Baker Mayfield watch

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Stafford was on a bad team.

Mahomes was under Andy Reid.

It's not going to be exclusively true, but it is true that the teams who draft those top ten guys tend to be bad, and generally long term bad 

Staffords franchise was bad but it was obvious he could play from the jump

 

Again, I dont buy the whole "lets sit the qb and let them develop".   Throw Corral in sooner then later and see what he has.

[SazmoRanger]

7 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.  I just think our current QB (Sam) makes our team/offense significantly worse.  So adding a QB that doesn't would make our team significantly better than before by default.

Yeah, my whole thing is what’s the point in drafting Corral then? If we wouldn’t of drafted Corral and traded assets to get him I’d be more opt to go and get Baker. So now we trade assets to get Corral AND assets to get Baker. That’s just dumb.
 

Personally, I don’t/didn’t want Baker in any scenario because I don’t believe he’s a franchise guy. In today’s NFL, you’re not winning a Super Bowl without a franchise QB. If Baker was any good, the Browns wouldn’t of traded away the farm for a QB who might not see a football field again. 

[ellis]

For what it’s worth, the Browns are in no hurry, nor should they be, do much of anything with Mayfield. Doubt they end up cutting him. Doesn’t sound like a robust market, but it does appear Carolina’s interest is legit, and has been for a while. Hopefully, they don’t outbid themselves for a QB for the third consecutive offseason.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Staffords franchise was bad but it was obvious he could play from the jump

Again, I dont buy the whole "lets sit the qb and let them develop".   Throw Corral in sooner then later and see what he has.

I've seen both methods work.

You have to go according to the situation: coach, prior starter, the team around them, and of course the player themselves.

it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Mr. Scot

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've seen both methods work.

You have to go according to the situation: coach, prior starter, the team around them, etc.

it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario.

 

Sure there are examples of guys sitting, Cousins and Rodgers.  But there are infinetly more examples of guys simply starting and learning on the job to become all pros

[ForJimmy]

2 minutes ago, SazmoRanger said:

Yeah, my whole thing is what’s the point in drafting Corral then? If we wouldn’t of drafted Corral and traded assets to get him I’d be more opt to go and get Baker. So now we trade assets to get Corral AND assets to get Baker. That’s just dumb.
 

Personally, I don’t/didn’t want Baker in any scenario because I don’t believe he’s a franchise guy. In today’s NFL, you’re not winning a Super Bowl without a franchise QB. If Baker was any good, the Browns wouldn’t of traded away the farm for a QB who might not see a football field again. 

If they think Corral needs a year it gives them a decent starter to help the offense gel, get the fans excited and help get our team competitive again.  Again this would all be for MINOR draft capital and little salary taken on by us.  There is also a very small chance Baker could click in our system better than the Browns.  He has some arm talent, basically a Sam Darnold scenario with a much higher floor.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Sure there are examples of guys sitting, Cousins and Rodgers.  But there are infinetly more examples of guys simply starting and learning on the job to become all pros

I don't know about infinitely more. Don't think it's that lopsided.

You have to account for the fact that there are also loads of examples of guys starting from the jump who turn out to be total busts.

What could have happened if those guys had been able to sit and learn?

Edited June 14, 2022 by Mr. Scot

[ForJimmy]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Sure there are examples of guys sitting, Cousins and Rodgers.  But there are infinetly more examples of guys simply starting and learning on the job to become all pros

There are also more examples and players starting right away on bad teams and becoming "busts" than players who sit and are developed by their staff before they see the field.  

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I don't know about infinitely more. Don't think it's that lopsided.

You have to account for the fact that there are also loads of examples of guys starting from the jump who turn out to be total busts.

Looking over the tp 15 qb's the vast majority started their rookie year.   If sitting a guy leads to a higher success rate then I think you would see it way more often.  That simply isnt the case

[mrcompletely11]

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

There are also more examples and players starting right away on bad teams and becoming "busts" than players who sit and are developed by their staff before they see the field.  

Who are these qbs that are developed by the staffs? 

 

Did we not try this with Grier and now PJ?  I dont think sitting qbs has the desired effect that you think it does.

Edited June 14, 2022 by mrcompletely11

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Looking over the tp 15 qb's the vast majority started their rookie year.   If sitting a guy leads to a higher success rate then I think you would see it way more often.  That simply isnt the case

 

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

Who are these qbs that are developed by the staffs? 

I'd have to look it over to see the validity of that. Don't have the time to do that at the moment but maybe later.

And yes, the trend today is to start quarterbacks early. That's not necessarily an indication that it's the best way to go.

Again, a lot of those high picks are taken by bad teams, hence why they end up busting.

[SazmoRanger]

Just now, ForJimmy said:

If they think Corral needs a year it gives them a decent starter to help the offense gel, get the fans excited and help get our team competitive again.  Again this would all be for MINOR draft capital and little salary taken on by us.  There is also a very small chance Baker could click in our system better than the Browns.  He has some arm talent, basically a Sam Darnold scenario with a much higher floor.

Yeah, I just don’t like that. How excited will this fan base be if they’re a 7-9 win team? Even with Baker against our schedule it’s hard to think we’re more than that. What will excite this fan base is having a legitimate franchise QB. Quit wasting resources grabbing these retread QBs who aren’t that. 
 

 It’s year 3 with this staff. Cut Cam, bring in Teddy, cut Teddy, bring in Darnold, bring back Cam, start Darnold, etc. I don’t trust this staff with any QB decisions at this point. Let Rhule and co run with what we got. From past acquisitions at the QB position this  staff wanting Baker all but solidifies that he sucks. 

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

 

I'd have to look it over to see the validity of that. Don't have the time to do that at the moment but maybe later.

And yes, the trend today is to start quarterbacks early. That's not necessarily an indication that it's the best way to go.

Again, a lot of those high picks are taken by bad teams, hence why they end up busting.

Again if there was a correlation among qbs that sit and "develop" and then become pro bowl players then it would permeate among nfl franchises.  They as a whole are all not that stupid.

[SizzleBuzz]

Is Baker better than TB5?