Phil Savage provides insight into lessons from Browns 2007 NFL Draft



Phil Savage was full of Browns intel on Twitter yesterday. It was pretty high level draft philosophy, but it’s interesting for Browns fans to see how he looks back on drafting QBs like Kyle Boller and Brady Quinn. In both cases, he questions the philosophy of trading back into the first round to grab a QB that had flaws enough to be passed over the first time around.

Finally, Savage had some potential scenarios for the Browns with regard to the QB position and the upcoming draft.

Obviously Phil Savage is on the outside looking in now, but it’s still fascinating to get some insight from a guy who sat in the very seat that Ray Farmer finds himself today. And it’s especially interesting in a year where the Browns could once again pass on a quarterback with a high pick just as Savage did with Joe Thomas way back when.

So, do you think Savage is right about the trade back up from the second round, or does it just depend on the situation and the player?

[Related: Joe Gilbert’s top 5 quarterbacks]

(Photo by Matt Sullivan/Getty Images)


  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Lets hope they buck the trend and everything does indeed start anew including this draft. I’m cautiously optimistic.

  • MrCleaveland

    Well we haven’t heard from mg yet, so I’d hold off on that.

  • saggy
  • saggy

    i think i am tired of saying things like this, though, and you should be, too. I mean, with all the information available to us fans, we have never had a more competent opinion of the confluence of Team Need/BPA/Strategy than we do now.

    While nobody can ever tell you with 100% certainty who is going to be chosen, we should all have the facilities necessary to make a logical ranking.

    Thus, I don’t like the whole “trust their board” stuff. Your board is as good as Kanicki’s, Harv’s, or theirs, and if you don’t like QB at 4, you should lambaste them for taking one at 4.

  • saggy

    that’s why i am on board with something nobody talks about: drafting two receivers high. trade down, take Evans, and then scoop up Kelvin Benjamin.
    (of course, if Sammy is there, you take him, like we’ve been saying for something like the last 9 months).

  • saggy

    what’s the difference between a ton and an absolute ton?

    and do you really think there will be 2,000 1st round trades this year? I’ll take the under.

  • mgbode

    My English usage is really only strong when there are Latin, Greek, or logic ties. Thankfully, this one is a matter of logic.

    Harv was agreeing with your premise and then expanding from it, therefore, he should have used prompts or raises. I don’t think it just has to be a circular argument like the NYTimes article suggests (it could just be pointing out an incorrect conclusion).

  • mgbode
  • mgbode

    perhaps I misread your post. It seemed that you didn’t want a QB at #4 regardless. If you just don’t like any of these QBs at #4 for your personal board, then I retract (as you are trusting your board).

  • mgbode

    it’s sort of like the opposite of absolute zero in that entropy reaches it’s maximum value and destroys all mock drafts.

    also, tonage is a measure in weight, so it will be in pounds (not the British kind)

  • RGB

    It’s also used as a measure of power in HVAC.

  • nj0

    “your aching need for a QB doesn’t make the QB prospect one bit better”

    Well said. I’ll take the slam dunk (or as close to a slam dunk as possible) player at whatever position over the QB prospect with red flags who may overcome his issues. If you’re going to have a question mark at QB, you may as well make the rest of the 53 man roster as solid as possible.

  • saggy

    i thought you were talking about the Browns trusting their own board.

    I guess i am just done with saying, “Well, if they have him rated that high then i guess they’re trusting their own stuff, and that’s ok even though i don’t agree.” I am more at the point where i feel like the fans deserve to be critical because we are very educated. well, some of us, anyways…

  • saggy


    (that’s it. nothing witty)

  • saggy

    I am sticking to my guns by saying that if Blake Bortles is available at 4 they will take him.

  • Pat Leonard

    I was of that mind this morning, but I’m not so sure about that now… I’m getting a feeling by the way Pettine talks that he has a lot of input into the type of players he would like Ray Farmer to find for him. Pettine made a comment today that he would prefer to not have a rookie QB as a starter… that he didn’t think that was the best way to develop a QB. I don’t know if that precludes Farmer from taking Bortles, but it would take a strong union between the coach and the front office to fight the fans on that. The fans will almost certainly want Bortles, Bridgewater, Manziel… or any QB taken in the first round to be the starter from the get-go.

  • Toddyus

    This is a logical path, but it doesn’t account for risk and uncertainty. It assumes that going into a draft, the team can say with certainty that they 100% believe or 100% don’t believe in a guy’s franchise QB potential.

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, if you believe there’s a high potential franchise quality QB and he’s available at 4, you don’t risk losing him to maximize the price, you grab him or trade up for him. This also requires a belief that a QB is a critical position and not subject to value assessments.

    Alternatively, if a guy’s a maybe, you wait to see if he falls to you or you trade down to get him.

  • mgbode

    well, the Browns do need to trust their board. That isn’t to say that I (or you) need to trust the Brown’s board though :)

  • jimkanicki

    me? nah. i’d be good with evans at 4.

    i had a vision last night of an offensive set with gordon+evans outside and benjamin/hawkins+archer inside. imagine defensing that.

  • mgbode

    Benjamin isn’t good inside, switch him out for Burleson.

    Lots of good options can be plug-n-play there if we believe in Hoyer (Watkins, Evans, Ebron, etc.).

  • Bob Veres

    My fantasy draft would have the Browns trading back twice, to get another first rounder next year and another first rounder this year. And then take the receiver from Oregon State instead of Watkins–who seems to me to be just as good. This time seems to be four really good players away from the playoffs; a second WR, another good inside linebacker (Shazier?), a solid cornerback and a solid interior lineman.

    Getting that second first rounder next year positions them to take one of the three real quarterback studs in next year’s draft: the kind from UCLA, the Florida State QB or the Oregon QB. Those guys seem to me to be far better than any of the options available to us this year.

  • jamespowell

    This observation has less to do with trading back into the first round than it does with the success rate of QBs who are projects. Add in the “sure thing” QBs who don’t make it and the truth is clear – hardly any QB prospects pan out to be really good. Who didn’t know that? See also, starting pitchers.

  • Big z

    Quinn threw a football like it weighted 10 pounds. He never looked natural throwing the ball in that regard. He’s a pretty good analyst though!