Spectralcow Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 There were only two teams in the league who ran the ball more than they threw it this year. ...you're watching them play against each other right now. Has the league turned to passing? Yep. Does that guarantee success? Nope. Is there still some merit to a running game? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 This game is VERY intense defensively but the offense looks AWFUL! Give me Brady vs Manning anyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Manning will eat the offspring of the winner of this game. Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Manning will eat the offspring of the winner of this game. Z If he has time to throw. The niners have been in the backfield all night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectralcow Posted January 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning." What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work. If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning." What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work. If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up. It's going to be awfully cold at the Superbowl, I wouldn't be surprised if Peyton lost to the 9er/seahawk D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning." What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work. If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up. You see I take that statement kind of beyond face value. When I say it's a passing league, I mean that you have to have a franchise QB in order to make it far. Part of being a franchise QB is obviously being able to throw like the guys who were in the playoffs this year. Like I said in another thread, the commonality of every good, winning team in the NFL is having a franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 There were only two teams in the league who ran the ball more than they threw it this year. ...you're watching them play against each other right now. Has the league turned to passing? Yep. Does that guarantee success? Nope. Is there still some merit to a running game? Yep. And then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the other game featured two of the greatest QB's to play the game. There's no one way to win a game. But having a franchise QB helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 I've said it before, the run game helps passing game....what's more successful, an offense which keeps the D honest, or one that looks at the opposing DC and says "we're going to throw the ball now and forever"? the 'run vs. pass' argument is Retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Ok, then why take a receiver at No. 4.... To improve the passing game? Like JRB said, without a franchise QB who can minimize mistakes and make big plays when needed... Forget about the rest. Because the chances of Bridgewater/manziel/bortles being a franchise QB aren't clear cut. And we have Brian hoyer, which some people are still kinda high on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Id bet a years wages we dont draft Watkins. Not happening. Its QB or O Line imo. Maybe an ILB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Not sure you understood my point. But I'll play along. So, the guy who had two decent starts, who was sent packing by four teams, has a better shot than the top 3 cfb prospects in this years draft? Man, Vegas really loves guys like you. Hey, the guy with 2 good starts beats the guy with 0. I'm not high on any of the top 3 prospects. I am a Mariota fan but you know how that went. There's been multiple drafts where the top 3 QB prospects have been below average - average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Ok, then why take a receiver at No. 4.... To improve the passing game? Like JRB said, without a franchise QB who can minimize mistakes and make big plays when needed... Forget about the rest. Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either. This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you. Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers. Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team. The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter. There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback. There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl. If that doesn't do it for you, try this: Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason. Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason. Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason. Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18. Or how about this: 2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason. 2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason. All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today. The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water. You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Or how about this: 2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason. 2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason. All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today. The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water. You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple. I've been saying this for months on here and it's amazing how many people don't get it. It's such common sense yet people refuse to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Everyone else's argument is that we have Hoyer....I dont see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 We need to draft a QB first, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 How good was Seattle before Wilson? They hard Lynch. Were talking Super Bowls, not winning eight games a year. Not arguing running isnt important, that's fucking Retarded and not the point. You mean Flynn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you. Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers. Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team. The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter. There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback. There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl. If that doesn't do it for you, try this: Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason. Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason. Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason. Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18. Or how about this: 2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason. 2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason. All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today. The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water. You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple. The Watkins/Clowney thing is more about drafting BPA. And those BPAs happen to be at positions of need too. Don't worry tho, I think Lombardi is 100% on the "do whatever it takes to get manziel and let other teams fool us into trading up for him" bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 No, I mean they had Lynch running the ball, but had a shit sandwich at QB. Saying passing or running is more important is a useless waste of typing or speaking. To win football you need to be able to do everything well. Check. While I am rooting for Seattle, I do detect from yesterday that their passing game is not first rate, though their defense and run game are. Russell made a few good plays, and it was enough to beat San Fran at home......but I don't know if it will be enough to be Peyton Manning on a neutral field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Check. While I am rooting for Seattle, I do detect from yesterday that their passing game is not first rate, though their defense and run game are. Russell made a few good plays, and it was enough to beat San Fran at home......but I don't know if it will be enough to be Peyton Manning on a neutral field. Cant pick a winner till the weather report is released. If its 35 and sunny its Denver's, if its 15 w/ snow, I think its Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 The Watkins/Clowney thing is more about drafting BPA. And those BPAs happen to be at positions of need too. Don't worry tho, I think Lombardi is 100% on the "do whatever it takes to get manziel and let other teams fool us into trading up for him" bandwagon. Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback. I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles. Taking a QB is penultimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple. So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone? Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback. I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles. Taking a QB is penultimate. Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone? Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round. Were in a position to get our favorite QB. Not our second, third, or fourth. Its our biggest need. I bet Nick Foles wasn't the Eagles favorite QB....they just got lucky. I guarantee, Johnny Manziel will be as good as Kaepernick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Can you guarantee every QB in this draft will flop? No one said they have to take Manziel Bortles or Bridgewater, either. And the fact 3/4 QBs weren't first round picks proves drafting is less of a science than wed like to think, not that drafting a QB in the first is a bad idea. Especially when your QB situation is relying on a recovering ACL injured QB who has two decent starts to his name. Sorry, Larry, there are no guarantees, but when I get done breaking it down, I'll be sure to let you know who they should take. One last thing, how many times do people complain about draft picks as "reaches" and applaud "steals" based on pre-draft media projections? It's all IRRELEVANT. You take the player your staff ranked , at the position you prioritized. Hypothetical example: I.e. if the Browns ranked Jimmy Garoppolo their no. 3 QB, and the top two are gone, they could pick him at four. I agree with everything but the last line. If they want Garappolo, they have to get a sense of others value on him. If he can be had in the second or third round, why draft him at 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone? Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round. Can you guarantee me that there isn't? If you can put in writing that none of the top QB's in this draft will go in to have successful careers, I'm all for it. You miss 100% of the shots you never take. Our past drafting history has absolute zero effect on this draft class. You can't let past mistakes paralyze you, that's the only way to guarantee we never get the right guy. That's a great point about the quarterbacks, except that neither Wilson nor Kaepernick is the reason their respective teams made the postseason. When the game was put in Kaep's hands, you saw what happened. 4 of the 6 Pro Bowl quartebacks were taken in the first 32 picks. Three on the top five. Two were number one overall picks. Yes, you can find talent later in the draft. But the odds are against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectralcow Posted January 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)? The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 I love how everyone keeps saying "Get a franchise QB!" like they wear a sign or there's a tag on the inside of their shirt collars that guarantees they will be a franchise QB. Sure, with some guys there's a better chance, with some guys there's more of a gamble. Of the four teams that played yesterday, how many had "franchise QBs"? How many of those guys where known to be "franchise QBs" when they were drafted (i.e. went early in the first round)? The people who argue the franchise QB point say "Get a franchise QB!" as if there is a group of Browns fans out there that are saying, "Stay away from franchise QBs!!" No one is saying that. EVERYONE agrees that a great QB is good for a team. So, if your whole point is "QBs who turn out to be really good are a benefit to their teams!" then you really have no point. The question actually is: "Is there any other possible way to achieve some success that could be an alternative IF a team doesn't end up acquiring a franchise QB (even if they tried)?" We've tried alternate ways. It's like you people are being purposely dense. Or you're just all pussies. I can't quite figure it out. "Boo hoo, we once drafted Brady Quinn. Let's never draft a QB again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round. And if you look at it from the team's perspective and where they found their QB: Seattle: 3rd round Denver: Free Agent San Fran: 2nd round New England: 6th round Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectralcow Posted January 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 TCPO, you are hilarious. In the same post, you honestly just said that trying something was stupid because we tried it before and it didn't work, and then you criticized people for saying, "We've tried that before and it didn't work." Also, let me make this clear. I'm not against taking a QB with the #4 pick. I never said that. I'm not against trying to get a franchise QB. I never said that either. What I'm against is scrapping entire seasons when the guy we hoped would turn out to be a franchise QB doesn't end up being one, because we're waiting for the next draft so we can try again. Every team wants a franchise QB, but not every team can find one. Instead of ONLY single-mindedly searching for one, perhaps the Browns and other desperate teams could consider the fact that there are teams that are successful running the ball. In fact, the ONLY two teams that ran the ball went to their conference championship game. I'm not saying that running is the best way or the only way, I'm just saying it is _A_ way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.