DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The QB Situation in 2016-2017

I think you are either misinformed or taking quite a few liberties here.

--He might not become a great qb, but the fact remains that he played very well last year in much worse circumstances than JM played in.

--To expound on that, our coach is talking about a "bridge qb" in McCown. Minnesota is comfortable w/TB going forward. Would you not want that stability at the QB position?

--You talk about him maybe being great and maybe being okay, but your tone suggests that he you doubt he is/will be a very good qb. I disagree w/your tone. He doesn't have to be GREAT, because it sure beats a guy who sucked and has been in rehab. How can you ignore that?

--A very strong WR group? Their top WR at the end of last year was a guy WE CUT in TC. They parted ways w/Jennings and picked up the head case, Mike Wallace. I still can't believe they got that guy. He is a locker room disaster waiting to happen. Their TE has 54 catches over the past two years and misses a lot of games. I don't see the strength, there.

--A solid offensive line? Their pass blocking was horrible last year.

--Yeah, I get that he isn't a finished product or a sure-fire star, but he sure has a helluva lot better chance of succeeding than Manziel does.

--I have Sunday Ticket. Do you? How many games did you watch of him playing last year? You are throwing out general statements that have very little substance.

--I harp on this because our FO MUST improve their ability to evaluate the offensive skill positions in general, and quarterbacks in particular. Because we aren't ever winning anything w/the likes of Josh McCown as our QB. Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

Keep repeating it to yourselves and click your heals together and you'll be back in Kansas soon............Sense when does 1-10 equal 7-6 only in Cleveland could that be so....................................

I have to remind myself that your the same bunch that fell in love with PF, so I know factually your suckers for used car salesmen..........

You are right. We'd be better off had we drafted TB. Where do we go from here? Pretty simple question. HOW do we (the front office) learn from our mistake? Or do we drown ourselves in "coulda shoulda woulda's?"

PF?

And hey, I don't recall a bunch of teams flocking to acquire Hoyer. Like I said, and IMO, we didn't ask him to do much when we were winning. We were asking more of him, which resulted in the decline of the later half of the season.

To each their own opinion.

Joe Thomas LT Cleveland 7-9

Jared Veldheer LT Arizona 11-5
Eric Fisher LT KC 9-7
Duane Brown LT Hou 9-7
Ju'Wuan James LT Mia 8-8

Clearly these 4 are all better than Joe

^^^lol good point.


and who here thinks hoyer would have been 7-6 in tampa last year?

Bridgewater 6-6

Hoyer 7-6

Vikings should have signed Hoyer he is clearly better than Bridgewater

A couple of points.

They get Adrian Peterson back.

Their OL was banged up last year. I don't know the whole situation, and I am not going to go look it up, but they had OL injuries, and we lost a huge piece of our OL in Mack.

Johnson fit the scheme in Minnesota perfectly, and that is why he succeeded there. Wallace fits that scheme as well. He did not fit in Miami, with Tannehill, who does not want to throw deep at all.

As far as Minnesota being "comfortable", I am sure they are ..... for now. However, if Bridgewater has a year in his 2nd year, do you think that Minnesota will continue to be "comfortable"? Teams have been comfortable giving a young QB a shot in his 2nd year, when he shows promise and ability as a rookie. Bridgewater did just that. However, you and I each could probably rattle off a list 20 deep of 2nd year QBs who showed promise as a rookie only to flop as a sophomore. I have often thought that the young QB gets figured out by the league after roughly 6-8 starts, and then really is exposed going into his 2nd season as opposing teams have an opportunity to really see them on tape.

He had some nice games, and some that were so-so. He never had a game that I know of where anyone watching would say "Wow! This is a surefire franchise guy and I cannot wait to see him play again!". He was solid. He also threw a ton of shorter passes. Teams will see that, and will take those away. Plus, with Peterson in the game, teams will stack the LOS, and he is going to have less room to work with up close. I think that he did some good things. We'll have to see if he actually becomes something good to great, or if he becomes Colt McCoy. He showed some promise, but so have any number of 1st time starters. If Bridgewater were the Cavaliers QB, we would probably be excited to see how he would do in his 2nd year. I freely admit that. However, us fans have been excited about all kinds of young QBs who have flopped when all was said and done. We'll see how Bridgewater looks in his 2nd season. That is often where the story is told.

I don't know what to think about Manziel. I said that I could see taking a shot with him, because he was going to be a boom or bust .... and was worth the risk. I did think that Gilbert was going to be an excellent player for us. I still think that he will be. I have no idea about Manziel. If history is our guide, it seems likely that he will get a shot this year at some point, (assuming he is the backup) We'll see how he does then .... if he has learned anything, or not.

I did get to see Bridgewater play a couple of times. Like I said, he was OK. We'll see how he does in year 2.

Can someone post the win loss records of all the 20+ starting QBs we've had since 99? Hoyer may not be the long term answer but to simply walk away from a QB with a 10-6 record as a starter in an era where we've won about 30-35% of our games is mind boggling. A lot of cracks about how 10-6 or 7-6 is in spite of Hoyer instead of because of Hoyer is confusing as well. How did all of our previous QBs fare? And don't say look who he had around him. Hoyer did this with who at WR? Who at TE, Who at RB? Pro bowl O-linemen Mack and Thomas have been here for years. Plus our run defense was dead last. Lost our pro bowl kicker Dawson the year before. Like I said I'm still not sold he could've led this team to much more than a playoff fringe team but damn that's the best we've been since our return. If we had a sure fire young gun ready to replace him I would get it. But Manziel and McCown?.....Really?

Hoyer did fine until he injured his quad and couldn't step into his throws anymore. It was also ridiculous that they kept asking him to make so many deep throws when he is at his best with throws under 30 yards where he is allowed to set up a rhythm. There is a reason he scored more points in the 2 minute drills where he had more freedom to pick his plays.

I haven't seen Manziel play enough to judge him one way or the other. I know the kid has talent but he might need another season or two to mature first.

Since when is the Won/Loss record solely on the shoulders of the QB? I always thought football was a team game. With that in mind here is what Hoyer had to work with, the 14th rated OL, the 17th rated running game, and the 9th rated defense. McCown had the 30th rated OL (gave up the most QB hits and 3rd most sacks), the 29th rated running game, and the 25th rated defense.

I look at Hoyer similar to the way I look at Tebow.. Yes.. he won more games than he lost, but were the wins because of him.. or because of everyone else. To me, Hoyer did not pass the eyeball test. Believe me.. I wanted him to pass the eyeball test. I did not like the Manziel pick, but by the time Manziel played.. I felt that Hoyer had no future with the Browns. Unfortunately, Manziel did not pass the eyeball test either..

So now we have McCown.. It is what it is... About the only other QB I could see giving a try would be Christian Pounder... not much of a choice. I feel that Hoyer, like Tebow, won in spite of himself, not because he won games a la Brady, Rogers, Farve or even Cutler.. If he wins, McCown's wins may be in spite of himself as well. For what it's worth, I do think that McCown is a better choice than Hoyer... jmho

I think we need to give Farmer help.

I look at Farmer's history, comments, and body of work and I see a guy who doesn't really understand QBs or how important they are to the team. I won't go into a lot of detail because I don't think you are really looking for a legit answer and that your real goal is to get people to stop talking about his bad moves, but I'll try a little bit:

--Farmer was a defensive player. No big deal.

--He wasn't utilized in the draft at KC. He was a guy who scouted professional talent. Not a huge deal, but concerning.

--He made comments before the draft last year that baffled me and raised my radar. I remember commenting that I was hoping he was trying to mislead other teams because the comments were so whacked. This would not be a big deal if it was in isolation, but it's not isolated.

--He drafted JM over qbs that were better. Yeah, there were guys like me that were intrigued by JM's boom or bust potential, but we don't get paid huge money to make those decisions. We don't have scouts working for us. We don't have the ability to personally interview each player. We don't have guys who can do "real" background checks on a player's habits and lifestyle.

--He has also been reportedly willing to trade significant amounts of value for guys like Bradford and Mariota. Not sure if those are true, but I thought both ideas were crazy.

--He prefers McCown over Hoyer.

Now.........I want for Farmer to retain his job. I believe in continuity, just as I did when Banner was here. I haven't changed my perception on that like so many others have. I also think Farmer has made some good moves. So, what can we do to support him?

I would bring in a guy who is extremely gifted in terms of having the ability to evaluate offensive skill players in general and collegiate qbs in particular. I think we need help in this area. I don't think Farmer is dumb and he can even learn from this guy.

There are a few of these mindless posts floating about.

Comparing QBs in two completely different settings is not as valid as comparing QBs who played w/the very same talent and in the same systems. Scratch your head all you want and make inane comparisons, but your argument lacks validity.

Here is a fact:

Hoyer was 10 and 6 w/the very same talent and played in the very same two systems as all the other QBs who compiled a 1 and 15 record.

That's apples to apples.

IMO, that was a fair and open-minded post...

Nice post. Thank you.

I think giving Farmer help would be a good idea as well. I think mac has mentioned that too.

We could also enlist a firm to do a study on the incoming crop of QBs. Oh wait...

not solely, but you rewatch that colts game and tell me who was responsible for that L.

god that game still pisses me off.

i really cant see how anyone can argue that very simple fact.

Here's another simple fact.

he choked when it mattered, thats why is GONE.

he choked when we was making a playoff push.

sorry if i'm not exactly sad that he's gone.

You may not be sad now but I strongly suspect you will be when you get a look at his replacement Weedon 2.0

So you don't think a 7-6 Hoyer is better than a 1-10 McCown based off their win loss record then correct. That would be apples to oranges. In that case we won't know if McCown is better until he pl;ays for the Browns.

at the end of the day...what does it matter?

you think none of the QB's on our roster has what it takes.

That's fine. but news flash: Hoyer didn't either.

So what are we crying about? let's look at 2016-17, like this thread was suppose to be about, and go from there.

Guys.

Don't waste your time arguing with BTTB.

It only goes in circles.

Circumstance is ignored.

Only certain facts are brought to light, while others are completely ignored.

Go watch cat videos on YouTube instead. It's fluff without the articles.

One could argue the following though ......

Hoyer was good enough to win 2 games with the Browns in 2013. He played against an abysmal Vikings defense. He threw 3 TD, but also 3 INT. The team pulled off 2 special special teams plays, and that was also vitally important. However, Hoyer did have a last minute TD drive, and that was huge for a team that had far too often lacked such ability at the position.

He beat the Bengals, and had a nice game. The defense also had a really nice game as well. We had 2 incredible 90+ yard drives. It was an excellent performance by Hoyer, and the defense as well.

The next game he left being down 10-0 to the Bills. The team rebounded behind Weeden, and we won.

For the year, Hoyer certainly looked like the best QB we had ... yet there was no certainty. He was really pretty lucky in the Vikings game, and got hurt in his 3rd start. Nothing definitively established him as the future starter other than the fact that we had no one else. He also never had the chance to get exposed on film so other teams could take his game apart.

Then we went into a new year, with a new Coach, a new offense, and many new players on offense.

One other thing that gets no credit whatsoever is the fact that we completely revamped the WR and RB corps. I do not believe that we would have been anywhere near as good on offense if we had not done so.

In game 1, we ran the ball well, for 183 yards.
In game 2, we ran for 122 yards.
In game 3, we ran for only 91.
In game 4, we ran for 175 yards.
In game 5, we ran for 158. Mack was hurt in this game.

We averaged roughly 10 points/game more in those 1st 5 games than in the rest of the season in games in which Hoyer played.

We lost Mack, and teams started taking away from Hoyer.

We won some games in spite of Hoyer. Against Oakland, the defense did the deed. Tampa Bay was an uninspiring effort.

In these 2 games, in which we had limited offensive output, we had TD drives of 9 yards and 35 yards, as well as a FG drive of 10 yards. The QB was hardly "the" factor in these wins.

Against the Bengals, Hoyer had a solid game, completing 69% of his passes for 198 yards and no TD/INT. The defense shut down the Bengals offense, allowing only 165 total yards, and the run game responded with 3 eushing TD in this game.

The next 4 games were abysmal. Hoyer went a combined 74-150 for 980 yards, 1 TD and 8 INT. We actually managed to win one of those games, a game in which Hoyer threw 3 INT and no TD.

Hoyer was a mix of good and bad last year. When he was good, he could be pretty darn good. When he was bad, he was just plain awful. He did some good, helping this team win, and did some bad that cost us games, or almost cost us games that we managed to win in spite of him.

He also seemed to wilt under the media talk about Manziel. Even though Pettine supported him completely for most of the season. When Hoyer started going downhill, he crashed.

Hoyer helped us win some game, in some games we won in spite of him, and in other games we flat out lost because of him.

To say that he was the only reason we won 7 games last year is being rather disingenuous. He helped in some wins, and hurt in others.

To say that he was the only reason we won 7 games last year is being rather disingenuous. He helped in some wins, and hurt in others.

Ding. Ding. Ding!

He helped us in spots, and hurt us in others.

I'll gladly agree that I would rather have him over McCown, but I don't think Hoyer was an unreplacable asset to this team.

If Mack had been hurt in the preseason instead of week five, would we still have won seven games, and had one of the best rushing offenses early in the season? It's a good question.

Where did I EVER say that? Show me.

I was responding to Vambo who compared the records of guys who played on different teams. I was responding to the Joe Thomas vs other tackles who play for other teams.

Those are not the same examples as guys who are playing w/the same personnel and scheme.

You seem to work very hard to only point out the negatives of guys like Hoyer and Teddy. However, I never see you do that w/McCown. Never saw you do it w/Weeden. In fact, you made excuse after excuse for Weeden.

I don't feel you are being objective on this matter.

I am not even a big fan of Hoyer. I thought his arm was too weak. I am just not buying into the argument that you can completely evaluate a guy because he had a bad four game stretch and not even consider the record of him starting or not starting.

It seems like too many are biased on this matter.

Where did I EVER say that? Show me.


I could be wrong, but I think that comment was directed at BTTB.

i have never read such absurd asinine statement in my life.

in the oakland game he completed 68% of his passes for 275 yards and a qb rate of 111.5. all while our vaunted running game had a whole 38 yards on 23 carries.


yea the bucs game was not as good but still respectable 61.8% completion rate and 300 yards passing. again while our vaunted running game had 51 yards on 25 carries.

you know when his play went down. when gordon came back. he had 2 bad games before that. when Greco started at center and defenders were in the backfield unblocked the whole game and again againts the texans. where jj watt showed why he is such a great player.

Solid point pblack18707...

His play suffered when he played physical defenses...

Jacksonville, Houston, Buffalo and Indianapolis.

They all have something in common: Difficult and physical defenses.

Hoyer thrived against the softer competition, there is no denying that, but when the team played poorly down the stretch, so did he.

Just throwing that out there.

In the Oakland game, we won by 10 points.

We had a FG drive that was a whopping 14 yards, and a TD drive that started on the Oakland 9.

Our other TD drive was 53 yards.

Oakland is an awful team, and the defense did a nice job of not only holding their scoring down, but of setting up our offense to win. Hoyer threw for a lot of yards, but he still wasn't very effective. Our final TD drive? 9 yards, on 2 carries by Ben Tate for the TD. Our defense had held the Raiders to 6 points before giving up a TD with 7 seconds left. The defense won that game.

Against Tampa Bay, the defense agan did a nice job. Whitner intercepted a pass and returned it to the Tampa 21. 5 plays and 10 yards later, we kicked a FG. Tampa Bay had a 1 yard punt that led to one of our TDs. Hoyer did have some nice passes in this game, but he was playing an awful Tampa Bay defense. Hoyer threw for 2 TD, and also 2 INT against Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay allowed 28 TD passes and had only 14 INT on the season, They were hardly an imposing defense. Oakland was even worse, allowing 29 TD passes, while intercepting the ball only 9 times for the season. I think that uninspired fits, though I will grant you that Hoyer did have a few big pass plays in the Tampa game. He also had a pass intercepted deep in our own end, that fortunately Gipson intercepted right back 2 plays later. It was an up and down effort.

not going to argue with you. you want to pretend the offense did not help go ahead.

I don't believe that;s what I said. However, we all have our own views on things.

not going to argue with you. you want to pretend the offense did not help go ahead.


I don't think anyone is trying to necessarily discredit the offenses hand in the Browns winning games. What some of us are trying to point out was that Hoyer was aided greatly by our strong running game, offensive line and opportunistic defense. There were a lot of patches where Hoyer looked down right bad. He wasn't this irreplaceable asset that some posters are making him out to be. When he was asked to put the offense on his shoulders and make plays near the end of the season, he wasn't able to do so. By no means was he a bad QB, but without the strong running game, strong offensive line play, and a ball hawking defense, we don't win 7-games last year...

When we played against strong defenses that took away the run, and their was no threat of any play-action, Hoyer was completely ineffective.

"We won some games in spite of Hoyer. Against Oakland, the defense did the deed. Tampa Bay was an uninspiring effort.

In these 2 games, in which we had limited offensive output, we had TD drives of 9 yards and 35 yards, as well as a FG drive of 10 yards. The QB was hardly "the" factor in these wins."

in spite of Hoyer. well the only offense we had was hoyer. surly not the 50 yards on 25 trys in the one game and 38 yards in 23 carries in the other game. or maybe you think that was the differnce?

You've confused me here. Which one is it? When Gordon came back or was it two games earlier?

Keep slinging until something sticks I get it. I have debated this to a conclusion for me. You guys IMO haven't a clue about anything to do with a QB and what effects their play.

You say I talk in circles, really.

Think about this just STOP and think.

The Browns in 15 season have had 3 winning seasons, 3 out of 15. In the past 2 season we have had a QB that has won 10 of his 16 starts while the balance of the QB's we have had 1 win out of 15 games. If we are to believe that Hoyer is easily replaced then explain why out of 4 other guys we only mustard 1 win? Then take that and apply it to 12 seasons of losing most of those years double digit losing. It ain't easy to replace Hoyer. He may not be likely isn't the guy to lead you to the promised land but that doesn't change the FACT that he is the best QB we have seen in these parts in a long long time.

You guys especially Y cherry pick stats, and its always great to use stats but stats can and often are misleading, they lead to places that aren't always accurate. For instance in many games it was Hoyer leading the team to the goal line then the running game punched it in. Think Cincy game with that sick toss to Barnadge. Think that punt he thru up to Cameron against Pittsburgh. Where does it tell you in the stats that he got you to the goal line?

You guys don't like to admit it but when your run game fails to produce positive yardage it puts the QB in a bad spot in terms of down and distance. But you skip over it and many times Hoyer overcame those situations, but sometimes especially so against the better defenses he failed. But thats WHY their the better defenses thats why other QB's also struggled against theses guys it wasn't unique to Hoyer for crying out load do you all realize how backwards you are?

This is about making Hoyer look bad at all costs, I get it, but your wrong. I have had it with debating this issue for this very reason, I even dummied it down to basics 10-6 with Hoyer but still you persist, you won't address why out of I think 4 other QB's they could only muster 1 win in 16 attempts. You say some of you that is that the Browns won in spite of Hoyer not because of then explain the 1-15 by all other QB's. If they could win in spite of Hoyer then why not in spite of anybody else.

It's all about the MUD with Hoyer keep throwing it and hope something sticks. Try the truth, then we don't have to talk in circles as you say....

Why? Hoyer was never going to lead us anywhere, and if you're right, we'll get a high draft pick to draft a franchise QB next year.

This "the sky is falling" scenario would have a very happy ending from where I sit.