How much criticism should Macc be getting for whiffing on Watson?

[ZachEY]

5 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Drafting a pass rusher with the 4th overall pick who didn't get a sack.

Whiffing on 3 potential franchise QBs (Wentz, Goff, Watson)

Trading your whole draft for Ricky Williams

So, literally none of those responses answered the question.

Also, presumably you're talking about Gholston, who was actually at 6, not 4.  And, at least Gholston could get in the game.  Also, FWIW, you have to go 14 slots later to find a great player.

But, all of that is moot, because, in an effort to defend Macc, you literally need to compare him to one of the top busts in NFL history.

[nycdan]

3 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Josh McCown is 14th in passing yards.

Josh McCown is 2nd in completion percentage.

Josh McCown is 10th in TDs.

Josh McCown is 15th in YPA.

Josh McCown is 19th in YPG.

Josh McCown is 8th in INTs.

As you have clearly stated that your logic is that you should not make a change until there is no risk that things could get worse, please explain to me why you would change QBs next season, as, it could clearly get a lot worse at the position.

Look at what happens to those numbers in the 4th quarter.  

[ZachEY]

2 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

The logic would work if QB stats actually had real value in the league. His age and the team's record negate that logic.

Gotcha, so, in other words, your logic is used only for guys you support, and not for guys you don't.  So, basically, conclusion first, support next.

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, gEYno said:

Gotcha, so, in other words, your logic is used only for guys you support, and not for guys you don't.  So, basically, conclusion first, support next.

How do you get that notion? I never gave that impression.

[ZachEY]

Just now, nycdan said:

Look at what happens to those numbers in the 4th quarter.  

What's your point?

I'm not saying McCown is good, or we should keep him.  I think it's a joke that he's here, and worse, damning of the talent Mac has been able to assemble at he position.

However, I was just told that you can't fire Mac because it could get worse.  My argument is that *IF* you believe that, well, it could get worse than Josh McCown.

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

Josh McCown is 14th in passing yards.

Josh McCown is 2nd in completion percentage.

Josh McCown is 10th in TDs.

Josh McCown is 15th in YPA.

Josh McCown is 19th in YPG.

Josh McCown is 8th in INTs.

As you have clearly stated that your logic is that you should not make a change until there is no risk that things could get worse, please explain to me why you would change QBs next season, as, it could clearly get a lot worse at the position.

because this team isn't building anything.  they claim they're developing young players but leggett/stewart/hansen don't play and mcguire is rooted to the bench while forte plays.  petty and hack don't play.  we see teams around the nfl trying to develop young offensive talent, the jets have the oldest starting qb/rb tandem in the nfl.  while mccown has not played poorly, the notion of a rebuild is purely a farce.  mccags does not have the balls to take a qb high enough in the draft to warrant playing time over the veteran qbs he signs to mask the fact that the qbs he does draft won't see the field. 

mccown has been fine this year, which is still turning out to be a 'tank' year for everyone except bowles.  what happens next year when there's another drafted qb on the roster and mccown or some other vet plays over him?  that would be year 4 of a new gm where the drafted qbs can't see the field.  in the end, this is what happens when your leaders have diverging priorities.  but mccags will save us from this fate, he'll draft a LT in the first round citing BAP and need, then take a cb and some scrub qb in the late 2nd with the seahawks' pick who will watch mccown win 4 games next season.

[ZachEY]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

How do you get that notion? I never gave that impression.

Are you kidding?  It's literally all you do here.

[UnitedWhofans]

2 minutes ago, gEYno said:

So, literally none of those responses answered the question.

Also, presumably you're talking about Gholston, who was actually at 6, not 4.  And, at least Gholston could get in the game.  Also, FWIW, you have to go 14 slots later to find a great player.

But, all of that is moot, because, in an effort to defend Macc, you literally need to compare him to one of the top busts in NFL history.

I will answer his original question. DeShone Kizer is a worse second round pick than Christian Hackenberg. IMO, Kizer should not be on the field either. And by being on the field, the Browns are 0-8 and are actually worse off than they were the year before

[Augustiniak]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

I will answer his original question. DeShone Kizer is a worse second round pick than Christian Hackenberg. IMO, Kizer should not be on the field either. And by being on the field, the Browns are 0-8 and are actually worse off than they were the year before

at least THEY know how to tank.

[kmnj]

4 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

So why did many sites give Macc's draft a B? Including this one?

I know of plenty of sites that rated it as a c or worse

they passed on a top college qb that was a winner and went not one but two safeties when they have NO QB and QB is most important position

[MDL_JET]

13 minutes ago, gEYno said:

At some point, do we have to wonder how much flack he deserves for Leonard Williams over Vic Beasley?

I'd much rather argue this. At the time we had Richardson and Wilkerson, did we really need Williams? Beasly was the obvious compliment to both of them and a pass rusher we've always needed. 

I still feel like Bowles influences draft decisions way too much. Leo, Lee and then 2 safeties. 

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, Augustiniak said:

at least THEY know how to tank.

They should know how. It's all they've done in the most of the years of their existence. And it's gotten them nowhere

[dbatesman]

14 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

He gets no flack for that because nobody really wanted Beasley that high. They thought he was a guy with seed and nothing else. Macc would have shellacked for drafting Beasley that high

Beasley went two picks after Williams.

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, kmnj said:

I know of plenty of sites that rated it as a c or worse

they passed on a top college qb that was a winner and went not one but two safeties when they have NO QB and QB is most important position

Names please

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, dbatesman said:

Beasley went two picks after Williams.

OUtside the top 5.

[nycdan]

Just now, gEYno said:

What's your point?

I'm not saying McCown is good, or we should keep him.  I think it's a joke that he's here, and worse, damning of the talent Mac has been able to assemble at he position.

However, I was just told that you can't fire Mac because it could get worse.  My argument is that *IF* you believe that, well, it could get worse than Josh McCown.

Of course it can.  But if you are convinced that you can't win with a QB because he falls apart in the 4th quarter, does it make strategic sense to stick with him because 'it might get worse'?  No.  you take risks and hope you have done enough prep work to get a little lucky.  If Mo Lewis doesn't hit Drew Bledsoe on one random play, Tom Brady might have been an unknown career backup.  I'd rather lose big with Petty right now than lose small with McCown if I thought Petty at least gave us a better chance to win at all, which, barring any more data on Petty, I do.  I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.

[dbatesman]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

OUtside the top 5.

lmao wat

[kmnj]

) New York Jets

 

» Round 1: (No. 6 overall) Jamal Adams, S, LSU.
» Round 2: (39) Marcus Maye, S, Florida.
» Round 3: (79) ArDarius Stewart, WR, Alabama.
» Round 4: (141) Chad Hansen, WR, Cal.
» Round 5: (150) Jordan Leggett, TE, Clemson; (181) Dylan Donahue, DL, West Georgia.
» Round 6: (188) Elijah McGuire, RB, Louisiana-Lafayette; (197) Jeremy Clark, CB, Michigan; (204) Derrick Jones, CB, Mississippi.

If the double-safety maneuver works and Todd Bowles forms the base ingredients of a nasty, versatile defense, then this draft could be exceptional. General manager Mike Maccagnan is in a tough spot partially of his own doing. With such a threadbare roster, he was never going to satisfy a fan base convinced it needs an upgrade at nearly every position save for defensive line -- especially if Jamal Adams doesn't excel from Day 1. Also: Who is playing wide receiver and tight end for this team in 2017? GRADE: C-

 

 

 

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, dbatesman said:

lmao wat

Williams was picked 4th. Beasley was picked 6th by your statement. So outside the top 5.

[kmnj]

I can post tons of write ups that said our draft was bad as  well

football 101 qb is most important position and we did not go there -

 

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, kmnj said:

) New York Jets

 

» Round 1: (No. 6 overall) Jamal Adams, S, LSU.
» Round 2: (39) Marcus Maye, S, Florida.
» Round 3: (79) ArDarius Stewart, WR, Alabama.
» Round 4: (141) Chad Hansen, WR, Cal.
» Round 5: (150) Jordan Leggett, TE, Clemson; (181) Dylan Donahue, DL, West Georgia.
» Round 6: (188) Elijah McGuire, RB, Louisiana-Lafayette; (197) Jeremy Clark, CB, Michigan; (204) Derrick Jones, CB, Mississippi.

If the double-safety maneuver works and Todd Bowles forms the base ingredients of a nasty, versatile defense, then this draft could be exceptional. General manager Mike Maccagnan is in a tough spot partially of his own doing. With such a threadbare roster, he was never going to satisfy a fan base convinced it needs an upgrade at nearly every position save for defensive line -- especially if Jamal Adams doesn't excel from Day 1. Also: Who is playing wide receiver and tight end for this team in 2017? GRADE: C-

 

 

 

Well so far the WR and TE have been answered

And the double safeties have played ok. So I think that grade is raised

[ZachEY]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

I will answer his original question. DeShone Kizer is a worse second round pick than Christian Hackenberg. IMO, Kizer should not be on the field either. And by being on the field, the Browns are 0-8 and are actually worse off than they were the year before

Kizer has been awful.  Yet, he has made positive plays in the NFL.  Every positive play he's made has been better than anything Hackenberg has done.  Hackenberg's biggest success has been moving from 4th string QB to 3rd on a team with no actual QBs.

But, perhaps most importantly, Kizer was actually the Browns 4th pick in the draft.  One year earlier, the Jets used their 2nd pick in the draft to take Hackenberg.  There's certainly more luxury to reach for a guy with upside when you're on your 4th rather than your 2nd.

[ZachEY]

5 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

because this team isn't building anything.  they claim they're developing young players but leggett/stewart/hansen don't play and mcguire is rooted to the bench while forte plays.  petty and hack don't play.  we see teams around the nfl trying to develop young offensive talent, the jets have the oldest starting qb/rb tandem in the nfl.  while mccown has not played poorly, the notion of a rebuild is purely a farce.  mccags does not have the balls to take a qb high enough in the draft to warrant playing time over the veteran qbs he signs to mask the fact that the qbs he does draft won't see the field. 

mccown has been fine this year, which is still turning out to be a 'tank' year for everyone except bowles.  what happens next year when there's another drafted qb on the roster and mccown or some other vet plays over him?  that would be year 4 of a new gm where the drafted qbs can't see the field.  in the end, this is what happens when your leaders have diverging priorities.  but mccags will save us from this fate, he'll draft a LT in the first round citing BAP and need, then take a cb and some scrub qb in the late 2nd with the seahawks' pick who will watch mccown win 4 games next season.

What's your point?

I'm not saying McCown is good, or we should keep him.  I think it's a joke that he's here, and worse, damning of the talent Mac has been able to assemble at he position.

However, I was just told that you can't fire Mac because it could get worse.  My argument is that *IF* you believe that, well, it could get worse than Josh McCown.

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Williams was picked 4th. Beasley was picked 6th by your statement. So outside the top 5.

I don’t know what the top 5 has to do with anything, especially since Williams went 6th and Beasley went 8th.

[JustInFudge]

30 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Hackenberg is his biggest blemish, his Waterloo. It's the one major knock you can have against him as a GM.

He gets one chance to correct it in this draft or in this FA market. If he doesn't, he's gone. It's that plain and simple

 

His 1 knock, guys.  His one and only. 

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

I don’t know what the top 5 has to do with anything, especially since Williams went 6th and Beasley went 8th.

My mistake.  I remember draft chatter here worried about another Gholston

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

Kizer has been awful.  Yet, he has made positive plays in the NFL.  Every positive play he's made has been better than anything Hackenberg has done.  Hackenberg's biggest success has been moving from 4th string QB to 3rd on a team with no actual QBs.

But, perhaps most importantly, Kizer was actually the Browns 4th pick in the draft.  One year earlier, the Jets used their 2nd pick in the draft to take Hackenberg.  There's certainly more luxury to reach for a guy with upside when you're on your 4th rather than your 2nd.

That arguement is complete bullsh*t and I think Browns fans would tell you so.

 

[ZachEY]

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Williams was picked 4th. Beasley was picked 6th by your statement. So outside the top 5.

This is an example of you bending logic to fit your conclusions.

[Adoni Beast]

I was sooo wrong on Watson, as his INTS I felt were out of control his senior year. I didn't think he had a strong arm (seems fine to me in the NFL).

But I don't get paid millions of dollars to "scout" these guys. I just watch games and highlights casually when I have time.

So yeah he deserves a lot of hate for it...until he finds us a franchise quarterback.

[CanadaSteve]

Why are we STILL going on about this?

There was NO expert (and when I say expert, I mean REAL experts, not the ones that sit on team websites and say I KNEW HE WOULD BE GREAT) that had him picked higher than right around where he went.  Mac was not picking a QB at 6.  IF he could have brokered a deal to move down, then maybe.

Now, if Mac whiffs on a QB next year.....the doors will be WIDE open for his departure.

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, Adoni Beast said:

I was sooo wrong on Watson, as his INTS I felt were out of control his senior year. I didn't think he had a strong arm (seems fine to me in the NFL).

But I don't get paid millions of dollars to "scout" these guys. I just watch games and highlights casually when I have time.

So yeah he deserves a lot of hate for it...until he finds us a franchise quarterback.

That's the problem I have. If you were wrong why are you complaining that Macc was wrong? True it's not your job, but is that fair logically?

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, CanadaSteve said:

Why are we STILL going on about this?

There was NO expert (and when I say expert, I mean REAL experts, not the ones that sit on team websites and say I KNEW HE WOULD BE GREAT) that had him picked higher than right around where he went.  Mac was not picking a QB at 6.  IF he could have brokered a deal to move down, then maybe.

Now, if Mac whiffs on a QB next year.....the doors will be WIDE open for his departure.

Bingo

[UnitedWhofans]

Bottom line is that if you would rather be the 0-8 Cleveland Browns who have basically tanked their whole existence go right ahead. I will go with a franchise that at least has ******* won a couple games

[ZachEY]

Just now, UnitedWhofans said:

That arguement is complete bullsh*t and I think Browns fans would tell you so.

Is it?  You mean to tell me, if you have 3 1st round picks, you couldn't be a little aggressive with a 2nd round pick?

As for the second part, please find me a sample of Browns fans who's main concern is missing on Kizer, since you're using it to support your argument.

[ZachEY]

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

That's the problem I have. If you were wrong why are you complaining that Macc was wrong? True it's not your job, but is that fair logically?

Yes it is.