SportsAndLady;1013368 wrote:Sure I do. If Trent Dilfer can win one, Colt can.

Mulva;1013651 wrote:If the Browns ever put together a top 10 defense of all time behind him, then I agree that Colt could win a Super Bowl. The only problem with that is that there have only been 10 of those defenses ever. It is highly, highly unlikely that the Browns D is ever going to be a 2000 Ravens or 2002 Tampa Bay. Using the Dilfer argument actually works against Colt more than for him, as it shows just how much help he would need to have a chance to win a Super Bowl.

Also, the NFL is much more spread, passing, QB oriented than it was 10 years ago when Dilfer won. Great QB play is way more important than it was even in 2000. Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, and Eli have won the last 8 Super Bowls.

Those guys are currently 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 in QB rating, with Peyton obviously out but probably in the top 3 if healthy. The 1st four guys on that list are probably the top 4 quarterbacks in the league when healthy, and a strong argument could be made for Big Ben at #5.

Anyone think Colt has the ability to develop to that level? Eli sucked for 4 years before figuring it out a little bit, so it's possible. But if you don't see that potential in him, and you do see it in someone in the draft, then why wait to grab them and hope there will be another franchise QB available in a year or 2 instead of grabbing him now?

Mulva;1013651 wrote:If the Browns ever put together a top 10 defense of all time behind him, then I agree that Colt could win a Super Bowl. The only problem with that is that there have only been 10 of those defenses ever. It is highly, highly unlikely that the Browns D is ever going to be a 2000 Ravens or 2002 Tampa Bay. Using the Dilfer argument actually works against Colt more than for him, as it shows just how much help he would need to have a chance to win a Super Bowl.

Also, the NFL is much more spread, passing, QB oriented than it was 10 years ago when Dilfer won. Great QB play is way more important than it was even in 2000. Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, and Eli have won the last 8 Super Bowls.

Those guys are currently 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 in QB rating, with Peyton obviously out but probably in the top 3 if healthy. The 1st four guys on that list are probably the top 4 quarterbacks in the league when healthy, and a strong argument could be made for Big Ben at #5.

Anyone think Colt has the ability to develop to that level? Eli sucked for 4 years before figuring it out a little bit, so it's possible. But if you don't see that potential in him, and you do see it in someone in the draft, then why wait to grab them and hope there will be another franchise QB available in a year or 2 instead of grabbing him now?

Mulva;1013651 wrote:If the Browns ever put together a top 10 defense of all time behind him, then I agree that Colt could win a Super Bowl. The only problem with that is that there have only been 10 of those defenses ever. It is highly, highly unlikely that the Browns D is ever going to be a 2000 Ravens or 2002 Tampa Bay. Using the Dilfer argument actually works against Colt more than for him, as it shows just how much help he would need to have a chance to win a Super Bowl.

Also, the NFL is much more spread, passing, QB oriented than it was 10 years ago when Dilfer won. Great QB play is way more important than it was even in 2000. Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, and Eli have won the last 8 Super Bowls.

Those guys are currently 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 in QB rating, with Peyton obviously out but probably in the top 3 if healthy. The 1st four guys on that list are probably the top 4 quarterbacks in the league when healthy, and a strong argument could be made for Big Ben at #5.

Anyone think Colt has the ability to develop to that level? Eli sucked for 4 years before figuring it out a little bit, so it's possible. But if you don't see that potential in him, and you do see it in someone in the draft, then why wait to grab them and hope there will be another franchise QB available in a year or 2 instead of grabbing him now?

WebFire;1013655 wrote:Then why draft him to begin with? Shitty backups can be found on waivers.

BR1986FB;1013665 wrote:I don't think they were expecting McCoy to be thrown into the fire so quickly. They may have seen him as a potential starter, as a Holmgren "project", or they may have thought he was a backup all along and hoped to find their franchise guy in a draft after McCoy. Who knows but he got thrown into the mix and now they see what they have.

WebFire;1013694 wrote:I see. So not given time to development and not much around him. Isn't that what I've been saying? :thumbup:

WebFire;1013655 wrote:Then why draft him to begin with? Shitty backups can be found on waivers.

Mulva;1013822 wrote:Because they saw something in him when they drafted him? Not every draft pick pans out, and evaluations of a player change. Throwing against the Baltimore secondary can expose weaknesses a little bit better than throwing against the Kansas State secondary.

And he wouldn't be a shitty backup. He's just a bad starter.

lhslep134;1013867 wrote:I don't think the problem is Colt at all. Our offensive line play has been terrible this year, our WRs can't create any separation, and when they do, the lead the league in drops. How the hell can you run a west coast offense if the QB doesn't have time to throw the ball, when he does his receivers can't create separation, and in the few times they create separation they drop the ball?

It's a team problem and until the Browns surround McCoy with suitable football players, I'll withhold my verdict on whether he'll ever be highly successful.

WebFire;1013858 wrote:Again, proving my point for me. If they saw something, then he needed development time. But he instead gets thrown to the wolves with a shitty team and gets all the blame. So the Brownies repeat the cycle again instead of fixing the real problems.

BR1986FB;1013965 wrote:For those bitching about the O-Line, did you think Colt looked better last year or this year? If you say "last year" (which I would because he showed glimpses, unlike this year) he was actually sacked more times per game last year, in the games he played, than this year.

BR1986FB;1013965 wrote:For those bitching about the O-Line, did you think Colt looked better last year or this year? If you say "last year" (which I would because he showed glimpses, unlike this year) he was actually sacked more times per game last year, in the games he played, than this year. And the WR's are essentially the same with Greg Little replacing Chansi Stuckey and Robiskie being cut.

like_that;1013991 wrote:Different schemes tough to compare. McCoy was hitting Moore and Watson all the time last year. I forgot those 2 were even on the team this year. It's hard for me to believe that is all McCoy's fault. Why would he stop trying to hit his best options?

Shurmur should have opened up the playbook to hit the TE's more often. No shame in a QB completing most of his passes to a TE.

derek bomar;1014333 wrote:Pat Shurmur needs to go away.

BR1986FB;1014349 wrote:There seems to be a ground swell of people feeling that he and Holmgren should go.

SportsAndLady;1014378 wrote:Link for Holmgren?

BR1986FB;1014386 wrote:You're such a puss. Shove your "link" up your ass. Unless you're here in Cleveland, which you're NOT, and listen to the local sports talk, etc you DON'T KNOW what's going on. Everyone is railing on Holmgren and his group right now. I personally think he'll do fine, eventually, but he IS being railed on.

SportsAndLady;1014390 wrote:Whooaaa easy steroids...you can't just say "holmgren is under fire" and not post a link...I just want to actually, you know, look at facts when I read my Browns news.

Hillbilly Joe calling into some radio show screaming for Holmgren's head does not mean Holmgren is losing it w/ the fans. FYI.

BR1986FB;1014392 wrote:It's not the callers, midget soccer ****.