Isn't it ironic that the closest the Chargers ever got to the SB with Rivers was in his worst statistical year? Sort of refutes the idea that a team has to take a QB before all else. An 82.4 rating from Rivers that year suggests that all those other all-pro's were carrying him more than he was carrying them. In fact, didn't the Chargers do exactly what some of us are suggesting the Browns do? They took the stud RB before they had their franchise QB.
That is false...we have not been competitive without Warner or Palmer(playing at a high level) as our QB.
RBs do not take teams to SBs.
But would you take a shot at one of these QBs over your current roster depth chart? I believe John Dorsey was brought in to find a QB.
I think we all get that, but the counter-argument is that the team needs to put in the work to select the best of the available QBs while they have their own pick, instead of letting other teams make the choice for them.
I already said what I think Cleveland should do. It just depends on how they grade the QB's. My suggestion is based on there not being a QB that really separates himself from the others so waiting until the fourth pick isn't that risky. If they think Josh Allen is a special talent that they can build their franchise around, then I could see why they'd not risk it and take him #1 overall. But I don't think that's the situation this year. Take Barkley and have a pretty good looking set of skill players than a good, not needing to be great, QB can come in and succeed with.
I don't agree with that wording. If they grade Darnold poorly that's a separate issue from draft strategy. If they grade Darnold really high but risk losing him, then yes, they deserve criticism. But if they feel Darnold/Rosen/Allen/Mayfield etc. are all fairly equitable, then I don't think it's a poor strategy at all to take the guy who is graded significantly higher at his position than others.
If they can't pick a guy from those four that they think is going to be a franchise guy given two months to do so, then they deserve to be failures. You can't be at #1 with a desperate QB need and just call them all equitable. You have to analyze your roster, offense, and the tape, all along with interviews, to determine a guy.
Yeah, I don't see a #1 pick QB in this draft.
I think it's somewhere between crappy and obvious #1. There isn't a Carson Palmer sitting there with Leftwich, Boller and Grossman as alternatives. When it's Carr, Harrington and Ramsey as your choices, do you take the guy that has a slight edge because QB is most important or do you take an obvious stud at another position?
I was blown away by Darnold two years ago and USC is my local college team so I was right there with everyone else who thought that he had that special "it" factor that can't be defined. But last year he really came back to Earth and it seems to me that he will face more struggles than initially thought when he burst onto the scene. He'll be solid to good but I don't see a guy that's going to carry a franchise.
At 33, Thomas could have another 5 years left in him physically and I'm sure the Factory of Sadness has him contemplating retirement more than losing his ability. If the Browns turn things around and start winning, I bet his thoughts of retirement quickly fade.
If the goal is both of them, I offer the Giants a pick or two to move up to #2.
This is a really good point. If they are so enamored with Barkley, it makes more sense to give up picks to move up to #2 to get him along with their QB.
If you have to go back to the 1980's, your argument is invalid. The game is nowhere the same. Hell, Barry Sanders might be a stretch.
Yeah, you're essentially saying, "Hi Giants, sorry, you're not getting Barkley/Darnold (you're going to have to bluff on who you think they want, if it's one of those two guys). But we have our eyes on a QB. We'll give you a 3rd round pick to slide back two spots and take Rosen instead of trading the pick off to a team."
