Baker Mayfield

[Dutch Oven]

5 minutes ago, Browns149 said:

Aaron Rodgers had a HOF resume after 3 years

Baker will be lucky to get a contract extension from the team that drafted him

 

Didn't Rodgers sit the bench for his first three seasons in the NFL?

[Browns149]

1 minute ago, Dutch Oven said:

Didn't Rodgers sit the bench for his first three seasons in the NFL?

After he started playing he had a hall of fame resume in 3 years. As did Russell Wilson who started week 1

[Browns149]

Baker is way closer to flaming out of the league then he is to taking a team to a divisional title

[Gunz41]

5 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Then this entire post was pointless.  

No its not. You obviously missed the ENTIRE point, and you are one that I actually respect their opinions.

When you use this one game to point out how bad Baker is (again, not saying he isn't) but to use it to justify something well on the exact same day Rodgers would statically have had a worse game. Does that mean Rodgers is terrible? Obviously not. It really isn't a post taking up for Baker, certainly isn't anything negative about Rodgers, its just pointing out that using the worse to justify (specifically those who only come to talk negatively) is asinine.

But let's look at it the complete opposite. If Baker goes out next week and throws for 400+ and 5 TDs does that mean he finally made the correct adjustments to his game and should be the franchise QB for 10 years? Of course not.

And before anyone asks like before in this thread, I was in the Allen camp mainly because of his physical traits. And I would have had Darnold over Baker too. As for the other years recently, hated Trubisky, liked both Mahomes and Watson, didn't like Kyler and didn't like Rosen or Lamar. Some have been good and some not.

But nowhere in there did I say Baker was the answer, etc. I am just pointing out the fact that an all-time great (which Baker IS NOT, WILL 99.9% NEVER BE) can have just as bad if not worse statistical game. But I am not going to completely write him off at this point. As the QB, he has the team 4-2 (no not because of him), and many here probably have little idea how difficult things he has dealt with are on him. The different coaches/systems, and its certainly not easy to play through an injury. And speaking of Rodgers, as a Top 10 QB ever, exactly how much progression, etc did we see at this point in his career? 

 

[Gunz41]

24 minutes ago, Browns149 said:

Aaron Rodgers had a HOF resume after 3 years

Baker will be lucky to get a contract extension from the team that drafted him

 

Ugh terrible history there sir.

2005: 65 yards 0 TD 1 INT

2006: 46 yards 0 TD 0 INT

2007: 218 yards 1 TD 0 INT

This is the EXACT thing I am talking about. 

[Browns149]

2 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Ugh terrible history there sir.

2005: 65 yards 0 TD 1 INT

2006: 46 yards 0 TD 0 INT

2007: 218 yards 1 TD 0 INT

This is the EXACT thing I am talking about. 

He wasn’t the starter those years.
After he was the starter, he won an MVP award and won the superbowl in his first 3 years as a starter 

Do you really think Baker is going to do that in his 3rd year starting? 

[tiamat63]

12 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

No its not. You obviously missed the ENTIRE point, and you are one that I actually respect their opinions.

 

 

I did not miss anything.

Baker isn't Rogers, you said so yourself.    You're right, a single poor statistical day doesn't prove anything.  This has been a (going on) 3 year trend with Baker now. 

[Unsympathetic]

1 hour ago, Gunz41 said:

But since one game is the determining factor in how bad Baker is, apparently a bust who must be run outta town, I guess Aaron Rodgers and the Packers suck too.

This is a wildly stupid false dichotomy strawman.  If you think aaron rodgers sucks, good for you - that has ZERO relevance to Baker. It also asserts that the discussion is only about "one game" - which it isn't.

 

It does, however, threadjack and deflect criticism away from Baker.  Is that your objective?

35 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

You obviously missed the ENTIRE point,

I'll play this game: You obviously missed the ENTIRE point of this thread.. Baker Mayfield - you know, the subject of the thread.

 

35 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Does that mean Rodgers is terrible? Obviously not.

So what? Zero anything about Rodgers means anything about Baker.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

But nowhere in there did I say Baker was the answer, etc.

 

I'm glad we agree. Next time, seriously, try just typing your actual point and moving on.  This entire mental journey down Aaron Rodgers Cul-de-sac is a waste of  time.

[Gunz41]

2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

I did not miss anything.

Baker isn't Rogers, you said so yourself.    You're right, a single poor statistical day doesn't prove anything.  This has been a (going on) 3 year trend with Baker now. 

Yes, exactly. And I specifically pointed out in the subsequent message that it was pointed to more so for the folks that decided today was the day to pile on to him. You know, the guys who didn't come around when they won.

So again, unlike others on here who just post as a fan (or to just talk) I respect your thoughts, but tell me ONE thing I said that is incorrect? I never tried to even infer that Baker is even a 10th of Rodgers. The only point was showing that someone universally respected can do the same thing. 

In fact, I'll bet if you wanted to (not saying I would), I would venture to guess that a whole bunch of the terrible talk about Baker in the 2 threads are folks who don't post much/only post negative things/didn't post a thing with a W/etc. And those are also the ones who will refuse to factor in anything else aside from Baker just being terrible. The Steelers had nothing to do with it, the DNP had nothing to do with it, and his own injuries had nothing to do with it. And his development has zero to do with the influx of changes he has had to endure in his short career.

But just to say it one final time: Baker is NOT Rodgers, Baker very well could not be the answer to the QB position in Cleveland, Baker was TERRIBLE today, In his time in the NFL Baker has been average at best.

But to base it on one game is foolish, as even all time greats have bad games, and to only want to write to post how bad he is is jerkish.

[Vagitron]

I'm not sure why you all are frying mayfield.  He wasn't good today but his ribs are also fucked up and he's already on his second coach since being drafted.  It's going to take time and if the Browns reset again it's going to take even longer.  Is he worth his draft position? no, is he a bad qb? I don't think he is and he has the confidence to bounce back.  The AFC north is a really tough division.  You gotta give that guy some credit for trotting out there today, he was hurting. 

[tiamat63]

9 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

 

But to base it on one game is foolish, as even all time greats have bad games, and to only want to write to post how bad he is is jerkish.

I'm not saying all of your post is incorrect - it isn't.  

But the selected part above is.   Baker struggles against quality defenses, has for 3 years now.  And he plays in an offense designed to mask his deficiencies as a QB.  It's been very obvious from the start of the season.

[Gunz41]

19 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

This is a wildly stupid false dichotomy strawman.  If you think aaron rodgers sucks, good for you - that has ZERO relevance to Baker. It also asserts that the discussion is only about "one game" - which it isn't.

 

It does, however, threadjack and deflect criticism away from Baker.  Is that your objective?

I'll play this game: You obviously missed the ENTIRE point of this thread.. Baker Mayfield - you know, the subject of the thread.

 

So what? Zero anything about Rodgers means anything about Baker.

 

 

 

I'm glad we agree. Next time, seriously, try just typing your actual point and moving on.  This entire mental journey down Aaron Rodgers Cul-de-sac is a waste of  time.

Maybe try reading and comprehend before trying to go down that road.

I put up the exact numbers for this reason.

Aaron Rodgers never has sucked, and that there is no trying to deflect criticism off Baker. You are trying to make it seem this way because of the argument.

As said earlier in the 2 threads, people were using  TODAY'S PERFORMANCE to illustrate how bad Baker Mayfield IS. No, not how bad he was TODAY, but as a whole. And to illustrate how using this ONE GAME to point that out is the wrong way to get that conclusion, I used Aaron Rodgers from TODAY. 

Again there is no comparison to Baker and Rodgers throughout their careers. There isn't but a handful of players in history that could compare to Rodgers. In all honesty, there are at least half the leagues QBs I would rather have than Baker. 

But seriously, if both those stats had no name on them would you know that one was an all time great and the other an average at best QB? THAT is the point. Again, I challenge you to find anywhere where I said anything even remotely resembling Baker is close to as good as Rodgers, or even something that Baker is any good. If you find it I will leave and never post again. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

[Unsympathetic]

11 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

there is no trying to deflect criticism off Baker

Yes, there is.

 

11 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

if both those stats had no name on them would you know that one was an all time great and the other an average at best QB

That's deflecting criticism, dude.

 

Try challenging yourself to comprehend what you're typing - or just leave and never post again, as you promised.

 

Nobody will miss you - except possibly Icecube, but he may ask you out on a date.

[MDDawg]

Baker still can't read coverages, he's made nearly identical interceptions three times in the four games he's thrown them in this season. He should've accounted for Minkah before staring down the receiver and throwing over the middle, that's a rookie mistake in his 3rd year. Repeated similar mistakes infuriate coaches and get players benched, Stefanski said Baker will start "if he's healthy" which is a caveat to start Case if he decides so.

[Gunz41]

7 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

I'm not saying all of your post is incorrect - it isn't.  

But the selected part above is.   Baker struggles against quality defenses, has for 3 years now.  And he plays in an offense designed to mask his deficiencies as a QB.  It's been very obvious from the start of the season.

No, you still aren't getting the point. I am not denying ANY of that. And I am not saying YOU or half the other posts in those 2 threads haven't had that opinion these 3 years. I have the same thoughts. When I say using one game I am speaking of the posters who I only notice post something when things aren't going well. Those same guys who I haven't notice say anything the last 4 games or had no moving criticism before.

I have zero issue saying Baker hasn't even come.close to living up to #1 pick. And have even less issue with fair criticism from guys who post regularly, whether it happens on that subject or not. But when it APPEARS that the only reason someone is posting is to speak on how terrible he (or anyone) is when you use a single sample size that is not genuine. 

The point being they can all be exactly correct. But just like the one guy who seemed to have a man crush on a few players, when one of those guys had a good play/game and came bragging they didn't appear to be taking the totality of work into play.

[Gunz41]

9 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

Yes, there is.

 

That's deflecting criticism, dude.

 

Try challenging yourself to comprehend what you're typing - or just leave and never post again, as you promised.

 

Nobody will miss you - except possibly Icecube, but we think he's gay.

No that isn't. At least to me. But I am not some brainiac. I'm just some dumb jock coach apparently.

I never said a thing about not criticizing him. Didn't even try to explain away why he played bad. He played bad because he played bad. 

I don't know why you are of the opinion that pointing out that it does happen to others deflects criticism? 

But we can use another subject they may not be as sore apparently. If I were to point out that X player only did this is in a certain game, But LeBron James had a similar game that isn't saying don't criticize that player, its just pointing out the fact that an all time great can do the same thing. 

So in summary, Baker is ABSOLUTELY entitled to criticism, especially for today's game. And based on today's game, Rodgers would also be entitled to the same criticism. It's not an either or thing

[TexasAg1969]

Well we damn sure won't find a better groundskeeper.😁

[Tour2ma]

3 hours ago, Neo said:

Brandon Weeden was old enough to retire when we drafted him. Still don't understand that one.

Holmgren's last gasp to save his job.

[Tour2ma]

2 hours ago, Ibleedbrown said:

It really felt like the Steelers were a step ahead all day.

Yup... I can remember early on wondering if they were in our huddle...

[Tour2ma]

2 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

Didn't Rodgers sit the bench for his first three seasons in the NFL?

I really enjoy your wit...

 

... when it's not pointed at me.

 

[TexasAg1969]

14 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

I really enjoy your wit...

... when it's not pointed at me.

Oh, I can't pass that up. Been saving this all afternoon and evening so people could see that slowpoke we could have had instead of Coleman @#15 or Ogbah @ #32.  😁

This was the best game of the day with Henry punching it in from the Wild-cat in OT for the win.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

I'm not saying all of your post is incorrect - it isn't.  

But the selected part above is.   Baker struggles against quality defenses, has for 3 years now.  And he plays in an offense designed to mask his deficiencies as a QB.  It's been very obvious from the start of the season.

I prefer to think of it as our OFFENSE as a whole has struggled vs top defenses. However, Baker had a very bad game today.

But he played with bruised ribs, a star? ROG out, his main best rb in the NFL ? out, his top two wr's out. "past three years" doesn't tell much, since kitchen's offense was junk - and his play calling was worse. Opposing defenses were telling the Browns players that they KNEW what play they were going to run most of the time.

   That isn't on Baker. The defense has major injuries - this year, the offense rocks, it's brilliant. But they couldn't block vs the squealers blitzes. I personally lament running on first down nearly every time except a few times, one of them just before the half, I think. Then they had to throw on 3rd and long, etc.

   It isn't all on Baker. I could tell Baker didn't have zip on his passes, that figures. Once they fell behind, they had to start throwing more, and Baker couldn't get it done often.

  Every other team has lost to the squealers. Let's see how the Browns come back the next four games.

[jiggins7919]

13 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Yup... I can remember early on wondering if they were in our huddle...

I don't like to write too much after a bad loss, it's better when I have some time to process. I honestly don't know many QBs that could've done jack shit out there, but I don't like how we didn't show up basically across the board. The defense made a small effort in the first half, but it was pointless. Baker had no time to throw and even when he did his first read was almost never open. 

People can say that we're 4-2 all they want but it doesn't feel that way right now and we've got a feisty Bengals team coming up that can sure as shit beat our asses it we don't get prepared and play better team ball. Teams are now sitting on the play-action boots and making us pay for our predictable play fakes. (past two weeks) 

It might be one game, but Browns were once again humiliated in Pittsburgh and again look like the little brother who hasn't yet hit puberty. It was really bad, and perhaps worst of all, our QB further injured himself and gave the trolls more ammunition. 

[Unsympathetic]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

No that isn't. At least to me

All your points are invalid because your points don't address what I double-secret-this-time-swear-intended to say but still haven't. Got it!

 

Socrates couldn't debate while drinking hemlock, therefore clearly Baker Mayfield is a great quarterback when the moon is in retrograde and I'll leave this forum if anyone debates me on this while holding a left-handed smokeshifter!

[Nero]

8 hours ago, Vagitron said:

I'm not sure why you all are frying mayfield.  He wasn't good today but his ribs are also fucked up and he's already on his second coach since being drafted.  It's going to take time and if the Browns reset again it's going to take even longer.  Is he worth his draft position? no, is he a bad qb? I don't think he is and he has the confidence to bounce back.  The AFC north is a really tough division.  You gotta give that guy some credit for trotting out there today, he was hurting. 

Correction: 4th coach. Jackson, Williams (intern), Kitchens, Stefanski. 

I'm with you that Browns need stability and Stefanski seems like he's doing the best so far in getting it done. The problem with Baker is that no matter the coach, he still makes the same mistakes over and over. With the current roster, the Browns need a game manager QB, who throws for less than 200 yards and doesn't turn the ball.

Baker currently has some traits that I haven't seen improve in 3 years:

- Pocket awareness/happy feet. He moves way too much and doesn't reset his stance before throwing. Brady looks like a robot but that is what has made him be the GOAT, only needs one step up in the pocket to avoid rushers, and a throwing technique from feet to shoulders perfected to the extreme. Meanwhile, Baker has even said he doesn't need a 'throwing coach' to improve his technique IIRC. 

- Vision. Not only he usually sticks to the first read, but he also doesn't see wide open WR when he leaves what most of the times is a perfectly decent pocket. Yesterday's presnap and postsnap reads on Fitzpatrick are AWFUL. I know he is great, but I bet the Steelers' safety has had few easier INTs in his career.  He was sitting there with a Martini waiting for the throw. 
 

- Gunslinger. He has 39 INTs in 2 and a half seasons for a reason (35 games played). This is something that sometimes I believe he has improved, because I've seen him throwing the ball out of bounds, but many times he forces the play and puts too much into the ball, sails high and the DBs feast on that. 

Most of those traits I think are linked to the mental aspect. This guy has some 'fire' in himself, which is a great trait for leadership. I bet that the players love him in the locker room. The problem is that he doesn't have the 'cold mind' needed for reading the defenses and playing under pressure.

As a viewer, I feel like if Baker has to second guess (because his first read is covered, the pressure is getting to him, the pocket collapses and he has to move), then the play turns blurry and there the mistakes happen. And I think that is hard to overcome or change and you can't become a game manager if you don't have that.  

[nickers]

I'm not saying Baker doesn't have issues... But this is interesting...

 

 

[lodilobo]

Baker was not my first pick...Josh Allen was. He reminded me of Testeverde, who was a bust until he had the right coaching. Mayfield is our QB, and I'm not ready to give up on him. He's never going to be Aaron Rodgers, but when he is playing with confidence, he can be more than adequate to win games. As for yesterday...he sucked. He should not have been playing...especially against the Squealers. Personally, I think his confidence was severely damaged last season, and he is still not fully recovered. He may never be the same player we saw at the end of 2018. I'm not trying to make excuses, but the team needs stability at the qb position. I think we have the right coach....even though he had a bad day yesterday, so I'm not ready to bench Mayfield in favor of Case Keenum...yet. However, with the injured ribs, I think I would have strongly considered starting Keenum yesterday.

[Bob806]

1 hour ago, lodilobo said:

Baker was not my first pick...Josh Allen was. He reminded me of Testeverde, who was a bust until he had the right coaching. Mayfield is our QB, and I'm not ready to give up on him. He's never going to be Aaron Rodgers, but when he is playing with confidence, he can be more than adequate to win games. As for yesterday...he sucked. He should not have been playing...especially against the Squealers. Personally, I think his confidence was severely damaged last season, and he is still not fully recovered. He may never be the same player we saw at the end of 2018. I'm not trying to make excuses, but the team needs stability at the qb position. I think we have the right coach....even though he had a bad day yesterday, so I'm not ready to bench Mayfield in favor of Case Keenum...yet. However, with the injured ribs, I think I would have strongly considered starting Keenum yesterday.

I agree with most of that, except it's easy to look in the rear view mirror & say they should have sat him due to injury.

I think Keenum would have met the same fate. The pitt front 7 just killed the Browns O line.

 

[Gunz41]

8 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

All your points are invalid because your points don't address what I double-secret-this-time-swear-intended to say but still haven't. Got it!

 

Socrates couldn't debate while drinking hemlock, therefore clearly Baker Mayfield is a great quarterback when the moon is in retrograde and I'll leave this forum if anyone debates me on this while holding a left-handed smokeshifter!

Umm ok??? I have no clue what you are talking about.

But I think the issue here is that you and I have a different view on criticism.

You see, silly ole me thinks saying how Terrible Baker was is CRITICISM. But I guess that its not. And of course that (as well as other things like it) was in my original post.

To me, deflecting criticism is "Baker was off BECAUSE of something outside of his control." When I used Facts/Stats to show Rodgers had a similar story THAT DAY, that isn't taking criticism off Baker, not giving Rodgers more, not comparing the CAREERS of the two COMPLETE opposites. If you can't comprehend that, then I can't help you because we just have a fundamental difference in interpretation. 

I will just leave it at that. I feel no need to continue on with the useless back and forth with you over trivial things.

Peace out, have a good day and God Bless

 

[Unsympathetic]

29 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

When I used Facts/Stats to show Rodgers had a similar story THAT DAY, that isn't taking criticism off Baker, not giving Rodgers more, not comparing the CAREERS of the two COMPLETE opposites. If you can't comprehend that

Rodgers didn't have a good day yesterday for whatever reasons.  He's had 184 starts.. and most of Rodgers' average-to-bad days are better than Baker's best day.

In year 3 we're still waiting for Baker to have two good days in a row.

Because of his years of consistently excellent play, Rodgers has earned the right to be lazy with his feet or his eyes [I don't know what specifically happened yesterday] and not have his starting role questioned.   BAKER HAS NOT.  Rodgers won the SB his 3rd full season starting.

There is no "comparison" between the two - and you clearly can't comprehend that.

But please keep on saying how you're not trying to apologize for Baker. 

 

This whole thread, you've been pushing the notion that "See, Rodgers Had A Bad Day So Give Baker A Pass Too" -- which is apologizing for Baker.  You've of course conveniently not confronted the reality that for the Rodgers example to be relevant, Baker would first have to be equal to Rodgers.  Being a professional means you're only as good as your last deliverable -- and Baker's deliverables aren't great.  LeBron has stopped dunking in the regular season because after 17 seasons he has earned the right to save himself for playoffs.. but if a rookie tried that, he'd get sent to the D-league.

 

Sunday's performance is Baker's average.. it's an outlier for Rodgers.