Browns trade for Tyrod Taylor

[Broncofan]

28 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. 

Pretty much any other year, you'd have me making the same point you are about QB's coming to CLE.  But this isn't any other year.  It's historic in the number of back-end stopgap QB's available that are actually not just pure backup guys masquerading as best QB available.      

Don't believe me?  Look and see the last 5 years:

2013 - Tim Tebow, Matt Moore, Kevin Kolb

2014 - 35 y.o. McCown, 34 y.o Vick, Fitzpatrick, Matt Cassell, Matt Moore

2015 - Same dudes plus Jake Locker, Ryan Mallett

2016 - Osweiler, McCown, Fitzpatrick, Hoyer, Keenum

2017 - Glennon, Keenum (who wasn't known as potential starter obv), Kaep

Now look at 2018 - besides Cousins (who isn't a backend guy), we have Keenum (starter full-time), McCarron, Taylor, Bridgewater, Bradford and McCown.   And unlike other years, we have 5 rookie QB's slated to go Rd1, of which at least 2, if not a 3rd, are likely to take over early.  I'm taking MIN & Cousins out, either way whoever he goes to, isnt' a stopgap option.

Now we have 5 teams clearly looking for QB - CLE (rookie), DEN, NYJ, ARI, BUF.   CLE has Taylor, so that's 4.    Are all 4 going to need a vet to pair with a rookie, or even just start instead of a rookie?  Maybe, but at least 2 rookies will be thought to be guys who will start sooner or later Year 1.  So that limits the number of teams who will offer 2 years. 

Teams like MIA, NYG and LAC could all get into the QB rookie mix - but for a rookie, NOT for a stopgap.  So no market for a stopgap that's more than a year.

So, put simply - there are more guys available to be 1-year stopgaps than there are teams with a need to go more than 1-year.   In that market, you don't see everyone get multi-year offers.   I'm confident Keenum will.   But out of the 5 guys I've listed, I don't know if we even see 2 guys get multi-year offers.   And 3?  Really iffy when you factor in that McCown likely only gets 1 year offer to begin with.  

People keep saying all the FA's will get multiyear offers - the numbers don't add up here.   Any other year, I'd get why CLE would feel the need to overpay.  I don't see it here.   The numbers say at least 2 of the guys in Taylor's tier of backend starter with no long-term future will be left in the cold, with only 1-year offers.  Maybe 3.   And that's where CLE's $ comes in, and well, the fact that there are fewer teams looking for stopgaps this year than guys available.   

[CrashMan510]

Tyrod is a good stop gap guy. He'll help them win games and be more competitive. If i was them id take Barkley 1 and find a way to trade up with the giants to get Darnold at 2

[Soko]

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

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. 

So Keenum’s value - which one can assume is very high given the year he had in Minny - will be the same in 2019 if he bombs in Cleveland and is ~30 years old? We’re talking about a career backup who’s currently being talked about as maybe the 2nd best FA quarterback available. That plummets if he shows that he’s just the guy who everyone’s thought he’s been. 

Bradford too. Guy’s getting a little gray now and hasn’t shown the ability to stay healthy. His value is already really low, what does he have to gain by going into an awful situation in Cleveland? He’s got more earnings than most QBs. 

Bridgewater and McCarron are young qurterbacks that have only ever been on one NFL team. If both have any semblance of confidence in themselves, they think they could be good NFL starters. Both have lacked the ability to play in recent years. So let’s sign a one year deal with the worst team in NFL history over two seasons, that’ll surely improve their value for 2019. 

[Rod Johnson]

11 minutes ago, lancerman said:

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.

My argument wasn't predicated on that at all.  It's simply that Jimmy G's trade value bears no relevance on what Tyrod Taylor's is because his was a unique bargain product of a unique situation.

You corrected my misinterpretation of what happened but sustained my point.

The Browns wanted the contract he is on now for a reason.  And the Browns have a HUGE vested interest in winning games this year, even if it's only 5 of them.

 

[Soko]

4 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Pretty much any other year, you'd have me making the same point you are about QB's coming to CLE.  But this isn't any other year.  It's historic in the number of back-end stopgap QB's available that are actually not just pure backup guys masquerading as best QB available.      

Don't believe me?  Look and see the last 5 years:

2013 - Tim Tebow, Matt Moore, Kevin Kolb

2014 - 35 y.o. McCown, 34 y.o Vick, Fitzpatrick, Matt Cassell, Matt Moore

2015 - Same dudes plus Jake Locker, Ryan Mallett

2016 - Osweiler, McCown, Fitzpatrick, Hoyer, Keenum

2017 - Glennon, Keenum (who wasn't known as potential starter obv), Kaep

Now look at 2018 - besides Cousins (who isn't a backend guy), we have Keenum (starter full-time), McCarron, Taylor, Bridgewater, Bradford and McCown.   And unlike other years, we have 5 rookie QB's slated to go Rd1, of which at least 2, if not a 3rd, are likely to take over early.  I'm taking MIN & Cousins out, either way whoever he goes to, isnt' a stopgap option.

Now we have 5 teams clearly looking for QB - CLE (rookie), DEN, NYJ, ARI, BUF.   CLE has Taylor, so that's 4.    Are all 4 going to need a vet to pair with a rookie, or even just start instead of a rookie?  Maybe, but at least 2 rookies will be thought to be guys who will start sooner or later Year 1.  So that limits the number of teams who will offer 2 years. 

Teams like MIA, NYG and LAC could all get into the QB rookie mix - but for a rookie, NOT for a stopgap.  So no market for a stopgap that's more than a year.

So, put simply - there are more guys available to be 1-year stopgaps than there are teams with a need to go more than 1-year.   In that market, you don't see everyone get multi-year offers.   I'm confident Keenum will.   But out of the 5 guys I've listed, I don't know if we even see 2 guys get multi-year offers.   And 3?  Really iffy when you factor in that McCown likely only gets 1 year offer to begin with.  

People keep saying all the FA's will get multiyear offers - the numbers don't add up here.   Any other year, I'd get why CLE would feel the need to overpay.  I don't see it here.  

That makes sense, but if a couple of those guys sign one year deals (maybe Bradford to prove health, maybe Bridgewater/McCarron because they’ve been unproven) it doesn’t make sense for them to do it in Cleveland. The whole point of a “prove it deal” is to prove that you’re worth more money/more years on a contract - those things don’t get proved in Cleveland. 

Even then, you’re assuming everyone thinks about those QBs autonomously. One franchise may not like Bridgewater at all. They might think Bradford is done because of his knees. It’s not like they all have ratings and those ratings translate across the board - one team’s list of FA QBs could be shorter than others. It appears Cleveland wasn’t comfortable taking the risk of “one of these guys has to fall to us”, so they guaranteed one by making a trade. 

Now obviously I have no idea if they bartered or simply opened up with a third. But that’s the 6th pick they have in this draft, it’s not like they were hurting in draft capital either.

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

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. 

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

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. 

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.

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

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

1. No I don't need another example because it's still a disingenuous argument. You are acting like we should just anticipate the .1% chance that he ends up turning into a star. 

2. It's only hypocritical if you have no idea what you are talking about. My complaint was that someone (who admitted that it didn't matter because Tyrod was only a bridge QB who wasn't expected to do anything) used basic stats with not context that didn't really show an indication of the type of player he was to make a misleading representation of him being good. I posted stats that relied on a specific context that showed how he's likely to play in critical in game situations. I complained that his stats had no context and then posted stats that were specifically contextual. It's actually the exact opposite of hypocritical if you put your thinking cap on.

3. In the last 4 seasons alone the Browns have had 11 different QB's on their roster. You're really going to tell me they are going to struggle to find one half to just be on the field while they get their new guy ready? That's really the argument?

4. Oh so they have ambitions for Taylor and they won't draft a QB in the first round then because they got their guy? Is that the argument too?

5.  No because I actually absolutely agree with Buffalo's decision. Anybody whose spent any significant time watching Tyrod Taylor knows he is not a good QB and knows he won't win any game for you. Most of the Bills fans here were glad when he got benched, because they see what the coaches see and what I've seen. He's a QB who needs to be carried. 

6. Yeah if you don't have any expectations of going to the playoffs going into the season, the most rational thing to do is go 0-16. You don't have to spend capital for the illusion of appearing like you are trying to do something you aren't and you set yourself up with another set of early draft picks.

[lancerman]

6 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

My argument wasn't predicated on that at all.  It's simply that Jimmy G's trade value bears no relevance on what Tyrod Taylor's is because his was a unique bargain product of a unique situation.

You corrected my misinterpretation of what happened but sustained my point.

The Browns wanted the contract he is on now for a reason.  And the Browns have a HUGE vested interest in winning games this year, even if it's only 5 of them.

 

What's the HUGE vested interest lol? What does 5 games get you?

[Broncofan]

12 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

That makes sense, but if a couple of those guys sign one year deals (maybe Bradford to prove health, maybe Bridgewater/McCarron because they’ve been unproven) it doesn’t make sense for them to do it in Cleveland. The whole point of a “prove it deal” is to prove that you’re worth more money/more years on a contract - those things don’t get proved in Cleveland. 

Even then, you’re assuming everyone thinks about those QBs autonomously. One franchise may not like Bridgewater at all. They might think Bradford is done because of his knees. It’s not like they all have ratings and those ratings translate across the board - one team’s list of FA QBs could be shorter than others. It appears Cleveland wasn’t comfortable taking the risk of “one of these guys has to fall to us”, so they guaranteed one by making a trade. 

Now obviously I have no idea if they bartered or simply opened up with a third. But that’s the 6th pick they have in this draft, it’s not like they were hurting in draft capital either.

All fair and possible - but the point stands as borne out by the #'s - there are more stopgap QB's available than teams looking actively for stopgap QB's this year, and a couple of those teams (if not 3) will likely even be less inclined to pursue a stopgap unless super-cheap given the rookie they get.    

It's incredibly rare, but we have Cousins & 5 QB's who are legitimate stopgap starter material (not high-end at all, the very definition of stopgap - and 6 if you included Taylor), and 5 Round 1 rookies who will go Rd1, and likely top 20.  That's just a very rare mix - which likely leaves 2-3 stopgap guys in the cold - and only CLE left, had they passed on Taylor.  The numbers said if they waited BUF out, Taylor's value wouldn't be greater after the new year, it would be less - given alternatives were very present...and abundant.   Game-changers, no. But no different than Taylor.   

There will be someone in the stopgap FA QB class left in the cold -  the #'s say some team will actually get to choose between 2-3 guys even if those guys don't want to go there.   The "loser" FA QB doesn't get CLE - the loser doesn't get an offer to be a starter.    That's why I was certain CLE could get a stopgap for 1-year, the #'s support there's going to be a surplus.    Which was CLE's worst-case scenario to have to choose between the last 2-3 guys left standing...but again, there, with no #65 pick lost, and someone would sign.  It's still going to happen - just CLE won't be the last team to choose (and leave 1-2 guys stuck with pure backup jobs, or praying for injury).    It's iffy if even a lot of $ would be lost, given the #'s crunch.  This is literally a once-a-decade or more offseason which actually has more QB's available than teams looking for starters, but it's here.

[lancerman]

12 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

So Keenum’s value - which one can assume is very high given the year he had in Minny - will be the same in 2019 if he bombs in Cleveland and is ~30 years old? We’re talking about a career backup who’s currently being talked about as maybe the 2nd best FA quarterback available. That plummets if he shows that he’s just the guy who everyone’s thought he’s been. 

Bradford too. Guy’s getting a little gray now and hasn’t shown the ability to stay healthy. His value is already really low, what does he have to gain by going into an awful situation in Cleveland? He’s got more earnings than most QBs. 

Bridgewater and McCarron are young qurterbacks that have only ever been on one NFL team. If both have any semblance of confidence in themselves, they think they could be good NFL starters. Both have lacked the ability to play in recent years. So let’s sign a one year deal with the worst team in NFL history over two seasons, that’ll surely improve their value for 2019. 

Cleveland can give them a one/two year deal worth more than anybody else would pay them. They could literally make them one of the top 5 highest paid QB's for two years because they have so much cap space it's stupid. It wouldn't effect Cleveland in the slightest and if either of them are smart it guarantees that even if they completely suck and can never get another contract that if they are remotely competent with money, their families will be set for life.

I'll grant you Bridgewater and McCarron might want to play a longer game. But still, money.

[Soko]

Just now, lancerman said:

1. No I don't need another example because it's still a disingenuous argument. You are acting like we should just anticipate the .1% chance that he ends up turning into a star. 

Star? Who said star? 

You used the premise that because he didn’t do well/didn’t find success in Buffalo, he must be a bad player. 

And it’s hilariously wrong. 

Just now, lancerman said:

2. It's only hypocritical if you have no idea what you are talking about. My complaint was that someone (who admitted that it didn't matter because Tyrod was only a bridge QB who wasn't expected to do anything) used basic stats with not context that didn't really show an indication of the type of player he was to make a misleading representation of him being good. I posted stats that relied on a specific context that showed how he's likely to play in critical in game situations. I complained that his stats had no context and then posted stats that were specifically contextual. It's actually the exact opposite of hypocritical if you put your thinking cap on.

 

Just now, lancerman said:

3. In the last 4 seasons alone the Browns have had 11 different QB's on their roster. You're really going to tell me they are going to struggle to find one half to just be on the field while they get their new guy ready? That's really the argument?

Reading comprehension is rough tonight, huh? 

No, they wouldn’t struggle to field a quarterback. Yes, I find it possible and even likely that they’d struggle to field a competent one. 

Outbidding works in video games but not always in real life. 

Just now, lancerman said:

4. Oh so they have ambitions for Taylor and they won't draft a QB in the first round then because they got their guy? Is that the argument too?

Endless straw mans with you. 

If their plan is to bring competent QB play to a team that hasn’t had any in years while simultaneously providing a mentor to their young quarterback, guess what little guy, that’s ambition. 

Just now, lancerman said:

5.  No because I actually absolutely agree with Buffalo's decision. Anybody whose spent any significant time watching Tyrod Taylor knows he is not a good QB and knows he won't win any game for you. Most of the Bills fans here were glad when he got benched, because they see what the coaches see and what I've seen. He's a QB who needs to be carried. 

ENDLESS. STRAWMANS. 

You can go ahead and quote the part where I said Taylor would win games on his own. I’ll wait. Or I guess you could admit that you’re arguing something that isn’t a part of the discussion? That works too.

Just now, lancerman said:

6. Yeah if you don't have any expectations of going to the playoffs going into the season, the most rational thing to do is go 0-16. You don't have to spend capital for the illusion of appearing like you are trying to do something you aren't and you set yourself up with another set of early draft picks.

Okay, so the Browns ought to just keep doing what they’re doing then. Keep going 0-16 till they think they’ve got playoff hopes. Thanks for being a fan and not an executive!

[43M]

7 minutes ago, kramxel said:

I think you're under the impression that tanking is a good thing...

If that was the case the Browns would be in amazing shape, instead that franchise is literally destroyed in it's spirit and getting re-built every 3 years.

 

First off, the Browns biggest issue is drafting terribly, wherever they pick.   Thats a guaranteed way to fail, and a completely separate issue. 

Secondly, again, my comment isnt even really about the Browns.   It was a general assessment based on the comment about not sticking with mediocrity.    

Lets say back in 2004, Ben was taken and the Steelers didnt get a QB, and they somehow managed to get 7 wins with Maddox in 2004.    Then, lets say in 2005, they werent a fan of Rodgers and werent able to draft a QB until the 5th round.      So, you are then stuck with an aging QB you know is mediocre OR you can give they young QB a chance to develop into something.     Its not necessarily tanking because you WANT to win regardless of who you start, but if you start the aging QB who gets you 6-7 wins, you dont accomplish anything.   If you start the young QB and he fails, you a) find out exactly what that QB does (and doesnt) have to offer and b) you get a pick that will give you a chance to find your franchise QB. 

[lancerman]

Just now, Yin-Yang said:

Star? Who said star? 

You used the premise that because he didn’t do well/didn’t find success in Buffalo, he must be a bad player. 

And it’s hilariously wrong. 

 

Reading comprehension is rough tonight, huh? 

No, they wouldn’t struggle to field a quarterback. Yes, I find it possible and even likely that they’d struggle to field a competent one. 

Outbidding works in video games but not always in real life. 

Endless straw mans with you. 

If their plan is to bring competent QB play to a team that hasn’t had any in years while simultaneously providing a mentor to their young quarterback, guess what little guy, that’s ambition. 

ENDLESS. STRAWMANS. 

You can go ahead and quote the part where I said Taylor would win games on his own. I’ll wait. Or I guess you could admit that you’re arguing something that isn’t a part of the discussion? That works too.

Okay, so the Browns ought to just keep doing what they’re doing then. Keep going 0-16 till they think they’ve got playoff hopes. Thanks for being a fan and not an executive!

1. Oh lol I'm sorry, the first person you jumped to was Kurt Warner for no reason at all and I was not supposed to read into it. It was just entirely incidental that you picked a star to use in your example. Sure.

2. Who said they'd have to field a competent one? You're literally the only one who thinks that and it doesn't benefit them. And your making a MASSIVE assumption that the one they over paid for is a competent one. He's really not. And I wouldn't talk about reading comprehension. 

3. I feel like strawman is just a buzz word you heard so you don't have to argue something. Sort of like repeating "awful awful logic". Wait so in one breath your saying he might be like the Kurt Warner situation and that the Browns need to find a QB, but in another your saying he won't need to win some games on his own with a team that just went 0-16? hmmmmmm

4. OHHHHHH now this argument makes much more sense. I wasn't supposed to be analyzing this from a business perspective and seeing if it made any logical sense. I was supposed to put my fanboy goggles on and not really think too hard about it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Soko]

@Broncofan

I see what you’re saying, I just believe that there’s enough variables in the whole thing that’d give tHe a Browns question on getting the right bridge guy. Keep in mind, they might not look for McCarron/Bridgewater to mentor a QB as they haven’t had a ton of experience themselves. Keenum only now has put it together himself. 

I actually think Bradford would be a great fit here, if he’s healthy. He plays and gives your team solid QB play, he can teach the young gun how to do it, and if he goes down then you can have him keeping teaching. Just not worth the risk of losing out IYAM, we agree to disagree here. 

 

[Broncofan]

12 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

@Broncofan

I see what you’re saying, I just believe that there’s enough variables in the whole thing that’d give tHe a Browns question on getting the right bridge guy. Keep in mind, they might not look for McCarron/Bridgewater to mentor a QB as they haven’t had a ton of experience themselves. Keenum only now has put it together himself. 

I actually think Bradford would be a great fit here, if he’s healthy. He plays and gives your team solid QB play, he can teach the young gun how to do it, and if he goes down then you can have him keeping teaching. Just not worth the risk of losing out IYAM, we agree to disagree here. 

 

It’s fine to say getting Taylor is a culture statement requiring an overpay or to say that Taylor is the bridge guy you want to overpay for.  I don’t agree I think the 65 pick is nowhere near worth it but at least someone is making a value judgment.  

What isn’t borne out is the statement that CLE had to do this because they couldn’t guarantee they could get a 1-year stopgap.     Barring offseason freak injuries a couple or even 3 teams likely get that.  And there’s likely 1-2 guys left in the cold and have to take pure backup positions.   A team who doesn’t mind being patient will get to choose their guy from the last 2-3 stopgaps left standing.  Given that it’s crazy that some ppl want to say there’s no overpay or that CLE couldn’t guarantee getting one of those QB. The #’s don’t lie.  

[Soko]

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

1. Oh lol I'm sorry, the first person you jumped to was Kurt Warner for no reason at all and I was not supposed to read into it. It was just entirely incidental that you picked a star to use in your example. Sure.

Because I thought it was simple enough you’d understand it without blowing it out of context, my fault. 

Aqib Talib, Wes Welker, Legarrette Blount, Marcus Peters, Corey Dillon, and Chris Hogan all suck - otherwise why would their first team move on from them? 

The logic is horrendous. You know it is.

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

2. Who said they'd have to field a competent one? You're literally the only one who thinks that and it doesn't benefit them. And your making a MASSIVE assumption that the one they over paid for is a competent one. He's really not. And I wouldn't talk about reading comprehension. 

We’ll agree to disagree on Tyrod’s ability. I’ll let you keep using the “it’s obvious to anyone that watches” cop out. 

But the idiotic mentality that going 0-16 is better than actually trying is insane, especially when we’re talking about the same team that virtually did that the last two years. 

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

3. I feel like strawman is just a buzz word you heard so you don't have to argue something. Sort of like repeating "awful awful logic". Wait so in one breath your saying he might be like the Kurt Warner situation and that the Browns need to find a QB, but in another your saying he won't need to win some games on his own with a team that just went 0-16? hmmmmmm

Quote where I said he’d be like Kurt Warner...

Strawman is just what you’ve been doing this whole time. We discuss Tyrod Taylor to the Browns, you use some stupid premise that because he didn’t workout in Buffalo that he’s bad, I use Kurt Warner as an easy example, now all you can do it whine about how Kurt Warner is being brought up at all. 

Dude, just admit your statement was stupid and move on. Hell, your favorite team is hosting two Buffalo Bills who must obviously suck if they were willing to let them go. 

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

4. OHHHHHH now this argument makes much more sense. I wasn't supposed to be analyzing this from a business perspective and seeing if it made any logical sense. I was supposed to put my fanboy goggles on and not really think too hard about it. Thanks for clarifying.

Yeah, the “business perspective” of “let’s keep doing what we’re doing, because that’s better than trying something new”...

You’re hilariously dodging things now by making up fake arguments and arguing points that don’t even have anything to do with what’s being said. Thanks for playing.