Cleveland Browns (2016 thread of unrelenting dumpster conflagration)

[kujirakira]

There is absolutely no data that shows this is a more viable option than drafting a qb high. i think what the "analytics" will tell you is that someone like Jared Goff is probably a top 5-7 player in this draft, much like Matt Ryan was. Given the position he plays, that basically makes him your pick at #2. This discussion wouldn't even be happening if Joey Bosa didn't go to OSU. You draft Jared Goff, solve your qb issue, and build the rest of your team, end of story. Tryign to patchwork the qb spot with has beens and washouts in hopes of striking gold gets you nowhere.

 

[Bucklion]

Since Brady and Bulger in round 6 of 2000, only Garrard (4) and Fitzpatrick (7) have really been worth a shit after round 3

Edit: jury is still out on cousins

 

[jlb1705]

Nobody is arguing that. We're arguing that they're not top-5 talent.
If we drafted Manziel or Quinn in the top-10 like the media wanted... would they have had a better chance of succeeding just b/c they weren't 22nd?
Reaching for a QB doesn't make the QB better.
Cart before the horse.

The post I quoted was arguing that.

I agree that they are not worthy of a top-5 pick and I argued against reaching in the post before the one you referenced.

 

[exhawg]

Since Brady and Bulger in round 6 of 2000, only Garrard (4) and Fitzpatrick (7) have really been worth a [Mark May] after round 3

Edit: jury is still out on cousins

I'm fine using a 2nd or 3rd on the right QB. I just don't know that any of these guys are worthy of #2. Scarlet colored glasses I'd rather take CJ in the 3rd or 4th than any of these jokers at #2.

 

[buckeyebri]

Not to mention that Browns fans don't really have room to [Mark May] on a player like Stafford. He's seen more of the playoffs than we have.

What exactly as a No.1 pick has Stafford done to warrant that pick? How about Joey Harrington?

 

[buckeyebri]

The post I quoted was arguing that.

I agree that they are not worthy of a top-5 pick and I argued against reaching in the post before the one you referenced.

I wasn't arguing that at all. I've said before that these guys appear to be reaches at that slot. My contention is the Browns have drafted QBs in early rounds and got no where with them. Why do it again?

 

[jlb1705]

What exactly as a No.1 pick has Stafford done to warrant that pick? How about Joey Harrington?

Led them to the playoffs.

Twice.

The last player to do that in Cleveland was Bernie Kosar.

Harrington was a bust. So was Ryan Leaf. So was JaMarcus Russell. So was Rick Mirer. So was Akili Smith. Name as many of them as you want - it doesn't change the fact successful QBs are more likely to be found at the top of the draft.

 

[jlb1705]

I wasn't arguing that at all. I've said before that these guys appear to be reaches at that slot. My contention is the Browns have drafted QBs in early rounds and got no where with them. Why do it again?

You just argued it again, two sentences later.

When you identify a QB that is worth it, you draft him in the early rounds because that's what those players are worth and that's where they get picked. I don't see what's so hard about this.

Saying the Browns should avoid drafting a QB in the early rounds because they've busted before is like giving up drilling for oil in Texas and deciding to try your luck in Connecticut.

 

[woofermazing]

Led them to the playoffs.

Twice.

The last player to do that in Cleveland was Bernie Kosar.

Harrington was a bust. So was Ryan Leaf. So was JaMarcus Russell. So was Rick Mirer. So was Akili Smith. Name as many of them as you want - it doesn't change the fact successful QBs are more likely to be found at the top of the draft.

Historically, there's almost no difference in player success for quarterbacks taken at the top, middle, or bottom of the first round. Just focusing on the 1st pick might buck the trend, but you also have a limited number of data points to analyze. Top 10 qbs are 50/50 odds of being a bust, below that it drops a little to 48%. Given the substantial additional risk the team takes on in a larger contract, I would rather find a guy lower down.

 

[buckeyebri]

You just argued it again, two sentences later.

When you identify a QB that is worth it, you draft him in the early rounds because that's what those players are worth and that's where they get picked. I don't see what's so hard about this.

Saying the Browns should avoid drafting a QB in the early rounds because they've busted before is like giving up drilling for oil in Texas and deciding to try your luck in Connecticut.

Again, my contention is the guys they are considering don't appear to be worthy of a 1st round pick, sort of like Johnny or Weeden or Quinn. If Luck was sitting there I would say yes, but he isn't. I'm not arguing drafting a QB high, I'm arguing the Worthiness of the QB being selected.

 

[buckeyebri]

Led them to the playoffs.

Twice.

The last player to do that in Cleveland was Bernie Kosar.

Harrington was a bust. So was Ryan Leaf. So was JaMarcus Russell. So was Rick Mirer. So was Akili Smith. Name as many of them as you want - it doesn't change the fact successful QBs are more likely to be found at the top of the draft.

Lots of QBs have led teams to the playoffs. If that were the criteria, just to get to the playoffs, then why did the Browns drop Hoyer? Two playoff appearances times in 7 years for a No. 1 pick isn't setting the world on fire.

 

[jlb1705]

Historically, there's almost no difference in player success for quarterbacks taken at the top, middle, or bottom of the first round. Just focusing on the 1st pick might buck the trend, but you also have a limited number of data points to analyze. Top 10 qbs are 50/50 odds of being a bust, below that it drops a little to 48%. Given the substantial additional risk the team takes on in a larger contract, I would rather find a guy lower down.

Do you have a link that supports that assertion? Not calling you out, I'd just be interested in reading it.

Again, my contention is the guys they are considering don't appear to be worthy of a 1st round pick, sort of like Johnny or Weeden or Quinn. If Luck was sitting there I would say yes, but he isn't. I'm not arguing drafting a QB high, I'm arguing the Worthiness of the QB being selected.

Fair enough. I guess that's just not how I interpreted your previous posts.

Lots of QBs have led teams to the playoffs. If that were the criteria, just to get to the playoffs, then why did the Browns drop Hoyer? Two playoff appearances times in 7 years for a No. 1 pick isn't setting the world on fire.

I don't think the Browns should have dropped Hoyer - especially at the expense of keeping Money Badger.

Finding a QB that can muster a couple playoff appearances like Stafford has managed would be a pretty big deal for this franchise. I'd love to have had Matthew Stafford in Cleveland over the last seven years.

 

[NFBuck]

It's worth noting that Hoyer looked infinitely better (until the playoffs, anyway) playing for a coach that has a pretty good reputation with QBs. I'd be willing to bet if he stayed in Cleveland he would have been the same milquetoast qb he was in 2014.

 

[exhawg]

It's worth noting that Hoyer looked infinitely better (until the playoffs, anyway) playing for a coach that has a pretty good reputation with QBs. I'd be willing to bet if he stayed in Cleveland he would have been the same milquetoast qb he was in 2014.

I think the Browns were ok with their QB coach last year. As big of a shithead as he is Manziel looked much better than he did the previous season. Hoyer's biggest problem was he was unwilling to mentor Manziel. He needs to go someplace where all the QB's are fighting for the job (like Houston this year) or where he's backing up and established starter and knows his role. Honestly if Manziel wasn't an addict we wouldn't even be talking about first round QB this year.

 

[BUCK3YE5]

Goff hasn't been mentioned yet on this page.

Unacceptable.

He's our Franchise QB.