Johnny Manziel: Swan Won't Return His Calls

[The Human Q-Tip]

If Manziel is so "not ready" that he can't even function in an NFL offense....

...then Pettine would never have put him in the Buffalo game when the outcome was still in doubt.

 

[SixPACK]

I know 3 games isn't a big sample size and I agree if they were looking into a QB already, their minds are probably set. But if Manziel just completely lays an egg by sucking it up, not knowing the playbook at all after this time where he should be studying non-stop, etc..you have to be thinking of what you do to get the QB you want in the upcoming draft.

I just hope that Manziel can come in and look better than Hoyer and actually start to engrave that playbook in his mind so we don't have to waste another early pick(s) on a QB.

 

[AZ_]

As opposed to 0 games? I sure know you aren't convinced Manziel is the future and neither am I. I was a strong advocate for Teddy, and I still think he's going to be a good QB.

We need to see how Manziel reacts to live situations. I agree that 3 games isnt a big sample, especially at the end of the season. But I do think it's a good time to throw him in the water to see if he sinks or swims.

If what he does in these three games has any quantifiable effect on the Browns draft plans for the position, I'm going to lose a bit of faith in the front office.

We all know my thoughts on Manziel by now, but giving him three games at the end of the season to determine your plans going forward is just not something a good team does.

He'll get next year to prove his worth, and even then it's tough to envision them giving up on him unless he completely shits the bed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If what he does in these three games has any quantifiable effect on the Browns draft plans for the position, I'm going to lose a bit of faith in the front office.

We all know my thoughts on Manziel by now, but giving him three games at the end of the season to determine your plans going forward is just not something a good team does.

I don't think it's necessarily giving up on Manziel if you draft another QB. Considering the flame-out rate on even first rounders, I could see a GM having a philosophy that you could draft another QB in the first round to compete against Manziel, and may the best man win. Probably not what I'd do, but considering the importance of the position, and the reward if you really do find that "franchise" guy, I could see a GM hedging his bets.

 

[The Oi]

Drafting QBs in the first round in consecutive years would absolutely be giving up on the first QB.

 

[TinManJoshua]

Two things about message boards that are starting to make me a little crazy:

- "Let's see what we have in (young player X)" It sounds more like an urge to placate a curiosity than a desire to find success.

- The misuse of the Albert Einstein quote about insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results implies a controlled environment where all conditions are replicated without variance. To paraphrase the quote, if I dropped a book from the exact same height at the exact same angle onto a single cheerio, with no wind and all the cheerios are the exact same circumference and mass, the first result should be the expected result each time after. Football doesn't have that sort consistency within the game environment. What works in one game may not work in another, or even more minutely, what works on one drive may be a three and out later in the same game. It's an out-of-context appeal to authority.

 

[elcheato]

Hindsight is 20/20, but yesterday would have been the perfect game for Manziel to start his career with, considering how the defense played. Would have given him a chance to build some momentum, because it was harder for a QB to blow that game than win it.

 

[AZ_]

I don't think it's necessarily giving up on Manziel if you draft another QB. Considering the flame-out rate on even first rounders, I could see a GM having a philosophy that you could draft another QB in the first round to compete against Manziel, and may the best man win. Probably not what I'd do, but considering the importance of the position, and the reward if you really do find that "franchise" guy, I could see a GM hedging his bets.

That's not how it would be spun, and quite frankly that's because it's impossible to spin.

You obviously don't believe in Manziel at that point, and the value of using a first round pick one year after taking him sends that signal loud and clear.

 

[spydy13]

If Manziel is so "not ready" that he can't even function in an NFL offense or play better than Hoyer has, just get rid of him. Seriously. Get rid of him. But I refuse to believe that right now. Shocked that some people still want Hoyer starting. I thought Jerod Cherry was literally the only person.

Remember Chris, we can't reward lack of preparation by starting Johnny. That would send a bad message to the team.

It's much better to reward failure and consistently bad play because Brian prepares the right way and is at home by 9:15pm copulating with his wife in the missionary position. That sends a much better message

 

[AZ_]

If Manziel, after two years of college, isn't ready to take over the reigns of a competitive NFL team in his first season...then he's done.

Dear lord, here I am being the voice of reason in defending Johnny Manziel.

 

[The Oi]

- The misuse of the Albert Einstein quote about insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results implies a controlled environment where all conditions are replicated without variance. To paraphrase the quote, if I dropped a book from the exact same height at the exact same angle onto a single cheerio, with no wind and all the cheerios are the exact same circumference and mass, the first result should be the expected result each time after. Football doesn't have that sort consistency within the game environment. What works in one game may not work in another, or even more minutely, what works on one drive may be a three and out later in the same game. It's an out-of-context appeal to authority.

Starting with the fact that it's not even a quote from Albert Einstein and gets mis- attributed to him almost every time. And yes...regardless of who the hell said it, it doesn't make any goddamn sense in the first place.

 

[The Voice]

Cherry picking Tom Brady's ascension over Drew Bledsoe? That's a solid way to show precedent in the NFL... I mean, you've got to be stupid to really believe that the coaching staff doesn't know what's best for the team more often than not...

More often than not, but not always. You've got to be really stupid to put blind faith in a coaching staff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk at your local pub.

 

[The Voice]

Vick got just two starts his rookie season, looked completely lost as a passer when he was in.

Just how many games do you think are left and what happened the following year? Is one game gonna make a huge difference?

Those 2 starts were more important then him sitting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk at your local pub.

 

[Soda]

More often than not, but not always. You've got to be really stupid to put blind faith in a coaching staff.

Not nearly as dumb as it would be to take the rare Tom Brady rise as the example for why you think the coaches don't know what's going on...

Disclaimer: Not necessarily saying you are, but like 95% of the time the coach is making a very informed decision.

 

[AZ_]

Just how many games do you think are left and what happened the following year? Is one game gonna make a huge difference?

Those 2 starts were more important then him sitting.

There's no real basis for saying this, especially given Vick's early career struggles to find any consistency aside from his legs.

All in all, it's a horrible example which in no way backs up your point or discounts mine.

I'm looking for two years or less of collegiate experience and immediate success in the NFL.

You won't find one, hence why sitting a guy like Manziel makes sense as long as the team is in the hunt.