(03-12-2018, 02:28 PM)McC Wrote: IMO, the only thing they've done wrong is waste their time on Tyrod.  And it's got nothing to do with my opinion of him per se.  I just hate the whole sit a rookie QB for a year policy.  Why waste a year of his career having him watch and then have him still have to learn by playing but now he's lost a year?

Draft him.  Play him.  Now, in his second year, he knows a lot more of what he's doing.  He's gonna have to sukk either way.  Have him suck as a rookie.  Why on earth does an 0-16 team need a place holder?

(03-12-2018, 04:13 PM)jj22 Wrote: Browns going after Nate Solder depending on if Thomas retires per sources. And one of the teams that can afford Suh.

(03-12-2018, 04:21 PM)Wyche Wrote: WTF do they know.....we got Baker AND won't lose any comp picks.

(03-12-2018, 04:20 PM)Wyche Wrote: It's insurance moreso than that.  If the one you drafts busts, you're in trouble.  Taylor has his limitations, but is far better than anyone under center the last several years for the Browns.

Not all rookies suck out of the gate, and some are raw and need a little polish.  Some guys you put in too early, they turn the ball over too much or get themselves hurt and it diminishes their confidence.  I would ease the rookie in during garbage time, then let him take over down the stretch, unless your vet is lighting it up.  Then you have a good problem to have.

(03-12-2018, 04:42 PM)McC Wrote: But it's an 0-16 team.  And if you don't play the rookie, you're just delaying the process of finding out what you have.  You're making him a rookie in his second year.  You find out if he's a bust a year later.  And what if Taylor does play well?  Now you have a QB controversy.

Anyway, I have full confidence in Hue's ability to screw it up.

(03-12-2018, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: it is easy for fans to think likemthis, but it is sometimes difficult to tell the rest of the team of players that they have to give 100% and risk permanent serious injury in a game they know they have no chance of winning because of the QB.

Basketball and baseball players can more easily accept "tanking" because they are not risking brain damage or paralysis every time they play a game.

(03-12-2018, 09:49 PM)TSwigZ Wrote: At this point

Dalton>Taylor
Green>Landry or Gordon
Jackson>Randall (although i read that they might start him at saftey)

That’s the 3 big moves they’ve made so far and we won 7 games with ours so they’re looking at 4 wins but they’re not done with all them draft picks and all that cap space i wouldn’t be shocked if they win another playoff game before us

(03-11-2018, 12:55 AM)Nately120 Wrote: It's possible they're all pretty close, but I'm getting flashbacks to stuff like:

If the Chargers don't get Manning, they'll still get Leaf and that might be better!
The Bengals could take Carson Palmer, or trade down and still get a guy like Byron Leftwich or Rex Grossman!
Andrew Luck or RGIII?  They could both be around for a decade or more!
The Jets took Ken O'Brien over Dan Marino...that could prove to be the safer bet!

Hell, here is an article about Blaine Gabbert leading the race against Cam Newton for the top QB.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/621052-cam-newton-vs-blaine-gabbert-the-great-debate

Again, I can't see the future, but the reason any team pays people to evaluate talent is because anyone can look at 5 guys who were good in college and say "Um, they all look purdy good!"  One of these QBs is going to be better than the others, and I'd say the NFL evidence leans towards one QB being better than the others and getting that QB being the main thing to rebuild the Browns.  The Browns aren't the type of franchise that can take the 3rd best QB in a draft and win with him (ala the Steelers and Ben versus Eli or Rivers), so they have to get this right and waiting to take a QB at 4 limits their chances of doing so.

Again, the Steelers will move heaven and earth to keep their 36 year old QB but they won't even give the best RB in the NFL who is in the prime of his career a long term deal.  Like I said, it's possible Barkley is so good and the QBs are so close in "goodness" that taking the RB is what will reboot the franchise but the guy is going to have to be the next OJ Simpson or Jim Brown to pull it off.  I'll admit that this is some intriguing stuff and I've even been listening to Browns-related podcasts to see what they're saying about all this.  So far I hear the guys running the show wanting a QB and the fans screaming for the RB, so it's interesting to be sure.

I can see Rosen's injury history and the fact that he said he doesn't want to play for the Browns being his downfall.  Baker Mayfield may not be Johhny Manziel, but he will be one step closer to it IF the Browns take him.  And so on.  I can see the Browns destroying any QB, though.  Still, the only decent QB they've had since they came back was the top QB in 1999 and it's all been late round guys and guys who weren't the top prospect since.

(03-12-2018, 02:28 PM)McC Wrote: IMO, the only thing they've done wrong is waste their time on Tyrod.  And it's got nothing to do with my opinion of him per se.  I just hate the whole sit a rookie QB for a year policy.  Why waste a year of his career having him watch and then have him still have to learn by playing but now he's lost a year?

Draft him.  Play him.  Now, in his second year, he knows a lot more of what he's doing.  He's gonna have to sukk either way.  Have him suck as a rookie.  Why on earth does an 0-16 team need a place holder?

(03-12-2018, 11:52 AM)Wyche Wrote:

(03-13-2018, 12:38 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I remember a certain 2-14 team sitting their rookie QB for a year. They wound up going 8-8 and were in playoff contention most of the year.

(03-13-2018, 09:52 AM)WhoDeyLeisure Wrote: OMG, TYROD TAYLOR?!  THEY WON THE TYROD SWEEPSTAKES?!!!  

WE. ARE. FINISHED!



Seriously, what is wrong with some of you?

(03-13-2018, 10:06 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Is anyone saying the Browns are going to overtake us because they signed Tylenol Taylor?  What's the big deal with maybe thinking the Browns might be making some moves that could lead them to being a decent team (eventually)?

Some of the mindsets here are pretty ridiculous.  We want to mock the Browns for going 1-31 but we also want to mock them for making a move to replace a QB who turned the ball over 28 times with one who turned it over 6 times.  I ain't no football genius, but that seems like a decent move to me.  

Are the Browns winning the next SB?  No, but they lost 5 games last year by 3 points and 1 game by 6 points in the 2017 season and maybe, JUST MAYBE, the fact that they were playing a QB who is 6 times more likely (just some quick math on turnovers to dropbacks for each guy) to turn the ball over than the one they just got played a role in that.  

(03-13-2018, 10:17 AM)HuDey Wrote: Nope. It’s Tyrod Taylor that has us all shook.

The fear is real.

(03-13-2018, 10:20 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Just to get Socratic on this situation, isn't getting Tyrod a step in the right direction for the Browns?  We're talking about a team that lost 5 games by 3 points last year making a change at QB and a big difference in turnovers from said QB.  What tends to win games in the NFL....decent QB play.  What tends to lose games in the NFL......turnovers.

Better QB play + much less turnover-prone QB for a team that lost 6 games by less than 1 score may = mild success, which equals WILD success in Cleveland, right?

(03-13-2018, 10:27 AM)HuDey Wrote: In my eyes Taylor is a mediocre at best QB, but definitely an upgrade over what the Browns trotted out there last year. I’d bet money that the Browns select thier QB of the future with one of thier first two picks, so likely they don’t view him as “the answer” any more I or anybody else does.

(03-12-2018, 04:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Boo-hoo-hoo!

"WHY CAN'T WE BE MORE THE BROWNS?..THEY ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN THE STUPID OLD BENGALS..THEY BEAT US IN FREE AGENCY WITH BOTH STEINBACH AND ZEITLER...WAY CAN'T WE WIN AS MUCH AS THEY DO???"

(03-12-2018, 04:42 PM)McC Wrote: But it's an 0-16 team.  And if you don't play the rookie, you're just delaying the process of finding out what you have.  You're making him a rookie in his second year.  You find out if he's a bust a year later.  And what if Taylor does play well?  Now you have a QB controversy.

Anyway, I have full confidence in Hue's ability to screw it up.

(03-13-2018, 01:06 AM)Jakeypoo Wrote: We just improved our team today by getting Glenn at LT and everything I said was true not sure why you are laughing at that but giving the Browns all the credit in the world.

(03-13-2018, 10:06 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Is anyone saying the Browns are going to overtake us because they signed Tylenol Taylor?  What's the big deal with maybe thinking the Browns might be making some moves that could lead them to being a decent team (eventually)?

Some of the mindsets here are pretty ridiculous.  We want to mock the Browns for going 1-31 but we also want to mock them for making a move to replace a QB who turned the ball over 28 times with one who turned it over 6 times.  I ain't no football genius, but that seems like a decent move to me.  

Are the Browns winning the next SB?  No, but they lost 5 games last year by 3 points and 1 game by 6 points in the 2017 season and maybe, JUST MAYBE, the fact that they were playing a QB who is 6 times more likely (just some quick math on turnovers to dropbacks for each guy) to turn the ball over than the one they just got played a role in that.  

(03-13-2018, 10:35 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Right, they got a safe vet QB who can win games (he went one and done in the playoffs, so who are we to not claim he was wildly successful in 2017?) and they (should) take the top prospect QB at #1 overall.  This seems like a very logical way to rebuild a franchise that has been total crap for a long time.  There is nothing wacky about what they are doing this time, so I can see the skepticism, but criticism...meh, they're doing what we did in 2003 after our own 10+ years of humiliation.