DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum If we switch to a base 4-3

We could just go right to the Aaron Donald / Robert Quinn line and let other guys be our Rodney McLeod and Cody Davis...

RE -- Myles Garrett / Tyrone Holmes
UT -- Solomon Thomas / Xavier Cooper
NT -- Danny Shelton / Jamie Meder
LE -- Manny Ogbah / Carl Nassib

WLB -- Chris Kirksey* / Dominique Alexander
MLB -- Raekwon McMillan / Demario Davis
SLB -- Jamie Collins* / Joe Schobert

CB -- Joe Haden / Cam Sutton
CB -- Jamar Taylor / *Briean Boddy-Calhoun
FS -- Jordan Poyer or Ed Reynolds or FA (Micah Hyde? Eric Berry?) / Draftee
SS -- Eddie Jackson / Derrick Kindred

* = Primary nickel personnel

1) Myles Garrett, DE Texas A&M
12) Solomon Thomas, DT Stanford (I know he plays end in Stanford's 3-4)
33) Raekwon McMillan, LB Ohio State
50) Cam Sutton, CB Tennessee (I think I'd rather have Sutton than McMillan, but Jourdan Lewis or Desmond King as a backup pick here with no real backup selection for McMillan)
65) Look for a value. If one of the other two corners are still available, take them, or if one of FS Baker or Williams are there, take them. Also open to WR, OT, C, TE value.
109) Eddie Jackson, S Alabama

Question for those more knowledgeable than I (i.e. probably all of you):

Given we seem likely to amend our defensive strategy and appear to have a lot of pieces for a 4-3 base, would trading down out of #1 and foregoing Allen / Garrett to pick up someone like Barnett as our DE opposite Ogbah be too much of a drop off?

I'm thinking in terms of picking up a future 1st and looking at Darnold next year. Drop down to between 6 and 12, pick up a future 1st and a 2nd this year. Pick up either Adams or Hooker and Barnett in the 1st?

Or do we stick with Garrett and that completes what would be a very good DL? I personally think Barnett will make a very good 4-3 DE. Could even pick up the physical phenom that is Tanoh Kpassagnon (Villanova) in the 3rd or 4th or Daeshon Hall out of A&M?

Stick with Garrett and don't outsmart ourselves.

(Great discussion!)
Of all the potential QBs, Darnold the guy I covet most. But he's at least a year away and I'm not willing to forgo taking the best player in the draft. Take the best player now, worry about how to get Darnold later.

I don't know anything about the qbs next year but imo that's not out smarting yourself. Projecting the athlete is out smarting yourself. I love the idea of garrett but barnett is undeniably the better player. Garrett is the better athlete with upside. If garrett had barnetts technique he'd have 60 sacks instead of 30.

Why the MLB who plays 20 snaps a game over a cb who plays 50?

Because I like 1 MLB and 3 CBs and have another pick 17 later

I agree. Screw more picks, to say it in a way that meets board rules. We need players.

Yes, we need players...we need lots of players to be more precise.

So, say this turns into a race for (2) QBs between the Bears and the 49ers...Which I am predicting will happen..both are desperate and both most likely feel this will be their one best chance to get a "franchise" guy. There are, imho, (3) guys that will be picked in the top 10. Watson, Kizer and Trubisky. This is a QB draft..it always has been and it is never going to change as long as half the league needs a compentent QB, which will always be...always.

Fox, and maybe more importantly Pace, have one shot to get this right..they don't find a QB, then they are looking for new jobs. Fox will land on his feet, but Pace is in a make or break point of his career..He WILL take a QB. The question is, will be find that one guy that he has faith in, or believe all 3 QBs are close enough to risk, his #1 guy isn't there at #3?

I think in the end, the Bears will be willing to trade up above the 49ers, who are transitioning (how often does a transitioning team NOT take a QB?). If Jimmy Raye is hired, he has worked for two teams..the Chargers and the Colts, both of which has the philosophy that the QB makes a team a contender. Without one, you are not.

It will be a very realistic scenario come April that one QB emerges as the clear choice for anyone that feels a QB is the only way to build a franchise, which is the majority view. I'm not sure what I believe anymore...all I know is based on film, all of the QBs in this class are at best, a crap shoot and there are other players that can help you build a franchise.

IF the Bears are enamored with one guy, which history tells us they will...Then the #1 pick is where they will want to be.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility they will be willing to pay a premium of #3, #36 and a 2018 1st round pick, although it's more likely a 2018 2nd. That is 3 players to build upon and likely, you still get your player that you would originally have wanted at #1.

It isn't about sticking to your board and stop trading down..it's about smart decisions. If there is a chance that the plan is for anyone other than a QB, then yes, ignore the phone ringing, but this league is what it is...and most like come April, the phone will be ringing in order to acquire a QB..moving two spots is a risk, but a worthy risk imho. Even if the 49ers don't take a QB, you may still get 2 more starters out of the deal...or at the very least, you 3 tries to find A SINGLE starter, where your taking your odds on one man otherwise. No matter how much research you do, you won't know if that man will make it...having 3 tries is much better odds.

Aren't the Browns a QB needy team?

Man, some of these posts don't even make any sense.

The hypocrisy in you insulting someone's opinion is overwhelming.

Doesn't matter, our front office isn't made up of desperate football minded individuals, they base everything on analytics, which will tell them there are a dozen players with more value than any of these QBs. That is the difference between the Browns situation and the other 31 GMs in this draft.



(edit) Add to that fact, 2 more chances of high draft picks and it puts it way over the top in value.

Another excellent post...I'd add the following:

Most people I talk with DO NOT want to trade down. They/I want play makers...difference-makers...studs...at the top of this draft.

Recently we have either done an awful job of using the extra picks we acquired (even though the trade was a good trade) OR we traded down...then down again...and perhaps missed out on a difference-maker(s) in exchange for a couple/bunch of potentially really good players.

I think YOU are saying that your trade-down idea is a good one PROVIDED we don't trade so low as to miss out on a true difference-maker. In your scenario, we trade down and STILL get a stud playmaker - maybe even the guy we've wanted all along - and still get more picks in return. Bonus.

If we aren't sold ourselves on one of those QBs and can get a haul from a team who IS sold on a QBs...your trade scenario makes perfect sense and satisfies the desire to acquire playmaking studs in the first part of the draft.

I think our genral battered-Browns syndrome makes us think that in any trade-down, we would put ourselves outside the playmaking-stud range. In your scenario, that wouldn't be the case.

Believe me, I want playmakers as well. I do NOT want any of these QBs based on watching their film. But if the right deal is made, it could enhance the rebuild in a positive way...Besides, after evaluating Garrett and Allen, I am more enamored with Allen, but I think Garrett could help us more in this new 4-3..so, I am not losing in either scenario as long as I am convinced the Bears are taking a QB.

I think it does matter. If there was a qb worth taking w/the first overall pick, I believe that the Browns would draft him.

If there isn't a qb worth the first overall pick, I don't think these other teams are dumb enough to trade up for him.

And I sure as hell don't believe our FO is better at drafting and evaluating talent than most teams in the league.

Watson was pretty impressive last night in coming back and beating Bama - he made some clutch throws and was accurate. I really don't want a running QB, but his elusiveness was on display too.

Having said that - and while we need a QB - drafting by need is what will kill you. BPA is really the way to go. . . And I agree that trading down and still landing guys you covet is a bonus if you can pull it off. I don't think Watson is #1 over talent worthy. I doubt he is there at 12. Trub and Kizer both have a ways to go, and show potential but need to develop. That's not what you want when you take a guy #1.

It's become the rationale that if you trade down then you must be happy with 'just a bunch of guys' instead of impact players. In reality you always want impact players wherever possible - In the 3rd round on I think that you accept that getting starters and backups is more the goal and way less chance to luck into a diamond in the rough who transforms into an impactful player like Dak was last year. Going from #1 to 4-5-6-7 would still allow you to get an elite talent that will make an impact at a critical position. Hooker, Adams, Allen - and a couple spots lower, even a guy like Rueben Foster who stood out last night on the Bama D. Or if one of those QB's isn't value at #1 - they become more viable a few spots lower.

Personally unless someone wants to give up the farm - I am staying at #1 and nailing my cross to whoever the selection is. Probably Garrett.

A bit verbose to make a simple point.

I stick by what I said. We don't need quantity. We got that last year. We need quality.

I'd be happy if we traded up to the point we only select 5 players.

Irish - Good concept as long as you like as many guys as the pick you trade to. If we like Garrett and Allen and trade to 3, what if the Bears are trading up for Allen, then SF takes Garrett and now you are in a different tier of player?

Counter point to the we need lots of players.
Would you rather have 2 studs on offense and 2 studs on defense or 2 good players and 2 average players on offense and 2 good players and 2 average players on defense? I would rather have the 4 studs than the 8 good/average players just my personal opinion.


Vers - Just because 1 team likes a Qb doesn't mean all the others will. And vice-versa. It is more than plausible that Chicago would fall in love with Kizer and we don't like any of the Qb's in this draft.

mgh - sure seemed like Watson willed his team to victory didn't it

Yeah? Well history disproves your opinion.

Still too early, but in 2016 the Browns were a part of that history..

Goff brought (2) firsts, (2) seconds, (2) thirds for Goff, 4th and a 6th...Titans traded all the way down to #15

Wentz brought us (2) firsts, (1) second, (1) third and (1) forth for Wentz and a 2017 compensatory 4th...Yes, the BROWNS passed on a questionable QB for a chance at MORE players.

Robert Griffin brought (3) first round and (1) second round to move from 6th to 2nd...This one has another tie to the Browns, the Rams Defensive coordinator at the time, Greg Williams, helped talk that front office into parlaying those picks into Michael Brockers(DT) in first round, Janoris Jenkins (CB) second round and then in 2013, another first rounder from the Redskins turned into Alec Ogletree...the base of their defense.

Of course, you can also argue, they are still a QB away from the playoffs and only picking 4 spots lower than us after a 1-15 season...except they aren't because they traded that pick away for a QB that was 3rd string for the majority of the season, then when they finally played him, it was obvious why he was listed as 3rd string...

Taking a questionable QB, no matter where it is in the draft if going to fail more times than not..actually almost always. If these QBs are questionable, you don't waste the pick...and they are definitely questionable.

The way I see it is if they want Jimmy G this hypothetical trade down to 3 would still give one of the stud defensive players and some extra ammo to get Jimmy G, if that is who they want. As too teams not being dumb enough to trade up and overdraft a qb, I think you could be mistaken. Petty iffy qbs are taken high in round 1 a lot. Of course all of this depends on the Bears wanting to go to one to get the one they want. I would not want to go any lower than 3. There are too many maybes' in this scenario right now. Now if they want to stay at 1 to guarantee there pick I am fine with that. That is the only way to make sure you get who you want.

I agree sham, I am not clamoring for a trade down...I was merely giving a scenario that makes sense for why they might decide to trade down a couple of spots.

If it isn't crystal clear the Bears would be trading up for a QB, you don't make the trade...pretty simple

Also, there would need to be a fuzzy line between their #1 and #2 choice...if there is a clear, "we have to have this guy on our roster" choice, you don't trade down.

I simply don't see it. Myles Garrett is NOT a once in a decade player like some are making him out to be. In my opinion he is one of the top two, but I personally find Allen to be the better player. Garrett just seems like he would be more valuable to this defense given what we have. So if I draft Garrett, I am now drafting out of need instead of BPA. That rarely works to your advantage either.

I love Trubisky but I can't see anyone moving to #1 for any QB.

But, let's say Chicago does covet a QB. We move to 3. We're guaranteed one of 2 stud defensive cornerstones. Maybe even our choice if Frisco goes QB also.

I do that every day and I want Chicago's 2nd rounder at minimum.

Get Garoppolo for one of our 2's and we just struck GOLD.

I like your idea if it pans out as such. If you can draft an impact player at 3 who was in the mix at 1 then yee-hah I'm sold

Do you possibly think that teams may want to trade up for Garrett or Allen??

I just want 2 difference makers with those picks who come in and make us better from the gun. I don't know the art of QB whispering so can't tell if any of the guys coming out are legit, NFL wise. For every Prescott there are countless examples of Ponder Sanchez, etc. I want us to nail these 2 picks. I'd rather risk a 2nd on a QB if one we rank highly enough is there. Don't gamble, is I guess what I'm saying and I would assume analytics will help remove any overly emotional or subjective bias?

If anyone remembers last year I did a post comparing our picks to pff. Every single one of our picks was either great value by pff or an outstanding sparq score. So I think we can assume safEly that we will see this again.

Now we also love to trade down. Which by that chart makes sense from that point of view. What's nice about pff is they aren't just a random guy. Their boards don't change as much from now til April.

Which leads me to one guy. Derek Barnett. I am a fan of his but this post is completely unbiased. If you notice throughout pff's off season he has been consistently higher rated than any publication or journalist. That wouldn't be a big deal but with him being the same position as myles it is.

This is going to come down to interviews. The grades will probably be similar for pff and for us. Myles the freak and Derek the technician. So when that happens if you deem them equal or even Derek slightly less I can pretty much guarantee you a trade down will be attempted.

Personally I see the Jets getting nervous as a FO. They have a decent roster. They need a qb and settling for whichever drops will likely get them fired in likely a year or possibly two tops. We could trade back and get the no2 man on our board(if it's similar to pff which last year's draft suggests) and reciever a fools bounty. Just some thoughts for consideration. There are too many likenesses in this scenario to not consider it as a possibility.

What would you guys think of this? I really like Barnett and would be much happier with this than I imagine most people.

I like Barnett.

I live in Tennessee, but am not a Vol fan to any degree even if my wife is a grad. I am a Gator grad, but Barnett is a stud player.


He just broke Reggie White's school sack record.


That has to mean something in my book..

Okay Irish. Wanna make a bet on what will happen? You talk like you are so sure. And I'm talking like I am sure.

Let's bet.

PM for the details.

Jesus, you guys are so freaking full of crap!

In just about any other draft he's a top 3 lock. It's not everyday you have to com pare with "the freak 2". He should test well and his technique is extremely polished for a college de. Can't remember the last time I saw a pass rusher with 3 or 4 nfl ready moves. Wouldn't surprised me at all if he got droy.

Pred. Moving down may or may not happen, but it's a definite possibility for the right haul.

Say the Jets come calling.

If we landed Hooker at 6 and one of Barnett, Thomas at 12, I'd be a happy camper.

And the deal STARTS with the Jets 2nd and their 2018 #1.

How bad do you want said QB?

Hell, they can have Garrett for all I care.

We get Coverage and Pass Rush at 6&12. Perfect.

Bet on what?? I hear guys saying I don't care who they pick, but stay at #1 and make a pick. I don't care what the offers are, stay at #1 and make a pick.

I made a statement that would make sense for a trade down IF that scenario played out.

For all I and you know, the Bears could be all in on Jay Cutler for another year, then my scenario is completely wasted words.

So again, what exactly are you wanting to bet?

If you are talking about QBs, then yes, I believe there will be 3 QBs taken in the top 6 picks of the draft...

We are a ways off from determining who will go where at this point, because all we have is game film. Interviews will play a huge role in determining where these QBs end up...However..

Right now we have two solid first round prospects in Trubisky and Kizer, my personal favorite is borderline first(but I think should really be the only one in discussion for top ten) in Deshaun Watson..Then you have the wild card, if he declares in Josh Allen. Allen is new to the scene, much like Wentz was this time last year. He's made some bad decisions, especially late in games, but he looks the part on film. Tall, great arm, good mobility, plays in a pro style offense. I could see him in play if he declares.

With 4 options of QBs under the microscope, I have no doubt that at least two will make it into the top of this draft, more likely 3 if you want my honest answer.

It's what this league does..time and again, they relegate QBs drafted higher than status says they should be. I don't know why you think this year will be different.

Coming off an injury that caused him to miss a season for any interior defender is a big ask/expectation and for me even IF Des were to make a completely recovery and become the player he was in 2014 I still view Allen as a superior player.

I agree that Paea is a solid player but everyone else you listed are question marks in my book.


I don't want Allen because of 'need' though. I like Allen because I have him as the higher rated prospect and because I think the difference between Allen and the next best 3-tech is much larger then the difference between Miles and say Barnett, Lawson, Taco, Lawrence etc.

There are several paths to building a team. I'm not saying that going with Miles is the wrong move btw, just explaining what I would do and why. I buy into the thinking that 3-tech is one of the key cogs of a good 43 and I think that 3-tech of Allen's talent are less frequent then DEs.

Neither here nor there but I look forward to seeing Gregg work.

Orchard was not included because in that instance he was starting. Otherwise des would be counted as depth. Then it would really sway the depth in DT favor. Paea, Meder and wright have accomplish more than any RE reserve. The cupboard is bare.

I never said allen wasn't a superior player to des. And I get that you have him rated higher but, and not to sound like a jerk, literally no team will. I don't expect you to agree and don't take it personally but it just won't happen. I get that you like the guy, I do too, but I don't even see that as in any way possible.

I can agree on the difference in prospects though. Although I would add that the difference after Barnett at edge is tremendous compared to 3 tech. It has a very consistent drop all the way through the 2nd round.

I'm not in the myles or bust group so no worries. I'm actually alone over here wanting to trade down and take Barnett.

Oh yeah? Some team will! Some times will def have him rated higher! -J/K

What difference does it make to me if you think no team will have Allen rated higher? This discussion was never based on what I think willhappen; it always been about what we would do. And neither here nor but there are some sites that have Allen rated higher not that it makes any difference.



And for me that factors in to the decision making process. You could take Allen and have a much better chance of a quality DE falling to you at 12,33 or 50? then taking Miles and netting a quality 3-tech.

It makes zero difference I'm simply responding to you.

And that's where the disagreemental ends. I see starter quality DT like Watkins available 2nd but zero edge starters at 33 but clearly you see the opposite

The best thing about Allen was that he could play the edge, which is a major position of need. Now that he plays the inside, there's no point to drafting him. He's an outstanding player, but like Foster, we have no need for him on the team. Who cares how good the second DT is? Seriously. It's not an impact position.

I'd like to get Garrett at #1, and the best available S with our next pick.

I personally see Collins as the SAM, Kirksey as the WILL, and for now, Davis as the MIKE. I don't see Orchard getting the nod over Collins at SAM, IMO. We could stand to upgrade on the MIKE based on my recommended grouping. However, I could see Kirksey as the MIKE too.


Collins and Kirksey in the Nickel.


Clearly, this is predicated on the fact we can keep Collins.

Yep. Maybe Raekwon in the 3rd?

In the third would be nice. I don't know if he'd last that long.