Cleveland Browns (2012 season)

[jlb1705]

by your own admission, baltimore will never do anything with flacco. so, their support system, which due to age is on life support by the by, is useless because they don't have an elite qb.

Baltimore is able to get by with Joe Flacco because they possess a shrewdness that the Browns lack. Instead of trading up that year to get Matt Ryan, they traded down and got Joe Flacco, and then traded down again in the second round (they still had that pick because they didn't use it to move up for a QB) and got Ray Rice.

If the Browns trade up for Griffin, where is the Ray-Rice type of player coming from, given the kinds of trade proposals that are being thrown around?

 

[tsteele316]

Look at it however you want guys, if the Browns mortgage the top of their draft to get RGIII two spots higher I'm just going to laugh and enjoy the 4-12 seasons we'll get to endure. Not because of RGIII, but because the Browns management will have again ignored the basic fundamental rules of winning CONSISTENTLY in the NFL.

when you can name one team that's won consistently with shitty qb play, then you can try and make this argument. a 12 year old trent dilfer example doesn't cut it either.

 

[jlb1705]

when you can name one team that's won consistently with shitty qb play, then you can try and make this argument. a 12 year old trent dilfer example doesn't cut it either.

Baltimore is actually a perfect example. If you won't accept Trent Dilfer, then how about pretty much every QB they have trotted out there since then? Post-Dilfer, the Ratbirds made the playoffs seven more times in eleven years with four different QBs. They have not missed the playoffs a single time since drafting Flacco.

And let's dispense with the idea that because Flacco or any of those post-Dilfer Ravens teams haven't won a Super Bowl that they're a failure. The Browns haven't had a sniff of the kind of success that the Ravens have experienced.

 

[y0yoyoin]

the bug weighs in

Combine: Day 5 observations

By John Clayton
ESPN.com

1. Future matchups between Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III will be fun to watch: In what is expected to be the Luck's home, RG3 put on his second show. Griffin won the news conference by stringing together 15 minutes of answers that, in my opinion, surpassed any combine interview I've witnessed in 24 years covering this event. Even though he didn't throw Sunday, Griffin wowed everyone by running an official 40-yard dash time of 4.41 seconds, as well as a 39-inch vertical jump and a 10.3 broad jump. It was one of the fastest 40-yard times in combine history for a quarterback.
Even though that won't vault him over Luck to be the No. 1 pick, it should enhance the trade value of the No. 2 pick. No disrespect to Matt Kalil, Justin Blackmon or any of the other top picks, but this is a two-player draft -- Luck and Griffin. Not to be undone, Luck did well himself without throwing. He ran an official 4.67 40-yard dash. Plus, his vertical jump of 36 inches was slightly better than Cam Newton last year.
2. What did the weekend do to handicap the trade talks for the St. Louis Rams at No. 2? I'd handicap it as a two-team bidding war for Griffin. The Rams, who draft second, have to broker a strong deal and should be able to pull it off. The price of the trade would exceed the traditional draft value trade chart that was started by former Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson in the 1990s. The No. 2 pick in the first round has a value of 2,600. The No. 4 pick, currently owned by the Cleveland Browns, is 1,800. The Redskins' No. 6 pick has a value of 1,600.
In order to put a trade together under those terms, the Browns would have to offer a draft value of 800, which equates to the 21st pick in the first round. The Redskins would have to offer 1,000, which would be an additional first-rounder and a third-rounder. For Griffin, it would probably cost the Browns at least the additional first and a significant draft choice in 2013, maybe a third or higher. The Redskins then would have to offer the equivalent of three first-round picks. The Dolphins and Seahawks might as well forget about bidding because the price for RG3 would be too high.

i will say to be able to give our first 2 picks and a 3rd rounder in 2013 is better then what i was imagining...i would be content with that...considering we would then have 2 2nd round picks and 2 4th round picks as well

 

[Mike80]

when you can name one team that's won consistently with shitty qb play, then you can try and make this argument. a 12 year old trent dilfer example doesn't cut it either.

Who said anything about "shitty" QB play? But yes, Baltimore is the PERFECT example as jlb says. I'd take average right about now.

You don't draft average 2nd in the draft after giving up 2 1st rounders to get him.

 

[tsteele316]

Who said anything about "shitty" QB play? But yes, Baltimore is the PERFECT example as jlb says. I'd take average right about now.

You don't draft average 2nd in the draft after giving up 2 1st rounders to get him.

herein lies the entire flaw in your theory. the entire premise of the trade up is to take a guy that is far, far better than average. just because you don't like the prospect doesn't diminish the value of making a trade up for a franchise qb.

and baltimore's piss poor qb play is the sole reason they haven't been to a superbowl in 12 years, despite having one of the best defenses and one of the most potent running games in the nfl.

so, you have all of one example to try and back your theory.

 

[Bucklion]

when you can name one team that's won consistently with [Mark May]ty qb play, then you can try and make this argument. a 12 year old trent dilfer example doesn't cut it either.

The Jets made 2 AFC Championship games in a row, I think the Browns would take that. The Titans at least had playoff appearances (multiple I think, would have to look back) with Vince Young and Kerry Collins. Teams win without great QBs. Hell teams can win Super Bowls with QBs that aren't headed to the HOF unless they buy a ticket. The question is if you put Peyton Manning on the Browns (OK, the Peyton without the gimpy neck), would they be a Super Bowl contender? If not, and I would say the answer is no, then there need to be more pieces, because the QB doesn't really matter as much as it would if the team was halfway decent elsewhere. Mortaging the team's future to take a QB, even if good, and put him on a shitty team doesn't seem like a plan for long term success to me. A great QB can do a lot of things, but he can't catch the ball, he can't block, and he can't tackle.

 

[tsteele316]

The Jets made 2 AFC Championship games in a row, I think the Browns would take that. The Titans at least had playoff appearances (multiple I think, would have to look back) with Vince Young and Kerry Collins. Teams win without great QBs. Hell teams can win Super Bowls with QBs that aren't headed to the HOF unless they buy a ticket. The question is if you put Peyton Manning on the Browns (OK, the Peyton without the gimpy neck), would they be a Super Bowl contender? If not, and I would say the answer is no, then there need to be more pieces, because the QB doesn't really matter as much as it would if the team was halfway decent elsewhere. Mortaging the team's future to take a QB, even if good, and put him on a shitty team doesn't seem like a plan for long term success to me. A great QB can do a lot of things, but he can't catch the ball, he can't block, and he can't tackle.

how is giving up #4 and #22 mortgaging the future? i don't think anyone in the world is going to argue that it's substantially easier to find guys to block, tackle and run in the later rounds of the draft than it is to find an elite qb. the statistical evidence is pretty overwhelming in this regard. nobody is talking about matching the proported washington offer of picks 1,2 and 3 this year and their first next.

 

[Bucklion]

how is giving up #4 and #22 mortgaging the future? i don't think anyone in the world is going to argue that it's substantially easier to find guys to block, tackle and run in the later rounds of the draft than it is to find an elite qb. the statistical evidence is pretty overwhelming in this regard. nobody is talking about matching the proported washington offer of picks 1,2 and 3 this year and their first next.

Given the Combine jizz-fest today I doubt seriously that the 4 and 22 will do it...it will take at least another 2 and maybe 2 2s to move up and get him, especially if Dan Snyder is bidding against it. And as for "overwhelming" statistical evidence, there are plenty of high QBs drafted (Leaf, Shuler, Akili Smith, Mirer, David Carr, Couch) that don't amount to shit, and there are guys like Tom Brady who go in the lower rounds, so trading up is zero guarantee that he will be an "elite" QB or that it will help th team virtually at all.

 

[tsteele316]

Given the Combine jizz-fest today I doubt seriously that the 4 and 22 will do it...it will take at least another 2 and maybe 2 2s to move up and get him, especially if Dan Snyder is bidding against it. And as for "overwhelming" statistical evidence, there are plenty of high QBs drafted (Leaf, Shuler, Akili Smith, Mirer, David Carr, Couch) that don't amount to shit, and there are guys like Tom Brady who go in the lower rounds, so trading up is zero guarantee that he will be an "elite" QB or that it will help th team virtually at all.

this is a strawman argument. change the position and the names and the same argument is made for every single position group. the only difference is that qb is the most important position on the field, and the hardest one to fill.

 

[Bucklion]

this is a strawman argument. change the position and the names and the same argument is made for every single position group. the only difference is that qb is the most important position on the field, and the hardest one to fill.

No it is not a "strawman" argument, but I love it when people throw that term out indiscriminantly every time they disagree with something. This sentence should be all I need to illustrate my point:

"Eric Metcalf was traded along with two first round and one second round draft pick by the San Diego Chargers to the Arizona Cardinals for moving one spot in the 1998 NFL Draft to pick quarterback Ryan Leaf."

How'd that trade work out? Don't think that was "mortgaging the future" at all to go full retard on draft day and take a "Can't Miss" QB? RGIII could be the next Tom Brady, but the odds are far more against that than they are of making the Browns better instead by standing pat and taking 3 quality players to fill gaping holes elsewhere with two 1s and a 2. Why have the Patriots been so good for so long? In part because they have made good selections in the lower part of round 1 and they have been deft at knowing when to trade up moderately or trade down moderately to get who they want to fill a need. Name the last team that went Mike Ditka to get Ricky Williams where that actually worked? It rarely ever does.

 

[y0yoyoin]

The question is if you put Peyton Manning on the Browns (OK, the Peyton without the gimpy neck), would they be a Super Bowl contender? If not, and I would say the answer is no, then there need to be more pieces, because the QB doesn't really matter as much as it would if the team was halfway decent elsewhere. Mortaging the team's future to take a QB, even if good, and put him on a shitty team doesn't seem like a plan for long term success to me. A great QB can do a lot of things, but he can't catch the ball, he can't block, and he can't tackle.

this argument is retarded...you could pick any sport, apply the same logic and get the same result...if you put lebron james on the charlotte bobcats would they be a NBA Finals contender? no...if you put albert pujols on the houston astros would they be a world series contender? no...ok so we got that figured out...so if u put peyton manning on the browns would they be better? of course...but your argument is that by putting RGIII on the browns this will not make us a super bowl contender...well how the fuck do we know that? yes i will bet a million dollars that we will not make the super bowl our first year...i will take a million for his second and third as well...but after that? who the fuck knows...the bottom line is you hope you are moving forward and not backward...we definitely are moving backward from last year

 

[tsteele316]

No it is not a "strawman" argument, but I love it when people throw that term out indiscriminantly every time they disagree with something. This sentence should be all I need to illustrate my point:

"Eric Metcalf was traded along with two first round and one second round draft pick by the San Diego Chargers to the Arizona Cardinals for moving one spot in the 1998 NFL Draft to pick quarterback Ryan Leaf."

How'd that trade work out? Don't think that was "mortgaging the future" at all to go full retard on draft day and take a "Can't Miss" QB? RGIII could be the next Tom Brady, but the odds are far more against that than they are of making the Browns better instead by standing pat and taking 3 quality players to fill gaping holes elsewhere with two 1s and a 2. Why have the Patriots been so good for so long? In part because they have made good selections in the lower part of round 1 and they have been deft at knowing when to trade up moderately or trade down moderately to get who they want to fill a need. Name the last team that went Mike Ditka to get Ricky Williams where that actually worked? It rarely ever does.

it's a strawman because it's simply flawed logic. you can make the same exact argument about every single position group drafted high and come to the same conclusion. it's a copout argument. it has nothing to do with disagreeing with you and everything to do with calling out an obviously flawed argument. all i have to throw at you is the giants "mortgaging" their future by snaring eli manning instead of settling for rivers and other draft picks. i'm sure they regret it 2 superbowls later.

 

[Bucklion]

this argument is retarded...you could pick any sport, apply the same logic and get the same result...if you put lebron james on the charlotte bobcats would they be a NBA Finals contender? no...if you put albert pujols on the houston astros would they be a world series contender? no...ok so we got that figured out...so if u put peyton manning on the browns would they be better? of course...but your argument is that by putting RGIII on the browns this will not make us a super bowl contender...well how the [censored] do we know that? yes i will bet a million dollars that we will not make the super bowl our first year...i will take a million for his second and third as well...but after that? who the [censored] knows...the bottom line is you hope you are moving forward and not backward...we definitely are moving backward from last year

Sorry this post is completely full of shit because you are intentionally ignoring the context of the argument. The point isn't being made in a vacuum...to use your example the point is if you are the GM of the Bobcats and you have draft picks and a finite # of dollars to spend on your team, do you trade it all and spend it all to get Lebron James when you KNOW as you say that they will not be a Finals contender? Absolutely not. You build through the draft with multiple picks and sign someone who will fit if they are a good complementary piece, much like the Cavs are now. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some teams will go at the trade deadline in baseball by trading away their top prospects to get one pitcher or one hitter that they think will push them to the playoffs, but at least they have the excuse that they are already a decent team that has a shot. The Browns as is have no shot. One guy is not going to give us a shot. Ergo, if it takes 3 drafts worth of upper picks to get one guy, it isn't worth it. That's the point I am making.

 

[Bucklion]

it's a strawman because it's simply flawed logic. you can make the same exact argument about every single position group drafted high and come to the same conclusion. it's a copout argument. it has nothing to do with disagreeing with you and everything to do with calling out an obviously flawed argument. all i have to throw at you is the giants "mortgaging" their future by snaring eli manning instead of settling for rivers and other draft picks. i'm sure they regret it 2 superbowls later.

It's not a strawman or a copout, you just have nothing better to say. It is not the same argument about every single position because teams don't trade #1 picks over 2 or even 3 years to move up one or two spots to get safeties or punters. If anything that is the strawman. If you want to move up to get your favorite guard, you probably don't have to trade much to do it. DBs, once in a while you overpay. But QBs, that's where you trade multiple ones and often twos just to go up and get the second or third best guy. Are you really saying teams do that all the time for other positions? I really don't think so.

And the Giants had one 4-12 season when they drafted Eli, not 6 or 7. They had a much better team than the Browns have now.