Sure fire way to improve QB play this season

[Utts]

Sign IK Enemkpali ASAP. Before you haters start throwing spears, just know that _I know_ you're just jelly that you didn't come up with this first.

[PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop]

(08-12-2015, 12:39 AM)Utts Wrote: Sign IK Enemkpali ASAP. Before you haters start throwing spears, just know that _I know_ you're just jelly that you didn't come up with this first.

You're an idiot.

[jakefromstatefarm]

I laughed. Uncontrollably.

Coincidentally, I had just mentioned this in the thread about Andy getting "fired up".

[Utts]

(08-12-2015, 12:55 AM)PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop Wrote: You're an idiot.

You, sir are not a gentleman. Good day!

[Stormborn]

Seriously did the biggest double take when I heard about this.

You just can't make Jets crap up like this.

[BURROWorBUST]

(08-12-2015, 01:04 AM)Stormborn Wrote: Seriously did the biggest double take when I heard about this.

You just can't make Jets crap up like this.

The crazy thing is that IK probably did the Jets a favor. You know who's going to start for them now, don't you? Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

[*Nately120*]

#1 is it really stupid to sign a pass rusher with potential who has stock at an all-time low just in case?
#2 it sounds like Geno Smith kinda deserved to get punched, though IK EULUFUSSLZTXZUZ shouldn't have punched him
#3 this guy can hit the QB, so what's wrong with that?
#4 I realize we are joking a bit, but do we really think this guy is going to come into Cincinnati, see Dalton and go "MUST HIT QB WITH FIST!" and go after him?

[Stormborn]

(08-12-2015, 01:12 AM)Shady Wrote: The crazy thing is that IK probably did the Jets a favor. You know who's going to start for them now, don't you? Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

...yay?

They'd be better to see if Smith could've improved from his first two years, they're a long shot at making the playoffs no matter who is starting, no matter if Fitzpatrick is a slightly better QB.

It's almost like the Browns ordeal, you have nothing to gain starting McCown, and nothing to lose starting Manziel.

Bad teams stay bad.

[Utts]

Nobody in their right mind would sucker punch a ginger. Ginger rage is real and not something you want to be on the receiving end of.

[Junglejuice]

Great then we would just have the guy who hurt his own ribs throwing a football in pads.

[*Nately120*]

(08-12-2015, 01:40 AM)Stormborn Wrote: It's almost like the Browns ordeal, you have nothing to gain starting McCown, and nothing to lose starting Manziel.

Bad teams stay bad.

I'm not saying McCown is going to be good or the Browns will do anything, but McCown had a 109 rating with 13 TDs to 1 INT in 8 games in 2013.  I'm saying if you are a Browns fan you may have a better chance convincing yourself that McCown is going to magically return to that than Johnny Fartball is going to be anything but a bust.

Re-tread veterans may not get fans hard, but it's easy for us to tell a HC to just toss some unprepared kid out there and just hope he succeeds against all odds and then if/when he doesn't expect the coach to say "Hey, he's young and stuff!" and that be enough to keep his job.

[Stormborn]

(08-12-2015, 02:01 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not saying McCown is going to be good or the Browns will do anything, but McCown had a 109 rating with 13 TDs to 1 INT in 8 games in 2013.  I'm saying if you are a Browns fan you may have a better chance convincing yourself that McCown is going to magically return to that than Johnny Fartball is going to be anything but a bust.

Re-tread veterans may not get fans hard, but it's easy for us to tell a HC to just toss some unprepared kid out there and just hope he succeeds against all odds and then if/when he doesn't expect the coach to say "Hey, he's young and stuff!" and that be enough to keep his job.

McCown had a crap line last year, that's no lie and I can understand why he had trouble last year, but expecting him to repeat his 2013 half year was too risky to begin with. Those 8 games were an anomaly for the journeyman more than anything. Not to mention the talent differential between the 2013 Bears offense and this year's Browns offense. 

Oh sure, Pettine probably loves having an experienced QB running the offense, like Hoyer last year, but can anyone realistically see McCown leading them to above .500? Probably not. So why have him starting when you could be playing the guy you traded up for to be your franchise QB, no matter how ridiculous it sounds in hindsight.

Throw him in the fire, because based on what we saw last year, they have absolutely nothing to lose. Except many games because Cleveland.

[*Nately120*]

(08-12-2015, 02:14 AM)Stormborn Wrote: Throw him in the fire, because based on what we saw last year, they have absolutely nothing to lose. Except many games because Cleveland.

Ok, a few reasons I don't buy into this.  First off, cases like David Klingler and David Carr are prime examples of throwing someone in the deep end and him drowning before he learns how to swim.  Hoyer wasn't a mentor because he knew Manziel was gunning for his job, plus Hoyer thinks he's some sort of starting QB when he is every bit the plug-in crap vet that McCown is...except McCown knows it and is more of a team player SO Manziel MIGHT and I mean MIGHT learn something from sitting behind him.

Additionally, people in the Browns organization would probably lose their jobs if they tossed Manziel out there when they knew he wasn't ready and if/when he embarrassed himself and the organization said "Hey, he COULDA been good!"  Why is it that people think professional football teams should do that?  Do we ask people who manage sales teams why they don't can the guys who can reliably bring me a not-exceptional but so-so amount of capital and grab someone and skip training because he "might do better?"   Nope, we save that sort of "Come onnnnn, what have you got to lose?!" mentality for people who make millions and have jobs that only 31 other people on earth have.

Ugh, I'm not picking on you specially, but sometimes I feel like people look at a QB and see that he is 23 years old and has a bunch of 0's on his stat sheet and start seeing LSD-grade illusions.  And we're talking about the Browns here...a team that has continued to toss guys who can barely shave out onto the field in hopes one of them is magically good enough to overcome years of ineptitude and for some reason we see a lack of experience as some sort of sign that they have upside.

Upside and "no resume" are pretty interchangeable with some people.  Do people do this with regular jobs?  If I need to hire a systems analyst do I look at a guy who's been a so-so systems analyst for a decade and then look at someone who has no experience and say "Well, we KNOW what the guy with experience can do, but maybe if we hire the guy without any experience or degree and don't train him he will be like, super awesome!"  I just don't see this line of reasoning working anywhere but fans looking at the NFL.  Manziel looked every bit as lost as he should have last year, but maybe if they just toss him out on the field this year he will knock everyone's socks off.


And for the record, no, I'm no Josh McCown's cousin.

[*Nately120*]

Now this is just based upon my own perception of each QB, but in bold are the Browns QBs that started with little to no resumes, had never been given a chance as a starter (you know, the backup does good sort of hopeful story), or were rookies and/or had little starting experience. I can't imagine a team other than the Browns have started more QBs with thinner resumes and yet they managed to capture lighting in a bottle for one single season where Tim Couch in his second season got them to 9-7 only to disappear into oblivion soon after. Wowza, you'd think one of these unknowns would have done something.


2014 Brian Hoyer (13) / Johnny Manziel (2) / Connor Shaw (1)
2013 Jason Campbell (8) / Brandon Weeden (5) / Brian Hoyer (3)
2012 Brandon Weeden (15) / Thad Lewis (1)
2011 Colt McCoy (13) / Seneca Wallace (3)
2010 Colt McCoy (8) / Jake Delhomme (4) / Seneca Wallace (4)
2009 Brady Quinn (9) / Derek Anderson (7)
2008 Derek Anderson (9) / Brady Quinn (3) / Ken Dorsey (3) / Bruce Gradkowski (1)
2007 Derek Anderson (15) / Charlie Frye (1)
2006 Charlie Frye (13) / Derek Anderson (3)
2005 Trent Dilfer (11) / Charlie Frye (5)
2004 Jeff Garcia (10) / Kelly Holcomb (2) / Luke McCown (4)
2003 Kelly Holcomb (8) / Tim Couch (8)
2002 Tim Couch (14) / Kelly Holcomb (2)
2001 Tim Couch (16)
2000 Doug Pederson (8) / Tim Couch (7) / Spergon Wynn (1)
1999 Tim Couch (14) / Ty Detmer (2)

[Stormborn]

For almost any other team I'd agree with that sensible logic, but it's that team.

We don't live in a league where it's ok to sit a first round QB for a year or two, the standards have been raised.

All I'm saying is neither QB is good enough to win enough games to clinch a playoff berth in this division, so if you're not playing in January, you don't want to be sitting with 6-8 wins with a pick probably outside of the top 10. That won't help them.

[*Nately120*]

(08-12-2015, 03:05 AM)Stormborn Wrote: For almost any other team I'd agree with that sensible logic, but it's that team.

We don't live in a league where it's ok to sit a first round QB for a year or two, the standards have been raised.

All I'm saying is neither QB is good enough to win enough games to clinch a playoff berth in this division, so if you're not playing in January, you don't want to be sitting with 6-8 wins with a pick probably outside of the top 10. That won't help them.

As a fellow Bengals fan you should understand that seasons that don't end in a Super Bowl or playoff success can still be pleasant and more importantly, that going 2-14 or so doesn't always mean you're going to get a sure-shot top pick who is going to turn the franchise around on a dime.

The thing is, I could probably make a pretty safe bet that 20 or more of the NFL teams this season are not going to win the Super Bowl, but that doesn't mean the answer for each team is to throw the youngest QB with the least experience out there and cross their fingers.  I mean, the Bengals have won 40 games in the past 4 years and have won 0 playoff games and won 0 Super Bowls but I can't honestly say many would feel like we wasted the opportunity to start 3-7 more QBs in addition to Andy to see if any of them were going to be better, right?

We didn't win the Super Bowl in 2014 and we didn't stink enough to get a top pick so if we could go back in time would we start that QB who threw up in preseason? You know, just in case we had a gem?

[Stormborn]

(08-12-2015, 03:38 AM)Nately120 Wrote: We didn't win the Super Bowl in 2014 and we didn't stink enough to get a top pick so if we could go back in time would we start that QB who threw up in preseason?  You know, just in case we had a gem?

First of all, some teams are way more unprepared for a Super Bowl appearance than others, it's hard to just lump all 20 in the same group of ineptitude. 

And forget the Super Bowl, I'm merely talking about the 12 teams who will get a shot just to play in it. The Browns aren't remotely close to that anyways. We are in no way in a similar position to compare long term strategy. We are consistent playoff contenders, the Browns are consistent last place finishers, obviously totally different situations. Once they get to where we are, they won't be sitting a first rounder for a journeyman.

[djs7685]

(08-12-2015, 12:55 AM)PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop Wrote: You're an idiot.

(08-12-2015, 04:09 AM)Stormborn Wrote: First of all, some teams are way more unprepared for a Super Bowl appearance than others, it's hard to just lump all 20 in the same group of ineptitude. 

And forget the Super Bowl, I'm merely talking about the 12 teams who will get a shot just to play in it. The Browns aren't remotely close to that anyways. We are in no way in a similar position to compare long term strategy. We are consistent playoff contenders, the Browns are consistent last place finishers, obviously totally different situations. Once they get to where we are, they won't be sitting a first rounder for a journeyman.

I agree that we can't lump the 20 teams in the same group, but for a different reason. The Browns are one of the few teams in that 20 that actually have a very solid group of players, and there have been plenty of years over the past decade where they're seemingly just a QB away from being a legitimate contender. Don't forget that they've had a strong defense for just as long as we have, and they've had some good talent on offense including a great line, they just never seem to have anyone to get the ball around.

If you're a member of the coaching staff and you'd like to keep your job, it's probably smarter to play the mediocre journeyman over the "but what if!" young kid that has shown nothing but some of the worst QB play imaginable on the field.

I'll even admit that I was part of the "don't sleep on Johnny Eightball!" crowd when he was drafted. I can now admit that he should probably not be starting in the NFL. Your last statement, "Once they get to where we are, they won't be sitting a first rounder for a journeyman" would make a bit more sense if that first rounder wasn't awful. I don't care what round someone was drafted in, you don't put someone on the field that can't play whether they were taken #1 overall or #150.

[Interceptor]

Use the Rex Ryan Solution to Geno Smith:

Step #1: run the ball.
Step #2: run the ball some more.

[*SHRacerX*]

(08-12-2015, 12:39 AM)Utts Wrote: Sign IK Enemkpali ASAP. Before you haters start throwing spears, just know that _I know_ you're just jelly that you didn't come up with this first.

Actually, Bfine beat you to it by about 8 hours....I hope he (IK) ends up in putzburg