DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2017 NFL Season 2017 NFL Draft The Pressure To Get It Right

Obviously the FO is under extreme pressure to get this draft right. Is it possible for them to succumb to it to the point they blow they draft? What are your thoughts on this?

AS RUMORS SWIRL, THE BROWNS' PICK AT NO. 1 HAS NFL AND OTHER TEAMS CONCERNED

Mike Freeman
NFL National Lead Writer
April 14, 2017

"I feel sorry for them."

That's how the conversation started with a longtime NFL team executive this week. Sympathy in the NFL is not a common currency. Sympathy is seen as a weakness. Sympathy is for suckers. Sympathy is a currency for losers.

He was talking about the Cleveland Browns.

They have been so awful, so frustratingly putrid, that we have reached a point where this No. 1 pick for the Browns isn't just one of the most important in franchise history. It's one of the most important in the history of the NFL.

There's a feeling among owners and league office personnel that they can't have a team stink so badly and be the butt of so many jokes, and not have an effect on the entire NFL.

I've heard half-joking references from front office executives that the league should take over the Browns temporarily and have the team run by a committee of Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft and union head DeMaurice Smith. Though it was said mostly in jest, I think some of these execs are serious.

The No. 1 pick is always important, no matter which team owns it. It can spark a turnaround or leave a team stuck in the mud.

But when it comes to the Browns, there are some in the league who feel Cleveland has to get this right; the NFL can't have one of its teams be a decadeslong laughingstock.

An NFL official posed this question to me: Can a league be truly the gold standard, as the NFL thinks of itself, when one of its teams is a dead, diseased appendage? Read that last part again—a dead, diseased appendage.

The historical importance of this draft is not lost on the Browns. That may be why, according to various team sources, the divide between the coaches and front office is fairly extensive. It's not unusual for coaches and front offices to disagree, but the gap in Cleveland this year is fairly significant.

One scout told me that coach Hue Jackson wants a quarterback at No. 1 and the front office wants Texas A&M defensive end Myles Garrett. But ESPN's Adam Schefter has tweeted that it appears Jackson is leaning toward Garrett. He also reported that the team hasn't made up its mind on whom to pick.

Myles Garrett appears to be caught in an internal debate over whom the Browns should select at No. 1 in the draft.

On Wednesday night, I was told the Browns are strongly considering trading out of the first spot and taking quarterback Mitchell Trubisky later in the round.

Smoke screens abound, sure, and what's happening depends on the day and to whom you speak. But there is more smoke than a forest fire when it comes to the Browns.

The Cleveland front office, I can say with certainty, feels a great deal of pressure to get this one right. And not just the normal amount of pressure a team feels with having the top pick, either. The weight of Browns flubbed drafts in the past weigh on this regime. Consider the last two times Cleveland had the No. 1 pick: It selected quarterback Tim Couch in 1999 and defensive end Courtney Brown in 2000. Neither had sustained success in Cleveland.

Many franchises, across the NFL, and all of sports, have had stretches of horrid play and drafts. The Raiders went through horrible stretches. The Buccaneers were once so awful they were called the Yuccaneers. The Bears haven't been great. Neither have the Jets.

But the Browns enjoy a special place in the chronicles of football ineptitude. The Jets won a Super Bowl, even if it was in 1969. The Buccaneers also have a Lombardi Trophy. The Raiders have a history matched by few and recently have transformed their franchise. The Bears have a Super Bowl and had arguably the best defense of all time in 1985.

The Browns have...they have...hold on a minute...thinking...something will come to me.

The Browns have history—pre-Super Bowl history. They had the greatest player of all time in Jim Brown, but no team, maybe in all of sports, has had their kind of bad luck, particularly in the draft. This is a team that selected Johnny Manziel, one of the great draft busts ever.

The year before the Manziel selection may have been worse. ESPN ranked the team's 2013 draft—led by LSU defensive end Barkevious Mingo at No. 6—as the 19th-worst of all time. I'd rank it higher.

One of the most stunning draft statistics comes via ProFootballTalk.com, which tracks players and the teams offering fifth-year options (meant to keep valued rookies). Of all the selections from the 2014 draft, only two are no longer in football: Browns picks Manziel and Justin Gilbert.

The selection of Johnny Manziel in 2014 was just one of the more recent of the many mistakes the Browns have made in the draft.

The point is clear: There are plenty of ways to illustrate the Browns' ineptitude in the draft. But this year, their sorry history in April has drawn the attention of other teams and the league office.

There's a sense throughout the league that this is a turning point in the franchise's history.

This draft goes well, the thinking goes, and it can all turn around quickly. If it goes poorly, the Browns will continue to be an anchor on the league.

"I feel sorry for them."

If they blow this, we all will.

Mike Freeman covers the NFL for Bleacher Report. Follow him on Twitter: @mikefreemanNFL.

thanks for the read

I heard an interesting "theory" that they've leaded their infatuation with Trubisky in order for a team to draft him before pick #12 ... that would push a player they like further back to them (Hooker, Allen, Watson, etc?)

Cleveland Browns have me feeling better about this draft ... really, they do! -- Terry Pluto (video, photos)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns will do a better job in the draft this year.

There, I said it.

The Browns will do a better job in the 2017 NFL Draft than they did in the 2016 draft.

Of course, you can say the Browns can have a 3-13 record in 2017, and that would be better than 1-15 in 2016.

Big deal, right?

But let's use some logic.

I know, logic doesn't always apply to the Browns.

In fact, their futility defies logic.

But let's try to be logical, anyway.

Why can the Browns do a better job in the draft?

Let's talk about it.

Link

That makes a lot of sense.

Maybe. I'm just not sure there's that much calculated finesse happening there. I also believe they have genuine interest in him, and that type of leak would shoot them in the foot. It would be the kind of mistake that could help them "blow" this one too.

Good Lord, the draft happens about a month and a half too late. All this talk in the media based on smoke.

This is just more of the "Draft Rumors Flying."

Hue Jackson is a Myles Garrett guy and other Browns buzz on the 'split' at No. 1

By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com
on April 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, updated April 14, 2017 at 12:26 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- In the wake of a report that the Browns have 'split opinions' on Myles Garrett vs. Mitch Trubisky at No. 1, here's my take on that and other buzz heading into NFL Draft 2017:

1. Hue Jackson is a Myles Garrett guy

Since the report by ESPN's Adam Schefter on Tuesday that the Browns have "split opinions" on Garrett vs. Trubisky at No. 1 overall, I've seen it written several places that Jackson favors Trubisky -- but sources tell cleveland.com he's actually in the Garrett camp.

Folks assume he favors Trubisky because he's the quarterback expert, but he provided five clues at NFL meetings last month that he prefers the Texas A&M pass rusher at No. 1.

First and foremost, he wants a surefire game changer - the clear-cut best player in the draft.

"Everybody is not the No. 1 pick in the draft,'' Jackson said at the league meetings. "There's maybe only one or two or three guys that can actually be that.
"When you draft a guy as the No. 1 pick in the National Football League, you want him to be a very dominant player, you want him to be a cornerstone player, you want him to be a generational player. That's got to be the focus as we continue to move forward.''

According to most draft experts, Garrett is the only player in this draft who fits that description. What's more, Jackson made it clear that none of the quarterbacks had separated himself from the others at that point.

"Hopefully somebody will,'' he said. "That would make it easier as you look at it. But that hasn't been decided."

Even after all the private workouts and visits with the quarterbacks, Jackson hasn't changed his stance on Garrett, sources say.

2. So who wants Trubisky?

If it's true that the Browns are really split -- and not a smokescreen to spur trade interest -- it would have to be some or all in the front office leaning that way for the top pick, although I think most in the organization would be in agreement with taking him later.

The front-office decision-makers consist of head of football operations Sashi Brown -- who will make the final decision -- Chief Strategy Officer Paul DePodesta and Vice President of Player Personnel Andrew Berry.

Brown stressed at the league meetings that the Browns were still considering several players at No. 1, and that the Browns would have interest in the pick and listen to offers, so it should be no surprise they're vigorously debating the top candidates.

DePodesta has made it clear he's following Jimmy Johnson's model of building the Cowboys into a Super Bowl dynasty in the 1990s -- and it all started with drafting Troy Aikman No. 1 overall in 1989.

The Browns are already taking major heat for passing on Carson Wentz at No. 2 last year, and likely don't want to miss out on a potential franchise quarterback again.

Can Trubisky be that guy? Perhaps. But I've talked to several talent evaluators who are skittish about those 13 starts and his ability to process NFL defenses, and complex offenses right away.

No one would fault the Browns if Garrett doesn't live up to expectations, but if they blow it on Trubisky, heads will roll before long and the coach is usually the first to go.

As one NFL personnel exec told me, "It's not even close between Garrett and Trubisky.''

3. Can they get them both?

It's possible the Browns could take Garrett No. 1 overall and then trade back up from No. 12 to draft Trubisky. The problem is, they might have to trade all the way up to No. 2 with the 49ers to get him, and that would cost a king's ransom. Remember what it took for the Eagles to move up from No. 8 to No. 2 last year? It included a 2017 first-rounder and a 2018 second-rounder.

I asked 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan about that at the league meetings, and he admitted he was intrigued. What's more, 49ers GM John Lynch said this week the 49ers are open for business.

I had one personnel man tell me Trubisky has more upside potential than Wentz, while others say it's a big gamble.

I also asked Shanahan about Garrett's 13 starts, and he said that despite his limited experience "he played at a very high level, and that's why he's in this discussion for everybody.''

He also acknowledged that he hopes this QB class contains a franchise guy and that a good quarterback prospect doesn't necessarily trump an elite non-QB.

"Just an OK quarterback usually doesn't make it in the league,'' he said. "Everyone's trying to find that guy, and so you always want to take a guy that has a chance to be that guy. You don't want to reach on that just because of the position. You've got to feel good about it, and if you do, you don't hesitate. Great quarterbacks aren't there year in and year out. It's a tough process.''

The fact that Trubisky and the other prospects will need some time to get good doesn't faze Shanahan.

"The thing that's most important is who's going to be the best player, not who's going to be ready day one,'' he said.

Even if the 49ers pass on Trubisky, some say he won't get past the Jets at No. 6, meaning the Browns would have to climb ahead of them.

After acquiring all those picks in the Wentz trade, including this year's No. 12, do they really want to spend a lot of them to move back up and take a quarterback who may or may not be as good as they guy they passed on at No. 2 last year?

4. Is there a rift between the coaching staff and the analytics guys?

The buzz is that there is some discord. One exec told me he sensed it in Phoenix, and another league source told me afterward it exists. But old-school football guys aren't necessarily rooting for Moneyball to work in the NFL. Natural tension often exists between coaching and personnel, but the Browns' situation is unique because of their heavy emphasis on analytics.

The truth is, we don't know if it's working yet. There's no way you can say it's working yet coming off a 1-15 season. We won't really know until after this vitally important draft. That's when we'll have a better handle on the reported split and tension between the two entities.

Perhaps they'll emerge with Garrett and Trubisky and win half a dozen or so games in 2017 and everyone will be happy. Winning has a way of bridging gaps.

Link

I'd say there's no pressure like the Browns pressure to get it right. They obviously know it. You have a clear choice at #1 and you desperately need a QB with no QBs worthy of the number one pick (in theory). The obvious choice is take Garrett. Yet it's the need for a QB that keeps them up at night. The pressure to get it right could be the factor in them getting it wrong. I'm not saying they will, just that it could happen. We've seen it before.

MK "I also asked Shanahan about Garrett's 13 starts" ... opps.

"If it's true that the Browns are"
"It's possible the Browns could"
"The buzz is that there is some discord"
"One exec told me he sensed it"

The draft can't get here soon enough.

Here's a question. If there's no Miles Garrett in this draft, doesn't anyone bat an eye if the FO selects Trubisky at #1?

Yes, I would be all about Adams, Allen, maybe someone else, or trading down a bit.

It makes it more likely - but like Brownaholic just said - I think if there is no MG - then a trade down becomes most probable or desirable outcome. It doesn't make Trubisky less of a risk if there is no MG.

And I'd be all about Adams or Hooker if we didn't have a trade partner.

I don't know. You have a QB needy team sitting at #2. Some would say Trubisky is less of a risk that Wentz was. If that's the case, don't you take the QB at #1?

The question I would ask would be, how many of the 32 teams would pass on Garrett If they had the 1st selection?

Is that the consensus?? Would Trubisky have been the # 1 or 2 rated QB last year? I honestly don't think I've seen that discussion, which is weird considering I'm at this damn site so much.

Well there's that "some would say" thing. If it were the case I'd say yes. But I don't believe that's the case at all. And for some reason the fact that "some would say" isn't going to change my mind.

Not trying to sell anyone on the idea, or stating it as fact. I believe the entire notion would be subjective, and open to personal interpretation. (I see Wentz last year and Trubisky this year as about equal, with Wentz having the slight edge, but that's JMO.) So if you happened to feel that way, would you take him #1, if there was no MG? You said you would, if you did, so there's the answer. If you don't feel that way, maybe you'd trade down and hope he's there later, or maybe you'd take someone else (like Allen or Hooker). I don't think there are any right or wrong answers here, as they are all unproven at this particular point in time.

The FO and Hues safest option is Garrett at 1 or trade down for a ransom you cannot refuse. San Fran has already thrown silly money in FA. Don't compete with that. Stick to the plan. If they genuinely truly believe Trubisky is THE guy, take him. If you have any doubt take Garrett. No one will can anyone for taking the best player in the draft as agreed almost unanimously by talking heads. We have done a good job in free agency. Ignore the noise.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were trying to sell anything.

I was simply basing my opinion on the assertion of "what some people say".

The most I would be willing to do for any QB in this draft is move from #33 to #32 for the sake of the fifth year option on the off chance they actually pan out. And Watson is my top rated QB in this draft.

I think the whole Trubisky thing is malarkey. We aren't touching him at 12, I'm betting he doesn't go in the Top 20 (likely not first 32), and we SURE AS HECK are NOT touching him at #1.

I'd bet if he's there at #12, we take him. Further, I don't discount the possibility of trading up past the Jets to get him (assuming he slips past Chicago).

I'm of the mind that we don't want him; If we don't also go defense at #12, I'm thinking we just might take a RT.

Also, I don't think this FO really feels "pressure", or at least not to the extent that this article would have everyone believe. Sure, there is a long history of failure here - it's what we do best, but while these guys are the current caretakers and inheritors of that history, it isn't their history. I think they absolutely feel some pressure and definitely want to get it right, and that it is pivotal - for sure. This is the draft is the one they set themselves up for -- they loaded the bases for a big swing for the fences this year and next, but I think that they are doing the homework that sets pressure aside.

What makes you think that, Purp?



Makes a lot of sense, and I hope you're right.

Mostly? Nothing concrete - just a hunch.
Partly? The fact that in December, many felt that none of these QB's were even worthy of a 1st round pick, period. Trubisky gets the hype because in an incredibly weak and pathetic QB class, he stands apart from the rest - but only by a little bit.

I HOPE that he, Kizer, and Watson all go in the Top 10... as long as none of them go to Cleveland. It makes our choices at 12 a whole lot more appealing.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for Wentz's success early in the season (rest of the season, not so much).

Clarification: this is regarding your prediction that he won't go in the top-20.

You don't draft NFL veterans who are in a good mix of position group and have been coached how to perform and tested in the fire of adversity.
You draft rookies.

So some case could be made that other players could have been selected by the Browns and ended up bad because the Browns offered bad soil to grow the rookie seed, into a veteran plant.

And Former Browns, "drafted Browns" were playing in the Super Bowl this year.(And last, Ward)

My point is, that getting it right in April isn't as important as getting it right in Sept-January, and over the long course of a 3,4 or more year period.

What dya expect! Ya changed "A" coach, coordinator, owner, or Gm, probably more than 30 times in the last 10-11 years. (unstable soil)
So, Continuity, rearing it's ugly head in the comments "in jest" in the article above.

And: Sorry Art Rooney died. And I Hate the Steelers. But he wasn't the worst example of how to do things right.
Another example: Dolphins voting against the Raiders move to Los Vegas, I like that.

Tradition, and Identity are what will pull you out of the role.

CalDawg if I believed that that article had merit, I'd say the Browns should take Deshaun Watson #1 because he won the college championship, he had the success the year before,

It could clearly be seen as going for the best player at the most important position, Quarterback, and the biggest defense against accusations that you're not doing it right.

And, you won't have to use a dozen picks to move up to #1 to get a qb next year, ... THEY'VE GOT THE COTTON PICKIN #1 PICK!
THEY'VE ALREADY GOT IT, IN 13 DAYS AND 20 minutes. Wow.

If they want to get it right draft the #1 rated player, Myles Garret and let the rest of the draft come to you. There is too much talent and we have a lot of picks. We can turn this around quickly with a good draft and not reaching for guys like we have in the past. JMO

They are set up for a very nice Draft .. I just don't see how Even the Browns can screw this up .. You take the peopleS ( and almost everyone else ) choice at one GARRETT.. Sit back and lick you chops about which stud payer ( most likely D ) will slide down to 12 .. I mean how easy is hat ? Having two seconds and a top 3 give all types of options to play with so you end up with two more Starters ..

The Jets WILL take a QB. So, if they are all on the board at 6 it will be interesting to see who goes first. Watson or Trubisky.

And, are we sure Chicago wont take a QB at 3?

I would. Not with all the other good players available. We can draft 3-4 solid starters in the first 3 rounds. Maybe even pick up another after that. Just because we "need" a QB doesn't make it the right move.

It's not like this team couldn't use a infusion of talent across the board. Just use some common sense, don't reach and add solid starting players to the roster. That is how you get better.

Hard to be sure of anything. I hope they do. That brings a really good player one pick closer to 12.

I am tired of trying to pinpoint that one QB tree when you have a forest of stud trees right in front of you. Just good good players. We will get better.

Or Mahomes. I saw a writer say (FWIW) the Browns have spent more time looking at him than Coleman and Ogbah combined.

Having acquired Glennon and Sanchez (Shaw being the #3), I see no way the Bears go any other way than Thomas or Adams...

I've seen Mahomes really climb up a lot of boards. At least a couple have the cardinals taking him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is targeted. At this point I'm sure 3 qbs will go round 1.

Unless you love everything about Trubisky he is a significant risk. Watson might not gave a big enough arm that teams want in a qb drafted very high.

At this point at #12 I'd be fine with taking Trubisky.. Provided Adams n Hooker are gone. Not so much Watson or Mahomes at 12. Trading back up for a third #1 I'd be fine with Mahomes or Watson in the 20+ range.

If Trub or Mahomes is picked. Figure they should both sit for 8+ games. If Watson is picked then I'd think he has every chance to start.

What are the 49er's going to do ?

Who is the better prospect/upside guy at this point in their careers: Trubisky or Tanehill?

Yeah, but pointing out the Browns futility makes a good story, so there's that.