Oh, Mitch... why you gotta tug at our heart-strings so? [twitter=https://twitter.com/theMMQB/status/827210227984506882][/twitter]
But the down side is that this would remove a QB needy team from the draft queue in front of pick #12 leaving one less positional player available.
First and foremost, what is the one quality that those 3 players have in common? They have been healthy for 95% of their games played over their career. When was the last time the Browns had a QB make it through a 16 game season? We haven't had a QB start 16 games since Tim Couch in 2001...that's 16 years...and the only year he did it. So since the rebirth of the Browns we have had a QB finish an entire season ONE TIME.. As for your theory of these teams: Patriots without Brady: 2008 (Brady hurt in the 7 1/2 minutes in first game of the season score 0-0) 10-5, (They gave the week 1 win to Brady even though he didn't do anything in that first win) with Matt Cassell (He's available if you want him) Matt Cassell, outside of 2008? 26-39 career record with 4 different teams in 7 seasons. 2016 3-1, 2-0 with Garoppolo, 1-1 with Jacoby Brissett...Brissett by the way, 0 TDs/O INTs...they went 1-1 with a QB that simply controlled the game. So for those keeping track at home, historically: Patriots with Brady- 183-54, 77% wins Patriots without Brady- 13-6, 68% wins So are they better with Brady? Of course, he is one of the greatest QBs of all time. Are they the Browns without him? Of course not, they are still a top flight team that can win with anyone that doesn't LOSE the game for them. The Colts are a whole other story...They lost nearly every game the one year Manning was hurt... The Packers, still too early to tell, but they were winning football games before Rodgers, prior to that they had only had 1 losing season in 16 years, and only one other 8-8 season.. I think more than anything, the key is finding a guy that can stay healthy for 16 games a season, year in and year out. Trading QBs in and out every 4-9 games does nothing to build any type of consistency. To that end, with Kessler having 2 concussions already, I am not sold on him either... (edit I don't know why I did Manning instead of Roethlisberger...Let me know if you want me to run him instead..
Yeah, but if we traded #12, #33 and next year's first to the 49ers and draft Mitch Trubisky, we don't need to worry about it. 1-1: Myles Garrett DE, Texas A&M 1-2: Mitch Trubisky QB, North Carolina 2-51: Gareon Conely, CB Ohio State 3-65: Marcus Williams, FS Utah 4-104*: Kyle Fuller, C Baylor 4-140 (SP): Nazair Jones, DT North Carolina 4-144 (SP): Kareem Hunt, RB Toledo 5-148*: Jordan Morgan, OG Kutztown 5-181 (SP): Josh Harvey-Clemons, S/LB Louisville 6-185*: Eric Saubert, TE Drake (SP): Projected supplmental pick *: Projected overall pick number after supplementals
That's not what I'm saying at all. You have a few teams: New England, Pittsburgh, and Green Bay, who are always in contention and who revolve around the QB. For everyone else, there needs to be another facet to the team that can be considered elite. And that's where I'm saying the Browns can make strides. Without an elite QB on the team, the Browns can still play winning - or at the very least, competitive - football with a good ground game and an aggressive defense. Those things are easier to build and develop than a franchise QB and it's precisely where they should focus their attention in the draft.
Let's also be realistic with the Dak Prescott thing. He wasn't drafted to be the starter and it wasn't some moribund franchise like the Browns he was resurrecting. Tony Romo is (was) a Pro Bowl-caliber QB who just couldn't stay healthy. In his last 20 games, he was 15-5 as a starter (one of those losses was 2016 when he was injured minutes into the game). The team already had a terrific offensive line (second in the NFL in rushing) and drafted a stud RB in Elliott.
The Browns have failed miserably on draft picks not just QB..Mingo, T Rich, Erving, Gilbert etc...nobody knows if they stay at #12 and select a position besides QB if he will pan out...mayb trade #12 and drop down some and then select QB...I don't know but what I do know is this team hasn't been good since '99 and the QB position is the reason why
I would argue that last sentence stopper...and amend it with: the QB position is one of the MANY reasons why... I think our #1 reason to be in the mess we are today is consistency. Turnover in coaching staff, management and of course personnel, to me, is the #1 reason we are in, what?, our 8th rebuild in 19 years? You aren't building, if you are constantly tearing down...
Brady's injury was a fluke injury that cost him 16 games, he has missed 16 games in his 237 games as a starter due to injury and they were all from the same injury..a knee injury at that. Ben is a different animal all together...anyone capable of rape is capable of working through injuries to stay on the football field and collect his millions. I still would not advocate looking for a rapist to lead this team, even if we never become a winning franchise....Cue beach in about 10 minutes...but, but, it was never proven....
My bad Irish, I made a mistake. I bolded the comment above. It was SAS that made that factual determination on this years QB prospects not being near the level of Bridgewater, Wentz, Goff, and Lynch.... ....and when I said I'd be pleased if we could get a deal done for Jimmy G. with pick #33 or #52, I just meant that would make me much happier than if we had to deal a first rounder for him...I wasn't saying "that's my guy!"....Truth be told, my favorite prospect is Trubisky, and it's not all that close...But I'm not pounding the table for him. I mentioned months ago that it's impossible for ANY of us to truly evaluate these guys because we aren't privy to the interviews. You can't watch highlites and determine what is inside the man. What makes him tick? What kind of leader he really is?....That's why I think it's comical that some of us have made all these determinations already, but to each his own... I'm not advocating any particular QB. I'm advocating the notion that the Browns need to bring in major competition at that position...I will go with WHOMEVER Hue wants, that's all I've said from the beginning...
And if you have a quarterback, you aren't constantly tearing down.... The lack of a solid QB in Cleveland IS the main reason the tires have been spinning here for 18 years....All the rebuilds, and turnovers in coaching and front office, don't happen if we have "the franchise guy" under center....
LOL - Don't worry... I'm not driving the Trubisky Train. Just having some fun on the QB discussion. From what I've seen, if we absolutely have to use a first round pick on a QB, I'd prefer it be Mitch Trubisky. I'd prefer it be #12 (he won't last that long) and that we keep him on the sidelines for 16 games. That's a lot of preferences to chain together, making it damn-near impossible. I want to stay at #1 overall and take Myles Garrett, who'll be a game-changing DE for us and one of those players who should be able to give you 12 - 18 sacks a season. If we're determined to grab "The Guy" this season, we need to figure out how to make that work and move up to get the hometown kid. And while the whole "Cleveland Rocks" things reads well with the fans, the cynic can very easily interpret that as:
But again, it isn't for lack of trying... The Browns have tried what, 24 QBs in those 19 years...They keep bringing them in TD, then toss them aside before giving any conception of consistency. If they don't turn the franchise around, then on to the next guy... Peyton Manning his first 4 years: 56.7% comp., 3739 yards, 26 TDs, 28 INTs 3-13 record 62.1% comp., 4135 yards, 26 TDs, 15 INTs 13-3 record 62.5% comp., 4413 yards, 33 TDs, 15 INTs 10-6 record 62.7% comp., 4131 yards, 26 TDs, 21 INTs 6-10 record I understand this is Peyton freaking Manning we are talking about...but the Browns have spent 4 first round picks, giving only Tim Couch more than 2 years to prove themselves, since 1999...again, I am not comparing any of these guys to Peyton freaking Manning, so don't go there... In addition to the 9 total draft picks there have been another 15 brought in via free agency and trade to also "fix" the problem... Anyone ever stop to think, maybe the problem is the system of changing every two years?
This is a very good point, actually. Once you spend that high pick (not #22 overall, but Top 5 or 10), you put the organization on the clock but you also give them time to develop. That said, it has to cut both ways... if you draft a guy, he has to prove he's got that potential. Honest question: do you see any of the QB's in this class with that potential? And if so, does that mean you're taking him at #1 overall?
Not sure why merely mentioning QB's as potential targets for our Browns touches so many nerves around here, but I guess I'll stop... Matt Flynn didn't work out, so clearly that means Garoppolo won't....There are no quality QB's in the draft, because everyone here has already made that clear...I guess we're screwed. Nothing left to talk about, and I wouldn't want to anyway. Simply mention a name, and you get pinned to him. Nevermind it's a national story that the sportsworld is discussing.....So lets devote another year to a mid round project QB that nobody else thought would even be drafted, and he's already suffered two concussions.......Sounds great. When do we start the defensive backs thread?
