DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Your Choice for Brown's Starting QB

j/c


I thought this was interesting as I stumbled upon it. The quarterback that comes to mind reading this is Josh Allen.


Link

We'd get at least 3 more wins if she was the head coach though.

if carrot top were our coach we`d have 3 wins

Joe Thomas say's Kirk Cousins, Kizer, and the best QB available in the second round. I'll take that.

Joe Thomas also says we have no chance at signing Kirk Cousins.

I agree with Joe Thomas.

ditto

He wants Tyrod Taylor now.

I still go all out for Cousins

The word is that the Bills aren't cutting him.



Why waste resources (time) on something that has a very small chance at happening?

Because you never know. I am not going to not make a play for the guy because media reports say he is going to Denver, or wherever.

Make a blockbuster offer out of the gate. This isn't going to take him long. I would expect Cousins, and or his agent to have a deal in place inside of 3 days. Maybe day 1..


I don't think much is going to happen with the other guys until Cousins sets the market with his signing.


I know if I was representing Taylor or any of them, I'd tell them to wait. Everybody knows Cousins is the big fish with the QB free agents. More than a few teams are going to try to sign him.

Once he signs elsewhere, my guys chances for a bigger contract just increased.

Tyrod Taylor is still under contract with the Bills.

My guess is that Kirk Cousins already has a very good idea where he is going to end up.

Maybe so.



My only point is you don't not try.


I dated 9-10 girls with which I never thought I had a chance, or was told I didn't, but I asked anyway....my wife included. The other numbers aren't important.


If you don't try, you stand no chance.

Buffalo Bills aren't planning to cut Tyrod Taylor

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ut-tyrod-taylor

Let's put it this way, I would not try to sign Kirk Cousins if it pulled resources away from other players that we might actually have a chance at signing.

Not sure I understand your comment. We wouldn't be pulling any resources away.


It's not like the team would be 100%, with all people focused on Cousins. No doubt you let other agents know you are interested in other players.



As I said before, the Cousin signing is going to bring the frenzy to the other guys. Losers in the Cousins signing are going to start sniffing elsewhere.


I have explained this to you twice. If you don't get it by now, you aren't going to.

General thought.

I think the Browns should keep the team together and add a few pieces here and there to help them play better on gameday.

Bold statement, we don't draft a qb 1 or 4, we draft the best players in front us.

The irony of finding a qb could be not drafting one now, at least in our first round. We can make an impression in later rounds

I actually don't believe Cousins would sign here given the options that will be afforded him. I also want a QB at #1 and not Cousins.

However, if this FO sees Cousins as an option they feel is viable, they should do their due diligence and follow every possible avenue to sign him.

However, I'm starting to think Cousins doesn't sign here because we don't want him.

Just curious, and I don't necessarily disagree, but what makes you think that?

Joe Thomas said it on his most recent podcast.

There really isn't much besides intuition. There aren't any articles I've read that'll say the Browns don't want Cousins if that is what you're curious about.

Mainly it's reading a combination of different stories and putting them together. I'm sure someone could read the same articles and deduct a different ideology.

For instance, some think because Dorsey didn't draft a QB his first year in Kansas city he won't do that here. He also said there wasn't a QB worthy of the #1 pick then and said there are 4-5 who warrant consideration for that pick this year.

I also think McCloughan's comments will play a role. Not his comments about where he said Cousins isn't special, but about overpaying for him. And if you overpay you do so with a cost at other positions. It simply won't work. Especially when you consider we still need a few more pieces.

I also think back to the comments of Haslam when Dorsey came aboard. The plan will not change and will remain intact. Although this is a little less convincing... I think the plan all along was to build through the draft. I don't think there's room in the plan to overpay for a quarterback at this time.

I wouldn't be surprised if Cousins comes in for a visit. I think maybe if we could get him cheaper than his "projected value" we would entertain the thought of signing him. I don't think that's going to happen though. And I mainly think we don't want to pay Cousins. It just doesn't seem to jive with what we are looking to accomplish.

It just seems most logical to me that Cousins and Cleveland aren't right for each other and that ultimately we don't want him at that high price.

Does AJ view himself as a bridge qb?

The only thing a bridge QB has to do to keep the job is perform. If he does, he's the starter, if not he's the bridge and the bridge gets burned. Any QB worth his salt should figure he can come here and win and keep the position. If not, (with possibly the exception of McCown) we shouldn't sign him.

JMHO

I'm not sure that's the real question. I believe every QB should view themselves as a starter. The real question is do any of the teams looking to sign a QB see A.J. as more than a bridge. My thinking is no.

You have to ask yourself: Would paying Cousins what he'll require to QB this team, would that slow your efforts towards quickly building a talented roster? You already have the #1 pick in the draft where you will get your Franchise QB, and that would be your worst-case scenario. Your team needs a major roster upgrade. Why not use those resources on improving talent all-around?

Cousins. Everybody gets to tell me no. We have the fattest wallet, so it should command some attention just for that alone. He may not come here. I still want to know I tried if he ends up elsewhere. Compared to the junk out there to sort through at QB, take some time to pursue the best. And if you need to settle, OK. Bortles is gone, I believe.

Maybe we get lucky, maybe a bit poorer. We also need a high draft choice at QB. Shameful not to give this position everything it needs. We saw how much damage Kizer did in most games last year. It is that crucial.

I didn't read the article.

The Bills are dumb.

They don't want to Tyrod and everyone knows it.

They are only holding on to Tyrod only because they realized that he had more value league wide then they thought.

They think they can entice a trade.

But even teams that want Tyrod know that the Bills don't want him.

The Bills ploy isn't going to work.

Nick Foles

My only concern is that we almost traded a 2 and a 3 for a half season rental of AJ McCarron.

Being desperate for a QB makes people lose their minds.

At this point, I'm sticking with Kizer. We always point to how an HC needs to be given three years. I don't understand how people are done with a 22 year old QB who we expected would need some time and who definitely didn't have a DeAndre Hopkins to throw to. I actually do understand at times, but if I sit down and think about it, what did we really expect to happen? McCown, who is the "savvy vet," struggled his season with Hue. With the "new" CBA, learning new systems is rough. For rookie QBs, figuring out NFL D's is rough. Kizer's numbers were similar to Goff's his first year, they even won the same number of games. I think he can improve, too, and should be given the chance to grow like most projected him to need in the first place. If Lamar Jackson, or another top guy, falls to the 2nd, sure, take him, but I don't want to draft someone new at 1-1 and set up both the pick and Kizer to fail.

True enough. But the Bills have misplayed their situation almost as poorly as Washington did with Kirk. I don't see how either team can end up with compensation when the whole league knows they don't want either QB back.


I hear yah. And its hard to have these types of conversations because the nature of 'fan'-atic message board is over the top and knee-jerk.

Obviously QBs that played for the Browns over the past 2 seasons have played in possibly thee worst QB situation in the league. The only QB to win a game during the time frame is almost universally panned. McCown was considered a nice guy but not productive then boom he goes to merely a slightly better situation and puts up much better numbers. Clearly, rationally, honestly the Browns have lacked talent around the QB position.

But fans don't want to hear it, don't care about it and only pay it lip service when it comes to evaluating QB play.

Its a bit of cognitive dissonance. It is known that the situation here wasn't conducive to good QB play yet Kizer, the QB whom by all accounts shouldn't have been starting due to his youth and inexperience, takes the full brunt of the blame and is perceived by the fanbase as a bust or at least a 'passed over' QB to be replaced by the #1 overall savior QB.

The front office is in the position that they almost have to draft a QB at #1 to keep the fans at bay. I know the saying goes that once you make decisions to please the fans the GM will be sitting in stands with the fans. BUT the Browns are one of the organizations that have an ownwer that is very keenly aware of the fan sentiment. And drafting a QB #1 overall buy the GM/HC and organization time. Drafting a #1 QB is often viewed as pushing 'start' on the competiveness timeline.

Its a raw deal for Kizer because a team can't develop 2 young QBs at the same time and if you draft a QB #1 overall they're going to get all the reps and all the development.

If its me I sign Nick Foles or Tyrod Taylor and listen to offers for picks #1 and #4. The front office has enough draft capital to re-shape the team.

Brown's fans fascinate me at times. Tyrod Taylor? AJ McCarron? Baker Mayfied? Josh McCown? LaMar Jackson? Deshone Kizer? As our starter? Wow!

The Browns need to win some games and none of those guys are the answer. Either short term or long term.

Yes and no, dude. We don't know enough about how Mayfield and Jackson will fare in the NFL (or the others). to be fair, is it time to already give up on Kizer? Given the QB room (no veteran presence), a young rookie, no OC, no true WR presence until Dec. 3, Crow not exactly excelling, an O-line that took time to gel, Colemon still learning at RT, losing JT...a 2nd second season for many players often shows us much more of what they are capable of (Goff is a good example...but I recognize the presence of a new coach did wonders too). Just wonder if it is too soon to give up on the kid. Who knows...he could come out looking freakin' awesome and challenge the rookie we end up taking.

I agree, however, with Tyrod. No.

No idea on McCarron as he hasn't played enough. But, he would have won a playoff game against Pitt had Burfect not derailed it with his ridiculous antics.

McCown we know won't win us many, will most likely break another bone at some point, BUT we do know he will be awesome in the QB room, on the sideline and working hand in hand helping to mentor and tutor the rookie and Kizer.

Is Josh Rosen the only one?

Why is it that you always feel the need to question my "opinions" while never questioning all the previous opinions?

I don't know if Josh Rosen is one. I prefer him, but it's just my opinion and I am not claiming to be an expert like some others are.

In my opinion, I think Rosen and Darnold are the two best qbs in the draft. I think Cousins is the best in free agency. I think Case Keenum and Sam Bradford are viable options in free agency. I loved Teddy, but if the Vikes let him go, that tells me he is not healthy.

I apologize if my previous post is a bit snarky, but I get tired of one poster always acting like his qb evaluations are so superior when history shows that his evaluations have been way off.

Come on Vers...why do you always assume something negative or take it personal when I reply? I am not "questioning" you I am simply replying to you. You stated something and I simply commented on it. In fact, I thought my comment was fair and no where is the tone condescending nor did reply with any intent to be difficult. The one AFTER mine appears to be questioning you, however.

This is a public message board...people will comment. I simply did that. Just as I did the other night in the Rosen thread. Am I not allowed to reply to you?

Okay. My bad. I misinterpreted your intent. I apologize.