Apparently Browns “not enamored” with any of the top QBs

[Bigalow80]

2 hours ago, jiggins7919 said:

Just had a story pop up on my phone that said Dorsey is open to trading the #1 pick. I will literally throw my own butt into a mental hospital if this happens. I could care LESS about getting more picks. What I DO care about is getting our favorite QB, and if we trade, we give other teams THREE chances to take our guy. Yeah, everyone is talking about Saquon Barkley, but let me remind everyone that when it comes time to making early picks, more teams trade up for QBs than running backs. Nobody is likely to mortgage a bunch of picks to move up to #1 for Saquon. What's that mean? That means a QB is going #1 if we trade down. Then there's the #2 pick, and the Giants already said they'd trade down too. Even if they don't, they could easily take a QB as Eli's replacement. That's two possible QBs. Then you have the Colts. I doubt they take a QB, but does anyone truly know what the hell is going on with Luck's shoulder? They could draft a QB or trade back with someone like the Broncos who want a QB. That's THREE potential chances for the Cleveland Browns to lose out on QBs. And for what? To get more picks? Yeah, because that's worked out SOOOOOOOO good for us! 

Maybe John Dorsey is full of crap. Perhaps he's just posturing in the media. But if you have the #1 pick, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I'm serious, we trade down and I'll need some strong medication. I already know we're going to with one of our early ones, I feel it. The 1 and 4 are simply too much capital for one GM to play with, and we all know how those turds just HAVE to prove how smart they are, right? It's still early, but we're now in March and things are picking up quickly. You know what would make me feel better? That in about a month or so, John Dorsey announces who the Browns are drafting #1. Remember when that used to happen every once in a while? I could be crazy, but I want to say that occasionally a team announced who they were taking #1. I'd love to hear Dorsey say, "We're taking Baker Mayfield #1, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now, if you want to talk about trading for the #4, you can call me any time, but Baker is already being fit for his Cleveland Browns jersey, so read'em and weep." 

Dorsey is just doing what every good GM has to do. That is Listen. There is so much that still needs to be determined before the browns are on the clock and so many factors could change their draft strategy. What if they sign Kirk Cousins? They are not going to be selecting a qb #1 at that point. What if the Giants offer the #2 and OBJ for the #1 pick? or the Jets offer Leonard Williams, Robby Anderson,  their #6 pick, plus a 2019 mid-rounder for the #1 pick?  What if it's not the #1 pick, but the #4 pick and AZ offers Peterson and the #15 pick? Trading down does not always mean draft picks. SO much still needs to be determined before the Browns make a decision that, it is in the Browns best interest to weigh ALL of their options, not just a qb at #1. Honestly, I like most of the qb's in this draft and would be perfectly fine with any of them. They all have their flaws but they all have strong points. What happens if the Browns determine there is no difference between Allen and White or Lauletta? Why take Allen at #1 or #4 when you know you are going to get either of those guys in the second or third AND you can add players to the mix. I'm not saying this is the direction they should go, but this could very well be a possibility.

Let's not forget, Kizer is still on this roster. He had a bad year last year, but he is only 21 years old and everyone knew he needed time to develop when he came out. He could make a big jump in-between his first and second year (see Goff) and really open the browns eyes. Especially if they bring on a veteran such as McCarron or Bradford or Keenum where the browns then feel good about the qb position for a few years. You don't have to take a qb at #1 then. You could take one of the later round guys and develop them along with Kizer. 

[boo fagley]

16 hours ago, hoorta said:

 Heard on ESPN yesterday-  "Brady is a unicorn".   

As I was saying  Trade down out of #2 to #5 or #6, and get three starters for the price of two.  Barkley + their second round pick isn't turning them into a "win now" team. 9-7 at best and eke into the playoffs if it all goes perfect? OK. Super Bowl contender? LOL!!!  

Staying put lands 3 players too, Barkley if the Browns pass on him, # 34 which is basically a low 1st, # 68 which is 2 selections down from the 2nd round.

Most these teams trading up give you their 1st and low round picks and picks next draft. With Eli in his late 30s I doubt that they are waiting around to win.

 

Quote

PS- take a look at the Giants 2018 opponents and tell me you see a winning record playing the Saints, Jags, Eagles twice, Falcons and Panthers. Split with the Cowboys and Redskins- that's 8 losses right there. 

 

The Giants won the Super Bowl with 9 - 7 and 10 - 6 records. Every season a team that looks like a lock on paper falls short.  Super Bowl hangover for the Eagles. The Panthers dont impress me. Both the Cowboys and Saints have to leave the dome and play in NY. Hopefully for them its warm outside. 

[LionOfBuddha]

2 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Yes scientists, pediatricians, and nutritionists are totally all bought by the meat industry. Animal based protein fueled our brain development. Glucose fuels the brain but it would not have caused a change in the size and development. Coal makes a steam engine function but it requires other materials to build the engine.

time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/

Haha don’t get me started man. That Time article is such cowpoop. Time magazine also told us to eat butter, despite the hundreds of controlled studies that eating butter clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease. Cooked starches made our brains what they are. 

And yes, scientists and many nutritionists are bought by the meat industry. Go take a look at all the “meat is healthy” “carbs are bad” “eggs are good” studies, and you’ll see a common link. Funding by the meat and dairy industries across the globe. It’s a sad joke man.

A  physician knows nothing about nutrition. Doctors are required 19.6 hours of nutrition education and no continuing education. It’s a joke.

If we ate plant-based, the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry would collapse, and  billion dollar meat and dairy industry would collapse. There’s a lot at stake for these people.

Look at the places in the world where people live the longest.

Okinawa, Japan? 80% of their diet is yams. Little to no animals products.

Loma Linda, California? Vegan and Vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists.

The science and anecdotal evidence is there. The less meat and dairy the better. The more plants and starches the better.

[LogicIsForSquares]

5 minutes ago, LionOfBuddha said:

Haha don’t get me started man. That Time article is such cowpoop. Time magazine also told us to eat butter, despite the hundreds of controlled studies that eating butter clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease. Cooked starches made our brains what they are. 

And yes, scientists and many nutritionists are bought by the meat industry. Go take a look at all the “meat is healthy” “carbs are bad” “eggs are good” studies, and you’ll see a common link. Funding by the meat and dairy industries across the globe. It’s a sad joke man.

A pediatrician or physician knows nothing about nutrition. Doctors are required 19.6 hours of nutrition education and no continuing education. It’s a joke.

If we ate plant-based, the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry would collapse, and  billion dollar meat and dairy industry would collapse. There’s a lot at stake for these people.

Look at the places in the world where people live the longest.

Okinawa, Japan? 80% of their diet is yams. Little to no animals products.

Loma Linda, California? Vegan and Vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists.

The science and anecdotal evidence is there. The less meat and dairy the better. The more plants and starches the better.

Yes I am sure if we all went plant based that everything would be great and all that ails humanity would end. I imagine you read a lot of articles about weed curing every disease that has ever existed.

This is way off course for football. If you want, go start a thread about this in Barbershop or Politics forums.

[LionOfBuddha]

4 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Yes I am sure if we all went plant based that everything would be great and all that ails humanity would end. I imagine you read a lot of articles about weed curing every disease that has ever existed.

This is way off course for football. If you want, go start a thread about this in Barbershop or Politics forums.

I don’t  smoke weed. But alas, you can’t beat the argument so you attack the person. It’s ok man haha. 

I don’t think the ails of the world would end, but I think people would be a lot healthier and a lot less miserable. And there’s be a lot less needless sickness and suffering.

It is off course, I wasn’t even talking to you and you decided to enter the conversation.

Eat whatever you want, but if you get cancer or a heart attack, make a change 

[The Gipper]

15 hours ago, syd said:

 

and what does that say along with the quote that they are not enamored with any of the QB'S When we do draft one #1 I'm sure he is not really gonna feel the love coming from are team and if you think that doe's not matter you better think again

The fact is, honestly......if we take a QB #1......we...the fans who have been through Pavlovian training on this....are going to say:  
Did we really get the right one?  And have that knot ...or cancerous tumor...in the back of our brain that will tell us:  no, you didn't".

Fair to say?

[The Gipper]

13 hours ago, hoorta said:

Our caveman ancestors would disagree with that notion.  

Check your toes.

(See reference in Barber Shop talk)

[hoorta]

26 minutes ago, LionOfBuddha said:

I don’t  smoke weed. But alas, you can’t beat the argument so you attack the person. It’s ok man haha. 

I don’t think the ails of the world would end, but I think people would be a lot healthier and a lot less miserable. And there’s be a lot less needless sickness and suffering.

It is off course, I wasn’t even talking to you and you decided to enter the conversation.

Eat whatever you want, but if you get cancer or a heart attack, make a change 

Cancer has been around since the dinosaurs, 90% of heart attacks are caused by lack of exercise. If you want to believe vegan is healthier, be my guest. 

[The Gipper]

3 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Yeah the cancer and heart attacks are from garbage processed food, not meat itself. 

Cancer and heart attacks are at an all time high because  the human life span is much longer. We no longer have plague and small pox and tuberculosis and a hundred other diseases that killed off humanity at a younger age.  So, since those massive causes of human deaths have been obliterated....something else comes along to put an end to us.....so cancer and heart attacks are it.

If the average human life span were like 45 years....like it was in the past....then the incidents of cancer and heart disease would be vastly decreased...because some other pandemic would have killed us off long before we could develop those.

[hoorta]

9 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Cancer and heart attacks are at an all time high because  the human life span is much longer. We no longer have plague and small pox and tuberculosis and a hundred other diseases that killed off humanity at a younger age.  So, since those massive causes of human deaths have been obliterated....something else comes along to put an end to us.....so cancer and heart attacks are it.

If the average human life span were like 45 years....like it was in the past....then the incidents of cancer and heart disease would be vastly decreased...because some other pandemic would have killed us off long before we could develop those.

It's also why as recently as the 1930s Social Security set the retirement age at 65. The majority of people were dead by then. If it wasn't for blood pressure meds, I'd be long gone. Strokes killed many of my grandparents in their 50s. Diabetes was a quick trip to the cemetery before insulin was discovered.

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

It's also why as recently as the 1930s Social Security set the retirement age at 65. The majority of people were dead by then. If it wasn't for blood pressure meds, I'd be long gone. Strokes killed many of my grandparents in their 50s. Diabetes was a quick trip to the cemetery before insulin was discovered.

Anti-biotics came after SS too.

[Unsympathetic]

On 2/26/2018 at 2:24 PM, Unsympathetic said:

Ideally, a king's ransom to trade out of the #1.. I read this as Dorsey saying he's open for business.

As I said

[SissyBoyFloyd]

And don't forget that Verbal Kint was really Kizer Soze.

[jiggins7919]

21 hours ago, Bigalow80 said:

Dorsey is just doing what every good GM has to do. That is Listen. There is so much that still needs to be determined before the browns are on the clock and so many factors could change their draft strategy. What if they sign Kirk Cousins? They are not going to be selecting a qb #1 at that point. What if the Giants offer the #2 and OBJ for the #1 pick? or the Jets offer Leonard Williams, Robby Anderson,  their #6 pick, plus a 2019 mid-rounder for the #1 pick?  What if it's not the #1 pick, but the #4 pick and AZ offers Peterson and the #15 pick? Trading down does not always mean draft picks. SO much still needs to be determined before the Browns make a decision that, it is in the Browns best interest to weigh ALL of their options, not just a qb at #1. Honestly, I like most of the qb's in this draft and would be perfectly fine with any of them. They all have their flaws but they all have strong points. What happens if the Browns determine there is no difference between Allen and White or Lauletta? Why take Allen at #1 or #4 when you know you are going to get either of those guys in the second or third AND you can add players to the mix. I'm not saying this is the direction they should go, but this could very well be a possibility.

Let's not forget, Kizer is still on this roster. He had a bad year last year, but he is only 21 years old and everyone knew he needed time to develop when he came out. He could make a big jump in-between his first and second year (see Goff) and really open the browns eyes. Especially if they bring on a veteran such as McCarron or Bradford or Keenum where the browns then feel good about the qb position for a few years. You don't have to take a qb at #1 then. You could take one of the later round guys and develop them along with Kizer. 

I love everything you said. I've made similar statements about Kizer, and there's a small part of me that actually wants us to commit to Deshone Kizer as the starting QB. If we did that, we could trade down, pick at 1 and 4 (Barkley and Minkah Fitzpatrick anyone?), and invest heavily in the WR position and secondary. Of course, this isn't realistic, as Kizer didn't do ANYWHERE near enough to warrant that type of confidence...but I have to admit...there's definitely a small bit of me that wants to see what Kizer would look like with our total confidence, another year under the belt, better weapons, and a real running game. 

I'm obviously a Browns fan, so that means I'm terrified when I hear "trade down". I'm so completely tired of trying to get picks and missing out on top talent. I honestly don't think I can survive another year of that (as a fan). But again, I'm hoping the ONLY way we'll even think about trading down is if we somehow manage to get Kirk or we figure out a way to include a QB in the trade down. So, could we maybe trade down with a team like the Giants? They move up to take the QB they want, and we get Eli Manning? This is just an example, so please don't start yelling at me. 

But....if we trade down and we don't get the first QB off the board (or a veteran qb in the deal)  I'm going to lose my freaking mind, and there will be no consoling me. I can just hear it now, people. We trade down, multiple QBs come off the board by the time our #4 comes along, and you're going to read all about how the QB we really wanted got snatched right in front of us, and the band will play on with a song we ALL know only too well. A sad song, full of misery, loss, and a pervasive lack of hope. 

Oh yeah, and draft Baker Mayfield. You know, the guy who throws the ball to people in stride and who actually is dying to play for us? Yes, that guy. 

[Flugel]

On 2/26/2018 at 11:59 AM, LogicIsForSquares said:

It is silly season. No one knows what they like or dislike at this point.

Precisely.  It's also poker season; but that won't stop Mary Kay from asking "what are you going to do with the first pick and the 4th pick?"  Nothing like alerting all of the teams slated to draft after pick #4 we plan on taking the guy they need just so they can trade up ahead of us with either the Giants or the Colts. 

[Soju]

if they aren't "enamored" with any of the top QBs you take Barkley number 1 and take one the QB's you aren't "enamored" by with the number 4 pick. 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Soju said:

if they aren't "enamored" with any of the top QBs you take Barkley number 1 and take one the QB's you aren't "enamored" by with the number 4 pick. 

What if they are also not enamored with Barkley gaining 49 yards on a 2.2 average in like half his games?

[RollCNY]

I have only been a Browns fan since 2015 (nothing to do with JFF), so I don't have all your years of suffering, but this board has a great deal of "don't repeat the past", and then immediately wants to loft a hail Mary savior pass on a QB at #1. I hope the Browns aren`t enamoured with a QB.  "Enamoured" is an emotional choice.  The last thing we want is for them to be in love.  They darn well better be "in logic".

Every day, someone on this board or in media posts a barb about passing on Wentz and Watson, two guys with torn ACL's who couldn`t finish a season.  If they are hurt again next year, are the Browns still idiots?  What if it is only every other year that they are hurt?  Are we then still idiots?

Did anyone see any evidence that Deshone Kizer got any beneficial coaching? I saw the kid thrown to the wolves, and the only broadcast coaching I saw Kizer get was from a Bengals coach after that loss, while Hue was on his knees in front of McCarron.  Did this kid get a chance?  The whole silly QB competition last year just wasted practice reps with the full squad, and its sole purpose seemed to be to try to pump up Ossweiller stock to trade him for anything, and to build up Kizer as his equal.

So I know I am in a minority, but I would not be upset if this team actually let Haley and Zampese work with Kizer, develop an offense that actually has a running game, and don't throw away reps on a token competition. Teach Kizer a soft touch, and his "accuracy" will improve instantly, and every pass won't be a 20 yard rocket.  Get a good RB at the top of round 2, and actually practice with him and the real offensive line. Let them learn the offense with our real offensive line, and not the second string of last year.  Too many photos of Thomas and Zeitler on exercise bikes last year.