I'm curious what the board thinks. We always talk about letting a QB develop, but we never actually seem to want that once the bullets start flying. What say you?

I voted to start kizer the last few weeks of the year. But really, I can't answer the question. No one can.

First, we have to go back to last year. Cody wasn't "expected" to see the field. He was going to sit the whole year. That lasted until week 3 (maybe week 2? Didn't he go in in game 2?)

Myself, I think it's good for a qb to sit, at least a while. 1 thing almost every nfl rookie says at the end of their rookie year is "the nfl game is so much faster than college".

Second, it all depends on Cody and Brock. Or, a LOT depends on them and their performance, anyway.

If either one, or both of them, are sucking it up, yeah, put Kizer in.

If Kizer wins the job, start him day one. If he doesn't win the job, go with 1 or both of the other 2.

Admittedly, it's a "In perfect world, what would you do" scenario. So in light of that...

I went with sit Kizer the entire year but honestly, I'm hoping it's because Kessler looks decent, not just to sit him so we can get beat up every week.

Way too early to tell.

The Cowboys were trying to find a back-up/fill in starter, before they realized that they had something special in Prescott.

Imagine if we had agreed to trade McCown to them.

Anyway, maybe Kizer should sit all year, or maybe he's really, really special.Ask me again around week 3 of the preseason.

I am not going to vote because I don't know the answer.

I will just say this..............I would start the qb that has the best opportunity of being successful this year, but even more importantly, in future years.

Sit him all year.

Unless we get another 22 QB's hurt again this season

If Kizer is to be our future and we don't start him at some point, we will not have an answer to that question, and will probably be looking to draft another QB in 2018 when we may already have Our Future QB here, we need to learn about this kid on the field ... JMHO

Get shiny new toy.

Want to play with shiny new toy.

Play with shiny new toy.

Get bored with shiny new toy.

Want new toy.

I say let him sit and learn, Osweiler already has a couple years of NFL experience so...

I didn't say start him right away unless he is heads above the others, but I think we will need to play him at some point unless we are winning and in a playoff chase, which I don't think will happen this year, so we let him sit as you suggest, and this time next year you won't know whether you need a new toy or not... JMHO

Clearly sit him, Until he beats Kessler, and then Brock.

That's IF the team doesn't cut Brock at roster cutdowns because they maybe never wanted to pay his contract.

Clearly Brock, and Kessler seem better on paper at this point, but the thing is RG3 and McCown couldn't keep Kessler off the field last year and the Browns also started Whitehurst because they didn't have anybody else.

So I'd vote sit him all year. But I ain't going to vote unless you agree to delete this one and put up a new poll in September and again in November, because the right answer will probably change.

[color][ purple] besides, Kaiser and all 53 others are only here so the Browns can get in positon to trade up for the quarterback they really want, next year, just like they've been doing everytime sine 2011 [color]

I wasn't specifically replying to your comment. Sorry about that.

There just seems to be a general thought process.

"He needs to sit at least a year"
"Well he needs to sit until he's ready"
"I guess if he's in par with everyone else he might as well start"
"We need to see if he's any good NOW so we KNOW if we have to replace him next offseason.."

You start the QB who the HC believes gives your team the best chance to win. Shiny new toy or not.

That's what coaches get paid to do, win. If they don't play the best players at their positions, they're not doing their job.

Whether it's a rookie, second year starter or seasoned veteran, you play the best player you have.

Trying to put some, what you perceive to be cute post about it means nothing.

K.

Same here. It all depends on variablies that can't be predicted.

I agree with this. How do you make a prediction about an unknown ability in an unknown situation?

Yes, by all means, if you haven't read the options feel free not to vote. Just to be clear, no one is asking anyone to predict anything.

I went with the last few weeks if we have no shot. I think the wording of the first option made it a leading question. Had it said start "when he is ready", I would have gone with that. "Immediatly" was what turned me off of that one.

I'm really starting to doubt this. I think between the coaches and practices they have a pretty good idea if the guy has a chance. If they think his chance might be on the slim side then they would look to draft another one.

Didn't the Eagles down play Wentz all pre-season and say he was #3 and needed alot of work? just to turn around name him the starter as the season started? Just smoke? Somebody saw something for a fast start, of course he took his lumps later on, and who knows he might be outta the league in 3 yrs.

Carson Wentz doesn't start right away if Teddy Bridgewater doesn't get hurt.

They got a ridiculous offer for a player they didn't really want anymore.

And instead of treading water with Chase freaking Daniels they elected to start the future now.

IMO They got "lucky" with how well he played to start out. Not saying he was never ganna be good, or won't be going forward. I just don't believe they "knew" he was ganna play that well.

What does Carson Wentz starting have to do with Teddy Bridgewater?

One plays for Philly and one plays for the Vikings?

The Eaqles had Sam Bradford on their roster, and were planning on starting him, until Bridgewater got hurt, which forced the Vikings into trading for Bradford.

That put Wentz into the starting role, while also adding, IIRC, 2 1st round picks to the Eagles haul.

I have to call BS on this one Ytown. If the Eagles truly believed that Bradford was their franchise QB and Wentz couldn't do the job, they would never had made that trade.

While I agree that the Vikings had to do something, Philly didn't.

Who said the eagles thought Bradford was their franchise guy?

More than likely, the eagles thought "hey, we'll sit the new guy for a year, let him learn, " etc. And then a really nice offer for Bradford came and they said "well, okay, we'll take that."

Exactly. They felt confident enough in Wentz to do just that.

You don't risk tanking a season by tossing the only QB you believe in away.

Surely nobody actually believes that. lol

I'm not certain what you're saying.

Regardless, let's transpose this to the Browns. As of now, on paper, Kessler is the starter. Or even Brock.

If an injury happens to a qb on another team, and the Browns are called up and offered a first and a fourth for Kessler or Brock........my guess is we make the trade....

Of course we do. Because exactly the same principal applies. We don't have a good QB on the roster that we know of now.

We just went out and put our biggest investment in a QB since Manziel. We just drafted Kessler last year in the 3rd and turned around and drafted Kizer in the 2nd. So which QB do they place the most belief in?

Why would they put a high value in any of the QB's on our roster?

It was no different with Bradford. They didn't really believe in him and felt that Wentz was capable of starting, so why not?

When you know your only choices are the shiny new toy and toys you've played with before that broke or weren't that much fun... well...

I just do not see him ready yet. zNeeds real NFL time for film and study. But I really don't want to see us play him when losing because we are paralyzing ourselves with the lame "We need to see what we really have" game again. How much bad do you need to see, how often, and how much more? Maybe you know and should go on in a fresh direction.

Loyalty is good and can be taken to a fault. Just fed up with the paralysis we have shown.

Quick question..... If they go through training camp and pre season, and after all of that, they believe that Kizer gives the Browns the best chance to win, who should they start?

see, that's the real question. Not when he was drafted or how much experience he has. You play to win the game.

I liked this version better:

You do play to win the game.. but when you are a team that hasn't won more than 5 games in a number of years, you also play to build a team that can win consistently. And sometimes those two things are not compatible...

If Kizer is the best option after 2 weeks of preseason games... and if our OL, with it's new pieces, has gelled and can protect him and give him a reasonable chance at success, then start him.. if either of those pieces are missing, don't start him.

If he's not ready, you will just kill whatever confidence he has.... and if the OL isn't able to protect him then you can destroy his confidence and destroy him physically...

I dunno...

A guy that thinks he's the combination of Tom Brady and Cam Newton has a lot of confidence..

Maybe some to spare..

You expanded upon what I really did not. The factors you mentioned would certainly factor into a decision of whether to start him or not. Along with his development and learning the system. I believe that for the coaching staff to believe that he gives us the bast chance to win, a lot of pieces of the puzzle would have to fall into place.

My main point is you simply can't just rule him out because he's a rookie.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. You can start a rookie because he gives you the best chance to win week 1.. but if it's not a legitimate chance and he's going to get mauled, you can do much more long term damage...

But damn, I have to admit, rolling a rookie out there in his first start and beating the Steelers would be about the sweetest feeling I can imagine for the Browns this year.

I have this vision of Brosweiler going into Houston and leading us to victory.

Is it likely. No.

But it's super hilarious.

Option #1.

If he shows he is ready to take the reins, let him take them.
If he isn't ready to take them from the other guys on the roster, he doesn't deserve them - that in itself is our answer on him.

As of today, 47% think he should sit all year.

26% think he should start the last few weeks if we have no chance of making the playoffs.

21% think he should start immediately if he shows promise.

And 6% think he should start by week eight to see at least half a season.

Everyone wants the rookie to sit.

Until we're 2-6 and staring at another high pick.

Then he needs to play so we can see what we have in him..

You know. So we can plan to draft the next guy as soon as possible.

I feel that you would first have to believe that opinions based on a poll that has zero evidence of how things will progress at the QB position holds any real value.

So far, none of them have taken a snap in training camp, pre-season or anything else. The way polls are worded have everything to do with the outcome. Let's put it this way... If you worded the poll in the following manner, without attaching a name to it, I believe the outcome would be pretty cut and dry.

At the end of pre-season would you rather....

A. Start the QB Hue feels gives us the best chance to win.

or B. Start a QB Hue doesn't feel gives us the best chance to win.

I feel the answer to the actual question of who should start would be obvious.

If he can play he can play.

OR we could work a few series in for him regularly say after week three. If he drives, he stays on the field. I want him to know what he needs to know. This mystery "we gotta see" is nonsense we can control. Play him some IF the Line holds up. Knowing you will go in with a set script ought to keep you hungry, focused, involved. If he can hold the field and score play him; no other reason for him to be here.

Give each guy a chance in camp, let the best man win... So many variables involved. Not sure how anyone can say who should start with any value.

Kizer is the young stud, No NFL experience yet.
Kessler knows the offense and wasn't horrible in his time playing.
Oswieler has the experience and the arm and the size.

Let it play out..

Can we just create a DNA splicer and combine them all into one guy and play him?

DeBrocky Koswessizer.

...hmm... I may have found my new username

We could but then we would have to wait 22 years for him to grow up... and then the Steelers would end up with the first pick that year.

As of today, the first day of training camp:

42% think he should sit all year.

26% think he should start the last few weeks if we have no chance of making the playoffs.

21% think he should start immediately if he shows promise.

And 12% think he should start by week eight to see at least half a season.

This is a shift from a month ago when 47% thought he should sit all year and only 6% felt he should start by week 8.

Thanks for the update. I still haven't voted and probably will not vote until the preseason is over, if at all.

Too much is unknown. I trust Hue on this one

Wondering how it'd go if it was reset and done again.

I'd vote the same.

I was a "sit him, he needs time" guy, but I'm moving into more of a "start him when he won't hold everyone else back/he's ready" guy. When that'll be is hard to tell, but it is sounding sooner than I expected. Most everything is sunshine and rainbows this time of year, though, so who knows what's fact or fiction.

A week into training camp:

Start Kizer immediately if he shows promise in training camp., he's our best option at QB. - (20%)
Start Kizer by week eight, we have to see at least half a season from him this year. - (11%)
Start Kizer the last few weeks of the season if there's no chance of going to the playoffs. - (25%)
Sit Kizer the entire year, he needs time to develop. - (43%)

FTR at this point I believe he will be the starter. I don't think Brock or Kessler have done anything that would prevent them from developing Kizer as quickly as possible. Based on what I've read (and granted the info is thin) it seems Kessler is losing ground and Brock is merely treading water while Kizer continues to improve, going through progressions, making reads and, most importantly, moving the football and scoring points. We'll see. It's still early, and as I mentioned info is thin, but if this is the case, there's no point in not starting him.

I don't want to see him play till Hue thinks it is more beneficial for him to play and gain experience then to not. I don't want to see the guy rushed and have us ruin him just because he is the best option now.

Normally, I'd say no. Let this guy sit for a year and see the speed of the game, and also, the speed of the schedule..

But, this is the Browns, and if he isn't the week one starter, he'll have probably started a game by week 6 or 7, who are we kidding.

I just hope these QB's finally understand the importance of durability. Throw the damn ball away and stop trying to be a hero.

You should wait until he is in year 3.. then vote in hindsight on what you think we should have done 3 years ago... it will be really hard to ever be wrong that way.

I would say sit him all year, but if by week 12 and the playoffs being not in sight, then by all means, we should at least find out what he might have with the 2018 Draft becoming a focus.

I am shocked by the poll results, not that there is a right answer right now. I say start him for the London game, I believe there is a bye week before that game.

So the numbers are in at the end of training camp. 43% think he should sit all year.

26% think he should start the last few weeks if we have no chance of making the playoffs.

19% think he should start immediately if he shows promise.

And 13% think he should start by week eight to see at least half a season.

It looks like the starting job may be Brock's to lose. If he craps the bed, we'll see Kizer sooner than we may hope. If Brock is serviceable and wins games, Kizer gets to sit and learn. The good news, IMHO, we may be okay either way.

now what ... brock sucks. kizer isn't ready. kessler is afraid.

We need to ride Os and Kessler until Hue thinks Kiser is ready enough that playing him won't hurt his growth, otherwise we will be just prolonging our QB search.

Interesting. Predictions are not always 20/20.