Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cleveland should just take their top rated QB with the #1 pick.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cleveland should just take their top rated QB with the #1 pick.

    They're never gonna win without a legitimate starting QB and even an 'average' Alex Smith/Andy Dalton type of QB would be a major upgrade to their roster. They can get all the D-lineman they want with their other 38 picks.

  • #2
    Though I don't think many people can argue with your premise, I think the new regime is not going to let past failures and issues dictate the way they build their team. With the more "new-age" view of assets and value for picks and players the Browns will no doubt weigh the value in having whoever they perceive as being the #1 prospect against whatever type of offer(s) they may receive to go down. Rumors have swirled that they view Garrett as elite (which may be a ploy to try to get more in a trade), but I don't see the team analyzing the QBs in this draft and saying "we are simply going to take the best of this bunch regardless of how they compare to other prospects and or possible trades.

    Cleveland is in the enviable position of having two top 12 picks because they correctly moved back last year, they may do the same again this year. I tend to agree that Garrett is elite, but there certainly are trades that could get me to move out of the #1 spot if the assets I got back better suit my needs to build a roster for continued success - which may mean waiting another year for a QB.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not if they don't think its a franchise QB. QB is different because they are always a bit of a 2-3 year project. You wouldn't draft a QB number 1 back to back years unless something freaky happened. So if you miss you also miss on the other guys inbetween who you might have rated higher. The Alex Smith and Andy Dalton type QBs are what they are partly because of the situations they are in with good teams around them. You don't just have an average QB and get that kind of production regardless. Even those fanbases have pretty mixed feelings on their QBs, guys who aren't really good enough to get them over the hump to a Super Bowl (though it doesn't help having to go through New England every year). While teams are probably happy with having solid guys at the QB position, every team really wants that elite QB they can build the rest of their team around and not have to worry about the position for 15 years.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Browns have passed on guys like Aaron Rodgers and Ben Roethlisberger in order to take 'elite' talents such as Kellen Winslow, Braylon Edwards, Courtney Brown, Trent Richardson, Barkevious Mingo, etc, etc. Time to get over the 'best player' thing and take the best QB available.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thats just bad drafting. Regardless of whether or not they were QBs. The Jags drafted Blaine Gabbert over JJ Watt. Just recently the Browns drafted Johnny Manziel over Kelvin Benjamin and then David Carr went in the 2nd.

          Just saying none of this positional crap matters if you draft poorly you will generally be a bad team and if you draft well you will generally be a good team. The teams who have been the best at drafting through the years don't usually reach for positional needs.

          Comment


          • #6
            Drafting a QB is only a reach if he doesn't become a legit starter. It was bad drafting for the Browns to pass up Wentz last year.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Halsey View Post
              Drafting a QB is only a reach if he doesn't become a legit starter. It was bad drafting for the Browns to pass up Wentz last year.

              This is a bit chicken or egg. Did Wentz look generally good (at least early) because he was really ready to step in, or was he good because he had some weapons around him and his defense was lights-out early in the season? Would Wentz have started so hot and gotten such a big bandwagon if he was starting in Cleveland? Perhaps, as I do think Cleveland had some decent tools in Pryor and Coleman on the outside - but to think its a guarantee that Wentz succeeds there just isnt a fact.

              I have been writing quite a bit about my new theory on team-building and drafting - if you are staring a true "cant-miss" type prospect at QB and you have a need, then you taken him. If you have your doubts then I think you draft BPA and try to build up a foundation to allow a young QB to succeed. Dont bring a guy in without an o-line or any weapons, its a recipe for him to get killed, confidence hurt and stunt any growth he may have (think David Carr + most Cleveland picks).

              I was never sold on Wentz and was leery of my 49ers taking him last year and even though we still need a QB (though frankly I think Kaep did quite well this year given the situation and lack of talent) Id still rather wait another year for a guy I feel more comfortable with while building up the rest of the roster in the hopes that the new QB has a chance to succeed.

              Also, though I can appreciate the frustration as a fan of the Browns or as a fan of the NFL draft generally that it appears the Browns keep missing on QBs, its not for a lack of trying. The team HAS used premier assets to take QBs in years past and it has blown up (either they drafted the wrong guy or the team around them almost assured failure) - looking at the past of missing on certain guys or taking what was perceived to be BPA over other QBs isnt quite fair as there IS a new GM and front office staff in place. These arent the same guys who blew the other picks and based off of last year's results the Browns fans should be excited about how this front office is evaluating players and acquiring assets.

              The Browns made two tremendous trades last year and still wound up with a nice piece in the first round at a pick that made more sense for his perceived value. The rest of the draft is a great start to building up the roster with nice pieces that should develop together an that are under team control on low contracts for multiple years. With the ammo the team has this year Ill be curious to see what they do to further lay a foundation.

              For a team with as poor a record as they did this year, and while playing a rookie QB from the 3rd round for most of the year the team was routinely competitive. There is no reason to try and ruin the momentum by reaching for a QB - stay the course, I actually think the current FO is getting it right.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm a Falcons follower. I remember when people said the Falcons should take Glen Dorsey over Matt Ryan because they didn't have a 'foundation' and Dorsey was the BPA. I remember how the Dolphins and Rams passed on Ryan for BPA. Taking the BPA is why the Browns passed on guys like Roethlisberger and ARod.

                ​The Browns have selected 26 players in the last 2 Drafts alone. Only 1 of those picks was a QB. At some point it's time to stop waiting around for the mythical perfect foundation to be built.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Halsey View Post
                  Drafting a QB is only a reach if he doesn't become a legit starter. It was bad drafting for the Browns to pass up Wentz last year.

                  Wentz sucks, great trade

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nastradamus View Post

                    Wentz sucks, great trade

                    Yeah, great trade that the Browns have been able to translate into 1 win so far. I suppose you also think the other 28 trades the Browns have done in the last 10 years are great too?

                    ​Hey, they can't win, but they've got lots of Draft picks! That's what it's all about!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Halsey View Post


                      Yeah, great trade that the Browns have been able to translate into 1 win so far. I suppose you also think the other 28 trades the Browns have done in the last 10 years are great too?

                      ​Hey, they can't win, but they've got lots of Draft picks! That's what it's all about!
                      I hope he was being sarcastic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nastradamus View Post


                        Wentz sucks, great trade
                        I don't know if Wentz "sucks" but I do maintain that the trade ended up working out brilliantly. The Browns got another great asset this year on top of getting a really nice piece in Coleman last year. I think the Browns played the draft really well last year.

                        For all the talk about the Browns as an organization and its history, the new front office seems to have crushed things in year 1. Did the team do poorly on the field year 1? Yeah they did, but everyone knew the team was a dumpster fire and yet the team was very competitive in many games, yet they still secured the #1 overall pick along with the #12 pick because of a smart move last year and will continue to build and grow into year 2 and will continue to have plenty of assets to make trades to get veterans dirt cheap or to fill out the roster...OR move up to get the QB they want over the near year or two.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am actually a 49ers fan, and as things stand right now the Browns got a great jump on rebuilding last year because of the trades and players they drafted and acquired. The fact that they now have #1 and #12 (and could hypothetically make moves to get even more draft capital) to along with the nice pieces they acquired has a solid foundation forming. They shouldn't do anything to jeopardize the trajectory. I think Hugh Jackson is a solid coach and they simply need to keep growing and making the best available picks. Never know what they may do I round 2 or 3 to get a QB that they can groom (my jaw wouldn't drop if they went with BPA at #1 and #12 and then moved up to the late 1st round to get a guy like Kizer) but to say "hey, we have historically passed on QBs and it has bit us in the ass a few times and we don't have a true franchise QB on the roster now, we should just take the best available in 2017 because..well...we should."

                          Though someone used Matt Ryan as an example of teams passing on a QB to go BPA, how many other examples are there of teams trading up into round 1 or standing pat and drafting a QB when most conventional wisdom would say "yeah the team needed a QB, but there were players at other positions that rated higher, but due to 'positional value' they dropped."

                          A quick list from the last few years:
                          2016 - Goff/Wentz went ahead of superstars in Bosa, Elliot, Ramsey and a host of other guys that I like a lot

                          2015 - I agreed with Winston going #1 and Marriotta has been better then I expected so not sure I have a great example here.

                          2014 - Bortles goes ahead of Khalil Mack, Mike Evans, Anthony Bar, OBJr, Aaron Donald. The BROWNS go QB at #22 over clearly more highly rated prospects like Kelvin Bejamin, Bradley Robey (and by taking QB basically ensured they wouldn't do it again in Round 1 or 2 for another season or two)

                          2013 - EJ Manuel shockingly goes #16. I bet the Bills could have used Kyle Long, Tyler Eifert, Desmond Trufant, Xavier Rhodes, DeAndre Hopkins or a host of other more productive players drafted immediately after.

                          2012 - No one would argue with Luck at #1 and most didn't with RGIII at 32. But look! The BROWNS drafted a QB at #22 rather than drafting the clearly better prospects of Riley Reiff, David DeCastro, Donta Hightower, Whitney Mercilus, Kevin Zeitler or Harrison Smith who all went immediately after.

                          2011 - No real complaints with Cam going #1. But I bet the Jags would have preferred JJ Watt and both the Vikings and Jags would have preferred Robert Quinn, Mike Pouncey, Ryan Kerrigan and others who were drafted afterwards.

                          2010 - Rams waste pick on an injured Same Bradford over the clearly more talented Suh, McCoy, Eric Berry, Okung, Joe Haden. I also would imagine the Broncos would have been better off without Tebow.

                          2009 - Most would agree Stafford made sense at #1 and many people did like Sanchez (who had some limited success) but Josh Freeman at #17 over much better prospects is another example of just grabbing a QB in a relatively bad situation and over more talented players just because he is a QB.**

                          **Interestingly, the BROWNS traded out of the #5 spot and then later the #17 spot (both picks used for QBs) and ended up with MULTIPLE ASSETS and ended up taking Alex Mack at #21. (after yet a 3rd trade) Not only did the BROWNS get the best player of the bunch, they ended up with other assets.

                          I see far more examples of teams "reaching" for a QB and regretting it than the other way around. I am not using guys who fell later in the draft as it was clear that everyone in the league didn't value them as a first round pick or franchise level type player.

                          There are busts every year, no team has been immune, and though I totally agree that QB is the most important position on the field, I don't think I would sacrifice a premium pick on a guy unless he was really worth it. For guys like Tribisky and Watson (who I am warming to a lot) to go from "top of the second round" to "top 5 picks" is asinine. Further, if the team isn't capable of putting them in a position to succeed (offensive weapons, an offensive line, steady coaching staff for system implementation) then youre basically ensuring failure. Even Luck - as the best and most recent example - can only do so much when his offensive line is garbage and most of the roster is full of replacement-level (or worse) talent, if it wasn't for that fact that he plays in the worst division in football the Colts would have had almost zero success even though they have a prodigy level talent at QB.

                          End game, if there is truly a franchise level QB available - by all means, draft him and build around him because they are few and far between. If you are like most NFL franchises however, you need to build up the team and then get a QB in there that can either "manage" the system or whose system is geared to let them do what they do well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Nope. They should take Jonathan Allen, the best player in this draft. And you won't hear him saying he does not want to go to a cold city or saying he wants the Cowboys to trade up and get him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
                              Nope. They should take Jonathan Allen, the best player in this draft. And you won't hear him saying he does not want to go to a cold city or saying he wants the Cowboys to trade up and get him.
                              I agree, Allen or Garrett should be the choice.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information