Weeden in 1st Round?

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by keylime_5

One way to look at it is this: Would you (or should I say, would an NFL team) trade a late first round pick (like #22 overall) for a 29 or 30 year old franchise QB who could be a part of a great offense?

Except that instead of a "franchise QB", we got a rookie. The problem with his age for me isn't that he's too old to play the position and has a limited shelf life, it's that if he doesn't develop immediately, he'll get dumped much quicker than a young guy. He's not going to get the development time that Eli/Rodgers/Brees got. No one develops 30 year olds.

If we end up doing as poorly as our schedule indicates we could and end up with the #1 pick because Weeden struggles like most rookies, there's a very, very legitimate chance that, provided there's a QB standout in 2013, we'll be using that pick on a QB ala the Panthers with Jimmah/Cam in 2010/2011.

If that's the case, we just flushed a stud at OL or a dynamic playmaker on offense down the crapper for what many realized beforehand was a poor investment. I hope for our sake Weeden pans out and gives us the 8 years number everyone has been inventing. If he doesn't, there's nothing but ugly and difficult choices ahead.

[nepg]

Weinke 2.0

[TonyGfortheTD]

So what go to receiver is Cleveland going to field that will be like what he had with Justin Blackmon at Oklahoma State?

[robert pancake gallery]

Originally Posted by nepg

Weinke 2.0

in the same way that robert griffin III is aaron brooks 2.0

[WCH]

I'm not saying that Aaron Brooks was a great QB, because he clearly wasn't. From 2001-2004, though, he was a very legit NFL starter in Mike McCarthy's offense. He had four straight seasons of 3500+ yards, and his peak QB rating was 88.8 (good for seventh in the NFL, that season). Each of those four years, he finished in the top 10 in passing yards. He was even tied for second in the NFL in passing touchdowns during the 2002 season (Tom Brady led the NFL with 28 TD passes; while Brett Favre, Brooks, and Peyton Manning each had 27).

By the standards laid out in this thread, Brooks would have been well worth a first round pick because the Saints got five years of solid starting QB play out of him.

[onejayhawk]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Except that instead of a "franchise QB", we got a rookie.

Every franchise QB starts as a rookie.

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

in the same way that robert griffin III is aaron brooks 2.0

No Colt McCoy II.

J

[gpngc]

Indisputable proof that Brandon Weeden is more mature than all other QBs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[robert pancake gallery]

Originally Posted by WCH

I'm not saying that Aaron Brooks was a great QB, because he clearly wasn't. From 2001-2004, though, he was a very legit NFL starter in Mike McCarthy's offense. He had four straight seasons of 3500+ yards, and his peak QB rating was 88.8 (good for seventh in the NFL, that season). Each of those four years, he finished in the top 10 in passing yards. He was even tied for second in the NFL in passing touchdowns during the 2002 season (Tom Brady led the NFL with 28 TD passes; while Brett Favre, Brooks, and Peyton Manning each had 27).

By the standards laid out in this thread, Brooks would have been well worth a first round pick because the Saints got five years of solid starting QB play out of him.

the point of my comparison was that you were comparing a first round prospect to a later (4th) round prospect... i guess if you honestly feel weeden should have been taken no earlier than the 3rd round then that is your opinion; although weeden's credentials were obviously worse than those of RG3 by a long shot, so it seemed fair to choose a better "fourth rounder" to compare him to. and, you know, the race thing that everyone loves so much when it comes to projecting quarterbacks.

[robert pancake gallery]

Originally Posted by gpngc

Indisputable proof that Brandon Weeden is more mature than all other QBs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

a true american, i'm sold

[Caddy]

[CC.SD]

I'm pretty shocked at this pick still, to be honest. Browns needed a QB it's true so it's tough to argue against an upgrade but when you have as many holes as they did, to spend first rounders on a RB/QB is arguably a little short-sighted, especially in that division where if you don't have serious beef on both sides of the ball you are going to get pushed around.

[nepg]

Originally Posted by robert pancake gallery

the point of my comparison was that you were comparing a first round prospect to a later (4th) round prospect... i guess if you honestly feel weeden should have been taken no earlier than the 3rd round then that is your opinion; although weeden's credentials were obviously worse than those of RG3 by a long shot, so it seemed fair to choose a better "fourth rounder" to compare him to. and, you know, the race thing that everyone loves so much when it comes to projecting quarterbacks.

His credentials also weren't any better than Weinke's 11 years ago (actually, not even close). It seems like the only reason teams didn't look at Weeden the way they looked at Weinke is because Weeden still has all his hair and Weinke was balding.

[robert pancake gallery]

Originally Posted by nepg

His credentials also weren't any better than Weinke's 11 years ago (actually, not even close). It seems like the only reason teams didn't look at Weeden the way they looked at Weinke is because Weeden still has all his hair and Weinke was balding.

his credentials as a prospect (arm strength, decision making, etc), not necessarily his college stats and accolades... again, if you don't feel weeden was worthy of a 1st or 2nd round pick based on talent, that is a perfectly valid opinion. but weinke went in the 4th round, whereas most draft experts had weeden going in the 1st or 2nd, not just the browns management; i honestly don't remember where they projected weinke since that was obviously ages ago, but i am under the assumption that he was not projected to go that early.