Mudfly Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 "franchise" QB......There aren't that many of them in the league, and they sure as hell don' t get traded. I would second that thought.....what team is dumb enough to trade us their QB???.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I think too many of you just throw around the term "franchise" QB. There aren't that many of them in the league, and they sure as hell don' t get traded. I didn't say they'd succeed. I said they'd try. Ok, maybe not a franchise QB, but trade for some QB. Adam Caplan thinks it is going to happen this year because the FA market for QBs is so bad this year. I wouldn't mind if they brought Locker in, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 There will, it'll just be Shaw not Manziel. Shaw will never generate the kind of public outcry pressure that JM did. Unfortunately I don't think it helps him to make excuses like having to look over his shoulder. Everybody in the NFL looks over their shoulder. I never saw Hoyer use that excuse, Steve. I saw him deny it was a factor many times. I just never bought that the JM pressure was never a factor in his deteriorating performance. ... why else would he have put JM in? Because Hoyer's play deteriorated so badly that he was left with no other choice. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I'd bet they are going to try and swing a trade for an existing franchise QB, possibly giving up multiple first-round picks to get one. Name a few. Top teams all seem to have so-called 'Franchise QBs'. Crappy teams do not. If somebody has a 'Franchise QB' why would they trade him? Makes not sense, IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Name a few. Top teams all seem to have so-called 'Franchise QBs'. Crappy teams do not. If somebody has a 'Franchise QB' why would they trade him? Makes not sense, IMHO Name a few? Kelly Holcomb, Mike Pagel, Trent Dilfer, Matt Schaub, Matt Flynn, Kirk Cousins now Nick Foles. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 if anything a team might trade their backup not knowing if he'll turn into a 'franchise' qb or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDog Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 3-Day meeting to discuss strategy and direction with an Owner that has little knowledge of football can only mean one thing. "Fail" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Thats my pick. You cant pick or sign a franchise QB that doesn't even exist Build a bullet proof core with 2 solid lines added to that bad ass defensive backfield, and we should be fine..... A great team will make an average QB much better......(rarely works the other way though) Hm. I don't think that's the case at all. How many average QB's have made it to the Super Bowl in the past 10 years? Brady, Wilson, Manning, Flacco, Kaepernick, Roethlisberger, Manning, Rodgers, Warner, Brees, Grossman, Hasselbeck, McNabb Outside of Kaepernick, Grossman and maybe Hasselbeck, seems like the common denominator has been a consistently productive to elite quarterback. There aren't many one-and-done teams in that list, but it's no coincidence that the ones that are are the ones that have the "average" quarterbacks. While building two badass lines and a solid running game sounds great on paper, it's a lot harder in implementation. That's anywhere from 8-10 contracts that you have to both align and pay. If you want 8-10 badass players, that's 8-10 badass contracts. Say you finally get those 8-10 players all signed for varying contracts. It's highly unlikely that they'll all be rookies. It's more likely you'll have to supplement with experienced, and overpaid, veterans. Now your window is even smaller to win a championship. You sign a guy who's 28, you have 2-3 years on him at best. You sign 2 guys that are 28, one guy that's 27, a few that are 25, and then you have 3 or 4 rookies that take time to develop? By the time the rookies develop and, the two 28 year olds and the 27 year old are done, and the 25 year olds are now 27-28. Now you've got to replace those guys that are gone with new rookies, which means they're going to take a few years to develop. While that above system is great, it's nothing to rely on. That's what you do when you have an established, solid franchise quarterback. Not when you're trying to mask an average QB. It's actually much easier to find a franchise quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 3-Day meeting to discuss strategy and direction with an Owner that has little knowledge of football can only mean one thing. "Fail" It's just like trying to talk football with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why?!?!? Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 It's actually much easier to find a franchise quarterback. Yeah they just fall off trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Yeah they just fall off trees. Did you read the rest of that post, you dipshit? Do yourself a favor, whenever you have an opinion...shut the fuck up. I promise you your life will be a hell of a lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why?!?!? Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 ^ Internet tough guys on this board LOL You say it's easier to find a franchise QB than to put together two good lines . . . How many elite QB's are in the league compared to good O lines and D Lines? Not to mention those elite QB's tend to operate opposite of good to very good D's and have an O-line that can block somebody. Plus you don't need every lineman to be an elite lineman and require huge contracts to have a good unit. Your post was just lacking any basis in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 ^ Internet tough guys on this board LOL You say it's easier to find a franchise QB than to put together two good lines . . . How many elite QB's are in the league compared to good O lines and D Lines? Not to mention those elite QB's tend to operate opposite of good to very good D's and have an O-line that can block somebody. Plus you don't need every lineman to be an elite lineman and require huge contracts to have a good unit. Your post was just lacking any basis in fact. No, I said it was easier to find a franchise quarterback than win a Super Bowl with two elite lines and an average quarterback. But if you'd like to contradict that point, I'd love to read it. How many "average" quarterbacks have won a Super Bowl in the last 15 years? I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why?!?!? Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I'll give you that . . . How many elite QB's have won with no run game or run D, or effective pass blocking? It doesn't matter how elite your QB is if you have none of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 it'd be nice to have an elite D, an elite O and an elite QB. the D is closer to becoming that. just need to beef up the line and a couple of LB positions. once the OL is finally fixed (which has been said now by me for 4 years, at least) then we just need people at the skill positons, WR and QB to cap it off. manziel has shown not a glimpse of being able to play in the league. i think they'll relegate him to the bench if not trade him, which means the browns resign hoyer or get a serviceable vet and then draft a late rounder hoping he can play at the nfl level. if not set your sights on the 2016 QB class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why?!?!? Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 it'd be nice to have an elite D, an elite O and an elite QB. the D is closer to becoming that. just need to beef up the line and a couple of LB positions. once the OL is finally fixed (which has been said now by me for 4 years, at least) then we just need people at the skill positons, WR and QB to cap it off. Exactly, we are finally on the verge of having two respectable lines and a good D. Turning away from completing them would be a terrible decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'll give you that . . . How many elite QB's have won with no run game or run D, or effective pass blocking? It doesn't matter how elite your QB is if you have none of those things. That's very true. I wasn't advocating for us to abandon the strategy of building from the inside out. I was simply pointing out that it's much more likely to stumble across a franchise quarterback than it is to juggle 10 franchise players along both lines and win a Super Bowl. And who says we don't already have an elite offensive line? Before Mack went down with an injury, the a Browns offensive line was ranked 1st in the league by PFF. Further, investing another first round pick doesn't guarantee it will be elite. We have two firsts and two seconds already invested in the offensive line. Compare that with Dallas, who finished the season with the first overall offensive line that features an undrafted player and a 4th round pick. We have a strong foundation on both sides of the ball. Even if we stood pat and didn't acquire a single player on either line, we'd still be in a better position than more than half of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why?!?!? Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm just tired of every time something goes wrong we freak out and do dumb things and lose sight of the long term. How many times have they drafted some offensive skill guy and then expect us to think we're going 12 - 4 the following season. I'm tired of this team using the draft to pick up some guy to sell us on, instead of building an actual team. Get a plan and stick with it. I would much rather see a few years of unsexy drafts and then go after the big name guys than the grasping at straws we've seen time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 This club at one point in the season was 7-4 and ended up 7-9. That is what I would like to see diagnosed. How and why did we collapse? I thought our running game wasn't good after Mack went down. I hope Hoyer stays with team for next season. I think he is a good QB and I wonder just how good he can be with improvements made on the offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBC mike Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 This club at one point in the season was 7-4 and ended up 7-9. That is what I would like to see diagnosed. How and why did we collapse? I thought our running game wasn't good after Mack went down. I hope Hoyer stays with team for next season. I think he is a good QB and I wonder just how good he can be with improvements made on the offense? I am still waiting for this wrecking the league thing mentioned last year. I will hold my breathe starting now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 And now find a wr we can count on being there. I'd sure love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting now. What's Amari Cooper going to cost us? What a crock of shit.. If they need 3 days to put a strategy together.. Then all 3 morons should just pack up and leave town.. Dumb! Nah- a lot to discuss. More than just strategy. You can bet every player on the team, plus coaches are on the table. Hm. I don't think that's the case at all. How many average QB's have made it to the Super Bowl in the past 10 years? Brady, Wilson, Manning, Flacco, Kaepernick, Roethlisberger, Manning, Rodgers, Warner, Brees, Grossman, Hasselbeck, McNabb It's actually much easier to find a franchise quarterback. Easy? Sure, if it's so damn "easy" why haven't the Browns been able to find one since 1999, and counting? Most of the "elite" QBs were high first round picks- or a team got hit by lightning. Brady, Wilson, (who I don't consider "elite") but his team is, Warner. The multi time SB qbs come along every three years or so- and you had better be incredibly sucky (Indy twice with Manning and now Luck) - or incredibly lucky with everyone else. Dumb luck says we should have guessed right at least once instead of Quinn, Wee-Done, and Manzielf. McCoy or Frye. And a raft of FA retreads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 3-Day meeting to discuss strategy and direction with an Owner that has little knowledge of football can only mean one thing. "Fail" It's not as if the goal of this retreat is to set a "Big Board" and an FA list. The lack of football detail at that meeting would likely stun you. Not that there will be no discussion of the on-field performance, but the focus will likely be how the entire organization performed in support of the on-field product... where it succeeded and failed. This should be a high-level, cornerstone, organizational review focusing on goals, budgets, processes and resources (people, services, etc.). If Haslam is anywhere near the businessman I think he is, then he sets the tone at the opening, delivers his impressions at the closing and in between asks a ton of tough, pointed questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's not as if the goal of this retreat is to set a "Big Board" and an FA list. The lack of football detail at that meeting would likely stun you. Not that there will be no discussion of the on-field performance, but the focus will likely be how the entire organization performed in support of the on-field product... where it succeeded and failed. This should be a high-level, cornerstone, organizational review focusing on goals, budgets, processes and resources (people, services, etc.). If Haslam is anywhere near the businessman I think he is, then he sets the tone at the opening, delivers his impressions at the closing and in between asks a ton of tough, pointed questions. I agree....sounds like a typical "year end review" type of meeting.... with an eye on "where are we going next?"....and who's doin what?.... Nothing like being on the same page..... The only dysfunction i see with this group is in the imagination of the fans who dont understand how well run operations work....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I agree....sounds like a typical "year end review" type of meeting.... with an eye on "where are we going next?"....and who's doin what?.... Nothing like being on the same page..... The only dysfunction i see with this group is in the imagination of the fans who dont understand how well run operations work....... You mean the "it didn't work immediately so fire everybody and start again" fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 How many average QB's have made it to the Super Bowl in the past 10 years? It's actually much easier to find a franchise quarterback. What is your definition of "franchise"? During your hiatus we got into this question and it became clear definitions ranged from "above average" to "elite". I suspect you're closer to the former, but some reading what you wrote are more towards the latter. As for the comparative difficulty of finding "franchise" QBs and building otherwise dominant teams... I agree... theoretically. In theory it's easier to find one player than find (and hold) a dozen or more in their prime. More so in today's cap and FA era than ever. Denver seems to be an excellent example of how hard it is compressed into three seasons. So finding talent at QB, or any position, is easy in theory... not so much in practice... at least not for us. Why? Scouting and coaching would seem to be the answer. Quality of both obviously, but also likely are stability and alignment and maybe more factors such as flexibility/ versatility. Someone has to have evaluated NFL organizations and the factors separating those with high success rates and those with high failure rates. Also defined would be how high those rates are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I agree....sounds like a typical "year end review" type of meeting.... with an eye on "where are we going next?"....and who's doin what?.... Nothing like being on the same page..... The only dysfunction i see with this group is in the imagination of the fans who dont understand how well run operations work....... Yup... I've both participated in and facilitated what I'm guessing this meeting is. Sounds like you've been in them as well. The biggest struggle of them is staying at the appropriate, "strategic" level. The pull is always there to dive into tactical issues, get into the proverbial weeds, in part because those issues are more tangible. This should be about the Scouting/ Coaching alignment checks I mentioned in an above reply. Not what do we do about our "muddy QB situation". This should be about player support systems to help prevent more Manziel, Gilbert and Gordon-like failures, and not "do we cut one or all?" You do not need a retreat to answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 What's Amari Cooper going to cost us? Nah- a lot to discuss. More than just strategy. You can bet every player on the team, plus coaches are on the table. Easy? Sure, if it's so damn "easy" why haven't the Browns been able to find one since 1999, and counting? Most of the "elite" QBs were high first round picks- or a team got hit by lightning. Brady, Wilson, (who I don't consider "elite") but his team is, Warner. The multi time SB qbs come along every three years or so- and you had better be incredibly sucky (Indy twice with Manning and now Luck) - or incredibly lucky with everyone else. Dumb luck says we should have guessed right at least once instead of Quinn, Wee-Done, and Manzielf. McCoy or Frye. And a raft of FA retreads. The reading comprehension on this board is subpar, at best. It's easy in comparison to signing ten studs across both lines and aligning those contracts, saving cap space for other positions, etc. Maybe a good rule of thumb is "don't place your franchise hopes on a QB that took a monumental fall on the first day of the NFL Draft." Maybe another good rule of thumb is "don't place your franchise hopes in mediocre, game-managing mid round project quarterback". We've tried both of those methods multiple times...didn't seem to work out for us. You don't plan on finding a Brady. You don't plan on finding a Wilson. Neither the Patriots nor the Seahawks drafted their respective quarterbacks with the intention of them starting immediately. They were project QB's that had certain intangibles that outweiged their negatives, in Wilson's case it outweighed his height issues and in Brady's case it outweighed his slightly mediocre statistical performance and child-like look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 What is your definition of "franchise"? During your hiatus we got into this question and it became clear definitions ranged from "above average" to "elite". I suspect you're closer to the former, but some reading what you wrote are more towards the latter. As for the comparative difficulty of finding "franchise" QBs and building otherwise dominant teams... I agree... theoretically. In theory it's easier to find one player than find (and hold) a dozen or more in their prime. More so in today's cap and FA era than ever. Denver seems to be an excellent example of how hard it is compressed into three seasons. So finding talent at QB, or any position, is easy in theory... not so much in practice... at least not for us. Why? Scouting and coaching would seem to be the answer. Quality of both obviously, but also likely are stability and alignment and maybe more factors such as flexibility/ versatility. Someone has to have evaluated NFL organizations and the factors separating those with high success rates and those with high failure rates. Also defined would be how high those rates are. In a perfect world, a franchise quarterback is the key cog of your team. Floor- Flacco, Ceiling- Brady. It's a nebulous concept, I understand. I kind of look at it this way: Face of the franchise? Consistent team success? Consistent individual success? Dynamic or unique skill set? Strong leadership? Some are quantifiable, some are not. But all are common traits among franchise QB's throughout history. Based off of that list, franchise QB's are as follows: Tier 1 - (Can't do without) Brady Manning Roethlisberger Flacco Wilson Luck Brees Tier 2- (Probably can't do without) Dalton Newton Stafford Ryan Other Manning Romo Tier 1 quarterbacks are interchangeable among themselves. Tier 2 quarterbacks are, predictably, only beaten by Tier 1 quarterbacks. So on and so forth. Scouting and coaching have always been an issue for the Browns, but I think it goes deeper than "we had shit scouts and shit coaches". People like to claim that Cleveland has been monumentally terrible at drafting QB's, that nothing we can do is right...which is true, to an extent. But it's not nearly has bad as it's made out to be. We've only tried drafting one high-level franchise savior - Tim Couch. For reasons beyond Couch's control, he failed. Any QB would have failed with that team. No line help, no receiver help, no runningback help. It was a very poor Browns team. Our other first round QB's (Quinn, Weeden, and Manziel) were taken in the late first, after 20 or more teams had passed on them. Quinn and Manziel had monumental slides, falling from Top 5 prospects to late first round fliers. That's not "franchise material". Those were scared, ill-informed picks. Quinn fits into maybe two of the aforementioned criterium of franchise QB's - unique and team success. He wasn't a leader and he's a very vanilla prospect. Nothing stood out about him except his wonky throw. Manziel... we could talk for days about what qualities he does and doesn't possess. Weeden was never meant to be a first round pick. That was a panic move and a large reach. There were numerous questions about him. His offensive system. His lack of mobility. Playing in a weak defensive conference. Having a top WR. His age. His leadership. Like Rodgers, all three of those guys should have waited. Unfortunately, they couldn't. Due to not having other QB's or simple age limitations, those first round projects were thrust into the spotlight and, predictably, collapsed. Not a recipe for success. Frye and McCoy were never meant to be franchise saviors. They were third round prospects with some qualities and a lot of knocks. They were projects. Yet, due to poor play from our other quarterbacks, they became the "unlikely saviors". Then, once the magic wears off, we're left with mediocre talented game managers on a team devoid of playmakers. Also not a recipe for success. Anderson, of all of our draft picks, may have honestly been the best QB pick in terms of value, franchise potential and talent. Unfortunately, he got run out of town. Now he's the best backup in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDog Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's just like trying to talk football with you. Right Johnny Manziel lover. HOw did that draft pick work out for you? You got talent picking the "fail". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDog Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 In a perfect world, a franchise quarterback is the key cog of your team. Floor- Flacco, Ceiling- Brady. It's a nebulous concept, I understand. I kind of look at it this way: Face of the franchise? Consistent team success? Consistent individual success? Dynamic or unique skill set? Strong leadership? Some are quantifiable, some are not. But all are common traits among franchise QB's throughout history. Based off of that list, franchise QB's are as follows: Tier 1 - (Can't do without) Brady Manning Roethlisberger Flacco Wilson Luck Brees Tier 2- (Probably can't do without) Dalton Newton Stafford Ryan Other Manning Romo Tier 1 quarterbacks are interchangeable among themselves. Tier 2 quarterbacks are, predictably, only beaten by Tier 1 quarterbacks. So on and so forth. Scouting and coaching have always been an issue for the Browns, but I think it goes deeper than "we had shit scouts and shit coaches". People like to claim that Cleveland has been monumentally terrible at drafting QB's, that nothing we can do is right...which is true, to an extent. But it's not nearly has bad as it's made out to be. We've only tried drafting one high-level franchise savior - Tim Couch. For reasons beyond Couch's control, he failed. Any QB would have failed with that team. No line help, no receiver help, no runningback help. It was a very poor Browns team. Our other first round QB's (Quinn, Weeden, and Manziel) were taken in the late first, after 20 or more teams had passed on them. Quinn and Manziel had monumental slides, falling from Top 5 prospects to late first round fliers. That's not "franchise material". Those were scared, ill-informed picks. Quinn fits into maybe two of the aforementioned criterium of franchise QB's - unique and team success. He wasn't a leader and he's a very vanilla prospect. Nothing stood out about him except his wonky throw. Manziel... we could talk for days about what qualities he does and doesn't possess. Weeden was never meant to be a first round pick. That was a panic move and a large reach. There were numerous questions about him. His offensive system. His lack of mobility. Playing in a weak defensive conference. Having a top WR. His age. His leadership. Like Rodgers, all three of those guys should have waited. Unfortunately, they couldn't. Due to not having other QB's or simple age limitations, those first round projects were thrust into the spotlight and, predictably, collapsed. Not a recipe for success. Frye and McCoy were never meant to be franchise saviors. They were third round prospects with some qualities and a lot of knocks. They were projects. Yet, due to poor play from our other quarterbacks, they became the "unlikely saviors". Then, once the magic wears off, we're left with mediocre talented game managers on a team devoid of playmakers. Also not a recipe for success. Anderson, of all of our draft picks, may have honestly been the best QB pick in terms of value, franchise potential and talent. Unfortunately, he got run out of town. Now he's the best backup in the league. Not even going to bother reading a post from someone that think Manziel was going to be a star in this league. Go ahead. Watch a few youtube videos and think you know something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.