Mary Kay Cabot tells 92.3 The Fan that Brandon Weeden's age is a big concern to Browns' brass
Plain Dealer Browns reporter Mary Kay Cabot joined Baskin and Phelps on 92.3 The Fan (WKRK-FM) today to talk Browns.
Mary Kay talked about who the Browns might bring in to compete with Brandon Weeden for the starting QB job, and that Weeden’s age is a big factor in the team’s decision to move forward with him.
My thought on Mallet is, with Tom Brady being 36 yo at the beginning of the season, Belicheck shouldn't being willing to lose him and if he is, we shouldn't want him.
Exactly. Belly "congratulated" Lombardi to the Browns so he has his new Al Davis to rip off every offseason.
Who was the last Pats player that Belly let go and was worth it?
The FO "leaking" the age thing with Weeden is more proof that this FO plays the homer card in the media when it fits their agenda. Plenty of "form" red flags already no matter how you think about the content. I'd bet this FO is already hated in the locker room....these clowns think they play Madden, the GM version, lol
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
It's common double standard around here to bash Weeden for "only" having 7-8years at best, yet we invested a much higher pick (and some mid rounders) on TRich that will have 7-8 years at best. Where's the outcry for that? I don't see any...
Well TRich's injury aside, it generally doesn't take a RB 3 or 4 years to really hit their stride, there is no great learning curve for a good RB... A good RB brings their full value almost immediately.. so you are talking 7-8 of their best years... with a QB, you usually aren't really getting their best until about year 4 or 5... So what you are really talking about is not 7-8 years of each, you are talking about 7-8 prime years of one and 3 or 4 prime years of the other...
Quote: the age thing is and was a resentment filled excuse to just bash on a guy that many decided day 1 they didn't like
No, it's really noz. It's a logic based concern about whether we made/are making the right decision regarding the most important position on the field and how that is likely to impact our future for the next 5-15 years...
By your own examples, if we were wrong on TRich and he never becomes an elite back, you have stated that really good backs can be had in the 2nd or 3rd round so the cost of replacing him is a 2nd or 3rd round pick... to get a player that could potentially step in from day 1 and be as productive or more productive... if we were wrong about Weeden and we find that out next year or the year after, you are likely looking at another 1st round pick being spent and 3 or 4 MORE years of developing the next guy. I fully understand your points about value in the draft, but I'm not sure you are giving enough credit to the risk/reward argument that others are making regarding Weeden.. and calling people dumb and hypocrits because they disagree with you isn't advancing your point much either... trust me, I know.
That's right "in theory" but how many RBs do you know that actually HAVE 7-8 PRIME seasons? Every one of them has 1 or 2 blech seasons because of injury. Most RBs have 3-4 prime seasons and that's it. You have to dig out the "best case" and elite RBs to come up with 5-10 RBs that had 7-8 prime seasons. It IS an inconsistent and/or hypocritical argumentation any way I look at this, sorry.
When talking about value, what often is forgotten is position scarcity and drop off production or supply and demand if you will. The drop off from even an AVG NFL QB to a dime a dozen backup QB is often crippling for teams, yet multiple teams have shown that the drop off from even an elite RB to his backup isn't nearly as significant. There simply are WAY MORE RBs that can be productive than QBs.
That's why I'll always maintain that a 50-50 risk/reward for a QB at no22 overall is ALWAYS better value than a 90-10 risk/reward for a RB at 3 overall (and then some). You don't draft to look good and "not to bust", you draft to make your team better and get them over the hump, right?
Look at Peen, he's the perfect example of drafting "not to bust". He'd have us taking Warmack and Wing with our 2 top picks, a G-only and a freaking punter...with all due respect, but that's laughable. We'd still field a crappy team and would not have improved much. Sure, if you draft a P/K, FB, ILB, G and other low value positions high EVERY draft, the bust percentage would be minimal, but the draft isn't about "not to bust", it's about improving your team short, mid and long term. You draft to field a team that has to play 31 other teams, you don't draft in a vacuum.
It's not a coincidence that 2 of our crappiest drafts (and that's saying something since we had many of them) were the ones when we actually DID draft an interior OL with our 1st pick (Mack and Faine drafts)....it messed up the rest of our drafts, as we were scrambling for our "real" needs later, fishing for some pass rusher from Hawaii or West Texas A&M.
That said, I don't think I excluded taking a RB or even G in the 1st, it's just that the percentage for that to happen is lower. Also, it always depends WHERE in the 1st and what's left on the board AND if he's the 1st or 2nd/3rd player chosen of our draft class...you always have to look at a draft as a whole and not think from pick to pick, that's what bad GMs do, they treat every single pick as if it's in a vacuum, but later they will get to "feel" that a draft is a whole, when they've erased other prospects from their board on positions they've taken earlier and start reaching around for their real needs and NFL scarcity positions.
Top G + Top P + 15th pass rusher + 20th CB + 15th TE is worse than 3rd pass rusher + Top 10 CB (or top 5 TE or top 5 G) + Top 10 G (or top 7-8 TE or top 15 CB) + Top 10 TE + 2nd/3rd best P. The first scenario is what a Peen draft would look like, the 2nd is my idea of a 2013 Browns draft...we would be much more flexible the rest of the draft by adressing the high value positions FIRST and THEN turn to draft for value at low value positions.
You can get a Top 10 prospect at G or TE and a top 3 punter on day 3. You won't EVER get a Top 10 pass rusher or CB even in round 4...that's value right there
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
Quote: You can get a Top 10 prospect at G or TE and a top 3 punter on day 3. You won't EVER get a Top 10 pass rusher or CB even in round 4...that's value right there
Quote: It's not a coincidence that 2 of our crappiest drafts (and that's saying something since we had many of them) were the ones when we actually DID draft an interior OL with our 1st pick (Mack and Faine drafts)....it messed up the rest of our drafts, as we were scrambling for our "real" needs later, fishing for some pass rusher from Hawaii or West Texas A&M.
Quote: Look at Peen, he's the perfect example of drafting "not to bust". He'd have us taking Warmack and Wing with our 2 top picks, a G-only and a freaking punter...with all due respect, but that's laughable.
What is laughable is you taking two comments, both in very broad commenting threads and saying I would take a guard and punter with my first two picks.
Don't put words in my mouth or take comments in different places and edit them together to think you know what in the heck I am thinking.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: It's not a coincidence that 2 of our crappiest drafts (and that's saying something since we had many of them) were the ones when we actually DID draft an interior OL with our 1st pick (Mack and Faine drafts)....it messed up the rest of our drafts, as we were scrambling for our "real" needs later, fishing for some pass rusher from Hawaii or West Texas A&M.
Fair enough but when we drafted Chaun Thompson in the second out of West Texas A&M, people like Osi Umenyiora, Anquan Boldin, Jason Witten, and Lance Briggs were still on the board and were all picked shortly thereafter.... the fact that we made a crappy choice, doesn't inherently mean the strategy was bad. Similarly, when we took Mack, we then spent 2 2nd round picks on reaches at WR before taking Veikune and we could have had some combination of Rey Maualuga, Connor Barwin, Paul Kruger, LeSean McCoy and others who were still on the board...
It's not like I'm cherry picking that we "could have" selected Tom Brady in the 4th... there was a handful of people both times, right around the draft slot where we took a bust, that turned out to be very good players.. we just wiffed.
Just curious, our 2009 draft class went: Alex Mack Brian Robiskie, Mohammad Massaquoi David Veikune...
if our 2009 draft class had gone (which it very well could have) Alex Mack Connor Barwin LeSean McCoy Paul Kruger
Would you still be saying that picking Alex Mack screwed up our draft?
It's like evaluating a draft trade, a lot of people look at some of our draft trades and evaluate them as bad trades because the players we ended up picking were bad... the fact that you didn't use the selection well does not mean that the trade to get the pick was wrong.
Mary Kay Cabot tells 92.3 The Fan that Brandon Weeden's age is a big concern to Browns' brass
Plain Dealer Browns reporter Mary Kay Cabot joined Baskin and Phelps on 92.3 The Fan (WKRK-FM) today to talk Browns.
Mary Kay talked about who the Browns might bring in to compete with Brandon Weeden for the starting QB job, and that Weeden’s age is a big factor in the team’s decision to move forward with him.
No way! It's like I'm in Berea rubbing elbows with the head honchos!
It seems like I'm more in tune with the Browns brass than all the Weeden (p)syc(h)ophants here.
Quote: It's not a coincidence that 2 of our crappiest drafts (and that's saying something since we had many of them) were the ones when we actually DID draft an interior OL with our 1st pick (Mack and Faine drafts)....it messed up the rest of our drafts, as we were scrambling for our "real" needs later, fishing for some pass rusher from Hawaii or West Texas A&M.
This is a good point.
So the crappy drafts were because we took a center in the 1st round, while having absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the players drafted.
Illogical.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: You can get a Top 10 prospect at G or TE and a top 3 punter on day 3. You won't EVER get a Top 10 pass rusher or CB even in round 4...that's value right there
I screamed at the TV to draft Barwin when we took Robo...I was on record as going Oher, Barwin....when Massa was otc I wanted 2 of McCoy, S.Smith, Rashad Johnson or Loadholt. (while he's been a semi-bust so far I suspect we could go after R.Johnson for FS with Horton as DC now). God, what a nightmare that draft was.
That said, of course nobody would have complained about Mack in your scenario, but it still put us in a worse situation. We could have drafted the next best interior OL TWICE in Levitre (who ended up up a better player to boot)...and we can do this hindsight game with Mack too, it's not as if he was the best pick there even in a vacuum. We drafted Mack over J.Freeman, Maclin, Pettigrew (we traded down for a freakin 6th rounder TWICE, remember?), Oher, Matthews and H.Nicks...I'd take ANY one of those over Mack in a heartbeat. You think we would be able to trade Mack straight up for any of those guys now? Good luck....the only player I liked over Mack that semi-busted was DT Peria Jerry, but among the ones I liked he wasn't even top 5 in that area...I was VERY high on Oher and Nicks.
In fact this perfectly shows why Mack STILL was a crappy pick. It was THE classic "not to bust" selection, the 2 other trade downs for next to nothing reek of a fearfull trigger puller that has no clue about what he wants to do. We had no real plan and those 2 mini trade downs were proof for that. We should have gotten after a pass rusher or one of the top WRs...we could have gotten Orakpo, Crabtree without a trade down, but I was actually ok with the Jets-trade even though we got raped on the deal, but there was still lots of talent around....then the clueless mini tradedowns and I already sensed I was about to get royally disappointed.
Point being, your perfect scenario AFTER Mack would even look better if you replace Mack with one of the guys I mentioned.....we obviously needed a pass rusher and some WRs, but we turned our top 10 pick into a freaking C and went chasing WRs and pass rushers later....that's what happens when you have a clueless guy pulling the trigger. While even I don't think that Banner and Lombardi are as clueless as Mangini, I fear they're much closer to him than Heckert. Be prepared
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
Mary Kay Cabot tells 92.3 The Fan that Brandon Weeden's age is a big concern to Browns' brass
Plain Dealer Browns reporter Mary Kay Cabot joined Baskin and Phelps on 92.3 The Fan (WKRK-FM) today to talk Browns.
Mary Kay talked about who the Browns might bring in to compete with Brandon Weeden for the starting QB job, and that Weeden’s age is a big factor in the team’s decision to move forward with him.
No way! It's like I'm in Berea rubbing elbows with the head honchos!
It seems like I'm more in tune with the Browns brass than all the Weeden (p)syc(h)ophants here.
Yeah right. lmao.
You still don't get the big picture. It's because you take everything you read and run with it.
We all know we will be bringing in another QB. And it WON'T be someone already here as you think it's McCoy. That's laughable.
And it WON'T be because we don't like Weeden. These guys are doing exactly what they should be doing. PUSHING Weeden full throttle. He'll be the #1 QB on this team because he will EARN it.
There's noone out there this side of Flacco that would come here and be named #1 immediately. NOONE. And Weeden will have a superb chance in beating any and all of them out.
Quote: Who was the last Pats player that Belly let go and was worth it?
Benjarvis Green-Ellis: 1100 yards, 22 catches for a playoff Bengals team.
Asante Samuel: 13 INT's in the two seasons after he went to the Eagles, 28 total INT's in the five seasons since his time with the Pats.
Richard Seymore: 15.5 sacks and 124 tackles in the 3 years after going to the Raiders.
Ben Watson: 154 receptions over 3 seasons with the Browns.
Not really sure what the point is, though. For the most part, New England has moved out aging vets and brought in aging vets. Some worked out against them (Moss 2010) and Chad Johnson. Some worked for them, such as Brandon Lloyd.
Quote: The FO "leaking" the age thing with Weeden is more proof that this FO plays the homer card in the media when it fits their agenda.
Or you could be looking at a FO that has major concerns about Weeden's age.
I don't recall where the quote came from, but someone in the know made the comment that the Browns would be lucky to get a 4th rounder for Weeden. Why? Because of his age.
If Weeden were 25 this situation wouldn't exist. But he's going to be 30, and as has been pointed out and exemplified over and over again, the list of 30-year old developmental QB's is woefully short. Truth is if you can count the number on one hand it isn't really a "list."
The only situation where Weeden's age isn't a huge factor is if we're having a conversation about whether or not he's going to play well enough this season. Outside of the scope of that specific discussion, his age is the main problem because teams simply don't "develop" old QB's.
Hell, truth be told, as has been stated by numerous posters, it's a damned good thing for Weeden that there aren't any true top-10 QB's in this draft otherwise he'd be packing his stuff right now.
25-year old, 2nd-year Weeden gets more time. 30-year old, 2nd-year Weeden gets one more chance.
You should really be elated that Turner and Chud are here. They represent the absolutely best-case scenario for Weeden to succeed. He's proven he's not a dynamic passer who can play QB in any system. The only shot he has would be in an offense that allows him to use his big arm. He's got that here so his shot is now. 2013 represents the one shot to salvage what was a huge risk of a 2012 1st-round pick, and to avoid egg on the faces of Holmgren and Co. And you.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Django, I'm not totally disagreeing with you.. but your point was that our draft sucked BECAUSE we took a center in the first round... and while it may not have been optimal based on the sheet people use to judge such things, the fact remains that even with the trades and even with the taking of Mack... our draft still sucked because we blew 3 2nd round picks on guys that aren't very good when really good players were being picked all around them...
We could have made the trades, taken Mack and still had a really really nice draft... or we could have picked busts.. we could have used our earlier picks, not made the trades, not taken mack and had a really really nice draft... or we could have picked busts... I still believe your opinion of the draft is jaded by the fact that we picked 3 guys in the 2nd round who don't amount to much.. had we used those picks more wisely, everybody would have a completely different opinion...
What teams are developing 22-year-old quarterbacks for 4 or 5 years?
Didn't know you asked the first time.
Let's see...
Josh Freeman is on the bubble entering his 5th season with the Bucs.
Mark Sanchez entered his 4th season as the unquestioned starter.
Jason Campbell got 4 years with the Redskins.
Jake Locker and Christian Ponder are entering their 3rd seasons, as is Gabbert, but he looks like a bust.
Tim Couch got 5 years.
David Carr got 5 years.
Alex Smith got 5 years before Kaep was drafted.
Sam Bradford is entering his 4th year.
Now I don't know if you intend on counting highly-drafted guys who were allowed to sit on the bench (or just sat on the bench). Those are names like Rex Grossman, Tarvaris Jackson, Kevin Kolb, etc.
I would also assume you're not speaking of many of the teams in the NFL who have legit starters who were developed. If you were including those players on the list, you'd have to include a guy like Eli Manning, whose highest QB rating in his first 4 seasons was 77, but he was allowed to continue to develop, and ultimately won a Super Bowl.
I would note that Weeden was given one single season as the unquestioned starter. He's going to have to beat out someone in his 2nd. Is that because of his abilities? I think the vast majority of people recognize it's because of his age.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
This front office is trying to use Weeden's age as an excuse not to support him.
Fact is, Weeden's performance was as good as some of the other rookie QBs and deserves to be supported as the Browns starter...and would be supported as a starter, if he were on the Colts, Redskins, Dolphins or Seahawks.
Could you imagine if a QB chosen by Heckert and Holmgren led the Browns to the playoffs? Haslam, Banner and Lombardi would have to acknowledge that Weeden was a good pick by the previous front office.
This is primarily about the huge EGO OF JOE BANNER, along with Lombardi and Haslam. But for Banner, this is about him attempting to prove he can run "the football side" of a franchise. Giving credit for anyone else but himself would be unthinkable for Joe Banner.
These stories saying Weeden's age is a "big concern" and a "huge concern" of the Browns' brass...the story comes straight from Joe Banner and are an example of how Banner tries to manipulate the press and fan base to garner support for his decisions.
Banner used the same tactic in Philly, first running to the press, leaking a (support) story, ahead of a move he already decided to make. Banner can't knock Weeden on his rookie performance so he has to come up with another excuse to dump Weeden.
Portraying Weeden's rookie performance as being poor and thus a reason to dump Weeden was not working out very well for Haslam, Banner and Lombardi, as the media and fans actually compared Weeden's rookie performance against the other rookie starters and found out Weeden actually had a pretty good season, considering the supporting cast he played with.
So now the front office will try another excuse for not supporting Weeden, hoping the media and fans will buy into their claim that Weeden is just too old to develop into a starter, which is a bunch of BS.
Haslam, Banner and Lombardi are asking the media and fans to be alarmed about something that has not happened...something that is an unknown. Fact is, there is no evidence to support a claim that Weeden is too old to develop into a starting QB.
Note the QBs and their ages listed above. Reality is, NFL QBs are playing into their late 30s and playing very well... but this front office is attempting to plant the "seeds of fear"... that Weeden can't play much longer and should not be developed into a starter.
Do you prefer an owner and front office, to make a decision based on "fear"...or a decision based on "reality"?
It is becoming very obvious that the EGOS of Haslam, Banner and Lombardi are more important (to them)than developing and supporting Weeden as the team's starter. These three are trying to find a way to justify dumping the QB that was not their pick, because their egos could not stand it if a Holmgren/Heckert pick lead the Browns to the playoffs.
The Browns truckstop owner Haslam and the Banner/Lombardi front office are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the NFL as their inexperience and unprofessional behavior is beginning to show, on a regular basis.
This front office is trying to use Weeden's age as an excuse not to support him.
One of these things is not like the others Which one is different? Do you know? Tell me, which thing is not like the others And I'll tell you if it is so
Manning, Couch, Carr, Smith, Bradford...all #1 overall picks with corresponding #1-pick salaries under the old CBA. Eli won the Super Bowl his fourth season, too. Not really "developmental".
Sanchez...#5 pick with large contract who was in the AFC Championship game in each of his first two seasons.
Freeman, Grossman, Jackson, Locker, Kolb...all drafted to learn behind a vet and did not play most, if not all, of their rookie seasons. Grossman missed most of two seasons with injury. Jackson was benched in favor of Gus Frerotte and was done, relegated to backup duty, when the Vikings sought out and acquired Favre. Locker will probably get this season to prove that he can be a capable starter after riding the bench as a rookie and getting injured last year. Kolb was never developed by Philly. Freeman will probably get one more year as well, though he has been to the playoffs.
Gabbert is more than likely busted and a goner.
Ponder had his team in the playoffs in his second year.
So yeah, your list is pretty much either guys who were first overall draft picks (or top 5, in Sanchez's case) whose "development" had as much or more to do with their contracts than it did with wishing to develop them, or guys who were drafted to sit and learn behind a vet.
Only two things matter for a QB: whether or not you can get the job done, and what your cap hit is. If you can produce, you'll stick around. If you can't, you'll last until you're cheap enough to cut, then you're gone. And especially now with the new rookie scale, even QBs at the top of the first round are going to get 3-4 years to show that they can viable or its on to the next guy. Nobody's going to be wasting time with a guy 4-5 years in who just isn't getting it.
Lombardi "The biggest mistake new head coaches make is not drafting a quarterback". Now you add in his comments that weeden was a scared, desperate overreation by Heckert and you get what is going on.
Now Haslam wanted his own team president, his own GM, his head coach and now his quarterback. Weeden is in the same spot that Holmgren, Shurmur and Heckert were in. I really dont think it has anything to do with how good or bad he was. It is just that these guys want their own guy.
I just think we will draft a QB and bring in a vet and it will probably be a 3 QB competition in camp. Weeden will know how McCoy felt last year.
Quote: Don't get him too worked up. He popped a vein in his neck because we selected Weeden over DeCastro.
for the record.. I wanted DeCastro over Weeden. I also wanted claiborne and Doug Martin
plus... we probably would have ended up with Russell Wilson by default.
I too thought that we could trade back from Claiborne (although I wouldn't have been upset if they drafted him instead of DeCastro) and I wanted Doug Martin instead of Trent Richardson.
Toad, I got problem with what you see as a "developmental" QB. A QB drafted in later rounds and not expected to be a starter is "developmental", not a guy drafted to start right away.
They didn't draft Weeden to develop, they drafted him because they thought he could start. Same with Freeman. You don't draft players to "develop" with first round picks, developmental players are late rounders whoare brought in to teach and develop.
Was Rothlisberger developmental? How about Luck? By the way I read your comments you would have to say yes.
I guess it is semantics, because to me all rookies have to be "developed".
What I don't understand, is why a guy like Tannehill's season is't looked at as a failure, yet Weeden's is Luck threw more INTS, and had a lower completion percentage, but because of his draft hype and 4 4th quarter wins, people got him as the next Manning. I know his age kills many here, but to m it is foolish. How many QBs last 10 years with their first team, unless they are considered elite? Weeden if he improves in this offense could give us a good 5-6 years. I'd take that in a minute.
RG3 looked like a superstar, until he got hurt. Who thinks this guy will last 10-12 years? He is the next Vick.
I don't think Weeden is great, but I hardly think he is the Bum many make him out to be.
Quote: Manning, Couch, Carr, Smith, Bradford...all #1 overall picks with corresponding #1-pick salaries under the old CBA. Eli won the Super Bowl his fourth season, too. Not really "developmental".
Sanchez...#5 pick with large contract who was in the AFC Championship game in each of his first two seasons.
Freeman, Grossman, Jackson, Locker, Kolb...all drafted to learn behind a vet and did not play most, if not all, of their rookie seasons.
So the first question of how many teams develop QB's for 4-5 years is now filled with exceptions.
It appears you've changed the point you're trying to make, in which case I would just ask you directly what point it is you're trying to make.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: Toad, I got problem with what you see as a "developmental" QB. A QB drafted in later rounds and not expected to be a starter is "developmental", not a guy drafted to start right away.
They didn't draft Weeden to develop, they drafted him because they thought he could start. Same with Freeman. You don't draft players to "develop" with first round picks, developmental players are late rounders whoare brought in to teach and develop.
Was Rothlisberger developmental? How about Luck? By the way I read your comments you would have to say yes. I guess it is semantics, because to me all rookies have to be "developed".
Last sentence highlighted because I agree.
I was answering Adam's direct question of how many teams develop their QB's over the course of several years.
Now I didn't speak of "developmental" QB's in terms of the definition you laid out. If I were the list would be different, but then it wouldn't actually have applied to Weeden.
Weeden's situation can only be compared to Weinke and that's really the point. His age changes everything.
Quote: What I don't understand, is why a guy like Tannehill's season is't looked at as a failure, yet Weeden's is Luck threw more INTS, and had a lower completion percentage, but because of his draft hype and 4 4th quarter wins, people got him as the next Manning.
It's because of two primary things:
1) His age.
2) The proclamation's of Holmgren's regime that Weeden was ready to start and do well right out of the box.
For a guy like Tannehill, it's acceptable to come into the league and put up those numbers because the universally accepted logic is that QB's often come into the league and struggle, but that with a few years of development, both physical as well as mental, they eventually turn into legit starters. Weeden doesn't have several years to develop. He's either gotta get it quickly or he's going to end up as a journeyman.
Perceived as fair or not, that's the reality of his situation. NFL teams aren't going to view a 31-year old guy who hasn't established himself as a starter as a guy they believe in. It's just too much of a gamble. So either Weeden gets it very quickly or he becomes a footnote.
Getting back to the point of Weeden being set up for failure by the previous regime, it has widely been accepted that he wasn't cut out for the WCO. Too bad Holmgren and Co. stated that the routes he threw to at OSU were similar to those in the WCO.
It's all relative.
Now you're right in that the only REAL thing that matters is whether or not Weeden can get it done right now, but that isn't the point of many of these discussions. These discussions revolve around whether or not his age matters, what his upside is, etc etc.
Now if Weeden can give us 5-6 really good seasons, the big gamble the Browns made on him WILL have been worth it, but because of his age, he's the biggest boom-or-bust QB to hit the NFL in a very long time. And why is that? Because he has precious little time to develop into a legit starter...due to his age.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: So the first question of how many teams develop QB's for 4-5 years is now filled with exceptions.
No its not.
Quote: It appears you've changed the point you're trying to make, in which case I would just ask you directly what point it is you're trying to make.
The point is (as stated above) that guys drafted first overall, or in the top five, are not "developmental" quarterbacks. Do they need to be developed? Obviously, to some degree. All players do. A developmental player, at least to me, is a player who has positive attributes and can be expected to become a good player with experience, but will not likely come in and change the fortunes of your team immediately. Guys like the Mannings, Smith, Bradford, Stafford, Sanchez, Couch and so on were drafted to have an immediate impact for their franchises.
Furthermore, prior to the adoption of the new CBA, those guys were given rookie contracts that essentially guaranteed that they would be played for most, if not all, of their rookie deals, regardless of how poorly they might've played. Their contracts made them virtually uncuttable and untradeable (the Raiders, for example, took an $18 million cap hit, 14% of the salary cap, in 2010 when they waived Jamarcus Russell).
Some other guys you mentioned:
Tarvaris Jackson: started 2 games as a rookie, 12 in his second year, 5 in his third, and then it was the Brett Favre show. He was on the Vikings roster for five seasons, but his 19 starts over the first three indicate that they were done with him, which was reinforced by the signing of Favre.
Rex Grossman: 7 starts over his first three seasons, mostly because of injury. Went to the Super Bowl in his first year as a full-time starter. Benched three games into the next season.
Jason Campbell: Didn't see any playing time until the second half of his second year. Spent the next three seasons as the full-time starter as the team's record got worse each season.
Kevin Kolb: Jettisoned after 7 starts in four seasons.
The book has yet to be written on younger guys like Locker, Ponder and Dalton. The latter two have both gotten to the post-season and are on teams that seem to be in good positions to have continued success. I'd say that with a third season under their belts they'll be sufficiantly beyond the developmental stage. Locker will have to show a lot this year or I suspect he might be looking for work.
Gabbert, like I said, looks to be pretty much done for.
Josh Freeman looks to be past the developmental stage, and his numbers have improved, but TB's record has gotten worse, so as you said he may be on the bubble.
So of the guys you mentioned, I would consider Freeman, Campbell and perhaps Grossman as developmental QBs who were developed for four or five years. I suspect that the book would've been written on Grossman quite a bit sooner if not for his injuries, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I might consider Aaron Rodgers to have been developmental, but that was a highly unique situation in that very rarely does a first-round player of any position, especially a QB, not start a game until his fourth season and doesn't really compare to anything.
For the record, I don't consider guys who are drafted to be "the man" from day 1 (Luck, Griffin III, Newton, etc) to be "developmental" quarterbacks and as such I'm not considering them for purposes of this discussion. The expectations that come with a player like that are wholly different from those that come with drafting Tannehill or Weeden or Dalton or Ponder or other QBs taken with the expectation of playing early on but having a fair amount of struggling and adjustment period, i.e. guys that will need a developmental period. I consider developmental QB to have "completed" his developmental period when his team starts experiencing sustained success and he is an important, though not necessarily instrumental, part of that success.
So maybe we're talking about two very different things, but for my money, I don't see teams giving guys more than a couple seasons' worth of starts to show that they can lead to team success before deciding to move on, especially considering the team-friendly contracts that they're getting now (as an aside, Tim Couch in 1999 got a deal worth more than twice as much, total, and with only $10 million less guaranteed, than Andrew Luck did in 2013). I don't think age will have a thing to do with it, because if you haven't shown after two or three seasons that you get it then you're done, whether you're 25 or 32. That's why I insist that the only thing that's going to make or break Weeden is whether or not he can put up. If he can, then whether you get three years or five years or seven years or ten years out of him really isn't relevant. You play him until his performance dictates that you replace him.
So if you're looking for my "point" or my "definition", two paragraphs up is where you want to be. Agree or disagree, I don't really care either way. I think what I define as a "developmental" quarterback is pretty straightforward.
Quote: So maybe we're talking about two very different things
Must be, because I'm not seeing the correlation between the point you're making and Weeden.
Regarding "exceptions" I believe you have made many, revolving around giving very high picks a pass due to their contracts. If the contracts now play a role in the discussion, we can't compare someone like Weeden to anyone because this is a new age of football, and a new age of the salary cap.
I believe there are many ways to try and paint Weeden's situation into a positive one, but I believe that due to his very advanced age in terms of being a rookie QB, he's on a very short leash. I certainly would say anyone that tries to compare his rookie numbers to rookie numbers of QB's who were 6 years his Junior are ridiculous.
So setting all that aside, how many people really think that if Weeden has a slightly improved year over last season...say something into the mid-to-high 70's in rating...that he'll get one more year as the starter somewhere?
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
Quote: So maybe we're talking about two very different things
Must be, because I'm not seeing the correlation between the point you're making and Weeden.
That's cool. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with someone who's being willfully obtuse. I've spelled out quite clearly and plainly why I believe that first-overall draft pick QBs are not and should not be considered developmental, and why I think that a QB's age is immaterial if he demonstrates that he is able to play.
I agree with you on a lot of Browns-related stuff, but this sure as hell ain't one of them.
Quote: Lombardi "The biggest mistake new head coaches make is not drafting a quarterback". Now you add in his comments that weeden was a scared, desperate overreation by Heckert and you get what is going on.
Now Haslam wanted his own team president, his own GM, his head coach and now his quarterback. Weeden is in the same spot that Holmgren, Shurmur and Heckert were in. I really dont think it has anything to do with how good or bad he was. It is just that these guys want their own guy.
I just think we will draft a QB and bring in a vet and it will probably be a 3 QB competition in camp. Weeden will know how McCoy felt last year.
I think you're right...that's how it possibly will turn out, and needless to say that it'd be dumb. I could also see the first Chud/Norv vs Banner/Lomabrdi rift here...and trust me, there will be plenty of them going forward with this "consensus" crap. Chud is a pretty "weak" HC in terms of power. He has to be loyal to Banner/Haslam because of the chance he got, but he never was even close to their 1st choice. He's gonna get a cold near Horton once the record is crap and Horton wanting to be a HC so bad. He has Norv in his corner as his "dad" and that's it...we will find out a lot about Chud in the next few months. I'd love Banner/Lombardi to bring in Moore and draft a QB high and Chud still going with Weeden because he out-practiced them. He did that before with DA/Quinn. Chud is all about performance and once he'll see a Weeden throw in practice, he'll fall in love...that'd be pure, old school Cleveland Browns pre-season drama guaranteed
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
I know, and while not nearly as bad as the PFF has him (people act as if they're the bible, they're not) he had his worst season as a pro. He's still a good overall player. Same with CB Cason...if we can get them cheaper because of this, even better.
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
I look at Ryan Tannehill, and don't see anything special compared to Weeden. Tannehill threw for 3300 yards, 58% of his passes, 12 TD and 13 INT. He threw for 6.81 yards/pass attempt, and had 40 pass plays of 20+ yards. He played all 16 games. Weeden threw for 3385 yards, completed 57% of his passes, threw 14 TD and 17 INT. He threw for 6.55 yards/pass attempt, and had 48 pass plays of 20+ yards. He started and played in 15 games.
Luck, RG3, and Wilson were all miles ahead ... but I don't see Tannehill as some superior talent. I see the first 3 as one level, and then Tannehill and Weeden as the next level down.
Polian says Weeden was not on same level as other four rookie QBs by Tom Reed, The Plain Dealer 2/21/2013 11:07 AM Email | Print
Former Buffalo Bills executive Bill Polian said Browns rookie Brandon Weeden struggled during his rookie season and didn't compare favorably with the other first-year quarterbacks: Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson. But the ESPN analyst isn't ready to give up on Weeden, selected No. 22 overall in 2012.
"My assessment of him is he was not in the category of the other four," Polian said during the first day of the NFL Combine. "But those four represented a once in a generation class.
"I wouldn't say (Weeden) was a bust by any means. He looked like a rookie QB who struggled at times & at times did good things."
Polian would not speculate on what the Browns should do next season at quarterback. "That's for Mike Lombardi to decide."
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.
Quote: Luck, RG3, and Wilson were all miles ahead ... but I don't see Tannehill as some superior talent. I see the first 3 as one level, and then Tannehill and Weeden as the next level down.
I agree. To put either Tannehill or Weeden with the other 3 just doesn't fit, in my opinion. It's even more surprising coming from a guy like Polian.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do. -Derek Jeter
While I agree that Tannehill did not perform as well as Luck, RGIII, and Wilson he is still much more valuable than Weeden.
If someone called us and offered a second round pick for Weeden we would accept the deal as fast as possible. If someone called the Dolphins and offered a second round pick for Tannehill they be hung up on.
The Browns have a far superior pass blocking line and better wide outs than the Dolphins.
With that said I like Weeden more than I did pre-draft. Tannehill about the same.
Tannehill is a top level athlete at the QB position. He's young. And other than a bad propensity to push/aim his shorter throws he's got good throwing skills.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
