Cleveland Browns Quarterback Position

[Triplethreat]

If the Browns are starting Drew Stanton over Mayfield at any point, something is terribly wrong.

If Taylor gets injured I think it’d be much more ideal to have Stanton out there then throw Mayfield to the fire.

 

[Phills14]

Now we have Stanton (drafted in 07) and Taylor (Drafted in 11) to run the show until Baker is ready to start.

I really do not get these Media outlets who say Baker will start by week 8. I doubt he gets onto the field this season at all unless it's garbage time/last game of the season.

It's the Browns. Tom Brady can play multiple seasons without missing a snap. We have 2 QBs get injured by week 2. I see no scenario where Mayfield isn't FORCED to start by week 4.

 

[AZ_]

If Taylor gets injured I think it’d be much more ideal to have Stanton out there then throw Mayfield to the fire.

He’s 23 and you act like God blessed him with a golden dick.

But we’re going to throw out a 30 something with a career 66 QB rating?

Hard pass.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Not at all.
we
I just hate the idea of giving up the 35th overall pick, a pick that SHOULD net you an immediate and long-term starter, for a player who will be gone after 1 season.

Statistically, the 35th overall pick is not likely to net you an "immediate and long-term starter". It might if you happen to pick the right guy, but 35th picks usually aren't "immediate" starters, and many of them don't last long term.

From 2005 to 2014, 63% of first-rounders eventually because starters. For second rounder, that percentage drops to only 27%. Charitably, the 35th pick should be at around the mid-point of that distribution, or 45%. And of course, that's just becoming a starter at some point, not "immediately". So unless you assume that you're smarter than everyone else, a GM shouldn't value that pick as worth an "immediate and long-term starter".

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015...e-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Foles, though, would have been an "immediate starter", and at the most important position in the game.

The other factor to consider is how dependent the development of other players is upon having at least decent QB play. When your QB sucks, it adversely affects the development of every other offensive player. In contrast, having at least an average QB not only helps the development of the rest of your offensive players, but makes it much easier to evaluate them. Note the arguments here about Coleman -- the lack of a QB able to get him the ball consistently means we don't know nearly as much about him as we should. Foles solves that.

The other thing is that Foles actually has the potential to be better than just a decent placeholder. We all know that as in every draft, QB's are something of a crapshoot, and there is a decent chance that whomever we picked at No. 1 overall simply wouldn't pan out. If that happened, our franchise would have been crippled for years again. Foles (and even Taylor to a lesser extent) basically give the Browns a second bite at the "get a competent QB apple". Foles is actually good enough to take a team to a Super Bowl, and win. While bringing home the Super Bowl MVP trophy. Having him as the "fallback" if our young QB doesn't develop as hoped would have been a pretty damn fine backup plan, and easily worth the 35th pick.

 

[CBBI]

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.

 

[CBBI]

Statistically, the 35th overall pick is not likely to net you an "immediate and long-term starter". It might if you happen to pick the right guy, but 35th picks usually aren't "immediate" starters, and many of them don't last long term.

From 2005 to 2014, 63% of first-rounders eventually because starters. For second rounder, that percentage drops to only 27%. Charitably, the 35th pick should be at around the mid-point of that distribution, or 45%. And of course, that's just becoming a starter at some point, not "immediately". So unless you assume that you're smarter than everyone else, a GM shouldn't value that pick as worth an "immediate and long-term starter".

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015...e-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Foles, though, would have been an "immediate starter", and at the most important position in the game.

The other factor to consider is how dependent the development of other players is upon having at least decent QB play. When your QB sucks, it adversely affects the development of every other offensive player. In contrast, having at least an average QB not only helps the development of the rest of your offensive players, but makes it much easier to evaluate them. Note the arguments here about Coleman -- the lack of a QB able to get him the ball consistently means we don't know nearly as much about him as we should. Foles solves that.

The other thing is that Foles actually has the potential to be better than just a decent placeholder. We all know that as in every draft, QB's are something of a crapshoot, and there is a decent chance that whomever we picked at No. 1 overall simply wouldn't pan out. If that happened, our franchise would have been crippled for years again. Foles (and even Taylor to a lesser extent) basically give the Browns a second bite at the "get a competent QB apple". Foles is actually good enough to take a team to a Super Bowl, and win. While bringing home the Super Bowl MVP trophy. Having him as the "fallback" if our young QB doesn't develop as hoped would have been a pretty damn fine backup plan, and easily worth the 35th pick.

This is ridiculous.

Would you draft a player at 35 if you could only sign them to a 1 year contract?

No.

So why would anyone be happy about trading the 35th pick for a player on a 1 year deal that almost certainly isn't sticking around past that one season because they're drafting his replacement before he ever takes a snap.

Enough with this nonsense.

 

[CBBI]

Before anyone talks about what Dorsey did with the Chiefs, just save it. Apples to oranges.

Dorsey traded for Alex Smith, gave him a contract extension AND THEY STARTED HIM FOR FIVE YEARS before they drafted his replacement.

A more apt comparison would be if the Redskins had drafted a QB in the first round this year after acquiring Smith from KC. They didn't do that because that would be a ridiculous mismanagement of assets.

Personally? If I'm trading the 35th overall pick for a quarterback, that's the guy I'm moving forward with for the foreseeable future.

I realize the Browns haven't had a great QB situation in a long time, but that isn't an excuse to throw any sort of logical thinking on how to build a team out of the friggin window.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is ridiculous.

Would you draft a player at 35 if you could only sign them to a 1 year contract?

No.

But that cuts against your point. Because rookies - particularly quarterbacks -- rarely become "immediate" impact starters. It takes time for them to develop into even league average players, and they may never get there. So if you pick a rookie at 35, and only have him for a year, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you won't ever get to see him as even a league average player. Rookies need longer contracts so that you still have them when they finally develop into (hopefully) above-average players.

In contrast, acquiring a fully-developed veteran who has already won a Super Bowl (and an MVP) is an entirely different matter because he is expected to produce at a high level "immediately". That first year isn't wasted on a kid still developing who can't really contribute at a high level -- you get that high-quality play immediately. So that one year you get (plus the right to sign to a franchise deal if Foles would have balled out) is of much greater value than a one-year deal for a rookie.

So why would anyone be happy about trading the 35th pick for a player on a 1 year deal that almost certainly isn't sticking around past that one season because they're drafting his replacement before he ever takes a snap.

Enough with this nonsense.

1) Because in my point you failed utterly to address, the performance of the QB directly affects player development and evaluation of every other player on the offense. Making every other player on your offense better, and enhancing your ability to evaluate all those other offensive players, is a tremendous value. I also suspect that we wouldn't have been nearly as successful in free agency if free agents didn't see a real chance for this team to get better immediately, which Taylor (and Foles even more so) enable.

If you're going to rely on a rookie (or some stiff bridge guy who isn't a worthy starter), you may be wasting a year of development time for every other young offensive player on your roster. And considering how many young guys we have, and how important it is for us to find out exactly what Coleman and the rest of our young guys can do so we can make intelligent decisions about them next offseason, it's worth it.

2) There is no guarantee that Mayfield will succeed. We certainly hope he will, but it is entirely possible that Mayfield never becomes as good as Foles is right now. It is hedging your bets in case -- as has happened many times in the past - a highly drafted rookie QB doesn't pan out as hoped.

And no reason to be a condescending asshole with the "nonsense" crap (which is why I gave a "disagree"). The trade for Taylor, and the rumored offer for Foles, were made by this front office, whose judgment regarding Mayfield is where you say we should pin all of our hopes. So if our front office is stupid enough to make "nonsense" deals and offers, my guess is that you should be pretty fucking worried about Mayfield, and be happy that there is a fallback plan.

 

[Triplethreat]

Here we go again with this dumb shit....

Just let him sit for a damn season please let’s not fall into the same goddamn trap we’ve been falling in for the past X amount of years.

 

[CBBI]

But that cuts against your point. Because rookies - particularly quarterbacks -- rarely become "immediate" impact starters. It takes time for them to develop into even league average players, and they may never get there. So if you pick a rookie at 35, and only have him for a year, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you won't ever get to see him as even a league average player. Rookies need longer contracts so that you still have them when they finally develop into (hopefully) above-average players.

It doesn't cut against my point at all and here's why. Let me be clear here. I would not draft any player with the 35th overall pick, even if I was 100% positive that they would step right in and play very well, if I knew that I would only have them for one season and that's it.

That's the situation the Browns are in with Tyrod Taylor right now and what they would have been in with Nick Foles had they traded for him.

In contrast, acquiring a fully-developed veteran who has already won a Super Bowl (and an MVP) is an entirely different matter because he is expected to produce at a high level "immediately". That first year isn't wasted on a kid still developing who can't really contribute at a high level -- you get that high-quality play immediately. So that one year you get (plus the right to sign to a franchise deal if Foles would have balled out) is of much greater value than a one-year deal for a rookie.

This is all well and good, but you're ignoring the fact that the Browns picked a quarterback at No. 1 overall. There's no realistic level of production that Foles could have reached (because let's face it, this isn't a Super Bowl contending team like the Eagles were) or Taylor will reach that would keep the Browns from going to Mayfield in 2019.

So now the big master plan becomes the franchise tag? You're willing to give up the 35th overall pick for a QB who will assuredly see the writing on the wall about his starting spot and want to leave the organization, only then you'll be forced franchise him at some crazy figure like 27M. And if Foles was smart, he'd immediately sign the tag and lock himself into 27M for 2019. So at that point you're either stuck with the highest paid backup player in NFL history making 27M to not play, or you're hoping that he played well enough to warrant someone wanting to trade for him at that price. But you're still almost certainly going to end up with a lesser pick than you gave up in the first place to get him.

1) Because in my point you failed utterly to address, the performance of the QB directly affects player development and evaluation of every other player on the offense. Making every other player on your offense better, and enhancing your ability to evaluate all those other offensive players, is a tremendous value. I also suspect that we wouldn't have been nearly as successful in free agency if free agents didn't see a real chance for this team to get better immediately, which Taylor (and Foles even more so) enable.

If you're going to rely on a rookie (or some stiff bridge guy who isn't a worthy starter), you may be wasting a year of development time for every other young offensive player on your roster. And considering how many young guys we have, and how important it is for us to find out exactly what Coleman and the rest of our young guys can do so we can make intelligent decisions about them next offseason, it's worth it.

2) There is no guarantee that Mayfield will succeed. We certainly hope he will, but it is entirely possible that Mayfield never becomes as good as Foles is right now. It is hedging your bets in case -- as has happened many times in the past - a highly drafted rookie QB doesn't pan out as hoped.

And no reason to be an condescending asshole with the "nonsense" crap. The trade for Taylor, and the rumored offer for Foles, were made by this front office, whose judgment regarding Mayfield is where you say we should pin all of our hopes. So if our front office is stupid enough to make "nonsense" deals and offers, my guess is that you should be pretty fucking worried about Mayfield, and be happy that there is a fallback plan.

1. John Dorsey isn't infallible.
2. John Dorsey has proven through his tenure as a general manager that he's in the business of winning games as quickly as he can regardless of what it does to future seasons. John Dorsey would rather win 6 or 7 this year with Taylor starting every game than 4 or 5 with Mayfield starting every game, I am entirely confident of that.

Generally speaking, I don't love the idea of using draft assets on a position where you're about to use higher draft assets on the same position. I got on board with acquiring Taylor thinking the Browns were going to pick Darnold because Darnold was/is a much more raw and inexperienced prospect who needs to sit more than Mayfield or Rosen do.

I'm not saying he should be starting right now, although I'm perfectly confident he could do it if they stuck him in there right now, but shouldn't the No. 1 overall pick of the entire draft in Baker Mayfield be held to a higher standard than previous Browns QBs?

DeShone Kizer was a raw redshirt sophomore that went 52nd overall. Cody Kessler was a third round pick that was overdrafted by 2-3 rounds. Baker Mayfield is a 23 year old, 5 year college player with nearly 50 starts. There's pretty much never been a more experienced college player ever drafted at the QB position.

Just because other Browns QBs that were drafted much later, were much more inexperienced and were not as highly regarded as pro prospects as Mayfield failed because they "played too early" doesn't mean we should automatically assume Mayfield will do the same.

It just feels like people on this board are so paralyzed by fear of things that happened in the past, even if the situations aren't even close to the same. If Baker Mayfield fails, it's because he's simply not good enough. No other reason. Not because he got thrown out there "too early" or any other nonsense. He was the No. 1 overall pick in the entire draft! He doesn't have to be and shouldn't be treated with kid gloves.

 

[caf]

If Baker Mayfield fails, it's because he's simply not good enough. No other reason. Not because he got thrown out there "too early" or any other nonsense. He was the No. 1 overall pick in the entire draft! He doesn't have to be and shouldn't be treated with kid gloves.

So Tim Couch would have had the same failed career arc if he was drafted to an established team rather than an expansion club?

That's what the Browns essentially are right now talent level wise, an expansion club.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There's no realistic level of production that Foles could have reached (because let's face it, this isn't a Super Bowl contending team like the Eagles were) or Taylor will reach that would keep the Browns from going to Mayfield in 2019.

Actually, we don't know that.

I'm not saying he should be starting right now, although I'm perfectly confident he could do it if they stuck him in there right now, but shouldn't the No. 1 overall pick of the entire draft in Baker Mayfield be held to a higher standard than previous Browns QBs?

It has nothing to do with the Browns' past history. It has to do with the general history of highly-drafted QB's. Many of them succeed. Many don't. And there really wasn't anyone out the claiming that any of these available QB's was a "can't miss" type.

So now the big master plan becomes the franchise tag?

No. That's one consideration. One particular option that helps give that trade potentially greater value. Let's say -- for example -- that Taylor or Foles balls the hell out. So maybe we choose not to keep them, but we can still franchise them and then work out a trade with another team. We get back a pick or picks, get that year of great QB play in the interim, and now Mayfield steps in. That's hardly a "nonsense" scenario.

1. John Dorsey isn't infallible.

But you're not talking infallibility. You're saying that his reasoning is nonsense.

 

[CBBI]

So Tim Couch would have had the same failed career arc if he was drafted to an established team rather than an expansion club?

That's what the Browns essentially are right now talent level wise, an expansion club.

I think with the additions they've made this offseason, the vast majority of people would not agree with this.

Couch got sacked 56 times as a rookie. Kizer just 38 times. Couch's top two rushers averaged 3.5 and 3.0 YPC. Browns have two very competent veteran backs that are both 4.2 career guys and a highly regarded rookie. Couch had one pass catcher over 12 YPC. The Browns added a pro bowl WR, have another pro bowl WR back from weed issues and two other intriguing young guys behind them as well as a first round TE. Couch also wasn't really helped out by the Browns 31st ranked defense that year, Browns last year had the middle of the pack 16th ranked defense according to DVOA and should only be better on that end.

If you want to point to coaching, then sure. I'll give you that. Hue has proven to be horrendous. But this most definitely is not a team that lacks talent like it was in 1999.

 

[CBBI]

But you're not talking infallibility. You're saying that his reasoning is nonsense.

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.

 

[SixPACK]

I get your point about the 35th pick. I am on your side with that. Why give up basically a 1st rounder for a 6'6" QB that is nothing like the guy you drafted #1.

But the 65th? Why not bring in a QB that is like Baker, a perfect bridge QB that can bring success to CLE but most importantly, LET OUR 1ST ROUND QB SIT and learn before just feeding him to the wolves.

Looking at this draft, there's mayyyyyyyyybe a handful, if that, of guys who may come close to being every down guys immediately. I would rather give up that 65th pick, when we also had an ass ton of picks, to bring in a serviceable QB, the best we have had in forever, to teach Baker and let him sit and get a feel for the NFL.


Also, this could all be an act and let's hope not, but great answer to this silly NFL promo shit: