Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Schefter: Browns still split between taking Garrett and Trubisky with #1 pick

The Gipper

By The Gipper
in THE BROWNS BOARD

Recommended Posts

The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
Posted

The title of this thread basically says it all. I was watching Schefter and McShay who were both on Mike and Mike this morning, and this is what Schefter reported. Also a number of other sources are saying the same thing:

 

https://keepingitheel.com/2017/04/11/nfl-draft-cleveland-browns-split-mitch-trubisky-myles-garret/

 

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/04/browns_split_between_myles_gar.html

 

Of course, one never knows if this is actually the case, or if it is just smokescreening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No no no!

Trubisky isn't worth the 1st pick!!

 

Garrett is! We need a pass rush!

 

Well, again, that is an opinion. Your opinion, and your opinion, my opinion, all of our collective opinions don't count. Only those of Sashi/Berry/Jackson/Haslam count.

And if you don't think that Jimmah may not be enamored with having the local boy wonder QB come in and be the savior of the franchise...i.e. the new "Bernie Kosar" you would be mistaken.

 

Roll with Kess and get him someone to throw to @ 12.

Then fix the secondary/D in the 2nd and 3rd rounds

 

IF the Browns are seriously considering taking a QB in round one....it tells you, I think, that they do not think that Kessler has what it takes to be an NFL starting QB. Perhaps a backup, but not a franchise type guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
domcucch1994 Newbie

domcucch1994

Posted
Posted

 

No no no!

Trubisky isn't worth the 1st pick!!

 

Garrett is! We need a pass rush!

 

Well, again, that is an opinion. Your opinion, and your opinion, my opinion, all of our collective opinions don't count. Only those of Sashi/Berry/Jackson/Haslam count.

And if you don't think that Jimmah may not be enamored with having the local boy wonder QB come in and be the savior of the franchise...i.e. the new "Bernie Kosar" you would be mistaken.

 

Roll with Kess and get him someone to throw to @ 12.

Then fix the secondary/D in the 2nd and 3rd rounds

 

IF the Browns are seriously considering taking a QB in round one....it tells you, I think, that they do not think that Kessler has what it takes to be an NFL starting QB. Perhaps a backup, but not a franchise type guy.

 

I would be enamored if Trubisky was a 3 year starter @ UNC and we took him @ 1. He had one good year @ UNC. What makes you think he won't be Mark Sanchez 2.0?

 

Garrett is the consensus pick @ 1. He has the size, intangibles, and numbers to back himself up. He is what we need to make our D more competitive.

 

I would consider Trubisky @ 12, if he's there.

If not, fucking take a good pass catcher and be done! If they really want another QB im sure Webb/Kizer/Dobbs will be there on Day 2

 

It would be a mistake to throw another rookie QB to the wolves.. Fix the team and take Sam Darnold next year if Kessler isn't the answer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I would be enamored if Trubisky was a 3 year starter @ UNC and we took him @ 1. He had one good year @ UNC. What makes you think he won't be Mark Sanchez 2.0?

 

Because he is much more talented by all accounts. What makes you think he won't be Aaron Rodgers 2.0?

 

Garrett is the consensus pick @ 1. He has the size, intangibles, and numbers to back himself up. He is what we need to make our D more competitive.

 

There is NO such thing as a consensus #1 pick. The consensus is the consensus of ONE, i.e. the Cleveland Browns front office. Nothing that anyone else on the planet thinks matters.

 

I would consider Trubisky @ 12, if he's there.

I would too....but he won't be there. Not at all.

 

 

If not, fucking take a good pass catcher and be done! If they really want another QB im sure Webb/Kizer/Dobbs will be there on Day 2

What they want is a franchise QB...not another backup QB, which is what these other guys basically would be. ONLY MT or possibly Watson have in them imo to be quality NfL starting QBs.

 

It would be a mistake to throw another rookie QB to the wolves.. Fix the team and take Sam Darnold next year if Kessler isn't the answer..

a. What makes you think Darnold would be there next year.

B. What makes you think Darnold would be any better

C. Why would you throw Darnold to the wolves any more than anyone you take this year?

Besides, you don't "throw him to the Wolves". What do you think the moves to improve the OL line were all about? Wolf bane. What do you think the acquisition of Oswieler was all about? Wolf bane. All moves meant to protect a future franchise QB. Get super protection up front...and have a "bridge QB" on hand to start the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jiggins7919 Experienced

jiggins7919

Posted
Posted

If the overwhelmingly vast majority of the football universe is saying Garrett is the best player available that happens to fill an enormous need, I don't see what the problem is. Does Garrett have some holes in his game? I'm sure he does, just like every player on earth. And this story could absolutely be nothing at all. There could be zero truth to it. The problem is our team's history. We almost ALWAYS wheel and deal in and around the first round. We can't HELP ourselves. We get so caught up on getting the best deal possible, that we NEVER CONSIDER GETTING THE BEST PLAYER POSSIBLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If the overwhelmingly vast majority of the football universe is saying Garrett is the best player available that happens to fill an enormous need, I don't see what the problem is.

The problem is threefold: A. It is not the vast majority of the football universe making this choice...it is Sachi Brown and company. NO ONE else matters. and B. Perhaps in their minds Garrett is NOT the best player available. C. and Perhaps in their mind Garrett does NOT fill an enormous need. Again, they drafted pass rushers last year in rounds 2-3 and 4. They may just want "roll with them".

 

Does Garrett have some holes in his game? I'm sure he does, just like every player on earth. And this story could absolutely be nothing at all. There could be zero truth to it. The problem is our team's history. We almost ALWAYS wheel and deal in and around the first round. We can't HELP ourselves. We get so caught up on getting the best deal possible, that we NEVER CONSIDER GETTING THE BEST PLAYER POSSIBLE.

No, the problem with this team's history is NOT the wheeling a dealing they do, but is the choices they make once the dealing is done.

And, again.....this FO MAY have different ideas on what is considered the best player available.

I am sure that with ALL the failed draft picks they have made in the past, they took the choice of what they thought was the best player available.

Even with #1 overalls: Tim Couch thought to be the best choice available. Was not. Courtney Brown thought to be the best choice available. Was not.

And so on and on it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
domcucch1994 Newbie

domcucch1994

Posted
Posted

 

I would be enamored if Trubisky was a 3 year starter @ UNC and we took him @ 1. He had one good year @ UNC. What makes you think he won't be Mark Sanchez 2.0?

 

Because he is much more talented by all accounts. What makes you think he won't be Aaron Rodgers 2.0?

 

Garrett is the consensus pick @ 1. He has the size, intangibles, and numbers to back himself up. He is what we need to make our D more competitive.

 

There is NO such thing as a consensus #1 pick. The consensus is the consensus of ONE, i.e. the Cleveland Browns front office. Nothing that anyone else on the planet thinks matters.

 

I would consider Trubisky @ 12, if he's there.

I would too....but he won't be there. Not at all.

 

 

If not, fucking take a good pass catcher and be done! If they really want another QB im sure Webb/Kizer/Dobbs will be there on Day 2

What they want is a franchise QB...not another backup QB, which is what these other guys basically would be. ONLY MT or possibly Watson have in them imo to be quality NfL starting QBs.

 

It would be a mistake to throw another rookie QB to the wolves.. Fix the team and take Sam Darnold next year if Kessler isn't the answer..

a. What makes you think Darnold would be there next year.

B. What makes you think Darnold would be any better

C. Why would you throw Darnold to the wolves any more than anyone you take this year?

Besides, you don't "throw him to the Wolves". What do you think the moves to improve the OL line were all about? Wolf bane. What do you think the acquisition of Oswieler was all about? Wolf bane. All moves meant to protect a future franchise QB. Get super protection up front...and have a "bridge QB" on hand to start the year.

 

He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.

Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!

 

And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.

Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..

 

Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.

IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.

Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?

Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.

 

Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..

 

Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..

However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.

 

Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frenchie Newbie

Frenchie

Posted
Posted

This is strategy/noise and nothing else. It blocks a SF trade-down because Garrett might be there. It opens a conversation with other teams for a trade down, whereby they can get a Hooker or Trubisky instead and perhaps another first or second rounder for next year. But if the Browns are stuck at #1, it will be Garrett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

This is strategy/noise and nothing else. It blocks a SF trade-down because Garrett might be there. But if the Browns are stuck at #1, it will be Garrett.

 

Interesting take on the impact on SF... of course as soon as the #1 pick is announced, that restriction is gone.

 

And the Texans were "stuck" at #1 when they took Clowney, but there were lingering questions about him that are just not there this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nickers Grand Master

nickers

Posted
Posted

No no no!

Trubisky isn't worth the 1st pick!!

 

Garrett is! We need a pass rush!

 

Roll with Kess and get him someone to throw to @ 12.

Then fix the secondary/D in the 2nd and 3rd rounds

Name one DE whose led his team to a SB... thats what I thought.. QB's lead teams.. not would be untested DE's

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.

Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!

 

A person is a reach only if they are ultimately unsuccesful. Spergon Wynn was a HUGE reach as a 6th round pick.

No one thought Ryan Leaf was a reach...some thought he should have gone #1 ahead of Peyton.

It only matters how one actually performs, not how they are projected to perform.

If say, Garrett turns into Courtney Brown 2.0..then HE would be a "huge reach".

 

And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.

Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..

 

No, you don't. Browns have as bad or worse record at taking pass rushers. Courtney Brown, Kam Wimbley. Barkevious Mingo. Shouldn't we take this poor track record into account as much as we do for the QBs.

 

Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.

IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.

Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?

Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.

There is NO sure guarantee that Garrett could beat out Nassib or whomever in camp.

You think you know something, but you don't know shit.

Every player taken is a risk.

And now the Browns do NOT have a "makeshift" OL.....they have a super solid OL....or at least it seems they should.

And as far as I am concerned, even if they take MT, NO, he should not start right away, even if he is #1 overall.

 

Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..

I would rather go the route of having MT be our Aaron Rodgers.

 

Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..

However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.

Again...you don't know shit about if it would be a mistake. It may be a mistake not to draft him. You don't know the future.

 

Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..

Trubisky will NOT be there at 12. You have not been watching the NFL and how it operates this century if you think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is strategy/noise and nothing else. It blocks a SF trade-down because Garrett might be there. It opens a conversation with other teams for a trade down, whereby they can get a Hooker or Trubisky instead and perhaps another first or second rounder for next year. But if the Browns are stuck at #1, it will be Garrett.

Certainly it IS possible that it is all just smoke and mirrors and nothing else. On the other hand, this FO group does have a different way of thinking outside the mainstream. That is something we must all remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Von Miller EASILY did that in the Super Bowl. Come on man.

Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.

You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.

Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.

2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.

Nor the 1985 Bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
domcucch1994 Newbie

domcucch1994

Posted
Posted

 

He may be more talented than Sanchez ever is/was. But one year of college ball and then going to the game's highest level is not going to be an easy transition.

Taking Trubs @ 1 would be a huuuge reach!

 

A person is a reach only if they are ultimately unsuccesful. Spergon Wynn was a HUGE reach as a 6th round pick.

No one thought Ryan Leaf was a reach...some thought he should have gone #1 ahead of Peyton.

It only matters how one actually performs, not how they are projected to perform.

If say, Garrett turns into Courtney Brown 2.0..then HE would be a "huge reach".

 

And if you have looked at our history of recent 1st round QBs we've drafted, the track record isn't very good... Weeden, Quinn, Manziel. All fails.

Doesn't necessarily mean Trubisky will fail, but you have to take this into consideration..

 

No, you don't. Browns have as bad or worse record at taking pass rushers. Courtney Brown, Kam Wimbley. Barkevious Mingo. Shouldn't we take this poor track record into account as much as we do for the QBs.

 

Kessler was good, not great, but good. 92 QBR with a makeshift o-line and little help from his receivers outside of TP.

IF Trubisky is taken #1, the pressure is enormous to play him right away.

Let's say Kess beats out Trubs in training camp, then what? Sit him until an injury happens or for the whole year and let him watch?

Then we would have wasted our first overall pick for the 2017 season. Garrett would for-sure be a starter on our D. There is no guarantee Mitch could even beat out Kessler in camp.

There is NO sure guarantee that Garrett could beat out Nassib or whomever in camp.

You think you know something, but you don't know shit.

Every player taken is a risk.

And now the Browns do NOT have a "makeshift" OL.....they have a super solid OL....or at least it seems they should.

And as far as I am concerned, even if they take MT, NO, he should not start right away, even if he is #1 overall.

 

Look at Alex Smith in KC. Doesn't have a cannon for an arm but is accurate and limits mistakes. Kessler can be our Alex Smith, if we wanna go that route..

I would rather go the route of having MT be our Aaron Rodgers.

 

Knowing Cleveland and knowing Haslam, we will be taking a QB in the 1st..

However that would be a huge mistake. There are other areas of need that we can fill in this draft.

Again...you don't know shit about if it would be a mistake. It may be a mistake not to draft him. You don't know the future.

 

Trubisky will be there @ 12. SF is going to have a helluva time passing up on Solomon Thomas or Jamal Adams @ 2..

Trubisky will NOT be there at 12. You have not been watching the NFL and how it operates this century if you think that.

 

I know enough Gip.

I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.

I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.

 

The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.

Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?

 

It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.

 

But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!

 

Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.

Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..

 

How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..

Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AU165 Newbie

AU165

Posted
Posted

Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.

You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.

Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.

2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.

Nor the 1985 Bears.

 

Michael Strahan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Gipper Newbie

The Gipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I know enough Gip.

I know that many experts feel that this draft class is heavy on defense, but lacking in QBs.

I know that if we take another QB and he fails, like Weeden, Manziel, and Quinn, it is going to be another regime change... again.

A. Those experts are NOT the ones doing the drafting for the Cleveland Browns. the Browns experts think they are more expert than any other experts.

B. You still have to take a Risk......be it at QB or at DE. The one guy is JUST as big a risk at the other guy. If you don't want to take a risk, take a seat on the couch.

 

The problem with Cleveland is, they don't give their QBs a legitimate shot.

Maybe to a point...but, the fact is, all these past Browns QBs didn't exactly go anywhere and light it up when they did get shots, now did they?

Kessler can be a solid QB. Why draft a guy #1 who is only 1 inch taller, and has less college experience?

Because he has a ton more talent. Much better arm, legs, quicker release, etc. etc.

Brandon Weeden had a lot more height and experience than either of him...that didn't help him, now did it?

 

It would be stupid to take Mitch @ 1. 31st ranked defense, 26 qb sacks. That is putrid.

 

But nooooo.. let's reach for Mitch @ 1. He is going to magically fix everything!

They will win MORE with a franchise QB than they will with a DE. You think that a DE will magically fix things? that is ignorance.

 

Cleveland needs to take off the blinders and draft the best player @ 1.

And that best player may in fact be the QB. You just never think about that, do you.

 

 

Garrett will at least strike some fear into the opposing defenses..

Not as a rookie, I doubt it. And who knows if he ever does.

 

How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib..

Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.

Again, you are making asshole assumptions about a player that you really have no clue about how he will perform. That is as big an asshole assumption as an assumption I would make that MT will be the next Tom Brady.

We don't know about either. Garrett could be Barky Mingo 2.0 as easily as MT could be a washup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

Apologies my uploading went a bit haywire there so it's over two posts

 

That was worth waiting for... was chuckle after chuckle... (COL?)

 

Should have been it's own thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

Perhaps. Lets say that, yes, there have been a number of Defenses that led their team to SB wins, but to say ONE man did it. Not so sure. Even a QB isn't a one man show, so a DE/LB can do that.

You could say the 2000 Ravens were "lead" by a MLB..Lewis.

Those Broncos, yes, probably led by Miller.

2002 Buccaneers? Not really one defineable leader.

Nor the 1985 Bears.

 

'85 Bears? The greatest D on the greatest team ever?

 

Lotta great defenders... Dent, McMichaels, Fridge, Duerson... none of whom would argue with the labeling of Singletary as their leader. Ditto for "Sweetness" on Offense...

 

 

Looking for an undisputed, team-leading DE? Start with JJ Watt... especially since LT wasn't a hybrid anything. He was all 3-4 OLB...

 

How can you even argue that Garrett couldn't beat out Carl Nassib? Garrett is head-and-shoulders above Nassib. Him and Ogbah would be a nasty duo along the front 7.

 

Not a matter of "how", Dom... It's "why"?

 

And the answer is because it fits his narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miktoxic Newbie

miktoxic

Posted
Posted

von miller did not do it alone. at least he had some decent players surrounding him.

 

neither is a safe pick. we've seen many a sure-pick #home out the locker room hallways onto the field and bust all over the place.

 

as usual i'll let the professional scouts and FO deal with it.........hee hee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...