2018 Cleveland Browns...Rising from the Ashes (This time we mean it)

[GAC]

Did someone mention Brian Sipe? Man, I loved those Browns teams he QB'd.

When it comes to the Brown's play-off failures, everyone talks about The Drive and the Fumble, and how much Denver (Elway) was a thorn in their sides. And that is all true.

But nothing ripped my heart out like "Red Right 88", which occurred in the 1980 season play-off game vs the Oakland Raiders. I still remember that game, and what occurred, like it was yesterday.

With less then a minute left to play in the game, Brown's down 14-12, Sipe leads the team down the field to the Raider's 28 yd line. On that play, when the ball was snapped, and I saw Sipe going back to pass, I was jumping up screaming "WHY, WHY, WHY ARE YOU PASSING THE BALL YOU IDIOTS, WHEN ALL YOU NEED IS A FG TO SEAL THE WIN???"

And the rest is history. And as much as I liked Sam Rutigliano, I was not too happy with him for quite some time for calling that play. And to this day I've never forgotten the name of the Raider defender who stepped in front of Newsome in the endzone - MIKE DAVIS!

http://www.raiders.com/news/article-...1-bf85b95dacb5



So whatever happened to Brian Sipe? Here's a couple articles .....

http://www.espn.com/blog/minnesota-v...mvp-brian-sipe

https://www.ohio.com/akron/writers/t...t-of-his-dream

[Boston Red]

Sam Rutigliano was suitably punished. He coached at Liberty for a few years.

[Sea Ray]

Things change. Only Mike Brown would fail to adapt to changes in reality, or take three decades to do it.

The reality is DeShone Kizer never was a franchise QB. Nothing has changed on that front.

[Assembly Hall]

The reality is DeShone Kizer never was a franchise QB. Nothing has changed on that front.

Brian Sipe wasn't either.....how did that work out?

[GAC]

The reality is DeShone Kizer never was a franchise QB. Nothing has changed on that front.

Never was? Respectfully my friend, I can understand forming that position after the completion of his first (rookie) season because you have something a little more "concrete" to base it on. But even then, IMO, I think that is a rash (quick) decision to make on ANY rookie QB. And I don't recall you staking out this position, when the Browns drafted him in the second round, that this kid will never be a franchise QB.

It's funny how this term "franchise QB' is getting thrown around anymore. I just find it odd that you see a word tossed around so much, but no one really seems to know the exact meaning. Everyone talks about WHO is a franchise QB, but not WHAT a franchise QB is? You can't label a franchise QB unless you know what it is.

Coming out of college ....

Obviously, one of the most important "ingredients", in order to be able to build on, is possessing the physical skill-set and athletic ability. And you show me one scouting (draft) report on Kizer coming out of college that says he doesn't possess that? You won't find one.

The other factors involved are ... consistency, maturity, leadership, football intelligence (on-field decision making) .... these are all variables that one can't (or shouldn't) make judgments on INITIALLY because - 1) you're dealing with inexperienced youth (amateurs) who have never stepped one foot on a professional football field, and - 2) they're variables that need to be developed, learned, given that opportunity to grow, to see if they're there. And that involves the investment (and risk) of time and gaining experience. It's not a conclusion one should come to in their rookie season.

It's real easy to list who we think franchise QBs are currently ..... Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Luck, Stafford, etc ..... but can you show me where any of them, or any others you care to list, coming out of college were, without question or doubt, before they even stepped on that playing field, or even after their rookie season, were labeled a "franchise QB"? All of these QBs (including Kizer) were highly successful in college and instrumental to their team's success. They all, for the most part, got solid scouting reports. But it's all about potential, assessing it, and any future possibilities. It's not a guarantee either way (success, failure).

Do we want to run down the list of QBs who we'd say were franchise QBs, yet never won a Super Bowl? ... Marino, Romo, Rivers, Stafford, the list goes on and on. So what good is it having that label then? And is it appropriate to label them that? Why?

I think Stafford is one of the best QBs in the NFL; but I doubt he ever makes it to a SB playing in Detroit (LOL). Is that his fault? It's sad that Rivers will probably retire without ever experiencing a SB. What you seem to be missing is that even though you may have developed into one of the "premier" QBs in the league (as far as stats/performance), you still need to have a certain level of "franchise" players surrounding you that were intricate in making you that "franchise QB" and leading your team to success.

Would Montana have been as successful without players like Rice, Clark, and Lott? Or how about Bradshaw, Elway, Favre, Aikman? None of these QBs single-handedly were the reason for their team's success.

And some of those "pieces" are missing in Cleveland from an offensive standpoint, and have been, through mismanagement, for quite some time. And you've acknowledged that. You've even stated that this team is pretty devoid of talent overall. Yet you continue to place the entire burden of success of this team, with so many other issues going on, on the shoulders of an inexperienced, rookie QB. And regardless of his performance this year, I think you've been grossly harsh and unfair to Kizer overall.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for sports columnist Terry Pluto. I think his post-season assessment of Kizer here is solid ...... http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index..._case_for.html

Give Kizer credit for not missing a single game because of injuries. He took some very hard physical hits. The emotional price also was heavy.

The only game he missed was when he was benched in favor Kevin Hogan.

In one game, Kizer had a migraine. He left, but returned to action. In another game, he suffered severely bruised ribs. He was out for a while, but came back and played.

It's unclear if he has all the ingredients needed to be a successful NFL quarterback.

But Kizer does have NFL toughness. He also has impressive maturity for a 21-year-old.

[Sea Ray]

Brian Sipe wasn't either.....how did that work out?

It's a little early to compare the two QBs. I think we'll need to see more from DeShone Kizer. Let's wait until after the draft and then we'll have an idea if Kizer will even play again for the Browns and if so in what role.

Sipe had a long career with the Browns but outside of that one 11-5 season, his best yr was 9-7. Andy Dalton had more success with the Bengals and he hasn't even played as long as Sipe did. Sipe was an above avg QB

- - - Updated - - -

Never was? Respectfully my friend, I can understand forming that position after the completion of his first (rookie) season because you have something a little more "concrete" to base it on. But even then, IMO, I think that is a rash (quick) decision to make on ANY rookie QB. And I don't recall you staking out this position, when the Browns drafted him in the second round, that this kid will never be a franchise QB.

It's funny how this term "franchise QB' is getting thrown around anymore. I just find it odd that you see a word tossed around so much, but no one really seems to know the exact meaning. Everyone talks about WHO is a franchise QB, but not WHAT a franchise QB is? You can't label a franchise QB unless you know what it is.

Coming out of college ....

Obviously, one of the most important "ingredients", in order to be able to build on, is possessing the physical skill-set and athletic ability. And you show me one scouting (draft) report on Kizer coming out of college that says he doesn't possess that? You won't find one.

The other factors involved are ... consistency, maturity, leadership, football intelligence (on-field decision making) .... these are all variables that one can't (or shouldn't) make judgments on INITIALLY because - 1) you're dealing with inexperienced youth (amateurs) who have never stepped one foot on a professional football field, and - 2) they're variables that need to be developed, learned, given that opportunity to grow, to see if they're there. And that involves the investment (and risk) of time and gaining experience. It's not a conclusion one should come to in their rookie season.

It's real easy to list who we think franchise QBs are currently ..... Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Luck, Stafford, etc ..... but can you show me where any of them, or any others you care to list, coming out of college were, without question or doubt, before they even stepped on that playing field, or even after their rookie season, were labeled a "franchise QB"? All of these QBs (including Kizer) were highly successful in college and instrumental to their team's success. They all, for the most part, got solid scouting reports. But it's all about potential, assessing it, and any future possibilities. It's not a guarantee either way (success, failure).

Do we want to run down the list of QBs who we'd say were franchise QBs, yet never won a Super Bowl? ... Marino, Romo, Rivers, Stafford, the list goes on and on. So what good is it having that label then? And is it appropriate to label them that? Why?

I think Stafford is one of the best QBs in the NFL; but I doubt he ever makes it to a SB playing in Detroit (LOL). Is that his fault? It's sad that Rivers will probably retire without ever experiencing a SB. What you seem to be missing is that even though you may have developed into one of the "premier" QBs in the league (as far as stats/performance), you still need to have a certain level of "franchise" players surrounding you that were intricate in making you that "franchise QB" and leading your team to success.

Would Montana have been as successful without players like Rice, Clark, and Lott? Or how about Bradshaw, Elway, Favre, Aikman? None of these QBs single-handedly were the reason for their team's success.

And some of those "pieces" are missing in Cleveland from an offensive standpoint, and have been, through mismanagement, for quite some time. And you've acknowledged that. You've even stated that this team is pretty devoid of talent overall. Yet you continue to place the entire burden of success of this team, with so many other issues going on, on the shoulders of an inexperienced, rookie QB. And regardless of his performance this year, I think you've been grossly harsh and unfair to Kizer overall.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for sports columnist Terry Pluto. I think his post-season assessment of Kizer here is solid ...... http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index..._case_for.html

The rash decision was to label him a franchise guy as early as KP did. I agree 100% on that. I was blown over at the time and still am. It's way too early for such accolades

[Slyder]

Since people were talking about Mock Draft Fun I decide to do one on First-pick.com and highlights I traded down like 4 times:
Rosen went 1, Barkley went 6 to Oakland (one of my trades), Darnold went 10th (another deal I made). I didn't try to move up just to see how many picks I could end up with:

Your Picks:
1 Round 1 Pick 14 (G.B.): Josh Allen, QB, Wyoming (A)
2 Round 1 Pick 21 (BUF): Carlton Davis, CB, Auburn (B-)
3 Round 1 Pick 22 (BUF): Calvin Ridley, WR, Alabama (A+)
4 Round 2 Pick 1: Damien Harris, RB, Alabama (A-)
5 Round 2 Pick 3: Vita Vea, DT, Washington (A-)
6 Round 2 Pick 6 (T.B.): Ronnie Harrison, SS, Alabama (A-)
7 Round 2 Pick 7 (CHI): Billy Price, C/OG, Ohio State (A)
8 Round 2 Pick 8 (DEN): Courtland Sutton, WR, Southern Methodist (B+)
9 Round 2 Pick 9 (OAK): Marcus Allen, FS, Penn State (B+)
10Round 2 Pick 13 (G.B.): Dre'Mont Jones, DT, Ohio State (A-)
11Round 2 Pick 17 (NYJ): Malik Jefferson, ILB, Texas (A-)
12Round 2 Pick 23 (BUF): Keishawn Bierria, OLB, Washington (B+)
13Round 3 Pick 1: Mark Andrews, TE, Oklahoma (A)
14Round 3 Pick 5 (T.B.): Mason Cole, C/OT, Michigan (B+)
15Round 4 Pick 1: Frank Ragnow, C/OG, Arkansas (A-)
16Round 4 Pick 7 (NYJ): Tyquan Lewis, DE, Ohio State (A)
17Round 4 Pick 8 (T.B.): Adonis Alexander, CB, Virginia Tech (A)
18Round 4 Pick 10 (OAK): Marcus Davenport, DE, Texas-San Antonio (A)
19Round 4 Pick 24: Quin Blanding, FS, Virginia (A+)
20Round 5 Pick 1: Tony Brown, CB, Alabama (A+)
21Round 5 Pick 7 (T.B.): Quenton Meeks, CB, Stanford (A+)
22Round 5 Pick 8 (CHI): JK Scott, P, Alabama (A+)
23Round 5 Pick 20 (NYJ): Eddy Pineiro, K, Florida (A)
24Round 5 Pick 22: Kyzir White, SS, West Virginia (A)
25Round 6 Pick 1: Quadree Henderson, WR, Pittsburgh (A+)
26Round 7 Pick 1: Fred Warner, OLB, Brigham Young (A)

[GAC]

The rash decision was to label him a franchise guy as early as KP did.

Two rash decisions don't make a right.

It's way too early for such accolades

Agree. But when it comes to "too early", you were writing Kizer off after the first month into the season.

The bottom-line is ... and it's been my consistent position .... you don't stake out irrevocable (concrete) positions (good or bad) on ANY rookie QB in their first season.

[Assembly Hall]

I look at it this way concerning Kizer. He was thrown into the fire. But the fact of the matter is the Browns are just a bad team.....you don't go 0-16 for nothing. And you sure as heck don't go 0-16 and point a finger at the rookie QB. If it was me I wouldn't give up on him just yet from an organizational stand-point. I personally feel like the Browns need to add other pieces and get a veteran QB.

[Sea Ray]

Two rash decisions don't make a right.



Agree. But when it comes to "too early", you were writing Kizer off after the first month into the season.

The bottom-line is ... and it's been my consistent position .... you don't stake out irrevocable (concrete) positions (good or bad) on ANY rookie QB in their first season.

After all this you still don't understand what I was saying. I was NOT definitively saying that Kizer would suck forever and was a bust. I was saying that he was not a franchise QB. Nothing to be ashamed of as there are very few such creatures in the NFL.

I stand by my statement that Kizer is not the Browns franchise QB. You may think that was early but you'll soon see that I was right.

[GAC]

I don't know what a "franchise QB" really is or suppose to be (LOL).

But you have three QBs in the post-season right now (Keenum, Bortles, and Foles), and none of them - at least after a few years in the league - are considered "franchise QBs" (not even close) ... yet one, maybe two, will be leading their team in the Super Bowl.

So I'll trade that "franchise QB" tag for a SB appearance (and win)

It take a team to get to the Super Bowl.

[Sea Ray]

I don't know what a "franchise QB" really is or suppose to be (LOL).

But you have three QBs in the post-season right now (Keenum, Bortles, and Foles), and none of them - at least after a few years in the league - are considered "franchise QBs" (not even close) ... yet one, maybe two, will be leading their team in the Super Bowl.

So I'll trade that "franchise QB" tag for a SB appearance (and win)

It take a team to get to the Super Bowl.

This year does give hope to us franchises who don't have a stud QB. Of course that hope may evaporate quickly if NE rolls to two more wins and a championship.

[Kingspoint]

There's a huge difference between the best Defense in the NFL and the 5th best. Denver won because they had the best.

Minnesota can win because they have the best. Doesn't matter who plays on Offense if your Defense is elite. 5th best isn't elite, which is all that Cincinnati ever reached under Zimmer.

Seattle won because they had the league's best. They could have won two if they ran the ball in with Lynch from the one.

Jacksonville has the league's 2nd best Defense.

Just as I got both games right last week predicting wins by Minnesota and Jacksonville, I shall stick with these two teams this weekend.

Minnesota wins 27-0.

Jacksonville wins 24-23.

[GAC]

There's a huge difference between the best Defense in the NFL and the 5th best. Denver won because they had the best.

Minnesota can win because they have the best. Doesn't matter who plays on Offense if your Defense is elite.

There's no denying what an elite defense can do for you. But I'm going to have to disagree with you buddy on this "It doesn't matter who plays on offense if your defense is elite" position. Denver had some damn good defenses. But when they won back-to-back Super Bowls in '98 and '99, it wasn't their defense that shined so much (allowed 359 yds and 337 yds respectively), but MVP performances by Terrell Davis (98) and John Elway (99).

The Vikings and Jaguars have the top two defenses in the NFL. And that was instrumental in getting them where they're at (no denying). But their offenses aren't slouches either...... rushing (Jags #1, Vikings #7) .... both of their passing games are somewhat middle of the pack.

But the Vikings were losing with 10 seconds left in the game, and advanced, not because of their defense, which gave up 350+ total yards - but because of a Keenum's last ditch heave, Hail Mary, jump ball to the sidelines that worked out because defender Marcus Williams didn't remember how to tackle (LOL). He does, game over, Saints advance.

I think it's kind of ironic that two QBs, who were being traded and bounced the league, and were sitting next to each other on the bench when with the Rams a few years ago, are now facing off against each other on the NFC title game (LOL).

Just as I got both games right last week predicting wins by Minnesota and Jacksonville, I shall stick with these two teams this weekend.

Minnesota wins 27-0.

Jacksonville wins 24-23.

Philly squeaked by Atlanta to stay alive. They (and Foles) will not be so lucky vs the Viking's defense.

Jacksonville can win, but winning in Foxboro is a hard thing to do. The Jag's defense cannot put up a performance like they did last weekend vs the Steelers (Roethlisberger). The defense has to put pressure on Brady and disrupt his rhythm (see Pat's home opener vs KC). From an offensive standpoint they have to keep Brady off the field as much as possible. And they do that behind the #1 rushing attack (Fournette) in the NFL. The Pat's run defense is not that great (20th). Combine that with Bortles not overwhelming, not trying to do too much, but putting up an efficiently managed passing attack, similar to what he did vs the Steelers, and they can win.

But defenses tire in the second half. I see that Pat's coming out on top 27-17.

[WVRed]

I may have suggested this in the NFL thread, but good hire by Cleveland. Better than McAdoo:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-same-position


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk