NFL teams in the worst shape

• SportsAndLady

  

  Having this discussion with people.
  
  Name three teams you feel are in the worst shape as an organization.
  
  Mine:
  Redskins
  Buccaneers
  Bears
• Mulva

  

  Titans
  Jags
  Jets
  
  Might go Raiders over Jets, on 2nd thought. That one is tough.
• Lovejoy1984

  

  Jags
  Raiders
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Redskins
• Go4alOngbOmB

  

  How can the Browns not be mentioned here? I'm a big fan of the team, but it has not been managed correctly since Art Model (God Burn his soul) was there.
• Laley23

  

  Agreed. Until the Browns do anything right, they are #1 lol
• SportsAndLady

  

  Go4alOngbOmB;1718548 wrote:How can the Browns not be mentioned here? I'm a big fan of the team, but it has not been managed correctly since Art Model (God Burn his soul) was there.

  Because the Browns have a good team outside of the qb position.
• Laley23

  

  SportsAndLady;1718557 wrote:Because the Browns have a good team outside of the qb position.

  Would still be tough to argue with someone who put them #1. By the time they get a QB, coaches and owners and GMs might be gone as well as all the talent they have right now.
• BR1986FB

  SportsAndLady;1718557 wrote:Because the Browns have a good team outside of the qb position.

  And nothing really matters until they get that QB. Until then, they're still shit.
  
  Yeah, they may get to 7-9/8-8 with a game manager like Hoyer, but until then, they are going to be at the bottom of the pack. The unfortunate part is, where in the Hell is that QB? Dumbasses have been trying since 1999 to find him.
  
  I do agree that the team surrounding this "mythical" QB is much better than other teams in the league but it doesn't matter until the QB is found.
• Classyposter58

  

  Browns and Redskins. I would say Jags as well but they were pretty good for a long stretch there
• SportsAndLady

  

  BR1986FB;1718562 wrote:And nothing really matters until they get that QB. Until then, they're still shit.
  
  Yeah, they may get to 7-9/8-8 with a game manager like Hoyer, but until then, they are going to be at the bottom of the pack. The unfortunate part is, where in the Hell is that QB? Dumbasses have been trying since 1999 to find him.
  
  I do agree that the team surrounding this "mythical" QB is much better than other teams in the league but it doesn't matter until the QB is found.

  Not really sure why you and others keep bringing up the last 15 years.
  
  The question is RIGHT NOW who is in the worst shape.
  
  If the Browns get a qb I think we can all agree they will be a playoff contending team.
  
  Other teams need a qb and a lottttt else.
  
  The Browns have at least invested in their lines, which takes a long time to do.
• BR1986FB

  SportsAndLady;1718564 wrote:Not really sure why you and others keep bringing up the last 15 years.
  
  The question is RIGHT NOW who is in the worst shape.
  
  If the Browns get a qb I think we can all agree they will be a playoff contending team.
  
  Other teams need a qb and a lottttt else.
  
  The Browns have at least invested in their lines, which takes a long time to do.

  
  But here's the problem....they don't have that QB and if they don't get him soon, then Laley's comments come into play. Owner fires the current regime, brings in a coach who runs a 4-3, personnel doesn't fit the scheme, start all over again.
  
  And I agree that investing in the lines is a good idea, unless (as mentioned) they blow things up again and bring in a new system which doesn't fit those lines. If they were to hire a coach who didn't run a ZBS blocking scheme, some of these guys may not fit. Same goes for D-Line. If they were to switch to a 4-3, some of the current personnel may not fit.
• Laley23

  

  SportsAndLady;1718564 wrote:Not really sure why you and others keep bringing up the last 15 years.
  
  The question is RIGHT NOW who is in the worst shape.
  
  If the Browns get a qb I think we can all agree they will be a playoff contending team.
  
  Other teams need a qb and a lottttt else.
  
  The Browns have at least invested in their lines, which takes a long time to do.

  I agree with what youre saying. But, you cant just ignore history when talking about franchise stability. There is a reason the best continue to be the best. Players have part in it, as well as management. The Browns, for 16 years now, have been awful at the top. So, to think it will change is fine...but we have seen this before. Until the prove otherwise, it would be hard for me to argue with someone who says they are in the worst shape. Despite the fact I dont personally believe that.
• rydawg5

  What's the average "weight" per roster?
• Iliketurtles

  

  Raiders and Browns for sure. 3rd team is between Redskins/Jags/Jets.
• Rotinaj

  

  Laley23;1718558 wrote:Would still be tough to argue with someone who put them #1. By the time they get a QB, coaches and owners and GMs might be gone as well as all the talent they have right now.

  Anyone who thinks the Browns are in the worst shape in the NFL right now is an absolute moron.
• Laley23

  

  Rotinaj;1718594 wrote:Anyone who thinks the Browns are in the worst shape in the NFL right now is an absolute moron.

  Mans whatnif they win 6 games this year and start over again?
• Rotinaj

  

  Laley23;1718601 wrote:Mans whatnif they win 6 games this year and start over again?

  Then they will have a better record than like 4 or 5 teams and at least one of them will be in a worse place than the Browns. How many teams have went multiple years in a row with 5 or under wins? How could you possibly put those teams ahead of the Browns?
• SportsAndLady

  

  Rotinaj;1718594 wrote:Anyone who thinks the Browns are in the worst shape in the NFL right now is an absolute moron.

  This.
  
  They just won 7 games. That's not Great or anything but it's not 32nd best.
• Laley23

  

  SportsAndLady;1718603 wrote:This.
  
  They just won 7 games. That's not Great or anything but it's not 32nd best.

  You say this, then have the Bears as 3rd worst. So I really don't know how I can take it serious.
• Classyposter58

  

  SportsAndLady;1718603 wrote:This.
  
  They just won 7 games. That's not Great or anything but it's not 32nd best.

  Oh the Browns are in awful shape. I understand there's many Browns fans on this forum but they haven't made the playoffs since 2002, have no QB and no real star at the skill positions. Look at my favorite team, Stafford is solid and Megatron is unreal, yet Golden Tate was added to just make a 10 win team. The Browns are so far behind in those key spots they'll never compete for jack shit until they fill those voids which is something they and most of you do not understand
• Mulva

  

  I think you're pretty much splitting hairs when you get to teams 25-32.
• BR1986FB

  Classyposter58;1718610 wrote:Oh the Browns are in awful shape. I understand there's many Browns fans on this forum but they haven't made the playoffs since 2002, have no QB and no real star at the skill positions. Look at my favorite team, Stafford is solid and Megatron is unreal, yet Golden Tate was added to just make a 10 win team. The Browns are so far behind in those key spots they'll never compete for jack shit until they fill those voids which is something they and most of you do not understand

  I completely understand where you're coming from. Hoyer was a "fool's gold/stopgap" at the QB position.
  
  The QB is the "straw that stirs the drink." Until they get one, they will be stuck in (below) mediocrity.
  
  Good QB's can come out of nowhere (see Russell Wilson/Tom Brady) but those are rare/flukes.
  
  Good QB's are also usually taken pretty high in the draft. It seems like the Browns are always just out of position to nab that franchise guy or grab a semi-bust (see Kellen Winslow) vs drafting the QB (Roethlisberger in that case) or reach on projects (see Weeden, potentially Manziel).
  
  The major frustration, with me, is that no matter how much they build up the O-Line & defense, will they ever get a competent guy at QB? I'm not asking for much. I'd even take an average QB like Stafford, Flacco or Ryan. I don't see any on the horizon and keep hoping they get lucky.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Laley23;1718604 wrote:You say this, then have the Bears as 3rd worst. So I really don't know how I can take it serious.

  The Bears were 5-11 lol that's not 7-9.
  
  But I have chicago listed because:
  
  The Bears' OC went public about their starting qb being a huge ***** who they just spent half their salary cap on. Their entire coaching staff was let go. Their division is ridiculously good and are built to be good for the next 5+ years. Their defense is aging and their young guys have been busts. They just traded a top 10 WR for a fifth round pick. Not even going to get into the jay cutler situation.
  
  It's bad in Chicago. In Cleveland, if they get a QB worth a damn they are in the playoffs. Cleveland just had the second most pro bowlers. Come on.
• SportsAndLady

  

  BR1986FB;1718615 wrote:I completely understand where you're coming from. Hoyer was a "fool's gold/stopgap" at the QB position.
  
  The QB is the "straw that stirs the drink." Until they get one, they will be stuck in (below) mediocrity.
  
  Good QB's can come out of nowhere (see Russell Wilson/Tom Brady) but those are rare/flukes.
  
  Good QB's are also usually taken pretty high in the draft. It seems like the Browns are always just out of position to nab that franchise guy or grab a semi-bust (see Kellen Winslow) vs drafting the QB (Roethlisberger in that case) or reach on projects (see Weeden, potentially Manziel).
  
  The major frustration, with me, is that no matter how much they build up the O-Line & defense, will they ever get a competent guy at QB? I'm not asking for much. I'd even take an average QB like Stafford, Flacco or Ryan. I don't see any on the horizon and keep hoping they get lucky.

  We get it. The Browns need a QB
  
  Weren't you the one giving me shit for saying the Browns should spend every first round pick they have on a QB until they get a good one?
• BR1986FB

  SportsAndLady;1718620 wrote:We get it. The Browns need a QB
  
  Weren't you the one giving me shit for saying the Browns should spend every first round pick they have on a QB until they get a good one?

  Yeah, and I still would. To use your first on a QB every year means you have a pretty shitty GM.