(Poll) Which QB Does Hue Jackson Want at Number 1?

[Rod Johnson]

21 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Proof? It’s an opinion.  And argumentum ad populism isn’t a fact either.

No one is saying youth didn’t play a factor.

You are correct in saying proof is not the right term.

The burden of great argument is in your camp. I don't find it convincing to say youth and inexperience was not a top reason then list more important reasons in which youth is still the underlying cause.

You are not believing me when I say it was a top factor.  You're believing basically everybody else.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

19 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

You are correct in saying proof is not the right term.

The burden of great argument is in your camp. I don't find it convincing to say youth and inexperience was not a top reason then list more important reasons in which youth is still the underlying cause.

You are not believing me when I say it was a top factor.  You're believing basically everybody else.

That’s fine, it’s a difference of opinion.

We agree to disagree and remain the bestest of buds, that’s how that works.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

25 minutes ago, DaWg_LB. said:

I agree with Letsgo here.....it was a contributing factor.....but one of the points that was made was the "100's of mental errors per game" that Kizer made.....I would argue that a 20yo kid who is making his 1rst NFL start on the road, vs a team who is missing their starting QB, has his OC call for him to drop back and pass OVER 50 times in a game where we were NEVER down by more than 14 points at any point in the game.....that is now youth + a coach that appears to be setting Youth up to fail...instead of scripting a game plan that the "youth" might be able to execute...IMO.

Youth is a factor I agree....but there were several playoff teams that had youthfull players play several key starting/critical roles for their respective teams....

Didn’t coaching determine that rookie to be our best option to play as opposed to a vet as well? Sure did.

Our exceptionally youthful defense wasn’t great, but not 0-16 bad.  It was our offense that was putrid which tbh had plenty of experience sans QB, which, again, didn’t have to be so.

[DaWg_LB.]

19 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Didn’t coaching determine that rookie to be our best option to play as opposed to a vet as well? Sure did.

Our exceptionally youthful defense wasn’t great, but not 0-16 bad.  It was our offense that was putrid which tbh had plenty of experience sans QB, which, again, didn’t have to be so.

Good Point.....YES he did....and it should have been Kessler or Osweiler out there until at LEAST us getting back from London.....

Our defense finished top 10...and there is TON of youth there.....

Everyone know's I am a huge Hue fan...and Hue apologist......but he screwed the pooch on handling the offense design, game management and the way he handle the rookie QB....all were epic fails IMO

[Rod Johnson]

7 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

That’s fine, it’s a difference of opinion.

We agree to disagree and remain the bestest of buds, that’s how that works.

Yeah I don't think that we are gonna sway each other.  I just think sometimes the Hue loathing is absolutely off the chain in here and reminds me of Cleveland talk radio when I lived up there.  Kind of just created a big fuss over something that's not as insurmountable as it seems.  Yeah he was monumentally bad, and he'll probably be gone soon, but I don't mind Jimmy sticking with somebody since he's backed himself into a corner being a batpoop crazy owner that was probably lucky to hire somebody of Hue's pedigree in the first place (even if Hue is the absolute worst and had a completely unwarranted reputation before Cleveland).

Our organizational problems start with Haslem and most realistically will be fixed with the development of Haslem.  So for him not to fire Hue, the opposite of what he's been doing, can be optimistically interpreted as progress.  He will be fired next season if it starts getting as bad as 2016 and 17 was, and there will be no reserves about why it happened.

[Mind Character]

17 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Didn’t coaching determine that rookie to be our best option to play as opposed to a vet as well?

You can't be serious with that one man.

Some of these takes situate Hue as a bumbling idiot that forget all football experiences and knowledge and can only do finger painting and color with crayons.

It may feel good to think that way, but its purely hyperbolic and feel-goodism.

This is the NFL we're talking about. These are NFL lifers that have seen the wrath of rookie Quarterbacking.

You really think an NFL lifer coming off of a 1-15 season and really thought that starting a rookie QB was the best option for WINNING?

I mean...come on man. We're talking about a player they passed on 3 times and didn't even trade up for in the 2nd round.

Every coach including Hue knows that rookie QBs get coaches fired and lead to losing.

There's not a coach alive in the NFL that thinks starting a rookie QB is the best option to win.

The decision to start Kizer wasn't made because he was thought to give the Browns the best chance to win...I mean geesh don't we know the real reason why he was given 1st team reps starting from his first practice on....Don't we all know that starting Kizer was an organizational decision as it was the only way to figure out what we had with Kizer going into a critical offseason with the capital to target a QB.

Hue would've rather started Hogan, Kessler, or Osweiler the whole season rahter than Kizer,and thinking otherwise is just a fun exercise in F-Hue-ism.as there is so much evidence that points to the real reason Kizer started.

I

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 hours ago, Rod Johnson said:

Yeah I don't think that we are gonna sway each other.  I just think sometimes the Hue loathing is absolutely off the chain in here and reminds me of Cleveland talk radio when I lived up there.  Kind of just created a big fuss over something that's not as insurmountable as it seems.  Yeah he was monumentally bad, and he'll probably be gone soon, but I don't mind Jimmy sticking with somebody since he's backed himself into a corner being a batpoop crazy owner that was probably lucky to hire somebody of Hue's pedigree in the first place (even if Hue is the absolute worst and had a completely unwarranted reputation before Cleveland).

Hue was definitely a good hire.  I was a huge fan having seen his work up close here in Cincy.

9 hours ago, Rod Johnson said:

Our organizational problems start with Haslem and most realistically will be fixed with the development of Haslem.  So for him not to fire Hue, the opposite of what he's been doing, can be optimistically interpreted as progress.  He will be fired next season if it starts getting as bad as 2016 and 17 was, and there will be no reserves about why it happened.

My concern for keeping him is it setting up to possibly be a Mangini/Holmgren situation where they should have just made the decision immediately if that’s what the GM wanted and be done with it.

I hope Hue works out.  I think letting Haley run the offense is a giant step in the right direction. I do find it odd we brought in Hue’s guys as position coaches only to run another guy’s system, but we’ll see how that works out.

Hopefully Hue can learn to delegate and actually become the HEAD COACH instead of dabbling in being the QB coach, OC, and eventually getting around to being the HC.  That would help him, and the team, a lot.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

You can't be serious with that one man.

Some of these takes situate Hue as a bumbling idiot that forget all football experiences and knowledge and can only do finger painting and color with crayons.

It may feel good to think that way, but its purely hyperbolic and feel-goodism.

This is the NFL we're talking about. These are NFL lifers that have seen the wrath of rookie Quarterbacking.

You really think an NFL lifer coming off of a 1-15 season and really thought that starting a rookie QB was the best option for WINNING?

I mean...come on man. We're talking about a player they passed on 3 times and didn't even trade up for in the 2nd round.

Every coach including Hue knows that rookie QBs get coaches fired and lead to losing.

There's not a coach alive in the NFL that thinks starting a rookie QB is the best option to win.

The decision to start Kizer wasn't made because he was thought to give the Browns the best chance to win...I mean geesh don't we know the real reason why he was given 1st team reps starting from his first practice on....Don't we all know that starting Kizer was an organizational decision as it was the only way to figure out what we had with Kizer going into a critical offseason with the capital to target a QB.

Hue would've rather started Hogan, Kessler, or Osweiler the whole season rahter than Kizer,and thinking otherwise is just a fun exercise in F-Hue-ism.as there is so much evidence that points to the real reason Kizer started.

I

 

Now you’re saying Hue was told to play Kizer over the other two? 

Staaaahhhhhppp.

Show me the evidence that Hue preferred to start Hogan, Kessler or Osweiler. I’ll wait.

[Mind Character]

5 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Now you’re saying Hue was told to play Kizer over the other two? 

Staaaahhhhhppp.

Show me the evidence that Hue preferred to start Hogan, Kessler or Osweiler. I’ll wait.

Are you kidding me LGB?

You really think Hue and the coaches in their convos thought a rookie QB gave them the best chance to win after 1-15?

I never said he was dictated to from the masters on high and was dragged kicking and screaming with his hands tied behind his back to the podium to announce Kizer as our starting QB.

Deshone was given QB1 starter reps from the first day he stepped onto the field.

When Hue was asked why Kizer got starter reps with Kessler from the very first practice, Hue responded "we need to see what we have with Deshone. At the end of all this  we need to come out knowing what he is and what he can be."

When named a starter, Hue was asked who he consults on such decisions and what goes into it. Hue said the decision is made in collaboration with Sashi and the "Executive team" and the final decision takes into account "not just winning but where we need to be heading into an important off-season. Deshone has earned the right to start through preparation."

When asked explicitly if the starting decision was based solely on development or did he think Kizer gives them a chance to win, Hue gave the proverbial "no, we also believe Deshone gives us the best chance to win as well."

For me following the team all season, what was said by coaches, owner, FO, clearly illustrated to me that the plan was to see Kizer at some point in the seasons and the earlier and "more in game reps during the season the better" as Sashi said was thought to enable the team to have a clear definitive answer on whether Kizer was the QB1 of the future heading into a critical offseason.

The plan was for Kizer to sit and have 1 of Kessler or Osweiler take the job over; however, when those QBs struggled and Osweiler was released the Kizer developmental plan timetable was moved up.

At that point the gamble of starting Kizer, giving him a shot to prove his QB1 worth became a risky desirable option for the organization.

Any coach or football knowledgeable person at that time understood that going with Kizer "could go left and we have to be ready for that as well" as Hue said.

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

30 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

Are you kidding me LGB?

 

Why would I be kidding? The coach decides who plays, no?

30 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

You really think Hue and the coaches in their convos thought a rookie QB gave them the best chance to win after 1-15?

Who did then? Hue thought it was Kessler but didn’t want to play him?  That’s a scorching hot take there.  Last I remember Hue was going to develop Kizer and help him succeed.  Did Hue do a good job of that? Would you say he gameplanned to help a rookie qb?

30 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

I never said he was dictated to from the masters on high and was dragged kicking and screaming with his hands tied behind his back to the podium to announce Kizer as our starting QB.

Deshone was given QB1 starter reps from the first day he stepped onto the field.

Sure was.

30 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

When Hue was asked why Kizer got starter reps with Kessler from the very first practice, Hue responded "we need to see what we have with Deshone. At the end of all this  we need to come out knowing what he is and what he can be."

That was back when Hue seemed to have perspective and understand the process.  Ah....the good ole days....

30 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

When named a starter, Hue was asked who he consults on such decisions and what goes into it. Hue said the decision is made in collaboration with Sashi and the "Executive team" and the final decision takes into account "not just winning but where we need to be heading into an important off-season. Deshone has earned the right to start through preparation."

When asked explicitly if the starting decision was based solely on development or did he think Kizer gives them a chance to win, Hue gave the proverbial "no, we also believe Deshone gives us the best chance to win as well."

For me following the team all season, what was said by coaches, owner, FO, clearly illustrated to me that the plan was to see Kizer at some point in the seasons and the earlier and "more in game reps during the season the better" as Sashi said was thought to enable the team to have a clear definitive answer on whether Kizer was the QB1 of the future heading into a critical offseason.

The plan was for Kizer to sit and have 1 of Kessler or Osweiler take the job over; however, when those QBs struggled and Osweiler was released the Kizer developmental plan timetable was moved up.

At that point the gamble of starting Kizer, giving him a shot to prove his QB1 worth became a risky desirable option for the organization.

Any coach or football knowledgeable person at that time understood that going with Kizer "could go left and we have to be ready for that as well" as Hue said.

 

Yeah, I agree, but nowhere in there was there anything about Hue wanting to play someone else but couldn’t.  He didn’t HAVE to start Kizer, he chose to, for various reasons that you pointed out.

It wasn’t a “wrong decision”, again, for reasons you listed that I agree with, but he did have other, more experienced, options had he been inclined.

He wasn’t. He owns that, good or bad.

[Rod Johnson]

It should be noted that Hogan and Kessler didn't really produce much better results when they did play.

[Mind Character]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Why would I be kidding? The coach decides who plays, no?

 

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Who did then? Hue thought it was Kessler but didn’t want to play him?  That’s a scorching hot take there.  Last I remember Hue was going to develop Kizer and help him succeed.  Did Hue do a good job of that? Would you say he gameplanned to help a rookie qb?

As a Browns fan, you grasp the concept that decisions made regarding personnel for a football team (i.e.,  who's cut, who starts, etc.) are not just the coaches decision and often are made in collaboration or primarily directed by the GM/leading personnel execs, no?

Did Hue Jackson want to start Joe Haden?

Did Hue Jackson want to start Demario Davis?

I think we'd find some consensus amongst people that answers those questions with an emphatic "yes, he wanted to start them."

So, why didn't he?

Answer: "Well..because Hue's an idiot, is the worst coach in football history, doesn't know anything about football but blaming players, playing the victim, and leaking reports to Mike Silver...can't develop QBs or call plays like I know how to call them from my couch...FIRE HUE....FIRE HUE..."

Here's a harder one:  Did Hue Jackson want to start Brock Osweiler? Did Hue want to start Kessler? Did Hue want to start Kizer?

Why do we believe Hue wanted to start Joe Haden, but things didn't go that way? Easy...and simple...Hue in collaboration with the leading decision makers of the football team (Sashi, Paul DePo, AB, etc.) decided that there were other reasons not exclusively related to winning that should be factored in resulting in the personnel decision.

Hue coming out and saying it's what's best for the football team or it's a Browns decision, or I stand by our decisions "I get it", "there's a plan and we're following it"... isn't proof that he's for those decisions necessarily.

------------------------------------------------

On game plans:

Things were bad, and I'm in the minority that believes there were actually many game plans that were well designed and called that were did in by catastrophic nonsensical turnovers from blatant misses/inaccuracy or terrible decision making.

Hindsight and confirmation bias along with Fire Hue-ism say every game plan was terrible and created to hinder Kizer popularized mostly by draft media guys (Evan Silva, Matt Kelley) that don't know football and don't assess things game by game.

The reality is there were bad game plans where too much was put on Kizer's plate earlier on to test his limits, where the running game was abandoned, and also many well called/designed game plans as the season progressed.

There were many well called and designed game plans that schemed wide open, free running TEs, WRs, and quicker passing concepts to get the ball out that were ultimately undermined by a catastrophic turnover in the redzone or otherwise. Colts, First Steelers game, Jets, Minnesota, Detroit, Chargers.

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

He owns that, good or bad.

Absolutely he does. He's the HC, gets paid the big bucks in a rare 1 of 32 highly coveted position.

He deserves his share of blame and criticism unquestionably, but there is a context for which a lot of decisions occurred that necessitated a decision making approach that did not factor in Winning now as the key overriding factor in the decision.

Ultimately, I see the Kizer starting decision just like the decision to Cut Joe Haden and get rid of Demario Davis.

It was a decision that Hue was not primarily in favor of after going 1-15 and being a football lifer, but could be persuaded or begrudgingly go along with the more forward looking plan that was necessary to follow so that now we have both the resources (cap space, picks) and experiential understanding of whether or not we need to go out and get a young QB1 prospect (we do).

[bruceb]

4 hours ago, Rod Johnson said:

It should be noted that Hogan and Kessler didn't really produce much better results when they did play.

With the exception of Hogan's one start, they both were thrown into the fire under less than ideal circumstances.

And hobbled by the play-calling of Hueball.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

4 hours ago, Rod Johnson said:

It should be noted that Hogan and Kessler didn't really produce much better results when they did play.

Oh for sure, they were all bad, but just like with Kizer, I didn’t see much done to help them as far as the game plan and placalling was concerned.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 hours ago, Mind Character said:

 

As a Browns fan, you grasp the concept that decisions made regarding personnel for a football team (i.e.,  who's cut, who starts, etc.) are not just the coaches decision and often are made in collaboration or primarily directed by the GM/leading personnel execs, no?

Did Hue Jackson want to start Joe Haden?

Did Hue Jackson want to start Demario Davis?

I think we'd find some consensus amongst people that answers those questions with an emphatic "yes, he wanted to start them."

So, why didn't he?

Answer: "Well..because Hue's an idiot, is the worst coach in football history, doesn't know anything about football but blaming players, playing the victim, and leaking reports to Mike Silver...can't develop QBs or call plays like I know how to call them from my couch...FIRE HUE....FIRE HUE..."

Here's a harder one:  Did Hue Jackson want to start Brock Osweiler? Did Hue want to start Kessler? Did Hue want to start Kizer?

Why do we believe Hue wanted to start Joe Haden, but things didn't go that way? Easy...and simple...Hue in collaboration with the leading decision makers of the football team (Sashi, Paul DePo, AB, etc.) decided that there were other reasons not exclusively related to winning that should be factored in resulting in the personnel decision.

Hue coming out and saying it's what's best for the football team or it's a Browns decision, or I stand by our decisions "I get it", "there's a plan and we're following it"... isn't proof that he's for those decisions necessarily.

------------------------------------------------

On game plans:

Things were bad, and I'm in the minority that believes there were actually many game plans that were well designed and called that were did in by catastrophic nonsensical turnovers from blatant misses/inaccuracy or terrible decision making.

Hindsight and confirmation bias along with Fire Hue-ism say every game plan was terrible and created to hinder Kizer popularized mostly by draft media guys (Evan Silva, Matt Kelley) that don't know football and don't assess things game by game.

The reality is there were bad game plans where too much was put on Kizer's plate earlier on to test his limits, where the running game was abandoned, and also many well called/designed game plans as the season progressed.

There were many well called and designed game plans that schemed wide open, free running TEs, WRs, and quicker passing concepts to get the ball out that were ultimately undermined by a catastrophic turnover in the redzone or otherwise. Colts, First Steelers game, Jets, Minnesota, Detroit, Chargers.

Absolutely he does. He's the HC, gets paid the big bucks in a rare 1 of 32 highly coveted position.

He deserves his share of blame and criticism unquestionably, but there is a context for which a lot of decisions occurred that necessitated a decision making approach that did not factor in Winning now as the key overriding factor in the decision.

Ultimately, I see the Kizer starting decision just like the decision to Cut Joe Haden and get rid of Demario Davis.

It was a decision that Hue was not primarily in favor of after going 1-15 and being a football lifer, but could be persuaded or begrudgingly go along with the more forward looking plan that was necessary to follow so that now we have both the resources (cap space, picks) and experiential understanding of whether or not we need to go out and get a young QB1 prospect (we do).

Your ability to bloviate about nonsensical bullish is top shelf...

Your ability to defend the coaching of a 1-31 coach is even more impressive. Maybe his concepts were great, but if his players aren’t able to execute them, maybe he needs to change what he’s doing?  No? 

You make it seem like poor old Hue got duped when he took the job.  *I* understood the plan.  Other posters here understood what they were doing.  Why would the HC be going along “begrudgingly”? He signed up for this.

You’re an excellent poster, but for the love of all things holy learn to be more succinct ffs.