Baker Mayfield: Fire The Cannons

[Randolphkeys]

I believe the offensive line will be good enough this year, but I still believe the long-term plan should be a first round prospect at LT, Bitonio at LG, Corbett at C, Zeitler at RG, and Hubbard at RT. Tretter is solid in pass protection but not a difference maker in run blocking. Bitonio has left tackle talent but not left tackle size, and that will catch up to him in time.

 

[inliner311]

Okay....

I'm going to say that this O-Line is going to be much better than average. Only real question was Bitonio at LT, and that seems to have worked. Bitonio, Corbett, Tretter, and Zeitler are a damn good 4. RT is dicey, but you can work with only one weak position. Our pass catchers also look to be better than average -- perhaps by quite a bit. Running backs should be at least average. In terms of the offense surrounding the QB...I'd say this one should be top 10. It'll go as far as the QB can take them.

DL is at least average. LB's are above average. DB's are the biggest question mark, but I'd go with "average" as a fair guess.

I honestly think the team surrounding the QB is good enough to make the playoffs. That's probably a bold statement, but I also think it's a fair one. The question is going to be if either QB is good enough to get them there, and what will be the impact of the coaching staff.

I wasn't saying the offense didn't have the talent or players to be successful, I just think it's better for them to grow and develop as a unit with a QB like Tyrod before Baker is sent in. Offensive lines take time to develop chemistry and the communication for protections. I think our group of receivers can be real good but they are young outside of Jarvis Landry and Josh Gordon, who has only played a couple games in the last couple years. I really like our stable of RBs and think it's the best group of RBs we have had in years but they will also have to get up to speed on blocking and protecting the QB.

Ironing out the offensive with a vet QB in Tyrod will make this offense better much quicker rather than going thru the mistakes of a rookie QB while trying to build the offense up. Hopefully by time Baker has to come in the offense will be a well oiled machine that can withstand his rookie mistakes.

 

[CBBI]

Except he didn't play in a pro system, never took the ball under snap, and played in a conference who is know for horrible defense and best qb ever is Andy Dalton.

He just isn't ready, 23 or not, he needs time to learn. He looks good because they aren't throwing allot at him and he is going against limited defenses. Remember Kizer looked decent in preseason.

Let the kid earn the spot when he is ready, not be thrown to the wolves early. Now that doesn't mean if he started from day 1 he wouldn't be successful eventually, just means bringing him along slowly gives him the best opportunity to be good and good quickly.

Let's go down the list...

"He didn't play in a pro system" - There have been 27 QBs picked in the first round this decade and by my count only 6 of them (Ponder, Luck, Manuel, Bridgewater, Winston and Rosen) played in what I would consider a true pro style offense.

"Never took the ball under center" - Not only is this extremely common in the college game (guys like Goff and Newton never took snaps among many others), but it's less of an issue than ever before. 58% of all NFL plays were in the shotgun last year. If you focus strictly on passing plays, that number spikes up to 79%. These numbers are only going to continue to rise. The NFL is a passing league and it's a shotgun league. Learning how to take snaps under center is not difficult at all. Mayfield has only been practicing it for about six months and I haven't heard of a single issue in camp, nor have I see a single issue in two preseason games.

"Played in a conference who is known for horrible defense and best QB ever is Andy Dalton" - There's just nothing goofier when evaluating prospects than conference bias. Johnny Manziel DESTROYED SEC defenses, including Alabama, en route to winning the Heisman and he was a total and complete flameout in the NFL. Carson Wentz was an FCS QB who didn't play a single NFL defender throughout his entire college career and he was on his way to winning NFL MVP this past season. You either have the talent and work ethic to succeed or you don't. The conference you played in is pretty much irrelevant.

"He just isn't ready, 23 or not, he needs time to learn." - Why is 23 year old, 5th year senior, 47 college games under his belt Baker Mayfield somehow less ready than say Marcus Mariota? Mariota was less experienced, played in a similarly gimmicky offense and started from day 1. If you're good enough, you'll be able to handle it.

"Bringing him along slowly gives him the best opportunity to be good and good quickly" - Where is the evidence that this is ever the case? Here's all the first round QBs since 2010.

11 started/played week 1: Bradford, Newton, Luck, Griffin III, Tannehill, Weeden, Manuel, Winston, Mariota, Wentz, Watson
11 sat/waited: Tebow, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Bortles, Manziel, Bridgewater, Goff, Lynch, Trubisky, Mahomes

Of the 11 that started right away, 8 of them are still starting QBs and the other 3 are 2nd stringers.

Of the 11 that sat, only 4 of them are currently starting. 4 of them are out of the league completely.

"Kizer looked decent in preseason" - Kizer really didn't look that good in the preseason. He hit a few impressive chunk plays, but overall he was well below average. He completed just 51% of his passes. He held onto the ball too long to a frustrating degree and ended up with just a 72.7 QB rating.

Mayfield is the most productive and one of the most experienced college QBs of all time. I ask again, if HE isn't ready to play from day 1, than what college QB really is?

 

[buzzdog]

Never said I don’t think they should take their time.

I said he’s better right now. Which was met with disagrees.

But whatever.

Baker has more upside than Tyrod for a number of reasons. But right now, right at this minute, Tyrod is the better NFL starting quarterback because of his total package which includes his proven NFL starting experience. Baker won't be far behind, and there's no reason whatsoever to rush it. We have Tyrod for a year, let's see how far he can take this team before we change. Tyrod deserves that, and it's what is best for Mayfield. Allowing him to get his head wrapped completely around NFL defenses before we throw him into the deep end is what is best for him.

 

[Lee]

Mayfield is the most productive and one of the most experienced college QBs of all time. I ask again, if HE isn't ready to play from day 1, than what college QB really is?

That is my point, my answer is none should play from day one. They just aren't ready. I like what I see allot, but Baker is in perfect position as number 2 behind Tyrod for a season and the number 3 is most likely a future coach.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Why only look at quarterbacks of the past eight years, especially when so few elite quarterbacks have been produced during that time? I am not trying to be a dick, but I am as curious as anyone about the best way to develop quarterbacks properly. Just looking at those players I think more about the desperation level of the franchises. Did the bridge quarterback stink up the joint? Did the coach fear getting fired? What made the traditional approach get pitched?

The traditional approach for a long time has been a bridge QB because one thing I don't often see is a young QB with a critical flaw play through that flaw. Vince Young didn't play through his tendency to tuck and run. Manziel didn't play through his tendency to miss throwing windows. Kizer just got worse and worse in processing as he lost. If Mayfield has a few things the coaches want him to work on, he will be better long-term by watching for a few weeks.

 

[godfather]

I think Taylor should start, I think @Lee and @CBBI bring up good points, just not the Kizer one Lee.

Kizer sucked. Kizer never looked good. Not to anyone that had eyes and wasn't being a total homer.

 

[CBBI]

Why only look at quarterbacks of the past eight years, especially when so few elite quarterbacks have been produced during that time? I am not trying to be a dick, but I am as curious as anyone about the best way to develop quarterbacks properly. Just looking at those players I think more about the desperation level of the franchises. Did the bridge quarterback stink up the joint? Did the coach fear getting fired? What made the traditional approach get pitched?

The traditional approach for a long time has been a bridge QB because one thing I don't often see is a young QB with a critical flaw play through that flaw. Vince Young didn't play through his tendency to tuck and run. Manziel didn't play through his tendency to miss throwing windows. Kizer just got worse and worse in processing as he lost. If Mayfield has a few things the coaches want him to work on, he will be better long-term by watching for a few weeks.

I went with 2010 as a starting point because the vast majority of college programs were running some variation of a spread/air raid by 2010.

Yeah, we could go all the way back to 1998 when Peyton Manning was a top prospect, but college football has evolved so dramatically since then that the crop of QB prospects available in 2018 is a whole lot different from the prospects available twenty years prior.

I think you'd be surprised at the whole "bridge" QB thing. If you go around the current 32 starting QBs in the NFL. 16 of them started Week 1 of their rookie seasons. Another 8 of them started half of their rookie seasons.

Only 8 current starting QBs didn't start at least half of their rookie seasons.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, but I'm firmly of the opinion that if you have the talent to be a successful QB, it will show up immediately. If you don't, it won't.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule. Jared Goff was as bad as it gets as a rookie and played tremendously better as a 2nd year player. Alex Smith had three pretty putrid seasons before finally turning it around in year 5.

But generally speaking, I think you see enough flashes right away to know if a guy will make it or not.

I just don't think there is much benefit to sitting. If you HAVE to sit to "develop" into a good QB, the odds are overwhelmingly likely that you were never good enough to begin with.

 

[godfather]

Rule of the thumb - if you're going to start a rookie QB - you must have a great line, great running game, and experienced playmaking receivers.

We have none of those things.

So you're putting Mayfield in a position he's more than likely going to struggle with. And the talent is there with him, but the odds are he's still going to struggle if you just throw him out there.

Sure, we got some weapons/talent but they themselves are young and undeveloped.

There was a reason why Jared Goff struggled when he played, and Prescott didn't as rookies. It's not always a talent thing within each player, lot of it is the team around you kind of thing.

 

[CBBI]

Rule of the thumb - if you're going to start a rookie QB - you must have a great line, great running game, and experienced playmaking receivers.

We have none of those things.

Both of these things are highly debatable at best.

 

[dark2332]

Kizer sucked. Kizer never looked good. Not to anyone that had eyes and wasn't being a total homer.

You’re so full of shit. I think we all knew he had a lot of work to do coming out of Notre Dame.

The optimism came from how well he played against Pittsburgh in week one. Coaches and quarterbacks in the league publicly commented about his play—including Tomlin, Roethlisberger, and Harbaugh.

First start, any degree of talent under center was a sight for sore eyes for a fan base that has had zero decent quarterbacks since 1999. He made plenty of miscues but we also saw the things to like about him.

Sure, the very next week we saw all the reasons that he was considered so raw. All the reasons he needed time. It didn’t help that there were zero veteran alternatives on our roster that didn’t suck worse than Kizer.

I’m not comparing him to Mayfield whatsoever. Just don’t get on some Kizer high horse. I think everyone had a degree of optimism following the season opener.

We all hoped he’d continue to progress from that point rather than regress.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I went with 2010 as a starting point because the vast majority of college programs were running some variation of a spread/air raid by 2010.

Yeah, we could go all the way back to 1998 when Peyton Manning was a top prospect, but college football has evolved so dramatically since then that the crop of QB prospects available in 2018 is a whole lot different from the prospects available twenty years prior.

I think you'd be surprised at the whole "bridge" QB thing. If you go around the current 32 starting QBs in the NFL. 16 of them started Week 1 of their rookie seasons. Another 8 of them started half of their rookie seasons.

Only 8 current starting QBs didn't start at least half of their rookie seasons.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, but I'm firmly of the opinion that if you have the talent to be a successful QB, it will show up immediately. If you don't, it won't.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule. Jared Goff was as bad as it gets as a rookie and played tremendously better as a 2nd year player. Alex Smith had three pretty putrid seasons before finally turning it around in year 5.

But generally speaking, I think you see enough flashes right away to know if a guy will make it or not.

I just don't think there is much benefit to sitting. If you HAVE to sit to "develop" into a good QB, the odds are overwhelmingly likely that you were never good enough to begin with.

I think there is a very different reason than ideal development trends for rookies to start earlier on their careers. Remember that Matthew Stafford was the #1 pick in 2009, and signed the richest rookie contract in league history: Six years at over 41 million dollars. The next year, Bradford smashed that record. At that point, teams couldn't afford a big salary at the bridge QB position and a top QB pick.

What was more common before that financial reason for rookies starting was a plan for one year of competent veteran play. I think the proliferation of spread offense has made college football less similar to the NFL, and the need for a bridge QB even greater. These days, the Mike Glennons of the NFL somehow make over 10 million to start, and as a backup make in the neighborhood of 4 million plus per year.

The problem is a lack of quality QBs overall, in my opinion. The 20th to 30th best starters in the NFL are often AJ McCarron types. Bridge QBs are even worse. The Browns are lucky to have Tyrod, even if he isn't the most talented QB in the world... it's often much worse.

 

[bob2the2nd]

I went with 2010 as a starting point because the vast majority of college programs were running some variation of a spread/air raid by 2010.

Yeah, we could go all the way back to 1998 when Peyton Manning was a top prospect, but college football has evolved so dramatically since then that the crop of QB prospects available in 2018 is a whole lot different from the prospects available twenty years prior.

I think you'd be surprised at the whole "bridge" QB thing. If you go around the current 32 starting QBs in the NFL. 16 of them started Week 1 of their rookie seasons. Another 8 of them started half of their rookie seasons.

Only 8 current starting QBs didn't start at least half of their rookie seasons.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, but I'm firmly of the opinion that if you have the talent to be a successful QB, it will show up immediately. If you don't, it won't.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule. Jared Goff was as bad as it gets as a rookie and played tremendously better as a 2nd year player. Alex Smith had three pretty putrid seasons before finally turning it around in year 5.

But generally speaking, I think you see enough flashes right away to know if a guy will make it or not.

I just don't think there is much benefit to sitting. If you HAVE to sit to "develop" into a good QB, the odds are overwhelmingly likely that you were never good enough to begin with.

I broke it down before the draft, but basically with the exception of goff number 1 picks are starting before the end of the season. Furthermore and much more importantly the only first round qbs not starting by year 2 are either total busts or ended up behind probowl QBs.

There seems to be very little correlation of success between draft picks that sit and those that start

 

[Sebastian]

Rule of the thumb - if you're going to start a rookie QB - you must have a great line, great running game, and experienced playmaking receivers.

We have none of those things.

So you're putting Mayfield in a position he's more than likely going to struggle with. And the talent is there with him, but the odds are he's still going to struggle if you just throw him out there.

Sure, we got some weapons/talent but they themselves are young and undeveloped.

There was a reason why Jared Goff struggled when he played, and Prescott didn't as rookies. It's not always a talent thing within each player, lot of it is the team around you kind of thing.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

I don't think we need a "great" of any one of those three. So long as each one isn't "Awful" and is balanced by "good to great" on the others.

I don't know how one can classify the Browns receiving corps as anything less than ""very good" provided Gordon stays clean. Few teams can boast two legitimate Pro-Bowlers as WRs. Hyde is solid at worst. The O-Line is probably the biggest question mark but I don't think it will be awful.

Mayfield has the tools around him to succeed; something other Browns rookie QBs have not had. Plus a good defense that will help him out by hopefully not putting the Browns in holes early that require riskier offensive plays.

 

[CBBI]

I think there is a very different reason than ideal development trends for rookies to start earlier on their careers. Remember that Matthew Stafford was the #1 pick in 2009, and signed the richest rookie contract in league history: Six years at over 41 million dollars. The next year, Bradford smashed that record. At that point, teams couldn't afford a big salary at the bridge QB position and a top QB pick.

My opinion? The rookie wage scale is actually creating the exact opposite effect of it's original intent.

I think the original intent was exactly what you suggested, stabilize salaries on unproven players (specifically QBs) so franchises are not obligated to play them if they’re a little too raw. Now as I’ve said, I don’t think sitting for any length of time is truly beneficial, but that’s a whole different argument.

Unfortunately, and I don’t think the NFL expected this at the time, but having a rookie scale has caused QBs specifically to actually be thrust into action even sooner than before.

Here’s why.

Studies have shown that the quickest and most effective way to create a long Super Bowl window in the current salary cap/rookie scale era is two fold.

1. Hit on a QB in the draft
2. Load up the rest of your roster with expensive players during the four years your QB is making 1/3rd (for No. 1 overall picks) to 1/20th (for QBs picked later) the amount of money as the standard QB AAV which at this point is 20-30M per season and steadily climbing.

Colts did it with Luck. Seahawks did it with Wilson. Jaguars did it with Bortles. Eagles and Rams are currently doing it with Wentz and Goff.

It’s a market inefficiency.