NFL Thread IV: The Hype Machine Continues

[ZANNI_1276]

Honest question...do you think a late round QB could handle it? I know that it happens sometimes, that a late round QB does manage to be successful, but most of the time, when you look at the top QBs in the league, they were first round picks.

P. Manning, E. Manning, Rodgers, Rivers, Flacco, Big Ben, Ryan, Cutler, Palmer, McNabb

The only ones who are top quality that weren't are Brees (2nd round), Brady (6th round), Romo (undrafted) and Schaub (3rd round). I guess we can put Warner in this conversation as well. It's a big gamble to place your future in a mid to late round draft pick. It can work out though as seen.

Yes I think you can find a good QB in later rounds, one it is less of a gamble if it doesn't pay off and two - if you have the supprting cast in place, a stellar offensive line, a bruising kick ass running game and 1 game breaking WR and a collection of WR/TE that are competent and catch the ball you can groom a quarterback and take the presure off the number 1 pick status, one of the reasons I would look at the QB position being the "last piece of the puzzle". You mentioned the starters such as the guys above, some of them came into a system that was in place like I just mentioned and they were able to produce at a high level, Big Ben, Flacco, Ryan. The others such as Peyton, Palmer, McNabb are fantastic picks and worthy of thier draft status but for each one of those I can list off Couch, Aklil Smith, Cade Mcnown, Harrington, Carr and whole bevvy of guys who were very high picks that frankly washed out because they couldn't play or they didn't have the cast around them to allow them to succeed. Drafting a QB high is a gamble and more than not it doesn't work out favorably, sometimes it does but I would concentrate on acquiring the players around them so they have the tools to succeed. O line, RB and weapons at reciever.

My biggest criteria for drafting a QB would be as follows, a 4 year starter, preferably with at least 25+ wins in his career and with a big NFL arm and a leader mentality. I know that sounds strange but it is imparative they know how to win. Use Cutler for example, 500 QB in college, 500 QB in DEN and now a 500 QB in CHI. Now there are reasons for it outside of basic circumstances but he needs to know what it takes to win football games. Also 4 year guys have a certain maturity level that underclassman early out guys don't have. Granted not always true but it would be one of my guidelines and there will always be "excpetions" to the rule but following that type of guideline maybe helpful when weighing the critiera of say two QBs that you may like to draft. Smarts, know how and he needs to make the throws that fit the system. Also if you use a later pick the presure of throwing him to the wolves is not nearly as great because of the initial investment so he can be tudored and learn the position with a little bit more of time instead of just saying "here are the keys - good luck kid, hope you don't wash out."

So yes I think you can find one later, but there are always special players and exceptions to the rule. Make sense?

[Mexal]

So yes I think you can find one later, but there are always special players and exceptions to the rule. Make sense?

Yea, it makes sense though I do think that if you want a QB who will win you games for a long time, you'll most likely need to use a high draft pick. That being said, I do agree with you in that you shouldn't do that until you have the rest of the pieces in place to take the pressure off of him.

So fair enough. Maybe three years from now you're in position to start grooming your franchise QB but if that's the case, you're still looking at 4-5 years before you're truly a playoff contender. I guess that's about right given the talent level currently on this team but it's hard, as a fan and owner, to be that patient. I know as well as anyone given I'm a Bengals fan. I wonder if Lerner would give a coach enough time to do that...

[DanteGabriel]

I certainly think progress will come faster if the Browns fire Mangini and start from scratch (again) with a solid GM and coach (as the Falcons did two years ago with Dimitroff the ex-Pat and Mike Smith)... But how much is their owner willing to spend to rectify the Mangini mistake? He's still paying salaries to Crennel and Savage, the predecessors to Mangina and Kokinis.

The one thing that's maddening is the Browns owe former GM Phil Savage and ex-coach Romeo Crennel their salaries through 2012 and 2011, respectively. There are other lingering contract payouts from the assistants on Crennel's staff. It's a pill of at least $20 million Lerner is swallowing, and if he cans Mangini -- in the first year of an estimated four-year, $12-million deal -- it just adds to the financial mayhem.

Is Lerner willing to pay three salaries just to current and former coaches?

[Maithanet]

So fair enough. Maybe three years from now you're in position to start grooming your franchise QB but if that's the case, you're still looking at 4-5 years before you're truly a playoff contender. I guess that's about right given the talent level currently on this team but it's hard, as a fan and owner, to be that patient. I know as well as anyone given I'm a Bengals fan. I wonder if Lerner would give a coach enough time to do that...

Well built teams can make the playoffs with a rookie quarterback. Two did it last year. Rookie Qbs aren't likely to win the super bowl, but I think most teams are willing to wait 4-5 years before they have a super bowl contender (as opposed to a playoff contender, for which people are more impatient).

[The Wedge]

Listening to Chicago's ESPN 1000 this morning on the way into work, they had some guy named Dog Pound Mike on. He's one of the, umm, leaders(?) of the fans in Cleaveland. He talked about having a meeting with the owner of the team a few days ago. The impression he got was that the owner believed in giving a coach a full year, but after that he would not be averse to buying out contracts.

If that's the case, then Browns fans should just lay back and enjoy the rest of the season.

Dog Pound Mike also said he brought in a bunch of e-mails with ideas for improving the fan experience at the stadium, including more connection to the team's past, better music to jack up the crowd, etc. Sounded like going to a game in Cleveland is a pretty blah experience if the game is not completely compelling.

[ZANNI_1276]

Is Lerner willing to pay three salaries just to current and former coaches?

Short answer is Yes. The one resource Randy has is capital $. He is willing to throw money at it to fix the organization, and still remain hands off and let the football people run the show. He really does want to make this a winner in this town, he has just taken the wrong steps and made really poor hires over the past 7 years, to the point that he finally realized he needs someone like an accorsi to make the football decisons for him.

Hell, I think they just stopped paying on Butch's salary, if anything Randy is guilty of allowing a coach too much time, like Romeo for instance. The mangini situation is a tad different. I think he and the consultants he has brought in see this as a really, really bad situation and a mistake. To the point it is so toxic both from the organiazational standpoint to the fan standpoint that it may be best to cut bait and dismiss him at the end of the year. I don't think he will fire him during the year but it looks like they are going to "mow the lawn" around him and he will be solitary in his position making it a reasonably easy decision to dismiss him or honestly I can see him being stripped of all of his power and his ego not being able to be put in check and he just walks away from it. By hook or crook he needs to be removed by the end of the year to make this organization realavant again.

As stated you can win with a rookie or young QB but it is imparitive to have the supporting cast in the front office, in the coaching staff and more importantly on the field with your personnel in place once you hand them the reigns. That is why I don't think it is a great idea taking a QB this year with the first pick, too many pieces are not even in place.

I think with the right front office personnel, coaching staff and they hit on a couple of picks this team can be competitve in 2 years and a playoff and beyond contender in 3. I think you could do that with a rookie or second year QB. It has been done before by other competent teams, so with the right guys in place I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

[Mexal]

Well built teams can make the playoffs with a rookie quarterback. Two did it last year. Rookie Qbs aren't likely to win the super bowl, but I think most teams are willing to wait 4-5 years before they have a super bowl contender (as opposed to a playoff contender, for which people are more impatient).

I agree. They can. But I was thinking of the Browns specifically. They just have so little talent that I think any rookie QB that came in would need time to develop.

[ZANNI_1276]

I agree. They can. But I was thinking of the Browns specifically. They just have so little talent that I think any rookie QB that came in would need time to develop.

I couldn't agree with you more. There is ZERO talent on the roster aside from about 7 guys out of the 53 and two of them are a long snapper and a punter, so take it for what is worth. That is why taking a QB would be so dangerous because all that would do is set the kid up to fail, regardless of how talented the kid would be he would get his brains beat in because our line is so porous, he would have no running game to balance anything out and frankly not even a WR or TE that can run the proper route let alone actually catch the ball. So if they do take one this year, it wouldn't be until the later rounds (fricking god willing) and you wouldn't hear a peep out of him until 2011. But again we are talking the dysfunctional Browns so if you come up with a logical, rational, great solution, count on them doing the polar opposite, so maybe jake locker ends up here in 2010...

Just to give you an idea of the level of shittiness I am describing here on the Northcoast...CLE has 2 rushing TD's total this year, both by Derek Anderson. Total. No RB has hit paydirt on the ground.

A WR has not caught a TD pass. At all. Only a TE and RB (Vickers) has caught them. They have 6 total TD's total on offense (and I may be mistaken, it could be 5). The NO Saints defense has scored more than the CLE offense this year - that i do know. Our starting QB has the lowest QB rating of I think 38, in 28 years, since Marc Wilson's stellar 1982 year.

Our Def gives up like 170 yard rushing a game, about 250 in the air - on average. Fewest amount of INTs in the league. If it wasn't for our ST's, specifically the one man show Josh Cribbs - which overall is outstanding, we would not have scored the points we have this year and would only have field goals as our only offensive output. The only + Mangini has brought to the table is they are second least penalized team in the league, which is an improvement from the perrinail basement they have been in the department. So it is that bad here.

[Maithanet]

I agree. They can. But I was thinking of the Browns specifically. They just have so little talent that I think any rookie QB that came in would need time to develop.

Maybe I just have too much faith in the NFL, but if you make good moves in the draft (sometimes it takes a little luck too), you can turn a terrible team into a competitive one fairly quickly. The Browns may only have a few guys who look like NFL-starters on their roster, but I'd say it's highly likely that some of the mediocre looking guys would be just fine on more talented squads. Others would not make it on the field on more talented squads. NFL teams are all about bringing the overall level of play up, and sometimes a few key players can get that process moving.

I would think, even on a team as poorly constructed as the Browns, that two good drafts will mean sufficient talent for a rookie qb to survive and grow. But that's assuming that the players you draft work out.

[DanteGabriel]

So while we're talking about the Browns and their willingness to pay people... Are they keeping Brady Quinn on the bench just so they don't have to pay him the bonuses he's set to receive if he plays 70% of the offensive snaps this year?

[Mexal]

Maybe I just have too much faith in the NFL, but if you make good moves in the draft (sometimes it takes a little luck too), you can turn a terrible team into a competitive one fairly quickly. The Browns may only have a few guys who look like NFL-starters on their roster, but I'd say it's highly likely that some of the mediocre looking guys would be just fine on more talented squads. Others would not make it on the field on more talented squads. NFL teams are all about bringing the overall level of play up, and sometimes a few key players can get that process moving.

I would think, even on a team as poorly constructed as the Browns, that two good drafts will mean sufficient talent for a rookie qb to survive and grow. But that's assuming that the players you draft work out.

I think 2-3 drafts will be sufficient for a rookie QB to grow but I don't think the rookie QB will lead a playoff calibre team. Maybe in a year or two after that which again, you're looking at roughly 4 years.

[Mexal]

So while we're talking about the Browns and their willingness to pay people... Are they keeping Brady Quinn on the bench just so they don't have to pay him the bonuses he's set to receive if he plays 70% of the offensive snaps this year?

My friend thinks that.

[ZANNI_1276]

So while we're talking about the Browns and their willingness to pay people... Are they keeping Brady Quinn on the bench just so they don't have to pay him the bonuses he's set to receive if he plays 70% of the offensive snaps this year?

Ok just a quick history. Randy loved Brady at ND. Word is he told Savage to go and get him. Brady held out of camp because he wanted top 5 money, they gave it to him in an incentive based contract. Crennel didn't like him and neither did the O-cordinator Chudzinski, both preffered the big armed Anderson who impersonated an NFL qb for about 10 games in 2007. Following year they stuck wth DA because the guy was an alternate to the Pro Bowl and the previos year was throwing to a happy Edwards, Winslow and Jerivicious, all who caught everythin thrown to them. 2008 Jervicious is hurt and eventually calls it quits (eventually sues the team over medical wrong doings), Winslow wants a new contract and Edwards can't catch a cold. DA stinks, gets yanked BQ comes in, does well gets hurt we parade out some CFL level QBs or QBs for the Raiders.

2009, Mangini runs some bush league "QB competition" and gives both the least amount of snaps total from any starter in preseason. Names Brady the starter (again Randy still likes him). Throws Brady to the wolves against what is now 3 out of the top 5 defenses in the laegue with a WR corps that was running around the secondary like Key Stone Cops. Kid absolutely stinks up the joint though and did himself no favors. Granted this one polarizing issue here, frankly not a fan of either DA or Quinn myself but Mangini gives the quick hook to Brady and puts in DA. I posted his numbers above. The are jaw dropping abysmal, historically awful. Part of Brady's contract is he gets paid out 12 million if he takes 70% of the snaps this year. Pretty obvious to me that Mangini hates both of them (this part is a little specualtion on my part based on what I have read and heard in the media) so he chooses the lesser of two evils, goes with DA to score some brownir points with the owner, becnhes Brady for a calculated period, so he can get less than the 70% of snaps and he will re-insert him. (this is also the type of logic that will not attract potential FA, snowing them on incentives, another reason to fire him)

Brass is not happy with the decision, backfires on Mangini. Yes, we will see Quinn but right now with our personnel you can throw Peyton Manning back there and he will fail misserably so when he does get the call from the bullpen he will do terrible as well and give no NFL team an indication of whether he can play in this league or not just because of the guys he is playing with, not talent. Mangini may have wrecked both of them with him and his OC's approach and support and how they have totally mishandled and botched this situation. Another reason he can't hit the bread line fast enough in my opinion.

But not playing him was Mangini's call of trying to save some dough, not the owner who is infatuated with Quinn. He was also infatuated with Mangini so take his judgement for what it is worth.

[ZANNI_1276]

I think 2-3 drafts will be sufficient for a rookie QB to grow but I don't think the rookie QB will lead a playoff calibre team. Maybe in a year or two after that which again, you're looking at roughly 4 years.

Well based on trends just in this decade of the past 10 years or so we have had 4 rookie QB's, Big Ben, Ryan and Flacco I think go to the playoffs and 1 win a Superbowl and that was Big Ben. Not sure if Tom Brady was a rookie (DanteGabriel I am sure would know), that i am not sure of but I know you can go to the playoffs with a rookie in a good system because well it has happened. So it can happen but you need the horses in place to make it so.

[DanteGabriel]

Not sure if Tom Brady was a rookie (DanteGabriel I am sure would know), that i am not sure of but I know you can go to the playoffs with a rookie in a good system because well it has happened.

Brady was in his second year when he took over for Bledsoe.

[Maithanet]

Well based on trends just in this decade of the past 10 years or so we have had 4 rookie QB's, Big Ben, Ryan and Flacco I think go to the playoffs and 1 win a Superbowl and that was Big Ben. Not sure if Tom Brady was a rookie (DanteGabriel I am sure would know), that i am not sure of but I know you can go to the playoffs with a rookie in a good system because well it has happened. So it can happen but you need the horses in place to make it so.

I'm pretty sure Big Ben went 15-1 his rookie season, but lost in the playoffs to the Patriots. But I don't have a great track record of pointing out other people's mistakes today, so maybe that season was no more real than the meadowlands.

[ZANNI_1276]

I'm pretty sure Big Ben went 15-1 his rookie season, but lost in the playoffs to the Patriots. But I don't have a great track record of pointing out other people's mistakes today, so maybe that season was no more real than the meadowlands.

I stand corrected. He was the first rookie to win a playoff game and then became the youngest QB to win the superbowl the following year. My bad, though it still gives credilbility to what I am saying, if you have the right system and players lined up a rookie/young qb can be succesful.

[Rockroi]

The NFL's Dirtiest Players Survey was released today.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/foot...irty/index.html

Not many surprises. Hines Ward, Roy Williams, Troy Polamalu and Jared Allen all made the top ten. But this was, by far, my favorite part of the article:

The poll was conducted in September and included some well-known names in the top 20: Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis (3.2 percent), Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman (2.3 percent) and Jets linebacker Bart Scott (2.3 percent). Former Patriots safety Rodney Harrison, who retired last summer, received three votes (Emphasis added)

So, the NFL players knew Rodney had retired and yet STILL at LEAST three players thought him the dirtiest player around, from the confines of his NBC Studio desk. That's a pretty dirty player right there. That's some good stuff.

[Mexal]

Well based on trends just in this decade of the past 10 years or so we have had 4 rookie QB's, Big Ben, Ryan and Flacco I think go to the playoffs and 1 win a Superbowl and that was Big Ben. Not sure if Tom Brady was a rookie (DanteGabriel I am sure would know), that i am not sure of but I know you can go to the playoffs with a rookie in a good system because well it has happened. So it can happen but you need the horses in place to make it so.

Yes, but they all had good players around them. I was talking about the Browns specifically with that statement.

[ZANNI_1276]

Yes, but they all had good players around them. I was talking about the Browns specifically with that statement.

I hear you and understood, I think...I guess I wasn't too clear so here it is:

1. When the Browns finally do play thier young QB who is not on the roster yet they will have more talented players to put around him from the drafts and FA's signings.

2. I don't think that will be for at least 2 years, maybe three (I hope so). So I am hoping that the conversation we had will be applicable and YES you are correct in your previous post, if it did happen we are looking at a 4 year window of bringing in a young possible rookie QB and expect him to have reasonable success. Which sucks goat balls if you are Cleveland Fan but I can't see it being any other way, there is no way they could speed up the timing with the holes they need to fill.

They have already gone the route of getting a franchise QB with no talent around them, technically they have done it TWICE in 10 years if you want to count the bozos playing this year. So here is to hoping thet won't make that mistake again. How many times can you touch the stove until you realize "Hey assehole - its hot!".

But in the event they do draft a QB this upcoming April - which I think would be compared to re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic as its sinking, would be just insane from an organizational standpoint because there are so many pieces that need to be in place for a young QB to be win in this league and we have none of them. So with that being said that pretty much means they will probably will take either Mcoy, Bradford, Tebow, Locker, Snead, put the weight of the world on thier shoulders and annoint them the savior of the franchise and if that isn't enough pressure they will put him in this line up - whomever it is next year will fail and look to be a bust and will have a very difficult time being succesful in the NFL because there is little help around him and would put us back not just the 4 years you mentioned but another 5-10.