Hypothetical for Cleveland Fans: Tom Brady or Baker Mayfield

[SBLIII]

On 2/15/2021 at 1:12 PM, candyman93 said:

Our defense isn’t on the same planet as Tampa Bays is. Brady would put up monster numbers and help us beat a Buffalo / Baltimore type of team, but that’s it.

Get the defense to average and you have a legit chance but 2021 defensive DVOA projections don't look too favorable for the Browns.

[MWil23]

10 hours ago, wwhickok said:

Brady and its not close 

[VigilantZombie]

12 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'm not saying that Baker isn't good. I'm not saying he didn't play well against Pittsburgh.  But if I'm choosing between Mayfield or Brady, it's Brady right now.

[buno67]

1 hour ago, SBLIII said:

Get the defense to average and you have a legit chance but 2021 defensive DVOA projections don't look too favorable for the Browns.

pretty sure the projection is the same as this past season.

Browns defense is going to see a lot of changes IMO.

He said in the projection, he "didnt account free-agent movement. I didn't account for players returning from COVID opt-outs". Browns will be getting back a solid DT from covid opt up. Browns should hopefully get Greedy Williams and Delpit back from injury, they should focus their FA spending on the defense, and their top draft picks will prolly be defenders.

Yeah right now the Browns defense looks bad on paper but hppefully it is much improved by May

[Tk3]

Quote

Baker Mayfield's skill set is replaceable, I wouldn’t give him a massive deal - Mike Tannebaum

youtube video from Get Up -- and I agree 100%

Baker is a good QB. You can win with Baker. But Baker isn't anything special. He isn't anything you can't replace elsewhere. I'd rather take a old Brady on a short term window, and then replace him than get buried under a Baker contract, which would likely be an "elite" contract for a "good" QB

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

I feel like Browns would be crazy to purposefully move on from Baker to roll the dice on one season of Brady. If Baker diva walked and Brady was sitting right there, ya you'd probably sign him, but if the franchise consciously decided to ship out Baker with this galaxy brain idea of bringing in Brady, I see disaster. They'd have Brady for one year, on a team that is substantially lighter on talent than the Bucs were this year, and then what happens next? Brady retires and the worst QB selecting team of all time is looking for a QB around pick 20-25

 

Baker is flawed but the Browns have to lock him in... that playoff game against the Steelers sort of felt like Baker's 3 year 118 million dollar day. This is the Browns, if you think they can improve on Baker you may overestimate them. This team drafted Johnny 8ball in the first round because a homeless man told them to. They haven't had a good QB in 30 years, they should be clinging to dear life onto the one they finally drafted who's at least decent. That includes in the name of one year gambles 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[lancerman]

Brady is a culture changer. One year of him and the Browns will be infinitely better off than anything they’ve done in the last 30

[ReggieCamp]

20 hours ago, Tk3 said:

youtube video from Get Up -- and I agree 100%

Baker is a good QB. You can win with Baker. But Baker isn't anything special. He isn't anything you can't replace elsewhere. I'd rather take a old Brady on a short term window, and then replace him than get buried under a Baker contract, which would likely be an "elite" contract for a "good" QB

We'll see. I'm obviously biased as a Browns fan, but I certainly see a QB who can be (and has been) better than "good."  It's a bit ironic that Tannenbaum calls Baker a system QB, and says that Lamar and Josh Allen have skills that are harder to replace.  Obviously that's true in regard to running skills, but Baker's accuracy and arm strength are being a little underrated.

Lamar and Josh Allen have earned the extensions they're going to get, but they've both played in the same systems their whole career.  Baker is the only one who has thrived in different systems (year 1 and year 3), so again, it's a bit ironic to call him a system QB.  I also can't entirely respect the opinion of an ex-GM who gave Mark Sanchez a big contract.

I do agree that teams are crazy to pay mediocre QB's giant contracts, but I for one will have zero problem if the Browns decide to extend Baker this offseason.

[AkronsWitness]

On 2/22/2021 at 4:30 PM, Tk3 said:

youtube video from Get Up -- and I agree 100%

Baker is a good QB. You can win with Baker. But Baker isn't anything special. He isn't anything you can't replace elsewhere. I'd rather take a old Brady on a short term window, and then replace him than get buried under a Baker contract, which would likely be an "elite" contract for a "good" QB

I will not stand for the Baker Mayfield slander

[Tk3]

13 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

I will not stand for the Baker Mayfield slander

yeah.. so I'm not sure that this changes the point of the take which I was referencing

Like I said, Baker is a good QB who had a good season - but the point of the article was that Baker Mayfield has a skill set that is replaceable. He's somewhere in that top 10/top 15 place, with a skill set that is similar to a lot of other QBs. None of that is a bad thing, but the point is he doesn't have a more unique skill set compared to Lamar or Allen or Mahomes or Watson or Rodgers, etc.

The argument is that you don't have to pay him top of the market, because if you need to, you can replace his skill set if you have to

[SBLIII]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:30 PM, Tk3 said:

youtube video from Get Up -- and I agree 100%

Baker is a good QB. You can win with Baker. But Baker isn't anything special. He isn't anything you can't replace elsewhere. I'd rather take a old Brady on a short term window, and then replace him than get buried under a Baker contract, which would likely be an "elite" contract for a "good" QB

It's a solid argument. I think Baker is top 12. Brady is 1-3. I'd take Baker for the longterm although Browns could be SB favorites with their OL and weapons with TB. I think Baker will still improve and move into top 7 territory but that's just talking about that. I would be iffy on giving Baker a 35 million per year deal. The Browns could end up like the Vikings in a couple of years. Their window is really for the next 3-4 years imo.

[AkronsWitness]

11 hours ago, Tk3 said:

yeah.. so I'm not sure that this changes the point of the take which I was referencing

Like I said, Baker is a good QB who had a good season - but the point of the article was that Baker Mayfield has a skill set that is replaceable. He's somewhere in that top 10/top 15 place, with a skill set that is similar to a lot of other QBs. None of that is a bad thing, but the point is he doesn't have a more unique skill set compared to Lamar or Allen or Mahomes or Watson or Rodgers, etc.

The argument is that you don't have to pay him top of the market, because if you need to, you can replace his skill set if you have to

I mean yeah but what is the standard here, if your not a top 5 QB in the NFL then you have a 'replaceable skillet' and every team should be looking to upgrade?

If it's only used to be able to pay him a little less money then fine I guess but Baker Mayfield was the first QB in 400 years to take the Browns to the playoffs and win a game. That 'skillset' has to count for something.

I don't think Baker is ever going to be considered a top 3-5 QB but he is easily good enough to win in the playoffs with and potentially a super bowl if you give him a defense. That is what he should be getting paid on, not if his skillet it replaceable or not.

[Tk3]

43 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

I mean yeah but what is the standard here, if your not a top 5 QB in the NFL then you have a 'replaceable skillet' and every team should be looking to upgrade?

If it's only used to be able to pay him a little less money then fine I guess but Baker Mayfield was the first QB in 400 years to take the Browns to the playoffs and win a game. That 'skillset' has to count for something.

I don't think Baker is ever going to be considered a top 3-5 QB but he is easily good enough to win in the playoffs with and potentially a super bowl if you give him a defense. That is what he should be getting paid on, not if his skillet it replaceable or not.

Not at all

It's saying if you have a replaceable skillset then you shouldn't get paid as a top 5 guy. You should replace the player with a player making less money than you would have to pay to retain the replaceable player

ie. right now I feel like Baker is worth like 25M.. I'm presuming (and maybe its an incorrect presumption), that a Baker extension would have to be somewhere in that 35-40M range. If you can get Baker for somewhere in the 20s, then yeah, go ahead and extend him. But if you're paying that premium for him, I don't think its worth it. You can let Baker go and get a comparable skill set for much less than the contract he would be given

 

Can you give Baker a defense, maintain his supporting cast on offense, AND give Baker a 30M pay raise? Idk, but that's the point. If your guy is tangible better than the other QBs, then yeah, do it. But if he's somewhere in that top 10 to top 15 range, then why wouldn't you replace at a lower price point instead of potentially paying top 5 money? I know it isn't always that simple, but the point is I think a lot of teams (not just the Browns, I'm not trying to pick on Baker/Browns specifically here, its just the team that was brought up) are going to find themselves in trouble when they pay "elite money" to a "good QB" 

Frankly, I think some teams are going to have trouble if they pay "elite money" to an "elite QB".. I'm terrified as a Bills fan for the same reasons as I am for Browns fans.

[DawgX]

56 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

Not at all

It's saying if you have a replaceable skillset then you shouldn't get paid as a top 5 guy. You should replace the player with a player making less money than you would have to pay to retain the replaceable player

ie. right now I feel like Baker is worth like 25M.. I'm presuming (and maybe its an incorrect presumption), that a Baker extension would have to be somewhere in that 35-40M range. If you can get Baker for somewhere in the 20s, then yeah, go ahead and extend him. But if you're paying that premium for him, I don't think its worth it. You can let Baker go and get a comparable skill set for much less than the contract he would be given

 

Can you give Baker a defense, maintain his supporting cast on offense, AND give Baker a 30M pay raise? Idk, but that's the point. If your guy is tangible better than the other QBs, then yeah, do it. But if he's somewhere in that top 10 to top 15 range, then why wouldn't you replace at a lower price point instead of potentially paying top 5 money? I know it isn't always that simple, but the point is I think a lot of teams (not just the Browns, I'm not trying to pick on Baker/Browns specifically here, its just the team that was brought up) are going to find themselves in trouble when they pay "elite money" to a "good QB" 

Frankly, I think some teams are going to have trouble if they pay "elite money" to an "elite QB".. I'm terrified as a Bills fan for the same reasons as I am for Browns fans.

As a Browns fan, I'd prefer to wait until next year to extend him unless he is willing to sign for a team-friendly deal. However, again as a Browns fan (and you as a Bills fan should know), it's not necessarily easy to replace a top 10-12 QB. I mean, we went years and years without even slightly competent QB play and Baker is by far the best QB we've had since returning. It's easy to say just find a cheaper and similar replacement, but that's so much easier said than done.

Also, while obviously I'm biased, I very much doubt Baker has reached his potential. He's had to learn a new system each year of his career, and this season will be the first time in his career where he won't be learning a new system. Baker played like a borderline great QB down the stretch once he became comfortable with the scheme, so I see no reason why he can't improve and become a top 7-8 QB in the league when he's arguably a top 10-12 QB as it stands right now.

[MWil23]

IMO, the Browns should do one of two things:

*Extend him now for an upper mid level tier outside of that Top 8 range but with a lot of guaranteed money up front, sort of like Ryan Tannehill, so that way you can potentially get a "steal" for if he out-produces his contract, allowing the Browns to use a lot of their free cap space without mortgaging the next 5 or so years and allowing themselves flexibility to continue to load up at other positions. If he ends up being mediocre...then that's the price you pay and he'll be good enough to keep them playoff competitive during that stretch, and he'll be basically a "limbo" quarterback who keeps you in purgatory for a while.

*You wait and let him play out this 4th year, while picking up his fifth year option. If he essentially picks up in 2021 with where he left off, you know that you're going to have to shell out a monster Top 5 type deal in 2022 and beyond. 

JMHO