Cleveland Browns Quarterback Position

[AZ_]

I wouldn't give up a first for him either, and we also don't know if that deal included Bradford plus one of their picks (2nd rounder, for example).

I'm not going to get worked up over half a story, as it were.

He did get 10 starts in 2011 and was pretty terrible, but there were some reasons for that. The whole team was hot garbage.

 

[CBBI]

Pat Kirwan @PatKirwanCBS • 7 minutes ago
Mariota an Eagle. Bradford, Kendricks to the Browns? Take a listen to the latest MTC Mock Draft with me and Mills: http://bit.ly/1Gqab6n

Sounds like they are speculating that the would Browns give up #12 and #19 for Sam Bradford, Mychal Kendricks, #20 and #52.

Essentially Bradford/Kendricks/2nd for 12....

If you put any stock in the draft value chart picks 12 and 19 are worth 2075 points. 20 and 52 are worth 1230 points, an 845 point gap. In this case Bradford/Kendricks would be worth 422.5 points apiece, or the equivalent of two mid second rounders.

 

[I'mWithDan]

If you put any stock in the draft value chart picks 12 and 19 are worth 2075 points. 20 and 52 are worth 1230 points, an 845 point gap. In this case Bradford/Kendricks would be worth 422.5 points apiece, or the equivalent of two mid second rounders.

Which they are nowhere near worth IMO.

Trading two firsts for two seconds and Bradford / Kendricks would be an awful trade.

If the Eagles are using this trade to maneuver for a franchise QB, they should be overpaying not underpaying.

I honestly would rather keep the picks and try to move up ourselves if the alternative is grasping at straws.

Bradford would be a decent option but he's nowhere near worth being the centerpiece in a trade where we move two #1's. Kendricks tackling statistics are also equally awful when looking at tackling efficiency. He was one of the 20 worst LB's in the league. He had just 36 total tackles and missed 11. That is absolutely horrible.

 

[Surge]

I'd rather use 12 and 19 (and whatever else) to move up to the top 2 and take one of those guys rather than do that trade.

What Id personally do is use 12 for BPA at one of our needs and either take Petty at 19 or move a few spots back and take him.

Then more I read on Petty, the more I like.

 

[Otsego Mar]

How much do the Browns value Mariota? Should they even be thinking about trading up for him? Or do they do something like SuperSurge just mentioned?

 

[SixPACK]

They like Mariota the best out of all the QB's. Don't need to bring him in b/c of O'Connell helping MM prepare for draft/run pro day. As far as I know, nothing concrete has been shown to think we would move up, just speculation from mock draft gnomes.

Gonna be interesting. We will get a QB somewhere in this draft. But the question is...........











....when?!!!!

 

[spydy13]

View: https://twitter.com/SiriusXMNFL/status/585846135383724032

 

[Phills14]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...re-how-use-college-spread-qbs-clayton-mailbag

Mailbag: NFL better figure out how to use college spread QBs

• 
  
  John Clayton, NFL senior writer

The increasing number of spread quarterbacks coming into the NFL has coaches and general managers up in arms. Basically, many teams haven't figured out how spread quarterbacks can work in a league of more complex offenses.

For the sake of the future of the sport, NFL teams better get a handle on these spread quarterbacks. According to an ESPN.com survey, 48.9 percent of quarterbacks in high school since 2010 have worked out of the spread. The system works great for high schools and colleges, but it's a problem in the NFL, for many reasons.

A college spread quarterback doesn't run a huddle. He operates completely out of the shotgun or pistol instead of taking snaps from center. The spread quarterbacks have to learn three-, five- and seven-step drops the minute their college careers are over. The pure spread quarterbacks often have predetermined reads instead of going through and processing the play and the positioning of the pass-catchers.

Many observers say a typical NFL contest and a college matchup of two spread quarterbacks are two different games. But it's up to the NFL to figure it out, or the sport is going to be in a tough spot five years from now. The average age of the top 11 quarterbacks, as ranked by QBR, is 33.6, and eight are 34 or older. In five years, most of the current elite quarterbacks will be retired.

I went through the list of the 140 drafted quarterbacks from 2004 to 2014 and determined there hasn't been a spread quarterback among them who currently would be labeled among the top 12 in the league. A few are close. Cam Newton,Colin Kaepernick and Alex Smith are former spread quarterbacks who aren't yet elite but could be knocking on the door.

Scouting is an inexact science. There is usually a 50 percent failure rate of quarterbacks coming out of more conventional passing offenses in college. Just look at more conventional quarterbacks taken in the first three rounds from 2008 to 2014. Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco (who did a little spread throwing at Delaware but had enough conventional plays), Matthew Stafford and Nick Foles could be considered success stories. Mark Sanchez had initial success with the New York Jets but was released after signing a big contract.

Conventional failures include Chad Henne, Brian Brohm, Jimmy Clausen,Christian Ponder and possibly EJ Manuel and Mike Glennon.

The failure rate of spread quarterbacks is closer to 60 or 70 percent. Newton, Jake Locker andBlaine Gabbert were top-10 picks in 2011. Locker is retired. Gabbert failed in Jacksonville. Robert Griffin III, the No. 2 overall pick in 2012, will be a potential failure if things don't work out quickly this year in Washington.Brandon Weeden failed in Cleveland after being taken in the first round in 2012.

Which brings us to the debates surrounding Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota in this year's draft. Winston played in a more NFL-ready system. He should have an easier transition. Mariota was a pure spread quarterback at Oregon. What gives Mariota hope of being a success story in the NFL is Oregon's offense gave him some chances to go through a progression of routes. In a majority of spread offenses, the quarterback just gets it and throws it without processing the routes.

Andy Dalton worked mostly out of the shotgun in a form of spread at TCU, and he's been to two Pro Bowls and has had three trips to the playoffs. TCU's version of the spread also allowed him to process routes and formations.

Here are a few points NFL teams need to take into account when considering a college spread quarterback:

• Don't reach for a spread quarterback, and be careful about starting him as a rookie. Gabbert was 4-10 in his rookie year. The Jaguars gave up on him after 13 more starts over the next two seasons. Weeden was 5-10 as a rookie and was finished in Cleveland after five more starts. Even though Josh McDaniels made one trip to the playoffs with Tim Tebow as his quarterback in Denver, the decision to take Tebow in the first round was too much of a reach.

• Jim Harbaugh set the model for spread quarterbacks with his handling of Kaepernick. Kaepernick was a pure spread quarterback who wasn't asked to process routes. Harbaugh didn't start him until his second season, when he thought Kaepernick was ready. Kaepernick had the 49ers one play away from winning a Super Bowl. With only 10 OTAs, a minicamp and training camp, there isn't a lot of time to convert a spread quarterback before his first season.

• Spread quarterbacks are vertically challenged. The spread offense uses so many bubble screens and horizontal throws it doesn't help the transition into the NFL's vertical passing game.

Don't blame players such as Mariota or Bryce Petty for the problem. The NFL needs to handle spread quarterbacks better to get more spread successes than failures.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I agree with Clayton overall, and everything else I write here should contain the caveat: The Browns should stop expecting young spread quarterbacks to suddenly become adept NFL quarterbacks in one year's time. They are now 0 for their last 3.

That said, what good will it do the Browns to say, "Well, it's the fault of youth football and the college game that we don't have a solid starting quarterback." The NFL needs to figure out how to better bridge the gap from the college game to the pro game. Does that mean NFL teams can send their rough prospects to arena league teams to learn? NFL Europe? That has all been tried before. Should top high school QB recruits find pro style college systems to get them ready for the pros? Yes, but that has ALWAYS been the case, and the 17 year old kids still spent the past 10 years picking spread offense schools and break records in college instead.

The shift I see is that YOU DON'T WASTE HIGH DRAFT PICKS ON COLLEGE QBS AND EXPECT THEM TO START RIGHT AWAY. All the evidence in the world points toward the Brian Hoyer/Aaron Rodgers approach to the position: Backups for a few years in stable situations, then give them their chance to start. ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE.

But this statement, with the article supporting me, will end up fodder for a handful of posters saying Hoyer wasn't the long-term answer in the form of a short snarky three liner. Go ahead. Write it again. Then realize the team is likely to be benching Johnny and starting a 36 year old in 2015, and you are pining for the Browns to trade up for an equally ill-equipped Mariota.

 

[spydy13]

Does that mean NFL teams can send their rough prospects to arena league teams to learn?

I was talking with my dad about how amazing it would be if Johnny played Arena football. They (Gilbert?) should totally pay him whatever it takes to play for the league if/when he fails in the pros.

All the evidence in the world points toward the Brian Hoyer/Aaron Rodgers approach to the position

Putting these two next to each other is a little ridiculous, but I get the point.

will end up fodder for a handful of posters saying Hoyer wasn't the long-term answer in the form of a short snarky three liner. Go ahead. Write it again. Then realize the team is likely to be benching Johnny and starting a 36 year old in 2015

I can't fit this into a nice three liner, but unless you have Brett Favre as your QB doesn't it make more sense to be as bad as possible to build up the talent around your team while you wait for your QB of the future to develop? I'm sure we will differ on this, but I don't see Hoyer taking this team that much farther than McCown would.

Edit: Also, why can't teams just run the spread in the NFL? Clayton says there are many reasons but doesn't list any. Are players/coaches just smarter and so they can more easily defend against it?

 

[Randolphkeys]

If I made a list of the least likely 5 posters to use Clayton's facts as a course direction on rethinking QB development, let's just say that last post isn't going to surprise me. My "I told you so" dance has been scheduled for mid-November since the Indianapolis game. Hoyer is in a better place now. If you show up to the dance, it's a formal and buy your girl a corsage.

Clayton isn't writing to the receptively marketed crowd with this article. He is writing to football fans who have seen the position spinning downward the past decade in the face of marketing college QBs. The current Browns plan is so full of holes AL Gore is writing a gloomy ecology book on it. We will talk in November.

 

[spydy13]

If I made a list of the least likely 5 posters to use Clayton's facts as a course direction on rethinking QB development, let's just say that last post isn't going to surprise me. My "I told you so" dance has been scheduled for mid-November since the Indianapolis game. Hoyer is in a better place now. If you show up to the dance, it's a formal and buy your girl a corsage.

Clayton isn't writing to the receptively marketed crowd with this article. He is writing to football fans who have seen the position spinning downward the past decade in the face of marketing college QBs. The current Browns plan is so full of holes AL Gore is writing a gloomy ecology book on it. We will talk in November.

Not really sure what this means other than you like Hoyer and think the Browns are stupid for getting rid of him. That's fine. I know I'm not going to change your opinion on that.

Also I don't know if you saw this in my edit so I'll ask again:

Why can't teams just run the spread in the NFL? Clayton says there are many reasons but doesn't list any. Are players/coaches just smarter and so they can more easily defend against it?

As the article points out the steady stream of spread guys isn't stopping anytime soon, so eventually even the stopgaps will be spread guys that will presumably suck as well.

 

[Tornicade]

Colin kaepernick is a good example. He wwas mixed into the offense slowly his first year and worked his way into a starting position after grasping some NFL fundamentals.

If familiarty is whats is hindering Spread quarterbacks from getting the proper shot in the NFL then some type of bridge is needed.

With Manziel for example. I would of been perfectly content if the Browns had maintained a Manziel package used in games so he could get some reps in at game speed.

This season the Browns are making adjustments and putting in things within the comfort zone of a spread quarterback to ease the progression.

The most talented quarterbacks arent all going to go to a pro style offense in college so the teams do need to adapt.

Aaron Rodgers went to California under Jeff Tedford. Thats a progression read offense. Im pretty sure Hoyer was in a pro style offense out of college as well.

If you dont have Tom Brady or Brett favre on your roster the 4 year backup plan might not be suitable.

That article seems to be specifically referencing getting accustomed to a pro style offense for spread quarterbacks.

Ray farmer will be the first to tell you that The Browns offense last season wasnt the best to start Manziel in and they are taking steps in to address that change.

Whether you start them or not they need snaps at game speed.

Lots of ways to develop a quarterback.
Tom Landry once rotated Morton and Staubach every other play in a game.
Jimmy Johnson started aikman 11 games in which he went 0-11. Heck aiman was benched multiple times in his first two seasons

Its hard developing a qb in the NFL and it can take 3 to 4 seasons to figure out if you stuck with the right guy but they dont get better by sitting.

 

[Tornicade]

Not really sure what this means other than you like Hoyer and think the Browns are stupid for getting rid of him. That's fine. I know I'm not going to change your opinion on that.

Also I don't know if you saw this in my edit so I'll ask again:

Why can't teams just run the spread in the NFL? Clayton says there are many reasons but doesn't list any. Are players/coaches just smarter and so they can more easily defend against it?

As the article points out the steady stream of spread guys isn't stopping anytime soon, so eventually even the stopgaps will be spread guys that will presumably suck as well.

Game speed. look at Oregon when they ran into a defense that was as well condition and as fast if not faster then their offense. look at the limited playoff success of the run and shoot and other variations of the spread. The ability to drop back and make reads is something that can keep defenses honest. These spread offenses are reliant on the defense to make mistakes , what the author of that story is suggesting is that the OC's figure out a way to bridge the transition from a spread quarterback to a pro style one because whatever they have been doing isnt working.

 

[Phills14]

I agree with Keys' premise and Rodgers is a good example of how to do it. Hoyer just doesn't cut it IMO, he's a backup to begin with and not a legit starting QB in this league. McCown doesn't cut it either. The problem with the Browns is they've never had that legit, unquestioned starting QB.

It's evident, most but not all, QBs need time to sit in order to develop into a top tier QB. There are outliers like Luck, Wilson and Newton but the majority really should sit for at minimum 8 games and up to 2 years to develop properly.

QB development, assuming they have the right guys, will work in New England and Denver where they have unquestioned starters but also young and talented backups learning. When Manning retires at the end of this year, Osweiler will be put in the best situation to succeed. Same with Garrappolo in New England. If either of those guys went to the Browns they would have already been put on the field and asked to be the guy which wouldn't have gone well.

It'd be great to have a Manning or Brady for a few years but that won't happen. Getting guys like Alex Smith or Carson Palmer would be have been a smart move had we jumped on them a few seasons ago. Once you have that caliber of guy, you can draft a Bryce Petty and take the requisite time to develop him. Instead we picked Josh McCown to do the job but the problem with him is he's not skilled enough to be an unquestioned starting QB. So if we do choose to go with Bryce Petty in round 2 or 3, we might force Petty onto the field early because either his skills at this point are close to McCown or McCown just isn't good enough to run out there every week. Thus, repeating the cycle of bad QB play and failed QB draft picks.