Over the next month we're going to hear this ALOT. NFL.com is already reporting Cousins has requested a trade. OF course we will be at the center of it. In the article it even mentions Lombardi writing in 2012 about Shanny and Cousins being an intriguing package in the future.
So I ask everyone let's dissect Cousins. Just like we do Teddy, Johnny and everyone else. Let's hammer this out so people have some reasoning behind preferences rather than not having to use a 1st on a QB. We all know how enticing that is so let's go deeper.
Hey thanks for helping the thread instead of pushing your own personal agenda. Love your dissection of Cousins. Real insightful guys There are enough threads to do that. It is not the purpose here.
And you base that off of past experiences. Things change. There's absolutely a zero percent chance you know that. Tell me otherwise I don't care. He's not my choice but why bicker back and forth for the next month about this newly added dynamic when we could take an educated look at him.
We have Hoyer already, why would we want to trade away a pick just to kick the tires on this guy? If he was a FA or they cut him, sure take a flyer on the guy but not if you have to pay for the privilege.
i'm looking at the game 2 years ago. his first start.
first note: man our D was horrible after the 1st 2 drives
second. that roll out on his first TD. thats a throw that should've been picked off. triple coverage..
most of the game he is throwing 4-5 yards past the LOS, TE's and RB's making more of the plays than actualy Qb'ing. the bootlegs, and his pocket, thats more a testament to how bad our line played. him having time in the pocket has nothing to do with...well, him. and even still, he is waiting on his WR's to get open, very little timing routes. his WR's are wide open have the time.
was that garcon? they did a play action pass in the red zone, Cousins had somebody in his face, but garcon was so Wide open he just chucked it up there. that scheme impress me more than cousins did.
he has excellent zip on the ball, he lasered one in on a slant route. but he floated quite a bit, whether it be to keep it from being tipped, but when there was actual PRESSURE, he folded, passes hitting the ground, or just inaccurate.
but he was a rookie, so you have to give him credit.
but on that note, theres a REASON he was a what? 6th? 7th rounder? look at the games last year, he was getting murdered.
i wouldn't be interested at all. he's wants to start, which is great cause who wants to come into the NFL and ride the bench, but we already have a 6th or 7th rounder on this team who has demonstrated everything Cousins has done: Hoyer.
so i don't see why we would want to trade for a type of player we already have on the team. the only reason i would look at him is if the redskins want a 5th or 6th for him, and our FO deemed no QB in the draft worthy of a high pick.
Thank you. I know you guys have good insight even if it's negative. That's exactly how I feel. I wanted it all out on the table. I'm worried this could come to fruition and it scares the crap out of me.
I think it would likely cost a 4th just to throw that in there. That's where he was taken.
yea i mean, unless the FO are like mad scientist, the only benefit from swapping out Cousins with Hoyer is that he is younger.
and has experience with Kyle, but i wonder if Kyle would even say anything about any guy on the Redskins, seeing as he might be looking for a completely fresh start. and with the way RG3 gets banged up, the skins might be asking even more for cousins.
To be honest, I would take Cousins for our second third, preferably our fourth and give me Bortles at four. We could let go of the dead weight of Weeds and Cambell and let Bortles sit and learn for a year.
Quote: To be honest, I would take Cousins for our second third, preferably our fourth and give me Bortles at four. We could let go of the dead weight of Weeds and Cambell and let Bortles sit and learn for a year.
Learn from Cousins and Hoyer? I'd rather throw Bortles right in. He'd have a good shot at beating either out in camp.
He is a 4th round talent, at best. If we trade for him, I would give up a 7th, possibly a 6th but nothing higher.
I don't understand that.
You call him a 4th round talent but then say you'll only give up a 6th?
You said he had 4th round talent. Which means with having actual NFL experience, he's better than anyone coming in the 4th maybe even 3rd this year. So how can you justify only giving a 6th?
If you don't want a guy that's cool. But to say where they were drafted two years earlier matters is like saying "Tom Brady was a 6th round talent, I'd give a conditional 7th for him now"
We have Hoyer already, why would we want to trade away a pick just to kick the tires on this guy? If he was a FA or they cut him, sure take a flyer on the guy but not if you have to pay for the privilege.
It would depend, quite honestly, what the compensation would be to acquire him. If you had to send a 7th rounder to the Redskins, I'd probably do it. I might give a 6th, but nothing more. The Redskins, because of the RG3 debacle, are draft pick starved. And yes, before anybody says that they're just lacking their first rounder, keep in mind that they gave up 4 picks for 1. They've been shorted on draft picks each of the past three years, and 2 of those 4 picks have been additional first rounders and the other was a high second rounder. That's some severe losses that aren't easily replaced. It is going to take time for that sting to go away - perhaps a decade.
Quote: I think it would likely cost a 4th just to throw that in there. That's where he was taken.
The fourth was what was paid for him. Unlikely that's what they'll get for him. Brandon Weeden was taken in the first round (of the same draft!) and we're not likely to get that (or anything) for him.
Could we send Weeden to Washington for Cousins and a 4th, 5th or even a 6th? I'd do it.
Right now I see him worth a 6th in trade. If he improves he might be worth a 4th but I doubt he would ever be much better than that.
Brady was a 6th round pick but he has 1st round talent.
Knowing what we know now. If Brady was in this draft, he goes 1st round. If Cousins was in this draft he goes 6th or 7th (JMO though some GM will probably disagree with me and trade something more for him). Cousins has some experience and has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to be a top Qb in the NFL.
There could be a guy in this draft that has 4th round value, but his talent could be much higher, requiring time and experience for that to be realized. Take a guy like Wenning. He will likely be drafted after the 4th round. Why? Because he is raw and needs development and coaching. However,he is a big guy with a strong accurate arm. He needs to learn how to read defenses, to make better decisions and become more consistent. With hard work he could develop and have 1st round value. But he won't go in the 1st. Those things he needs to acquire are not easy to develop so he may never be any good. So right now he doesn't have 1st round value.
Not so sure. I think the cap hit for pocket lint might be too high - if I remember correctly. I will need to re-read the cap rules and regulations to confirm.
Quote: We've had a parade of backups brought through here since 1999. We've nearly all had enough.
I just see him and Hoyer as back ups with Hoyer more experienced.
And I base the experienced statement mostly on who Hoyer has tutored under.
I don't think we can dismiss the "home town" flavor of Hoyer. He wants to win here and his "want" is REAL.. Not something manufactured for publicity or to extend a contract. that's just an opinion but for me, I look at him and listen to him talk and I think he's a Cleveland kid who really just wants to do well.
I have no idea if that will result in him being a great QB or even above average.. I'd surely like to find out. Hey, who doesn't like a "feel good Hometown boy does well" story LOL
As for Kirk Cousins, I understand he's kinda like the flavor of the week around here. Hey, if he's a guy they think can help, I don't have a problem with it. I really don't think I want to give up anything to get him however.
One thing you have to ask yourself. If Shanahan was as bad as has been reported, why would Cousins want to come come here if Shanny is here? *
* that's if the Twitter reports and subsequent legit articles have it right which are based off the twitter report.. we'll know tomorrow I guess.
I mentioned this in the thread searching for an OC.... Had some great replies from a few posters that made good points...So I would say no due to the fact they pointed out giving up a pick isn't worth the value.
One thing the season teaches is that you need more than one guy and sometimes more than two if you expect to win.
If your starter goes down can you still win?
Weeden will most likely be cut. Campbell, he is ok to be on the roster but he can not be counted on to win games. So he can be looked upon as expendable.
If Cousins can be had for a third rounder he may be worth that. You draft your guy at four. You have Hoyer to start the season unless the rookie is just lights out. You have Cousins to compete. You let the cream rise to the top.
If you went into the season with "the rookie", Hoyer, and Cousins one would have to feel pretty good about competing week in and week out.
I have no problem with that scenario. Solutions, it is all about solving problems. Fix the obstacles that stand in the way of winning. The needs of the Browns are very obvious.
Quote: Thank God Kyle Shanahan will not be making roster decisions.
Any new reports on Twitter as to when they will make it official that he's our new OC?
lol, haters gonna hate.
Geez, I admit to not like the idea of twitter on here, but I don't think I'm a hater.
We aren't getting anything from the mainstream media (at least I've not read anything) so I merely asked if there was a Twitter report and that apparently gets feathers ruffled.
I have a feeing that Campbell will be gone, no matter what happens with Weeden. IMHO, he made too many comments about losing his confidence to come back next year. I think that we start with Hoyer and a new QB ..... and see who we can pick up in free agency. Plus, we can cut Campbell and gain cap space. Weeden, for whatever it is worth, costs us cap space if we cut him.
Cousins is an interesting prospect but I don't think he would want to come here. The guy wants to be a starter, whether he's worthy of that is still TBD... He is not going to be happy being traded someplace where he has to compete with a top 10 pick or where he is the one year place holder while the top drafted pick prepares to take over.
I think Cousins might be decent but my thoughts have already been mentioned. I don't see him as a big upside over Hoyer and we already have Hoyer. I wouldn't be likely to give up much for Cousins.
Quote: I wouldn't be likely to give up much for Cousins.
Nor me, which I would imagine Washington won't let him go for anything that I'd be willing to spend/give up to acquire him.
If KShanny thinks he is better than what is out there and what we can draft... he will be the guy that knows. If we don't go after him... I can't see anyone wanting to go after him.
There has been no "official report" saying he was hired. Until then it's all speculation.
It would be nice if the Twitter stuff was in a separate forum. It's not journalism and it's not news. For the most part it's rumors and speculation.
Stating the facts is not "being a hater'. Actually that term is nothing more than a feeble attempt to dissuade people from actually looking at truth and reality.
Well I've seen multiple different places with "unofficial" reports then. ESPN, NFLN, and most sports sites are running it. And most aren't saying its a "rumor"
What's the difference between Adam Schefter writing a 200 word article saying something, and writing a 140 letter tweet that's basically a summary of the article?
There has been no "official report" saying he was hired. Until then it's all speculation.
It would be nice if the Twitter stuff was in a separate forum. It's not journalism and it's not news. For the most part it's rumors and speculation.
Stating the facts is not "being a hater'. Actually that term is nothing more than a feeble attempt to dissuade people from actually looking at truth and reality.
Thank you,, you at least accept the premise that it may not be true. Myself, I think it's probably true. But I can't verify it. When we can, then we'll have something to talk about.
I don't want him. He hasn't proven he's any better than guys like Matt Flynn, Brian Hoyer, or Kevin Kolb. I suspect the Redskins would want at least a 1st rounder for him and he's nowhere near worth that. If he could be had for a 5th, fine. Anything more than that, I pray the team does not pursue him.
Quote: Well I've seen multiple different places with "unofficial" reports then. ESPN, NFLN, and most sports sites are running it. And most aren't saying its a "rumor"
What's the difference between Adam Schefter writing a 200 word article saying something, and writing a 140 letter tweet that's basically a summary of the article?
Here's something for you to ponder, all of those places you read that on were based on ONE TWEET. They all said so and referred to the tweeter by name. Only Rappaport doesn't indicate the source is that Tweet. but I bet it is.
As for a difference, the thing all comes down to this (here comes people calling me a hater again, you watch) it's the title.. it said we hired him. that isn't fact...yet! That my friend is the difference. If the title of the thread said, reports say we're close to hiring him, then I don't have a leg to stand on and to me, that's the proper use of twitter.
I've said what I have to say on the subject, there really isn't anything else to comment on.
I would be perfectly fine with them trading for Cousins. I'd be thrilled if they traded for Cousins AND took a QB at the top of the draft. Cousins, Hoyer and a rookie draft pick. I could live with that QB stable this year. IF Hoyer is healing and IF he fits our new scheme. Otherwise draft two QB's this year. We HAVE to find one. Pete Carroll brought in a ton of prospects before finding Wilson. He traded for Whitehurst, signed Flynn, signed Tavaris Jackson.... he just kept at it until he found the MAN.
I wouldn't even give up a sixth round pick for Cousins. We already have mediocre QBs with low ceilings. Lets get a real QB and save our 6th round pick for a Pro Bowl caliber long snapper.
Quote: I wouldn't even give up a sixth round pick for Cousins. We already have mediocre QBs with low ceilings. Lets get a real QB and save our 6th round pick for a Pro Bowl caliber long snapper.
Alright, name the can't miss, sure thing,"real" quarterback coming out this year? Because to me, they ALL have question marks next to their names. There is no Andrew Luck coming out this season. Perhaps one or more of them will end up successful. But to my mind, there isn't one that stands out so much we should forgo exploring every opportunity available. By all means take a QB with our first pick. Doesn't mean we can't bring in Cousins as well.... Wouldn't bother me to have 5 or 6 QB's on the roster when camp starts. Identify the 4 best and keep them.
Yeah, except that giving up draft picks for a barely adequate QB makes no sense at all.
Every Browns fan remembers what Cousins did to us ....... but he completed only something like 52% of his passes and 6 TD passes and 9 INT against anyone not in a Browns uniform.
He's a guy. If we can get him for a 7th round pick .... then maybe ..... but even then I just really don't see where he would fit Should we give up a pick for a 3rd string QB? I don't think so.
Quote: Yeah, except that giving up draft picks for a barely adequate QB makes no sense at all.
Every Browns fan remembers what Cousins did to us ....... but he completed only something like 52% of his passes and 6 TD passes and 9 INT against anyone not in a Browns uniform.
He's a guy. If we can get him for a 7th round pick .... then maybe ..... but even then I just really don't see where he would fit Should we give up a pick for a 3rd string QB? I don't think so.
Quote: Yeah, except that giving up draft picks for a barely adequate QB makes no sense at all.
Every Browns fan remembers what Cousins did to us ....... but he completed only something like 52% of his passes and 6 TD passes and 9 INT against anyone not in a Browns uniform.
He's a guy. If we can get him for a 7th round pick .... then maybe ..... but even then I just really don't see where he would fit Should we give up a pick for a 3rd string QB? I don't think so.
So you know for a fact the guy can't ever be more than a scrub from the very few games he's played? Hell man, he's been in the league two seasons and never been "the man". Your prescience must be extraordinary.
Hard to get too argumentative over this though, the odds of trading for him are slim and none. I just think we should explore every single chance at finding a QB. Trade, draft, bring as many in as it takes.
I could see giving up a third rounder if they think he might be a candidate.
Quote: Wouldn't bother me to have 5 or 6 QB's on the roster when camp starts.
I don't know if you are serious or not, but there would not be enough reps to go around. At some point you have to watch a player practice with the 1st team if you want to give him a shot.
There is a reason why no one has tried that method before.
Quote: I could see giving up a third rounder if they think he might be a candidate.
If we are going QB at #4 (or higher), which I think we are, then no way am I giving up a 3rd rounder based on a "think" and a "might".. Because I think that might be the OG we need or the RB we need or the FS we need... If we don't go QB high in the draft.. well, I'll be disappointed.. but at that point, I might consider bringing in Cousins to compete with Hoyer.
Quote: Yeah, except that giving up draft picks for a barely adequate QB makes no sense at all.
Every Browns fan remembers what Cousins did to us ....... but he completed only something like 52% of his passes and 6 TD passes and 9 INT against anyone not in a Browns uniform.
He's a guy. If we can get him for a 7th round pick .... then maybe ..... but even then I just really don't see where he would fit Should we give up a pick for a 3rd string QB? I don't think so.
When you draft a QB in the 5th or 6th, you are getting a project QB that MIGHT have a shot in the league but needs time to develop. How is trading a 5th or 6th for Kirk Cousins any different? The plus is that he knows the system an can compete with the Rookie and Hoyer. The downside is that he might not work out; not that big of a deal to me considering our draft record. Name a 5th/6th rounder drafted by the Browns in the last 5 years that was an immediate impact player.
2009: 6th - Don Carey and Coye Francies 2010: 5th - Shawn Lauvao 6th - Larry Asante 2011: 5th - Buster Skrine and Jason Pinkston 2012: 5th - Ryan Miller 6th - Emmanuel Acho and Billy Winn 2013: 6th - Jamoris Slaughter
Of these guys Skrine is the only one to have a lightbulb come on and that took 3 seasons. In fact, he surprised the heck out of me and deserves a most improved player award for 2013.
I'll join the minority on this one; I think Cousins is worth a shot with Kyle Shanahan as our new OC.
If Cousins only cost a 5th or 6th rounder I am on board as well. But he is going to cost more than that. I would say that he would at least cost a third round pick and if that is the price I say no.
Based on what we have seen Cousins is not a starting QB in the league and we already have a player with a very similar skill set in Brian Hoyer (coincidentally Cousins was Hoyer's backup at Michigan State. And to add another weird twist, Cousins only played because Nick Foles transfered to Arizona.)
Also, I would like to see how Kyle Shanahan does without "his guys." His whole career, so far, has been defined by aligning himself he is familiar with. It is time for him to show he can do things on his own.
Quote: Yeah, except that giving up draft picks for a barely adequate QB makes no sense at all.
Every Browns fan remembers what Cousins did to us ....... but he completed only something like 52% of his passes and 6 TD passes and 9 INT against anyone not in a Browns uniform.
He's a guy. If we can get him for a 7th round pick .... then maybe ..... but even then I just really don't see where he would fit Should we give up a pick for a 3rd string QB? I don't think so.
So you know for a fact the guy can't ever be more than a scrub from the very few games he's played? Hell man, he's been in the league two seasons and never been "the man". Your prescience must be extraordinary.
Hard to get too argumentative over this though, the odds of trading for him are slim and none. I just think we should explore every single chance at finding a QB. Trade, draft, bring as many in as it takes.
I could see giving up a third rounder if they think he might be a candidate.
You complain about my thinking that he is a scrub from the limited games he's played (plus seeing him play at Michigan State) yet you believe he is worth a 3rd without seeing him in more than a limited role?
When I saw Cousins play at Michigan State, he was really, really ordinary. He possesses no special skills. He has a weaker arm. (Not "weak", but sub par) He threw a TON of little passes in college that really bumped his completion percentage up significantly. His mechanics and footwork are poor. He cannot lead a WR well, nor is he particularly effective throwing to a spot. He did run a pro style offense in college, and that means that he was already towards the upper limits of his ability. He wasn't a guy who was using his great talent in lieu of his skill. In short, he was "OK", but not special in any way. I should add that I saw him play 2 or 3 times as a senior.
Looking, yes, I saw him play the YSU Penguins, (My local team) Notre Dame, (On NBC every week) and OSU. I didn't have DirecTV then, and was at the mercy of broadcast TV.
Looking at how he played in 2013, he doesn't offer much hope. He averaged a whopping 5.51 yards/pass attempt. This was on 151 pass attempts, so it was a decent number of passes. He was much better as a rookie, but he got to destroy us, so that's to his advantage.
Anyway, I feel that he was a very ordinary college QB with no standout traits, and that kind of QB rarely goes on to success in the NFL. Can you tell me what you have seen that makes you think that he is worth a 3rd round pick? What skills and ability do you see that makes him likely to succeed as a starting QB in the NFL, and to be worth the investment of a 3rd round pick?
Quote: I wouldn't even give up a sixth round pick for Cousins. We already have mediocre QBs with low ceilings. Lets get a real QB and save our 6th round pick for a Pro Bowl caliber long snapper.
Alright, name the can't miss, sure thing,"real" quarterback coming out this year? Because to me, they ALL have question marks next to their names. There is no Andrew Luck coming out this season. Perhaps one or more of them will end up successful. But to my mind, there isn't one that stands out so much we should forgo exploring every opportunity available. By all means take a QB with our first pick. Doesn't mean we can't bring in Cousins as well.... Wouldn't bother me to have 5 or 6 QB's on the roster when camp starts. Identify the 4 best and keep them.
Even Andrew Luck had questions. Is his arm strength good enough? Does he make tough enough throws? Is he the product of NFL talent and Haurbaugh? Will he struggle to deal with the pressure and hype?
Find me a QB prospect that never had questions or flaws. Find me a current NFL QB without questions or flaws.
Quote: Yeah, except that giving up draft picks for a barely adequate QB makes no sense at all.
Every Browns fan remembers what Cousins did to us ....... but he completed only something like 52% of his passes and 6 TD passes and 9 INT against anyone not in a Browns uniform.
He's a guy. If we can get him for a 7th round pick .... then maybe ..... but even then I just really don't see where he would fit Should we give up a pick for a 3rd string QB? I don't think so.
So you know for a fact the guy can't ever be more than a scrub from the very few games he's played? Hell man, he's been in the league two seasons and never been "the man". Your prescience must be extraordinary.
Hard to get too argumentative over this though, the odds of trading for him are slim and none. I just think we should explore every single chance at finding a QB. Trade, draft, bring as many in as it takes.
I could see giving up a third rounder if they think he might be a candidate.
I don't think that's what he's saying. Re read his post. He just doesn't want to give up the farm for the guy.
He did say he'd give a 7th but I'd bet that if the browns thought he was worth while, Ytown would be ok with giving a 5th or 6th rounder if thats what it took.. Especially in a year when we have 10 picks.
Cousins had one good game and that was against us, then lost the next 3 games. He was backup I believe to Hoyer in college and was just an ordinary guy. Hoyer was a starter who spent 3 years backing up tom brady. Hoyer is a much better QB than Cousins ever will be and giving up anything for him would be foolish.
Quote: Cousins had one good game and that was against us, then lost the next 3 games. He was backup I believe to Hoyer in college and was just an ordinary guy. Hoyer was a starter who spent 3 years backing up tom brady. Hoyer is a much better QB than Cousins ever will be and giving up anything for him would be foolish.
Actually, I do not believe that I would want to give up a 5th round pick for Cousins. I just don't see the NFL ability. He's a decent backup, but I think that's where it ends. If we have Hoyer, and draft a 1st round QB, then frankly I see no need for a guy like Cousins. If we want a veteran backup, I'm sure we can find one who will fit the offense and cost us nothing other than cash.
Brett Smith Wyoming (Basically Manziel of the small schools) David Fales San Jose State (Good accuracy, no arm) Aaron Murray Georgia (Bonafide a day one or two pick who tore his ACL) Jeff Matthews Cornell (Project) Keith Price Washington (No arm, but has all the intangibles) Tyler Russel (Another project)
Personally I'd rank Kirk Coursins after Brett Smith, Fales, Murray and maybe after Jeff Matthews.
Quote: Even Andrew Luck had questions. Is his arm strength good enough? Does he make tough enough throws? Is he the product of NFL talent and Haurbaugh? Will he struggle to deal with the pressure and hype?
Find me a QB prospect that never had questions or flaws. Find me a current NFL QB without questions or flaws.
May be you had questions about Luck.......
Not me, I was willing to give up 3 firsts and 2 seconds to move up to 1 to get him...... The only question I had about Andrew Luck was if he was going to get hurt in some freak injury/accident.
And Holmgren offered our whole draft for the guy. I don't really think he had any questions either. IMO Andrew Luck was the only QB with no questions about him. Now, analysts might have came up with "weaknesses" but that's because they're trying to have a conversation. In the eyes of team managers, when the draft came around, and probably before that: I don't think there were any questions about Luck at all.
Quote: Wouldn't bother me to have 5 or 6 QB's on the roster when camp starts.
I don't know if you are serious or not, but there would not be enough reps to go around. At some point you have to watch a player practice with the 1st team if you want to give him a shot.
There is a reason why no one has tried that method before.
how quickly we forget Jon Gruden's last 2 seasons in TB that got him run out of the league.
i'll have some questions about him once reggie wayne comes back next season.
if they go into the playoffs again with Wayne and that other WR that did great, and Luck still throws 2-3 int in the first half...and we gonna continue blaming the talent around him? or is there something that is a problem with him?
i would love it if it was the browns with the kind of problem, but luck isn't perfect.
Quote: Not for nothin, but I don't remember anyone having any questions about Luck. Did I miss something?
As the draft approached there were some who said RGIII might be better... As I recall, the only real "question" about Andrew Luck was that nobody is a 100% sure thing.... there wasn't much specifically to question, only that every pick comes with risk, even if you can't define what that risk is.
Quote: Not for nothin, but I don't remember anyone having any questions about Luck. Did I miss something?
As the draft approached there were some who said RGIII might be better... As I recall, the only real "question" about Andrew Luck was that nobody is a 100% sure thing.... there wasn't much specifically to question, only that every pick comes with risk, even if you can't define what that risk is.
Same debate that went on between Manning and Leaf and between Bledsoe and Mirer if I remember correctly.
I didn't think there was much in the way of knocks on Luck..
J/c but I want no part of cousins he got exposed the more tape teams had of him. I'd rather keep Weeden than get Cousins. And I can't wait to cut Weeden if that clears things up.
would rather take Watkins at 4, Yankey at 26, and Mettenberger in the 2nd
The Cousins' situation is interesting for several reasons:
--Washington obviously saw something in him to take him in the fourth round after using all the picks to get RGIII.
--He has looked polished at times in the NFL.
--His teammates have a lot of confidence in him.
--He is mobile enough and throws well on the run.
--I was thinking that it might be worth it to give up a 2nd round pick for him last year.
--I think Washington was wanting to show-case him at the end of the year and were hoping to get a 1st round pick for him.
--He played decently in his first game but faltered in the last two games. I think this hurt his value.
--I do think Hoyer and Cousins have a very similar skill set.
--I wonder if Shanny will want to bring him in here???? That's a distinct possibility.
--I would not want to give up a 3rd round or higher pick for him at this point. I don't even think I would give up a 4th. A 5th round pick would be a good gamble, but I think Washington will want more for him.
Quote: Same with Manziel...Bridgewater has always been the #1 pick they just want to make news and have people read their by lines n blogs. JMHO
Agreed, while Bridgewater is not the prospect that Andrew Luck was. But I have a hard time thinking any NFL executives are seriously thinking of taking Johnny Football over Bridgewater. That's why I haven't thought much about Teddy.
I spent a lot of time thinking about RG3 (and then after the trade, Tannehill), because I knew we wouldn't get Andrew Luck. I'd just watch his videos when I wanted to feel bad about being a Browns fan, lol
As for Luck's INTs in the playoffs, sure, it's not good. But at the time of the draft, there were no questions about him. May be there's some questions now, but not when he was a draft prospect. No one was saying "Man, looks like he throws interceptions in big games" lol. At least he gets to play in those games....... Our picks sucked. Brandon Weeden and Trent Richardson (and I thought both made sense, shows what i know......) But I'd still trade 3 1's and 2 2's for Andrew Luck.
I know this is what the Redskins have to say (for multiple reasons), but I thought I would post it anyway:
Quote: Speculation about Washington Redskins backup quarterback Kirk Cousins possibly reuniting with new Browns offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan in Cleveland has been swirling for days, but it would be surprising if it actually happened.
Citing unnamed sources, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported Sunday that with the Redskins making it clear Robert Griffin III will be their starting quarterback, Cousins is open to being traded and Cleveland could be a destination for him. The rumblings were predictable because Shanahan spent the past four seasons as the offensive coordinator of the Redskins, including the last two with Cousins, a fourth-round draft pick in 2012.
However, Redskins General Manager Bruce Allen told the Washington Times on Tuesday that Cousins hasn’t requested a trade. And Allen expects Cousins to be back with the Redskins next season, according to the report.
“There’s no change from our perspective on Kirk,” Allen said. “That’s it. We’re comfortable with Kirk.”
Even if the Redskins do change their tune and shop Cousins, the Browns wouldn't become a guaranteed trade partner. After all, they have the fourth overall pick in May’s draft, and it would be surprising if they didn’t target a quarterback early to pair with Brian Hoyer, who led the team to two victories last season before suffering a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee.
Quote: NEW YORK -- Redskins backup quarterback Kirk Cousins is open to being traded and Cleveland could be a possible destination, according to a report.
But a source told cleveland.com Sunday that although the Browns will explore all options at quarterback, it's a remote possibility they'd trade for the third-year pro.
ESPN's Adam Schefter reported Sunday that Cousins, a fourth-round pick in 2012 out of Michigan State, believes he's ready to start and has already talked to the Redskins about possibly dealing him.
Sources also told Schefter that Cleveland is a possible destination because of Browns new coordinator Kyle Shanahan, the former Redskins' playcaller.
Cleveland.com reported Saturday that the Browns offered their coordinator position to Shanahan on Saturday evening and that the deal is expected to be wrapped up as early as Monday.
Shanahan, who was fired by the Redskins after a 3-13 season along with his father Mike, has coached Cousins for two seasons and really likes him, a source told cleveland.com. Question is, why would the Browns think about trading for Cousins when they have fellow Michigan State alum Brian Hoyer gearing up to start for the Browns in 2014?
The truth is, anything can happen with the Browns when it comes to their starting quarterback for 2014. If they draft a quarterback at No. 4 such as Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles or Teddy Bridgewater, he'll most likely start the season.
Where would that leave Hoyer, who established himself as a bona fide starter last season? His old New England offensive coordinator Bill O'Brien, now the Texans head coach, really likes him. What if O'Brien, who's taking over a 2-14 team, makes the Browns an offer they can't refuse? The Texans, who's starter Matt Schaub had the worst season of his 10-year career, have the No. 1 overall pick and are poised to draft a quarterback. But what if O'Brien makes a pitch for Tom Brady's understudy?
If the Browns decide to part with Hoyer, perhaps they'd want to acquire a quarterback such as Cousins who's familiar with Shanahan's system. Trades can't be executed until March 11, but Browns CEO Joe Banner has already established himself as an aggressive dealmaker.
Cousins is 1-3 in his two-year career, with his only victory coming against the Browns in 2012. With Robert Griffin III injured, Cousins started his first career game against the Browns in Cleveland in December, foiling the Browns with play-action passing to put on an aerial display. He completed 26 of 37 attempts for 329 yards and two touchdowns, with one interceptions. He earned a superb 104.4 rating.
Late last season, Redskins coach Mike Shanahan predicted the club might fetch a first-round pick for the former fourth-rounder, but that was before Cousins started the final three games of last season and went 0-3.
Cousins lost his first two games against Atlanta and Dallas by a point, but struggled in the season finale against the New York Giants. In a 20-6 loss, he completed 19 of 49 attempts for 169 yards, with no TDs and two interceptions. He earned a 31.8 rating. Overall, Cousins has appeared in eight games, throwing eight TDs and 10 interceptions for a 68.7 rating.
Again, it's still early and Shanahan hasn't even signed his contract yet. But anything's possible for the Browns at quarterback, and the next three months promise to be a wild ride.
But what if O'Brien makes a pitch for Tom Brady's understudy?
I thought this was sort of funny... hmmm Teddy B or Hoyer what oh what are the Texans going to do...lol
Vers... yes last year was a different story cause we had no clue about Hoyer and what we did know was we had Weeden and Campbell.
But now with the Hoyer factor it doesn't make sense unless its just a late round pick. But it takes two to tango and they probably wouldn't think about it unless we are talking 2nd round pick. Backups Whitehurst and Schaub went for multiple picks including a #2. back up man my memory for names suck, Packer backup who signed for a Kings Ransom in FA.
Why I think we draft #4 (hopefully Manziel will be there) and start Hoyer with good success when its ready to start Manziel we can keep Hoyer for back up as in just in case - or auction him off for a pretty penny.
My Point is Flynn what One Start. Shaub 5 starts with Atlanta? Whitehurst -0 - starts with Chargers.
Well if Hoyer plays an entire season while the rookie learns...and has a winning season (a rarity with us) 2015 we are ready to start the new era with the stud QB drafted...Hoyer would become our back up...but he also could command a Kings Ransom when you see what teams thought the above were worth with very limited success.
So starting him in 2014 I think not only gives us the best chance to win but would be a Bonus Baby for us when we know the young drafted QB becomes better than the teacher.
My Point is Flynn what One Start. Shaub 5 starts with Atlanta? Whitehurst -0 - starts with Chargers.
Well if Hoyer plays an entire season while the rookie learns...and has a winning season (a rarity with us) 2015 we are ready to start the new era with the stud QB drafted...Hoyer would become our back up...but he also could command a Kings Ransom when you see what teams thought the above were worth with very limited success.
So starting him in 2014 I think not only gives us the best chance to win but would be a Bonus Baby for us when we know the young drafted QB becomes better than the teacher.
Well that's my plan
So we get this stud QB this year, he sits behind Hoyer. Hoyer than has a great year, why would you rush another QB in? I mean, if Hoyer was good and you think the Stud will be better, yeah, sure. No question about it., But you don't let Hoyer get away in case the stud is a dud LOL Right?
1. I'm really being cautious about Hoyer. The guy played 2 games last year. He threw a couple picks vs the Vikings. I think he should be named the starter regardless of our draft going into TC, but cautiously optimistic doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about him. I don't expect him to be a runaway success this year, sorry if I'm raining on anyone's parade.
2. If Hoyer does show some good stuff, and show that he can lead us to wins, there is no way, on this planet or any other, that he's getting traded. I swear, someone will set fire to Browns stadium if, after finally finding a serviceable quarterback, we go and trade him away. There's a good chance that person would be me.
If Hoyer goes off, the person that will be traded (if it comes to that) will be our shiny draft pick.
3. The reason Hoyer won't be the next Flynn is because there is no current fQB here in Cleveland. You need to have an entrenched starter in order to dangle a mystery QB as trade bait. I think Hoyer will be better than Flynn (which isn't saying much), but Hoyer won't be a mystery at the end of this next season (vs a guy like Flynn that did nothing except for beat up on a terrible Detroit secondary).
Do what the Seahawks did with Wilson and Flynn. Let them compete in camp. If is completely obvious one guy is superior than the other then start that guy. If it is not obvious start the veteran. If they both suck flip a coin.
Quote: So we get this stud QB this year, he sits behind Hoyer. Hoyer than has a great year, why would you rush another QB in? I mean, if Hoyer was good and you think the Stud will be better, yeah, sure. No question about it., But you don't let Hoyer get away in case the stud is a dud LOL Right?
You just have to have the onions to pull the trigger and put the rookie in if it is the right thing to do.
An example of this would be the 2003 and 2004 Bengals. Kitna was pretty good for the Bengals in 2003. He started all 16 games, threw for 3,600 yards, 26 TDs, 15 INTs, and the team went 8-8. Carson Palmer was his backup.
The next year they followed their plan and inserted Carson Palmer as the starter and he wasn't as good as Kitna, but they knew that Palmer was the future of the team.
Like I said, it takes onions to bench a guy who has done well. If Hoyer stinks then it is a different story entirely.
Quote: So we get this stud QB this year, he sits behind Hoyer. Hoyer than has a great year, why would you rush another QB in? I mean, if Hoyer was good and you think the Stud will be better, yeah, sure. No question about it., But you don't let Hoyer get away in case the stud is a dud LOL Right?
You just have to have the onions to pull the trigger and put the rookie in if it is the right thing to do.
An example of this would be the 2003 and 2004 Bengals. Kitna was pretty good for the Bengals in 2003. He started all 16 games, threw for 3,600 yards, 26 TDs, 15 INTs, and the team went 8-8. Carson Palmer was his backup.
The next year they followed their plan and inserted Carson Palmer as the starter and he wasn't as good as Kitna, but they knew that Palmer was the future of the team.
Like I said, it takes onions to bench a guy who has done well. If Hoyer stinks then it is a different story entirely.
Quote: I'm really being cautious about Hoyer. The guy played 2 games last year.
All I know is the guy reminded me of Brian Sipe and made the games fun to watch again. My heart sunk like a rock when he went down. Campbell played well a couple of games too, but he always felt like a game manager to me, Hoyer felt like a legit threat. JMHO based on nothing but my gut.
So, this was just mentioned on ESPN, but what about bringing in Matt Schaub? Shanny worked with him in Houston with great results. Was this last year an aberration on an otherwise pretty good career? Does he have any gas left in the tank?
I think he might be a good guy to bring in to start if we get a rookie who needs to sit and learn for a bit. Hoyer is still an option, but his sample size is too small for me to feel comfortable with him as the starter heading into the season.
when local establishments are going to the length of creating joke sandwhiches at his expense, then it's probably not a good idea for another team to rely on him for anything
Quote: So, this was just mentioned on ESPN, but what about bringing in Matt Schaub? Shanny worked with him in Houston with great results. Was this last year an aberration on an otherwise pretty good career? Does he have any gas left in the tank?
I think he might be a good guy to bring in to start if we get a rookie who needs to sit and learn for a bit. Hoyer is still an option, but his sample size is too small for me to feel comfortable with him as the starter heading into the season.
I think it's relatively likely he will be our new Campbell. Almost every new coach brings in an experienced QB in their system. Especially if we brought in Teddy or Bortles.
Quote: I think it's relatively likely [Schaub] will be our new Campbell. Almost every new coach brings in an experienced QB in their system.
If we sign Schaub he is going to want to compete for the starting job and at least be the #2 QB. He is guaranteed neither of those things if signs with us.
Rex Grossman is the QB that is most likely to be brought in because of his ties with Shanahan. He was with him in both Houston and Washington, would likely be willing to take a role as a third string QB, and will not command a large salary.
Quote: I think it's relatively likely he will be our new Campbell. Almost every new coach brings in an experienced QB in their system. Especially if we brought in Teddy or Bortles.
is Kyle going to run the system he ran in Houston? or the one he ran in DC w/ RGIII? they were vastly different afterall.
Quote: I think it's relatively likely [Schaub] will be our new Campbell. Almost every new coach brings in an experienced QB in their system.
If we sign Schaub he is going to want to compete for the starting job and at least be the #2 QB. He is guaranteed neither of those things if signs with us.
Rex Grossman is the QB that is most likely to be brought in because of his ties with Shanahan. He was with him in both Houston and Washington, would likely be willing to take a role as a third string QB, and will not command a large salary.
I didn't realize Grossman was with him in Houston. Good info
Quote: I think it's relatively likely he will be our new Campbell. Almost every new coach brings in an experienced QB in their system. Especially if we brought in Teddy or Bortles.
is Kyle going to run the system he ran in Houston? or the one he ran in DC w/ RGIII? they were vastly different afterall.
While he preaches a zone run scheme he tailors his passing game to his QB. Depends on who we draft.
Quote: I think it's relatively likely he will be our new Campbell. Almost every new coach brings in an experienced QB in their system. Especially if we brought in Teddy or Bortles.
is Kyle going to run the system he ran in Houston? or the one he ran in DC w/ RGIII? they were vastly different afterall.
While he preaches a zone run scheme he tailors his passing game to his QB. Depends on who we draft.
Quote: So, this was just mentioned on ESPN, but what about bringing in Matt Schaub? Shanny worked with him in Houston with great results. Was this last year an aberration on an otherwise pretty good career? Does he have any gas left in the tank?
I think he might be a good guy to bring in to start if we get a rookie who needs to sit and learn for a bit. Hoyer is still an option, but his sample size is too small for me to feel comfortable with him as the starter heading into the season.
Bringing in Schaub at this point seems a lot like bringing in Jake Delhomme a few years ago.
Scary.
It makes some degree of sense ...... but then again, if he's done, he's done.
I think that I'd rather fly with Hoyer and a high draft pick.
I would expect that several things will happen this year leading to the draft. (or shortly thereafter)
Weeden will be released. (Kind f self explanatory)
Campbell will be released.(when a QB flat out says that he lost his confidence, multiple times, he makes it hard for the team to bring him back)
We access how Hoyer is healthwise, and probably look for a new veteran backup.
So we'll probably, IMHO, go to the draft with Hoyer, a similar veteran QB who Lombardi has had an eye on, and Tanney.
I fond it inconceivable that we would pass on a QB at 4, if one of the top 3 are available. This team goes as far as the QB takes them, and right now we have a question mark in Hoyer, a trick shot specialist at backup, and 2 guys likely to be gone before camp. No way that stays the status quo. I would almost put money on us taking a QB at 4, unless the top 3 go 1-2-3. I fully expect one of those top 3 to be a Cleveland Brown following the 1st round of the draft.
This team simply cannot afford to go through another year without a QB. Is it a risk taking a guy that high? Yep. However, it is a necessity created by the fact that this team has no answer at QB right now. None. We have a maybe in Hoyer, and that is it. Without a QB, this team remains a 4-5 win team. If that happens, and we don't have a young QB developing, then this blows up again. No way does Banner take that road.
Why do we want another career backup QB? We already have 3 on the team. Draft Clowney, if he's available, and draft a QB with the 2nd first round pick. Have that new QB sit behind Hoyer for a year or so, until the game has slowed down for him. The NFL rushes too many rookie QBs into the starting role, and far too many of them are not ready. We have a huge list of them that's been destroyed in Cleveland. It's rare to get a kid right out of college that's ready for the NFL QB position.
Quote: I would expect that several things will happen this year leading to the draft. (or shortly thereafter)
Weeden will be released. (Kind f self explanatory)
As crazy as it may sound, I think that Weeden might actually have some trade value to some team. Not a lot of value, 6th or 7th rounder, maybe a 5th at best to a team towards the back end of the round. If he can't be traded, I think he will be released.
Quote: Campbell will be released.(when a QB flat out says that he lost his confidence, multiple times, he makes it hard for the team to bring him back)
I'm sure that Campbell is gone by being cut. I don't think that he has any trade value. A team could simply sign Schaub if they needed a transition QB.
Quote: We assess how Hoyer is healthwise, and probably look for a new veteran backup.
I don't think we'll go with another veteran. We've gone that route a number of times since the return and it has never gone well.
Quote: So we'll probably, IMHO, go to the draft with Hoyer, a similar veteran QB who Lombardi has had an eye on, and Tanney.
Who do you think is available that the Browns won't have to trade for and which Mike Lombardi has had an eye on? I don't think there is one.
I think we go into the season with Hoyer, a drafted QB and Tanney plus a practice squad player that we pick off the UDFA pile.
Quote: I find it inconceivable that we would pass on a QB at 4, if one of the top 3 are available. This team goes as far as the QB takes them, and right now we have a question mark in Hoyer, a trick shot specialist at backup, and 2 guys likely to be gone before camp.
I don't think that it's inconceivable at all. I'm not sure that any of the 'top 3' QBs are the top 3 QBs as ranked by this front office. For that matter, I'm not sure there are 3 QBs that they consider in the draft, much less in the first round.
I also don't know that Hoyer is a question mark at all. He'll be ready for camp and should be considered the favorite to land the starting job going into the preseason.
I'm not sure that Tanney is a 'trick shot specialist' at all. There certainly should be questions about his ability to read defenses and such, but he can certainly place the ball where it needs to be put.
There is a reason why the Cowboys kept paying him. I think that the Cowboys just wanted to make sure that they had QBs with NFL experience on their game day roster.
Quote: No way that stays the status quo. I would almost put money on us taking a QB at 4, unless the top 3 go 1-2-3. I fully expect one of those top 3 to be a Cleveland Brown following the 1st round of the draft.
If you feel so strongly, then put the money down. It should be an easy bet to make. I'm not sure what they'll do. I actually expect that they'll seek a trade out of the #4 spot - for a few reasons.
1. I don't think they like the QBs being touted. Of course, many things can change between now and the draft in May.
2. If they select someone, it will a defensive player that they like who falls to them. I really don't think that they'll take a QB that high.
3. I think they want even more selections than they have now and are looking to acquire them. A trade back from #4 can add multiple selections in this draft or maybe even an additional one in a future draft besides.
4. My guess is that they're trying to change the culture in Cleveland. The most notable piece of the culture will be to get Browns fans out of the view that they'll be drafting in the Top 5 every year... or even the Top 10. My guess is that they'll be trading back (maybe multiple times) with the intention of never drafting in the Top 10 again.
It would not surprise me to find them falling to the middle of the pack, maybe trading back to Tennessee at #11 and picking up a 2nd rounder this year and 3rd next year.
Quote: This team simply cannot afford to go through another year without a QB. Is it a risk taking a guy that high? Yep. However, it is a necessity created by the fact that this team has no answer at QB right now. None.
The team won't go through the season without a QB. I don't see them drafting a QB just to draft a QB because the pundits and fans are clamoring for them to do it.
Quote: We have a maybe in Hoyer, and that is it. Without a QB, this team remains a 4-5 win team. If that happens, and we don't have a young QB developing, then this blows up again. No way does Banner take that road.
What happens if he drafts a QB high and it blows up? Or if Haslam overrules him and drafts one high and it blows up?
This is the first season that they have their own scouts doing the evaluations and aren't using the ones from the previous ownership regime. I would have said 'ownership' but it was clear that Randy Lerner had no interests at all in the Browns except how quickly could he sell the team when he was legally able to do so. The legal stipulations were spelled out in his father's last will and testament.
if Hoyer was good and you think the Stud will be better, yeah, sure.
Well yeah sure...I mean what did you think I meant when I said the student becomes better than the teacher. Then Hoyer becomes our #2.
And Obbernoober maybe he's our #2 for a season before we sell him off.
And its just a theory. One I think is a darn good one cause I saw the PATS sell off Bledsoe after Brady played his first season and they did so many things with those two Numbers ones which aided greatly in their next two SB and made them from a good team to dynasty.
I saw the Chargers sort of missed out on the opportunity cause they waited too long and Brees was being questioned if his career was over due to the shoulder surgery...Maybe why the Chargers went from a good team to...just that and nothing more.
I think said rookie would be a better QB sitting a season - if Hoyer struggles and said rookie is learning fast sure he comes in. But I still think that rookie would be a Better QB sitting even 5-7 games then starting right a way.
I think Hoyer can be a good QB but Ron Wolf said a good QB will get you to the playoffs but a Great QB can make you into a dynasty. So I'm thinking we got good and we are going to start the GREAT QB...now he's a hot hot commodity the Good QB I wish to be the PATs and get something in return for the guy who will sit and look at pictures from above with the young Great QB while the D is out there. Man you all just have been too miserable as Browns fans...right away anything bad that could happen will happen lol - Hey you know what...we are Waaaayyyy over do for good things to happen for/to us!
A question I often have is: Why is the young backup QB not get time at the end of the season? This past season Tanney, the year before, Thad Lewis. Young guys with potential but relatively unknown actuality. The season is essentially over, we have zero chance of making the playoffs, so why not play them? Maybe Lewis shows enough to get a real shot in training camp. What do we have in Tanney? I know what Campbell can (cannot) do. I wish I knew more about Tanney. What benefit did we get from tracking Campbell out there week to week?
Quote: I fond it inconceivable that we would pass on a QB at 4, if one of the top 3 are available.
OH NO here we go again
Honestly, I agree with all you said about Weeden, Campbell and Hoyer and picking up a vet that is in a similar mold to Hoyer. that all makes sense.
As for going after a QB at 4 if one of the top three is there, this is again, where you and I differ.
If they pick one, I hope it's because they feel he's the right guy, not just A GUY who fills a need.
That's where teams get into trouble. That's where the Browns got in trouble with Quinn and Weeden. I just don't want to see a repeat of those mistakes.
And yeah I know that a team can look at a guy and decide he's got "IT" and go hard for him and he could fail. That happens. It's reaching to fill a need that scares the hell out of me.
Quote: I fond it inconceivable that we would pass on a QB at 4, if one of the top 3 are available.
OH NO here we go again
You really should not be laughing hysterically at him.
Your logic is based on us reaching for Quinn and Weeden. What does that have to do w/the three QBs of this year?
I think that all three QBs are worthy of being picked that high. None of them would be a reach at that point in the draft.
You may not think they are, but what are you basing your opinion off of? You admitted to not watching them during the season. You have said you are not a great evaluator of talent. So again, how in the heck can you say we would be reaching if we drafted a Bridgewater and how in the hell would it cause you to laugh uncontrollably at YTown?
Quote: A question I often have is: Why is the young backup QB not get time at the end of the season? This past season Tanney, the year before, Thad Lewis. Young guys with potential but relatively unknown actuality. The season is essentially over, we have zero chance of making the playoffs, so why not play them? Maybe Lewis shows enough to get a real shot in training camp. What do we have in Tanney? I know what Campbell can (cannot) do. I wish I knew more about Tanney. What benefit did we get from tracking Campbell out there week to week?
JMO
That is a fair question. When the season is essentially lost, why not put the backups in to see what kind of value you can get for them. You might actually be able to trade them and get something in return or you'll know what you have in them in a game-time situation.
Week after week, Campbell was trotted out there. Week after week, the Browns chalked up another loss. Weeden was yanked after two weeks in favor of Hoyer. Then he was yanked again after back-to-back losses in the games after Hoyer went down. But, why then was Campbell allowed to rack up loss after loss?
What we do know is that Hoyer led the team. We also know that Weeden and Campbell can't.
When they brought in Tanney, he should have been moved into the back-up role or even the starter after it was clear that Weeden & Campbell wouldn't get the job done. We signed him with 5 games to go. When the fork was secured in the Browns after game handed to the Patriots by the refs, why not start Tanney for the final three games? What could you lose at that point?
Quote: Your logic is based on us reaching for Quinn and Weeden. What does that have to do w/the three QBs of this year?
Nothing really. It just sticks in his craw as being historically accurate from the Browns past (recent enough too).
Quote: I think that all three QBs are worthy of being picked that high. None of them would be a reach at that point in the draft.
We'll have to differ here. I don't think that any of them are worth it. Not a single one.
If the team decides that one of them is the person that they want and he is there, then take him. I may not agree, but I'll be okay with it. It's the taking the man just because you'll take criticism from the fans and media if you don't choices that I can't stand.
I don't see Banner doing it. He traded away two picks in last year's draft (one to Indy and one to Putzburgh) because they didn't see the value in the players available. I don't see him suddenly changing his philosophy this year.
I simply don't see it happening. I more apt to think that they'll wait until later in the first round or later into the draft to draft a QB. Just my guess. We can't really ask Michael Lombardi and expect to get a legitimate response on his QB evaluations.
Not specifically regarding the QBs, but here is what my observations about the structure of the draft decisions are with the Browns and the input they each gets.
Haslam: Final decisions if he wants to exercise them. Banner: De facto decision maker if Haslam doesn't trump him. Lombardi: Top talent evaluator. He'll provide Banner and Haslam his evaluations for each player scouted and maybe even include input from the coaches. Pettine: He'll tell Lombardi about his evaluations of the current players on the team and where he believes the team needs upgrades and how urgently he feels the upgrades are needed.
That's essentially how I see it. The same will apply similarly to the free agent pool of players prior to the draft. Furthermore, much of this work has already been done. There are only the combines left to go to tweak the evaluations.
because somebody would've already been throwing around their qualifications on this board if that was the case. like some already do now.
hardly hogwash. don't get upset if i somehow struck a nerve with that comment. it's true and i stand by it. you, me, others, are FANS, nothing more, nothing less.
you THINK some people are better at talent evaluation than others. hell, i can pick some random third rounder from another team, be like, yea that guy is going to be good. if it happens? did i do a great job at evaluating? or did i just get lucky cause i saw him play in college?
the draft is a crap shoot.
back on topic. Kirk Cousins. 4th round pick. there's a reason NOBODY picked him up until the 4th round.
could he end up being a starter, a franchise QB? sure, anything is possible. but nobody goes into a minicamp or the preseason thinking that the 3rd or 4th round qB is going to beat the guy that paid millions or traded to get. it just HAPPENS that way because they ended up playing better than the percieve starter, ala Russell Wilson.
you keep saying none of those guys at the top are worth it, then why would you draft a QB period? you make no sense to me sometimes. our #1 need on this team is a QB. it has ALWAYS been our #1 need. sorry if i don't get why you wanna get low round talent when high round talent is available to us for the picking.
Quote: nobody on this board is a great evaluator of talent.
if that was the case, we wouldn't be posting on boards. we be either writing for ESPN or working for the Browns or other teams.
That's hogwash. Some are just better at it than others. Also, how do you know that some posters here don't have professional careers in those ranks?
Not to mention some of us may have changed careers because football is just a game and they wanted to do some real good in the world. Not everyone who knows how to evaluate talent sells their life to do so. In fact I guarantee some of the best have a higher conscious and choose to commit their life elsewhere for the greater good.
Quote: The team won't go through the season without a QB. I don't see them drafting a QB just to draft a QB because the pundits and fans are clamoring for them to do it.
I agree with this.
I disagree with those who seem to think that "all three QB's are worthy of the #4 pick".
I believe all of the QB's in this draft class will be evaluated and we will have a target. I don't buy into the notion that it's an "insert name here" type of thing. Not with such a high and valuable pick.
I believe if someone worthy in their estimation is there at #4, they will use it however. I believe the only way they can convince the fans "we won't be drafting in the top 10 every year" is to win enough games to not be drafting there, not by trading out of it.
But I'm not excluding that they may trade down out of #4 if they don't feel a player worthy of the selection is there.
Quote: I fond it inconceivable that we would pass on a QB at 4, if one of the top 3 are available.
OH NO here we go again
You really should not be laughing hysterically at him.
Your logic is based on us reaching for Quinn and Weeden. What does that have to do w/the three QBs of this year?
I think that all three QBs are worthy of being picked that high. None of them would be a reach at that point in the draft.
You may not think they are, but what are you basing your opinion off of? You admitted to not watching them during the season. You have said you are not a great evaluator of talent. So again, how in the heck can you say we would be reaching if we drafted a Bridgewater and how in the hell would it cause you to laugh uncontrollably at YTown?
I think that Ytown knows what I'm saying..
Let me ask you Oh Wise and All Knowing one. Who of the Top three QB's in this draft would you say is absolutely on par coming out of college with Payton Manning or Andrew Luck?
I am of the opinion that this front office is really heavily researching this draft as hard as they can, and that they will have a heavy preference at QB going into the draft. I do believe that we will take a QB with our 1st pick, be it our pick, o a trade up. This team needs a QB. If they pass on a QB, after specifically trading Trent for a pick with which to move up if necessary to get a QB, then I believe that it will be a disaster. They evidently saw enough from top QBs in this draft when they made the trade, and I don't think that (especially) Bridgewater and Manziel have fallen. Some believe that Bortles could be the top player taken. People will freak out over all kinds of reports from the combine and other sources, but I remember a young CB running poorly at the combine several years ago, and the whole world freaking out because that meant that he was slow, and would drop like a rock. That CB was Joe Haden. We drafted him anyway, basing our decision more on his career on the field than on one run at the combine.
We'll see what happens ...... but I bet that at least 2 of the QBs in this draft that are sitting solidly at the top of our draft chart. While they might not be the best players in the draft, they are the best at a position of absolute desperation for this team. We could take Clowney, but he has major red flags as far as maturity and attitude. I can't see us going OT at #1 with Joe Thomas on the team, unless we are going to trade Thomas for a 1st rounder this year. WR? Maybe ...... but this seems to be a fairly deep draft for WR, and I believe that we can draft a very good receiver with our 2nd or 3rd picks.
I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on this draft, but looking at the CBS Draft Rankings .... which, granted, are just one set of rankings ....... but, they have 3 QB, 2 OT, a WR, and a DE in the top 7 players in this draft. No need for OT ..... don't like a WR at 4 ....... hate the idea of picking Clowney, because I thin he's an unmotivated prima donna....... that leaves 3 QB. I don't think that it's such a huge leap to think that we might try for our preferred guy, but take the best remaining if our #1 guy is gone when we draft.
Quote: Let me ask you Oh Wise and All Knowing one. Who of the Top three QB's in this draft would you say is absolutely on par coming out of college with Payton Manning or Andrew Luck?
Quote: I don't see Banner doing it. He traded away two picks in last year's draft (one to Indy and one to Putzburgh) because they didn't see the value in the players available. I don't see him suddenly changing his philosophy this year.
I simply don't see it happening. I more apt to think that they'll wait until later in the first round or later into the draft to draft a QB. Just my guess.
I disagree. I think he made moves in last year's draft and traded TRich to better position himself to take a QB high in this draft.
Quote: I don't see Banner doing it. He traded away two picks in last year's draft (one to Indy and one to Putzburgh) because they didn't see the value in the players available. I don't see him suddenly changing his philosophy this year.
I simply don't see it happening. I more apt to think that they'll wait until later in the first round or later into the draft to draft a QB. Just my guess.
I disagree. I think he made moves in last year's draft and traded TRich to better position himself to take a QB high in this draft.
I'd bet on this. I would not be one bit upset if they did come out and disclose that after all was said and done they didn't see one being of value at 4...But I don't think that's gonna happen.
I really hate the idea of having to trade that colts pick to move up..... If we do trade, I would rather it be when we are on the clock and not some sort of thing where the rams had an auction for RGIII.
I think the Vikings could make a move to come up for a QB. They are kind of in no mans land with the top three probably gone, and having to decide if Carr is worth it...
I still think the rams should be looking at WR or offensive line with their pick. For as well as they did with the future picks in the RGIII thing, I think they missed out on their guy. I think that will give them some pause about trading out of the guaranteed impact player. OR at least keeps the browns in play for trading/trumping whatever the vikes could be offering to move up.
If Teddy lands at #4- I'd have to think that is best case scenario. People talk about Teddy being small, but compare him to Manziel and what is the difference in stature??
Quote: I think he made moves in last year's draft and traded TRich to better position himself to take a QB high in this draft.
I know other posters feel the same way, Vers, but I don't believe that to be the case. I'm of the opinion ( ) that the deal was done because Banner saw tremendous value in doing so. Of course it gives him more ammo to trade up for a QB, but I believe this was a fallout from the trade, not a motivator for it...
Quote: Let me ask you Oh Wise and All Knowing one. Who of the Top three QB's in this draft would you say is absolutely on par coming out of college with Payton Manning or Andrew Luck?
So irrelevant.
If you based every years draft prospects on when people better than them were picked in previous years you'd never be able to pick someone.
Quote: I think he made moves in last year's draft and traded TRich to better position himself to take a QB high in this draft.
I know other posters feel the same way, Vers, but I don't believe that to be the case. I'm of the opinion ( ) that the deal was done because Banner saw tremendous value in doing so. Of course it gives him more ammo to trade up for a QB, but I believe this was a fallout from the trade, not a motivator for it...
Is it a factor that we sought out the trade? We called Indy. No one had any offers on the table. Who knows what value TRich offered until we received it. To me that says our FO was seeking to stockpile picks.
From what I've seen on the Indy boards they go both ways too...
Reports that other GMs were upset because they would of given up "more than a 1st" are out there too..
I think the FO found a deal, and did it, shopping Richardson would of been a PR nightmare... Look what happened with just rumors of them shopping Gordon...
We got a 1st for a guy who barely contributes, I'm not ganna fret over what we "could have" gotten..
Quote: Tell you one thing, in retrospect, I would rather have had some of the guys here doing the drafting instead of the guys who did.
Great. I don't mind what they did at all. I wish they would have gotten more for it. However, in retrospect, I'm perfectly fine with what the front office did in trading with Indy & Putzburgh.
Quote: nobody on this board is a great evaluator of talent.
if that was the case, we wouldn't be posting on boards. we be either writing for ESPN or working for the Browns or other teams.
That's hogwash. Some are just better at it than others. Also, how do you know that some posters here don't have professional careers in those ranks?
Not to mention some of us may have changed careers because football is just a game and they wanted to do some real good in the world. Not everyone who knows how to evaluate talent sells their life to do so. In fact I guarantee some of the best have a higher conscious and choose to commit their life elsewhere for the greater good.
Very true. There are many people that are good judges of talent, whether it's evaluating football or who the best short order cook for a diner would be.
A high school football coach in rural Kentucky may wish to remain at that job instead of being a talent evaluator for an NFL team or as a talking head on the radio or TV.
A trader on Wall Street may like the quick action and the movement of money more than becoming an NFL scout.
A doctor or nurse in a hospital may love their jobs more than being an NFL scout and choose that profession.
That someone finds that difficult to understand is actually deflating. Was it Swish that stated that originally? My God, how shallow his thought processes must be? Incredible.
Quote: nobody on this board is a great evaluator of talent.
if that was the case, we wouldn't be posting on boards. we be either writing for ESPN or working for the Browns or other teams.
Ok I will fess up, I am Mike Lombardi. the reasons i am never at press conferences is becauser im busy posting here on dawgtalkers.net. there the cat is out of the bag now. seriously just because someone doesnt have a job in the NFL, or ESPN doesnt mean they dont know talent when they see it. I myself have been right about alot of players, and been wrong about alot of players. By your comment everything Mel Kiper says should be 100% accurate, and how many times has he been waaaay off or wrong about players.
we post our mock drafts, talk up certain players, discuss possible trades because we are fans, we enjoy discussing every aspect of the Browns. Thus the reason this board has been around for so long. If you dont like the opinions of us fellow dawgtalkers then perhaps you should just stick to ESPN.com for all your football needs.
sorry, but i've paid attention to everybody's mock drafts and such, whether its this board or the other one.
we are fans, and all of y'all, definitely including me, has either been 50/50 or worse when it comes to talent, ESPECIALLY on our team.
so if i struck a nerve by not encouraging your ego's, then all well. but thats my opinion, and unless you have proof to debunk my opinion, IE, your own person draft that has been more successful on our team, then you have no ground to stand on.
because you got people on this board acting like they are better than other posters because they THINK they know how to evaluate talent. THATS what i have a problem with.
sorry, thats how it see it. its all fun to speculate, and we are fans. i dunno why you say i need to go to espn.com when i said exactly what you just said, we do this for fun.
but you have posters acting like they no better about players than other posters and are berating them for it. THATS the issue.
and please, hows your talent evaluation for our players since 99 gone? yea...about as good as everybody elses, including mind, which means, not too good.
Quote: The team won't go through the season without a QB. I don't see them drafting a QB just to draft a QB because the pundits and fans are clamoring for them to do it.
I agree with this.
I disagree with those who seem to think that "all three QB's are worthy of the #4 pick".
I believe all of the QB's in this draft class will be evaluated and we will have a target. I don't buy into the notion that it's an "insert name here" type of thing. Not with such a high and valuable pick.
I believe if someone worthy in their estimation is there at #4, they will use it however. I believe the only way they can convince the fans "we won't be drafting in the top 10 every year" is to win enough games to not be drafting there, not by trading out of it.
But I'm not excluding that they may trade down out of #4 if they don't feel a player worthy of the selection is there.
There may even be a candidate that they would feel is worthy of drafting at #4 but which doesn't fit the system or scheme that they're trying to implement. In such a situation, I don't think you draft a square peg to fit in a round hole just because the talent level is believed to be there.
Could you draft them and try to get them to adjust to the system or scheme you're going to implement? Sure. Or you could try to find a trade partner, acquire more selections in the deal and move on from there.
I get the part of your statement that only winning can solve the problem of not drafting in the Top 10 every year. It's true, but even so, they may start the example after a losing season where the team is drafting in the Top 5 yet again.
You would think, as many times as the Browns have drafted in the Top 5 and Top 10, they'd have top flight players at nearly every position.
As ironic as it may sound, the Browns have actually had more success (yeah, I know, different regimes and what-not) by trading back. We got Mack in 2009 and Phil Taylor in 2011 when our first draft pick was out of the Top 10. In both cases, it was out of the Top 20. They are both really good players.
ive known several players and or wives that where members of this board, what makes us think there isnt people in the FO here? Im sure Grossi, and MKC could also have accounts here. Its not like we are in some top secret website that is only accesable to fans only.
Bring on FA and the draft because this name calling and pissing contest are getting old.
like I've said bud ive been right I've been wrong....I'm just sick of all the pissing contest going on. I dont why we all can't come here discuss out Browns without trying to prove how awesome we are. So in a way I agree with what you are saying, I guess I'm just sick of all the fighting that happens here if you don't follow the mob. I stopped posting for the longest time due to always getting jumped if I went against the grain. Seems like its still going on...at the end of the day we are all Browns fans and should respect one another like the big family we are.
and we're in agreement bro. but look what happened, i posted a opinion, and people damn near had a stroke.
or you got the other guy telling him to go root for the chargers cause the poster had an opinion that he didn't agree with.
i'm good with debating opinions, but this bigger stick competition really gets on my nerves. and my personality is i have to fight that crap, so while i understand that i could be part of the problem by feeding them, i can't help it.
but it'll stop when people stop measuring *** all the time.
Quote: I don't see Banner doing it. He traded away two picks in last year's draft (one to Indy and one to Putzburgh) because they didn't see the value in the players available. I don't see him suddenly changing his philosophy this year.
I simply don't see it happening. I more apt to think that they'll wait until later in the first round or later into the draft to draft a QB. Just my guess.
I disagree. I think he made moves in last year's draft and traded TRich to better position himself to take a QB high in this draft.
Fine. I'll take him at his word. Last year, they didn't like the players available at the selections and traded them away for future picks.
How could they figure on trading Richardson? I don't believe that at all. I think their evaluation of Richardson was such that he was expendable at the price offered to them by Indy. When the opportunity presented itself, they jumped at the chance. I'm glad they did. I want someone like that, an opportunist, running the show in Cleveland.
Also, how can you say that they made the moves with the intention to move up to get a QB? With the way things have come to pass, it's very likely that they can get the QB that they want at #4.
They couldn't know how the players would be rated. They couldn't know if there would be a single QB rated highly or a half dozen. It may be the conventional view of pundits and fans, but I don't think it's the view of NFL front office decision-makers.
i think my first reply was directed more towards everyone more than it was exclusive to just you, so for that I apologize. but stirring this thread back on course there is no way I would offer Washington anything other than a 4th rounder because I dont think he has done anything to improve his value. 1-2 as a starter isnt a ringing endorsment to up his worth imo.
I dont see him as an upgrade over Hoyer, so I see no reason to bring him in. I'd go Bridgewater at 4 if he is there, and still draft Murray in the 4th or 5th round as a developmental player. We dont need a veteran QB, because we have one already in Hoyer. Besides the veteran mentor is/has been overrated. How many of our Mentors have made a difference? I'd take young hungry talent over an aged player looking for a paycheck anyday of the week.
And I think the whole getting another 1st to move up for a QB was an instant reaction, but isn't necessarily what the entire thought process was.
But it's not nothing, you get the extra first because you MIGHT be able to use it to move up if needed, but if not, then you have another first to build with..
You just need to understand that being a scout for the Browns isn't the life goal for all as it is for you. Even if it was when they were a child it's not hard to turn your back on it. I'm not about to write you a book for my life story but have a little decency.
Opinions are fine. It's a board. But when someone categorizes a big portion of my life as null in void just because I post on a damn board you bet I'll say something. I'm far too passionate to let ignorant views like that go and I really don't care how you feel about it. If you assume you make an ass of yourself.
and you're still going on about it. i simply called out the people who think they are better than the other posters. i already said this. I NEVER said i wanted to be a scout. ever.
so if i struck a nerve. all well. but its not going to change my opinion, cause at the end of the day. we are fans on a message board.
i wouldn't give more than a 4th for Cousins. thats what they drafted him for, and he hasn't show much to prove he's worth more than that. IMO.
Quote: Is it a factor that we sought out the trade? We called Indy. No one had any offers on the table. Who knows what value TRich offered until we received it. To me that says our FO was seeking to stockpile picks.
It wasn't the Browns that were actively shopping Richardson. Reports are that they initiated the call to Indy. But, Irsay made it known that they were looking to buy before the Browns made the call to Indy.
Forget the headline below, read the article. It opens with it.
Owner Jim Irsay's legendarily chaotic tweeting paid off for the Indianapolis Colts this week. When Irsay sent out word that his general manager was itching to wheel-and-deal for a running back, it didn't take long for the Cleveland Browns to come calling with an intriguing offer.
Indy were johns looking for a prostitute and the Browns showed them a hooker that they liked.
Quote: ive known several players and or wives that where members of this board, what makes us think there isnt people in the FO here? Im sure Grossi, and MKC could also have accounts here. Its not like we are in some top secret website that is only accesable to fans only.
Bring on FA and the draft because this name calling and pissing contest are getting old.
I'm sure that there are radio personalities that troll these boards. They may not even post here but I've seen the discussions floating about here that either I started or someone else did that mysteriously show up as topics on the radio.
I dare say that PPE should get royalties from it. It is his site and they're stealing from him.
Quote: Is it a factor that we sought out the trade? We called Indy. No one had any offers on the table. Who knows what value TRich offered until we received it. To me that says our FO was seeking to stockpile picks.
It wasn't the Browns that were actively shopping Richardson. Reports are that they initiated the call to Indy. But, Irsay made it known that they were looking to buy before the Browns made the call to Indy.
Forget the headline below, read the article. It opens with it.
Owner Jim Irsay's legendarily chaotic tweeting paid off for the Indianapolis Colts this week. When Irsay sent out word that his general manager was itching to wheel-and-deal for a running back, it didn't take long for the Cleveland Browns to come calling with an intriguing offer.
Indy were johns looking for a prostitute and the Browns showed them a hooker that they liked.
Ah so we did make the initial call as I thought, but it was due to the whole twitter thing. I never heard that was a factor. Thanks man.
Quote: I agree that they valued a 1st over Richardson.
And I think the whole getting another 1st to move up for a QB was an instant reaction, but isn't necessarily what the entire thought process was.
But it's not nothing, you get the extra first because you MIGHT be able to use it to move up if needed, but if not, then you have another first to build with..
Well, I'll concede that point. They have the extra first rounder if they feel the need to move up to get a QB. I don't think they would need to do that and they have the extra first rounder to include.
My take, they liked getting the extra first rounder, no matter where it fell because with the other picks that they have (the Putzburgh 3rd and Indy 4th), they could use those to move that second first round selection further up the first round.
How far could the Browns move that selection up from #26 with that extra 3rd and extra 4th selections? If they're going to use them, that's what I would expect them to do, more than to move up from #4 and give up their second first rounder plus more to do it. I just don't see it happening.
I could, however, see them packing that 2nd first rounder with other picks to move it up the board if they really targeted someone that they felt wouldn't be there. I really don't see that happening either, but I still think it's more likely than moving up from #4. Maybe with the previous regime, that nonsense could be believed. Not with Banner & Co. making the decisions.
Quote: Ah so we did make the initial call as I thought, but it was due to the whole twitter thing. I never heard that was a factor. Thanks man.
Well, Irsay is quite unique in that he openly gets on Twitter and expresses himself. Someone in the Browns organization must have been following him and told Banner.
But, if I can help, that's what I'll try and do. I thought we were all here to try and help each other understand things better.
Quote: If you value the Trade Value Chart at all..
They could move 26 up to about 15-17
If we don't like the 3rd and 4th round we could possibly package for 2nd's as well. My personal hope. I'd love to use the 2 extra picks to get another top 60 pick. Maybe even some future picks. Lombardi is a shadow of the king of future picks.
Quote: From what I've seen on the Indy boards they go both ways too...
Reports that other GMs were upset because they would of given up "more than a 1st" are out there too..
From what I remember, the other GMs said that they would have traded their RB for a 1st round pick .... not that they would have given up a 1st for Trent.
I don't like seeing the "*** You are ignoring this user *** " within my reading. So I simply scroll past the nonsense posted by that member as well as the posts that obviously respond to whatever ridiculous statement he's made.
Quote: Is it a factor that we sought out the trade? We called Indy. No one had any offers on the table. Who knows what value TRich offered until we received it. To me that says our FO was seeking to stockpile picks.
It wasn't the Browns that were actively shopping Richardson. Reports are that they initiated the call to Indy. But, Irsay made it known that they were looking to buy before the Browns made the call to Indy.
Forget the headline below, read the article. It opens with it.
Owner Jim Irsay's legendarily chaotic tweeting paid off for the Indianapolis Colts this week. When Irsay sent out word that his general manager was itching to wheel-and-deal for a running back, it didn't take long for the Cleveland Browns to come calling with an intriguing offer.
Indy were johns looking for a prostitute and the Browns showed them a hooker that they liked.
Ah so we did make the initial call as I thought, but it was due to the whole twitter thing. I never heard that was a factor. Thanks man.
Quote: I don't like seeing the "*** You are ignoring this user *** " within my reading. So I simply scroll past the nonsense posted by that member as well as the posts that obviously respond to whatever ridiculous statement he's made.
I do a lot of scrolling these days.
I'm not so much like that. I do a bit of scrolling, but I don't mind seeing the '*** You are ignoring this user ***' message. Sometimes, I look to see whose name it is and smile, wondering what it is they said and then chuckling at myself for just continuing with the next messages. I'm glad that I'm not wasting time on them.
Quote: I don't like seeing the "*** You are ignoring this user *** " within my reading. So I simply scroll past the nonsense posted by that member as well as the posts that obviously respond to whatever ridiculous statement he's made.
I do a lot of scrolling these days.
I'm not so much like that. I do a bit of scrolling, but I don't mind seeing the '*** You are ignoring this user ***' message. Sometimes, I look to see whose name it is and smile, wondering what it is they said and then chuckling at myself for just continuing with the next messages. I'm glad that I'm not wasting time on them.
As I always say, if you feel the need to constantly point out that you're ignoring someone, then you're doing the opposite of ignoring them; you're seeking attention from them.
Quote: I was really surprised that the Kirk Cousins thread was now on page 5.. then I opened it and found out nobody is talking about Kirk Cousins any more.
If the trivial bickering and constant "i'm right you're wrong, even when we're both really wrong" would stop - this place may become a ghost town and noone wouldn't have anything to type
Quote: There may even be a candidate that they would feel is worthy of drafting at #4 but which doesn't fit the system or scheme that they're trying to implement. In such a situation, I don't think you draft a square peg to fit in a round hole just because the talent level is believed to be there.
Could you draft them and try to get them to adjust to the system or scheme you're going to implement? Sure. Or you could try to find a trade partner, acquire more selections in the deal and move on from there.
I believe we agree there. I do believe that in such a case, a player who simply doesn't fit... ie... a 4-3 DL in a 3-4 scheme, you wouldn't have him as high on your own big board. I believe the square peg in a round hole theory is spot on.
Quote: I get the part of your statement that only winning can solve the problem of not drafting in the Top 10 every year. It's true, but even so, they may start the example after a losing season where the team is drafting in the Top 5 yet again.
You would think, as many times as the Browns have drafted in the Top 5 and Top 10, they'd have top flight players at nearly every position.
I believe the consistent changes in the FO, coaching and schemes are part of the problem combined with overall poor drafting.
Quote: As ironic as it may sound, the Browns have actually had more success (yeah, I know, different regimes and what-not) by trading back. We got Mack in 2009 and Phil Taylor in 2011 when our first draft pick was out of the Top 10. In both cases, it was out of the Top 20. They are both really good players.
I really don't have a problem trading back if they feel there are no players worthy of the selection considering the parameters we discussed. I do know however they will lose a lot of the current fan base if they don't solve the answer at the QB position in short order.
Quote: I was really surprised that the Kirk Cousins thread was now on page 5.. then I opened it and found out nobody is talking about Kirk Cousins any more.
Well, there is only so much to say about him before it gets derailed.
Now, about Kirk Cousins, I wouldn't give much for him at all.
Quote: I believe we agree there. I do believe that in such a case, a player who simply doesn't fit... ie... a 4-3 DL in a 3-4 scheme, you wouldn't have him as high on your own big board. I believe the square peg in a round hole theory is spot on.
I would have thought that was obvious to everyone, but it apparently isn't. Sometimes the square peg has rounded corners though. I guess that might explain it from time to time.
Quote: I believe the consistent changes in the FO, coaching and schemes are part of the problem combined with overall poor drafting.
Well, if the front office was worth a damn, they'd have hired coaches that weren't horrible that showed how incompetent they were in executing their chosen scheme with poor drafting (giving up selections for players you could get if you stood pat).
Quote: I really don't have a problem trading back if they feel there are no players worthy of the selection considering the parameters we discussed. I do know however they will lose a lot of the current fan base if they don't solve the answer at the QB position in short order.
You might be right but I'm not sure they care about what the folks at Dawgtalkers.net or at ClevelandBrowns.com message boards are saying. They probably care even less what the folks are saying on the radio, TV sets or the written media are writing. They'll simply do their jobs and they'll let the likes of the talking heads do their jobs. They'll let the guy in the manufacturing plant do their jobs and not give them advice on how to make the widgets they make.
We all know people that are good at their jobs and others that totally suck and we all wonder how they continue to keep their jobs. When they're fired or let go, we usually say things like 'I saw it coming.' or something like that.
Quote: I was really surprised that the Kirk Cousins thread was now on page 5.. then I opened it and found out nobody is talking about Kirk Cousins any more.
To take this in yet another direction … I think this thread was started because we hired Shanny to be our OC which raises the question: Will we trade for a player that Shanny has coached and likes. We need a Qb and Cousins could be available so 1+1+1=2. So who else might fit that bill? Would we consider trading for Roy Helu? Would anybody want to? For say a 5th rounder? Would the Redskins give him up for a 5th, or would it take more?
I'm not sure I'd give a 5th. Purely because, while I think he has talent, he has had extensive injury risk since joining the league. I suppose if we didn't land a FA RB to committee with a rook I would give up a 5th. Basically if we don't get Toby Gerhart then yes but not more than a 5th. Nothing more, preferably less.
Correct me if I'm wrong ...... but when asked about Cousins, didn't Shanahan basically say that he was a nice backup?
I don't know where people got the idea that Shanahan is after us to make Cousins our starter. I have yet to see that anywhere. Maybe someone else has, and can post it for me, but all I have see is Shanahan calling him a decent backup.
Quote: Correct me if I'm wrong ...... but when asked about Cousins, didn't Shanahan basically say that he was a nice backup?
I don't know where people got the idea that Shanahan is after us to make Cousins our starter. I have yet to see that anywhere. Maybe someone else has, and can post it for me, but all I have see is Shanahan calling him a decent backup.
Maybe that's what he's looking at.. I mean Cousins as a Back up to whoever here.
"I think Kirk's a hell of a player,'' Shanahan told 92.3 The Fan Thursday in an interview after his introductory news conference. "That's one of the reasons we took him coming out of Michigan State. He did a good job there in college, and the times we needed him, he came in 1 1/2 games his rookie year, and he did a real good job and he got to play in the last three games this year, which it was good for him to get a little bit more experience.
"He had some good moments, and he had some moments I think he'll learn from, but I think Kirk did a good job for us and really was a good backup player for us out there.''
.........
"You've got to be pretty good to be a backup in this league,'' he said. "So if you've made it as a backup in the NFL, all of those guys have a chance to be a starter. I don't think there's a backup quarterback in this league that doesn't have a chance.''
IMHO ...... he's a backup. I think that Shanahan is being nice to him ...... but saying that he's a backup. Shanahan knows that there is a world of difference between a top flight starter and a backup.
Identifying the Best Trade Scenarios for Kirk Cousins, Washington Redskins By Marcel Davis , Featured Columnist Feb 6, 2014
With Jay Gruden and the Washington Redskins making it a point to declare Robert Griffin III as their franchise quarterback, Kirk Cousins' time in Washington could be coming to a close
Add in ESPN's Adam Schefter reporting that Cousins is indeed open to a trade and the time to act would seem to be now.
Possessing a roster devoid of talent at a litany of positions, the Redskins could certainly use the young, inexpensive talent that Cousins could net in a trade.
In a league starved for quarterbacks, Washington wouldn't have to look too far to find suitors for a quarterback with Cousins' resume.
While his career QBR of 51.2 is the definition of average, it would place him among the NFL's top 20 active quarterbacks.
After using a fourth-round pick to select him in the 2012 draft, the Redskins shouldn't shop Cousins for anything less than multiple draft picks, with a second- or third-round pick included in such a package.
Going in with that mindset, here are four plausible trade scenarios for Cousins and the Redskins.
Best Fit
Cousins to Cleveland Browns
David Goldman/Associated Press Cousins' relationship with Shanahan makes him an ideal fit for the Browns.
In terms of need, these are the Browns we're talking about here. Since the franchise's rebirth in 1999, it has run through 20 different starting quarterbacks.
While the Browns still have former first-round pick Brandon Weeden on their roster, the recent coaching change and his abysmal play should signal the end of his playing days in Cleveland—and in the NFL, for that matter.
Speaking of coaching change, new head coach Mike Pettine tabbed former Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan as his man to direct the offense.
It's his familiarity with Cousins that could make this trade happen.
If Pettine wants to make a quick splash—as he could be fired like his predecessor if he doesn't—Cousins presents the best of both worlds for the coach.
He's young enough to be the answer at the quarterback position for the long haul. At the same time, his experience in running Shanahan's offense makes him likelier to avoid the growing pains that, say, a Johnny Manziel would undergo.
Even with that said, there does remain a hiccup in this scenario. Ohio.com's Nate Ulrich reports that the Browns are infatuated with Manziel, which could make all these factors moot.
However, with Cleveland owning the fourth overall pick in the draft, it's possible that Manziel doesn't make it past the quarterback-starved Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars.
Because of this uncertainty, it'd be hard to fathom any Cousins deal taking place prior to draft day.
Quote: I'm not sure I'd give a 5th. Purely because, while I think he has talent, he has had extensive injury risk since joining the league. I suppose if we didn't land a FA RB to committee with a rook I would give up a 5th. Basically if we don't get Toby Gerhart then yes but not more than a 5th. Nothing more, preferably less.
Exactly why I chose a 5th. A 6th or 7th and I make the deal. Anything higher than a 5th and I don't. But a 5th, I don't know. And that is what I would want if I were Washington.
Exactly why I chose a 5th. A 6th or 7th and I make the deal. Anything higher than a 5th and I don't. But a 5th, I don't know. And that is what I would want if I were Washington.
Yeah. A 6th or 7th and I'd make the deal. I'm not sure I could truly make up my mind on the matter until after the FA period has past. Consider also he is a FA after this season. If he becomes a FA Washington, who is desperate for picks, will get nothing in return.
There is more to this article, but this is all we really need to know:
Quote: The Washington Redskins want a second-round pick in the NFL draft if they are going to trade backup quarterback Kirk Cousins, according to a person familiar with the team’s planning.
Quote: There is more to this article, but this is all we really need to know:
Quote: The Washington Redskins want a second-round pick in the NFL draft if they are going to trade backup quarterback Kirk Cousins, according to a person familiar with the team’s planning.
No one knows Cousins better than Kyle Shanahan and if I'm Farmer, I'm going to take Shanahan's recommendations into consideration.
The only QB returning for the Browns is more than likely going to be Hoyer, who is coming off of knee surgery. Hoyer's ability to stay healthy should be a concern for our GM and Cousins would be a sound backup, at the least.
I would not give up our 2nd round pick this year for Cousins...the #35 pick. That is too close to being a late 1st round pick.
Cousins for a second round pick is just another option for Farmer to consider...
No one knows Cousins better than Kyle Shanahan and if I'm Farmer, I'm going to take Shanahan's recommendations into consideration.
The only QB returning for the Browns is more than likely going to be Hoyer, who is coming off of knee surgery. Hoyer's ability to stay healthy should be a concern for our GM and Cousins would be a sound backup, at the least.
I would not give up our 2nd round pick this year for Cousins...the #35 pick. That is too close to being a late 1st round pick.
Cousins for a second round pick is just another option for Farmer to consider...
Well, it's what Washington wants. Whether they'll get it or not is a totally different discussion. I wouldn't say that he's better or worse than most of the QBs coming out in this draft. Just the same, I wouldn't give much for him. We could get a QB that is younger and under contract for longer than him. If we offered them a 5th or 6th rounder, they would probably take it.
It was Kyle's father that shut down RG3 and gave Cousins his shot late last season with the final three games. I can't say that he did himself any particular favors.
Mac...you are not considering the Top 4 maybe Top 2 QB we will draft being in the mix. Making Cousins totally not necessary. Even if they settle for a 3rd round pick...honestly I would prefer using that 3rd rounder on another QB rather than Cousins. Not saying that is what I would do...I guess what I'm saying is Cousins will be our #3 QB. I'd rather have the 3rd round player QB or not. Overall #35...Forgetdaboutit!
I tend to agree EO. I think the only way we might need Cousins is if we decide to pass on QB early on and select a QB later in the draft. Then we might want some experience behind Hoyer since Campbell and Weeden are probably done in Cleveland. JMO but Hoyer and Cousins seem like the same player.
I don't think there are any real concerns about Hoyer being ready. It's not like we have to wait and see if he still has 4.4 speed or if he can make sharp cuts. If we draft the next hotshot QB, then Hoyer becomes the experienced back-up when the new guy takes over....be it out of the gate or somewhere down the road.
Trading for Cousins now would make ZERO sense, we would essentially be tipping our draft hand. No way we are taking a top 5 QB after trading for anyone, even if it was for a 4th round pick.
Quote: Mac...you are not considering the Top 4 maybe Top 2 QB we will draft being in the mix. Making Cousins totally not necessary. Even if they settle for a 3rd round pick...honestly I would prefer using that 3rd rounder on another QB rather than Cousins. Not saying that is what I would do...I guess what I'm saying is Cousins will be our #3 QB. I'd rather have the 3rd round player QB or not. Overall #35...Forgetdaboutit!
eo...as I noted in my post...there is a Shanahan factor that cannot be ignored when talking about Cousins.
Those who worked with Cousins every day might have a different opinion of his potential than the average Browns fan.
Quote: Mac...you are not considering the Top 4 maybe Top 2 QB we will draft being in the mix. Making Cousins totally not necessary. Even if they settle for a 3rd round pick...honestly I would prefer using that 3rd rounder on another QB rather than Cousins. Not saying that is what I would do...I guess what I'm saying is Cousins will be our #3 QB. I'd rather have the 3rd round player QB or not. Overall #35...Forgetdaboutit!
eo...as I noted in my post...there is a Shanahan factor that cannot be ignored when talking about Cousins.
Those who worked with Cousins every day might have a different opinion of his potential than the average Browns fan.
I don't disagree with that. He would have a great deal of input on the guy if we were thinking of signing him. I just don't know that he is going to have all that much input on how we shape our roster, at least this year, or if we are really interested.
If we plan on drafting a QB early, I doubt we go after Cousins
Quote: Trading for Cousins now would make ZERO sense, we would essentially be tipping our draft hand. No way we are taking a top 5 QB after trading for anyone, even if it was for a 4th round pick.
With that said, he is not better than Hoyer.
Unless it is a ploy to create a smokescreen. We show interest and let rumors spread that we are very interested in Cousins. Other teams think that we are not interested in drafted a Qb high so they don't trade up to #2 to jump us. Thus increasing the chances that one of the big 3 fall to us
haha, I don't see Farmer being the kind of guy to outright allow lies to be perpetuated. I think he won't deny interest, but to leak that we are "very" interested doesn't seem to be (from what I've read and heard) Farmers MO.
...I guess what I'm saying is Cousins will be our #3 QB.
I've said it before. the only QB I think we'll keep is hoyer and I just don't see the rook beating out either one of these guys. we would have no reason to start the rook whatsoever. cousins already knows the playbook and that alone should make him at least the #2.
#2...Of course I think its closer than ever as a simple NO THIS AIN'T HAPPENING.
But yeah I could see the #2 thingy then again if Gosh forbid Hoyer gets hurt I would bet my best pair of underwear that the #3 QB and Top 5 pick would leapfrog Cousins as the starter.
But really as it looks - Shanahan doesn't seem as interested in Cousins as some Bozos who wish they would have the story.
Also with complete freedom I think Shanahan will have a NEW PLAYBOOK with a lot of his roots in there but also some new stuff.
Manziel and Bridgewater seem to be two bright young men regarding learning football. They will pick up the playbook pretty fast - its the execution that makes it difficult.
makes sense. I don't know or really care if we bring in cousins or not. I just feel that whoever we bring in can at least become the #2. because I believe the longer the rook can stay on the bench the better he will be when he finally does get his shot.
there is discussion of Rex Grossman joining Shanny. Acquiring Cousins would cost a draft pick. Getting Grossman or keeping who is currently on the roster would not cost picks. I can see Grossman b/c he would be cheaper than JC or Weeden.
There have been Schaub rumors too. Who knows what they will do. I'm just not a fan of Cousins, either of them
Each has their or perceptions if they join this team, Grossman would be a guy coming in to be the backup and help teach the play book...
Shaub however would be a guy you bring in if you think he's better than Hoyer and the rookie you draft, because with him I think expectations of starting would come with signing him..
Signing Schaub seems pointless in so many ways... We have Hoyer who could start the entire year and be somewhat of a mentor to a younger guy with his approach to the game (learning the right way from Brady).
Wasn't really agreeing that we should acquire Schaub, I was agreeing that doing so would mean we are not thinking of a QB at #4.
There is talk of Grossman coming in as the "veteran presence/mentor" role as he knows the offense. I think this the thinking behind Schaub as well, but I don't think he is available unless he is released.
Hoyer is back next year, and we will draft a QB. We need a 3rd, and a veteran makes sense.
There are enough threads to do that. It is not the purpose here.
