Any QB Will Do

[moklerman]

Actually the answer to both is zero. Aikman was an above average QB surrounded by superior talent, the numbers back that up.

I like Aikman but HOF?!? One of the most overrated QB's ever, IMO. Why he is ALWAYS lumped in with the all-time greats is beyond me.

 

[moklerman]

Barry Sanders - no Super Bowl
Tom Brady - lots of Super Bowls
Ben Roethlisberger - Super Bowl win
Le'Veon Bell - no Super Bowl
Eli Manning - Super Bowl
Adrian Peterson - no Super Bowl
Ladainian Tomlinson - no Super BOwl

Seems a bit too simplistic considering LT had Drew Brees and Philip Rivers at QB.

I agree that QB is important and that a team needs to have a good one but I don't agree that you HAVE to draft a QB #1 overall or be destined for failure. In general, I'd rather build a good team around a good QB over having a great QB with little depth or weapons.

 

[daves]

Barry Sanders - no Super Bowl
Tom Brady - lots of Super Bowls
Ben Roethlisberger - Super Bowl win
Le'Veon Bell - no Super Bowl
Eli Manning - Super Bowl
Adrian Peterson - no Super Bowl
Ladainian Tomlinson - no Super BOwl

Everyone knows that a superstar QB is more valuable than a superstar RB - but this is a silly way to try to prove it.

Seven of the top 14 and 10 of the top 18 career passing leaders, who all played in the Super Bowl era, have 0 Super Bowl wins. (Marino, Rivers, Moon, Tarkenton, Palmer, Testaverde, Bledsoe, Fouts, Ryan, Collins). Four of the QBs with no Super Bowl wins are in the Hall of Fame (and Rivers may go as well).

The ratio is exactly the same for the top career rushing leaders. Seven of the top 14 and 8 of the top 18 helped their teams win NFL Championships (Jim Brown played before the Super Bowl era). Five of the RBs without Super Bowl rings are in the Hall of Fame, and Peterson will go, as well as possibly James.

...dbs

 

[Buckybird]

Drafting a franchise type QB trumps every position in the draft!

The Browns haven’t had a franchise QB since they came back into the league, that’s 20 years my friends! Let that sink in.

I get that Barkley is a supposed “can’t miss” RB. There’s no such thing. If the Browns identify there’s a franchise QB in this draft, they better select him #1 because there are no assurances they finally get that guy. Hell the Giants could trade the pick or even select the QB they like as well.

If I were the Browns & they want both I personally would pick Barkley #1 & trade up from #4 to #2 & then select you’re guy. The Browns got the ammo to make it happen!

 

[Buckybird]

QB means more than RB

QB always trumps any position if you thinks he’s a franchise guy! No ifs ands or buts!!!

Teams simply don’t win consistently without them & generally don’t win SB’s without them.

 

[GimmedaBall]

I like Aikman but HOF?!? One of the most overrated QB's ever, IMO. Why he is ALWAYS lumped in with the all-time greats is beyond me.

Agree. The Cowpie-Jerry Jones effect. Aikman is a QB who was elevated by his surrounding team more so than him at QB elevating the team. Playing on a SB champ 3X will do it for you. TA's individual QB stats are far from extraordinary.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

 

[WisconsinCard]

Well I completely disagree, when there is no clear top choice QB you go with the sure thing. These QBs are more 1a, 1b & 1c (and maybe 1d) there is no guy in this draft I see coming in from day one and being a franchise QB--heck almost all the draft "experts" have a different 1-4 of their QB rankings. Barkley on the other hand could come in and be a 1100 yd 10 TD back from year 1 (and that is on the low side), look what Leonard Fournette did for the Jags or Ezekiel Elliott for the Cowboys...Barkley grades out better than both of them.

I think you two are discussing the great draft debate.....BPA or Draft for need.

 

[Vermont Maverick]

Overrated Hugh Jackson is going to outsmart everybody. He’s going to take Matt Barkley thus getting his QB AND Barkley at the same time. Genius.

 

[Harry]

I understand how Cleveland feels. Do keep in mind that even the best QBs are 50/50 to fail. Top RBs are 80/20 to succeed. In fact Cleveland has gotten near 50/50on their QBs.

 

[Chopper0080]

I understand how Cleveland feels. Do keep in mind that even the best QBs are 50/50 to fail. Top RBs are 80/20 to succeed. In fact Cleveland has gotten near 50/50on their QBs.

Most interesting strategy I have heard for Cleveland is taking a QB at both 1 AND 4 therefore doubling their shot at ensuring a franchise QB. Sounds crazy at first, but again, none of it matters unless you have a top QB.

 

[cardpa]

I still see Cleveland taking Barkley at #1 and a QB at #4. I do not see number 2 and 3 draft positions going both QB. Even if they did go 2 and 3 as QB, at worst Cleveland gets to select from among what is left and in my opinion the difference between the first QB off the board and the third QB is minuscule. I don't see that great a difference among the top 5 that would make me go gaga over one from the other.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I will laugh when the Browns draft Saquon Barkley and Baker Mayfield. At best they will turn into the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Maybe that is the combination they wanted all along. If that is true then taking SB number 1 overall is a major coup for them. If they took BM first no guarantee that SB is still there at 4, but if they take SB #1 I think there is a good chance BM will be there. The argument for or against is moot at this point unless you can see Cleveland's board. IMO

 

[Shane]

Maybe that is the combination they wanted all along. If that is true then taking SB number 1 overall is a major coup for them. If they took BM first no guarantee that SB is still there at 4, but if they take SB #1 I think there is a good chance BM will be there. The argument for or against is moot at this point unless you can see Cleveland's board. IMO

I’m not with Chopper on this one that would be a coup for them

 

[Solar7]

I still see Cleveland taking Barkley at #1 and a QB at #4. I do not see number 2 and 3 draft positions going both QB. Even if they did go 2 and 3 as QB, at worst Cleveland gets to select from among what is left and in my opinion the difference between the first QB off the board and the third QB is minuscule. I don't see that great a difference among the top 5 that would make me go gaga over one from the other.

Not sure if I made the argument in this thread or another, but your QB needs to fit your offense and talent. They need to be mentally "there." And history is against the successive picks at QB in a draft of having success. Their franchise desperately needs to hit on "the guy." They can't keep putting it off and letting another team make the choice for them.

As fans, we may not see a huge difference between the #1 and #4 QB, but as a GM, you need to make that evaluation. It's why you have a job. There is absolutely no question of what you'd rather have as a franchise: an All-Pro RB, or All-Pro QB. QB every time.

 

[Arz101]

Not sure if I made the argument in this thread or another, but your QB needs to fit your offense and talent. They need to be mentally "there." And history is against the successive picks at QB in a draft of having success. Their franchise desperately needs to hit on "the guy." They can't keep putting it off and letting another team make the choice for them.

As fans, we may not see a huge difference between the #1 and #4 QB, but as a GM, you need to make that evaluation. It's why you have a job. There is absolutely no question of what you'd rather have as a franchise: an All-Pro RB, or All-Pro QB. QB every time.

This.

Barkley is not even at Adrian Peterson level in comparisons. Cleveland should get a QB and hope Barkely falls to 4.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

 

[Zeno]

This.

Barkley is not even at Adrian Peterson level in comparisons. Cleveland should get a QB and hope Barkely falls to 4.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

He actually was more productive in college, he had about 800 more yards from scrimmage, averaged more per carry, scored more TDs, had a lot more receptions than Peterson and does not have the durability concerns AP had coming out. Barkley also had better combine numbers across the board and is about 15 pounds heavier. So yes I would say he is beyond Adrian Peterson levels.

 

[Arz101]

He actually was more productive in college, he had about 800 more yards from scrimmage, averaged more per carry, scored more TDs, had a lot more receptions than Peterson and does not have the durability concerns AP had coming out. Barkley also had better combine numbers across the board and is about 15 pounds heavier. So yes I would say he is beyond Adrian Peterson levels.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ys-the-best-rb-prospect-since-adrian-peterson

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

 

[Zeno]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ys-the-best-rb-prospect-since-adrian-peterson

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

That doesn't really support that he is not on Adrian Petersons level. Barkley is a better prospect coming out then AP was because he doesn't have the durability problems he had (which is the only reason AP fell to #7 in the draft).

Barkley has to prove it on the field as a pro player but if they were both in the same draft based on college production and workout numbers I have no doubt Barkley would be graded higher.

 

[Chopper0080]

I have watched Larry Fitzgerald and Adrian Peterson be made worthless by bad QB play. Those are two generational talents whose team's were hardly competitive without top 15 QB play. There is no way you should prioritize a RB or WR without first having a top 15 QB in place.

 

[moklerman]

I have watched Larry Fitzgerald and Adrian Peterson be made worthless by bad QB play. Those are two generational talents whose team's were hardly competitive without top 15 QB play. There is no way you should prioritize a RB or WR without first having a top 15 QB in place.

But by that rationale, the Cardinals should have passed on Fitzgerald. Which, maybe drafting Rivers would have been a better move but what has Rivers ever won without a Fitzgerald to throw to?

 

[Chopper0080]

But by that rationale, the Cardinals should have passed on Fitzgerald. Which, maybe drafting Rivers would have been a better move but what has Rivers ever won without a Fitzgerald to throw to?

Rivers is more valuable than Fitzgerald is. Sad but true.

 

[moklerman]

Rivers is more valuable than Fitzgerald is. Sad but true.

Can't say I agree. Rivers has had some great weapons at his disposal and never sniffed a Super Bowl. At least Fitz got there.

 

[GatorAZ]

Can't say I agree. Rivers has had some great weapons at his disposal and never sniffed a Super Bowl. At least Fitz got there.

Rivers played in a AFCCG on a torn ACL.

 

[Chopper0080]

Can't say I agree. Rivers has had some great weapons at his disposal and never sniffed a Super Bowl. At least Fitz got there.

On a much more dysfunctional franchise Rivers has led his team to 106 total wins since 2006, and has only had two seasons below 8-8. Fitzgerald has had 99 total wins and 4 seasons under 8-8.

Also, let's consider that while Rivers is possibly a Hall of Fame QB, Larry will go down as one of the two best WRs in NFL history.

 

[moklerman]

On a much more dysfunctional franchise Rivers has led his team to 106 total wins since 2006, and has only had two seasons below 8-8. Fitzgerald has had 99 total wins and 4 seasons under 8-8.

Also, let's consider that while Rivers is possibly a Hall of Fame QB, Larry will go down as one of the two best WRs in NFL history.

But the argument is that you pass on everyone else and have to take a QB. Larry disproves that. Even without decent QB play for much of his career, he's so good that AZ has been able to compete and win games.