QB Dillon Gabriel, CLE (3 Viewers)

[Jacob's Ladder]

It's malfeasance neither Gabriel or Sanders is going to start week 1.

Nope.
Joe has complete control and faith of the team and coaches and knows the entire offense.
Sanders hasn't worked a single snap with the 1s, he doesn't know all of the installs.
Dillion got very-limited reps with the 1s.
Both need a lot of work even if they looked good in the preseason against lessor talent, without game plans facing vanilla defenses that didn't spend a minute game planning specifically for them.
Rookies who weren't high picks don't just get starts especially at QB.
Timing with receivers need to be worked out. The starting offensive line need work with them to learn their cadence, drops, timing, and tendencies so they can function. They have to earn it, the respect of vets and coaches and right now the reps just aren't available.
It's not malfeasance, it's Joe's job.

Saying it’s Joe’s job and being rigid is the problem. Sure he has a better grasp of the offense, he’s 40! The other guys are rookies…duh. Only experience can change that.

Browns admitted Joe’s not the near term answer when they spent a 3rd and 5th on a QB. Going 8-9 or 9-8 with Flacco accomplishes nothing and brings you right back to square 1 after the season.

If you start Gabriel/Sanders you might go 5-12 and get a high draft pick or you might just find out one of their ceilings is higher than you believed and you get to a wild card.

Starting Joe = malfeasance.

I see your point, but I would imagine he’d lose the locker room if he started with a rookie right out of the gate. That would be kind of admitting that your goal is to build for the future rather than win right now. Flacco probably gives them the best chance to win right now.

Seems like that type of call is driven by fear of the unknown. I remember when the Seahawks brought in a high dollar free agent but started a 3rd rounder because he was better... It takes balls to succeed in this business.

Yeah that was a bold move, but I think it was made because Wilson was outplaying him in practice.

I don’t know if that is going on right now. I haven’t been following the practice reports, so maybe they are. Just based on the preseason game Sanders didn’t look ready to start at all. He was able to make some plays, but if he was going against even half way decent defense he would have been sacked on most of those plays he kept extending.

Now Gabriel is intriguing. Funny enough I think he’s about the same size as Wilson. I actually think Gabriel looked much more efficient. He was making quick reads and taking the plays that were there. If Flacco plays like the old man that he is it would be interesting to see how Gabriel could do. He did seem to have some flutter on his ball though.

Not gonna twist it, Gabriel looked great. And no one is going to make me believe Flacco will be starting at the end of the season. Start the rookies and find out what you got. Pickett should be cut or traded. Worst case is they’re junk and you get a top 5 pick to draft your QB of future. “Losing a team” is overrated and not all that common. These guys are professionals playing for future contracts. That’s all.

 

[pinkstapler]

It's malfeasance neither Gabriel or Sanders is going to start week 1.

Nope.
Joe has complete control and faith of the team and coaches and knows the entire offense.
Sanders hasn't worked a single snap with the 1s, he doesn't know all of the installs.
Dillion got very-limited reps with the 1s.
Both need a lot of work even if they looked good in the preseason against lessor talent, without game plans facing vanilla defenses that didn't spend a minute game planning specifically for them.
Rookies who weren't high picks don't just get starts especially at QB.
Timing with receivers need to be worked out. The starting offensive line need work with them to learn their cadence, drops, timing, and tendencies so they can function. They have to earn it, the respect of vets and coaches and right now the reps just aren't available.
It's not malfeasance, it's Joe's job.

Saying it’s Joe’s job and being rigid is the problem. Sure he has a better grasp of the offense, he’s 40! The other guys are rookies…duh. Only experience can change that.

Browns admitted Joe’s not the near term answer when they spent a 3rd and 5th on a QB. Going 8-9 or 9-8 with Flacco accomplishes nothing and brings you right back to square 1 after the season.

If you start Gabriel/Sanders you might go 5-12 and get a high draft pick or you might just find out one of their ceilings is higher than you believed and you get to a wild card.

Starting Joe = malfeasance.

I see your point, but I would imagine he’d lose the locker room if he started with a rookie right out of the gate. That would be kind of admitting that your goal is to build for the future rather than win right now. Flacco probably gives them the best chance to win right now.

Seems like that type of call is driven by fear of the unknown. I remember when the Seahawks brought in a high dollar free agent but started a 3rd rounder because he was better... It takes balls to succeed in this business.

Yeah that was a bold move, but I think it was made because Wilson was outplaying him in practice.

I don’t know if that is going on right now. I haven’t been following the practice reports, so maybe they are. Just based on the preseason game Sanders didn’t look ready to start at all. He was able to make some plays, but if he was going against even half way decent defense he would have been sacked on most of those plays he kept extending.

Now Gabriel is intriguing. Funny enough I think he’s about the same size as Wilson. I actually think Gabriel looked much more efficient. He was making quick reads and taking the plays that were there. If Flacco plays like the old man that he is it would be interesting to see how Gabriel could do. He did seem to have some flutter on his ball though.

Not gonna twist it, Gabriel looked great. And no one is going to make me believe Flacco will be starting at the end of the season. Start the rookies and find out what you got. Pickett should be cut or traded. Worst case is they’re junk and you get a top 5 pick to draft your QB of future. “Losing a team” is overrated and not all that common. These guys are professionals playing for future contracts. That’s all.

Throwing an unprepared rookie QB in week 1 to start games against NFL defenses, especially on a weak team, is a bad call 95% of the time. Even QBs with much better draft capital and pedigree then either Gabriel or Sanders have been KOA when put in that position; and a lot of times history has shown us it's had long term negative repercussions for a multitude of reasons; kills confidence, gets gunshy, develops bad habits, etc. etc.

I couldn't disagree more with your takes here, in fact I'd go so far as saying I think it's pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Organizations that roll out underdeveloped and unprepared rookie QBs week 1 of their first season are typically poorly organized/run teams that lack discipline and are often selfishly gambling a 20-something year olds entire life up to this point in hopes that a drastically low percentage odds play pays off just so they can selfishly protect their own jobs overly emphasizing a modicum of success today, as opposed to focusing on any kind of long term development/plan to actually bring sustained success to an organization.

As a Steelers fan I'd gladly jump in line to shred the Browns for all their terrible decisions they seem to make year over year, but choosing not to start Sanders and Gabriel is not one of them. They are both a long ways off from even being a competent starter in the league. And history shows us this concept of "they can't learn except from being on the field in real games" to be wrong, especially at the QB position. And especially as ill-prepared and set up for success these two are and this team is in general.

 

[warpig33]

It's malfeasance neither Gabriel or Sanders is going to start week 1.

Nope.
Joe has complete control and faith of the team and coaches and knows the entire offense.
Sanders hasn't worked a single snap with the 1s, he doesn't know all of the installs.
Dillion got very-limited reps with the 1s.
Both need a lot of work even if they looked good in the preseason against lessor talent, without game plans facing vanilla defenses that didn't spend a minute game planning specifically for them.
Rookies who weren't high picks don't just get starts especially at QB.
Timing with receivers need to be worked out. The starting offensive line need work with them to learn their cadence, drops, timing, and tendencies so they can function. They have to earn it, the respect of vets and coaches and right now the reps just aren't available.
It's not malfeasance, it's Joe's job.

Saying it’s Joe’s job and being rigid is the problem. Sure he has a better grasp of the offense, he’s 40! The other guys are rookies…duh. Only experience can change that.

Browns admitted Joe’s not the near term answer when they spent a 3rd and 5th on a QB. Going 8-9 or 9-8 with Flacco accomplishes nothing and brings you right back to square 1 after the season.

If you start Gabriel/Sanders you might go 5-12 and get a high draft pick or you might just find out one of their ceilings is higher than you believed and you get to a wild card.

Starting Joe = malfeasance.

I see your point, but I would imagine he’d lose the locker room if he started with a rookie right out of the gate. That would be kind of admitting that your goal is to build for the future rather than win right now. Flacco probably gives them the best chance to win right now.

Seems like that type of call is driven by fear of the unknown. I remember when the Seahawks brought in a high dollar free agent but started a 3rd rounder because he was better... It takes balls to succeed in this business.

Yeah that was a bold move, but I think it was made because Wilson was outplaying him in practice.

I don’t know if that is going on right now. I haven’t been following the practice reports, so maybe they are. Just based on the preseason game Sanders didn’t look ready to start at all. He was able to make some plays, but if he was going against even half way decent defense he would have been sacked on most of those plays he kept extending.

Now Gabriel is intriguing. Funny enough I think he’s about the same size as Wilson. I actually think Gabriel looked much more efficient. He was making quick reads and taking the plays that were there. If Flacco plays like the old man that he is it would be interesting to see how Gabriel could do. He did seem to have some flutter on his ball though.

Not gonna twist it, Gabriel looked great. And no one is going to make me believe Flacco will be starting at the end of the season. Start the rookies and find out what you got. Pickett should be cut or traded. Worst case is they’re junk and you get a top 5 pick to draft your QB of future. “Losing a team” is overrated and not all that common. These guys are professionals playing for future contracts. That’s all.

Throwing an unprepared rookie QB in week 1 to start games against NFL defenses, especially on a weak team, is a bad call 95% of the time. Even QBs with much better draft capital and pedigree then either Gabriel or Sanders have been KOA when put in that position; and a lot of times history has shown us it's had long term negative repercussions for a multitude of reasons; kills confidence, gets gunshy, develops bad habits, etc. etc.

I couldn't disagree more with your takes here, in fact I'd go so far as saying I think it's pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Organizations that roll out underdeveloped and unprepared rookie QBs week 1 of their first season are typically poorly organized/run teams that lack discipline and are often selfishly gambling a 20-something year olds entire life up to this point in hopes that a drastically low percentage odds play pays off just so they can selfishly protect their own jobs overly emphasizing a modicum of success today, as opposed to focusing on any kind of long term development/plan to actually bring sustained success to an organization.

As a Steelers fan I'd gladly jump in line to shred the Browns for all their terrible decisions they seem to make year over year, but choosing not to start Sanders and Gabriel is not one of them. They are both a long ways off from even being a competent starter in the league. And history shows us this concept of "they can't learn except from being on the field in real games" to be wrong, especially at the QB position. And especially as ill-prepared and set up for success these two are and this team is in general.

The Colts are a fine example of how rushing a shiny new rookie QB into the fire too soon can backfire. Not sure how Chris Ballard still has a job. AR was/is EXTREMELY raw after only starting a handful of college games and getting minimal coaching and throwing reps. But he's shown flashes of being other worldly with his throwing ability and physical attributes. And I believe he's STILL the second youngest QB in the league behind Cam Ward. And here we are in year 3 and it still feels like they are rushing this kid. He can't even recover from injury properly because he's got a ton of pressure on him to be out there fighting for his job, because the organization chooses to keep pressuring him to get out there, when he needs to season still. AR is the perfect symbol for drafting a young QB with potential and letting him sit for a couple years and work on the little things and nuances a QB needs. I feel bad for AR, I really do. But as you also state, the Browns seem to be doing it right to this point. Both of those QBs have potential but aren't ready just yet. Let them sit and learn and compete with each other. Will only make them better. And if they want longevity in the league, they will realize that and welcome it. Get all the mental reps and watch for defensive tendencies, etc.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

It's malfeasance neither Gabriel or Sanders is going to start week 1.

Nope.
Joe has complete control and faith of the team and coaches and knows the entire offense.
Sanders hasn't worked a single snap with the 1s, he doesn't know all of the installs.
Dillion got very-limited reps with the 1s.
Both need a lot of work even if they looked good in the preseason against lessor talent, without game plans facing vanilla defenses that didn't spend a minute game planning specifically for them.
Rookies who weren't high picks don't just get starts especially at QB.
Timing with receivers need to be worked out. The starting offensive line need work with them to learn their cadence, drops, timing, and tendencies so they can function. They have to earn it, the respect of vets and coaches and right now the reps just aren't available.
It's not malfeasance, it's Joe's job.

Saying it’s Joe’s job and being rigid is the problem. Sure he has a better grasp of the offense, he’s 40! The other guys are rookies…duh. Only experience can change that.

Browns admitted Joe’s not the near term answer when they spent a 3rd and 5th on a QB. Going 8-9 or 9-8 with Flacco accomplishes nothing and brings you right back to square 1 after the season.

If you start Gabriel/Sanders you might go 5-12 and get a high draft pick or you might just find out one of their ceilings is higher than you believed and you get to a wild card.

Starting Joe = malfeasance.

I see your point, but I would imagine he’d lose the locker room if he started with a rookie right out of the gate. That would be kind of admitting that your goal is to build for the future rather than win right now. Flacco probably gives them the best chance to win right now.

Seems like that type of call is driven by fear of the unknown. I remember when the Seahawks brought in a high dollar free agent but started a 3rd rounder because he was better... It takes balls to succeed in this business.

Yeah that was a bold move, but I think it was made because Wilson was outplaying him in practice.

I don’t know if that is going on right now. I haven’t been following the practice reports, so maybe they are. Just based on the preseason game Sanders didn’t look ready to start at all. He was able to make some plays, but if he was going against even half way decent defense he would have been sacked on most of those plays he kept extending.

Now Gabriel is intriguing. Funny enough I think he’s about the same size as Wilson. I actually think Gabriel looked much more efficient. He was making quick reads and taking the plays that were there. If Flacco plays like the old man that he is it would be interesting to see how Gabriel could do. He did seem to have some flutter on his ball though.

Not gonna twist it, Gabriel looked great. And no one is going to make me believe Flacco will be starting at the end of the season. Start the rookies and find out what you got. Pickett should be cut or traded. Worst case is they’re junk and you get a top 5 pick to draft your QB of future. “Losing a team” is overrated and not all that common. These guys are professionals playing for future contracts. That’s all.

Throwing an unprepared rookie QB in week 1 to start games against NFL defenses, especially on a weak team, is a bad call 95% of the time. Even QBs with much better draft capital and pedigree then either Gabriel or Sanders have been KOA when put in that position; and a lot of times history has shown us it's had long term negative repercussions for a multitude of reasons; kills confidence, gets gunshy, develops bad habits, etc. etc.

I couldn't disagree more with your takes here, in fact I'd go so far as saying I think it's pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Organizations that roll out underdeveloped and unprepared rookie QBs week 1 of their first season are typically poorly organized/run teams that lack discipline and are often selfishly gambling a 20-something year olds entire life up to this point in hopes that a drastically low percentage odds play pays off just so they can selfishly protect their own jobs overly emphasizing a modicum of success today, as opposed to focusing on any kind of long term development/plan to actually bring sustained success to an organization.

As a Steelers fan I'd gladly jump in line to shred the Browns for all their terrible decisions they seem to make year over year, but choosing not to start Sanders and Gabriel is not one of them. They are both a long ways off from even being a competent starter in the league. And history shows us this concept of "they can't learn except from being on the field in real games" to be wrong, especially at the QB position. And especially as ill-prepared and set up for success these two are and this team is in general.

The Colts are a fine example of how rushing a shiny new rookie QB into the fire too soon can backfire. Not sure how Chris Ballard still has a job. AR was/is EXTREMELY raw after only starting a handful of college games and getting minimal coaching and throwing reps. But he's shown flashes of being other worldly with his throwing ability and physical attributes. And I believe he's STILL the second youngest QB in the league behind Cam Ward. And here we are in year 3 and it still feels like they are rushing this kid. He can't even recover from injury properly because he's got a ton of pressure on him to be out there fighting for his job, because the organization chooses to keep pressuring him to get out there, when he needs to season still. AR is the perfect symbol for drafting a young QB with potential and letting him sit for a couple years and work on the little things and nuances a QB needs. I feel bad for AR, I really do. But as you also state, the Browns seem to be doing it right to this point. Both of those QBs have potential but aren't ready just yet. Let them sit and learn and compete with each other. Will only make them better. And if they want longevity in the league, they will realize that and welcome it. Get all the mental reps and watch for defensive tendencies, etc.

Good quarterbacks are good quarterbacks. Experience is invaluable and there is only one way to get it. Fact is, the hit rates on QBs taken in any round is very low and the only way to know if you found a good one is to let them play. The season is 3 weeks away, plenty of time to get someone else 1st team reps…

 

[pinkstapler]

It's malfeasance neither Gabriel or Sanders is going to start week 1.

Nope.
Joe has complete control and faith of the team and coaches and knows the entire offense.
Sanders hasn't worked a single snap with the 1s, he doesn't know all of the installs.
Dillion got very-limited reps with the 1s.
Both need a lot of work even if they looked good in the preseason against lessor talent, without game plans facing vanilla defenses that didn't spend a minute game planning specifically for them.
Rookies who weren't high picks don't just get starts especially at QB.
Timing with receivers need to be worked out. The starting offensive line need work with them to learn their cadence, drops, timing, and tendencies so they can function. They have to earn it, the respect of vets and coaches and right now the reps just aren't available.
It's not malfeasance, it's Joe's job.

Saying it’s Joe’s job and being rigid is the problem. Sure he has a better grasp of the offense, he’s 40! The other guys are rookies…duh. Only experience can change that.

Browns admitted Joe’s not the near term answer when they spent a 3rd and 5th on a QB. Going 8-9 or 9-8 with Flacco accomplishes nothing and brings you right back to square 1 after the season.

If you start Gabriel/Sanders you might go 5-12 and get a high draft pick or you might just find out one of their ceilings is higher than you believed and you get to a wild card.

Starting Joe = malfeasance.

I see your point, but I would imagine he’d lose the locker room if he started with a rookie right out of the gate. That would be kind of admitting that your goal is to build for the future rather than win right now. Flacco probably gives them the best chance to win right now.

Seems like that type of call is driven by fear of the unknown. I remember when the Seahawks brought in a high dollar free agent but started a 3rd rounder because he was better... It takes balls to succeed in this business.

Yeah that was a bold move, but I think it was made because Wilson was outplaying him in practice.

I don’t know if that is going on right now. I haven’t been following the practice reports, so maybe they are. Just based on the preseason game Sanders didn’t look ready to start at all. He was able to make some plays, but if he was going against even half way decent defense he would have been sacked on most of those plays he kept extending.

Now Gabriel is intriguing. Funny enough I think he’s about the same size as Wilson. I actually think Gabriel looked much more efficient. He was making quick reads and taking the plays that were there. If Flacco plays like the old man that he is it would be interesting to see how Gabriel could do. He did seem to have some flutter on his ball though.

Not gonna twist it, Gabriel looked great. And no one is going to make me believe Flacco will be starting at the end of the season. Start the rookies and find out what you got. Pickett should be cut or traded. Worst case is they’re junk and you get a top 5 pick to draft your QB of future. “Losing a team” is overrated and not all that common. These guys are professionals playing for future contracts. That’s all.

Throwing an unprepared rookie QB in week 1 to start games against NFL defenses, especially on a weak team, is a bad call 95% of the time. Even QBs with much better draft capital and pedigree then either Gabriel or Sanders have been KOA when put in that position; and a lot of times history has shown us it's had long term negative repercussions for a multitude of reasons; kills confidence, gets gunshy, develops bad habits, etc. etc.

I couldn't disagree more with your takes here, in fact I'd go so far as saying I think it's pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Organizations that roll out underdeveloped and unprepared rookie QBs week 1 of their first season are typically poorly organized/run teams that lack discipline and are often selfishly gambling a 20-something year olds entire life up to this point in hopes that a drastically low percentage odds play pays off just so they can selfishly protect their own jobs overly emphasizing a modicum of success today, as opposed to focusing on any kind of long term development/plan to actually bring sustained success to an organization.

As a Steelers fan I'd gladly jump in line to shred the Browns for all their terrible decisions they seem to make year over year, but choosing not to start Sanders and Gabriel is not one of them. They are both a long ways off from even being a competent starter in the league. And history shows us this concept of "they can't learn except from being on the field in real games" to be wrong, especially at the QB position. And especially as ill-prepared and set up for success these two are and this team is in general.

The Colts are a fine example of how rushing a shiny new rookie QB into the fire too soon can backfire. Not sure how Chris Ballard still has a job. AR was/is EXTREMELY raw after only starting a handful of college games and getting minimal coaching and throwing reps. But he's shown flashes of being other worldly with his throwing ability and physical attributes. And I believe he's STILL the second youngest QB in the league behind Cam Ward. And here we are in year 3 and it still feels like they are rushing this kid. He can't even recover from injury properly because he's got a ton of pressure on him to be out there fighting for his job, because the organization chooses to keep pressuring him to get out there, when he needs to season still. AR is the perfect symbol for drafting a young QB with potential and letting him sit for a couple years and work on the little things and nuances a QB needs. I feel bad for AR, I really do. But as you also state, the Browns seem to be doing it right to this point. Both of those QBs have potential but aren't ready just yet. Let them sit and learn and compete with each other. Will only make them better. And if they want longevity in the league, they will realize that and welcome it. Get all the mental reps and watch for defensive tendencies, etc.

Good quarterbacks are good quarterbacks. Experience is invaluable and there is only one way to get it. Fact is, the hit rates on QBs taken in any round is very low and the only way to know if you found a good one is to let them play. The season is 3 weeks away, plenty of time to get someone else 1st team reps…

Hard disagree that playing in live NFL games is the only way for a QB to grow at the position. Or this statement that "good QBs are good QBs" which basically insinuating they are what they are coming out of college and development means nothing. I think Baker Mayfield would strongly disagree.
And Pat Mahomes, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers seemed to turn out ok by waiting and learning in practice, team meetings, and active participation from the sidelines.
I don't care to try and convince you otherwise, your opinion is your opinion. But it is a fact it is a minority opinion at this point. Pretty much the only ones who feel otherwise are more concerned with their own jobs and/or the revenue and financial side of owning an NFL team.

Data Supports the Idea of Giving Rookie Quarterbacks Time to Develop

At the very best; starting a rookie QB immediately is a case by case decision depending on a lot of variables. With the information we have on Gabriel and Sanders, the case is clearly made IMO that it's best to wait on both of them. While we rarely see it done, I actually believe a mix of both is the best. I believe Waldman has also spoke on this at times. Really if it was me, and I was running a team like the Browns right now who really have incredibly low odds at being SB contenders this year; I'd be starting Flacco, but rotating in both Sanders and Gabriel for a drive here and there throughout the course of this year based on game scripts and what I was trying to focus on with regards to their development. And regardless of their performance, after the drive, they'd sub back out. Because the whole point IMO is teaching first, but building/maintaining confidence a close second. Unfortunately, due to the politics and business side of things you'd need to have an owner and GM who were supportive of this; and have to completely ignore the crying of the fanbase knowing that ultimately if you can develop either guy into a long term high quality starter they'll get over the constant edging for a season of development.

 

[Schmeabs]

It's malfeasance neither Gabriel or Sanders is going to start week 1.

Nope.
Joe has complete control and faith of the team and coaches and knows the entire offense.
Sanders hasn't worked a single snap with the 1s, he doesn't know all of the installs.
Dillion got very-limited reps with the 1s.
Both need a lot of work even if they looked good in the preseason against lessor talent, without game plans facing vanilla defenses that didn't spend a minute game planning specifically for them.
Rookies who weren't high picks don't just get starts especially at QB.
Timing with receivers need to be worked out. The starting offensive line need work with them to learn their cadence, drops, timing, and tendencies so they can function. They have to earn it, the respect of vets and coaches and right now the reps just aren't available.
It's not malfeasance, it's Joe's job.

Saying it’s Joe’s job and being rigid is the problem. Sure he has a better grasp of the offense, he’s 40! The other guys are rookies…duh. Only experience can change that.

Browns admitted Joe’s not the near term answer when they spent a 3rd and 5th on a QB. Going 8-9 or 9-8 with Flacco accomplishes nothing and brings you right back to square 1 after the season.

If you start Gabriel/Sanders you might go 5-12 and get a high draft pick or you might just find out one of their ceilings is higher than you believed and you get to a wild card.

Starting Joe = malfeasance.

I see your point, but I would imagine he’d lose the locker room if he started with a rookie right out of the gate. That would be kind of admitting that your goal is to build for the future rather than win right now. Flacco probably gives them the best chance to win right now.

Seems like that type of call is driven by fear of the unknown. I remember when the Seahawks brought in a high dollar free agent but started a 3rd rounder because he was better... It takes balls to succeed in this business.

Yeah that was a bold move, but I think it was made because Wilson was outplaying him in practice.

I don’t know if that is going on right now. I haven’t been following the practice reports, so maybe they are. Just based on the preseason game Sanders didn’t look ready to start at all. He was able to make some plays, but if he was going against even half way decent defense he would have been sacked on most of those plays he kept extending.

Now Gabriel is intriguing. Funny enough I think he’s about the same size as Wilson. I actually think Gabriel looked much more efficient. He was making quick reads and taking the plays that were there. If Flacco plays like the old man that he is it would be interesting to see how Gabriel could do. He did seem to have some flutter on his ball though.

Not gonna twist it, Gabriel looked great. And no one is going to make me believe Flacco will be starting at the end of the season. Start the rookies and find out what you got. Pickett should be cut or traded. Worst case is they’re junk and you get a top 5 pick to draft your QB of future. “Losing a team” is overrated and not all that common. These guys are professionals playing for future contracts. That’s all.

Throwing an unprepared rookie QB in week 1 to start games against NFL defenses, especially on a weak team, is a bad call 95% of the time. Even QBs with much better draft capital and pedigree then either Gabriel or Sanders have been KOA when put in that position; and a lot of times history has shown us it's had long term negative repercussions for a multitude of reasons; kills confidence, gets gunshy, develops bad habits, etc. etc.

I couldn't disagree more with your takes here, in fact I'd go so far as saying I think it's pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Organizations that roll out underdeveloped and unprepared rookie QBs week 1 of their first season are typically poorly organized/run teams that lack discipline and are often selfishly gambling a 20-something year olds entire life up to this point in hopes that a drastically low percentage odds play pays off just so they can selfishly protect their own jobs overly emphasizing a modicum of success today, as opposed to focusing on any kind of long term development/plan to actually bring sustained success to an organization.

As a Steelers fan I'd gladly jump in line to shred the Browns for all their terrible decisions they seem to make year over year, but choosing not to start Sanders and Gabriel is not one of them. They are both a long ways off from even being a competent starter in the league. And history shows us this concept of "they can't learn except from being on the field in real games" to be wrong, especially at the QB position. And especially as ill-prepared and set up for success these two are and this team is in general.

Unprepared? Gabriel holds the record for the most starts ever for a college QB. If anyone could be ready on day 1 it is him.

 

[MAC_32]

It doesn't appear those that have their heels dug on in 'start the rookies' are willing to listen to reasons why that may be a bad idea.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

It doesn't appear those that have their heels dug on in 'start the rookies' are willing to listen to reasons why that may be a bad idea.

I’m willing to listen to compelling arguments, I’m just weary of tired NFL groupthink.

My problem with starting the worn out 40 year old journeyman is it does nothing more than delay the inevitable in a league where time is money.

 

[MAC_32]

It doesn't appear those that have their heels dug on in 'start the rookies' are willing to listen to reasons why that may be a bad idea.

I’m willing to listen to compelling arguments, I’m just weary of tired NFL groupthink.

My problem with starting the worn out 40 year old journeyman is it does nothing more than delay the inevitable in a league where time is money.

That's not true.

And that^^^ only has to do with the current team situation, not historical context for developing rookies. No developmental curve is linear and everyone has different starting points, but that's when the subject matter is a rd 1 QB. There are lots of reasons these guys fall out of rd 1, but the overarching theme is they're not ready to start. There are exceptions to every rule, but decision making based on those exceptions will result in more mistakes than successes.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

It doesn't appear those that have their heels dug on in 'start the rookies' are willing to listen to reasons why that may be a bad idea.

I’m willing to listen to compelling arguments, I’m just weary of tired NFL groupthink.

My problem with starting the worn out 40 year old journeyman is it does nothing more than delay the inevitable in a league where time is money.

That's not true.

And that^^^ only has to do with the current team situation, not historical context for developing rookies. No developmental curve is linear and everyone has different starting points, but that's when the subject matter is a rd 1 QB. There are lots of reasons these guys fall out of rd 1, but the overarching theme is they're not ready to start. There are exceptions to every rule, but decision making based on those exceptions will result in more mistakes than successes.

I'm not sure I ever made a post in that thread, but based on your post I agree that no developmental curve is linear. Some guys need physical development. Some need mental reps. Some need live action reps. I guess none of us know the real reason why Gabriel/Sanders never really seem to have been given a fair shot at the job, but what appears clear to me is the starter here was pre-determined from the jump. The Browns are a traditionalist organization, but they're also currently a dumpster fire. Maybe it's time to change up the groupthink?

For the record, I believe Gabriel should be getting at least some of the first team reps right now to see what he's capable of with the 1s against the 1s. I'm advocating for him getting a chance before Sanders FWIW although I do believe both should be given a look at some point during the season.

Also on the record, Sanders' pre-draft grade was not that far off from Ward who was in the range of Penix/Nix/McCarthy/Pickett, but to be fair, the people grading these guys pre-draft were not in the interview rooms which really seemed to tank Sheduer's draft stock. Form the outside looking in, it does appear Sanders is saying and doing all the right things after getting in the building.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

This post from the thread you linked is a little funny at this point. At least you know what you're getting with Joe at this point. I guess on the bright side, I could be wrong, Joe might actually be the guy to bring home a top 5 draft pick...

Flacco deserves a chance to pick up where he left off with the Brownies

A pick 6 fest?

 

[MAC_32]

It doesn't appear those that have their heels dug on in 'start the rookies' are willing to listen to reasons why that may be a bad idea.

I’m willing to listen to compelling arguments, I’m just weary of tired NFL groupthink.

My problem with starting the worn out 40 year old journeyman is it does nothing more than delay the inevitable in a league where time is money.

That's not true.

And that^^^ only has to do with the current team situation, not historical context for developing rookies. No developmental curve is linear and everyone has different starting points, but that's when the subject matter is a rd 1 QB. There are lots of reasons these guys fall out of rd 1, but the overarching theme is they're not ready to start. There are exceptions to every rule, but decision making based on those exceptions will result in more mistakes than successes.

I'm not sure I ever made a post in that thread, but based on your post I agree that no developmental curve is linear. Some guys need physical development. Some need mental reps. Some need live action reps. I guess none of us know the real reason why Gabriel/Sanders never really seem to have been given a fair shot at the job, but what appears clear to me is the starter here was pre-determined from the jump. The Browns are a traditionalist organization, but they're also currently a dumpster fire. Maybe it's time to change up the groupthink?

For the record, I believe Gabriel should be getting at least some of the first team reps right now to see what he's capable of with the 1s against the 1s. I'm advocating for him getting a chance before Sanders FWIW although I do believe both should be given a look at some point during the season.

Also on the record, Sanders' pre-draft grade was not that far off from Ward who was in the range of Penix/Nix/McCarthy/Pickett, but to be fair, the people grading these guys pre-draft were not in the interview rooms which really seemed to tank Sheduer's draft stock. Form the outside looking in, it does appear Sanders is saying and doing all the right things after getting in the building.

Their starting point is 'not ready to start,' as I shared in the other thread. They've since been splitting reps between 4* QB's. Given that dynamic it is extremely unlikely any rookie QB will earn enough of an opportunity to be a serious contender to start, especially in this new era of the NFL. It was one thing when the offseason was robust, but that's not the reality in the new CBA - in the give-and-take the concessions the players asked for and the owners agreed to was less offseason work.

This 'competition' was always Flacco v Pickett to start and Sanders v Gabriel for priority backup because from a practical perspective it had to be. And if (when) the Browns don't accumulate a bunch of early season upsets, the winner of the rookie competition (I agree both will get a look sometime this season) will get an opportunity, and it will be in a situation better setting up them up for success. It won't be a gauntlet of playoff teams and super bowl contenders amidst a locker room whose priority is to win.

 

[MAC_32]

This post from the thread you linked is a little funny at this point. At least you know what you're getting with Joe at this point. I guess on the bright side, I could be wrong, Joe might actually be the guy to bring home a top 5 draft pick...

Flacco deserves a chance to pick up where he left off with the Brownies

A pick 6 fest?

If you don't have a sense of humor as a Browns fan then you may as well dig yourself an early grave

I wasn't the only one trying to instill a dose of pragmatism in Dec 2023, but what happened in that playoff game was inevitable. Only question was when - I thought (hoped?) it'd be in the divisional. You take the good with the bad with Joe, it's not meaningfully different than Jameis, but ultimately while he can keep a locker room glued together there's a ceiling with what his teams can do at this stage of his career.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

This post from the thread you linked is a little funny at this point. At least you know what you're getting with Joe at this point. I guess on the bright side, I could be wrong, Joe might actually be the guy to bring home a top 5 draft pick...

Flacco deserves a chance to pick up where he left off with the Brownies

A pick 6 fest?

If you don't have a sense of humor as a Browns fan then you may as well dig yourself an early grave

I wasn't the only one trying to instill a dose of pragmatism in Dec 2023, but what happened in that playoff game was inevitable. Only question was when - I thought (hoped?) it'd be in the divisional. You take the good with the bad with Joe, it's not meaningfully different than Jameis, but ultimately while he can keep a locker room glued together there's a ceiling with what his teams can do at this stage of his career.

I would argue it's money that keeps the locker room glued together, not Joe. Just ask Myles.

My best friend is a Browns fan, has been his whole life. Sometimes, most times around week 4 or 5, I feel sincerely bad for him. Instead of having a sense of humor about it, he just gets angry and boycotts the team and the NFL until the next draft when his hopes are reignited. I feel the most empathy for his son who he's carried into Browns fandom instead of just adopting the local team with hope.

My problem with starting Joe is he's a massive human being that's closer to 41 than he is 40. Disregarding how well he plays, there is almost 0 chance that body holds up for an entire NFL season. I'll say it again, the decision is just delaying the inevitable. I'm one that believes in just tearing off the bandage and getting it over with.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

It doesn't appear those that have their heels dug on in 'start the rookies' are willing to listen to reasons why that may be a bad idea.

I’m willing to listen to compelling arguments, I’m just weary of tired NFL groupthink.

My problem with starting the worn out 40 year old journeyman is it does nothing more than delay the inevitable in a league where time is money.

That's not true.

And that^^^ only has to do with the current team situation, not historical context for developing rookies. No developmental curve is linear and everyone has different starting points, but that's when the subject matter is a rd 1 QB. There are lots of reasons these guys fall out of rd 1, but the overarching theme is they're not ready to start. There are exceptions to every rule, but decision making based on those exceptions will result in more mistakes than successes.

I'm not sure I ever made a post in that thread, but based on your post I agree that no developmental curve is linear. Some guys need physical development. Some need mental reps. Some need live action reps. I guess none of us know the real reason why Gabriel/Sanders never really seem to have been given a fair shot at the job, but what appears clear to me is the starter here was pre-determined from the jump. The Browns are a traditionalist organization, but they're also currently a dumpster fire. Maybe it's time to change up the groupthink?

For the record, I believe Gabriel should be getting at least some of the first team reps right now to see what he's capable of with the 1s against the 1s. I'm advocating for him getting a chance before Sanders FWIW although I do believe both should be given a look at some point during the season.

Also on the record, Sanders' pre-draft grade was not that far off from Ward who was in the range of Penix/Nix/McCarthy/Pickett, but to be fair, the people grading these guys pre-draft were not in the interview rooms which really seemed to tank Sheduer's draft stock. Form the outside looking in, it does appear Sanders is saying and doing all the right things after getting in the building.

Their starting point is 'not ready to start,' as I shared in the other thread. They've since been splitting reps between 4* QB's. Given that dynamic it is extremely unlikely any rookie QB will earn enough of an opportunity to be a serious contender to start, especially in this new era of the NFL. It was one thing when the offseason was robust, but that's not the reality in the new CBA - in the give-and-take the concessions the players asked for and the owners agreed to was less offseason work.

This 'competition' was always Flacco v Pickett to start and Sanders v Gabriel for priority backup because from a practical perspective it had to be. And if (when) the Browns don't accumulate a bunch of early season upsets, the winner of the rookie competition (I agree both will get a look sometime this season) will get an opportunity, and it will be in a situation better setting up them up for success. It won't be a gauntlet of playoff teams and super bowl contenders amidst a locker room whose priority is to win.

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm curious why you're viewpoint is that their starting point is "not ready to start?" Is it because of their draft position, or that they're a rookie, or both or something else altogether? I would disagree with every assertion. There are enough examples in NFL history to disprove every theory. Scouts, GMs and coaches just aren't as good of talent evaluators as we've been led to believe. The reality is, you simply don't know who is a gamer until they get a chance on the field. 1st rounders routinely flame out and while finding viable starters outside of the first round is rare, it's not unheard of.

 

[MAC_32]

I would argue it's money that keeps the locker room glued together, not Joe. Just ask Myles.

Correct, well money first, there are other priorities like competitiveness, but the almighty dollar reigns supreme. And a QB like Joe in there instead of a mid-round rookie increases the future value of those around him.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

I would argue it's money that keeps the locker room glued together, not Joe. Just ask Myles.

Correct, well money first, there are other priorities like competitiveness, but the almighty dollar reigns supreme. And a QB like Joe in there instead of a mid-round rookie increases the future value of those around him.

Maybe, maybe not. I can't make that determination until I've seen the other guys play. Plus, like I've said before, what's the over/under on games started by 40 year old Joe? When he goes down, it automatically wrecks continuity, something you could be building with a young guy from day 1.

 

[warpig33]

Browns will most likely be holding two 1st round picks in the first 10 picks next year! Their own pick and the Jags 2026 1st. They can either draft one of the QBs coming out next year or trade out. But the Browns being the Browns...could totally see them taking a QB with their 1st pick.

 

[MAC_32]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm curious why you're viewpoint is that their starting point is "not ready to start?" Is it because of their draft position

Yes - like anything, individual application needs done. Also, as you insinuated, scouting is an inexact science and these teams get their assessments wrong all the time, but it appears they have improved in recent years. In way too simplistic terms, I think the NFL views rookie QB's in these general buckets:

Top of rd 1 - ready to start (soon?)
Later rd 1 - big ceiling, willing to bet on them, but unsure if ready to start
Day 2 - quality backup / fringe starter, or has warts but is further along than 'developmental'
Day 3 - potential, but nowhere near ready to play

Sanders is obviously an exception to the above ( that's the individual application). If the NFL saw him as a rd 1 talent, then someone would've talked themselves into him sometime day 2. No one will ever say, but based on their actions, no one saw that in him. They saw him as a day 2 talent (early or late is inconsequential at this point), but he plummeted because they didn't think that's where he was neck-up, which is a recipe for disaster.

 

[MAC_32]

Plus, like I've said before, what's the over/under on games started by 40 year old Joe? When he goes down, it automatically wrecks continuity, something you could be building with a young guy from day 1.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're expressing, but it's important to remember the audience is a buncha 20-early30something athletes.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm curious why you're viewpoint is that their starting point is "not ready to start?" Is it because of their draft position

Yes - like anything, individual application needs done. Also, as you insinuated, scouting is an inexact science and these teams get their assessments wrong all the time, but it appears they have improved in recent years. In way too simplistic terms, I think the NFL views rookie QB's in these general buckets:

Top of rd 1 - ready to start (soon?)
Later rd 1 - big ceiling, willing to bet on them, but unsure if ready to start
Day 2 - quality backup / fringe starter, or has warts but is further along than 'developmental'
Day 3 - potential, but nowhere near ready to play

Sanders is obviously an exception to the above ( that's the individual application). If the NFL saw him as a rd 1 talent, then someone would've talked themselves into him sometime day 2. No one will ever say, but based on their actions, no one saw that in him. They saw him as a day 2 talent (early or late is inconsequential at this point), but he plummeted because they didn't think that's where he was neck-up, which is a recipe for disaster.

I agree with what you’re saying about Sanders and why he fell, but now that he’s in the building he seems to be showing he’s not the guy they interviewed.

This is the Dillon Gabriel thread though, and he’s the one I said should be starting or at the least getting half the first team reps like Maye did last year.

Knowing something is coming (Flacco to the bench to injury or underperformance), and not preparing every way possible is malfeasance.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

The most important aspect to the QB competition is how they performed in JOINT PRACTICES against other starting NFL units with Carolina and Philly. Joe played great and earned the job.
Joe Flacco didn’t win Browns starting QB job by default, Kevin Stefanski says; Kenny Pickett returns to 11-on-11s
Kevin Stefanski stressed Tuesday that Joe Flacco earned the starting quarterback job ...Joe performed really well both in practices, in the joint practices, in the meeting room, you name it, in the walkthrough, just what he’s able to bring to the football team. He’s earned that role.”
... There’s a lot of minutia that goes into football. There’s a lot of meetings ... he’s on point with all of the line calls, whether it’s protection or running.”
Shedeur could use time to mature.
Shedeur Sanders admits 'wrong choices' after being caught speeding at 101 MPH, failing to show in court The Browns rookie was reportedly going around 40 mph over the speed limit
Since 2003 only four QBs have taken after the 1st round who have started and played well, only one was under 6'0 but NONE were under 6'0 tall AND left-handed.
Dillion Gabriel is a lefty and that means the ball is rotating off his hand in the opposite direction of the other three QBs and in past NFL training camps that 'tends' to cause a higher percentage of drops when it hits the receiver's hands.
Why Left-Handed Quarterbacks Are So Rare
...This paucity of left-handed quarterbacks is truly bizarre. Lefties make up around 10 percent of the population, but, according to ESPN’s stats department, there have been just 33 lefty QBs in the NFL since 1950...
... how lefties play the position. They tend to prefer to roll out to the left, for example, and throws to the right side of the field are more difficult for them. Cohn, who wrote a lengthy piece on the scarcity of lefty QBs, found a few examples of coaches who didn’t want to restructure their playbooks to cater to southpaws...
...And then there’s the matter of spin. When a receiver gets the ball from a right-handed quarterback, he’s catching a spiral that rotates counterclockwise; for lefties, it’s clockwise. This may not seem like a big deal, but wide receivers tend to be a fussy bunch. “Regardless of where I run on the field, unless I run an out to the right, the ball is always going to be spinning away from me,” Hall of Fame wideout Cris Carter told NFL Films. It’s a legitimate adjustment,
-----------
Then add on that he's short for an NFL QB and that takes TIME to adjust to an NFL PRO SET of lining up under center which is critical to a Kevin Stefanski run-heavy 12 personnel offense. 12 personnel in football refers to an offensive formation that includes one running back, two tight ends, and two wide receivers on the field. That is why we drafted TWO RBs AND a TE to pair with Njoku.
Baker Mayfield was 6'0 and had trouble seeing the field in Stefanski's offense. He has thrived in the shotgun in TB's offense where he can more clearly see the entire field. That team is set up for 11 and 12 personnel and is totally different. He had TIME TO MATURE and landed in a perfect spot that has the right offense and personnel for him to thrive.
I have stated I was against the Gabriel pick when it happened because I didn't think he would fit this team, he's looked better than I anticipated but the fact is Joe looked good in joint practices against other 1st team NFL defenses, much better than Dillion Gabriel.
The team that averaged only 15 pts per game last year certainly could use a revisiting of the 5-game stretch of the 28 pts per game that Joe threw for in the same offense.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

The most important aspect to the QB competition is how they performed in JOINT PRACTICES against other starting NFL units with Carolina and Philly. Joe played great and earned the job.
Joe Flacco didn’t win Browns starting QB job by default, Kevin Stefanski says; Kenny Pickett returns to 11-on-11s
Kevin Stefanski stressed Tuesday that Joe Flacco earned the starting quarterback job ...Joe performed really well both in practices, in the joint practices, in the meeting room, you name it, in the walkthrough, just what he’s able to bring to the football team. He’s earned that role.”
... There’s a lot of minutia that goes into football. There’s a lot of meetings ... he’s on point with all of the line calls, whether it’s protection or running.”
Shedeur could use time to mature.
Shedeur Sanders admits 'wrong choices' after being caught speeding at 101 MPH, failing to show in court The Browns rookie was reportedly going around 40 mph over the speed limit
Since 2003 only four QBs have taken after the 1st round who have started and played well, only one was under 6'0 but NONE were under 6'0 tall AND left-handed.
Dillion Gabriel is a lefty and that means the ball is rotating off his hand in the opposite direction of the other three QBs and in past NFL training camps that 'tends' to cause a higher percentage of drops when it hits the receiver's hands.
Why Left-Handed Quarterbacks Are So Rare
...This paucity of left-handed quarterbacks is truly bizarre. Lefties make up around 10 percent of the population, but, according to ESPN’s stats department, there have been just 33 lefty QBs in the NFL since 1950...
... how lefties play the position. They tend to prefer to roll out to the left, for example, and throws to the right side of the field are more difficult for them. Cohn, who wrote a lengthy piece on the scarcity of lefty QBs, found a few examples of coaches who didn’t want to restructure their playbooks to cater to southpaws...
...And then there’s the matter of spin. When a receiver gets the ball from a right-handed quarterback, he’s catching a spiral that rotates counterclockwise; for lefties, it’s clockwise. This may not seem like a big deal, but wide receivers tend to be a fussy bunch. “Regardless of where I run on the field, unless I run an out to the right, the ball is always going to be spinning away from me,” Hall of Fame wideout Cris Carter told NFL Films. It’s a legitimate adjustment,
-----------
Then add on that he's short for an NFL QB and that takes TIME to adjust to an NFL PRO SET of lining up under center which is critical to a Kevin Stefanski run-heavy 12 personnel offense. 12 personnel in football refers to an offensive formation that includes one running back, two tight ends, and two wide receivers on the field. That is why we drafted TWO RBs AND a TE to pair with Njoku.
Baker Mayfield was 6'0 and had trouble seeing the field in Stefanski's offense. He has thrived in the shotgun in TB's offense where he can more clearly see the entire field. That team is set up for 11 and 12 personnel and is totally different. He had TIME TO MATURE and landed in a perfect spot that has the right offense and personnel for him to thrive.
I have stated I was against the Gabriel pick when it happened because I didn't think he would fit this team, he's looked better than I anticipated but the fact is Joe looked good in joint practices against other 1st team NFL defenses, much better than Dillion Gabriel.
The team that averaged only 15 pts per game last year certainly could use a revisiting of the 5-game stretch of the 28 pts per game that Joe threw for in the same offense.

Pretty great arguments against Sanders and Gabriel ever amounting to a hill of beans, so why waste a 3rd and a 5th?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Pretty great arguments against Sanders and Gabriel ever amounting to a hill of beans, so why waste a 3rd and a 5th?

You haven't added much other than naysaying and I've already covered Dillion was scouted and drafted to be a backup QB and that there was no PLAN of Shedeur Sanders falling and he was taken as a late round flyer who may or may NOT work out.
Historically, few QBs drafted AFTER the 1st pan out.
Tons of draft studies have been conducted.
What the stats tell us about drafting positions by round
... Now let's look at little closer at the QBs.

• The first round gives you a 63% chance of finding a starter.
• The second round gives you a 27% chance, the third a 17% chance, then it really plummets from there with 8% in the fourth and 6% in the 7th.

------------
Historically, the numbers show few make it so anyone who knows those numbers know that QBs taken later ARE flyers who may or may not work out. I don't get the people who get worked up over late round players at any position but especially late round QBs.

 

[Schmeabs]

Pretty great arguments against Sanders and Gabriel ever amounting to a hill of beans, so why waste a 3rd and a 5th?

You haven't added much other than naysaying and I've already covered Dillion was scouted and drafted to be a backup QB and that there was no PLAN of Shedeur Sanders falling and he was taken as a late round flyer who may or may NOT work out.
Historically, few QBs drafted AFTER the 1st pan out.
Tons of draft studies have been conducted.
What the stats tell us about drafting positions by round
... Now let's look at little closer at the QBs.

• The first round gives you a 63% chance of finding a starter.
• The second round gives you a 27% chance, the third a 17% chance, then it really plummets from there with 8% in the fourth and 6% in the 7th.

------------
Historically, the numbers show few make it so anyone who knows those numbers know that QBs taken later ARE flyers who may or may not work out. I don't get the people who get worked up over late round players at any position but especially late round QBs.

I may have missed it but I find it hard to believe the Browns stated they drafted Gabriel to be a back up QB. Do you have a quote for that? I just assumed that was your opinion.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Pretty great arguments against Sanders and Gabriel ever amounting to a hill of beans, so why waste a 3rd and a 5th?

You haven't added much other than naysaying and I've already covered Dillion was scouted and drafted to be a backup QB and that there was no PLAN of Shedeur Sanders falling and he was taken as a late round flyer who may or may NOT work out.
Historically, few QBs drafted AFTER the 1st pan out.
Tons of draft studies have been conducted.
What the stats tell us about drafting positions by round
... Now let's look at little closer at the QBs.

• The first round gives you a 63% chance of finding a starter.
• The second round gives you a 27% chance, the third a 17% chance, then it really plummets from there with 8% in the fourth and 6% in the 7th.

------------
Historically, the numbers show few make it so anyone who knows those numbers know that QBs taken later ARE flyers who may or may not work out. I don't get the people who get worked up over late round players at any position but especially late round QBs.

With Sanders, I think it's because many still think he was better than a 5th round pick, even though 32 NFL teams told us he wasn't (and yes, Sanders fans out there, they get it wrong all the time with QBs, but they still know more than we do). And with Gabriel, those same people want to see him fail quickly and rapidly so they can be right about their "Sheduer should have been drafted before Gabriel" stance. We see that with how some make a big deal out of his nothing comment over the weekend, pretending like he was slamming their Lord and Savior, Sheduer. It's both dishonest and hateful. And the funny thing is, by turning Sanders into more of a celebrity QB than he was already, they are just making it harder for him in the NFL, as history has shown that if you are a QB and you are bringing a circus with you, you had better be good enough to start, because teams do not want a backup QB with a circus; it's not worth it.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I just assumed that was your opinion.

Yeah, I hold opinions based on knowledge of the team that hasn't had a consistent backup QB and with the historic knowledge of NFL hit rates along with following the team and knowing how poorly the team did last year when it pushed in all the chips with Watson. Then knowing how well Flacco did in this offense along with knowing Joe has looked good in joint practices and that Dillion has struggled when he got 1st team reps in joint practices facing 1st team NFL defenses.
If anyone says THE PLAN was to start a 3rd or 5th round rookie? No. I will go further with my opinion.
The plan was to allow Pickett to earn the starting job, but he got injured and as I suspected, he's Kenny Pickett and has never really produced in 30 NFL games. Not surprising to me but I bet the plan was for him to earn the starting job.
If the coaches and front office feel that Dillion has shown enough then I would logically opine he would be the backup.
Per the QB log jam?
In the past the Browns GM Andrew Berry has traded QB depth for late draft picks.
Jes say'n.

 

[Schmeabs]

I just assumed that was your opinion.

Yeah, I hold opinions based on knowledge of the team that hasn't had a consistent backup QB and with the historic knowledge of NFL hit rates along with following the team and knowing how poorly the team did last year when it pushed in all the chips with Watson. Then knowing how well Flacco did in this offense along with knowing Joe has looked good in joint practices and that Dillion has struggled when he got 1st team reps in joint practices facing 1st team NFL defenses.
If anyone says THE PLAN was to start a 3rd or 5th round rookie? No. I will go further with my opinion.
The plan was to allow Pickett to earn the starting job, but he got injured and as I suspected, he's Kenny Pickett and has never really produced in 30 NFL games. Not surprising to me but I bet the plan was for him to earn the starting job.
If the coaches and front office feel that Dillion has shown enough then I would logically opine he would be the backup.
Per the QB log jam?
In the past the Browns GM Andrew Berry has traded QB depth for late draft picks.
Jes say'n.

Sorry I must have misunderstood you as I thought you were saying the Browns never plan on Gabriel being a starting QB. I think you are just referring to your opinion that this year the plan all along was for him to back up Flacco or Pickett.

 

[Ray_T]

Waste of a pick

Not if he's their backup QB for the next 5 years.

agreed. if you draft a player at QB in round 3 you are not expecting a starter. if you get one thats a big bonus, but generally you are expecting a backup QB with a third round pick. Not a starter.

 

[Faust]

@PFF
Dillon Gabriel in his rookie preseason:

80.0% adjusted completion %
272 passing yards
7.3 YPA
1 passing TD

https://x.com/pff/status/1959405548207759541?s=61

@PFF
Dillon Gabriel showing what he can do in the 2-minute drill

Watch on @NFLNetwork
Stream on @NFLPlus

https://x.com/nfl/status/1959323814321426874?s=61

 

[Ilov80s]

The most important aspect to the QB competition is how they performed in JOINT PRACTICES against other starting NFL units with Carolina and Philly. Joe played great and earned the job.
Joe Flacco didn’t win Browns starting QB job by default, Kevin Stefanski says; Kenny Pickett returns to 11-on-11s
Kevin Stefanski stressed Tuesday that Joe Flacco earned the starting quarterback job ...Joe performed really well both in practices, in the joint practices, in the meeting room, you name it, in the walkthrough, just what he’s able to bring to the football team. He’s earned that role.”
... There’s a lot of minutia that goes into football. There’s a lot of meetings ... he’s on point with all of the line calls, whether it’s protection or running.”
Shedeur could use time to mature.Bea
Shedeur Sanders admits 'wrong choices' after being caught speeding at 101 MPH, failing to show in court The Browns rookie was reportedly going around 40 mph over the speed limit
Since 2003 only four QBs have taken after the 1st round who have started and played well, only one was under 6'0 but NONE were under 6'0 tall AND left-handed.
Dillion Gabriel is a lefty and that means the ball is rotating off his hand in the opposite direction of the other three QBs and in past NFL training camps that 'tends' to cause a higher percentage of drops when it hits the receiver's hands.
Why Left-Handed Quarterbacks Are So Rare
...This paucity of left-handed quarterbacks is truly bizarre. Lefties make up around 10 percent of the population, but, according to ESPN’s stats department, there have been just 33 lefty QBs in the NFL since 1950...
... how lefties play the position. They tend to prefer to roll out to the left, for example, and throws to the right side of the field are more difficult for them. Cohn, who wrote a lengthy piece on the scarcity of lefty QBs, found a few examples of coaches who didn’t want to restructure their playbooks to cater to southpaws...
...And then there’s the matter of spin. When a receiver gets the ball from a right-handed quarterback, he’s catching a spiral that rotates counterclockwise; for lefties, it’s clockwise. This may not seem like a big deal, but wide receivers tend to be a fussy bunch. “Regardless of where I run on the field, unless I run an out to the right, the ball is always going to be spinning away from me,” Hall of Fame wideout Cris Carter told NFL Films. It’s a legitimate adjustment,
-----------
Then add on that he's short for an NFL QB and that takes TIME to adjust to an NFL PRO SET of lining up under center which is critical to a Kevin Stefanski run-heavy 12 personnel offense. 12 personnel in football refers to an offensive formation that includes one running back, two tight ends, and two wide receivers on the field. That is why we drafted TWO RBs AND a TE to pair with Njoku.
Baker Mayfield was 6'0 and had trouble seeing the field in Stefanski's offense. He has thrived in the shotgun in TB's offense where he can more clearly see the entire field. That team is set up for 11 and 12 personnel and is totally different. He had TIME TO MATURE and landed in a perfect spot that has the right offense and personnel for him to thrive.
I have stated I was against the Gabriel pick when it happened because I didn't think he would fit this team, he's looked better than I anticipated but the fact is Joe looked good in joint practices against other 1st team NFL defenses, much better than Dillion Gabriel.
The team that averaged only 15 pts per game last year certainly could use a revisiting of the 5-game stretch of the 28 pts per game that Joe threw for in the same offense.

Pretty great arguments against Sanders and Gabriel ever amounting to a hill of beans, so why waste a 3rd and a 5th?

Because they play QB and the even though the odds either of them ever give you consistently good starting QB play is very very small, the payoff if it does hit is literally franchise changing. Look at players like Dak and Brock Purdy have done for their teams. And the hit rates on CBs, TEs, DTs, etc. in those rounds isn't amazing either so it's not like you're taking a QB scratch off ticket instead of a surefire solid starter. There is a case to be made that a smart GM would draft a QB almost every year.