The Miami Dolphins hired Packers offensive coordinator Joe Philbin as their new head coach on Friday, news that has some meaning for Browns fans because of quarterback Matt Flynn. Flynn has become this year's "hot-commodity-with-little-experience," and if the Packers don't slap the franchise tag on him, it seems like some team will attempt to sign him as their new starting quarterback.
Given that Flynn has been in the Packers' offense under Philbin the past several seasons, Miami could be the new favorites to land him. We saw a similar situation a few years ago when Matt Cassel landed with the Kansas City Chiefs. The question for Philbin, though, is if you should really replace Matt Moore, who had some pretty admirable performances last year and now has a lot of NFL experience under his belt.
If the feeling of Flynn-to-Miami is synonymous with the hiring of Philbin, that could rule out the Browns as contenders to land him, making it more likely that the Browns will pursue a quarterback in the draft, if they indeed intend to use their first-round pick(s) on one.
When it comes to the Indianapolis Colts, the situation seems crystal clear. Team owner Jim Irsay really has no reason to use smokescreens when talking to the media; he has the freedom to discuss the team's intentions because no one else picks in front of Indianapolis. Barring a radical change in demeanor, the Colts will land either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III.
"With Griffin and Luck and the way it's shaping up at the top of the draft — could very likely go one and two like with Peyton and Ryan Leaf," Irsay told ESPN. "It's most likely one of those quarterbacks that you really feel is the best player in the draft, and where we're at moving forward you can't pass that up. I don't think anyone would expect that."
Irsay is in the process of really changing the face of the organization. Again, though, he has the luxury to do that because Peyton Manning is on the team. Manning's teams of the past were so successful mostly because of him. If Manning returns healthy, I really don't see it making a big difference that the Polians are gone, that Jim Caldwell is gone, or whatever else changes. Interestingly enough, it sounds like Jim Tressel is a legitimate candidate to replace Caldwell as the Colts' new head coach. Irsay has already met twice with Tressel, who was a consultant for the team last year. While the Browns are stuck with a guy like Pat Shurmur, we've seen Jeff Fisher and now potentially Tressel, two guys who some Browns fans would have liked as the team's head coach, hired just one year later.
That brings me to what Mel Kiper said on Thursday in a conference call chat on ESPN about Browns quarterback Colt McCoy:
"I think they've pretty much resolved themselves to the fact they're going to go that route," Kiper said Thursday during a conference call. "They're probably going to kick Colt McCoy to the curb. That's what happens to a lot of young quarterbacks that don't have great physical qualifications."
I'm not down on the Browns taking Griffin III, but we might be looking at a situation where the field of the top-coveted quarterbacks shrinks (Flynn to Miami, Luck to Indianapolis), leaving several teams vying for Griffin III. If getting him requires the Browns to trade up and give away some of the valuable picks they currently hold, I wouldn't "kick McCoy to the curb" just yet. The writing on the wall doesn't inspire a ton of confidence in McCoy at quarterback, but I don't think his end in Cleveland is as clear cut as it is being made out to be.
0 recs | 81 comments
No way do you kick Colt to the curb. As Houston, Chicago, KC and countless others have demonstrated, you must have a quality backup.
Also I still think they could build around Colt or start him next year while RG3 sits. In any scenario, Colt has a lot of value to this team.
HenryDawg - January 21, 2012
Yeah ive never understood the reasoning behind giving up a young player who has starting experience. At worst I think McCoy could be a good spot starter. Whether or not you think he could be an every day starter I think he has shown to be atleast as good as Seneca who has been in the league a long time backing up.
Justin Kowalczyk - January 21, 2012
I completely agree with this. And I think Colt is at least an acceptable backup. I’d keep him as long as he’s under contract.
This, on the other hand, seems completely contradictory to all the things that I’ve been hearing about as to why to draft RG3. I really want to be able to land RG3 at #4, and with that, I want RG3 to start because I don’t think Colt is that guy.
If Colt is worth giving another season, and building around, then I don’t see why would use #4 (and possibly #22) to draft RG3 rather than on those building blocks for Colt.
Simmsinns - January 21, 2012
Thats something ive wondered too. Not just Henry but other guys who want to trade up for RG3 have said to possibly start Colt and let RG3 sit. If he isnt ready to start right away is he worth giving up multiple picks?
Justin Kowalczyk - January 21, 2012
yes. If the guy can be a franchise QB, he is certainly worth a 4th and 22nd. Whether or not the team wants to start him right away is completely irrelevant really.
bross09 - January 21, 2012
So the attributes and abilities that would lead our FO to think he could be a franchise QB are completely irrelevant to the attributes and abilities that would lead them to think he could start right away?
I think those things go hand in hand, as in, if our FO thinks he’s a franchise QB, then I’d hope they think he can start, especially if he’s taken 4th overall? It’s not like we have a 36 year old Brett Favre that still wants to play for us.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
yes, because never in the history of the NFL has a guy been taken in the first and a team has considered him a franchise QB.
I probably need both hands to count the number of cases of this I can think of off the top of my head, just rifling them off.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
Yes, but if we use all the arguments about how this league can’t wait, etc. you have to start the guy you take at #4.
If you want a QB controversy go ahead and put a QB drafted #4 on the bench and see what happens. This town goes ape.
No way you draft RGIII at 4 and sit him on the bench. Give him the same time to learn the system as Colt and more becuase there is no lock out). You will likely get the same results, but if they think he is the guy then we are 2-3 years out from anything.
SBP - January 22, 2012
It shouldn’t matter that we as fans will be going crazy for RG3 to get off the bench. If that really affects the FO’s thinking, then they may not be the right guys. That being said, as shown by Holmgren’s comments, our FO knows the fans will stick around so they can afford to let us go nuts over RG3 for a little bit while he develops on the bench.
Legoman0721 - January 22, 2012 via Android app
I agree, the FO shouldn’t (and probably won’t) take what the fan outcry into account when making team decisions. But I think SBP is just pointing out the truth, Cleveland and Browns fan everywhere including all of the media, will go ape shit if RG3 is sitting. Again, that won’t factor in to FO decisions, it’s just the way Browns fans are.
Where I don’t agree is spending (potentially) multiple picks on a guy that needs to be developed on the bench.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
Every QB needs time to develop, there are different ways to do it and how you do it has almost no bearing on what his draft value will be.
I do agree that a lot Cleveland fans will and already do everything they can to run almost anybody associated with the Browns not named Joe Thomas either into the ground or out of town. Hell a couple of people on cle. com wanted to trade Thomas and both our first rnd. picks to get Luck.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
I just hope that if we’re drafting a player 4th overall, he’s the kind of player that can start, and improve/develop/get better with every game he plays. RG3 isn’t Cam Newton, but if we draft RG3, I hope that’s one of the things that RG3 ends up having in common with Cam.
As for Cleveland fans, we all seem to agree that, while we are the most passionate and loyal group out there, that goes both ways. Sometimes the passion for wanting a good Browns team so badly means, for the Cleveland.com types, that you throw some dumb shit out there. Also, if you’re in the Browns organization and anything short of perfect, you’ll get ripped to no end. And the Cleveland media does that too, though the motivations there might be different.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
I don’t think the issue is can RG3 start. In this scenario, he most likely would be able to start, but the staff/FO would want him to sit at least to start the season. Palmer was very NFL ready and drafted 1st overall, but he sat his first year because they wanted him to get a chance to adjust to the speed of the game.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
I just think that the days of a top 5 pick QB sitting on the bench are over. Palmer was drafted how many years ago?
If he has the ceiling that everyone is claiming the speed of the game should not matter.
SBP - January 23, 2012
actually, it still matters, that speed of the game.
Also, Jamarcus Russell in 2007 agrees with you. Pretty much every other QB drafted in the top 5 since has had a QB even worse playing than Colt the year before.
Game 1, in a hypothetical scenario I think Colt does better than RG3…but this is also the first game of the season,
bross09 - January 23, 2012
If we get RGIII, I think the decision to start him right away or not will depend on how quickly he picks things up in camp. I would be most worried, considering the investment, about how well he reads blitzes. But in general I agree that a guy drafted that high should be able to step on the field and pick up the reigns by the time the season starts. He may still have a bit to learn, but he shouldn’t be floundering.
JustBob - January 22, 2012
This, 100%
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
What? No. How have we gotten to a point in discourse that typing “This” is supposed to be support for an argument?
There is no problem with a franchise player not being an immediate starter, and that decision won’t even be made until after the player is drafted so I don’t see how it affects the decision to take him.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
It’s simple. It’s a staple across forums, discussion boards, and comment sections all over the internet. It’s essentially a short hand of “I agree with this.”
Most people on DBN been using at least as long as I can remember. There’s nothing wrong with it at all.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
Kind of making my point here.
Anyway, I won’t digress, but what I was suggesting was if we as a Browns community are having a back-and-forth about a divisive issue, “this” neither adds to the discussion or sways the opinion of those who disagree. But you’re free to use it, and I’m sure there’s no sense in building a sub-thread on proper Internet communication.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
I’m just left wondering how we as a Browns community have gotten to a point in discourse that we are discussing the validity of typing "This" as supposed to show agreement with an argument?
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
The argument you started is rather stupid.
SpecialBrownie - January 22, 2012
Didn’t exactly mean it to be an argument. I didn’t think my throwaway “this” comment would be the focus of a response instead of the point about starting a franchise player.
It’s Sunday afternoon. I miss the Browns.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
this.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
including the part that RG3 will not be better than Colt and we should give him the same amount of chances? I don’t seriously think you do believe that part.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
I didn’t think that’s what he was saying. Upon re-reading his comment, the part appears to be worded strangely. If that is what he is trying to say, the I’d disagree, and have to correct my previous statement to: This, 75%.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
I put it in two blockquotes because there was an irrelevant part in the middle about how Colt had the lockout too…but looking at what he was trying to say, this was the “meat” of the sentence.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
Yeah, it’s more clear like that, but like I said, still worded very strangely. I definitely read too quickly the first time over and didn’t catch the last part. It should be worded more like this:
In which case, I disagree strongly.
I still agree on not drafting a player that needs to develop on the bench at 4th overall (and especially not #2 and #22).
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
It is worded strangely.
I don’t care a ton of he starts the season on the bench, but that’s me personally. I would actually be seriously upset though if RG3 was clearly outperforming and outplaying Colt in TC/Preseason and they still gave the job to Colt.
I don’t want a controversy, but I don’t want a competition. Give the job to the player who earns it.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
Yeah, sorry it came out funny. I did not intend for it to sound like RGIII was going to be worse only that in year 1 the results may not be much different, IMO. I certainly hope they are not the same for a guy you drafted #4.
SBP - January 23, 2012
I was not saying he was not going to be worse. I apologize you took it that way. My point was from learning the system they will have had the same amount of time. The results in year 1 may not be much different, IMO, but year 2+ should have greater results knowing his ability is supposedly higher than Colt.
To clarify, I am actually in the camp that if RGII and Blackmon are there we take Blackmon, but I don’t have an issue with the RGII pick as long as they pick a direction and stick to it. Consistency wins in this league and if they think that RGII will be the guy for the next 7-10 years then great take him.
SBP - January 23, 2012
I do disagree with you there. I would be very happy with either RG3 or Blackmon, but I’d rather have RG3, just because of how much more important the QB position is.
Simmsinns - January 23, 2012
I totally agree with this. I am not as hot on the trading up for RG3 as others who are more in that camp, but I really believe in the need for a franchise QB.
bross09 - January 23, 2012
I think RGII, or Jr. as most would say, is too old. RGIII is a much more appropriate age for the NFL.
Doc's Kid - January 23, 2012
Ha. That’s funny, I left it out twice.
Can RGII play linebacker or DE?
SBP - January 24, 2012
Sorry 3 times!
SBP - January 24, 2012
LIOIII?
JustBob - January 24, 2012
no you don’t. Why? Because the fans are impatient? screw the impatient fans.
It’s not going to create a controversy. Everyone will know RG3 will start, but the question is when. If anything, it at least creates a scenario where there is a fire under the ass of Colt.
Cleveland has gone ape over a bunch of completely moronic things…why should that stop the FO.
Colt sat at first…but it doesn’t make sense to give just as many chances to a guy picked 4th overall as a 3rd rounder.
nope.avi
bross09 - January 22, 2012
I would agree, screw the impatient fans. How about an impatient FO that has to hear from impatient fans? Or an impatient media base that puts pressure on the owner?
Cleveland does not need a QB controversy of any kind. I disagree with your take on “everyone will know he will start” I don’t want a QB that needs a fire lit under him.
If they take RGIII he will have more time then Colt to learn the system.
If you don’t think we will get the same results and it will be better then Colt why are you sitting him on the bench “learning?”
SBP - January 23, 2012
I don’t want a QB that needs a fire lit, but we don’t know if Colt does need that or he will turn it around next year. All of that is pure speculation though and not the thing I would use to rule out RG3. If RG3 is drafted in the first, you have to be pretty brain dead to not realize he has become the heir apparent as the QBOTF in Cleveland…unless you are speculating that they drafted him to trade him (which sounds a little brain dead too imo).
honestly, as he should.
bross09 - January 23, 2012
if you think that Colt has the opportunity to turn it around next year then the speculation of drafting QB is moot in my opinion. Agree that if they draft a QB in the first round they are the heir apparent. If you draft a QB #4 overall then you think he is good enough to be.
Anyone deserved more time than Colt did to learn the system. That was the nature of the league last year, we lived with it.
SBP - January 24, 2012
bross09 - January 24, 2012
Well because while he has superior physical skills and at least, if not more, all the intangibles of Colt, he has to learn all the terminology and intricacies of a pro offense, let alone a proclaimed complicated WCO offense. It goes back to the ceiling thing. If you think Colt’s ceiling is low and RG3’s is high then you do it, otherwise either just go with Colt or go with RG3. I’m just glad I don’t have to make those decisions.
HenryDawg - January 21, 2012
If the WCO is that difficult then why are people writing McCoy off after he had 2 weeks to learn it? I mean do you see where those of us who think McCoy is getting a bit of a raw deal have an issue with people saying RG3 will need time to learn the WCO?
Justin Kowalczyk - January 21, 2012
he had a full season to show if he could comprehend it and look better than completely confused. He showed promise for a couple games against poor Ds, but then regressed.
and how many people here advocating taking RG3 are also advocating for us to kick Colt to the curb? everyone wants him around and I can think of quite a few people (including myself, Dorn, and others) who wouldn’t mind seeing Colt get a crack next year with a full offseason.
This “Us vs. Them” stuff is bullshit. It’s not like people who want us to get RG3 don’t like Colt.
You though are one of the few people who doesn’t seem to like much about RG3 and somehow thinks Colt is still the guy. Personally, I think it’s puzzling.
bross09 - January 21, 2012
If you take a player 4th overall AND trade another first round pick for him then pretending to give Colt a legitimate shot at the job is about the same as the shot Mangini had to keep his job here. Its all a facade.
And I notice you ignored the fact that McCoy had exactly 2 weeks of offseason activities to learn the WCO. Not only is that not enough to learn any offense, its worse when you factor in that the WCO relies almost entirely on timing with the WR and precise routes/throws. We lacked all of the above and you cant tell me the shortened offseason didnt directly relate to that.
Justin Kowalczyk - January 22, 2012
Not at all. the Chargers did the EXACT same thing, except with a QB who was slightly older and had a couple more starts. The fact is, it’s a legitimate shot and certainly has been done before.
Colt just would need to prove himself…but you can say that about a lot of players.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
But he would be expected to prove himself with the same dismal supporting cast. If the team goes out and gets a Bowe or a Johnson or even Desean id be ok with just sending him out there. But bringing in RG3 and giving up both first rounders and potentially our second rounder without adding a playmaker is setting Colt up to fail yet again.
Justin Kowalczyk - January 22, 2012
did you forget that there is free agency and we have picks after the first? You seriously believe they will get him no help at RB/WR/OL?
no one here has suggested throwing in a 2nd rounder and many people who would be for the two 1st rounders would be against it. But go ahead, just make shit up that they will give up a 2nd rounder in this hypothetical so you can whine some more about Colt not having a supporting cast.
bross09 - January 22, 2012
Adding pieces would help him, but his success or failure will mostly depend on his physical skills combined with work ethic and intelligence. If you have both, you’ll usually do OK. Most of the busts in the NFL are because the player was missing one or the other. The supporting cast sort of just determines whether you’re a playoff team or a super bowl team. Those are usually things that are added and removed as the seasons progress. You usually can’t get it all in one shot.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
I absolutely hate it when people bring up the 2 weeks of offseason crap. Okay, so he had 2 weeks of offseason, which could explain why he wasn’t very good the first few games. So, why was he still bad through the rest of the year?
RyanBr - January 22, 2012
You do realize that the offseason is spent introducing the terminology right? You dont add more to the playbook during the course of game prep during the season. And again TIMING IS EVERYTHING in the WCO. You develop that through reps and reps and reps. Unfortunately we flipped our WR corps around like crazy, the one player he had good timing with in the preseason (Moore) couldnt get into a game and things were in the crapper.
Justin Kowalczyk - January 22, 2012
This reminds me (slightly OT) of an interview I saw on NFLN with Ben Watson where they brought up “Camp Colt” and he just laughed and said “that’s what you guys call it, we don’t” which sort leads me to think Colt really doesn’t have the type of respect from his team that you would like. I’m sure they respect his toughness, but I don’t think they see him as a leader.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
If he’s worth #2 and #22, I’d hope he can manage to do that in training camp and preseason. I’ve heard one of the best things about RG3, that sets him apart from some busts in the past, was his smarts. That’s definitely one of the reasons I want him in a Browns uniform, but I also think he’s worth starting (which I though was an obvious expectation of a 4th overall pick, but apparently not).
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
So what’s the difference between 2 and 4 where he’s a perfect fit at 4 but you’d hate him at 2?
I assume the answer is #22. Isn’t hitting with the picks you have worth infinitely more than simply having X+1 number of picks? If RG3 is great—you don’t seem to argue against the possibility, and more importantly if the FO agrees—I don’t understand the unwillingness to sacrifice a pick to get the RIGHT person.
I’ll put it this way. If the front office feels like we need a QB, and that a QB is important to a team’s success (the latter part they’ve said several times), and they decide RG3 is what they’re looking for, I would not forgive them for letting him go if it only took one pick to make sure they got him.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
There’s a quality vs. quantity argument here. When Heckert acquired #22, he didn’t acquire a player. He acquired a pick. To do with whatever he wants to ensure he walks away with quality players, not a certain number of them.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
We’ve been over this about 7 or 8 times. I think given the current circumstances (which are bound to change in the weeks to come), the better option is to draft RG3 at 4. Or take Blackmon, or trade down if it’s Kalil. I consider all three of those options of higher quality than trading up and losing #22.
It was nothing to do with a raw number of picks. I assume Heckert is a good enough GM to use #22 on a good, probably much needed, player.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
We will probably wear out our CTRL+V by April.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
I don’t think they’ll take Blackmon, if they didn’t like Jones at 6. Not sure if Blackmon is that much better, but they probably also thought Robiskies are real.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
Heckert drafted Jeremy Maclin in the first round. I think they’ll draft Blackmon if he’s on the board and RG3 is not.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
Heckert also had a QB when he did this.
Bernie19Kosar - January 22, 2012
I think we’ll draft RG3, but in the above scenario I specifically mentioned if he’s off the board.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
I understand, but I just think this FO places an importance on the QB.
Bernie19Kosar - January 22, 2012
this.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
I see what you did there.
nickjs21 - January 22, 2012
But I really meant it
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
I with you Pokorny. I’d wouldn’t mind taking RG3 in the draft, but I really don’t want to give anything up to get him. I am not completely sold on the idea that he is worth trading away other valuable picks to move up and get him.
As I have said in other threads, I think the reason why teams like the Patriots have had years of great drafts is their willingness to trade down and gather more picks, and their tendency to almost never trade up. Then again, the Patriots have had their man at QB, and had the luxury to never have to chase an untested player.
I feel pretty ambivalent about the upcoming draft. I just want us to get the BPA without giving up to much, or anything really.
BiggieBrown - January 21, 2012
To be fair even when Brady went down the Patriots won games and had prolific passing numbers from a guy who hadnt started since HS. They won 11 games. Was there a dropoff from Bradys career year and Matt? Yes but Cassell played well in the system.
Justin Kowalczyk - January 21, 2012
I wasn’t really talking about Brady specifically, I was more focused on their draft strategy. Maybe Cassel’s ability to thrive in the system shows how accumulating as many good to great players in the draft as possible allows for the whole team to succeed year after year.
I am not a huge Brady fan, I just like the way the Patriots draft. Other good examples in the last few years would also include the 49ers and the Ravens. If my memory serves, both of teams go for the BPA and rarely trade up.
BiggieBrown - January 21, 2012
actually, bringing up the Pats is a good point in favor of an elite QB. Outside of Donte Stallworth , pretty much the same pieces were together on offense going into the season. That’s a difference of 5 wins and much of it can be attributed to replacing Brady with a QB who only performed a bit above average.
Cassell has shown to be a very middle of the road QB. That team still didn’t make the playoffs, won 5 less games, and dropped from the best passing offense to 13th, and went back to top 5 the next year.
bross09 - January 21, 2012
Actually the Patriots have had some pretty junk drafts as of late. Outside of Mayo, Gronk and Hernandez they have picked some stinkers since ’06.
Doesn’t matter if you have 100 picks if they are all Chad Jackson.
Bernie19Kosar - January 21, 2012
Gronk and Hernandez worked out pretty well though.
BiggieBrown - January 21, 2012
Rubin and Jackson worked out great for Phil Savage, but he got fired.
notthatnoise - January 21, 2012
There are two schools of thought here. One is because its a “quarterback driven league” (a saying I do not like) we must fire all or some of our draft picks to land a “franchise quarterback” or do whatever is necessary to get one by trade, free agency etc. The other is to build a strong supporting cast around a game managing quarterback and allow the “team” to win games. Both methods have been proven successful as manifested in this years playoffs. I am not a proponent of the “franchise quarterback” method. Mainly because there are very few individuals who can meet all the qualifications such as talent, poise, confidence. leadership, intelligence, competitiveness, moxy and swagger required to be the one. However, if a supposed one falls into your lap you take him. It’s a crap shoot, I know, but I don’t gamble.
ol skol dawg - January 22, 2012
My school of thought is you build a strong supporting cast around a franchise QB.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
This is obvious, but that’s best done with #22 and #37 in tact.
Simmsinns - January 22, 2012
There will be more drafts, even if you trade 22 or 37, you still have a full draft next year, plus FA, etc. etc. It’s not like we’re going to the SB next year so I’m not going to covet a 22 or 37 over the chance to get a potential franchise QB. Neither of those picks will be as important.
HenryDawg - January 22, 2012
Too many negative waves, man.
JustBob - January 22, 2012
One method has proven to be more successful though.
notthatnoise - January 22, 2012
Now way would I ever want Jim Tressel coaching the Brownies. He’s never coached the pros, and quite frankly, I don’t like Ohio State.
24rubikscube - January 21, 2012
Im not sure at all if he’s an ‘NFL’ coach. He seems like a college coach all the way…and he never really sold me on his play calling ability.
jonnyphoenix - January 22, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.