this season because of money.
Since the knock on Baker was "he can't get to the goal of winning a SB", someone tell me when the last time even a Top 5 paid QB (at time of winning) won a SB?
Ill say it 1 more time so there is no mistake, Watson is A GOOD BIT better than Baker.
If Browns win SB while Watson is a Brown then it was absolutely worth it (even if Baker goes somewhere else and succeeds, as there is not a real answer to the "never know").
There are other ways to view it as success or not, but I have written enough already.
But to act as if its as simple as 1 player swap for another is just looking at it through biased tint. There are so many factors that make it not as clear cut as Deahaun vs Baker end of story
In order
- I have not made your point. I have given proper context. Peyton played in a wildly different offense. I can't make this one more clear - when you play QB on a run first/heavy running team, your INT are going to be THAT much more magnified and rightly so, because you are not the engine of the offense, the running game is. So having the luxury not being the focal point of a defensive game plan, not being the '1A' of a defensive coordinators mind and the variety of ways that coach will attack you, IS context. I've highlighted that by showing the looks the Pats settled in against VS Baker and how he couldn't make them pay for it. I Need no further example.
One more time - when the running game takes center stage... a running game that eases a pass rush, moves linebackers and DB's, creates plus throwing windows, and you turn the ball over at a high rate vis a vis an offense that the QB shoulders the load... yes, then a singular stat with applied context in this manner speaks a great deal to the Browns offensive issues. I didn't feel I needed to spell that one out for you.
- Turnovers harm a team. Baker isn't the type of QB that digs himself out though. Mahomes had a slump earlier this season and fought his way out of it. Mayfield kept digging his hole further down. Good to great QB's fix their offensive issues when they present themselves over long(er) periods.
- re: Peytons INT, I said, in the quote - he began to cut them in half *AS EARLY* as his 2nd year. 28---->14... which he did. And in his 2nd year emerged as one of the faces of the NFL carrying on a tradition of great QB play. He had spots throughout his 1st contract period (98-03ish) where he still had a penchant for forcing the issue at times and he took criticism for it. I even remember watching the Sportscenter episodes. After that initial contract period, Peyton was usually floating 2:1 or better regularly. That is exactly why I phrased it as such.
- Don't EVER call me a fucking liar ever again because of your lack of comprehension. My ignore list on this board is long enough already. I'd appreciate your acknowledgement of the misunderstanding and we can move forward if we cross paths with any further talks. Fair?
You can think you are the big bad tough guy and genius all you want, and if you want to put me on ignore, go for it. I don't post on here often for 2 reasons, one being the animosity of people on here, and the other is I have my own games to worry about. You are one of the most knowledgeable guys on here and when I do happen to get on I enjoy reading your thoughts and breakdowns.
Anyway, seems like you have been ill, hope you are back to normal soon, God Bless.
I was simply pointing out that (which you obviously didn't explain well enough), that he may have cut down on INT in 2nd year, and they then escalated AGAIN afterwards, hmm coincidently just like Baker (although 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Lies probably wasn't the correct word though Hoss, so I will apologize for the bad choice of words.
Again, you are ONLY wanting to see your POV/bias. You are making my point for me, YOU are smart enough with this game to add context, while others pointing out "he led the league ..." WEREN'T giving that context.
Now, a little more context: Baker this year, an average of 30 passes (29.8, doesn't take into account leaving game early). 418 attempts total. 13 INT. That is one every 32.1 passes. That in 14 games.
Year 4 Peyton was 547 attempts, which is an average of 34.1 so that is 4.3 more passes a game. Peyton had 23 INT. That is one every 23.8 passes.
So sure, Peyton was the architect of a Passing Offense, while BM has a more balanced offense he is QB of, but don't try to make it seem like it was a huge difference there, because that is just not the case.
And the thing that gets me with anyone talking about how terrible BM is doesn't seem to account for any of his regression being attributed to his health. I know I have had VERY good players of mine that played and weren't close to what they were healthy.
That doesn't mean Baker is a Top 5 QB before, it doesn't mean that some of his decision making and reads are caused by that, BUT its not nothing.
I will say it ONE more time so it isn't confused, BAKER IS NO WHERE CLOSE TO MANNING.
With all that said, I am exiting this conversation. Have a good one fellas
Peyton commanded a pass first first, vertical offense, that ran through the QB position and picked up where the Greatest Show on Turf left off.
Peyton also put up 4100+ yards and flirted with maintaining at least a 2:1 TD-INT ratio. Manning also cut his iNT's in half along with improving every stat column as early as his 2nd season. It was in Bakers 2nd season some of his flaws and limitations began being more noticeable.
Also worth pointing out, the 1st contract period Peyton was in saw up and down play in terms of interceptions. Ones that cost his team early playoff exits and he justly received criticism.
The improvement in play that would help to offset the turnover potential has yet to come to fruition with Baker. In his 2nd season the offense didn't improve until we went back under center and make Chubb the focal point. In his 3rd season, Chubb and Hunt powered the vehicle while Baker steered.
I've referenced this before, but Bakers stats are within a single percent of Case Keenums in about 8 major categories between that 2017 Vikings and the 2020 Browns offense.
Turnovers are crucial, you can't have them. But your QB has to be able to play well enough to overcome them should they happen - Peyton did... Baker does not.
It's a silly comparison without further context.
Edit: Wonder if Kurt Benkurt wants a shot at being a starting QB.
You are making my point for me, using just the one stat (without any explanation) gives ZERO context.
And be fair, there isn't a QB that isn't effectived negatively by TOs when they do happen, that isn't just a Baker thing.
And no sir, you are not entitled to lies to make a point.
Peyton (each 4 year INT): 28, 15, 15, 23. So he absolutely did not cut it down each year there.
So you pick one HOF QB that is comparable in regard to the stat brought up by others (me too) and that provides context that the stat means squat in showing Baker is bad? My claim is he hasn’t played well enough to be the Browns QB next season (based on a number of factors).
And Maybe others were a little lazy and didn’t discuss other factors.
I’ll maintain though having the most INTs of any QB the past four years definitely bolsters a claim that he’s bad and/or hasn’t played well enough.
That is my claim- he hasn’t played well enough to be the QB of this team.
No, you just obviously don't read or comprehend the rest, which is EXACTLY why I said I didn't want to reply.
First, I said multiple times it doesn't make him good or comparable, and I also said just one example.
But since you want to keep on...
Brady (taking out the 1st year as he went 1-3): 52 INT
Warner: 64 INT
Elway: 65 INT
Luck: 55 INT
So there ya go buddy, more than one more example of similar.
And again, at what point did you realize that Baker wasn't the guy going forward? If you can't remember, I am sure you can go back and read your own words after the Chiefs game or in the off-season.
And if you had high expectations and don't give any credibility to injuries being perhaps part of the regression, then I believe that is asinine, especially when you make comments about getting a 4th or 5th rounder to get a K or P for what was thought to be the QB of future.
And just for fun, I know I already said I understand the Rodgers, Wilson, Watson talk (assuming Watson isn't in trouble). I will go ahead and concede Brady. Obviously Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Herbert, Murray are better. You can say Lamar (even with completely different styles).
But for the talk about leading the league in INT itself is misleading:
That leaves 13 of the teams that don't have a QB that would qualify for the 4 years.
The others (names not obviously mentioned above):
Big Ben, Tannehill, Wentz, Carr, Dak, Cousins, Goff, Ryan, Stafford, Jimmy G.
Now, I will go ahead and say, if Browns can get a better QB than Baker without negatively effecting the team then absolutely go for it. But to get someone minimally better for more money, I say no. And to trust a college kid (in a bad QB draft), i say ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I am done with this conversation. I am not even trying to change anyones mind on BM. I am just saying throwing out this stat or that stat without context is very misleading. And to just act as if you have been down on BM all along (even if there is contradictory evidence, that isn't for ANYONE particular) but won't give credit to injury playing a part, is sad. It is easy to see how it has effected his mechanics, which then will effect your confidence and decision making. You don't have to have studied game film before to see and understand that.
Ill go ahead and ask one more question, if Baker Mayfield had the EXACT same stats as he does currently, but Gillian hadn't dropped snap, didn't have the covid game, and had gotten even one of the two terrible calls (Chargers or Packers), and after today the Browns were 11-6 or 10-7, would you still want to get rid of him?
You make the Manning vs. Baker comparison and then say it is not to say Baker is anywhere near as good as Peyton. Well Why throw it out there.
Because its based on a stat that you and others continue to reference, the # of INT Baker has thrown in 1st 4 years.
So using said stat to determine how bad Baker is means ZERO.
If you want to continue to use that as the measuring stick, then go for it, but just giving it context to it.
So again I will say it, PEYTON MANNING is/was 10 times better than Baker, he also threw WAY MORE INT than Baker 1st 4 years, more often, and a lower TD/INT ratio.
So maybe, just maybe that is a misleading stat?
Anyone can pull out a single stat to fit a narrative (i.e. most INT in league 1st 4 years). And sure, that is not a good thing at all.
But it can also be put into perspective from another view.
81 vs 56. Anyone know what that is? 1st 4 years of INT for Peyton Manning vs. Baker Mayfield. You say sure, but what about TD passes in that time frame. 111 vs. 92. How about TD to INT ratio. 1.37 vs. 1.64. How about INT per attempt: 27.48 vs. 34.36
That is NOT to say Baker Mayfield is anywhere near as good as Peyton, but to continue to make like that is the worst thing ever is only looking at something with a pre conceived narrative. And that is just one example.
Or, you want another stat to show how a narrative can be used. The 1st 2 games (before injury), Baker lead the NFL in completion %.
Or just go off your own thoughts (if you are being honest), who here thought Browns were a sub .500 team before the season? Who thought that after the Chiefs game? Im sure almost all here thought this was a VERY good team. I wonder what happened? Or if you don't want to acknowledge any injury to BM, fine. Just a coincidence.
Baker could or could not be the guy going forward, because I absolutely have a whole lot of experience watching game film (not saying anything bad about anyone else btw). But to put the majority of the blame on BM is crazy to me, especially with regards to the circumstances. There are a LOT of people/circumstances who shoulder the blame.
Now I get the Rodgers, Wilson, Watson (if cleared) talk. But I have ZERO clue what anyone can see from Pickett that tells you he would be the answer. He may come into the NFL and be a HOF, but he has had 1 good year.
I will state it again, I am not saying BM is great, or even had a good year. Not saying he is the man for the job, and I won't be getting into any back and forth, you are entitled to your opinion/narrative as am I (even if I didn't give a definitive one).
Have a good one fellas
How’s everyone doin?
Hmm, I guess you didnt make a bet with anyone???
You had Chiefs +21, it was 5
You have Chiefs with 38, they didnt get that
You had Browns with 17, they got more
And you pretty much just said you don't want to play the Browns again, seems kinda strange for someone who isn't that good and would get blown out according to you.
I've been here for 3 years. ....anyhow....final score....KC 38, Cleveland 17. Regardless of outcome, I'll be around.
You obviously missed the point MaHomeboy. You are here to talk trash (i.e. not a Browns fan). That isn't a terrible thing. My point is you have not shown as of this time to want to talk on the actual game of football.
Just from this one thread about all you are saying is that "won't enjoy Sunday".
And your score could be right, heck it could be worse. The point I am making with that question is if the Browns and fans won't enjoy, it will be fun visiting, blowout, etc. What happens if it's a FG game? Then by your standards then the Chiefs aren't nearly as good as you think???
So, you have it as Chiefs +21. So you want to bet any of these fine folks you have gotten into with on that (I'm not a gambler). But I am positive you can find a number who will do that.
Visiting this board Sunday night is giong to be fun.
Alright Chief, so since the Browns will not enjoy Sunday, what's the score going to be?
And you saying you didnt visit Bucs forum post SB, does that mean that if a once in a lifetime miracle happens and the "not as good as think" Browns win, you going to show up here?
P.S.- you absolutely will lose a lot of arguments here if you want to discuss the game of football. So you come just to talk trash. That could end up being dumb, but trying to match wits with some of the fine people on here and you will get humiliated
Man I hate to hear this. He was the most passionate person on here. The board will not be the same without him
Prayers to his family, friends, and all those who knew him.
QB's clearly run the league in 2021. Not coaches or GM's. Treat them different.
You just want to continue on from the last thread locked because of you.
So sure, I will bite.
Coaches don't matter you say? So was Aaron Rodgers just average a couple years ago at the end of McCarthy era?
How did Baker do with Hue and Kitchens?
Goff with Fisher???
And GMs don't matter, so you think thst the almighty QB should be able to make the draft picks?
As for your last comment to me, Yes Adams is GREAT. But to call Hunt in the same post the same is asinine. Hunt is good.
But still, lets even go with your great on Hunt. That is a far cry from calling him the most talented back ever and a HOF.
Now I fed the troll again. But that is all you are looking to do. You obviously have no desire to discuss anything substantial, and you obviously don't have the requisite knowledge to actually discuss the game.
Now go be a good little multicolored afro wearing plastic doll.
P.S.: We can make a bet if you wish. If the Browns get Rodgers and Adams, I lose. If they don't get both, you lose. If they get one, it's a tie in your favor. If they trade OBJ STRAIGHT UP for Adams I lose. Now, the stakes. Loser leaves. If it's the tie, then I can stay but have to Change my Name.
And we can even double down, if Rodgers and Adams are on ANY team together this year and don't win the SB, Then you have to STFU. IF they come to Cleveland and the Browns aren't 20-0 and win the SB, then your name changes.
Should be fairly easy for you pal. Since you KNOW all of this stuff way more than any of us.
Rodgers to Davante right now is a magic connection. No chemistry with Bake and OBJ. Am I wrong?
Hmm.
Magic is something that isn't normal.
2020: 115 rec, 1374 yds, 18 TDs
2019: 83 rec, 997 yds, 5 TDs
2018: 111 rec, 1386 yds, 13 TDs
2017: 74 rec, 885 yds, 10 TDs
2016: 75 rec, 997 yds, 12 TDs
2015: 50 rec, 483 yds, 1 TD
2014: 38 rec, 446 yds, 3 TDs
2020: T2, T5, 1st
2019: 18th, 30th, T44
2018: T6, 7th, T2
2017: T19, 23rd, T2
2016: T28, 26th, T2
2015 and 2014: Not going that far down on the list
There is absolutely ZERO question that Rodgers is better than Baker and Adams is better than OBJ.
BUT, this magic you want to point to equates to:
0 Super Bowls
0 NFC Championships
A playoff record of:
And these playoff stats for Adams:
2014: 2 games (8, 124, 1)
2015: 1 game (4, 48, 1)
2016: 3 games (16, 217, 3)
2017: N/A
2018: N/A
2019: 2 Games (17, 298, 2)
2020: 2 Games (18, 133, 2)
And a playoff record of 5-5.
So is AR a Top 3 QB in NFL, Yes. Is DA a Top 5 WR in NFL, you betcha. Do they together result in a dynasty? Obviously not.
And that doesn't factor in $$$, doesn't factor in the reduction of players to fit them on the team because of salary, and that doesn't factor in the additional compensation needed.
But what do we expect from someone who went on and on about how Kareem Hunt was the best RB in league and most talented RB ever, is going to the HOF, and that he would easily win comeback POY after missing HALF the previous season with suspension (and played rest of year).
This offense could easily set the scoring record this year with Rodgers. Easily. An undefeated season as well. Why not? Do what Brady couldn't. Finish a perfect season. This trade has to happen. This team would just be way better overall. Way better.
Besides you obviously just being a troll to keep going with this.
You sure about that? Like has been pointed out, you can't just swap Baker and Aaron for each other because of the cap.
The difference in the salaries appears to be 26.5 mil about. Which equals: OBJ and at least 1 more starter. But, lets put even that to the side. Heck, since you want this record setting offense, let's use D. Ward, Clowney, Hill, Jackson, Billings is about the price. But let's even get away from the salaries.
What gives you the idea that Rodgers is that guy? Yes he is one of the best QBs ever and the reigning MVP. He also has won 1 Super Bowl, and has been BLOWN OUT multiple times last few years. You even have no idea how he fits into this system (even being better than Baker).
But, lets even use less. He has ALREADY talked about being near the end. So is it worth it to give up the future even with a "guarantee" (that is never possible) of 1 SB? Who replaces AR in a year or 2? It's now not Baker as he is in GB. It's not a 1st rounder in next 2 drafts as they are also in GB (and would be last with a SB win).
We get it, you don't like Baker. We get it, Rodgers right now is better than Baker. But ruining the future for 1 possible better chance at a ring is asinine.
And to even achieve the better chance you also lessen the team CURRENTLY. It's either get rid of one of those weapons that would be pivotal in the record setting offense AND at least one other starter (probably 2), or 5 D players (4 starters at least).
And all of those because you dislike Baker and want to be a troll. Hey, maybe it would work on Madden clown
I would rather not create a need where one does not exist. Being able to control a team's top flight receiver is huge in today's NFL. We're trying to get to and win a superbowl here. And that's a very important position...along with edge rusher, T, QB...
Obviously if the team can keep them all that is the answer. Just pointing out that there is no way to compare drop Greedy vs. Ward.
Well, let's use that logic. Greedy Williams has missed many more games than Ward, so let's ditch him. And Delpit fits that bill. Philips missed a bunch too...
It's tackle football......and the guys now-a-days wear these little shoulder pads and hardly any leg padding. Guys are going to get hurt.
There is a big difference in Ward and Greedy though (which is what these guys are alluding to).
Ward is entering his final year on a rookie contract, in a year where the Top 2 guys that need to be extended are Baker and Chubb.
Ward is absolutely better than Greedy, but teams can't just keep everyone they want. Let's just say for the sake of argument that when healthy Ward is a Top 3 CB, that puts him at a minimum of 17.5 million (so 10 million more a year). For someone who plays 12 games a year.
So would you rather have Ward at that price and Greedy for 1 more year after this season AT LEAST, or as an example Fuller AND Okudah (on rookie contract).
See Gip, this is another time that you appear to contradict yourself. I point it out for the simple fact that this back and forth has gone on BECAUSE of that. As in again, I have never said anything remote to ANY offensive player. The only thing I have said with it is say that I wouldn't do it no matter what the "grade". So now you say what I have said from the start. I don't think enough of myself to assume I had a thing to do with that.
And you ask if it is important. I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It doesn't really matter to me or others I am sure. But it is the reason that some of these things end up back and forth, and I don't know if it helps you with having a respected opinion. And don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of changing an opinion when presented with new data, I am speaking of to completely opposite takes in the same thread (likely day or less apart).
But in your words, so be it. I don't need to post in this thread anymore. Have a good weekend
I don't know the answer on PFF. PFF can be once piece of data, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it for solid proof. They have their grading system/algorithm, but I don't trust that.
Case in point, by their rankings. #11 Trent Williams, #15 Justin Jefferson, #17 Ryan Tannehill, #18 WYATT TELLER, #19 Garrett Bolles, #24 Jessie Bates, #27 Adrian Amos, #31 DJ Humphries, #35 Adam Thielen, #42 David Onyemata, #43 MYLES GARRETT, #44 DeMarcus Lawrence, #45 BAKER MAYFIELD, #46 JOEL BITONIO, #64 Jalen Ramsey, #90 David Montgomery, #91 Justin Herbert, #92 Folorunso Fatukasi
And I don't remember the exact number, but in one of the last Browns games when they do their introductions at the beginning of the game, Jacob Phillips was ranked like #9 at his position (I believe it was over 75 eligible there.)
As for his numbers, I believe he was going off my examples of saying that for instance all of those guys are 80 compared to examples of 90+ for the offensive guys.
I believe that on the ESPN or maybe Kiper mock draft it had Slater as the 1st OL off the board, but again I used him as an example because of his versatility.
You seem to not notice all of the times throughout that the word example is used. And I don't mean this to be mean, but I ha e wondered a few times now if you actually have forgotten what you wrote previously.
Example: Not ONCE in this entire thread have I even hinted at an offensive player, in fact multiple times I have said the opposite.
And you asked what PLAYER would give an improvement. I answered that can't be answered at this moment on multiple factors. And said you can't be focused on a position group (since you keep using LB). And then you ask if DEFENSE is a position group. NO, IDL, DE/EDGE, LB, CB, S are position groups.
Trade down, sure. But in all these conversations the question has been about who to get with the Browns FIRST PICK, #26. If you want to change the conversation, then that is a different discussion
Good way to look at it: What player that we can draft would give us the most (theoretical) improvement over what we have. I see you are using PFF as a guide. So, yea, a guy that grades an 80 would be a vast improvement over a guy that grades 43. And, as you say, if you have a guy that rates a 78, and maybe there is an 80 on the board, that is not really the place to put your most valuable asset: a first round draft pick.
There is really no way to assess that at present, which is another reason why you can't be focused in on a certain position group. Free agency/i.e. pre draft determines a big part of a draft board.
And comparing a draft grade to a NFL season/PFF will give you a false sense of value.
I don't know the exact numbers, but Lawrence will have a 95+ grade (maybe even like 98). I doubt Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, etc. are there. Moreover, just take a position that has been THE need for Browns recently (now nobody would say so); OT. I would venture to guess that all the top guys in draft would have a higher number than either Wills or Conklin.
And to continue with where I was and Unsympathetic added, you not only have to factor in the difference between what you have currently and what you would get, but also the corresponding parts with them, and the drop off to other needs.
Again, these are just my opinions, but I absolutely don't like the only BPA idea. That is what I have been trying to say. If a Rashawn Slater is there at 26 with a 91 grade, and the best option on any defensive player is for example a 77. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe that Slater has played both G and T. But which of Wills, Bitonio, Teller, Conklin is replaced? Best player doesn't equate to best move or best team.
Currently, with what is on the team (not factoring in FA, etc) and there are 4 guys at 4 positions all rated the same (Farley, Barmore, Collins, Rousseau), while I don't necessarily consider them THE biggest needs currently, I would probably be picking between Farley and Rousseau). That theoretically ends the look at those groups, and as referenced, will be on field more.
This....
2021's shrinking cap is going to be an anomaly. I would not be surprised if its jump from '21 to '22 is huge... coming close to rising as if '21 was a year with a normal increase.
This would put the 2022 Cap somewhere in the high $2-teen-millions.
Data from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1011083/nfl-salary-cap/
From my understanding (I know others on here know it better than I) is that the cap the next couple years will be altered by whatever the cap ends up at this year to offset the lower revenue from last year.
Just picking numbers out of the sky, but say the cap is 180 this year, and should be 220 next year. If the revenue/offset from last year was at 160, then over the course of next couple years they will make up that 20 million. So instead of the 220 next year and year after, they would be 210.
Just what I read or saw.
