Cleveland Browns Quarterback Position

[dark2332]

The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to know the outcome.

I'm going to let this comment slide because I don't feel like going to war on a Friday.

Anyway, we don't know how any of these players are going to turn out. It's all based on scouting, trusting your eyes, trusting their character, and being more comfortable with one player over another based on where you're picking when it's your turn.

If the Browns were seeing something in Trubisky, they had the assets to trade up and choose both him and Garrett. Getting the guy who is universally above all else on their board and the QB.

Silver described it as a healthy devil's advocate type of debate. Sashi told him they had known the pick for two weeks before the media panic. Our freaking QB guru of a coach wanted a DE with every fabric of his being over said quarterback. In the end, they went with the guy they had first on their board instead of reaching for a QB just because he plays QB.

I'm not saying Mitch doesn't turn out good. But at 2, there's a lot for him to improve on to be a success, still. We ended up with a high ceiling player in Kizer, who also needs a lot of work to be a success. The difference is where we took him... 2 vs 52.

Many think the CJ Beathard pick is a head scratcher in the 3rd. We don't know, though, he could be great. He just has a serious lack of a few tools that will make it more difficult to be successful. It doesn't mean it can't happen, it's about playing the percentages.

We aren't sitting here this year and saying the Rams are idiots for not taking Dak Prescott first overall instead of Goff. No one saw him as worthy as that based on the percentages and the flaws that had been identified in his game. He's gone to a good situation, some of the flaws were misidentified and others he's worked hard to improve.

Trying to turn a QB prospect into a first overall pick this year when you have his risk/reward value placed later in the round would be a reach. It's also the type of move we may have made in the past that led us to rock bottom.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Trying to turn a QB prospect into a first overall pick this year when you have his risk/reward value placed later in the round would be a reach. It's also the type of move we may have made in the past that led us to rock bottom.

That haul for the Carson Wentz pick is really tough to argue against. And imagine where the 'skins would be if they hadn't burned all those picks trading up for RGIII.

We're in a good position to get a really good QB prospect next year even if none of the guys we have work out. But if one of them does work out....we'll have 3/4 of our team, our FQB, and buttloads of great draft picks into the foreseeable future.

Much rather be where we are today than having traded up or passed on Garrett.

 

[Soda]

Obviously they didn't think so. And neither did they judge Watson a franchise QB, since all they had to do was take him at 12; of course Bill O'brien says "I beg to differ, we'll taking Watson for our 2018 1st, and BTW, make sure you pay Osweiler that $16M while you're at it".

Bill O'Brien won't win a playoff game, if he makes it there again, and will not pick until the 65 or later. Happily the Browns will pay an inconsequential 16 mil as they watch this Texans team regress in 2017.

Hope Bill enjoys watching the Browns make those two picks he could have had.

 

[sportscoach]

Actually, if you read this thread, you'll see I didn't bring it back up.



One thing decades of following the NFL draft has taught me: making declarative statements about the ultimate outcomes relative to the careers of individual prospects is straight up stupid.

As mentioned above, if Trubisky turns into a franchise QB, then a choice of Garrett over him will have been the wrong choice. I know that doesn't match up with "What we all thought", but it is simply the truth.

Obviously, the Chicago GM thought he could be that, as he has staked his multi-million dollar job on just that possibility. It's not like this QB prospect from Mentor, OH went in the second round; the team with the third pick traded significant assets to acquire the second pick in order to select him. They judged him a franchise QB prospect and made their move. If CHI was in fact right about Trubisky, then alternatively CLE could have solved the biggest problem the franchise has faced since 1999 by simply making the pick at No.1 without surrendering any additional assets.

I gave my opinion just as everyone else did. My opinion was that if CLE assessed Trubisky as a potential franchise QB, then they should take him and not Garrett. Derrick Barnett, who broke HOF Reggie White's sack records at TN, would have been available at pick 12 if you needed to fill your pass rush need.

Obviously they didn't think so. And neither did they judge Watson a franchise QB, since all they had to do was take him at 12; of course Bill O'brien says "I beg to differ, we'll taking Watson for our 2018 1st, and BTW, make sure you pay Osweiler that $16M while you're at it".

Lastly, the point of my post above is that is clear from multiple credible local and national media sources (google it if you don't know) that CLE did in fact seriously consider this scenario. McShay actually changed his mock draft to have CLE selecting Trubisky the morning of the draft, after Schefter appeared on the morning show and indicated he thought it was a strong possibility that Trubisky would be the pick. Hue's boy Silver was in the Browns' building all week and confirmed that the debate was real amongst the decision makers. The speculation was only abated by the Browns leaking the pick to Mary Kay around 11 am on draft day.

However, since I ultimately just a Browns fan, I hope it all goes great for CLE: perhaps Kizer will turn out to be a franchise QB, while Garrett becomes an All-Pro, and Trubisky/Watson bomb out of the league in five years. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to know the outcome.

As I said, Go Browns: I am rooting for you to finally get this shit right!

The Browns FO decided to stick to their game plan that they set in place last season hence why Garrett was their choice. Drafting Trubisky would have been a major mistake whether or not he pans out since they would have had to stretch for his talent and over drafted a guy who played 13 games in college who needed a season or two to sit. Chicago just spent a lot of money on a starting QB, he has a 99% chance of sitting year one and maybe year two before he has to play which is what he needs and it wouldn't have happened in Cleveland. This FO is about picking guys where they grade them on their board/go after a specific target.

Another issue if we drafted Trubisky would have been the fact the person gunning for him in the whole process wasn't Sashi or Jackson, it was Haslem who did the same thing with Manziel. Haslem has to stay his butt out of high player choices like that. Now I can understand if they want to draft a Mixon or Brantley type of guy, then yeah, he needs to okay that pick, but otherwise we need Haslem to have nothing to do with the team. It would have been bad for this organization to have Haslem overstep Sashi and Jackson when it comes to player decisions. They made the best move for the organization with drafting Garrett since it supported the FOs plan and Hue's choice as well

 

[dark2332]

Honestly this draft being a success will largely hinge on one thing. How good Trubisky ends up being. If he is a stud and leads the Bears to multiple Super Bowls it won't matter how good Garrett and the other players are because we passed on him.

I don't think it's likely, but we still have to see how this all unfolds.

His argument isn't even so much that they should've taken a quarterback... that's not the regurgitation. (He does, but that's another matter)

Rather, his argument is that the Browns SERIOUSLY entertained taking a QB at 1 and had us all nervous when the pick was announced as a means to justify that he was right in wanting a quarterback over Garrett. You know, the ole' "since they thought about it, it proves I was right" argument. When in fact, it sounds like the pick was already decided multiple weeks in advance--and even if they did ponder on it, that doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.

Even so, we would hope there are at least a few devil's advocate type of arguments as they scout/assess these players to truly test theories and provide justified outcomes.

 

[CommD]

His argument isn't even so much that they should've taken a quarterback... that's not the regurgitation. (He does, but that's another matter)

Rather, his argument is that the Browns SERIOUSLY entertained taking a QB at 1 and had us all nervous when the pick was announced as a means to justify that he was right in wanting a quarterback over Garrett. You know, the ole' "since they thought about it, it proves I was right" argument. When in fact, it sounds like the pick was already decided multiple weeks in advance--and even if they did ponder on it, that doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.

Even so, we would hope there are at least a few devil's advocate type of arguments as they scout/assess these players to truly test theories and provide justified outcomes.

Your (inaccurate) third-party transmittal of my argument neglects the context of the near universal condemnation received on the original posts, which presumed that such a thing as taking a potential franchise QB prospect at No.1 over Garrett was not even something which could be CONSIDERED by the Browns. Note that I did not say the suspense lasted until the pick was made; as I stated the pick was officially leaked shortly before noon on draft day.

What I'm saying here today is that the evidence suggest that not only was it considered, it was STRONGLY considered. A truthful reading of the media coverage and analysis leading up to draft can lead to no other conclusion, no matter the opinion of stubborn message board posters.

 

[AZ_]

Your (inaccurate) third-party transmittal of my argument neglects the context of the near universal condemnation received on the original posts, which presumed that such a thing as taking a potential franchise QB prospect at No.1 over Garrett was not even something which could be CONSIDERED by the Browns. Note that I did not say the suspense lasted until the pick was made; as I stated the pick was officially leaked shortly before noon on draft day.

What I'm saying here today is that the evidence suggest that not only was it considered, it was STRONGLY considered. A truthful reading of the media coverage and analysis leading up to draft can lead to no other conclusion, no matter the opinion of stubborn message board posters.

The Browns themselves said they decided on the selection two weeks before the draft took place.

Though I applaud the media for wanting to promote the event as a "two-horse" race, there was only one thoroughbred involved.

 

[Huber.]

Your (inaccurate) third-party transmittal of my argument neglects the context of the near universal condemnation received on the original posts, which presumed that such a thing as taking a potential franchise QB prospect at No.1 over Garrett was not even something which could be CONSIDERED by the Browns. Note that I did not say the suspense lasted until the pick was made; as I stated the pick was officially leaked shortly before noon on draft day.

What I'm saying here today is that the evidence suggest that not only was it considered, it was STRONGLY considered. A truthful reading of the media coverage and analysis leading up to draft can lead to no other conclusion, no matter the opinion of stubborn message board posters.

The media is fake news. It's 2017, stop reading stories that site "sources".

 

[AZ_]

The media is fake news. It's 2017, stop reading stories that site "sources".

Nonsense, he should only read sources that tell him what he wants to hear.

 

[Randolphkeys]

There's supposedly no such thing as a bad question, but there absolutely is a such thing as bad logic. The obvious happened, why debate how close we all were to an illogical Browns move?

There's also absolutely a such thing as a bad topic. I'd like to move on to strengths and weaknesses of the actual Browns QBs around here, because while I see Kessler as the front runner, it won't be by much.

 

[batdan]

I'm excited to see if Kessler progresses with his long ball. He seemed gun shy with it last year and when he did take shots down the field they were inaccurate.

Concussions will always be a concern with him. I'm hoping this improved O-line can minimize that concern. I think Crow is due for a big year considering he's playing for a contract. The wide recievers need to show growth, but I'm hopeful that they will. We might just have a dependable offense

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[CommD]

Thanks for validating my current media consumption strategy (mine and that of 85% of all Americans).

 

[Soda]

In the embryo, my uncle was almost developed as my aunt. It was a real close call! He's a complete dude now, but when the sperm hit the egg, it almost went the other way!

 

[Randolphkeys]

Thanks for validating my current media consumption strategy (mine and that of 85% of all Americans).

Osweiler:
+ Experience under center
+ Durable
+ Powerful arm
+ Plus athleticism and sees the field from the pocket

- Inconsistent mechanics
- Inconsistent reads and decisions
- Lost what mental confidence he had last season

Kessler:
+ Most accurate of the three
+ More experience under center than Kizer
+ More experience with Hue's system than the other two
+ Good enough arm

- Too short for the position, can't make all the pocket reads
- May have reoccurring concussion issue
- Sloppy base when the pocket breaks down
- Deep ball placement

Kizer:
+ Durable
+ Physical specimen: Better than Osweiler in athleticism and arm and those traits have kept Osweiler in the league
+ Shows flashes of good progressions, especially on the run
+ Has experience with the disappointment after a big loss

- If Osweiler's biggest negatives are that he still makes mistakes at age 27, Kizer is even less consistent and less prepared
- Not consistent in progressions and mechanics
- Inaccurate due to those inconsistencies

This is how I see it... any areas of great advantage or disadvantage I'm missing?

 

[dark2332]

Osweiler:
+ Experience under center
+ Durable
+ Powerful arm
+ Plus athleticism and sees the field from the pocket

- Inconsistent mechanics
- Inconsistent reads and decisions
- Lost what mental confidence he had last season

Kessler:
+ Most accurate of the three
+ More experience under center than Kizer
+ More experience with Hue's system than the other two
+ Good enough arm

- Too short for the position, can't make all the pocket reads
- May have reoccurring concussion issue
- Sloppy base when the pocket breaks down
- Deep ball placement

Kizer:
+ Durable
+ Physical specimen: Better than Osweiler in athleticism and arm and those traits have kept Osweiler in the league
+ Shows flashes of good progressions, especially on the run
+ Has experience with the disappointment after a big loss

- If Osweiler's biggest negatives are that he still makes mistakes at age 27, Kizer is even less consistent and less prepared
- Not consistent in progressions and mechanics
- Inaccurate due to those inconsistencies

This is how I see it... any areas of great advantage or disadvantage I'm missing?

One advantage for Kizer is his ability to be a true running threat. He's fast enough and large enough to make plays with his legs that the other two cannot.