DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum State of Cleveland Browns (Peter King Article)

Very interesting.. thanks for putting that together.

Quote:

---

This includes the NFC West that is ENTIRELY comprised of QBs drafted in the 6th round or UDFA.

---

And they are starting ahead of a #1 overall, a #10 overall, a #19 overall... and a 4th round pick. Those are the back-ups and they've all been in the league for a while, it's not like they are rookies waiting for a chance...

Quote:

---

This by no means says we should draft a QB in round1 in 2010….it just suggests that it is likely we will have to draft a QB at some point and that it will likely have to be in round1. Enjoy.

---

Round 1 QBs are just so high profile that busts are very well known... and very expensive. However, the odds of a first round draft pick QB working out are still way better than later rounds... way better.

AttackDawg:

I agree we got hosed on the trade with NYJ, I was under the assumption that the subsequent trades later in the first were of our initiating them not the other way around. In other words it wasn't Tampa that was itching to move up so much as our itching to move down. Tampa and Philly were willing to sacrifice a late round pick to move up a few slots to get their guy but they did not feel that it was as vital to move as we were.

Gift & No Logo& DC:
I really like what you gentlemen have put together in regards to the quarterback, but what about the other positions and not just high profile quarterbacks. How many running backs taken in the first are starters, how many guards, how many inside linebackers or corners?

What may be interesting is looking at each SUCCESSFUL teams´ depth chart and see where and how they got to be there. I would bet you would see teams like Indianapolis that have guys that they drafted over several years filing in 3/4 of their 1st string.

CHECK OUT THIS LINK BELOW:

Here is a good analysis of how each team fares in the draft.

We did get fleeced in the sanchez deal. If I was kokinis/mangini I would have asked for 1 of Revis/Rhodes/Harris. If we get one of those guys, at least we would have a difference maker on defense to build around. I wouldn't even cared if we got anything else in return, since each of those guys would be around for the long haul. I don't think that could be said for ratliff, or coleman, Elam may be here for a while. Personally I would have taken SAnchez. Wasn't sure on Quinn, but I wasn't too confident in Da ever being the guy. I remember all the draft gurus raving about Sanchez. If we have him on the roster, we could have traded Quinn or Da, and let the other start until Sanchez was ready. It's not like the o-line is terrible. Quinn just held on to the ball too long.

Not saying we would be like the falcons and turn things around in a year, but I think Sanchez is a difference maker, and would've have made the transition a whole lot quicker. Now we go into another draft, without a franchise quarterback.

I'm willing to give mangini at least 4 years, since he completely tore this thing down, but I think he missed it big time not taking Sanchez.

One more thing, I seen mangini talking about saving money by getting out of the 5th pick. I don't agree with that at all. Sanchez signed a 50 million contract over 5 years. I would rather have a franchise qb for the next 10 years, then have 40 million to spend, without a franchise qb on the team. You mean to tell me if bradford is tabbed a franchise qb, and there for the taking in 2010's draft, you don't take him, becuase the price is too high.? At some point you're going to have to spend the cash. None cared on here when we drafted winslow and edwards that high, and they were receivers.

J/C

All of the talk in the thread about the Browns losing out on the Sanchez deal and the need to draft QBs in the first round avoids one key element of these decisions - the contracts! Today, players drafted in the top-10 cost a boatload of money, and this alters many of the arguments being presented:

1. The draft-trade chart - that thing dates back to the early 1990s; BEFORE the salary cap and gargantuan rookie contracts for the top picks. That chart might be helpful for determining trades in later rounds, but NOT when it comes to top-10 picks.

Please - if you think we got hosed on the deal, present a more valid argument than that. We have no idea of other options K/M had available, so you are arguing that we should have taken Sanchez instead of receiving what we got - and history shows us that QBs going to bad teams turn out to be busts.

2. The importance of drafting a QB in the first round - y'know, it is very interesting to look at the first round as 1A (top 10 - thus requiring a big monetary investment) and 1B (later than top-10 - lower investment AND an indication of the team's strength). Face it, a team drafting a QB after #10 is halfway decent AND is not having to pay $20-$30 Mill to see if the kid has any pro talent.

One needs only look at the top 3 QBs taken in Brady Quinn's draft class:

Jamarcus Russell: $68 million ($31.5 million guaranteed)
Brady Quinn: $30 million ($7.75 million guaranteed)
Kevin Kolb: $3.6 million ($2.2 million guaranteed)

How can you comparably address Russell and Quinn as "first round" picks?

In fact, a "reasonable" argument could be made that trading Sanchez ($50 million, with $28 million guaranteed) for Mack ($12.2 million, $8.3 million guaranteed) and MoMass ($3.6 million, $1.9 million guaranteed) is a good deal, straight-up - because with the money saved, we could have gone out and signed Brandon Jacobs or Kurt Warner.

Granted, the argument is a stretch, but folks have got to remember that money does not grow on trees and is a key element of all of these decisions. People like to hold up the Steelers and Patriots as great drafters (though, the Pats would like mulligan on the Maroney pick), but remember that they are the most fiscally conservative teams when it comes to awarding contracts.

All-in-all, if we are stuck with a top-5 pick in the 2010 draft, I am hoping beyond all hope for the team to trade down...

That's some good input; appreciate the analysis. I always ignore the money factor,...and shouldn't. But it's not my money.

Value for the money is the key. I would say Mack and Mass have provided a whole lot more value for that dollar than Russell has, no doubt.

These guys can play all the PC games they want and offer up their tasty tidbits to silence the media,...I'll believe Quinn is going to remain a Brown only after the 20th is dead and gone and he's still here. He sold (is selling) his house--I'm on eggshells until the 20th. I believe that is a fair consideration. A 30 minute commute into Berea does not seem that big a deal to me, but personally, I have always lived within 3-5 miles of work on purpose to avoid long commutes. So maybe BQ is just correcting a lifestyle mistake,...

We'll see.

It's hard for me to believe that a team would have much demand for a QB who would need to learn a new system to be of any immediate value. So, a team in contention would not be interested unless they lose their starter this week. And a team at the bottom who might need a QB will not trade future picks for a QB who might not fit next year's offensive system. In other words the Redskins will NOT be interested because Zorn will be on the street come January.

Unlike a trade for a skill position who can "wing it" (like WR), I don't see much of a market right now. Maybe after the season?

This is actually one trade I will expect a big return-if it happens midseason. If we get anything less than a 3rd I will be dissapointed. His upside is too great.

The draft-trade chart - that thing dates back to the early 1990s; BEFORE the salary cap and gargantuan rookie contracts for the top picks. That chart might be helpful for determining trades in later rounds, but NOT when it comes to top-10 picks.


Sorry thats misinformation.. it was designed to show the parameters of making moves regardless of rounds...and trading in the first round let alone top ten costs more ...that why it 's there.

The real problem with teams willing to listen to offers to trade out is that the value/talent of the top ten players doesn't match up with what they're gonna get paid..so a lot would like to trade down ..but they also know it has to be fair compensation to do it..theres the reason the chart is becoming obscure..If this is what Ammo was saying to me..I agree..if not I don't.

If it weren't teams could leapfrog and not have to give up too much..U don't think the teams trading in/out knows what their pick is worth???
Of course they do..
Funny how some want to ignore it when it comes to the Browns..

Please - if you think we got hosed on the deal, present a more valid argument than that.

Apparently U want something more than the obvious..and U never checked the chart because if you did , you would know the Browns should have gotten a high pick this year also.
Why not check what Phil gave up to get back into the first to get Quinn..that chart comes into play and don't think for a second it doesn't..he knew and he paid the price tag for that move.

In 07 the Browns lost pick # 36 (2nd) and their 2008 1st(22) to move back into the first to get Quinn...we also lost our third rounder this year due to making another deal with Dallas from 08 when the Browns moved up to get Martin Rucker..so if you try to tell me the chart isn't used try again.


We have no idea of other options K/M had available, so you are arguing that we should have taken Sanchez instead of receiving what we got - and history shows us that QBs going to bad teams turn out to be busts.


Since I'm the one who brought up the chart(U must be talkin' to me) my stance is they didn't get enough picks for the deal, not that they should have taken Sanchez.
And they did not.
And once more check what the Browns gave up just to move from pick # 36 to # 22 in 08..it was a lot more than what the Jets had to fork over to move from # 17 to # 5 this year..a ton more.
So U are going to try and say that chart means squat for trades in the top ten??
Bull..it means more than what you're trying to quantify with that argument.
There HAS to be parameters in place to make trades..


.

those are good points, but I still disagree. If you have a chance to take a franchise can't miss quarterback, you take him. Over the longhaul you will have more success in my opinion, than say if you have an average one.

To me a franchise qb is someone like Brady, Manning, Rothlisbeger, Mcnabb, Rivers etc. If you have one of these guys I could almost guarantee you you won't have many losing seasons. If you do they will be few and far between. How many bad seasons have the steelers had since Ben has arrived?? Same with the others? You might find 1 losing season for each if you're lucky. The qb provides stability for your franchise in the long-term. When you have key deprtures on defense and offense, via free agency, those guys are there to make sure your team doesn't go 3-13, or 4-12. They may go 8-8 or 9-7, but they are the glue from your team falling on hard times.

I don't think you could jump on orton vs cutler right now. Come back to me in 5 years, then I think you could see who got the better end of the deal.

Just look at peyton, and some of the young guys he's throwing to?? yet that offense is as good as ever. he's been through plenty of lineman, receivers, and backs, but make no mistake he's the reason the colts are where they"re
at. That in a nutshell is why you don't pass on guys like manning.

just my 2 cents.

in ideal situations, your argument is spot on. the problem is there is no such thing as a "can't miss" prospect, especially at qb. quinn was supposed to be that guy and we see now that, the strengths advertised (particularly about being nfl ready) were not true.

in this day and age where picking a franchise qb could really hurt you (see young or russell) with time and money commitment, it's safer to leave him as the last piece. look at how well that worked out for the steelers and is working out for the ravens...

It may be safer to wait, but if you hit , your franchise will be set for the long-term future. Just becuase the browns have flopped picking the position, doesn't mean you should wait. that's gun-shy syndrome if you ask me.I look at it as you may never get an opportunity to take a guy that you think has "it". I don't think the falcons regret taking ryan. I remember a lot of people thought they should build their d-line and take glenn dorsey. that would be the conventional way of doing things; build the lines first.


You are right there probably aren't any sure things, but you have to trust yourself as a Gm that you did all the research on the qb, and you think he has what it takes to be successful. If you don't think he has it don't take him. but past success/failure at the position should have no impact on taking a particular player. every situation is unique to itself.

Thanks for the reply Trella.

There are several things your missing though.

1st Nobody has ever worked out a fail safe way to draft a QB. They try to project college QB's to the pro's but to this point in time nobody has been able to figure out how to hit consistantly on a Franchise QB.

So I would agree if there where a way to KNOW what your drafting, there just isn't. Couple that with the sizable investment your making -vs- having a great O Line which is much easier to project and couple that with an average or OK QB and be able to consistantly provide that average QB with a running game and with time to work the field and I like your chances much better. Not to mention when you do make the investment in a QB he is much much more likely to be successful. I would choose a great line every single time. The investment is less and the likelyhood of success goes way up.

In most not all instances though young QB's that are successful have good O Lines to play behind coupled with a decent running game which is actually more a reflextion of the O Line then the quality of the RB's.

You use PM as an example and state that he has gone thru multiple O Linemen over the years. YES and NO, he had the same line for nearly most of his career, and last season he lost his long time LT due to retirement and his play did suffer, and he took some really hard hits last year. The stubility of the O Line in Indy has been key to the success of Manning though.. I think you missed on that one by a mile, sorry.

Like most things surrounding the game people have different ways of going about it. But I think if you look at the Browns you will see that the current regime is going about buildning this team as if they were starting from scratch.

As of this moment I would bet my right nut that we continue to build our O line -vs- drafting a QB. Will go OLB and OL 1 and 2 this year I would bet my life and right nut on it...

but to try to compare the trade for a #22 pick to that of a trade for a #5 pick is outside the scope of our discussion. You're comparing a draft pick that got $28 million in guaranteed salary to a draft pick that got $7.8 million in guaranteed salary.


Don't you realize that the cost to move up in the top ten is higher?
Not just because of the salary U have to pay that player but what you have to give up to do it?
Go back to 99 since you went far..what did New Orleans/Dikta offer to move up to the top spot to get their man??
Remember what that would have cost them?
Almost their entire draft.

Ya know..I looked at the chart.. I looked at the circumstances..the move I compared the Browns making shows the descrepancy of the deals..it cost the Browns more to make the move to get Quinn(who isn't starting) to the Jets to get Sanchez(who is starting)..
What you're ignoring...the Jets made a quantiy for quality move ....they really don't miss those players..it was a surplus of players that were not in their future..most of those guys are bandaids for the Browns.....

If two of those players were way above-average players it makes the deal look a lot better...but for the most part none of those guys are game breakers..even Elam whom Gini wanted thrown in is not a elite safety..and the Browns needed one badly with letting Jones walk..

Sure the Browns needed them because of having way too many holes, but don't tell me another pick couldn't have been agreed upon in the future..

Oh yeah factor in the trade players and it looks rosey..

When it happened and afterward I thought they didn't get enough..and still don't..U can say all you want about the salary for that 5th pick..but if Sanchez continues to go up in his progress and the Browns don't improve (especially on defense where those players are slotted) and the Viekune pick
(which is the pick the Jets gave up) doesn't pan out it looks like failure..


I get what you're saying..I'm saying in terms of picks the Browns didn't get enough.
The Browns have notoriously been on the lesser end of draft day deals..Phil was taken to school by Ozz for that 06 deal for Ngata/Wimbley..no freaking way that should have happened...

That Quinn deal bugged me because I thought we gave up too much to trade up. And Jerry Jones was grinning like he won the lottery after that draft. Everyone predicted that he acquired a future top-5 pick.

We did..however Phil was able to swing deals to get us back into the second round..then later he swings other deals in that draft..the next year we swung deals that cost us not only last year but this one..and I'm not taking about the Rodgers/Williams trade.
Dallas still got a nice pick at 22 ..it was saved when the Browns had that good season..