The Brian Hoyer thread...

MalTalm said:

Yes, but even mediocrity at the NFL level is valuable. A mediocre QB is somewhere in that 12-18 range out of 32 starting QBs. That would put him in with the likes of Joe Flacco, Russell Wilson, Jay Cutler or Andy Dalton. That really is probably where his ability lies, but he'll likely come at a much cheaper cost than those others due to having a lack of starts before getting his contract.

You can win in the NFL with a mediocre QB, but you might spend 10 more years trying to find someone between "great" and "good" (IE A Matt Ryan or Philip Rivers).

Click to expand...

Yes, you can win with a mediocre QB, but you also can find someone better. The question is which is more likely. And there's also the question of what you mean by "win". Are we talking having a winning record, or are we talking about winning a Super Bowl?

Personally, I think it's much easier to find a top 10 QB (after all, about 1/3 of the teams have one) than it is to win a Super Bowl with a mediocre QB. I can think of only 2 Super Bowl Champ QB's who 'Id say are at or below Hoyer -- Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer. 2 QB's out of 47 Super Bowls are not good odds.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that Hoyer should continue to start if he's the best available option. Some folks are convinced Manziel would be better, some are convinced he'd be worse, and some are undecided. But leave Manziel entirely out of the equation to bring the core issue into focus -- should we keep trying to acquire someone better than Hoyer, or not? Rather than debating what constitutes "average", "good", or "great", the question all that debate really dances around is should we keep looking at replacements -- either Manziel, or someone else in upcoming drafts.

The Human Q-Tip said:

should we keep trying to acquire someone better than Hoyer, or not?

Click to expand...

Of course we should. Is anyone arguing otherwise? I think most here agree that Hoyer isn't an elite QB, and as such we should roll with him for now but be on the lookout for someone who is elite.

Unfortunately, there just aren't a lot of those guys out there.

B00bie brought up the "suck for Luck" opportunity. I was all in favor of that because it was clear Luck would end up a top ten QB, potential to be top 3.

Since then, we have seen a number of QB prospects with big preseason hype, but none who seem to be capable of jumping into the pros and being anything better than a developmental project. Would you have been happy wasting a season and cutting your veterans for what RG III has become? Bortles? Bridgewater? Carr?

How many future picks would you want to mortgage for Mariota?

So I agree saying "we need a top 10 quarterback" is a fine answer in an isolated statement, but getting one is next to impossible without tremendous luck.

Randolphkeys said:

B00bie brought up the "suck for Luck" opportunity. I was all in favor of that because it was clear Luck would end up a top ten QB, potential to be top 3.

Click to expand...

Wait... When? And in what context?

If anyone actually thinks the Browns had a chance to get Luck from Indy, they're either making shit up or are just plain stupid. Maybe the Browns could have tanked harder, but that's a fairy tale because nobody in the NFL really tries to lose games. The Browns had a regime that wanted to win with a coach who was on the hot seat; tanking games is not ever happening in that scenario. No poster in here would do it, either, if they were involved in an NFL franchise. Wish that crap take would die.

Here's my opinion, FWIW:

Hoyer deserves to either finish out the year or play until we are out of contention for the playoffs. We know what we have with him. Regardless of where you rate him (top 15, top 20, etc), pretty much everyone is in agreement that you know what you're gonna get from him at this point.

What we don't know is what we have in Manziel. I don't think he's the long-term answer based on his physical tools, but there is the slim possibility he may be able to transition his game better than most people think.

I am extremely hesitant to give Hoyer the kind of money he's going to get on the FA market because I don't think he's very good. Locking yourself in for 3 years, as some have suggested, is the equivalent of signing Rudy Gay or Joe Johnson to extravagant contracts. You're going to tread the mediocrity mill, finishing just well enough to put yourself out of position to get a future star at the position, but not high enough in the standings to truly be a contender.

I think everyone would agree that QB is the most important position on the field. If the staff isn't comfortable Manziel will be ready to take over next year, they need to draft someone else. I don't care if we spend our next 5 first rounders on QBs if that's what it takes to find "the guy" - it's that important to the success of the team.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Yes, you can win with a mediocre QB, but you also can find someone better. The question is which is more likely. And there's also the question of what you mean by "win". Are we talking having a winning record, or are we talking about winning a Super Bowl?

Personally, I think it's much easier to find a top 10 QB (after all, about 1/3 of the teams have one) than it is to win a Super Bowl with a mediocre QB. I can think of only 2 Super Bowl Champ QB's who 'Id say are at or below Hoyer -- Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer. 2 QB's out of 47 Super Bowls are not good odds.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that Hoyer should continue to start if he's the best available option. Some folks are convinced Manziel would be better, some are convinced he'd be worse, and some are undecided. But leave Manziel entirely out of the equation to bring the core issue into focus -- should we keep trying to acquire someone better than Hoyer, or not? Rather than debating what constitutes "average", "good", or "great", the question all that debate really dances around is should we keep looking at replacements -- either Manziel, or someone else in upcoming drafts.

Click to expand...

The crux of my argument is that, when a coach limits a mediocre QB to somewhere around 25 pass attempts per game (as was the case with Wilson and Roethlisberger the two years he led the Steelers to a Super Bowl, as was also the case with the aforementioned Johnson and Dilfer, and Kapernick who made it to the Super Bowl but lost) you can absolutely win at the highest level. I would argue it is easier to find pieces to make a great offense and defense than it is to find a top 10 QB, because truth be told, finding a top 10 QB is very hard. We can all come up with some subjective and arbitrary list of what the current top 10 QBs are, but let's go off of PFF, as people have been big on their rankings in this thread recently:

Aaron Rodgers
Peyton Manning
Tony Romo
Ben Roethlisberger
Tom Brady
Philip Rivers
Andrew Luck
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Alex Smith

The most recent top 10 QB to enter the league was Andrew Luck 2 years ago. Everyone else has been playing for 10 years or more...

Getting that top flight talent is very difficult, and it is again worth pointing out that guys like Roethlisberger, Alex Smith and Philip Rivers were not putting up "top 10" talent numbers early in their career. Teams have won Super Bowls with QBs on par with Hoyer's performance: His ability to execute a gameplan is enough to win at every level in the NFL so long as the defense and the running game are top end. And again, those things are much easier to fix than finding a QB who performs at a higher level than a guy like Brian Hoyer.

@Soda, that was back when Luck was at Stanford. As I was saying, the history of getting a top 10 after the draft is rare, I agree. Brees landed with New Orleans because he was a late bloomer and San Diego loved Rivers. Manning landed with Denver because he seemed to be one hit away from retirement.

The Browns have a pretty ideal situation if they sign Hoyer for the duration of Manziel's rookie deal. The question is how much that costs and if Hoyer gets longer offers elsewhere.

Randolphkeys said:

@Soda, that was back when Luck was at Stanford. As I was saying, the history of getting a top 10 after the draft is rare, I agree. Brees landed with New Orleans because he was a late bloomer and San Diego loved Rivers. Manning landed with Denver because he seemed to be one hit away from retirement.

The Browns have a pretty ideal situation if they sign Hoyer for the duration of Manziel's rookie deal. The question is how much that costs and if Hoyer gets longer offers elsewhere.

Click to expand...

There is certainly somewhere where the deal becomes "too rich". But to the Brown's benefit, Hoyer has had limited opportunities as a starter heading into free agency, and he's been inconsistent. I'd imagine a 3 year deal with somewhere between 11 and 15 million would be enough to secure him, and I'd say that would be a fair price to pay. I suppose we'll see though.

You know what doesn't win in the NFL? Spending a high pick on the QB position every two years. I was critical of Manziel before the draft and in preseason, but I'd rather see the Browns truly develop him than go through this all over again in 2016. This is why the Browns are looking at a linebacker depth emergency. This is why Dion Sanders was cracking jokes about the no name skill position players a week ago. Past drafts were littered with guys taken in the top three rounds who are now third stringers and college quarterbacks coaches.

Randolphkeys said:

You know what doesn't win in the NFL? Spending a high pick on the QB position every two years. I was critical of Manziel before the draft and in preseason, but I'd rather see the Browns truly develop him than go through this all over again in 2016. This is why the Browns are looking at a linebacker depth emergency. This is why Dion Sanders was cracking jokes about the no name skill position players a week ago. Past drafts were littered with guys taken in the top three rounds who are now third stringers and college quarterbacks coaches.

Click to expand...

Correct, they made their bed with Manziel.

Going to have to sleep in it eventually.

In the mean time, they could absolutely focus on drafting a QB in the 2nd-5th rounds at any point and justify that.

There are a ton of developmental QBs available this season, and looking ahead to next season as well who could fit that description.

You should really stop trolling, B00bie. The post is spelled just fine.

What good does two developmental quarterbacks do for a franchise? One may or may not develop, the other just loses value by losing the preseason "Battle of QBs" where neither one is actually ready for the job. I'd really like to hear about situations where two developmental QBs on the same roster rather than one veteran and one developmental project worked out for everyone involved... there are too many examples of it not working that immediately spring up.

In the meantime, imagine if the Browns took Eric Decker or Jimmy Graham instead of Colt McCoy in 2010. Or if instead of Weeden they took Brian Quick or Alshon Jeffery in 2012. I'm hesitant to play the re-draft game, but there were a lot of quality players taken around the Browns QB desperation grabs, and they make the desperation grab every two years or so. Right now, maybe you have to pay a little more for Hoyer to take less years... and sure there is a price to pay to the cap to make that sacrifice... but let's stop pretending there is no cost to blowing one of your top three picks every other year on a developmental QB.

Randolphkeys said:

You should really stop trolling, B00bie. The post is spelled just fine.

What good does two developmental quarterbacks do for a franchise? One may or may not develop, the other just loses value by losing the preseason "Battle of QBs" where neither one is actually ready for the job. I'd really like to hear about situations where two developmental QBs on the same roster rather than one veteran and one developmental project worked out for everyone involved... there are too many examples of it not working that immediately spring up.

In the meantime, imagine if the Browns took Eric Decker or Jimmy Graham instead of Colt McCoy in 2010. Or if instead of Weeden they took Brian Quick or Alshon Jeffery in 2012. I'm hesitant to play the re-draft game, but there were a lot of quality players taken around the Browns QB desperation grabs, and they make the desperation grab every two years or so. Right now, maybe you have to pay a little more for Hoyer to take less years... and sure there is a price to pay to the cap to make that sacrifice... but let's stop pretending there is no cost to blowing one of your top three picks every other year on a developmental QB.

Click to expand...

You misspelled Deion.

The act of repeatedly having to draft QBs would be remedied if they could actually DRAFT WELL.

Being shitty at drafting QBs, or any position, shouldn't deter you from taking one in the future.

We can play that pointless game all day. If they have the opportunity to draft a guy who they thought would be the future of the franchise, I'd have a hard time believing they would sit back and say:

"Well, we drafted a QB before and it didn't work, can't do that again"


No, until you have what you want, you keep searching.

I'm perfectly aware that you're content with Hoyer's below average numbers and we both agree that Manziel isn't the answer.

So now what? Toil in mediocrity because the standard is "well it's better than they've had, be happy Cleveland?"


Nah, I'd prefer to keep searching for better.

AZ_ said:

I'm perfectly aware that you're content with Hoyer's below average numbers and we both agree that Manziel isn't the answer.

So now what? Toil in mediocrity because the standard is "well it's better than they've had, be happy Cleveland?"

Click to expand...

Hoyer is good enough to hold down the fort while a franchise QB is groomed. Nobody knows the cost associated with keeping him around until the Browns know what they have in Manziel, but I've highlighted the cost of drafting at that position every two years. It's a cost/benefit analysis between cap space and draft assets. While I am critical of Manziel's readiness to play on Sundays and I think he was taken about a round too high due to hype, he is a developmental quarterback. I'd be fine letting him be the Aaron Rogers in this scenario and learn behind Hoyer another year or two. Again, he does have an NFL arm and an NFL ability to avoid sacks... he just isn't ready to read a defense, handle a full playbook, handle pressure with poise, and prepare week in and week out yet.

I doubt there are many NFL ready QBs coming out of college anymore. Not with the proliferation of pistol offenses in high school and college. Michigan State is becoming the new QB U lately because they run a pro style offense at the college level, giving rookies a leg up on the competition. Other guys like Manziel have the talent but basically need to learn what an NFL team expects from a signal caller from scratch. Weeden and McCoy were thrown to the wolves unprepared, never liked them much as prospects to begin with. Manziel might turn out fine, but I'm glad he gets more time to learn how to be an NFL quarterback.

MalTalm said:

The crux of my argument is that, when a coach limits a mediocre QB to somewhere around 25 pass attempts per game (as was the case with Wilson and Roethlisberger the two years he led the Steelers to a Super Bowl, as was also the case with the aforementioned Johnson and Dilfer, and Kapernick who made it to the Super Bowl but lost) you can absolutely win at the highest level.

Click to expand...

I think you're skewing the analysis when you include QB's who are better than Hoyer in that 25 attempts/game analysis, and I'd say Roethlisberger, Wilson, and Kaepernick were all better than Hoyer. That's important, because if your comparators are reduced to Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer, then you have to look to see how good their defenses and running games were so you know where the bar is set to win with a QB that good.

And even Brad Johnson is a stretch. In his Super Bowl year, he made the Pro Bowl and had the highest QB rating in the NFC. Aside from his rookie season in which he only played in 4 games, his completion % was over 60% every year. And, in his Super Bowl year, he averaged nearly 35 pass attempts per game, so he doesn't even qualify as a guy who threw 25.

I would argue it is easier to find pieces to make a great offense and defense than it is to find a top 10 QB, because truth be told, finding a top 10 QB is very hard. We can all come up with some subjective and arbitrary list of what the current top 10 QBs are, but let's go off of PFF, as people have been big on their rankings in this thread recently:

Click to expand...

By definition, 10 out of 32 teams have top 10 quarterbacks, so it simply cannot be as hard as having the best defense in the entire league, which was the case for Dilfer and Johnson when they won their Super Bowls.

Randolphkeys said:

You know what doesn't win in the NFL? Spending a high pick on the QB position every two years. I was critical of Manziel before the draft and in preseason, but I'd rather see the Browns truly develop him than go through this all over again in 2016. This is why the Browns are looking at a linebacker depth emergency. This is why Dion Sanders was cracking jokes about the no name skill position players a week ago. Past drafts were littered with guys taken in the top three rounds who are now third stringers and college quarterbacks coaches.

Click to expand...

Okay, so we've done a bad job drafting QB's. Problem is, we've generally done a bad job drafting for other positions in the first round as well. Brown? Warren? Edwards? Richardson? Mingo? Gilbert? Why assume we'd hit on those other positions if we can't hit on QB?

The reason teams keep swinging and missing at QB's is that until you hit, you're almost guaranteed to be treading water until you do. And the alternative of just building up the rest of the team means that you've got to hit on a lot more draft picks than just QB.