Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

2014 Cleveland Browns Offseason Thread

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ 2014 Cleveland Browns Offseason Thread
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:22 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589367 wrote:He had better numbers his senior year which is when everyone started talking about him though.
Well yeah, he improved a bit, which is to be expected as one gets more experience. Still had 25tds & 7int's his soph year, compared to 25tds & 9int's his Junior year.
Mar 12, 2014 11:22am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:36 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589287 wrote:btw.. seattle didn't have any superstar WR.. guess by your logic we should trade Gordon to win a superbowl huh?
\

No, but they had a QB and a truly great defense in place, neither of which we have, and both of which are more attractive options than drafting a WR.

Using the Seahawks = you defeating your own argument. Congratulations
Mar 12, 2014 11:36am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:50 AM
lhslep134;1589376 wrote:\

No, but they had a QB and a truly great defense in place, neither of which we have, and both of which are more attractive options than drafting a WR.

Using the Seahawks = you defeating your own argument. Congratulations
and teams have won it with out a qb and just a great defense. So there goes that argument. Basically there's not one model of team that wins a Super Bowl. So trying to compare what you need to them is retarded.
Mar 12, 2014 11:50am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:51 AM
And in regards to this whole QB talk, I think it's pretty simple. Every year the group of QB's tend to bring about the same type of NFL potential, and it's known a year or two in advance when a truly transcendent talent comes out (Luck).

There's no Luck this year, there's no Luck next year, you get the point. So if the talent of the QBs is about the same from year to year you then have to evaluate your options (now looking at it from a Browns perspective)

QB @ 4; trade down from 4 and take a QB then; take a QB at 26; take a QB in the later rounds. There's absolutely no way in hell we're NOT taking a QB.

The numbers are clearly in favor of drafting a QB early, but I would argue that a QB's success has as much to do with the externalities surrounding him as it does with his talent level. And if there's one thing the Browns already have, it's a talented team with a couple holes to fill and more cap space and draft picks to do it.

Situationally, it means we can do any of the 4 options above at QB and not worry about that prospect playing this year because Hoyer (if he learns how to slide properly, f*ck him) is our starter and I think for once Cleveland fans aren't going to be clamoring for whichever guy we pick to start right away. Not that what fans want is relevant to a front office, but when a QB is boo'd for their replacement to take their spot, well that ends poorly for everyone.
Mar 12, 2014 11:51am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:52 AM
I'd rather have Watkins at 4 than draft Manziel/Bortles at 4 only to trade him to a contending team for a 6th round draft pick in 2 years.
Mar 12, 2014 11:52am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:56 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589386 wrote:and teams have won it with out a qb and just a great defense. So there goes that argument.
No. The teams that have won it without a QB have had amazing defenses. There's a sizeable difference between a great defense and an amazing defense, and an even larger difference between the Browns defense for next year* and amazing.




*as of now
Mar 12, 2014 11:56am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:58 AM
lhslep134;1589391 wrote:No. The teams that have won it without a QB have had amazing defenses. There's a big difference between the Browns defense next year and an amazing defense.
Again.. We're not even close to a superbowl caliber team so why are we using this argument? There's so many ways to get there. None of them are in the near future.
Mar 12, 2014 11:58am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 12, 2014 11:59 AM
Automatik;1589316 wrote:Mariota? GTFO.
If my memory's correct, he was talked about as potentially the best QB in this class before he decided to stay.
Mar 12, 2014 11:59am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:01 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589392 wrote:Again.. We're not even close to a superbowl caliber team so why are we using this argument? There's so many ways to get there. None of them are in the near future.
Who said drafting a QB would lead the browns to a SB this year?
Mar 12, 2014 12:01pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:03 PM
like_that;1589394 wrote:Who said drafting a QB would lead the browns to a SB this year?
Actually, Zwick was the one who brought up SB. You were talking about QB being the missing piece and he asked, "so if the browns get a QB, they're a super bowl team?"

No one ever fucking said that Zwick. You did.
Mar 12, 2014 12:03pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:04 PM
like_that;1589394 wrote:Who said drafting a QB would lead the browns to a SB this year?
And who said drafting Watkins wouldn't? It was you who brought up Super Bowl.
Mar 12, 2014 12:04pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:04 PM
lhslep134;1589393 wrote:If my memory's correct, he was talked about as potentially the best QB in this class before he decided to stay.
I've heard that about all of them at one point. I'm not saying he won't be good, but I'm not buying that he's clearly better than anyone in this year or next year's draft. I need to see more.
Mar 12, 2014 12:04pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:04 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589396 wrote:And who said drafting Watkins wouldn't? It was you who brought up Super Bowl.
...
like_that;1589297 wrote:Obvious reach is obvious. Notice Seattle had a competent QB? Also they have a great D which I believe I said draft D before you draft Watkins. Nice fail though.
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589302 wrote:So you think Cleveland is a QB away from winning the superbowl. We need one this year. We need no one else. There's no disputing next years QB class is better than this one.
Derp
Mar 12, 2014 12:04pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:08 PM
SportsAndLady;1589398 wrote:...





Derp
like_that;1589252 wrote: Not to mention as I have said before, name the last team that won a SB with a bunch of super star WRs

Reading is tough
Mar 12, 2014 12:08pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:10 PM
Automatik;1589397 wrote:I've heard that about all of them at one point. I'm not saying he won't be good, but I'm not buying that he's clearly better than anyone in this year or next year's draft. I need to see more.
I agree. I was just kind of softening your GTFO lol
Mar 12, 2014 12:10pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:11 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589400 wrote:Reading is tough
I never claimed Watkins would win the SB in year one. My point is not many teams (or any?) have won a SB with a "let's fill our team with a bunch of good WRs!!!" model.

Plenty of teams have won a SB by drafting a QB though.

Reading comprehension is tough.
Mar 12, 2014 12:11pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:18 PM
like_that;1589405 wrote:I never claimed Watkins would win the SB in year one. My point is not many teams (or any?) have won a SB with a "let's fill our team with a bunch of good WRs!!!" model.

Plenty of teams have won a SB by drafting a QB though.

Reading comprehension is tough.

Spin master lol
Mar 12, 2014 12:18pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:23 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589408 wrote:Spin master lol
You are reaching hard if you think I meant drafting a wr= immediate SB. Seriously go back and read my posts and maybe you can comprehend.

The best part of this convo is you bitch about the quality of this site all the time. I originally was just trying to debate you on why we shouldn't draft a wr. Instead you got butt hurt and all defensive so you went straight into douche mode with your "reading is tough" comment. Now you are just coming off as a complete moron trying to out words in my mouth.

Next time you bitch about this site, be sure to look at the mirror.
Mar 12, 2014 12:23pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:35 PM
Yeah since when does asking when a team won the Super Bowl with two super star WRs meant the browns are vying for a Super Bowl. SMFH just stop zwick
Mar 12, 2014 12:35pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:50 PM
like_that;1589410 wrote:You are reaching hard if you think I meant drafting a wr= immediate SB. Seriously go back and read my posts and maybe you can comprehend.
Why would I think that? I'm the only one saying they should draft a wr. I was just correcting your lap dog, S&L, for saying I brought up the super bowl.
like_that;1589410 wrote:The best part of this convo is you bitch about the quality of this site all the time.
lie
like_that;1589410 wrote: I originally was just trying to debate you on why we shouldn't draft a wr. Instead you got butt hurt and all defensive so you went straight into douche mode with your "reading is tough" comment. Now you are just coming off as a complete moron trying to out words in my mouth.
.
No i responded and your feelz got hurt b/c I told you I didn't say we had to draft a rb in the first round.. which you were also wrong about.. talk about putting words in mouth, liar.
like_that;1589410 wrote: Next time you bitch about this site, be sure to look at the mirror.
I don't bitch about it.. liar.
Mar 12, 2014 12:50pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:50 PM
SportsAndLady;1589414 wrote:Yeah since when does asking when a team won the Super Bowl with two super star WRs meant the browns are vying for a Super Bowl. SMFH just stop zwick
oh don't back peddle now b/c you were wrong.. lol this fuckin guy
Mar 12, 2014 12:50pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:51 PM
Wow zwick is going off the deep end today.
Mar 12, 2014 12:51pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:53 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1589422 wrote:oh don't back peddle now b/c you were wrong.. lol this fuckin guy
Wrong about what? Just because like that said "super bowl" in a post, doesn't mean he meant the Browns are vying for a Super Bowl.

I'm done talking about this with you, talking only about FA news now.
Mar 12, 2014 12:53pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:57 PM
SportsAndLady;1589426 wrote:Wrong about what? Just because like that said "super bowl" in a post, doesn't mean he meant the Browns are vying for a Super Bowl.
SportsAndLady;1589395 wrote:Actually, Zwick was the one who brought up SB. .
give it up, sparky.
Mar 12, 2014 12:57pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Mar 12, 2014 12:59 PM
Commander of Awesome;1589423 wrote:Wow zwick is going off the deep end today.
Correcting the local circle jerk =/= going off the deep end.

I'm surprised it did take you this long to chime in though
Mar 12, 2014 12:59pm