DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Johnny Manziel...continued

Johnny needs to start and play this season, barring injury. We need to know exactly what we have with him by the end of this year. He's either a legit starter or it's Cardale Jones time. JMHO

naming McCown the "starter" now throws down the gauntlet for JM... if he is unable to wrest the starting spot from a journeyman player... that will tell the team everything they need to know.
Barring injury of McCown, if JM is not starting sometime next year then it we must move on and find our QB

Which fact didn't I have right?



I never made the assertion that he needed everything to be right. Don't try to put words into my mouth. You're the one that said Norv runs a Horizontal scheme which isn't true.



I pointed out that Hoyer played 3 games in 2013, hardly a large sample size. In week 3 his first start, we averaged 6.1 yards per carry. In week 4 his second start, we had 89 rushing yards to Cincinnati's 63. In week 4 his third start, Hoyer went 2/4 for 25 yards.





The offense last year was the best fit Hoyer has ever had. Solid running game, then play action passes to wide open receivers. It's hard to say someone messed up a go route. How do you blame an underthrown or out of bounds ball on a go route on the receiver?




2+2=4, but football isn't simple arithmetics.

Does anyone actually think that after signing McCown, and Johnny going to rehab for two months, Pettine should have come out an anointed Manziel the starter? Think how ridiculous that would have been. Why, because for several weeks he has been on the wagon?
This actually takes the pressure off of Manziel. He will certainly have the chance to win the job. But he hasn't done anything to win it yet. This is all unfolding pretty much the only way it could.

We don't know all that they did to address the QB situation. We read what was reported, but nobody here was in the offices to know everything they did in terms of trying to work trades, talking to free agents, working out a mutually agreeable deal with Hoyer, etc, etc. I see all these opinions attributing nefarious intentions to Haslam or Farmer or Pettine which seem ludicrous to me.

They made an investment in Manziel. So far the return doesn't look promising, but it's too early to pass a final judgement. Hoyer believed he had a particular value, the Browns believed he had a different value, and they couldn't agree. So the Browns looked at different options. They signed McCown to replace Hoyer. Then they started looking around to see if they could to better. They tried for Bradford but they couldn't offer what the Rams wanted in return. Then the Eagles traded for Bradford, so the Browns put an inquiry in case the Eagles might be willing to trade him. Sound business moves that didn't pan out. They then explored trading up to go after Mariota, but the cost was too high. I don't see an evil master plan here, just a team with a weak link trying to fix it with limited options.

ding ding ding we have a winner

I disagree. There is no need to rush Johnny onto the field. If Cardale has a good season and is there when we pick, we can still draft him and have Johnny/Jones battle it out at that point. Johnny is on a rookie deal and we don't have a mega-QB contract on the books. We can afford to carry two first round QBs and McCown with the new rookie wage scale, and hopefully one will pan out. I don't see Cardale as a day one starter, and having Johnny in year 3 in the NFL and year 2 in the system would give Cardale time to adjust.

Mac, I disagree. I think of signing McCown as maintaining the status quo. While one could argue the differences between Hoyer and McCown, I see them, and I think the FO sees them, as roughly the same in the bigger picture. I don't think they ever saw Hoyer, nor see McCown now as THE ANSWER. They are both position holders until a better option is available.

One thing to bear in mind is that what they say in public, and what goes on behind the scenes are different. When they signed McCown, they acted like it was a big deal, but I believe that was just for public consumption. Behind the scenes I don't think they were satisfied with McCown as the first string QB.

(edited to add) As for Bradford, again we don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but I think the Rams let it be known Bradford was available, and the Browns made their offer because they saw Bradford as a better option than McCown.

Just exactly what was it you took from what he said? I mean it sounds like the same line of poop we heard last year to me, but go ahead tell me what you took from it?



Since when exactly have we had the luxury of turning our back on any QB that has had or has a winning record in the last 15 years? What is it we are getting that is better? or who is it we have that will provide us with a better record? No sir, no amount of spin can make the way Hoyer was treated while he was here or after the season makes it OK. It was the wrong move when they made it and it remains the wrong move, unless of course 1-10 = 7-6.



I think in everyone's minds, yours mine, the national media he was the Browns starter. But NOT in the front office and not the coaching staff. After the win Pet said, Brian had a soluid game but for us we will continue to evaluate the QB position from week to week, as we do all positions. Which I remember very well and I remember being pissed about it, now was the time to FINALLY give the guy the support he had more then earned, but management didn't and I think it effected Hoyer I really do. Of course no one wants to hear excuses, right?



I don't know but I saw it too? But here is the thing was it the presence of Gordon, and did Hoyer trust Gordan, for that matter did he trust Cameron as well. Both came back the week following the Cincy game as I recall, and both admitted to running the wrong routes causing interceptions. Did the hesitation come from lack of trust? Just more excuses right?



I think Hoyer is a huge step up from McCown based on past performance. But I don't think management believes McCown is better or as good, I think they have a plan to hand the team over to JF, and McCown is here to back him up. Hoyer didn't want to be here unless he was allowed to compete for the starters job, and that fact didn't set well for whatever reason with management. As much as anything getting Hoyer out of here I think had to do with not having a problem in the locker room, not from Hoyer but from his team mates who loved him. So they did 2 things by letting Hoyer walk, they did away with any and all legit competition and they insured that there will not be a divided locker room. The whole thing was queer in that they say competition but clear the deck for JF.

They also set the table for next season. We win with JF we are good to go, he falls flat on his face the guy behind him isn't going to be any better then him and thus we guarantee we draft at the top of next years draft.



Hard to say!! Hoyer maybe he could, I mean I know he only has a seasons worth of starts under his belt, I would think he could get better???



The job is Johnny's period. If they wanted him to actually earn it they would have retained Hoyer.



I have to say I disagree with most of what you said here Tab, but we have disagreed from the beginning over Hoyer. Last season I said repeatedly this friggin offense is not suited to Hoyer, and you would say its perfect for him and tell me about the virtues of Shany's offense. I hated the roll outs I like PA but not when you over use it. Hoyer was and is a rhythm passer, there was nothing rhythmic about last seasons offense, but you would always say its perfect. I think Hoyer as much as he wanted it to work here in the end knew that these folks didn't want him here, I think there were many reasons for that from a management perspective #1 he was Lombardi's guy and I think that put him squarely in Farmers and Pet's dawg house and he never got out no matter how well he played or didn't. But you have dismissed my thinking on this subject from the beginning I see no changing your mind and of course I won't change mine either.

I LIKE Hoyer and I thought we should hang on to him until we had something truly better and we didn't and I will forever believe it was the wrong thing to do. There was something about Hoyer that always struck me aboutb the way he handled himself I have a strong feeling will all regret his not being here. Time will provide us with those answers.

W-L record for QBs is about as useless as it is for pitchers in baseball.

The team wins, not a QB. Hoyer and McCown are nearly equal in all facets of the game, and neither is good enough to be the future.

Yes, that must be why so many 8 game winners win MLB's Cy Young Award. Seriously, you can't really believe that.

Can you?

Those Cy Young winners also have pretty good ERA's. A pitcher "can" do it all by himself (on one side of the ball anyway). I'm not sure baseball is the greatest analogy for either of you. Way more dependent on the rest of the team in football.

sidenote: Do BTTB and Vers have me on ignore? They seem to be cherry picking who they respond to/at.

I think I get BigDog's point. As a fantasy baseball player, I have learned that ERA and W/L record are not the best measures of a pitcher's effectiveness, even if they are the most commonly used. A pitcher can be of marginal effectiveness but his team plays good defense and scores a lot of runs. He can still have a good W/L record. Similarly a QB can be viewed as a winner because his team wins, when in fact his effectiveness is marginal.

Come on now, you guys aren't really going to trot out the Trent Dilfer / Brad Johnson card, are you? I'm not trying to be a know-it-all, but I would think its become evident over the years that an upper tier QB is an absolute necessity to win enough games to be a SB contender. Last I heard, you need to win enough games to make the playoffs before you can contend for a SB. Dilfer & Johnson are the exceptions that prove the rule.

As far as who might have you on ignore; I'd have no way of knowing. I don't use the feature. I can say that your posts, in my opinion, would not warrant anyone putting you on ignore. Sometimes guys just miss people's posts.

What one perceives is subjective. When an opponent has no film on a QB as a starter, often times their weaknesses are not known. Once opponents gets film on a QB, it's much easier to pick apart his strengths and weakness then play accordingly. Hoyer actually had 2 wins in 2013. Unless of course you consider being 2/4 and behind 10-0 when you get injured as some type of victory in his third start. lol

Now that's not a lot to go on for our opponents, but it is something. Yes, when Hoyer was good in 2014, it was mainly when Mack was healthy and the running game produced well. He threw to wide open WR's and some of his long balls had our WR's looking more like they were waiting on punts than catching a pass. After Mack went down, Hoyer did regress. As the season went on, his footwork regressed. Most all of the fundamentals you look for in a QB regressed.

I'm not quite sure what you were reading, but even after stating all of this, I believe that McCown is a downgrade. At his age, progress certainly won't be seen. Now some could say the same about Hoyer, but his age and limited starts did leave some hope for progress.

If you want to get into a starting record for QB's, look at Tebow. That speaks volumes.

I can't believe there are still people who believe Hoyer is/was good. Did they not watch the games?

Not only could he not complete the necessary passes, but he was an interception machine.

That's just the problem I did watch the games and while most of the posters on this board wish to ignore our record under Hoyer 9-6 -vs- 2-15 over the course of the 2 seasons Hoyer spent here.. My brain tells me that 9-6 is better then 2-15, just what is happening in a persons mind that makes them think 2-15 is good and 9-6 is bad is beyond me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry for you guys its so bad.

If as you say he is a interception machine then give me more because he is also a winner..

I wished someone would attempt to explain why we were 2-15 without him and better yet how we are better now without him. Go ahead and try I can't wait to hear it.


I feel so damned frustrated with the whole bunch of you, you all honestly think 2-15 is better then 9-6 how can you change someones mind when their off that much.

I don't think we are better without Hoyer, but that's because McCown stinks too.

I can't believe that someone in 2015 is judging a QB off of solely his record. I'm guessing you also believe that the best pitcher in baseball has the most wins, taking long twos in basketball is efficient, and Santa Claus is real.

If we want a real winner we should sign Vince Young. Career record: 31-19.

Is he available?

you have to remember these are people that criticized Gabriel for falling down during that Hoyer throw in the Saints game. Hoyer never did any wrong. he throws into tripple coverage because the receiver ran the wrong route. He underthrows receivers because they ran to fast. He overthrows receivers because he just wanted to show off that gun.

You're trying to frame the debate by implying that anyone has done that. Hoyer's record as starter for the Browns is what it is - irrefutable. But I don't believe anyone has used that record as their sole rationale for preferring Hoyer over McCown or Manziel.

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Ridiculous, ludicrous statements like this go largely unchallenged because it fits in w/the idiocy that the Homers are preaching.

Wins/Losses are NOT important? 10 and 6 vs. 1 and 15 is proof that it is all about the team and not about the QB?



The fact that almost no one.........and none of the homers are not even considering the records of our qbs over the past two years confirms what I already thought about you guys.

It's not about searching for the truth. It's about taking a stance and arguing it w/zealous enthusiasm w/little regard for understanding and reason.

Grimm.......I don't have you on ignore. It's just that your posts have become intolerable. I had hopes for you, but you are just another in a long line of guy who can only argue one side of the coin. At this point in time, I can't take you seriously.

I don't believe that Hoyer's record is BTTB's sole reason for favoring Hoyer over McCown or Manziel. Anybody with eyeballs could see that when the Browns were healthy - before Mack's leg injury - that we had something good going.

Isn't that the point of debate? Picking a side and arguing it? I admit your points, but only see you pretending mine don't exist.

Obviously, wins and losses are the most important thing when it comes to football. I just think you're over crediting the QB position for those results. What QB starting in the NFL couldn't have put up those numbers or better in that offense last year? Are you now saying that Shanahan didn't have great play design and it was Hoyer just making things happen?

As far as 2013, Hoyer played two games where, despite BTTB stating to the contrary, we had respectable running games and 2 additional completions the entire year.

I don't get what you want, Vers. If we're all on the same side on everything, we're never going to get new insight. I could just repeat you, but what would be the point? I've tried to be respectful, but you take the worst possible interpretation of my words and start "screaming" foul whenever I'm not in lock-step with you.

I see what you are saying. I just don't get choosing a point and sticking w/it no matter what the evidence is. I can change my opinion if someone offers sound evidence. What's the big deal?

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. If so, I apologize. It just seemed that you were throwing out interceptions and touchdowns as an argument that circumvents wins and losses.

I think that if Hoyer was 7 and 9 and the other guys were 5 and 11 that we could pretty much ignore the records. However, 10 and 6 vs 1 and 15 is pretty dramatic. Hell, that is almost incomprehensible.

I do think people are either ignoring or making excuses for it because it does not fit into their original stance that the FO was right in letting Hoyer walk and signing McCown.

Put it this way, if the same thing had happened and Banner was still here, this board would be in an uproar. Where is the fairness? Where is the logic? Where is the reason? Do we want to learn through debate or do we just want to create a greater divide based upon our original stances?

Vers, I think Hoyer's problem was that he was not interested in mentoring anyone, which I can understand (especially given how we now know how Johnny was inside the locker room). So the Browns either had to decide he was THE guy, or they had to let him walk. He was doing really well, and the team was winning, but at best he seemed like a poor man's Alex Smith. And then he started to p..lay really badly.

Maybe if they had brought in a rookie QB who didn't act like a spoiled jerk, Hoyer would have respected him and agreed to compete. I really understand why he feels slighted, but I also see why the Browns moved on

The only difference was the defenders stopped dropping the wounded ducks he put in their chest and started catching him.

Those are fair and valid points.

I also think that the fact that we managed to get WRs wide, wide, wide open down the field, and Hoyer could not get them the ball .... or he shot up punt passes to "make sure they got there", and in doing so prevented the WR from being able to do anything with them, had a great deal to do with his demise here.

I also think that his attitude that he should be the starter, no matter what he did on the field, had a great deal to do with his departure.

I liked a lot of what Hoyer did last year, but he was not a good QB when the final analysis of the entire season is done. He had his moments, obviously, but not enough.

Anyway, the past is past. Hoyer thought more highly of himself than most of the NFL did. Hoyer thought he was a starter, yet he signed a backup contract in Houston, really the only offer I can find for him. Either teams found things they did not like in speaking to his representatives, or to him, or else they looked at his year last year, and saw problems.

Look at how a very average QB did in Buffalo. If there was another average QB available, they likely would have been all over him. Instead they tried for McCown, and never even had Hoyer in for a visit, at least that I can find. If anyone else has a report of Hoyer going to Buffalo for a visit, then please post it. Same thing for the Jets, and other teams with absolutely disastrous QB situations. Yet the only place I can see where he received any kind of offer was in Houston, and he got a relatively minor deal there. (2 years and $10.5 million, with $4.75 million guaranteed)

If NFL teams felt that he was a quality starter, they would have been lining up to pay him more than that. However, they did not do so.

In the end, Hoyer did some good, and some bad. Unfortunately, for him and for us, he simply did not do enough good.

So what you are telling me is that the Browns were 10-6 because of Hoyer and nothing else?

Because I believe that to be an absolutely ludicrous statement. The best thing Hoyer did for the Browns was get the hell out of the way of his own mistakes *at times* and let the talent around him take him the rest of the way.

Stats back this up, too.

What you consider evidence and I consider evidence obviously differ. I've provided evidence that you've simply not read or are ignoring.

They don't circumvent the wins and losses entirely but they do affect the value I attribute to Hoyer in those wins.

If those other QBs who went 1-15 are primarily Brandon Weedon, with a sprinkle of Manziel and even less of Shaw the disparity looks less incriminating. You can't just throw out wins and losses without any context and expect thinking people to just swallow it whole. Can you name a trio of worse QBs who have started in the NFL in the last decade? How many QBs (not on the Browns) that started games last year couldn't have won games in the offense Hoyer did? Shanahan's play design was so important to our success, but only Hoyer could have operated in it- not any other semi-competent QB.


That's exactly what you've been doing except flip "letting Hoyer walk" and "signing McCown."
I admit that wins are a factor in QB evaluation, but you keep implying that nothing else does.

I thought Banner had Napoleon complex, but I liked most of his roster moves. I thought the Richardson trade was amazing. I'd have traded him for a box of dull crayons, and Banner somehow got a 1st rounder.

Yes, I want to learn through debate, not read you repeating the same un-nuanced Al davis-esque just win, baby over and over.

Banner has not a damn thing to do with any of this debate. Those that loved Hoyer hate the move and probably hate Farmer for all eternity. Those that thought Hoyer sucked is ok with this specific move by Farmer. Some how certain folks have come to believe that there is this big farmer fan club that defends everything he does. I dont see it.

Some liked his draft, some hated it, some liked some of it and hated other parts. We overpaid for McCown but we wanted a bridge mentor type QB and he fit the bill. I would have signed mallett with an incentive laden contract and this is from someone that still believes in Johnny. I would never have resigned Hoyer, mostly due to his cult continually ticking me off lol.

I liked Hoyer. I didn't love him. And I've stated some of my like was the hometown boy thing.

I don't blame Farmer, or Banner.....or who ever.

Hoyer is gone. Let's move on.

Didn't need to sieve. No Mack is all the explanation I need.

hoyer made it look like there was no sieve. because he got the ball out. after mack went down he took alot of hits AFTER the ball was gone.

im not going to sit here and say hoyer was some god or anything. and i really wouldnt care at all if they brought in some one better, or at the very least some one with upside. but they didnt.