Quote: @PurpleCrush said:
Interesting nugget from Doogie in the mentions.
https://twitter.com/purplebuckeye/status...7213791234
So we'd get Mayfield, the top player taken a few years ago who played with a hurt shoulder last year, and likely second and third round picks in the upcoming draft? Plus getting off Cousins money opening up more cap space in free agency? I'd think that would have been a huge win for the Vikings over the alternative which is two more years of Cousins. Like I said, the Wilfs are smart business people but are no more then fans when it comes to football and should leave the football decisions to the new regime they just hired.
Quote: @Hawkvike25 said:
@ greediron said:
@ minny65 said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ minny65 said:
@ JustinTime18™ said:
Wait. Drafting a QB #1 overall didn't solve all of the Browns issues?
GTFO.
So instead, they "might" try and get the 12th pick of the 2017 draft - Watson. Supposedly we dabbled with some interest and a ton of teams with and without a QB are/should be interested in Watson. He would be an upgrade for about 25+ teams.
Some Irony if the Browns pursue Watson:
"The Texans traded up to select Watson with the Browns #12 pick in the 2017 draft. The Browns got Texans 1st round pick for 2018, which ended up being #1 and selected Mayfield:
"The Texans traded up in the draft to select Clemson’s Deshaun Watson with pick No. 12.
Houston dealt with the Browns to select Watson as their next franchise quarterback, after dealing Brock Osweiler to Cleveland earlier this year.
The Browns acquired pick No. 25 (selected Jabrill Peppers) and Houston’s 2018 first-rounder in the deal (ended up being #1 Mayfield).
Be careful about saying he's an upgrade for that many teams as his career record is only 28-25, and 1-2 in the playoffs. As we know, this board uses record as it's main determining factor for QB's
Not me, but I think I see 1 or 2 posters using W/L as a big part of an argument to move away from Kirk. All stats can be very deceiving and twisted for an argument. There are QB's whose stats (including wins) benefitted from having great surround - Aikman, Bradshaw come to mind quickly. Thier are also QB's who put up poor stats but still won (Dilfer mostly comes to mind and to a smaller degree Phil Simms). Warren Moon comes to mind if you want to look at pure stats that were very good but was never really a winner. I personally go by a combination of many things and a lot of watching NFL for 45+ years.
I have come to the conclusion that Kirk is not the answer for us or any team for a march to a SB.
In the modern era I think you have to include their cap hit as well. Kirk is too much like Bradford. Great stats, gets paid but not good enough when it counts.
Except for this year when Kirk was quite literally clutch in all aspects. Completion percentage was 7% higher when the final margin was 7 points or less, and 7% higher during NFC opponents. His highest passer rating was when it was 3rd down or longer. Overtime he was 10/13 with a TD. The stats go on and on about how clutch he was this past year.
Want to know what wasn't clutch? The running game. 3.1 YPC in OT and 3.5 YPC in the 4th quarter last year.
Want to know why we faced so many crappy third downs (outside of numerous penalties)? 3.3 YPC when we faced 2nd and 7-9...that isn't because Dalvin sucks (Mattison 1.8 YPC in those situations). Also, Mattison was pathetic on downs not named 1st last year and averaged 3.2 YPC or less on plays where we faced less than 10 yards to gain.
Stats like these are why I dont give a shit about W/L. Stats like this confirm what we watched, which was a bad OL and constant bad play calling.
Not. good. enough.
He has improved his clutch play and isn't as bad as every twit out there imagines, but there is a reason for that stereotype. I like Kirk and think he could be a great QB in the right system. But my point was, if you pay him that much, he has to be better when it counts.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ greediron said:
@ minny65 said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ minny65 said:
@ JustinTime18™ said:
Wait. Drafting a QB #1 overall didn't solve all of the Browns issues?
GTFO.
So instead, they "might" try and get the 12th pick of the 2017 draft - Watson. Supposedly we dabbled with some interest and a ton of teams with and without a QB are/should be interested in Watson. He would be an upgrade for about 25+ teams.
Some Irony if the Browns pursue Watson:
"The Texans traded up to select Watson with the Browns #12 pick in the 2017 draft. The Browns got Texans 1st round pick for 2018, which ended up being #1 and selected Mayfield:
"The Texans traded up in the draft to select Clemson’s Deshaun Watson with pick No. 12.
Houston dealt with the Browns to select Watson as their next franchise quarterback, after dealing Brock Osweiler to Cleveland earlier this year.
The Browns acquired pick No. 25 (selected Jabrill Peppers) and Houston’s 2018 first-rounder in the deal (ended up being #1 Mayfield).
Be careful about saying he's an upgrade for that many teams as his career record is only 28-25, and 1-2 in the playoffs. As we know, this board uses record as it's main determining factor for QB's
Not me, but I think I see 1 or 2 posters using W/L as a big part of an argument to move away from Kirk. All stats can be very deceiving and twisted for an argument. There are QB's whose stats (including wins) benefitted from having great surround - Aikman, Bradshaw come to mind quickly. Thier are also QB's who put up poor stats but still won (Dilfer mostly comes to mind and to a smaller degree Phil Simms). Warren Moon comes to mind if you want to look at pure stats that were very good but was never really a winner. I personally go by a combination of many things and a lot of watching NFL for 45+ years.
I have come to the conclusion that Kirk is not the answer for us or any team for a march to a SB.
In the modern era I think you have to include their cap hit as well. Kirk is too much like Bradford. Great stats, gets paid but not good enough when it counts.
Except for this year when Kirk was quite literally clutch in all aspects. Completion percentage was 7% higher when the final margin was 7 points or less, and 7% higher during NFC opponents. His highest passer rating was when it was 3rd down or longer. Overtime he was 10/13 with a TD. The stats go on and on about how clutch he was this past year.
Want to know what wasn't clutch? The running game. 3.1 YPC in OT and 3.5 YPC in the 4th quarter last year.
Want to know why we faced so many crappy third downs (outside of numerous penalties)? 3.3 YPC when we faced 2nd and 7-9...that isn't because Dalvin sucks (Mattison 1.8 YPC in those situations). Also, Mattison was pathetic on downs not named 1st last year and averaged 3.2 YPC or less on plays where we faced less than 10 yards to gain.
Stats like these are why I dont give a shit about W/L. Stats like this confirm what we watched, which was a bad OL and constant bad play calling.
Not. good. enough.
He has improved his clutch play and isn't as bad as every twit out there imagines, but there is a reason for that stereotype. I like Kirk and think he could be a great QB in the right system. But my point was, if you pay him that much, he has to be better when it counts.
Kirk has been the highest paid QB, since 2016, in the league, has he played like the best QB in the league since 2016? I dont think so, others may disagree or make excuses, but his shortcomings do get exposed at critical times and despite very impressive numbers, and most of the time his play, imo its not in the teams best interest to continue to build around him or Hunter. Both can very likely leave here and be part of a successful team, I just dont see that aligning here.
Cousins needs a lot to help him reach his potential on a consistent basis and Hunter imo, despite what others may think, is not reliable from a health standpoint.
We are stuck with Cousins for another year, but its time to tell hunter to go prove it for another team. I am starting to think his freak physical abilities and condition may be making him prone to injury. Regardless he wanted more and got it, and proceeded to get hurt again, I dont trust him or his agent to ever be satisfied monetarily.
Quote: @JustinTime18™ said:
Interesting note from @mortreport on ESPN just now while talking Baker/Browns ("they're breaking up regardless" of Watson) -- they "want an adult at" QB.
"Jimmy Garoppolo is one I would not ignore for Cleveland."
In 2018 I thought Mayfield would bust due to maturity issues. Thought I was wrong about that. Especially after his ROY season and some pretty solid play. He just needed time I guess.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JustinTime18™ said:
Interesting note from @mortreport on ESPN just now while talking Baker/Browns ("they're breaking up regardless" of Watson) -- they "want an adult at" QB.
"Jimmy Garoppolo is one I would not ignore for Cleveland."
In 2018 I thought Mayfield would bust due to maturity issues. Thought I was wrong about that. Especially after his ROY season and some pretty solid play. He just needed time I guess.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/3cZ8QiaJEYOjM6YeU3/giphy.gif)
It looks like Deshawn has ruled out the Browns.
I think New Orleans is most probable for Watson.
Then I think Mayfield/Browns are open to moving on and I think the Colts should look at Mayfield over Garappolo.
Colts would be a better surround for Mayfield with Reich as his HC - IMO.
The Title of this thread made me go back and look at former 1st picks. I went back 50 years of 1st picks (1970) and used my own judgement in some area's but overall I think many would agree on my thought process.
Highest position drafted QB: (58%)
(26 QB's) selected with the first overall pick in the last 50 years. I have Trevor Lawrence down as too early. So, out of those 25, I estimate 14 were hits and 11 were misses = 58%
(I have Kyler Murray as a miss but maybe too early for some, for some reason I have Testaverde as a hit, I have Luck as a hit because he was until injury just like a Bo Jackson at HB)
But you might agree or disagree with some but I think we are looking at over 50% when drafting a QB 1st overall. Obviously the sheer amount of QB's drafted #1 help with a trend line.
Next highest: (40%)
(12 DE's)
I think it is too early to decide on the last two - Garrett and Clowney - both are good, Garrett better but #1 overall?? So I am judging on 10 of them.
I have 4 hits and 6 misses...so 40%. 1973 - John Matuzak has me torn because he name sounds like he would be good  I have Ed Too Tall Jones, Lee Roy Selmon, Bruce Smith and Mario Williams as hits.
(5 RB's) - 40%
(3 OT's) - 33% (Orlando Pace)
(2 LB'ers) - 0%
(2 Wr's) - 0%
(2 DT's) 50% (Russell Maryland - No, Dan Wilkerson - Yes)
So QB's have the best odds and the biggest sample to judge. Then you add that QB is a solo position on the field unlike all the others (2 HB some) so your odds should be better based on that alone and they are not.
Anyway, this is solely based on The First Pick analysis. So, you can see why teams will move heaven and earth to get the chance to draft the Top QB.
I think I am going to go back and look at all those drafts where a non-QB was drafted and check and see if the first QB taken would have been a better choice? I find this crap interesting, and I hope others do. I will publish (after peer review of course) my non-QB info later when I get a chance
Browns’ QB Baker Mayfield has requested a trade, as
|
