Is Baker Mayfield a Bust?

[NWPATSFAN]

are you serious? If they offered him, say, the same deal as Allen he says thanks, but no thanks? 6 years, $258 mil, $150 mil guaranteed.

Come on clown keep it real. This is nonesense. It doesn't even fit into the hypothetical realm.

dtgold-but but but what if they offered him the most guarenteed $ over 10 years, he doesn't have to attend camps because we know that's not important, throw in a chunk of the moon and 51% ownership. Would Baker stil say No? A simple Y or N will suffice.

Oh and they're going to offer him all this or any other contract "without" knowing if he's medically cleared.

Got to love this forum. dt you do you.

 

[fastforward]

That was a hypothetical to refute the 0% chance he wants to stay exaggeration. Are you scared of direct questions, too? If not, here it is again that you glossed over in my comment... Where is he going that you think is signing him to a long term deal without seeing him play first?

He's not going anywhere on a long-term deal. No-one is going to offer him a long-term deal with more than the 1st year guaranteed. That isn't going to change whether he plays for the Browns this season, another team this season, or whether he spend this season sitting at home on his couch. He has 4 years of tape, 2 of the last 3 years are poor, he's coming off an injury, and his leadership/personality is questionable. If he goes through this season on his existing contract he'll become a FA and he'll likely be offered 2-year deals where the 2nd year is a non-guaranteed team option. The alternative is a trading team that offers him a non-guaranteed 2023-only extension where meeting performance targets in 2022 guarantees the 2nd year. He's a good QB, but he's not good enough for a team to commit to him.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Yep. in a hypothetical. But in the comment to which you recently replied I asked Where is he going that you think is signing him to a long term deal without seeing him play first? Because he said Baker wants to be where he can get longterm security.

Can you help him out and answer or are questions spooky to you, too?

His best option is to depart on a one year prove it deal. I've noticed you like to avoid that possibility when trying to defend your agenda.

It gives him as much stability as staying in Cle, barring a 2 year Watson suspension.

Who knows where his options lie. Camps are just starting. Lots of chances of teams losing a starter. Oh, because every other team has their QBs in camp.

Hypothetically, maybe he goes to Seattle. Not sure they are 100% on a starter. Possibly Carolina? Or what about TB to back up TB until he retires, which I feel will be next year? BM does have options.

Besides he's already getting paid unless the Brownies cut him. He could just sit and rest a year. You know because no one knows what he's cleared to do. Am I right?

 

[Cincyfan78]

Yeah you keep saying this but I disagree. Boned him? Because they found a better player to bring in instead of him? Man, there are a lot of "boned" players in the NFL (and the other major sports, as well).

In addition, under the circumstance we are talking, he'd be in the exact same position as he'd have been in had Watson never even been brought up by the Browns. should he have refused to play under that scenario, too, with teams being OK with it?

do you think Baker believes he'd play well if he played?

No - he would not be in the exact same situation if Watson hadn't come up - because then there would at least be a chance that he could remain the starting in Cleveland with a new contract. The signing of Watson completely prohibits this.

Again - it does not matter what Baker thinks about him playing well...what matters is the logistical outcome. All things being equal there are 2 bad outcomes if he plays to 1 good. That's a 66% chance that he screws himself by playing. He can play poorly, or he can get hurt. The only good out come, and it's a big one - he has to not just play well, but play very well...and, why would he risk that for a team that is 100% not going to sign him long-term? It makes ZERO sense.

To use your own argument - He would be better off betting on himself sitting out like Mendenhall, and taking a shorter 2-3 year deal with another team to prove his worth that would be open to extending him long-term. You keep saying he's going to "bet on himself" and this is the best way he could do that AND protect his long-term future. If he's going to risk a bad year, or injury, his best bet is to do it with a team that has him under contract for a few seasons AND be willing to sign him. That's not Cleveland.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I don't think you are thinking this through. Where is he going that you think is signing him to a long term deal without seeing him play first?

Everyone has seen him play enough to figure what they feel they can get out of him. He absolutely does not need to play this year to land somewhere else on a 2-3 year "prove" it deal, that would not only allow him to bet on himself, but would land him with a team willing, and able, to sign him long-term. That's the kind of self-betting that makes a ton of sense - not risking it all one a 1 year deal with a team that has zero inclination, or ability, to sign him long-term. It's a lose-lose.

 

[dtgold88]

Well Skippy if he wasn't medically cleared, they wouldn't have had to come to a supposable "mutual" agreement for him not to attend, now would they?

Keep doing you. Pure comedygold.

Thinking part of their discussion was based on how much he can do.

No lies that I saw by you yesterday, Tommy. Slipping a little?

 

[dtgold88]

However, you try to imply it as fact. But no one is buying your bs.

To answer your question like you answer.

We don't know if he would or would not.

Maybe he would?

Maybe not?

Now if all the planets aligned, and you and the world stopped spinning maybe, sorta kinda, not quite sure, possibly but doubtful he may?

Then you would move onto some other far fetched ambiguous thing of fascination.

Keep doing you.


Got to love this forum.


Oh and why would they give him a 4 year deal? They already screwed up once giving Watson an assinine 5 year deal.

So when if either of them play again who starts and who sits?

Spin away my little princess.

my answer was yes but nice try.

to answer your question - because I'm not a question coward - they wouldn't but it's a hypothetical. If he'd accept the idea it's 0% he'd want to stay goes out the window.

 

[dtgold88]

1. So the FO is as dumb as you. What is a long time in your mind?

2. So they signed JB because... the Baker bridge wasn't burned? Then they signed Dobbs because of what? Camp competition? With who the kickers? There are only 2 QBs in camp thus you forget.

3. Exactly my point. The Browns knew they would have to move BM. Stop trying to make it sound like all is good in the hood and the FO knew what they were doing.


So much for you not tap dancing again.

Come on Question Coward (will be used a lot, I'm sure, so QC for short).....you were the one who said a long time so would think you had an idea what that might be QC.

 

[dtgold88]

No - he would not be in the exact same situation if Watson hadn't come up - because then there would at least be a chance that he could remain the starting in Cleveland with a new contract. The signing of Watson completely prohibits this.

Again - it does not matter what Baker thinks about him playing well...what matters is the logistical outcome. All things being equal there are 2 bad outcomes if he plays to 1 good. That's a 66% chance that he screws himself by playing. He can play poorly, or he can get hurt. The only good out come, and it's a big one - he has to not just play well, but play very well...and, why would he risk that for a team that is 100% not going to sign him long-term? It makes ZERO sense.

To use your own argument - He would be better off betting on himself sitting out like Mendenhall, and taking a shorter 2-3 year deal with another team to prove his worth that would be open to extending him long-term. You keep saying he's going to "bet on himself" and this is the best way he could do that AND protect his long-term future. If he's going to risk a bad year, or injury, his best bet is to do it with a team that has him under contract for a few seasons AND be willing to sign him. That's not Cleveland.

Try and follow (ask if confused)....the situation we are discussing is with watson out for the season so, yes, in that scenario Baker is in the same situation he's in with no watson ever here if he played. Starter with no long term deal beyond 2022.

It kind of does matter what Baker thinks since if he believes in himself he'd want to be sure to showcase his talents by playing and not sitting. But, as one of the many Question Cowards I cannot say I expected you to answer that question. Those yes/no Qs can be so tough for the QCs.

The other question you wont answer is do you think there's a team out there who will agree to a long term deal with Baker before seeing him play? Should you be brave and answer the right way (there isn't) guess what.....he's in the same situation wherever he goes that you drew up with 2 bad outcomes and 1 good.

 

[dtgold88]

Everyone has seen him play enough to figure what they feel they can get out of him. He absolutely does not need to play this year to land somewhere else on a 2-3 year "prove" it deal, that would not only allow him to bet on himself, but would land him with a team willing, and able, to sign him long-term. That's the kind of self-betting that makes a ton of sense - not risking it all one a 1 year deal with a team that has zero inclination, or ability, to sign him long-term. It's a lose-lose.

a guy who believes in himself would lock himself into a 2-3 year extension which would take him to near age 30 as opposed to just proving himself this year then getting the long term deal he thinks he's worth?

Yes...ya gotta love this forum.

 

[dtgold88]

Come on clown keep it real. This is nonesense. It doesn't even fit into the hypothetical realm.

dtgold-but but but what if they offered him the most guarenteed $ over 10 years, he doesn't have to attend camps because we know that's not important, throw in a chunk of the moon and 51% ownership. Would Baker stil say No? A simple Y or N will suffice.

Oh and they're going to offer him all this or any other contract "without" knowing if he's medically cleared.

Got to love this forum. dt you do you.

He claimed Baker would not accept the deal the top QBs are getting so asking if he'd accept a deal a top QB received seems like a fair question to those who are not QCs.

 

[dtgold88]

He's not going anywhere on a long-term deal. No-one is going to offer him a long-term deal with more than the 1st year guaranteed. That isn't going to change whether he plays for the Browns this season, another team this season, or whether he spend this season sitting at home on his couch. He has 4 years of tape, 2 of the last 3 years are poor, he's coming off an injury, and his leadership/personality is questionable. If he goes through this season on his existing contract he'll become a FA and he'll likely be offered 2-year deals where the 2nd year is a non-guaranteed team option. The alternative is a trading team that offers him a non-guaranteed 2023-only extension where meeting performance targets in 2022 guarantees the 2nd year. He's a good QB, but he's not good enough for a team to commit to him.

If you believe he wont play very well I can agree with that...but he likely believes he can be 2020 Baker or even better.

 

[dtgold88]

His best option is to depart on a one year prove it deal. I've noticed you like to avoid that possibility when trying to defend your agenda.

It gives him as much stability as staying in Cle, barring a 2 year Watson suspension.

Who knows where his options lie. Camps are just starting. Lots of chances of teams losing a starter. Oh, because every other team has their QBs in camp.

Hypothetically, maybe he goes to Seattle. Not sure they are 100% on a starter. Possibly Carolina? Or what about TB to back up TB until he retires, which I feel will be next year? BM does have options.

Besides he's already getting paid unless the Brownies cut him. He could just sit and rest a year. You know because no one knows what he's cleared to do. Am I right?

His current contract is a 1 year prove it deal.....seems like he might want to play to prove it than watch, no QC?

 

[Cincyfan78]

a guy who believes in himself would lock himself into a 2-3 year extension which would take him to near age 30 as opposed to just proving himself this year then getting the long term deal he thinks he's worth?

Yes...ya gotta love this forum.

Fine - 1 year deal.

Better option: Sign with the team that decided you weren't good enough, and have 0% chance of a future with because they will be paying $55M starting in 2023 to another QB.

OR

Sign 1 year deal with any team that wants to sign him, and has at least a passing interest in having a future with them.

Also - a 3 year deal would take him to 29, and many good QB's can play into their 30's. QB position is not like skill positions of RB/WR/DB. A 2-3 year deal would not be out of the question, allowing him to hit F/A at 29, and take advantage of his last 3-4 years taking him to only 34. The age of the NFL QB just dropped below 28 thanks to a spat of retirements from guys like Brees, Smith, Fitzmagic, Rivers...QB's hitting the 30 year mark simply is not the same.

Yeah - gotta love this forum.

 

[dtgold88]

Fine - 1 year deal.

Better option: Sign with the team that decided you weren't good enough, and have 0% chance of a future with because they will be paying $55M starting in 2023 to another QB.

OR

Sign 1 year deal with any team that wants to sign him, and has at least a passing interest in having a future with them.

Also - a 3 year deal would take him to 29, and many good QB's can play into their 30's. QB position is not like skill positions of RB/WR/DB. A 2-3 year deal would not be out of the question, allowing him to hit F/A at 29, and take advantage of his last 3-4 years taking him to only 34. The age of the NFL QB just dropped below 28 thanks to a spat of retirements from guys like Brees, Smith, Fitzmagic, Rivers...QB's hitting the 30 year mark simply is not the same.

Yeah - gotta love this forum.

some of this is fair, but in my scenario he is the starter this year for a team that's a legit SB contender if he plays well (and likely he believe he can)...he knows the play book and many of the players. All those teams who want to sign him now would have even more interest in him and would pay him more if he plays and plays well in 2022.

 

[Cincyfan78]

some of this is fair, but in my scenario he is the starter this year for a team that's a legit SB contender if he plays well (and likely he believe he can)...he knows the play book and many of the players. All those teams who want to sign him now would have even more interest in him and would pay him more if he plays and plays well in 2022.

Sure - he could also feel like if things get shaky, no one will have his back from the top of the organization on down. He also knows that if he doesn't play well, or is injured for Cleveland, they have no interest in signing him long-term, so the risk at that location doesn't outweigh the reward.

Seattle, however, is still rumored to be interested WITH an extension. With that knowledge - I'm forcing the trade/release if I'm Mayfield. If he decides to pull a Mendenhall and sit/accrue the season - he saves his body, and his value - and Seattle (at the least) is still interested, and likely more teams will open up.

Seahawks still have 'high level of interest' in Baker Mayfield, open to extension

Mayfield likely would have already been dealt to another team if not for the obstacle of his contract.

seahawkswire.usatoday.com

 

[dtgold88]

Sure - he could also feel like if things get shaky, no one will have his back from the top of the organization on down. He also knows that if he doesn't play well, or is injured for Cleveland, they have no interest in signing him long-term, so the risk at that location doesn't outweigh the reward.

Seattle, however, is still rumored to be interested WITH an extension. With that knowledge - I'm forcing the trade/release if I'm Mayfield. If he decides to pull a Mendenhall and sit/accrue the season - he saves his body, and his value - and Seattle (at the least) is still interested, and likely more teams will open up.

Seahawks still have 'high level of interest' in Baker Mayfield, open to extension

Mayfield likely would have already been dealt to another team if not for the obstacle of his contract.

seahawkswire.usatoday.com

does his new team have interest in signing him long term if he does not play well?

Unless someone signs him to an extension it's kind of hard to believe they would (especially without seeing him play first). Baker would have to willing to agree, too, to their price. so there's that?

But if true, I guess so much for those who say no one wants him?

 

[Cincyfan78]

does his new team have interest in signing him long term if he does not play well?

Unless someone signs him to an extension it's kind of hard to believe they would (especially without seeing him play first). Baker would have to willing to agree, too, to their price. so there's that?

Seattle is interested in an extension now...so, could that be negatively impacted if he stays w/the Browns, and plays poorly this year, or is injured if he plays with the Browns, who have zero interest in signing him long-term? Could teams that might be interested be less interested, or offer less money/years if he is hurt again, or plays poorly? Yes and Yes.

Teams have had 4+ years of watching Baker. Him sitting a year isn't going to effect this situation. They already know what they are willing to pay/extend him for. The chances of that going up in Baker's favor is smaller than the chances that it goes down against him.

Whether Baker is traded and agrees to the extension, or not, is up to him, but is irrelevant to the discussion of him remaining with the Browns. He's getting $18M this year regardless because it's guaranteed. He could be traded, and refuse the extension. He could, in effect, veto the trade by stating his intention to not play for the new team if he doesn't like the extension. However, that 2nd option doesn't mean that he would stay and play for the Browns, either, as he could still decide to sit out - and we revert to the 1st paragraph on why sitting out would be the better long-term solution if he's not traded and extended with his new team, or out right released. But, again, this argument is neither here, nor there - it's not relevant - just another "what if" scenario to obfuscate from the fact that long-term, Mayfield's best solution is to either force the trade/release or not play.

 

[dtgold88]

Seattle is interested in an extension now...so, could that be negatively impacted if he stays w/the Browns, and plays poorly this year, or is injured if he plays with the Browns, who have zero interest in signing him long-term? Could teams that might be interested be less interested, or offer less money/years if he is hurt again, or plays poorly? Yes and Yes.

Teams have had 4+ years of watching Baker. Him sitting a year isn't going to effect this situation. They already know what they are willing to pay/extend him for. The chances of that going up in Baker's favor is smaller than the chances that it goes down against him.

Whether Baker is traded and agrees to the extension, or not, is up to him, but is irrelevant to the discussion of him remaining with the Browns. He's getting $18M this year regardless because it's guaranteed. He could be traded, and refuse the extension. He could, in effect, veto the trade by stating his intention to not play for the new team if he doesn't like the extension. However, that 2nd option doesn't mean that he would stay and play for the Browns, either, as he could still decide to sit out - and we revert to the 1st paragraph on why sitting out would be the better long-term solution if he's not traded and extended with his new team, or out right released. But, again, this argument is neither here, nor there - it's not relevant - just another "what if" scenario to obfuscate from the fact that long-term, Mayfield's best solution is to either force the trade/release or not play.

There is a rumor Seattle is interested. I mean, Lombardi is reporting it's not true and the Browns started the rumor. Isn't to say that is true, but it's hard to believe anyone from Seattle put this out there. Comical you try to dismiss what if scenarios....with a what if scenario/rumor.

Ex-Browns GM not buying Baker Mayfield-Seahawks rumors, offers alternate theory

Amid reports that the Seahawks are interested in trading for Cleveland quarterback Baker Mayfield, former Browns general manager Mike Lombardi explained why he thinks Seattle doesn’t actually have any interest.

www.audacy.com

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Oh Mayfield will end up with the Hawks. They are just waiting ofr the browns to eithersell him for pennies on the dollar or release him outright.

But he will go to the Seahawks
*Schmoop looks over at Harold*