Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with

Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 9:42 AM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


You're making an argument that there is no such thing as a "can't miss" QB?

Well, no kidding.

But you can't find an elite QB if you don't try. Every draft is different, due to the quality and quantity of QBs coming out, and the needs, desperate or otherwise of the teams at the top, or willing to trade into the top.

The Rivers, Manning, Rothliesberger draft was an anomaly. Better than the much heralded 80's draft with Kelly and Marino.

There will always be exceptions to getting good QBs high in the draft. Flukes like Montana, Warner and Brady.

But look at the last 10 Super Bowl winners: Brady 3x, Eli 2x, Rothliesberger 2x, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, and Brad Johnson. Look at the rule changes of the past few seasons. Look at the new rookie cap. Take out 2002 and 2003 (Johnson and Brady), and the list skews even more to high draft pick QBs.

It's logical to take your chances at finding a QB with a first or very high second round draft pick.

Get your QB and start the learning process. Add players later whose learning curve is shorter. By your QB's 3rd season, if he's good enough and hitting his stride, you can add a RB or WR that'll come up to speed quickly, you can strengthen your defense, etc.

Having a good team with an immature QB is a recipe for frustration. Better they grow up together, or the QB is in a leadership position when the team gels. Just my opinion.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 10:50 AM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


Absolutely.  I agree.  You don't HAVE to get the Weapons after the QB, 1-2 years prior is good... but this usually means you have to replace those weapons while your QB is hitting his prime and still has 5-7 good seasons left (the really good QBs can play for a LONG time, much longer than the Average QB shelf life) like Indy did in replacing Harrison and James.

On Play Off teams you don't Draft a 'Start Now' QB.  What Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers is the accepted recipe (minus a HOF QB retiring, not retiring, retiring, forcing trade, remembering he has to come out of retirement to force the trade, coming out of retirement, forcing trade).  On a good team you let him sit and learn while the current Starter does his job and keeps on winning, so you can make a smoother transition when it's time.  Steve Young in SF got the same thing behind Joe.  I'd say Steve and Aaron did pretty well with that set up.

On lesser teams the QB has to hit the field BEFORE Year 3.  You'd prefer year 2 if you don't have anything in place for him year 1... but if you have some weapons sooner is better.

There are all kinds of ways that work, if you know what you are doing and what to look for.  All I'm illustrating is that it doesn't take a #2 Overall to get your Franchise QB, and that every team in the AFCN not named the Browns has done it without a Top 10 AND got to the Play Offs with Rookie QBs.

I'm not really sure taking Johnson and Brady really skews the Super Bowl list that much (this is a minor point).  After all, we should call Brees a FA QB, since the team that Drafted him traded him.  Eli counts, but the team he won them with got him when he forced a Trade... but he does count since he went Top 5 and won with the only team he has played for.  Manning counts, but I've shown how he had two potential HOFs with him (James, Harrison) that we don't have.  Rodgers is also a different situation, sitting behind a HOF QB on a Play Off Team... not the same situation here.

The only reason I go back to this point is, IF we were in the situations those teams were in, then I would advocate a Top 5 QB pick.  And had RG III feel to #4, I'd have went with him over Trent Richardson.

Still, I do appreciate your post.  You greatly demonstrate that, without a Top Pick at QB, there is a system to building a winning Football team.  You can even win the Super Bowl with a guy not taking in the Top 10.

I just don't understand how some can be so stuck on "It's GOT to be a #2 Pick to be a great QB!" thing.  Defies logic.




"So what are you going to write about?"  "I'm going to tell the truth." "Ahh... so it's a work of fiction!"  (Hopscotch)
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 12:04 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


"I just don't understand how some can be so stuck on "It's GOT to be a #2 Pick to be a great QB!" thing. Defies logic."

-- I agree with much of your post. I think the story on the first page of this website makes interesting reading. It seems our FO did try to move up. It also seems there is a relationship between StL and Washington that may have precluded or at last injured our chance to make a deal.

So life goes on after RG3 and the Browns still need to get better.

What seems to be a bit new is that in some minds the "get RG3 now" argument has quickly morphed a bit to "the FO is so lame they won't get any franchise QB now". That argument at least stands up better in the current situation- though saying that RG3 has to be a Peyton Manning orJohn Elway is a bit hard to believe.

 Again, I think the cover article addresses that a bit. The point is made that many teams want a better QB and getting one isn't very simple. It's also said that perhaps McCoy- in the right situation- can be the answer.

But it's pre-draft time, deals are perhaps being made and who knows if what teams say is the truth?

I know that FO salaries can be said to be wasted money. Certainly some of the guys get impressive amounts from the Lerner Trust. And the Browns are still the Browns under the Lerners. You know- bad. Anyone can be fired, of course. But it would be smart to have clear evidence of incompetence and to have a good new hire to move in to keep things moving.

I would say that this off-season really needs to be looked at overall before any judgment is made. Anger and frustration at our team is understandable. But at some point it has to give way to decision-making and taking action.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 2:13 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



Brrexkl wrote:

I just don't understand how some can be so stuck on "It's GOT to be a #2 Pick to be a great QB!" thing.  Defies logic.
I don't think those with the opposite opinion of your are advocating that it has to be top 2. It's more about this particular draft, and the feeling (unproven, but still....) that there are two unusually talented QBs coming out. Some years are better than others, and when a team finds itself with a combination of need, resources and opportunity, then gakking the chance stings.

There's a cliche for it: he who hesitates is lost. (Or if your POV is different: look before you leap.)

In Cleveland, it's topped by the fact we haven't even tried for that elite QB since Couch, and our record seems to reflect that failing.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 4:01 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



In Cleveland, it's topped by the fact we haven't even tried for that elite QB since Couch, and our record seems to reflect that failing.
Maybe you are looking at this all wrong.

Maybe instead of thinking that "we haven't tried for that elite QB since Couch," the line of thinking should be, we haven't tried ever building it right since the return.

And this is why, regardless of pedigree, potential or background that the cornacopia of QBs we've started have all yielded the same results...pretty much without exception.

So what is going on....is NEW to all of you.  But to me, it's something I have advocated since the return.  I'm happy with what is going on....and the whole lot of you are all miserable, because you are not getting any enjoyment out of splashy flashy free agent signings that aren't happening, and instead are forced to wait to see young talent develop, mature and peak together.
You can't have a dawg pound unless you have someone like "Barkevicious"!

TREE

Last edited 3/16/2012 4:04 PM by Tree

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 4:43 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


>>In Cleveland, it's topped by the fact we haven't even tried for that elite QB since Couch<<

Wait a minute.  Now you cannot even try to get an elite QB by taking one with the 22nd overall pick in the draft?  Somebody ought to notify the NFL to take those recent Lombardi Trophies away from the Green Bay Packers. 

Ya know, I feel as though I've been bait-and-switched here.  I was told that once we got rid that awful Eric Mangini and Brian Daboll and their "neanderthal offense" and brought in a pass-first offense, things would be swell.  Now, it seems I'm being told the fine print says "Unless you suck really bad (like, worse than any other team) in a season that is followed by a draft where there is a "can't miss" QB, or you give up two (or three) whole drafts to move up to take said QB (or the second-best QB), you can't really be any good in a pass-first offense. 

Hell, I would have just as soon stayed with the run-first, neanderthal, offense if I'd known that.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 4:53 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



daddywags wrote: >>In Cleveland, it's topped by the fact we haven't even tried for that elite QB since Couch<<

Wait a minute.  Now you cannot even try to get an elite QB by taking one with the 22nd overall pick in the draft?  Somebody ought to notify the NFL to take those recent Lombardi Trophies away from the Green Bay Packers. 

Ya know, I feel as though I've been bait-and-switched here.  I was told that once we got rid that awful Eric Mangini and Brian Daboll and their "neanderthal offense" and brought in a pass-first offense, things would be swell.  Now, it seems I'm being told the fine print says "Unless you suck really bad (like, worse than any other team) in a season that is followed by a draft where there is a "can't miss" QB, or you give up two (or three) whole drafts to move up to take said QB (or the second-best QB), you can't really be any good in a pass-first offense. 

Hell, I would have just as soon stayed with the run-first, neanderthal, offense if I'd known that.
SD:

Too late the neandertha was loaded boxed and shipped to Kansas City where he can find a front office who likes his talents .

Here we're running a pass first offense with no passer and grade B receivers as the plan , as good productive tough hard nosed running backs make it too crowded for our finesse ain't produced nothing backfield.

Should have spoke up sooner , now join you place in line and get you another cup of Holmgren swill and suck up them beer farts like your smelling roses

" nows the time "

never mind there ain't a kid left at QB  who can start in this draft for two years,
and we're not even bidding on Flynn . 

Just sit your instgatin azz down and quit making noise.


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 4:58 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


Nah.  I was told it was the coach and the system, not the QB.  Hell, it's the same QB anyway.  Now I'm told something different - and that it's going to be a hell-of-alot more expensive.  Sounds like bait and switch to me.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Last edited 3/16/2012 4:59 PM by daddywags

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 5:05 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



Tree wrote:
In Cleveland, it's topped by the fact we haven't even tried for that elite QB since Couch, and our record seems to reflect that failing.
Maybe you are looking at this all wrong.

Maybe instead of thinking that "we haven't tried for that elite QB since Couch," the line of thinking should be, we haven't tried ever building it right since the return.

And this is why, regardless of pedigree, potential or background that the cornacopia of QBs we've started have all yielded the same results...pretty much without exception.

So what is going on....is NEW to all of you.  But to me, it's something I have advocated since the return.  I'm happy with what is going on....and the whole lot of you are all miserable, because you are not getting any enjoyment out of splashy flashy free agent signings that aren't happening, and instead are forced to wait to see young talent develop, mature and peak together.
Can't think of a single QB who ever left Cleveland and ripped things up. Maybe Garcia....for a year.

So it's chicken or egg, fact is, we have NOT had a great QB since pre 99.

I'm glad you're so free of misery and full of wisdom and patience. I am certainly not against letting young talent develop, mature and peak together. But you need that young talent throughout the roster, not at one or two positions. Cribbs, Thomas, DQ, Gocong....not kids. So ya got Haden and Little and Ward and Mack. Long way to go.

McCoy......his talent is suspect. Maybe he'll magically get better, but I wouldn't bet my job on it. Would you?
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 5:06 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



daddywags wrote: Nah.  I was told it was the coach and the system, not the QB.  Hell, it's the same QB anyway.  Now I'm told something different - and that it's going to be a hell-of-alot more expensive.  Sounds like bait and switch to me.
SD:

That would mean gosh darnit , you been hoodwinked , bamboozled even ,
and now you've went and cast aspersions on our fine upstanding Front office ,  who it just seems like tried to send Colt packing .


Your not even supposed to notice that , because "the time is now ".

How dare you tell me Spam  ain't th same as ham .


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 5:20 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


I feel like I've been hoodwinked alright, not by Holmgren or Heckert - but by all the OBR folks who swore that "everything will be alright if we only get a pass-centric offense."  I say again, now I'm being told that there is a teeny-weeny little detail they left out - You have to get either the first or second overall pick in the draft to make it work.

And, FTR SD - I'm not lumping you in with the folks who told me this.  You've been pretty consistent over the years pounding the table for this QB or that QB.  I don't always agree with your suggestions, but you've never misled by suggesting that we wouldn't have to use huge coin on a QB to make the offense work.  (Well, maybe there was that kid from Pittsburgh or Penn State or some such place, but I digress.)

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 6:41 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



daddywags wrote: I feel like I've been hoodwinked alright, not by Holmgren or Heckert - but by all the OBR folks who swore that "everything will be alright if we only get a pass-centric offense."  I say again, now I'm being told that there is a teeny-weeny little detail they left out - You have to get either the first or second overall pick in the draft to make it work.

And, FTR SD - I'm not lumping you in with the folks who told me this.  You've been pretty consistent over the years pounding the table for this QB or that QB.  I don't always agree with your suggestions, but you've never misled by suggesting that we wouldn't have to use huge coin on a QB to make the offense work.  (Well, maybe there was that kid from Pittsburgh or Penn State or some such place, but I digress.)
SD:

Yeah I pimped  Daryll Clark as a project pick with value in the fourth or fith round , he went undrafted in a class where Clausen went in the second and McCoy was picked in the third  , liked his size  as a project pick  much as i'm pimping ryan Lindley out of SDSU  whose 6'4"  and has a ryan Leaf type skillset ..
Was victimized his senior year with underclassman recevers injury and a coaching change  and has some good football  still in there if somebody can pull it out .

At this point  I recommend  The Browns using one of their fourths  in this year or next and trading for Webb on the Vikings  has experience in the WCO and is superfluous with Ponder getting the nod.

All he does is make plays when he plays .


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 6:55 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


Fair enough.  I wouldn't mind that, either, assuming he's available at that price point.  But I wouldn't give up on Flynn just yet.  Anything is better at this point, IMO, than using a top 5 pick on Tannehill.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 7:19 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



daddywags wrote: Fair enough.  I wouldn't mind that, either, assuming he's available at that price point.  But I wouldn't give up on Flynn just yet.  Anything is better at this point, IMO, than using a top 5 pick on Tannehill.
SD:

I'm with ya there , draft Blackmon even though we have nobody to throw him the ball  or trade down.

Posted a link with Nas that the Dulphins are low balling him .


http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...-to-matt-flynn/


We could swoop in and re-energize the franchise and grab one of these QB's in a round where they have some value which ain't the first.



SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/16/2012 8:08 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 


Okay, it went from Flynn at all costs to Webb for a 4th.

So really you are saying you want Flynn most, but really any QB not named Colt McCoy will do while we Draft a 'Project QB' in the 4th or 5th.

I'm all for taking a 4th to 7th or even UDFA QB every year, see if he can keep up and if he does he moves to the #2 while I keep getting another 4th to 7th every year.  Very cheap, usually those picks get cut anyways, and you just might find that Project worth keeping long term.  Once you have the #1 and #2 locked up, you stop with that... usually finding the #1 with a 1st to 2nd Round Investment.

This is fine with me, even using the 1st Rounder on an appropriate QB.  That is NOT Tanneyhill at #4... though trading down for Tanny could be a workable idea.  I like that much better than selling everything to move up to #2.




"So what are you going to write about?"  "I'm going to tell the truth." "Ahh... so it's a work of fiction!"  (Hopscotch)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/16/2012 9:20 PM

Re: Lerner should Drug test his front office starting with 



Brrexkl wrote: Okay, it went from Flynn at all costs to Webb for a 4th.

So really you are saying you want Flynn most, but really any QB not named Colt McCoy will do while we Draft a 'Project QB' in the 4th or 5th.

I'm all for taking a 4th to 7th or even UDFA QB every year, see if he can keep up and if he does he moves to the #2 while I keep getting another 4th to 7th every year.  Very cheap, usually those picks get cut anyways, and you just might find that Project worth keeping long term.  Once you have the #1 and #2 locked up, you stop with that... usually finding the #1 with a 1st to 2nd Round Investment.

This is fine with me, even using the 1st Rounder on an appropriate QB.  That is NOT Tanneyhill at #4... though trading down for Tanny could be a workable idea.  I like that much better than selling everything to move up to #2.
SD:

Rare gems are priceless , see Peyton Manning and teams bidding with  lifetime contracts and 90 million dollar 5 year deals 60 million guraanteed in the first two years .

See also Andrew Luck who Indy wouldn't trade for four number ones  five even , after seeing what RG3 brought they're clutching even tighter.

See Cleveland blow a lock pick of similar if not more valauable worth ,  in typical Cleveland Browns coming up short fashion.

Well moving upto #2 is not an option now , however the value of that pick exceeds two drafts of grab in the bag see what you got , which is all we got left .

Said beforeit happened if the Browns didn't have Flynn in the bag , noway could they afford to blow the RG3 pick , well guess what they blew it , and like the atypical ******* whose a day late and a dollar short  Holmgen is just now realizing how much he F u C ked up.


There is something to be said for drafting an immediate starter and another for drafting a starter so talented he has the chance to be truly elite .

Difference between a 10 Karat clear diamond and a 50 karat  Cubic zirconian .

The volume aint better .


SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote