Playing LeBron’s desert island game: While We’re Waiting
March 7, 2017Observations and highlights of the 2017 NFL Scouting Combine
March 7, 2017
Welcome to Let’s Argue, your weekly opportunity to be #MadOnline. The premise is simple: WFNY’s Mike Hattery and Jeff Nomina will present arguments — maybe just a question or a deep stat dive or a good old fashioned hot take. Then, they will either argue with each other or invite you to come argue with us. This week, Mike and Jeff are starting the argument, but don’t let that stop you for joining in the comment section or coming at us 140 characters at a time on Twitter @SnarkyHatman &@SportsNom.
Mike Hattery: On Sunday afternoon, beloved reporter Jason La Canfora noted the Browns were the favorites for Tyrod Taylor as a landing spot. The Buffalo Bills still have him under contract, but he is due a $15.5 million roster bonus on March 11. Taylor finished ninth in ESPN’s messy, opaque Total QBR metric ahead of Ben Roethlisberger and Alex Smith, but the former Virginia Tech Hokie is more league average than above it. Still, average quarterback play would be an enormous leap for the Browns and would allow them to allocate assets to building an above-average defense. The key question: Nom, why the hell not?
Jeff Nomina: Because it’s time to use a high pick on a quarterback. The Browns have the 12th pick this year, they’ve picked 12th or higher six times in the past ten drafts. The Browns have not used one of those picks to select a QB. We all laugh about the Browns jersey with a hundred names on it but look at those names and tell me which was a huge investment. Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden, and Johnny Manziel are guys that had excitement around them, but all fell in the draft for a reason. Josh McCown and Robert Griffin III were names no one else was chasing. We all sit around and act like the carousel of QBs is some incredible, unexplained phenomenon of bad luck. The reality is there has been a complete lack of investment in the position. I refuse to pretend Brian Hoyer and Derek Anderson flaming out was anything other than the obvious and expected outcome.
This year provides a unique opportunity of found money. There is a second first-round pick in the Top 12 for the Browns to use in a draft with multiple interesting QB prospects. You and I have already discussed taking Watson first overall, but short of that, there is an opportunity to grab one of those QB prospects at 12 and not have used your only first rounder. Just do it. Invest in a high QB. Quit waiting for the magical unicorn QB prospect that has no flaws and is available with the Browns’ pick.
Mike Hattery: Because its time to… If one concedes that Taylor is somewhere between No. 12 to No. 18 as a NFL starter, essentially a league average quarterback, then he is a scarce resource. Further, though I am a Watson fan, isn’t his 75th percentile outcome that of Tyrod Taylor? Would we not be thrilled with a league average quarterback? Taylor interests me in so far as competency breeds stability. The Browns lack organization stability which is essential to player development and long-term roster success. Taylor plus Myles Garrett and a few other defensive upgrades is a significant upgrade, which could help bring stability to see Year 3 of this coach-front office combo. Competency breeds development for guys like Corey Coleman, Rashard Higgins, and Seth Devalve. Further, when players like Derek Carr and Dak Prescott slide out of the first round, the infrastructure you build around them is guiding success. Therefore, why not sign Taylor, and use all the draft assets to make significant infrastructure upgrades. Is that a crazy approach?
Jeff Nomina: To be clear, I’m a huge fan of Taylor. He’s not great, but he is serviceable. To your point, he could be a stabilizing force on the team. With a roster that was torn down to the studs, it’s hard to evaluate pieces as they come in due to the chaos around them. Taylor could certainly help with that aspect. My main issue is if this is an either / or situation. Is it Taylor OR a draft pick? Or would you sign Taylor and still use a high pick on a QB? With the amount of cap space the Browns have, there is littler downside to signing Taylor. But I would still look QB with their second first-round pick. I know I keep saying it, but it’s time to invest in the position.
Mike Hattery: For me, this is not an either/or decision. Jackson is highly invested in the process and he may like Pat Mahomes, Davis Webb or the odds of a top guy sliding into the second round. Rather firm up the team with a solid starter and then provide Jackson the time to work on a highly-gifted project. If the Browns can grab Garrett plus another elite defensive talent, this team suddenly has multiple defensive playmakers, a solid QB, adequate offensive playmakers and the cap room to upgrade the offensive line. That level of infrastructure is worth going with Taylor and a project quarterback in my opinion. What are the odds any quarterback the Browns take at 12 have even similar NFL production to Taylor? 30 percent? 40 percent?
Jeff Nomina: Those are all fair points, but I think you’re trying to speed up the timeline a bit too much. This was a complete and total tear down, one that will likely take more than one off season to complete. I don’t think it’s time to start trying to just fill holes and go out and win games for the sake of it. Does a rookie likely end up better than Taylor? No. But does drafting and grooming a young QB for this roster make more sense if the goal is sustained winning? I believe so. Just seems like a waste to go through the pains of last season just to rush into a low-ceiling rebuild. The entire point was a rebuild that could put together a high-end roster.
So what do you think? Should the Browns try to settle their QB position by signing Tyrod Taylor, or should they look to be grooming their QB of the future? Vote in the poll, tell us your thoughts in the comments, or find us on Twitter.
This week’s Let’s Argue w @snarkyhatman – should the Browns sign Tyrod Taylor or get their QB in the first round?
— SportsNom (@SportsNom) March 7, 2017
Also, both is an option:
@SportsNom @snarkyhatman Yes, both
— Jared Mueller (@JaredKMueller) March 7, 2017
75 Comments
The dream is that we sign Taylor and Mahomes drops to No. 33 to develop slowly.
If Buffalo cuts TT, grab him.
If for no other reason we can stop with the:
1. “TRADE ALL TEH PICKZ FOR GRABAPABLO” talk.
2. “choose _____________ (anyone not named MYLES) at #1” talk.
It’s got to be both. Sign Taylor so that we can have consistency for the next couple years. Taylor will be average, but we do no help to our receivers development with the constant QB shuffle. Draft another guy to back up and learn. There is no Aaron Rodgers in this draft – and even he sat the bench for a couple years. Draft a guy and work with him for a couple years, the rookie and Kessler can start in spots as Taylor gets hurt (he will). It gives us a couple years to either give the reigns to the draft pick or have another draft pick we like better – maybe even leave us with a couple trade chips (between Kessler, Taylor, or draft pick who ever is low man on the list)
In Carroll’s second year they went with Hasselbeck. It wasn’t until year 3 they signed Flynn and drafted Wilson. Fine with signing Taylor and using a pick. If it is going to be a first then take Mahomes at 12
Otherwise reach early for Webb in late 2nd or first 3rd.
I just can’t take a an Air Raid QB.
He’ll be available later than #33.
# 52, maybe. MAYBE.
I really, really do not understand the “it’s time to invest in a high pick QB” argument. Throwing money at failing mutual funds does not help my 401k, and I would fire my investor for doing so. Same thing for the Browns. Throwing money at any old QB just because you can do so with the #12 pick does not turn that dude into a franchise QB.
Browns (I know you’re reading this): Figure out a way, whether by scheming, guile, tort, or witchcraft to sign Tyrod Taylor. Tell him the minute that he scratches his signature that he’s the starting QB, and move on. If a QB kinda guy is there at 33 and you like him, go ahead.
So, curious, who do you think the Browns should draft #1 overall?
I would be surprised if he’s there at No. 33 – some team in the 20s is going to take that gamble. My first thought is KC.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPuebFToaaDR4EU/giphy.gif
http://lovelyliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2014/05/bb4e7-dreamy.gif
If he falls to the Yinzers they will nab him.
I was wondering the same thing. Such a fence sitter.
My argument is more that the Browns are likely to continue to improve and therefor have a worse draft slot. So you only get so many opportunities to take a QB that has a high chance at succeeding. ANd especially this year with so many picks. using one on a high-profile QB hurts less than in future seasons. The Browns essentially ahve 3 first rounders – does it hurt more to take a QB at 12 this year and still have 1 and 33 or to take one at 8 next year and that be your only high pick? Seems like fans are waiting to draft Andrew Luck and that just isn’t likely to happen, At some point they likely have to hitch their wagon to a somewhat flawed prospect like most teams.
Sure. I’m all for hitching the wagon to a guy at #33. I just don’t think any of these guys are necessarily worth hitching anything at #12, nor do I think any of them have a necessarily high chance of succeeding. Being the best QB in a class of mediocre QBs does not justify spending wildly to get him.. (Caveat: If the Browns are convinced that one of them is worth it, I’ll grudgingly be okay with it.) Still, simply having high draft picks is never a reason, in and of itself, to draft a QB with one of them. The QB has to be the right QB.
And it’s not Andrew Luck I’m looking for right now. I’m looking for Tyrod Taylor.
Lukewarm. Won’t commit. Wishy-washy.
I think they have other players they will take but they certainly could be looking for a long-term Ben replacement.
https://media.giphy.com/media/OL76SC6yl3VUk/giphy.gif
See: Raiders, Seahawks, Packers, etc.
Yes, drafting a QB high has a better chance of nabbing a franchise guy. But, grabbing one a little later when you have people there to support his growth can work too. It might even be working with your Dolphins as Tannehill showed some signs of progression (assuming his rehab goes well).
“Because it’s time to use a high pick on a quarterback. ”
That kind of talk is what lands you Brad Kaaya at #12. Take a QB with a high pick if there is a QB deserving of such a pick.
what for? There is one Tom Brady. don’t take a QB who you aren’t positive will be better than Kessler. I don’t see why you’d waste the first pick in the second round of the draft on a guy who might be better than Cody Kessler in 2 years.
Sure – but the odds are much much lower – and the Packers and Seahawks weren’t in the midst of a rebuild. And there’s an opportunity cost with any drafted QB where you likely give them 2 years to prove if they have it or not. So if you draft a guy in the 3rd, wait 2 years to start him, and then give him 2 years as a starter? You’re really pushing that timeline back just so you could use the 12th pick on someone else.
The Seahawks weren’t in the midst of a rebuild?
Wilson drafted prior to 2012 season. Seattle was wretched after the closing to the Holmgren era and an ill-advised season of Jim Mora. 7-9 both seasons under Carroll (so, they were better than current Browns – but that is sort of the point, no?)
And, I completely disagree about your assumption you give a 3rd round pick 2 years to mature, then 2 years to start. Please tell me what team does that? Wilson was starting Week 1, but most Rd 3 QBs are drafted to be backups and backups they remain. Who is yelling that Cody Kessler deserves to be annointed the starter and given 2 years unchallenged right now?
I wouldn’t mind being in the Houston, Denver, Cinci, KC, Arizona state of things where you have a good team then try to envelop the best QB you can from there. The other option is to just suffer through a high round pick and hope he doesn’t get abused to the point he gets Couch-Carr syndrome.
I also wouldn’t mind if Hue really likes a QB at 12 to take one there. Without Taylor though, it is an urgent, flashing neon need that we might feel we have to take regardless of if we like our options. With Taylor, I would be confident that the only way we take a QB is if he is a guy that Hue really, really wanted.
Oh come on. Stop with Aaron Rodgers/Steve Young comparisons. Those two sat behind 2 of the 5 greatest QBs in league history.
Tyrod Taylor provides stability and leadership. Ever think that having a non-rookie QB on such a young team is the most important thing in the huddle? Do you think Corey Coleman cares about Pat Mahomes? These youngsters need a veteran presence on the field.
Part of the reason I like a Kessler-Mahomes combo is that they are so different. Mahomes is so much athleticism and easy deep throws. Kessler is strict technique and accuracy.
Letting Hue play around developing both will give the Browns a chance at hitting with either of these styles of QBs. I think Mahomes skillset would easily push him past Kessler (both are reportedly really hard workers who are intelligent enough to pick everything up they need too, which helps), but if Kessler develops that core strength and can make the throws, great.
I also think they’d push each other, which is also a benefit.
Good news for you: the govt regulations that make our investors look out for our best interests have been cancelled. So fire away!
EDIT- I totally agree with your QB assessment. Though I would just skip the position completely in the draft.
After last year, any QB that delivers the ball that won’t get Coleman killed is probably the best thing in the world to Corey Coleman.
Wrong thread for this but those were proving problematic in courts. How do you prove that? Either way? Sounds great on the surface but a stock plummets — whose fault was it?
Kessler is going to love throwing to Gordon:
1. Assuming King Goodell reinstates Gordon.
2. Assuming the OL can keep Kessler healthy.
3. Assuming Kessler can throw deep enough to reach a wide open Gordon…
Yeah, let’s keep it football
Why do I need government regulations to tell me when to fire my broker?
I think we’re saying similar things. There is only Garrett at no. 1, but after that grab the QB you like best, if necessary move up.
I want Tyrod not sure where your second paragraph is going…
I’m assuming Gordon is not on the roster until I see him on the field.
Yessir.
How on earth can the NFL possibly reinstate him at this point? He’s done.
Technically, they could reinstate Justin Blackmon too, but I don’t see that happening.
Signing TT would allow us more freddom of when we acquire the future franchise QB. He would essentially allow us to take best player available at 1 & 12, which would be the best thing for this franchise. That way we can wait til 33 for QB, or forgo it all together in favor of superior players. And we have the money.
These rules are meant to protect people in qualified retirement plans, such as 401(k)s and pension plans. Not sure how it works for most, but if I want to get the match from my employer then I need to enter one of two plans (once three) they offer. So for me (and I think many others), it’s not as simple as deciding to fire my broker.
As I see it, these regulations are about creating trust and accountability in situations where people have little control over where their money is going. Which, of course, isn’t to say said rules achieve that or make sense. Personally, I have zero faith in any of our institutions, the financial ones particularly, and assume they’ll always find a way to separate me from my money.
That’s fair. My analogy was the 401k. I was just throwing water on a grease fire that someone else started.
But for what it’s worth, I just refuse to see “creating trust and accountability” as ever being in the realm of government control. So I’m offered a 401k and the option for employer matching. I am absolutely free to take advantage of that system, along with all of its risks and rewards, and am equally free to not do so, or to exit at any time of my choosing. It is, or should be, a component of living in a free society. Nothing cajoles or binds me to anything, nor am I entitled as a right to anything that I need the government to protect. Massively oversimplified as a statement, but it comes close to getting to the heart of the matter in my eyes.
if we let RGIII go, they should do BOTH : get a veteran & draft a QB fairly high in this draft (#12 or #33) … if Watson , Kizer or Trubisky makes it to #12 , and you think they’re “the guy” , then by all means go ahead & pull the trigger. and Tyrod Taylor is not all of that … or he’d still be in Baltimore … and Buffalo wouldn’t even be toying with letting him go. he may be a better athlete than Kessler , but i don’t see him as a major upgrade.
i still think at least one of the big-4 QB’s will last until pick #33 … be patient !
Considering all the talk about Romo, Taylor, Glennon, Cutler, etc., it sure feels like most of the QB-needy teams might find a short term answer that allows them to avoid using their first on the position. Maybe I’m a fool, but I can’t help but think that there could be plenty of QBs still on the board at #33.
And not to get a shoe thrown at me: if it does shake out like that, it could be a tremendous opportunity to trade down.
Why do people still buy into this fallacy that Head Coaches have the time to work on project quarterbacks? Can anyone, any where point me to an example of this happening in the past 20 years?
Aaron Rodgers – complete re-worked delivery and footwork
Aaron Rodgers was not a project QB. He was a projected top 5 QB.
Not disagreeing.
I guess what annoys me (and I say this in the spirit of oversimplification) is that less/no regulation tends to be a one-way street favoring big business and entrenched powers. I’d be much more willing to give up consumer protection laws like this one if deregulation also created a true free market that resulted in more options than the two my employer is able to offer. Maybe regulations aren’t why I’m limited in my choices, but I have a hunch it’s part.
Cable/internet is probably a better example to illustrate my point. If government regulations are going to create de facto regional monopolies, then you better provide some serious consumer protection. If you don’t want to do that, then truly deregulate, let new competitors gets into the market, and then maybe we get back to a purer form of capitalism.
Matt Schaub is the last “back-up into a starter” that I can think of.
I’d also argue that there’s plenty of project QBs that we don’t think as projects because they worked out. Wilson, Cousins, Carr…. That said, the number of HITS over MISSES is probably like 1/20.
He was selected in the 20s and had to re-work his entire throwing delivery. You were asking if coaches had time to work with a QB.
Not all do but can if they dedicate the necessary resources.
Is Cousins not a backup into a starter too?
Yes, true.