• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2018 Draft Prospects Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
AZ_ said:
So now you’re drafting two guys in the top 5, still taking on a QB bridge contract, playing neither of the top 5 picks, developing them with split reps among backups and just hoping for the best?

Hard pass.

Just be better as assessing talent, it’s not that hard. Browns fans appear to have snapped a bit in terms of what a rational path forward looks like.

Because that ain’t it.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

I feel like it really doesn’t need commented on any further, but I will anyway.

If as an organization you are so terrible at player scouting that you take two first-round QB’s to make sure you hit one, then you’ll never have a shot in hell of being a good organization anyway.

One area that the current FO has a track record of strength in is talent evaluation. I trust these boys to shoot their shot and see where it takes us.
 
raiders91sc said:
you guys are worried about reps and the Brown's are gonna sign a bridge QB who is gonna get the reps next year over the guy who they draft. That guy who backed up Brady for 5 years sure didn't get enough reps to play in the NFL or be worth anything in a trade. great argument guys. I'm sold your right. Man I'm glad New England didn't trade with us. Plus guys on rookie contracts are so hard to trade because of the all the money they make.

Every argument you made against drafting 2 guys were wrong or about someone's feelings.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t make sense to draft two QBs high in this draft, one) because we need a veteran QB to help out the rookie regardless and 2) Kizer will be 22 years old for next season. He still has talent and potential, he just wasn’t ready. 3) this QB group is actually fairly deep and likely will have a guy available on day 3 that in due time could be at least an NFL spot starter/solid backup if not an actual legit NFL QB.

Why take Rosen and Allen/Jackson when the team has glaring needs at FS, RB, WR, CB. We cannot really get to the Wild Card game even with a Brady with this set of offensive skill players. We also cannot stop a backup QB from picking us apart in the secondary.

If we sign Cousins then the front office feels he is the best for this team and makes sense but in no way are we ever drafting two QBs in the top 5. I would rather just sign Bradford and McCarron while having Kizer as my third string if we are gonna go get 2 QBs like that and trade down and have like 7 draft picks between day 1 and day 2.

If you wanna draft 2 QBs for us in Madden, then so be it, but in no way would this ever happen in real life. I am known to be crazy, but I wouldn’t even do that and that’s saying something lol
 
I mean, I don't hate the idea.

If you drafted both Rosen and Darnold you're likely finding your franchise QB and then can move whichever QB turns out to be worse for more assets later down the line.

However, we have so many fucking holes that need plugged. It isn't like QB is our only problem. It's just our main problem. We need talent in the worst way.
 
0-16, this team has enough holes as it is, secondary and WR core... I can't watch another season of Higgins and Louis.
 
I cannot get over how good Bradley Chubb is. QB has to be #1 overall but I would absolutely take him @ 4 no questions asked.

Chubb and Garrett would be vicious. What Chubb lacks in Garrett's freakish athletic ability, he has double in technical ability.
 
Triplethreat said:
Thanks for the post from the random guy who's actual job is an economist.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with the analysis, if so, please give it your best.

Plenty of valid, well-thought out posts in there.

As an economist, he can provide a great deal of insight on value and how it relates to a business like the NFL. Not an out of line proposal, but his opinion isn't much different from most of the NFL who has continually looked for value running backs to carry the load, knowing how replaceable the position can be if you know your system.
 
AZ_ said:
Do you have a problem with the analysis, if so, please give it your best.

Plenty of valid, well-thought out posts in there.

As an economist, he can provide a great deal of insight on value and how it relates to a business like the NFL. Not an out of line proposal, but his opinion isn't much different from most of the NFL who has continually looked for value running backs to carry the load, knowing how replaceable the position can be if you know your system.
Click to expand...

The first point in the article is that "Running the ball carries little value in the NFL."

Yeah, great article.
 
Triplethreat said:
The first point in the article is that "Running the ball carries little value in the NFL."

Yeah, great article.
Click to expand...

The first point of the article says this:

Rush efficiency explains only 4.4% of the variance in wins. You might as well guess randomly [...] Pass efficiency explains 62% of the variance in wins in the NFL [...] In college football, rush efficiency correlates more strongly with wins than in the NFL. Teams like Alabama, Stanford and Wisconsin have won with a power running game and a physical front seven on defense. The insignificance of running the ball is unique to the NFL.
Click to expand...


So, again, do you have a problem with the analysis?

If so, what is it?

Looking for you to provide something beyond what you're providing now. As many of us have asked of you before.
 
AZ_ said:
The first point of the article says this:




So, again, do you have a problem with the analysis?

If so, what is it?

Looking for you to provide something beyond what you're providing now. As many of us have asked of you before.
Click to expand...

So having a threat out of the backfield doesn't contribute at all to "pass efficiency"? Doesn't set up play action for big gains? Doesn't pull more defenders in the box to allow for more one on one situations?

Baseless statistics are just that, baseless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top