OP
OP
- Awards
- 11
Backatcha, pal. Heated but respectful debate is the life blood of a board. Onward!!
The Josh Gordon Epic Continues
- Thread starter Shep
- Start date
- Status
Backatcha, pal. Heated but respectful debate is the life blood of a board. Onward!!
- Awards
- 10
Yeah, it's time to let this go. Football people like those in Seattle, New Orleans, Philly, Denver, San Francisco, Buffalo, Detroit, Atlanta, Arizona, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Green Bay, San Diego, Washington and more have all recently invested in re-signing, drafting, trading for or signing receivers to bolster their stocks because they view the WR position as extremely important regardless of if they have a great QB or not.
I do love that you're using Bill Walsh. I mean you use a coach to try and say receivers aren't important and choose the one that coached the best receiver of all time? Brilliant!
OP
OP
- Awards
- 11
Bill Walsh (one of my all-time favorites) was oft-quoted throughout his career for believing you can find WRs all over the place if you got it right at QB. Not a matter of brilliant or dunderhead-ey... just straight from the very smart horse's mouth. He said it right up until he passed away.
It really is the prevailing wisdom. A TON of personnel people loath the idea of taking a WR in the top 10 because, well... you just don't have to if you have a good QB. Green Bay and New England are great examples. Grossi brought it up close to the draft, that the brass was doing some handwringing about drafting a WR in the top 10, and a lot of teams don't dig that scenario.
Nobody's saying you don't want to be good at WR. They (we) are saying the performance of your WRs is MASSIVELY dependent upon your quarterback, and the teams with the best QBs win. That's not true of the teams with the best (or highest drafted) WRs.
Julio Jones is awesome. No doubt. His team did not win last year. Calvin Johnson is one of the top few, too... and his team didn't win last year. Dez Bryant. Larry Fitzgerald. Andre Johnson. A.J. Green. Josh Gordon. These are widely viewed as the elite of the elite. Are they facing off in the Super Bowl recently? Or are they actually more likely to not even be in the playoffs?
Meanwhile, if you list the top QBs (generally Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and now Wilson and Luck), they're in the playoffs every single year and all but Luck have won Super Bowls.
It's not really a two sided argument. I can't find any great quarterbacks having dreadful losing seasons because they didn't have an elite superstar WR. But no, that doesn't mean teams don't try to get better, well... everywhere. Including WR.
I think we're just straying from the point: If you get great QB play, you're gonna win. And a lot of teams get great QB play without investing extravagantly at WR. But the reverse isn't true: Having huge seasons from Josh Gordon or Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson doesn't guarantee a playoff birth.
It really is the prevailing wisdom. A TON of personnel people loath the idea of taking a WR in the top 10 because, well... you just don't have to if you have a good QB. Green Bay and New England are great examples. Grossi brought it up close to the draft, that the brass was doing some handwringing about drafting a WR in the top 10, and a lot of teams don't dig that scenario.
Nobody's saying you don't want to be good at WR. They (we) are saying the performance of your WRs is MASSIVELY dependent upon your quarterback, and the teams with the best QBs win. That's not true of the teams with the best (or highest drafted) WRs.
Julio Jones is awesome. No doubt. His team did not win last year. Calvin Johnson is one of the top few, too... and his team didn't win last year. Dez Bryant. Larry Fitzgerald. Andre Johnson. A.J. Green. Josh Gordon. These are widely viewed as the elite of the elite. Are they facing off in the Super Bowl recently? Or are they actually more likely to not even be in the playoffs?
Meanwhile, if you list the top QBs (generally Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and now Wilson and Luck), they're in the playoffs every single year and all but Luck have won Super Bowls.
It's not really a two sided argument. I can't find any great quarterbacks having dreadful losing seasons because they didn't have an elite superstar WR. But no, that doesn't mean teams don't try to get better, well... everywhere. Including WR.
I think we're just straying from the point: If you get great QB play, you're gonna win. And a lot of teams get great QB play without investing extravagantly at WR. But the reverse isn't true: Having huge seasons from Josh Gordon or Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson doesn't guarantee a playoff birth.
- Awards
- 10
Agree, QB is the most important position and you will win if you get great play. But there are quite a few QB's who are great and capable of winning, so when you get to the playoffs you're going to want something to separate you from the rest. I'd rather have a Josh Gordon when that time comes.
- Awards
- 9
Consider this:
In the four games the Browns won, Josh Gordon caught 21 passes for 347 yards and two TDs.
In the 10 games the Browns lost in which Gordon played (he missed two games, both losses), he caught 66 passes for 1,299 yards and nine TDs.
Per victory: 5.25 receptions, 86.75 yards, 16.5 yard per catch, 0.5 TDs.
Per loss: 6.6 receptions, 129.9 yards, 19.7 yards per catch, 0.7 TDs.
In the four games the Browns won, Josh Gordon caught 21 passes for 347 yards and two TDs.
In the 10 games the Browns lost in which Gordon played (he missed two games, both losses), he caught 66 passes for 1,299 yards and nine TDs.
Per victory: 5.25 receptions, 86.75 yards, 16.5 yard per catch, 0.5 TDs.
Per loss: 6.6 receptions, 129.9 yards, 19.7 yards per catch, 0.7 TDs.
- Awards
- 17
Stay on topic please.
- Awards
- 10
Do those numbers take targets in to account though? He got more targets later in the season when we did all our losing. In the final 7 games he was targeted no less than 10 times in each game. In wins he was only targeted 10 times once. No shocking as teams tend to throw more when losing and Josh was our go to guy.
Not his fault the ball wasn't thrown his way but Hoyer spread the ball more and was particularly fond of Jordan Cameron that impacts the numbers.
That monster month long destruction of all in his path helps too. I think he got better as the season went on.
OP
OP
- Awards
- 11
Okay, on that we agree 100%.
OP
OP
- Awards
- 11
I actually don't know what you're talking about but all is forgiven!!
- Awards
- 1
Do you think it might be significant that each of those quarterbacks you mentioned--with the possible exception of Wilson--have been in the same offensive system for multiple years. I can't say about Wilson because I don't know what Wilson ran in North Carolina State and Wisconsin and how similar those offenses were to the Seattle offense.
But I can certainly say that both Manning and Brees had spotty beginnings. Manning threw 28 interceptions his rookie year and went 3-13. But the Colts stuck with him and he rewarded their faith in him. I think it is significant that Peyton Manning has been in the same offense his entire NFL career. When he moved from Indianapolis to Denver, he took his offense with him. Think that might be a significant advantage to a quarterback?
What if the Colts had given up on him and traded him to a team that already had a decent quarterback, perhaps one that ran a different offense than the one he knew. What are the chances that Peyton Manning might have become a footnote in football history?
Brees went 8-8 in his sophomore year at San Diego and then after a disappointing 1-7 start the next year he was replaced by Doug Flutie. If Doug Flutie had not been 40 years old already and if Rivers, the rookie, had not held out for more money the following year, Brees would not have had that great year in 2004 and might also have been a footnote in football history--comparable to some of our past Cleveland quarterbacks.
Brady advanced from fourth string to second string and completed 1 of 3 passes for 6 yards his first year.The next year, he entered the game for the final series of the second game due to an injury to Bledsoe. He then had two rather mediocre games before he started showing his elite characteristics and led his team to the playoff. My guess is that if Bledsoe had able to return after Brady's first two starts, Brady would very likely have become a footnote in football history, generally considered a failure comparable to Tim Couch and Brady Quinn.
Now understand, I am not saying that Tim Couch or Brady Quinn might have been a Tom Brady. But I am saying that Tom Brady might easily have become a Tim Couch or a Brady Quinn, if his situation had been different.
My point is that changing offenses as often as Cleveland has changed offenses over the years does not contribute to good quarterback play. You say you want good quarterback play. I say it doesn't matter who your quarterback is. If he doesn't have a chance to grow in a system, he very likely will not give you good quarterback play. I am well aware that you often make the point that quarterbacks who fail here have not set the league on fire on other teams but I think it is likely that the ones who might have done well elsewhere simply did not get the opportunity.
The same thing can happen to Manziel if he is not given a chance to grow in a system. Without continuity, he will likely fail. He may fail anyway, but he is much more likely to fail without continuity. In my opinion, the absolute best thing that could possibly happen to Manziel and his future as an NFL quarterback is for Mike Pettine to remain the Browns head coach for the next 10 years.
- Awards
- 1
The post was deleted. I hilighted the words Sean Hannity in your post and copied an internet joke about conservative and liberals. (I am sure you know the kind.)
Unfortunately, it was deleted before you had a chance to read it. I though at first that it might have been sent to Hell, where it belonged, but, apparently, it was just deleted. Too bad.
- Awards
- 1
I'm sure you have seen it. It was the one about the invention of beer. As you know, beer has lead to agriculture, writing (your specialty), mathematics, industry, labor unions, and football. Without Beer, there would be no civilization and no Cleveland Browns.
- Awards
- 7
I think we will spread the passing round and use running back so there will be less demand on no 1 and 2 wide receiver plus in next 2 months there will be cuts so there should be decent wide receivers waiting to be snapped up, but we need to see Austin and co in action at pre season first. It is no good moaning about not getting Jordan Matthews or Sammy Watkins.
- Awards
- 9
Yep. What's done is done. No matter much we may dislike some things in the past, they will never go away. Move on to the next challenge.
Training camp is going to be very fun and interesting!
- Awards
- 1
Still it would be nice to know if we are going to have one of the 20 best players in the league available the full season. (He isn't one of the 21-100 and you know he is one of the 100 best.)
http://www.nfl.com/top100/2014#video=0ap2000000361707
You really can't seriously discuss our offense without knowing if he will be there because having him (or not having him) changes every thing. Also, how can you really evaluate Hoyer if he doesn't have Gordon to throw to deep. If Gordon isn't available and Hoyer fails, do you say it was because he didn't have Gordon, or do you say that it didn't matter?
Don't know about you, but I would be hard pressed to answer that.
OP
OP
- Awards
- 11
No doubt the loss of Gordon is a pisser. At this point, we just don't know how long he's gone. I think the real debate is whether losing Gordon but getting way better QB play ends up as a sum gain... and I think it clearly does.
After all, the team WITH Josh Gordon went 4-12. The team without him (who got very efficient QB play) won the Super Bowl. I mention that team over the other 30 who didn't have Josh Gordon because they seem to be doing what the Browns plan to do: Run the ball really well, throw it less but more efficiently, and spread it around (Seattle's leading receiver was in the 800s).
The first variable is how long Gordon's out, and as Grossi said today... nobody has a fucking clue. Yes, the long radio silence indicates that it's complicated and there are mitigating factors we don't know about just yet. So like the Browns, we have no choice but to wait for it all to go public.
(The team would like it settled before camp because if it's a year, they get him back right before camp in 2015.)
But the question is, how do the Browns win games without Gordon? Well, the same way 12 playoff teams won without Gordon, for starters. But Seattle is probably the best model, as stated earlier.
Someone has to play WR. Andre Johnson is making it clear that he won't be playing in Houston and the team is almost certainly getting to the point they'd like to move him for as much as they can get. He's 33 so that won't be a 1st round pick. Grossi today guessed a third would get it done. For the Browns, he'd be a short-term fix... and he's familiar with our OC. I think it could happen.
The other two names being bandied about are Nate Washington (who may or may not be available) and Denarius Moore (who probably is). My wild guess says one of those three becomes a Brown.
The challenge is to find two outside WRs to play with Jordan Cameron and Andrew Hawkins while Gordon is out. The contenders might be (for example) Andre Johnson, Miles Austin, Anthony Armstrong, Nate Burleson, Charles Johnson, Chandler Jones, Paul Krause, and Willie Snead.
Only four of those guys are gonna dress on Sundays, along with Hawk. That's some pretty robust competition. I think the four who come out of it will be a good group.
After all, the team WITH Josh Gordon went 4-12. The team without him (who got very efficient QB play) won the Super Bowl. I mention that team over the other 30 who didn't have Josh Gordon because they seem to be doing what the Browns plan to do: Run the ball really well, throw it less but more efficiently, and spread it around (Seattle's leading receiver was in the 800s).
The first variable is how long Gordon's out, and as Grossi said today... nobody has a fucking clue. Yes, the long radio silence indicates that it's complicated and there are mitigating factors we don't know about just yet. So like the Browns, we have no choice but to wait for it all to go public.
(The team would like it settled before camp because if it's a year, they get him back right before camp in 2015.)
But the question is, how do the Browns win games without Gordon? Well, the same way 12 playoff teams won without Gordon, for starters. But Seattle is probably the best model, as stated earlier.
Someone has to play WR. Andre Johnson is making it clear that he won't be playing in Houston and the team is almost certainly getting to the point they'd like to move him for as much as they can get. He's 33 so that won't be a 1st round pick. Grossi today guessed a third would get it done. For the Browns, he'd be a short-term fix... and he's familiar with our OC. I think it could happen.
The other two names being bandied about are Nate Washington (who may or may not be available) and Denarius Moore (who probably is). My wild guess says one of those three becomes a Brown.
The challenge is to find two outside WRs to play with Jordan Cameron and Andrew Hawkins while Gordon is out. The contenders might be (for example) Andre Johnson, Miles Austin, Anthony Armstrong, Nate Burleson, Charles Johnson, Chandler Jones, Paul Krause, and Willie Snead.
Only four of those guys are gonna dress on Sundays, along with Hawk. That's some pretty robust competition. I think the four who come out of it will be a good group.
- Awards
- 10
The Browns were horrible last year and have a lot of ground to make up to be competitive in the NFL. You may be better in some areas -- and they are -- but if you are a lot of worse at a crucial position like wide receiver that surely negates some of the good stuff. Why not be good everywhere? Especially when you have as much cap space as the Browns have? >
- Status