DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2017 NFL Season Looking Back: Browns 13 Buccaneers 9 Kiser's debut

I just watched every play Kizer had on nfl.com and I feel like the stat line doesn't quite tell the entire picture. It tells me more about how bad our receivers are to be honest.

He made a couple of poor decisions but overall the kid looks like a dangerous talent. The real question is.. Can he figure out the mental aspect of the game?

I am interested in seeing how he performs after throwing an early INT ( because let's be real, that is going to happen a lot with this kid).

Just a few observations after watching Kizer's plays a few more times.

I think Kizer's issues were more underestimating defenders speed than making bad reads (L. David deflection, ~12:45 left 2nd qtr). Also looked like he and some of the backup receivers weren't always on the same page. For example, he had the one bad looking pass where Hall sat down in the left flat and he missed well wide right. I think based on the coverage that Hall did the right thing by sitting, but Kizer may have expected him to do it more in the hole where he threw it (~13:40 left 2nd qtr). There was also the near pick by Ryan Smith on a comeback route where his receiver went to the sticks and didn't really break back to the ball (~1:40 left 2nd qtr), It wasn't 3rd down, so perhaps he expected the receiver to cut the route off at 8 yards to make it 3rd and manageable.

I also didn't notice any overly long strides from Kizer like was mentioned shortly after the draft. Some of his overthrows looked more a result of not being able to follow through, though he also did just miss some (Deep shot to Boyce comes to mind (~4:45 left 2nd qtr)-not sure how much work that pairing has had).

His chemistry with Coleman and Britt looked solid. (Of course Britt dropped the one in the red zone)

He also was fitting the ball into NFL sized windows.

He still has a lot of work to do, but I think he may have the goods.

Sidenote: I'm officially an "Expert Analyst" (LOL). Just unlocked the achievement for watching over 1,000 highlights/replays on the NFL app on the XBoxOne.

j/c

Just got to see the game yesterday on NFL Network.

This kid has talent, that much is for sure. But just like every other rookie, how he progresses is anyone's guess. Now before anybody goes off on that comment, just look how many posters were saying they couldn't wait to see CK this year after having a year to progress. Then think about what we saw. Some players progress and some don't. That's just how it works.

From a pure talent standpoint he's the best QB I've seen in a Browns uniform since the team has returned since 1999. The only one who compares would be Tim couch.

Let's tackle one more issue I have about QB's. I keep hearing people say that starting a rookie will ruin him. I've seen people say things like, "Look at how many QB's we've ruined by throwing them to the wolves as rookies". I call BS! Posters have zero way of knowing if these QB's would have been any good had they of sat for a year, two years, or even three years. It's nothing more than a wild guess.

We're going to see some great throws and some head scratchers. Highs and lows. It's going to take patience with the kid and let's see how things go.

I'm curious to see how Kizer does once teams start to disguise things. He is locking on to receivers, but it seems to be a good pre-snap read generally and they aren't giving him any reason to change off of it. Knowing where to go based on the coverage is good, but he does need to do a better job of not staring at it.

Maybe ... but I'm just looking at historically what actually happens with QBs in the NFL. The best QBs almost ALL fit into one of three situations: 1) They were drafted before any other position player (ie, usually first pick) ... 2) They were plugged into a a good running offense with a really good defense .. or 3) They SAT for at least half a season, if not longer.

Meanwhile, non #1 QBs that get thrown into the mix immediately and are expected to carry crappy offenses, fail almost every single time. More often than not they get happy feet (Tim Couch/David Carr syndrome) because they're expecting to get crushed every single play.

Seriously though, can you think of an exception? The best one I can think of is Derek Carr, and even there, they had started putting the pieces of an offense around him with Amari Cooper and such. On the flip side, I can give you example after example of guys that sat and turned out great: Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Phil Rivers, etc.

I will say this ... Kizer has two things working in his favor: He has what "should" be a good offensive line in front of him. That's something that guys like Couch and Carr never had the benefit of. He also has the ability to run, which makes a good fail-safe for when things break down. I think that's what made guys like Donovan McNabb successful, in that when they were still learning the offense, if things broke down, he could take off running. Guys like Couch would just take a sack.

There have been several QB's that have started early on teams that were disappointing before they arrived. The first one that comes to mind is Mariota. More and more drafted QB's are starting early and many of them seem to be having success.

Like I said, using the Browns as an example, which QB's have "we ruined"?

You mean how bad one receiver is.. Coleman did a great job but Britt wasn't good at all.

Good point.

Imho the coaches are going to be pivotal in Kizer recognizing and adjusting to defenses. The offense is going to be very coaching intensive and designed to beat the defense by giving the QB easy reads. Its a lot on the coaches plate because they're gonna have to manufacture offense rather then put a lot of onus on the QB reading it out and making a series of correct decisions....Sometimes the result is a 'boring' offense or a 'boring' passing game. But imho that's the right way to raise a QB in a pro-style offense. Look at the style of offense Joe ran as a rookie or Wilson ran as a rookie etc.

I think Hue is good at building a simple but productive offense for the QB to execute.

Agreed. We have drafted some guys who just weren't good (Quinn, Frye, Weeden, McCoy) and one who may not have been good but self-destructed before we found out (JFF)

Mariota was drafted before any other position player, which fits the first scenario I was talking about. Guys that are good enough to go #1/#2 can sometimes carry an offense. Guys that get drafted later than that, almost never do.



Like you said, there's no way of telling. Who knows what might of been if any of those guys went to other teams with more established offenses, or got time to learn the ropes for a couple of months before getting put in.

But lets take Kirk Cousins for example. He went to Washington and got a few years to learn the speed of the game. When he took over for RG3, he was familiar with the offense and what defenses did in the pros. I get the feeling that people think if we just drafted him and plugged him in day one here, he would of been just as successful. I think he would of had his confidence destroyed by Week 8, and everyone would of been questioning his athletic ability and calling him a bust soon after.

All I know is that we keep throwing QB after QB into the starting lineup right away and for some reason they all turn out to be "busts" ... meanwhile, some of the most successful QBs in the league are guys that got drafted outside of the first round and sat a year or more before taking over.

Bud, we haven't been able to keep the same O for more than two years in what seems like forever. If you let a rookie QB sit for three years in Cleveland, he has learned at least two O's in that time.

You can only allow a rookie to sit and learn in a stable environment. We haven't had that for a very long time.

Generally, I agree with this line of reasoning. There have been several examples in the last 10 years or so, that have bucked that trend; Wilson, and Prescot come quickly to mind. Oh yeah, and Flacco, whose QB coach was Hue Jackson. My ASSumption is that Jackson will try to duplicate what they did with Flacco in Baltimore.

All three of those guys fit into my second scenario ... QBs that were plugged into well established offenses with a solid to great running game, and a decent defense on the flipside. They were allowed to "game manage" early in their careers and weren't forced to carry the offense themselves.

Do we have that here? Maybe better than any situation we've had lately. We do have a good O-line on paper, and what could be a pretty decent runningback stable, but nothing that comes close to the Beast Mode/Elliot type Runningback situations that took the pressure off of guys like Wilson and Prescott.

Pitt, I agree with you about the revolving offenses too. That's what I'm getting at with this second scenario. You can't have an established offense when you pull the plug on it 2 years into switching to it. If we actually stuck with a coach for more than 3 years and THEN plugged a rookie QB into that situation, we might be better off. We've yet to do that, and therefore we've never come close to giving a young QB the type of situation that Wilson, Prescott, Flacco or even Big Ben walked into.

No, he sat a year behind Doug Flutie.

Matt Ryan started right away iirc.

He's kind of the exception to the rule, but then again he's sort of not. He was drafted #3, behind two teams that really wanted Left Tackles, so he was pretty close to being a #1 Franchise kind of guy. He was plugged into an offense with a first year coach, but they also picked up Michael Turner from San Diego, who was really good, but stuck behind Tomlinson (He got 1700 yards his first year in Atlanta). And they also already had Roddy White.

QB's who started week one as rookies

2008:
Matt Ryan (1st round)
Joe Flacco (1st round)
2009:

Matthew Stafford (1st overall)
Mark Sanchez (1st round)
2010:

Sam Bradford (1st overall)
2011:

Cam Newton (1st overall)
Andy Dalton (2nd round)
2012:

Andrew Luck (1st overall)
Robert Griffin III (1st round)
Ryan Tannehill (1st round)
Brandon Weeden (1st round)
Russell Wilson (3rd round)
2013:

EJ Manual (1st round)
Geno Smith (2nd round)
2014:

Derek Carr (2nd round)
2015:

Jameis Winston (1st overall)
Marcus Mariota (1st round)
2016:

Dak Prescott (4th round)
Carson Wentz (2nd overall)

And most of them fit the mold ... They were either a top of the first pick, or they were plugged into established offenses. The ones that weren't sucked.

Not true. He did not play a snap until the last game of his first year.

Totally agree and it's easy to see.

NOONE we've ever trotted out there has had what Kizer brings to the table.

Only 2 have had even a decent arm and size.

DA just didn't have it upstairs and was mentally weak.

Weeden just looks like a Real Life Bobblehead.

Hoping Kizer works out. Damn it would be sweet to go into the draft with 5 picks in the first 2 rounds and not have to deal with a QB again.

THAT could be the turning point for this team.

Actually, I think the direct parallel from that list is Derek Carr;

Both were drafted by a historically bad team in the early stages of a turn-around.
Both were drafted in the 2nd round because that team drafted a defensive stud in the first round.
The Raiders used their first round pick the following year to give Carr a #1 receiver because he lacked offensive weapons.

The Raiders draft of 2014 is considered a great draft because they landed both Mack and Carr (and on OLman whose name escapes me) and it is viewed as the turning point for them. We got Garrett, Peppers, Kizer, Dayes, and possibly Gonzalez who all look like significant first year contributors in one draft. There's also Njoku who is more of a project. Time will tell, but the Brown's 2017 draft may turn out better, and for the same reasons.

I think the most important things we can take from that list are that 14 of 19 of them are current starting qb's, and not one of the non starters were ruined by being thrown to the wolves.

Well I hope the Browns follow that path. But the Raiders also went 3-13 his rookie year. He put up 3200 yards, but had a 58% completion ratio. If a QB did that in Cleveland, people would have the pitchforks out and we'd likely fire the head coach too.

How do we know that though? Most people will just say that they "never had it" because they stunk right away. Meanwhile, everyone will be fighting next off-season over Kirk Cousins and Jimmy Garoppolo.

Like I've been saying, most of those guys were #1/#2 pick in the draft, and probably should still be starting for those teams.

The guys that weren't top picks and were still successful, all had these things going for them: A 1000 yard rusher or a good stable of running backs, a 1000 yard receiver, and a top 10 defense. Do we have that? Tough to say right now. Our defense looks improved, our oline is supposed to be better, and we could potentially get a 1000 yard RB. WR is the big worry for me.

The lone exception is Derek Carr. And that stretches back to 2000. In 17 years, there's only one guy that was plugged into a pretty bad team and came out on top. Meanwhile there are plenty examples of non-top picks that sat for awhile and had great careers ... and I'm talking HOF type careers (Brady, Brees, Rogers)

This is why I think the Cleveland fan base and Cleveland media are ranked #1 out of all fan bases in the idiot department.

I think that might be a bit of an oversimplification. It'd also depend on how he came to those numbers. As long as he made progress as things went along and had a few nice highlights, I think we're at the point where our expectations aren't as high as they used to be. Of course, we'll still have those with their pitchforks out, just for the sake of having them out no matter how he does.