DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Team, Right Now

No. But, if you had an equal volume of each, muscle would weigh more. Say you had a 2x2x2 slab of muscle, and a 2x2x2 slab of fat. The muscle would weigh more.

And it's like 3 times more, so you can lose quite a bit of fat without losing any weight.

That's why body fat is such an important measurement in football.

A pound of steel weigh the same as a pound feathers. So steel does not weigh more than a feather?

whats heavier, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers.

Which hurts more when it pancakes you into the turf?

I think you are the only one who thought he was going to do this.

Sashi's job is to assimilate the info he's getting from Berry and the scouts with what the coaching staff wants/needs using a process that was probably designed/refined by Depo.

They've been stressing collaboration. Sashi's the one with the final say.

How that dynamic plays out, we'll have to wait and see.

Pretty much agree with what you have here. Completely agree with your point on WR. We need at least two new ones and the impact ones are in short supply, which is why I was advocating moving down from 2 (which we did) to take Treadwell AND moving up from 32 (which won't happen) to take Doctson and put him on the other side. Treadwell lined up as an X receiver at Ole Miss and Doctson as a Z. I would think they would be better flipped but I'd be happy to have them in that arrangement.

Edge rusher... for me, there's Spence who is worth a first, Nassib who will be a Day 2 pick, then a handful of guys I like for Day 3. Correa I also like but not enough to use 32 on him when I like Ochi, Holmes, McCalister as much and they are all predicted to go Day 3.

RT, this one is going to be tough to fill. Really stinks Schwartz got away. I like Brandon Shell and Caleb Benenoch as options after round 2. Shell is probably a better fit for a power scheme. I'd draft Benenoch in the third if we were still running zone just to make sure I got him. He will be very good in the right scheme. Other than that though, yes, the pickings are slim after the 2nd round. This is a major reason why keeping Schwartz was my #1 FA priority for the team.

I kind of disagree on ILB. There are actually a number of guys who are projected to go 6th round area that can be serviceable or better at ILB: Steven Daniels (BC), Antonio Morrison (Florida), Brandon Chubb (Wake Forest), Nick Kwiatkoski (WVU). Blake Martinez is a good choice but I think he ends up going top 100.

FS is another position that could have a lot of decent Day 3 options: KJ Dillon, Tyvis Powell, DEon Bush, Trevon Stewart, Jamie Byrd are good choices IMO.

At CB, Cyrus Jones, Eric Murray, Kalan Reed are the Day 3 guys I'm interested in.

Agree on RBs late, though I would probably make an exception for Dixon or Prosise at either 3rd if we're not taking Cardale Jones there. Also like Perkins, Collins, DeAndre Washington, Aaron Green as day 3 guys.

The DL group being so good is the main reason I don't want Buckner at 8. So many guys potentially available at 32 and beyond.

I'm not sure how this correlates with your discussion, but I wouldn't mind a pound of bacon lol. Pound of bacon probably leads to two pounds of clogged arteries? Lmfaoooo

I don't think their roles are poorly defined. I'm sure they have known from the beginning exactly what each other's role is.

What makes it poorly defined to you is that you don't understand the roles and who fits into each one.

Being unwilling to wait it out to learn what they are doing but instead ranking on them from the very beginning, based on limited knowledge, you've backed yourself into a corner with your wild claims.

It appears now that Depo was never to be involved in draft evaluations this year. You heard that for the first time and decided that this was something they just decided this week, choosing to believe that he was falling short so they decided that he shouldn't be involved now.

You've always been a knowledgeable football guy. But too often you jump to conclusions and then refuse to budge from the opinion that you form as a result.

Solid breakdown. I'll add my brief thoughts.

Just to clarify, Starks is gone, He was cut earlier this off-season.

Right now we have the following players at DL and OLB:

DL:
Jeffcoat: I know nothing about him,, other than his father was pretty darn good for the Cowboys.
Cam Johnson: I don't even know his bloodlines.
Des Bryant: Our most consistent DE.
John Hughes: I like Hughes, but he had a poor year last year. Overall he is a solid pro, a useful starter, but not a superstar.
Meder: High effort, but limited. Who knows what he becomes?
Cooper: Showed that he has physical ability, and is quick and sudden, but needs the drive to be great.
Wynn: Cut, practice squad, cut, practice squad, who knows?

Overall, a pretty depressing group.

OLB:

Armonty Bryant: Has some talent, but drug charges are a major concern. He also struggles to set an edge.
Kruger: Still our best all around OLB. Production really suffered last year. Scheme or decline, or both?
Mingo: Maybe adding weight will help. It would be nice to get a personnel win from within house.
Solomon: Who knows? He did a decent job setting an edge in pre-season, but how will he do against real players? Injuries are a concern.
Orchard: Seemed to come on late. Encouraging? Has the best burst off the line among our front 7.
Tuggle: Who knows?

Of this group, 13 players in all, as of right now, I see a lot of room for improvement. I wonder how scheme and play design will affect the players on the team as of right now? I can see significant turnover coming among this group ...... with maybe as many as 5-6 changes from last year. We have already lost Starks, and I would not be surprised to see the team wash its hands of Armonty Bryant as well. Whether from the remainder of carryover players, or new additions, we need a lot of help here if our defense is to escape the bottom of the league in terms of production.

Man, we really, really need a lot of help here.

Deputy, I think it would be better to say that a pound of muscle is more dense so therefore takes up less space in the body than a pound of fat. A pound is a pound, but the space that pound takes up is what differs i.e. a pound of lead would take up less space than a pound of feathers, but they would still weigh a pound.

Um, didn't Sashi work for the Jaguars and the Colts? Maybe Sashi was the Jaguars and Berry was with the Colts, but they still have some football exposure. I believe Berry played for too, but I'm not sure about that. I know Depo did.

So I wouldn't say they don't have football knowledge, but I would say that they are inexperienced in the draft arena; however, that does not mean that they cannot do the job.

Yeah, but then you don't eat bacon and care about your cholesterol . Bacon, yummy!!!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and no, it doesn't matter to me at all that our opinions differ. I'm not even sure I have an opinion. What I have is a willingness to see it through.

It's not your opinion that I object to at all, it's the crazy 'made up in your head' ideas that form your opinion.

Trust me. The ignore button works wonders. You'll still see him when guys quote him though. He is only doing it to see how many guys he can rile up. When he stops getting attention, he'll stop inventing new ways to try to prove his lame points.

Sorry, but no he won't. I've been on this board since '01 and he was here when I got here. He has always been exactly this all along. Like badger he don't let go. He and I have had some knock-down drag-outs in the past. I've given up on that but sometimes I feel it necessary to address him anyway. I shouldn't.

Thanks YTown and steve for trying to get the thread back on track. There was actually some good football being discussed here. It must have upset some people to have that happen.

I knew Starks was gone. I was just answering ed's question about last year's defense. Or, maybe I misread things and was supposed to talk about the upcoming defense? Not sure?

Btw-----is A. Bryant still on the team?

Yes, Bryant is on the team.

Thanks.

I just wanted to clarify the Starks matter. I was unsure if you had seen his release, or not.

I have to believe that Bryant will not be around much longer though.

He's suspended for the 1st 4 games, for performance enhancing drugs, and has also been indicted on felony drug charges. He could be found guilty on those charges, and if so he is almost certainly done. Even if he manages to plead his charges down, I can't see that double whammy playing out well for his future on a team trying to change its image, despite what they might say now.

Why the Cleveland Browns must tank in 2016: It's time they lose with purpose


By Doug Lesmerises, cleveland.com
on April 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, updated April 22, 2016 at 3:08 PM
link

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Since their return, no team in the NFL has lost more than the Browns. Since their return, no team in the NFL has lost with less purpose and reaped less from their failures.

It's time for that to change, and analytical thinking should help lead the Browns toward a necessary conclusion for the 2016 season.

Tank.

This isn't a new argument. But this isn't just about a cute slogan and a laugh. It's more than calling every loss a "Defeat for Deshaun." (That would be Clemson QB Deshaun Watson.) It's a serious proposal that illustrates how, for all the things the Browns have done wrong since their return, perhaps the thing they've done the worst is lose.

They've lost wrong.

With another new start under another new regime, start by losing the right way, especially when the trade of the No. 2 pick signifies that the future, and not the 2016 season, is the priority. As it should be.

It would not be about asking new coach Hue Jackson or the players to give anything short of full effort. It would be about the front office assembling the team with no thought to 2016 wins. No mediocre stop-gap veterans (though RGIII may go against this). Full speed toward the future.

The Browns don't have to say the T-word. Just do it. An unspoken tanking plan already may be underway. That would partially explain the goodbyes for Alex Mack, Travis Benjamin, Mitchell Schwartz, Tashaun Gipson and Karlos Dansby. Next? The Browns should trade All-Pro left tackle Joe Thomas for the best offer of draft picks they can find. If you don't think Thomas could still be an All-Pro for a potential playoff team in 2019, maximize his value now.

That's an opinion. Here's a collection of (mostly) facts to back a tanking theory.

1. In their first season back in 1999, the Browns had the worst record in the league at 2-14 and earned the No. 1 pick in the 2000 draft, taking defensive end Courtney Brown.

2. Since then, in the last 16 seasons, the Browns have never earned the No. 1 pick in the draft by compiling the worst record in the league. Never.

3. Thirteen other franchises have been the worst team at least once since then. Not the Browns.

4. Over those 16 years, however, the Browns are the worst overall team, with a record since 2000 of 85-171. Next is Detroit at 87-169, and then comes a big jump in success to Oakland at 96-160.

5. Worst overall the last 16 years. Not the worst in an individual season in 16 years.

6. In those 16 years, the Browns lead the NFL in four- or five-win seasons with eight. Oakland has seven and no other team has more than four.

7. In 15 of those 16 years, the worst team in the league won between zero and three games. Four or five wins is almost never bad enough.

8. So the Browns are bad, obviously. But in the last 16 years, eight teams have more seasons of 3-13 or worse than they do. St. Louis has been 3-13 or worse four times, Detroit three times and six other teams twice.

9. If you are that bad, then you are in contention for the No. 1 pick, which gives you the chance to take the quarterback you like best, no questions asked.

10. The Browns were that bad just once in the last 16 years, going 3-13 last year. They earned the No. 2 pick and a shot at the quarterback. They traded it.

11. Going 4-12 or 5-11 is the worst thing an NFL team can do. You are nowhere near the playoffs and nowhere near the No. 1 pick. You are in no team's land. The Browns rule this territory.

12. The Browns still need a franchise quarterback. Since taking Tim Couch with the No. 1 pick in 1999, no team has invested less in the quarterback position than the Browns. Since Couch, 24 of the 32 teams have drafted a quarterback in the first 20 picks. Of the eight that didn't, seven found franchise quarterbacks through other ways, either savvy or luck: the Patriots (drafted Tom Brady in the sixth round), Saints (traded for Drew Brees), Cowboys (found Tony Romo as an undrafted free agent), Packers (picked Aaron Rodgers at No. 28), Bears (traded for Jay Cutler), Seahawks (drafted Russell Wilson in the third round) and Chiefs (traded for Alex Smith).

13. The eighth team is the Browns, who have drafted three quarterbacks (Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden and Johnny Manziel) at No. 22 after they fell in the draft. None of those were their draft priority, all of them the Browns' second pick in the first round.

14. Of course drafting a quarterback isn't a sure thing. But here are some of the quarterbacks drafted in the top three picks since Couch: Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Alex Smith, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Blake Bortles, Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota. Any interest?

15. The Browns are overdue to prioritize quarterback. How to do that? Draft one in the top 10 at least, but preferably, take the first quarterback in the draft. Get their pick of the litter.

16. The best way to do that? Be the worst team in the league.

17. The other option? Stumble to four or five wins again this season, earn maybe the No. 4 pick and then trade up to No. 1 - by giving up most of the assets just obtained from Philadelphia while trading the No. 2 pick.

18. How is going 5-11 and having to trade up to No. 1 preferable to going 0-16 or 1-15 and just getting the No. 1 pick without giving up anything?

19. The Philadelphia 76ers may have ruined tanking for people, after just dispatching their general manager who engineered their three-year taking effort, but there's one reason it's better to tank in the NFL than in the NBA: No draft lottery. The worst team gets the No. 1 pick.

20. The Browns trading the No. 2 pick this year makes the most sense if it is followed by these steps: Tanking the 2016 season, getting the No. 1 pick in the 2017 NFL Draft, taking a quarterback with that pick.

21. Will there be a quarterback worthy of the No. 1 pick in 2017? Yes. After next Thursday, in the last 17 drafts, a quarterback will have gone No. 1 overall 12 times. A quarterback will have been picked within the top three picks in 15 of 17 drafts. The only years without a quarterback that high were E.J. Manuel at No. 16 to Buffalo in 2013 and Chad Pennington at No. 18 to the Jets in 2000.

A quarterback will be worth it. All the Browns have to do is put themselves in position to take him, by doing what they have done best but have also done so wrong.

Losing.

For the first time, lose with a purpose.

I cannot believe that any responsible, ethical sports writer would advocate this...

mac, I have been defending you, but couldn't you have put all of your recent posts in another thread? We were actually having a good "football" conversation on this thread.

This one is now going to be ruined, too.

I agree. Tanking does not change a culture it adds to what is already established. Besides that the Browns could have drafted Big Ben and Aaron Rogers without tanking.

NFL roundtable: Is it acceptable for struggling teams to tank?

Roundtable: Is it ever acceptable for teams to tank, and to what extent?


BY SI STAFF
Posted: Fri Nov. 13, 2015
link

We've reached the second half of the 2015 NFL season, and it’s clear that some teams need to be already looking ahead to next year. Lose now, get a higher draft pick, select a better player, right? Well, not quite.​
It’s not uncommon for teams to make decisions that, if not quite tanking, certainly don’t correspond with a win-now mentality. Under what conditions is it acceptable for NFL teams to increase their probability of losing? And to what extent is it OK for teams to tank in general? SI.com’s NFL staff discusses in this week’s roundtable

Don Banks
Tanking is such an ugly word. But whatever you want to call it, it's unacceptable in the NFL and a very weak act indeed. You play only 16 games a season, and to give one of them away on purpose is a bad look for the league, no matter how good the results might turn out for the offending team. Rest assured it does happen, and you don’t have to think back too far for a prime example. Last season, in Week 17, the Bucs curled up in the fetal position at home against the Saints, ensuring the defeat that awarded 2–14 Tampa Bay the No. 1 pick in the 2015 draft and a shot at either Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariota, the two top-rated quarterbacks. We know now who they wanted all along.


Up 20–7 at the start of the fourth quarter, the Bucs kept right on benching starters, a process that not-too-subtly began at halftime. Taking no chances, almost all of Tampa Bay’s key players were out of the lineup in the game’s final 15 minutes. Topping things off, the Bucs let quarterback Josh McCown throw only three passes in the second half, with the veteran absorbing a game-clinching sack for a safety behind an offensive line dotted with reserves. The Bucs were relentless in their surrender, and fell 23–20, despite having won their previous 24 regular-season games in which they held a lead of at least 13 points to begin the fourth quarter.
Bucs coach Lovie Smith wound up getting his guy in Winston, and perhaps history will vindicate a decision born out of Tampa Bay’s desperation for a franchise quarterback. But tanking away today in order to win in the future is still a maneuver that comes with a cost—at least in terms of some reputation lost.

Chris Burke

No. I get the argument from a practical sense—worse record equals higher pick equals, in theory, better player.

A couple of issues, though. Even entertaining the thought of “tanking” flows completely against the entire win-now culture of the NFL. How can you convince a GM or coach or player to wave the white flag when all of their jobs depend on performance?

There also is the little problem of assuming that merely holding an early draft pick will result in a great draft. We’ve seen time and again that is not necessarily the case. Better to win when you can, be it for a team’s mentality as it rebuilds or for the benefit of those hoping to earn jobs the following season.

Doug Farrar

You can’t tank. In 1968, the Eagles simply had to lose the rest of their games down the stretch for the right to the first draft pick, and the right to select O.J. Simpson. But they won two of their last three games, the Bills got Simpson, and the 2–12 Eagles selected Leroy Keyes with the third pick instead. The only historic thing Philly got out of that was when the fans booed Santa Claus, but I maintain that the Eagles did the right thing.

Tanking the rest of your season for a better draft pick goes against the competitive mindset on which football is built, and many players will tell you that if you ease off on the field, it actually increases your chance of injury. There's no issue (nor should there be) with resting your best players if you have the division or a top seed wrapped up—but that's not tanking. That’s just saving your assets for the right time. But taking the field with the intention to lose in any way? How is that different than what the Black Sox did, and were later banned for doing? Intentionally losing is a betrayal of the game, and should not be endorsed under any circumstances.
Eric Single

Players and coaches have no incentive to act with anything beyond the current season in mind, but NFL front offices can’t possibly be above looking farther down the road at the value of a few extra losses once the playoffs are no longer in sight. Trading away the unwieldy contracts of veteran starters and putting injured players in bubble wrap can improve a bad team's prospects for next season even before factoring in the value of a more favorable position in the crapshoot that is the NFL draft.

Actions that fall under the broad net of tanking happen more rarely in the NFL than in any other major sport, in part because the season is so short and ridden with variance, but that brevity also makes the final month of a lost season a slightly less painful experience for those destined (doomed?) to stay connected with the team in the long term.

Bad article. Lousy writer's choice. With "friends" like this, get a stranger to cut your throat. So cheap shot negativity is the new news.

Steaming, it is. Mama must be proud.

You can't say it any better than this...