Not really, no. The QB market is over, and the Browns are where they are. Even if they draft Tannehill or someone else, they are likely not going to start immediately.
Very probably; they’re better off going after Barkley or Murray next year than getting impatient and doing something stupid now.
You mean like they did last year?
I’ve heard a few comments to the effect of “Mike Holmgren has never drafted a QB in the first round”. That could be pure circumstance, inheriting Favre and trading for Hasselbeck, but it could also indicate a bias he has. If I’m the Browns I’m drafting a QB with either the 4th pick or the 22nd pick. If you love Tannehill you take him at 4. It might be more comfortable to take him at say, 16, but that’s not reality. If you have doubts about Tannehill you take the next best guy on your board at 22, Weeden, Osweiler, whoever. If your intel says that your next best guy will be available at 36, a pretty good possibility, you might roll the dice, but you simply cannot come out of this draft without another QB who you think has at least a chance to start this year.
Eh, I’d hate to overdraft a project QB, waste 2-3 years confirming he’s a bust, and then be back to square zero. I’m willing to punt 2012 (and why the fuck not at this point) if it means securing a better prospect next year. It sucks, but it sucks less than finding out Tannehill sucks and and losing 2012, 2013, and possibly 2014 because of it.
Weeden in the 2nd round seems like the sort of price you can pay where you don’t have to skip on a chance at a QB next year because of what you’ve invested in a QB though. Tannehill should be in that range too, but there’s been a crazy run on QBs and he’s going to become the Gabbert of this year, massively overdrafted.
Why, exactly? Is there some kind of rule about this?
The Browns are very likely not going to contend this year, no matter who their QB is. That being the case, the job is to find the QB that will be on the team when they are next a contender. If they don’t see one they like in this draft, they’d be fools to take one; as Beef points out all that does is waste 2-3 years doing something you didn’t really expect to work anyway.
Last year, the Bengals said no to the “QB is so important we have to reach for one in the first round!!!” mania that struck. They took the BPA in AJ Green, who looks like an absolute stud and waited to the next round to grab a QB, where they got the Ginger Jesus.
Now, I don’t think Dalton will ever be an elite QB, but he can likely max out at good to very good, which, with AJ Green may be all you need. But he was, at the very least, gotten at a much more reasonable price than Gabbert, Locker, or Ponder.
I think the Bengals gasp did something right. The Browns would be best served to grab Richardson, Claiborne, or Kalil if he falls than reach for a QB out of desperation.
The time of “waiting 2-3 years” to see if a QB develops is over. If you don’t have a QB you get one at all costs. The Jags should draft a QB this year even though they drafted one last year. Making a mistake with your first round pick hurts, becoming gunshy about it and throwing good money after bad only compounds it. The Browns have no QB right now. They should draft the best one they can this year. They need to scout them, rank them and try and draft them at the right point, but if they decide on a guy you must be sure to get him even if that means taking him too early. If the Browns love Tannehill, you take him at 4 because he won’t be there at 22. If you love Weeden you take him at 22 if there’s even a slight chance he’ll be gone at 36. If you fear he’ll be gone before 22, then you’d better start looking to trade up. If you love Osweiler then you better draft him in the second round because he might not be there in the 3rd.
If Weeden is no better than McCoy and you still suck next year and you have the chance to draft Barkley, then you do it. Act. The Colts were smart, they had a chance to draft a QB and they took it even though it meant saying goodbye to a hall of famer. The Redskins were smart because they needed a QB and did what it took to get in a position to draft one.
Teams like the Jags don’t suck because the wasted a 1st round pick on a bad QB. The Jags suck because they don’t have a QB. Had they not burned a pick on Gabbert they’d still suck just as bad but they’d probably have one more good player on defense or a WR not catching any balls. Nonetheless, without a QB they are going nowhere.
The Browns suck right now because they half-assed it by settling for McCoy and they are going to continue to compound that sucking by giving McCoy time to “develop”.
No wonder your team has always had shitty quarterbacks.
Hush your mouf, Sid Luckman was a great quarterback!
My team always had shitty QBs because they shared the logic that Beef and furt have. They made so little effort to find one that it’s a shock they even had one to suit up. I’ve seen that it doesn’t work. And I’ve seen that “wait til next year” usually never comes.
I’ve casually perused a couple Browns messageboards recently and there seem to be quite a few fans that seem to think Colt can be their guy if they give him some decent receivers to throw to and if they improve on the offensive line. I only watched the Browns play twice last season (both v Bengals) and I left with the impression that their offensive line really isn’t that bad. Any solace or truth in any of these assertions?
Disclaimers: O-line quality is difficult to distinguish from RB and QB quality.
From Football Outsiders, the Brown’s O-Line was middle of the pack in pass protection, with an adjusted sack rate of 6.4%. They were great on not getting stuffed and on short yardage runs. Their problems were with trying to get middle distance and longer runs, where they were near the bottom of the League. This leads me to wonder if their running game problems weren’t the fault of their RB. Or it may be that Hillis isn’t a runner with high speed, yet is great for getting you 2-3 yds when you need it.
Advanced NFL Stats sortable table for O-lines may be found here. An eyeballing of it, indicates that Cleveland is in the middle of the pack, except for “Expected Points Added—Passing”, where they are near the top quarter. I don’t understand their metrics. Pro football focus does not list O-line as one of the three offseason needs for the Browns.
Tl;DR version: I agree with the message board fans and think the Browns should concentrate elsewhere to improve their team for the moment. If they can’t trade out of the #4 pick, maybe they should go get Richardson? I am not sold on the idea of getting Tannehill at #4, Omni’s well-reasoned points aside.
Perhaps, but “draft one every fucking year” certainly won’t work.
It seems to me that most of the secure starting QBs were drafted in the first round: Manning, Rodgers, Rivers, Cutler, Newton, Stafford, Bradford, Flacco, Ryan, Sanchez, Freeman, Roethliseberger, Palmer, Vick. Of course there are major exceptions are Schaub, Romo, Brady and Brees (who was the first pick in the second round). Dalton also would go in that group going in the second round. But at any time it seems like 10 teams don’t even have a certain starting QB. Al ot of the teams struggling with their teams QB identity are trying to make it work with QBs that are not first rounders, McCoy at Cleveland, Kolb at Cincinnati, Matt Moore at Seattle, Matt Cassell at KC. While the landscape is littered with first round QB busts, it also seems the odds of you getting a solid starting QB for years on end is getting him in the first round at some point.
That would be Arizona and Miami.
Yikes! Chalk it up to Friday.
I don’t know where you think I’m somehow nonchalant about quarterbacks. I said I’d give up 4, 22, and next year’s first for RG3. But spending a lot on a qb doesn’t make him good. The window has closed on getting an elite prospect. Drafting Tannehill at 4 doesn’t make him one.
You said if the Browns love Tannehill, and that’s my point. He’s not the sort of prospect people should love. Next year there will be a few - better to make a move then.
As furt already asked “Why, exactly? Is there some kind of rule about this?”.
You make it seem like QB’s either come into the league ready to light it up, or they need to be pitched after one mediocre year. I haven’t seen a team have anything resembling long term success doing that. I don’t think Gabbert is cut out to be a NFL QB and the Jags did nothing to help him by starting him right away, but declaring him a complete waste after one year isn’t the solution either. This complete lack of patience (immediately starting rookie QB’s and then pitching them if they don’t perform) won’t be succesful. Unless success is defined as “giving yourself a top 10 pick you can use on a QB until you get it right”.
The only guys that you can “decide” on at this point is Luck and RGIII. The others are even bigger crapshoots than normal.
No one can look at those QB’s and “love” them. Luck, yes. RGIII, I can see it. But no team is looking at Tannehill and his whopping 19 starts and mediocre production and going "Wow! I LOVE this guy. Give up anything for him. Same with Wheedon. Same with Cousins, Lindley and Osweiler. There’s damn good reasons they’re not considered first round talents, and teams that ignore that in order to desperately grab whatever QB is leftover will not be doing themselves any favors in the long run. It’s like a lottery player who double downs each week until they win, they’re going to be bust after awhile.
Nevermind the cost. I’d love it if you ran the Bears.
Yes they need a QB. They needed one last year. So they followed your advice, reached for a project QB, and started him right away to crappy results. Now you want to have them double down on the mistake they made last year. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
But those QB’s aren’t good because they were drafted in the first round. Drafting Tannehill in the first round isn’t going to make him a better QB, it will just increase the cost if he isn’t. And Flacco, Sanchez, Freeman, Bradford, Cutler and Vick may be “secure”, but that’s often because their price was high and there aren’t any better options, not because they’re great QB’s. Freeman, Flacco, and Sanchez were all drafted too early and while they may have a measure of security, it’s not because they’re tearing up the NFL.
Of course getting a QB in the first round is preferrable to getting one later. But, again, drafting a QB in the first round doesn’t make them good.
Jason Peters tore his Achilles in workouts. Shitty.
No, of course not, but it seems that the odds that a league-wide evaluation of a QB prospect being a third rounder and that translating into a franchise Quarterback are quite low. I actually don’t know enough about Tannehill to say one way or the other, but I guess my point is that chances are if you are looking for your QB of the future you are going to have to snag them in the first round.