msmcdickey

Browns Picks

Recommended Posts

Since it's so hard to decide among the first three quarterbacks, why don't the Browns take Barkley number one and the qb that's left at four? What am I not seeing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, msmcdickey said:

Since it's so hard to decide among the first three quarterbacks, why don't the Browns take Barkley number one and the qb that's left at four? What am I not seeing?

 

Reality, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its essentially what the Jets did, which is really, really not intelligent. You're basically saying your scouting department is so inept that you can't find a difference between the top 3 qbs (in this case if rb is 1 overall), and youll take anyone.

If in any way you find 1 qb being superior over the others, you absolutely have to take him at 1. 3 draft spots is worth Peyton over Leaf, Luck over RGIII, Ryan over Flacco, Smith over Rodg... well, you get the point. Take the best QB, only go RB if you feel none of the qbs are as special. Plus, its far more likely someone will trade you for 4 than 1, and you may get more compensation than even a Barkley is worth due to qbs still being on the board at 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to sell this move to a fanbase if you had two picks between #10 and #20 let alone in the top 4 picks.  It's also not the best way to sell your top pick(s) QB on the idea of being the face of the franchise.  "We're really excited to build around....one of you."   

And that's outside of just...the value of the picks. Maybe you get a QB at #1 and a tackle who's gonna protect him for 10 years at #4.   Maybe it's a QB and his WR.  But a QB and another QB, when you can only play one of them at a time...You gotta remember - the goal is to never be forced to draft this high again.  So they can take this as an opportunity and try to spread talent around the roster...or focus on two QBs, and create confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

It's hard to sell this move to a fanbase if you had two picks between #10 and #20 let alone in the top 4 picks.  It's also not the best way to sell your top pick(s) QB on the idea of being the face of the franchise.  "We're really excited to build around....one of you."   

And that's outside of just...the value of the picks. Maybe you get a QB at #1 and a tackle who's gonna protect him for 10 years at #4.   Maybe it's a QB and his WR.  But a QB and another QB, when you can only play one of them at a time...You gotta remember - the goal is to never be forced to draft this high again.  So they can take this as an opportunity and try to spread talent around the roster...or focus on two QBs, and create confusion. 

Well the way hue Jackson bounces between quarterbacks I'm sure they will both get plenty of playing time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, your idea isn't as bad as others have said. I've thought the same thing...not necessarily because it's the smartest move per se. But because it's a high floor move. Essentially, you're deciding to (sort) guarantee yourself some combination of something instead of ending up with possibly only one that could be a nothing. 

But while it's not the smartest option, it might be the safest option, which is something a FO like the Browns desperately needs. The Browns take plenty of risks, just they tend to pan out very poorly.

The smartest option however would be to bait the Giants hard to trade up to the #1 Pick. If you do that, you guarantee they go QB or DE, guarantee yourself the second choice at worst of QB on the board and mathematically guarantee yourself Saquon Barkley, as well as pick up a bit of extra draft ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the Browns are already doing this, except not at the QB position. They pick the QB they want at #1 knowing full well that they'll get either Barkley or Chubb at #4.

To me that's better than doing it the other way where you take the QB at #4. They've already been roasted twice on not taking Wentz and Watson. Imagine they take Barkley at #1 and whatever QB(s) taken by the Giants and/or Jets turns into a stud?  No way they're going to make that mistake again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, AmericanEagle77 said:

OP, your idea isn't as bad as others have said. I've thought the same thing...not necessarily because it's the smartest move per se. But because it's a high floor move. Essentially, you're deciding to (sort) guarantee yourself some combination of something instead of ending up with possibly only one that could be a nothing. 

But while it's not the smartest option, it might be the safest option, which is something a FO like the Browns desperately needs. The Browns take plenty of risks, just they tend to pan out very poorly.

The smartest option however would be to bait the Giants hard to trade up to the #1 Pick. If you do that, you guarantee they go QB or DE, guarantee yourself the second choice at worst of QB on the board and mathematically guarantee yourself Saquon Barkley, as well as pick up a bit of extra draft ammo.

Very nice post.

This situation is incredibly unusual. What's interesting though is that in the NBA, this is quite common and teams in that league generally hit only on 1 guy when they have two picks in the top 5 or top 10.

I look at it this way, if you see a talent that appears to be transcendent, checks all the boxes off the field, and has a great IQ for the game, then wouldn't that mean you'd draft him with your 1st pick?

Everyone has made great points, but I'd have to go with Barkley. If the QB I take with the 4th overall pick, gets butthurt about being "second fiddle" then that means not only did I fail in my scouting, but that QB is mentally weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dawkins 20 said:

Seems like the Browns are already doing this, except not at the QB position. They pick the QB they want at #1 knowing full well that they'll get either Barkley or Chubb at #4.

To me that's better than doing it the other way where you take the QB at #4. They've already been roasted twice on not taking Wentz and Watson. Imagine they take Barkley at #1 and whatever QB(s) taken by the Giants and/or Jets turns into a stud?  No way they're going to make that mistake again. 

You would think they wouldn't make that mistake again. However , they have yet to prove not to make that mistake over and over again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boss Hawg said:

It'd be an easier call if Thomas hadn't left a gaping hole at left tackle.

Well can't really blame him. He played every single snap for them at an elite level and they have done nothing to get better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShakeThatMonkey said:

Very nice post.

This situation is incredibly unusual. What's interesting though is that in the NBA, this is quite common and teams in that league generally hit only on 1 guy when they have two picks in the top 5 or top 10.

I look at it this way, if you see a talent that appears to be transcendent, checks all the boxes off the field, and has a great IQ for the game, then wouldn't that mean you'd draft him with your 1st pick?

Everyone has made great points, but I'd have to go with Barkley. If the QB I take with the 4th overall pick, gets butthurt about being "second fiddle" then that means not only did I fail in my scouting, but that QB is mentally weak.

If they have the right mentality it puts a huge chip on their shoulder in terms of how they prepare. I know Mayfield will have that, for example either way. The others, I'm not so sure about. Not saying Mayfield is better as a QB or that I'd go for him for sure, just talking about mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, msmcdickey said:

Since it's so hard to decide among the first three quarterbacks, why don't the Browns take Barkley number one and the qb that's left at four? What am I not seeing?

I’d love to know what you do for a living.  Not a lot of careers where someone can succeed letting everyone make decision and then being satisfied with whatever is leftover.

certainly not a good philosophy to have in any career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vee said:

I’d love to know what you do for a living.  Not a lot of careers where someone can succeed letting everyone make decision and then being satisfied with whatever is leftover.

certainly not a good philosophy to have in any career.

Maybe he works for the browns? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AmericanEagle77 said:

OP, your idea isn't as bad as others have said. I've thought the same thing...not necessarily because it's the smartest move per se. But because it's a high floor move. Essentially, you're deciding to (sort) guarantee yourself some combination of something instead of ending up with possibly only one that could be a nothing. 

But while it's not the smartest option, it might be the safest option, which is something a FO like the Browns desperately needs.

Great post.

Although I think 'playing it safe' is a lot like 'playing not to lose'.

If you think one of these QBs can be a cornerstone player the franchise builds around for 10+ years then you 40 dash to the podium and take him 1st.

A franchise QB is priceless. You can't be afraid to fail because of past failures. Don't leave your QB of the future to chance when you could've chosen.

8 hours ago, bwestbrook36 said:

Maybe he works for the browns? Lol

War room. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Quiet Boy said:

A franchise QB is priceless. You can't be afraid to fail because of past failures. Don't leave your QB of the future to chance when you could've chosen.

Quite true, BUT this is the Browns we're talking. I'd take the logical route of QB 10 out of 10 times for any other team. For the Browns, I understand they need to take off the diapers now, however they do not have the infrastructure to immediately select that QB with the 1st pick. 

I'd rather not take a chance of guessing if Barkley or Chubb will be there at the 4th pick.

Let's not forget that when Ladainian Tomlinson was selected by the Chargers, that team, coached by Shotty, were in the playoffs numerous times. Since LT left the Chargers in 2010, that team has made the playoffs just once.

A person could say that correlation does not equal causation for the Chargers' case, but it does seem very coincidental that the wheels fell off when LT left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 1:26 PM, msmcdickey said:

Since it's so hard to decide among the first three quarterbacks, why don't the Browns take Barkley number one and the qb that's left at four? What am I not seeing?

It's like saying Eagles should have just settled with Paxton Lynch. How would you have felt if Eagles had "settled" for Paxton Lynch at #8 (or #13) instead of trading up to #2 to get Carson Wentz and Wentz turns out to be a stud while Lynch turns out to be average(looks that way)? And Cowboys might have Wentz if Eagles didn't trade up to get him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gameshowfan91 said:

It's like saying Eagles should just settle with Paxton Lynch. How would you have felt if Eagles had "settled" for Paxton Lynch at #13 or #8 instead of trading up to #2 to get Carson Wentz and Wentz turns out to be a stud while Lynch turns out to be average(looks that way)? And Cowboys might have Wentz if Eagles didn't trade up to get him.

I don't think it's like saying that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I don't think it's like saying that at all.

Thank you. People here like to put others down like they're geniuses.  I still think getting a superstar running back and any one of the top three qb's is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these QBs are being spoken about like Wentz or Goff.

In fact, none of these QBs are even comparable to Deshaun Watson, who by the way was the 3rd QB taken in last year's draft.

In 2012, if someone told you Nick Foles would win a superbowl prior to Andrew Luck or RGIII, you'd spit out whatever you were drinking in their face. 4 QBs were taken in the 1st round of that draft, just for some perspective.

The Browns will be perfectly fine taking whatever QB drops to them at the 4th pick. I don't have any confidence in the Jets getting the best QB out of this draft. So the way things are setup, it's really not a bad outlook for the Browns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 1:26 PM, msmcdickey said:

Since it's so hard to decide among the first three quarterbacks, why don't the Browns take Barkley number one and the qb that's left at four? What am I not seeing?

I like that if I’m a browns fan. Lord knows they couldn’t  draft a good  qb’s if their live depended on it.  Why waste the pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 2:51 PM, Havenless said:

Its essentially what the Jets did, which is really, really not intelligent. You're basically saying your scouting department is so inept that you can't find a difference between the top 3 qbs (in this case if rb is 1 overall), and youll take anyone.

If in any way you find 1 qb being superior over the others, you absolutely have to take him at 1. 3 draft spots is worth Peyton over Leaf, Luck over RGIII, Ryan over Flacco, Smith over Rodg... well, you get the point. Take the best QB, only go RB if you feel none of the qbs are as special. Plus, its far more likely someone will trade you for 4 than 1, and you may get more compensation than even a Barkley is worth due to qbs still being on the board at 4.

For Christmas sakes they not only passed on wentz but went out of their way to justify it by pointing out that wentz wasnt a franchise QB.  

Browns fans are well aware of the fact that they don’t know how to draft a QB. They would probably be relieved that the FO knows it too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 1:26 PM, msmcdickey said:

Since it's so hard to decide among the first three quarterbacks, why don't the Browns take Barkley number one and the qb that's left at four? What am I not seeing?

The first word of your thread title should answer all your questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now