Cleveland Browns (2 Viewers)

[MAC_32]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

 

[daveR]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

 

[jurb26]

I don't see why Clev would want to move out of the top 10. They are a talented team with a great base. Getting a top guy, the right guy, could do wonders for them. I don't see this as a team with a ton of holes to fill and needing all the picks it would take for Dal to move up to 4.

 

[jurb26]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

If it's a CB you want then trade back to 9 (or anywhere in front of Det) and take Gilbert, the clear best.

 

[RevDawg]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

How about two 1s and 2?

 

[MAC_32]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

If it's a CB you want then trade back to 9 (or anywhere in front of Det) and take Gilbert, the clear best.

im not seeing the big deal with Gilbert

 

[jurb26]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

If it's a CB you want then trade back to 9 (or anywhere in front of Det) and take Gilbert, the clear best.

im not seeing the big deal with Gilbert

I don't see anyone making a big deal about him, but they should be.

 

[MAC_32]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

How about two 1s and 2?

a future one would almost have to be a requirement IMHO. If we aren't drafting a franchise qb this year need the ammo in case we need it next year. If we don't need to use it on a qb next year that means our problems are solved and we can really build a juggernaut.

 

[MAC_32]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

If it's a CB you want then trade back to 9 (or anywhere in front of Det) and take Gilbert, the clear best.

im not seeing the big deal with Gilbert

I don't see anyone making a big deal about him, but they should be.

he has the raw tools, but all he defends are screens, posts, and nine routes. He has issues on COD routes, that will eat him alive in the nfl if he doesn't learn the nuances of the game. He's a pure projection pick. I prefer Dennard and Fuller.

 

[jurb26]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

If it's a CB you want then trade back to 9 (or anywhere in front of Det) and take Gilbert, the clear best.

im not seeing the big deal with Gilbert

I don't see anyone making a big deal about him, but they should be.

he has the raw tools, but all he defends are screens, posts, and nine routes. He has issues on COD routes, that will eat him alive in the nfl if he doesn't learn the nuances of the game. He's a pure projection pick. I prefer Dennard and Fuller.

You must be watching 2012 games. He corrected and got significantly better in all those areas. He's got unquestionably the best cover skills in this class and also posses rare size for a guy with his cover skills. I like Fuller but he has a much longer curve than Gilbert and not quit the physical tools.

 

[MAC_32]

Both 2012 and 2013, he has range and measurables which will keep his floor at a manageable level but technique and anticipation are lacking. Can coach one, but not the other.

 

[jurb26]

Both 2012 and 2013, he has range and measurables which will keep his floor at a manageable level but technique and anticipation are lacking. Can coach one, but not the other.

He needs to be taught how to use his hands, particularly at the LOS. He bails out of the snap way too much rather than disrupting the route using his athleticism and hands. He was able to get away with it in college because he was such a great athlete. He won't in the NFL but I expect he will get better coaching as well. He has the tools to be a Pro Bowl CB. His anticipation is fine I'd even say it's very good. It's his hands that get him in trouble at times.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I agree with Mac on a few points here. First with Justin Gilbert.

I don't see a top-ten CB, not in this draft.

Also I have had Teddy as my top QB with Johnny next and I think IF the team thinks a QB is worthy, that is the key, then historically you have to take em in the first round if you expect to find a quality starter.

Still not sure we need to use the 4th pick but I basically agree in priciple so long as the club feels a QB is worthy and I honestly get the impression they aren't sold taking one with that pick.

Historical study of drafted quarterbacks conducted last year.

Two part article with charts that you have to go to the link to see.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/articles/view/few-quarterbacks-drafted-after-1st-round-are-worthy-of-building-around

Few Quarterbacks Drafted After 1st Round are Worthy of Building Around By Chris MalumphyOver the past ten years, 130 quarterbacks have been drafted, nearly a quarter of whom were selected in the first round. Although there are the occasional exceptions, quarterbacks drafted later than round one typically don't get much playing time or have much of a positive impact on the game. Thus, the notion that you can take a developmental quarterback in the later rounds with plans of coaching them up into a viable starter is pretty much a pipe dream. During the past ten drafts, we have yet to see another Tom Brady or even much of a challenger to the likes of a Matt Hasselbeck, taken late in the draft. Every now and then some team gets lucky, but just like in a casino, most such high hopes are quickly flushed down the drain.

The following table shows the combined career statistics of the quarterbacks drafted since 2008 by round. It includes the number of quarterbacks drafted and the number of seasons any of those quarterbacks attempted 300 or more passes (which is a good indicator that they started a significant portion of the year).

Naturally, quarterbacks taken early tend to do better than those drafted in later rounds. The extent to which they dominate, however, is rather astounding. If your favorite team is in need of a passer, and fails to grab one of the top two or three in any draft, but decides to wait to pick one in the later rounds, don't get your hopes up. The odds are decidedly against them.

Of the 130 quarterbacks drafted since 2003, 31 (24%) were taken in the first round. No other round had more quarterbacks selected. As might be expected, the first rounders have dominated all siginificant statistical categories, usually by wide margins. First round quarterbacks have had 92 (75%) of the 122 seasons in which a quarterback threw at least 300 passes. With 366,594 total yards passing, the 31 first rounders have thrown for more than twice the combined yardage of the other 99 draftees. They have thrown 2,222 (71%) of the 3,143 touchdowns. First rounders have averaged more yards per attempt, more yards per completion, and a higher combined quarterback ranking than quarterbacks drafted in any other round. They also get sacked less frequently.

Quarterbacks drafted even one round later, don't fare nearly as well. Quarterbacks taken in the second round over the past 10 years, for instance, get sacked more frequently, amass nearly a half yard less per attempt and per completion, and have thrown as many interceptions as touchdowns. Quarterbacks drafted in the third round have done slightly better than second rounders, primarily due to the success of Matt Schaub, and more recently, Russell Wilson. The falloff becomes sharpest during round four, where teams don't even seem to bother considering to draft a quarterback with only 8 selected of the past 10 drafts. The number of quarterbacks drafted rises again in round five, but not a single one of the 19 quarterbacks drafted in the fifth round over the past 10 years has thrown 300 passes in a season. A few quarterbacks drafted in rounds six and seven have had a modicum of success in terms of getting onto the field to play, but they have not done particularly well. Certainly, none of them has approached the status of a playoff caliber quarterback.

 

[daveR]

Whenever a study says "take a QB in round one", they fail to differentiate between the consensus can't-miss types and the rest of the picks. The Luck, Elway, RG3's should be excluded because they just skew the results. In years where these types don't exist, like now, what are the results?

 

[ghostguy123]

Whenever a study says "take a QB in round one", they fail to differentiate between the consensus can't-miss types and the rest of the picks. The Luck, Elway, RG3's should be excluded because they just skew the results. In years where these types don't exist, like now, what are the results?

Stop it. Stop using logic. Stop it right now.

 

[daveR]

So, if the Cowboys are hellbent on taking Manziel, as it's being reported, how do we feel about moving down to 16? Is that too low? It would take the Cowboys 1 & 2 (picks 16 & 47) this year, right? As much as I'm intrigued by Johnny coming to Cleveland, I'm also kind of intrigued by this idea.

if we move down I will be disappointed if the return is only a two, especially if we move down that far.

Agreed! Though 16 might get us a top-3 CB.

How about two 1s and 2?

I'm in!

 

[daveR]

Whenever a study says "take a QB in round one", they fail to differentiate between the consensus can't-miss types and the rest of the picks. The Luck, Elway, RG3's should be excluded because they just skew the results. In years where these types don't exist, like now, what are the results?

Stop it. Stop using logic. Stop it right now.

Sorry.

 

[MAC_32]

Whenever a study says "take a QB in round one", they fail to differentiate between the consensus can't-miss types and the rest of the picks. The Luck, Elway, RG3's should be excluded because they just skew the results. In years where these types don't exist, like now, what are the results?

Fwiw, the results are much, much worse when trading back into round one to get your QB.

Not a big fan of most of those study's though. Every situation and prospect is different. I prefer to evaluate case by case why each pick worked and why others did not. It seems almost too simple, but the result isn't that complicated - the ones that panned out were properly developed, were willing to learn + listen + adapt, had their weaknesses masked well, had a scheme devised specifically for them, and most importantly were done by an organization with a plan for them to be successful.

JaMarcus Russell, Vince Young, and Brandon Weeden failed because of what's between their ears.

Alex Smith failed repeatedly because his merry go round of coaches continued to try to fit him to their scheme, he finally began to have success when Jim Harbaugh looked at him and said there are some things you just can't do so just do these few things that you do great and forget about all the rest.

Aaron Rodgers succeeded because he is a work a holic. We all know why he wasn't rushed, but that turned out well for him because he wasn't sitting idly by waiting for his turn; he was working to get better and better behind the scenes.

Jason Campbell, Matt Leinart, Mark Sanchez, and Brady Quinn failed because their work ethic just isn't there. Josh Freeman is headed down the same path too. I'd argue Matt Stafford may be too.

Jay Cutler has had some success because of how he is utilized, constantly out of the pocket and on the move with his eyes down field. Keep him inside the pocket and especially with underneath/middle of the field stuff and it would be a pick/sack party...as it sometimes is with him if he gets off his game.

Joe Flacco is a similar case. He can't move outside of the pocket well, but the same middle of the field issues exist. His coaches got him a screen/vertical/sideline game and players that fit. For a statue he moves within the pocket relatively well too.

Matt Ryan is showing his ceiling is capped, but for all the faults I think Mike Smith and his staff have they get him in spots to be successful. He wasn't the type that could throw the team on his shoulders when he came out and that hasn't changed.

Cam Newton is a physical monster and has been steadily more successful because he has evolved mentally. Will that continue? If he is going to be a star he has to.

Sam Bradford is the one I can't put my finger on. He's just inconsistent. By all accoutns, the effort is there. He can make most of the throws. He doesn't have any major mechanical issues. He just can't stay healthy and has some head scratching inconsistent periods of play.

The panic draft (2011) is unexplainable, but for different reasons. There really was no reason to believe any of those guys were round 1 prospects. Skill set (Gabbert), production (Locker), or both (Ponder).

Tebow?

---

Where do these guys fall in the above categories?

 

[daveR]

In my mind, the question is, "How many franchise QBs who were not touted as can't-miss, are there, and where were they taken in the draft?" Exclude anybody taken #1 or #2 overall as the critereon for "can't miss".

Brady, Manning, Brees, Cam, Ben, Kaep, Wilson, Rodgers, Cutler, Ryan, Flacco, Smith, Romo, Stafford, Rivers, Palmer, Eli, Luck, RG3, Dalton, Bradford?

Which are "franchise"? When eliminating #1 or #2, who is left? Where were they drafted?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Of your list of 20 franchise QBs...

... fifteen of them were taken in the first round...

... ten of those fifteen 1st round QBs were taken within the top-three picks...

But Ghost says hard statistical proof isn't logical so just toss it and go with his logic of what exactly?

If taking a shot to land a franhchise QB is a gamble how do you minimize the risk? Going against or with the odds?

The argument that thier isn't a franchise QB isn't valid. No one knows.

Flacco came from the unheralded Blue Hen college and was considered a risk to go high in the first so Baltimore traded down and then traded back-up to land him.

I can easily something along those lines happening with us in this draft.

 

[MAC_32]

In my mind, the question is, "How many franchise QBs who were not touted as can't-miss, are there, and where were they taken in the draft?" Exclude anybody taken #1 or #2 overall as the critereon for "can't miss".

Brady, Manning, Brees, Cam, Ben, Kaep, Wilson, Rodgers, Cutler, Ryan, Flacco, Smith, Romo, Stafford, Rivers, Palmer, Eli, Luck, RG3, Dalton, Bradford?

Which are "franchise"? When eliminating #1 or #2, who is left? Where were they drafted?

A franchise QB is a player you build around, it doesn't matter where they are drafted, it is just a lot easier to find that guy early in the draft rather than later though.

Tom Brady was scrawny and never got a chance to be the guy in school. Bellichik asked why and found out after he was in their building that there really was no good reason he constantly played second fiddle at QB in school. Brady steadily took care of the bulk problem on his own.

Wilson had everything you wanted in a QB, but he was 'too short.' Seattle has figured out a way to mask that issue.

Kaepernick was, and still is, very raw, but Harbaugh (like he did with Alex Smith) does a great job masking weaknesses and exploiting strengths.

Speaking of Alex Smith, have to give a hat tip to Andy Reid for continuing to utilize him properly instead of forcing him to be something he is not.

Reid didn't really get a fair shot at Nick Foles, but Chip Kelly did and has done a great job with him.

Romo's a small school guy with a Brett Favre playing style. Small school guys are always going to be interesting guys with potential because you really have no idea how his game will translate when the competition gets harder.

---

Who of the non day one picks fits one of those narratives? do any of them fit a different one? what is it?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

In my mind, the question is, "How many franchise QBs who were not touted as can't-miss, are there, and where were they taken in the draft?" Exclude anybody taken #1 or #2 overall as the critereon for "can't miss".

Brady, Manning, Brees, Cam, Ben, Kaep, Wilson, Rodgers, Cutler, Ryan, Flacco, Smith, Romo, Stafford, Rivers, Palmer, Eli, Luck, RG3, Dalton, Bradford?

Which are "franchise"? When eliminating #1 or #2, who is left? Where were they drafted?

Wilson had everything you wanted in a QB, but he was 'too short.' Seattle has figured out a way to mask that issue.

---

Who of the non day one picks fits one of those narratives? do any of them fit a different one? what is it?

Murray?

 

[Soulfly3]

As the old saying goes... and I cannot stress it enough....

You dont put a go-kart engine into a Ferrari body, just to say you have an engine.

The Browns are madly unachieving considering their pieces. on offense AND defense. If we take a QB at 4, that son of a ##### better be able to walk in day 1 and take over this offense. and be good.

imo, not ONE of these guys can do that. these are all guys you want to sit, learn and grow... and if that's where we are, I dont want to spend a #4 pick on that guy, when the draft has players who have HoF potential (skill wise out of college) and also positions of need for us.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

As the old saying goes... and I cannot stress it enough....

You dont put a go-kart engine into a Ferrari body, just to say you have an engine.

The Browns are madly unachieving considering their pieces. on offense AND defense. If we take a QB at 4, that son of a ##### better be able to walk in day 1 and take over this offense. and be good.

imo, not ONE of these guys can do that. these are all guys you want to sit, learn and grow... and if that's where we are, I dont want to spend a #4 pick on that guy, when the draft has players who have HoF potential (skill wise out of college) and also positions of need for us.

I don't agree that if you pick a QB that you HAVE TO SHOVE HIM EVEN IF HE'S NOT READY JUST TO SATISFY THE FANBASE.

Aarron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, etc et el.. to name a few.

That being said.

IF our front office is pretty darn certain, not 100 or 1,000% positively sure but 'pretty darn' certain that they have found their guy then I'm all in.

But if they feel like you and quite frankly ME, that their isn't a guy who they feel 'pretty darn certain' is their guy then my strategy is to go with the coild hard historical proof and NOT TAKE A POS QB IN THE ####### SECOND ROUND who statically will suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

NO. No freaking way go with a loooooooooooooooooooooser mentality like that. I hate that ####.

Trade that second for a 1st next year and target getting thee-guy in the top three picks because that is the sweet spot for landing a solid or even a great QB. I'll settle for solid anyday of the week and twice on Sunday but keep Jimmy Garoppolo and Zack Mettenberger away from us because if we take one of those JAGS then next year people will say, "Oh we have Charlie Frye, don't take the next Aaron Rodgers. GIVE HIM MORE TIME OR MORE WEAPONS!" Or "Don't even bother trying to sign Drew Brees, we just signed Jeff Garcia. We're FINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at QB."

That is the risk. Getting a POS QB just to plug in some guy and missing out. So either step-up and get that guy with the top pick or if their really isn't anyone then target getting that guy next year by picking up an extra 1st round pick. Don't settle for some guy in the second who statistically will suck.

 

[MAC_32]

In my mind, the question is, "How many franchise QBs who were not touted as can't-miss, are there, and where were they taken in the draft?" Exclude anybody taken #1 or #2 overall as the critereon for "can't miss".

Brady, Manning, Brees, Cam, Ben, Kaep, Wilson, Rodgers, Cutler, Ryan, Flacco, Smith, Romo, Stafford, Rivers, Palmer, Eli, Luck, RG3, Dalton, Bradford?

Which are "franchise"? When eliminating #1 or #2, who is left? Where were they drafted?

Wilson had everything you wanted in a QB, but he was 'too short.' Seattle has figured out a way to mask that issue.

---

Who of the non day one picks fits one of those narratives? do any of them fit a different one? what is it?

Murray?

I'm wary he has too much working against him. Short has been proven it can be worked around, but short and weak armed? I have a hard time seeing a top 10-15 starter unless he learns how to both throw rolling left and at least shows that he can make throws in a tight pocket. He doesn't need to do all of his work within the tackle box, but he has to show he is effective when asked to do it.

I'd have no qualms taking him day three though.

 

[MAC_32]

people will say, "Oh we have Charlie Frye, don't take the next Aaron Rodgers. GIVE HIM MORE TIME OR MORE WEAPONS!" Or "Don't even bother trying to sign Drew Brees, we just signed Jeff Garcia. We're FINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at QB."

This is one of the reasons I imploded when we drafted Weeden. It wasn't just because he would suck, it was because we would pass up the opportunity to pick up others in an effort to build around him.

 

[Soulfly3]

As the old saying goes... and I cannot stress it enough....

You dont put a go-kart engine into a Ferrari body, just to say you have an engine.

The Browns are madly unachieving considering their pieces. on offense AND defense. If we take a QB at 4, that son of a ##### better be able to walk in day 1 and take over this offense. and be good.

imo, not ONE of these guys can do that. these are all guys you want to sit, learn and grow... and if that's where we are, I dont want to spend a #4 pick on that guy, when the draft has players who have HoF potential (skill wise out of college) and also positions of need for us.

I don't agree that if you pick a QB that you HAVE TO SHOVE HIM EVEN IF HE'S NOT READY JUST TO SATISFY THE FANBASE.

Aarron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, etc et el.. to name a few.

I'll make this quick...

Those guys were drafted in what rounds/pick # ?

Those guys were playing behind what guys ?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

people will say, "Oh we have Charlie Frye, don't take the next Aaron Rodgers. GIVE HIM MORE TIME OR MORE WEAPONS!" Or "Don't even bother trying to sign Drew Brees, we just signed Jeff Garcia. We're FINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at QB."

This is one of the reasons I imploded when we drafted Weeden. It wasn't just because he would suck, it was because we would pass up the opportunity to pick up others in an effort to build around him.

This is what I fear more than anyone who is threatening to freak over taking a QB with the top pick.

I'm honestly not sold on any of those guys with the 4th pick but I do rate them as you do with Teddy then Johnny but I don't like em with that 4th pick.

My boiling point is the loser mentality of just taking a QB with a high 2nd round pick to satisfy need when statistically they won't pan out, they won't. So why not trade that high 2nd for an extra 1st next year with the clear intent to get that QB in 2015? I know that people will say, oh not the next year QB strategy, Their never is a QB worth drafting next year.

Well worst case scenario is we have two-first round picks next year and aren't any worse at QB but we didn't blow our 2nd this year on another Charlie Frye where people will be reluctant to take a better, higher rated prospect next year.

-----------

Per Soulfly, Palmer had Kitna in front of him but the fact is that Rodgers dropped because he wasn't ready and he sure didn't suffer by sitting nor did Brady whose body wasn't NFL ready and he's admitted it.

 

[daveR]

IMO, the number one question regarding QBs is "Can he read defenses, does he make good decisions, does he understand the defensive dynamics?"

The other factors, such as size, arm strength, etc., are secondary.

 

[MAC_32]

IMO, the number one question regarding QBs is "Can he read defenses, does he make good decisions, does he understand the defensive dynamics?"

The other factors, such as size, arm strength, etc., are secondary.

Then you're a fan of Bridgewater, McCarron, Fales, and Garopollo.

Are unsure on Manziel, Carr, Murray, Wenning, Brett Smith, and Boyd.

And want nothing to do with Bortles, Mettenberger, Savage, and Thomas.

 

[Bobcat10]

As the old saying goes... and I cannot stress it enough....

You dont put a go-kart engine into a Ferrari body, just to say you have an engine.

The Browns are madly unachieving considering their pieces. on offense AND defense. If we take a QB at 4, that son of a ##### better be able to walk in day 1 and take over this offense. and be good.

imo, not ONE of these guys can do that. these are all guys you want to sit, learn and grow... and if that's where we are, I dont want to spend a #4 pick on that guy, when the draft has players who have HoF potential (skill wise out of college) and also positions of need for us.

I don't agree that if you pick a QB that you HAVE TO SHOVE HIM EVEN IF HE'S NOT READY JUST TO SATISFY THE FANBASE.

Aarron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, etc et el.. to name a few.

I'll make this quick...

Those guys were drafted in what rounds/pick # ?

Those guys were playing behind what guys ?

It's like your entire point was completely missed.

 

[daveR]

I find myself agreeing with Bracie. It seems like a total waste to draft a project-QB just to fill the need. If you're gonna take that approach, I'd rather trade for Mallett, Cousins, etc.

 

[MAC_32]

I find myself agreeing with Bracie. It seems like a total waste to draft a project-QB just to fill the need. If you're gonna take that approach, I'd rather trade for Mallett, Cousins, etc.

If Mallett, Cousins, or Hoyer prove to be the answer they are going to take a big chunk out of the salary cap three years before any of these rookies would. Another veteran with potential isn't the answer, it'd only muddy the waters even more, Hoyer is enough.

 

[ghostguy123]

Of your list of 20 franchise QBs...

... fifteen of them were taken in the first round...

... ten of those fifteen 1st round QBs were taken within the top-three picks...

But Ghost says hard statistical proof isn't logical so just toss it and go with his logic of what exactly?

If taking a shot to land a franhchise QB is a gamble how do you minimize the risk? Going against or with the odds?

The argument that thier isn't a franchise QB isn't valid. No one knows.

Flacco came from the unheralded Blue Hen college and was considered a risk to go high in the first so Baltimore traded down and then traded back-up to land him.

I can easily something along those lines happening with us in this draft.

Hard statistical proof is definitely logical.

Unfortunately that isnt hard statistical proof. Variable...............look it up

 

[ghostguy123]

PLus the argument that there is not a franchise QB is no less valid than the argument that there is...........as you said, we dont know

 

[Bobcat10]

PLus the argument that there is not a franchise QB is no less valid than the argument that their as...........as you said, we dont know

Nobody knows. They are getting paid to rate/project them as such, we do it for ####s and giggles. If he projects to franchise level with high certainty, use #4. I tend to be on the side of the fence that there are no QBs in this draft that project to the franchise QB label with high certainty. Some certainly could, and a couple probably will. I also tend to believe at least one of those guys that they think COULD will be there at 26 and in the 2nd. Actually, I don't even think there is an argument against that last sentence. If 4 or 5 QBs are off the board before 26, I'll leave this place (just kidding!), but I'll certainly be shocked. They probably have 3 or 4 on their board that they'd be willing to use those picks on. The question is, do they have that one coveted guy that they want to use #4 on? I don't think so, but maybe that's because my opinion is that that QB doesn't exist in this draft.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Browns GM Ray Farmer's press conference has been discussed and reported on. I like to listen to important or interesting press conferences in their entirety and like to hear and SEE for myself what was said so here's the entire 28 minute press conference and their are some very-interesting things that weren't reported on.

Ray goes into more detail on how he has spoken to every NFL GM about possible trades and speaks in general about how far he might trade down or up and how he might trade out of a spot where he would be selecting what he describes as one BLUE player (highest rated players are label as BLUE) for two RED players (RED are the group below BLUE).

Here is the link to full press conference.

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/media-center/videos/Ray-Farmer-We-Want-To-Drive-Competition/07697598-d161-4048-8962-5a3f8b80de82

Posted:

Apr 28, 2014 Ray Farmer: We Want To Drive CompetitionGeneral Manager Ray Farmer spoke to the media on 4/28.

 

[Soulfly3]

blue > 2x red

farmer playing them mind gaaaaames

 

[Soulfly3]

Coach Mike Pettine says he wouldn't force a rookie quarterback into the lineup, and that ideally the Browns won't use their first-round pick on a signal caller.

"I've never felt that if you draft them high that you have to start them right away,'' Pettine said. "I think it's extremely difficult (for a rookie) to be a starter." Pettine also said he hopes the Browns can wait on a quarterback. "Certainly it’s an ideal situation if you can get that quarterback later." We'd still consider QB in play for the Browns at No. 4, but it appears they're not going to force the issue the way they did with Brandon Weeden in 2012.

*swooooooooooooooooon*

 

[Bracie Smathers]

OT/OG Chris Faulk sighting.

First reports from this year are positive.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8655/chris-faulk

Chris Faulk | Tackle
Team: Cleveland Browns Age / DOB: (24) / 1/21/1990 Ht / Wt: 6'6' / 330 Latest NewsRecent News
Browns second-year OL Chris Faulk (knee) is fully healthy and has no limitations.

Faulk spent his rookie year "redshirting" on injured reserve after tearing his ACL and MCL in LSU's 2012 season opener. He's an imposing 6-foot-6 and 330 pounds but will start the 2014 practice season as a guard. A heavy-footed blocker, Faulk is unlikely to benefit from the Browns' hire of OC Kyle Shanahan, who prefers better movers on the offensive line. Apr 29 - 3:41 PM
Source: Scott Petrak on Twitter

Last year's coaching staff was high on Faulk according to MKC but they planned to keep him at RT.

From last December:


http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2013/12/will_the_cleveland_browns_draf.html

Hey, Mary Kay: Can you update the status of Chris Faulk, the offensive tackle signed as a rookie free agent out of LSU? Is he in the Browns plans for next year or will they just draw from free agents and 2014 draft to improve the O-Line?

- Dale Roedger, Sarasota, Fla.

Hey Dale: The Browns are intrigued with the mammoth Faulk (6-6, 330) and he's in their plans for next season. They will look for someone to press right tackle Mitchell Schwartz, and Faulk could be a candidate.

Faulk was Gil Brandt's highest rated priority free agent signing from last year. Faulk only played one full season with LSU before injuring his knee back in 2012 so the reports that he's fully healed are not only positive but it seems to fit where he would be at full strength and isn't rushing back too quickly.

I like the team is looking to move him inside to one of the guard positions. Doug Dieken has been talking up Faulk and had been saying that he would be a great fit to move inside to guard.

I've been sky-high on him and think we may have a true sleeper that could challenge for a starting position in Chris Faulk.

 

[B-Deep]

it is time to stop listening to what they say and just wait. It is probably past that time, anything they say now should be calculated and should reveal nothing of substance

 

[MAC_32]

it is time to stop listening to what they say and just wait. It is probably past that time, anything they say now should be calculated and should reveal nothing of substance

Some meaningful info starts coming out again a day or two before the draft, although you have to filter through the muck to find it. But, yes, everything between now and then is trash.

 

[Soulfly3]

I feel like Farmer isnt BS'ing when he says they dont want to take a QB at 4.

and go BPA route. that's what a solid 'show runner' would do.

 

[B-Deep]

I feel like Farmer isnt BS'ing when he says they dont want to take a QB at 4.

and go BPA route. that's what a solid 'show runner' would do.

so you think a rookie GM is showing his cards when he says that?

 

[Soulfly3]

I feel like Farmer isnt BS'ing when he says they dont want to take a QB at 4.

and go BPA route. that's what a solid 'show runner' would do.

so you think a rookie GM is showing his cards when he says that?

really not that much to show. they're picking at 4.

can say whatever they want, but anyone worth their salt knows a team in that spot should definitely go BPA.

and noone knows the Brown's board, so doesnt matter much what he says. For all we know, they have Savage as their no1 ranked qb

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As the old saying goes... and I cannot stress it enough....

You dont put a go-kart engine into a Ferrari body, just to say you have an engine.

The Browns are madly unachieving considering their pieces. on offense AND defense. If we take a QB at 4, that son of a ##### better be able to walk in day 1 and take over this offense. and be good.

imo, not ONE of these guys can do that. these are all guys you want to sit, learn and grow... and if that's where we are, I dont want to spend a #4 pick on that guy, when the draft has players who have HoF potential (skill wise out of college) and also positions of need for us.

I don't agree that if you pick a QB that you HAVE TO SHOVE HIM EVEN IF HE'S NOT READY JUST TO SATISFY THE FANBASE.

Aarron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, etc et el.. to name a few.

I'll make this quick...

Those guys were drafted in what rounds/pick # ?

Those guys were playing behind what guys ?

Rodgers, Round 1 pick 24 (Brett Favre) - Brady, Round 6 (Drew Bledsoe) - Palmer, Round 1, pick 1 (Kitna)

 

[amnesiac]

I feel like Farmer isnt BS'ing when he says they dont want to take a QB at 4.

and go BPA route. that's what a solid 'show runner' would do.

i think Farmer's been around long enough to know the deal. everything is misinformation, imo.

maybe he is telling the truth, but there's a reason he's saying it in public.

 

[Archer]

I would be very happy to see the Browns take Watkins if he's there. Then take best QB in the 2nd. Or give up a 3rd this year and a 4th next year for Cousins

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If the top 3 picks go Clowney, Watkins, Mack (and they should) then the Browns should take Aaron Donald.

(I know the idea was floated earlier in this thread.)

 

[Soulfly3]

I would be very happy to see the Browns take Watkins if he's there.

you and me both