JoshBooty Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Plenty of recent news articles have brought up the concept of a QB at 1 and somewhere else at the draft (maybe late, maybe even a day 2 pick). You hear about the lack of value, lack of practice snaps to go around, the inability to trade a rookie midway through the season. But then there's the facts: We have two picks in the top 4 of a draft where up to four quarterbacks are projected as top 10 picks. I happen to value three quarterbacks as top 10. We have Depodesta on board to challenge NFL group-think where doing something unique may give us an advantage We know the single greatest impact on our next five-ish years of a franchise rest on developing a "franchise QB" There exists trade opportunities for a talented backup QB So if a top 5 QB is available at 4, why don't we double up and think of unique ways to make it work? Hire another QB coach (maybe Jordan Palmer?), split practices to run 1st and 2nd teams simultaneously for more practice reps, spend a year up close with two QB prospects, give them real snaps late in the season against a bad defense, and then come off season, Kizer the lower performer to a QB needy team, preferably for a first, second, and third (what Steve Walsh went for the last time two first round QBs were drafted by a team). Basically, I can't read anymore Allen vs. Darnold post, and would rather consider something novel to finally solve our perpetual QB problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Hammer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Hammer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I would honestly rather draft my least favourite QB of the group only than that. This method is begging for it to blow up in our faces. The moment one dude throws a bad ball or a pick, the other guy will be the toast of the town. Then he’ll come in and do the same thing, and the other guy will be the true hero all over again. Before you know it, they have both been pushed and pulled and torn to shreds by the city and the team and both bust hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke2056 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Threads like this make me wonder how some people are still alive and haven't won Darwin Awards yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, duke2056 said: Threads like this make me wonder how some people are still alive and haven't won Darwin Awards yet. ^^^^^^ Anyone who bites on this should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Based upon context clues alone that have us paying both Tyrod Taylor and Drew Stanton should have made that scenario completely irrelevant the second someone even thought about it, not to mention the outright absurdity of the thought. That said, it would be the most Browns move ever to draft NOT 1, but TWO top 5 QB busts in the SAME DRAFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, MWil23 said: Based upon context clues alone that have us paying both Tyrod Taylor and Drew Stanton should have made that scenario completely irrelevant the second someone even thought about it, not to mention the outright absurdity of the thought. That said, it would be the most Browns move ever to draft NOT 1, but TWO top 5 QB busts in the SAME DRAFT. Yeah if we hadn't traded for Taylor and didn't sign Stanton I could have lived with drafting 2 QBs, even with our first two picks. Not ideal but let one win the job and the other becomes a trade possibility in the future. As it stands now though, if we draft 2 QBs one will have to be on the practice squad so maybe take a chance in the 7th but otherwise it's just silly to predict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastercheddaar Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 If we draft two QBs after signing Tyrod and Drew, I'd be extremely upset. It would be completely stupid and a waste of a pick. It would also show that this FO has no faith in their talent evaluation. Ugh. Can we just take Sam and Chubb or Barkley and be done with it?!?!?! That is all mastercheddaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawgdish Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 No. Have conviction in your process, scouting, and ability and take the guy you have identified as #1 QB and do everything you can to help him, including: Putting as many resources as possible towards developing him (rather than splitting those resources and efforts in two if you take two rookie QBOTFs) Adding another blue chip/pro-bowl caliber player with your other high pick to help the team succeed and be competitive (rather than squandering it on another QB) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Johnson Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Why stop at 2 rookie QBs? Don't we have like 10 picks still? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshBooty Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 Thanks all for the lack of constructive feedback. I'm able to gather this is a bad idea because it may affect their confidence, and we should trust our scouting. I look forward to us limiting our lottery ticket (last decade, around 36% of first rounders were successful) and cling to the belief that our scouts should 100% be able to identify the best pick, rather than use our picks to better our odds of striking gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosko1616 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I rather take Barkley and Chubb then two QBs. I’ll settle for Mike White in the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Hammer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Just now, JoshBooty said: Thanks all for the lack of constructive feedback. I'm able to gather this is a bad idea because it may affect their confidence, and we should trust our scouting. I look forward to us limiting our lottery ticket (last decade, around 36% of first rounders were successful) and cling to the belief that our scouts should 100% be able to identify the best pick, rather than use our picks to better our odds of striking gold. You may think it’s logical in an analytical world, but it is illogical in the real world. It’s asking to tear the organisation apart, right down the middle, from within. Like asking the Montagues and Capulets to attend a ball together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Hammer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 “Like fire and powder, which as they kiss, consume.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshBooty Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 Aztec, thank you for providing a specific reason that this may not work. I agree that QB's can be fragile creatures where direct competition doesn't always result in the best rising to the top, but we have a unique situation. Huebris has come out saying Tyrod is our starter all year, so these two can compete behind the scenes without fans piling on the stress. In the offseason, Tyrod's contract is up, and we trade one of the two, leaving the winner as the unquestioned starter in front of Stanton. Doesn't really matter if Huebris lasts into next season, as it's Dorsey's call who leads this team going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.