So “sustained success” has to include multiple Super Bowl victories? Are you really arguing that Peyton Manning’s Colts teams (141-67, lost in the playoffs 11 times, one championship) didn’t have sustained success? Rodgers’ Packers (93-50 not counting 2017, 7 playoff losses, one Super Bowl)? Marino’s Dolphins (163-108, 10 playoff losses, no championships)? Jim Kelly’s Bills (108-67, 8 playoff losses - including 4 Super Bowls)?
That seems like a ludicrously high bar to clear.
4 in 35 years? I think the statement holds up in spite of exceptions.
Also, McMahon had a 106.6 Rating in the '85 playoffs. That team just didn’t need him at all, truly a unicorn.
Ah! Yes. Okay. Pass the card to my desk. 
They’ll improve. Maybe Suh might go there!
A local bar is owned and frequented by Browns fans in Sherman Oaks, CA. Swing by Chimney Sweep if you’re in town, Señor!
I was being glib. I don’t think the Flacco Ravens qualify as “sustained success” when compared to the runs that Peyton’s Colts had, Brady’s Pats, Favre/Rodgers’ Packers, Kelly’s Bills, Aikman’s Cowboys, Elway’s Broncos, etc. The only great example of sustained success without a elite QB is Gibbs’ 'Skins.
That’s the goal, a dynasty.
The Ravens, the 80’s Bears, the short lived Harbaugh 49ers, the Gruden Bucs are farther and fewer between and always implode after 4-5 seasons because of the contracts those position players end up commanding. You can actually keep a elite QB for 15+ years.
Let’s not forget that the Giants had a running game in the early years. Tiki, then Brandon Jacobs, then the Jacobs/Ahmad Bradshaw committee…then…a bunch of meat puppets who’d play for half a dozen games then leave for the rest of the season, none of whom lived up to the hype even in those games they did play.
In other news, the Bengals resigned their lefty punter Kevin Huber, so I know for sure we’re Superbowl bound now. Just have to clear that pesky 0-7 playoff record hurdle. But with Huber back in the fold, it’s a lock.
For some reason you keep arguing that having an elite QB is a great thing every team should strive for. Well, no shit. Of course you want an elite QB. And having one gives you a much better chance at winning the Super Bowl and being competitive every year. But kinda like your “elite play by the QB in the Super Bowl really helps your chances of winning” point, it’s obvious and not anything I’m arguing against.
We agree on the ideal outcome then. So teams have a choice, sell out to get an elite QB every year and every opportunity until you get one, or take a measured approach where you build the rest of the team and hope to get lucky at QB, either striking gold with a Tom Brady or finding a Nick Foles who gets hot. Doing the latter reduces your chances of doing the former. Pretty simple choice.
Story is (no cite), when the expansion Dolphins used their first rounder on Bob Griese the year after using it on another QB, the GM was asked why he kept picking quarterbacks at Number One. His answer was “I’m going to pick one until I get one”.
Well, the facts line up with this anecdote, at least. Yes, the Dolphins spent their first round choice on Griese (#5 overall, 1967) a year after they drafted Kentucky QB Rick Norton with the #2 overall pick.
Norton started two games in his rookie year, completing 38% of his passes, with 3 TDs and 6 INTs. (For his five-year career, he completed 41% of his passes, with 7 TDs and 30 INTs.)
Given that, i wouldn’t be at all surprised that the team had already suspected that they had a bust on their hands with Norton when they went for Griese.
Tom Brady was a sixth rounder. 23 teams passed on Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees was a second rounder and could be had by any team willing to pay him. Meanwhile selling out has bought teams RGIII, Jay Cutler, Blake Bortles, Brock Osweiler, and on and on. And even having an elite QB isn’t a guarantee. Brady was elite last year … And lost. Rodgers and Brees have one title apiece. And teams overpaying for temporarily good QB’s cripple their teams ala Flacco and Eli. And the Eagles win with Foles, the Broncos with a decrepit Manning, and the Steelers with young Raplisberger.
By all means, I hope the Bears continue to sell out to chase their elite QB, like they did with Cutler. Its fun to watch.
While that’s all true the vast majority of QB’s in the modern era that have won or been to a Superbowl were 1st round picks, many 1st overall, which is why teams keep doing it. But like you say, it’s a crapshoot any way you look at it but I think with the salary cap and always rising salaries, especially at the QB position, you can really fuck your team over if you get it wrong by mortgaging draft picks, overspending, etc.
Are we not willing to admit that the Browns got it wrong by using their first on Garrett and then trading back in 2017, passing on Watson and Trubisky to roll the dice with Kizer in the 2nd?
In 2016 when they traded out and passed on Wentz to take a shot with Kessler?
When they stood pat in 2012 with 2 picks and settled for Weeden at #22 with Luck available for the right (huge) price?
When they kept banking multiple 1st round picks every year and didn’t make the Patriots an offer they couldn’t refuse for Garappolo?
They swung and missed on Manziel in 2014 and then stood pat in 2015 because why?
The Browns have been hording assets and drafting talent everywhere but at QB for 5-6 years, they just went 0-16.
The Bears traded up to draft Trubisky. The organization is still high on him and added weapons this year all around him. But if Pace doesn’t draft another QB in the 4-7th rounds this year he’s a god damn idiot. If Trubisky becomes the next Wentz, great, if not you have a lottery ticket that might be a Wilson or a Brady.
I’m more mad that the proposed trade for AJ McCarron that would have landed the Bengals a 2nd and 3rd round pick in this draft for a 5th round backup QB didn’t go through because Browns management didn’t fax the proper paperwork over in time.
The Browns front office has been spectacularly idiotic with QB selections, for sure. And had that trade for McCarron gone through, they would have looked even more idiotic.
Yes, they pick terrible players…but it’s more galling to me that they pass on better prospects when they have a chance. And the meatheads will rave about the “value” they got back for trading down. Stone-age thinking.
Value doesn’t matter if you don’t draft good players. I think the Browns would be a lot more competitive with Mark Ingram, Randall Cobb, Richard Sherman, Harrison Smith, and Luke Kuechley than having just Julio Jones. Or having Odell Beckham Jr., Marcus Peters and Stefon Diggs instead of Sammy Watkins. The Browns’ failure isn’t about their technique, it’s all about who they pick, or don’t pick.
And really? Trying to make the Browns’ a cautionary tale? Low hanging fruit.
Okay, well take the Packers from oh, say the late 60’s until the early 90’s then.
Low blow. Watch out or I’ll sic Tony Mandarich on you.
As a Bengals fan, I’ll see your Tony Mandarich, your Super Bowl wins and raise you David Klingler, Dave Shula, Dan Wilkerson, Akili Smith, Odell Thurman, Chris Henry, David Verser, Ricky Dixon and Kijana Carter, amongst others.
I think the Browns’ mindset for a long time is that they’re much more than one player away, so they want to stockpile picks and kind of valued quantity over quality. They passed on some good players, but so did a lot of teams. They missed on a lot of picks, and that seems to be on the Browns’ ability to evaluate talent.
I’m curious about your comment relating to Luck. Has anyone ever said the Colts would have traded that #1 pick for something? My lord, what would that have taken? I mean they tanked a season for that guy, it’s hard to believe they would have given him up for anything.