I am not saying that this is my view, just laying out some points.
As we know, there are rumors going around that the Browns have made some inquires into the number one pick overall. While I am not sure how much interest we do have, I think we talked with every team about trades, it got me thinking.
What are the reasons why we should get to number one?
Sam Bradford is that good. If you never saw him at Oklahoma, you missed out. He put up playstation numbers in a BCS conference. He was +70 TD-INT ratio in the two seasons he started. His YPA were 9.2 and 9.8. Jimmy Clausen's best YPA was 8.7. We are talking a full yard better. Bradford also possesses unworldly accuracy. Not only does he get the ball to the WR, he gets it to them in the right spot so they don't have to break stride. Bradford has everything you could want in a draftable QB.
Who else is there? Clausen has his questions as does Colt McCoy. Tebow needs to be remade. Anyone really think Pike can be a good QB at the NFL level? History shows that if a QB isn't prepared enough to be drafted in the first round, they probably aren't going to matter at the NFL level. Outside of Bradford and Clausen, the others probably aren't first rounders. So in that line of thinking, it is Bradford vs. Clausen.
How many seasons do we need to go with a question mark at QB? We haven't had a good QB in Orange and Brown since Bernie. We need someone that we can draft and let grow with this team and front office. Think of Donovan McNabb with Andy Reid. Brett Ratliff isn't going to get it done.
Need I say more?
Yes I know the cost would be high, but let me paint a picture for you. Let's say it takes our first, second, and two third rounders plus a first round pick next season. We have our QB for the future learning our offense right now. Being protected by the secret service of Thomas-Stienbach-Mack. Growing with MoMass, Robo and Watson. Add in the run game that we had at the end of last season and we start looking like we have a future on offense. Crazy idea huh? After all, if we don't get a QB in this draft we are in all likelihood going to be choosing one in the first round next season. Why not get a jump on it?
This isn't a Couch situation. The offensive line alone would save Bradford from the savage beating that Couch took. This isn't the "new" Browns. We have some pieces. We have Pro Bowl offensive lineman. We can protect a young kid. We can give him a chance.
Rob Ryan. I know this is a weird reason, but follow me. Rob Ryan took chicken sh*t and made chicken salad last season. Let him do it again. Add in some late picks. Add in some shrewd trades (Sheldon Brown). Add in a healthy Shaun Rogers. I am the most pro-defense guy on this board, but if Ryan can create magic for one more season, why not wait on defense and fix the gaping hole in this franchise at QB? I have much more faith in Rob Ryan than Brian Daboll.
Holmgren. If the Big Show thinks that Sam Bradford is worth trading up to number one, who the hell are we to question it? We are talking about a guy who coached Montana, Young, and Favre among many others. This dude forgets more about QB's then we will ever know. He has looked under the hood. He has seen the tape. If he is sold, shouldn't be all be at ease?
So, do any of these reasons carry any weight with you? You in for Bradford at one?
0recs |
390
comments
Comments
Claussen + 4 top 100 picks > Bradford
Berry + 4 top 100 picks > Bradford
Anyone + 4 top 100 picks > Bradford
I’d love to get Bradford, don’t me wrong. But the cost is just so high. Like Holgren says, you’d have to “mortgage the ranch” or whatever. Giving up a first, second, and two third rounders… idk…
This. Glad most people agree with me (and you). For a second after I saw this, I thought that we made that trade — almost had a heart attack. That would leave us with only one other pick in the top 100, and no 1st round pick next year. No thanks.
These are some great points Bernie. I did vote for the price being to high but now I am torn and looking at it, would seriously consider it and i am not sure what I would do.
I have been a fan of bradford ever since his freshman year and he truly is unbelievable.
points 5, 8, and 7 really make me think. Considering what Ryan might be able to do with our D again, the fact that holmgren knows his QBs, and the nice pieces already on the team, makes it interesting. I don’t honestly know what I would vote for the poll after reading this.
I’d be willing to give up quite a bit to trade up for Bradford if our FO really likes him, but TWO firsts, a second, and two thirds seems like way too much. I might be okay with our first four picks this year but not if we have to include next year’s first.
Also, I heard a discussion yesterday that it seems like the Rams aren’t that high on Bradford and are only going to pick him first overall because they feel like they have to. So they may be eager to trade as we get closer to the draft and we might be able to get the #1 pick for less than it would usually take. If they like Clausen they can move down to 7 and pick him there (for much less money than they’d have to pay Bradford) while also getting a couple more picks then they might do that.
I know this isn’t a popular strategy, but i would really like if we could differ a pick or two until next year. maybe instead of a third this year use next year’s third, or something like that. that way we don’t completely mortgage one draft, we spread it out a little.
that’s true, I didn’t really think that through. Still, i think the general idea might not be a bad one. I definitely don’t want to give up next year’s first, but maybe something like trading next year’s second instead of this year’s?
You also need to look at how deep the draft will be next year. This year is suppose to be a deep draft, that means more value for the the picks we have.
If they like Clausen they can move down to 7 and pick him there (for much less money than they’d have to pay Bradford) while also getting a couple more picks then they might do that.
This is my hope. If they’re not that sold on Bradford over Clausen, it would make no sense to take Bradford at one. Collect some free picks and a discount on your franchise QB.
I think Bradford might be a good thing for the team, but I think the price of trading up to #1 is suicidal, to put it mildly. I’d be happier picking the #2 QB at pick 7 most years but this year we do have a QB weak draft and pesonally I don’t like Clausen.
So don’t force it, live with it.
I’ve hinted that I think Wallace might do better than expected. And if he isn’t, we can look for a QB next year. Or, maybe we’ll get McCoy at the right place (but in a QB weak draft everyone is going to go too high, and Tebow will even be drafted….) and develop him but I’m strongly in favour of working what the draft gives you.
If that means 5 pro bowlers on the OL cos that’s the best value, I’ll live with it…
I did see some improvement with the game calling the last 5-6 games. I also believe we will see more of a WC offense. if he doesn’t work out this season, i have a feeling gil haskell might end up being our OC in 2011.
as far as play calling, i haven’t figured out why we can rush for 250ish yards a game the last 4 games, and STILL cannot throw the ball……you’d think that would open something up……right?
honestly, we won w/out passing, so maybe we just didn’t need to, but the balance was still extreme to me.
I wonder if Quinn would’ve played those last two games, what the offseason would have looked like…if he wins 4 in a row, would they keep him? i still don’t think so.
soooooooooooooo…..was that playcalling, or very very poort QB,WR, etc. play?
Our WRs were the worst in the league, our TEs were worst in the league, our RBs weren’t especially dangerous as pass catchers, and our QB was probably average at best. Add to that the fact that whoever our RT was probably couldn’t hold up very long in pass pro and you’ve got close to no choice but to run.
We didn’t need to pass to win, as evidenced by the wins, but defenses could spend a lot of resources on the run and not pay for it with a PA pass because we just stunk at the passing game from the top down.
Fine point. Just wish to heck that Holmgren and Gil Haskell are tutoring Daboll properly right now. Like every day every hour. Daboll better be sleeping in their basements or something.
disagree, if the receivers are dropping the ball all the time……or if the play calling is a poor as it was………..but yes, he would be much better than what we had.
we don’t have the receivers with the worst hands in the league. Momass is pretty good and Watson is solid. Peyton calls half the plays himself so bad playcalling wouldn’t matter that much (half may be an exaggeration but it is a lot). I do agree that daboll was not good last year though.
I would be. I am not impressed with anything about him. Honestly, if we took him in the first, I would seriously consider assassinating someone in that FO.
I wouldn’t be disappointed if the Browns avoid the issue altogether by trading for Jason Campbell. The Browns O-line will be strong this year, and I would expect his production to increase even more. He’s relatively young, he’s experienced, and could probably be had for a low round draft pick.
He just doesn’t have that ‘it’ factor that makes someone a good NFL QB. He had better receivers in washington too, so I dunno if he would truly perform better here.
I’m not sure I honestly know enough about him. He doesn’t have enough “it” to win games behind a comatose OL, but then again not many can. What’s Bernie up to these days?
Even a few years ago when their O-line was at least decent he was nothing special. As a QB, he is the type of guy that won’t usually hurt you but won’t win you games. you can count on him to usually not blow it, but he really isn’t much of a leader. from the reports i read, he is not fiery in the locker room and has never really had the players respect as a leader. He puts up solid numbers.
He has not been a great QB in key situations or close games. Have you noticed how the reskins every year seem to underachieve compared to preseason rankings? Have you ever noticed how they wilt in the 4th quarter?
Ever year there are 2-3 games that the Reskins lose that they definitely should have won. sometimes it is the defense that doesn’t do the job but more often, the offense doesn’t come through. there is something wrong with the psyche of this team and the problem seems to be emanating from the QB.
Its very hard to find a game that Cambell won by taking his team on his shoulders and truly winning the game through leadership and will.
Actually, when McMahon was healthy, he was a good field general. From what I have read about the bears, the players did respect him on the field. I am not sure if this is the case with Campbell. He might be decent at the right price, but I just don’t have confidence he can be a team leader.
Just because walter payton was a good player, doesn’t mean McMahon wasn’t a good leader in the pocket. was kurt warner not a leader in St. Louis b/c he had Isaac bruce who had that leader quality?
I agree with this point. He has been in a lot of offensive systems. However, i just don’t feel he has what it takes to be a truly great QB in the NFL and really doesn’t have that leadership you want to see from your franchise guy. For a low price, he might be worth a shot and he could be a very solid QB, I just don’t see a team going anywhere special with him at the helm…JMO.
Now way! They would want to much for Bradford. I say trade up and get Su or Barry!!
I also wanna say I look forward to our HB’s next year Harrison/Davis!!!
Barry? Is Barry Bonds in this draft? And I wasn’t aware that Suh decided to drop the ‘h’ in his name, though I do admit it looks a tad more exotic that way.
watching Berry and Thomas in drills, Thomas to me is much more fluid with his movements….what that means as far as the quality of the player, I don’t know, but gosh, Thomas looked so much more natural out there. I’d rather land him.
I don’t know about that. Thomas looked pretty good at the combine and is a good athlete. But Eric Berry didn’t look bad in the drills at all. In fact, on the contrary he really impressed at the combine. Berry is the total package.
because a couple drills means a player is so much better right???
personally, I thought berry looked just as good. Plus berry has the tape to back it up. berry outperformed Thomas by leaps and bounds in college (and thomas still performed at a higher level). Thomas looks good in coverage but berry looks as good or better than thomas in every single area.
you totally missed my point, no absolutely not, drills don’t make a player better…..but some have thomas above or equal to berry…..as one poster showed, statistically, tebow looks great, too. thomas had great statistics, too….berry could end up being great, too, I don’t know, just offering some of my analysis, dude!
I agree with you thomas could be great, I just think Berry is quite a bit ahead of him…because he is ahead, doesn’t mean I am down on thomas, I am just not as high on him as people like Mayock. I just like more of how berry plays against the run and rushes the QB. Thomas is a great player and in the mid first, I would LOVE to have him, I just think berry is a more complete player right now…just my analysis.
berry is more ready to start on day one, I agree there, so he may be the best choice at #7, i think that he is a great tackler, physical….I really really really really like him, but I’d give Thomas 5 reallys!
hey they’re both good, lets settle at that! both will have good careers.
I think it is hard to compare them because of the different styles. As far as Mayock, I think he changes too much, if I remember right, he had been pushing Berry as best player in the draft at one point, now he puts him as second best safety one-two months later.
if you get a chance, watch them both on some films if ESPN, etc. are showing, I realize I am overanalyzing it, not saying thomas is a better, but berry seems more rigid in his movement, thomas natural, berry may be more of a run stopper, but thomas i believe better all around.
I understand what you mean by berry ahead at this point, and we do need someone to step in right now, too.
I do like Thomas more. I’m kind of being a homer, but that also means I watched every Longhorns game. And everything I read about Thomas raves about his fluidness and “loose hips.” He’s also only a sophomore, so he’s got a little more room to grow. Like you said, they’ll both be good. I wouldn’t be disappointed with either. I’ll be disappointed if we don’t draft either of them though.
isn’t he a RS sophmore? and berry is a Junior. I don’t get this thing where a guy who is a RS Sophmore has so much more upside than a guy who is a true Junior. the RS Soph was on the team for 3 years too…
Tebow is a senior whereas Bradford is a RS Junior. I don’t consider Bradford to be a guy with a higher ceiling because of that.
Yea he’s RS. Uhh I just read somewhere that he had room to grown so I may be mistaken. That isn’t why I like him though. I think he has superior coverage skills, he’s faster, and he’s more fluid.
I do like a lot of his game don’t get me wrong. I just get a bit annoyed when analysts talk about a RS Sophmore player having more upside and potential than a guy who is a junior. I always view also oftentimes when “experts” talk about “potential” what they are really saying is: "he hasn’t been that good but I think he will be. not all guys who they say have potential live up to it and not all guys they say don’t have potential actually don’t.
granted, I think thomas is a great player and a legit first rounder, I just don’t buy into as much some of the stuff they say about players at times.
Thomas is a fluid, fast, athletic DB. There is do doubting that. Things that don’t show up in shorts—stopping the run, for instance—is where his (small) question marks are. I wouldn’t mind drafting him at #7, but I really don’t see how anyone can say Thomas is the better player.
I did say they were both good and did say you had some good points.
This just doesn’t make sense to me
berry may be more of a run stopper, but thomas i believe better all around.
If someone is a better all around player at safety, that means they also play the run decently well. In coverage I think they are even really from what I watched but better is more of a stuffer against the run at this point. even if you think thomas is better in coverage, it would make more sense to say he is a better all coverage safety. I can respect the point that he is a better coverage safety but I do not believe at all he is a better all around player.
NO WAY! Not for that many draft picks because draft picks are needed to rebuild this team.
Now say the Rams want to swap firsts, Shaun Rogers, D’Qwell Jackson, and our second round pick, then maybe. But that’s just a maybe.
The hypothetical trade I want is for the Eagles to move up with us, but this will only happen if Eric Berry is still available.
Here me out on this….so Berry is sitting at No. 7 for the Browns to pick, but the Eagles offer to swap firsts, and give the Browns both of their seonc round picks too.
I would trade down in a second because it like we are trading Eric Berry for three players.
With their pick and adding the Eagles’ two second rounders, the Browns can find more quality players in this deep draft class and those player could be contributors almost immediately as long as Tom Heckert chooses wisely, and I think he will.
Look at what he did for the Eagles in the draft the last few years.
Also, the Eagles have told the media that they want a top safety in this draft and are looking to trade up to do it.
I know it’s just a hypothetical, but I hope it happens.
If they want Thomas I do not see them sacrificing as you said, because the value of the No. 7 pick is pretty much a set value according to the draft charts online.
If they want either Berry or Thomas, and both are highly rated, then they may just do it for either one as well.
but not all teams truly use the set value charts we have online. some may not use a chart like that at all, where others have likely their own modified versions.
i don’t think they would actually want this much for him….not even reaonable…but our second this year and next year’s first might get that pick, being our first is so close to theirs and ours is an early second, and likely our 1 next year will be top 10ish.
I would be very disappointed for giving away most of our draft picks for a QB who won’t even start in 2010, but would still get paid a TON of money to sit on the bench.
I think he is good enough to push Delhomme/Seneca for a starting job. Holmgren may not want him starting but he is the kind of guy who could start at some point in his rookie season b/c he EARNED it.
Who cares if he doesn’t start in 2010? That shouldn’t affect the decision at all. We’re not playing for 2010; we’re building a team to contend for many years and to do that we need a QB.
I’m gonna call B.S. on that. I won’t deny that we’re still rebuilding, but we will always play for the season just ahead of us. Saying that you’re ‘rebuilding’ doesn’t mean that you should or can lower your expectations of what’s going to happen.
I know that this probably comes off as a naive view, but I don’t apologize for having high expectations. Right now, that means that we’re going to be in contention for the division title this season. Crazy, yes. Will I ever be convinced that we can’t do it? Never.
There is nothing wrong with having high expectations — that’s not at all what I’m talking about. I’m saying that we shouldn’t rule out drafting a possible franchise QB just because he might sit the bench for all of 2010. That’s what you have to do when you draft a QB — give him time to learn the position. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth it in the long run.
Thinking back to 1998 draft(i think) where manning went out…..knowing what we know now, would he be worth all that bernie19kosar has proposed in trading for him? I think so….
…..it comes down to how strongly you believe Bradford is that man…..I’ll consult my crystal ball….get back later with my findings(10 years from now)
Im sold on the fact that both Claussen and Bradford will be good players. It looks as if Bradford has a decent arm but great accuracy. Claussen has decent accuracy and a stronger arm. So im almost leaning towards Claussen at this time! LOL
so the stronger arm is more important than better accuracy? okay, do you also want Derek Anderson back?
Bradford’s arm strength issues are a bit overblown. yes, he doesn’t have a strong arm, but is eveyrone supposed to have Jay Cutler’s Arm?
Bradford has a strong enough arm to make all the throws he needs to and his strength doesn’t affect accuracy on deep throws (really doesn’t wobble). He can occasionally fit the ball into tight spots but not as good as clausen. He has basically an NFL average arm (for a starter). It might be stronger than drew brees’…brees made a good career for himself.
Clausen has a stronger arm but its nothing special really. it is an above average/good arm but it isn’t very impressive (but is nice).
Im sold on the fact that both Claussen and Bradford will be good players. It looks as if Bradford has a decent arm but great accuracy. Claussen has decent accuracy and a stronger arm. So im almost leaning towards Claussen at this time!
Honestly, replace the name “Bradford” for “Manning” and “Clausen” for “Leaf”, and your comment reminds me a lot of what I was hearing at this time in 1998. Seriously. Doesn’t mean that either comparison is correct, but this was the exact argument that people who favored Leaf (and there were a ton of them) were making against Manning.
yes, arm strength is sooooooo overrated….is your arm strong enough, that’s the Q.
clausen’s ability to throw that long out pass, gosh it is beautiful, and bradfords accuracy gets me excited to see him with an orange helmet….I am honestly wondering what mccoy will be able to do in the NFL. I’d be happy with either 3, or none in our draft. i like this year’s group as a whole at QB.
For anything in that post which pertains to the past sesaon… I believe that history also shows us that we can ONE good season with being rated well for the next season only to watch it fall straight down the tubes.
Now I’m not trying to be the negative one… but I believe that MAYBE this year we’ll have a good team and be 1 game shy of the playoffs or even make an appearance but come the next year we’ll be holding our hands in our heads and drinking away our sorrows as we always do.
Take the 2nd or next year’s first out of the deal, and I’d consider.
I’d also be willing to throw in any of our players except Mack, Thomas, or Cribbs. Yes, even Eric Wright or Massaquoi or Steinbach or Roth if it got us out of giving away some of those better picks.
I would be willing to trade a guy like wright or roth if it means we don't have to give up a 2nd. I like wright but there are CBs in this draft that we can get in the 2nd that I feel could be as good or better. Mack Thomas and Cribbs are really the only guys that are hard to replace with a pick in the first 2 rounds.
that makes sense…and with the very good points you make, it is still tempting. if we can keep our first next year and maybe 1 third, I would like that…or if we gave up our first next year and kept a 2nd and third.
I actually think a lot of the guys you mentioned fit needs for St. Louis too. After QB some of their biggest needs are DT, Pass Rusher, Guard, and WLB. DT isn’t as big of a need but they could definitely use the other 3 after QB. Steinbach is a good guard in his prime. To put it this way, if they don’t draft anybody there is a decent chance hank Fraley starts at guard…that is how bad the situation is. If we can trade them steinbach and save a pick where we could get a guard, I would like that.
I also like matt roth but if it means saving a 2nd or third rounder AND getting bradford, I would do that too. They need a guy to replace little and they need some help against the run (little is a pure rusher who isn’t that effective anymore).
They also could use a WLB. I heard rumors that DQ might be traded to Philly (around the time of the gocong rumors) and would play WLB there.
i don’t think i’d get rid of wright. i don’t want to weaken our secondary. even with all of the draft picks we have, it isn’t likely we get 2 corners as good as wright.
fair enough, and i’ve been on record as liking bradford and thinking holmgren will go after him. i just think it would hurt more to weaken an already weak area of our team.
NCAA career QB A:
604/893 67.63comp%
8403 9.4 YPA
88TD 9.85 TD%
16INT 1.79 int %
NFL QB rating 123.04
NCAA career QB B:
661/985 67.11 Comp %
9,286 9.43 YPA
88TD 8.9% TD
15INT 1.52% INT
NFL formula QB rating: 120.72
One of these quarterbacks is going to go #1 overall and require that we trade 4 top 100 picks this year and a first rounder next year. He will probably require a contract that is close to $50 million guaranteed.
The other is likely going to be available early in the second round and wouldn’t need a guaranteed contract.
I just don’t see any way to justify the risk you’d take trading up to #1 based on the subjective opinion of scouts.
I think there is something to be said about using stats too much and this is where it becomes too much.
tebow is NOT a good QB. If stats matter that much Jaws, why isn’t colt brennan a high pick or dominating the NFL? I know…because he just doesn’t have the skills at this point to be successful. do you know more than every single scout and person who has observed unimpressive accuracy from him?
The point is that nobody is a sure thing. Stats don’t tell the whole story, this much is true. However subjective scouting isn’t really any more reliable. The likes of Tim Couch, JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, and Ryan Leaf prove that.
My point is this: Given the crapshoot that is the draft, there is absolutely no point in risking the better part of two drafts to acquire a quarterback when there is an alternative who has shown himself capable of producing on a similar level.
you made the point in a bad way…plus its YOU comparing him to tim tebow…so your point gets muddled with every other point you attempt to make about tebow. The point would have gotten across better IF you didn’t even bring up tebow and his stats…
Like B19K somewhere, we would not have to give up that much. that is the maximum that we would have to in the realm of probability (it is not probable for us to have to give up more, but very likely we would have to give up less).
I see your point, but if holmgren thinks he is the guy, I say take him if the price is right.
when there is an alternative who has shown himself capable of producing on a similar level.
and again…you should have just ended your point at the draft is a crapshoot and it isn’t worth risking 2 drafts for bradford. I could have listened to that…but then you bring it ALL back to tebow again…
You know, sometimes the guys who talk on TV — the former coaches and players — do know what they’re talking about, because they’ve played and coached the game. In any case, they know a hell of a lot more than you.
“I don’t think he [Tebow] has any quarterback skills and he’s not a good enough athlete to play another position,” an NFC executive said.
Don’t be such a smart ass.
Quit burying your head in the sand. Tebow very may well be a great QB, but it is going to take a butt load of work and good coaching. If you can’t understand that, then your fan boy love of Tebow is clouding your vision.
Because those unnamed “executives” are all telling the truth to the media before the draft. Or not being non-committal. C’mon man what on earth makes you think any of those guys is tipping his hand? If I wanted Tebow I’d be first in line putting out whispers that NFL execs thought he sucked so I could try and get him after the first round.
Aside from that, I really don’t know why there is so much negative press about Tebow’s draft stock. Vince Young and Michael Vick were in no way polished passers and neither could match the college production of Tebow. Both of them were top 5 picks. And don’t try and tell me that Vince Young (and his 6 on the Wonderlic) can make progression reads and check-offs at the line of scrimmage.
Every quarterback coming out of college is going to need a “buttload of work and good coaching” Tebow isn’t unique in this regard. I’m not burying my head in the sand, I just don’t know why these media guys have Tebow as a 3rd or 4th round talent when Vince Young or Michael Vick had more things they needed to improve coming out and less work ethic/character to make you think that they were willing to sacrifice to improve them. Yet these same media guys make fun of Al Davis for drafting Height-Weight-Speed guys.
Tebow has done everything you could ask of a draft prospect, and then some. He excelled passing the ball at Florida. He won a lot of games. He is known as a team-first player and team leader. He works hard, his character is good. He made the most of the athletic gifts that he possesses. And yet people still doubt him. What more could he have done? Tried to look prettier and throw the ball with some sort of picturesque motion when he was throwing all those touchdowns? What a joke.
Sure Tebow has stuff to work on. Absolutely he isn’t a sure thing. This is the NFL draft, nobody is a guarantee. But the reasons people give for grading him down are just comical, because they either apply to virtually every quarterback who comes out or seem conjured totally out of thin air in order to knock Tebow for reasons unknown.
Tim Tebow is the greatest human/quarterback/fake doctor/option quaterback/tight-end/h-back/priest/do-gooder/leader/winner/competitor/just-all-around-great-human prospect that I have ever laid eyes upon.
Just because his game from footwork to release needs to be totally redone is NO reason to have any qualms in drafting him with the 7th pick overall.
7th overall is a bit drastic, sure that was a joke. If we could trade down in the 2nd I would be happy to get him there, but what do I know, still hoping for McClain if Berry’s not there at 7
Every quarterback coming out of college is going to need a "buttload of work and good coaching" Tebow isn’t unique in this regard.
That’s just wrong. We’ve seen plenty of examples of QB’s who came in from college and made an impact in the NFL right away. Sure, they needed plenty of coaching and offseason work in practice and training camp, but so does every other prospect at every position. Guys like Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco and Ben Roethlisberger and the Mannings and plenty of other guys were ready to play right away because they already had the footwork and the throwing motion and the reads and everything else necessary to play QB from their time in college. Tebow doesn’t have that.
If you can’t see the difference between Tebow and those other prospects who have different skills and came from different offenses then you’re just ignoring facts and you do have your head in the sand.
That may be true, but that doesn’t mean some QB’s who step in and play right away can be very successful.
Regardless, that’s not the point. The point is that Tebow is different than guys like Bradford and Clausen in the amount of work he’ll need to do to be able to play in the NFL, and if you can’t see that then you’re not being objective.
You say that like Clausen and Bradford are sure fire successes in the NFL from day one. Both of them will have to work even harder than they did in college to clean up weaknesses in their games to have success. And one or both of them could be complete bust stories just as easily as Tebow could.
I think virtually all qb prospects have to do a ton of work in order to be successful in the NFL. Where I disagree with you is your assertion that Tebow has to do significantly more than the others. I don’t know where this notion comes from but I think it is completely inaccurate.
I never said Clausen and Bradford will be sure-fire success in the NFL. I never said they wouldn’t have to work hard to be successful. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Please read my comment before replying and putting words in my mouth.
Not a Tebow, fan although I do like his work ethic, but it seems there was a quarterback in Cleveland a few years ago that had a throwing motion that would never make it in the NFL. Maybe some of you remember him, he wore #19.
he also had great touch on his passes…He also knew how to read coverages well and knew where to put it for his receivers to catch it.
I said fix ALL the weaknesses in his game. kosar’s one weakness was his throwing motion. take that away, and tebow is still not a first rounder to me. he doesn’t show great touch or decision making. he has a lot of terrible bad habits and mechanics.
you can’t get away with throwing into double coverage, throwing off balance on the run, and throwing off your back foot consistently in the pros. these are things that Tebow did CONSISTENTLY when I saw him on tape.
comparing Bernie Kosar and Tebow because of the throwing motion is like comparing Clausen and Quinn b/c they are from ND and played under weis.
you can’t get away with throwing into double coverage
In scouting reports, what I am seeing is that you are correct about his needing to correct his mechanics, bad habits, etc. But I’m not really seeing them repeat what you said in the above two quotes. I am seeing that his decision-making is hard to evaluate because he hasn’t had to do it in a pro-style system where he had to see the whole field. However, the decision-making that he DID make in his system was solid. I’m not seeing anyone say that he actually makes BAD decisions and throws into double coverage a lot.
For example, see this scouting report, by New Era Scouting and Mocking the Draft. They said: “Will go through multiple reads and maximize his time in the pocket. Does not give up on a play too soon. Likes to take risks, but they are calculated and safe, not reckless. Just 16 career interceptions despite nearly 1,000 passing attempts.”
Sporting News Draft magazine said he “does not force passes into bad spots.”
The New Era scouting report says about his touch, “Showed surprising ability to put the ball in a bucket throwing over a defender. Will throw the ball short at times, but can really lay it in there when he has time to set his body up for the throw.”
So again, it sounds like it’s not that he lacks the ability, but it’s in his footwork and mechanics.
Here’s another report that says he “makes proper decisions.”
When I saw him on tape he forced some throws to his primary receivers. granted they caught it but they were not that open.
I also look at it and try to see how many plays he can make in the pros doing what he is doing. definitely a lot less of the running plays.
one great thing about peyton manning is that when he throws, it rarely looks like a spectacular reception for his players. however when i see tebow on tape, too often his receivers come up with great plays…that in my mind means that they are making the plays and the throws aren’t totally on target (which I see).
Yes, Decision making is hard to evaluate b/c of the offense, but I just see plays where he makes plays, but there is no way that is a completion with an NFL defense.
and here is a scouting report I found on his weaknesses:
Has a serious tendency to stare down primary receivers. Needs to do a better job going through his progressions. Offensive scheme also gave Tebow large spaces to throw the ball, which won’t be there in the NFL. Accuracy is marginal. Many throws are not in stride with the receiver, forcing them to change their direction and/or slow down. Has a hard time with putting touch on the ball and changing passing speed/power. Hasn’t been required to read defenses like he will in the NFL and has struggled against pro-style defenses like Tennessee in 2009 and Alabama.
I see all of this when I watch him too. I see passes that get there, but the WRs have to adjust their bodies to get it. He also has bad habits of throwing bad throws on the run and throwing off of his back foot way too often.
and the website I found, they rate both his decision making and accuracy at a 5.5 out of 10. Colt is an 8 in decison making and 8.5 in accuracy. Clausen is 9 in both accuracy and decision making and Bradford is 9.5, 10.
to put it this way, they rate Zac Robinson as a more accurate QB and a better decison maker, and he is a midrounder…
this is why I say, he has first round intangibles, first round statistics, but a midround tape.
When did you watch him on tape? do you have 3 years of florida games DVR’d? do you have access to dozens of hours of tape or are you just bullshitting?
I don’t see the case for him being inaccurate or forcing bad decisions. His career completion percentage is 67%, right on pace with Sam Bradford and a full 10% higher than Matt Stafford.
His career interception % (interceptions / attempts) is a ridiculous 1.52% which is more than a full percentage point better than Eli Manning, who threw an int on 2.60% of his attempts. And Eli Manning was better in this category than Peyton, JaMarcus Russell, Tim Couch, and Matt Stafford. All #1 picks out of the SEC, the same conference as Tebow.
so by the statistics this article argues, we should rest our QBs for 3 years?? Forget the 3rd and 4th year it talks about. they are irrelevant b/c they are such small sample sizes.
this whole thing is not done very accurately at all and is really some dumb arguing points.
shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does
a guy who sits a year who isn’t a rookie anymore and in the 2nd year of an offense SHOULD do better than if he started his rookie season. he has a year to learn the NFL and the playbook. Guy in general improve. What would be more accurate to see is the WHOLE CAREER of guys who started right away and the guys who sat.
if you sit 3 years in an offense, it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that you would have a better season your first year than if you started right away.
the key thing would be to see guys who sit a year and see how their first season compares to the 2nd season of guys who start right away. in general that should be more of an accurate measure.
this whole article is filled with flawed and biased reasoning.
A who’s who of the best quarterbacks of the past decade is also a tale of professional incubation
False. 6 out of the top 14, and 9 out of the top 20 QBs in 2009 (and in 2008) started during their first year. in 2007, 6 of the top 10 were first year starters. Just like you can look at QBs who rested who are good, you can look at ones who started right away that are good.
Cassel didn’t start until his fourth year, but has largely succeeded,
another example of stupidity. Cassel sat for 4 years in the same offense and had pro bowl weapons around him and had a good year. however, in a new system, he showed he was nothing more than pedestrian.
a realm dotted with failures like Tim Couch and Joey Harrington, or recent cases like David Carr
this is the problem with the reasoning behind the argument. they point at these guys and say you shouldn’t start them. look at the TEAMS. all 3 went to terrible teams with little weapons available, no running game and some of the most horrendous offensive lines of the decade. the reason why many first year QBs fail isn’t b/c they should have waited a year, but because the teams were terrible. If couch waited a couple years, he still probably would not have been all that great. the team around him just wasn’t there.
Occasionally guy who don’t have a great team around them might succeed. Even Mannings 3 win team had elite talent on the offensive side. He had Marvin Harrison AND Marshall Faulk…plus a budding young LT in Tarik Glenn. Flacco had a decent team around him.
the true problem with this is that guys who wait tend to be on better teams too and guys who are often forced in are on terrible teams. A lot of is on a cas by case basis. guys like Carr and Couch were just on terrible teams and would likely still have been pedestrian if they sat.
In looking at this draft, that could bode well for Tim Tebow. Our own Todd McShay says Tebow will need at least a couple of years on the bench before he could be NFL-ready. Scouts believe the Florida star all but needs to re-invent himself before he’ll find NFL success. The idea also certainly bodes well for Whitehurst
so these guys will be better than Bradford or McCoy if either of these start their first year? wow…some seriously flawed reasoning overall in the article.
Vick and Brees were drafted the same season. in brees’ first 2 seasons as a starter, his QB rating was 72.6. in Vicks 2nd and third seasons (even though his third was cut short) his QB rating was over 80. Vicks 2nd season starting was much better than Brees’ first.
David Carrs QB rating his 2nd and 3rd years was 79. Harrington’s was 73 (and he was on a dreadful team, even worse than houston). Ramsey’s in the same seasons was 75. Josh McCown’s was about a 74. There is no evidence i can find that Ramsey and McCown were better off in the long run by sitting when compared to Carr and Harrington.
as an aside, in that interesting 1999 draft, Akili Smith and Cade Mcnown had worse career than Couch and McNabb and their teams waited longer to play them. (daunte culpepper was buried behind 2 established veterans, however with chris carter and Moss, he would have easily dominated his rookie year).
the point is…there is no set rule about this and it is all on a case by case basis and a team by team basis.
but they DON’T. they say “oh a guy who waits a season has a better first season in the NFL than a guy who goes in right away”. this in of itself is faulty logic. the guy has one more year of being on an NFL team.
if you compare guys who sat and guys who didn’t a couple years down the road, there is no evidence I can find to support this ludicrous theory.
Drafted QBs who didn’t get to start until their third or even fourth years have TD/INT rates nearly 50 percent better, and complete passes at a rate a full five percent better than rookie starters. But that’s not just in the first season; that’s for their careers.
and like I said at the beginning, when a sample size is over 3 times smaller, its not very scientific.
And like I said, guys who wait 3-4 years usually have an established team or QB ahead of them. Philip rivers had a great team ahead of him before he got a chance.
and again, guys play better the more they get comfortable with the players around them or the league in general. the whole thing is unscientific.
if they said that take away the first 3-4 years of all guys who started right away and THEN they had better TD/INT rates, completion %s, and ypa, THEN it might mean SOMETHING but the information given if you look at it rationally is pretty much garbage.
I also noticed that QBs who start for the first time during their third season are better than guys that wait an extra season. does that mean that there is a point where a guy waits too long and he starts to suck because he knows the offense too well?
the point is, even the stats themselves contradict each other because this is too small of a sample size. Also, it takes me 2 seconds to find serious flaws in the argument which isn’t a good sign. there are numerous flaws I find with this theory and I consider the research done pretty much invalid.
also notice he chose 2000…not ‘99, or ’98? in those years, the guys who waited longer, actually didn’t do as well…so he decided to take away examples like Daunte Culpepper and Peyton Manning…because those might give starting a QB right away some validity and it is obvious he doesn’t want that…
I should have added some larger breaks…but most of the stuff in there i thought was important and valid…because by quoting that article a proof, Jaws was quoting the WHOLE thing and there were MANY problems with it.
What is it with all this work ethic crap? Nearly every top QB in this draft has that sort of work ethic. So because Tebow got in front of a camera and bawled his ass off when they lost he has a better work ethic than other QBs. Bullshit.
What people love about Tebow is that if anyone will do the work, he will. That doesn’t mean he’ll be a good QB. I am confident in saying that I would outwork Peyton Manning if it meant I could be an NFL QB, but there is no shot I could become one.
Never was much of a Tebow fan, however the guy is a winner, a leader and has great character. All things you can not teach. The rest might be fixable. I think he is worth a shot and if he sucks at QB make him A TE
you won’t get far with the “he’s a WINNER” argument around here. there are so many holes in that argument that it gets to be ridiculous. to name a few, 1) winning doesn’t happen because of one guy, 2) winning can happen despite one guy not being great, 3) all the heart and desire to win in the world can’t overcome a lack of NFL level skill, 4) what makes you think tebow wants to win any more than any of the other prospects, who don’t need their entire game overhauled?
Well 52 & 7 is not to bad, then you throw in 88 td’s in the air and another 57 on the ground. Like I said, not fan but he may worth a look in the 2nd. He appears to be a make or break it player, but there are no locks at any pick.
Sorry, the record was 48 & 7, should of checked. I believe he shared time as a freshman.Still a winner in my book. My only point is he may be worth the gamble vs giving up so much for Bradford.
A lot of QB’s would be “winners” with the talent around him that Tebow had at Florida. To give one person credit for the success of a whole football team is foolish.
he was a backup his freshman year. saying tebow contributed to the 13-1 record is like saying pat white contributed to the 7 wins for miami. Tebow was on a NC team as a WILDCAT QB really. it was more than sharing his time…he didn’t start. He threw a total of 33 passes and ran the ball about 90 times. he was a backup RB who could throw.
and like Brad said below, many QBs could be ‘winners’ with the talent around him at florida. And a lot of QBs could put up ridiculous stats in that offense.
in his first year in the offense, chris leak saw his best statistical season of his career. Alex smith was ridiculous at Utah. Josh Harris was not an NFL QB but he got drafted and played a couple years b/c he put up great stats. He didn’t look like a great QB to scouts, but he put up gaudy stats (similar to Tebows but not as good)
Leak and Tebow were not “anybody.” Both were top recruits. Leak was the third-ranked QB in the ’02 recruiting class. They did not come out of nowhere; success was not unexpected.
in his first year in the offense, chris leak saw his best statistical season of his career.
I’m calling you on this one. Leak’s first year in the offense was NOT his best year. He was in Meyer’s offense for two seasons, his junior and senior years. His sophomore year, under Ron Zook, he had been a notable QB with 29 touchdowns, the most of his career, and 3199 passing yards, also a career high. His passer rating was 144.97. In his first year under Meyer, his rating went down to 136.54, with 20 TDs. In his last year, his passer rating was a career high of 145.12, with 23 TDs, but he also threw a career high 13 interceptions. So arguably, Leak’s best year was his sophomore season under Ron Zook. It DEFINITELY wasn’t his first year under Meyer. Here is the link to his stats, if you’re interested.
Tebow far outpaced Leak in all three of his seasons at Florida.
I always thought leak’s first season was his senior year. I would say his senior season was better than sophmore, personally.
Tebow far outpaced leak…but he also had superior weapons and was a better QB. that doesn’t mean he was great…leak just was never that spectacular.
The key person to look at was Josh Harris. Harris was Urban Meyer’s QB in Bowling green and Harris went on to play a season or 2 in the NFL, but hasn’t played football since 2007. Harris was a backup before Meyer
In 31 starts he had: 62.9 comp %, almost 7500 yds. 8 ypa, a 145 efficiency (99 on NFL scale).
In 3 years starting, tebow had a 63.3 comp %, 8927 yards, 9.2 ypa, and a 166 eff (115 on NFL scale).
there is a difference, however the only player from harris’ BG offense who went pro was a WR who left before harris’ best season, & is in the AFL.
Harris averaged 242 yards per game, and 1.7 TDs per game.
Tebow played more games and averaged 1.9 TDs and 218 yards per game as a starter.
Harris was also an effective rusher amassing over 2000 yards and 40 TDs. He averaged 72 yards per game rushing (compared to 60 for tebow), 4.29 ypc (compared to 4.1 for tebow) 1.35 Rushing TDs per game (compared to 1.19 for tebow.
you could argue that tebow never had a statistical season passing like Harris’ senior season where he passed for over 3800 yards, a 66 comp %, and almost 30 TDs.
My point? that Meyer’s offense is a great offense. it gave Josh Harris a pro career. there were no weapons on that team and they had a spectacular offense and went 17-6 in 2 seasons.
I am just playing devils advocate to your devils advocate and pointing out the stats other QBs got under meyer.
Great. You’ve noticed that Urban Meyer is a great coach and runs a very effective offense. Can’t you see that isn’t an argument against Tebow at all? You should be arguing that some NFL teams are dumb to drag their feet in the evolution of football. The best teams are already meeting the spread offense halfway.
You just refuse to listen to any of the plethora of reasons that I’ve given you as to why “college” offenses won’t suddenly produce in the NFL, don’t you?
I don’t expect anything to happen “suddenly”. I don’t see “college” offenses and “NFL” offenses. I see “effective” and “ineffective”. A ton of the stuff the Colts, Patriots, Saints, Cards and Eagles ran last year was considered “gimmicky college stuff” ten or 15 years ago.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that those 5 teams have been some of the best offensive clubs over the last couple of seasons: they have been on the forefront of the game’s evolution.
I’m very interested to see how the Eagles look this upcoming season with former University of Houston QB Kevin Kolb at the helm.
my question is: if he is so offensively skilled with schemes, how valid are the stats for tebow…I mean Josh Harris put up (discluding TD/INT ratio) fairly similar stats WITHOUT tebows supporting cast…he is a 6th rounder and was out of the NFL in 3 years. what makes tebow so great then?
He got drafted as a QUARTERBACK. he was a quarterback in Urban Meyer’s offense at Bowling green. He wasn’t a great QB (evidenced by the fact that he hasn’t had a football job in 3 years) but he put up about 30 touchdowns, 3800 yards, and a 66 completion percentage his senior season. wherever Meyer’s offense is, QBs put up gaudy stats. none of these QBs yet has been successful.
it is kinda sad that the most successful one you can point at is alex smith…yeah, he had a good season but not a good career so far.
Its impossible to argue with your M1 Abrams tank of truth.
Clearly because Josh Harris never made it as a quarterback in the NFL it means Tim Tebow sucks. I mean Urban Meyer man, he just coaches those shitty quarterbacks to great statistical years. Lets draft someone out of a pro style system that has had nothing but horrible statistical years, that ought to fix our problem at quarterback.
Never mind that Harris played in the MAC and got drafted as an athlete (Antwaan Randle El, Armanti Edwards) and was probably never even considered a legitimate NFL qb prospect.
you know my whole point is that STATS DON’T MATTER.
Now josh harris not making it is not a predicting factor of Tim Tebow’s success. however they did play in the same college system with similar production. Tebow is the better QB but Josh Harris shows that stats really do not matter when predicting someone into the NFL.
90% of your opinion of tebow is based off of your opinion, his stats, and maybe some tape you watched.
to me, he is a top 5 pure physical talent with a midround tape…yeah, I said it, a midround tape.
Never mind that Harris played in the MAC and got drafted as an athlete
you know teams and analysts have talked about tebow being drafted as an athlete too…
If you guys are going to have a p*ssing contest over NCAA stats and their correlation to NFL success, why aren’t you guys mentioning Colt Brennan or Maurice Clarett? Both had ridiculous numbers and were “gods” on their respective teams. YET neither has done crap for the NFL.
I don’t want a make or break player in the 2nd really.
where are you getting this 52-7 record? even if you include his freshman year when he didn’t start its 48-7, but I don’t include that so its 35-6. Guess what. Jason White was 27-4, Higher winning percentage…did he get drafted? He was a “winnner” and a high character guy but none of that helped him get into the NFL.
If you really think Tebow is going to be a threat running the ball in the pros you are definitely mistaken. He will be about as big of a threat running as Roethlisberger (maybe not even as good). He isn’t overly powerful or overly fast. he can’t run over people or run past people like he did in college.
should we have drafted colt brennan high because he had like 130 touchdowns in his career (or something like that)?
yep…and he knows how to plant and throw. Every throw I see of Tebow it is a wobbly pass he throws off his back foot or on the run. you can’t get away with that in the pros.
but how does being a winner and leader and a “good guy” translate to success throwing the ball? his “intangibles” in this sense are off the charts but his on the field intangibles (reading the defense, decision making with throws, etc…) are not terrible, but not at all good.
Dudes, back off- I said I am not a Tebow fan, however jaws made some good points and I think he will do well, if he does, hope its for us, and as much as I like Bradford we would have to give up to much to get him.
Some of us seem to be untouchable and have an elite status around here. If someone disagrees with them, the elite tend to gang up (if not single handedly) on the original poster and try to make him feel as stupid as possible. Most of the things they say is horribly wrong, but they claim that their opinion is the absolute truth and that argument can’t bloom from it. Absolute control controls absolutely, and I’m a little sick of it.
How can you seriously support the claim that his mechanics and passing talent on the field is inferior to his competition? What evidence supports this notion?
Tebow’s actual on-field results just passing the ball are virtually identical to Sam Bradford in every single category. People are so quick to write all that off for reasons I just don’t understand.
We’ve explained the reasons to you over and over and over why you are not convincing anyone. In fact, there will be no convincing me because I have developed an informed opinion based around what I’ve SEEN ON FILM.
Why do you decide every day to try to convince others that Tebow is the next best thing? You are already on record multiple times as saying that we should draft him. We know you like him. We’ve read your comments ad nauseum. We understand what you are selling, but many are not buying.
Why can’t you just agree to like him and let us dislike him, or at least not like him enough to think a 1st or 2nd is worth it?
Hey, if you’ve watched significant game tape of somebody and have an informed opinion that’s fine.
But some of the other people on here haven’t watched any game tape aside from highlights and other crap. And yet they still bash Tebow or whomever because they hear talking heads do it on television.
By all means it is fine if people disagree with me but I want them to have something to back it up, not just disagree based on vague talking points they heard come out of Charlie Casserly or Bucky “the Teleprompter” Brooks.
You know, some of the people who analyze football on TV — like the former coaches and GM’s — actually know what they’re talking about. They sure as hell know a lot more than you or me.
If Warren Buffett was on TV talking about investment strategies, would you dismiss him as just another “talking head”?
the people on tv aren’t warren buffett. They (for the most part) are more like Bernard Madoff. I mean Matt Millen is on TV talking about NFL draft prospects. We all know Matt Millen’s track record. The people on television are on television because they got fired from actual jobs in the NFL.
Matt Millen still knows much more about football than you or me. Just because they were fired doesn’t mean they can’t evaluate talent. Plenty of great GM’s and coaches were fired at one point in their careers (Bill Belichick, for one example).
wasn’t any good at really investing money, so he made a living bullshitting people.
At one point, Madoff Securities was the largest market maker at the NASDAQ and in 2008 was the sixth largest market maker on Wall Street. The firm also had an investment management and advisory division, which it did not publicize, that was the focus of the fraud investigation
Madoff WAS an investor at the time that he was running his ponzi scheme. He was actually one of the more successful investors on wall street which made it more shocking.
the ponzi scheme was crooked. it wasn’t even bullshitting or bad investment, it was just criminal fraud (definitely different than bullshitting).
Honestly, the analogy can apply that neither one had common sense. Millen didn’t seem to have a ton of sense when drafting (at least in my opinion) and also in my opinion ponzi schemes lack common sense. they are good in the short term but they are not economically sustainable and either you get caught or die (he was likely hoping to die first). He was a common crook.
first you started off talking about how his mechanics can’t be bad b/c he produced in college (and I won’t go into how ludicrous this statement is).
then rufio points out the evidence is in the tape and you point out too many ppl listen to analysts on TV then BB points out most are former coaches/scouts/players.
and you find ONE guy who wasn’t a great player evaluator and instead of arguing the validity of of all analysts or why they don’t like Tebow, we are debating Matt Millen.
Even if matt millen was a bad GM, I would listen to his opinions more than most people on here. Millen is just like Kiper or Mcshay except he was once a GM.
breaking down film is not an exact science, just like playing the stock market. still, I would rather have a pro playing the market for me rather than an amateur (like yourself).
just stop now jaws…seriously. this thread was not even about tebow anymore but BY complaining about the “gang mentality” which seems to exist in his mind.
yeah…pretty much. I have been ganged upon by BB and Rufio, but it is normally when I am doing something dumb like writing way to many (or to long, or both) posts.
It’s not that comment necessarily.
You sit there and yell at people and say that their opinions are wrong all the time. While your comments "enlighten" us.
Stop deleting comments when everything you post is efing crap.
You know what I mean Vern?
First of all, I only delete comments which violate the site rules that everyone agreed to follow when they signed up. I don’t know what that has to do with your comment above. It seems to me that you are still holding a grudge against me which is why you made your comment, because there was nothing wrong with what I said. You just felt the need to criticize me to make yourelf feel better.
And I never claimed to be smarter than everyone here or know more than everyone here. In fact. I readily claim that I other people here know more football than I do. When I disagree with someone, I try to do it in a respectful manner unless that person is being a complete idiot. But we’re allowed to disagree with people here — that’s the whole point of this site.
If you have a problem with the way this site is run then you can address it with me or Chris; you don’t need to make a snide remark that has nothing to do with the discussion just to “get back” at me for something you’re upset about.
The rape jokes also got flagged. There are many people who come to the site, just because a few rec something doesn’t meant the entire community supports the comments.
I don’t have a grudge against you or anyone else. ALL comments which are political in nature get deleted. All of them. You’re not different than anyone else.
No offense man, but I find BBs comments a bit more enlightening than yours. I find your comments intelligent but I do not think that his comments are “efing crap”.
from what I have found, BB may not be the nicest guy if you piss him off by being an idiot, but he does not come off as pretentious and giving us “enlightening” comments.
elite tend to gang up (if not single handedly) on the original poster and try to make him feel as stupid as possible
this is somewhat true…occasionally this will happen but only if the person is being completely moronic like I have been at times…and this doesn’t really apply if you are talking “elite” as in BB, B19K and Rufio. the only one involved here is BB.
ost of the things they say is horribly wrong, but they claim that their opinion is the absolute truth and that argument can’t bloom from it.
I completely disagree. RK doesn’t post a ton, but I have high respect for the opinions of BB, B19K and Rufio. I admit they all know at least a bit more football than I do. I also do agree with them often, especially BBs comment above about mechanics.
Honestly, this is not a very cliquey SBN page. I would say at times LGT is a bit more…and even the regulars can be at MTD. I understand a little bit of where you are coming from but what you said was a gross exaggeration.
I think the truth lies somewhere between what he said and “not a very cliquey SBN page.” its not like people consistently do it, but sometimes people come off as big dicks even if what they’re saying is right and even when they aren’t trying to. the regulars (myself 100% included) can sometimes be unnecessarily rough on someone. Its not like we do it all the time, but it happens.
yes. this happens a lot more with newer people and we don’t realize we are being unnecessarily rough…
but in BYs case, he has been here for a while so he knows how it is. generally he doesn’t even get attacked that much either…but there is more license to attack an establised member acting like a fool because he should know better.
i’m of the opinion that we’re only rough on people when they make ridiculous exaggerations or baseless statements of what they feel is fact. i never blast people just because i disagree with them, i like to have intelligent debate with them. when it turns into “we suck, draft so and so because he’s a winner and will make us winners. he won in college”, i tend to get a little more aggressive. finally, whatever cliques may exist here aren’t intended to be roving gangs of bullies; i just tend to backup people that have a history of good posting and commenting, and in many cases those are the regulars or “veterans.” frankly, if people do the research, i think they’ll find that even the vets disagree and argue at times.
There have been times where I have posted things and wanted to delete them because I felt they sounded mean.
When I first posted here, kwoog ripped me repeatedly, so instead of being a jackass I decided to study up, provide backing for the points I was making, and to make sure I knew what I was talking about. I understood that this site was not about being able to post any BS you wanted. And that if sometimes we didn’t go a little far on the critique that it could turn in to cleveland.com. And who wants that?
If anything anyone says here is legit, it will stand up to critique and scrutiny. That doesn’t mean people (myself very much included) should be angry or mean about things, but people should expect their analysis to be critiqued.
I understood that this site was not about being able to post any BS you wanted. And that if sometimes we didn’t go a little far on the critique that it could turn in to cleveland.com. And who wants that?
Yeah, I remember that night.
He’ll come out of left field and zing me pretty good sometimes. I try not to set myself up because I never know when he’s lurking.
Yea, I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously if we can’t come to this site and post opposing viewpoints without taking things personally. You could go on a Jaws-like tirade against me and I would laugh my ass off, and move on immediately.
I meant what I said in the sense that he’s the one who rips me a new one if I leave myself open. And every time I laugh and think to myself "Damn it. He got me again". I wasn’t complaining about him.
The guy won, but winning isn’t what translates to the NFL. Graham Harrell won a bunch of games in college. So did Timmy Chang and Colt Brennan. So did Troy Smith. So did Craig Krenzel. So did Brady Quinn. So did Matt Leinart. Trent Dilfer won a superbowl.
Tebow has a good attitude about the game and good work ethic. It is absolutely not an intelligent idea to bet—to the tune of a first or second round pick no less—that the rest is “fixable”.
And some people run some run-n-shoot influenced things in the NFL with a high degree of success. But if you run what Hawaii ran, you will probably get destroyed.
yep. winning and stats are nice but I tend to try to disregard them when analyzing. Scouts raved about Tom Brady’s accuracy and poise if I remember correctly. However, he was criticized for not being that athletic, not putting up great stats, and not having a good arm.
My opinion of Tebow…Elite (possibly top 10) intangibles such as personality and leadership.
First round athletic skills for the position (including arm).
7th Round Mechanics
Late 2nd round on the field intangibles (decision making, reading coverage)
Midround (late 3-4) tape. What I saw on tape is a lot of stuff he will NOT get away with in the NFL…things like throwing into coverage and having your receivers bail you out. coverage will be much better in the NFL. He also threw off of his back foot a lot threw a lot of bad and off balance passes on the run. These are things you can get away with in college but can kill you in the pros.
If NFL teams picked QB’s based on the stats they put up in college then there would a lot more former Texas Tech QB’s in the NFL. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. You need scouting to determine how that QB will fit in an NFL offense. You can’t really compare stats from different college QB’s playing in different systems against different levels of competition.
please don’t take Tebow, gosh what a great kid, but i just don’t see taking him before round 4, such a huge risk for a team that needs so much…..wish he was a better prospect, cause he has great character and would be an awesome leader.
I trust Holmgren to handle the QB situation as good as anyone could. I’ll be behind his decision whether it’s Bradford, Clausen, McCoy, a mid-to-late rounder, or no one until next year.
I like all three….can I say this…..i loved Quinn, but just wondered, did he fit in with ‘the guys’
he fought and cried like a baby when they shaved his head as a rookie…..was he too much of a pretty boy? doesn’t matter……I am still rooting for him like crazy, ’cept when playing us, of course.
I say noper to trading up cause defense wins Championships. Lets give Ryan some real tools to work with on defense and see what he can do. I want the Dawg defense back I also want Marty but that won’t happen.
I would rather have a coach that doesn’t blow it every year when he has a good team. those were more TALENTED teams than we have right now. martyball doesn’t work…didn’t we find that out in the playoffs?
you know Bill Belichick was 5-11 his first year in
Dungy was 6-10 after his first season in Tampa.
Even though coughlin had been a coach for several years previously, he was 6-10 his first year with the Giants
Very few coaches have success in their first year as a coach and are able to continue that success. some may walk into the right situation like Jim Caldwell, but others took over a bad situation (like Dungy or Belichick). when a new coach is brought in, it is usually b/c the team was not good and the first year there are often growing pains.
It is way too early to judge mangini and want shottenheimer back. imagine if the same type of thought was used in New England and they fired Belichick before he could take them to the super bowl? Now, mangini is not guaranteed to be any of these coaches or as good as them, but you have to give him another year. The browns also had the WORST QB situation than any of these guys walked into…by FAR (last year).
I agree completely. I don’t think the talent was really there. I also don’t want mangini really handling the QBs much. I am not convinced he is great yet, I just think its quite early to try to recall shottenheimer.
Please don’t put words in my mouth I was not referring to Mangini per say. I was more likely referring to Butch Davis/Crennal who I would have never hired in the first place. I think Mangini is very trainable and can become a way better coach then we would have had he stayed in New England. Please dont lecture me on football I understand it takes time. But if it were not for Marty we would have to go back to the one year with Sipe under Rutgliano to remember fondly.
I understand marty was good…he just has never had success in the playoffs and it just felt as though it was too early to call for “martyball”.
It was unclear that you were talking about butch davis/crennel. Maybe it was clear and I missed it and if that is the case, I am sorry. I would never hired those guys in the first place either. i favor either hiring from within or getting a HC from somewhere else (with previous HC experience).
I think this stemmed from a misunderstanding somewhere and one of us was not clear with our points. I think we are relatively on the same page.
None of the packages mentioned in the article or comments to move up to #1 would be worth it. We have too many needs to make only one pick in the first two days of the draft. I don’t care if Bradford is a top 10 QB in the NFL next season it would NOT be worth it.
Statistically, Tom Brady was the 9th Best QB last year. Eli Manning was the 10th. Would i trade the farm for either of these guys? probably. a top 10 QB is not only a franchise QB but an elite QB that lifts your team up.
Defense-Adjusted Yards Above Replacement, explained in detail here, is basically a way of measuring how valuable a QB was over the course of a season. It accounts for things like the strength of the opposition/defense and the relative importance of a situation (completing a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 8 > completing a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 12).
You can think of it like this: the average (half are better, half are worse) backup quarterback is the “replacement” level QB. If he was in Tom Brady’s position for every play Brady made in 2009, he would have thrown for 2,170 yards less than Tom Brady actually accumulated. That’s what Tom Brady’s 2170 DYAR means.
DYAR is a cumulative statistic which grows as one plays, like TDs or Home Runs. This is as opposed to DVOA, which is a rate statistic like QB rating or Batting Average.
it is also by no means a perfect stat (i know you weren’t saying it was). Its better than QB rating, but its still not great. obviously you have to look at more than one stat.
I would say that I put significantly more weight behind DYAR and DVOA than QB rating. Of course, no stat is perfect, and even the best only tell part of the story.
One should not go around making declarations that distort reality, even if they’re technically or partially true. Your statement, point aside, puts Tom Brady on the same level as Eli Manning. That’s just not the case, so quote stats that properly reflect reality.
Further, you missed B19’s point, which was that trading up to get a QB at #1 that ended up as a top ten guy in his rookie year would easily be worth it. Commenting on random other top 10 QBs at that point was just… irrelevant.
I understood his point that if we could get a top 10 QB he would do it. i was pointing out that Eli Manning and Tom Brady were top 10 QBs. if you could have that production in a rookie season and sell the farm, would you do it? That was my basic point…I guess you didn’t really understand it and its probably my fault for being unclear…
I think you are contending that we trade up to slot #1, so we can be jackasses on the biggest possible scale, you´re not pro Cleveland Browns success entitlement.
You want the personage Sam Bradford, not the person Sam Bradford.
Who else is there? Clausen has his questions as does Colt McCoy. Tebow needs to be remade. Anyone really think Pike can be a good QB at the NFL level? History shows that if a QB isn’t prepared enough to be drafted in the first round, they probably aren’t going to matter at the NFL level. Outside of Bradford and Clausen, the others probably aren’t first rounders. So in that line of thinking, it is Bradford vs. Clausen.
I think Colt is a first round talent, probably a better prospect than Clausen, and potentially available with our second pick.
My thought is draft BPA at 7 (hopefully Berry) and then trade up to end of first round for Colt McCoy. Unless, you are convinced that he falls to us in round 2.
If that fails, we move on with our lives, probably take a QB in the later rounds and begin looking at the top QBs of 2011. Where we likely won’t have to pay as much for a top 10 pick at QB, because of a fairer CBA.
My thought is draft BPA at 7 (hopefully Berry) and then trade up to end of first round for Colt McCoy. Unless, you are convinced that he falls to us in round 2.
If that fails, we move on with our lives, probably take a QB in the later rounds and begin looking at the top QBs of 2011. Where we likely won’t have to pay as much for a top 10 pick at QB, because of a fairer CBA.
I know this is the sensible if conservative route. I know this is more likely (if only by a slim margin and depending on the price of moving up) to lead to long term success than the aggressive hypothetical this article details.
Still, I REALLY don’t want to watch another year of “pull jackass QB1 for jackass QB2.” It’d be nice, now that we can protect a young QB, to get one to protect.
You can’t see the scenario? Trade 5 picks for Bradford. Bradford has minor holdout. Delhomme starts season as #1 QB. Delhomme sucks. Bradford plays. Bradford looks unready/gets hurt in first action in 1.5 years.
This possibility doesn’t make trading up the wrong move. But that avoiding revolving door at QB doesn’t get solved by doing it.
But that avoiding revolving door at QB doesn’t necessarily get solved by doing it.
As it stands, the QB situation is one of mediocrity at best. If we get Bradford, there’s a good chance (the best possible chance for a full year) that we finally see light at the end of the tunnel. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will, but as you imply we can’t be afraid to draft a quarterback simply because he might fail.
he was considered “a franchise quarterback in the Carson Palmer mold.” By Mel Kiper Jr. A leading draft expert. Just another reason why subjective NFL scouting should always be taken with a grain of salt.
I love statistics as much as anybody, but as we’ve discussed many, many times, you can’t sompare college QB’s using only statistics because of ther variences in competition and the offense those QB’s play in. If people drafted QB’s based only on their stats then there would be a lot more Texas Tech QB’s in the NFL right now. There are dozens and dozens of QB’s who put up great stats in college but never made it in the NFL.
(Also, if you’re going to post a link in a comment please click on the box that says “open in new window” so it doesn’t navigate the person away from this page.)
Of course stats aren’t everything. Guys like Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang got a statistical boost from playing in pass-happy spreads against inferior competition. However Tebow played in a run-first offense in the SEC, which is widely known as the toughest college conference. There is no reason to write him off as a “system” qb. Perhaps your point about Texas Tech should be cutting the other way. You could argue that guys like Graham Harrell and Chase Daniel didn’t get a fair shake at the NFL despite their college success, precisely because they played in spread offenses. I really don’t know.
There is no reason to write him off as a "system" qb.
So who, exactly, has played in Meyer’s system—or even at Florida—that has put up those great numbers in college and then went on to put up similarly great numbers in the NFL?
Same argument could be used for Bob Stoops at Oklahoma, Charlie Weis at Notre Dame or even Pete Caroll at USC. Carson Palmer came out of the gate really well but sorta petered out after the injury, Matt Lineart has yet to be heard from and yet people still thought Mark Sanchez was the next big thing and drafted him #5 overall.
The point is that the whole thing is plenty unpredictable, no matter what school or system.
Carson Palmer came out of the gate really well but sorta petered out after the injury
so because he got an injury he was never a good player and we can’t trust a pete caroll QB?
you know, Leinart wasn’t terrible his rookie season…he just got replaced by a future HOFer (possibly) the next year.
Discrediting another school inaccurately does not give credibility to your argument.
For oklahoma’s QBs you have Nat Hybl (who was not even as good of a college QB as leak). You have Jason White (who might still be in the NFL if he didn’t have artificial knees). Rhett Bomar (5th rounder last year and backup to eli manning)…then you have Bradford.
Look at the track record though for Urban Meyer QBs? out of the 4 QBs that played at least a year or two in that offense, 2 haven’t played professional football since 2007, and one is in a 3rd Tier Arena-esque Football League.
the whole thing is unpredictable, but Meyers’ QBs put up the best numbers statistically out of all the offenses you talked about and they have easily one of the worst track records for success.
So who, exactly, has played in Meyer’s system—or even at Florida—that has put up those great numbers in college and then went on to put up similarly great numbers in the NFL?
Same argument could be used for Bob Stoops at Oklahoma, Charlie Weis at Notre Dame or even Pete Caroll at USC. Carson Palmer came out of the gate really well but sorta petered out after the injury, Matt Lineart has yet to be heard from and yet people still thought Mark Sanchez was the next big thing and drafted him #5 overall.
You do go on to say how the draft is unpredictable, however in the realm of argument, the tactic you are using is validating your point by trying to invalidate the other opposing points. it is not making a point yourself or helping your point, but trying to hurt other points so yours looks better by comparison. It may have not been intentional that you did this, but this is the argument tactic that you did use.
you think that the system that tebow played in should not inhibit his draft position. Rufio points out why it should and then you try to discredit it. However.
but Meyers’ QBs put up the best numbers statistically out of all the offenses you talked about and they have easily one of the worst track records for success.
I am not going to go purely by bradford’s or clausen’s stats either. I consider them about as valuable as tebow’s stats. However, from what I have watched on tape, the QBs to me go Bradford, McCoy, Clausen, Tebow (I haven’t watched much tape of pike or lefevour so i can’t tell you my views on them but I am not high on what I saw from tebow).
Is anyone here raving about the ridiculous stats that Bradford put up as the basis for an argument? No they really aren’t. you are the only one using QB stats as the basis for your argument.
and Josh Harris (a Urban Meyer Offense guy) wouldn’t be out of the NFL since 2006 and Omar Jacobs (from the Meyer BG offense he set up) would be playing in the NFL instead of the AIFA (american indoor football association…i didn’t even know this league existed…)
Yup. Besides, I don’t ever remember anyone — even in the media — saying that Quinn was a “can’t miss” guy. I don’t think anybody would be dumb enough to say that about a QB because we’ve seen too many top picks fail at that position.
I wouldn’t say that was calling him a “can’t miss” pick. They were saying they thought he’d be a good QB — i.e. prove the doubters wrong who passed on him in the draft — but I don’t think that means he’s a “can’t miss” guy. That’s taking it to an extreme. Again, I think any intelligent person who knows enough about the draft would say that there isn’t such a thing as a “can’t miss” QB prospect.
people thought it was a miss for the first 3-4 years. even in 2007 Giants fans weren’t always happy with him. He didn’t become the franchise QB he now is until the 2007 playoffs when he truly took the team on his back and Won that super bowl.
I agree. He wasn’t bad…but if you really look at it until those playoffs he was a solid QB but was pretty up and down (no QB ratings above 80, lots of yards and TDs but threw too many INTs).
They probably did expect peyton. granted, going by how the Giants fans (most new york fan bases in general) felt isn’t a very accurate way to go. Its hard being QB there b/c you are always in the limelight and always under the microscope from the fans.
Still, i have to say until the 2007 playoffs, he was solid but had not yet lived up toe the 1st overall pick in the draft. Now it looks well worth it and he is a true leader but it just took him a bit to get there.
I definitely heard he was the safest pick in the draft, and looking at it he may have been. right now, I would still take him over Jamarcus if I HAD to take one. Stanton and Beck have done nothing. Kolb did come from that houston offense so wasn’t looked at as being that “safe”. if kolb pans out, he still would be the “safest” QB in the draft really
I think the other 5 would be much less to sign combined than bradford alone. $ goes down sig. after first round. and third round is even lower $ heck, it pays to be a winner and be in the lower end of the first round.
were are there cause we need so much….but still not bad idea to get someone if you truly believe he’ll be a great one.
if we trade up, to any position, it should only be for suh. screw the qb postion, its the hardest position to draft for so why waste it on a qb. i dont know the answer to this question, but how many qb’s have won a superbowl being a first round pick since the browns came back?
I agree we need a hammer on defense before we need a franchise quarterback! I think we might have a partial solution in Roth but I like to have some more tools to work with on defense. To answer your question no number one pick QB won a superbowl. A few teams won the superbowl that had former number one picks at the posisiton but it was the primarily their defenses that stood up and sealed the deal.
I agree with your points that defense is important.
To answer your question no number one pick QB won a superbowl
If this is ever, this is completely incorrect. it looks like you were responding to QBs taken in the first round since the browns came back. in that sense, even if you look at the first overall pick, this is still incorrect. Eli Manning won a super bowl and they did have a decent D but ELI won that game.
2 super bowls have been won since 2006 by #1 overall picks. Since then, 3 out of the 4 super bowls have been won by first round QBs (drew brees was first pick in the 2nd round, the year before it became 32 teams when the texans joined).
are we talking about guys drafted since 1999 in the first round that have won super bowls? or all the first round picks that have won super bowls since 1999.
-If it is the first one, the answer is 2 Quarterbacks (3 super bowls); Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. The total number of different QBs drafted in the first round to win a super bowl since 1999 is 5.
-There are also 5 QBs that have lost the super bowl being a first round QB. first round QBs have made 11 out of the possible 20 super bowl starts (55%) since the browns came back. Not all 1st round QBs pan out but first round QBs generally have a very good chance of leading their team all the way.
most of the other QBs to appear in the SB were guys drafted late or not at all, many from small schools such as Gannon (delaware), Warner (northern Iowa), or Delhomme (UL-Lafayette).
B19K wrote an article on here about QBs and how most of the good QBs you end up having to find in the first round. when you look at stats, this is true…with some exceptions most guys who put up the elite stats are 1st rounders.
Another great place I think is good to find QBs is at the end of the draft or undrafted guys. guys here either didn’t play that much at a big school or played great at a tiny school. both types are pretty unknown to scouts and can often be diamonds in the rough.
midround guys like Pike or Snead are not bad, but because they play in a major conference, they are known and it is known what they can do. They all have flaws in their game and usually don’t have the tools to be anything more than an average starter. some overcome this but most don’t.
can we get a poll going about taking Clausen at number 7? i am curious why or why not some people may be for that since we wouldn’t have to sell the house and could just stay put, but i know some guys either don’t think hes that good or just don’t like the guy for non-football (notre dame) reasons…
I guess we could but as for football reason he is still banged up from last year. Buying damaged goods with a seven pick does not sound right to me. Sides i am beeting the defense drum anyway I want a defender at that pick. I have to stay up late to see the draft live I will not be happy if some one screws the pooch on this pick.
I wouldn’t mind trading up for Bradford this year if Mangini didn’t completely blow the draft last year in the second round. If we could have taken either Byrd, Vollmer, Sean Smith, Loadholt, Beatty, or any combination then our team wouldn’t have such immediate glaring needs and our picks would be a little more expendable. On top of actually winning at the end of the year when other teams were trying to not win when took us further down the draft order making it more expensive to move up. But now there is no way we could bring in Bradford when we didn’t playing the free agent market.
On top of actually winning at the end of the year when other teams were trying to not win when took us further down the draft order making it more expensive to move up.
this reminds me of the consipiracy theory that Tim Couch “intentionally won” his final game as a Brown beating CIN 22-14 with 118 yards (50%) with no TD/Int. This cost CLE a crack at Sean Taylor & the illustrious Butch Davis traded up with Detroit for Kellen “Vroom Vroom” Winslow in the 1st Round.
(no bitterness)
Yea, I guess my confusion is why the Chiefs were trying not to win against the Browns but then trounced the Broncos the last week of the season. Or why Jacksonville had a shot at a playoff spot of all things, and tried not to win against the Browns. Or why Oakland tried against Pittsburgh in their victory over the Stools, but decided not to try against the Browns.
Claussen + 4 top 100 picks > Bradford
Berry + 4 top 100 picks > Bradford
Anyone + 4 top 100 picks > Bradford
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
True but have you considered Conte Cuttino?
johnnyphoenix - April 18, 2010
I’d love to get Bradford, don’t me wrong. But the cost is just so high. Like Holgren says, you’d have to “mortgage the ranch” or whatever. Giving up a first, second, and two third rounders… idk…
emily522 - April 17, 2010
This. Glad most people agree with me (and you). For a second after I saw this, I thought that we made that trade — almost had a heart attack. That would leave us with only one other pick in the top 100, and no 1st round pick next year. No thanks.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 17, 2010
These are some great points Bernie. I did vote for the price being to high but now I am torn and looking at it, would seriously consider it and i am not sure what I would do.
I have been a fan of bradford ever since his freshman year and he truly is unbelievable.
points 5, 8, and 7 really make me think. Considering what Ryan might be able to do with our D again, the fact that holmgren knows his QBs, and the nice pieces already on the team, makes it interesting. I don’t honestly know what I would vote for the poll after reading this.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I’d be willing to give up quite a bit to trade up for Bradford if our FO really likes him, but TWO firsts, a second, and two thirds seems like way too much. I might be okay with our first four picks this year but not if we have to include next year’s first.
Also, I heard a discussion yesterday that it seems like the Rams aren’t that high on Bradford and are only going to pick him first overall because they feel like they have to. So they may be eager to trade as we get closer to the draft and we might be able to get the #1 pick for less than it would usually take. If they like Clausen they can move down to 7 and pick him there (for much less money than they’d have to pay Bradford) while also getting a couple more picks then they might do that.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
That’d be nice, referring to getting the pick for less.
emily522 - April 17, 2010
agreed.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I know this isn’t a popular strategy, but i would really like if we could differ a pick or two until next year. maybe instead of a third this year use next year’s third, or something like that. that way we don’t completely mortgage one draft, we spread it out a little.
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
On the other hand we have 3 third rounders this season, but only one 3rd rounder next season (as of right now).
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
that’s true, I didn’t really think that through. Still, i think the general idea might not be a bad one. I definitely don’t want to give up next year’s first, but maybe something like trading next year’s second instead of this year’s?
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
You also need to look at how deep the draft will be next year. This year is suppose to be a deep draft, that means more value for the the picks we have.
Crazy Ray - April 19, 2010
This is my hope. If they’re not that sold on Bradford over Clausen, it would make no sense to take Bradford at one. Collect some free picks and a discount on your franchise QB.
danvail - April 18, 2010
I think Bradford might be a good thing for the team, but I think the price of trading up to #1 is suicidal, to put it mildly. I’d be happier picking the #2 QB at pick 7 most years but this year we do have a QB weak draft and pesonally I don’t like Clausen.
So don’t force it, live with it.
I’ve hinted that I think Wallace might do better than expected. And if he isn’t, we can look for a QB next year. Or, maybe we’ll get McCoy at the right place (but in a QB weak draft everyone is going to go too high, and Tebow will even be drafted….) and develop him but I’m strongly in favour of working what the draft gives you.
If that means 5 pro bowlers on the OL cos that’s the best value, I’ll live with it…
LondonBrown - April 17, 2010
the Daboll factor
doesnt’ matter if we peyton manning, daboll’s offense would suck, i don’t mean even mediocre, we’d suck.
We need to take an OC with the first pick
allsides - April 17, 2010
may I suggest cleveland.com good sir?
bross09 - April 17, 2010
sorry, im not usually like that….he was a first time OC and I will try to be patient and give him time….
…but wow we were as bad as it gets.
also, agree, that post was one you’d read on cleveland.com…agree there.
allsides - April 17, 2010
yeah…at least you are not usually like that.
I did see some improvement with the game calling the last 5-6 games. I also believe we will see more of a WC offense. if he doesn’t work out this season, i have a feeling gil haskell might end up being our OC in 2011.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I believe that’s because Daboll’s playbook started looking something like this towards the end of the year:
“Let’s run the one where Harrison gets the ball”
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
agreed.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
agreed. thats why I said next year is key.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
as far as play calling, i haven’t figured out why we can rush for 250ish yards a game the last 4 games, and STILL cannot throw the ball……you’d think that would open something up……right?
honestly, we won w/out passing, so maybe we just didn’t need to, but the balance was still extreme to me.
I wonder if Quinn would’ve played those last two games, what the offseason would have looked like…if he wins 4 in a row, would they keep him? i still don’t think so.
soooooooooooooo…..was that playcalling, or very very poort QB,WR, etc. play?
anyone?
allsides - April 18, 2010
I think it was a combination of not great playcalling with very poor QB play…but we DO need to be able to throw the balll.
you think a team can win more than 4-5 games a season with this strategy? the answer is no.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
It seems allsides is talking specifically about those games
Villeslgr - April 18, 2010
oh…I was confused…it seemed like when he said that maybe we don’t need to pass, he was saying we could win without passing in 2010.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Our WRs were the worst in the league, our TEs were worst in the league, our RBs weren’t especially dangerous as pass catchers, and our QB was probably average at best. Add to that the fact that whoever our RT was probably couldn’t hold up very long in pass pro and you’ve got close to no choice but to run.
We didn’t need to pass to win, as evidenced by the wins, but defenses could spend a lot of resources on the run and not pay for it with a PA pass because we just stunk at the passing game from the top down.
rufio - April 18, 2010
Fine point. Just wish to heck that Holmgren and Gil Haskell are tutoring Daboll properly right now. Like every day every hour. Daboll better be sleeping in their basements or something.
skipkirk - April 17, 2010
personally I don’t see this as a fine point. peyton manning could be good in basically any offense.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I took it as hyperbole.
First half of the season Daboll’s offense was that bad.
skipkirk - April 17, 2010
disagree, if the receivers are dropping the ball all the time……or if the play calling is a poor as it was………..but yes, he would be much better than what we had.
allsides - April 17, 2010
we don’t have the receivers with the worst hands in the league. Momass is pretty good and Watson is solid. Peyton calls half the plays himself so bad playcalling wouldn’t matter that much (half may be an exaggeration but it is a lot). I do agree that daboll was not good last year though.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I’m fine with giving up a few of this year’s. But next year’s number 1? Hell no.
I’d rather trade back and get Tebow or Lupati.
Brownie's Year - April 17, 2010
??? Tebow? Hopefully we aren’t talking first round with that…
bross09 - April 17, 2010
IDK, the dude is starting to grow on me. Let’s just say I wouldn’t toooo pissed if we took him in the first.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
At #7? Hell no.
woodsmeister - April 18, 2010
I would be. I am not impressed with anything about him. Honestly, if we took him in the first, I would seriously consider assassinating someone in that FO.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Don’t say that. We all know you don’t have the balls to do something of that caliber.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
yeah. I would probably just assassinate myself.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
I heard pills is a good way to go. You might vomit a little, but it does the trick.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
dawgs by nature: assisted suicide through the internet.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
I’d be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very, very, very, very pissed.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Not at number seven, of course.
If we traded down to the high twenties and got an extra 2nd or 3rd.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
Only if we used that extra 2nd or 3rd. You’re first round guy should be a starter, not a two year building project.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
No effing way. He’d be there in the 2nd for us.
rufio - April 18, 2010
This would sum up my feelings.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
Who’s Lupati?
TheDriveStillHurts - April 17, 2010
I’m pretty sure he’s related to Iupata.
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
damn it
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
I wouldn’t be disappointed if the Browns avoid the issue altogether by trading for Jason Campbell. The Browns O-line will be strong this year, and I would expect his production to increase even more. He’s relatively young, he’s experienced, and could probably be had for a low round draft pick.
NM Dawg - April 17, 2010
Campbell might be a nice pick on the cheap; wonder what the QB thinktank thinks though?
I’d have Campbell over Delhomme.
LondonBrown - April 17, 2010
I’m with this. For the right price only.
rufio - April 17, 2010
Third or a fourth perhaps?
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
I’m thinking even a 5th or a loose~end player
LondonBrown - April 18, 2010
Pass on Campbell for me.
Roger Dorn - April 17, 2010
Same here.
Western Reserve - April 18, 2010
I would also like Campbell over Delhomme, by a wide margin actually, but I think the fact that we do have Delhomme probably means no dice on Campbell.
danvail - April 18, 2010
I think both are stopgaps and not franchise players, but Campbell is a much better stopgap at this point, IMO.
rufio - April 18, 2010
Yes
danvail - April 18, 2010
He just doesn’t have that ‘it’ factor that makes someone a good NFL QB. He had better receivers in washington too, so I dunno if he would truly perform better here.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I’m not sure I honestly know enough about him. He doesn’t have enough “it” to win games behind a comatose OL, but then again not many can. What’s Bernie up to these days?
LondonBrown - April 17, 2010
Even a few years ago when their O-line was at least decent he was nothing special. As a QB, he is the type of guy that won’t usually hurt you but won’t win you games. you can count on him to usually not blow it, but he really isn’t much of a leader. from the reports i read, he is not fiery in the locker room and has never really had the players respect as a leader. He puts up solid numbers.
He has not been a great QB in key situations or close games. Have you noticed how the reskins every year seem to underachieve compared to preseason rankings? Have you ever noticed how they wilt in the 4th quarter?
Ever year there are 2-3 games that the Reskins lose that they definitely should have won. sometimes it is the defense that doesn’t do the job but more often, the offense doesn’t come through. there is something wrong with the psyche of this team and the problem seems to be emanating from the QB.
Its very hard to find a game that Cambell won by taking his team on his shoulders and truly winning the game through leadership and will.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
But it would be very cool to find a way to win consistently without that ingredient.
Who was the leader in the old bears backfield Payton or McMahon?
LondonBrown - April 17, 2010
Actually, when McMahon was healthy, he was a good field general. From what I have read about the bears, the players did respect him on the field. I am not sure if this is the case with Campbell. He might be decent at the right price, but I just don’t have confidence he can be a team leader.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
Yes — McMahon was clearly the leader of that backfield.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 17, 2010
I think this is sarcasm…
Just because walter payton was a good player, doesn’t mean McMahon wasn’t a good leader in the pocket. was kurt warner not a leader in St. Louis b/c he had Isaac bruce who had that leader quality?
bross09 - April 17, 2010
No. It was not sarcasm at all. I agree with you — McMahon was clearly the leader of the offense on that Bears team.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 17, 2010
oh. wasn’t sure. He just didn’t have the type of off the field attitude you would usually expect from a leader (at least a manning/brady/brees type).
bross09 - April 18, 2010
I would be very happy with Jason Campbell. He had 4 OC’s in college. He has 3 in the pro’s.
In 8 seasons he has been coached by 7 different offensive coordinators. Considering that, I think he has done pretty damn well.
Bernie19Kosar - April 17, 2010
I agree with this point. He has been in a lot of offensive systems. However, i just don’t feel he has what it takes to be a truly great QB in the NFL and really doesn’t have that leadership you want to see from your franchise guy. For a low price, he might be worth a shot and he could be a very solid QB, I just don’t see a team going anywhere special with him at the helm…JMO.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
no thanks. campbell is no solution.
Dawg Nuts - April 17, 2010
Now way! They would want to much for Bradford. I say trade up and get Su or Barry!!
I also wanna say I look forward to our HB’s next year Harrison/Davis!!!
kevin122380 - April 17, 2010
Barry? Is Barry Bonds in this draft? And I wasn’t aware that Suh decided to drop the ‘h’ in his name, though I do admit it looks a tad more exotic that way.
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
yur an inglish teechur, rn’t u!
watching Berry and Thomas in drills, Thomas to me is much more fluid with his movements….what that means as far as the quality of the player, I don’t know, but gosh, Thomas looked so much more natural out there. I’d rather land him.
allsides - April 18, 2010
I don’t know about that. Thomas looked pretty good at the combine and is a good athlete. But Eric Berry didn’t look bad in the drills at all. In fact, on the contrary he really impressed at the combine. Berry is the total package.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
because a couple drills means a player is so much better right???
personally, I thought berry looked just as good. Plus berry has the tape to back it up. berry outperformed Thomas by leaps and bounds in college (and thomas still performed at a higher level). Thomas looks good in coverage but berry looks as good or better than thomas in every single area.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
you totally missed my point, no absolutely not, drills don’t make a player better…..but some have thomas above or equal to berry…..as one poster showed, statistically, tebow looks great, too. thomas had great statistics, too….berry could end up being great, too, I don’t know, just offering some of my analysis, dude!
allsides - April 18, 2010
I agree with you thomas could be great, I just think Berry is quite a bit ahead of him…because he is ahead, doesn’t mean I am down on thomas, I am just not as high on him as people like Mayock. I just like more of how berry plays against the run and rushes the QB. Thomas is a great player and in the mid first, I would LOVE to have him, I just think berry is a more complete player right now…just my analysis.
but you have good points.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
berry is more ready to start on day one, I agree there, so he may be the best choice at #7, i think that he is a great tackler, physical….I really really really really like him, but I’d give Thomas 5 reallys!
hey they’re both good, lets settle at that! both will have good careers.
I think it is hard to compare them because of the different styles. As far as Mayock, I think he changes too much, if I remember right, he had been pushing Berry as best player in the draft at one point, now he puts him as second best safety one-two months later.
if you get a chance, watch them both on some films if ESPN, etc. are showing, I realize I am overanalyzing it, not saying thomas is a better, but berry seems more rigid in his movement, thomas natural, berry may be more of a run stopper, but thomas i believe better all around.
I understand what you mean by berry ahead at this point, and we do need someone to step in right now, too.
allsides - April 18, 2010
I do like Thomas more. I’m kind of being a homer, but that also means I watched every Longhorns game. And everything I read about Thomas raves about his fluidness and “loose hips.” He’s also only a sophomore, so he’s got a little more room to grow. Like you said, they’ll both be good. I wouldn’t be disappointed with either. I’ll be disappointed if we don’t draft either of them though.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
isn’t he a RS sophmore? and berry is a Junior. I don’t get this thing where a guy who is a RS Sophmore has so much more upside than a guy who is a true Junior. the RS Soph was on the team for 3 years too…
Tebow is a senior whereas Bradford is a RS Junior. I don’t consider Bradford to be a guy with a higher ceiling because of that.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Yea he’s RS. Uhh I just read somewhere that he had room to grown so I may be mistaken. That isn’t why I like him though. I think he has superior coverage skills, he’s faster, and he’s more fluid.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
I do like a lot of his game don’t get me wrong. I just get a bit annoyed when analysts talk about a RS Sophmore player having more upside and potential than a guy who is a junior. I always view also oftentimes when “experts” talk about “potential” what they are really saying is: "he hasn’t been that good but I think he will be. not all guys who they say have potential live up to it and not all guys they say don’t have potential actually don’t.
granted, I think thomas is a great player and a legit first rounder, I just don’t buy into as much some of the stuff they say about players at times.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Thomas is a fluid, fast, athletic DB. There is do doubting that. Things that don’t show up in shorts—stopping the run, for instance—is where his (small) question marks are. I wouldn’t mind drafting him at #7, but I really don’t see how anyone can say Thomas is the better player.
rufio - April 19, 2010
I did say they were both good and did say you had some good points.
This just doesn’t make sense to me
If someone is a better all around player at safety, that means they also play the run decently well. In coverage I think they are even really from what I watched but better is more of a stuffer against the run at this point. even if you think thomas is better in coverage, it would make more sense to say he is a better all coverage safety. I can respect the point that he is a better coverage safety but I do not believe at all he is a better all around player.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Eric Berry is an alien. He is not human. He is the best safety in this draft, and probably in the past 5 drafts.
rufio - April 18, 2010
So what will we advertise when we play the Colts? Aliens versus Cyborgs?
BrownDawg1409 - April 18, 2010
OMG…They should make a movie about it. Berry Vs. Manning. Alien Vs. Cyborg…I would rather watch that than AVP.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
you know they made another predator movie that comes out this summer
sleepy042 - April 19, 2010
And another AVP game
SpecialBrownie - April 19, 2010
Terminator meets Predator.
rufio - April 19, 2010
NO WAY! Not for that many draft picks because draft picks are needed to rebuild this team.
Now say the Rams want to swap firsts, Shaun Rogers, D’Qwell Jackson, and our second round pick, then maybe. But that’s just a maybe.
The hypothetical trade I want is for the Eagles to move up with us, but this will only happen if Eric Berry is still available.
Here me out on this….so Berry is sitting at No. 7 for the Browns to pick, but the Eagles offer to swap firsts, and give the Browns both of their seonc round picks too.
I would trade down in a second because it like we are trading Eric Berry for three players.
With their pick and adding the Eagles’ two second rounders, the Browns can find more quality players in this deep draft class and those player could be contributors almost immediately as long as Tom Heckert chooses wisely, and I think he will.
Look at what he did for the Eagles in the draft the last few years.
Also, the Eagles have told the media that they want a top safety in this draft and are looking to trade up to do it.
I know it’s just a hypothetical, but I hope it happens.
theW0LF - April 17, 2010
I’d love to see this trade, too. Wonder if they’ll choose to sacrifice less to get Earl Thomas.
NM Dawg - April 17, 2010
If they want Thomas I do not see them sacrificing as you said, because the value of the No. 7 pick is pretty much a set value according to the draft charts online.
If they want either Berry or Thomas, and both are highly rated, then they may just do it for either one as well.
theW0LF - April 17, 2010
I meant sacrifice as they might be able to trade with a team further down the list and still get Thomas, while spending lower/less picks.
NM Dawg - April 17, 2010
I guess that all depends on who really wants Thomas, because I’ve seen him mocked as high as to the Browns at No. 7.
theW0LF - April 17, 2010
Yes, he is creeping up the board’s, isn’t he?
NM Dawg - April 17, 2010
but not all teams truly use the set value charts we have online. some may not use a chart like that at all, where others have likely their own modified versions.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
Sorry about the typo of the word ‘second’
theW0LF - April 17, 2010
I like that trade. they get a couple of starters too.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
Rams would never do this.
Roger Dorn - April 17, 2010
I would be utterly shocked if they did.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
i don’t think they would actually want this much for him….not even reaonable…but our second this year and next year’s first might get that pick, being our first is so close to theirs and ours is an early second, and likely our 1 next year will be top 10ish.
allsides - April 17, 2010
Then again if we did trade up to get Bradford I wouldnt be dissapointed!
kevin122380 - April 17, 2010
REALLY?! No thanks.
I would be very disappointed for giving away most of our draft picks for a QB who won’t even start in 2010, but would still get paid a TON of money to sit on the bench.
theW0LF - April 17, 2010
I think he is good enough to push Delhomme/Seneca for a starting job. Holmgren may not want him starting but he is the kind of guy who could start at some point in his rookie season b/c he EARNED it.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
Who cares if he doesn’t start in 2010? That shouldn’t affect the decision at all. We’re not playing for 2010; we’re building a team to contend for many years and to do that we need a QB.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
I’m gonna call B.S. on that. I won’t deny that we’re still rebuilding, but we will always play for the season just ahead of us. Saying that you’re ‘rebuilding’ doesn’t mean that you should or can lower your expectations of what’s going to happen.
I know that this probably comes off as a naive view, but I don’t apologize for having high expectations. Right now, that means that we’re going to be in contention for the division title this season. Crazy, yes. Will I ever be convinced that we can’t do it? Never.
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
There is nothing wrong with having high expectations — that’s not at all what I’m talking about. I’m saying that we shouldn’t rule out drafting a possible franchise QB just because he might sit the bench for all of 2010. That’s what you have to do when you draft a QB — give him time to learn the position. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth it in the long run.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
Alright, I can agree with that. But what you said:
gave me the wrong impression of what you meant.
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
granted…then he said
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Thinking back to 1998 draft(i think) where manning went out…..knowing what we know now, would he be worth all that bernie19kosar has proposed in trading for him? I think so….
…..it comes down to how strongly you believe Bradford is that man…..I’ll consult my crystal ball….get back later with my findings(10 years from now)
allsides - April 18, 2010
Im sold on the fact that both Claussen and Bradford will be good players. It looks as if Bradford has a decent arm but great accuracy. Claussen has decent accuracy and a stronger arm. So im almost leaning towards Claussen at this time! LOL
kevin122380 - April 17, 2010
so the stronger arm is more important than better accuracy? okay, do you also want Derek Anderson back?
Bradford’s arm strength issues are a bit overblown. yes, he doesn’t have a strong arm, but is eveyrone supposed to have Jay Cutler’s Arm?
Bradford has a strong enough arm to make all the throws he needs to and his strength doesn’t affect accuracy on deep throws (really doesn’t wobble). He can occasionally fit the ball into tight spots but not as good as clausen. He has basically an NFL average arm (for a starter). It might be stronger than drew brees’…brees made a good career for himself.
Clausen has a stronger arm but its nothing special really. it is an above average/good arm but it isn’t very impressive (but is nice).
bross09 - April 17, 2010
Honestly, replace the name “Bradford” for “Manning” and “Clausen” for “Leaf”, and your comment reminds me a lot of what I was hearing at this time in 1998. Seriously. Doesn’t mean that either comparison is correct, but this was the exact argument that people who favored Leaf (and there were a ton of them) were making against Manning.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 17, 2010
yes, arm strength is sooooooo overrated….is your arm strong enough, that’s the Q.
clausen’s ability to throw that long out pass, gosh it is beautiful, and bradfords accuracy gets me excited to see him with an orange helmet….I am honestly wondering what mccoy will be able to do in the NFL. I’d be happy with either 3, or none in our draft. i like this year’s group as a whole at QB.
allsides - April 18, 2010
Random, but I’m getting a vintage-looking Browns shirt for my birthday. It has Brownie the Elf on the front. Hell yeah!
emily522 - April 17, 2010
Nice one, happy birthday in advance!
It’s little london brown’s birthday tomorrow but he’s not getting anything nearly as cool.
LondonBrown - April 17, 2010
Well it’s not until mid-May but I’m going to order it soon.
emily522 - April 17, 2010
& thanks!
emily522 - April 17, 2010
It’s close. If we do the deal and get a top 5-10 QB, then it would be worth it. I would trust in Holmgren’s evaluation.
Roger Dorn - April 17, 2010
I would burn Holmgren in effigy.
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
^Reply fail.
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
For anything in that post which pertains to the past sesaon… I believe that history also shows us that we can ONE good season with being rated well for the next season only to watch it fall straight down the tubes.
Now I’m not trying to be the negative one… but I believe that MAYBE this year we’ll have a good team and be 1 game shy of the playoffs or even make an appearance but come the next year we’ll be holding our hands in our heads and drinking away our sorrows as we always do.
3PON Nemo - April 17, 2010
Take the 2nd or next year’s first out of the deal, and I’d consider.
I’d also be willing to throw in any of our players except Mack, Thomas, or Cribbs. Yes, even Eric Wright or Massaquoi or Steinbach or Roth if it got us out of giving away some of those better picks.
rufio - April 17, 2010
bross09 - April 17, 2010
The reason I put the package of picks so high was because IMO that would be the best package a team could ask for.
I am 99% certain that a package of something less would get it done, but for this exercise I wanted the price tag to be at its absolute highest.
Bernie19Kosar - April 17, 2010
that makes sense…and with the very good points you make, it is still tempting. if we can keep our first next year and maybe 1 third, I would like that…or if we gave up our first next year and kept a 2nd and third.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
I actually think a lot of the guys you mentioned fit needs for St. Louis too. After QB some of their biggest needs are DT, Pass Rusher, Guard, and WLB. DT isn’t as big of a need but they could definitely use the other 3 after QB. Steinbach is a good guard in his prime. To put it this way, if they don’t draft anybody there is a decent chance hank Fraley starts at guard…that is how bad the situation is. If we can trade them steinbach and save a pick where we could get a guard, I would like that.
I also like matt roth but if it means saving a 2nd or third rounder AND getting bradford, I would do that too. They need a guy to replace little and they need some help against the run (little is a pure rusher who isn’t that effective anymore).
They also could use a WLB. I heard rumors that DQ might be traded to Philly (around the time of the gocong rumors) and would play WLB there.
bross09 - April 17, 2010
i don’t think i’d get rid of wright. i don’t want to weaken our secondary. even with all of the draft picks we have, it isn’t likely we get 2 corners as good as wright.
Dawg Nuts - April 17, 2010
I’d do it for Bradford. Wright is good and I’d like to keep him around, but nothing is as valuable as a franchise QB.
rufio - April 18, 2010
fair enough, and i’ve been on record as liking bradford and thinking holmgren will go after him. i just think it would hurt more to weaken an already weak area of our team.
Dawg Nuts - April 18, 2010
It would require us to spend more resources to get CBs, because we’d need at least two.
I just think Eric Wright is easier to replace than a franchise QB.
rufio - April 18, 2010
It’s devilish all right.
Matt Y. - April 17, 2010
…actually if Holmgren says it’s worth it, then okay I guess. But I ’d prefer not to “bet the farm” on one prospect.
Matt Y. - April 17, 2010
1. Quite simply it is too much risk. Bradford would absolutely have to become Peyton manning 2.0 to justify the ungodly cost.
2. This team may have some parts but we aren’t “1 player away” Better off having the extra picks.
3. Bradford is no guarantee. Any prospect can bust.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
NCAA career QB A:
604/893 67.63comp%
8403 9.4 YPA
88TD 9.85 TD%
16INT 1.79 int %
NFL QB rating 123.04
NCAA career QB B:
661/985 67.11 Comp %
9,286 9.43 YPA
88TD 8.9% TD
15INT 1.52% INT
NFL formula QB rating: 120.72
One of these quarterbacks is going to go #1 overall and require that we trade 4 top 100 picks this year and a first rounder next year. He will probably require a contract that is close to $50 million guaranteed.
The other is likely going to be available early in the second round and wouldn’t need a guaranteed contract.
I just don’t see any way to justify the risk you’d take trading up to #1 based on the subjective opinion of scouts.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
I wonder who the other player is jaws…
I think there is something to be said about using stats too much and this is where it becomes too much.
tebow is NOT a good QB. If stats matter that much Jaws, why isn’t colt brennan a high pick or dominating the NFL? I know…because he just doesn’t have the skills at this point to be successful. do you know more than every single scout and person who has observed unimpressive accuracy from him?
bross09 - April 17, 2010
You’ve missed the point (surprise!)
The point is that nobody is a sure thing. Stats don’t tell the whole story, this much is true. However subjective scouting isn’t really any more reliable. The likes of Tim Couch, JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, and Ryan Leaf prove that.
My point is this: Given the crapshoot that is the draft, there is absolutely no point in risking the better part of two drafts to acquire a quarterback when there is an alternative who has shown himself capable of producing on a similar level.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
you made the point in a bad way…plus its YOU comparing him to tim tebow…so your point gets muddled with every other point you attempt to make about tebow. The point would have gotten across better IF you didn’t even bring up tebow and his stats…
Like B19K somewhere, we would not have to give up that much. that is the maximum that we would have to in the realm of probability (it is not probable for us to have to give up more, but very likely we would have to give up less).
I see your point, but if holmgren thinks he is the guy, I say take him if the price is right.
and again…you should have just ended your point at the draft is a crapshoot and it isn’t worth risking 2 drafts for bradford. I could have listened to that…but then you bring it ALL back to tebow again…
bross09 - April 17, 2010
One of these QB’s needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Bernie19Kosar - April 17, 2010
Why? Because the TV talking heads say so? Phillip Rivers and Vince Young had bad mechanics too.
jaws. - April 17, 2010
Philip Rivers also sat behind Drew Brees for two seasons.
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
Sitting on the bench for a couple seasons has been good for virtually every rookie quarterback who has done it.
article
jaws. - April 18, 2010
unless he’s on the Browns, and he would be.
NoLogos4Life - April 18, 2010
Because every coach and GM says so.
You know, sometimes the guys who talk on TV — the former coaches and players — do know what they’re talking about, because they’ve played and coached the game. In any case, they know a hell of a lot more than you.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
You talked to them?
I was under the impression that coaches like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden had very high opinions of Tebow.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Brad didn’t have to. Other media outlets have.
Here is a quote for you:
Don’t be such a smart ass.
Quit burying your head in the sand. Tebow very may well be a great QB, but it is going to take a butt load of work and good coaching. If you can’t understand that, then your fan boy love of Tebow is clouding your vision.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
Because those unnamed “executives” are all telling the truth to the media before the draft. Or not being non-committal. C’mon man what on earth makes you think any of those guys is tipping his hand? If I wanted Tebow I’d be first in line putting out whispers that NFL execs thought he sucked so I could try and get him after the first round.
Aside from that, I really don’t know why there is so much negative press about Tebow’s draft stock. Vince Young and Michael Vick were in no way polished passers and neither could match the college production of Tebow. Both of them were top 5 picks. And don’t try and tell me that Vince Young (and his 6 on the Wonderlic) can make progression reads and check-offs at the line of scrimmage.
Every quarterback coming out of college is going to need a “buttload of work and good coaching” Tebow isn’t unique in this regard. I’m not burying my head in the sand, I just don’t know why these media guys have Tebow as a 3rd or 4th round talent when Vince Young or Michael Vick had more things they needed to improve coming out and less work ethic/character to make you think that they were willing to sacrifice to improve them. Yet these same media guys make fun of Al Davis for drafting Height-Weight-Speed guys.
Tebow has done everything you could ask of a draft prospect, and then some. He excelled passing the ball at Florida. He won a lot of games. He is known as a team-first player and team leader. He works hard, his character is good. He made the most of the athletic gifts that he possesses. And yet people still doubt him. What more could he have done? Tried to look prettier and throw the ball with some sort of picturesque motion when he was throwing all those touchdowns? What a joke.
Sure Tebow has stuff to work on. Absolutely he isn’t a sure thing. This is the NFL draft, nobody is a guarantee. But the reasons people give for grading him down are just comical, because they either apply to virtually every quarterback who comes out or seem conjured totally out of thin air in order to knock Tebow for reasons unknown.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
I’m done.
Tim Tebow is the greatest human/quarterback/fake doctor/option quaterback/tight-end/h-back/priest/do-gooder/leader/winner/competitor/just-all-around-great-human prospect that I have ever laid eyes upon.
Just because his game from footwork to release needs to be totally redone is NO reason to have any qualms in drafting him with the 7th pick overall.
You have won Jaws.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
I don’t understand this.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
7th overall is a bit drastic, sure that was a joke. If we could trade down in the 2nd I would be happy to get him there, but what do I know, still hoping for McClain if Berry’s not there at 7
badrat - April 18, 2010
That’s just wrong. We’ve seen plenty of examples of QB’s who came in from college and made an impact in the NFL right away. Sure, they needed plenty of coaching and offseason work in practice and training camp, but so does every other prospect at every position. Guys like Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco and Ben Roethlisberger and the Mannings and plenty of other guys were ready to play right away because they already had the footwork and the throwing motion and the reads and everything else necessary to play QB from their time in college. Tebow doesn’t have that.
If you can’t see the difference between Tebow and those other prospects who have different skills and came from different offenses then you’re just ignoring facts and you do have your head in the sand.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Statistically, Quarterbacks who wait a year or two to start have better careers overall.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
That may be true, but that doesn’t mean some QB’s who step in and play right away can be very successful.
Regardless, that’s not the point. The point is that Tebow is different than guys like Bradford and Clausen in the amount of work he’ll need to do to be able to play in the NFL, and if you can’t see that then you’re not being objective.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
You say that like Clausen and Bradford are sure fire successes in the NFL from day one. Both of them will have to work even harder than they did in college to clean up weaknesses in their games to have success. And one or both of them could be complete bust stories just as easily as Tebow could.
I think virtually all qb prospects have to do a ton of work in order to be successful in the NFL. Where I disagree with you is your assertion that Tebow has to do significantly more than the others. I don’t know where this notion comes from but I think it is completely inaccurate.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
I never said Clausen and Bradford will be sure-fire success in the NFL. I never said they wouldn’t have to work hard to be successful. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Please read my comment before replying and putting words in my mouth.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
the thing you don’t seem to understand is that Tebow will have to work twice as hard as both of them combined to fix all the weaknesses in his game.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Not a Tebow, fan although I do like his work ethic, but it seems there was a quarterback in Cleveland a few years ago that had a throwing motion that would never make it in the NFL. Maybe some of you remember him, he wore #19.
Crazy Ray - April 19, 2010
he also had great touch on his passes…He also knew how to read coverages well and knew where to put it for his receivers to catch it.
I said fix ALL the weaknesses in his game. kosar’s one weakness was his throwing motion. take that away, and tebow is still not a first rounder to me. he doesn’t show great touch or decision making. he has a lot of terrible bad habits and mechanics.
you can’t get away with throwing into double coverage, throwing off balance on the run, and throwing off your back foot consistently in the pros. these are things that Tebow did CONSISTENTLY when I saw him on tape.
comparing Bernie Kosar and Tebow because of the throwing motion is like comparing Clausen and Quinn b/c they are from ND and played under weis.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
In scouting reports, what I am seeing is that you are correct about his needing to correct his mechanics, bad habits, etc. But I’m not really seeing them repeat what you said in the above two quotes. I am seeing that his decision-making is hard to evaluate because he hasn’t had to do it in a pro-style system where he had to see the whole field. However, the decision-making that he DID make in his system was solid. I’m not seeing anyone say that he actually makes BAD decisions and throws into double coverage a lot.
For example, see this scouting report, by New Era Scouting and Mocking the Draft. They said: “Will go through multiple reads and maximize his time in the pocket. Does not give up on a play too soon. Likes to take risks, but they are calculated and safe, not reckless. Just 16 career interceptions despite nearly 1,000 passing attempts.”
Sporting News Draft magazine said he “does not force passes into bad spots.”
The New Era scouting report says about his touch, “Showed surprising ability to put the ball in a bucket throwing over a defender. Will throw the ball short at times, but can really lay it in there when he has time to set his body up for the throw.”
So again, it sounds like it’s not that he lacks the ability, but it’s in his footwork and mechanics.
Here’s another report that says he “makes proper decisions.”
Matt Y. - April 19, 2010
When I saw him on tape he forced some throws to his primary receivers. granted they caught it but they were not that open.
I also look at it and try to see how many plays he can make in the pros doing what he is doing. definitely a lot less of the running plays.
one great thing about peyton manning is that when he throws, it rarely looks like a spectacular reception for his players. however when i see tebow on tape, too often his receivers come up with great plays…that in my mind means that they are making the plays and the throws aren’t totally on target (which I see).
Yes, Decision making is hard to evaluate b/c of the offense, but I just see plays where he makes plays, but there is no way that is a completion with an NFL defense.
and here is a scouting report I found on his weaknesses:
I see all of this when I watch him too. I see passes that get there, but the WRs have to adjust their bodies to get it. He also has bad habits of throwing bad throws on the run and throwing off of his back foot way too often.
and the website I found, they rate both his decision making and accuracy at a 5.5 out of 10. Colt is an 8 in decison making and 8.5 in accuracy. Clausen is 9 in both accuracy and decision making and Bradford is 9.5, 10.
to put it this way, they rate Zac Robinson as a more accurate QB and a better decison maker, and he is a midrounder…
this is why I say, he has first round intangibles, first round statistics, but a midround tape.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
When did you watch him on tape? do you have 3 years of florida games DVR’d? do you have access to dozens of hours of tape or are you just bullshitting?
jaws. - April 19, 2010
I watched what I could find. you know, he has had games on TV once or twice…and I taped them…imagine that…its called DVR…wow…magic.
I have what I saw on TV and then pieced it together with every video I could find on the internet.
do you have 3 years of florida games on DVR?
bross09 - April 19, 2010
I don’t see the case for him being inaccurate or forcing bad decisions. His career completion percentage is 67%, right on pace with Sam Bradford and a full 10% higher than Matt Stafford.
His career interception % (interceptions / attempts) is a ridiculous 1.52% which is more than a full percentage point better than Eli Manning, who threw an int on 2.60% of his attempts. And Eli Manning was better in this category than Peyton, JaMarcus Russell, Tim Couch, and Matt Stafford. All #1 picks out of the SEC, the same conference as Tebow.
jaws. - April 19, 2010
because stats never lie and every stat is completely infallible…
bross09 - April 19, 2010
Causation? Correlation?
rufio - April 18, 2010
my thoughts. the article mentioned is a bunch of idiotic baloney.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
so by the statistics this article argues, we should rest our QBs for 3 years?? Forget the 3rd and 4th year it talks about. they are irrelevant b/c they are such small sample sizes.
this whole thing is not done very accurately at all and is really some dumb arguing points.
a guy who sits a year who isn’t a rookie anymore and in the 2nd year of an offense SHOULD do better than if he started his rookie season. he has a year to learn the NFL and the playbook. Guy in general improve. What would be more accurate to see is the WHOLE CAREER of guys who started right away and the guys who sat.
if you sit 3 years in an offense, it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that you would have a better season your first year than if you started right away.
the key thing would be to see guys who sit a year and see how their first season compares to the 2nd season of guys who start right away. in general that should be more of an accurate measure.
this whole article is filled with flawed and biased reasoning.
False. 6 out of the top 14, and 9 out of the top 20 QBs in 2009 (and in 2008) started during their first year. in 2007, 6 of the top 10 were first year starters. Just like you can look at QBs who rested who are good, you can look at ones who started right away that are good.
another example of stupidity. Cassel sat for 4 years in the same offense and had pro bowl weapons around him and had a good year. however, in a new system, he showed he was nothing more than pedestrian.
this is the problem with the reasoning behind the argument. they point at these guys and say you shouldn’t start them. look at the TEAMS. all 3 went to terrible teams with little weapons available, no running game and some of the most horrendous offensive lines of the decade. the reason why many first year QBs fail isn’t b/c they should have waited a year, but because the teams were terrible. If couch waited a couple years, he still probably would not have been all that great. the team around him just wasn’t there.
Occasionally guy who don’t have a great team around them might succeed. Even Mannings 3 win team had elite talent on the offensive side. He had Marvin Harrison AND Marshall Faulk…plus a budding young LT in Tarik Glenn. Flacco had a decent team around him.
the true problem with this is that guys who wait tend to be on better teams too and guys who are often forced in are on terrible teams. A lot of is on a cas by case basis. guys like Carr and Couch were just on terrible teams and would likely still have been pedestrian if they sat.
so these guys will be better than Bradford or McCoy if either of these start their first year? wow…some seriously flawed reasoning overall in the article.
Vick and Brees were drafted the same season. in brees’ first 2 seasons as a starter, his QB rating was 72.6. in Vicks 2nd and third seasons (even though his third was cut short) his QB rating was over 80. Vicks 2nd season starting was much better than Brees’ first.
David Carrs QB rating his 2nd and 3rd years was 79. Harrington’s was 73 (and he was on a dreadful team, even worse than houston). Ramsey’s in the same seasons was 75. Josh McCown’s was about a 74. There is no evidence i can find that Ramsey and McCown were better off in the long run by sitting when compared to Carr and Harrington.
as an aside, in that interesting 1999 draft, Akili Smith and Cade Mcnown had worse career than Couch and McNabb and their teams waited longer to play them. (daunte culpepper was buried behind 2 established veterans, however with chris carter and Moss, he would have easily dominated his rookie year).
the point is…there is no set rule about this and it is all on a case by case basis and a team by team basis.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
You didn’t even read the article. They say plainly that this is exactly what they are looking at.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
but they DON’T. they say “oh a guy who waits a season has a better first season in the NFL than a guy who goes in right away”. this in of itself is faulty logic. the guy has one more year of being on an NFL team.
if you compare guys who sat and guys who didn’t a couple years down the road, there is no evidence I can find to support this ludicrous theory.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Ahem.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
and like I said at the beginning, when a sample size is over 3 times smaller, its not very scientific.
And like I said, guys who wait 3-4 years usually have an established team or QB ahead of them. Philip rivers had a great team ahead of him before he got a chance.
and again, guys play better the more they get comfortable with the players around them or the league in general. the whole thing is unscientific.
if they said that take away the first 3-4 years of all guys who started right away and THEN they had better TD/INT rates, completion %s, and ypa, THEN it might mean SOMETHING but the information given if you look at it rationally is pretty much garbage.
I also noticed that QBs who start for the first time during their third season are better than guys that wait an extra season. does that mean that there is a point where a guy waits too long and he starts to suck because he knows the offense too well?
the point is, even the stats themselves contradict each other because this is too small of a sample size. Also, it takes me 2 seconds to find serious flaws in the argument which isn’t a good sign. there are numerous flaws I find with this theory and I consider the research done pretty much invalid.
also notice he chose 2000…not ‘99, or ’98? in those years, the guys who waited longer, actually didn’t do as well…so he decided to take away examples like Daunte Culpepper and Peyton Manning…because those might give starting a QB right away some validity and it is obvious he doesn’t want that…
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Like squirrells in heat.
Even if bross is right.
BrownDawg1409 - April 18, 2010
golanbatrac - April 18, 2010
Waayy too long bross. Its a good point, but no reason to write a book.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
I should have added some larger breaks…but most of the stuff in there i thought was important and valid…because by quoting that article a proof, Jaws was quoting the WHOLE thing and there were MANY problems with it.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Don’t get me wrong, you made a good point, at least in the beginning. It was too long to read the rest.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
I agree. I probably could have spent 5 minutes and shaved like 25-30% off.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
and basically the gist of it is the article uses impractical and irrational methods to come to its preconcieved conclusions.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
You should collect all of your posts here and release it as a novel.
Roger Dorn - April 18, 2010
I mean, the book would suck, but you have written enough.
Roger Dorn - April 18, 2010
It’d be a surefire cure for insomnia.
golanbatrac - April 18, 2010
More like a trilogy.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
What is it with all this work ethic crap? Nearly every top QB in this draft has that sort of work ethic. So because Tebow got in front of a camera and bawled his ass off when they lost he has a better work ethic than other QBs. Bullshit.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
What people love about Tebow is that if anyone will do the work, he will. That doesn’t mean he’ll be a good QB. I am confident in saying that I would outwork Peyton Manning if it meant I could be an NFL QB, but there is no shot I could become one.
rufio - April 18, 2010
Never was much of a Tebow fan, however the guy is a winner, a leader and has great character. All things you can not teach. The rest might be fixable. I think he is worth a shot and if he sucks at QB make him A TE
badrat - April 18, 2010
you won’t get far with the “he’s a WINNER” argument around here. there are so many holes in that argument that it gets to be ridiculous. to name a few, 1) winning doesn’t happen because of one guy, 2) winning can happen despite one guy not being great, 3) all the heart and desire to win in the world can’t overcome a lack of NFL level skill, 4) what makes you think tebow wants to win any more than any of the other prospects, who don’t need their entire game overhauled?
Dawg Nuts - April 18, 2010
Well 52 & 7 is not to bad, then you throw in 88 td’s in the air and another 57 on the ground. Like I said, not fan but he may worth a look in the 2nd. He appears to be a make or break it player, but there are no locks at any pick.
badrat - April 18, 2010
Sorry, the record was 48 & 7, should of checked. I believe he shared time as a freshman.Still a winner in my book. My only point is he may be worth the gamble vs giving up so much for Bradford.
badrat - April 18, 2010
A lot of QB’s would be “winners” with the talent around him that Tebow had at Florida. To give one person credit for the success of a whole football team is foolish.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
he was a backup his freshman year. saying tebow contributed to the 13-1 record is like saying pat white contributed to the 7 wins for miami. Tebow was on a NC team as a WILDCAT QB really. it was more than sharing his time…he didn’t start. He threw a total of 33 passes and ran the ball about 90 times. he was a backup RB who could throw.
and like Brad said below, many QBs could be ‘winners’ with the talent around him at florida. And a lot of QBs could put up ridiculous stats in that offense.
in his first year in the offense, chris leak saw his best statistical season of his career. Alex smith was ridiculous at Utah. Josh Harris was not an NFL QB but he got drafted and played a couple years b/c he put up great stats. He didn’t look like a great QB to scouts, but he put up gaudy stats (similar to Tebows but not as good)
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Devil’s Advocate
Leak and Tebow were not “anybody.” Both were top recruits. Leak was the third-ranked QB in the ’02 recruiting class. They did not come out of nowhere; success was not unexpected.
I’m calling you on this one. Leak’s first year in the offense was NOT his best year. He was in Meyer’s offense for two seasons, his junior and senior years. His sophomore year, under Ron Zook, he had been a notable QB with 29 touchdowns, the most of his career, and 3199 passing yards, also a career high. His passer rating was 144.97. In his first year under Meyer, his rating went down to 136.54, with 20 TDs. In his last year, his passer rating was a career high of 145.12, with 23 TDs, but he also threw a career high 13 interceptions. So arguably, Leak’s best year was his sophomore season under Ron Zook. It DEFINITELY wasn’t his first year under Meyer. Here is the link to his stats, if you’re interested.
Tebow far outpaced Leak in all three of his seasons at Florida.
Matt Y. - April 18, 2010
I always thought leak’s first season was his senior year. I would say his senior season was better than sophmore, personally.
Tebow far outpaced leak…but he also had superior weapons and was a better QB. that doesn’t mean he was great…leak just was never that spectacular.
The key person to look at was Josh Harris. Harris was Urban Meyer’s QB in Bowling green and Harris went on to play a season or 2 in the NFL, but hasn’t played football since 2007. Harris was a backup before Meyer
In 31 starts he had: 62.9 comp %, almost 7500 yds. 8 ypa, a 145 efficiency (99 on NFL scale).
In 3 years starting, tebow had a 63.3 comp %, 8927 yards, 9.2 ypa, and a 166 eff (115 on NFL scale).
there is a difference, however the only player from harris’ BG offense who went pro was a WR who left before harris’ best season, & is in the AFL.
Harris averaged 242 yards per game, and 1.7 TDs per game.
Tebow played more games and averaged 1.9 TDs and 218 yards per game as a starter.
Harris was also an effective rusher amassing over 2000 yards and 40 TDs. He averaged 72 yards per game rushing (compared to 60 for tebow), 4.29 ypc (compared to 4.1 for tebow) 1.35 Rushing TDs per game (compared to 1.19 for tebow.
you could argue that tebow never had a statistical season passing like Harris’ senior season where he passed for over 3800 yards, a 66 comp %, and almost 30 TDs.
My point? that Meyer’s offense is a great offense. it gave Josh Harris a pro career. there were no weapons on that team and they had a spectacular offense and went 17-6 in 2 seasons.
I am just playing devils advocate to your devils advocate and pointing out the stats other QBs got under meyer.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Great. You’ve noticed that Urban Meyer is a great coach and runs a very effective offense. Can’t you see that isn’t an argument against Tebow at all? You should be arguing that some NFL teams are dumb to drag their feet in the evolution of football. The best teams are already meeting the spread offense halfway.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
You just refuse to listen to any of the plethora of reasons that I’ve given you as to why “college” offenses won’t suddenly produce in the NFL, don’t you?
rufio - April 18, 2010
I don’t expect anything to happen “suddenly”. I don’t see “college” offenses and “NFL” offenses. I see “effective” and “ineffective”. A ton of the stuff the Colts, Patriots, Saints, Cards and Eagles ran last year was considered “gimmicky college stuff” ten or 15 years ago.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that those 5 teams have been some of the best offensive clubs over the last couple of seasons: they have been on the forefront of the game’s evolution.
I’m very interested to see how the Eagles look this upcoming season with former University of Houston QB Kevin Kolb at the helm.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
my question is: if he is so offensively skilled with schemes, how valid are the stats for tebow…I mean Josh Harris put up (discluding TD/INT ratio) fairly similar stats WITHOUT tebows supporting cast…he is a 6th rounder and was out of the NFL in 3 years. what makes tebow so great then?
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Why do you keep mentioning Josh Harris? He was a good athlete playing in the MAC. He got drafted as a promising athlete. What’s your point?
jaws. - April 18, 2010
He got drafted as a QUARTERBACK. he was a quarterback in Urban Meyer’s offense at Bowling green. He wasn’t a great QB (evidenced by the fact that he hasn’t had a football job in 3 years) but he put up about 30 touchdowns, 3800 yards, and a 66 completion percentage his senior season. wherever Meyer’s offense is, QBs put up gaudy stats. none of these QBs yet has been successful.
it is kinda sad that the most successful one you can point at is alex smith…yeah, he had a good season but not a good career so far.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Its impossible to argue with your M1 Abrams tank of truth.
Clearly because Josh Harris never made it as a quarterback in the NFL it means Tim Tebow sucks. I mean Urban Meyer man, he just coaches those shitty quarterbacks to great statistical years. Lets draft someone out of a pro style system that has had nothing but horrible statistical years, that ought to fix our problem at quarterback.
Never mind that Harris played in the MAC and got drafted as an athlete (Antwaan Randle El, Armanti Edwards) and was probably never even considered a legitimate NFL qb prospect.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
you know my whole point is that STATS DON’T MATTER.
Now josh harris not making it is not a predicting factor of Tim Tebow’s success. however they did play in the same college system with similar production. Tebow is the better QB but Josh Harris shows that stats really do not matter when predicting someone into the NFL.
90% of your opinion of tebow is based off of your opinion, his stats, and maybe some tape you watched.
to me, he is a top 5 pure physical talent with a midround tape…yeah, I said it, a midround tape.
you know teams and analysts have talked about tebow being drafted as an athlete too…
bross09 - April 18, 2010
If you guys are going to have a p*ssing contest over NCAA stats and their correlation to NFL success, why aren’t you guys mentioning Colt Brennan or Maurice Clarett? Both had ridiculous numbers and were “gods” on their respective teams. YET neither has done crap for the NFL.
3PON Nemo - April 19, 2010
Try Ctrl-F, Colt Brennan was mentioned. Just not in this thread.
StuckInPa - April 19, 2010
I don’t want a make or break player in the 2nd really.
where are you getting this 52-7 record? even if you include his freshman year when he didn’t start its 48-7, but I don’t include that so its 35-6. Guess what. Jason White was 27-4, Higher winning percentage…did he get drafted? He was a “winnner” and a high character guy but none of that helped him get into the NFL.
If you really think Tebow is going to be a threat running the ball in the pros you are definitely mistaken. He will be about as big of a threat running as Roethlisberger (maybe not even as good). He isn’t overly powerful or overly fast. he can’t run over people or run past people like he did in college.
should we have drafted colt brennan high because he had like 130 touchdowns in his career (or something like that)?
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Colt McCoy did win 45 games though. Just sayin…
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
yep…and he actually shows touch on his passes.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
…and he played under center his first two years at UT.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
yep…and he knows how to plant and throw. Every throw I see of Tebow it is a wobbly pass he throws off his back foot or on the run. you can’t get away with that in the pros.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
I think if Colt were 2 or 3 inches taller he’d be a top 5 prospect. I guess we’re lucky he’s not though, that way he may fall into our lap in round 2.
StuckInPa - April 18, 2010
but how does being a winner and leader and a “good guy” translate to success throwing the ball? his “intangibles” in this sense are off the charts but his on the field intangibles (reading the defense, decision making with throws, etc…) are not terrible, but not at all good.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
My thinking is that the off field “intangibles” you can not teach, the on field mechanics you can.
badrat - April 18, 2010
But on the field mechanics — or talent, basically — is much, much, much more important than intangibles.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
this.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Dudes, back off- I said I am not a Tebow fan, however jaws made some good points and I think he will do well, if he does, hope its for us, and as much as I like Bradford we would have to give up to much to get him.
badrat - April 18, 2010
Back off? What did I do?
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Trying to be right all the time.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
Uhhh . . . .what?
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
I think BY is just messing with you…
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Some of us seem to be untouchable and have an elite status around here. If someone disagrees with them, the elite tend to gang up (if not single handedly) on the original poster and try to make him feel as stupid as possible. Most of the things they say is horribly wrong, but they claim that their opinion is the absolute truth and that argument can’t bloom from it. Absolute control controls absolutely, and I’m a little sick of it.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
This comment? Really? What is so terrible about this comment? How did I “gang up” on him with this comment? How is this making someone feel stupid?
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
my question is this:
How can you seriously support the claim that his mechanics and passing talent on the field is inferior to his competition? What evidence supports this notion?
Tebow’s actual on-field results just passing the ball are virtually identical to Sam Bradford in every single category. People are so quick to write all that off for reasons I just don’t understand.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
The F*$%ING GAME TAPE.
We’ve explained the reasons to you over and over and over why you are not convincing anyone. In fact, there will be no convincing me because I have developed an informed opinion based around what I’ve SEEN ON FILM.
Why do you decide every day to try to convince others that Tebow is the next best thing? You are already on record multiple times as saying that we should draft him. We know you like him. We’ve read your comments ad nauseum. We understand what you are selling, but many are not buying.
Why can’t you just agree to like him and let us dislike him, or at least not like him enough to think a 1st or 2nd is worth it?
rufio - April 18, 2010
Hey, if you’ve watched significant game tape of somebody and have an informed opinion that’s fine.
But some of the other people on here haven’t watched any game tape aside from highlights and other crap. And yet they still bash Tebow or whomever because they hear talking heads do it on television.
By all means it is fine if people disagree with me but I want them to have something to back it up, not just disagree based on vague talking points they heard come out of Charlie Casserly or Bucky “the Teleprompter” Brooks.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
You know, some of the people who analyze football on TV — like the former coaches and GM’s — actually know what they’re talking about. They sure as hell know a lot more than you or me.
If Warren Buffett was on TV talking about investment strategies, would you dismiss him as just another “talking head”?
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
the people on tv aren’t warren buffett. They (for the most part) are more like Bernard Madoff. I mean Matt Millen is on TV talking about NFL draft prospects. We all know Matt Millen’s track record. The people on television are on television because they got fired from actual jobs in the NFL.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Matt Millen still knows much more about football than you or me. Just because they were fired doesn’t mean they can’t evaluate talent. Plenty of great GM’s and coaches were fired at one point in their careers (Bill Belichick, for one example).
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
By the way, the Madoff analogy is a poor one. He wasn’t a bad investor; he was a crook.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Madoff wasn’t any good at really investing money, so he made a living bullshitting people. Sounds like Millen to me.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Madoff WAS an investor at the time that he was running his ponzi scheme. He was actually one of the more successful investors on wall street which made it more shocking.
the ponzi scheme was crooked. it wasn’t even bullshitting or bad investment, it was just criminal fraud (definitely different than bullshitting).
Honestly, the analogy can apply that neither one had common sense. Millen didn’t seem to have a ton of sense when drafting (at least in my opinion) and also in my opinion ponzi schemes lack common sense. they are good in the short term but they are not economically sustainable and either you get caught or die (he was likely hoping to die first). He was a common crook.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Matt Millen should be jailed for pushing his opinion on television.
He’s like those people who knowingly spread AIDS.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Hyperbole much?
Villeslgr - April 18, 2010
I know this is supposed to be a joke but
a) its not very funny
b)you are again changing the subject
first you started off talking about how his mechanics can’t be bad b/c he produced in college (and I won’t go into how ludicrous this statement is).
then rufio points out the evidence is in the tape and you point out too many ppl listen to analysts on TV then BB points out most are former coaches/scouts/players.
and you find ONE guy who wasn’t a great player evaluator and instead of arguing the validity of of all analysts or why they don’t like Tebow, we are debating Matt Millen.
Even if matt millen was a bad GM, I would listen to his opinions more than most people on here. Millen is just like Kiper or Mcshay except he was once a GM.
breaking down film is not an exact science, just like playing the stock market. still, I would rather have a pro playing the market for me rather than an amateur (like yourself).
bross09 - April 18, 2010
You’ve said a ton of dumb things on this site, but that comment may have been the dumbest.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Even dumber than his repeated, non-stop calls for the Browns to trade a 5th rounder for Troy Smith?
TheDriveStillHurts - April 18, 2010
That was a joke by the way — his comment takes the cake for dumb.
TheDriveStillHurts - April 18, 2010
Matt Millen has AIDS?
golanbatrac - April 18, 2010
So THAT’S where I got them.
BrownDawg1409 - April 18, 2010
Wow.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
because Matt Millen is the only “talking head” out there.
Mike Mayock watches a helluva lot of game tape. There are several QB “talking heads” and many of them have their own doubts about tebow.
you talking about your knowledge and opinion of tim tebow is like Timothy Geithner talking about his knowledge of taxes…
bross09 - April 18, 2010
just stop now jaws…seriously. this thread was not even about tebow anymore but BY complaining about the “gang mentality” which seems to exist in his mind.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Oh really?
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
yeah…pretty much. I have been ganged upon by BB and Rufio, but it is normally when I am doing something dumb like writing way to many (or to long, or both) posts.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
If his mechanics weren’t inferior he wouldn’t be the only one who has been forced to make a drastic change in his mechanics.
Villeslgr - April 18, 2010
It’s not that comment necessarily.
You sit there and yell at people and say that their opinions are wrong all the time. While your comments "enlighten" us.
Stop deleting comments when everything you post is efing crap.
You know what I mean Vern?
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
First of all, I only delete comments which violate the site rules that everyone agreed to follow when they signed up. I don’t know what that has to do with your comment above. It seems to me that you are still holding a grudge against me which is why you made your comment, because there was nothing wrong with what I said. You just felt the need to criticize me to make yourelf feel better.
And I never claimed to be smarter than everyone here or know more than everyone here. In fact. I readily claim that I other people here know more football than I do. When I disagree with someone, I try to do it in a respectful manner unless that person is being a complete idiot. But we’re allowed to disagree with people here — that’s the whole point of this site.
If you have a problem with the way this site is run then you can address it with me or Chris; you don’t need to make a snide remark that has nothing to do with the discussion just to “get back” at me for something you’re upset about.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
I feel you have a grudge against me. My comments get ditched while Rape jokes get 8 recs You know that’s BS Brad..
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
Don’t let anyone make you feel stupid via the internet.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
The rape jokes also got flagged. There are many people who come to the site, just because a few rec something doesn’t meant the entire community supports the comments.
Villeslgr - April 18, 2010
I don’t have a grudge against you or anyone else. ALL comments which are political in nature get deleted. All of them. You’re not different than anyone else.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
I apologize Brad. I was pissed off at something else and took it out on you, which wasn’t right. I’m sorry.
Brownie's Year - April 19, 2010
Thank you. I appreciate hearing that. Let’s forget this and move on.
Buckeye Brad - April 19, 2010
Thank you.
Brownie's Year - April 19, 2010
???
No offense man, but I find BBs comments a bit more enlightening than yours. I find your comments intelligent but I do not think that his comments are “efing crap”.
from what I have found, BB may not be the nicest guy if you piss him off by being an idiot, but he does not come off as pretentious and giving us “enlightening” comments.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
You’re barking up the wrong tree, bro.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
me thinks the pot is calling the kettle black.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
this is somewhat true…occasionally this will happen but only if the person is being completely moronic like I have been at times…and this doesn’t really apply if you are talking “elite” as in BB, B19K and Rufio. the only one involved here is BB.
I completely disagree. RK doesn’t post a ton, but I have high respect for the opinions of BB, B19K and Rufio. I admit they all know at least a bit more football than I do. I also do agree with them often, especially BBs comment above about mechanics.
Honestly, this is not a very cliquey SBN page. I would say at times LGT is a bit more…and even the regulars can be at MTD. I understand a little bit of where you are coming from but what you said was a gross exaggeration.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Pretty much agree with this.
emily522 - April 18, 2010
I think the truth lies somewhere between what he said and “not a very cliquey SBN page.” its not like people consistently do it, but sometimes people come off as big dicks even if what they’re saying is right and even when they aren’t trying to. the regulars (myself 100% included) can sometimes be unnecessarily rough on someone. Its not like we do it all the time, but it happens.
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
yes. this happens a lot more with newer people and we don’t realize we are being unnecessarily rough…
but in BYs case, he has been here for a while so he knows how it is. generally he doesn’t even get attacked that much either…but there is more license to attack an establised member acting like a fool because he should know better.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
i’m of the opinion that we’re only rough on people when they make ridiculous exaggerations or baseless statements of what they feel is fact. i never blast people just because i disagree with them, i like to have intelligent debate with them. when it turns into “we suck, draft so and so because he’s a winner and will make us winners. he won in college”, i tend to get a little more aggressive. finally, whatever cliques may exist here aren’t intended to be roving gangs of bullies; i just tend to backup people that have a history of good posting and commenting, and in many cases those are the regulars or “veterans.” frankly, if people do the research, i think they’ll find that even the vets disagree and argue at times.
Dawg Nuts - April 18, 2010
There have been times where I have posted things and wanted to delete them because I felt they sounded mean.
When I first posted here, kwoog ripped me repeatedly, so instead of being a jackass I decided to study up, provide backing for the points I was making, and to make sure I knew what I was talking about. I understood that this site was not about being able to post any BS you wanted. And that if sometimes we didn’t go a little far on the critique that it could turn in to cleveland.com. And who wants that?
If anything anyone says here is legit, it will stand up to critique and scrutiny. That doesn’t mean people (myself very much included) should be angry or mean about things, but people should expect their analysis to be critiqued.
rufio - April 19, 2010
Yup, this is what makes DBN great.
emily522 - April 19, 2010
right. this is a very, very good site, I can’t overstate that. but it would be naive to think this type of thing didn’t exist at all.
notthatnoise - April 19, 2010
The answer to this is simple.
Why do you think they’re elite? Because 99% of the time they aren’t wrong Einstein.
SpecialBrownie - April 18, 2010
This is hilarious!
golanbatrac - April 18, 2010
yeah its pretty outrageous, but it isn’t without its tiny grain of truth.
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
yeah, it is. but maybe it’d be nice to be elite at something.
Dawg Nuts - April 18, 2010
you guys just need to hug it out
sleepy042 - April 19, 2010
Golanbatrac doesn’t like me. So I doubt a internet bro hug would ever happen.
Brownie's Year - April 19, 2010
Don’t feel bad, he doesn’t like anyone.
Bernie19Kosar - April 19, 2010
get off his lawn!
notthatnoise - April 19, 2010
He likes Eric Mangini. A LOT.
Western Reserve - April 19, 2010
I have been on the wrong side of his F-Bomb Barrage before.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
Yeah, I remember that night.
He’ll come out of left field and zing me pretty good sometimes. I try not to set myself up because I never know when he’s lurking.
Brownie's Year - April 19, 2010
So golan is Machiavelli. He has instilled the fear in everyone.
Roger Dorn - April 19, 2010
Weren’t we just talking about not ganging up on posers?
rufio - April 20, 2010
Poser?!? I’m the real deal, baby!
golanbatrac - April 20, 2010
i don’t know what they’re talking about. i find you to be charming, generous, and kind.
Dawg Nuts - April 20, 2010
I find your hilarious myself
Kimble_79 - April 20, 2010
I find you* hilarious myself…typo
Kimble_79 - April 20, 2010
Yea, I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously if we can’t come to this site and post opposing viewpoints without taking things personally. You could go on a Jaws-like tirade against me and I would laugh my ass off, and move on immediately.
Roger Dorn - April 20, 2010
I meant what I said in the sense that he’s the one who rips me a new one if I leave myself open. And every time I laugh and think to myself "Damn it. He got me again". I wasn’t complaining about him.
Brownie's Year - April 20, 2010
bross09 - April 20, 2010
Don’t think about my bunghole, bross.
Brownie's Year - April 21, 2010
I wasn’t thinking about it at all. I was merely pointing out the amusing phrasing that you used to describe the situation.
bross09 - April 21, 2010
Poseurs generally deserve it.
Villeslgr - April 21, 2010
The guy won, but winning isn’t what translates to the NFL. Graham Harrell won a bunch of games in college. So did Timmy Chang and Colt Brennan. So did Troy Smith. So did Craig Krenzel. So did Brady Quinn. So did Matt Leinart. Trent Dilfer won a superbowl.
Tebow has a good attitude about the game and good work ethic. It is absolutely not an intelligent idea to bet—to the tune of a first or second round pick no less—that the rest is “fixable”.
rufio - April 18, 2010
This. Don’t forget the stats that Chang and Brennan put up too…
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Effing outrageously good.
And some people run some run-n-shoot influenced things in the NFL with a high degree of success. But if you run what Hawaii ran, you will probably get destroyed.
rufio - April 19, 2010
yep. winning and stats are nice but I tend to try to disregard them when analyzing. Scouts raved about Tom Brady’s accuracy and poise if I remember correctly. However, he was criticized for not being that athletic, not putting up great stats, and not having a good arm.
My opinion of Tebow…Elite (possibly top 10) intangibles such as personality and leadership.
First round athletic skills for the position (including arm).
7th Round Mechanics
Late 2nd round on the field intangibles (decision making, reading coverage)
Midround (late 3-4) tape. What I saw on tape is a lot of stuff he will NOT get away with in the NFL…things like throwing into coverage and having your receivers bail you out. coverage will be much better in the NFL. He also threw off of his back foot a lot threw a lot of bad and off balance passes on the run. These are things you can get away with in college but can kill you in the pros.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
If NFL teams picked QB’s based on the stats they put up in college then there would a lot more former Texas Tech QB’s in the NFL. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. You need scouting to determine how that QB will fit in an NFL offense. You can’t really compare stats from different college QB’s playing in different systems against different levels of competition.
Buckeye Brad - April 17, 2010
please don’t take Tebow, gosh what a great kid, but i just don’t see taking him before round 4, such a huge risk for a team that needs so much…..wish he was a better prospect, cause he has great character and would be an awesome leader.
allsides - April 18, 2010
I trust Holmgren to handle the QB situation as good as anyone could. I’ll be behind his decision whether it’s Bradford, Clausen, McCoy, a mid-to-late rounder, or no one until next year.
Bumblyjack - April 17, 2010
ditto,
I like all three….can I say this…..i loved Quinn, but just wondered, did he fit in with ‘the guys’
he fought and cried like a baby when they shaved his head as a rookie…..was he too much of a pretty boy? doesn’t matter……I am still rooting for him like crazy, ’cept when playing us, of course.
allsides - April 18, 2010
There is only one thing we should give all those picks up for
God himself.
macdowellm03 - April 17, 2010
Joe Thomas: I’m right here dude.
(Disclaimer: No offense to the religious)
skipkirk - April 17, 2010
Anyone who takes offense gets pancaked.
golanbatrac - April 17, 2010
joe thomas doesn’t approve of you associating “dude” with him. unbecoming his stature.
Dawg Nuts - April 17, 2010
Joe Thomas doesn’t approve of your poor grammer techniques.
BrownDawg1409 - April 17, 2010
grammar?
Dawg Nuts - April 17, 2010
Ha!
golanbatrac - April 18, 2010
It’s a good thing they’re making caskets out of plastic now, cuz it looks like Joey T’s gonna come after all of us.
BrownDawg1409 - April 18, 2010
No to Bradford
I say noper to trading up cause defense wins Championships. Lets give Ryan some real tools to work with on defense and see what he can do. I want the Dawg defense back I also want Marty but that won’t happen.
Suppa Bob - April 18, 2010
shottenheimer? he can get you to the playoffs but he blows it there.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Marty Ball baby
Yeah I’d rather have a team that is the bottum of the barrel loser compared to one that made it to the AFC championship game twice.
Suppa Bob - April 18, 2010
I would rather have a coach that doesn’t blow it every year when he has a good team. those were more TALENTED teams than we have right now. martyball doesn’t work…didn’t we find that out in the playoffs?
you know Bill Belichick was 5-11 his first year in
Dungy was 6-10 after his first season in Tampa.
Even though coughlin had been a coach for several years previously, he was 6-10 his first year with the Giants
Very few coaches have success in their first year as a coach and are able to continue that success. some may walk into the right situation like Jim Caldwell, but others took over a bad situation (like Dungy or Belichick). when a new coach is brought in, it is usually b/c the team was not good and the first year there are often growing pains.
It is way too early to judge mangini and want shottenheimer back. imagine if the same type of thought was used in New England and they fired Belichick before he could take them to the super bowl? Now, mangini is not guaranteed to be any of these coaches or as good as them, but you have to give him another year. The browns also had the WORST QB situation than any of these guys walked into…by FAR (last year).
bross09 - April 18, 2010
and some coaches have decent rookie seasons, get everyone excited, and go downhill from there.
i’d say their rookie season it depends more on if the talent is there and ready to go.
mangini is still very capable…I just think someone else should be making the QB decisions, and it seems to be so now.
allsides - April 18, 2010
I agree completely. I don’t think the talent was really there. I also don’t want mangini really handling the QBs much. I am not convinced he is great yet, I just think its quite early to try to recall shottenheimer.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
so not the point
Please don’t put words in my mouth I was not referring to Mangini per say. I was more likely referring to Butch Davis/Crennal who I would have never hired in the first place. I think Mangini is very trainable and can become a way better coach then we would have had he stayed in New England. Please dont lecture me on football I understand it takes time. But if it were not for Marty we would have to go back to the one year with Sipe under Rutgliano to remember fondly.
Suppa Bob - April 18, 2010
I understand marty was good…he just has never had success in the playoffs and it just felt as though it was too early to call for “martyball”.
It was unclear that you were talking about butch davis/crennel. Maybe it was clear and I missed it and if that is the case, I am sorry. I would never hired those guys in the first place either. i favor either hiring from within or getting a HC from somewhere else (with previous HC experience).
I think this stemmed from a misunderstanding somewhere and one of us was not clear with our points. I think we are relatively on the same page.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
at this point, I’ll take just getting to the playoffs!!!
allsides - April 19, 2010
me too.
I wouldn’t hate marty, but I think I will stick with mangini for a while…I still have some faith in him.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
NO.
None of the packages mentioned in the article or comments to move up to #1 would be worth it. We have too many needs to make only one pick in the first two days of the draft. I don’t care if Bradford is a top 10 QB in the NFL next season it would NOT be worth it.
King Tony - April 18, 2010
If he was a top 10 QB in his rookie season it would be more than worth it.
Bernie19Kosar - April 18, 2010
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Bullshit.
danvail - April 19, 2010
I can’t figure out what this DYAR value is supposed to be.
StuckInPa - April 19, 2010
Defense-Adjusted Yards Above Replacement, explained in detail here, is basically a way of measuring how valuable a QB was over the course of a season. It accounts for things like the strength of the opposition/defense and the relative importance of a situation (completing a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 8 > completing a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 12).
You can think of it like this: the average (half are better, half are worse) backup quarterback is the “replacement” level QB. If he was in Tom Brady’s position for every play Brady made in 2009, he would have thrown for 2,170 yards less than Tom Brady actually accumulated. That’s what Tom Brady’s 2170 DYAR means.
DYAR is a cumulative statistic which grows as one plays, like TDs or Home Runs. This is as opposed to DVOA, which is a rate statistic like QB rating or Batting Average.
danvail - April 19, 2010
it is also by no means a perfect stat (i know you weren’t saying it was). Its better than QB rating, but its still not great. obviously you have to look at more than one stat.
notthatnoise - April 19, 2010
I would say that I put significantly more weight behind DYAR and DVOA than QB rating. Of course, no stat is perfect, and even the best only tell part of the story.
danvail - April 19, 2010
yes…because I dunno if DYAR includes things like INTs…but it is still a very good stat…
bross09 - April 19, 2010
No, but DVOA does. Together, those two give the best available statistical look at performance in a given season.
danvail - April 19, 2010
agreed.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
I would not disagree with this.
notthatnoise - April 19, 2010
If you are talking QB rating he was…I was looking at one stat and either way, they are both top 10 QBs, that is my point.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
One should not go around making declarations that distort reality, even if they’re technically or partially true. Your statement, point aside, puts Tom Brady on the same level as Eli Manning. That’s just not the case, so quote stats that properly reflect reality.
Further, you missed B19’s point, which was that trading up to get a QB at #1 that ended up as a top ten guy in his rookie year would easily be worth it. Commenting on random other top 10 QBs at that point was just… irrelevant.
danvail - April 19, 2010
This is a bit harsh, btw, so don’t be too offended.
danvail - April 19, 2010
yeah…
bross09 - April 19, 2010
I understood his point that if we could get a top 10 QB he would do it. i was pointing out that Eli Manning and Tom Brady were top 10 QBs. if you could have that production in a rookie season and sell the farm, would you do it? That was my basic point…I guess you didn’t really understand it and its probably my fault for being unclear…
bross09 - April 19, 2010
The killer for the Bradford trade for me is what if it blows up and he’s a bust or merely an adequate starter?
Then with the high price in picks we’ve paid we’re stuffed for 5 years.
You cannot justify that risk.
LondonBrown - April 18, 2010
We´re still lacking an undoubtable authority to say what they will pursue.
mooncamping - April 18, 2010
I think you are contending that we trade up to slot #1, so we can be jackasses on the biggest possible scale, you´re not pro Cleveland Browns success entitlement.
You want the personage Sam Bradford, not the person Sam Bradford.
mooncamping - April 18, 2010
I think Colt is a first round talent, probably a better prospect than Clausen, and potentially available with our second pick.
My thought is draft BPA at 7 (hopefully Berry) and then trade up to end of first round for Colt McCoy. Unless, you are convinced that he falls to us in round 2.
If that fails, we move on with our lives, probably take a QB in the later rounds and begin looking at the top QBs of 2011. Where we likely won’t have to pay as much for a top 10 pick at QB, because of a fairer CBA.
Ryan Kelsey - April 18, 2010
I know this is the sensible if conservative route. I know this is more likely (if only by a slim margin and depending on the price of moving up) to lead to long term success than the aggressive hypothetical this article details.
Still, I REALLY don’t want to watch another year of “pull jackass QB1 for jackass QB2.” It’d be nice, now that we can protect a young QB, to get one to protect.
danvail - April 19, 2010
You really think you can avoid that?
You can’t see the scenario? Trade 5 picks for Bradford. Bradford has minor holdout. Delhomme starts season as #1 QB. Delhomme sucks. Bradford plays. Bradford looks unready/gets hurt in first action in 1.5 years.
This possibility doesn’t make trading up the wrong move. But that avoiding revolving door at QB doesn’t get solved by doing it.
Ryan Kelsey - April 19, 2010
As it stands, the QB situation is one of mediocrity at best. If we get Bradford, there’s a good chance (the best possible chance for a full year) that we finally see light at the end of the tunnel. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we will, but as you imply we can’t be afraid to draft a quarterback simply because he might fail.
danvail - April 20, 2010
I seem to recall thatt Brady Quinn was also considered “Can’t miss”.
Apologies if someone said this already. I’m being lazy on reading the comments.
doowop - April 18, 2010
he was considered “a franchise quarterback in the Carson Palmer mold.” By Mel Kiper Jr. A leading draft expert. Just another reason why subjective NFL scouting should always be taken with a grain of salt.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
“Subjective” NFL scouting? What other kind of scouting is there?
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Objective statistical analysis.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
I love statistics as much as anybody, but as we’ve discussed many, many times, you can’t sompare college QB’s using only statistics because of ther variences in competition and the offense those QB’s play in. If people drafted QB’s based only on their stats then there would be a lot more Texas Tech QB’s in the NFL right now. There are dozens and dozens of QB’s who put up great stats in college but never made it in the NFL.
(Also, if you’re going to post a link in a comment please click on the box that says “open in new window” so it doesn’t navigate the person away from this page.)
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Of course stats aren’t everything. Guys like Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang got a statistical boost from playing in pass-happy spreads against inferior competition. However Tebow played in a run-first offense in the SEC, which is widely known as the toughest college conference. There is no reason to write him off as a “system” qb. Perhaps your point about Texas Tech should be cutting the other way. You could argue that guys like Graham Harrell and Chase Daniel didn’t get a fair shake at the NFL despite their college success, precisely because they played in spread offenses. I really don’t know.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
So who, exactly, has played in Meyer’s system—or even at Florida—that has put up those great numbers in college and then went on to put up similarly great numbers in the NFL?
rufio - April 18, 2010
Same argument could be used for Bob Stoops at Oklahoma, Charlie Weis at Notre Dame or even Pete Caroll at USC. Carson Palmer came out of the gate really well but sorta petered out after the injury, Matt Lineart has yet to be heard from and yet people still thought Mark Sanchez was the next big thing and drafted him #5 overall.
The point is that the whole thing is plenty unpredictable, no matter what school or system.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
so because he got an injury he was never a good player and we can’t trust a pete caroll QB?
you know, Leinart wasn’t terrible his rookie season…he just got replaced by a future HOFer (possibly) the next year.
Discrediting another school inaccurately does not give credibility to your argument.
For oklahoma’s QBs you have Nat Hybl (who was not even as good of a college QB as leak). You have Jason White (who might still be in the NFL if he didn’t have artificial knees). Rhett Bomar (5th rounder last year and backup to eli manning)…then you have Bradford.
Look at the track record though for Urban Meyer QBs? out of the 4 QBs that played at least a year or two in that offense, 2 haven’t played professional football since 2007, and one is in a 3rd Tier Arena-esque Football League.
the whole thing is unpredictable, but Meyers’ QBs put up the best numbers statistically out of all the offenses you talked about and they have easily one of the worst track records for success.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
You’ve missed the point again. Big surprise.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Rufio Says
You do go on to say how the draft is unpredictable, however in the realm of argument, the tactic you are using is validating your point by trying to invalidate the other opposing points. it is not making a point yourself or helping your point, but trying to hurt other points so yours looks better by comparison. It may have not been intentional that you did this, but this is the argument tactic that you did use.
you think that the system that tebow played in should not inhibit his draft position. Rufio points out why it should and then you try to discredit it. However.
I am not going to go purely by bradford’s or clausen’s stats either. I consider them about as valuable as tebow’s stats. However, from what I have watched on tape, the QBs to me go Bradford, McCoy, Clausen, Tebow (I haven’t watched much tape of pike or lefevour so i can’t tell you my views on them but I am not high on what I saw from tebow).
Is anyone here raving about the ridiculous stats that Bradford put up as the basis for an argument? No they really aren’t. you are the only one using QB stats as the basis for your argument.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
and Josh Harris (a Urban Meyer Offense guy) wouldn’t be out of the NFL since 2006 and Omar Jacobs (from the Meyer BG offense he set up) would be playing in the NFL instead of the AIFA (american indoor football association…i didn’t even know this league existed…)
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Ha! That is all.
rufio - April 18, 2010
If Quinn were can’t miss, he would not have gone 22nd in the draft. There is a difference between media evaluation and actual GM evaluation.
Roger Dorn - April 18, 2010
Yup. Besides, I don’t ever remember anyone — even in the media — saying that Quinn was a “can’t miss” guy. I don’t think anybody would be dumb enough to say that about a QB because we’ve seen too many top picks fail at that position.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Front cover of Football Outsiders 2007 has a pic of Quinn tagged “he will prove the doubters wrong”…
LondonBrown - April 18, 2010
I dunno if that means he is a can’t miss guy. because you are proving doubters wrong does not automatically make you a can’t miss prospect.
bross09 - April 18, 2010
Not sure what your point is.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
someone in the media called him a can’t miss pick?
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
I wouldn’t say that was calling him a “can’t miss” pick. They were saying they thought he’d be a good QB — i.e. prove the doubters wrong who passed on him in the draft — but I don’t think that means he’s a “can’t miss” guy. That’s taking it to an extreme. Again, I think any intelligent person who knows enough about the draft would say that there isn’t such a thing as a “can’t miss” QB prospect.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Eli Manning was probably as close as it gets in the past 5-10 years. And he still could have missed.
rufio - April 19, 2010
people thought it was a miss for the first 3-4 years. even in 2007 Giants fans weren’t always happy with him. He didn’t become the franchise QB he now is until the 2007 playoffs when he truly took the team on his back and Won that super bowl.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
The Giants fans were being far too harsh. They expected Peyton. He wasn’t bad, but he isn’t Peyton.
rufio - April 19, 2010
I agree. He wasn’t bad…but if you really look at it until those playoffs he was a solid QB but was pretty up and down (no QB ratings above 80, lots of yards and TDs but threw too many INTs).
They probably did expect peyton. granted, going by how the Giants fans (most new york fan bases in general) felt isn’t a very accurate way to go. Its hard being QB there b/c you are always in the limelight and always under the microscope from the fans.
Still, i have to say until the 2007 playoffs, he was solid but had not yet lived up toe the 1st overall pick in the draft. Now it looks well worth it and he is a true leader but it just took him a bit to get there.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
Not busting is not the same as living up to the #1 overall pick. It is far easier to not bust.
rufio - April 19, 2010
agreed.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
Tell that to JR. He makes it seem extremely easy
SpecialBrownie - April 19, 2010
Mel Kiper tagged him “Franchise Quarterback in the Carson Palmer mold” that is about as much as you can say about a QB prospect.
jaws. - April 18, 2010
Comparing him to another NFL QB isn’t the same as saying he’s a “can’t miss” prospect.
And, again, he’s not an NFL scout, he’s a media person.
Buckeye Brad - April 18, 2010
Many people called him one of the safest QB picks in years, if not necessarily “can’t miss”
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
I never heard “safest pick in years”.
I definitely heard he was the safest pick in the draft, and looking at it he may have been. right now, I would still take him over Jamarcus if I HAD to take one. Stanton and Beck have done nothing. Kolb did come from that houston offense so wasn’t looked at as being that “safe”. if kolb pans out, he still would be the “safest” QB in the draft really
bross09 - April 18, 2010
on a purely monetary perspective would it cost more/less for Bradford at #1 vs the accumulative money to sign the other draft choices combined?
sleepy042 - April 18, 2010
Very likely, yes. And that’s one player versus five. Were we to land Bradford, we’d still need players to fill those roster spots.
golanbatrac - April 18, 2010
I think the other 5 would be much less to sign combined than bradford alone. $ goes down sig. after first round. and third round is even lower $ heck, it pays to be a winner and be in the lower end of the first round.
were are there cause we need so much….but still not bad idea to get someone if you truly believe he’ll be a great one.
allsides - April 18, 2010
Lonely Wife
So you are the group that keeps my beloved distracted on weekend mornings! I see. . .
NM Dawg - April 18, 2010
/flee
sleepy042 - April 18, 2010
We’re not that bad. He’s in good hands.
Brownie's Year - April 18, 2010
I’d say “That’s what she said”, but not only would that be insensitive, there’s only one other girl on this site to begin with.
BrownDawg1409 - April 18, 2010
you should join him.
notthatnoise - April 18, 2010
if we trade up, to any position, it should only be for suh. screw the qb postion, its the hardest position to draft for so why waste it on a qb. i dont know the answer to this question, but how many qb’s have won a superbowl being a first round pick since the browns came back?
kingjames4mvp - April 18, 2010
Hammer Time
I agree we need a hammer on defense before we need a franchise quarterback! I think we might have a partial solution in Roth but I like to have some more tools to work with on defense. To answer your question no number one pick QB won a superbowl. A few teams won the superbowl that had former number one picks at the posisiton but it was the primarily their defenses that stood up and sealed the deal.
Suppa Bob - April 19, 2010
I agree with your points that defense is important.
If this is ever, this is completely incorrect. it looks like you were responding to QBs taken in the first round since the browns came back. in that sense, even if you look at the first overall pick, this is still incorrect. Eli Manning won a super bowl and they did have a decent D but ELI won that game.
2 super bowls have been won since 2006 by #1 overall picks. Since then, 3 out of the 4 super bowls have been won by first round QBs (drew brees was first pick in the 2nd round, the year before it became 32 teams when the texans joined).
bross09 - April 19, 2010
are we talking about guys drafted since 1999 in the first round that have won super bowls? or all the first round picks that have won super bowls since 1999.
-If it is the first one, the answer is 2 Quarterbacks (3 super bowls); Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. The total number of different QBs drafted in the first round to win a super bowl since 1999 is 5.
-There are also 5 QBs that have lost the super bowl being a first round QB. first round QBs have made 11 out of the possible 20 super bowl starts (55%) since the browns came back. Not all 1st round QBs pan out but first round QBs generally have a very good chance of leading their team all the way.
most of the other QBs to appear in the SB were guys drafted late or not at all, many from small schools such as Gannon (delaware), Warner (northern Iowa), or Delhomme (UL-Lafayette).
B19K wrote an article on here about QBs and how most of the good QBs you end up having to find in the first round. when you look at stats, this is true…with some exceptions most guys who put up the elite stats are 1st rounders.
Another great place I think is good to find QBs is at the end of the draft or undrafted guys. guys here either didn’t play that much at a big school or played great at a tiny school. both types are pretty unknown to scouts and can often be diamonds in the rough.
midround guys like Pike or Snead are not bad, but because they play in a major conference, they are known and it is known what they can do. They all have flaws in their game and usually don’t have the tools to be anything more than an average starter. some overcome this but most don’t.
bross09 - April 19, 2010
can we get a poll going about taking Clausen at number 7? i am curious why or why not some people may be for that since we wouldn’t have to sell the house and could just stay put, but i know some guys either don’t think hes that good or just don’t like the guy for non-football (notre dame) reasons…
sww2109 - April 19, 2010
please, PLEASE can we stop claiming notre dame bias?
notthatnoise - April 19, 2010
Clausen Bleah
I guess we could but as for football reason he is still banged up from last year. Buying damaged goods with a seven pick does not sound right to me. Sides i am beeting the defense drum anyway I want a defender at that pick. I have to stay up late to see the draft live I will not be happy if some one screws the pooch on this pick.
Suppa Bob - April 19, 2010
I wouldn’t mind trading up for Bradford this year if Mangini didn’t completely blow the draft last year in the second round. If we could have taken either Byrd, Vollmer, Sean Smith, Loadholt, Beatty, or any combination then our team wouldn’t have such immediate glaring needs and our picks would be a little more expendable. On top of actually winning at the end of the year when other teams were trying to not win when took us further down the draft order making it more expensive to move up. But now there is no way we could bring in Bradford when we didn’t playing the free agent market.
The Licensed Pessimist - April 19, 2010
You should marry kwoog.
golanbatrac - April 19, 2010
this reminds me of the consipiracy theory that Tim Couch “intentionally won” his final game as a Brown beating CIN 22-14 with 118 yards (50%) with no TD/Int. This cost CLE a crack at Sean Taylor & the illustrious Butch Davis traded up with Detroit for Kellen “Vroom Vroom” Winslow in the 1st Round.
(no bitterness)
sleepy042 - April 19, 2010
Yea, I guess my confusion is why the Chiefs were trying not to win against the Browns but then trounced the Broncos the last week of the season. Or why Jacksonville had a shot at a playoff spot of all things, and tried not to win against the Browns. Or why Oakland tried against Pittsburgh in their victory over the Stools, but decided not to try against the Browns.
Logic fail.
Roger Dorn - April 19, 2010
I don’t mean to sound rude, but I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Buckeye Brad - April 19, 2010
Anyone notice BE is one of the players pictured on the stage? Wow, even the NFL was naive.
SpecialBrownie - April 19, 2010
Good eye.
Brownie's Year - April 19, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.