Official Browns QB Prospect Discussion!

[Shep]

Great post. Agree with everything.

 

They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.

 

We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.

 

I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...

[Shep]

Fucking. Hilarious. And can he also have "moxie?"

 

Is there a noodle-armed college QB with loose tangential connections to the Cleveland area? If so, that's our guy. Bonus points if he has pictures of himself as a kid dressed up in one of those old Bernie Kosar uniforms.

[Westside Steve]

Shep you probably spend more time considering the situation than anyone here. If you were the GM and no one to argue with who do you take and where? We are assuming things that should be assumed in the real world. That means you can't get Bridgewater but you could possibly give two firsts and a second for anyone else in the draft. Or you can trade one of your firsts or wait for round 2. or whatever you decide.

(I assume you are going quarterback before anything else? Or would you take a qb with your lower first or your second and take another position at number one?)

Which is the one you want and what do you give?

WSS

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I feel like this has been said, then rehashed, and the rehashing has been then repeated, copied, pasted, linked to, broken down, analyzed, disagreed with, agreed with, admonished, and then ignored:

 

 

Trading up for a QB would be a worse move than not selecting one at all.

 

 

 

 

I'll just break it down into simple scenarios.

 

 

By trading up to get a QB, we are basically guaranteeing two things:

 

1) This is THE GUY of this FO.

 

2) The careers, in Cleveland, of the FO essentially rest in his hands.

 

With those two things guaranteed, let's look at the possibilities of what can happen.

 

Now, there's four general scenarios that could possibly play out regarding the QB. These are generalizations. Specific scenarios will, of course, fall under the umbrella of one of these four general scenarios.

 

a) He blows up and proves he is a franchise pick.

 

b) He plays mediocre football.

 

c) He blows absolute dick.

 

d) He, for some odd reason, doesn't start day one.

 

Of those four scenarios, fans will be pissed for three of them (b, c and d).

 

If a happens, we have our franchise pick. The trade up was successful.

 

If b happens, fans will be upset and the questioning of the trade up will begin. Unfortunately, there won't be enough evidence to make a decision after one season, so they will get another season. The result is undetermined.

 

If c happens, fans will be upset, the questioning of the trade up will begin, and the FO may all lose their jobs by seasons end. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

If d happens, fans will be upset and question why he's not starting, and will voice their disapproval until the new guy gets put in. The results are undetermined.

 

Now, of those four scenarios, two of them require further investigating (b and d).

 

Assuming b happens, and the QB gets another year, then three things will then happen:

 

b1) He is amazing.

 

b2) He is mediocre.

 

b3) He blows absolute dick.

 

 

If b1 happens, we have our franchise pick. The trade up was successful.

 

If b2 happens, fans will be even more upset, and the FO will probably be fired. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

If b3 happens, fans will be very upset, and the FO will definitely be fired. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

 

Assuming d happens, and the new guy comes in after a few games, there are three outcomes:

 

d1) The new guy comes in and does well.

 

d2) The new guy comes in and does mediocre.

 

d3) The new guy comes in and blows absolute dick.

 

 

If d1 happens, we will have found our franchise QB. The trade up was successful.

 

If d2 happens, the fans will be upset that we traded up for him only to have him sit, and then will be upset that he isn't a gamechanger. Honestly, the FO would probably get another year, but I'm tired of doing this, so I'll call it a wash. The results of the trade up were neither bad nor good.

 

If d3 happens, the fans will be upset that we traded up for him only to have him sit, and then will be upset because he's awful. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

 

 

 

So, of the possible 10 outcomes, 3 of them are successful, 4 are unsuccessful, and one is neither successful nor unsuccessful. For a draft where there's no surefire franchise QB but a handful of guys who might be good, trading up to take one wouldn't make any logical sense.

 

Now, taking the best QB available at our regular first or second draft pick would lessen the pressure for the QB to be great. This leaves the chance that, assuming the QB doesn't turn out to be a franchise caliber player, the FO can claim there wasn't a player they liked available. This would save their jobs.

 

At the end of the day, its about their job security.

[Westside Steve]

I don't think the fans are upset about option D. I'd guess most people expressed the desire to have the rookie sit on the bench especially in one of two instances:

A Campbell recovers from his shitty game on Sunday and looks okay for the rest of the season. And B Hoyer comes back 100 percent next season. Or a combination of a and b..

WSS

[D Bone]

Totally agree with TCPO.....Good post.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I don't think the fans are upset about option D. I'd guess most people expressed the desire to have the rookie sit on the bench especially in one of two instances:

A Campbell recovers from his shitty game on Sunday and looks okay for the rest of the season. And B Hoyer comes back 100 percent next season. Or a combination of a and b..

WSS

Right, but I think that all flies out of the window if we trade up to get him. If we take a guy at our normal draft position, I don't think people would mind him sitting. But a trade up? That's different.

[cuwoohio]

They are going to draft a QB... How they do it doesn't matter... Montana > Hoyer > R.Leaf. It doesn't matter where he falls, we need to get a young QB on this roster. Honestly, I can predict about 5 QBs who will be rookies next year who would clearly beat him out for the starting QB spot.

 

We can afford to trade picks to move up (THIS year's picks only hopefully), but we must have a trade partner. Probably takes Bridgewater and even Mariota off the table. So, really there is no possibility of trading the "farm." Get Hundley (if he comes out), Manziel (if you want to take the risk), or Carr (if he falls in your lap)... and we improved that position, whether they're starting or backing up. If you miss on all of them, take McCarron or even Mettenberger, they're upgrades over Weeden.

 

I'll gladly trade both our first rounders to get the QB they want... it is the most important position...

 

Amen to that. Has to be the #1 goal of the next draft. Get their guy, but don't use the following years picks.

[Unsympathetic]

RG3's passing is the same level as Cleveland's 4-headed monster. Yes, RG3 gets a few more rushing yards.. but all those picks by Washington has got them nothing more than our passing level this year.

 

So don't waste all the picks to trade up...

[Tour2ma]

Petty passes McCarron...

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2013/11/2013_college_quarterback_repor_2.html

 

No surprise there... Baylor is the hot team team right now. Let's see what the tune is after if the OSU game... OK State that is... it's a regional thang...

 

From the article: "Relying on timing, anticipation, ball placement and decision-making have worked at Alabama."

 

God knows we need to steer clear of any QB with those attributes....

 

 

Tour, I didn't get the, "That's what you call it?" You mean, it's bad to ponder a number of draftable quarterbacks in November, bounce between discussing each of their merits, consider the possibility, go down the road? Why is that bad? In what way? Or did I misunderstand you?

 

No... I meant that at that moment I'd had it. I just could no longer keep up with your changing views and opinions.

It's as exhausting as your list of fav QBs in the draft is exhaustive.

I hung in there as long as I could.

 

You are probably a great guy and someone whom I would hang out with, but your QB insider posts, well they irritate me.

 

Someone was saying Manziel looks like someone but he can't think who: Hugh Hefner maybe? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BW-ALqHCEAAqxpC.jpg

 

Was exactly my first thought...

[thenew23]

TCPO...

 

You're missing the fact that the guy who would pull the trigger on the trades, is the f***ing CEO. Who is he going to fire if he makes the wrong pick?? himself?? You think Haslam will fire him?? That's a joke. Job security is not the problem.

 

If they trade up, it will be to make sure they don't miss the next great. Passing on a guy who turns out great, looks worse than being aggressive and having it flop...

 

Either way. Can't we at least agree that we need a new QB on this roster...? Or, are there really people here willing to go into next season riding the Hoyer train... WOW...

[hoorta]

I think somebody else put it this way: The Browns don't want to draft 10 guys. That wasn't really the point of adding extra picks. They have the 2nd youngest team in the NFL as it is. They'd certainly like to add some experience and maturity in free agency, young-ish veterans and key contributors like Kruger and Bryant. Probably a proven RG, a quality WR, a legit CB with size... something like that.

 

The point of adding picks was to create possibilities. I doubt we'll draft more than 6 or 7 guys, but higher than our current positions. They can go get players they covet. Last year, we settled at corner after that really fast guy was taken just ahead of us... and then missed out on Vance McDonald.

 

EDIT: Robert Alford, taken late 2nd by Falcons, rumored to have fried the panties of the Browns' brass. He has 17 tackles, 2 picks, and 6 PDs.

 

You're forgetting what the Browns did this past spring. Traded a fifth for a fourth, and fourth for a third. So how in the hell do you know they won't trade that third for a second, or their second for a first in 2015? You don't. They could also trade both thirds to move up into the second, Both fourths to move up into the third, trade the high (or both) third(s) and the second to move back up into the first- giving them three first round picks, how's that for some scenario playing with picks, off the top of my head? We can trade picks for players too. Consider your "too many picks" debunked.

 

 

The issue for me Shep is throughout this, and other threads you make post after post saying things like "The Browns openly said acquiring another first round pick gave them the ability to move up to get a quarterback" when in fact, they have not said anything close to this, and if they did I would lose all faith in them as it's no one's business what the Browns intentions for draft day actually are.

 

You write as though you were in the board room talking with the boys, and it's a forgone conclusion that they will be "aggressively trading up with all their extra picks, and targeting their coveted QB of the future". When in fact it's just your opinion, based on what you'd like to see them do, as well as reading other writers opinions.

 

The bottom line is you know nothing more about what the Browns are going to do than I, or anyone else on this forum knows. You having an opinion on what they should do is great, and welcomed, just as anyone else's is. But when you write your posts as though it is fact, and you somehow have inside knowledge, comes off as condescending, to me at least.............You are probably a great guy and someone whom I would hang out with, but your QB insider posts, well they irritate me.

 

Let's see what Banner did say, not what Shep thinks the Browns are going to do courtesy of the Ohio.com article.

 

"On whether the strong performances of Campbell and Hoyer this season could keep the Browns from picking a quarterback in the early in the 2014 draft: “I think we're going to have to get to the end of the season and see exactly where we are. Our commitment to the draft is to try and pick the best players we can as opposed to trying to force anything at any positions. So I think we've got a lot left to learn as the season goes on in terms of finding what we want to do and where the strengths of the draft are.”

 

Hoorta: What if Banner decides we can't keep\ afford Mack or Ward? There's a couple glaring holes that would need to be addressed with picks, or trades.

 

Banner : "On if the 2014 quarterback class is as great as most people assume it is: “It’s too early to say that. I think there’s a number of prospects out there. It’s too early to say what the storytelling versus the eventual assessments are going to be.”

 

Right. I think the Browns made it about as clear as they could and "insiders" took it the rest of the way. In my humble (not really) opinion, it's fairly obvious when a team without a franchise QB starts accumulating draft assets.

 

They "all but said it," is the way I think I've put it a few times. The Browns flirted with the idea of E.J. Manuel, passed, saw all they needed to see of Weeden, then traded Richardson for a first round pick. It's pretty clear and I think it was spoken of, at least in the hypothetical.

 

I think Hoyer had a chance to change the plans... but then he blew out his knee. At this point, I think the chances of the Browns NOT taking a quarterback with their highest chip(s) are at 0.0003.

 

They may well use one of their first round picks on a qb. If they use both, refer to TCPO's excellent take.

[koalabazooka]

It depends on what draft position CLE ends up with. I say draft a QB with the first pick and then a RB w/ the T-Rich-trade pick. Or if all the superstar QBs are gone by CLE's 1st pick, they could go RB first and then draft Carr or Manziel. Wouldn't mind if CLE snatched Lynch in the 3rd.

[gftChris]

It depends on what draft position CLE ends up with. I say draft a QB with the first pick and then a RB w/ the T-Rich-trade pick. Or if all the superstar QBs are gone by CLE's 1st pick, they could go RB first and then draft Carr or Manziel. Wouldn't mind if CLE snatched Lynch in the 3rd.

If they go RB with the first pick there might be a mutiny. That being said, Banner/Lombardi don't seem to put much stock in RBs, so I wouldn't be surprised if we waited until the 3rd round to get one. That is, assuming we don't sign someone like Ben Tate in FA to go with Lewis and Ogbonnaya.

[ballpeen]

I agree. I doubt we go running back in the first.

 

As has been said, we may trade up for a QB, but I don't know that we will have to do that. I think Bridgewater goes #1 and we won't have what it takes to get there, then there are 4-5 guys who are pretty much the same in so far as evaluations. They may play slightly different games, but in the end they are all about the same grade. I doubt all of them get drafted before our draft slot.

 

We may not even go QB until round 2. I like both McCarron and Murray and think both will be there in round 2. I think I'd like to see us take a receiver with one top pick, then maybe a O lineman with the other...possible switch that with another corner or safety, but Skrines play of late is making another corner less of a need.

[ballpeen]

Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.

[gftChris]

Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.

I'd bristle, because I want to see entertainment from my team. I'd rather win 41-40 than 10-9. An elite D is a great thing to have, but you still need to be able to put up points.

[thenew23]

Another thought is we are pretty close to having a elite D. Maybe we just take it to that level and go D with both 1st rounders. I know some will bristle, but I would trade both 1st rounders for Clowney. I can see him a 15-20 sacks a year type player for a good number of years.

Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?

 

Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

TCPO...

 

You're missing the fact that the guy who would pull the trigger on the trades, is the f***ing CEO. Who is he going to fire if he makes the wrong pick?? himself?? You think Haslam will fire him?? That's a joke. Job security is not the problem.

 

If they trade up, it will be to make sure they don't miss the next great. Passing on a guy who turns out great, looks worse than being aggressive and having it flop...

 

Either way. Can't we at least agree that we need a new QB on this roster...? Or, are there really people here willing to go into next season riding the Hoyer train... WOW...

I'm positive Haslam would fire him. Haslam is a bottom line guy. If the Browns aren't winning, the fans aren't happy. If the fans aren't happy, Haslam's earning potential takes a hit.

 

There's no doubt in my mind Haslam would fire him.

 

I have no problem trading up to get the next great. The problem is, I don't see a great anywhere in the draft. I see about five guys who have an equal stake at being either great or garbage. To me, that's not worth a trade up.

 

I'm willing to go into next season riding the Hoyer train if, and only if, we take a QB with our late first, second, or early third and let him sit and learn.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?

 

Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...

Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.

 

What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?

 

Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.

[Westside Steve]

Right, but I think that all flies out of the window if we trade up to get him. If we take a guy at our normal draft position, I don't think people would mind him sitting. But a trade up? That's different.

that certainly could be true but as we remember from your namesake who was number one in the first throwing him into the fire was a terrible terrible idea. And the guy we would be trading up for is he going to be a middle-of-the-road prospect compared to Andrew Luck or someone else actually worthy of two number ones.

I'm just crossing my fingers that Hoyer comes back and kicks ass.

WSS

[D Bone]

What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?

 

 

 

Literal lol............. Followed by a figurative lmao

[The Gipper]

I feel like this has been said, then rehashed, and the rehashing has been then repeated, copied, pasted, linked to, broken down, analyzed, disagreed with, agreed with, admonished, and then ignored:

 

 

Trading up for a QB would be a worse move than not selecting one at all.

 

 

 

 

I'll just break it down into simple scenarios.

 

 

By trading up to get a QB, we are basically guaranteeing two things:

 

1) This is THE GUY of this FO.

 

2) The careers, in Cleveland, of the FO essentially rest in his hands.

 

With those two things guaranteed, let's look at the possibilities of what can happen.

 

Now, there's four general scenarios that could possibly play out regarding the QB. These are generalizations. Specific scenarios will, of course, fall under the umbrella of one of these four general scenarios.

 

a) He blows up and proves he is a franchise pick.

 

b) He plays mediocre football.

 

c) He blows absolute dick.

 

d) He, for some odd reason, doesn't start day one.

 

Of those four scenarios, fans will be pissed for three of them (b, c and d).

 

If a happens, we have our franchise pick. The trade up was successful.

 

If b happens, fans will be upset and the questioning of the trade up will begin. Unfortunately, there won't be enough evidence to make a decision after one season, so they will get another season. The result is undetermined.

 

If c happens, fans will be upset, the questioning of the trade up will begin, and the FO may all lose their jobs by seasons end. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

If d happens, fans will be upset and question why he's not starting, and will voice their disapproval until the new guy gets put in. The results are undetermined.

 

Now, of those four scenarios, two of them require further investigating (b and d).

 

Assuming b happens, and the QB gets another year, then three things will then happen:

 

b1) He is amazing.

 

b2) He is mediocre.

 

b3) He blows absolute dick.

 

 

If b1 happens, we have our franchise pick. The trade up was successful.

 

If b2 happens, fans will be even more upset, and the FO will probably be fired. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

If b3 happens, fans will be very upset, and the FO will definitely be fired. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

 

Assuming d happens, and the new guy comes in after a few games, there are three outcomes:

 

d1) The new guy comes in and does well.

 

d2) The new guy comes in and does mediocre.

 

d3) The new guy comes in and blows absolute dick.

 

 

If d1 happens, we will have found our franchise QB. The trade up was successful.

 

If d2 happens, the fans will be upset that we traded up for him only to have him sit, and then will be upset that he isn't a gamechanger. Honestly, the FO would probably get another year, but I'm tired of doing this, so I'll call it a wash. The results of the trade up were neither bad nor good.

 

If d3 happens, the fans will be upset that we traded up for him only to have him sit, and then will be upset because he's awful. The trade up was unsuccessful.

 

 

 

 

So, of the possible 10 outcomes, 3 of them are successful, 4 are unsuccessful, and one is neither successful nor unsuccessful. For a draft where there's no surefire franchise QB but a handful of guys who might be good, trading up to take one wouldn't make any logical sense.

 

Now, taking the best QB available at our regular first or second draft pick would lessen the pressure for the QB to be great. This leaves the chance that, assuming the QB doesn't turn out to be a franchise caliber player, the FO can claim there wasn't a player they liked available. This would save their jobs.

 

At the end of the day, its about their job security.

Can you help me with my algebra homework?

[The Gipper]

Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?

 

Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...

On the other hand, with a great D, maybe we turn it around and frequently be the beneficiary of a 4-5 TO day.

Let's face it, the greatest defenses in history are probably the ones that got the most Turnovers. Check this article out:

 

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS: TURNOVERS ARE KEY TO VICTORY

Winning the turnover battle is one of the keys to success in the National Football League.

“It’s all about the number of possessions,” says NFL Network analyst and former head coach STEVE MARIUCCI about the importance of turnovers. “It’s about possession time, clock time and the number of chances to score points. If you give the ball away three times a game, that’s three opportunities out of 12 or 13 that you don’t have a chance to score. Plus, you’re providing the other team with a short field. It’s quite evident that if you lose the turnover battle, then you lose a very high percentage of those games.”

Statistics show that in the NFL, teams with positive turnover ratios have a significantly higher probability of winning. Over the past five full seasons, clubs with more takeaways than giveaways have a combined 810-220-2 (.786) record.

A breakdown of teams’ records within varying degrees of turnover ratio and the total for clubs with a positive differential:

 

SEASON

+1

+2

+3 OR MORE

TOTAL

WIN PCT.

2008

66-28

46-12

44-8-1

156-48-1

.763

2009

64-31

49-14

51-2

164-47

.777

2010

66-27

49-10

57-3

172-40

.811

2011

63-33

56-9

37-1

156-43

.784

2012

64-30-1

43-9

55-3

162-42-1

.793

TOTAL

323-149-1

243-54

244-17-1

810-220-2

.786

The trend has continued this season as teams with a positive turnover differential have a 72-17 (.809) record.

 

SEASON

+1

+2

+3 OR MORE

TOTAL

WIN PCT.

2013

29-11

26-5

17-1

72-17

.809

“Turnovers play a big role in football,” says former NFL head coach DICK VERMEIL. “When I was coaching, turnovers were something I would emphasize, emphasize some more, and then keep emphasizing. On the field, in the meeting room, in training camp, in minicamp. All the time. We always stressed the importance of ball security and taking the ball away.

 

“I used to put up charts detailing the numbers every week. When you stress the importance of turnovers, the players understand. I used to hear players on the sidelines saying ‘Hey, we’re +1.’ They knew exactly what the turnover differential was. And they knew their chances of winning the game were better.”

 

This season, the Kansas City Chiefs have used a league-best +12 turnover differential (20 takeaways, eight giveaways) to help build an NFL-best 8-0 record.

 

“Turnovers can be demoralizing to the opposing team, especially when points are scored as a result of them,” says Chiefs head coach ANDY REID. “It can be a real momentum swing during the course of the game.”

 

Last year, five of the seven teams with a turnover differential of at least +10 – New England (+25), Washington (+17), Seattle (+13), Atlanta (+13) and Houston (+12) – made the playoffs and combined for a 58-22 record (.725).

 

Those seven teams all finished with a winning record and combined for a 77-35 (.688) mark.

 

The seven teams with a +10 or better turnover differential in 2012:

 

 

TEAM

TAKEAWAYS

GIVEAWAYS

DIFFERENTIAL

RECORD

New England*

41

16

+25

12-4

Chicago

44

24

+20

10-6

Washington*

31

14

+17

10-6

New York Giants

35

21

+14

9-7

Seattle*

31

18

+13

11-5

Atlanta*

31

18

+13

13-3

Houston*

29

17

+12

12-4

 

TOTAL

77-35 (.688)

*Qualified for playoffs

 

“You win games when you force turnovers on defense,” says St. Louis Rams head coach JEFF FISHER. “You never get tired of preaching turnovers, that’s one of the key factors in wins and losses.”

 

This season, the top five teams in turnover differential have combined for a 40-13 (.755) record.

 

 

TEAM

TAKEAWAYS

GIVEAWAYS

DIFFERENTIAL

RECORD

Kansas City

20

8

+12

8-0

Dallas

19

10

+9

4-4

Seattle

21

12

+9

7-1

New Orleans

15

7

+8

6-1

Indianapolis

13

6

+7

5-2

New England

16

9

+7

6-2

Chicago

18

11

+7

4-3

 

TOTAL

40-13 (.755)

 

“Forcing a turnover is an impact play,” says Carolina Panthers head coach RON RIVERA. “It gets your offense back on the field and it swings momentum.”

 

[ballpeen]

Our "elite D" sure helped us when we got slaughtered by the Bengals (in obvious sarcastic voice)... right?

 

Our D is great... no doubt, and could even be better, but, they can't make up for such abysmal QB play... they just can't... The offense has to move the ball and get first downs to AT LEAST take the field position advantage. Turnovers on your own side of the field and 3-and-outs outweigh what a D can do any day...

The D scored points and didn't get two kicks blocked. Quit talking like you don't know anything.

 

I don't agree we need a new QB. I think Hoyer can be a good player. I will say I won't mind if we bring in a new QB, be it a polished high rounder or a 2nd or 3rd rounder. To me it's all about improving the team is the best possible way. If that means we have a QB and he actually works out, great. If that means we don't like any we can get, then improve in another area.

 

It's easy to say get a QB. The problem is sometimes there aren't any to get.

 

You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.

[gftChris]

Our elite d was on the sidelines for two of those scores, had a very short field to defend for a third score, and was constantly left in bad positions because of the offense's ineptitude at moving the ball.

 

What did you want them to do from the sideline? Throw their shoes?

 

Our elite d is the only thing that kept the Bengals from dropping 75 on us.

I think the point being made here is that while the D is elite, or close to, they still couldn't help us overcome the giant turd laid by offence and ST. ST are normally fine, so I'm happy writing that off as an aberration, but the O clearly needs to be improved in a big way. The D is there, but they can't win games on their own. They put us in a position to win, and if the offence could get the touchdown on a red zone trip we would have been 21-0 up instead of 13-0.

[Westside Steve]

 

You were probably all over Brady Quinns jock when we drafted him.

I freely admit that I was. What's not to like? Notre Dame who I love when they're not playing the Buckeyes or the University of Akron Zips, Irish guy, from Ohio, Browns fan... What the fucks not to like? Same with Charlie Frye even though he seemed a little bit more hillbilly that Quinn he's one of our own and I went to Akron. So there. So they didn't work out. Sorry if I was disappointed.

but let's not pretend that the number one factor in being a Cleveland Browns fan, or at least way way way near the top, isnt territorial loyalty.

WSS

[miktoxic]

I found this, which is a more restrained version of that:

 

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/browns-ceo-joe-banner-addresses-quarterback-situation-state-of-team-1.444524

On if the 2014 quarterback class is as great as most people assume it is: “It’s too early to say that. I think there’s a number of prospects out there. It’s too early to say what the storytelling versus the eventual assessments are going to be.”

On if he still believes the 2014 draft would be better than the 2013 draft: “I was optimistic that that was the case. I think from what we’re seeing that I still believe this is going to be a draft that is going to a fairly strong draft. It’s too early to say that conclusively, but the optimism we had about that in April, I’d say we’re even more optimistic now.”

 

those quotes aren't even close to what shep said came out of the FO. but you guys can still try to make things up.

 

 

 

 

Someone was saying Manziel looks like someone but he can't think who:

 

Hugh Hefner maybe?

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BW-ALqHCEAAqxpC.jpg

 

yeah he looks like this 'DICK":

 

 

acts like him too.

 

fuck both those pieces of shit.

 

just what we'd need in cleveland, a QB with the skills of donovan mcnabb, the morals of pacman jones and would show up to the game as drunk as bernie is now.

[BadNewsBrowns]

Who was that child actor red head kid with the big schnoz... looks just like freakin Manziel.

 

Can't think of any movies he was in and no idea what his name is.. I think he might have been on some tv show.

[BadNewsBrowns]

AHA! I fuckin found it god damn I love the internet...remember this dude?