|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,359
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,359 |
My view is what I perceive Banner, Lombardi, and Haslam see as what they have on the current roster at quarterback.
Thad Lewis low investment may be a good backup worth keeping on the roster.
Colt McCoy low cost and at the end of his contract expendable. They will try to move him or he will be cut.
Brandon Weeden because of when and where he was drafted, his age, his cost they have little choice but to keep him. However, it is my belief that they do not see him as the answer.
Forecast: They will go into the draft process believing that they must upgrade the quarterback position. If Gino Smith is there at 6 it would not shock me if they took him.
They may look at some of the other QB prospects and find someone they believe is worth the investment when they pick. Or may move around in the draft trying to target a guy at the right value.
I could see them trying to get into the top of the second round if things play out right and going after a guy like Tyler Wilson.
I could see them taking a flyer on E.J.Manual maybe in the third or fourth round.
One thing is very clear to me. They are going to make a move at quarterback.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,595
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,595 |
I don't think that Tannehill will wind up being anything special.
He had really good games against Jacksonville, St Louis, and Buffalo. He had really lousy games against the Texans, Jets, (twice) Titans, Bills, and Patriots.
His defense was much better than ours. They allowed over 3 PPG fewer than us last year. The Dolphins ran the ball better than we did, and even with the nice job Richardson did running the ball for TDs, the Dolphins still ran for more TDs than we did. (12-15) They had a better defense than we did, a better scoring defense, and a better run defense.
Weeden also played with more young and inexperienced players than Tannehill did.We played 4-5 rookies on offense between starters and primary backups. That had to have had an impact on our offense, especially with the highly complicated offense we ran.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Without getting down in the weeds (no pun intended...  ) The Dolphins averaged a point less per game than we did and about 10 fewer total yards than we did... I think Tannehill has a good opportunity to be an above average starter but that doesn't mean anything to Weeden... the only advantage Tannehill has is he's younger, other than that... I don't see it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,871
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,871 |
Quote:
I don't think that Tannehill will wind up being anything special.
He had really good games against Jacksonville, St Louis, and Buffalo. He had really lousy games against the Texans, Jets, (twice) Titans, Bills, and Patriots.
His defense was much better than ours. They allowed over 3 PPG fewer than us last year. The Dolphins ran the ball better than we did, and even with the nice job Richardson did running the ball for TDs, the Dolphins still ran for more TDs than we did. (12-15) They had a better defense than we did, a better scoring defense, and a better run defense.
Weeden also played with more young and inexperienced players than Tannehill did.We played 4-5 rookies on offense between starters and primary backups. That had to have had an impact on our offense, especially with the highly complicated offense we ran.
So, at the end of the season: What? Tannehill outplayed Weeden?
You say Miami ran the ball better. You are also the same guy that said - prior to the season, that our "strong armed, accurate" qb would open up the running game.
Guess that failed, huh?
I don't know if Tan improved over the season or not. Don't care really. But I do know Weeden regressed.
End of the day/season? Weeden is a work in progress much like the steam engine was a work in progress when facing the diesel locomotives.
I want Weeden to start this year. He's a rookie. I don't give as much cred to his age as many do.....he was a rookie. If this year translates into a much better season for the team, off we go. If it doesn't, off Weeden goes.
But come on - Weeden is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said he was, and would do. You have to know that, and by your post, you either know it but won't admit it, or you're going back on what you said after drafting him.
Sorry if I offended you, buddy (you'll get the reference there).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
the other advantage Tannehill had was that he was playing virtually the same system that he had in college (as Sherman followed him to the NFL - well Sherm's technically got there first). so, if anything, you would have expected Tannehill's numbers his rookie year to be a tad inflated.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Quote:
But I do know Weeden regressed.
Some on here keep harping about that. I really don't think he regressed as much as he was Shurmurnaded Instead of seeing what he could do and turning him loose, good ol Shurm put on the handcuffs and played not to lose to many times. He wasn't concerned with Weeden's development as much as he was trying to keep it close and pull out a win at the end.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I keep seeing that Weeden regressed and I don't really believe it either... I think a lot of people are basing it on the fact that our offense looked pretty bad in the final 2 weeks, which they did... I won't say they quit, but they were playing less than inspired and they were also playing the Broncos and Steelers, the #1 and #2 pass defenses in the NFL... I also think as teams figured out Shurmur, rather than throw in a wrinkle and mix it up, he withdrew into a shell and kept getting more and more safe with his decisions..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
I think that by the middle of the season, he was so worried about his job, he couldn't function. He got too upset about somethings Weeds did without factoring in the rookie scale. Some of his press conferences, he was talking about Weeden and being careful with the ball and not making mistakes, like Weeds was a 5 yr. Vet. And some of the parting shots they were taking at each other. I only hope it gets better with Chud.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
But I do know Weeden regressed.
Some on here keep harping about that. I really don't think he regressed as much as he was Shurmurnaded Instead of seeing what he could do and turning him loose, good ol Shurm put on the handcuffs and played not to lose to many times. He wasn't concerned with Weeden's development as much as he was trying to keep it close and pull out a win at the end.
This is really a puzzler to me. Those that are defending Weeden's performance because of Shurmur weren't (and still aren't) willing to give McCoy that same defense. Maybe some of us knew about Shurmur's lack of intelligence before the draft last season.
On top of that, McCoy didn't have Schwartz at RT, Richardson at RB or Josh Gordon at WR.
I still think, in this new system (vertical or otherwise) given a fair shot at the job, McCoy is better prepared to win the spot than Weeden.
Personally, I think we'll go into free agency to get the other QB to compete for the job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I do think that in a better situation, Colt McCoy could have shown himself to be a lot better than he was able to show here.... that said, I don't think he's as good as Weeden. I think he was during our first couple games this year, but when given the chance, Weeden showed he can do things Colt really struggles to do... Given a couple years to develop in a system made for them, Weeden is better... I happen to believe the margin is closer than a lot of people will say it is... on the condition that each is in a system that is designed for their strengths...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I do think that in a better situation, Colt McCoy could have shown himself to be a lot better than he was able to show here.... that said, I don't think he's as good as Weeden. I think he was during our first couple games this year, but when given the chance, Weeden showed he can do things Colt really struggles to do... Given a couple years to develop in a system made for them, Weeden is better... I happen to believe the margin is closer than a lot of people will say it is... on the condition that each is in a system that is designed for their strengths...
I don't think that Weeden showed anything more than McCoy other than he can throw it farther in the air. Even then, it's not substantially farther.
Furthermore, when McCoy was drafted, he wasn't intended to be thrown into the fire his rookie season but he was. He wasn't given the time to develop. Then, in his second season, he had a situation where the players couldn't use the team facilities and he orchestrated the 'Camp Colt' sessions because there were no OTAs. How much they helped could be debated, but nobody would win that debate. But what really can't be debated is that he took it upon his own shoulders to orchestrate them. That takes leadership.
When faced with a possible obstacle when it appeared that Chip Kelly would be the HC, Weeden tweeted that he couldn't run Kelly's offense. That tells me all that I needed to know about Weeden. He isn't cut out for the NFL. Never was and never will be.
But, if you feel that you want to waste another year of development let's go with him. We'll look for another QB in next year's draft after racking up another season or 11 or more losses.
That's why I think that whoever is brought in with free agency (or the draft) has the inside track to being the starter, followed by McCoy and then Weeden. Also, I don't think that Weeden is even assured of being on the roster. I really don't think that the trial balloon that Weeden is on the trading block was really a trial balloon. We'll get something for him. Just a sense that I have. Nothing concrete but just following the signs and where I see them pointing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Man, all that post left out was you telling us what a great teammate McCoy is for intentionally throwing passes into the ground to give his linemen and WRs a breather.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Why would someone want to trade for a player that is garbage and not cut out for the NFL?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Believe it or not anarchy I agree with a lot of what you said.. not all of it but a lot of it... I suppose the current regime has no stock in McCoy or Weeden and has no real vested interest in doing anything other than starting the best QB....... whether it's McCoy, Weeden or somebody else.... My opinion is that Colt is better than most people think but Weeden is still better than McCoy and there are no FAs (other than Flacco) that represent a decent upgrade... if the staff decides otherwise, then I'll root for whoever trots out there.. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
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.
I'm hardly being obtuse. You asked a question so I answered. You then appeared to change direction on the point you were trying to make. I didn't even know we were arguing.
If your point is that a QB's age doesn't matter as long as he can play, well sure, I agree.
My point in all of this is that Weeden wouldn't get more than two seasons to turn the corner because of his advanced age. Once he started, he either got it very quickly and gets to keep the job, or he doesn't get it very quickly, in which case his career as a starter is over before the vast majority of QB's no matter where they were drafted.
Now for me changing directions here, I watched Tannehill play quite a bit. He didn't appear to be anything special. The differences between how people grade Tannehill and Weeden don't revolve around their stats and where they are now. The differences revolve around where they are relative to their experience and their age.
Tannehill was a starter in college for one full season, is mobile, and will be 25 when the season starts.
Weeden was a starter in college for two full seasons, isn't mobile, and will be 30 when the season starts.
Weeden is widely viewed as essentially a finished product. Tannehill is widely viewed as a guy who isn't close to being a finished product.
And that's the point.
Now I'm not saying I see something special in Tannehill. Last year I'd put a 2nd round grade on the guy. But if I were picking between the two QB's, I'd have taken Tannehill every time because of his age.
Weeden was a big gamble because of his age. Had he been the same age as Tannehill, none of these discussions would matter.
People can't discount Weeden's age. His age is going to severely limit his upside and his ability to find work as a starter in the NFL. He didn't have a great rookie season but it wasn't a complete dud either. Problem is he wasn't ever going to get the same amount of time as any other 1st round QB. That has nothing to do with his abilities and everything to do with his age.
It was always a "now or never" thing with Weeden. After one season, his time is almost up. Anyone that doesn't believe it's because of his age aren't paying attention. Very few teams would gamble on a guy his age. We were dumb enough to do just that. Because of his age we won't get value unless he becomes a really good QB. If he gives us 4 years of middle-of-the-road QB'ing, we'll have wasted all kinds of time and money. That's why if he doesn't really explode this season, he's finished. He can't simply get a little better and hope that a team is going to give him more time when he's going to be 31.
If Turner and Co. really did chase Matt Moore last year in San Diego, he would make sense as the #1 free agent target. Even then, I'd still bet on us taking some QB in this draft somewhere.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 252
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 252 |
"Weeden is widely viewed as essentially a finished product." - I have to say this is the very first time I have heard or read this...
Can you elaborate who holds this wide view?
I am not trying to be confrontational, but everything I have read seems to lean toward what Norv and Chud can do, as in teach and or scheme, to improve his game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
a QB's age doesn't matter as long as he can play
True.
Quote:
Weeden wouldn't get more than two seasons to turn the corner because of his advanced age. Once he started, he either got it very quickly and gets to keep the job, or he doesn't get it very quickly, in which case his career as a starter is over before the vast majority of QB's no matter where they were drafted.
False. Most developmental quarterbacks get about 32 starts, give or take, before they've other gotten it or their team decides to move on.
Quote:
Weeden is widely viewed as essentially a finished product.
You've spent the better part of a calendar year carrying on about how Weeden is a "developmental" QB, and now you're saying he's a finished product? Which is it? Can't be both.
Quote:
he wasn't ever going to get the same amount of time as any other 1st round QB. That has nothing to do with his abilities and everything to do with his age.
Again, false. For one, you can't compare him to every 1st-round QB, because you'd be comparing him to first-overall guys, when that's obviously not a comparable situation. Comparing him to QBs in a similar situation (late first round through second round guys, generally), he'll get the same amount of time and starts as any of them. Blaine Gabbert sure isn't getting four years.
Quote:
If he gives us 4 years of middle-of-the-road QB'ing, we'll have wasted all kinds of time and money.
Four years of middle-of-the-road QBing from any quarterback is wasting time (and money, though not necessarily "all kinds" of it).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Joe Flacco was a "middle of the road" QB for the entire regular season....and 4 seasons before that too. In a month, he will be the highest paid QB in the NFL, funny how that works huh? Flacco is also the same QB Toad compared Weeden to and said it'd be a failure if he becomes a "Flacco", now half the board wants to throw 20mil/year at Flacco Also, good point Adam about comparing Weeden to QBs picked in the 11-60 overall range, because that's where he got picked. He wasn't even OUR 1st player selected in his draft class. With that said, he should be compared to Freeman, Dalton, Kaepernick, Tebow, Clausen, Pat White, Flacco, Brohm, Henne, Quinn, Kolb, Beck, Stanton, Cutler, Clemens, Rodgers, J.Campbell etc, those were the QBs taken in that range the past 4 drafts. It gets even funnier if you look at the "4th QB in a draft" list, as Weeden was the 4th QB in his draft class: other 4th QBs the past 10 drafts: Ponder, McCoy, Pat White, Henne, Beck, K.Clemens, Frye, JP Losman, Grossman (coincidentally those last 2 were picked 22nd overall too), Josh McCown That list could tell us to never EVER draft the 4th best QB in any draft class again , but that's not Weeden's fault As for Weeden regressing: Weeden's post bye numbers: 112/181, 61.88%, 1297yds, 5 TD, 5 INT, 7.17yds/PA....in those games the Browns scored: 20, 20, 20, 31, 21 points, all that with no running help at all, barely over 3ypc...Weeden left the Broncos game with 6p in the 3rd Qtr I'm not sure what his QBr is for those numbers, but I'm sure it's a whole lot better than 72. Look, it's all about game 1 with Weeden. The haters keep saying BOTH that his QBr was a bad 72 and that he didn't improve during the season, which is fals. He did improve, because his 1st game was so horrible, that it contaminated his season stats. If you look at Weeden since week 2, he was a rookie QB with 14/13 TD/INT and a strong 79 QBr, THEN you can argue that he didn't improve from what he has shown from week 2 to the bye...but to say he didn't improve AND keep quoting his overall stats is, yet again, pretty hypocritical. The way I look at it: I ommitt his 1st game. Not because it was his worst (I'm not cherry picking some week 6 game), but because it was his first and he never was nearly as bad in any other game since. If we're truly looking and talking about progression with Weeden, which 90% of the posters are not really about, then we should forget about that game, because THEN we can BOTH say he was 79 QBr rook QB AND he didn't improve the 2nd half....that's what I saw. He was better than his 72 season QBr, but he didn't improve in the 2nd half. That's a pretty fair assessment imho, but the haters keep saying he was a 72 AND didn't improve, which is simply false (see post-bye numbers above)
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
Quote:
Weeden wouldn't get more than two seasons to turn the corner because of his advanced age. Once he started, he either got it very quickly and gets to keep the job, or he doesn't get it very quickly, in which case his career as a starter is over before the vast majority of QB's no matter where they were drafted.
Quote:
False. Most developmental quarterbacks get about 32 starts, give or take, before they've other gotten it or their team decides to move on.
I know it's early but there's something wrong with what Toad said being False.
Toad. You are spot on with this. This is Weeden's last year to show it or blow it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,299
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,299 |
Quote:
It gets even funnier if you look at the "4th QB in a draft" list, as Weeden was the 4th QB in his draft class: other 4th QBs the past 10 drafts: Ponder, McCoy, Pat White, Henne, Beck, K.Clemens, Frye, JP Losman, Grossman (coincidentally those last 2 were picked 22nd overall too), Josh McCown
I pointed out percentages right before the draft on reasons why Weeden wont be a starting QB based on history of being picked 3rd or 4th in a qb class. I wish I knew the numbers now but the 3rd and 4th QB picked were horrific. I'm pretty sure the 5th or 6th qb taken % wise was actually better than the 4th.
Hunter + Dart = This is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Also, good point Adam about comparing Weeden to QBs picked in the 11-60 overall range, because that's where he got picked.
That's really kind of funny because I don't remember a single thread comparing Colt McCoy to Mike Kafka, Stephen McGee and Kevin O'Connell.... not a single one. I've seen a lot of comparisons to Drew Brees, Andy Dalton, and others though.
Quote:
With that said, he should be compared to Freeman, Dalton, Kaepernick, Tebow, Clausen, Pat White, Flacco, Brohm, Henne, Quinn, Kolb, Beck, Stanton, Cutler, Clemens, Rodgers, J.Campbell etc, those were the QBs taken in that range the past 4 drafts.
Fact is that we drafted Weeden to be a franchise QB... so grading him on the curve at this point and whether or not he's better than Quinn, Brohm, and Beck is pretty much irrelevant. The only real comparison that matters for me is to other guys who are growing into or who have already arrived at the position of franchise QB.. is he measuring up or not? Is he closer to Aaron Rodgers or is he closer to Brady Quinn? Based on your post, it seems that as long as he is somewhere in the middle, then he is doing ok because he might not be the best, but he's also not the worst QB taken in that range...
I will also state that your comment on the 4th QBs taken is pretty pointless, some drafts are obviously much deeper at certain positions than others.. he was the 22nd pick, comparing him to 3rd and 4th round picks just because they were the 4th QB taken means absolutely nothing.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, good point Adam about comparing Weeden to QBs picked in the 11-60 overall range, because that's where he got picked.
That's really kind of funny because I don't remember a single thread comparing Colt McCoy to Mike Kafka, Stephen McGee and Kevin O'Connell.... not a single one. I've seen a lot of comparisons to Drew Brees, Andy Dalton, and others though.
I think a comparison to Charlie Frye is very accurate.
I'd actually prefer Chuck over Colt, he was at least tough..
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I know it's early but there's something wrong with what Toad said being False.
You bolded the wrong part. Try this:
Quote:
Weeden wouldn't get more than two seasons to turn the corner because of his advanced age. Once he started, he either got it very quickly and gets to keep the job, or he doesn't get it very quickly, in which case his career as a starter is over before the vast majority of QB's no matter where they were drafted.
Quote:
This is Weeden's last year to show it or blow it.
I agree with this. That was never the argument.
If Weeden still can't get the job done after a second full season of starting, he's more than likely gone, not because of his age but because teams don't waste their time with QBs who can't perform, especially QBs that get paid peanuts by NFL standards. About the only thing that buys a middling QB more time is trips to the playoffs early on (as in the cases of guys like Jason Campbell, Josh Freeman and Rex Geossman) but even that isn't enough if the success isn't sustained.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
so grading him on the curve at this point and whether or not he's better than Quinn, Brohm, and Beck is pretty much irrelevant.
Why? Quinn and Beck were drafted to be franchise QBs. Brohm was drafted to compete for the starting job with Aaron Rodgers who at the time had never started an NFL game. Hindsight may say not to use them for comparison because they all proved to be colossal failures in the NFL, but they were all drafted with the idea that they could solidify their teams' QB positions for years.
Quote:
I will also state that your comment on the 4th QBs taken is pretty pointless, some drafts are obviously much deeper at certain positions than others.. he was the 22nd pick, comparing him to 3rd and 4th round picks just because they were the 4th QB taken means absolutely nothing.
Agreed. Basing your choice on some voodoo like whether he's the third QB taken is silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
You're right of course, but when we talk about Weeden compared to other starting QBs people act as if he was the one we spent a top 5 pick + some mid rounders. He was a 22nd overall lottery ticket at a THE value position. It was a conscious boom or bust pick, so was Flacco btw. Heckert sandwiched Weeden between 2 VERY SAFE selections with high floors, which imho underlines the consciousness of the risk he took there (and is always there with a QB outside the top 10).
It was just a reminder that Weeden wasn't even the 1st pick of the Browns in that draft. So if you compare him to Tannehill, people forget that if they wanted Tannehill over Weeden we would have invested the 4th overall and not the 22nd...that DOES make a difference, doesn't it? In terms of overall team value Tannehill should be compared to TRich, not Weeden....it's simply different if Tannehill busts or Weeden. Both would be a fail because they still were top 64 selections, but the bigger fail logically is always the higher investment and because you will most likely have more successful picks around Tannehill's selection than Weeden's. Since the NFL is a competitive league, that is how success and failure is compared 3-4 years from now. And I'm willing to bet that then we will have WAY MORE busts in the 16-30 range where Weeden was picked than 1-15 where Tannehill (and TRich) went.
Every GM that picks players in the top 4-5 rounds is picking them to be their "franchise" QB, RB, WR etc...nobody is going to draft a QB in the top 4 rounds and says after it he'd be happy if he's a backup. You can sign backups off the street. What the GMs do know is that the "odds" of landing a "franchise" player decrease some during a draft. That said, the biggest "franchise" pick of that class was and always will be TRich simply because of investment. Then comes Weeden, Schwartz etc. The higher the pick, the higher the expectation level and pressure to perform, but if I was an Alien reading this board I'd think we picked Weeden 3rd overall and TRich 22nd
and we're back to my points of accountability of players picked and consistency in making a point on here.
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
And if Little continues to play well as he did the second half of last season, the Julio vs. Taylor, Little, Weeden argument swings in our favor regardless of how well Weeden plays...
Weeden was "basically" a free pick we got.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Chud on the QB situation By Mary Kay Cabot, Plain Dealer February 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM INDIANAPOLIS -- Browns coach Rob Chudzinski won't rule out listening to trade offers for quarterbacks Brandon Brandon Weeden and Colt McCoy. When asked specifically today if he'll listen to offers for those two, Chudzinski said, "We’re looking to improve our team in any areas, by any means of doing that. Chudzinski said the Browns are excited about Weeden's skillset, but still declined to commit to him as the Browns starter for 2013. The club is evaluating quarterbacks here at the NFL Combine, and will also most likely consider adding a veteran quarterback. Browns owner Jimmy Haslam made it clear at the Super Bowl that the Browns will have competition this season for their starting job. “We have three guys here that provide competition and we’ll leave it open to whatever happens in terms of any other possible scenarios,'' said Chudzinski. "We’re going to look at everything, every possibility to try to make the team better. I’m excited about Brandon. Obviously Colt has been here, has won games, has some unique abilities himself that I’m excited about. Again, getting all those guys in the building and see what they can do and being around them and really getting a chance to really evaluate them. You can look at tape and evaluate tape, but until you’re around guys, until you understand when you’re asking them to do certain things and seeing how they react to that and how they react on the field and how they play ultimately is what decides how far they can go.” Asked if there's another change coming at quarterback, Chudzinski said, "Some of those things are hard to say. We need to get out on the practice field. We need to get into the meetings, get into the installs and evaluate him. We’re going to put the best guy on the field that gives us the best chance to win.” He said he's confident offensive coordinator Norv Turner can help Weeden improve: "He has a really good arm, he can throw the ball, he can make all the throws that you need to throw, he has a good, calm poise and demeanor in the pocket. Again, he was up and down a little bit and during the season as any quarterback, especially a young quarterback is. You see some things that are there that get you excited about him.''
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It was just a reminder that Weeden wasn't even the 1st pick of the Browns in that draft. So if you compare him to Tannehill, people forget that if they wanted Tannehill over Weeden we would have invested the 4th overall and not the 22nd...that DOES make a difference, doesn't it? In terms of overall team value Tannehill should be compared to TRich, not Weeden....it's simply different if Tannehill busts or Weeden. Both would be a fail because they still were top 64 selections, but the bigger fail logically is always the higher investment and because you will most likely have more successful picks around Tannehill's selection than Weeden's. Since the NFL is a competitive league, that is how success and failure is compared 3-4 years from now. And I'm willing to bet that then we will have WAY MORE busts in the 16-30 range where Weeden was picked than 1-15 where Tannehill (and TRich) went.
DJ... every single thing you said there, I agree with.. every single thing. However, it's all about the value and the draft methodology of Tom Heckert.. if this thread was titled "Did you agree with Tom Heckert's draft?" then everything you said is pertinent and important.. but that's not the title, the title is "Who will be the QB?" which is a completely different discussion.
Regardless of how they got here, how old they are, where they were drafted, how long their hair is, or whether or not they are married is all irrelevant once they ink their name on a contract with the Cleveland Browns.. from that second forward there are only a few questions that need to be evaluated and none of them involve their draft value, draft position, or how they compare to other people drafted around them:
"Can this guy get us where we need to go?"
"Is there a better option available at that position?"
"Is getting that better option the best investment for improving our team?"
I doubt anybody in Berea cares whether Weeden was drafted 2nd, 22nd or 222nd.. and they don't care how he compares to Brady Quinn or Brian Brohm or TJ Losman or Aaron Rodgers... they only care about how he will impact the future plans of the Cleveland Browns... everything else is irrelevant in a discussion about who should be the Browns QB.
If you took Charlie Batch in the 5th round many years ago, you would have a tremendous value because not many 5th round QBs last for 12 years and have significant starting experience in the NFL and serve as a quality back up the way he does... if you took him the 2nd round to be your starter then you are disappointed because he just never lived up to that expectation... either way, when discussing whether you should plan to start him and for how long, he's still Charlie Batch, regardless of where or how you drafted him. Can you win consistently with him?
So should Brandon Weeden start next year? Let's see....
"Can this guy get us where we need to go?" Maybe
"Is there a better option available at that position?" Other than Flacco, not really
"Is getting that better option the best investment for improving our team?" No (Primarily because I think we would have to drastically overpay Flacco and he's not leaving anyway)
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Man, all that post left out was you telling us what a great teammate McCoy is for intentionally throwing passes into the ground to give his linemen and WRs a breather.
Well, there is that since there was no point in Shurmur actually calling such plays. Yes, I'd say that the players (including McCoy) know more than Shurmur about football.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Why would someone want to trade for a player that is garbage and not cut out for the NFL?
Which player are you referring to? McCoy? Weeden? Any player that the Browns might trade for?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Believe it or not anarchy I agree with a lot of what you said.. not all of it but a lot of it...
I suppose the current regime has no stock in McCoy or Weeden and has no real vested interest in doing anything other than starting the best QB....... whether it's McCoy, Weeden or somebody else....
My opinion is that Colt is better than most people think but Weeden is still better than McCoy and there are no FAs (other than Flacco) that represent a decent upgrade... if the staff decides otherwise, then I'll root for whoever trots out there..
Other than that I think that McCoy is smarter than Weeden is, despite his lesser ability to throw the ball 40 or 50 yards. I want a smart QB over one that that throw the ball inaccurately 40 yards down the field.
If the defense of Weeden is that it was all on Shurmur, then it would have been the same for McCoy. So, let's have a QB competition to find out who is the better QB.
As for the free agents available that are better than Weeden, I could put a couple names that are either equal to or better than Weeden in my view. Obviously, there's a chance that we'd disagree. 
But, like you, whoever they eventually decide is the best QB, I'll go with them. I want the team to succeed and I'm not going to care who the QB is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Weeden wouldn't get more than two seasons to turn the corner because of his advanced age. Once he started, he either got it very quickly and gets to keep the job, or he doesn't get it very quickly, in which case his career as a starter is over before the vast majority of QB's no matter where they were drafted.
Quote:
False. Most developmental quarterbacks get about 32 starts, give or take, before they've other gotten it or their team decides to move on.
I know it's early but there's something wrong with what Toad said being False.
Toad. You are spot on with this. This is Weeden's last year to show it or blow it.
I would say that since the QB position hasn't been decided that last season could have been Weeden's last year to show it and that he might have blown it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,595
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,595 |
It's not the ability to throw the ball 40 yards down the field ...... it's being able to throw outs with snap and accuracy. It's being able to minimize windows by virtue of being able to fire a ball into a receiver. These are things that McCoy struggles with.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,871
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,871 |
Quote:
It's not the ability to throw the ball 40 yards down the field ...... it's being able to throw outs with snap and accuracy. It's being able to minimize windows by virtue of being able to fire a ball into a receiver. These are things that McCoy struggles with.
And, for the most part, Weeden struggles with those as well. His accuracy overall was less than overwhelming. The biggest issue was his apparent inability to read a defense. Being a rookie, perhaps he will improve on that.
Bottom line for me: He gets this year. As a rule (aside from RG and Luck and Wilson) rookie qb's struggle. As a rule, they also get better in their second season. We'll just have to see how it plays out I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,191
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,191 |
LOL If by some strange turn of events, McCoy gets the starting nod, this site will explode...LOL
I'd almost like that to happen just to sit back and watch.. damn that would be funny..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
It's not the ability to throw the ball 40 yards down the field ...... it's being able to throw outs with snap and accuracy. It's being able to minimize windows by virtue of being able to fire a ball into a receiver. These are things that McCoy struggles with.
Okay, the outs 25 yards down the field. Whatever. Every QB gets picked along the sidelines because DBs play the position we. And McCoy can throw that ball just like every other QB, maybe not as with much force, but with better accuracy and with more touch. His passes are more refined than Weeden's. He's a better passer.
Marino was a fireballer and that got him a single trip to the SB (in his rookie season) and not a single trip after. I hate to keep pointing it out, but he was younger when he did it than Weeden is now.
And watch the tape of the big completions... game after game after game. The most successful passes are those that take the shortest time (the distance is less) to get to the reciever. Those are passes between the hashmarks or a dump off to a RB. If you're trying to go outside (unless you've got a one-on-one) then you're going to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
If the defense of Weeden is that it was all on Shurmur, then it would have been the same for McCoy.
Not really. The Pat Shurmur that started McCoy was "the last head coach [Holmgren will] hire" and "will be here for a long time," completely safe in his job. The Pat Shurmur that started Weeden was interviewing for his own job, until he got to the point where he was a dead man walking. Two completely different scenarios which will dictate two completely different mindsets of behavior and decision-making.
Quote:
whoever they eventually decide is the best QB, I'll go with them. I want the team to succeed and I'm not going to care who the QB is.
...unless its Brandon Weeden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
"Weeden is widely viewed as essentially a finished product." - I have to say this is the very first time I have heard or read this...
Can you elaborate who holds this wide view?
I am not trying to be confrontational, but everything I have read seems to lean toward what Norv and Chud can do, as in teach and or scheme, to improve his game.
Lair, I'm going to quote Adam because it follows your question: Quote:
You've spent the better part of a calendar year carrying on about how Weeden is a "developmental" QB, and now you're saying he's a finished product? Which is it? Can't be both.
Oddly enough, it can be, and it is.
Yes, well-before he was drafted I pegged him as a developmental guy. He had a bunch of holes in his game ranging from the backyard offense he played in, to his footwork, his mechanics, and his lack of ability to take snaps from under center. From that standpoint he wasn't in the same class as Luck and RG3. I had Weeden in there with Tannehill as guys who would take a while to get up to speed. I believe their rookie seasons proved that out to be true.
So how can he be viewed as a finished product? Because of the stance that teams aren't going to invest a bunch of time in him the way they'd invest time in someone like Tannehill.
From a skillset standpoint, Weeden is developmental.
From an upside standpoint, Weeden is going to be viewed as a finished product because teams aren't going to invest 4 years in him the way they did Flacco. Why? Because Flacco, having just turned 28 last month, has been developing for 5 years, or since the age of 23. That leaves Flacco as a guy who has reached his prime at the age of 28, and therefore is expected to remain in his prime for 4-6 years.
So what about Weeden? Is a team going to allow him to develop, knowing that he won't get any time actually in his prime if it takes him the typical 4-5 years to develop?
There's no upside for a team with that scenario. That's why the gamble was such a risky reach.
Because of his age it has to happen immediately for Weeden. He's far too old for a team to invest 4-5 years of patience in a guy who will be on a physical decline by that point.
This can be debated, but the proof will come in whether or not any legit offers come for Weeden. In a weak draft class for QB's, and with only Alex Smith out there on the market as a legitimate starter, if Weeden is viewed as a good risk, some team will come along and want him for a good pick, say a 1st, 2nd, or even a 3rd rounder if he's viewed as any kind of worthwhile gamble.
It's not always about what teams say about these players. It's what they don't say, and the organization hasn't said they'll support him.
So getting back to the direct answer, Weeden was more developmental than Holmgren and Co. thought, but because of his age, teams aren't going to view him through a lens that considers his upside. They are going to view him as a finished product because nobody is going to invest the 4 years in him it would take to see him reach his mental potential. Why? Because of his physical age.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Who will be the QB III
|
|
