DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kizer Rnd 7

Peyton Manning had 28 picks in his rookie year.

Causing his nose to bleed.

Unless you look at it realistically.

Firstly, the fumbles are no big deal. Kizer had less than Trubisky on far more snaps, and nobody gives a damn how many Trubisky had. Yet, when it's Kizer, suddenly it's a pattern that defines him. Fumble prone. Turnover prone. Nobody cared about Wentz, either, who beat them both with 13 fumbles. Goff played in only 7 games, yet he had 7 fumbles, so that would extrapolate to 16 on the season. Marcus Mariota had 10 on way less snaps.

Kizer's 9 fumbles aren't all that bad, even compared to rookies drafted significantly higher than him.

As for the interception, I still think it's unfair that people don't add any context to them whatsoever;

Baltimore - One directly off the hands of Duke Johnson.
Colts - Kasen Williams runs the wrong route, cutting inside when Kizer was expecting him to go outside. Bounces directly off Britt's chest. One on a final play heave from his own endzone, down 3 with 0 on the clock.
Bengals - Literally bounced off the numbers on Britt's hands.
Detriot - If you're cool with the effort from Ricardo Louis from that endzone jump ball, cool. I'm not.

He also threw plenty in impossible situations or situations in which a shot isn't the worst thing.

- Down by 9 against the chargers, final drive, nobody open, forces a pass.

- 3rd & 11 vs Packers, out of FG range, 22 seconds left in the half, Browns up 14-7, Kizer takes a shot that is essentially a punt.

- OT vs Packers, arm hit after initially avoiding immediate pressure, was targeting a wide open probably-for-a-touchdown Higgins.

- Baltimore, 3rd & 5, down 17 in the 4th, play gets blown up, Kizer forces a pass to Crowell that's picked.

There's just 11 that I'm not mad at. That either were not on him, not entirely on him, or were situations that you never want a rookie quarterback in because there is a 90% chance they're going to do exactly what he did.

To be fair, he had a good couple of picks hit the turf, but we could say the same for touchdowns - especially including that dime to Coleman for a dropped TD against the Bengals.

That's not to absolve Kizer of responsibility, but to highlight that a rookie doing rookie things isn't the doomsday prediction you make it out to be - much less does it warrant forcing him from the roster, as you constantly suggest.

We also need to factor in other important aspects;

- If you love Hue or hate him, he didn't get to run the ball the way he wanted to. Kizer didn't get any help.

- Show me a mock draft that doesn't highlight how desperately the Browns need to give the next rookie some weapons. You can't want to bring in talent but then be upset by the acknowledgement that Kizer had none to work with.

- Kizer was plagued by drops. If you don't have at least 40 on the season, you're objectively lying. Louis, Njoku, Britt and Coleman all struggled with their hands. A case is very easy to make that Kizer had 10% of his passes dropped (47). An ESPN analyst had it at 3 drops per game in the middle of the season, and the drop thread started during the season had an average of three per game until it died out because nobody wanted to relive how many wasted opportunities there were.

- If you love Hue or hate him, he led the league in calling vertical concepts. That's a death kiss for a rookie QB, even if it was situationally required, and directly led to multiple interceptions (Colts, Ravens, Packers, Bears, etc).

- The defense let in the 3rd most points per game. There is a reason everyone is mocking corners and a FS to the Browns. Kizer needed to score an average of 27 points, and in 7 games needed to score OVER 27 points to win. That's why over 10 of his interceptions occurred in the 4th quarter + the one in overtime. Desperate rookies make desperate plays, and he never got the chance to cruise - He did once against Green Bay, until the defense coughed up a 14 point lead in the damn 4th quarter.

- To Hue's eternal credit, he fought hard for a win. He never coasted. Go watch some of Trubisky's big losses - they never asked him to try and fight them back in to it. If they didn't win off the strength of the run & D, they were not going to cut Trubisky loose. That's why he averaged 27 passes per game, and Kizer never threw less than 28 passes in a game, averaging 35.

This is just additional context. Kizer turns the ball over too much. But unless we do better around the next rookie, don't be shocked to find him in the same boat because the 2017 season just flat out wasn't good enough, and it's foolish to think only Kizer deserves criticism for the passing offense failing.

Thorough, supported and accurate.

Peyton manning had 28 int’s his rookie year, I think.

BDU, I think its commendable to see a fan still defending Kizer, this is a very sensible position, since he is a rookie QB after all.

Interesting to see other posters who defended QB's like Frye and Couch to exhaustion, now being so definitive about Kizer, but that's the state of the Browns right now.

My opinion on Kizer would be similar to yours, I don't think you can judge a QB performance when you have such a mediocre OC and HC.

But I cannot get over the amount of dumb plays, and the lack of awareness he showed in some situations. Kizer is Fryesque, in the sense you can count on a dumb turnover per game. He reminds me of Sanchez also in that regard..

And I'm one of the few that actually think Int's can be a good sign for a QB, it shows that he's willing to take risks, providing they are not dumb turnovers...

I just think Kizer gets a bad wrap too often.

More accurate quarterback - Kizer or Watson?

Kizer's adjusted completion percentage was 65.7% compared to Watson's 65.6%.

Crazy, right? It wasn't hyperbole when pointing out just how bad the drop problem was. Yet, that won't sway anyone. Kizer will still be so woefully inaccurate that he has no future, while Watson will be lethal with his blinding accuracy that could hit a nipple from 50 yards out.

Same way that Kizer's PFF score is currently being laughed at on Twitter as PFF wrap up their end of year QB rating. Kizer was 5th worst at 51.1 but it won't be mentioned that Goff last year was at 44.5 because the perception is different.

That's on Kizer. Kizer struggled the way Goff struggled: there wasn't anything he did well on the year. He struggled across the board, which is why is PFF grade was so low. Luckily for Goff, his draft status ensured that the only answer was to build around him. For Kizer, only a 2nd round pick, the only answer is to move on.

I agree.

I would say Watson is more accurate because Watson displayed some advanced ball placement more often then Kizer.

But both had 1 thing in common. Both there coaches had a vertical mindset. It hurts both of their comp% and adjusted completion % numbers by the mere fact that vertical passes are harder to connect on then any other passes. One major reason Watson's production was better then Kizer when throwing deep was because he throwing to Nuke and Fuller and Kizer was throwing to well...you know.

Kizer played like a rookie that was thrown into the fire in vertical passing offense.................on one of the worst rosters in the NFL

It's actually not about rookies at all. It's about a singular position. QB. You see, we haven't had a real QB since Bernie. Now I don't know who put us in "the Kizer situation", but someone did. So when you look at this from a business standpoint, I believe things become much more clear. It's not about a love or hate for Kizer or rookies.

Let's look at things from a logical standpoint rather than an emotional one, shall we?

A decision was made to draft the 4th QB taken in the draft. The #52 pick overall. Now anyone understanding what that means in and of itself realizes the odds of that QB "being the answer" at a teams QB position isn't very high. Actually the odds are pretty low. I didn't create that situation but I certainly understand it. Now I understand that QB's have tough rookie years. But Kizer didn't have the talent to be drafted at #1 or #5, or in the top 10. He didn't have the talent to be drafted in the first round, or the top of the second round. So while it's true that there was a possibility he could become a great QB, the odds were slim.

I hope people realize at that juncture that the team isn't married to him. It wasn't a top investment in him. If anything, he is an experiment. With no real answer at the QB position since Bernie, how much time do you feel a FO and HC should put into that experiment? Three years in a QB who rated that poorly in his class?

The answer as to what happened is as plain as the nose on peoples faces if they look at this from a logical standpoint. Right or wrong it's what happened. As of now everyone blames Hue for it, but to me it looks far more like an organizational decision. You spend one year on Kizer and see what happens. You have him throw the ball, a LOT! You see if he improves as the year goes on. You see if he improves enough to invest more time in him. You see if he gets better at his progressions, his post snap reads and accuracy. Based on that, you invest more time in him or you move on.

Now that doesn't mean I advocate that strategy. But it's obvious that's the strategy that was employed. The fact of the matter is, he really didn't improve much. He is one of the least accurate QB's I've seen in some time.

I guess it would be better to wait three years and find out then we need a QB? Another two wasted years? Set us back even further? No, that's not how this is going to play out.

You wish to look at this as some emotional thing. that it has something to do with love and hate. That's a very base reaction not grounded in reality. It's a business decision and a logical decision. Late second round QB picks have very low odds of success. If your franchise is in desperate need for an answer at the QB position, you're not going to invest three years into finding out if he's that guy. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.

You throw him into the fire and see how it boils. Then you see enough to continue with him or move on. None of this is complicated.

It's funny. Kizer isn't Matt Stafford. He isn't Peyton Manning. Stats are for..... well, you know. lol

How many picks a QB has only tells a fraction of the story, but it makes for a good punch line if you wish to make a single stat into some kind of logical debate. Which really can't be done.

You make it sound like we just wasted a pick on a QB cause well one was there and we needed somebody. I don’t think teams use second round picks that way. I think someone taken in the second round is viewed as a guy that will be with the team in some capacity for at least the duration of their rookie contract. I don’t think they drafted Kizer thinking “well, if he doesn’t make it it’s only a second round pick”, especially since we just paid 16 million for a second rounder. I think second round picks are valued very high by the guys who took Kizer. I understand he wasn’t a first rounder but the way you’re portraying it he was looked at like a fifth round pick, I just don’t believe that to be the case. That would be bad drafting IMO.

All I ask is that you look up draft history and the odds of a QB taken past halfway in the second rounds odds of success to see my point.

And while I believe you have a point that they valued Kizer highly, you have to look at where they valued him highly. They valued him highly for the #52 pick in the draft.

They didn't value him highly at #25 where they took Peppers. They didn't value him highly at #29 where they took Njoku.

They didn't value him highly enough they they felt the need to move up anywhere in the second round to draft him.

No, they felt he was a value having dropped all the way to #52.

Wouldn’t he had been a reach at those picks? The way you’re wording it it just seems like your arguement on the subject is that the value of the second round pick wasn’t that great, like “ well if he pans out great if not we only wasted a second round pick”. I just don’t beleive teams would do that, maybe with a fifth rounder they take a flyer like that for a player but IMO nota second rounder. I think you look for someone who’s gonna eventually be a solid contributor and a starter down the road in the second round. Not someone your gonna give a chance(and not even a fair one) to and if he fails after a year just discard him. That just wouldn’t be smart drafting.

So our OPINION that he didn’t get a fair chance is MALARKY, but you’res that he did is truth?

Second round picks inevitably will bust just don’t think teams think of it as being “ok” when or if they do

I think you have to remember that the value of a QB is much higher than any other position in the NFL. And once again, our opinions are fine, but I really don't see how you can argue with the fact that the vast majority of all drafted QB's chosen in the mid second round are busts. That's really not debatable, it's a fact. Now sure, some are rated higher than others and have greater potential, but most of them bust anyway. I would really like for you to address that point.



I didn't say that's not what you look for. I've simply pointed out that the odds of that happening at the QB position are poor. I also didn't say that drafting Kizer at #52 was smart drafting. I also didn't say to discard him.

What I will say is you simply don't gamble the future of your franchise on a #52 pick at QB who didn't show much improvement in accuracy or any other ingredient required to be a successful NFL QB. That most certainly wouldn't be smart.

I didn't say it was okay. I didn't say it was smart. I never said any of those things. I said that it happened that way. There are reasons that we had changes at the top of our FO.

Wasn't JG drafted on the 2nd round? Some other good QB's were drafted low 1st round.

I think most 2nd draft QB picks bust because they go to the worst teams, the ones who need a QB but don't have the skill to chose one with the 1st pick they have (ala Browns).

I believe that you may very well have a point there. Yet at the same time, one must remember that the QB's drafted in the top 5 are being drafted by the very worst of teams and have a better success rate.

Yet these are statistical outliers than in no way impact anything I stated.

Stats are for losers.

I think most 2nd round QBs bust because most QBs bust, period.
It is a rare handful each year that actually amount to anything whatsoever over the long haul, and they tend to be the ones that were most highly sought (top of 1st rounders).

Top of my head:
ussell Wilson 3rd round
Derrick Carr 2nd rnd
Kirk Cousins 4th end
Romo UDFA
Kurt Warner UDFA
Mark Brunell
Matt Hassellbeck

Raw numbers aren't exactly stats. They're raw numbers that have proved out over time. Undeniable facts that stand alone.

In an open public forum anyone can reply no matter who a response was directed to. I didn't think that needed an explanation for a veteran such as yourself. lol

Where did I say you did anything wrong? Take it easy Bud. lol

Don't forget:

Tom Brady
Dak Prescott
Case Keenum
Andy Dalton
Jimmy Garoppolo

..................None of whom were drafted in the 1st round.

Wow! Between those lists, that covers a LOT of drafts over a LOT of years! Yet nobody seems to count all of the failures. Maybe that's because people have forgotten their names already?

lol

Come on now.

This isn't rocket surgery!

You still can't get the term right. Some people are just hopeless when it comes to using phrases correctly.

Brain Science?

Rocket Surgery?

Lol, how many 1st round failures have their been?

There’s a crap ton of failures in the 1st round, too.

I believe we have quite a few of those just on our team alone.

Like....every qb taken since 99 in the 1st round by us.

J/C

I need not repeat the points as everyone has made them. Suffice to say, someone being a second round pick does not inherently mean they're going to bust. The same could be said for any round, UDFA or free agent. It's a poor argument.

Yet, it needs to be noted, nobody in this thread is advocating the Browns spinning their tires on Kizer. Everyone, that I've seen, has openly stated they either want to draft or sign a quarterback.

All anyone is really saying - Kizer does not deserve to be forced off the roster, the situation around whoever we start at quarterback needs to be better, and year two for a quarterback is always an exciting time: It would be naïve to quit on the kid.

As Dep said, it's not exactly rocket science. Just common sense.

Look at all of our 1st round QBs who have failed. I think that the odds of finding a successful QB at the top of the draft, even the top of the 1st round, are higher ..... but there is certainly no guarantee, even there.

The QBs I listed are all staring today. There are only 32 of those in the NFL. How many 1st round QBs also failed over that same number of years?

All of these problems with Kizer should be coached out of him.