Everyone is calling you out for the Chuck Booms mention. But glossing over this nuggetFootwedge;1582444 wrote:Manziel will probably be better than both Manning and Brady. Apparently you never watched him play nor have you looked at his numbers.
sleeper;1582443 wrote:Yeah because an unproven college QB at #4 is so much better. Do we need to re-visit how many first round QB's never pan out and cripple organizations? How'd Tannihill ALL PRO QB work out for the Dolphins? How about Russel, Leaf, RG3, Manual, Tebow, Weeden, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, etc. LOL. I could keep going but you're balls deep in drafting a future bust. The only QBs drafted in the first round that have shown any promise in the last few years is Luck and Newton; BOTH were drafted #1 overall.
The point is Manziel isn't that good, Bridgewater isn't that good, and the probability of both of them being busts is 10x higher than the probability of a LB at #4 being a bust.
That's the part of the combine that has value IMO. The rest is an exercise in people having time to outguess themselves with "measurables".Crimson streak;1582697 wrote:Basically saying the combine doesn't matter to him unless character issues throw up red flags.
Unproven QBs are riskier than other positions. Not sure why everyone has a hard on for this group of QBs when it is no different than every other year where QBs get drafted in the first round and never pan out.DeyDurkie5;1582652 wrote:Will you stop using unproven QB in every post?? You could say that for every college kid coming out. They aren't proven in the NFL at all until they play. You sound silly right now sleeper.
Again, every draft has highly rated QBs and very rarely do any of them pan out. Not sure how putting a rookie QB out there with an average O-line and 1 playmaker is going to make that much of a difference.thavoice;1582683 wrote:You are forgetting one thing though. The browns need a QB in the worst way. They need to address that position with a top pick more than anything else. Picking one of the top rated QB's that many experts/scouts think is worthy is the safe bet. If said QB flops, then, well they can at least say they addressed the most needed spot with a guy that was supposed to be highly rated. That is the same bet, one ht if they hit on will do them the most good.
If they pick a LB as you suggest, that isnt going to address their most pressing need and wont do anything to turn this team around.
Now, if there werent any QB's in this draft that were rated very high, then maybe you have a point, and maybe JM and TB will be flops, but many experts have a few of those QBs rated highlly and that is the route the browns need to take.
QB,QB, QB anQBBBBBBBBBB`
LOL and a LB at 4 isn't unproven? LB's in the first round always pan out?sleeper;1582723 wrote:Unproven QBs are riskier than other positions. Not sure why everyone has a hard on for this group of QBs when it is no different than every other year where QBs get drafted in the first round and never pan out.
1 playmaker? We had 2 pro bowl receivers, sleeper.sleeper;1582724 wrote:Again, every draft has highly rated QBs and very rarely do any of them pan out. Not sure how putting a rookie QB out there with an average O-line and 1 playmaker is going to make that much of a difference.
It'll continue to be a black eye with either Manziel or Bridgewater. Why bother with any of those clowns? None of them are any good.SportsAndLady;1582727 wrote:LOL and a LB at 4 isn't unproven? LB's in the first round always pan out?
Every fucking pick in the draft is a risk. You take your best pick on the most important position. Especially when that positions been a black eye for decades.
Only because half the good receivers in the league play for the Broncos.SportsAndLady;1582728 wrote:1 playmaker? We had 2 pro bowl receivers, sleeper.
Did you even watch the browns last year?
Why bother with a LB? None of them are any good?sleeper;1582732 wrote:It'll continue to be a black eye with either Manziel or Bridgewater. Why bother with any of those clowns? None of them are any good.
What is your solution at QB, then? The top 3 available free agent QB's are Vick, McCown, and Cassel. THOSE are obviously not the answer, so I'm curious where you are wanting to find a QB?sleeper;1582732 wrote:It'll continue to be a black eye with either Manziel or Bridgewater. Why bother with any of those clowns? None of them are any good.
What do you want them to do to get a good QB to Cleveland?sleeper;1582724 wrote:Again, every draft has highly rated QBs and very rarely do any of them pan out. Not sure how putting a rookie QB out there with an average O-line and 1 playmaker is going to make that much of a difference.
Name a QB that has sat behind someone else and came out to be a good QB in this league. Rodgers? That's about all I can think of. This idea that bringing in a QB to sit is somehow going to make us better is asinine. If we draft Manziel, we will be right where we are next year with a limp dick at QB.Dr. KnOiTaLL;1582742 wrote:What is your solution at QB, then? The top 3 available free agent QB's are Vick, McCown, and Cassel. THOSE are obviously not the answer, so I'm curious where you are wanting to find a QB?
Rookie QB's almost NEVER perform exceptionally. That has been proven time and time again. However, drafting TBW or JM wouldn't be awful if we let them sit. Both of those guys have high football IQ's, and Manziel has the "it" factor that evaluators look for. I won't say any of them are locks, because nothing is a sure thing in the draft, but given time to develop, I think either of those guys could become a good NFL QB.
A LB has a much lower risk than a QB. I don't know why you are arguing this other than having a hard on for two QBs that have never won anything at the collegiate level much less at the pro level.SportsAndLady;1582739 wrote:Why bother with a LB? None of them are any good?
See how stupid that sounds? You don't know shit about whether bridgewater or manziel will fare in the nfl.
Let Hoyer recover and start him. He showed some promise last year and he didn't cost us a first round pick in the draft.se-alum;1582750 wrote:What do you want them to do to get a good QB to Cleveland?
Do I need to list the QBs drafted in the first round over the past couple years that have never panned out? It's a high risk position and you're going to need more than the "it" factor to win games in the NFL.SportsAndLady;1582745 wrote:Decades of embarrassment, pain, agony at the QB position. Let's upgrade our LBers. Lol.
That could happen. I don't see Farmer taking a QB just for the sake of taking a QB. If the guy he wants isn't there, he could very well go BPA and take a QB later in the draft. Also, as much as I like Hoyer, I think he is a guy that can get you to the playoffs, but isn't going to make you a contender for the Super Bowl, which is a bad position for a team that needs to make the next step. It's harder to draft a franchise QB when you're picking in the 20's, as opposed to picking in the top 5. They always say mediocrity is the worst position to be in for a NFL team.sleeper;1582759 wrote:Let Hoyer recover and start him. He showed some promise last year and he didn't cost us a first round pick in the draft.
sleeper;1582757 wrote:Name a QB that has sat behind someone else and came out to be a good QB in this league. Rodgers? That's about all I can think of. This idea that bringing in a QB to sit is somehow going to make us better is asinine. If we draft Manziel, we will be right where we are next year with a limp dick at QB.[/QUOTE
...and that mostly was because a few factors like Favre playing longer than expected, and from memory the Packers werent even going to select a QB but couldnt pass him up when he fell that far.
Brady, but he wasnt expected to be the starter in waiting.
Rapistburger, but he only sat a game plus until Maddox got hurt.
But he wasnt expected to be the next starter/star at all.
QBs are more ready now than ever to start out of college. Reason why a team picks high and can get a good QB is because they suck so why not start him.
Hoyer looked good in the limited time he played, but he is coming off an injury, and his brief period of playing well wouldnt be the first time a backup came in and lit it up for a short time.
Browns need a QB, and there are a couple that can do what they need.
Go ahead and list the first round LBers who have failed as well.sleeper;1582760 wrote:Do I need to list the QBs drafted in the first round over the past couple years that have never panned out? It's a high risk position and you're going to need more than the "it" factor to win games in the NFL.
I'd rather have a strong defense and a Krenzel at QB than to draft another Weeden.
Tell that to Aaron Curry and Rolando McClain.sleeper;1582758 wrote:A LB has a much lower risk than a QB. I don't know why you are arguing this other than having a hard on for two QBs that have never won anything at the collegiate level much less at the pro level.
Or vernon gohlston (if you count him as an olb)Commander of Awesome;1582773 wrote:Tell that to Aaron Curry and Rolando McClain.
