Carson Wentz... or this haul?

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Blahman88 said:

I understand your view but disagree

In your scenario, we'll say Carson Wentz wins a couple of MVP's and no Superbowls. We are let down by an atrocious defence. 

Perhaps those picks would have got us a competent quarterback, plus the defensive help we would have needed to win that Superbowl.

It's not a win to go 12-4 every season and come away with nothing.

Perhaps and perhaps you just keep drafting quarterbacks because none of them bring stability. If the Eagles can't build a team because they lost a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round pick over 3 different drafts then the problem probably lies somewhere other than Wentz and the Wentz trade.

[EaglesPeteC]

Wentz. 100%

Without a starting QB it doesn't matter how many picks you have. You can't compete. Eagles have a shot to actually do well this season (and beyond) because they have Carson Wentz. Browns ceiling is 5 games. I'd do that trade over and over and over again if I am the Eagles. 

[RandyMossIsBoss]

I think it's as simple as how high you are on Wentz, and to an extent your thoughts on Kizer. If you think Wentz is a franchise QB, and you don't think Kizer is one, then Wentz is the easy answer. Anything else, and you take the haul.

 

 

I think Wentz has a very bright future and will develop into a top 10 QB for years to come, so right now I am taking him over the haul.

[TheKillerNacho]

Rather have Wentz, honestly. I think he's a franchise QB. And while I think Kizer has high upside, way too soon to say either way. As for the other guys, those are some nice defensive assets, for sure, but in order to complete for a championship, you need a franchise QB. And I think Wentz is going to be a good one.

[Matts4313]

This is impossible to tell at the moment because we dont have all the evidence. As we stand right now, I would obviously favor the Browns. Just due to the sheer number of picks/players, there is a greater likelihood of success. But that obviously changes if Wentz develops into a "Brady/Manning/Etc". I guarantee you if the question was all those picks or a second year Tom Brady, it wouldn't be much of a question. Time will tell.

 

 

[Magnus-Viktor]

Honestly?  Wentz.  That's assuming he continues to play well.  You have no QB, you have no SB team.  That's just how it is now, 99.99999% of the time anyway.  I'm not impressed at all with anyone on that list for the Browns.  Wentz at least showed raw ability at times last year.  Overall he was pretty average though, so I'm not real impressed with either side of that equation.  The only thing about the Browns that makes it better is simply the law of averages:  they're more likely to have one of their guys pan out than the Eagles are to have just Wentz pan out.  But the upside from Wentz is a franchise QB.  I see no chance of that for Cleveland and they have no QB.  

[Non-Issue]

In general, I would prefer the haul because, in a vacuum (the vacuum being my head) "more = better."

But I think, in the case of the Eagles, they would probably prefer the (hopefully) franchise QB. Whereas, in the case of the Browns, they probably need the haul a lot more. Tough to say without really having a nuanced knowledge of either team.

In the end, this is a QB driven league. If you think someone is your guy, if you really feel like he can be the face of your franchise and lead your team for years to come, you go for it. I get that the price is steep. But finding a quality starting QB isn't as easy as some people make it out to be. First, you have to be in the position to get that stud QB. Which either means having to suck, or having to be mediocre enough to be within reach of a trade. Second, you have to actually hit on the pick. Which is always a toss up. Or... you can just get lucky on a 3rd rounder of something, which is too much of a rarity to actually use as a drafting strategy. That's basically the NFLs version of getting struck by lightning.

Teams go decades without a franchise QB. Sometimes you just have to go for it. That's why I dont begrudge the Rams front office for going after Goff. He might pan out, he might not. It's a gamble. And only time will tell if it pays off. 

[Hunter2_1]

7 hours ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

Honestly?  Wentz.  That's assuming he continues to play well.  

That's up for discussion. 

[BayRaider]

Can't believe this pool is tied. Wentz may have had a so-so year last year but it was his rookie campaign and he literally nothing on offense. Nada. Not Dak Prescott who had everything. Top OL , Top 3 Rb, Top 7-8 Wr. Wentz has superstarr potential and if the Eagles keep building around him it will show. 

[Blaaaaaah]

Wentz might have had the worst offense surrounding him in the league last year. 

Injuries to the offensive line all year, Johnson suspension, Agholor, Matthews and Dorial Green-Beckham as WR's, Wendell Smallwood and an injured Ryan Mathews as RB's and maybe the most underrated of all, Doug Pederson is a terrible coach.

 

[Bucketheadsdad]

The natural "follow up" question to this is one that can't really be addressed yet, but what if Kizer is "THE" guy (finally) for the Browns?  

If that turns out to be the case, I think the current vote would be 62-0 in favor of the haul.  

But, as I said, that question cannot be answered until the end of this season (at the earliest).

[Iamcanadian]

1 hour ago, Bucketheadsdad said:

The natural "follow up" question to this is one that can't really be addressed yet, but what if Kizer is "THE" guy (finally) for the Browns?  

If that turns out to be the case, I think the current vote would be 62-0 in favor of the haul.  

But, as I said, that question cannot be answered until the end of this season (at the earliest).

The trouble is the stats don't lie and Kizer has only a 6% chance for success and IMO, he's already doomed playing for that miserably run franchise.

[Malik]

46 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

The trouble is the stats don't lie and Kizer has only a 6% chance for success and IMO, he's already doomed playing for that miserably run franchise.

Wait what? Where are you getting that 6% from?

[Bucketheadsdad]

1 minute ago, Iamcanadian said:

The trouble is the stats don't lie and Kizer has only a 6% chance for success and IMO, he's already doomed playing for that miserably run franchise.

I guess you've not been paying attention to the team since Sashi Brown has taken control of the front office.  Can't disagree that there was a great deal of disfunction under Randy Lerner, and the first few years of impatience with Jimmy Haslam taking over ownershp of the team.  Going to have to disagree with you on the way the franchise is being run currently.  

[tyler735]

12 hours ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

Honestly?  Wentz.  That's assuming he continues to play well.  You have no QB, you have no SB team.  That's just how it is now, 99.99999% of the time anyway.  I'm not impressed at all with anyone on that list for the Browns.  Wentz at least showed raw ability at times last year.  Overall he was pretty average though, so I'm not real impressed with either side of that equation.  The only thing about the Browns that makes it better is simply the law of averages:  they're more likely to have one of their guys pan out than the Eagles are to have just Wentz pan out.  But the upside from Wentz is a franchise QB.  I see no chance of that for Cleveland and they have no QB.  

Doesn't he have to play well before you can say "continues to play well"? At this point we don't know that Wentz is even close to a franchise QB. He had a mediocre at best rookie season with an under 80 QB Rating. Funny enough even Cody Kessler in limited opportunities had 92.3 QB Rating on a much worse Browns team. Not to say he's better long term than Wentz, but it shows Wentz has a ton to prove yet to be considered a decent QB. I'll take the Browns haul as they have several players in this deal that can be quality starters.