Browns trade Kizer for Randall

[Lee]

But you have to remember, we made the move in March.

At that time, the quarterback we were taking at #1 was still in question (although we now know it was likely to always be Mayfield per Dorsey). Aside from that, we did not know how quickly the pick would pick up an NFL offense.

I think it was a wise decision to have an insurance policy in place should the rookie quarterback need time. He (Taylor) would also serve as an example in OTA's and camp on how to conduct himself as an NFL starting quarterback. Tyrod Taylor was a hard worker, well-respected, and a good leader. I think Mayfield learned a good bit from him.

The mistake wasn't trading for Tyrod. The mistake was sticking to a plan come hell or high water. Once you had them all in the fold and it became obvious that Mayfield was well ahead of schedule (at camp), the mistake was not letting him compete or take any reps with the first team. That was the issue. And that is something that I put on the coaching staff more than Dorsey.

100% agree, Baker was obviously better from day 1. I was shocked, still in a bit of shock, but it should have been obvious to the coaching staff. But because of injury, baker only missed 2.5 games, so not as dramatic as we are making it, what is really dramatic is how garbage the offense was BK (before kitchens)

 

[chrisrich91]

Yeah count me in the group who's not going to apply 20/20 hindsight to this move at all.

It was a perfectly logical move. The 3rd round pick was hefty draft capital, but it's well worth an insurance policy on your rookie QB. Baker happened to be ready to go, but there's no guarantee on that even with a #1 overall QB. Tyrod is well regarded as a pro's pro around the league who could be an adequate bridge QB. He was fucked by Haley similar to how Baker was, but he served his purpose.

As for the $15M...if you're not Jimmy Haslam, wgaf?

 

[AZ_]

As it turns out no, but at the time it looked like a solid move to secure a transition qb. The jump from no defense Big 12 to the NFL should of taken a year. Mahommes had that year and it worked great for him. No QB coming out of the Big 12 has had long sustained success, closest being RG3 in year 1 or Aikmen who I consider a Pac 10 QB.

Hindsight is nice, but one of the reasons Tyrod was brought in was he is a pro's pro, and the fact he didn't hurt the locker room after losing his job speaks volume to the man's ethics. Nothing but respect for Tyrod and fine with the trade.

But you have to remember, we made the move in March.

At that time, the quarterback we were taking at #1 was still in question (although we now know it was likely to always be Mayfield per Dorsey). Aside from that, we did not know how quickly the pick would pick up an NFL offense.

I think it was a wise decision to have an insurance policy in place should the rookie quarterback need time. He (Taylor) would also serve as an example in OTA's and camp on how to conduct himself as an NFL starting quarterback. Tyrod Taylor was a hard worker, well-respected, and a good leader. I think Mayfield learned a good bit from him. Tyrod possessed a degree of credibility in terms of how he conducts himself that may have been more hollow if it was coming solely from a career backup like Stanton (who himself has been instrumental).

The mistake wasn't trading for Tyrod. The mistake was sticking to a plan come hell or high water. Once you had them all in the fold and it became obvious that Mayfield was well ahead of schedule (at camp), the mistake was not letting him compete or take any reps with the first team. That was the issue. And that is something that I put on the coaching staff more than Dorsey.

No, it was still definitely a mistake to trade for Taylor.

He was objectively bad, and there were other options out there worthy of a mentor role.

There were better, more value-laden options out there for a starter/placeholder role.


I was on board when they made the move too. I was wrong, it was an abject failure and cost the Browns a third round pick and more than $15M.


Not giving out an A for effort.

 

[Lee]

No, it was still definitely a mistake to trade for Taylor.

He was objectively bad, and there were other options out there worthy of a mentor role.

There were better, more value-laden options out there for a starter/placeholder role.


I was on board when they made the move too. I was wrong, it was an abject failure and cost the Browns a third round pick and more than $15M.


Not giving out an A for effort.

But hindsight is tough. Turns out it was bad, but I grade trades mainly on what we knew at the time.

Best case scenario he was only a start for 1 year. Since that was the case,. and I was ok with the trade when it happened, I am not going to call it a bad trade. Of course I wont call it a good trade either.

I just think you being a bit harsh using hind sight. There are a few things Dorsey has done I don't like, no GM is perfect, but this I am still ok with.

 

[dark2332]

No, it was still definitely a mistake to trade for Taylor.

He was objectively bad, and there were other options out there worthy of a mentor role.

There were better, more value-laden options out there for a starter/placeholder role.


I was on board when they made the move too. I was wrong, it was an abject failure and cost the Browns a third round pick and more than $15M.


Not giving out an A for effort.

I don't think you can judge it in a vacuum like that.

At that time, we were trying to set ourselves up for success should a rookie pick need time. Winning games was at a premium for a franchise that was struggling to sell tickets for the first time in a very long time. The culture needed changed.

Tyrod Taylor had his flaws, but he also had shown to be a game managing quarterback capable of winning. He was 27 years old, a reasonable $16 million contract for a starter, and he has a Pro Bowl to his name. In my eyes, he was a poor man's Alex Smith--who was traded for much, much more.

He commanded respect from a rookie QB and provided a valuable example. Coaches and a backup QB (Stanton, who is basically a glorified coach) saying "be early" "do this" "do that" just isn't always enough. That rings hollow. Someone respected has to walk the walk and lead the way. Someone has to provide competition for Baker Mayfield. That was Tyrod Taylor.

I think he was used incorrectly in many of the same ways that Baker was by Hue and Todd Haley. And again, the mistake was not recognizing and allowing Mayfield to truly compete with Tyrod--which was a job he likely would've won out of camp.

However, if you were to look back as John Dorsey and say "Well, trading that pick for Tyrod appears like a waste because my rookie quarterback was so special" then you'd live with that.

That's much like looking back and saying "Paying for this car insurance was a mistake because I didn't wreck this past year." It was still the correct move to have it in place.

 

[TyGuy]

But you have to remember, we made the move in March.

At that time, the quarterback we were taking at #1 was still in question (although we now know it was likely to always be Mayfield per Dorsey). Aside from that, we did not know how quickly the pick would pick up an NFL offense.

I think it was a wise decision to have an insurance policy in place should the rookie quarterback need time. He (Taylor) would also serve as an example in OTA's and camp on how to conduct himself as an NFL starting quarterback. Tyrod Taylor was a hard worker, well-respected, and a good leader. I think Mayfield learned a good bit from him. Tyrod possessed a degree of credibility in terms of how he conducts himself that may have been more hollow if it was coming solely from a career backup like Stanton (who himself has been instrumental).

The mistake wasn't trading for Tyrod. The mistake was sticking to a plan come hell or high water. Once you had them all in the fold and it became obvious that Mayfield was well ahead of schedule (at camp), the mistake was not letting him compete or take any reps with the first team. That was the issue. And that is something that I put on the coaching staff more than Dorsey.

But hindsight is tough. Turns out it was bad, but I grade trades mainly on what we knew at the time.

Best case scenario he was only a start for 1 year. Since that was the case,. and I was ok with the trade when it happened, I am not going to call it a bad trade. Of course I wont call it a good trade either.

I just think you being a bit harsh using hind sight. There are a few things Dorsey has done I don't like, no GM is perfect, but this I am still ok with.

I think we need to call a spade a spade. You don't need the benefit of hindsight when we had posters here calling that trade into question when it happened.

With the benefit of hindsight it was just awful. Tyrod showed no interest in being a mentor for Baker and the guy barely played. When he did play, he sucked. It was a terrible move, but not one to sink the franchise or anything like that. Dorsey's good obviously completely outweighed the bad, but we should be honest with ourselves and just admit it was a horrible move.

 

[TyGuy]

The 35th overall pick for a QB when you're about to draft another QB at No. 1 overall is the definition of mismanaging your assets.

It's bad enough they did it with the 65th pick.

If the Browns are like 2-8 through 10 games, it doesn't make any sense to stick with Taylor for the stretch run considering he's absolutely not going to be back next season.

The odds of Mayfield playing this season are astronomically high in my opinion.

It is nonsense frankly.

Using the 35th overall pick either via trade or by making the pick on a player who almost assuredly will only be with your team for one season is simply bad business and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how to make long-term decisions.

I completely understand that John Dorsey doesn't give a shit about 2019 and beyond before the Browns actually play 2018, but it doesn't mean he's correct either.

Guys, there was never a point in time where this trade could be considered good.

Terms are as follows.

If Tyrod Taylor is unable to make a start at any point in the 2018 season, Baker Mayfield will start over Drew Stanton if he’s healthy.

Starting is the key here. If Taylor gets hurt on snap 1 of game 1 and they go to Stanton, that isn’t a start.

Also if Mayfield gets injured in mop up duty or practice and is listed as OUT on the injury report, that voids the terms.

$50 to RCF?

Also, somebody owes the site money @Triplethreat Somehow your bet was worse than the actual trade

Deal

This is also void if Mayfield WINS the job outright.

 

[AZ_]

We grade John Dorsey in hindsight, just like everyone else that came before him.

He swung and missed on Tyrod, its simply a fact.



He looks like he hit a fucking grand slam on Baker, so nobody cares about your first at-bat.

He's got another series coming up in the next few months. I'll continue to judge him on the whole of his plan for this organization with no issue.

 

[dark2332]

we had posters here calling that trade into question when it happened.

And those posters were incorrect at that time.

Guys, there was never a point in time where this trade could be considered good.

This is simply not true.

we should be honest with ourselves and just admit it was a horrible move.

It was a responsible move.

We still made 9 draft selections in the draft. I do value these picks, absolutely, but for providing stability at that time, it was well worth it.

 

[Urban]

Good thing TripleThreat won the $25 amazon gift card from sportscoach, now he is only out $25

 

[TyGuy]

And those posters were incorrect at that time.

This is simply not true.

It was a responsible move.

We still made 9 draft selections in the draft. I do value these picks, absolutely, but for providing stability at that time, it was well worth it.

But it's been argued that it wasn't a responsible move for it being poor asset management. You could have drafted a rotation player that played for multiple seasons over a guy that at best plays one season. Even in the best case scenario it was a poor deal. The cherry on top of the shit sundae was that Tyrod wasn't a mentor, played only 2 games, and was terrible in those games.

Nobody is here saying Dorsey is a bad gm. We should just call it how it is. It was a bad move mixed in with outstanding moves including a grand slam as az put it.

 

[AZ_]

What was worth it?

The mythical ability of mentorship that you don't even know if Taylor provided? Whom Mayfield hasn't said a word about while calling out Stanton as a mentor by name?


Seriously, what was the benefit?

 

[dark2332]

But it's been argued that it wasn't a responsible move for it being poor asset management. You could have drafted a rotation player that played for multiple seasons over a guy that at best plays one season. Even in the best case scenario it was a poor deal. The cherry on top of the shit sundae was that Tyrod wasn't a mentor, played only 2 games, and was terrible in those games.

Nobody is here saying Dorsey is a bad gm. We should just call it how it is. It was a bad move mixed in with outstanding moves including a grand slam as az put it.

So, I think it's been the opposite since losing the job. All accounts are that he's been great with Baker.

The part that we can't state enough is that this trade happened in March. We didn't know who our rookie was going to be, and much less, we didn't know if he'd be ready.

Tyrod played poorly (as everyone did under Hue and Haley), but I can't put that entirely on him. He's been very viable in the past. He's a legitimate NFL quarterback. We needed one of those.

It just so happens that Baker Mayfield was special--and he was special way ahead of schedule. That was the mistake. Not giving him a chance to compete. But in all, a mid-round pick to make sure we had a starter in place in the event that the rookie needed time was a wise move.

I used the example already regarding car insurance. Being smart and prepared is wise. Having insurance in place is wise. Now, if you don't wreck, that makes spending money on car insurance appear unwise. However, as we know, this is poor logic. In this case, we had the benefit of Baker Mayfield, despite coming from a college spread, being prepared significantly ahead of schedule. At that time, we hadn't even finalized who we were drafting. What if someone had offered us 6 first round picks for #1 overall? Perhaps we wanted to explore that? Having an NFL starter made it possible.

Baker Mayfield being great is independent from the deal. When isolated, a 3rd round pick for a 27 year-old game manager/solid starter type who had gone to a Pro Bowl was a decent move.

 

[Ohio]

As for the $15M...if you're not Jimmy Haslam, wgaf?

Exactly. This is like the dinosaurs on ESPN criticizing the Browns for the Osweiler trade. Haslam spending $15 million on Brock and another $15 million on Tyrod was and is completely irrelevant to the team's future cap space, as both only had the current year remaining on their deals. I'm not sure why the argument is even being made, it's just silly. Hell, if anything, it's a sign that Haslam is willing to spend whatever it takes - which is a good thing.

Losing the 3rd is a bit of a bummer though, for sure. Dorsey certainly more than made up for it with the picks he made.

Also, this narrative would be a whole lot different if Baker struggled, which many people here thought would happen...myself included.

 

[CBBI]

John Dorsey is a good GM. Dorsey is not infallible and has made a few mistakes (Tyrod Taylor, Chris Hubbard, Chad Thomas).

Both of these things can be (and are) true at the same time.

Pointing out that the Tyrod move was a poor use of assets, which I did repeatedly at the time it happened, is not some reflection on Dorsey's GM ability. It was just a bad move. That's it.