Replacing Baker Mayfield: Poll

[Bkerr02]

Most head coaches and general managers are too scared of losing their jobs to risk taking a step backwards at QB in an effort to better position themselves to take a step forward.

Until that changes, you'll keep seeing teams stubbornly sticking with what they have at QB even if they know for sure it's not good enough.

If you give a coach and GM two options

Option 1: You'll win 8 or 9 games with quarterback A, but you're unlikely to ever win more than that
Option 2: You might only win 5 or 6 games with quarterback B, but it will put you in a far better position to find quarterback C or even quarterback D who could win you 11-12 games or more.

They're almost always going to take Option 1 and pray for a combination of good fortune and "everything coming together" because that means short-term job security.

So you are saying that’s what over half of the NFL does? Yet teams every year are desperate to trade up in the draft hoping to find that top 15 QB… yeah I’m not buying that

 

[CBBI]

So you are saying that’s what over half of the NFL does? Yet teams every year are desperate to trade up in the draft hoping to find that top 15 QB… yeah I’m not buying that

I'm saying there are numerous NFL teams right now who have starting quarterbacks that they know for a fact they cannot win a championship with, yet they have decided to stick with them anyway because they do not want to take a step backwards because it could cost the head coach and/or general manager their jobs, yes.

 

[Bkerr02]

I'm saying there are numerous NFL teams right now who have starting quarterbacks that they know for a fact they cannot win a championship with, yet they have decided to stick with them anyway because they do not want to take a step backwards because it could cost the head coach and/or general manager their jobs, yes.

I’m sure there are a few but not 17 of them is my point. Having a top 15 QB is probably the hardest find in all of sports. I think that’s why teams stick with some mediocre QB’s bc as we all know it can be a million times worse and you are stuck until you find even a mediocre guy.

 

[CBBI]

I’m sure there are a few but not 17 of them is my point. Having a top 15 QB is probably the hardest find in all of sports. I think that’s why teams stick with some mediocre QB’s bc as we all know it can be a million times worse and you are stuck until you find even a mediocre guy.

Please tell me where I said 17 of them?

I said it was going to be a seller's market (which it is) and I said many as 15 teams *could* be looking for new quarterbacks.

Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, Philadelphia, Washington, New York Giants, Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, San Francisco, Seattle.

That's 17 different teams that depending on how things shake out could have a new starter in 2022.

Green Bay and San Francisco seemingly already have their next QB already on their roster, so you can take them out and that leaves 15 teams who might actively acquire a new starting QB.

Are all of them going to do it? Of course not. There's not enough QBs to go around so several of them are going to keep the guys they have. But if it shook out a certain way? All these teams IMO would be willing to consider a switch.

 

[Bkerr02]

Please tell me where I said 17 of them?

I said it was going to be a seller's market (which it is) and I said many as 15 teams *could* be looking for new quarterbacks.

Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, Philadelphia, Washington, New York Giants, Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, San Francisco, Seattle.

That's 17 different teams that depending on how things shake out could have a new starter in 2022.

Green Bay and San Francisco seemingly already have their next QB already on their roster, so you can take them out and that leaves 15 teams who might actively acquire a new starting QB.

Are all of them going to do it? Of course not. There's not enough QBs to go around so several of them are going to keep the guys they have. But if it shook out a certain way? All these teams IMO would be willing to consider a switch.

The 17 teams was from the top 15 Qb. There are 32 teams in the league and only 15 top QB’s. That’s what I meant by that

 

[DJTJ]

Please tell me where I said 17 of them?

I said it was going to be a seller's market (which it is) and I said many as 15 teams *could* be looking for new quarterbacks.

Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Houston, Las Vegas, Denver, Philadelphia, Washington, New York Giants, Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina, San Francisco, Seattle.

That's 17 different teams that depending on how things shake out could have a new starter in 2022.

Green Bay and San Francisco seemingly already have their next QB already on their roster, so you can take them out and that leaves 15 teams who might actively acquire a new starting QB.

Are all of them going to do it? Of course not. There's not enough QBs to go around so several of them are going to keep the guys they have. But if it shook out a certain way? All these teams IMO would be willing to consider a switch.

I think Houston spins next year with Mills, and have no interest in Tua. I think Detroit lets Goff ride it out so they can build elsewhere. I expect Philly to keep Hurts (and if not, he gets a raw shake because that scheme doesn’t fit him at all). However, Philly has major assets that Houston SHOULD want up front.

I think Miami moves on from Tua only for Watson. Vegas is only replacing Carr for assets.

Of the three teams Russ is interested in, only Denver would spend the assets (and they should). I think New Orleans and the Giants do not spend assets on a QB, but both should. I imagine that Russ leaving will also be it for Pete, and they won’t take a QB back in a deal.

Pittsburgh doesn’t want Baker. Washington shouldn’t.

It’s definitely a sellers market (likely only Watson/Russ), and with the crap class, I could see a team like New Orleans willing to see if Baker plays well under Payton but not for less than Darnold, soley because they have one less year to figure it out.

Have a feeling this off-season is going to be super silly season.

 

[GonzoRatso88]

@CBBI and @I'mWithDan have hit on it continuously but I don't think people realize how bad Baker has been during his four years here..

Yes he's been better than what we've had but it's still only amounted to average/below average which isn't going to get the Browns to where they need to go...

EPA+CPOE
Last 4 years: 28th
Last 3 years: 25th
Last 2 years: 21st
This year: 36th

EPA
Last 4 years: 26th
Last 3 years: 24th
Last 2 years: 16th
This year: 31st

CPOE
Last 4 years: 32nd
Last 3 years: 33rd
Last 2 years: 24th
This year: 35th

Success rate
Last 4 years: 34th
Last 3 years: 29th
Last 2 years: 17th
This year: 32nd

EPA+CPOE on 3rd/4th downs
Last 4 years: 27th
Last 3 years: 31st
Last 2 years: 25th
This year: 36th

EPA+CPOE in 4th Q/OT
Last 4 years: 31st
Last 3 years: 31st
Last 2 years: 37th
This year: 36th

The biggest issue with Baker is he's consistently inconsistent and his stretches of bad play happen far too often, and happen at the times when the Browns need him the most... The bad Baker comes with the good Baker and can happen from game to game or drive to drive, and that type of unpredictable play is killing the Browns offensive efficiency..

What I just don't understand is the stats obviously point to Baker being a below average QB throughout his tenure yet some cling to his sample stretches of good play when they have been not norm..

I understand the options for upgrades are more limited next year but that shouldn't stop the Browns from seeking an upgrade when the opportunity to win is now...

If the Browns do seek alternatives, I can't see Baker taking too lightly to that, especially without a contract extension in hand, and could see a mutual separation occur.. Knowing what we know about Baker, his sensitivity for these things could make it a tenable solution, and I don't think the FO is for the drama.. The guarantee money is an obstacle, but if they are able to find a trade partner for him it wipes clean his salary..

I know some cling to the thought that Baker on a rebound year provides the Browns with further evaluation and with the upside that he is the long-term answer... But two questions-- 1). Can the Browns really afford another uncertain evaluation year with the current roster/opportunity window? and, 2). Do we think the Browns FO doesn't have a feeling, regardless of next season or not, regarding a long-term extension with Baker?

I look at the offseason as a bridge-year regardless of who is at QB... Baker isn't likely your long-term QB so, you do what you can to upgrade the position and go into 2023 looking for your franchise guy with Carr, Cousins, Stafford, Jimmy G and a better draft class in tow..

This off-season, you do what you can to gauge the chances of Rodgers/Wilson/Watson, which is not likely... If not, hope that Vikings/Raiders decide to move on from Carr/Cousins, which again isn't likely... Also, watch to see how the Rodgers/Wilson/Watson domino falls and who becomes available as a result (Hurts/Tua, more realistic)... After that, I would say Jimmy G is your fallback option, with bringing in Teddy Bridgewater or Marcus Mariota to backup Baker as your last option..

Berry has done everything he can to provide the infrastructure to Baker and eliminate all variables when evaluating QB play... Yet this year, in true Browns fashion, they've done everything they can to make it more convoluted... With that said, I just don't see Baker's decision making and play style being in the interest of where the Browns want to go with the position... Until the Browns can find a franchise guy, they're likely cycling through tier 3 QBs who all have their warts.. However, I think Baker has run its course in Cleveland and with the low bar of play he's set, they're better off trying to see what else is out there at this point..

Agree with everything here. I also bet if you hear murmurs of Baker being upset or wanting a trade when the season ends its because he knows the Browns are seriously considering another option at QB....

 

[Sebastian]

Carr in 2019, 2020 and 2021 has played at a notch slightly higher than Baker did in 2020. For the last three years Carr has played like roughly the 10th best NFL QB on average and Baker was roughly the 15th best in 2020.

10th vs. 15th is certainly not a massive difference, but it's still a little better. And that was with Carr working with a much worse running game and much worse OL than Baker was working with.

He's flawed, but the 2022 Browns would be the best offense Carr's ever played in by a mile.

But can Carr go from about 10th to 7th behind a much superior line and running game?

And, in your mind, how good exactly does the QB need to be to make the Superb Owl?

 

[bob2the2nd]

Can Baker play PG?

 

[DatDudeZ3]

Can Baker play PG?

He’s a decent ball handler but he’s not a great passer which limits him on the court…

 

[2 For The Brew]

Jalen Hurts is a pro bowl alternate and Philly is likely to make the playoffs. Why would they get rid of him? Do they have a better option available?

 

[CBBI]

Jalen Hurts is a pro bowl alternate and Philly is likely to make the playoffs. Why would they get rid of him? Do they have a better option available?

It’s not that they *want* to get rid of him, but if they can trade for Watson, they’ll do it.

Same as Miami.

 

[CBBI]

Carr is certainly flawed, but I really think he'd be able to do some nice things here with this OL and running game and defense. Plus the cost of acquiring him theoretically wouldn't be wildly prohibitive.

 

[Urban]

Only way he's really going to be available though is if the Raiders swing a trade for Wilson, Watson, or Rodgers

 

[CBBI]

Only way he's really going to be available though is if the Raiders swing a trade for Wilson, Watson, or Rodgers

Maybe not though?

The Raiders could very well have a new coach and new general manager within the next 2-3 weeks.

Carr has no guaranteed money left on his current contract, so trading him away wouldn't be harmful for them from a financial standpoint whatsoever.

A lot of variables there.

All that said, I do think the Raiders are going to be a big player for all the top veteran QBs on the market.