Browns trade for Tyrod Taylor

[Broncofan]

2 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Awful, awful logic. 

Kurt Warner, that old back up from St. Louis. The guy who couldn’t even get a starting job. Real good QB, right?

As you then mindlessly post stats....

If the Browns were aiming for a playoff berth in 2018, you’d be right on point. 

Again, the faulty logic continues. 

“That guy can’t be good...if he was good, why would his team not want him?”

Yeah, the Browns aren’t in that position. They’re not clinging to a sub par QB because they’re afraid of doing worse - they’re bringing in a bridge guy. There’s a big, obvious difference between what they’re doing and what you just described.

If they do what most expect, they’ll be drafting a QB high. Let’s say they don’t want to start him in year 1 because they want him to develop (Allen especially), are they supposed to sign Fitzpatrick to go 0-16 again? At some point you have to start putting a product on the field. This isn’t madden. 

The overpay is an overpay because nobody with any hint of sanity is going to go there on a comparable deal. If it wasn’t in the trade, it’d have been an overpay in FA. 

The overpay is in $, and for 1 year.   A 65 pick is 4 years worth of cheap play.  But we agree on the premise - there's an overpay.  It's just a question of what you prefer.  Those who dislike the deal would just pay similar, or more $ for 1 year.  That stopgap isn't going to bring playoffs to CLE, although any of those guys will bring more W's.  Yes, that's how bad Kizer was.  

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

Not every QB is a day one starter. 

Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson could benefit a lot from sitting.

Then draft someone you think is ready to start from day one. The Browns have the first pick. QB is the most important position. Don't undervalue it. 

[lancerman]

8 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Either way they traded him for less than what he was worth so the point still stands.

See that's the problem, the point doesn't stand. "Worth" is a function of what teams are willing to pay for him. At the time no team was going to pay much more for him. The Patriots had no leverage and the team that got him was going to have half a season to see if they could come to contract terms OR be forced to franchise him. At the time it looked like the Patriots were getting 34 overall. At that moment he was worth about that for the situation. At another time he may have been worth more. But they traded him for about as good as you could imagine at that time. They didn't undersell him, which was your point. 

 

 

[Thelonebillsfan]

The Browns drafting Lamar Jackson to sit behind Taylor would be a brilliant move.

[Soko]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

The overpay is in $, and for 1 year.   A 65 pick is 4 years worth of cheap play.  But we agree on the premise - there's an overpay.  It's just a question of what you prefer.  Those who dislike the deal would just pay similar, or more $ for 1 year.  That stopgap isn't going to bring playoffs to CLE, although any of those guys will bring more W's.  Yes, that's how bad Kizer was.  

The problem is, we can’t guarantee FAs come for one year. 

If I’m virtually any of the FA quarterbacks in discussion, why would I go to Cleveland for one year? 

My career could very well be over after a stint in Cleveland. My job isn’t guaranteed because they might just start the rookie. The area isn’t special. The media isn’t special. Even if I play well, I likely won’t be back here. The coach might not be here all season. Even a one year deal just means my depreciated value - because I’m older and will likely have sucked in Cleveland - is being pushed to 2019. 

We can point to the money - and money talks, don’t get me wrong - but I think we’re underestimating just how bad this franchise has been recently. 

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Then draft someone you think is ready to start from day one. The Browns have the first pick. QB is the most important position. Don't undervalue it. 

I didn’t know it was that simple. 

You ever think of GMing?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I didn't know it was that simple. 

You ever think of GMing?

The logic is simple in that scenario. Regardless if the guy succeeds or not. There is not way to know that until he plays a good amount. This isn't about hindsight though. 

If you have the first pick in the draft, and you need a quarterback with a few highly profiled ones available, why would you take the one that needs more polishing compared to the one that doesn't? 

[BleedTheClock]

5 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

The Browns drafting Lamar Jackson to sit behind Taylor would be a brilliant move.

Sure if we trade down with the Bills and acquire a ton of draft capital and take him at #21 or #22. Lamar Jackson at #4 would be an abortion of a pick considering the other players that will be available.

I like Lamar Jackson a lot, but not enough to pass on the other 4 QB's I have ranked ahead of him. Jackson is too boom or bust for me to go all-in on as the QBOTF. I'm hoping we get a little more out of our QB from this class than a gigantic piece of unmolded clay. At least Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield/Allen have some shaping already underway. Jackson is just too project-y for me...especially because I expect Tyrod to be benched for poor play sooner than later.

[lancerman]

9 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Awful, awful logic. 

Kurt Warner, that old back up from St. Louis. The guy who couldn’t even get a starting job. Real good QB, right?

As you then mindlessly post stats....

If the Browns were aiming for a playoff berth in 2018, you’d be right on point. 

Again, the faulty logic continues. 

“That guy can’t be good...if he was good, why would his team not want him?”

Yeah, the Browns aren’t in that position. They’re not clinging to a sub par QB because they’re afraid of doing worse - they’re bringing in a bridge guy. There’s a big, obvious difference between what they’re doing and what you just described.

If they do what most expect, they’ll be drafting a QB high. Let’s say they don’t want to start him in year 1 because they want him to develop (Allen especially), are they supposed to sign Fitzpatrick to go 0-16 again? At some point you have to start putting a product on the field. This isn’t madden. 

The overpay is an overpay because nobody with any hint of sanity is going to go there on a comparable deal. If it wasn’t in the trade, it’d have been an overpay in FA. 

1. If you have to invoke KURT WARNER, your argument is already on shaky ground. Warner might be the biggest Rocky/Cinderella story in NFL history. He's not the rule and he should never be discussed as if you realistically could expect that to happen. You might as well say the Browns have a chance of picking up your old high school QB and he gets them a Super Bowl. That's where your at. NOW THAT is awful logic. 

2. No I posted situational stats that give context to how Tyrod plays when he actually is forced to do more than coast. Virtually everyone whose spent time watching Tyrod knows what kind of QB he is. Basic stats are very misleading with him. He refuses to do anything but dump offs and relies on the team to carry him, when he is outright forced to play with any skill, he is wildly poor/terrible. 

3.If they weren't paying a draft pick I'd be fine with them getting a QB they had no ambitions for. A free agency overpay was acceptable because you could sign him for two years and there was NO WAY the Browns were going to be in cap trouble before the contract ends and you get all the cap space back. You'll never get a chance to make that draft pick again.

4. The Bills are not a team that has a good back up or have had years of success to be in the position to just let go of a QB who is considered good. They just aren't. If anybody there thought their was even the slightest chance of winning with him, they would have kept him. 

5. Yeah if you aren't expecting anything competitive then sign Fitz and go 0-16. There isn't a single fan that expects you to go from 0-16 to the playoffs. Just take the hit with the promise of the rookie coming in a year and say it's for the good of the team to not give up commodities for nothing. 

 

[lancerman]

8 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

The problem is, we can’t guarantee FAs come for one year. 

If I’m virtually any of the FA quarterbacks in discussion, why would I go to Cleveland for one year? 

My career could very well be over after a stint in Cleveland. My job isn’t guaranteed because they might just start the rookie. The area isn’t special. The media isn’t special. Even if I play well, I likely won’t be back here. The coach might not be here all season. Even a one year deal just means my depreciated value - because I’m older and will likely have sucked in Cleveland - is being pushed to 2019. 

We can point to the money - and money talks, don’t get me wrong - but I think we’re underestimating just how bad this franchise has been recently. 

MONEY. Cleveland has so much cap room they could pay you a ton for a year. If you happen to win 4 games and have respectable stats you are an automatic improvement and other teams will give you a second look. Also if Cleveland takes a first round QB, nobody is going to hold it against you if they don't resign you the next year. 

You have a giant mulligan in Cleveland. People aren't stupid. 

[Soko]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

The logic is simple in that scenario. Regardless if the guy succeeds or not. There is not way to know that until he plays a good amount. This isn't about hindsight though. 

If you have the first pick in the draft, and you need a quarterback with a few highly profiled ones available, why would you take the one that needs more polishing compared to the one that doesn't? 

Because maybe none of them are polished? Because you find red flags in the most pro ready guy? Because the more raw prospect has a higher ceiling? Because the pro ready guy lacks intangibles? 

You're oversimplifying the draft. “Just draft the best one that can start” isn’t a strategy. 

[Rod Johnson]

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

See that's the problem, the point doesn't stand. "Worth" is a function of what teams are willing to pay for him. At the time no team was going to pay much more for him. The Patriots had no leverage and the team that got him was going to have half a season to see if they could come to contract terms OR be forced to franchise him. At the time it looked like the Patriots were getting 34 overall. At that moment he was worth about that for the situation. At another time he may have been worth more. But they traded him for about as good as you could imagine at that time. They didn't undersell him, which was your point. 

 

 

That point has no function in your argument.  A perfect storm occurring that allowed the 49ers to get a great deal on Jimmy G at the trade deadline bears no significance on Tyrod Taylor's worth to the Browns in March 2018.  Under the logic you're employing you'd have to count on that scenario happening often, which it doesn't.  The 49ers were extremely fortunate.

[lancerman]

22 minutes ago, kramxel said:

Do the Browns need a top QB? Everyone does.

Does this stop them from drafting a rookie QB? Absolutely not.

Does this allows them to not throw a rookie unprepared and start breeding some life into that team and fanbase? It sure does.

Is there a better QB available? No.

What's the alternative here?

 

 

Is Tyrod a top QB? No

No it doesn't, it only stops them from making some draft trade ups, potentially getting a decent talent if they evaluate well, or literally do anything but throw away the draft pick. 

Would literally any QB you throw out there allow them to not throw a rookie unprepared? Yeah. Is this guaranteed to breath any life into the franchise? No because not even the biggest Cleveland homers on this board expect anything from Tyrod next year. 

Yeah.... Cousins is available lol. There's plenty of Viking QB's about to be available lol. 

There's a lot of alternatives. 

[Soko]

23 minutes ago, lancerman said:

1. If you have to invoke KURT WARNER, your argument is already on shaky ground. Warner might be the biggest Rocky/Cinderella story in NFL history. He's not the rule and he should never be discussed as if you realistically could expect that to happen. You might as well say the Browns have a chance of picking up your old high school QB and he gets them a Super Bowl. That's where your at. NOW THAT is awful logic. 

Dude, it’s one example. Calm down. Do you really need others of a player failing in one instance or place but having a good overall career?

Didn’t think so. 

Quote

2. No I posted situational stats that give context to how Tyrod plays when he actually is forced to do more than coast. Virtually everyone whose spent time watching Tyrod knows what kind of QB he is. Basic stats are very misleading with him. He refuses to do anything but dump offs and relies on the team to carry him, when he is outright forced to play with any skill, he is wildly poor/terrible. 

Hyperbole. It was just hypocritical that you whine about stats, then post stats. That is all.

Quote

3.If they weren't paying a draft pick I'd be fine with them getting a QB they had no ambitions for. A free agency overpay was acceptable because you could sign him for two years and there was NO WAY the Browns were going to be in cap trouble before the contract ends and you get all the cap space back. You'll never get a chance to make that draft pick again.

Again, assuming they could lure a FA in. Not a guarantee like you think it is. 

Also assuming that they have no ambition for Taylor - you seem to make lots of those. 

Quote

4. The Bills are not a team that has a good back up or have had years of success to be in the position to just let go of a QB who is considered good. They just aren't. If anybody there thought their was even the slightest chance of winning with him, they would have kept him. 

I forgot the Bills have a history of good decision making and reputation post-2000. Your logic of “Buffalo didn’t want him, so he’s bad” is awful and I feel like you know it’s awful but won’t admit it.

Quote

5. Yeah if you aren't expecting anything competitive then sign Fitz and go 0-16. There isn't a single fan that expects you to go from 0-16 to the playoffs. Just take the hit with the promise of the rookie coming in a year and say it's for the good of the team to not give up commodities for nothing. 

So if you’re not aiming for/expecting to go to the playoffs, just go 0-16. Got it. 

That’s worked quite well for the team we’re discussing.

[lancerman]

4 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

That point has no function in your argument.  A perfect storm occurring that allowed the 49ers to get a great deal on Jimmy G at the trade deadline bears no significance on Tyrod Taylor's worth to the Browns in March 2018.  Under the logic you're employing you'd have to count on that scenario happening often, which it doesn't.  The 49ers were extremely fortunate.

No your argument was entirely predicated on it being misleading to say that Jimmy was traded for just a little more than Tyrod because the Pats deliberately undersold him. They didn't. They sold him for his likely market value at the time and it was a rough situation that most people saw coming (either they were dropping Brady next year or they were going to trade Jimmy or let him walk for nothing). 

Tyrod was going to be released and the Browns could have just rushed to sign him. Or they could have got virtually anybody else because the Browns aren't playing Tyrod to actually win anything. Jimmy was actually brought in with the hope of being a franchise QB. Tyrod was brought in to play for a year while they prepared someone else. There's a massive difference.