Draft Talk

[Westside Steve]

 

I agree Steve. We just didn't know the cave-in had already started under the pressure of having won the Heisman so young. Wasn't mature enough to handle what came from that point on.

Garrett on the other hand learned early to have a real calm life without drugs/alcohol after his older brother lost an NBA career over those issues.

I hope so. It seems that Garrett is the consensus best player in the draft so if we get him I hope he's a solid citizen too.

WSS

[TexasAg1969]

I hope so. It seems that Garrett is the consensus best player in the draft so if we get him I hope he's a solid citizen too.

WSS

His biggest vice is that he wants to be a paleontologist and own his own museum featuring dinosaurs some day. He does not participate in social media. Considers it a waste of your life. You know, kind of what we all do here.

[darren15]

I hope so. It seems that Garrett is the consensus best player in the draft so if we get him I hope he's a solid citizen too.

WSS

 

He just hired Johnny Manziel as his agent

[darren15]

Watson 49 on this big board

 

http://section215.com/2017/01/13/philadelphia-eagles-draft-benjamin-solak-top-100-big-board/2/

[Westside Steve]

His biggest vice is that he wants to be a paleontologist and own his own museum featuring dinosaurs some day. He does not participate in social media. Considers it a waste of your life. You know, kind of what we all do here.

Yeah, well, odds are that none of us are going to get picked in the first round anyway so...

WSS

[TexasAg1969]

 

He just hired Johnny Manziel as his agent

 

Put a laugh or put it in pink. He's too busy next month signing autographs for $99 and selfies with him for $50 in Katy and the Woodlands.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/01/johnny_manziel_will_sign_autog.html

[CaineDeSoulis]

Your score is: 10046 (GRADE: B+)

Your Picks:
Round 1 Pick 1: Myles Garrett, DE/OLB, Texas A&M (A+)
Round 1 Pick 12: Reuben Foster, ILB, Alabama (A)
Round 2 Pick 1: Christian McCaffrey, RB, Stanford (B+)
Round 2 Pick 20: Marcus Williams, FS, Utah (A+)
Round 3 Pick 1: Tyler Orlosky, C, West Virginia (A)
Round 4 Pick 1: Howard Wilson, CB, Houston (A)
Round 5 Pick 32: Davis Webb, QB, California (A)
Round 6 Pick 1: Ryan Switzer, WR, North Carolina (A)

Comp picks are CB,OLB,OT,CB in that order

I really really like this draft. We have a big bodied Strong armed QB to develop. Switzer and McCaffrey both guys who can return punts and Kicks and excel in their positions. 2 Highly rated defensive secondary players. The top MLB paired with the top Edge of the draft should really solidify our front 7 for years to come. and Sweet christ we have a center.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I can't shake the feeling we're going Garrett then Kizer.

 

I'm still almost certain I recall HueShi saying something about the best QB in college football not being in the draft last year. That wouldn't be referencing Trubisky at all, since it was before he started. Obviously, most would think that would be Watson. However, we've had a scout at "an inordinate amount" of Kizer's games this year per NFL.com.

 

The hiring of Williams and the non firing of DL coach Nunn are pretty solid indicators (IMO) we'll likely be moving to a traditional 4-man 1-gap scheme. Garrett just makes too much sense at #1.

 

The main knock on Kizer isn't that he's incapable, it's that he's too green. He needs to season. We're in the perfect scenario to let that happen with both RG3 and Kessler getting game time in 2016.

 

A QB at #1 would be too hard to rationalize sitting in Cleveland. The fans just wouldn't have it, unfortunately. We'd be in a Jacksonville situation, forcing a raw QB to start because of fan pressure. A QB at #12, taken after selecting the top player in the draft, becomes a luxury pick more than a necessity. It's easier to rationalize sitting him.

 

Is that the scenario I want? Not necessarily. But right now, in my opinion, that seems like the scenario that's most likely to play out.

[CaineDeSoulis]

I can't shake the feeling we're going Garrett then Kizer.

 

I'm still almost certain I recall HueShi saying something about the best QB in college football not being in the draft last year. That wouldn't be referencing Trubisky at all, since it was before he started. Obviously, most would think that would be Watson. However, we've had a scout at "an inordinate amount" of Kizer's games this year per NFL.com.

 

The hiring of Williams and the non firing of DL coach Nunn are pretty solid indicators (IMO) we'll likely be moving to a traditional 4-man 1-gap scheme. Garrett just makes too much sense at #1.

 

The main knock on Kizer isn't that he's incapable, it's that he's too green. He needs to season. We're in the perfect scenario to let that happen with both RG3 and Kessler getting game time in 2016.

 

A QB at #1 would be too hard to rationalize sitting in Cleveland. The fans just wouldn't have it, unfortunately. We'd be in a Jacksonville situation, forcing a raw QB to start because of fan pressure. A QB at #12, taken after selecting the top player in the draft, becomes a luxury pick more than a necessity. It's easier to rationalize sitting him.

 

Is that the scenario I want? Not necessarily. But right now, in my opinion, that seems like the scenario that's most likely to play out.

I really think the 49ers and the bears go QB leaving the 3rd best QB to us at 12. It could be Kizer but it's more likely that the bears pick up kizer as they have a line for a more mobile QB as do the 49ers. In Regards to Kizer we stopped actively scouting him after the stanford debacle.

 

Kizer did average in his first year starting and below average this year. Even after watching all the game tape available I'm flabbergasted why people are even putting him in the First round.

[The Gipper]

 

Akron Native Chrissie Hynde is a Browns fan......and she wants a Quarterback.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I really think the 49ers and the bears go QB leaving the 3rd best QB to us at 12. It could be Kizer but it's more likely that the bears pick up kizer as they have a line for a more mobile QB as do the 49ers. In Regards to Kizer we stopped actively scouting him after the stanford debacle.

 

Kizer did average in his first year starting and below average this year. Even after watching all the game tape available I'm flabbergasted why people are even putting him in the First round.

He's made more first round throws than any of the QBs in this draft, that's probably why. He's unfortunately also made more 7th round throws too.

 

I can pick probably four or five throws from every game that show he has the potential to be better than both Watson and Trubisky at the NFL level. But he'lol have four or five throws in the same game that are head scratchers at best and downright garbage at worst.

 

There's very little doubt that he has franchise QB upside, he's the total package in terms of size, speed and ability. But his decision making is questionable, his confidence is weak, and he needs time to hone both his footwork and his pre-snap process. At worst, he's probably a Jason Campbell clone.

 

I don't know where you're getting that we stopped scouting him in October, because both ESPN and NFL reported in December we were still scouting him. I also wouldn't call the Stanford game a debacle as much as it was just a bad game.

[Tour2ma]

We can't blame the sins of past FOs on this one, but we've done plenty of that. Manziel was said to have the highest ceiling, and the lowest floor. Found out FLOOR. Taking a qb that was near social security age and a baseball retread (Wee-Done) wasn't a gamble? They were awed when he busted those clay pigeons on Sports Science.

 

Makes Mitch look like a relatively safe pick.

 

Did not say that we have not gambled... said you can't... ever. Pretty sure Wheezy supports my position. JFF as well.

 

Well a football team with Tour as GM might never do that. But in the real world a first-round quarterback is often, maybe usually, a gamble. I'd Venture a guess that any quarterback drafted is. For good or ill.

 

Simply a matter of percentages, a matter of degree, oh skirted songmeister...

 

"Gamble" carries the connotation of risk, a dice roll... even 7 is not a good bet, it's just the highest probable outcome at 1 in 6. Not even roulette's, red/black, "50/50" odds are good enough for a 1st-round pick, and they are the best gambling odds I can think of.

[The Gipper]

 

Did not say that we have not gambled... said you can't... ever. Pretty sure Wheezy supports my position. JFF as well.

 

 

 

Simply a matter of percentages, a matter of degree, oh skirted songmeister...

 

"Gamble" carries the connotation of risk, a dice roll... even 7 is not a good bet, it's just the highest probable outcome at 1 in 6. Not even roulette's, red/black, "50/50" odds are good enough for a 1st-round pick, and they are the best gambling odds I can think of.

But no one knows what is or is not a gamble. Guys that people thought would be sure fire stars busted....like Leaf, Harrington, Russell, Leinert, Locker RGIII. Those guys were not considered gambles at the time they were taken.

But a Wilson in round 3, or Prescott in round 4 were considered gambles.

Every draft choice that every team takes is a gamble, really.

[Tour2ma]

His biggest vice is that he wants to be a paleontologist and own his own museum featuring dinosaurs some day.

 

Sounds like a perfect fit to play for LA Rams next to their dino-denier...

 

Akron Native Chrissie Hynde is a Browns fan......and she wants a Quarterback.

 

And she lives in London so I guess I'll see here at the game.

 

He's made more first round throws than any of the QBs in this draft, that's probably why. He's unfortunately also made more 7th round throws too.

 

 

Very fair assessment...

 

I have to believe he's working with a QB whisperer, will throw at the Combine and do more to sharpen his skills and raise his stock.

[The Gipper]

 

Sounds like a perfect fit to play for LA Rams next to their dino-denier...

 

 

And she lives in London so I guess I'll see here at the game.

 

She lives part time there and part time here. She owns a condo near downtown Akron. She used to own a vegetarian restaurant in the bottom of the same building which I ate at. Pretty good. But she gave that up.

 

 

 

Very fair assessment...

 

I have to believe he's working with a QB whisperer, will throw at the Combine and do more to sharpen his skills and raise his stock.

Who is this QB whisperer....and why haven't the Browns been using him?

[CaineDeSoulis]

Kizer has more riding on the combine than any other QB participant. If he physically under performs at the combine he could fall all the way to the 3rd round easily. Stats wise if you look at only his throwing stats he's undrafted level talent. add your rushing stats and you have a mid round QB. Kizer is purely a "Potential" pick nothing more than that. He hasn't won big games, his TD/INT ratio is 2.4 to 1, 60.7 comp rate. has never thrown for more than 3000 yards.

Watch the game tape he looks like a kid out there. Footwork is awful, Decision making awful, He has a strong arm but he's not stafford or rodgers. Take away his running ability and he's useless as the defenses put a spy on him he will crumble as he has done all year.

At worst the game never slows down for him and he never gets it mentally

[Tour2ma]

But no one knows what is or is not a gamble. Guys that people thought would be sure fire stars busted....like Leaf, Harrington, Russell, Leinert, Locker RGIII. Those guys were not considered gambles at the time they were taken.

But a Wilson in round 3, or Prescott in round 4 were considered gambles.

Every draft choice that every team takes is a gamble, really.

 

Some bullshit just can't be ignored...

 

There are risks and then there are RISKS. There are no "risk-free" QB prospects, but there are minimal risk ones.

 

Leaf was a head case. Russell and Leinart were unmotivated. All their risk factors were harder to see vs. their success on the field in full view, but were seen by some. There's a reason Leinart lasted until 10th.

 

Locker was a controversial pick at #8 overall coming off a relatively poor, Senior year at Washington. RG wasn't a bad risk of a #2 overall, but WSH paid far more than that and his fragility, with which many here including yours truly were concerned, was the start of his unraveling.

 

Harrington? Very tough one there... a case can easily be made that he's DET's version of Tim Couch. At #3 overall he was not overdrafted based upon a resume. His work ethic wasn't an issue to my knowledge. He went to a very bad circumstance, not Couch bad, but bad.

 

With every passing round the acceptability of risk increases, the acceptable confidence level in a prospect's probability of success declines... even within Round one. Some even I saw coming, e.g., Dak (R4) and to a lesser extent Siemian (R7). I liked both, but would never have spent a 1st on Dak, who I liked a lot.

 

Because of the paramount importance of the QB position it bridges far greater probability gaps than any other position. Add "need" to that span and leaps to the Leafs and RGs and Manziels and Wheezys of the draft emerge as spectacular busts. In no small part because those factors combined blind the drafting entities to the fact that the probability gap was far wider than they thought... that somehow they convinced themselves the risk was acceptable.

 

I guarantee none ever said, "Let's gamble our #1 on this guy."

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Kizer has more riding on the combine than any other QB participant. If he physically under performs at the combine he could fall all the way to the 3rd round easily. Stats wise if you look at only his throwing stats he's undrafted level talent. add your rushing stats and you have a mid round QB. Kizer is purely a "Potential" pick nothing more than that. He hasn't won big games, his TD/INT ratio is 2.4 to 1, 60.7 comp rate. has never thrown for more than 3000 yards.

 

Watch the game tape he looks like a kid out there. Footwork is awful, Decision making awful, He has a strong arm but he's not stafford or rodgers. Take away his running ability and he's useless as the defenses put a spy on him he will crumble as he has done all year.

 

At worst the game never slows down for him and he never gets it mentally

I've watched every single throw of his at least three times through. I'm not sure where he looks like a kid.

 

He's also not much of a runner, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. He rushed 35 less times than Watson this year and 70 less last year.

 

Sounds to me like you watched one or two games, looked up some stats on Pro Football Reference, read an article or two, and made your assessment from that.

[Westside Steve]

 

Did not say that we have not gambled... said you can't... ever. Pretty sure Wheezy supports my position. JFF as well.

 

 

Simply a matter of percentages, a matter of degree, oh skirted songmeister...

 

"Gamble" carries the connotation of risk, a dice roll... even 7 is not a good bet, it's just the highest probable outcome at 1 in 6. Not even roulette's, red/black, "50/50" odds are good enough for a 1st-round pick, and they are the best gambling odds I can think of.

Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward? Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.

At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.

 

WSS

[CaineDeSoulis]

I've watched every single throw of his at least three times through. I'm not sure where he looks like a kid.

 

He's also not much of a runner, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. He rushed 35 less times than Watson this year and 70 less last year.

 

Sounds to me like you watched one or two games, looked up some stats on Pro Football Reference, read an article or two, and made your assessment from that.

You ever look at clouds? they all look different to different people mate. Your going to see what you want to see

 

I have watched every throw and followed every game aswell the biggest concern is he looks "Shaky" he is not smooth. Some QB's can get rid of the shakes but he hasn't this year and his game has regressed.

 

My implication of his running ability is that he uses it to open up the passing game. The FACT is Kizer is not nor has been good enough to elevate his team. The Team would need to elevate Kizer and that will NOT happen in cleveland for the next couple of years atleast.

 

He could be good but he has a greater bust potential than even Mitch

[darren15]

The lets make a deal draft .....Josh Jones can play SS, very adept player and Peppers would be OLB

 

Your Picks:

Round 1 Pick 10 (BUF): Malik Hooker, FS, Ohio State (A+)

Round 1 Pick 12: Reuben Foster, ILB, Alabama (A)

Round 1 Pick 14 (IND): Gerbil Peppers, OLB/SS, Michigan (A)

Round 2 Pick 11 (PHI): O.J. Howard, TE, Alabama (A)

Round 2 Pick 12 (BUF): Gareon Conley, CB, Ohio State (A-)

Round 3 Pick 10 (PHI): Dalvin Tomlinson, DT, Alabama (A)

Round 4 Pick 7 (WASH): Conor McDermott, OT, UCLA (A-)

Round 5 Pick 10 (WASH): Corey Clement, RB, Wisconsin (B+)

Round 5 Pick 32: Davis Webb, QB, California (A)

Round 6 Pick 1: Josh Jones, FS, NC State (A+)

Round 6 Pick 30 (DAL): Derek Rivers, DE, Youngstown State (A)

Round 7 Pick 24 (OAK): Jamari Staples, WR, Louisville (A-)

Your Future Picks:

2018 Round 1 Pick

2019 Round 1 Pick

[Tour2ma]

You ever look at clouds? they all look different to different people mate. Your going to see what you want to see

 

Some see what they see...

[Westside Steve]

Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward? Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.

At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.

 

WSS

I do wonder how many of the number one or top 5 picks over the last 20 years or so have made multiple trips to the Pro Bowl.

 

WSS

[The Gipper]

 

Some bullshit just can't be ignored...

 

There are risks and then there are RISKS. There are no "risk-free" QB prospects, but there are minimal risk ones.

No, there really are not minimal risk ones.

 

Leaf was a head case. Russell and Leinart were unmotivated. All their risk factors were harder to see vs. their success on the field in full view, but were seen by some. There's a reason Leinart lasted until 10th.

 

Locker was a controversial pick at #8 overall coming off a relatively poor, Senior year at Washington. RG wasn't a bad risk of a #2 overall, but WSH paid far more than that and his fragility, with which many here including yours truly were concerned, was the start of his unraveling.

 

Harrington? Very tough one there... a case can easily be made that he's DET's version of Tim Couch. At #3 overall he was not overdrafted based upon a resume. His work ethic wasn't an issue to my knowledge. He went to a very bad circumstance, not Couch bad, but bad.

 

With every passing round the acceptability of risk increases, the acceptable confidence level in a prospect's probability of success declines... even within Round one. Some even I saw coming, e.g., Dak (R4) and to a lesser extent Siemian (R7). I liked both, but would never have spent a 1st on Dak, who I liked a lot.

 

Because of the paramount importance of the QB position it bridges far greater probability gaps than any other position. Add "need" to that span and leaps to the Leafs and RGs and Manziels and Wheezys of the draft emerge as spectacular busts. In no small part because those factors combined blind the drafting entities to the fact that the probability gap was far wider than they thought... that somehow they convinced themselves the risk was acceptable.

 

I guarantee none ever said, "Let's gamble our #1 on this guy."

Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.

You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.

 

If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.

 

Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.

Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.

But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.

[TexasAg1969]

I do wonder how many of the number one or top 5 picks over the last 20 years or so have made multiple trips to the Pro Bowl.

 

WSS

 

Don't know, but I do know that #2 carved up #1 of the same draft in the 2016 SB.

[TexasAg1969]

PFF's Steve Palazollo's Analysis of Garrettt with illustrative video plays. Pretty interesting take.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/draft-college-myles-garrett-has-the-skills-to-be-an-elite-nfl-pass-rusher/

[Tour2ma]

Ain't that what gambling is, risk vs reward?

Anyway a number 1 pick, or even a top-five at quarterback should be a long-term award winning franchise starter. I bet those odds are less than 50/50.

At least in the real world when people more often draft quarterbacks above their BPA analysis.

 

No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.

 

Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?

 

 

Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.

 

There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.

 

Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round

 

And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.

 

Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.

[Tour2ma]

Again....you are looking at it ALL in hindsight. You look at a bust and declare him to have been a risk ab initio.

You look at a lower round pick and declare it to have been a risk worth taking.

 

If JFF had turned out to be a Russell Wilson, you would not declared him to have been a risk it seems.

 

Todd Blackledge was the second QB taken in the 1983 draft. Considered an almost sure thing. He was to be better than Kelly, Marino, Davis. He turned out to be the worst of them all.

Sure, some "Sure Things" became Nicolette Sheridan. Some become Rosie O'Donnell.

But, again, it is ALL assessed in hindsight.

 

Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...

 

Don't confuse my approach with your own... which is to equivocate on every prospect before hand to preserve some self-sense of infallibility regardless of the outcome.

[Westside Steve]

 

No... I'd argue it's not. Gambling is the ignoring of the certainty gap between your assessment of the risk-reward and what in fact the risk-reward truly is.

 

Here's a scenario for your consideration... You sit down at a table with the reigning WSOP champion for 12 hours of Heads-Up Texas Hold 'Em. Which of you is gambling?

 

 

Assessments can be wrong, but they have to be honest ones unfettered by need, importance. The more the other factors are allowed to creep into the evaluation, the more likely it is to be wrong. Those other factors need to be merged later in the process.

 

There's no doubt these factors close gaps and elevate QBs above higher rated players. A look at the NFL grades show this every year. In 2016 Goff and Wentz went 1-2 with 6.5's, then Bosa 6.7, Zeke 7.0, Ramsey 6.8, Stanley 6.5, Buckner 7.2. Not until 13 was the draft's highest graded player, Tunsil 7.6, picked, but he had late "issues" emerge.

 

Here's the full draft: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker?icampaign=draft-sub_nav_bar-drafteventpage-tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round

 

And here's my point... NFL graders have no stake in any team so "need" is a non-factor. And they don't weigh positions for their importance. They are impartial, dispassionate assessors of talent... as are PFF and Walter's and numerous other evaluation sites. We can all agree or disagree with any given assessment either individually or juxtaposed with another player, but any discussion in on talent for their position alone. And this happens within each team's FO.

 

Ultimately though the other factors do come in and so it likely did when we saw two QBs rise to the top of the 2016 class. I believe we each had different horses in that race... and so far mine looks like a nag... but the race is not over. One thing both our horses have in common is that so far both were out-delivered by others who came after them.

Well this is getting a little bit convoluted but I'd say it's still gambling no matter who I'm playing in poker. I suck at poker. I was great in Euchre in college but mostly with my old partner whom I haven't seen in decades. We didn't cheat nor did we renege just had a parallel style of play. Entered a big tournament and were eliminated in the first round.

 

I think I might have forgotten the point but I guess all I'm saying is that the odds are better but the consensus best player in the draft will be more successful then reaching down ten spots and drafting that lower value guyat number one.

 

WSS

[The Gipper]

 

Except for the fact I am on record here pre-draft on my examples. And research those you raise...

 

Don't confuse my approach with your own... which is to equivocate on every prospect before hand to preserve some self-sense of infallibility regardless of the outcome.

I don't know that I have an "approach" other than to say "I think that this guy is the guy we should get for the best interests of the Browns". It is really that simple.

 

Or, if by equivocate you mean that I recognize and acknowledge that any pick we may make may turn out to be stellar, or turn out to be shite, that is not equivocation....that is simply a recitation of reality.

 

I wish to God that someone would have "equivocated" on Cam Erving, Justin Gilbert, John P. Manziel, Barkevious Mingo, Trent Dilfer, Brandon Weeden, etc. etc. etc.

And if you think that I think that I am infallible....you haven't been paying attention, at all.

I have said all along that it is a risk to take a QB #1....and a DE #1, and a LB #1...

 

But, if you want to me to join the crowd and be a chickenshit....well......OK. (nah....just kidding....I want QB Trubisky at #1 overall. No equivocation)