Thread: The 2018 NFL Discussion Thread

  1. #51
    Geriatric Anomaly progeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    8,914
    ^^^^ Completely agree objectively, but I'm still smiling.
    "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"

    President Harry S. Truman

  2. #52
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    3,698
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    It was way too soon to give up on Kizer. All of the physical attributes that made him attractive as a QB are still there. You can't judge a QB by his rookie season at all, if there are positive characteristics that led you to see him as a possible franchise QB in the first place. If you could/should, the Colts would have given up on Peyton Manning, the Cowboys on Aikman, etc etc ad infinitum.
    Jared Goff.....


    So, you're not excited about Tyrod Taylor?
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  3. #53
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Bails View Post

    So, you're not excited about Tyrod Taylor?
    He's a bridge guy, and should be better than A.J. McCarron, who we all thought we'd end up with as our bridge guy. On the other hand, we wouldn't have had to give up any picks for A.J.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    It was way too soon to give up on Kizer. All of the physical attributes that made him attractive as a QB are still there. You can't judge a QB by his rookie season at all, if there are positive characteristics that led you to see him as a possible franchise QB in the first place. If you could/should, the Colts would have given up on Peyton Manning, the Cowboys on Aikman, etc etc ad infinitum.

    It's all down to the overarching importance of the QB position.
    Not really the same thing. Peyton Manning made a lot of plays his rookie season (and many mistakes). Kizer didn't make plays. Kizer did virtually nothing to prove that he belonged on an NFL field, much less starting.

    I don't know anything about the Browns' clubhouse, but perhaps Kizer was sent away because there was an issue between him and the coaching personnel. Or, perhaps the coaches thought that having a capable backup who knows he's going to be a backup is a better situation for a a top rookie QB to be in who is supposed to be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years. No matter how awful Kizer was after his first season, he has every right to believe in himself as being a starter in the league someday (a rosy outlook a second terrible season would likely extinguish among NFL execs, but we're not there yet). If you are about to give the keys to a new guy, you don't want Kizer hanging around. He can't develop without the reps, and he won't be getting them. But if he doesn't get them, then he doesn't even have much value as a backup, considering how little he showed last year. Good move by the Browns in switching Kizer for Taylor.

  5. #55
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    If I'm the Browns owner, I don't pay my GM to take the temperature of the pundits and see if there's a consensus. I pay him to apply his expertise, watch the film, interview and work out the candidates, and select me the best one. If he can't do it, I'll get someone who will.

    Imo, there are 2 quarterbacks who have a clear advantage in upside, so I'm going to take one of those two guys. I don't think either will be there at 4. Furthermore, I think there are 4 stud running backs in this draft, and one of them will be there at 33 or 35.

    If they let other teams decide who their franchise quarterback is going to be, then the new management is as crap as the old management, and needs to be fired. Especially after trading your other option at quarterback (Kizer) away tonight.

    Edit: I haven't decided between the 2 quarterbacks I favor. However, I don't have the access that the Browns GM has. No excuse for him not to figure it out. If he's good.
    It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. In one breath, you're marginalizing the clear consensus that Barkley has over other HBs AND the majority of the entire draft class because you don't want to "listen to pundits", then in the next breath you're agreeing with these same pundits in regards to QB evaluation. You can't have one without the other. Barkley, Darnold, Rosen, and Chubb are pretty much consensus top 5 picks in the draft.

    Accept it or not, this move signals that they are willing to take Barkley number 1 as they just upgraded their QB. It also signals they may still very likely take a QB at 4 that they don't have to play in 2018 (with the ship off of Kizer).

    And if you check out initial fan reaction, there is growing anticipation for Barkley at #1.

    And like I said at the beginning of this thread, at the WORST CASE scenario, they get the 3rd QB in a lauded draft class. In the most likely scenario, they get the 2nd QB. And since your mixed on "pundits" and their points of view, it's a waste of time to point out that the Colts are super high on Chubb. As high as they are on Chubb, they would consider Barkley if he fell to 3rd.

    Lastly, don't confuse my confrontational style with disliking the Browns. I grew up 90 minutes away from Cleveland in a state where everyone is a Steelers fan, so the Browns and Bills have always been my "hometown teams" for me. So I watch what they do.
    Last edited by Poisoned Youth; 03-10-2018 at 06:59 AM.
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

  6. #56
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    It was way too soon to give up on Kizer. All of the physical attributes that made him attractive as a QB are still there. You can't judge a QB by his rookie season at all, if there are positive characteristics that led you to see him as a possible franchise QB in the first place. If you could/should, the Colts would have given up on Peyton Manning, the Cowboys on Aikman, etc etc ad infinitum.

    It's all down to the overarching importance of the QB position.
    I'm trying to get a sense of where you actually are on this because I feel your statements go in different directions. If you feel that they new Browns FO knows what they are doing, why don't you trust their decision on Kizer and bringing in Taylor/Randall?

    And surely you aren't comparing Kizer with two #1 overall pick, Hall of Fame QBs to make your point are you? Kizer was passed up by a lot of teams and is not comparable to guys in that class. The best QB arguably to come out of the 2017 draft was Deshaun Watson WHO THE TEXANS TOOK USING THE BROWNS' PICK. And this is AFTER passing on Carson Wentz and drafting guys like Johnny football.

    I mean you can't more SMH than this my friend. But all that said, there is light at the end of the tunnel. They can get the top RB and a top 2 or 3 QB (which would be fitting as the #4 pick is from the Texans).

    Here is a decent article on the subject from last season. Of course, it's another "pundit" homer saying that 2018 is a rich QB class. Pffft...

    http://www.cleveland.com/browns/inde..._carson_w.html
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

  7. #57
    PE Member Since 4/9/2002 NeonKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    West Milford NJ
    Posts
    171
    I haven't seen much of Kizer, but it sure seems like he proved something to Green Bay.
    “Where words fail, music speaks.” - Hans Christian Anderson

  8. #58
    Geriatric Anomaly progeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    8,914
    Quote Originally Posted by NeonKnight View Post
    I haven't seen much of Kizer, but it sure seems like he proved something to Green Bay.
    He didn't have to prove much to a team without a real NFL backup QB last year.
    "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"

    President Harry S. Truman

  9. #59
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    Not really the same thing. Peyton Manning made a lot of plays his rookie season (and many mistakes). Kizer didn't make plays. Kizer did virtually nothing to prove that he belonged on an NFL field, much less starting.
    This just isn't true. While Kizer's play overall was not good, he certainly showed flashes. The last game, he threw for over 300 yards, and was leading the team on a winning touchdown drive, when his receiver dropped an easy first down catch on 4th down. He was saddled with poor receivers who had numerous drops, and a head coach who panicked and handled him terribly. He's 6'5" tall, mobile, athletic, durable, and with a cannon arm. All things that can't be taught. You don't just discard that. I watched every Browns game, missing only a half, I think, and was in a better position than you to evaluate that.

    I don't know anything about the Browns' clubhouse, but perhaps Kizer was sent away because there was an issue between him and the coaching personnel. Or, perhaps the coaches thought that having a capable backup who knows he's going to be a backup is a better situation for a a top rookie QB to be in who is supposed to be the face of the franchise for the next 10 years. No matter how awful Kizer was after his first season, he has every right to believe in himself as being a starter in the league someday (a rosy outlook a second terrible season would likely extinguish among NFL execs, but we're not there yet). If you are about to give the keys to a new guy, you don't want Kizer hanging around. He can't develop without the reps, and he won't be getting them. But if he doesn't get them, then he doesn't even have much value as a backup, considering how little he showed last year.
    The issue between him and the coach was that the coach was deathly afraid of getting fired, and jerked Kizer around in failed attempts to get that elusive win. Everyone believes that it would have been better to redshirt Kizer for 2017, but Sashi cut Josh McCown as part of their brilliant purge of veterans, leaving Hue with few options. Tag, you're it, Kizer. The part of your post that I bolded is probably a good portion of the reason why this trade was made, but it's short sighted. They could have sat Kizer along with their redshirt 1st round pick this year, and developed them simultaneously. Everyone agreed he came in raw, sitting and learning would have helped, not hurt him. With injuries being what they are, and the lack of guarantee that this year's pick will succeed, keeping Kizer would have given them another card (hopefully an ace) to play if the need arose in future years. If not, they could have traded him near the end of his rookie deal, although his value would not have increased on the trade market if he was just sitting. Keeping him would have given them flexibility at the most important position in sports. The other big part of the reason the trade was made, is Dorsey's (correct) view that you can't have too many cornerbacks. It's a position the Browns are especially thin at. As I evaluate them, they only have one keeper at corner (before this trade) and he's an inside guy. A slot corner. They weren't willing to part with any of their high picks, and Kizer was one of the few movable assets they had, so he's gone. That's probably the biggest reason he was included in this trade.

    Good move by the Browns in switching Kizer for Taylor.
    A false choice. One didn't require the other. They could have kept Kizer and still started Taylor. The quarterback room would have been Taylor, Kizer and the new guy. Hogan and Kessler would be jettisoned.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  10. #60
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth View Post
    It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. In one breath, you're marginalizing the clear consensus that Barkley has over other HBs AND the majority of the entire draft class because you don't want to "listen to pundits", then in the next breath you're agreeing with these same pundits in regards to QB evaluation. You can't have one without the other. Barkley, Darnold, Rosen, and Chubb are pretty much consensus top 5 picks in the draft.
    ??? I've reread what I wrote several times, and I'm not seeing this. I make my own evaluations, although I'm limited by limited access. I haven't come to any conclusions based on the pundits. At best, they collate a list of names to check out and draw my own conclusions on. I didn't go with the chalk last year, either:

    http://brownsdraft.blogspot.com/

    Secondly, the pundits have the top 2 quarterbacks as Barkley and Rosen. I'm choosing between Barkley and Allen. How is that pundit driven? As for Barkley and the pundits, 2 things. Barkley should be a top running back in his career, but he's a running. back. You don't value a running back over a quarterback. Ever. Second, let's say Barkley averages 200 yards and 3 touchdowns per season more than Sony Michel. Is that worth the difference between the first overall pick and the 33rd? Seriously? The pundits are on Barkley because he's the shiny object. He's a big play back who is capable of scoring on any given play. But what about game in, game out? Did you know that Barkley led the nation in number of carries for no gain or a loss? Of the 13 games in which he played, he ran for over 100 yards 5 times. That's not because Penn St was always behind and had to throw the ball every down. He had 3 games where he averaged less than 3 yards a carry. Yes, his receiving stats augment that nicely, but I believe Michel, Guice and Jones all catch the ball too. Barkley has the physical tools to be a stud at the next level, but this drum beat that he's the best RB since Adrian Peterson is misguided, imo. Plus, did I say he's a running back!

    Accept it or not, this move signals that they are willing to take Barkley number 1 as they just upgraded their QB. It also signals they may still very likely take a QB at 4 that they don't have to play in 2018 (with the ship off of Kizer).
    Yeah, I don't accept it. I think it's a misreading of the tea leaves. It's still early, but if I had to put money down right now, I'd say Dorsey will select Josh Allen number 1 overall.

    And if you check out initial fan reaction, there is growing anticipation for Barkley at #1.
    Ooo there's a sterling rec. Some of the jobs I work on allow me to listen to sports talk radio, and I can say without hesitation that on balance, Cleveland sports fans are idiots. They sadly don't know much about sports. Thankfully, the number of phone calls these programs take has dropped way off, although I did hear a lot of Barkley advocates call in and argue with Nathan Zegura and Matt Wilhelm, the guys who host the Browns specific show.

    And like I said at the beginning of this thread, at the WORST CASE scenario, they get the 3rd QB in a lauded draft class. In the most likely scenario, they get the 2nd QB. And since your mixed on "pundits" and their points of view, it's a waste of time to point out that the Colts are super high on Chubb. As high as they are on Chubb, they would consider Barkley if he fell to 3rd.
    I don't agree. If the Browns took Barkley at 1, the Giants would run to the podium and pick Darnold, or look to trade out to someone who needs a QB. John Elway reportedly loves Josh Allen, and sees himself in him. Denver would trade up from 5 to 3 to take Allen, and if the Browns drafted one of the remaining quarterbacks at 4, Indy would still get Chubb at 5. Regardless, ending up with the 2nd or 3rd player at the key position, where you haven't had an elite talent since Kosar in the 80s, is just insane. I'll be stunned if Dorsey does that. And I'm not mixed on pundits point of view, although I do think some are better than others. Their views are ultimately irrelevant to me, however.

    Lastly, don't confuse my confrontational style with disliking the Browns. I grew up 90 minutes away from Cleveland in a state where everyone is a Steelers fan, so the Browns and Bills have always been my "hometown teams" for me. So I watch what they do.
    I haven't taken anything that way at all, so no problems. And even if you did dislike the Browns, it wouldn't invalidate your opinion on that basis. You're just wrong on strategy and evaluation.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  11. #61
    Going to Green Bay to back up and learn from Rodgers is a great spot for Kizer under the circumstances. I was one who thought he needed another year of seasoning as a college starter in a high profile offense at ND anyway, and being thrust in prematurely as a starter at Cleveland was a no win situation.

    He's got all the raw materials to be a decent NFL starter in the right situation. Now he has the chance to develop the way he should have been developed. Hopefully he'll embrace the situation.

    I also think this QB draft class is way overhyped, all of the top choices have major red flags, and it's very possible this will be known as the year of the epic failure QB draft if all these guys actually go that high in the 1st round.
    Last edited by DocProgger; 03-10-2018 at 01:19 PM.

  12. #62
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth View Post
    I'm trying to get a sense of where you actually are on this because I feel your statements go in different directions. If you feel that they new Browns FO knows what they are doing, why don't you trust their decision on Kizer and bringing in Taylor/Randall?
    Because I trust mine more. I can think the FO is doing well and still disagree with the odd decision here and there. And for the record, I'm fine with the Taylor trade. I expect him to be a one year bridge quarterback with the redshirt starting next year. Unless Taylor somehow punches way over his weight, in which case we'll have a nice problem.

    And surely you aren't comparing Kizer with two #1 overall pick, Hall of Fame QBs to make your point are you? Kizer was passed up by a lot of teams and is not comparable to guys in that class. The best QB arguably to come out of the 2017 draft was Deshaun Watson WHO THE TEXANS TOOK USING THE BROWNS' PICK. And this is AFTER passing on Carson Wentz and drafting guys like Johnny football.
    Not sure who you're referring to as HoF #1s. As for Kizer, I'm saying he has a chance to be an elite, franchise quarterback. Still. And he wasn't my choice last year. I wanted Trubisky. I'm going by what I see. As for DeShaun Watson, the sample size is small, but impressive. However, O'Brien tailored the offense to play to Watson's strengths, something Jackson did not do for Kizer. And Watson is slight of build and a lot of his game is out of the pocket. That's not a good combination. It may turn out, that no matter how good he is, he'll be on IR much of the time. There were good reasons to pass on Watson too. So far, he's making them look foolish, but the sample size is small, and so the jury is still out.

    I mean you can't more SMH than this my friend. But all that said, there is light at the end of the tunnel. They can get the top RB and a top 2 or 3 QB (which would be fitting as the #4 pick is from the Texans).

    Here is a decent article on the subject from last season. Of course, it's another "pundit" homer saying that 2018 is a rich QB class. Pffft...

    http://www.cleveland.com/browns/inde..._carson_w.html
    Yeah, I am SMH. No one is going to defend passing on Wentz, but he was pretty unknown outside of the people who had access. I had no opinion on him, I just hadn't seen enough to form that opinion. But it's commonly believed that passing on Wentz and saying that he'd never be a top 20 NFL quarterback is the main reason Sashi Brown is no longer GM.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  13. #63
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by DocProgger View Post
    Going to Green Bay to back up and learn from Rodgers is a great spot for Kizer under the circumstances. I was one who thought he needed another year of seasoning as a college starter in a high profile offense at ND anyway, and being thrust in prematurely as a starter at Cleveland was a no win situation.

    He's got all the raw materials to be a decent NFL starter in the right situation. Now he has the chance to develop the way he should have been developed. Hopefully he'll embrace the situation.
    Agree. I don't think there's any way that this isn't better for Kizer.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post

    They could have kept Kizer and still started Taylor. The quarterback room would have been Taylor, Kizer and the new guy. Hogan and Kessler would be jettisoned.
    I disagree. Kizer was not drafted in a place where he had to be given three years to succeed. He was drafted in a place where a flier was taken on a guy by a team with a QB need, who might or might not have NFL starter ability - much like the Jets did a few years earlier with Geno Smith. He was given some starts and he did not play well. I think it would be foolish to have Kizer on the same team as a QB who will be taken either first or fourth overall, because you cannot take a QB first or fourth, and then expect him to compete for a job with another undeveloped player about the same age. When you draft a QB at the top of a draft, you do so with the intent of giving him *years* at the starting position. You treat him as the heir apparent. You cannot have two heirs apparent. Kizer absolutely had to go, or the Browns needed to know that he had the mindset of someone with no future expectations of significance for himself on the team, and that he would be OK with that. Almost nobody in Kizer's position would be.

    As for your comment above about GM's getting paid to definitely prefer one of these QBs over the other or else they aren't doing their job - that's very likely an ask of Dilbertian absurdity. It's difficult enough to forecast with generality as to what a draftee QB's future in the league will hold. Sometimes several players will cluster together in terms of where scouts see them - be it at the top of the draft or somewhere else. Nevertheless insisting that the minutiae be parsed by a GM and that the players accurately be ranked in terms of ability may simply not be possible. The Browns are in a great place. They need a QB and there are three highly rated QBs in a draft where the Browns hold 2 of the 4 top picks. They might like one a lot more than another. They might not. If they don't, good for the Browns. It means they can use #1 on a pick other than QB, and therefore get more value out of their first round picks. In any event Kizer absolutely had to go. As far as what the Packers see in him, it didn't need to be much. They got to buy low on a 2nd round draft pick with a bad season on his resume but who is still young and has tools that might develop into something. He's behind Rodgers, so he no longer has any delusions about starting games, unless Rodgers was to go down. And if that happens, Kizer goes right back to the bench without a word when Rodgers is healthy. That's a situation where you can have Kizer on a team, if there isn't a plan to start him.
    Last edited by Facelift; 03-10-2018 at 03:11 PM.

  15. #65
    The Browns have traded Danny Shelton and their 5th round pick to the Patriots for a 2019 3rd round pick.

    Here's an excellent analysis of the Browns recent trades (the pre-Shelton trades).

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-jarvis-landry

    The main takeaways that I hadn't considered - 1) given Taylor's strengths, his acquisition greatly increases the chance that Cleveland will take Barkley at #1; and 2) a good chance Cleveland goes the DocProgger route and deals the #4 pick, passing on the QBs and using the pick to find value lower in the draft.
    Last edited by Facelift; 03-10-2018 at 04:02 PM.

  16. #66
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    3,095
    Jarvis Landry to the Browns....

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post

    The main takeaways that I hadn't considered - 1) given Taylor's strengths, his acquisition greatly increases the chance that Cleveland will take Barkley at #1; and 2) a good chance Cleveland goes the DocProgger route and deals the #4 pick, passing on the QBs and using the pick to find value lower in the draft.
    My comment on this QB class wasn't really specific to the Browns situation, just my gut feeling that none of them are 10-12 year franchise QBs in general, and their draft positions are being inflated. Now that the Browns have bailed on Kizer already, they really have to draft one of these top 4-5 QBs. I'd draft the more sure thing, Barkley, first and take the best remaining QB with the next pick. The desperateness some franchises have to get that young stud QB is inflating the draft position of this group to higher levels than they really deserve imo, just like it did with what the Bears did to get Trubisky last year.

  18. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    165
    If I was Cleveland, I'd draft Barkley first and take the top QB left on our board at 4. Worst case scenario is someone (Buffalo) trades up from Indi and you are left with the 3rd Q on your board.

    Unless there is a QB you are sure is a guaranteed franchise one, you take Barkley. Gordon, La dry Coleman, Njoku, Barkley, a decent O-line, and Taylor who doesn't turn over the ball sounds dangerous to me. It also gives your 4th pick QB time to learn.

  19. #69
    cunning linguist 3LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,032
    It's going to suck watching Richard Sherman playing for the 'Niners.

  20. #70
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    I disagree. Kizer was not drafted in a place where he had to be given three years to succeed. He was drafted in a place where a flier was taken on a guy by a team with a QB need, who might or might not have NFL starter ability - much like the Jets did a few years earlier with Geno Smith. He was given some starts and he did not play well. I think it would be foolish to have Kizer on the same team as a QB who will be taken either first or fourth overall, because you cannot take a QB first or fourth, and then expect him to compete for a job with another undeveloped player about the same age. When you draft a QB at the top of a draft, you do so with the intent of giving him *years* at the starting position. You treat him as the heir apparent. You cannot have two heirs apparent. Kizer absolutely had to go, or the Browns needed to know that he had the mindset of someone with no future expectations of significance for himself on the team, and that he would be OK with that. Almost nobody in Kizer's position would be.
    I wouldn't have them compete. Kizer would be my insurance policy, as long as he was on his rookie contract. The Golden Boy would be the heir apparent, and Taylor would be my starter. No conflict, no problem. Kizer was not a flyer. He was drafted by the previous regime (note key phrase) to be the Browns future QB. That guy isn't here anymore. I wasn't in favor of drafting Kizer, because I saw a scenario like this unfolding, meaning that a 2nd round pick was wasted by a team with plenty of needs. The fact that you invested that high of a pick necessitated that that guy would be given every opportunity to grow into what you hoped he could become. As we all know, new regimes don't give a boink about guys put in place by previous regimes. While true, it's a bad strategy from the long view. Btw, if you think Kizer's talent level equates to Geno Smith (I know you didn't say that,) then we have a very different evaluation of Kizer.

    As for your comment above about GM's getting paid to definitely prefer one of these QBs over the other or else they aren't doing their job - that's very likely an ask of Dilbertian absurdity. It's difficult enough to forecast with generality as to what a draftee QB's future in the league will hold. Sometimes several players will cluster together in terms of where scouts see them - be it at the top of the draft or somewhere else. Nevertheless insisting that the minutiae be parsed by a GM and that the players accurately be ranked in terms of ability may simply not be possible. The Browns are in a great place. They need a QB and there are three highly rated QBs in a draft where the Browns hold 2 of the 4 top picks. They might like one a lot more than another. They might not. If they don't, good for the Browns. It means they can use #1 on a pick other than QB, and therefore get more value out of their first round picks. In any event Kizer absolutely had to go.
    Yeah, your so-called Dilbertian absurdity is considered normal operating procedure by the NFL. Each team, in it's draft "war room" will have what they call their "board." It's a ranking of the prospects from 1 to whatever. (I presume 7 rounds worth.) This is then their template for the draft. The GM will compile it in consultation with scouts, assistants, etc, but ultimately it will have his name on it and he will be responsible. He'll get the credit and the blame. The board is precise. It's not a nebulous grouping. This takes place in every team's draft evaluation. I'm shocked that you don't know this, apparently. I'm also shocked that you view these quarterbacks as a homogeneous group. They are quite different. Maybe I should break them down for the thread. Getting one is not going to be the same as getting another. Can their future be determined with absolute certainty? Of course not. There is a certain crap shoot element involved. However, you can evaluate based on probabilities and which risks you're more comfortable with taking. These will never be the same. For this Browns team, using the #1 overall pick on anything other than a QB is madness, and I'm confident Dorsey will not do that. I wouldn't even take Barkley at 4. After I get my quarterback at 1, I'd take Minkah Fitzpatrick at 4, unless Chubb is available. Then I'd have to think about it. But I'm hoping Sam Hubbard falls to the top of the 2nd round, where I could grab him with either 33 or 35, in which case Chubb would be superfluous. Do I want to gamble? Probably. My running back is going to be at either 33 or 35, and right now I'n favoring Michel, though that could change.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  21. #71
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    Jarvis Landry to the Browns....
    You don't think this is a good move? He's a sure handed slot receiver who has excellent route running skills. I wanted him in the draft the year he came out. Josh Gordon will be the No. 1, possibly Terrell Pryor the 2, and Landry in the slot. Have Corey Coleman and Rashard Higgins as backups and all of a sudden your weak receiving corps is looking pretty good. They've got tons of cap space to sign him to a long term deal, so I don't get how this could be a bad move?
    Last edited by moecurlythanu; 03-10-2018 at 09:57 PM.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  22. #72
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    The Browns have traded Danny Shelton and their 5th round pick to the Patriots for a 2019 3rd round pick.
    Not sure I like this either. Shelton was coming around the last couple of years, after a disappointing rookie campaign. He probably fits the 3-4 better than the 4-3, but he was a talented run stopper. A New England 3rd rounder is the same as a Browns 4th rounder, so I'm not sure what they gained here. The Defensive line is the deepest position on the team, but I have to surmise that Dorsey watched the tape and wasn't impressed. Unless another shoe is yet to drop.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  23. #73
    Member Magic Mountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stockton, NJ
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    As for Barkley and the pundits, 2 things. Barkley should be a top running back in his career, but he's a running. back. You don't value a running back over a quarterback. Ever. Second, let's say Barkley averages 200 yards and 3 touchdowns per season more than Sony Michel. Is that worth the difference between the first overall pick and the 33rd? Seriously? The pundits are on Barkley because he's the shiny object. He's a big play back who is capable of scoring on any given play. But what about game in, game out? Did you know that Barkley led the nation in number of carries for no gain or a loss? Of the 13 games in which he played, he ran for over 100 yards 5 times. That's not because Penn St was always behind and had to throw the ball every down. He had 3 games where he averaged less than 3 yards a carry. Yes, his receiving stats augment that nicely, but I believe Michel, Guice and Jones all catch the ball too. Barkley has the physical tools to be a stud at the next level, but this drum beat that he's the best RB since Adrian Peterson is misguided, imo. Plus, did I say he's a running back!
    I am a life long Penn Sate fan and watch or attend all their games. As with all statistics, the devil is in the details. The statistics you state were more the problem with the offensive coaching staff and the poor offensive line. Most of Penn State's runs with Barkley were delayed handoffs/draws out of the shotgun, where if there is penetration by the defense, no running back, no matter how good (remember Barry Sanders had the most carries for loss in NFL history) will fare well. Also, Penn State's offensive line was poor and suffered from the lack of depth. The Ohio State game was a perfect example. The game was lost in the fourth quarter due to the stubborness of the offensive play calling. In the 4th quarter it was clear to everyone watching that on every play Ohio State's defensive line was making Penn State's offensive line their bitch. However, Penn State continued to call that delayed handoff to Barkley, even though the entire Ohio State defensive line was in the backfield, with predictable results.

    What you fail to acknowledge above is that the reason that the experts are drooling over Barkley is not that he is a good running back (which he is) but that he can catch the ball. He is one of the best receivers at running back that I have seen. He will create match-up nightmares for any defense. Who are the best running backs in the league right now: Gurley, Bell, Johnson (before the injury), Elliot, McCoy, Freeman. Everyone I listed except Elliot is a great receiver. As we all know, the NFL is a bunch of followers, and pass catching running backs are the flavor of the day.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  24. #74
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crimea River
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Mountain View Post

    What you fail to acknowledge above is that the reason that the experts are drooling over Barkley is not that he is a good running back (which he is) but that he can catch the ball. He is one of the best receivers at running back that I have seen. He will create match-up nightmares for any defense. Who are the best running backs in the league right now: Gurley, Bell, Johnson (before the injury), Elliot, McCoy, Freeman. Everyone I listed except Elliot is a great receiver. As we all know, the NFL is a bunch of followers, and pass catching running backs are the flavor of the day.
    How did I fail to acknowledge that? I stated that, and said that he's not unique in that among guys in this draft. ???

    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    Yes, his receiving stats augment that nicely, but I believe Michel, Guice and Jones all catch the ball too. Barkley has the physical tools to be a stud at the next level, but this drum beat that he's the best RB since Adrian Peterson is misguided, imo. Plus, did I say he's a running back!)
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    Can't agree with this at all. The Browns "earned" the right to select first based on their monumental suckitude, and in a quarterback driven league, with potential future stars available at the position, the Browns have to take a quarterback No. 1 overall. Even though Kizer could still turn out to be elite. They simply cannot take the chance that they don't get the position solved. There's no guarantee that Barkley will have the best career of all the running backs in this draft, which has several strong prospects at the position. I'd take a QB at 1, the DB from Alabama at 4, and a running back with one of my 2 picks at the top of the 2nd round. Darnold will not be available at 4. Barkley's advantage is that he's a 3 down back, but his production may not be much different than those who will still be available at 33 or 35. Will the Browns trade out? I don't see that happening with 1, and I think 4 is unlikely, but not impossible. More likely is packaging 2 of their 3 2nd round picks to move back into the 1st round. I hope they do not do that.
    "If you want to see the true nature of humanity, just look at the internet."

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  25. #75
    Member Magic Mountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stockton, NJ
    Posts
    147
    Yes you mentioned it, but you downplayed it somewhat. His pass catching ability, and the mismatch he poses for opposing defenses, is probably, other than he is a physical freak of nature, the leading reason that he is coveted so high.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •