Jonathan Paul Manziel

[Spectralcow]

Meh, I don't know. I'm okay with a non-mobile QB pocket passer if he is good enough. Peyton Manning isn't mobile, and I heard somewhere that he's not bad. For those of you who might be tempted and silly enough to say that Wilson beat Manning in the Superbowl, be honest with yourselves now, Russell Wilson being a better QB than Peyton Manning is not how the Seahawks won the Superbowl. If you don't agree that Manning is a better QB than Wilson, then we can't talk anymore.

 

The logical arguers (TCPO, prolly, for instance) will argue that mobile QBs who can play are a lot more plentiful than the universe's Peyton Mannings. And I completely agree. I'm just saying that I wouldn't turn my nose up at a really great pocket passer just because he's not mobile.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Meh, I don't know. I'm okay with a non-mobile QB pocket passer if he is good enough. Peyton Manning isn't mobile, and I heard somewhere that he's not bad. For those of you who might be tempted and silly enough to say that Wilson beat Manning in the Superbowl, be honest with yourselves now, Russell Wilson being a better QB than Peyton Manning is not how the Seahawks won the Superbowl. If you don't agree that Manning is a better QB than Wilson, then we can't talk anymore.

 

The logical arguers (TCPO, prolly, for instance) will argue that mobile QBs who can play are a lot more plentiful than the universe's Peyton Mannings. And I completely agree. I'm just saying that I wouldn't turn my nose up at a really great pocket passer just because he's not mobile.

I wouldn't, either. Problem is, they are few and far between. Honestly, of all the greatest "pocket passers" to play the game throughout history, I think Manning is the only one who could not only survive, but thrive, in today's NFL.

 

They say "if you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough". Well, in this case, I think "if you're gonna be immobile, you gotta be smart". Manning has survived for as long and played as well as he has because he thoroughly understands his opponent. He doesn't need to rely on his mobility to wait for plays to break down, because he's winning 75% of plays by design through audibles, blocking shifts and formation tweaks.

 

Personally, I don't see a quarterback in this draft with half of the football acumen as Manning. I haven't seen one in the last 10 drafts, to be honest.

[Spectralcow]

I agree, and it might be partially because the system (from grade school up?) isn't cultivating that sort of QB anymore. A vicious circle has begun. Pocket passers have fallen out of favor. As such, the best throwers aren't being taught to be pocket passers, and kids who aren't terribly mobile aren't being developed as rigorously as the kids who are. As such, pocket passers in general are not as good. And, since they are not as good, they continue to not be favored.

 

That's not to say that there are a lot of potential Peyton Mannings out there who aren't getting opportunities or being developed because they aren't mobile. There aren't. Peyton is special. But, it might explain why were not seeing as many pocket passers as we used to or why when we do see them, they don't seem as competitive as they used to.

 

I don't think that TCPO is probably guilty of this, but I think in general we need to be wary of being so enamored with mobility that we allow it to devalue throwing ability too much. Tebow, Vince Young, etc. were examples of this. When they entered the league, people said, "Okay, so they don't throw that well, but we can work that out with some training. Look how mobile they are, though." Ideally, of course, you'd like a QB who is mobile but who is also a really great passer.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I agree, and it might be partially because the system (from grade school up?) isn't cultivating that sort of QB anymore. A vicious circle has begun. Pocket passers have fallen out of favor. As such, the best throwers aren't being taught to be pocket passers, and kids who aren't terribly mobile aren't being developed as rigorously as the kids who are. As such, pocket passers in general are not as good. And, since they are not as good, they continue to not be favored.

 

That's not to say that there are a lot of potential Peyton Mannings out there who aren't getting opportunities or being developed because they aren't mobile. There aren't. Peyton is special. But, it might explain why were not seeing as many pocket passers as we used to or why when we do see them, they don't seem as competitive as they used to.

That's my feeling as well.

 

I think a lot has to do with the fact that a dual threat QB is just that, a dual threat. It's one more thing the defense has to gameplan for, so that more practice time spent on containing the QB and less time spent on perfecting other nuances of the defense.

 

The smartest QB in the world can't beat a perfect defensive play. He can't think the ball to his receiver's hands if he's perfectly covered. So, even though Peyton is one of the greatest to play the game, there is a ceiling on his smarts.

 

In high school, better talent almost always wins. In college, better talent normally wins.

In the pros, it's all about game planning.

 

That's why high school coaches err toward developing those dual threat guys instead of the pocket passers.

[Spectralcow]

Yeah, if you can get a real dual-threat guy (who is good at both), that's optimal. I'd put my preference list like this:

 

1. Guy who can do both.

2. Guy who can pass but can't run.

3. Guy who can run but can't pass.

 

For this reason, if I'm shooting for #1 (or if a real #1 isn't available), I'm more comfortable erring on the side of #2 than #3.

[Flyin J]

1. Guy who can read a defense and make plays.

[Spectralcow]

Lol. In that case,... A guy who can score TDs and win games.

[Westside Steve]

IOW Bill Brasky.

WSS

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

BILL BRASKY

[Remarker]

A WR's job is to bail the QB out when needed. Just sayin'.

[TopDawg31]

A WR's job is to bail the QB out when needed. Just sayin'.

It worked wonders for Elway

[jeffinwv]

Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.

it a shame that so many people here are so quick to pass on this guy.The guy will be very comparable to Tark...here or somewhere else...

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

 

After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:

 

I want the Browns to pick fourth.

 

If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.

 

But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.

 

Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.

 

If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.

[hoorta]

...

 

After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:

 

I want the Browns to pick fourth.

 

So do I..

 

Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.

 

If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.

 

Crap- The Browns passed on Ladanian Tomlinson, Ben Rothlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers. I'm not going to lose sleep if they pass on Johnny Football.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

it a shame that so many people here are so quick to pass on this guy.The guy will be very comparable to Tark...here or somewhere else...

I think he was being sarcastic.

[Remarker]

Mike H.

 

Just because my thinking is inconsistent with yours you think my thinking is insane. Hahaha right.

 

What's wrong with givin' WRs some love? It's not like QBs are perfect in their throws regardless of how sexy that sounds from sports casters...and you evidently.

[jeffinwv]

I think he was being sarcastic.

I was being 100% serious

[Westside Steve]

That's insane.

No it isn't. A wide receiver who runs his routes accurately extends to catch the ball and doesn't drop the son of a bitch makes a quarterback look a lot better. If he doesn't he makes the quarterback look like a chump. But yes, kindergarten logic aside, it's always best to have both positions playing well.

 

WSS

[miktoxic]

Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.

 

 

a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.

 

got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.

[miktoxic]

A WR's job is to bail the QB out when needed. Just sayin'.

 

evans made johnny footballs college career that's for sure.

[Westside Steve]

Tarkenton is too small at 6'0, 190lbs, there's no way he lasts 18 years and barely misses a start in the NFL. His style of scrambling is reckless, he needs to learn how to slide and play in the pocket better.

Check your calendar amigo. Its 2014. Yes unfortunately today Fran Tarkenton is probably too small to play in today's NFL. I think Broadway Joe Namath was only 6'1.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

 

a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.

 

got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.

He went back to the Vikings.

[Zombo]

a third round pick who lost three superbowls, two blowouts.

 

got traded from the team that drafted him because his coach didn't like his 'scrambling around' routine.

Lost three Super Bowls = Made three Super Bowls.

 

Tarkenton 3 Browns 0

 

Z

[miktoxic]

He went back to the Vikings.

 

yeah and did shit again.

 

Lost three Super Bowls = Made three Super Bowls.

 

Tarkenton 3 Browns 0

 

Z

 

jim kelly 4 browns 0

 

dan marino 1 browns 0

 

need i go on?

 

so i guess the point is a great QB does not make a team great or a sure thing.

[Osiris]

 

But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.

 

 

 

According to Tony Rizzo on The Really Big Show, he "talked" to people close to Ray Farmer and there is 90% chance they will NOT be drafting Manziel. Sorry to burst people's bubbles, but then again, you never know what will happen. Personally I think not picking Manziel is consistent with what Farmer has been saying and what the Chiefs did with their draft picks while Farmer was there.

 

Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.

 

Manziel is more likely to be a bust in Cleveland than he would be in Houston, so I don't buy this logic. In other words, his success somewhere else doesn't mean he'd have succeeded in Cleveland. In my opinion, the safest QB at this position is Bridgewater, and if he's not available, I would either take BPA or trade down with the Vikings so they can pick a QB and we can pick up Watkins at #8.

[miktoxic]

...

 

After all of the debating, I've come to this conclusion:

 

I want the Browns to pick fourth.

 

If the first three picks are all quarterbacks, then GREAT. I'll take Sammy Watkins or Jade Clowney (!). Pick up a potential QB later in the draft and ride Hoyer for another year and see what happens.

 

But if Manziel is available: You do NOT pass on him. It's a risk (yes!), but BOOM potential is precisely what this team requires.

 

Think of it this way... If the Browns pass on Manziel and he becomes a superstar, then it's a big miss for a club that can ill afford it. If the Browns TAKE Manziel and he busts - it was a risk that didn't pay off, but they likely managed some solid picks in the rest of the draft to build off of and there's plenty of opportunity to take another swing in future drafts.

 

If they trade UP and Manziel busts... It cost them THAT pick and likely two others. Too big of a mistake to risk it. Stay at four and let the player come to them.

 

bullshit.

 

if they miss on a QB with their first or second pick we will go down in history as having more QBs than any other team in a 14 year period that have all been busts. how can you say it won't set us back or it's no big deal? holmgren's pick of both mccoy and weeden set us back a decade and you're advocating doing the same thing? hell let the vikings trade up and swap picks with us for a christian ponder the 3rd and let them be the laughing stock when julius peppers plants manziel into the astroturf in his home dome.

 

farmer looks pretty smart to me and all of these so-called top 5 QBs look like a dumb move for a defensive player turned GM with a DC turned HC.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Nobody tips there hand before the draft. They will try and mislead you, confuse you, etc. Hell, they do trades when the clock is running on a particular draftee. It's all bullshit.

[Mr. Make-Believe]

 

bullshit.

 

if they miss on a QB with their first or second pick we will go down in history as having more QBs than any other team in a 14 year period that have all been busts. how can you say it won't set us back or it's no big deal? holmgren's pick of both mccoy and weeden set us back a decade and you're advocating doing the same thing? hell let the vikings trade up and swap picks with us for a christian ponder the 3rd and let them be the laughing stock when julius peppers plants manziel into the astroturf in his home dome.

 

farmer looks pretty smart to me and all of these so-called top 5 QBs look like a dumb move for a defensive player turned GM with a DC turned HC.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're advocating for here. I don't agree with your assessment of the quarterbacks in this draft, I suppose... But that's not the big issue.

 

I think there are pieces on the Browns roster right NOW that will be part of a good situation going forward. If you don't want to take a quarterback with that first pick, I kind of get what you're getting at. But Hoyer isn't likely going to be the answer either, so that leaves the Browns in an even stevens position.

 

I fail to see how making an attempt to fix this positional hole is somehow worse than leaving it status quo.

[Flyin J]

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're advocating for here. I don't agree with your assessment of the quarterbacks in this draft, I suppose... But that's not the big issue.

 

I think there are pieces on the Browns roster right NOW that will be part of a good situation going forward. If you don't want to take a quarterback with that first pick, I kind of get what you're getting at. But Hoyer isn't likely going to be the answer either, so that leaves the Browns in an even stevens position.

 

I fail to see how making an attempt to fix this positional hole is somehow worse than leaving it status quo.

People either think Hoyer os the answer or anyone we get in the second or third can be the next Kaepernick/Wilson/Dalton/Foles. I dont buy it. Were in a position now to get the guy we think is the best available....which is exactly what we have to do (While we can). My biggest fear is ignoring the position in the draft then have Hoyer be the best hes capable of being (mediocre), and winning 7 or 8 games the next three seasons while all our pro bowlers leave for greener pastures (teams with better QB situations). If you dont think Hoyer can be a top 10 QB (does anyone REALLY believe that), we need to add someone we think can be. Otherwise, were rebuilding again in three years.

[Spectralcow]

Kudos DaBuckeye on a well-made and reasonable point. I don't know if I agree with it 100% (because I don't necessarily think a 1st round QB is a guarantee either), but I definitely don't disagree with it. Hoyer most likely is not the answer, and the chances of getting exactly the right guy in the 3rd or 4th round are slim. People like to look at successful picks in those rounds and act like teams were depending on those QB picks the way we would be depending on the QB we're picking in the draft pick this year. It's like the "Chud started Hoyer" argument. You can't look at it in hindsight and act like it was intentional and it was the master plan all along. In at least some of those cases, those teams took a guy they thought had some potential, and he worked out, but they (some of them) didn't pick him with the insistence, "this guy is our future!".