McCoy is not a starting caliber NFL quarterback. This is not the fault of Brandon Weedon, the running game, the receivers, the offensive line, or Pat Shurmur. McCoy is just not a good QB. I have yet to hear anyone tell me what exactly Colt does well on the football field. Even, Tim Couch managed to score more points with much less talent around him. Considering that no teams are trying to trade for Colt, its obvious that not very many teams around the league think Colt is good either. He would not start on a single team in the league. He is nothing more than a backup. Heckert and Holmgren were so desperate to have someone else start at QB next year that they were willing to take a huge risk by drafting a 28 year old QB. That shows you exactly how they feel about Colt. So I ask the question: why do people still want to keep Colt McCoy on the team?

I think it obvious that H&H didn't think Colt had the arm to make any of the throws in the offense. By comparison, I think Weeden has the 2nd best arm in the draft. Ideally you want your franchise QB to be able to play 10 strong years, but H&H will be happy with 5 good years from Weeden. If Weeden works out, they can always draft a young QB later when Weeden is 33 years old, and let tha tQB develop behind Weeden.

Drafting Brandon Weeden at #22 was a desperate move, but not necessarily a bad one. The front office is very aware that having McCoy start another year would have cost them their jobs. Now that that H&H have their guy, Brandon Weeden, in place, Randy Lerner is obligated to give them at least 2 more years to see if their plan works. H&H can now show Lerner and the fans of Cleveland that there is a plan in place. Whether that plan works or not remains to be seen.

@choco said:

lol....ive long believed our FO is, yes.

if the walrus stays true to his past, he'll be looking for a project. he has never made a high round splash for a QB...he trades for them, but doesn't draft them. heckert, well...he's already had rank pulled against him for our current scout team leader, so its hard to project who'll get the final pick.

Considering that the Walrus will be gone soon (either fired or retired), I hope he will let Heckert call the shot this time.

No one in their right mind has Tannehill rated higher than RG3. Tannehill was behind Landry Jones and Barkley. Tannehill is a classic project QB. He is benefiting from the fact that there are only 2 good QB prospects this year. If you want to compare a guy to Jamarcus Russell its Tannehill. He's a one year wonder with only 19 career starts. I like guys who have a history of solid play. He misses open guys all the time. terrible accuracy. Go watch his film and see him repeatedly fail to hit wide open recievers in stride.

I would give up this year #4, #22 a 3rd and a 5th to move up and be done with it. Eli Manning, who I actually think is overrated, still has won two Super Bowls. So the trade was worth it. I wouldn't advocate gambling like this on any position other than QB. I think the Falcons gave up too much just for a WR in Julio Jones. I would never trade everything for a WR or RB.

@typicalbrowns said:

hahahaha so RG3 would've done better.

our offense cant hold a candle to the defenses of those teams. cause our offense blew chunks.

and you say "he" has to beat those teams, like Colt was the only one to lose those games.

cmon guys. I'm told that I'm a 12 year old by saying that NOT ONE qb could've excelled with our offense last year. And that having the 30th ranked offense in the league is NOT all Colt's fault.

Zombo, its not just a QB that scores points in games. you think because Colt's QB rating is the ONLY reason we lost to those teams, yeah right.

i feel like im a broken record that just keeps spinning the simple facts that our offense sucked so much last year that judging Colt's cieling is f#%&*#g impossible

I DO NOT MEAN TO OFFEND people, just there are some arguments that I get heated over a little.

I would be willing to bet that a good QB would have made plays last year for our team. Many of the best QBs in the league are playing with late round picks at WR. The Giants had a worse running game than we did, yet they had no problem scoring. A QB touches the ball every play and is in charge of getting the offense going. Why do you think coaches pull the quarterback when the offense is struggling instead of the WR?

@the-gipper said:

Set A:

Mark Rypien

Matt Hasselbeck

Rich Gannon

Brad Johnson

Chris Chandler

Neil O'Donnell

Jeff Hostetler

Doug Williams

Tony Eason

David Woodley

Rex Grossman

Set B:

Jamarcus Russell

Vince Young

David Carr

Joey Harrington

Tim Couch

Akili Smith

Ryan Leaf

Heath Shuler

Rick Mirer

Jeff George

Art Schlicter

Jack Thompson

Mike Phipps

Which set do you choose: Set A who are QBs that took their teams to the Super Bowl despite not being considered HOF caliber QBs.

Or Set B: the sure fire can't miss, taken with the first 5 picks of the first round since 1970 QBs.

You do not get to select from Set B:

Eli Manning

Donovan McNabb

Kerry Collins

Peyton Manning

Steve McNair

Drew Bledsoe

Troy Aikman

John Elway

Jim McMahon

Jim Plunkett

Terry Bradshaw

These are Top 5 QBs who were taken in the Top 5 who did take their team to a SB.

Sure, if you can guarantee inclusion in the latter group, you might be willing to pay a king's ransom.

But, if you pay the ransom....you may still end up with a dead King.

What's your point? I just said that there are no guarantees. But I'd rather take a chance, after doing thorough research on someone I think will take me to the promised land. Most Super Bowl winners are first round QB's. Drafting 3rd round QB's is not the way to build a consistent winner. It's the exception not the rule.

@the-cysko-kid said:

A subscriber to the 'throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick' theory eh? Is rg3 drunk enough to say yes to Cleveland? Only time will tell.

What do you suggest?

Years of losing have caused some Browns fans to stop using logical reasoning and become emotional wusses. Some fans are so scared to take any chances because of failures in the past. Tim Couch is retired. Quinn is no longer on the team. These past failures have nothing to do with the 2012 NFL draft. Only emotionally damaged Cleveland fans would rather make 100 excuses to "play it safe" and not take a chance. People who don't take chances are losers. Real champions don't let past failures affect them for long.

Imagine you asked out a hot girl on a date and got rejected. Yes, the failure hurts. So what do you do, go home and play video games because there's a chance all the girls except the fat ones might reject you? No. That's what a loser would do. Losers would make excuses to go home by saying that women are overrated and playing video games is more fun. Losers would say that they don't need a woman while they sit at home alone on a Friday night surfing the internet with one hand on the mouse and the other hand somewhere else.

A real stud would forget about the stupid slut who rejected him and move on to the next hot chick. Eventually, he would find a chick who would say yes. Real champions never give up and never stop trying because they know that one day they will succeed. A stud would rather fail with every chick in the bar than willingly throw in the towel and go home. At least he tried.

Browns fans need to stop making excuses and take a chance on a playmaker. It makes me sad to hear fans talk about trading for more picks to fill holes instead of drafting a potential game-changer. Its unbelievable that some people want to draft a RT in the 1st round, or save our picks and get an equally unproven 7th rounder Matt Flynn. The saddest are the fans who hope Colt will one day be good, though deep down they know he won't. Ironically, these are the same fans who will whine about sucking next year.

I want the Browns to at least try to make a bold move to get a guy they really want. Hopefully it will work out. Past failures have nothing to do with the present. The dumb slut who turned you down for prom I'm sure didn't stop anyone from asking out girls in college. Likewise, former draft busts have no bearing on the 2012 draft. There are no guarantees in life. That's why you have to be bold and take chances.

c-dawg said:

Web, you have some valid points and good numbers, just a bad adverb. Arguments like this "force of history" type that you adhere to are great for general guidelines, it just gets a little messier when the specifics of the situations come into play.

"Overwhelmingly" is a reach, because it refers to something higher than 50% by definition (unless you are talking presidential elections). Coins don't land on heads an overwhelming amount of times, for example. Seriously though, 50% is pretty damn good, rest on that simple point and open up to the fact that the other 47% or so had some good success too and I'll say strong post.

Until then: Roger Staubach was a 10th rounder. JP Losman? Another stellar first rounder that didn't sniff the SB. Kurt Warner? Undrafted. Fran Tarkenton - 3rd Rounder. Joe Theisman, fourth rounder, but SIGNED in Canada (neat twist). I'll close with Ryan Leaf - 1st round GOLD!

PS: thrash you in Math and Poker. $ in the bank

C-dawg I was referring to the first round compared to any given round, and not all other rounds and free agents combined. You likely just misunderstood my point. For example, I was saying that there's a greater than 50% chance that a first round QB won any given Super Bowl, while there is probably a 5% chance that any given Super Bowl was won by a 4th rounder. I don't want to get into a probability class and start pulling out the n! equations. They can make your head hurt.

Some fans here defending the crappy play of Colt sound like girls defending their abusive/crappy boyfriends.

"Oh he had a bad childhood," she will say. (Football translation: "Oh everyone else around Colt was terrible, he had no weapons or O-line.")

Or she will say "he can be so romantic sometimes," ignoring the fact that he beats her the other times. (Football translation: "Remember that 1 play Colt made 2 years ago against the Patriots?" ignoring the fact that he's completely sucked 95% of the time.)

And finally, she will say "But he's trying to change, he needs my help and love." (Football translation: "But Colt works so hard! Just give him an All-Pro at every position and watch him go 9-7.)

I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board who would rather take the low odds of a late round QB winning a Super Bowl than the overwhelmingly higher odds of a 1st-round QB winning the Super Bowl. Over 50% of Super Bowl winners have come from 1 round. Remember that there are 7 rounds in today's NFL and there used to be more in the past. Also you have to add in undrafted free agents. That means that after you leave the first round, the odds of finding a winning QB in any given round decrease dramatically. Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.

An overwhelming 82.6 percent of all Super Bowls (38 of 46) have included at least one first-round starting quarterback. That includes the past nine in a row, indicative of the position only growing in importance and as a factor in reaching this game.

In nearly one in four SBs (11 of 46, or 23.9 percent), both QBs were 1R-pedigreed.

First-round draftees in fact account for more than half of all Super Bowl starting quarterbacks — 49 of 92, or 53.3 percent.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/05/2625171_p2/first-round-quarterbacks-have.html#storylink=cpy

c-dawg said:

C'mon. Really?

Tom Brady - 6th Round.

Joe Montana - 3rd Round.

Checkmate.

Next!

They are exceptions. Over 50% of all Super Bowls have been won by first rounders. Sorry.

Sorry PoeticG. Colt was drafted in the 3rd round for a reason. He has the same numbers as Charlie Frye, another 3rd round great. Colt has never even shown flashes of elite talent. The chances of him leading the Browns to the Super Bowl are the same as me becoming President of the United States. He is inaccurate on deep throws and makes poor reads. That has nothing to do with the talent around him. Teams are moving their safeties up to the LOS because they know that Colt McCoy will not throw deep. Besides his breakout game against New England and a loss to the Bengals in 2010 he has been terrible. Everyone can see it except for Browns fans who are comfortable with mediocrity and are afraid to take a chance to succeed. Repeated losing really damages fans emotionally.

@brownfish said:

It's less about protecting the QB and more about opening holes in the line so that defenses have to guess run or pass...if we can't open holes for a backs what's the point of even having a running back. Very few if any have the speed needed to get to the corner and turn 5 - 6 yards up field.

Packers have amazing recievers and a strong running game

Cowboys have good recievers and decent backs

Steelers have good recievers and a strong running attack

Houston and 49ers....running game pushed them into contention with a strong line that could open holes.

I agree that I would rather take a Hall of Fame QB over a Hall of fame offensive tackle

I would take Rogers over Thomas any day

I'll agree that the line should not take most of the blame but if there is a weak link in the line it destroys the QBs chances, it destroys the RBs chances and it destroys the ability for recievers to finish their routes...I also would rather look at hurries then sacks...many more INT are created do to hurries then do to sacks.

Colt may not be the answer...but he sure is not the problem

Good post. But if you think the Packers have a strong running game than so do the Browns. The Packers are ranked 27th overall and the Browns are ranked 28th. AVG is almost identical 3.7 of the Browns and 3.9 for the Pack. I agree with you though. I would take Rodgers over Thomas any day.

I continue to hear many misguided Browns fans say that we need to prioritize taking a chance on a unproven right tackle over taking a chance on an unproven quarterback. However, statistics show that the Browns offensive line should not take the majority of the blame for the sorry offensive output. The top passing teams were all over the spectrum in terms of sacks allowed. 3 of the top 10 passing teams (Packers, Cowboys and Steelers) allowed just as many or more sacks(41,39 and 42 sacks respectively) than the Browns(39) despite fewer passing attempts .

Yes its true that the top passing team the Saints allowed only 24 sacks. However, so did the middle of the road Titans. The difference is that the Saints totaled nearly 100 more passing YPG than the Titans. This is because the Saints have a much better QB than the Titans. Similarly, the Packers, Cowboys and Steelers have much better QB's than the Browns.

To me its very clear that the difference between success and failure in the passing game is not necessarily the offensive line, but the playmakers. And the biggest playmaker, the only one who touches the ball every play, is the quarterback. Therefore, it would be much wiser to take a chance on a QB than to take a chance on a RT. And by the way, Colt McCoy is not a good player and probably never will be.

@badnewsbrowns said:

The defense shows promise but their rankings are misleading. Opposing offenses had no pressure to score high against us because our offense was so horrid. It only took 17 points to beat the Browns so they stayed conservative and ran it down our throats.

If the Browns had anything close to something that resembled a competent NFL offense our pass defense numbers would not be so deceiving.

The Giants and Pats have some pretty big holes on their defense as well.

Ravens and 49ers have pretty solid defenses.

Difference between them?

QUARTERBACK!

See folks! Here's a fan who actually backs up his viewpoint with some facts. Yes the teams that scored the most points on offense usually surrendered the most passing yards on defense as teams were forced to throw the ball. Teams who had weak offenses like the Browns and Rams for example had the ball run down their throats as evidenced by the fact that opponents averaged the most rushing attempts per game against the lowest scoring teams. Good solid analysis by Bad News Browns.

However, unlike the Rams, Bucs and Colts the Browns defense managed to keep opposing teams out of the end zone. Every team that surrendered fewer points than the Browns made the playoffs. So I think the Browns are definitely closer to turning things around than the Rams, Bucs and Colts because our defense should have been good enough for us to win. Even if we had the Steelers defense which allowed the fewest points (14.2) and YPG we still would have been outscored by our opponents! When our pathetic offense cannot even score 2 TD's a game you have to say that our offense is in a state of crisis. So unless we have a defense that is better than the Steelers defense next season it is imperative that we draft offensive playmakers if we want to win games. I happen to believe RG3 is the biggest playmaker realistically available. We need to get him.

@the-gipper said:

The Browns defense has some serious holes in it. Another quality DE is needed, plus at least one more DL decent backup. Our entire LB corps could us replacing....and that includes DQJ in my opinion. And we need another safety and another corner.

So, upgrading 5 defensive positions are in order in my opinion. That is as much as the Offense needs.

Offense needs upgrade at: WR, ROG, RT, maybe QB, maybe RB.

I would think and hope the Browns TEs can make the grade. Retaining Hillis would help, but we also need a scatback. FB might need an upgrade, but maybe that will come with experience gained my Marecic, hopefully.

Yes, it seems that it is the offense that needs the most work, but that is because we need those offensive playmakers, but in reality, strictly by the numbers, the Browns need as much help on defense as they do on offense.

By the numbers our defense was ranked #10 in total yards and #5 in scoring despite spending long periods of time on the field. Our offense was ranked #30 in scoring and #29 in yards per game. According to these rankings it appears that the Browns need a lot more help on offense than they do on defense. I'm really getting tired of people posting on here who haven't done any research. It kills your credibility. I love a good debate, but please back up your posts with some solid facts.