Any QB Will Do

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Rivers played in a AFCCG on a torn ACL.
Isn't it ironic that the closest the Chargers ever got to the SB with Rivers was in his worst statistical year? Sort of refutes the idea that a team has to take a QB before all else. An 82.4 rating from Rivers that year suggests that all those other all-pro's were carrying him more than he was carrying them. In fact, didn't the Chargers do exactly what some of us are suggesting the Browns do? They took the stud RB before they had their franchise QB.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,117
Reaction score
11,949
Location
Las Vegas, NV
But the argument is that you pass on everyone else and have to take a QB. Larry disproves that. Even without decent QB play for much of his career, he's so good that AZ has been able to compete and win games.

We only made the playoffs 4 years out of Larry's 14. Aaron Rodgers has made 8 playoffs out of 13 years. The QB is more important, as much as I like Larry.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,967
Reaction score
35,869
Location
Colorado
But the argument is that you pass on everyone else and have to take a QB. Larry disproves that. Even without decent QB play for much of his career, he's so good that AZ has been able to compete and win games.
That is false...we have not been competitive without Warner or Palmer(playing at a high level) as our QB.
 

Southpaw

Provocateur aka Wallyburger
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
39,818
Reaction score
3,410
Location
The urban swamp
You also don't pass up a potential generational talent at RB when none of the QBs in the draft is without significant flaws. None of these guys is Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck as a prospect.

That is false...we have not been competitive without Warner or Palmer(playing at a high level) as our QB.

RBs do not take teams to SBs.

Think of the high 1st round running backs who have even played in a SB. Not many if any. I realize the Browns have a long way to go to be even respectable. A QB will mean much more to them than a RB. RBs have a short shelf life. RBs can be had much cheaper and lower in the draft.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
No one is saying that QB isn't the most important position. That isn't the argument. It's that you HAVE to take a QB in the draft regardless of who else is there and regardless of the QB's available.
 

Southpaw

Provocateur aka Wallyburger
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
39,818
Reaction score
3,410
Location
The urban swamp
No one is saying that QB isn't the most important position. That isn't the argument. It's that you HAVE to take a QB in the draft regardless of who else is there and regardless of the QB's available.
But would you take a shot at one of these QBs over your current roster depth chart? I believe John Dorsey was brought in to find a QB.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,117
Reaction score
11,949
Location
Las Vegas, NV
No one is saying that QB isn't the most important position. That isn't the argument. It's that you HAVE to take a QB in the draft regardless of who else is there and regardless of the QB's available.
I think we all get that, but the counter-argument is that the team needs to put in the work to select the best of the available QBs while they have their own pick, instead of letting other teams make the choice for them.

If they skip on Darnold for Barkley, and Darnold lights it up for the next 15 years, while (let's just say Baker Mayfield) & Saquon Barkley never gets them past 10 wins, it will be the Browns fault for letting someone else make their decision.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
But would you take a shot at one of these QBs over your current roster depth chart? I believe John Dorsey was brought in to find a QB.
I already said what I think Cleveland should do. It just depends on how they grade the QB's. My suggestion is based on there not being a QB that really separates himself from the others so waiting until the fourth pick isn't that risky. If they think Josh Allen is a special talent that they can build their franchise around, then I could see why they'd not risk it and take him #1 overall. But I don't think that's the situation this year. Take Barkley and have a pretty good looking set of skill players than a good, not needing to be great, QB can come in and succeed with.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
I think we all get that, but the counter-argument is that the team needs to put in the work to select the best of the available QBs while they have their own pick, instead of letting other teams make the choice for them.

If they skip on Darnold for Barkley, and Darnold lights it up for the next 15 years, while (let's just say Baker Mayfield) & Saquon Barkley never gets them past 10 wins, it will be the Browns fault for letting someone else make their decision.
I don't agree with that wording. If they grade Darnold poorly that's a separate issue from draft strategy. If they grade Darnold really high but risk losing him, then yes, they deserve criticism. But if they feel Darnold/Rosen/Allen/Mayfield etc. are all fairly equitable, then I don't think it's a poor strategy at all to take the guy who is graded significantly higher at his position than others.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,117
Reaction score
11,949
Location
Las Vegas, NV
I don't agree with that wording. If they grade Darnold poorly that's a separate issue from draft strategy. If they grade Darnold really high but risk losing him, then yes, they deserve criticism. But if they feel Darnold/Rosen/Allen/Mayfield etc. are all fairly equitable, then I don't think it's a poor strategy at all to take the guy who is graded significantly higher at his position than others.
If they can't pick a guy from those four that they think is going to be a franchise guy given two months to do so, then they deserve to be failures. You can't be at #1 with a desperate QB need and just call them all equitable. You have to analyze your roster, offense, and the tape, all along with interviews, to determine a guy.

It's not like we're talking about a QB year where all of the guys are kind of crappy and saying the Browns should reach just to fill the spot, it's four guys who legitimately could be the #1 QB and no one would be too angry about. But you have to call your shot. Statistically, at least half of these guys are going to bust. They need to pick the right one after doing their research.
 

WildBB

Yogi n da Bear
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
14,295
Reaction score
1,239
Location
The Sonoran Jungle - West
No one is saying that QB isn't the most important position. That isn't the argument. It's that you HAVE to take a QB in the draft regardless of who else is there and regardless of the QB's available.
Yeah, I don't see a #1 pick QB in this draft.

Closest is Darnold, but with Tendinitis you're taking a bigger risk.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
If they can't pick a guy from those four that they think is going to be a franchise guy given two months to do so, then they deserve to be failures. You can't be at #1 with a desperate QB need and just call them all equitable. You have to analyze your roster, offense, and the tape, all along with interviews, to determine a guy.

It's not like we're talking about a QB year where all of the guys are kind of crappy and saying the Browns should reach just to fill the spot, it's four guys who legitimately could be the #1 QB and no one would be too angry about. But you have to call your shot. Statistically, at least half of these guys are going to bust. They need to pick the right one after doing their research.
I think it's somewhere between crappy and obvious #1. There isn't a Carson Palmer sitting there with Leftwich, Boller and Grossman as alternatives. When it's Carr, Harrington and Ramsey as your choices, do you take the guy that has a slight edge because QB is most important or do you take an obvious stud at another position?

Because I'm not particularly sure that McCarron and two studs isn't the best way to go. I know I'd seriously consider it, especially if they're that high on McCarron. If they grade him out higher than any of these college guys, why not take him at QB?
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Yeah, I don't see a #1 pick QB in this draft.

Closest is Darnold, but with Tendinitis you're taking a bigger risk.
I was blown away by Darnold two years ago and USC is my local college team so I was right there with everyone else who thought that he had that special "it" factor that can't be defined. But last year he really came back to Earth and it seems to me that he will face more struggles than initially thought when he burst onto the scene. He'll be solid to good but I don't see a guy that's going to carry a franchise.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
16,782
Reaction score
13,457
Location
Modesto, California
I think it's somewhere between crappy and obvious #1. There isn't a Carson Palmer sitting there with Leftwich, Boller and Grossman as alternatives. When it's Carr, Harrington and Ramsey as your choices, do you take the guy that has a slight edge because QB is most important or do you take an obvious stud at another position?

Because I'm not particularly sure that McCarron and two studs isn't the best way to go. I know I'd seriously consider it, especially if they're that high on McCarron. If they grade him out higher than any of these college guys, why not take him at QB?

I agree. Personally I dont like AJ...didnt in college and still dont. But the Browns seem to like him. If they feel he can be the guy and he already has NFL experience then why not grab Barkley and an olineman? Or Barkley and Vita Vea?... Joe Thomas is 33 and has already considered retiring...not sure if they have a replacement LT on the roster yet but there are a couple guys this year.... but even interior...Quentin Nelson at 4 wouldnt be a poor pick... high for a guard, but he can be opening holes for Barkley for the next ten years
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
810
Location
Bakersfield, CA
I agree. Personally I dont like AJ...didnt in college and still dont. But the Browns seem to like him. If they feel he can be the guy and he already has NFL experience then why not grab Barkley and an olineman? Or Barkley and Vita Vea?... Joe Thomas is 33 and has already considered retiring...not sure if they have a replacement LT on the roster yet but there are a couple guys this year.... but even interior...Quentin Nelson at 4 wouldnt be a poor pick... high for a guard, but he can be opening holes for Barkley for the next ten years
At 33, Thomas could have another 5 years left in him physically and I'm sure the Factory of Sadness has him contemplating retirement more than losing his ability. If the Browns turn things around and start winning, I bet his thoughts of retirement quickly fade.
 

WisconsinCard

Herfin BIg Time
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Posts
15,501
Reaction score
6,665
Location
In A Cigar Bar Near You
If they skip on Darnold for Barkley, and Darnold lights it up for the next 15 years, while (let's just say Baker Mayfield) & Saquon Barkley never gets them past 10 wins, it will be the Browns fault for letting someone else make their decision.

Maybe, but just because player "A" is doing well for team "A" doesn't mean he would have done well with team "B". If they identified Baker Mayfield as their top choice do you take him at 1, and risk loosing Barkley? If the goal is both of them then which one do you take first and hope your second one is there at #4?
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,967
Reaction score
35,869
Location
Colorado
I think it's somewhere between crappy and obvious #1. There isn't a Carson Palmer sitting there with Leftwich, Boller and Grossman as alternatives. When it's Carr, Harrington and Ramsey as your choices, do you take the guy that has a slight edge because QB is most important or do you take an obvious stud at another position?

Because I'm not particularly sure that McCarron and two studs isn't the best way to go. I know I'd seriously consider it, especially if they're that high on McCarron. If they grade him out higher than any of these college guys, why not take him at QB?

Yes, you have hit on a very good point. If the Browns are stupid, they will not be able to separate the QBs in this class and will grade out AJ McCarron as better player. That is 100% something a bad franchise would do.

A smart franchise would have 1st round grades on several of these QBs. They would use their first pick to ensure they selected the future 15 year leader of their franchise out of that group instead of a RB who they will be lucky to get 8 years out of. They would be able to determine which QB they were the most comfortable to build their franchise around and who could best execute their offense.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,117
Reaction score
11,949
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Maybe, but just because player "A" is doing well for team "A" doesn't mean he would have done well with team "B". If they identified Baker Mayfield as their top choice do you take him at 1, and risk loosing Barkley? If the goal is both of them then which one do you take first and hope your second one is there at #4?
If the goal is both of them, I offer the Giants a pick or two to move up to #2.
 

CardNots

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Posts
4,003
Reaction score
3,613
Location
Jenks, Oklahoma
Barry Sanders - no Super Bowl
Tom Brady - lots of Super Bowls
Ben Roethlisberger - Super Bowl win
Le'Veon Bell - no Super Bowl
Eli Manning - Super Bowl
Adrian Peterson - no Super Bowl
Ladainian Tomlinson - no Super BOwl

Walter Peyton - no Super Bowl?
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,967
Reaction score
35,869
Location
Colorado
If the goal is both of them, I offer the Giants a pick or two to move up to #2.
This is a really good point. If they are so enamored with Barkley, it makes more sense to give up picks to move up to #2 to get him along with their QB.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,117
Reaction score
11,949
Location
Las Vegas, NV
This is a really good point. If they are so enamored with Barkley, it makes more sense to give up picks to move up to #2 to get him along with their QB.
Yeah, you're essentially saying, "Hi Giants, sorry, you're not getting Barkley/Darnold (you're going to have to bluff on who you think they want, if it's one of those two guys). But we have our eyes on a QB. We'll give you a 3rd round pick to slide back two spots and take Rosen instead of trading the pick off to a team."

Of course, if the Giants are dead set on not trading their pick and know they want either Barkley or Darnold themselves, well, you're out of luck. And if the Giants like a guy that the Colts could stand to pick, it might not be palatable.
 
Top