The Browns should only take a QB in the 2014 first round if he's a sure thing

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

, the team that drafted Weeden and Couch should just make sure to draft a QB in the 1st.

JFC you couldnt use a franchise with a worse QB drafting record to try to make a point.

Thread fail.

See Post #127

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by SNR

See Post #127

Anyone who thinks "just make sure to draft a 1st round QB" is the right answer is a dumbass.

Just like its not smart to never draft one.

Don't be obtuse.

Nobody here is "scared" to draft a 1st round QB, I wish posers would stop trying to sell that shit.

You do have to look at where you are drafting and have a plan, you dont just do it to do it. That rule doesn't apply to anything else in life, why people think that's just fine for drafting QB's is beyond me.

Its pure ignorant.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Anyone who thinks "just make sure to draft a 1st round QB" is the right answer is a dumbass.

Just like its not smart to never draft one.

Don't be obtuse.

Nobody here is "scared" to draft a 1st round QB, I wish posers would stop trying to sell that shit.

You do have to look at where you are drafting and have a plan, you dont just do it to do it. That rule doesn't apply to anything else in life, why people think that's just fine for drafting QB's is beyond me.

Its pure ignorant.

"Don't just do it to do it."

THAT'S the language I disagree with. Post #127 just as easily shows that bringing in veterans and experienced backups is just as much of a crapshoot at righting the team's ship as it is to draft with the intent of finding your starting QB of the future.

Yes, you have to take into account a team's strengths and weaknesses. Yes, you have to be comfortable with the guy you're drafting. But generally, if you're in a position to decide if you should draft a franchise QB or not in the top 10, your team doesn't have very much going for it.

In Cleveland's case, there are some pieces to work with on defense. They have an offensive line. But they have no skill position players. And that's always kind of been their story. Veterans haven't turned shit around any more than their QB busts they've had.

So "don't do it just to do it" doesn't always safeguard against failure. And sometimes it's possible to put your team in an even DEEPER shit hole than it's already in if your safe non-QB isn't what you expected.

[tooge]

Originally Posted by SNR

"Don't just do it to do it."

THAT'S the language I disagree with. Post #127 just as easily shows that bringing in veterans and experienced backups is just as much of a crapshoot at righting the team's ship as it is to draft with the intent of finding your starting QB of the future.

Yes, you have to take into account a team's strengths and weaknesses. Yes, you have to be comfortable with the guy you're drafting. But generally, if you're in a position to decide if you should draft a franchise QB or not in the top 10, your team doesn't have very much going for it.

In Cleveland's case, there are some pieces to work with on defense. They have an offensive line. But they have no skill position players. And that's always kind of been their story. Veterans haven't turned shit around any more than their QB busts they've had.

So "don't do it just to do it" doesn't always safeguard against failure. And sometimes it's possible to put your team in an even DEEPER shit hole than it's already in if your safe non-QB isn't what you expected.

More importantly, you have to have some incredible luck as well. You have to have the number one pick when there is a QB that is worth taking at #1, like Manning or Luck. Or, you have to have an incredible streak of luck like the Patriots did, or the Rams did with Warner.

Neither of those teams thought they were getting HOF quarterbacks when they signed Brady and Warner, yet those two QB's have been in the superbowl a combined 6 times in the past 14 years, or almost half of the time (two against each other of course).