Official 2017 NFL Draft Discussion Thread

[FatDT]

Puck are you seriously saying Cleveland won't pick a QB with either of their picks?

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by FatDT

Puck are you seriously saying Cleveland won't pick a QB with either of their picks?

I'm hoping he meant "Darnold" and just mistakenly typed "Barkley."

In fact, the Ringer is reporting that the Browns have considered taking two QBs early (not necessarily #1 and #4, but #1 and maybe a 2).

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

I'm hoping he meant "Darnold" and just mistakenly typed "Barkley."

In fact, the Ringer is reporting that the Browns have considered taking two QBs early (not necessarily #1 and #4, but #1 and maybe a 2).

Taking two QBs at 1 and 4 would be crazy and undeniably bold, and open Cleveland to further ridicule. However, there might be some kind of weird logic to it - maximize your chance to land a top QB, which will set you up for contending for the next 10+ years. Trade the other guy. This article points out that Dallas kinda did this in 1989 with Troy Aikman (1st overall pick) and Steve Walsh (supplemental 1st round pick):

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-quarterbacks/

I realize it's not as simple as 2 QB prospects are better than 1. Who knows what it would do to the psychology of the two QBs, and would you reduce the chance of either excelling by having both of them there? Would they refuse to sign? That would be crazy and interesting.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Taking two QBs at 1 and 4 would be crazy and undeniably bold, and open Cleveland to further ridicule. However, there might be some kind of weird logic to it - maximize your chance to land a top QB, which will set you up for contending for the next 10+ years. Trade the other guy. This article points out that Dallas kinda did this in 1989 with Troy Aikman (1st overall pick) and Steve Walsh (supplemental 1st round pick):

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-quarterbacks/

I realize it's not as simple as 2 QB prospects are better than 1. Who knows what it would do to the psychology of the two QBs, and would you reduce the chance of either excelling by having both of them there? Would they refuse to sign? That would be crazy and interesting.

The issue is practice reps. There aren't enough to go around to properly develop both, particularly with Taylor in the fold.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

The issue is practice reps. There aren't enough to go around to properly develop both, particularly with Taylor in the fold.

That would be a problem also, no doubt.

Anther gutsy option, if Cleveland was convinced that the Giants really want Darnold (and Cleveland really wants Allen or someone else), is to draft Darnold at 1 and then engineer a trade with down with the Giants before picking their preferred QB at 2 or 4. Kind of like a more extreme and compressed version of what the Chargers did when they drafted Eli Manning. Reports are that the Jets are locked in on Mayfield, and if so, Cleveland could roll the dice again and try to pull the same thing on them. It would be the craziest draft ever.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Taking two QBs at 1 and 4 would be crazy and undeniably bold, and open Cleveland to further ridicule. However, there might be some kind of weird logic to it - maximize your chance to land a top QB, which will set you up for contending for the next 10+ years. Trade the other guy. This article points out that Dallas kinda did this in 1989 with Troy Aikman (1st overall pick) and Steve Walsh (supplemental 1st round pick):

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-quarterbacks/

I realize it's not as simple as 2 QB prospects are better than 1. Who knows what it would do to the psychology of the two QBs, and would you reduce the chance of either excelling by having both of them there? Would they refuse to sign? That would be crazy and interesting.

2 of those QBs out of the top 4 are going to fail. That’s just the odds. You would increase your chances of getting a good one. However I think this is as likely as them taking two non QBs. Say Barkley and Chubb or Nelson. They have passed on QBs before, but really, when it comes to QBs. You just keep taking them till you get the right one.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by FatDT

Puck are you seriously saying Cleveland won't pick a QB with either of their picks?

Depends.... they could do a serious upgrade with Barkley and Chubb Ride out the QB for another yr or go with Taylor. Taylor is not a bad QB.

They will probably take a QB but you never know.... Do you think any of these QB's are sure fire superstars? Will all of them be better than Taylor?

[FatDT]

Originally Posted by Puck

Depends.... they could do a serious upgrade with Barkley and Chubb Ride out the QB for another yr or go with Taylor. Taylor is not a bad QB.

They will probably take a QB but you never know.... Do you think any of these QB's are sure fire superstars? Will all of them be better than Taylor?

That's not reasonable at all. The Browns are taking a QB.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Puck

Depends.... they could do a serious upgrade with Barkley and Chubb Ride out the QB for another yr or go with Taylor. Taylor is not a bad QB.

They will probably take a QB but you never know.... Do you think any of these QB's are sure fire superstars? Will all of them be better than Taylor?

There are some bad takes that stick to posters. Seriously positing that the Browns won’t draft a QB is one of those takes.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

There are some bad takes that stick to posters. Seriously positing that the Browns won’t draft a QB is one of those takes.

Not saying they won’t. But I don’t see it as a guarantee. They needed a QB last yr and took Garrett number one.


Either way Chubb will go #2 to Giants or 4 to Cleveland The question is do the Browns love Barkley enough to ride with Taylor for at least a yr. or trade back up and take a QB later in round 1 or take their top rated QB at 1

No one saw last yrs draft unfolding the way it did. So nothing is guaranteed