Browns sign tackle Rashad Butler

Quote:

Quote:

How is he a considerable risk? What is the downside to signing a guy to the 80 man roster likely for minimum salary before training camp?

There is always a downside, leave it to me be the naysayer again.

First, is this financially motivated? Suppose someone just decided they are paying too much for the offensive line, and decided just get rid of them all. Then the voice of reason would step in and say, Hey you have to field an offensive line.

So they go out and get someone to fill a roster spot, undersized, and with almost no experience, because of injury history. Now suppose they decide to just waive 4 of the top 8 linemen, for various reasons, and yet this guy stays on the roster.

Well they'll have someone to fill the roster spot, and best case scenario, this guy gets healthy, and you have an undersized inexperienced depth player, or a guy that they can claim is much more than that, even if hs isn't.. or is.

So the downside is if they use this signing as manueverability to waive a concieveably better player, or two, or more and mess with the cohesion of the line that has worked together for a while.

Suppose there was a pre-decision to waive Jon Greco, Ryan Miller, Oneil Cousins, and Jason Pinkston.
"Well, who's gonna play guard?"
" Gilkey, the draft pick."
"Well, who's gonna be the backup?"
"Go sign Butler."

In the end, they'd be worse, but they can spin it; they can always spin it with their explanations and verbal assurances.

Now! Did any of this happen? NO! Do I think anything like this is happening? I Hope NOT!

But you're asking for a downside. We have seen a roster get dismantled before because it happens to the Browns, often.

If this guy, or these guys, are good enough to win the job because they are the better player, and the team in the end is better, then great
Any other reason, then not so great.

Even if there are 100 roster spots, low upside roster moves are nothing to cheer.

That's just the downside. The Upside is they signed a player, maybe he'll work out.

You make my brain hurt.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to see a reposting of that.

At this point, any players of this type are moves to possibly strengthen the bottom of the roster.

Building the bottom of the roster is as important as building the top of the roster.

I don't see any negatives.

Quote:

I was hoping I wouldn't have to see a reposting of that.

At this point, any players of this type are moves to possibly strengthen the bottom of the roster.

Building the bottom of the roster is as important as building the top of the roster.

I don't see any negatives.

And to do it with little to no risk,, tell me that isn't a BIG +

Another no name veteran with a ton of injury history. Great!

Isn't Brandon Moore still a free agent!? He would be way better than any of the Guards we currently have on the team.

Quote:

Isn't Brandon Moore still a free agent!? He would be way better than any of the Guards we currently have on the team.

If that was true I doubt he would be unsigned as of yet. Again we got OGs that can be upgraded on but not as easily as one will think. We seem to be signing a heck of a lot of OTs not OGs. Although I have maintained that OTs can move to the Interior a lot easier than OGs going outside. But it looks like we are looking to upgrade on our depth...possibly one of these kids can surprise in the development n upgrade on Greco, Pinkston or Lava. But they got to be a heck of a player to do so.

JMHO

Quote:

If that was true I doubt he would be unsigned as of yet.

Charles Woodson, Kerry Rhodes, Dwight Freeney, John Abraham, Ahmad Bradshaw, and Eric Winston are all unsigned. There are good players that are unsigned because A) They haven't got the deal they want B) They haven't got an offer from a team they want C) They haven't got the deal they want from the team they want.

Quote:

It's just splitting hairs but DQ tore his pec. Ryan Tucker tore his bicep.

And this guy tore his tricep... twice.

I would imagine with the push and arm extension required of an OT, tearing a tricep is about as debilitating an upper body injury as a guy can have... probably rushed back too soon which is why he tore it again...

Quote:

Quote:

It's just splitting hairs but DQ tore his pec. Ryan Tucker tore his bicep.

And this guy tore his tricep... twice.

I would imagine with the push and arm extension required of an OT, tearing a tricep is about as debilitating an upper body injury as a guy can have... probably rushed back too soon which is why he tore it again...

I don't know... I think tearing both of your pecs would be pretty bad injury... see DQ on that one.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...r-of-the-month/

Talking about OG FA not on the top tier. If so he is asking for way more than what we are looking to spend. Also is he over 30...Where's Mac when you need him...lol

The other guys are mostly players over their prime n looking for way too much - most will sign probably for one year contracts. Moore not sure where he played NY? But OG not on the top tier are usually good bang for the buck in FA. Why I made my comment. Others are in positions of Payment...OT, Pass Rushers, etc. OG, TE, LB are the grunts of football.

JMHO - again not so easy to upgrade on what we got.

Quote:

Talking about OG FA not on the top tier. If so he is asking for way more than what we are looking to spend. Also is he over 30...Where's Mac when you need him...lol

The other guys are mostly players over their prime n looking for way too much - most will sign probably for one year contracts. Moore not sure where he played NY? But OG not on the top tier are usually good bang for the buck in FA. Why I made my comment. Others are in positions of Payment...OT, Pass Rushers, etc. OG, TE, LB are the grunts of football.

JMHO - again not so easy to upgrade on what we got.

So true! I guess that is why Banner/Chud/Farmer/Lombardi felt OG was not dire need during the draft getting small school OT Gilkey in late rounds and UDFA injured LSU OT Chris Faulk. If I had to guess, Butler is insurance if Gilkey and Faulk don't make the team. Anything is better than relying on Cousins as depth.

Insurance for a 7th rounder.... Never heard that before.

He's just another body in training camp. Won't be surprised if he is cut sooner rather than later. Good luck to the guy. Stay healthy.

Quote:

Insurance for a 7th rounder.... Never heard that before.

He's just another body in training camp. Won't be surprised if he is cut sooner rather than later. Good luck to the guy. Stay healthy.

Insurance for a 7th rounder!! I hear ya! Cousins is the guy needing replaced. So much need at other places, it is hard to get good depth. You hope drafted later rounders with potential fill the roster. Cousins is getting paid to watch football, if he ever plays, 2008 here we come!

Quote:

I don't know... I think tearing both of your pecs would be pretty bad injury... see DQ on that one.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...r-of-the-month/

Well, I wasn't really comparing the severity of this guys injury to the severity of DQs injury.. I was comparing the severity of an OT tearing a tricep with the severity of other OT injuries because of the nature of the position.

Your spot on in my book. He adds depth to the OL, which was needed. Will he be an all pro? I doubt it, but he is an able body compared to some of the OL players the Browns had prior. I am not going to list names since there are too many, but Butler is an upgrade even if just for depth then some of the other players the team had before.

I don't understand how people are down on this signing and think they need to scrutinize every single move made by the front office. The guy was brought into camp to compete for a backup role on the o-line. Not every signing is going to be a big name or big impact guy. They need bodies and grabbed another one with Butler. There is pretty much 0 risk with the signing. If he works out, great. If not, nothing was lost.

I agree my friend it's all about capable bodies the more the better off the Browns are especially with injuries which happen. Big names are nice, but you also need depth, cheap depth and if they don't pan out, no harm no foul. Those are my thoughts and some may disagree which is cool, but the more possible able bodies the Browns add, the better off the team will be in the long run.

Quote:

I don't mind the attention being paid to the OL. Although it's one of the strongest units on the team the FO seems to be trying to tweak it somehow. I am not opposed to trying to improve a strength; the logic behind it is just not obvious to me unless some of these OT's they are bringing in will be tried at guard. They aren't saying this publicly nor do they have to. It just leaves questions hanging out there.

And you bring up a very valid point.

While "some claim" the OL is our strongest unit, I suggest for them to look at how they play in run blocking. While we do have some very good talent on our OL, I think they do half of their job poorly. (Run blocking)

So interior help is needed whether people wish to see it or not.

I have no idea if their intention is to even try moving him to G, but it's much easier for a OT to transition to G than some make it out to be, although his sixe does concern me.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't mind the attention being paid to the OL. Although it's one of the strongest units on the team the FO seems to be trying to tweak it somehow. I am not opposed to trying to improve a strength; the logic behind it is just not obvious to me unless some of these OT's they are bringing in will be tried at guard. They aren't saying this publicly nor do they have to. It just leaves questions hanging out there.

And you bring up a very valid point.

While "some claim" the OL is our strongest unit, I suggest for them to look at how they play in run blocking. While we do have some very good talent on our OL, I think they do half of their job poorly. (Run blocking)

So interior help is needed whether people wish to see it or not.

I have no idea if their intention is to even try moving him to G, but it's much easier for a OT to transition to G than some make it out to be, although his sixe does concern me.

Excellent points you laid out and I agree. Depth is key. If Butler works out, that tells me he worked to gain a roster spot, if not, no harm no foul In my opinon we need more like him, accept your role and go with it from that point. I am tired of waiting on taking developmental players, but rather stock pile on players who have been there and done that..

Quote:

Quote:

Isn't Brandon Moore still a free agent!? He would be way better than any of the Guards we currently have on the team.

If that was true I doubt he would be unsigned as of yet. Again we got OGs that can be upgraded on but not as easily as one will think. We seem to be signing a heck of a lot of OTs not OGs. Although I have maintained that OTs can move to the Interior a lot easier than OGs going outside. But it looks like we are looking to upgrade on our depth...possibly one of these kids can surprise in the development n upgrade on Greco, Pinkston or Lava. But they got to be a heck of a player to do so.

JMHO

This is nothing more than an attempt to upgrade our swing-tackle depth in Cousins.

And it's needed.

With Hardesty in there, I thought the run blocking looked pretty good.....

Quote:

I was hoping I wouldn't have to see a reposting of that.

At this point, any players of this type are moves to possibly strengthen the bottom of the roster.

Building the bottom of the roster is as important as building the top of the roster.

I don't see any negatives.

Exactly. If he beats out the last OL on the roster, then we improved the bottom of the roster. If he doesn't, then he's gone. Why is this such an issue?

If you improve the last spot on the roster, you improve the team.

Quote:

If you improve the last spot on the roster, you improve the team.

Yeah!! Some one gets it!

Not every signing improves a team from the top down.

They bitch about lack of depth, sign a player for possible depth and they bitch because they signed a player for depth....

Quote:

With Hardesty in there, I thought the run blocking looked pretty good.....

It was. Hardesty and Richardson are 2 completely different players. Hardesty hits the hole immediately. He bursts through the line. Richardson is more of a read the line and see where to go type. In college he would set up deep in the backfield and see plays develop. It was different in last year's offense, where he set up much closer to the line, and timing was the most important aspect of every play. Trent had to learn to trust that a hole would be there, as opposed to being able to see the hole in college.

I think that Trent will be more effective this year, as the offense will better fit him, and he will almost certainly be set up deeper on a regular basis as we use the shotgun more.

True Lemmy

All the Impact signings have been done. Now we are bringing in competitive players for the 80+ roster for training camp n Preseason Games. If one or two make the team...great.

Starters? I don't expect that.

Pit...

I don't get what you are stating. Butler was brought in here to better our Run Blocking???

Quote:

While "some claim" the OL is our strongest unit, I suggest for them to look at how they play in run blocking.

Well its pretty much a fact not a claim.

Why don't you tell us what you see when you look at our play in run blocking...IF YOU CAN, I'm just curious what fallacy you can dig up here. Oh wait...Teams played 7 in the box

We had Absolutely no passing game to speak of - We had no vertical stretch established. We had a rookie RB that was top pick of this draft. Teams didn't game plan to stop him first

yeah otay...I know you never hear teams talking about defense and state the first step in stopping the pass is to stop the run...on our team with our Offense in 2012 that was sort of personified.

So I definitely did see things to be improved regarding our Run Blocking. I thought our power pulls from our offside OGs were inferior. Especially from the LG. Pinkston was flat out slow n late. Greco got there but couldn't make a block on a moving target nor have the ability to over power the Defenders. I thought that was our most glaring overall Run Blocking character that was unsatisfactory. But for the most part we were out numbered at the point of attack. We had no Slobber knocker FB to even up the number n although Alex Smith got into the 2nd tier withing the play being drawn up he was not much help.

Whether teams actually had a 7 or 8 count within that exact drawn up box...there was usually 10 close or into the box due to the lame routes in our WCO most peeking n overplaying the run (unless a passing down) - why our play actions had WRs wide open too bad we didn't utilize that enough - I have no clue why? But when we did pressure was none existent n WRs had separation.

Was our pass blocking more superior than our run blocking...I think so.

Can our run blocking improve...without a doubt it can.

Was our Run blocking as bad as portrayed by some dawgs like Pit...no way. Just a fan who looks at the game n stares at the ball n has no clue whats going on in that LOS. Oh wait...my observances do not apply in discussion. I post way too much in Positives... so PIT's opinion rules according to him

yeah OTAY.

JMHO

I'm always amazed at how a scrub like this can get two pages of chat on him. lol wut

Quote:

I'm always amazed at how a scrub like this can get two pages of chat on him. lol wut

HAHAHA!!! Same here.

It's the off-season.

Quote:

It's the off-season.

So true ...

Quote:

I'm always amazed at how a scrub like this can get two pages of chat on him. lol wut

One of two things happens when we sign a back-up or draft a guy in the 6th round..

1. It was stupid because the guys no good or has been hurt or has character issues or something.....

or

2. The guy is a diamond in the rough that is going to be a super star some day if he can just get the chance and get some decent coaching...

Most people just don't want to let it go as... it is what it is...

Quote:

One of two things happens when we sign a back-up or draft a guy in the 6th round..

1. It was stupid because the guys no good or has been hurt or has character issues or something.....

or

2. The guy is a diamond in the rough that is going to be a super star some day if he can just get the chance and get some decent coaching....

Name a back-up or 6th/7th round pick who doesn't, or didn't, fit into one of those 2 categories.

Quote:

Pit... I don't get what you are stating. Butler was brought in here to better our Run Blocking???

I wouldn't say that was the primary cause for bringing him here, but I hope he can help in our run blocking.

Quote:

So I definitely did see things to be improved regarding our Run Blocking. I thought our power pulls from our offside OGs were inferior. Especially from the LG. Pinkston was flat out slow n late. Greco got there but couldn't make a block on a moving target nor have the ability to over power the Defenders. I thought that was our most glaring overall Run Blocking character that was unsatisfactory. But for the most part we were out numbered at the point of attack. We had no Slobber knocker FB to even up the number n although Alex Smith got into the 2nd tier withing the play being drawn up he was not much help.

So even you saw things that needed improvement in our run blocking, yet somehow I was wrong by saying the very same thing. wow.

Quote:

Was our pass blocking more superior than our run blocking...I think so.

Can our run blocking improve...without a doubt it can.

Yeah, I said that too,

Quote:

Was our Run blocking as bad as portrayed by some dawgs like Pit...no way. Just a fan who looks at the game n stares at the ball n has no clue whats going on in that LOS.

Well of course Tab. Unless people look through orange colored glasses like you do, they couldn't possibly have a clue how much our run blocking failed in many areas. Even though you pointed out some yourself.

Quote:

Oh wait...my observances do not apply in discussion. I post way too much in Positives... so PIT's opinion rules according to him yeah OTAY.

As poorly as we did in YPC, you can make all of the excuses in the world. But it won't change the facts.

Quote:

I'm always amazed at how a scrub like this can get two pages of chat on him. lol wut

LOL

2 pages ... pfft that ain't nothing I can make it 5 pages by adding three words:

Heckert and Weeden

Quote:

Heckert and Weeden

Both would have picked Couch over Holcomb.

Quote:

Quote:

Heckert and Weeden

Both would have picked Couch over Holcomb.

Solid proof of how stupid both men are. Holcomb was far superior to Couch.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Heckert and Weeden

Both would have picked Couch over Holcomb.

Solid proof of how stupid both men are. Holcomb was far superior to Couch.

No way, not behind this line and with real RB's

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Heckert and Weeden

Both would have picked Couch over Holcomb.

Solid proof of how stupid both men are. Holcomb was far superior to Couch.

No way, not behind this line and with real RB's

He would if the receivers could get open and catch

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Heckert and Weeden

Both would have picked Couch over Holcomb.

Solid proof of how stupid both men are. Holcomb was far superior to Couch.

No way, not behind this line and with real RB's

He would if the receivers could get open and catch

but Charlie Frye goes bass fishing with Joe Thomas in the offseason, which proves he's a real leader.

Wow Pitts pretty cold you have anything but lip service backing any of it. Here are a few stats you may want to take a look at it.

RB Yards: Yards per carry by that team's running backs, according to standard NFL numbers.

Cleveland: 3.79; NFL average: 4.25

Power Success: Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks.

Cleveland: 53%; NFL average 63%

Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).

Cleveland: 19%; NFL average 20%

Second Level Yards: Yards which this team's running backs earn between 5-10 yards past the line of scrimmage, divided by total running back carries.

Cleveland: 1.08; NFL average 1.07

Open Field Yards: Yards which this team's running backs earn more than 10 yards past the line of scrimmage, divided by total running back carries

Cleveland: .40; NFL average .72

It is important to understand that these ratings only somewhat separate the offensive line from the running backs. A team with a very good running back will appear higher no matter how bad their line, and a team with a great line with appear lower if the running back is terrible.

To me, it doesn't look like the Browns are worst in the league.

Innovative Statistics - 2012 OFFENSIVE LINES

Quote:

Quote:

Heckert and Weeden

Both would have picked Couch over Holcomb.

I am sorry, am I missing something here? How would Weeden have picked Couch over Holcomb? Do you mean Holmgren?

He was joking.

We weren't the "worst in the league".

But here is what did happen. The only G that even got to the second level of blocking was Lavau. He did get some downfield blocking. Otherwise, none of the rest did at any time with any consistency.

Our G's, to this point, simply haven't been of the road grading variety enough to sustain run blocks. Stats can say anything but when you watch the games, our G's simply aren't good run blockers.

Now you can change the blocking schemes with pulling and sealing to help to help create holes in other ways without having to be road graders, but such tactics weren't employed to overcome their lack of physicality.

It is what it is and stats simply won't change that.

Quote:

We weren't the "worst in the league".

But here is what did happen. The only G that even got to the second level of blocking was Lavau. He did get some downfield blocking. Otherwise, none of the rest did at any time with any consistency.

Our G's, to this point, simply haven't been of the road grading variety enough to sustain run blocks. Stats can say anything but when you watch the games, our G's simply aren't good run blockers.

Now you can change the blocking schemes with pulling and sealing to help to help create holes in other ways without having to be road graders, but such tactics weren't employed to overcome their lack of physicality.

It is what it is and stats simply won't change that.

Well there it is your opinion on what you saw, and you don't like stats! Therefore, run blocking bad!

Here is what I saw. A dancing/hesitating Richardson giving defenses way to much time filling gaps, which if you looked above, clearly pointed out with statistics. As for getting to the second level, it makes it dang hard to do when your back is looking for a hole that already came and went. Richards needs a more aggressive attack instead of trying to make is own hole. When Hardesty ran and wasn't fumbling, he get through the holes cleanly. In order to have success in the run game, both OL and RB must work in harmony after all it is the NFL. It is simple to blame the OL when a RB is unsuccessful. Richardson being hurt added to the problem, but it was not the root cause of all the run issues. A healthy second year Richardson having an entire TC should eliminate many of run blocking issues.

Biggest overall offense problem last season was speed. It started with the QB. Weedon couldn't make his reads fast enough. Richardson/Weedon exchanges were slow. Browns did everything in slow motion.

Funny thing, Weeden had all day to pass. So while Weeden had a solid pocket and did not perform well, I don't blame the pass blocking for that. I'm not going to debate the dancing by TRich, because it's true.

But I simply didn't see all of those holes to run through that he missed like you seem to indicate.

I judge the run blocking on holes to run through, not by what the running back does or doesn't do. Each man has a job to do and you can't base one by the actions of another. You must have seen a lot of holes to run through that were created that I simply didn't see. Or you may not have as I was watching the exact same games.

But it certainly wasn't an issue of eight men in the box as some tried to indicate. Yes, I guess we will see how much our run blocking is or is not satisfactory. But my eyes say we need quite a bit of improvement in that area.