DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk 2024 NFL Draft How'd we do?

The Watson trade is turning out to be the worst trade in Browns' history. What a big win for the Texans!

The.Watson is bad on 2 levels

1. For 3 years now the Browns have been unable to
Land a impact player in the draft because of the Watson deal

2. The Texans took the Browns to the cleaners and in effect
Are serious contenders to challenge the Chiefs in the AFC.
The Browns aren't any Closer to closing the gap.on the Chiefs
Than they were with Baker Nayfield

I feel like everyone has been going gaga over the Steelers drafts for the past 5 years... and what have they had to show for it?

Nothing has changed since the day the Watson trade went down. Watson has to stay healthy and perform. The fact he hasn't done so consistently by this point doesn't bode well, but the potential is still there.

if Hall ends up being a good pass rushing DT and Zinter becomes a starting OG in 2025 it will be deemed a success

When was the last time - if ever - that DW showed any evidence that he'll be a QB that could/would take a team to the SB? 2019? The year he got his ONLY playoff win.

We are now hoping that DW can emulate the success of Flacco...that right there tells us a lot. Flacco cost us zero draft capital and minimal $$$. The draft capital AND then $$$ spent on DW is outrageous.

Not many GMs keep their job after such a bad trade...unless it brings tremendous dividends.

We did not trade the picks for one year of Watson. We traded them for at least 5 years of Watson. We haven't even reached the halfway point yet.

Flacco played a lot like Baker. He was good enough until he was awful. They wake up feeling dangerous, but some days the risk taking backfires.

Hopefully this is the year Watson can finally settle in. We'll see what he's got.

Say what you will about the trade, but Berry has put together a nice roster. Unfortunately, it's football and players get hurt.

I've never heard it described this way when a QB leads his team to the playoffs and then has one bad game. Which QB in the NFL never has a bad game?

Meh, the defense carried him. He beat the bad Bears and Jets, and the Texans when Stroud didn't play. We beat the Jags with him at QB by making Trevor Lawrence miserable (3 INTs, 4 sacks, plus a fumble by a WR.)

The second he had to play from behind, (in the playoffs) he promptly threw 2 pick sixes. Stefanski was good at scheming up unexpected shot plays for Joe. When teams knew he had to throw, he wasn't very good.

Unfortunately, Bobby Slowik is a pretty good OC, too, and Myles didn't look like he was fully healthy.

Winning with Joe was fun. I don't think it was really sustainable. His play style is rather volatile.

So then would you agree when looking at the scores of the games that the defense carried watson in some of his wins as well?

In Flacco's starts the Browns put up 36 points against the Rams, 31 points against the Jaguars, 36 points against the Texans and 36 points against the Jets. He also threw for over 300 yards in four consecutive games. The first Browns QB ever to do so. And Lawrence may have been "miserable" but the Jags put up 27 points so making him miserable doesn't mean the D saved Flacco in that game because they certainly didn't.

While I'm not trying to say Flacco was a God send at the same time I see people trying to downplay his production and play.

It is interesting to hear the different arguments made for this QB vs another.

I have never been a strong believer in Mahomes. Yet, time after time, he wins. Thus, proving me wrong! Why?

Kansas City has a good not great playmakers. They do have a top offensive line. Their defense is above average but they do not compare to Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.

What I concluded is KC is more versatile. They have more players that do different things well. Mahomes is the best at emphasizing. Having more players with unique skill sets allows Mahomes more options. Does this make Mahomes the greatest QB? Is "emphasizing" a key attribute?

It is the same argument about who is better Ely or Payton Manning.

What is the key? Roster building and scheme. Why was Flacco better last year? It was a better scheme fit. It was the same offensive scheme he won in Baltimore. Watson is not a structured and timing QB.

I believe Watson is similar to Mahomes. He emphasizes well. It is why Stafanski is moving away from structure and execution. The more versatility the more options you give Watson.

I certainly didn't mean to make it sound as if I was promoting that Flacco be brought back or be competing for the Browns starting QB position. He was a band aid on a bullet wound. I don't think at his age he could play at a high level for an entire season. But he was what the Browns needed at the time to get us to the playoffs. He played well enough to accomplish that. What I do find odd and crazy is those who try to downplay the part he played in accomplishing that.

There is no doubt that watson is by far the QB with the greatest attributes between the two and it isn't even close.

And you are right that a HC needs to put a system in place that fits best with the QB he has as his starter. What works to propel one QB doesn't mean it fits and will accentuate the attributes of a different QB.

What I will say about Mahomes as he is unflappable for the most part. The departure of Troy Hill changed the dynamics of their O. The talk was they would never be the same. Mahomes overcame that without a legitimate replacement for Hill.

You call it"emphasizing" while I call it adaptability. I suppose either one will work. It seems no matter the circumstances, no matter the weapons, he can adapt to making the most out of the weapons he's being given to work with. When you have a QB that can adapt what he does according to what he's given rather than having to tool an O around what your QB does, that's a very special and unusual thing.

Loved the Zinter pick, the rest idk about. I trust Berry. But the Watson deal is looking like a permanent black eye at this point. He could change all of that this season with a SB run. Otherwise, I will always think it was STUPID on a level never seen before.

Pitt, I did not mean to imply you would have chosen Flacco over Watson.

I wanted to point out that a QB's success depends on scheme and roster.

I am wondering if structured offenses have become too limited.

Flacco tosses two pick-6. The offense became restricted and more predictable.

A structured offense must have fewer mistakes to be successful.

Look at Shanahan in the Super Bowl too.

I think that depends on the QB. Some are talented and have the skill set to allow for more options and variables. It's a matter of processing information quickly and being able to apply that information with the skills that QB possesses. I would say with some QB's you are correct while with some QB's that would create a disaster. With Flacco I think at this stage of his career his skill set has its limitations and the limited time they had to get him up to speed gave the coaching staff little choice but to limit the playbook. He isn't that versatile QB you can just permit to freelance at will.

At the same time that creates a situation which allows your opponents to diagnose such a limited O in a short period of time. I think it's quite fair to say with a productive running game that Chubb could have provided it would have created a much more complex situation for our opponents to diagnose and stop.

So in answer to your question, I think it all depends on the QB. There simply aren't enough elite QB's in the league to get to the point where some HC's aren't forced into strictly structure the O. So I believe your question is one that can't be answered with a one size fits all response.

Yes, Watson definitely had some help from the D, also. The Titans game was pretty baller by him, though. Unfortunately, he got hurt and missed time after the offense was finally hitting its stride.

In the Jaguars game, we had 3 turnovers (2 by Flacco). Jacksonville's 1st 2 TD "drives" were 12 yards and 25 yards. They had no business being in that game.

Saying we hoped Watson could emulate the success of Flacco just seemed disingenuous. Joe laid an all time egg in the playoffs.

"All time egg" may be somewhat of a reach but he did have a horrific game. That's the one thing about Flacco. He can play just well enough to overcome his own mistakes..... for a while. But at his age he has a short shelf life. Not everybody ages like Tom Brady. Flacco sure didn't.


Where did I say that?

Not you, Willie did, which is what led to the reply you first replied to. I think for the most part, we are on the same page.

I believe this offense is pretty darn good and grossly underrated.

It was able to score points with a USFL QB and rookie. Berry brought in a veteran and it performed at above average level. I think the offense was able to elevate its level of play with the improvement of the QB play.

Watson needs to bring consistency. This offense will take it from there.

What is promising is the offense will see an upgrade in running back and wide receiver rooms.

There is a lot of veteran talent in this offense. How soon they can adapt to the new offensive coordinator and coaches will determine its success. I don't think we have seen anything close to what this offense can perform.

I feel Watson is not the main piece that must perform well for success. Having the defense playing well it does not need to play at a high level. It must play fast early and ground and pound to preserve the lead. Make the playoffs and see what happens.

I don't think when you sign a QB to a 230 mil. contract the objective is to ground and pound. I think the overhaul in the coaching staff was done to further tailor the O around watson's skill set. Nothing else really makes sense to me. As you pointed out they made the playoffs with a bunch of cast offs and nobodies at QB so what was there to fix? If they didn't bring in new coaches on O to cater to the biggest investment this team has ever made in a player, I don't see their motivation for making those changes.


With the defense the Browns have in place, if he can do that everything else should take care of itself. Until the Browns play teams like the Bills and K.C in the playoffs. That's when an elite QB pays dividends. And that's what the Browns paid for. They didn't pay 230 million just for consistency. Consistently well? Sure.

Exactly!

Play consistently, win games, and make the playoffs. Then Watson makes hay beating KC, Baltimore, and Buffalo.

This offense doesn't need to score 30+ points per game to win. Yes, the Browns invested $230 million for a QB. There are other pieces on offense getting paid too.

It's a 17, soon-to-be 18, game season. One key to winning playoff games is being healthy.

It may sound like I am downplaying Watson's play, but I am not. This team must play efficient complementary football. Watson and this offense must dictate their game scoring and ball control when needed.

You may wish to look at the points they've given up on the road before saying that.

26 points to the Steelers
38 points to the Colts
24 points to the Seahawks
31 points to the Ravens
29 points to the Broncos
36 points to the Rams

They did somewhat better in their last 1 of their last 2 regular season road games by only giving up 22 points to the Texans and finished off by giving up 36 points to the Bengals. But that last game against the Bengals they were protecting some of their starters.

From your list, weren't most of those games affected by turnovers that led to scores given up by the offense? I could be wrong. I don't recall the Browns defense averaging over giving 24+ points per game. Again, I could be wrong.

In those games and if Cleveland had its usual running game, I wonder if the other teams could score that many times. Just a thought. A would of - could of - should of!

Yeah, sure, how many of those points were basically given away by the offense. Pittsburgh was 14.

What I can tell you for sure is the average points per game were much higher on the road than they were at home. You can make up any reasons you choose for why that happened. I highly doubt the turnovers committed at home were that much less than those that occurred on the road to make for such a huge difference. But if you feel differently you're more than welcome to find out and post it.

Discussing that game gives me PTSD. That's where Chubb got hurt, too. I think it's also the game where our offense gave up more points than our defense. Man, Watson was awful that game...

Regardless of how many points are “given away”, you still have to score more to win. The offense needs to be very productive. The defense is a bit of a mirage imo. Great stats and a few amazing games but other games they proved porous and inconsistent when we needed them. That’s the downside of Schwartz’s riverboat gambler, high stakes design. You’ll get splash and some big numbers but teams that know how to play off of over aggression and thread needles can feast.

Somewhat agree about the defense, but I have a suspicion they’ll be even better this year.

Need Myles to not have his typical dip in production starting game 12. That would help.

I agree ... we can't have Garrett be invisible in December and January. Whatever the reason, we need to remedy it

IIRC Myles was injured the last 5 games of the season. Shoulder I believe.

I don't know how you remedy injury without keeping a player on the bench. In all seriousness, maybe we can run the rotation a little deeper and have the guys on a "pitch count" so to speak. But as you know, most fans, and even coaches would rather that Myles is on the field for every defensive play.

It's hard to tell if an injury is fatigue related or just a football factor. In football, or anything in life, sheet happens.

As the kids used to post: this