It's time to give up whatever it takes to get a quality, proven NFL kicker.  It's costing games not to have one.

Despite all the dysfunction, Hoyer did manage to play a part in winning football games. As easy as he is to criticize, there is no question that when it comes to winning football games for the Browns, Hoyer definitely 'overachieved'.

That clown Chuck Booms has been insisting he will be at the game.

Hoyer is also miles better than Manziel, but...well, we did draft Manziel in the first round. So Manziel must be better.

Personally, I don't think Manziel has shown anything to think he can be a long-term successful starter in this league. But I don't know enough about football for that opinion to actually mean anything. However, I do know that his supporters will NEVER say he can't play. It will always be some excuse, some reason, some something other than he can't play. And no matter how poorly he plays, they will be right there with comparable bad game stats from PROVEN NFL caliber quarterbacks. Like that makes it okay to continually play poorly. When Johnny plays well against quality opponents, then let's talk.

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny........Johnny. I honestly can't wait to be done hearing about Manziel. He has yet to be anything but mediocre at best at any aspect of his job, yet all we hear is Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.......Johnny. I would be very surprised if any credible, reputable coach is going to be willing to stake his employment on Manziel, so we will be looking at another 8th, 9th choice, maybe not even on the wish list coach.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. More losses by the second string in games the first string might have won. The path to relevancy in the NFL is simple: win games. You hire winners, leave them alone to build a winning culture and then find players that fit your culture. Not playing your best players will never be the way to get there. I mean, who would want to play for a team that isn't trying to win every single game it plays. It's a losing mentality. And, quite frankly, only being discussed because of Manziel being on the roster. After the way he approached his job last year and the constant off field issues, that is exactly what the Browns should do, reward him with the starting job that he hasn't earned yet. Brilliant!!

Flugel, at the core of all of this, we are really talking about conflicting principles. At what point is any season lost? The desire to see what the future holds is usually in direct conflict with winning that day's game. Yes, teams have done a better job of drafting than we have, but that can't be an excuse. For any part of this. Similar to what you referenced with Parcells, you either are winning games or you aren't. We are not winning. So now you go into a discussion over why. And more importantly, how is it going to get better? And many of your points are spot on. Part of that discussion is certainly which players should still be here next year or continuing to start this year. But I have yet to hear anyone mention McCown's play as a reason the team is losing. So, other than injury, why should he sit? So we can see what we have in a player who did not take his job seriously at all last year and has been the source of constant off the field distractions? Explaining that further, I am, in all areas of life, a substance over style person. I don't care what it looks like, I only care what it is. So I don't see the benefit or wisdom of sitting your best QB with 7 games left in the season. Down the road, sure, if they want to look to the future. But not now, they are 1-1 in the division and can still accomplish something worth building on this year.

Yes, I did not like the Manziel pick and I didn't think it was a good football decision especially considering that nobody else in the NFL felt that way about him. Personally, I believe the pick was Haslam's and was a desperate attempt to attach some relevancy to the Browns. And I truly believe that 'Manzielmania' tanked a possible playoff season last year. If you remember, at 6-3 and 7-4, a large portion of the fan base was not happy with where the team was simply because Manziel wasn't playing. And this from so-called fans of a team that had won just 4 or 5 games each of the 6 prior years. And when Hoyer collapsed under all this scrutiny, we all got to see what the coaches knew all along, that Manziel wasn't anywhere near ready to play.

This is where you and I got off on the wrong foot. And while I do think your point about their records is very valid, if Manziel is not the best QB on the roster, he shouldn't be playing. And he isn't. Beyond that, personally, I don't want to hear that he should play because of any of these reasons: a. he is a first round draft choice; b. he has similar stats to other great QB's early in their career and c. he is much improved over last year. I take exception to it because none of those have anything to do with his actual play. His play on the field, along with his behavior off the field, should determine his status.

I want to hear about the things he is doing on the field, which have been mediocre at best so far, that warrant more playing time over McCown. Just to illustrate this, look at the replay of the Johnson touchdown, universally regarded positively as Johnny being Johnny. And, obviously, the result was good, although to me, it was more of a great catch by Johnson. But if you watch the replay, Duke was open for the touchdown at the 8 yard line before he even got halfway across the field. Yes, the pocket was starting to collapse, but instead of bailing, he could have stayed and hit Johnson in time. I think the coaches probably would have preferred that. That's all I am really saying. Play him, or support playing him, because he is good enough to play, not just because we need to see what we have.

So, do you think Johnny should start simply because he was a first round draft choice? Or should we start the best QB on the roster in an attempt to win that day's game? I've never been on an NFL roster, but I am assuming the players and coaches in the locker room are only worried about next Sunday's game, not what will happen in 2018, which is not promised to any of them. You don't see Wilson, Brady, Rodgers, etc. being taken out of games to 'build for the future'. That is the song of losers. Frankly, I don't care who they pick as long as the best players line up on Sunday. That is the only way to turn this losing mentality around. Not to embrace it and say that we need to sit the starters so we can see what we have for the future.

The coaches see Johnny every day. As I have pointed out before, do you really think Pettine, whose job depends on victories, is willingly going to sit the best QB on the roster?

Didn't I give you 3 inexperienced QB's to pick from, not experienced veterans?

You could heed your own advice about an adult conversation. Again, tell me what you have seen on the field that warrants not starting the best QB on the team? Besides the fact that the second best QB, and that may be generous, is a first round draft choice and has produced 2 games of mediocre stats similar to other QB's who were not mediocre over their career.

What do you honestly think the veteran's prefer? Starting the best players or sitting the best players to 'find out what we have for the future'?

No, not at all. The games aren't really an apples to apples comparison anyway.

I'm saying it is all about perception and pointing out that perception is very rose-colored when it comes to Manziel by a lot of people. Despite winning against Cincy and being 6-3 and in first place, Hoyer was trashed last year. Yet a very similar performance, in a losing effort, by Manziel is being praised as proof he is on his way to the HOF. There is a lot of comparison of stats between Manziel and other very successful quarterbacks in an effort to justify Manziel's mediocre at best play so far. I just wanted to give a similar stat line comparison. Let's face it, being better than he was last year is not the same as being good.

Flugel, you didn't answer my question. And I am well aware of the thread being discussed. And I am certainly not mad at anybody.

You are continually pointing out Johnny's impending greatness based on the stats of other QB's. I merely asked you, which of today's starting QB's, would you not trade Manziel for. In other words, have you seen something from Manziel, other than similar stats to some QB's, that would make you want to keep him over other starting QB's in the NFL? After all, the league isn't completely full of hall-of-fame caliber QB's. So, who would you keep Manziel over? I'll make it easier, let's start with who you mentioned. Would you keep Manziel over Bortles, Carr or Bridgewater?

You are right Flugel. I'll admit it, we are seeing the beginning of a hall-of-fame career for Johnny Manziel. After all, most, if not all. hall-of-fame QB's struggled in their first starts.

Let's face it, we were able to draft this future HOF QB at what, #22. Which means that the Browns were the only team needing a franchise QB that thought Manziel was the answer. Anybody could have had him before #22 so that is not a ridiculous statement. It as said on another thread, but once we drop the "1st round draft pick" from our thinking, this whole process will go a lot better.

Tell me something. Besides obviously Brian Hoyer, which starting QB's in the NFL today would you NOT trade straight up for Johnny right now? If that is not a VERY long list, you may want to rethink your position here.

Everybody seems to want to throw out the stat lines of other QB's in trying to justify where Manziel is at in his career. So let's look at two stat lines:

1. 15-23, 198 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT, QBR 72.8, passer rating 92.3

2. 15-33, 168 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, QBR 71.8, passer rating 71.3

The first line is Brian Hoyer's from last year's game in Cincinnati that the Browns won 24-3 to go to 6-3 on the season and if I remember right, first place in the division.

The second line is Johnny Manziel's from this year's game in Cincinnati that the Browns lost 31-10 to fall to 2-7 and last place in the division.

Despite being in first place, many fans were unhappy with the first QB line and, amazingly, no credit given to Hoyer for having the Browns in first place. Probably fair to say that was simply because Manziel wasn't playing. That part of the fan base, led by the buffoon Chuck Booms, was actually unhappy, despite winning, because Johnny wasn't playing.

It amazes me that those same people who derided the first stat line are now arguing that the second stat line is actually good. Something we should be happy with from our starting QB in a game that the team got thrashed in.

I'm getting confused. I am supposed to assume that it is only a matter of time before Manziel's greatness shows itself simply because he has a stat line similar, at times, to what some other quality quarterbacks have posted???

Serious question, is anybody actually seeing anything on the field that says Manziel is on his way to being a franchise quarterback? I'm no expert on QB play, but I am guessing every single of these quarterbacks, whose names everybody likes to drop, had way better fundamentals at their worst point in time than Manziel currently has. Manziel has one strength, the ability to succeed at playground football. Unfortunately, that will not win consistently in the NFL. And it never has with any of the quarterbacks all of you have mentioned as there was/is much, much more to their skill set as quarterbacks than just running around and making plays.

tour - I think you have it pretty spot on. The last sentence is what people need to realize - it was nowhere near good enough. And he is not the best QB on the roster. I thought one replay on the pass that hit Gabriel in the knee looked like the ball was tailing down to the right, not saying that it shouldn't have been caught. I thought he missed a touchdown to Barnidge being late with the ball he threw high.

But, and sorry to digress, the image that will stick with me the most was the one from behind the bench with McCown and Manziel sitting there and McCown still looked so much bigger than Johnny even without the pads that Johnny had on!

Agreed. Play the best QB on the roster and try to win that day's game. I know it is apples and oranges, but the same logic would dictate sitting Joe Haden the rest of the year so we can see what we have in Justin Gilbert.

And to all the people who think it is fun to watch Johnny football. Is it more fun to watch Johnny play like Johnny and be crushed by Cincy, or watch Hoyer "hand off 45 times", as that buffoon Chuck Booms referred to it, and crush Cincy? Me, the most fun you can have is TO WIN. Remember, we were LOSING at halftime despite that awesome first half of football from Johnny.

I can never understand this thinking that for some unknown, incorrect, reason the coaches are holding Johnny back. At some point, Mike Pettine's job security will solely be determined by how many football games his team wins. Why in the world would he leave the quarterback best able to win the football game on the bench? And at what point, in any season, should you 'look to the future' to determine who is playing on Sunday? That would completely contradict the idea that the best players play.

Nobody should be guaranteed anything for next season at any position.

Today, Brian Hoyer is the best quarterback on the roster. It is not even debatable. Of course, we can't run him out of town quick enough. Sign Brian Hoyer if you still can, which is highly unlikely while JF is on the roster, keep Shaw and bring in a couple of vets. Use the draft and FA to address the other needs.

Sure, Hoyer is a great story with the hometown angle, but he is also the best QB on the roster today. And a true professional who is an above average leader that his teammates respect and will follow.

I think Haslam pulling rank is the only thing that keeps Johnny a Brown in 2015. I don't think Pettine ever wanted him.

In GA visiting relatives, got to watch last week because of Johnny. No such luck this week!