Tyrod named starting QB of Browns

[ColoradoBills]

13 minutes ago, Bill_with_it said:

Did anyone not believe thst he wouldnt be named starter immediately. He’s infinitely better than any qb on that team.

 

I'm middle-of-the-road on TT but an argument could be made that TT is the best QB Browns have had since they came back into the league.

List of Browns Starting QB's.

 

1996–1998	Suspended operations
1999	Tim Couch (14) / Ty Detmer (2)
2000	Doug Pederson (8) / Tim Couch (7) / Spergon Wynn (1)
2001	Tim Couch (16)
2002	Tim Couch (14) / Kelly Holcomb (2)
2003	Kelly Holcomb (8) / Tim Couch (8)
2004	Jeff Garcia (10) / Kelly Holcomb (2) / Luke McCown (4)
2005	Trent Dilfer (11) / Charlie Frye (5)
2006	Charlie Frye (13) / Derek Anderson (3)
2007	Derek Anderson (15) / Charlie Frye (1)
2008	Derek Anderson (9) / Brady Quinn (3) / Ken Dorsey (3) / Bruce Gradkowski  (1)
2009	Brady Quinn (9) / Derek Anderson (7)
2010	Colt McCoy (8) / Jake Delhomme (4) / Seneca Wallace (4)
2011	Colt McCoy (13) / Seneca Wallace (3)
2012	Brandon Weeden (15) / Thad Lewis (1)
2013	Jason Campbell (8) / Brandon Weeden (5) / Brian Hoyer (3)
2014	Brian Hoyer (13) / Johnny Manziel (2)/ Connor Shaw (1)
2015	Josh McCown (8) / Johnny Manziel (6) / Austin Davis (2)
2016	Robert Griffin III (5) / Josh McCown (3) / Cody Kessler (8)
2017	DeShone Kizer (15) / Kevin Hogan (1)

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Actually, if EJ plays all 16 games in 2015, it's likely we select Jared Goff or Carson Wentz in the top 2.

You are a strategic thinker. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...happy for the kid.....with his ethic and dedication, he'll work his tail off to remain starter for season opener......

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Of course they named him the starter. Look at their roster.  

 

It’s amazing that so many want to paint this guy as inept.  He is a career winner in which he led the offense to score more points than the defense allowed.   And we aren’t talking about stellar defenses either.

 

bills are moving on, it make sense they want a shot at elite under center.  But you can do a lot worse than Tyrod- we’ve seen dozens of examples since Kelly hung up the cleats.

 

Cleveland is climbing a mountain and just put in a stake at Tyrod Taylor as quarterback. It’s a floor to build on. They’ll be happy with the results until it’s time to move on. 

[thunderingsquid]

[LA Grant]

I don't think there's much to read into this... But what the hell, it's the offseason.

 

This suggests to me the Browns will do the right thing (for them) and take Barkley at 1. That's good for people who want to see Tyrod/Cleveland succeed & the Steelers fail (I am one of those people). I have been maintaining the view that the Browns would foolishly pass on Barkley and go QB at 1.

 

That scenario could be bad for the Bills, because I think that makes it less likely the Browns trade down from 4. The Giants having their pick of any QB would be hard to turn down, too. The Gettelman connection indicates some possibility for trading, and the Giants have indicated the willingness to move down, I just am not sure that's what makes the most sense for them.

 

If that happens, only the Colts would be a potential trade partner in the Top 5...  but, then again, the Bills do have the most to offer in return. In that case, we'd still be getting the 2nd QB off the board (Rosen or Darnold), while the Browns would then get Barkley & the 3rd QB. 

 

Ultimately — Who knows. How many days until the !@#$ing draft??

[Buffalo Ballin]

Happy for Tyrod. His time had to end with Buffalo because our needs outgrew his abilities, but great for him nonetheless. Props.

[OldTimer1960]

3 hours ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

This has got to affect draft plans for everyone. #4 is looking pretty good!

 

Absolutely true. Until they take a QB first overall and they find out that he is much better than Taylor when he gets off the bus.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

The Browns would be making a mistake if they don't take their highest rated qb with their first pick. My bet is on Darnold. If they stay at four they should then take either Fitzpatrick or Chubb, if available. The Browns just signed Hyde from free agency. So I don't think that they would sign Barkley. I recognize that Barkley may be one of the highest rated player in this draft but the Browns need to build a roster and not just accumulate players. If they want to get another back then they can get a very good one at the top of the second round. 

 

The Browns have a lot of high draft picks and a gargantuan cap space. They need to be wise about using their assets and start thinking more about fitting the pieces together than with accumulating players for the sake of accumulating players. 

 

I dont disagree...they must take a QB, just citing some of their comments they made since adding TT which personally shocked me to be honest.  

 

I would however take Barkley still at #1, or at #4 if they went QB and Barkley lasted to #4 (which only happens if someone trades up to both 2 and 3 for a QB as I think either Giants or Colts will snatch him if they stay put).  Hyde is cool and all, but he has not been durable and still never had a 1000 yard season and coming off a year where he averaged 3.9 ypc.  

 

Barkley to me is a generational talent who can be special for a long time.  I would normally never advocate taking a RB #1, but this kid has me 100% sold and that he can be the best back in the NFL during his time.  He's a game changing player, and to me, about as safe a pick as one could hope to make on draft night.  And Cleveland needs to start hitting on all these high picks.

 

And when you are coming off a zero win season, I wouldnt pass on the best player in the draft which I think Barkley is widely considered to be.  Plus, a lethal running game will only help the rookie QB they take at #4 and they got a ton of draft picks still to keep adding more players.  

 

Just my 2 cents...certainly valid idea to go QB and something other than a RB with both those spots with Hyde on the roster...I just personally wouldn't pass on Barkley if I was the Browns.

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Absolutely true. Until they take a QB first overall and they find out that he is much better than Taylor when he gets off the bus.

 

And think about what a great problem THAT is to have. 

 

Remember the the last time the bills had a QB much better than the past 3 seasons? Bledsoe I guess? 

[OldTimer1960]

13 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

And think about what a great problem THAT is to have. 

 

Remember the the last time the bills had a QB much better than the past 3 seasons? Bledsoe I guess? 

I respect Taylor, but he did not set a high bar to exceed.

 

i am not sure that I want them to draft Lamar Jackson, but i think he is already better than Taylor and he might get better.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, horned dogs said:

What are you talking about? I observed a competition with my eyes and I have nothing against EJ. I was a supporter at first and then he sucked. Jesus

Easy there.   

EJ was Whales guy and not Rex’s. 

 

When new coaches come in they want their guy.   That is how I saw it.  

 

 

[billsfan89]

Because once you name a QB the starter you can never go back on it 

 

Not surprising for the Browns. I think they go QB at pick 1, the Giants take Barkley, the Colts trade down (hopefully with Bills) for Mayfield, and then the Browns set up another draft trading down to a team desperate for Allen (I don't think they take a haul but I bet they hope they trade down with Arizona for a 2nd (probably a swap of a 2nd for a mid rounder) and a first next year. They then set themselves up with another primo pick in next years draft.

[Beast]

Hue Jackson a moron. What does his announcement accomplish?

[#34fan]

3 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

Hue Jackson a moron. What does his announcement accomplish?

 

Smokescreen, I think... Why else would he make an announcement 5 months before he actually needs to.

[grb]

19 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

Hue Jackson a moron. What does his announcement accomplish?

 

Well, someone's a moron at least. 

• Jackson thinks he made a mistake starting Kizer too soon
• Jackson doesn't want to make that mistake again.

Could he change his mind? Sure. But he stated his position and the reasoning behind it. It's not all that complicated, and doesn't require any "smokescreen" - or a second gunman behind the grassy knoll, for that matter....

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by grb

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

I'm taking the over on the Browns if it's anything less than 6 next year.

 

I think they'll be a 7 to 8 win team in 2018.... unless Hue completely !@#$s it up.

 

 

If Hue doesn't win at least six games I see him be jettisoned. I'm surprised that the new GM didn't fire him and start over. The organization could have promoted the change as a "fresh start" or "forget the ugly past". What are the odds that a team wins one game in two years and the HC keeps his job? 

[SouthNYfan]

5 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

It’s only because Darnold and Allen aren’t ready to play. They will still take one of them at 1.

 

Barkley #1

Qb #4

[Saint Doug]

5 hours ago, Seanbillsfan2206 said:

2018. Meaning a rookie could sit all year and start in 2019. Nothing to see here really...

No. Meaning a rookie will sit all year and could start in 2019. This is just another reason why it sucks to be drafted by the Browns. A rookie with no hope to become a starter will remain a rookie. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I dont disagree...they must take a QB, just citing some of their comments they made since adding TT which personally shocked me to be honest.  

 

I would however take Barkley still at #1, or at #4 if they went QB and Barkley lasted to #4 (which only happens if someone trades up to both 2 and 3 for a QB as I think either Giants or Colts will snatch him if they stay put).  Hyde is cool and all, but he has not been durable and still never had a 1000 yard season and coming off a year where he averaged 3.9 ypc.  

 

Barkley to me is a generational talent who can be special for a long time.  I would normally never advocate taking a RB #1, but this kid has me 100% sold and that he can be the best back in the NFL during his time.  He's a game changing player, and to me, about as safe a pick as one could hope to make on draft night.  And Cleveland needs to start hitting on all these high picks.

 

And when you are coming off a zero win season, I wouldnt pass on the best player in the draft which I think Barkley is widely considered to be.  Plus, a lethal running game will only help the rookie QB they take at #4 and they got a ton of draft picks still to keep adding more players.  

 

Just my 2 cents...certainly valid idea to go QB and something other than a RB with both those spots with Hyde on the roster...I just personally wouldn't pass on Barkley if I was the Browns.

 

 

The last thing I would do is criticize a team that  would draft Barkley with a high pick. However, if I were a Cleveland fan I would want the Browns to use their first pick on their preferred qb. There is no need for them to gamble that the qb they want will be there at the four spot unless it is Mayfield. Barkley without question is the highest rated back but there are maybe three other highly rated backs who will be available at the top of the second round when they pick. If they select players such as Fitzpatrick or Chubb they would be adding a dynamic defensive player who is also rated at the top of the board. 

 

As I stated in my prior post the issue comes down to how do you build a balanced roster? There is no right or wrong answer. It comes down to preference. For me I would take a highly rated defensive player with their second selection who is rated near the top of the board over taking a top a rated back when there are other very good backs that can be had in the next round.