Johnny Manziel: Swan Won't Return His Calls

[The Human Q-Tip]

The organization also needs to make sure, as Keys has said earlier, that they are 100% invested in the QB they draft. That completely unwavering support is the only way to get through the bad times when fans are calling for heads to roll.

By that logic, Brady Quinn should still be the QB. Or even Colt McCoy. Nobody should get "completely unwavering support" for an extended period of time, no matter how shitty they play. That's the logic that lets a team trade for a busted Trent Richardson. Sometimes, the problem is the learning curve. And sometimes, the problem is the guy had a flaw(s) wasn't exposed at the college level.

That's not to say that you yank the guy at the first sign of trouble, but staying too long with the wrong guy sets you back as well. Manziel should certainly get the rest of this year, but if he continues to shit the bed this badly(I think the odds of that are extremely low, but....) , then I don't think he should necessarily be handed the team for the entirety of next year, without any competition. If they see someone else in the draft they really like, and they think he's a good value at the available draft position, then they should get him. And if he beats Manziel out, then you play him.

The problem in Cleveland has not been that we've been cycling through quarterbacks too quickly. The problem has been that all the QB's we've brought in have been the wrong guy, as shown by not a damn one of them doing bupkis after leaving Cleveland. To soon to tell on Manziel, obviously.

I hope to hell Manziel plays better this week, or the next, and I'm pretty confident he will. It would be difficult to play that badly three weeks in a row. All I want to see is some level of progress, and I always thought dumping him in, even to let him fail, can provide a reall valuable learning experience.

The problem with Hoyer was that who he was has never changed, pretty much from college forward. I don't mind Manziel sucking this past weekend, but I will mind if he shows no improvement by the end of the season.

 

[Soda]

As much as drafting shitty quarterbacks is a problem (shitty drafting overall a bigger problem), it's incredibly easy to say that these guys weren't ever going to be good after their careers are over.

Who's to say that they couldn't have done well in a stable organization on a stable team? Not a defense for them that I'm willing to back, but organizational futility with that position can be a mitigating factor in these eerily similar QB busts.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

As much as drafting shitty quarterbacks is a problem (shitty drafting overall a bigger problem), it's incredibly easy to say that these guys weren't ever going to be good after their careers are over.

It's not incredibly easy, because you have to be supported by the fact that they failed at least twice -- not only here, elsewhere as well. Often, multiple "elsewheres". What is incredibly easy is to make the argument you just made: "well, who's to say they might not have succeeded", because you have to show absolutely no proof or evidence at all.

Yeah, maybe Brady Quinn, Colt McCoy, or Charlie Frye would have been a Pro Bowler if drafted by someone else.

Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

 

[Soda]

It's not incredibly easy, because you have to be supported by the fact that they failed elsewhere. Often, multiple "elsewheres".

They failed elsewhere after going through the cycle here. One could argue that it debilitated them for the remainder of their career. Not me, as I said in my last post, but you can't write it off.

What is incredibly easy is to make the argument you just made: "well, who's to say they might not have succeeded", because you have to show absolutely no proof or evidence at all.

I'm just pointing out that it is very easy to say guys would never have been good when their playing days are over. I'm not even saying that it's probable or something that did happen. I'm just mentioning that it's not congratulation worthy to come out and say you know those guys wouldn't ever be good. Shit, if the Browns brought Aaron Rodgers here, who's to say he would have been any better than the ones that have been here?

 

[AZ_]

If a Brady Quinn or Brandon Weeden get drafted to a more stable team (though the stable teams pass on these guys for a reason), they'll just become below average QBs hidden by a stable franchise.

Could Brady Quinn have been drafted to the Steelers and win more games? Sure, but then you'll just have people saying,

"Brady Quinn is 10-5 as a starter, how can you bench him?" and ignore below average QB play.

A familiar tune, indeed.

The Browns have a pretty decent, young team, IMO. They're getting closer to being able to hide below average QBs.

 

[Phills14]

The Browns have a pretty decent, young team, IMO. They're getting closer to being able to hide below average QBs.

They kind of already did that for half the season this year.

 

[AZ_]

They kind of already did that for half the season this year.

I didn't want to say it, but yes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm just mentioning that it's not congratulation worthy to come out and say you know those guys wouldn't ever be good.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter. They came here, they failed. Unless the argument is that they would have succeeded if we'd just kept them here longer -- something their failure elsewhere belies -- then the "too much turnover" argument fails anyway. So again, the iproper course isn't "backing them unconditionally regardless of their performance". It's giving them a fair shot, and then shit-canning them if they don't perform.

And then on to the next.

 

[Lee]

Nice way to justify it.

Sure, Kim Jong Un is a despicable leader... But Hitler killed more.

I just like that you too a round about way to compare Johnny Football to Hitler. Very impressive.

 

[Randolphkeys]

But ultimately, it doesn't matter. They came here, they failed. Unless the argument is that they would have succeeded if we'd just kept them here longer -- something their failure elsewhere belies -- then the "too much turnover" argument fails anyway. So again, the iproper course isn't "backing them unconditionally regardless of their performance". It's giving them a fair shot, and then shit-canning them if they don't perform.

And then on to the next.

The Browns problems include, but are not limited to:

1. Switching from the 3/4, to the 4/3, and back and forth and back and forth every year. This means they draft defensive players who don't fit the scheme from one year to the next.

2. Overdrafting the defensive side of the ball with top picks. If they stuck with one scheme, its not a problem. Obviously there is talent, especially in the defensive backfield. But linebackers and linemen come and go because of shifting schemes.

3. Rarely if ever drafting skill positions high in the draft.

4. Rarely if ever drafting well when they do take an offensive skill position high in the draft. They are like 4 for 20+ on first or second day skill position players in the past 15 years: Terrance West, one good year of Jordan Cameron, one good year of Braylon Edwards, Kevin Johnson. Everyone else was pretty much a bust.

5. Due to the lack of talent on the offensive side, the QBs have enormous pressure to make lemonade out of a warm cup of piss. If you want a young QB to develop, draft him after you surround him with some real pros or some real talent.

6. When was the last time there wasn't a purposeful attempt at a QB controversy? It sells tickets, it gets people talking, and it doesn't win jack shit. Its like if your company laptop is dying so they give you three more 1990s Dell laptops that also don't work and call the problem solved.

7. When you blow a first or second day pick on a QB every other year, along with your annual overhaul of the defensive front seven, you have wasted several high picks year after year in a go-nowhere self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

 

[Binkster]

I just like that you too a round about way to compare Johnny Football to Hitler. Very impressive.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[AZ_]

Hitler was much taller.

 

[Surge]

Hitler was much taller.

And had more moxie.

 

[The Voice]

Actually according to QBR, no there hasn't

John Elway 1-8, 4 sacks and an int?

Nice way to justify it.

Sure, Kim Jong Un is a despicable leader... But Hitler killed more.

Because Hitler is comparable to a football player...

Anyone who drafted him was doing just that, to some extent.

But as I said during the draft, it's more justifiable as the 22nd overall pick as opposed to earlier in the draft where some people thought he should go.

If they really fall out of love with him this quickly, I've got no problem trading him this off-season and moving forward with a new plan at quarterback.

You aren't going to get anything for him in a trade.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk at your local pub.

 

[AZ_]

You aren't going to get anything for him in a trade.

Then he's definitely worth keeping around.