POLL: When will Baker start?

[TexasAg1969]

8 hours ago, Nero said:

Currently I'd say that the order is Spanish, English, Basque (sadly because I don't use it and I'm losing practise). Then I speak a little bit of French and German. I'm planning to learn both. 

I have never learnt Italian, I just know a few words like everyone else, but it is said that for Spaniards it takes just 1-2 years to speak Italian quite fluently and vice versa. So I don't take it out of my wish list.

If you went to Italy and stayed immersed in it for about two months, you'd be fluent because of Spanish being your first language. I used the BBC elementary Italian program on line for about two months before we took a 2 week visit and even though my Spanish stays very rusty from non-use, by the end of that two weeks I could understand the gist of what was being said and was able to reply in at least an elementary sense. When I go to a Spanish speaking country it takes me a few days to get back enough fluency to stay up decently as long as I do not fear being wrong or ask for the proper way to say things. I would like to go do an immersion course like in Madrid or Argentina some day where you go to school all day and live with a local family when not in school. I think it's the only way I can get back what I had over 50 years ago in Venezuela. Had a funny conversation with a waitress in a Madrid where we were speaking back in forth quite well. Turned out that she was from Caracas where I learned the majority of my Spanish. Dialects help! LOL!

[Tour2ma]

domcooch's thread got merged and now I've got Phoolie all over my shoes...

... I hate it when that happens.

[Suomi]

Perhaps 2019.

[The Gipper]

39 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

domcooch's thread got merged and now I've got Phoolie all over my shoes...

... I hate it when that happens.

Suck it up, Buttercup.

[mjp28]

5 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

domcooch's thread got merged and now I've got Phoolie all over my shoes...

... I hate it when that happens.

Maybe get a dog for that?

 

[jiggins7919]

On 4/28/2018 at 11:36 PM, Ghoolie said:

What happens in camp if Baker is clearly better than Tie Rod?

I am not stirring up schidt here, BUT.............if we are to believe anything about Mayfield, he is a balls-to-the-wall fighter. So what happens if he shows all the other QBs up? Does he sit the bench? And if he does sit regardless of his performance, will it make him bitter? If he shows Tie Rod up, would he deserve to start? Would that be another Kizer fiasco?

The Browns have set themselves up for another QB controversy IF Mayfield shows the veteran up. Especially if Tie Rod stars and once again the Browns find themselves in Goosegg town.

So....this is interesting and not totally unprecedented. What we need to remember is that Baker is used to being 3rd string and then winning the starting gig relatively quickly. This is a guy who lives and loves football, and he will study and train until he can't do anymore. Baker isn't somebody who will slack off or be unprepared. He's obviously going to struggle with the size and complexity of the playbook, and of course learning how to call plays and be under center will be foreign to him. It will definitely take some time. The difference between Baker and somebody like Johnny is that Baker will probably sleep with the playbook under his pillow. I can see him standing in front of the mirror practicing calling out complicated plays. THAT'S who he is. 

There are a few answers to your question. Believe it or not, we could actually TRADE Tyrod Taylor. Tyrod is a playoff QB who is 28. A prime asset. If Baker essentially explodes onto the scene, and does so relatively fast, we may give Tyrod the chance to play somewhere else by trading him to a team that suffers a QB injury in camp, or some other similar situation. I believe this scenario to be EXTREMELY unlikely, but it's possible. 

Basically, we want to be very cautious with Baker, but we also can't keep him benched if he's the better option. Don't forget, the players see practice every day. They will know who is better, and they will want the guy who gives them the best chance to win and make plays. If Tyrod is playing too conservatively and our playmakers aren't getting the opportunities....there could be some grumbling. Again, I VERY much doubt this happens, as veterans much prefer veteran qb's. I don't see us trading a 3rd rounder for Tyrod only to bench him. He's going to play and probably play pretty well, like he usually does. 

The thing to watch is Baker in the preseason. How does he do in the 3rd game? The first 2 are always kind of a mess. The 4th is usually a joke. The 3rd is when teams play their best players for the longest. If Baker looks prepared, competent, and "at ease" during the 3rd game, you will hear the whispers come out. If he then lights up the useless 4th game, the whispers will get louder. If we drafted Darnold, I'd say let him sit basically all year. But we have my man Baker, and Baker is used to taking jobs. My preference is for Baker to sit at least through 10 games, maybe longer, but I can definitely envision a scenario where he plays earlier, possibly from the first game. 

My best guess is that Tyrod wins the job, plays pretty well, and Baker plays the last 4-5 games after we're eliminated. 

[Canton Mike]

40 minutes ago, jiggins7919 said:

So....this is interesting and not totally unprecedented. What we need to remember is that Baker is used to being 3rd string and then winning the starting gig relatively quickly. This is a guy who lives and loves football, and he will study and train until he can't do anymore. Baker isn't somebody who will slack off or be unprepared. He's obviously going to struggle with the size and complexity of the playbook, and of course learning how to call plays and be under center will be foreign to him. It will definitely take some time. The difference between Baker and somebody like Johnny is that Baker will probably sleep with the playbook under his pillow. I can see him standing in front of the mirror practicing calling out complicated plays. THAT'S who he is. 

There are a few answers to your question. Believe it or not, we could actually TRADE Tyrod Taylor. Tyrod is a playoff QB who is 28. A prime asset. If Baker essentially explodes onto the scene, and does so relatively fast, we may give Tyrod the chance to play somewhere else by trading him to a team that suffers a QB injury in camp, or some other similar situation. I believe this scenario to be EXTREMELY unlikely, but it's possible. 

Basically, we want to be very cautious with Baker, but we also can't keep him benched if he's the better option. Don't forget, the players see practice every day. They will know who is better, and they will want the guy who gives them the best chance to win and make plays. If Tyrod is playing too conservatively and our playmakers aren't getting the opportunities....there could be some grumbling. Again, I VERY much doubt this happens, as veterans much prefer veteran qb's. I don't see us trading a 3rd rounder for Tyrod only to bench him. He's going to play and probably play pretty well, like he usually does. 

The thing to watch is Baker in the preseason. How does he do in the 3rd game? The first 2 are always kind of a mess. The 4th is usually a joke. The 3rd is when teams play their best players for the longest. If Baker looks prepared, competent, and "at ease" during the 3rd game, you will hear the whispers come out. If he then lights up the useless 4th game, the whispers will get louder. If we drafted Darnold, I'd say let him sit basically all year. But we have my man Baker, and Baker is used to taking jobs. My preference is for Baker to sit at least through 10 games, maybe longer, but I can definitely envision a scenario where he plays earlier, possibly from the first game. 

My best guess is that Tyrod wins the job, plays pretty well, and Baker plays the last 4-5 games after we're eliminated. 

Good take with various possibilities. I would prefer Baker not start immediately, but we'll see what actually happens.

Mike 

[TexasAg1969]

14 minutes ago, Canton Mike said:

Good take with various possibilities. I would prefer Baker not start immediately, but we'll see what actually happens.

Mike 

And I would prefer that Baker only takes over in games we have put away and NOT play the last few games while we are making the playoffs.

[Westside Steve]

3 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

And I would prefer that Baker only takes over in games we have put away and NOT play the last few games while we are making the playoffs.

I'm not a huge Taylor fan but if he has games so far ahead it seems he would take umbrage to the seeming disrespect right? Just to be the Devil's Advocate isn't having a top-notch nfl-caliber quarterback at the helm the entire point? No matter who it might be?

WSS

[Browns1216]

as a fellow Hokie, I hope Tyrod lights it up and brings the Browns to the playoffs.  I think the only way we'll see Mayfield is if Taylor gets hurt.  I just hope we don't hear "Mayfield" chants after the first interception, it really messed up Hoyer's winning streak the last time the Browns had a first-round QB on the bench and started calling for him at the first sign of trouble.  As much as I like Mayfield as a QB, I also want to see what Tyrod Taylor can do with this team and am in no hurry to throw Mayfield out there for trial by fire until he decisively earns the starting role.

[Ghoolie]

6 hours ago, jiggins7919 said:

So....this is interesting and not totally unprecedented. What we need to remember is that Baker is used to being 3rd string and then winning the starting gig relatively quickly. This is a guy who lives and loves football, and he will study and train until he can't do anymore. Baker isn't somebody who will slack off or be unprepared. He's obviously going to struggle with the size and complexity of the playbook, and of course learning how to call plays and be under center will be foreign to him. It will definitely take some time. The difference between Baker and somebody like Johnny is that Baker will probably sleep with the playbook under his pillow. I can see him standing in front of the mirror practicing calling out complicated plays. THAT'S who he is. 

There are a few answers to your question. Believe it or not, we could actually TRADE Tyrod Taylor. Tyrod is a playoff QB who is 28. A prime asset. If Baker essentially explodes onto the scene, and does so relatively fast, we may give Tyrod the chance to play somewhere else by trading him to a team that suffers a QB injury in camp, or some other similar situation. I believe this scenario to be EXTREMELY unlikely, but it's possible. 

Basically, we want to be very cautious with Baker, but we also can't keep him benched if he's the better option. Don't forget, the players see practice every day. They will know who is better, and they will want the guy who gives them the best chance to win and make plays. If Tyrod is playing too conservatively and our playmakers aren't getting the opportunities....there could be some grumbling. Again, I VERY much doubt this happens, as veterans much prefer veteran qb's. I don't see us trading a 3rd rounder for Tyrod only to bench him. He's going to play and probably play pretty well, like he usually does. 

The thing to watch is Baker in the preseason. How does he do in the 3rd game? The first 2 are always kind of a mess. The 4th is usually a joke. The 3rd is when teams play their best players for the longest. If Baker looks prepared, competent, and "at ease" during the 3rd game, you will hear the whispers come out. If he then lights up the useless 4th game, the whispers will get louder. If we drafted Darnold, I'd say let him sit basically all year. But we have my man Baker, and Baker is used to taking jobs. My preference is for Baker to sit at least through 10 games, maybe longer, but I can definitely envision a scenario where he plays earlier, possibly from the first game. 

My best guess is that Tyrod wins the job, plays pretty well, and Baker plays the last 4-5 games after we're eliminated. 

As you have pointed out and added to my thoughts, Baker presents a 2018 season future that there is simply no way to predict. You know, I don't believe the football playbook is all that complicated.  Honestly, not being mean but NFL players are not exactly a brilliant bunch. 2 years ago I was at a Browns event through connections with my wife's work. I learned again that 50% of all NFL playbooks are simple translations of Paul Browns playbook...something college kids are exposed to. Then, in every teams playbook there are codes/similarities if you will where perhaps 5 pass plays with slight differences are grouped together. Add to that headphone communication and plays written on the wrist band, and I don't see this as a huge, time consuming obstacle.

I keep hoping for the Dan Marino experience. Off the Bench and BOOM.  I think Mayfield is that kind of a guy.

 

 

[hoorta]

On 5/2/2018 at 2:08 AM, Ghoolie said:

I don't have a disagreement with any of this. I do believe that there is a tendency, maybe even wishful thinking every year that finally the Browns have a common sense plan in place for rearing the new QB. I have never believed this to be the case, and hence a lot of guys argue with me, and of course get the fire of Ghoolie. On the surface, it looks good. Seasoned Vet to give the new kid a stay of execution, give the Browns a chance to groom the guy for a year.... learn the nuances, learn the schemes, etc etc etc.

Do you think that's what management is hoping for? A good solid year from Tie Rod and then Baker eases into the scene?

I really don't believe that at all. I believe TieRod is nothing more than an insurance policy, a buffer if you will. Follow with me.

1) If Tie Rod plays well, we winn 6, 7,8 or more games, management wins. They look good, Baker isn't thrown to the wolves.

2) Tie Rod blows, Haslam forces his hand and play Baker. Baker amazes, Jimmy looks great. Baker blows, Jimmy blames it on Tie Rod no holding his end down.

I don't think anyone in management sees any path where Baker does not, at some point in 2018 assume ownership of the team. He has to. You can't have the #1 pick on the bench all year, then Tie Rod going 10 -6, so now, why even bring Baker in, the case could be made. There is a high probability that Tie rod Tarkenton is going to get hurt. I really believe this. I believe he was brought in as a fluffer.

We shall see.

 

I really think that's what the Browns are hoping, Taylor plays well, and Baker sits most of the year. It's why they brought in Drew Stanton- to mentor Baker, just as he has for several other top QB like Matt Stafford. It sure wasn't for his passing ability.  That (sort of) frees Tyrod to concentrate on the game without having Baker breathing down his neck. I do think the Browns will be improved on offense, we actually have guys there that other teams will have to account for like Gordon, Landry, Njoku, Chubb, and Hyde. Unloading turnover machine Kizer should be worth a win or two at least.  

[Ghoolie]

5 hours ago, hoorta said:

I really think that's what the Browns are hoping, Taylor plays well, and Baker sits most of the year. It's why they brought in Drew Stanton- to mentor Baker, just as he has for several other top QB like Matt Stafford. It sure wasn't for his passing ability.  That (sort of) frees Tyrod to concentrate on the game without having Baker breathing down his neck. I do think the Browns will be improved on offense, we actually have guys there that other teams will have to account for like Gordon, Landry, Njoku, Chubb, and Hyde. Unloading turnover machine Kizer should be worth a win or two at least.  

As long as it isn't TieRod injury, or pressure at 0 - 6 that brings Baker in, I am okay. That is my wish; that this time out, Baker is inserted exactly when the coaches are comfortable doing it. 

[Ghoolie]

On 5/2/2018 at 11:53 AM, Tour2ma said:

domcooch's thread got merged and now I've got Phoolie all over my shoes...

... I hate it when that happens.

What you have is my foot up your asss. My thread had more interest so accordingly the boss gave me props. As Gipper said, suck it up, and I might add, quit whining. You will always have your nose up my butt, no matter what the contest.

[PoeticG]

15 hours ago, jiggins7919 said:

So....this is interesting and not totally unprecedented. What we need to remember is that Baker is used to being 3rd string and then winning the starting gig relatively quickly. This is a guy who lives and loves football, and he will study and train until he can't do anymore. Baker isn't somebody who will slack off or be unprepared. He's obviously going to struggle with the size and complexity of the playbook, and of course learning how to call plays and be under center will be foreign to him. It will definitely take some time. The difference between Baker and somebody like Johnny is that Baker will probably sleep with the playbook under his pillow. I can see him standing in front of the mirror practicing calling out complicated plays. THAT'S who he is. 

There are a few answers to your question. Believe it or not, we could actually TRADE Tyrod Taylor. Tyrod is a playoff QB who is 28. A prime asset. If Baker essentially explodes onto the scene, and does so relatively fast, we may give Tyrod the chance to play somewhere else by trading him to a team that suffers a QB injury in camp, or some other similar situation. I believe this scenario to be EXTREMELY unlikely, but it's possible. 

Basically, we want to be very cautious with Baker, but we also can't keep him benched if he's the better option. Don't forget, the players see practice every day. They will know who is better, and they will want the guy who gives them the best chance to win and make plays. If Tyrod is playing too conservatively and our playmakers aren't getting the opportunities....there could be some grumbling. Again, I VERY much doubt this happens, as veterans much prefer veteran qb's. I don't see us trading a 3rd rounder for Tyrod only to bench him. He's going to play and probably play pretty well, like he usually does. 

The thing to watch is Baker in the preseason. How does he do in the 3rd game? The first 2 are always kind of a mess. The 4th is usually a joke. The 3rd is when teams play their best players for the longest. If Baker looks prepared, competent, and "at ease" during the 3rd game, you will hear the whispers come out. If he then lights up the useless 4th game, the whispers will get louder. If we drafted Darnold, I'd say let him sit basically all year. But we have my man Baker, and Baker is used to taking jobs. My preference is for Baker to sit at least through 10 games, maybe longer, but I can definitely envision a scenario where he plays earlier, possibly from the first game. 

My best guess is that Tyrod wins the job, plays pretty well, and Baker plays the last 4-5 games after we're eliminated. 

I agree with basically everything you said until that last sentence. If Taylor can just manage to be an extremely average NFL QB- we could find ourselves in the playoff hunt. We were in a dozen games the last two year right up until the end... and that was with some of the worst QB play the NFL has ever seen. There is NO WAY we don't compete for the division if Taylor plays pretty well. With our blooming defense of speed and power, our playmakers on offense and our usually above average special teams- if we can find a guy that isn't a complete meltdown in the redzone, we could be poised for a phenomenal season- the likes of which haven't been seen since 07.

[Orion]

9 hours ago, Ghoolie said:

You know, I don't believe the football playbook is all that complicated.  Honestly, not being mean but NFL players are not exactly a brilliant bunch.

lol......there IS that.

Still though...the NFL will be new to him.  As will the bigger playbook...and the QB has to learn all of the skill positions jobs/routes.....as well as read the D pre-snap...and audible (if allowed).  Now obviously all 3 QB's are learning new playbooks...but Taylor and Stanton have learned them before and are experienced in the league.  They'll all have to learn their new crop of receivers and develop a timing chemistry with them.  But Mayfield will be mired mostly with the 3rd stringers and will not really be able to build that chemistry with the ones.

7 hours ago, hoorta said:

Unloading turnover machine Kizer should be worth a win or two at least. 

I still feel for that poor kid.  He never should have had to play in his rookie year.  He was quite young.  BUT...he came to a team with the worst QB's and receivers combination in the league.  Not to mention Hue, the QB bungler.  May God bless him in Green Bay.

[cambridgeho]

12 minutes ago, Orion said:

lol......there IS that.

Still though...the NFL will be new to him.  As will the bigger playbook...and the QB has to learn all of the skill positions jobs/routes.....as well as read the D pre-snap...and audible (if allowed).  Now obviously all 3 QB's are learning new playbooks...but Taylor and Stanton have learned them before and are experienced in the league.  They'll all have to learn their new crop of receivers and develop a timing chemistry with them.  But Mayfield will be mired mostly with the 3rd stringers and will not really be able to build that chemistry with the ones.

I still feel for that poor kid.  He never should have had to play in his rookie year.  He was quite young.  BUT...he came to a team with the worst QB's and receivers combination in the league.  Not to mention Hue, the QB bungler.  May God bless him in Green Bay.

With a new Rogers deal looming, Kizer will not see the field for a very long time. 

[hoorta]

4 hours ago, cambridgeho said:

With a new Rogers deal looming, Kizer will not see the field for a very long time.  If ever...  

In response to Orion, Kizer may turn out well- and I wish him the best. But we never should have drafted him in the first place. He was mediocre at best at ND, and he continued on the way with the Browns. 

[gumby73]

Tyrod played 10 teams last season that are on our schedule this season. Tyrod was 6-5 with playing his most productive passing games twice against the Jets (285 2TD,224 2TD). The only other team (on are schedule)Tyrod surpassed 200 yards was TB-268-1TD. @Car,@Atl.,@Cinn.,Oak,Saints-Peterman played,@LAC & at KC? Tyrod had a low of 125 yards. at Car.. Tyrod was still throwing for less than 183 yards since Car. game..Tyrod is certainly the Game Manager..now with No Shady McCoy to feed the ball to either. But looks like Tyrod has far more passing weapons to throw it around with here. Once Haley gets off all the underneath routes & actually takes some shots down field? .. that's when Tyrod could keep Mayfield as the next MaHolmes warming up for next season..stay tuned     

[cambridgeho]

4 hours ago, hoorta said:

In response to Orion, Kizer may turn out well- and I wish him the best. But we never should have drafted him in the first place. He was mediocre at best at ND, and he continued on the way with the Browns. 

You are very correct. He should have stayed in college another year. 

[jiggins7919]

9 hours ago, PoeticG said:

I agree with basically everything you said until that last sentence. If Taylor can just manage to be an extremely average NFL QB- we could find ourselves in the playoff hunt. We were in a dozen games the last two year right up until the end... and that was with some of the worst QB play the NFL has ever seen. There is NO WAY we don't compete for the division if Taylor plays pretty well. With our blooming defense of speed and power, our playmakers on offense and our usually above average special teams- if we can find a guy that isn't a complete meltdown in the redzone, we could be poised for a phenomenal season- the likes of which haven't been seen since 07.

To be honest, I originally had a similar sentiment but deleted it because I didn't want to go over the top. Here's the problem I see...our schedule absolutely sucks. I'm not just talking about WHO we play, because analysis shows us that you can't really rely on the previous year's win-loss record. I'm talking about the setup. Playing the Steelers game 1 is a kick in the junk. Traveling 1000 miles the FOLLOWING week to another playoff team, is a bigger kick. Coming BACK home to play on Thursday is the biggest. We have the very real, and likely, possibility of being 0-2 and coming back to Cleveland to play perhaps our "easiest" game with only a few days to rest and practice. I mean, for a team that's 1-31 over 2 years, our schedule beginning just feels punitive. The Saints are a mother effer at home. We simply don't beat the Steelers, and we don't win openers. It really is the worst possible beginning scenario. 

Now, not all hope is lost. We somehow fought the Steelers in game 1 last year, and that blocked punt TD was really what did us in. We need to find SOME way split those two games, and then beat the Jets to go 2-1 through 3 games. However, let's not forget the Jets somehow signed virtually every free agent in the world, so they're likely to be much better this year from a talent standpoint. Our best bet is for Darnold to win the job, and then take advantage of his rookie mistakes. I don't see this happening, but there's a chance. 

If we get to something like 0-3, it's going to be another LONG season. We CAN'T have that. To your point, we were definitely in many games last year, and we need to find ways to WIN games rather than lose them. Another major concern I have is the lack of a reliable FG kicker. How many games come down to just a few points? Tyrod is VERY safe, especially in the scoring part of the field, so I expect a TON of FG opportunities, and touchdowns being somewhat elusive. That means we need them all. We can't be going for it on 4th down because we don't trust our freaking kicker. Am I making sense? 

Ultimately, I desperately want you to be right. I very much want to see us competitive into December and having fun every weekend. This town is a sleeping giant, and we WANT to explode. 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, cambridgeho said:

You are very correct. He should have stayed in college another year. 

To be honest.....a potentiall useless as he may have turned out to be, the Browns should have kept Osweiler and started him for most of the season and let Kizer ride the pine and learn.   After all, they did have to pay the Big B.O.  16 mill.   Better to keep and use him than just dump him....particularly when you did not have any other competent QBs on the team.   And if B.O. had played like shite....like he think he may have, then they could have put Kizer in midway through the season.

The team would have been no worse off....

[cambridgeho]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

To be honest.....a potentiall useless as he may have turned out to be, the Browns should have kept Osweiler and started him for most of the season and let Kizer ride the pine and learn.   After all, they did have to pay the Big B.O.  16 mill.   Better to keep and use him than just dump him....particularly when you did not have any other competent QBs on the team.   And if B.O. had played like shite....like he think he may have, then they could have put Kizer in midway through the season.

The team would have been no worse off....

Agreed. They knew we were not going to win much, so they went for youth.

[Ghoolie]

13 hours ago, Orion said:

lol......there IS that.

Still though...the NFL will be new to him.  As will the bigger playbook...and the QB has to learn all of the skill positions jobs/routes.....as well as read the D pre-snap...and audible (if allowed).  Now obviously all 3 QB's are learning new playbooks...but Taylor and Stanton have learned them before and are experienced in the league.  They'll all have to learn their new crop of receivers and develop a timing chemistry with them.  But Mayfield will be mired mostly with the 3rd stringers and will not really be able to build that chemistry with the ones.

I still feel for that poor kid.  He never should have had to play in his rookie year.  He was quite young.  BUT...he came to a team with the worst QB's and receivers combination in the league.  Not to mention Hue, the QB bungler.  May God bless him in Green Bay.

I agree. I didn't like him, only in that I don't like run-first QBs. However, if you look at how Bill Cowher groomed Kordell Stewart it makes the Browns treatment of Kizer look very badly.

Kizer was the right choice to start. Forget his mistake-prone crap. He had physical skills beyond anyone the Browns have had at QB position. My complaint goes way beyond him having to play with the threat of being pulled, but extends to the Browns idiotic expectation that giving him 1 season was enough. If I was the coach and I was saddled with this kid, I would have either benched him as a project, or started him with the idea that I was going to take 3 years to turn him into a polished product.

Complain all one wants to about his inaccuracy, but if you are going to name the guy your starter, then you give him the confidence of the franchise's commitment. If not, then why even draft the kid in the first place?

[stillmotion]

I'd like to see Baker sit and learn.

[Tour2ma]

47 minutes ago, stillmotion said:

I'd like to see Baker sit and learn.

For how many winless weeks?

[TexasAg1969]

26 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

For how many winless quarters?

This is the Browns you know.

[Orion]

3 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

For how many winless weeks?

The wins or lack thereof should not be a factor in when Mayfield plays.  The problem is, The Quarterback Bungler is in charge of that.

[The Cysko Kid]

He should start when 

A. Taylor goes down

B. It becomes clear he's demonstrably and objectively better than Taylor

 

He should not start in his rookie year if 

A. Taylor is healthy

B. Taylor struggles but isn't actively losing games. 

[Tacosman]

1 hour ago, The Cysko Kid said:

He should start when 

A. Taylor goes down

B. It becomes clear he's demonstrably and objectively better than Taylor

 

He should not start in his rookie year if 

A. Taylor is healthy

B. Taylor struggles but isn't actively losing games. 

the top and bottom will likely/hopefully contradict each other.  I sure as hell hope at some point this year, and relatively early in it, it becomes clear the #1 pick in the entire draft(who is 23 years old already and most definately not a project) is better than tyrod taylor.......if it doesn't, we've likely drafted the wrong guy