DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What can we expect from DW?

I understand the Browns making the trade. The question now is did they make the right trade? Did they actually get a top 10 NFL QB? Because that's what they paid for. Only time will tell at this point.

I wish to remind you that the Browns paid Denver over 16 million dollars for Brock Osweiler in exchange for a single season for a second round pick. They did make that pick worthwhile by drafting Chubb but that doesn't change what they valued a second round pick at. They valued a second round pick at 16 million.

Now how much more do they think they value a first round pick to be worth? Certainly far more than a second round pick. So whatever number you come up with, multiply that by three and add it to the contract they paid to Watson. Only then will you arrive at his actual cost.

And since as you have pointed out, which I agreed with above, that the Browns have built a great roster around Watson, what are your expectations? Wouldn't you say with a great roster and the totality of what they gave up in the package for watson that Browns fans, as well as the people paying his salary don't have good reason to have high expectations of watson?

After all he has an great roster to support him.

The Browns now have two first-round WRs, QB, LT, RT, and TE along with a second-round LG, RB, and WR.

What makes you think another first-round LT and WR would make that much difference? Then you want to add a "promising 1st round - QB" to lead it.

Even if you decided to use Flacco or Brissett, they are two play-action QBs. You would underutilize the play-making talent.

Expectations are no different putting a passing 11-personnel QB in a play-action run offensive scheme. You underutilized the QB.

There is no logical stance that suggests our roster - and our future - would NOT be better with having used/had (3) 1st Rd picks in the last three years.

Add (3) top tier players to this roster and this roster is better than without those (3) top tier players...no matter the position.

Also, those (3) top tier players would be on cheaper rookie deals. We can't say that about ANY premium offensive position...and likely only (1) defensive position in Emerson.

If one wants to believe that the roster is fine as is and we didn't 'need' those (3) first Rd picks ( and if the FO thought likewise) then those (3) 1st Rd picks would have been traded for future picks...further solidifying the mantra on sustained competitiveness.

How good does DW need to be to make this a 'good' trade? I don't know. What I DO know is that through last season, his play wasn't nearly enough...or good enough.

You assume better players were available in the draft.

You assume Berry could draft a better QB than Watson. Note also that Cleveland would draft toward the bottom of the rounds which is a higher probability a player does not meet expectations.

I understand your opinion an injured Watson did not play to your expectations.

The draft is not a sure thing. You stated Willis is not good enough. I think Willis is fine. Joe Thomas, he is not. He is a valid starting LT. Drafting someone in the mid to late first-round that is better is statistically unlikely.

The risk and reward trading for Watson was great. I believe the reward is still available. Drafting the second or third-best QB in the draft also comes at a high risk and reward.

If by better you mean what many are suggesting "good enough to win" the likelihood of that happening is far greater than a top 10 NFL QB which he is being paid to perform like. Only on a Browns message board does the fact that an employee needs to perform in accordance with his pay grade seem like a novel concept.

What? Better players than whom? Any 1st Rd player is better than no player(s). If the FO didn't think it needed a 1st Rd pick(s) because they were so stacked, they would have traded it...for something...anything better than nothing.

DW was brought here because he was a guy thought to be able to take us deep into the playoffs. Where that thought came from is beyond me. He has (1) playoff win. At this moment, I can't fathom that one could think this wasn't a bad trade...let alone wasn't a good trade.

If you don't get value for a player you traded - then it was a bad trade. The worse the value - the worse the trade.

How good the rest of the team is - how the other players or backup QBs play to help the team win has zero bearing on how good or bad a trade is. The trade is evaluated in isolation.

If the Browns traded picks only - gave away a 1st round pick for a 3rd round pick - but the team was still good and they found a great player to contribute in the 4th and 5th and 6th round of the same draft ... the trade of a 1st for a 3rd round pick would be a bad trade.

Framing the Watson trade in terms of how the team has performed since the trade - even though Watson himself has done nothing to warrant 3 first round picks - is whackadoddle.

Better players than whom? Then the starting players the Browns already have.

It is challenging winning playoffs when injured.

Nothing? Browns have a QB that won more games than he lost. Bad Trade? Who could predict injuries? How can you speculate Watson is no longer capable of winning playoff games? He still has years remaining on his contract.

Have you reviewed what QBs were available in the draft these past 3 years?
2024: Caleb Williams; Jayden Daniels; Drake Maye; Michael Penix; J.J. McCarthy; Bo Nix.
2023: Young; Stroud; Anderson.
2022: Pickett.

Assuming you could trade up to get one. This is before the 2022 draft. Which one of these QBs is a better option than Watson?

Assuming the Browns did draft a rookie QB. Browns proved they could not go deep into the playoffs with Brissett and Flacco.

Explain again why not trading for Watson would have been the better option. Yes, you have more draft picks, but if you are not going any further in the playoffs, why not take the risk of trading for Watson?

How the DW trade turns out won't be determined for 3 years. As far as making the trade? I feel it was a good gamble to improve our QB position. It was worth a shot. JMO

We could have drafted 2.0 versions of Manziel, Mingo, and Gilbert over the past three drafts.
I’ll continue to roll the dice with Watson. At this point we have no other choice. Everything else is speculation mixed with whining about something that can’t be rewritten.

Bingo. WSU and mgh, just read this over snd over.

The part you guys keep forgetting, which I thought was self explanatory but apparently is whackadoodle, is the Browns didn’t feel like they had the right QB at the time of the trade for Watson. You guys aren’t arguing that the trade was bad. You’re arguing you preferred they kept Baker. Those are two different things.

Amen, Baker was NOT the answer----20/20 hindsight is ALWAYS perfect----IF Watson has a full season at his Houston level of play AND we near or attend a SB the trade would be considered successful. AT 76, I hope to see a Browns AFC/SB appearance- time will tell.

It has nothing to do with anyone else. The jury isn't in in how the trade for watson will play out. Time will tell on that. Thus far the return on investment hasn't transpired. But you are trying to mingle two different things. Football is a business and that's what this, in the end what this will all boil down to. ROI... Return on investment. You'll either get a QB whose return in performance equals or exceeds what you give up for him or you won't. It's that simple.

Trying to pretend it's something other than that to try and take away from the actual business side of it is nothing more than a weak deflection. A child's game.

Ummm...so we should assume that our current FO would have simply botched the picks anyway? Talk about whackadoodle. We also could have TRADED the picks for future picks...or traded up and around to have the ammo to eventually move up and draft a guy like CJ Stroud...and we most definitely would have a lot more cap room. Not to mention three 1st Rd players on cheaper rookie deals.

The point is that in addition to still having a huge question mark at QB...for (3) years we had NO 1st Rd picks and zero upper draft flexibility. Isn't the drafting mantra one where you need more picks to take as many swings as you can?

I understand that the "Browns didn’t feel like they had the right QB at the time of the trade for Watson". And so far, Watson has not looked like the right QB either. A guy with (1) career playoff win coming off a self-imposed, 100% healthy, missed season. Never mind the massage therapist BS that followed.

Baker has nothing to do with the DW evaluation. If all we "need" from DW is Jacoby Brisett level play...we should have just kept Jacoby Brissett.

Here's what Houston got:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...ans-got-from-browns-in-blockbuster-deal/

To this point, the DW trade has been an epic failure. He has time to turn it around and I hope he does.

I think you’re a smart guy WSU, but I don’t think you’re getting the gist here.

But since we are playing the what if game, here’s some more. We don’t attract the same free agents or create the same culture if we don’t trade for Watson. Which means we don’t make the playoffs last year and win a slew of rewards on top of that.

The Browns are a legitimate good, playoff team with a legitimate shot to win it all this year. And we got idiot arguments like ROI (very similar to the Haslam didn’t have to market gas, my personal all time favorite) and what ifs on drafting left tackles. This is insanity.

For the first time in 25 years the Browns are not a laughing stock. They are far from the worst franchise in sports or the NFL. This is a great time to be a Browns fan. I think if the Browns were floundering, melting down, changing coaches and GMs, or just generally awful and you could tie that to the Watson trade I think there’s an argument there. But i just don’t see it. The Browns made the best decision with the best information they had at the time.

Ignoring that business is in large part based on ROI by claiming it's insanity is in and of itself insanity. I believe it is common place for businesses to make the best moves based on the information given at the time. The test is whether that decision pays dividends or not. If it does the decision was a success. If not it was the wrong decision. There are three years left to find out which one it was.

The #1 D in the league and Flacco are why they made the playoffs. Watson helped until he was injured but without that D and Flacco it would have been a mediocre season at best. Success is fine but let's give credit for it where credit is due.

I mostly agree with what you are saying here. I'd have probably left the "bests" out of the last sentence. That's most likely due to conversations about cherry picking info elsewhere on the boards.

(Agreeing with you) They tried to assimilate a whole lot of information when making their decision, and a whole lot of things beyond Watson himself were affected by the decision they ended up making.

Trying to pick it apart now and revise history disregards the entwined nature of the enterprise. Keeping the good while getting rid of the bad and adding more good sounds great. Unfortunately, tip over one domino and more than just it changes, Willie.

I could find a way to agree with this IF Watson were a top 15 or better QB. He has not been to date. He was supposed to be a guy to take his team deep into the playoffs...something he had never done before. He had sat out an entire season before we traded for him. He went 4-12 the year before that with a very good statistical year. The FO had to know of the pending abuse charges. He has had (1) good game of the (12) he's played for us.

If the team believed that they had to punt Baker to make the organizational strides they've made then so be it. But that doesn't mean that Watson was the right guy or that the price to get him was worth it.

j/c.

What can we expect from DW?

More than he's shown. Period.

Willie and Arch, man, you two are hard on injured players.

Team puts you on IR, pffff, find a way to produce!

Have you watched the games DW has played as Brown? How many of those games do you think he played well in? How many do you think he played at at or close to elite level?

That's a you problem not a me problem. Evaluating the trade for DW has zero to do with Baker. None. And it's only if someone's arguement it really weak that they need to try to decide what the other person's emotions are and project that as a basis for an alternate position to your own. It also has nothing to do with how well the Browns have drafted in the past. That's just a what if game that can go either way - we could draft 5 busts or we could get players like Newsome, Ward, Chubb, Njoku, Delphit ...

Let's stick to the facts.

Cleveland sent Houston 6 draft picks — a first and fourth in 2022, a first and third in 2023 and a first and fourth in 2024 — for Watson and a 2024 sixth-round pick.
Three 1st round picks. A 3rd and a 4th.
We got DW and a 6th round pick.

So far - DW's stats as a Brown are here: DW Career Stats

The evaluation isn't complete - we've seen 2 'elite' performances from DW and we're all hoping that's a sign of things to come. But for the larger sample size we've seen, the play has been below NFL average. . . so if you did judge the trade today - you'd say so far it doesn't look good, hoping there is better to come. Period. If we get more of about the same performnce from DW - it was a really bad trade.

You or someone mentioned how the 49ers trade for Trey Lance (three 1sts and a 3rd) doesn't get discussed and that the team has done well so that trade doesn't matter. I know 49er fans and none of them think that trade was ok or doesn't matter because the team went on to be successful despite the trade. They will all tell you it was a woefully bad trade. And they are right. The teams success doesn't cange that. Neither does who the 49ers QB was before the trade.

You might want to wait and see how Houston plays in the next few years.

Cleveland had a good year, and everything was not so rosy the next.

Have I watched the games? I saw eight, ok seven, wins and four losses.

To me, a so-so performance by Watson in a win is better than brilliant stats and a loss but that is just me.

You can have all the draft picks in the world, but it's a non-factor if you don't have a QB.

What it boils down to is Watson better than Baker. We won't know that for some time. So far, it's about a drawl. Each had his moments but nothing consistent.

You can cherry-pick stats all day long. In the end, who is winning the Super Bowl? So far the answer is "none of the above."

Archie Manning played for the Saints when the Saints sucked. They didn't win a lot of games. Yet Archie manning is considered a very good QB. Why? because he is judged for his play and not upon his supporting cast. A so so performance by your QB means your QB is so so. You don't pay 230 million and 3 first round draft picks with the expectation of getting a so so QB.

What boils down to is will watson produce commensorate to the price it cost to get him and nothing else.

Not being a jerk here but that gets you what? ROI? Good QB play? Watson played well in Houston.

Yes, I am excluding the off-the-field issues. I understand that has meaning.

Dan Marino too was good and played for a good team. Where does he stand in the hierarchy of QBs? Was it better to have Dan or Eli Manning? I was a big fan of both!

And that's fine. But you do understand that this coming season it will be the fourth since what you are referring to, "Watson played well in Houston" happened, right? Marino, Peyton and Eli were all good QB's. Eli was more hot and cold. Playing great for stretches and then not so great for stretches. When Marino and Peyton were playing they were top 10 QB's. Most would say even top 5. When Eli was playing well he was what would be considered a top 10 QB. That's what watson is getting paid to be. Nobody here has suggested that watson has to be considered one of the greatest QB's which seems to be where you are going with this. But to be worth his price tag he has to be one of the top 5 to 10 QB's now in the NFL. If not this FO overpaid for him.

Nowhere else will you find people making excuses for paying an employee top 5 to 10 at their positions and getting less from them than you paid for. I don't understand any of that.

Teams overpaid QBs for years. They are always banking on potential.

I do think Watson was a big gamble by the FO. They evaluated the talent and thought they could make it work. After the first 6 games, they realized changes were needed. Player talent did not change, but the scheme changed. Then, they realized the coaching was out of their element. Thus, we have new offensive coaches.

They hired an 11-personnel QB to run a 12-personnel offense. Last year they tried to combine the two schemes but it was not smooth. Flacco is a 12-personnel QB and everything fell into place.

As you said, they invested heavily in the QB position. I believe the FO thought instead of forcing it to work hire experts more in tune with their QB.

And yes, I worked for people who overpaid for talent that did not meet expectations. They remained because they did not want to tell upper management it was a mistake.

I think the Browns made the right move. They did not keep forcing something that was not running smoothly. Was it a mistake hiring Watson? Maybe. I think we will know more after this season.

Just because you hire the best talent it doesn't mean it will work cohesively.

I'm certainly not trying to claim that paying what they paid for watson was a mistake. It's far too early to attempt to tell a story that is yet unwritten. There are three years upcoming that will write the rest of the story. It could turn out to be one of the best stories in Browns history for all we know. I however feel it's too early to claim they hired the "best talent". To me that story too is yet to be written. Now if you mean the best available talent at the time I would say we are in agreement. watson was certainly the best veteran talent at QB on the market at the time. Whether they jumped the shark in thinking that was enough is still an unknown.

But yes, I too believe a mistake was made for them to think watson could fit into what the O was running at the time. I feel their belief was with his talent he could operate in the existing system. That was found not to be true. What they instead found was that watson had to have a system built strictly around what he does best and that his talents didn't translate into being all inclusive. Some call QB's such as that "system QB's". They need a certain system built around them to be successful.

And you are correct that they overhauled the O coaching staff to do just that. IMO they've done everything possible to set watson up with the circumstances which give him the best chance to succeed. Now we will find out if he can rewind the clock back to the time when he had shown his full potential as an NFL QB.

To me whether it was the right move or not all depends on these next three seasons.

There are very few QBs that do well in different systems.

When Tom Brady went to Tampa, he brought all his people. Russell Wilson struggled in Denver. I don't think it is a bad thing. You know what you are good at and stay in your lane.

"Best available" is the better choice of words.

I don't think this will be the worst decision in Browns history. Browns made some tall blunders! This is not the worst financial decision. Watson may not live up to the expectations, but he is not a bum. They could have overpaid for Baker, and he continued playing the same. In this industry, you are banking on potential and minimizing risk while on public display.

I agree this book is not complete. Time will tell.

I do understand people who do not like Watson. It is easier to find issues and criticize performance.

I think - and I could be mistaken - you are conflating some different issues.

I agree - no matter who the QB is, I'll take wins and average or even poor QB play over loses and great QB play. That doesn't impact how you judge the trade.

The choice wasn't to overpay Baker or trade for Watson - I think Baker's time in CLE was done because he and KS had burnt their bridges and there was no doubt that KS was staying... there were lots of other options though. And that decision to move on doesn't impact how you judge the trade.

I don't think what happens in HOU has any bearing on judging DW and how well he plays - or how you judge the trade.

Regardless of whether people like or dislike DW - it has no bearing on judging the trade. It's simple: What did you give up - what is the return? You mentioned the number of wins by the way ... I'll remind you that in a span of three games our opponents scored a total of 9 points - an average of 3 points per game. Returning to the point above - it's not the wins it's the way DW plays that you judge him on, even if we all as fans prefer wins for the team over great QB play.

I do agree - the book isn't complete. I agree this isn't the worst decision in Browns history, most especially as I am still ever hopefull of DW elevating his play to closer to what we've seen when he's played at his best.

His performance has been what it has been. His future performance will be what it will be. It will have nothing to do with "feelings".

I don't see where anything I've posted in this thread would reflect that my feelings about watson the person have any part to play in it.

Any comments I've had on watson the player have been strictly based on his performance and will continue to. He was paid on a scale that in order to earn that pay the dividends should match or exceed the investment that was put into him. And if he fails to do that the fault will be as much or more on this FO than it is on watson.

It's easy to try and deflect a conversation by avoiding factual context in exchange for blaming it on a personal slant. However that doesn't hold water here.

Pitt, I was only making a simple statement. It was not directed at anyone specific. I'm nearly pointing out it is easier to find issues when people do not like Watson.

Mgh, that is all fine saying he did not meet expectations, but what are your expectations?

Remember, he played in a 12-personnel scheme where the emphasis is on the run game.

You can't expect 300 yards per game when running the ball 50% of the time. The offense is running 60 plays per game. That means you are running the football 30 times. If you are 60% pass completions, Watson is completing 20 receptions. That means he must average 15 yards per catch.

Your expectations may not fit what scheme the Browns played.

How about DW using some common sense. What kind of
Idiot goes out and plays in a celebrity softball game when
He isn't even 100% for OTAs? Then he has a bang bang play
At 1st base and lands on his surgically repaired shoulder
This guy doesn't have a clue. He is lacking something between
The ears. I know the Texan fans are glad he is out of Houston.

That may be true. I based my post on the fact you were responding to me. And I was pointing out that trying to deflect away from his performance based on personalities rather than his performance is something that has been done and I'm pretty sure will continue to be done. As your reply pointed out.

Given his actual performance and what reality actually is, I think the inverse of this statement might be more fitting in that it is easier to find excuses for poor performance when you desperately want the player to be what you've hoped for.

The facts are this simple: if we didn't have a quarter-billion dollars and half a franchise of 1st round picks tied up in him, he'd already be long gone.


There are two ways to interpret "what to expect". The first is "what do we think we'll see" and the second is "what standard is expected of him".
I do not think what we expect we'll see will meet up with the standard expected of him.... that's what I think we can expect.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there was some other freakishly weird injury early on that costs him the season.

Hit the nail squarely on the head there.

I think people will be greatly disappointed.

They are expecting Watson to throw 300+ yards a game and double-digit TDs. At the same time, they want to see a heavy presence from the run game especially if Chubb returns early in the season.

Mathematically, it is almost impossible for Watson to obtain unless the game plan increases the number of passes thrown.

People want to see Watson match his Houston stats which is fine, but Watson was throwing the ball constantly playing from behind.

Watson has way more pieces supporting him now than he had in Houston. He must play smarter football as opposed to volume. By that, I mean game manager.

The key should be the number of games won, and how he executes in the fourth quarter whether ahead or behind. Instead, people will look at the stats and say he underperformed.