the browns have spent quite a bit of capital on the offensive line (joe thomas, kevin zeitler, jc tretter, joel bitonio), wr (corey coleman, kenny britt, host of draft picks from two years ago), te, (njoku and devalve) dl (myles garrett, larry ogunjobi, and caleb brantley last draft), and lb (jamie collins, emmanuel ogbah). and that doesn't include a whole host of guys who simply washed out (britt excepted), or the first rounder we spent on peppers last year. so why is it rational to continue throwing picks at those positions but not quarterback? at what point do you consider that maybe part of the reason these other guys look so impotent is because the most important position on the field has been filled by empty uniforms for the last 20 years? trying to win at football without a qb is like trying to win at chess without a queen. sure, the other pieces may do some damage, but unless your opponent is totally incompetent, the outcome is a foregone conclusion
1-2 of those picks might pan out. I highly doubt they spend all $80m. Adding 2-3 players isn't going to fix that team. It's not a one year turnaround. Again, I'm not saying a QB is a dumb move, just saying thay building other areas and getting a QB later wouldn't be a bad move.
You've thrown picks at QB's too, including this year. Like most of the picks on the other position, the picks weren't spent wisely. As Jags fan, I feel your pain. Drafting bust after bust blows. The last couple drafts for the Jags have been much better. We still have butt at QB but the rest of the roster is much better and they are now a competent team.
And you’ve done a terrible job building around the position. That is the problem. Christ, are you really this dense?
Again, I'm not saying taking a QB is a bad option. I just think trading down would be a better move bc there's so many hole. No QB is going to magically solve everything. Trading down isn't always an option though. If it's not, I get taking a QB.
The Browns aren't that awful of a roster, honestly. Basically the current era NFL comes down to having a high end QB. If you have one you're good. If you don't, you ain't got shit and I don't fucking care how good the rest of your team is. They are a better coach and QB away from AFC North contention.
Let's say we take Rosen #1 overall - would you trade #4 to the Bills for #17, #25, and a third rounder (equal value per the draft value chart)? I've hated some of our trade down moves, and passing on a chance at Fitzpatrick/Chubb is tough, but gives us even more swings to get talent on this roster.
No. Get two elite talents and you still have two top 5 picks on Friday. I don't have a problem trading back up into the late first either
I think Rosen will go through with pulling an Eli on the Browns and their best bet would be to sign Kirk Cousins and get the absolute most they can for the #1 pick. If Cousins flames out, they are just out cap space that they would never use up anyhow.
The Browns had like a top 6-7 rush defense of all time this year. Let's not pretend like a competent qb doesn't change everyrhing
The "lol I guess Rosen will be 16-0 next year amirite lmbo" trolling is beyond dumb. If you are in a position to draft a guy you feel can be a good qb and you dont currently have one on the roster, you do it. Any other opinion is total nonsense. The only reason to pass is if they don't like Rosen as a prospect. I haven't seen much of him over his college career, so I'll defer on that to other people.
As the fan of the team that was the first to go 0-16, I have some points I would like to share after reading the last page of stupidity from outsiders who don't get it.... 1. The Browns going 0-16 this year is a joke. This roster was miles better than 2008 Detroit. It's not even close. That Detroit team had 3-5 legit starters on it. This Cleveland team is much better. 2. I remember the media pushing the line of "You can't draft a QB #1. He'll die. You need to trade down or wait a year or two before you pick a QB." I got into all kinds of arguments on Rivals and elsewhere because people said the Lions needed to take Jason Smith or Aaron Curry over Matthew Stafford. "Stafford is too much of a risk and he'll never succeed with that roster," they said. He got hurt the first couple seasons, but in year three the Lions made the playoffs and he hasn't missed a game since. It's kind of nice to have that position figured out, and prior to him the best Detroit QB of the Super Bowl era was probably Scott Mitchell. 3. People who say you need to wait on the QB are stupid. Don't listen to them. 4. Not firing Hue Jackson is the weirdest move I've ever seen. The man is 1-31 with the Browns. Why hire Dorsey if you don't like him pick his own coach? That one is a head scratcher, and I feel for you guys there. 5. We are both cursed. One day, we will meet in the Super Bowl right before the world comes to an end. It's going to happen. EDIT: this is the Lions' depth chart from 2008. This is the worst roster of all time, and it made the playoffs three years later because it picked a QB and he was good. http://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/archive/31/det
The Jackson move makes sense to me in that you want to try and give the guys some sense of stability. The coaching turnover has been absolutely incredible and they're not winning much next year anyways so just ride it out and basically evaluate candidates for a year
I'd be willing to take an RG3 type of trade if Buffalo is that dire to get rid of Tyrod Taylor and get their first 3 choices and next years first. That allows Dorsey to move around and stack his board for the future while evaluating what trash he wants to dump. That should still keep them in position for one of 2 of your targets, a later pick to draft a WR that doesn't have dicks for hands with a bonus one or they can power back up if a highly touted guy drops unexpectedly, than start shuffling some Day 2 choices into later 1's and 2's. This draft is pretty deep at RB and DB, so they should be able to fill those needs without 2 top 5 choices.
i don't think it's a bad move, but we have like 13 picks already (including an additional pick in the top 5). ideally, we get our qb and use the other 12 picks to fill needs
yeah, this. normally trading down is fine, but we miss so much when we try. just don't outsmart yourselves for once and take the best talent on the board. it worked out fine last year with garrett. get another impact player for the secondary and we'll be pretty close on defense
Problem number 1 is coaching. If you subtract qb this year is there a clear cut bpa? Just take one at #1. You have so many other picks to play around with you have the luxury of not caring if it's wreckles.
This is the problem, the browns tried to be cute and move around the draft to get players who were needs at an appropriate draft position. Draft the best player available, fill needs in free agency
Broncos are keeping Vance Joseph. Elway might be interested in moving up to 1-1. Talib has tradeable contract. Possibly a trade partner with players and extra picks.
i want him at 2 but i guess that makes me crazy he’s so good and i love how he plays and his passion that borders on crazy sometimes
nothing i saw from him today makes me think his game is gonna translate well. ou is basically an art briles baylor team with much better talent at every position. he looked pretty ordinary once uga took away those wide open passes and started getting pressure.
People love him for being a 'gamer' and ultra competitive but in the nfl that just means it's more likely you're going to die when someone takes your head off as you attempt to keep a play alive
I think Baker does well if he goes to a team like New Orleans. Sit behind Drew Brees for a few years, play 8+ games in a dome. Part of me feels like the Browns should just draft best player available and not worry about Darnold/Rosen. Or if they could do a futures pick for Jake Fromm.