I would have put this in the qb thread, but that's turned into yet another love/hate McCoy go 'round.
Here's a good video showing Tannehill's pros and cons vs. LSU....about as close to an NFL D you'll find in the NCAA. I like him for his size and athleticism, but his release is rather slow and he made some bonehead decisions under pressure. Maybe that can be fixed if we can pick him up without selling out our draft? His wheels are better than I thought they'd be.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
I have been an adament anti-Tannehill person. But, that is largely because Mourg has been pushing him with our ATL-pick in the 1st.
I think Tannehill needs a ton of work and will need to sit for at least 2 seasons. That is generally a 4th and below type prospect. I could see him as a 3rd rounder. Anything above that is foolish to me though.
He looks like he's got quite the wind up when not on the move.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I was hoping he'd fall to the 2nd round, and I'd have no problem taking him there....and letting him sit behind Colt/Wallace for a year. I'm sick of watching smallish qb's get the snot knocked out of them in our division. My first choice would be Luck if we don't have to trade our entire draft, and second would be taking Flynn (he seems to play a lot bigger than Colt) and using our draft for some playmakers to surround him with. I think RG3 would be oft injured here.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
I don't see that the round matters... you either think he can be an NFL QB, or you don't. Only after answering that should the round matter.... but if you think he can be an NFL QB, then why would Round 1 be a problem? If all you think he can be is a backup, then why bother? You can find those anywhere.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: Hard to know where any QB will be drafted after last year's draft.
ain't that the truth.
remember how in our DT mock draft mallett fell to the third? That was funny when it turned out he was actually drafted there. But Locker at 8? Ponder at 12? Washington trading out of a QB draft slot? I don't think many saw those coming.
He is a different QB from last years bowl to this years bowl. It is one of the big reasons I really like this kid. His mechanics have improved a great deal, his footwork has gone from below average to the best in this draft.
I dont often pimp 1st round qbs because most are so overrated it is hilarious but this kid just has so much potential.
Ah, so you favor giving a qb 2 years tops, to be "the man". Neat.
Actually, a year and a half if you want to get technical.
So, we draft Tannehill - he gets a year and half to make us good or he's outta here? I guess that's fine, as long as we don't trade 3 firsts and a second or 2 to get him.
I don't give a rip who the qb is. If we draft someone, fine. I just don't want to sell the farm to get one. We have so many needs. If a qb is there, we take him. If he's not, we take someone else. It's simple.
Question for you: We draft a qb - does he get a year and a half of starts to show he's all that? Or will you hold a drafted qb to the same standards as you do now?
if we draft Tannehill, then we would almost assuredly be giving Colt this year as well. he's not ready to start in the NFL. even his most ardent supporters agree with that (Edit: okay, maybe not his most ardent supporters)
so, you'd have given Colt 2.5 years and up to 37 starts to prove his mettle. if he had that light bulb turn on, then great. if not, then you have your backup plan in place.
i'm not in favor of Tannehill specifically, but the plan itself has merit.
Last edited by no_logo_required; 01/05/1204:13 PM.
Quote: if we draft Tannehill, then we would almost assuredly be giving Colt this year as well. he's not ready to start in the NFL. even his most ardent supporters agree with that.
so, you'd have given Colt 2.5 years and up to 37 starts to prove his mettle. if he had that light bulb turn on, then great. if not, then you have your backup plan in place.
i'm not in favor of Tannehill specifically, but the plan itself has merit.
And, as I've said many times - let's get another qb in here - I have no problem with that. I just don't want to trade so many picks for a "might be", and that's what Luck is, as is RG, or Tannehill, or Jones......etc.
Competition is good for the team. I am loyal to no single player.
Quote: And, as I've said many times - let's get another qb in here - I have no problem with that. I just don't want to trade so many picks for a "might be", and that's what Luck is, as is RG, or Tannehill, or Jones......etc.
...and so were Manning, Rodgers, McCoy, Leaf, Couch etc etc....what's your point?
You're basically saying you don't want to trade "might be" picks for a "might be" pick, yeah makes perfect sense lol....
with your logic there would never be trades and I guess this thought of thinking simply comes from not knowing anything about those prospects particularly or the draft process in general, because those who think every prospect is a "might be" consider the draft a crapshoot...but it's not...good GM draft good players, bad GMs don't and get fired....it's not a science, but it's also not bingo....it's a job and the prospects are their material with different value...it's not "might be" after "might be" as you'd like to portray it
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
Quote: so, you'd have given Colt 2.5 years and up to 37 starts to prove his mettle. if he had that light bulb turn on, then great. if not, then you have your backup plan in place.
I like this plan - but at the moment would be hesitant to spend our Atlanta Pick on Tannehill - he has a lot of question marks for a part of the draft where you can get a solid starter at another position.
If Tannehill falls to the 2nd, I think a very good draft for our offense would look like:
Quote: Actually, I don't want to trade 4 or 5 or 6 or more "might be's", for 1 "might be". That has to make sense to you, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't, because, as I've tried to explain, not every "might be" has equal value...they're not all equal in value, depending on position, ceiling, length to impact etc etc....more picks do not equal more impact on your team...that's simply wrong and naive....we had 4 Top 50 picks in 2009, starting with a 5th overall...how did that turn out? Would anyone whine here now if we traded Mack, Robo, Massa, Maiava and Veikune for Stafford? I know I wouldn't
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
Quote: Ah, so you favor giving a qb 2 years tops, to be "the man". Neat.
Because that's what I said...?
I said if we spend a pick on a QB HIGHER THAN A 4TH ROUNDER... Then the FO has lost faith in McCoy...
You don't bring in Equal or Greater Valued Competition (McCoy being a 3rd Rd Pick) if you think he's the guy.. (Rivers/Bress is the exception, not the rule..)
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
No, it doesn't, because, as I've tried to explain, not every "might be" has equal value...they're not all equal in value, depending on position, ceiling, length to impact etc etc....more picks do not equal more impact on your team...that's simply wrong and naive....we had 4 Top 50 oicks in 2009...how did that turn out? Would anyone whine here now if we traded Mack, Robo, Massa, Maiava and Veikune for Stafford? I know I wouldn't
Well, just talking probabilistically - let's say Luck has a 90% chance of being an all-pro caliber player (gone to a pro-bowl).
For 2000-2008 5 #1 picks have done that (Vick, Manning, Palmer, Williams, Long), so the natural hit rate seems to be around 62.5%, but we give 90% since Luck is a better prospect than most.
For picks 2-10, 41 prospects have gone to a pro-bowl in 2000-2008, so the hit rate is 41/81 ~ 50%.
For picks from 20-30, 31 prospects have gone to a pro-bowl, for a hit rate of 31/99 ~ 31%
So we are giving away a #4, a #24, and then two more 1st round picks. Let's say one ends up being top ten and one is 20-30. Then on average we are giving up about 1.6 pro-bowl caliber players, in exchange for about 0.9.
Now this is a very simple way of putting it, since I'm saying all pro-bowl players are the same. But you also never know when the guy you draft at #24 will end up being twice the player Luck is.
Anyway, that's the odds argument in it's simplest form.
Didn't watch a single A&M game this year. Watching that video of the LSU game:
1. Athleticism and height stand out the most. Looks the part. 2. Don't like the release. Do QB coaches teach kids how to throw anymore? 3. Seems to have NFL arm strength 4. Questionable decision making
Looks like a project to me although his upside looks to be pretty high.
If it were me this isn't the type of player I'd want to have in our current position. If I was Green Bay or another team with an established starter I'd draft him somewhere late round 2 or beyond.
Quote: Didn't watch a single A&M game this year. Watching that video of the LSU game:
1. Athleticism and height stand out the most. Looks the part. 2. Don't like the release. Do QB coaches teach kids how to throw anymore? 3. Seems to have NFL arm strength 4. Questionable decision making
Looks like a project to me although his upside looks to be pretty high.
If it were me this isn't the type of player I'd want to have in our current position. If I was Green Bay or another team with an established starter I'd draft him somewhere late round 2 or beyond.
That size and athletecism intrigues me, and it's what's needed in our division. From that video, it also looks like he can take a hit. If he could get rid of the ball quicker, I don't think he'd be that much of a project. LSU has a hell of a defense, and he was able to move the ball.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: we had 4 Top 50 picks in 2009, starting with a 5th overall...how did that turn out? Would anyone whine here now if we traded Mack, Robo, Massa, Maiava and Veikune for Stafford? I know I wouldn't
Judging the value of a trade based on whether the actual player picked in that spot pans out isn't reality. The fact that we didn't pick well is irrelevant.
With the same picks we could have had Clay Matthews, Ray Maulaluga, LeSean McCoy, Phil Loadholt and Brian Hartline...
Quote: I don't see that the round matters... you either think he can be an NFL QB, or you don't. Only after answering that should the round matter.... but if you think he can be an NFL QB, then why would Round 1 be a problem? If all you think he can be is a backup, then why bother? You can find those anywhere.
I tend to agree with this. He has a chance to be an incremental improvement over McCoy for sure (and thus would warrant a mid round pick maybe, but like Deep said he's gonna get drafted way before then). Very VERY doubtful he ever turns into anything more than that. We don't need to waste our time with incremental improvements at the QB position. We need a stud. Period.
Quote: And, as I've said many times - let's get another qb in here - I have no problem with that. I just don't want to trade so many picks for a "might be", and that's what Luck is, as is RG, or Tannehill, or Jones......etc.
So what you're saying is...you NEVER want to trade up for a player...EVER. Because they're always a "might be". Ok, got it.
Quote: Actually, I don't want to trade 4 or 5 or 6 or more "might be's", for 1 "might be". That has to make sense to you, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. It's all about risk vs. reward. A QB is by far and away the most important position on the football field. Let me try a gambling analogy. "Hitting" on the QB is like winning 2 million dollars at the World Series of Poker. "Hitting" on a CB or LB (while both good and important) is like winning $200 from a home table poker game with 5 friends.
Right now we have an invitation to the World Series table....but it will cost us the ability to play in the next 3 or 4 home table games. And you say, yeah but what if we go and don't win? Then we come home with no money AND we lost out on the ability to win the home table games?! That's true...except this particular World Series table has an odds of winning of 90% compared to the "normal" odds of 50%.
So let's see we risk: 50% chance at $200 + 50% chance at $200 + 50% chance at $200 + 50% chance at $200 (the equivalent of 4 home table games...or in our case 4 draft picks).
For a reward of: 90% chance at $2 million.
Total risk = 0.5*200*4 = $400 opportunity cost lost for a chance at Total reward = 0.9*2 mill = $1.8 million.
Sure there's a 10% chance you lose the $400 AND don't win...but how do you NOT play those odds?!? It's insane! The reward (due to the position combined with the EXTREMELY HIGH CHANCE OF SUCCESS) far far far outweigh any of the risks.
Quote: If the Browns were one awesome qb away from being perennial contenders, heck yeah I'd do it.
No team is close to being a perennial contender without a franchise QB, because without that guy they are going to struggle...to the point people will continue talking about all the other positions that need fixed "first". The scenario which you are describing does not exist in today's NFL.
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
Quote: So let's see we risk: 50% chance at $200 + 50% chance at $200 + 50% chance at $200 + 50% chance at $200 (the equivalent of 4 home table games...or in our case 4 draft picks).
For a reward of: 90% chance at $2 million.
Total risk = 0.5*200*4 = $400 opportunity cost lost for a chance at Total reward = 0.9*2 mill = $1.8 million.
Sure there's a 10% chance you lose the $400 AND don't win...but how do you NOT play those odds?!? It's insane! The reward (due to the position combined with the EXTREMELY HIGH CHANCE OF SUCCESS) far far far outweigh any of the risks.
So you're saying that Luck is 90,000x times as good as a normal first round pick? Because that's ridiculous....
There are some actual numbers I made in another thread - based on reality (or at least an attempt at it).
Edit: To be clear - your model says that if the colts offered us "Andrew Luck for every single draft pick the Browns will have for the next 1000 years" we should take it - that's why it's clearly comical and wrong.
Quote: No team is close to being a perennial contender without a franchise QB, because without that guy they are going to struggle...to the point people will continue talking about all the other positions that need fixed "first". The scenario which you are describing does not exist in today's NFL.
except the Jets (2 straight AFC Champ games - barely missed playoffs this year), the Ravens (in playoffs every year), and possibly the 49ers (let's see if they can repeat their success but they are in the NFC West)
What last year's draft should have taught us is that QB's will be drafted early and often,and this year's crop is less than last year's. He won't last long,definately not to the 2 nd round.The qb position holds too much value even with teams that allready have a good one.
Obviously I just threw in some monetary values to make a point as those weren't "scientific" in any way shape or form. If you want to get closer to reality, you are correct in assuming that the probability of a "hit" goes down with each round in the draft (so I over inflated the opportunity cost already), but then we have to "guestimate" how much more a QB is worth than any other position. Again I have no "scientific" way to prove or disprove this but I'd say 1 good QB makes an entire offense better...so that's 11 guys...so let's go with a conservative estimate and say he's worth 5x more than any other position.
So if the QB was worth $200 * 5 = $1000. With a 90% chance of success that's still worth $900 which is significantly greater than the (already too large) $400 cost of missing out on those other picks.
Look, we can squabble about the details of the actual $ amounts in this purely hypothetical analogy all day long, but the point remains. You can not win without a QB. We have the chance this season to go get a QB if we want. The probability of getting a 1st ballot HOF type QB talent in this draft is higher than it has been in over 10 years.
You can do whatever "math" you want. The answer is pretty obvious.
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
You can do whatever "math" you want. The answer is pretty obvious.
No - that's the point, what decision you are supposed to make depends on the math - I put up something which is much more reasonable (says Luck is worth about 2 top-ten picks. and a top-ten pick is worth about 2 late first rounders) and we shouldn't pay more than that.
You can't just make up ridiculous math, and then when you get called out on it, say "well, the answer is obvious"
Quote: except the Jets (2 straight AFC Champ games - barely missed playoffs this year)
I certainly don't want the Browns to be modeled after the Jets. Winning 8-10 games a year, either barely into or out of the playoffs, never even making a Super Bowl let alone winning one (or multiple). Sanchez isn't going to lead that team anywhere. No thanks. That's not a golden pillar of success I'd strive to follow.
Quote: the Ravens (in playoffs every year)
Flacco is a lot better than many give him credit for. Even with an above average QB that team required having THE BEST running game in the entire NFL AND THE BEST defense in the entire NFL to win anything. Give us 20-30 years and the rest of our team might be up to those standards.
Quote: and possibly the 49ers (let's see if they can repeat their success but they are in the NFC West)
I put the Niners in the same boat as the Jets. They haven't done squat yet.
Now compare that list to guys whose teams, you know, actually won.
2011 - Aaron Rodgers (elite QB) 2010 - Drew Brees (elite QB) 2009 - Ben Roethlisberger (elite QB) 2008 - Eli Manning (above avg QB) 2007 - Peyton Manning (elite QB) 2006 - Ben Roethlisberger (elite QB) 2005 - Tom Brady (elite QB) 2004 - Tom Brady (elite QB) 2003 - Brad Johnson (journeyman vet) 2002 - Tom Brady (elite QB) 2001 - Trent Dilfer (journeyman vet) 2000 - Kurt Warner (elite QB) 1999 - John Elway (elite QB) 1998 - John Elway (elite QB) 1997 - Brett Favre (elite QB) 1996 - Troy Aikman (elite QB) 1995 - Steve Young (elite QB) 1994 - Troy Aikman (elite QB) 1993 - Troy Aikman (elite QB)
So 16 of the last 19 'ships have been won by elite QBs. I'd say winning without one is the exception, not the rule. We don't have one. We need one. Do what it takes to go get one. It's that important.
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
You can do whatever "math" you want. The answer is pretty obvious.
No - that's the point, what decision you are supposed to make depends on the math - I put up something which is much more reasonable (says Luck is worth about 2 top-ten picks. and a top-ten pick is worth about 2 late first rounders) and we shouldn't pay more than that.
You can't just make up ridiculous math, and then when you get called out on it, say "well, the answer is obvious"
I can because even your analysis doesn't take into account the varying levels of importance for different positions. Are the 1.6 pro bowl players we give up LB's? Corners? Wide Receivers? A couple of both?
0.9 pro bowl QB's are worth more than 1.6 pro bowl CB's. That's why I attached a dollar value to their positions (different games). How much more? Well guess we have to start going down that hypothetical road again...
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/GraffZ06/browns_factory_sig.jpg)
