DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kirk Cousins, we all are already

Palmer was a #1 overall pick who sat behind Kitna for a year.

Another rabbit hole we probably don't want to go down but worth pondering, how might Couch's career, and our teams future have turned out if we'd have gone with a vet that first year and let Couch sit?

The problem sometimes with letting guys sit is..why?

I understand with Rodgers and such cause farve was still out there playing at a high level.

But if your rookie QB is already the best you got on the roster, you have to play him. Because hen you’re sending a message to the team that the QB is more important than the entire team itself by playing a guy who you KNOW doesn’t give you the best chance to win.

Most players don’t want to be on a team knowing the best guys aren’t playing. And like Tony Dungy said a few seasons ago, if you have a QB who you want to be the franchise, you start him and make him gain experience on the field.

The topic was drafting a first round qb if we sign Cousins. If we do sign Cousins (and I doubt we will) I still think we need to draft a qb high, get a top quality guy to sit and learn behind Cousins so in 2 or 3 years we have a guy ready to step in and play and win right away.

I say this because I don't think you're trying to argue that whomever we draft at #1 or #4 is better than Cousins and playing Cousins wouldn't give us our best chance to win.

If we get cousins, we aren’t gonna draft a qb in the first round.

I get what you’re saying.

I think the larger issue with Favre was public pressure.

Favre wasn't playing at a high level. When Rodgers was a rookie, the Packers went 4-12 with Favre throwing 29 interceptions and fumbling 10 times, with only 20 total TDs.

The following year wasn't much better. The Packers went 8-8, and Farve again threw 18 interceptions and fumbled 10 times, with only 19 total touchdowns.

Those are Kizer-esque numbers. Farve had a passer rating of 70.9 and 72.7, respectively. He was one of the worst quarterbacks in the league.

The problem was more the fan base remaining, understandably, incredibly loyal to Favre. That relationship has only recently shown signs of healing. There were certainly mixed opinions, but moving on from Favre proved difficult. It's a special set of circumstances that is unlikely to ever be replicated.

Ironically, the final year before they moved on and the 3rd years Rodgers sat on the bench, Favre bounced back and had the best season he'd had in a decade. Of course, he was then labelled a traitor when he left - which highlights how passionate the fans were about him.

Letting any young quarterback sit more than a year is questionable. We saw that this year - Kizer, Trubisky, Watson and Mahomes all eventually got playing time, and all are starting quarterbacks next year (Kizer would be if the Browns were not moving on.)

The chances of getting Cousins and then sitting a #1 overall pick for three, four, five years just doesn't happen. Even Jimmy Garoppolo, sitting behind the best quarterback in NFL history, wore thin.

I don't see it happening - I think the Browns roll with a high end veteran or a rookie, but not both.

Why not?

Are we so good at picking QB's that we don't need to hedge our bets?

Why would we spend likely over $100m on Cousins then draft a QB with the first overall pick? That's just assinine, and Cousins knows it wouldn't happen. If we get Cousins, we don't draft a QB in the first (probably not first 2 or 3 rounds) this year, it is that simple.

Now, if we were to trade for Smith, that's a different story for a Smith thread.

To paraphrase Fisher, That's some 7-9 bull$#!% right there. Who's willing to pay that for a 7-9 QB? Raise your hand. I will be so pissed if that's the route we take.

If we acquire Cousins I can see us trading down from the 1 and still taking Mayfield, Allen, Rudolph or maybe Jackson. Let them sit and learn, but with the intentions that they will eventually take over (as NE expected to do with JG).

Because he's going to be a free agent with multiple teams bidding for him.

Yeah we all know how that went, right? lol

Here's the deal. We don't even know if Cousins will hit the market. If he does he'll have a lot better offers from a career standpoint than Cleveland. He's simply not going to come here.

So talking about Cousins coming here makes no more sense than talking about Wentz coming here.

I actually think you are incorrect. No, I take that back. You did say "some people". I believe what most people look for in both cases is improvement as the season goes on for a rookie. That they start to "get it". That they improve in accuracy, pre and post snap reads. In their footwork and if they start appearing to be a team leader.

That's where the two looked worlds apart.

And no, you can't assume the QB you take at #1 will be the next Wentz or Goff. But if you have a talented QB class you can't simply look a gift horse in the mouth when you're sitting there at #1. You'll never get better odds than that.

I'm actually still suggesting Cousins and a rookie because that actually makes sense. If Cousins isn't available I'd settle for Smith and a rookie and I still haven't given up on Kizer because the rocket surgeons did throw him into the deep end way too early.

That makes a lot more sense than skipping a franchise FA QB because you are convinced the next rookie QB that you draft is going to be the next Wentz now doesn't it?

We'll have to agree to disagree then I can't see us signing Cousins to a $100m+ 5 year agreement and then using a first rounder on a QB as well. Later round for sure if they don't think Hogan or Kessler is a viable 3rd option. As well, I'd think that Kizer could certainly benefit from sitting and learning

I want Kirk and then I want Mason later in the first. Whatever we do we must keep Mason away from the Steelers.

I like Smith, I just hate having to give up several high picks to get Smith, then spend # 1 on the QB position as well. The Browns have so many areas of need, we have to spend draft capital wisely. There are no extra picks on the books for next year.

I don't think it's going to take that high of a pick. There won't be many QB needy teams that could pay him.

Your free to have whatever opinion you want. I don't care much what the idiots on espn think. They are wrong, as much as, they are right.

Rudolph will be a success in the NFL. I'm very certain of it.

Landry Jones part 2.

Because QBs coming out of college are rarely finished products. The NFL game is a huge leap above college in terms of complexity, speed, and difficulty. While there are guys who can make the adaptations on the fly, many people learn better when shown how to do something instead of being told how to do it. They can sit in film review, listen/participate in the discussion, then watch how a veteran goes out and does it while he charts plays. He can pick the brain of the QB coach, work on his footwork and timing between games.

I'm not saying every QB needs to sit and learn. Vers has made a case for Rosen being NFL ready. But in my mind, most QB are better served by sitting for x number of games (with x being variable to the individual player.)

In an ideal world I would agree with you. But you have to remember that FA QB's have a choice in the matter. If as you suggest we could just "sign Cousins", then it would pretty much be a no brainer.

But let's look at the realty of that actually happening and let's look at how the NFL traditionally resolves the QB position.

Firstly, Cousins isn't a FA. He could get the franchise tag again or other tags by the Redskins that would not only require us to pay him, but to also include compensation. So saying he will even be available to us is a bit premature.

Secondly, if he does become a FA, he has a choice in the matter. Now some people say that hey, if you offer him the most money, he will sign here. But really? In August, Cousins will be 30. From a business standpoint, I'm sure he and his agent see enough time for two remaining four year contracts at a huge dollar amount. This will not only have them considering the dollar amount, but where he has the best odds of success. Where can he go that he feels will best set him up to look good when the time comes for that second contract to kick in?

While Cleveland may slightly out bid some other teams, I don't believe Cousins or his agent would see us as the best long term prognosis for his career. I mean don't we all pretty much agree that Hue is on a one year, kind of "show me deal"? If that's true, how much more of an unstable environment could a FA QB come into than that?

Now onto the other part. How many teams actually find a long term solution with a FA QB they've signed? How many draft their franchise QB's?

Now I'm not going to say it's impossible to address your QB on the FA market. It has certainly happened. However much of the time when a team finds a QB they didn't draft, it comes via trade, not the FA option. And far more times than not, NFL teams find their franchise QB through the draft. There are reasons for that.

Like I said, in a perfect world we could sign an Alex smith or a Kirk Cousins. In a perfect world we could sign one of them and draft a QB at #1. But this is a good QB class. We have the perfect opportunity to have our pick of the litter. That opportunity doesn't come along very often.

Neither Alex Smith nor Kirk Cousins is going to come here with us drafting a QB high in the draft. We can't pass up the opportunity to draft a QB high in this draft. And there's a difference between giving up on Kizer and the realization that the odds of him being a franchise QB are very slim.

And say what you will, while Cousins is a very productive QB, putting that "franchise QB" tag on him may be a bit premature.

I would be happy to be wrong about all of this.

The Steelers already have Mason. They just call him Landry Jones.

As Mich Jaggar would say, "In a case of mistaken identity"

C'mon man. Weren't you a proponent for Garoppolo?

Now you're on a Rudolph sleigh?

Just STOP. Please.

Firstly, until he is tagged, he is a FA and given that Washington has a whole lot of issues to address and his $34 mil tag price it is unlikely.

Secondly, He does have a choice in the matter and has already said he'd be happy to come to Cleveland. As far as his odds of success go, we are one of the few teams that can afford to pay him and still have enough draft ammo and dollars left after paying him to build a team around him.

Now on to the other part, (I would have said thirdly, but I'm keeping with the theme)

You have a big habit of not doing any research for yourself and then non-chalantly asking someone else to do all of it for you, so I'm not going through history and counting drafted QB's and FA QB's.

But to humor rocket surgeons everywhere I picked through a top 100 QB list...

Kurt Warner
Rich Gannon
Drew Brees
Alex Smith
Carson Palmer
Warren Moon
Jim Plunkett
Jake Delhomme
Chad Pennington
Marc Bulger
Kerry Collins
Steve DeBerg
Tony Romo
Chris Chandler
Danny White
Michael Vick
Jim Everrett
Jake Plummer
Jeff Blake
Vinny Testaverde
George Blanda
Brad Johnson
Ron Jaworski
Jeff Garcia
Trent Green
Doug Williams
Jim Hart
Dave Kreig
Rich Gannon
Joe Theisman
Earl Morrall
Randall Cunningham
Brett Favre
Peyton Manning

There might be a couple of QB's that were traded in there. I didn't put any time in researching, but tried to keep trades out. Regardless, all of the QB's above produced for teams that didn't draft them with a lot of Pro Bowls and Superbowls mixed in. A lot of these QB's completely turned around franchises. If I included ones that were traded this list would more than double.

So yeah, sometimes those FA QB's are worth it and we suck too much to ignore any avenues that could improve the team.

My answer still is to try both options until one of those options evaporates.

I didn't see Steve Young on your list. And he's a HOF'er

He was traded.

Well he started with TB.

Yep,but I was trying to keep traded QB's out of it because he asked about FA QB's. I know I missed a couple though. Alex Smith is on the list and he was traded. Not sure how I missed that when I made the list.

And after googling it yes he was traded.

So let me get this straight. You recognize that I wanted JG before he was drafted. I wanted him before he went to san fran and impressed people other than me. Now because I like Mason before he is drafted this means to you that Mason must be a bad pick ..... sure man you go with that

lol someone gave me a chuckle today. Thanks!

I was a bit perplexed when I read his response to you, Razor, but here is what I think he meant.

I think he was saying how in the hell could you like Jimmy G and also like Mason Rudolph? Jimmy G is so accurate. MR is not. JG has a super quick release. MR does not. JG goes through multiple progressions quickly. MR was never asked to do the same thing.

I have always applauded you for being the biggest JG pimp in that particular draft. And because of that, I always listen and respect what you have to say, but bro, MR is no JG.

There is no JG in this draft. Rosen is close but he doesn't have the personality or the as high a calibur arm. I still like Rosen a lot though.

Mason IS an accurate thrower. Of the QBs in this draft he has the highest rated accuracy and over a much longer career. Sure he makes a weird throw or two but they all do. Just for some reason when Mason does it gets exaggerated.

He regularly scans the field and changes targets to whoever is open. I've seen it over and over and over again. His release is not as fast as JG but it's still pretty fast. What's more is that his release is efficient without the long wind up some of these guys have.

This guy is so tough to sack too. I watched him shed so many would be tacklers. Mason is the next Big Ben. I hope this time we are smart enough to draft him instead of letting some other team have him. He is also the most ready to start from day one that fits Hues system.

I think he is the best QB in this draft for Hue's system. Darnold is good too but he worries me with all the turnovers. I don't think Rosen has the arm talent for the afc north although I think he will be great too. Bakerfield is too short for Hue and has off field issues that I don't want to deal with but he could also be a star. Lamar will be great too if he isn't asked to start day one.

That is a food 5 QBs I think all have a chance to be NFL starters. Any and all of them will be a big improvement for the Browns. Mason is my favorite with Darnold a close second. I just love the way Mason plays.

You do realize that you had to use decades to compile that list, right?

Take any single season and you'll easily see how far more draft picks start than FA QB's.

But nice try to use decades to make a list. And about half of the QB's on that list sucked. lmao

BDU, thank you for posting that stat breakdown. Some love the "stats are for losers", but the truth is that only losers use stats incorrectly. IMO, if we go and get Cousins, we are going and getting our franchise QB. There is no need to go and get another one. Draft Allen if he drops to groom behind and compete with Kizer. If I were Cousins, and the Browns backed up the Brinks truck to my house... and then turned around and drafted my competition instead of getting me a top-flight weapon.... I'd lose my mind. Makes no sense.

If we got Smith, on the other hand.... Trading for Smith sounds, to me, more like a bridge QB situation. He's older, not quite as good as Cousins, and we would have him for a shorter time period (his currently contract, plus maybe a short extension).

Cousins isn't coming here. Those who keep saying he would are delusional.

I just took somebody's list of top 100 QB's. These were on that top 100 list. Like I said, if I didn't try to filter out trades, the number of names would be at least double. There were very few names on that top 100 list that stayed with the same team their entire career.

Researching things that you say is nice.

You should try it sometime.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/507359-the-top-100-quarterbacks-in-nfl-history