Should the browns go after Flynn or RGIII ? (1 Viewer)

[Shutout]

Nice info. Although I would point out that the Chargers having Rivers was not the SOLE reason Brees was allowed to walk. There was a great deal of uncertainty about his shoulder. So much, in fact, that the Miami Dolphins are STILL looking for a QB instead of having Brees.

But that's a lot of info in that story and I'm buying.

I think I would rather have Flynn and my picks than to put all my eggs into one basket.

I'm leaning that direction too. Though ... I can't say I'd be disappointed to have Griffin.

Agreed. I mean, this has potential to be a win/win either way and one way may look to be safer than another or whatever, but in either case, its looking like a good time to be a Browns fan. You guys are in good relative position to improve substantially.Quick Q for a brownie: Let's just say you guys get Flynn. Looking back at it, would you rather have Flynn and Julio (had you taken him 6th last year) or Flynn + all the pieces you have now? Which makes you a better team going forward?

I'm not sorry about passing up Julio to trade down. Our defense has been so bad for so long, we needed the help on the line, especially with the move from 3-4 to 4-3 last season. I've been thrilled with both Phil Taylor and Jabaal Sheard. Now is the time to address QB and WR.

Yeah, I would agree with you and Mac32; I think your team did a good job filling multiple needs with what you got from those picks. And that is kind of where you are again. The one big name or the multiple selections that might really round this team out.For those who are in the RG III camp on this, I won't necessarily argue against a big name; especially if that is a PROVEN name. I mean, how could a person argue against adding a Joe Montana or Marshall faulk to your team? But in recent eras of salary caps and whatnot, it seems to me that the best teams are the ones that addressed many areas with multiple picks and just so happened to do a good job at it along the way and got the payout of getting a couple of guys that turned out to be difference makers (usually guys that people did not see as difference makers at the time...those guys ARE out there). Dallas basically built a dynasty of a great train robberytrade that allowed them many picks. THe Patriots and Eagles have been in the business for years of picking...and picking..and picking. It just seems to work. Conversly, teams that sell the house for one guy seldom reach their goal (Redskins, Saints with Ricky Williams, Falcons last year). As much as it seems like it, it is very unlikely that one player ever truly changes everything for any length of time at all.

 

[RevDawg]

Nice info. Although I would point out that the Chargers having Rivers was not the SOLE reason Brees was allowed to walk. There was a great deal of uncertainty about his shoulder. So much, in fact, that the Miami Dolphins are STILL looking for a QB instead of having Brees.

But that's a lot of info in that story and I'm buying.

I think I would rather have Flynn and my picks than to put all my eggs into one basket.

I'm leaning that direction too. Though ... I can't say I'd be disappointed to have Griffin.

Agreed. I mean, this has potential to be a win/win either way and one way may look to be safer than another or whatever, but in either case, its looking like a good time to be a Browns fan. You guys are in good relative position to improve substantially.Quick Q for a brownie: Let's just say you guys get Flynn. Looking back at it, would you rather have Flynn and Julio (had you taken him 6th last year) or Flynn + all the pieces you have now? Which makes you a better team going forward?

I'm not sorry about passing up Julio to trade down. Our defense has been so bad for so long, we needed the help on the line, especially with the move from 3-4 to 4-3 last season. I've been thrilled with both Phil Taylor and Jabaal Sheard. Now is the time to address QB and WR.

Yeah, I would agree with you and Mac32; I think your team did a good job filling multiple needs with what you got from those picks. And that is kind of where you are again. The one big name or the multiple selections that might really round this team out.For those who are in the RG III camp on this, I won't necessarily argue against a big name; especially if that is a PROVEN name. I mean, how could a person argue against adding a Joe Montana or Marshall faulk to your team? But in recent eras of salary caps and whatnot, it seems to me that the best teams are the ones that addressed many areas with multiple picks and just so happened to do a good job at it along the way and got the payout of getting a couple of guys that turned out to be difference makers (usually guys that people did not see as difference makers at the time...those guys ARE out there). Dallas basically built a dynasty of a great train robberytrade that allowed them many picks. THe Patriots and Eagles have been in the business for years of picking...and picking..and picking. It just seems to work. Conversly, teams that sell the house for one guy seldom reach their goal (Redskins, Saints with Ricky Williams, Falcons last year). As much as it seems like it, it is very unlikely that one player ever truly changes everything for any length of time at all.

That makes so much sense to me. If the Browns decide to hold at 4 or even trade down again, I would be ok with it. In Heckert I trust.

 

[stbugs]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

 

[stbugs]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs instead of 1? I think they would barely be a playoff contender and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season. By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

 

[stbugs]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

Damnit, you sucked me back in. Yes, they weren't traded, but to be honest, I don't think the Colts or Lions would have traded down and I don't recall anyone discussing them even mentioning it.Also, on Cam, you are wrong, it isn't just FF. I watch the Panthers and in 2008 Carolina might have gotten to the Super Bowl instead of Arizona and heck, might have even won if Delhomme hadn't turned the ball over 6 times in their last playoff game. Also, did you watch Carolina in 2010? They sucked, bad. They scored 196 points in 2010, the only team to not even have 270 points. In 2011, Cam led them to 406 points, better than/as good as all but the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Lions. That isn't just fantasy, that made them competitive. Let's put it this way, if their defense was as good in 2011 as it was in 2008, they were easily a playoff team. The defense of 2008 gave up 100 less points than 2011 and in 2008, Williams/Stewart averaged 5ypc for 2300+ yards and 28 TDs. 2008 Carolina is a great example of a solid D/great running game that lost in the playoffs to an inferior team because Warner outplayed Delhomme (who buried himself).

Again, you can point to the 6-10 record, but if you actually delve into the details, you would see a season far better than it looks on paper. I am looking forward to the future with Cam. They played 7 games against playoff teams going 1-6. First, they beat Houston 28-13 and looked great in that game. Second, they lost to NO in week 17 45-17 and got waxed. In the others, there were enough mistakes where they could have won any of them:

GB 30-23: With about 3 minutes left, Newton was stopped on 4th down inside GB's 5 yard line, where a score would have tied the game. Rodgers threw an 84 yard TD a couple plays later and Newton got another score, but GB recovered the onside kick and ran the clock out.

NO 30-27: Brees throws a TD with 50 seconds left for the win.

ATL 30-17: Carolina was up 17-14 going into the 4th and Ryan got the lead with 8 minutes left on a TD pass and a late INT turned a 7 point lead into a 13 point win.

DET 35-49: Newton got Carolina to a 24-7 lead and the D fell apart. Newton tied the game at 35 with 5 minutes left in the game, but Stafford threw another TD and Cam's late interception sealed the win.

ATL 31-23: Again, same story, Cam gets Carolina to a 23-7 only to have the D give up 24 points in the second half (14 in 4th quarter).

Outside of the week 17 drubbing, Carolina was in every game against playoff opponents and could have won any of those games with a defensive stop or in some cases without a rookie mistake by Cam, but again just looking at the record, you would miss what was a remarkable season by a rookie QB that made an awful team competitive. In fact, outside of week 17, Carolina actually scored more points than their opponents. In 2010, they were outscored by 212 points on the season. That is quite a jump.

I have an interesting thought for you. How many teams with solid/great running games/Ds were able to win in the playoffs due to a mediocre QB beating an opponent when their running game/D sucked (like SF this year against NO, although a former #1 QB may not be the best case for that)? I can think of quite a few cases (last couple years) where a "special" QB was able to lead a team that had been middle of the pack otherwise to a SB win.

 

[Steel Dillo]

This thread needed a poel

 

[Touchdown There]

This thread needed a poel

You mean a pole?

 

[Shutout]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

I think Benson_will_lead_the_way has already responded in most ways I would have since I last posted. Again, its about a choice given the situation more than hypothetical choices of taking great players, given the benefit of hindsight.But to your last post here: this isn't about sticking with McCoy. Its about Flynn or RGIII, so the outcome is not as limited as you suggest ebcause the Browns can have the picks AND improve their QB spot.

As you Benson go back and forth on this, the one thing that pops out to me that relates to the intended topic is, when you talk about carolina, its kind of funny to me that their best years (and only SB run and deep playoff runs) were with a guy named Delhomme, and not with a star QB. Carolina won 6 games last year and it is fair to give them time. But if we look back 8 years from now and the Panthers never make a run to the SB or get into the playoffs a few times, does that change your view on your arguement since the #1 overall never made it but a guy signed of a practice squad made runs for several years in a row?

 

[Shutout]

This thread needed a poel

You mean a pole?

No, he means a Poll.Yeah, I didn't make it a poll because I was wanting to talk with browns fans (and people interested in this type of topic) about the theory or strategy of what will work best for the Browns. I wasn't really interested in a number of "14 for RG III, 19 for Flynn". I wasn't looking so much for a popularity vote.

 

[gandalas]

Unfortunately, in order to get RG3, we'd be swapping #4 (a likely pro-bowler), #22 (a blue chip starter), #37 (another likely starter), and the 2013 pick (another pro-bowler). That's an awful lot for one player!

If this was remotely true, it would be a lot. Here's the "likely pro bowlers" that have gone 4th overall since 2000eter WarrickJustin SmithMike Williams (OT)Dewayne RobertsonPhillip RiversCedric BensonD'Brickashaw FergusonGaines AdamsDarren McFaddenAaron CurryTrent WilliamsAJ GreenHow many Pro Bowlers we have there? Two? Smith and Rivers? The names at #22 and #37 are even worse, I wager.

D'Brickashaw Ferguson - 3× Pro Bowl (2009, 2010, 2011)Darren McFadden - should have been a pro-bowler 2 years ago...electrifying playerGaines Adams - All-rookie Team; Died at age 26...not really a chance to become a pro-bowlerAJ Green - You think he may make a few before he retires? I sure do...Justin SmithPhillip RiversDefinitely a mixed bag, but better than 2 players. Benson also has had 2 good years with the bengals...if he would have been as dedicated in the beginning of his career as well, he could have been in a couple.

 

[Touchdown There]

This thread needed a poel

You mean a pole?

No, he means a Poll.Yeah, I didn't make it a poll because I was wanting to talk with browns fans (and people interested in this type of topic) about the theory or strategy of what will work best for the Browns. I wasn't really interested in a number of "14 for RG III, 19 for Flynn". I wasn't looking so much for a popularity vote.

So...then...you didn't laugh?

 

[stbugs]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

I think Benson_will_lead_the_way has already responded in most ways I would have since I last posted. Again, its about a choice given the situation more than hypothetical choices of taking great players, given the benefit of hindsight.But to your last post here: this isn't about sticking with McCoy. Its about Flynn or RGIII, so the outcome is not as limited as you suggest ebcause the Browns can have the picks AND improve their QB spot.

As you Benson go back and forth on this, the one thing that pops out to me that relates to the intended topic is, when you talk about carolina, its kind of funny to me that their best years (and only SB run and deep playoff runs) were with a guy named Delhomme, and not with a star QB. Carolina won 6 games last year and it is fair to give them time. But if we look back 8 years from now and the Panthers never make a run to the SB or get into the playoffs a few times, does that change your view on your arguement since the #1 overall never made it but a guy signed of a practice squad made runs for several years in a row?

First on Carolina, they had a great run, pretty surprising because they definitely went farther than what you would have expected. According to pro-football-reference, they should have gone 8-8/9-7, but got to 11-5 and got to the SB with an overtime win and a dominant defensive effort against the Eagles (only scored 3 in the NFCC). Delhomme was actually a decent QB his first 4 years. What is funny is that in those 4 years, his best statistical year was their worst team record. That said, Delhomme single handledly derailed the 2008 playoff run, which IMHO was the best team the Panthers had. While they went farther in 2003, 2008 was their best team, but often the best team doesn't win the SB. That is another reason I believe in the franchise QB theory, a hot QB can almost single handedly win a playoff game. The Giants in 2011 weren't a great team at all. They were 6-6 and if Dallas doesn't fold in Week 14, the Giants might not have been in the playoffs. When you have that special QB, you can win any game.In 8 years, if Newton is still playing well, I have no doubt they will be in the playoffs a few times and could make a run. The difference with Delhomme is that in those cases, I would bet Newton is key to it, moreso than the running game/D. If the Panthers can even get back to a decent defense, they should easily make mulitple playoff runs. Even this year, with a mediocre defense, they probably would have finished anywhere from 8-8 to 10-6. If you look at their game logs, they lost many close games due to defensive collapses, even against multiple playoff teams.

Last thought, I am not saying Cleveland should go after Griffin or Flynn, because I will be honest, I am not 100% sold on either and I haven't scouted either enough to know if they are it. I will say that Cleveland would be dumb, with their decent D and decent OL, to trade down if they think that either Flynn or Griffin is a franchise guy and instead just slightly improve the QB and have some extra picks. If you have doubts on Griffin, trade down, if not, then you don't blink and take him.

 

[massraider]

Unfortunately, in order to get RG3, we'd be swapping #4 (a likely pro-bowler), #22 (a blue chip starter), #37 (another likely starter), and the 2013 pick (another pro-bowler). That's an awful lot for one player!

If this was remotely true, it would be a lot. Here's the "likely pro bowlers" that have gone 4th overall since 2000eter WarrickJustin SmithMike Williams (OT)Dewayne RobertsonPhillip RiversCedric BensonD'Brickashaw FergusonGaines AdamsDarren McFaddenAaron CurryTrent WilliamsAJ GreenHow many Pro Bowlers we have there? Two? Smith and Rivers? The names at #22 and #37 are even worse, I wager.

D'Brickashaw Ferguson - 3× Pro Bowl (2009, 2010, 2011)Darren McFadden - should have been a pro-bowler 2 years ago...electrifying playerGaines Adams - All-rookie Team; Died at age 26...not really a chance to become a pro-bowlerAJ Green - You think he may make a few before he retires? I sure do...Justin SmithPhillip RiversDefinitely a mixed bag, but better than 2 players. Benson also has had 2 good years with the bengals...if he would have been as dedicated in the beginning of his career as well, he could have been in a couple.

Whatever the number is, the point stands. Likely Pro Bowler isn't taken at any draft spot. Then to further list #22 as a blue chip starter? And next years #1 as another Pro Bowler? You really want to take up that position? Benson and Adams were wasted picks for the team that took them. Period.

 

[Shutout]

This thread needed a poel

You mean a pole?

No, he means a Poll.Yeah, I didn't make it a poll because I was wanting to talk with browns fans (and people interested in this type of topic) about the theory or strategy of what will work best for the Browns. I wasn't really interested in a number of "14 for RG III, 19 for Flynn". I wasn't looking so much for a popularity vote.

So...then...you didn't laugh?

LOL..yeah..it was pretty good *high five*

 

[Touchdown There]

This thread needed a poel

You mean a pole?

No, he means a Poll.Yeah, I didn't make it a poll because I was wanting to talk with browns fans (and people interested in this type of topic) about the theory or strategy of what will work best for the Browns. I wasn't really interested in a number of "14 for RG III, 19 for Flynn". I wasn't looking so much for a popularity vote.

So...then...you didn't laugh?

LOL..yeah..it was pretty good *high five*

Seacrest did not like it when the Dictator
on him.

 

[Spike]

RG3 and its not even close

There is no statement on these boards that I hate more than this one. Especially when the players involved are relative unknowns to the NFL.Have you broken down the tape on every one of Matt Flynn's snaps? Have you interviewed him, (assuming you have enough knowledge to ask him questions about coverage) and tested his aptitude on NFL defenses? Tested his ability to make quick decisions?

How about doing the same for RG3?

There's NFL people that do have access to all that stuff, and have the appropriate knowledge, that still get these kinds of things wrong often. Miami chose Daunte Culpepper over Drew Brees to just name one.

If you want to tell me that you'd rather have Larry Fitzgerald than Michael Crabtree, and its not even close, I'm good with that. We've seen those guys play, and we more or less know who they are in the NFL.

However, there's more than just a small chance RG3 completely flops, and Flynn is at minimum at quality starter. Its also conceivable Flynn goes to a team with some dynamic weapons, and becomes the next Kurt Warner/Tom Brady.

Sorry for the rant.

Maybe you're looking at the response from an incorrect perspective.The people saying "RGIII and it's not even close" are answering the question "Who would you rather have, RGIII or Flynn?" If they feel RGIII is much better, isn't it an accurate statement for them when they say "RGIII and it's not even close"?

 

[Menace]

If Manning goes to Washington then that will dramatically drive the price for R2D2 down. I'm all for them trading up to get him but there is a certain point where it is not worth the price. I think Clev holds the cards when dealing with STL b/c of the fact that it is only two spots down. I'm sure STL has an idea who they really want to draft and I doubt that person will be available if they were to trade down with Wash. I trust H&H to make the right decision.

 

[cr8f]

It was pointed out in another thread that the Giants gave up 4 draft picks for Eli and all it got them was 2 championships. Matt Flynn is a caretaker, Robert Griffin is a difference maker.

And if they had taken Rivers & kept the picks how many would they have?

 

[The Man with the Plan]

It was pointed out in another thread that the Giants gave up 4 draft picks for Eli and all it got them was 2 championships. Matt Flynn is a caretaker, Robert Griffin is a difference maker.

And if they had taken Rivers & kept the picks how many would they have?

Zero.

 

[daveR]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

Damnit, you sucked me back in. Yes, they weren't traded, but to be honest, I don't think the Colts or Lions would have traded down and I don't recall anyone discussing them even mentioning it.Also, on Cam, you are wrong, it isn't just FF. I watch the Panthers and in 2008 Carolina might have gotten to the Super Bowl instead of Arizona and heck, might have even won if Delhomme hadn't turned the ball over 6 times in their last playoff game. Also, did you watch Carolina in 2010? They sucked, bad. They scored 196 points in 2010, the only team to not even have 270 points. In 2011, Cam led them to 406 points, better than/as good as all but the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Lions. That isn't just fantasy, that made them competitive. Let's put it this way, if their defense was as good in 2011 as it was in 2008, they were easily a playoff team. The defense of 2008 gave up 100 less points than 2011 and in 2008, Williams/Stewart averaged 5ypc for 2300+ yards and 28 TDs. 2008 Carolina is a great example of a solid D/great running game that lost in the playoffs to an inferior team because Warner outplayed Delhomme (who buried himself).

Again, you can point to the 6-10 record, but if you actually delve into the details, you would see a season far better than it looks on paper. I am looking forward to the future with Cam. They played 7 games against playoff teams going 1-6. First, they beat Houston 28-13 and looked great in that game. Second, they lost to NO in week 17 45-17 and got waxed. In the others, there were enough mistakes where they could have won any of them:

GB 30-23: With about 3 minutes left, Newton was stopped on 4th down inside GB's 5 yard line, where a score would have tied the game. Rodgers threw an 84 yard TD a couple plays later and Newton got another score, but GB recovered the onside kick and ran the clock out.

NO 30-27: Brees throws a TD with 50 seconds left for the win.

ATL 30-17: Carolina was up 17-14 going into the 4th and Ryan got the lead with 8 minutes left on a TD pass and a late INT turned a 7 point lead into a 13 point win.

DET 35-49: Newton got Carolina to a 24-7 lead and the D fell apart. Newton tied the game at 35 with 5 minutes left in the game, but Stafford threw another TD and Cam's late interception sealed the win.

ATL 31-23: Again, same story, Cam gets Carolina to a 23-7 only to have the D give up 24 points in the second half (14 in 4th quarter).

Outside of the week 17 drubbing, Carolina was in every game against playoff opponents and could have won any of those games with a defensive stop or in some cases without a rookie mistake by Cam, but again just looking at the record, you would miss what was a remarkable season by a rookie QB that made an awful team competitive. In fact, outside of week 17, Carolina actually scored more points than their opponents. In 2010, they were outscored by 212 points on the season. That is quite a jump.

I have an interesting thought for you. How many teams with solid/great running games/Ds were able to win in the playoffs due to a mediocre QB beating an opponent when their running game/D sucked (like SF this year against NO, although a former #1 QB may not be the best case for that)? I can think of quite a few cases (last couple years) where a "special" QB was able to lead a team that had been middle of the pack otherwise to a SB win.

How many times did you say "the D sucked"? That's the point here. If you trade away your ability to fill holes in order to upgrade a single position, you end up 6-10.

 

[stbugs]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

Damnit, you sucked me back in. Yes, they weren't traded, but to be honest, I don't think the Colts or Lions would have traded down and I don't recall anyone discussing them even mentioning it.Also, on Cam, you are wrong, it isn't just FF. I watch the Panthers and in 2008 Carolina might have gotten to the Super Bowl instead of Arizona and heck, might have even won if Delhomme hadn't turned the ball over 6 times in their last playoff game. Also, did you watch Carolina in 2010? They sucked, bad. They scored 196 points in 2010, the only team to not even have 270 points. In 2011, Cam led them to 406 points, better than/as good as all but the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Lions. That isn't just fantasy, that made them competitive. Let's put it this way, if their defense was as good in 2011 as it was in 2008, they were easily a playoff team. The defense of 2008 gave up 100 less points than 2011 and in 2008, Williams/Stewart averaged 5ypc for 2300+ yards and 28 TDs. 2008 Carolina is a great example of a solid D/great running game that lost in the playoffs to an inferior team because Warner outplayed Delhomme (who buried himself).

Again, you can point to the 6-10 record, but if you actually delve into the details, you would see a season far better than it looks on paper. I am looking forward to the future with Cam. They played 7 games against playoff teams going 1-6. First, they beat Houston 28-13 and looked great in that game. Second, they lost to NO in week 17 45-17 and got waxed. In the others, there were enough mistakes where they could have won any of them:

GB 30-23: With about 3 minutes left, Newton was stopped on 4th down inside GB's 5 yard line, where a score would have tied the game. Rodgers threw an 84 yard TD a couple plays later and Newton got another score, but GB recovered the onside kick and ran the clock out.

NO 30-27: Brees throws a TD with 50 seconds left for the win.

ATL 30-17: Carolina was up 17-14 going into the 4th and Ryan got the lead with 8 minutes left on a TD pass and a late INT turned a 7 point lead into a 13 point win.

DET 35-49: Newton got Carolina to a 24-7 lead and the D fell apart. Newton tied the game at 35 with 5 minutes left in the game, but Stafford threw another TD and Cam's late interception sealed the win.

ATL 31-23: Again, same story, Cam gets Carolina to a 23-7 only to have the D give up 24 points in the second half (14 in 4th quarter).

Outside of the week 17 drubbing, Carolina was in every game against playoff opponents and could have won any of those games with a defensive stop or in some cases without a rookie mistake by Cam, but again just looking at the record, you would miss what was a remarkable season by a rookie QB that made an awful team competitive. In fact, outside of week 17, Carolina actually scored more points than their opponents. In 2010, they were outscored by 212 points on the season. That is quite a jump.

I have an interesting thought for you. How many teams with solid/great running games/Ds were able to win in the playoffs due to a mediocre QB beating an opponent when their running game/D sucked (like SF this year against NO, although a former #1 QB may not be the best case for that)? I can think of quite a few cases (last couple years) where a "special" QB was able to lead a team that had been middle of the pack otherwise to a SB win.

How many times did you say "the D sucked"? That's the point here. If you trade away your ability to fill holes in order to upgrade a single position, you end up 6-10.

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

Damnit, you sucked me back in. Yes, they weren't traded, but to be honest, I don't think the Colts or Lions would have traded down and I don't recall anyone discussing them even mentioning it.Also, on Cam, you are wrong, it isn't just FF. I watch the Panthers and in 2008 Carolina might have gotten to the Super Bowl instead of Arizona and heck, might have even won if Delhomme hadn't turned the ball over 6 times in their last playoff game. Also, did you watch Carolina in 2010? They sucked, bad. They scored 196 points in 2010, the only team to not even have 270 points. In 2011, Cam led them to 406 points, better than/as good as all but the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Lions. That isn't just fantasy, that made them competitive. Let's put it this way, if their defense was as good in 2011 as it was in 2008, they were easily a playoff team. The defense of 2008 gave up 100 less points than 2011 and in 2008, Williams/Stewart averaged 5ypc for 2300+ yards and 28 TDs. 2008 Carolina is a great example of a solid D/great running game that lost in the playoffs to an inferior team because Warner outplayed Delhomme (who buried himself).

Again, you can point to the 6-10 record, but if you actually delve into the details, you would see a season far better than it looks on paper. I am looking forward to the future with Cam. They played 7 games against playoff teams going 1-6. First, they beat Houston 28-13 and looked great in that game. Second, they lost to NO in week 17 45-17 and got waxed. In the others, there were enough mistakes where they could have won any of them:

GB 30-23: With about 3 minutes left, Newton was stopped on 4th down inside GB's 5 yard line, where a score would have tied the game. Rodgers threw an 84 yard TD a couple plays later and Newton got another score, but GB recovered the onside kick and ran the clock out.

NO 30-27: Brees throws a TD with 50 seconds left for the win.

ATL 30-17: Carolina was up 17-14 going into the 4th and Ryan got the lead with 8 minutes left on a TD pass and a late INT turned a 7 point lead into a 13 point win.

DET 35-49: Newton got Carolina to a 24-7 lead and the D fell apart. Newton tied the game at 35 with 5 minutes left in the game, but Stafford threw another TD and Cam's late interception sealed the win.

ATL 31-23: Again, same story, Cam gets Carolina to a 23-7 only to have the D give up 24 points in the second half (14 in 4th quarter).

Outside of the week 17 drubbing, Carolina was in every game against playoff opponents and could have won any of those games with a defensive stop or in some cases without a rookie mistake by Cam, but again just looking at the record, you would miss what was a remarkable season by a rookie QB that made an awful team competitive. In fact, outside of week 17, Carolina actually scored more points than their opponents. In 2010, they were outscored by 212 points on the season. That is quite a jump.

I have an interesting thought for you. How many teams with solid/great running games/Ds were able to win in the playoffs due to a mediocre QB beating an opponent when their running game/D sucked (like SF this year against NO, although a former #1 QB may not be the best case for that)? I can think of quite a few cases (last couple years) where a "special" QB was able to lead a team that had been middle of the pack otherwise to a SB win.

How many times did you say "the D sucked"? That's the point here. If you trade away your ability to fill holes in order to upgrade a single position, you end up 6-10.

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

What if the QB flops? Then it sets everything back 5 years as well. Give and take.The 1998 Colts with Manning scored 3 points less than in 1997. Just sayin...

 

[daveR]

No single player will improve the Browns offense by 12 pts a game, even if his name was Brees or Brady.

 

[stbugs]

No single player will improve the Browns offense by 12 pts a game, even if his name was Brees or Brady.

Interesting, because a guy named Cam took an offense that scored less than the 2011 Browns and turned them into the #5 scoring offense. The anemic 2011 Browns offense scored 22 more points than the Cam-less 2010 Panthers. It can happen. It usually doesn't happen in year 1, but the impact of going from Clausen to Newton turned the worst offense in the league to a top 5 offense.Unfortunately, there is no way to add Brees or Brady, but I would bet they could improve Cleveland's offense far more than you think. I think an extra TD+FG would be reachable. Again, impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[stbugs]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

Damnit, you sucked me back in. Yes, they weren't traded, but to be honest, I don't think the Colts or Lions would have traded down and I don't recall anyone discussing them even mentioning it.Also, on Cam, you are wrong, it isn't just FF. I watch the Panthers and in 2008 Carolina might have gotten to the Super Bowl instead of Arizona and heck, might have even won if Delhomme hadn't turned the ball over 6 times in their last playoff game. Also, did you watch Carolina in 2010? They sucked, bad. They scored 196 points in 2010, the only team to not even have 270 points. In 2011, Cam led them to 406 points, better than/as good as all but the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Lions. That isn't just fantasy, that made them competitive. Let's put it this way, if their defense was as good in 2011 as it was in 2008, they were easily a playoff team. The defense of 2008 gave up 100 less points than 2011 and in 2008, Williams/Stewart averaged 5ypc for 2300+ yards and 28 TDs. 2008 Carolina is a great example of a solid D/great running game that lost in the playoffs to an inferior team because Warner outplayed Delhomme (who buried himself).

Again, you can point to the 6-10 record, but if you actually delve into the details, you would see a season far better than it looks on paper. I am looking forward to the future with Cam. They played 7 games against playoff teams going 1-6. First, they beat Houston 28-13 and looked great in that game. Second, they lost to NO in week 17 45-17 and got waxed. In the others, there were enough mistakes where they could have won any of them:

GB 30-23: With about 3 minutes left, Newton was stopped on 4th down inside GB's 5 yard line, where a score would have tied the game. Rodgers threw an 84 yard TD a couple plays later and Newton got another score, but GB recovered the onside kick and ran the clock out.

NO 30-27: Brees throws a TD with 50 seconds left for the win.

ATL 30-17: Carolina was up 17-14 going into the 4th and Ryan got the lead with 8 minutes left on a TD pass and a late INT turned a 7 point lead into a 13 point win.

DET 35-49: Newton got Carolina to a 24-7 lead and the D fell apart. Newton tied the game at 35 with 5 minutes left in the game, but Stafford threw another TD and Cam's late interception sealed the win.

ATL 31-23: Again, same story, Cam gets Carolina to a 23-7 only to have the D give up 24 points in the second half (14 in 4th quarter).

Outside of the week 17 drubbing, Carolina was in every game against playoff opponents and could have won any of those games with a defensive stop or in some cases without a rookie mistake by Cam, but again just looking at the record, you would miss what was a remarkable season by a rookie QB that made an awful team competitive. In fact, outside of week 17, Carolina actually scored more points than their opponents. In 2010, they were outscored by 212 points on the season. That is quite a jump.

I have an interesting thought for you. How many teams with solid/great running games/Ds were able to win in the playoffs due to a mediocre QB beating an opponent when their running game/D sucked (like SF this year against NO, although a former #1 QB may not be the best case for that)? I can think of quite a few cases (last couple years) where a "special" QB was able to lead a team that had been middle of the pack otherwise to a SB win.

How many times did you say "the D sucked"? That's the point here. If you trade away your ability to fill holes in order to upgrade a single position, you end up 6-10.

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

What if the QB flops? Then it sets everything back 5 years as well. Give and take.The 1998 Colts with Manning scored 3 points less than in 1997. Just sayin...

No need to keep arguing, but with the rookie cap, RG3 doesn't set them back 5 years if they love him and he busts. Newton signed a 4 year $22M contract. Richard Seymour made almost that much last year. RG3 will cost Cleveland somewhere around $5M per year, not even close to setting them back 5 years. We aren't talking about JaMarcus Russell's deal. Of course he could bust, just like every pick they could get in a deal, but if he flourishes, they are far better than hoping they fill a couple not as essential holes.What else does Cleveland really need? They had the #5 scoring defense and in 2010, their healthy RB was amazing. The reason why they went 4-12 was because they had the #30 scoring offense.

Also, stop cherry picking. 1998 was Manning's rookie year. Most rookie QBs don't do what Newton did, hence all his "record breaking" accomplishments. Yes, the 1997 Colts scored 3 more points than the 1998 Manning led Colts. Let's look what happened after that. The 1999 Colts scored 110 more points than 1997. The 2000 Colts score 116 more points. The 2001 Colts score 100 more points. In Manning's record year of 2004, they scored 209 more points. After 2011, are you really going to try and argue that the Colts were better off without Manning because he didn't explode the offense in his rookie year? Just sayin...

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I love it when someone starts a reply off with "First of all"...helps me envision people fretting their brow and rolling their sleeves up!

Yes, it is totally a coin flip. As I said (and as you say in a slightly different way), 24 Super Bowl wins by first rounders. So, if you pay the price for a first round QB (the franchise QB..cause you took him in the 1st round), then it looks like you have about a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl someday...the very illustration of a "coin flip". It is slightly larger than 50% but let's not kid ourselves; Trent Dilfer should go AGAINST that percentage, not towards it. So let's call that a push and here we are at 50%.

That sounds pretty good. HOWEVER, another way of saying that is to say, "I can avoid taking a QB (and paying the price to get one), and I have about the same chance. So, pay the outrageous cost and have 50% chance or DON'T pay the cost and have a 50% chance? Hmm.

But then you want to say "15 out of 20 in the last 20 years..." and then that makes it sound like its a landslide..a no-brainer. But why pick that number? Was it arbitrary or did it just happen to make the number sound good? Because if you just happen to back that number up just five more years and talk about the past 25 years, then that 15 out of 20 becomes 16 out of 25 and all of a sudden that throws the number right back much closer to even than heavily slanted. But we shouldn't do that either because, after all, we are talking about titles...Super Bowl wins. So let's count them all as we should and that number is 23/46 or 24/46 depending on which way you want to argue Dilfer and Staubach (I count Young as #1 overall). So, again, 50%; a virtual coin flip.

But then if you want to talk about early 2nd rounders, etc, you really have to look at it as a whole and not just in a way that makes numbers look the way you want. In any given draft, an average of right about 4 QBs are taken in the first 2 rounds in the Super Bowl years. And as we have already both said, that bumps the number up a bit more. Butwhen we say that, the other side of that statement is that out of 180+ Qbs drafted, about 22 or so win you a title. That's a pretty low percentage. So for every Troy Aikman and Big Ben we use to pump up one side of the argument, we have to remember the Jamarcus Russells, David Carrs, and Joey Harringtons too, don't we?

And that is the point behind this thread. The topic is not talking about whether we should pick a guy; it's whether we should pick a guy while giving consideration to the associated cost. And that's the part that can not be glossed over or omitted because these are MASSIVE costs that go into obtaining these guys. Multiple years worth of draft picks, millions and millions of dollars, the pressure to play the guy (or hold onto him longer than you normally would). Those things. Is it worth it when history shows us that COMPLETELY avoiding taking a "franchise QB" results in you having about the same overall chance over the Super Bowl era?

Benson_will_lead_the_way mentioned the cost of making this type of decision. That IS what we are talking about here. There is a huge cost. Huge! And if the Browns or anybody else does it, it is going to cost them a ton. But the history shows that, about as often as not, the guy holding up the trophy at the end of the year is just as likely to be a guy named Brad Johnson as it is Steve Young. Or a guy named Jake Delhomme may get to the big game just as many times as a guy named Johnny Unitas.

That's all.

OK, you can call it a coin flip. I hope Cleveland decides to build their team with more draft picks and improves their defense and keeps McCoy. Maybe you guys will get to 8-8 as some point. Indy is 1-15 with a horrible defense, but with Luck they have a better shot at the playoffs than Cleveland if they stick with McCoy even if the defense is still mediocre at best.

Not even close. How many times did the great Dan Marino make it to the Super Bowl? 1 out of 17 How about Peyton Manning? 2 out of 13 Brett Favre? 2 out of 20.I know most in here only think in terms of FF or Madden video games, but defense/running the ball/Special Teams do matter.

If RGIII is a stud his team may get to the super bowl once or twice in his career. If he's good his team will make the playoffs a few times. If he busts(40% he doesn't even make the playoffs) he sets his franchise back 5 years and gets a coach fired.

RGIII vs two 1st round picks, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick. That's the debate.

Do you think the Colts would have been better if they had saved money on Manning with a mediocre QB and a slightly better D? Would they have won 2 SBs? I think they would barely be a playoff team and might not have made any playoffs. Why are the Colts going after Luck with the 1st pick? He could bust, might as well trade down. I think the Lions should trade Stafford and get a better RB since Barry Sanders got them to the playoffs as well. Oh that's right, the Lions D is the juggernaut that got them to the playoffs, not having a quality QB play his first full season.Yet again it's a different debate because Peyton/Stafford weren't traded for 2 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

By the way, is it really a mark of a bad career of a QB if they only get to the Super Bowl once or twice in their career? So Marino, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, et al haven't had successful careers?

Do you think us Carolina fans would give up Newton for 2 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd to have Jimmy Clausen back? Do you think the Lions fans would rather roll without Stafford the next few years? Do you think any of the top teams would trade away their franchise QBs? You say 40% bust, well out of those 4 picks based on NFL draft history odds, you are talking about a 40% chance of success. With normal odds, you might only get 1 or 2 quality players out of that. If you think that any of these teams would do that trade for their QBs, there is no reason to even discuss it anymore. It is almost silly.

Carolina went from 2 to 6 wins. They went to the playoffs with Delhormme and a very good running game. Carolina needs a lot more than a QB. But then again you're counting on Cam Newton being a STUD NFL QB, not a FF QB, which he still might not be.

I would bet my ### that Holmgren is 100% thinking about improving the QB position rather than gathering draft picks. Pretty sure he knows that in order to revive the franchise and be a playoff contender is with a solid QB. It is possible that he doesn't like Griffin or Flynn, but if he think there is any chance they are a Favre or a Hasselbeck, he won't hesitate to pull the trigger with either a high draft pick or $$$. Anyway, I think I have talked about this enough now.

What GM/Team wouldn't want to upgrade at an important position. How did this almost same trade work out for the Chargers in 1998? Traded up 1 spot to get Leaf, which hurt but the price was worse. 2 1sts, 1 2nd, and pro bowler Eric Metcalf. The Chargers didn't have a record above .500 until 7 years after they drafted Leaf. That's the concern and risk.

Damnit, you sucked me back in. Yes, they weren't traded, but to be honest, I don't think the Colts or Lions would have traded down and I don't recall anyone discussing them even mentioning it.Also, on Cam, you are wrong, it isn't just FF. I watch the Panthers and in 2008 Carolina might have gotten to the Super Bowl instead of Arizona and heck, might have even won if Delhomme hadn't turned the ball over 6 times in their last playoff game. Also, did you watch Carolina in 2010? They sucked, bad. They scored 196 points in 2010, the only team to not even have 270 points. In 2011, Cam led them to 406 points, better than/as good as all but the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Lions. That isn't just fantasy, that made them competitive. Let's put it this way, if their defense was as good in 2011 as it was in 2008, they were easily a playoff team. The defense of 2008 gave up 100 less points than 2011 and in 2008, Williams/Stewart averaged 5ypc for 2300+ yards and 28 TDs. 2008 Carolina is a great example of a solid D/great running game that lost in the playoffs to an inferior team because Warner outplayed Delhomme (who buried himself).

Again, you can point to the 6-10 record, but if you actually delve into the details, you would see a season far better than it looks on paper. I am looking forward to the future with Cam. They played 7 games against playoff teams going 1-6. First, they beat Houston 28-13 and looked great in that game. Second, they lost to NO in week 17 45-17 and got waxed. In the others, there were enough mistakes where they could have won any of them:

GB 30-23: With about 3 minutes left, Newton was stopped on 4th down inside GB's 5 yard line, where a score would have tied the game. Rodgers threw an 84 yard TD a couple plays later and Newton got another score, but GB recovered the onside kick and ran the clock out.

NO 30-27: Brees throws a TD with 50 seconds left for the win.

ATL 30-17: Carolina was up 17-14 going into the 4th and Ryan got the lead with 8 minutes left on a TD pass and a late INT turned a 7 point lead into a 13 point win.

DET 35-49: Newton got Carolina to a 24-7 lead and the D fell apart. Newton tied the game at 35 with 5 minutes left in the game, but Stafford threw another TD and Cam's late interception sealed the win.

ATL 31-23: Again, same story, Cam gets Carolina to a 23-7 only to have the D give up 24 points in the second half (14 in 4th quarter).

Outside of the week 17 drubbing, Carolina was in every game against playoff opponents and could have won any of those games with a defensive stop or in some cases without a rookie mistake by Cam, but again just looking at the record, you would miss what was a remarkable season by a rookie QB that made an awful team competitive. In fact, outside of week 17, Carolina actually scored more points than their opponents. In 2010, they were outscored by 212 points on the season. That is quite a jump.

I have an interesting thought for you. How many teams with solid/great running games/Ds were able to win in the playoffs due to a mediocre QB beating an opponent when their running game/D sucked (like SF this year against NO, although a former #1 QB may not be the best case for that)? I can think of quite a few cases (last couple years) where a "special" QB was able to lead a team that had been middle of the pack otherwise to a SB win.

How many times did you say "the D sucked"? That's the point here. If you trade away your ability to fill holes in order to upgrade a single position, you end up 6-10.

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

What if the QB flops? Then it sets everything back 5 years as well. Give and take.The 1998 Colts with Manning scored 3 points less than in 1997. Just sayin...

No need to keep arguing, but with the rookie cap, RG3 doesn't set them back 5 years if they love him and he busts. Newton signed a 4 year $22M contract. Richard Seymour made almost that much last year. RG3 will cost Cleveland somewhere around $5M per year, not even close to setting them back 5 years. We aren't talking about JaMarcus Russell's deal. Of course he could bust, just like every pick they could get in a deal, but if he flourishes, they are far better than hoping they fill a couple not as essential holes.I'm trying to address a point that you don't seem to understand. The Browns wouldn't be set back from a money aspect anymore, it would be from a developmental aspect. If they trade multiple 1's, a 2nd, a 3rd...that sets back the entire franchise multiple years if that 1 player flops. Even 2 years from now when the Browns get a 1st rounder again, that player needs a few seasons in the NFL for development...aka setting the franchise back 5 years.

What else does Cleveland really need? They had the #5 scoring defense and in 2010, their healthy RB was amazing. The reason why they went 4-12 was because they had the #30 scoring offense.

Also, stop cherry picking. 1998 was Manning's rookie year. Most rookie QBs don't do what Newton did, hence all his "record breaking" accomplishments. Yes, the 1997 Colts scored 3 more points than the 1998 Manning led Colts. Let's look what happened after that. The 1999 Colts scored 110 more points than 1997. The 2000 Colts score 116 more points. The 2001 Colts score 100 more points. In Manning's record year of 2004, they scored 209 more points. After 2011, are you really going to try and argue that the Colts were better off without Manning because he didn't explode the offense in his rookie year? Just sayin...

Ironic that you indicate i'm cherry picking. You referenced the best rookie QB season ever as a standard for highly selected QB's. I simply just picked out Peyton Manning because he's one of the best QB's ever. I will have a more thorough post next.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

***I think we need to keep in mind that franchises have a pick that low because they had a historically bad season*(poor play, lack of talent, injuries, coaching changes, etc) which leads them to a very high pick***

-I will include the year before they were drafted again for comparison and I will round these numbers.

2000 NFL Draft

#2 Overall Donovan McNabb

1999: Doug Peterson starting 272 points

2000: 351 = +5 PPG

2001: 343 = +4 PPG

2002: 415 = +9 PPG

2003: 374 = +6 PPG

2004: 386 = +7 PPG

2005: 310 = +2 PPG

#3 Overall Akili Smith

1999: Jeff Blake starting 283 points

2000: 185 = -6 PPG

2002 NFL Draft

#3 Overall Joey Harrington

2001: Charlie Batch Starting 270 points

2002: 306 = +2 PPG

2003: 270 = even

2004: 296 = +2 PPG

2003 NFL Draft

#7 Overall Byron Leftwich

2002: 328 points

2003: 276 = -3 PPG

2004: 261 = -4 PPG

2005: 361 = +2 PPG

2004 NFL Draft

#4 Overall Phillip Rivers

2005: Drew Brees starting 418 points

2006: 492 = +5 PPG

2007: 412 = about even

2008: 439 = +1 PPG

2009: 454 = +2 PPG

2010: 441 = +1 PPG

2011: 406 = -1 PPG

2006 NFL Draft

#3 Overall Vince Young

2005: Steve McNair starting 299 points

2006: 324 = +2 PPG

2007: 301 = about even

#10 Overall Matt Leinart

2005: Kurt Warner starting 311 points

2006: 314 = about even

2007: with Warner starting again 404 points

2008 NFL Draft

#3 Overall Matt Ryan

2007: Joey Harrington starting(with the 1/2 season as Bobby Petrino as HC) 259 points

2008: 391 = +8 PPG

2009: 363 = +7 PPG

2010: 414 = +10 PPG

2011: 402 = +9 PPG

2009 NFL Draft

#5 Mark Sanchez

2008: Brett Favre starting 405 points

2009: 348 = -4 PPG

2010: 367 = -2 PPG

2011: 377 = -2 PPG

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

So don't include #1, but do include #3-#10. That's some quality cherry picking there.

 

[stbugs]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.***I think we need to keep in mind that franchises have a pick that low because they had a historically bad season*(poor play, lack of talent, injuries, coaching changes, etc) which leads them to a very high pick***-I will include the year before they were drafted again for comparison and I will round these numbers.2000 NFL Draft#2 Overall Donovan McNabb1999: Doug Peterson starting 272 points2000: 351 = +5 PPG2001: 343 = +4 PPG2002: 415 = +9 PPG2003: 374 = +6 PPG2004: 386 = +7 PPG2005: 310 = +2 PPG#3 Overall Akili Smith1999: Jeff Blake starting 283 points2000: 185 = -6 PPG2002 NFL Draft#3 Overall Joey Harrington2001: Charlie Batch Starting 270 points2002: 306 = +2 PPG2003: 270 = even2004: 296 = +2 PPG2003 NFL Draft#7 Overall Byron Leftwich2002: 328 points2003: 276 = -3 PPG2004: 261 = -4 PPG2005: 361 = +2 PPG2004 NFL Draft#4 Overall Phillip Rivers2005: Drew Brees starting 418 points2006: 492 = +5 PPG2007: 412 = about even2008: 439 = +1 PPG2009: 454 = +2 PPG2010: 441 = +1 PPG2011: 406 = -1 PPG2006 NFL Draft#3 Overall Vince Young2005: Steve McNair starting 299 points2006: 324 = +2 PPG2007: 301 = about even#10 Overall Matt Leinart2005: Kurt Warner starting 311 points2006: 314 = about even2007: with Warner starting again 404 points2008 NFL Draft#3 Overall Matt Ryan2007: Joey Harrington starting(with the 1/2 season as Bobby Petrino as HC) 259 points2008: 391 = +8 PPG2009: 363 = +7 PPG2010: 414 = +10 PPG2011: 402 = +9 PPG2009 NFL Draft#5 Mark Sanchez2008: Brett Favre starting 405 points2009: 348 = -4 PPG2010: 367 = -2 PPG2011: 377 = -2 PPG

I agree that it is hard to exclude #1s since QBs are very often drafted there and pretty sure my post above shows Peyton and Cam improved their offenses and I am fairly certain Stafford and Eli have as well. It would be interesting to see Alex Smith, although with a new OC every year, he has had a tough road and is starting to seemingly get it together. I would assume Carr and Russell went down, but before the past few years Houston was never much of an offensive juggernaut, so not sure on Carr.That said, I like your post a lot, what it does show me is that some rookie selections like McNabb and Ryan clearly improved the offense and some others did well, like Rivers and Young where there was an establised QB (Brees seems to have done well and McNair was no slouch). Young unfortunately was too much of a head case and blew himself up, alah Ryan Leaf. Sanchez followed a great QB as well, but needs to step up his game or he is a bust.Surprisingly, Harrington actually did well, but not good enough. Smith and Leinart were clear busts.

 

[stbugs]

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.

Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

What if the QB flops? Then it sets everything back 5 years as well. Give and take.The 1998 Colts with Manning scored 3 points less than in 1997. Just sayin...

No need to keep arguing, but with the rookie cap, RG3 doesn't set them back 5 years if they love him and he busts. Newton signed a 4 year $22M contract. Richard Seymour made almost that much last year. RG3 will cost Cleveland somewhere around $5M per year, not even close to setting them back 5 years. We aren't talking about JaMarcus Russell's deal. Of course he could bust, just like every pick they could get in a deal, but if he flourishes, they are far better than hoping they fill a couple not as essential holes.I'm trying to address a point that you don't seem to understand. The Browns wouldn't be set back from a money aspect anymore, it would be from a developmental aspect. If they trade multiple 1's, a 2nd, a 3rd...that sets back the entire franchise multiple years if that 1 player flops. Even 2 years from now when the Browns get a 1st rounder again, that player needs a few seasons in the NFL for development...aka setting the franchise back 5 years.

What else does Cleveland really need? They had the #5 scoring defense and in 2010, their healthy RB was amazing. The reason why they went 4-12 was because they had the #30 scoring offense.

Also, stop cherry picking. 1998 was Manning's rookie year. Most rookie QBs don't do what Newton did, hence all his "record breaking" accomplishments. Yes, the 1997 Colts scored 3 more points than the 1998 Manning led Colts. Let's look what happened after that. The 1999 Colts scored 110 more points than 1997. The 2000 Colts score 116 more points. The 2001 Colts score 100 more points. In Manning's record year of 2004, they scored 209 more points. After 2011, are you really going to try and argue that the Colts were better off without Manning because he didn't explode the offense in his rookie year? Just sayin...

Ironic that you indicate i'm cherry picking. You referenced the best rookie QB season ever as a standard for highly selected QB's. I simply just picked out Peyton Manning because he's one of the best QB's ever. I will have a more thorough post next.

How is mentioning Newton cherry picking? I mentioned above or in another post above that Newton set records, pretty sure that means he isn't an average rookie QB. Everyone knows that. Cherry picking is comparing the 1997 Colts to Manning's rookie year to make it seem like Manning didn't improve the Colts. He averaged 100-200 more points than 1997 starting in year 2 and clearly 2011 showed how important he was.I also understand your point on the picks. Have you scoured the Browns past drafting history the past 3 years (they didn't pick till round 4 in 2008) to see what they would actually lose? Also, I am not even saying Cleveland should move up. I am saying that if Holmgren thinks he has the next Ryan/McNabb/Manning/Newton in RG3 and there is a possibility that he won't get him at #4, then I would make the trade. In the late 1st(if they trade 22)/2nd/3rd, it seems (don't know the Browns well) the Browns have done well or OK with Phil Taylor, McCoy, Alex Mack, Shaun Lauvao, and Jabal Sheard. They have done mediocre to bad with Robiskie, Massaquoi, TJ Ward, Hardesty, and David Veikune.

If they give up 3 picks (they get #2 back), they probably get 1 maybe 2 decent players, but are any guys in the list above capable of improving teams like the franchise QBs we have discussed have been able to do? I am pretty certain the answer is no. You say "set them back 5 years" and I say that without improving the QB position, the 4-12 2011 Cleveland Browns won't do much of anything the next 5 years anyway. Hey, get Clairborne and improve the D and next year they are 5-11 and only outscore by 5 ppg instead of 6. Then again, maybe Clairborne isn't all that and they don't improve at all.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

So don't include #1, but do include #3-#10. That's some quality cherry picking there.

Is RGIII going to be the #1 pick? Nope, including every QB picked #2-10 for over the last decade is cherry picking...get a clue.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.

Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

What if the QB flops? Then it sets everything back 5 years as well. Give and take.The 1998 Colts with Manning scored 3 points less than in 1997. Just sayin...

No need to keep arguing, but with the rookie cap, RG3 doesn't set them back 5 years if they love him and he busts. Newton signed a 4 year $22M contract. Richard Seymour made almost that much last year. RG3 will cost Cleveland somewhere around $5M per year, not even close to setting them back 5 years. We aren't talking about JaMarcus Russell's deal. Of course he could bust, just like every pick they could get in a deal, but if he flourishes, they are far better than hoping they fill a couple not as essential holes.I'm trying to address a point that you don't seem to understand. The Browns wouldn't be set back from a money aspect anymore, it would be from a developmental aspect. If they trade multiple 1's, a 2nd, a 3rd...that sets back the entire franchise multiple years if that 1 player flops. Even 2 years from now when the Browns get a 1st rounder again, that player needs a few seasons in the NFL for development...aka setting the franchise back 5 years.

What else does Cleveland really need? They had the #5 scoring defense and in 2010, their healthy RB was amazing. The reason why they went 4-12 was because they had the #30 scoring offense.

Also, stop cherry picking. 1998 was Manning's rookie year. Most rookie QBs don't do what Newton did, hence all his "record breaking" accomplishments. Yes, the 1997 Colts scored 3 more points than the 1998 Manning led Colts. Let's look what happened after that. The 1999 Colts scored 110 more points than 1997. The 2000 Colts score 116 more points. The 2001 Colts score 100 more points. In Manning's record year of 2004, they scored 209 more points. After 2011, are you really going to try and argue that the Colts were better off without Manning because he didn't explode the offense in his rookie year? Just sayin...

Ironic that you indicate i'm cherry picking. You referenced the best rookie QB season ever as a standard for highly selected QB's. I simply just picked out Peyton Manning because he's one of the best QB's ever. I will have a more thorough post next.

How is mentioning Newton cherry picking? Because he had one of the best rookie QB seasons ever.Cherry picking is comparing the 1997 Colts to Manning's rookie year to make it seem like Manning didn't improve the Colts.How else would you best describe 1 player's added value to a team. Also consider I spent a long time getting all of the #2-#10 overall picks scoring information involved.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

So don't include #1, but do include #3-#10. That's some quality cherry picking there.

Is RGIII going to be the #1 pick? Nope, including every QB picked #2-10 for over the last decade is cherry picking...get a clue.

He's closer to being picked #1 than he is #4.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

So don't include #1, but do include #3-#10. That's some quality cherry picking there.

Is RGIII going to be the #1 pick? Nope, including every QB picked #2-10 for over the last decade is cherry picking...get a clue.

He's closer to being picked #1 than he is #4.

Maybe, but he's not in Andrew Luck's class. Therefore he falls in line with the McNabb's etc.

 

[Crazysight]

Take the guy who's young and exciting and who had a QB rating that approached 200 his last year of college. Yeah, I'd say that's a safe bet to fill some seats for a while. Flynn will be 27, that isn't a guy you take to try and turn a franchise around with when you're essentially starting over, especially one that has been horrible for so long and that has so many needs to fill. I'm pessimistic too that he will be very effective as a starting quarterback outside of Green Bay, that's a role that is very foreign to a guy who's been riding the pine for years after being drafted in the 7th round of 2008. Yeah the Browns could use the picks to fill some of those needs they have, but you still have to wait for those players to develop even if they do end up being good picks. And with the new rookie pay scale RGIII could probably be had cheaper than Flynn as well, which would leave additional room to potentially fill needs via free agency.

 

[Crazysight]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

So don't include #1, but do include #3-#10. That's some quality cherry picking there.

Is RGIII going to be the #1 pick? Nope, including every QB picked #2-10 for over the last decade is cherry picking...get a clue.

He's closer to being picked #1 than he is #4.

Maybe, but he's not in Andrew Luck's class. Therefore he falls in line with the McNabb's etc.

That's an opinion, and nothing more. RGIII's QB rating was significantly higher than Luck's last year, and he faced pretty stout competition too. I imagine to that you'll say something about Luck having played in a more pro-style offense, 3-step drops, being able to read defenses, etc. Save it. The jury is out as to which QB will be better on the NFL level. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd take Luck myself, though not with any high amount of confidence considering Griffin's level of success last year. After all, he simply dominated, plain and simple. Give the guy credit where credit is due.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I did a little research regarding QB's and offensive point differentials from before drafted to after. I limited it to top 10 draft picks and non-first overall picks(at least to start) because that's what RGIII would represent.

So don't include #1, but do include #3-#10. That's some quality cherry picking there.

Is RGIII going to be the #1 pick? Nope, including every QB picked #2-10 for over the last decade is cherry picking...get a clue.

He's closer to being picked #1 than he is #4.

Maybe, but he's not in Andrew Luck's class. Therefore he falls in line with the McNabb's etc.

That's an opinion, and nothing more. RGIII's QB rating was significantly higher than Luck's last year, and he faced pretty stout competition too. I imagine to that you'll say something about Luck having played in a more pro-style offense, 3-step drops, being able to read defenses, etc. Save it. The jury is out as to which QB will be better on the NFL level. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd take Luck myself, though not with any high amount of confidence considering Griffin's level of success last year. After all, he simply dominated, plain and simple. Give the guy credit where credit is due.

That's why I brought up the statistics of every QB drafted #2-10 of the last decade. No opinions there.I don't hate RGIII, I just simply don't think it's in the Browns best interests to unload a bunch of draft picks on a small framed, spread QB that takes big hits...when you can sign/trade for Flynn and give up a fraction of the price.

 

[stbugs]

Umm, you have more than one year to build a team, correct? Cleveland was 4-12 and their D was far superior to Carolina. Thank goodness they have been filling all those holes and not addressing the QB position. Now that Carolina invested in a QB they thought was a franchise QB, they can move on to shoring the D back up.

Again, yes, there are the Ravens and Bucs, but there sure are a lot more SB winning Giants, Pats, Saints, Colts, Steelers, and Packers recently with franchise QBs. Obtaining a franchise QB fills a lot of holes. Carolina in 2011 was outscored by 23 points all year, instead of being outscored by 212 in 2010 without Newton. You can point all you want to the D collapses as an example, where I can point to the fact that the Panthers were almost 12 points per game closer to opponents in 2011 than they were in 2010. The 2-14 2010 Panthers weren't even close to the 6-10 2011 Panthers. I was hoping people would glean that the Panthers were pretty close to being a playoff contender with all those close games instead of focusing on the D statements. The D was atrocious, but they still crushed Houston, and almost beat the Falcons (twice), Detroit, Packers, and Saints.

If you can point to 1 or 2 players that the Browns could obtain instead of a franchise QB that could improve them by 12 points per game, I am all ears. I think that the only way the Browns can do what Carolina did last year is to get a franchise QB instead of filling 2 slots, or if they draft poorly, filling none. That said, I don't know if RG3 or Flynn are franchise QBs in Holmgren's mind.

What if the QB flops? Then it sets everything back 5 years as well. Give and take.The 1998 Colts with Manning scored 3 points less than in 1997. Just sayin...

No need to keep arguing, but with the rookie cap, RG3 doesn't set them back 5 years if they love him and he busts. Newton signed a 4 year $22M contract. Richard Seymour made almost that much last year. RG3 will cost Cleveland somewhere around $5M per year, not even close to setting them back 5 years. We aren't talking about JaMarcus Russell's deal. Of course he could bust, just like every pick they could get in a deal, but if he flourishes, they are far better than hoping they fill a couple not as essential holes.I'm trying to address a point that you don't seem to understand. The Browns wouldn't be set back from a money aspect anymore, it would be from a developmental aspect. If they trade multiple 1's, a 2nd, a 3rd...that sets back the entire franchise multiple years if that 1 player flops. Even 2 years from now when the Browns get a 1st rounder again, that player needs a few seasons in the NFL for development...aka setting the franchise back 5 years.

What else does Cleveland really need? They had the #5 scoring defense and in 2010, their healthy RB was amazing. The reason why they went 4-12 was because they had the #30 scoring offense.

Also, stop cherry picking. 1998 was Manning's rookie year. Most rookie QBs don't do what Newton did, hence all his "record breaking" accomplishments. Yes, the 1997 Colts scored 3 more points than the 1998 Manning led Colts. Let's look what happened after that. The 1999 Colts scored 110 more points than 1997. The 2000 Colts score 116 more points. The 2001 Colts score 100 more points. In Manning's record year of 2004, they scored 209 more points. After 2011, are you really going to try and argue that the Colts were better off without Manning because he didn't explode the offense in his rookie year? Just sayin...

Ironic that you indicate i'm cherry picking. You referenced the best rookie QB season ever as a standard for highly selected QB's. I simply just picked out Peyton Manning because he's one of the best QB's ever. I will have a more thorough post next.

How is mentioning Newton cherry picking? Because he had one of the best rookie QB seasons ever.Cherry picking is comparing the 1997 Colts to Manning's rookie year to make it seem like Manning didn't improve the Colts.How else would you best describe 1 player's added value to a team. Also consider I spent a long time getting all of the #2-#10 overall picks scoring information involved.

Last post in this thread, period. I posted above that Newton set records, I know he had one of the best seasons ever for a rookie. I watched the games. I mentioned it because Cleveland 2011 offense is similar in its mediocrity as Carolina 2010. I didn't mention it to prove a point that RG3 would have another record breaking season, I mentioned it because it isn't out of the possibility that Cleveland, if they choose the correct guy, could improve leaps and bounds in offense thus solving a lot more problems than improving a CB spot and an OL spot. If you fill the QB position, your team can improve drastically.

You tried to use 1998 Manning (and still are) as proof that he didn't improve the Colts, which is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever seen. Especially, since in year 2+, he improved the offense by 100-200 points, which is a drastic improvement. Do you think the 2011 Colts were better without Manning? I never said that RG3 or Flynn would make the 2012 Cleveland offense a juggernaut. I know Newton is an outlier, but in year 2+, if they are the real deal, Cleveland's offense will be much better and that will help the entire team much more than potentially 1 or 2 other positional improvements.

If you believe in Holmgren as a Browns fan, then I would want him to pull the trigger on a trade if A) he feels like he won't get his guy otherwise and B) he feels that RG3 (or Flynn) is his franchise QB, alah Favre or Hasselbeck.

 

[Gawain]

I would also say that replacing Colt McCoy is much closer to replacing Peterson/Batch/Harrington, than to replacing Favre/Warner/Brees.

If RGIII is a competent NFL QB, he is only going to improve that offense.

 

[Sinrman]

First, I think RGIII is the better talent.

Second, I think RGIII is a better fit for the conservative Cleveland offense.

Third, even though I don't think Flynn is the right fit for that system, what the Browns would have to give up to move up to #2 to get RGIII is too much. I believe if the Browns can

give up the later 1st rounder for Flynn, they go for that, and keep the #4 and get Trent Richardson. That would be a very nice combo there. Their defense is not that bad. Needs

some holes filled, but not atrocious. The offense is what is atrocious.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

First, I think RGIII is the better talent.Second, I think RGIII is a better fit for the conservative Cleveland offense.Third, even though I don't think Flynn is the right fit for that system, what the Browns would have to give up to move up to #2 to get RGIII is too much. I believe if the Browns cangive up the later 1st rounder for Flynn, they go for that, and keep the #4 and get Trent Richardson. That would be a very nice combo there. Their defense is not that bad. Needssome holes filled, but not atrocious. The offense is what is atrocious.

The Browns now have to give up nothing but money to get Flynn and a bunch of draft picks for RGIII. Pretty easy decision now.