As he so often does, Thomas Moore adjusted my thinking again...mmm sorta.
Tom says that John Dorsey shouldn't screw around, and should just decide on one quarterback and draft him first to make sure.
That part of Tom's argument isn't that great. Ask any five GMs (on truth serum, of course), which of these 2018 quarterbacks are the best, and you might get three or even four different answers.
Tom isn't paying enough attention to context. All of these quarterbacks are good, but all are also flawed. While they're unique and differ in stature and style, they're pretty evenly matched.
Why must Dorsey and company make sure they only choose one guy?
If Andrew Luck were here, this rule of thumb would apply. Two years ago, it was pretty much Goff or Wentz. Last year it was really nobody (I mean based on what people were saying--they were fulla crap on Watson obviously, and happily I wasn't with the anti-Watson faction).
This is a whole different quarterback ballgame. For all we know, Dorsey's favorite isn't even one of the top four. Or yes, he could rate three (or more) guys equally (yes he could. Honest! And it's legal, man!)
But then Tom reaches into his damn bag o statistics again and points out that the rushing champion has been part of only two Superbowl teams, so Barkley couldn't make that much difference.
But I've got Tommy this time!
1: There is only one rushing champion on 32 teams.
2: Most Superbowl teams do feature a strong running game.
3: Eight quarterbacks make the playoffs each season. Tom Brady is the bad penny, but the "passing champion" doesn't get there much more often than the rushing champion.
Nick Foles: Enough said. Matt Ryan: Not the best. Tom Brady himself: Not the best (sometimes). Big Ben...they're ranked second, fifth, seventh in the NFL, but the odds against the top-ranked quarterback getting there are the same as they are against the rushing champion.
4: The rushing champion is infantry. The all-purpose yardage champion might rank 3rd or 7th on that list...
4a: Barkley isn't just a running back. Ebineezer Bell is demanding 16 mil/year because he catches more passes (for more yards) than a lot of wide receivers. These guys need a new designation...how 'bout "weapon"?
Now, Tom is smart, and I know he's ask me to name one of those "weapon" guys who got to the Superbowl. I'd have to admit, not many. Marshall Faulk, Ebineezer Bell, and errumm...
However, these guys don't grow on trees, ok? That's why most teams have "third down" backs and run committees. It's not really a fair question--there's no comparison between weapons and quarterbacks.
I do respect Thomas Moore's opinions (I always do). I just think he didn't think this one all the way through, and may have been too "in-the-box" this time.
He is right that in this draft, excellent bellcows will still be there in the second round. He might be right that Chubbs (another Myles Garrett) or Fitzpatrick at four, plus one of these second round backs, could make a bigger overall impact than Barkley and "some guy" at four.
But this goes deeper:
If my theory is right about more than one quarterback (ideally three) being acceptable to Dorsey and company in this draft, then taking the generational lab experiment offensive swiss army knife weapon first overall is almost mandatory.
If Tom is right that the brain crust will single out one quarterback, so much for that.
What are the Browns' needs, below quarterback? Wide receiver and running back are the two highest on offense.
Barkley is literally both. Remember, he's faster than DeShaun Jackson? He jumps higher than Julio Jones? Let's ask Todd Haley if he can find a way to work with that! We could also poll 32 NFL quarterbacks...make that every quarterback on the planet. I think I got the majority here.
Now, I read another article which asserted that DeShone Kizer would be number three "at best" if the Browns both sign a veteran and draft a quarterback.
Where does that come from!?! Kizer was a rookie last season, but he returns with 14 games NFL experience with these offensive personnel. My God obviously he'll be better in his second season! What is wrong with you people? Peyton Manning sucked as a rookie! (Well okay not that bad, but you get my point). Elway sucked. Goff sucked...
Now you default him behind a rookie? You think the rookie should start over him in game three or four when the veteran gets hurt?
If it's Rosen (gag) or possibly Mayfield...maybe. But Allen or Darnold? Are you out of your damn mind!?!
Having said that, I would trade Kizer for a third round pick (and keep Kevin Hogan or even draft a second quarterback if I could.
I hear you laughing about the third rounder. Ok then no deal I'll just keep him🖕.
If the Browns were to draft Barkley, Duke goes on the block (nothing personal) and if you think HE isn't worth at least a third rounder or a really good cornerback or something, there's something wrong with you.
The long-term plan should be to put Coleman in the slot amap and get another big tall guy (or two) to play opposite Gordon.
Coleman can play outside, but in the slot he's a nightmare. As I've said, he's as quick as, and faster than, most of the microbes at that position, but he has a much bigger catch-radius, and can break tackles they can't (he's bigger than some safeties and most cornerbacks).
Of course, if Corey Coleman is late for meetings and not dedicated, then let's peddle him to the highest bidder too. If his head's not in the game, he will fail anyway.
(If that happened, then you keep Duke, make him your slot guy, and get to work extending him, because that guy loves football!)
It's very early, but if I play out this Barkley first overall scenario, I do think Rodney Mayfieldfield would be the guy at four (which is fine since I hope so anyway).
Well Mayfield is actually more pro-ready than everybody except Rosen and Jackson, so you do try to get something for Kizer (and like I said keep Kevin Hogan, who is probably better anyway).
Baker Mayfield is really polarizing. In general, if you personally hate Tom Brady, you hate Mayfield.
Mayfield isn't politically correct. He says what he means and means what he says. He thinks he's the best quarterback. He thinks he's got the best chance of turning the Browns around.
That isn't "arrogance" or "cockiness". That's just honesty. The other quarterbacks have been coached to act humble and fed things to say, but they all think like him, or they wouldn't be here.
I find Baker's honesty refreshing, and so does McGloughan, and I suspect John Dorsey.
His teammates don't just "have his back". They rave about him. So do his coaches. He's a LEADER, and that matters!
And it's how he leads: One of his wide receivers, when asked how Mayfield reacts when he runs the wrong route or otherwise screws up, said "he just gives you that look...like 'get your head out, man', and you know...you know."
That's a BORN leader! No lectures. No drama. An instant of eye contact, and not a word said. That's also charisma.
Mayfield does go nuts sometimes. On the sidelines, rooting for his defense. He jumps up and down. He truly loves football, and that's absolutely John Dorsey's top priority in every player he's ever signed.
John Dorsey was an NFL linebacker. His edge on Sashi Brown is his much deeper understanding of the psychology of it, and his ability to "read" the guys he interviews. Alonzo Highsmith is another one.
This is what he means when he refers to "real" football players. He may have been referring to Corey Coleman (I'm just guessing) when he threw Sashi Brown under the bus.
Verily, analytics can't replace the eyes, ears, or instincts of an ex-player talking to an aspiring draft pick. Sashi Brown lacked that insight, and to some extent so did Hue Jackson.
Baker Mayfield will look John Dorsey in the eye and not even try to bullshit him, and that will matter.
Mayfield said that the Browns have a lot of talent, and are "close". He's done his homework. It's not bullshit. It's true.
Dorsey, the ex-player, LIKES that he said "if anybody could turn that team around, it would be me". John Dorsey knows, that wasn't hyperbole.
For all I know, he might love Rosen too, but his concussions are a huge red flag at this altitude. He might love Josh Allen, because for sure Allen loves the game and will work hard to get better.
"The geek in the basement" Paul DePodesta is in Dorsey's ear in re Allen, but he's not just citing the 80% failure rate of sub-60% passers, but also the fact that Allen was great throwing to his right, and sucked throwing left (high-level analytics do matter here).
Sam Darnold is a projection. He has the talent, and I think the work ethic. He turns crap into gold on broken plays, and is a superior athlete. But he's been reckless, and fumbled too often (might have set a record--not sure).
Allen I can see. Mayfield, obviously. Rosen...well even as I trancend my aversion to his politics, I can't get over the concussions, immobilty, and frame.
But Baker Mayfield is, in my not humble opinion, Dorsey's top guy. The fact that he completed 72% of his passes on about ten yards per-attempt (by the way that might be unprecedented in NCAA history...not sure can't find the data), but two of the four games he lost were PLAYOFF games (and his stats were awesome--it wasn't his fault).
I'm glad I'm not John Dorsey. He can't draft the lab experiment and count on Mayfield or Allen at four.
Well, Thomas Moore might be right here. Draft your quarterback first overall, then "settle for" Fitzpatrick at four and a stud running back in the second round.
I could live with that too.
In conclusion, I am undecided, and that is final for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment