DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What If?

I think your concern could be realized quickly if it happens. Wouldn't be concern about Flacco at that point. The real concern is KS. Predictable already, and Dillon assume less playbook AND fewer reps. LS is hardly noted for effective play calling and keeping things vanilla to a fault. I really hate the Bizarro World plays that appear when he tries to fool opponents in the Red Zone. Not exactly the watchword for any adjustments on offense. "Let's do less with more." Little play variety called; little variance week to week; we need points, and they probably are not at the end of three yard passes or thirty-yard attempts when behind the sticks. The real football we see is on defense. They can't carry this O which can't keep itself on the field as called. A run game spark might help. Keeping Detroit off the field would as we'll.

IMO, what happened against Green Bay was an anomaly and to expect us to beat 2 really good teams in a row especially in Detroit is unrealistic. Our D would have to play great again, good ST play and our O would have to show some new life, move the ball and keep the Lions off the field. Tall order.

I'm certainly not willing to predict a win against Detroit. But to your point I don't think the same D that held the Bengals with Burrows to 17 points and then the Packers to 10 points is an anomaly.

And if you looked at the betting line last week beating the Packers looked unrealistic as well.

The only thing I would add to your assessment as to when KS may start DG is "When the time is right".

I believe he feels DG is ready to start but one of the keys I think is being strongly considered is starting him when the odds are better of him starting out on the right foot with the best odds of him succeeding early giving him a foundation to build upon. If you think there's any possibility that DG has a chance of being the Browns starter for the long run I don't think you want to start him out behind the 8 ball.

Not all NFL teams are equal.

Hopefully they're using the telescope approach of looking at the long run rather than using a microscope and only looking at this as a week to week situation.

Pit I’m not saying our D is an anomaly I think our D is legit and very good. What I’m saying is that the events at the end of the game were. The interception, blocked FG and the improbable 55 yard FG. Those 3 things usually don’t all happen in the last minutes of the game especially for us.

True. At least for teams past. I'm not sure I would call the 55 yard field goal improbable though. He had a terrible week one but hasn't done bad since. I'm not going to base what he is doing now strictly on week one. He did fine when called upon in week two as as well.

I'm not quite ready yet to try to diminish the accomplishments of our secondary and special teams both Szmyt and the blocked FG by saying it "usually doesn't happen for us".

Those were actual plays the team made. Players make things happen. They don't just happen.

While you can look back and say that's true, with the turnover of the roster every season this isn't quite the same team as last year. That's true every new season. As the roster churns so does the play of each unit.

While opinions may vary and I'm not trying to discount your opinion, I try to remain objective.

We have weaknesses like an aging OL and a desperate need for OT's. Our QB situation is in flux and we don't know where that will lead moving forward. We certainly need a more dynamic #1 WR. I won't try to diminish those issues. I won't try to sugar coat them. At the same time when the ST's plays well, the kicker performs well and the secondary makes an excellent play, I won't write that off as something other worldly either.

They earned that win with their play.

It's very early in the season and for me I'm willing to see where it plays out from here before saying it was some extraordinary set of circumstances or simply the ST's playing well and the secondary making a great play.

I believe they are working the kinks out in the offense! New OC. New OL coach.

When the rookie QBs take over the offense, everyone else has a good understanding of what is needed.

Fans always want the next guy.. whoever that is. That's if the Starter is struggeling!

Pretty obvious it has always been that way, with any team.

I am at the point that I am good with putting Gabriel in at the half of any game. If he plays well, it smooths the way to Flacco. If he doesn't it will be easy enough to start Joe the next week. All Stefanski has to do is go in to the press conference and say that Joe is still the starting QB and explain away why he made the change at the half.

There are probably 50 ways he can do that, some real, some not so much. Once you make a clear change, you don't have any real options to make another change.

I don't like to say it, but the best case is Joe takes some sort of minor injury that "might" take a few weeks to heal giving the team a clear reason for making the change and then making it easy to go back to Joe after a few weeks if Gabe struggles.

Sort of like when Kosar took over for Danielson. It gives the team a clear path to go back and not make their future (hopeful) starter look or feel like a loser.

I think Joe did well coming off the couch because Stefanski didn't have time to teach him to be scared of throwing the ball. I think Stef preaches so much on avoiding turnovers that our QBs become to scared to throw the ball downfield and get too scared to actually make the throws.

What if we simply had more QBs and WRs to utilize...oh wait...we have (3) QBs and that number will be (4) when Watson is cleared to play...plus (1) on the PS.

We have (5) WRs on the (53) and (4) on the practice squad. (13) players - soon to be (14) - and we would miss exactly (0) if they were no longer on the team.

What do every one of those ^ guys have in common? None of them would be on the roster of our ACFN opponents. How'd we get to that?

Oh I know I know.

Our offensive tackles might get them killed.

Yeah, it would be better if QB's were told and taught not to avoid turnovers.

The simple answer is, only one pick in the first two rounds of the previous three drafts to 2025, and making a conscious decision to solidify the defense in this year's draft based on players available.

For the record, ALL of the other ACFN teams would take Jerry Jeudy in a heartbeat to be in their starting lineup. Obviously he would be #3 receiver for the Bengals, he would be #2 for the Steelers, but he would be #1 on the Ravens.

The Browns need a QB... as for the answer to that question and who would make what roster, we should start to be able to answer that question this week. I can tell you the backup QB for the Bengals is TERRIBLE, they might wish they had Gabriel on their roster.. We are going to get to see what Cooper Rush can do, the same week we get to see our own backup perform. Let's hold off a couple of weeks to determine whether Gabriel could make one of the other rosters.

We are also going to see what we have in Isaiah Bond... stay tuned

You take what you can at the time you pick.. Don't over pick a player based on need.

At #5, the only player that might have been better for this team on offense was Ashton Jeanty... it will have to play out to see if he is THAT much better than Judkins that we made a bad decision.
At #33 Schwesinger is turning in a first round grade at the pro level. I don't know of any names that would improve the offense more than Carson has improved the defense. The only name that could have made an impact based on what they have done so far is Luther Burden III, who looks like he could be the real deal.
At #36 Quinson Judkins... already improving the offense. He needs to get his stamina up to touch the ball more. I can't think of any player outside of QB that would benefit more from an O-line upgrade. He is breaking tackles early on, but is getting hit way too close to the line of scrimmage.
At #67 Harold Fannin, as a rookie after 4 games, he is in the top 50 in Targets, Catches and Yards... That's ALL receivers, WR, TE and RB. He hasn't had his breakout game yet, but it might be coming.

Looking at this exchange, and KS play calling, lousy offensive performance, can we honestly say we took BPA in these drafts. Referendum on judgment. Our starters seem like PS players who lack production. Some folks should sit.

BPA is a somewhat tricky subject. Every year you can look at the charts as it pertains to the rankings of players in the draft. Often times QB's that are ranked as seventh to tenth overall get drafted #1. QB's ranked in the teenss get draft top 5. Sometimes QB's ranked as being in the 20's in terms of BPA get drafted top 10.

Sometimes teams only need a couple of key players to have a fairly well rounded team. Those teams will place position as high priority in their BPA evaluations which makes some players lower on the pure best players available list to rise on their list.

Some teams have needs at several positions. They are more prone to pick the actual best players available over considering position.

Yet another factor to consider is what round you're drafting in. Once you get into the third round the actual percentage of players who make it in the NFL fall to around 17%. At that juncture trying to meet a need allows you to go outside the bounds of BPA because the odds of success are quite low anyway.

That's pretty much what happened with the Browns. Everyone knows we need a franchise QB. A third round QB has even lower odds of success with less than a 12% success rate. But is it really that much lower than any other third round position selection? Not really.

So at that juncture why not take a stab at it? If you succeed you just saved yourself a huge investment in valuable assets during next years draft. If not maybe you find your backup QB for the next four years at 3rd round rookie pay.

In the first two rounds thus far it looks as if they did go BPA. Once they got to the third where the odds are low any selection will pan out they took somewhat of a gamble with the future in mind. Every draft pick is a gamble no matter where they are drafted and the results of this years draft look pretty good thus far.

Newbies look good so far overall Posters expecting SB out of this roster just want to see themselves gripe. Poor performance seems to indicate underperformance or over-rating. That goes to judgment. Flacco had issues, but he also had a number of passes that his team dropped and were very catchable. Not to excuse failure, but Ski helped, line helped receivers helped. I do not think KS should get a pass on this lousy start.

I would tend to agree with you if posters thought we would be winning at this point before the season started. Almost everyone said that we would be lucky to win these first six games on the schedule because even most of us knew the roster wasn't ready to compete against good teams. People were saying we shouldn't even think of staring Gabriel until we got past those first five or six games for that very reason.

People were calling for long pass plays to be called and blaming Stefanski because he was not. But anyone bothering to watch could see that the OL could barely protect Flacco for quick, short passing plays. The fact that both of our starting OT's are out with injuries certainly didn't help with any of that.

I'm certainly not trying to say everyone should get a pass on these results. But Stefanski didn't sign these players. He didn't draft this roster. He is working with what the FO has given him to work with. And even us as non experts knew going into this season that this roster wasn't going to cut it.

I understand that fans are frustrated but Stefanksi didn't assemble this roster. I think if we wish to assign blame we start there.

A reality due to a self-inflicted malady.

Regarding that 1st pick - a player I really like - solidifying the defense: We were already stacked at DT. Consequently, we gave away Briggs and he was our best run-stopper this pre-season...a guy we actually developed from a 7th Rd pick into a complimentary player...he was cheap. He's continuing to be that guy for the Jets. When Hall finally gets back, we will likely give away S Harris as the room will be too crowded again.

An OT or WR at #5 would have had much more impact overall to this team. Again, this isn't me complaining about Graham the player...it's the roster-construct.


We will have to agree to disagree. The Broncos were happy to get rid of him for a reason. He wouldn't see the field for the Bengals...he'd be benched by now for the Steelers or Ravens because they demand that their WRs catch the ball. He's not even a #1 for us and we don't have a #1. Being the best we've got does not equal to being a #1 WR. He might be THE #1...but he isn't A #1.


The Browns needed a QB last year too...and they 'went after' Pickett (since traded) and Flacco in response to that need. Then drafted a guy in the 3rd and 5th rounds completely ignoring OL and WR in what looks to otherwise be a very good draft...finally. My 'make the roster' comment was aimed at the (9) WRs we have at our disposal...not any QB. I should have been more clear about that.


I think he has a shot to be pretty decent. Crazy that a UDFA just might be the best WR on out team right now. Crazy as in... How'd we get to that? If we didn't have a guy better than the UDFA on the pre-draft roster, how did we not draft a single WR?


No argument on that...but it's not that cut-and-dried. That statement is derived from teams in the past who take QBs too early because they need one. In most ANY draft...the top OT trumps the top DT...I would also say that the top WR trumps the top DT. When not contemplating the drafting of a QB...a team is foolish to not consider the position (positional need) that they ultimately choose to draft.

The Chief's won't draft a QB early even if he is the best player on the board...the Browns weren't going to draft a LT while Thomas was here even if he were the best player on the board. BPA is an excuse for GMs to do what they want to do anyway.


These guys are all showing to be excellent picks. Yet drafting the best LT instead of Graham would have made a much better overall improvement to this team. Both QB picks are very questionable - again given the roster-construct at the time for one guy and the circus of the other guy.

The Browns spoke with Daniel Jones. He reportedly wanted an assurance that we wouldn't draft a QB. We wouldn't do that. He signed with the Colts and is playing quite well.

Had we not signed Shedeur, Pickett likely starts for us this week. Not that that would be a good/better thing...but Picket > Shedeur. We read all off-season how high the FO/KS was on Pickett.

Mac Jones is showing just how much difference a Head Coach can make.

Next year, Flacco will surely be gone...Watson will surely be here eating up a roster spot along with the Cap...Gabriel will surely still be under 6' tall...and Sanders will still be whatever he is today. And we will likely draft ANOTHER QB hoping he can be the guy.

How much better of a player was Graham rated over "the best LT on the board"? You do realize that if that LT you promote they should have drafted drafted had been sub par it really wouldn't have been an improvement, right? You're basing your opinion on an assumption. I get it. If you're a player or two away from having a complete team you set your board more favorably to those positions of need. That isn't the case here. We had nobody on the interior of the DL that could apply pressure.

In regards to Pickett. The Browns traded him for DTR and a fifth round pick. Between 4-5% of fifth round picks are successful. His salary was a guaranteed 2.6 million. That's no indication you think he's a quality QB. So "go after" might be an overstatement depending on what you think that term means.

Bone I think it would be a mistake for us to NOT draft a QB next year. Most of the top QBs in next year's draft have a lot more potential talent and upside than any QB we have on our roster now.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about that one way or the other with so much of the season left to play. Yet at the current time I tend to agree with you. However for me the price tag will play a part in that. IF, and that's a BIG IF Gabrielle shows he is a quality QB I'm not sure I would package both first rounders to draft a QB. If however what they consider a franchise QB falls into their lap and they only need to use one first round pick to draft him I'm leaning towards believing they should.

I've never heard of a team complaining, "We have too many good QB'S!" Once everything gets sorted out you have a valuable trade asset as your worse case scenario.

I agree with your post Say we draft in the top 3 next year. We probably won't have to use any more than 1 of our 1st rounders for a QB. As a Browns fan it's a quandary. We want to see us win every week however the more we win the farther we fall in the draft order. What to want. On the other hand, if we're winning that much maybe we've found our QB. We'll know a lot more at the end of the season.