Baker Mayfield: Fire The Cannons

[buzzdog]

This team does have more talent surrounding the quarterback than in past years. The offensive line is the only real question mark but they should be at least average once everyone is healthy. Our defense has added talent and they have continuity playing in the same system so we should definitely expect to see them being able to get off the field and we should benefit with better field position than in past years.

But, we have a lot of new players playing under a new offensive coordinator and in somewhat of a new system on that side of the ball. The whole offense needs to figure out a lot of things and they need to gel as a unit. The whole team actually needs to learn how to be winners, and they all need to learn how to focus on doing the exact things it takes to win games week in and week out.

It makes perfect sense to me for these things to happen under an established veteran NFL quarterback like Tyrod Taylor. It does absolutely no harm to Baker Mayfield to be able to take his time and learn from Taylor while the offense gels and establishes an identity. It does no harm if Tyrod gets the pump primed and Baker later steps into a cockpit that is fully functioning, experienced, and comfortable in what they are trying to accomplish on every play.

I just don't understand why some people are pushing back against this concept. Nobody is really saying that Baker Mayfield is incapable of being the starter, he could probably handle it as well as any rookie quarterback. There will always be some growing pains both for Mayfield as an individual, but the offense as a unit is going to have growing pains as well. To me it is just smarter to get some of the kinks and growing pains worked out for the offense as a whole, then let Mayfield step in to a unit that already has their shit more together.

 

[Randolphkeys]

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.

I definitely agree that the priority in other salary cap models of the past eight years was talent around the rookie. We agree that is more valuable than sitting a QB who can hold his own on the field right away, if that rookie really is ready. There are some factors to examine further for each of your examples:

Luck - The Manning Era just ended, and Luck was a special case in rookie QBs. No rookie quarterback ever had such a big turnaround in wins and losses in one season, but he took a lot of hits on that bad OL that derailed his career.

Wilson - He was supposed to sit behind Flynn, but as a third round pick he wasn't making that top choice money. The Seahawks took advantage of his low salary.

Bortles - He didn't start until game 3, but that had more to do with a bad QB in Henne in front of him and a coach who wanted to keep his job. Bortles mostly struggled until this past season. His best talent was durability while he learned.

Goff - This is going to be common, IMO. He had all the tools but wasn't really ready for a pro style offense. It took him a full season, even if he played a bit as a rookie.

Wentz - Most similar to the Mayfield situation. Don't forget the Eagles planned to roll with Bradford as first string. Wentz looked better than expected and more prepared. When they had a chance to flip Bradford to open up salary and get a 1st, they jumped at it. Wentz wasn't a top 20 QB as a rookie, but he was surrounded by more talent because of the move.

So, I feel the salary cap has forced many rookies to play earlier, but that doesn't really mean it's the best way to develop a rookie signal caller.

 

[Jordan]

Not to rehash the entire Kizer debate, but I think it is clear that he is raw as hell, but also that he has a shit-load of natural talent. If he can learn to read a defense (big if) then Kizer will develop into a solid NFL starter.

Baker is much better, though. So is Tyrod. The Browns made a huge upgrade at QB this summer. I think Tyrod is worth at least four more wins than Kizer, and my guess is Baker is close to that, too.

 

[Ocelot]

Goff - This is going to be common, IMO. He had all the tools but wasn't really ready for a pro style offense. It took him a full season, even if he played a bit as a rookie.

It's unfair to look back at Goff's rookie season and deduce that he simply wasn't ready for a pro style offense. Case Keenum looked much much worse on that Rams team as well. Both players performed far better when they were no longer on a team coached by an absolutely fossilized Jeff Fisher.

Maybe Goff wasn't ready as a rookie. Maybe Jeff Fisher was a wholly ineffective both. Or maybe the truth is somewhere in between. But it's not fair to completely leave other factors in the situation.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This team does have more talent surrounding the quarterback than in past years. The offensive line is the only real question mark but they should be at least average once everyone is healthy. Our defense has added talent and they have continuity playing in the same system so we should definitely expect to see them being able to get off the field and we should benefit with better field position than in past years.

But, we have a lot of new players playing under a new offensive coordinator and in somewhat of a new system on that side of the ball. The whole offense needs to figure out a lot of things and they need to gel as a unit. The whole team actually needs to learn how to be winners, and they all need to learn how to focus on doing the exact things it takes to win games week in and week out.

I agree with the first paragraph, but I think you're overcomplicating the "learn to win" angle. These guys all have been playing ball their whole lives, and most of them won quite a bit while doing so. For many, it's the losing that is the aberration. We've also added vets at pretty much every unit on the field who come from winning teams, so they know how to win. And we just added Haley as a coach, who definitely know how to win. I think "learning to win" takes care of itself real quickly as soon as you win a game.

It makes perfect sense to me for these things to happen under an established veteran NFL quarterback like Tyrod Taylor. It does absolutely no harm to Baker Mayfield to be able to take his time and learn from Taylor while the offense gels and establishes an identity. It does no harm if Tyrod gets the pump primed and Baker later steps into a cockpit that is fully functioning, experienced, and comfortable in what they are trying to accomplish on every play.

Some of the biggest turnarounds in NFL history have happened under a rookie or second-year QB. The Manning-era Colts, the Cowbows with Prescott, Roethlisberger, etc..

I just don't understand why some people are pushing back against this concept.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, to be honest, but I do get the criticism of your argument. You said "it does no harm if Tyrod gets the pump primed...." Well, what if Mayfield is actually better, and we lose a game we may have won with Mayfield? And if QB's really improve with repetition, then every game in which Mayfield doesn't start is a game of experience he loses. I think those are the potential "harms" some people see with starting Tyrod over Mayfield.

I suppose one other issue is how you view this season. If you view the purpose of this season as being transitional/gaining experience, to start turning this franchise around without worrying about maximizing wins, then you're more likely to want to start Tyrod. But if you view this season as "fuck it, let's just win as many damn games as we can and finally get this show on the road," then I can see why those people may want to start Mayfield.

I don't think it is a slam dunk argument either way, although I'd prefer to start Taylor simply because he likely was promised the starting job, and you don't want to piss him off if you start Mayfield, he stumbles, and you then have to replace him with Tyrod. Splitting a locker room isn't good.

 

[Randolphkeys]

It's unfair to look back at Goff's rookie season and deduce that he simply wasn't ready for a pro style offense. Case Keenum looked much much worse on that Rams team as well. Both players performed far better when they were no longer on a team coached by an absolutely fossilized Jeff Fisher.

Maybe Goff wasn't ready as a rookie. Maybe Jeff Fisher was a wholly ineffective both. Or maybe the truth is somewhere in between. But it's not fair to completely leave other factors in the situation.

Look, bottom line is that if we are only looking at the five most successful transitions recently from the college game to the pros, let's look at the results. The Rams offense as a whole was a mess until they hired one of the brightest young offensive minds to be head coach, I'm not trying to hide anything. I was a Goff supporter when he was drafted and think he's great right now. I do believe he is a guy who had the most to learn coming out of the Air Raid.

At the same time, we are skipping over any lessons to be learned from all the QBs drafted who had potential but it didn't pan out. Isn't that information very important as well?

 

[CBBI]

So, I feel the salary cap has forced many rookies to play earlier, but that doesn't really mean it's the best way to develop a rookie signal caller.

I'm just trying to figure out if sitting actually helps develop a rookie QB or not. It just doesn't seem like it does. If you're good, it's almost always (not every scenario) noticeable right away.

There are nine current starting QBs in 2018 who sat for all of their rookie seasons. In all nine scenarios the incumbent that the rookie was drafted to replace was either a current/former Pro Bowler, a Super Bowl champion/participant or both.

Did Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers and Jimmy Garappolo actually benefit from sitting multiple seasons? Or were they good enough to play right away and only sat because of how good the guy in front of them was?

Take Kirk Cousins for example. He didn't become a full time starter until his 4th season in the league, but he had a solid preseason as a rookie and had a 101.6 QB rating as a rookie in 1 start and other mop up duty.

Did he need to sit for three years to get better or was that just a product of circumstance?

 

[I'mWithDan]

So, I feel the salary cap has forced many rookies to play earlier, but that doesn't really mean it's the best way to develop a rookie signal caller.

It's a factor for sure but there are other pressures as well that have equal weight IMO. Most bad teams have coaches, front offices or both that are feeling public or internal pressure.

Coaches specifically have incredibly short life spans....when things go south or even sideways, the pressure to play someone like Baker gets insane. For example.....lets says the Browns start 0-5. Do we seriously think that Hue won't be scrapping any long term plan in place to save his own ass? It's just the pressure to play a player you have devoted a lot of (draft) resources to and a thought that "maybe this guy can save my job". I'd seriously love to know the number of rookie QB's who played earlier than expected in a "hot seat" year vs. not.

In terms of development, there are very few true developmental QB prospects IMO. If we're talking franchise QB's and excluding depth chart fodder. At the NFL level, it is just unrealistic to believe that guys need years to be ready to take the field. The game is too fast, the other players too good and the required mental capacity too high for almost everyone to "learn" and significantly increase their chances of success.....even after a few years. Will there be exceptions? Sure but the majority of players who will succeed in year 3 would likely have succeeded in year 1 as well IMO. The skills required are just not easily learned by the time they are on an NFL roster.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I'm just trying to figure out if sitting actually helps develop a rookie QB or not. It just doesn't seem like it does. If you're good, it's almost always (not every scenario) noticeable right away.

There are nine current starting QBs in 2018 who sat for all of their rookie seasons. In all nine scenarios the incumbent that the rookie was drafted to replace was either a current/former Pro Bowler, a Super Bowl champion/participant or both.

Did Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers and Jimmy Garappolo actually benefit from sitting multiple seasons? Or were they good enough to play right away and only sat because of how good the guy in front of them was?

Take Kirk Cousins for example. He didn't become a full time starter until his 4th season in the league, but he had a solid preseason as a rookie and had a 101.6 QB rating as a rookie in 1 start and other mop up duty.

Did he need to sit for three years to get better or was that just a product of circumstance?

Now that is a fabulous question and one that requires a parallel universe to accurately measure. Would Brady be Brady if he didn't learn behind Bledsoe for over a year? Would Rivers be Rivers without a year behind Brees? Would Eli have been Eli without almost a full season behind Kurt Warner? Would Carson Palmer have enjoyed such success without a year behind Kitna? I don't know if we can be sure either way without a parallel universe to test the theory out with the only changing variable being that specific growth time on the bench.

What we can see is the players who were supposed to have the tools and stagnated. Did Cam really get much better while playing as a rookie? He is one of the recent success stories along with Luck, and I would listen to an argument that they are close to the same player they were as rookies.

This discussion reminds me of talks we all had about the one and done rule in basketball. Sure there are LeBrons and Kobe's in this world that never needed any college. Isn't it clear that other bloom later? Isn't it clear there are PLENTY of young players who think they are better than they really are, and really do need to hone their craft before going out there with all the pressure to lead a team?

And finally, which one is Mayfield. He's more prepared than I expected, but I'd trade for Tyrod all over again. Tyrod took a lot of weight off Mayfield's shoulders with his preparation and leadership this summer. How long he gets to play as a starter is inconsequential and kind of the payment forward he earned for giving Mayfield less pressure in the summer.

 

[Coyote850]

Baker with his leg/knee wrapped at practice. Said to be mobile as normal. (Per Twitter)

 

[bboy]

wow Cowherd and his cronies despise Baker...praying for him to fail...Darnold love Mayfield hate...

 

[Chris]

wow Cowherd and his cronies despise Baker...praying for him to fail...Darnold love Mayfield hate...

Funny because Colin acted like he’d been converted after having Baker on. Then instantly went back to irrational hate a week later.

 

[Soda]

I'm having a hard time grasping the rush to start Baker. Tyrod was acquired for a reason. Tyrod has been a team leader and hasn't done anything to make his teammates waiver in his ability to be a competent starter and leader. Tyrod has played pretty damn well. Moreover, not starting immediately doesn't hinder Baker.

It's just the fans, the ones not in the building, who are pushing the "sit Tyrod" agenda. Why do fans shoulder-off what is clearly apparent within the confines of the facility? It'll be pretty pathetic when fans begin to boo Tyrod.

 

[Lee]

The other Issue is rookie QB's make a ton of mistakes and it hurts the development of the team to start a rookie, not just Baker.

Look, I am liking what I see from Baker, but with Tyrod and a healthy team, we might be good enough to compete for a WC spot. I don't think this is true with Baker starting this year.

 

[buzzdog]

The other Issue is rookie QB's make a ton of mistakes and it hurts the development of the team to start a rookie, not just Baker.

Look, I am liking what I see from Baker, but with Tyrod and a healthy team, we might be good enough to compete for a WC spot. I don't think this is true with Baker starting this year.

This is exactly one of the points I tried to make that was rebutted by Q-Tip.

To rebut what Tip said about my "learning to win" comment... Some of our players and coaches may have won elsewhere but they have yet to win here, with the Browns, and with this particular group. You don't just throw collections of players together and have them figure shit out immediately or automatically. It's a process and I'd rather see that process work through the training wheels phase under a proven veteran.

As for the possibility that Baker would win more games than Tyrod, well the opposite possibility is just as likely.

Above all else if you go to Baker too soon and then try to go back to Tyrod that would be pure disaster for everyone. Better to err on the side of caution by sticking with Tyrod until you have plenty of solid reasons to give Baker the reins.

And, there is the fact that this was a pre-ordained plan to get this team out of one of the worst ruts of all time. It was agreed to by everyone from Haslam to Dorsey to Jackson right on through to Taylor and Baker right from the start. How fucked up would it be if this organization jumped the rails on that plan right out of the gate, or before the time is right? I can hear it now, "same old Browns", no leadership, no plan, same as always. They have a plan, they're sticking to it, and now the same people who beat them up (rightfully) for being a mess want them to junk that plan? GMAFB.