DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Moves Still to be Made

Definitely a new chemistry on D. But I’m excited to see how it comes together. The d line can be a significant catalyst for everyone behind them.

Yeah, but it's pretty much "pencils down" as far as this offseason goes to assemble the roster.

I think he wants to see what he has on the roster now. Whenever preseason rolls around, there will be a lot of veterans on the bubble, or cut, and I think that is when we might make a move.

If we are serious about trading for a LB, we'd probably be best served by looking at which teams drafted LBers in the first three rounds to get an idea of which teams might be willing to deal.


That said, it isn't uncommon for a 4th string LBer to earn a starting job at those positions, or at least to get considerable playing time, so I think the group we have might surprise some folks.

Andra Davis comes to mind as a 5th rounder and was a year 2 starter, but played in all 16 games as a rookie. Schobert as a 4th rounder, and Kirksey as a 3rd rounder come to mind as well.

I hope he’s looking for some vet leadership at the LBer spot ... other than Matthews I’m not sure who else is available that could make a difference ... he can still get after the passer ... I’m not sure who else out there could provide vet leadership and be an upgrade on the field over one of the kids ...

I like what these guys have done so far ... i have faith in them to get it figured it out ...

I just don't hold out much hope that we're going to find anyone that'll be an impact player past this point. That only happens to Baltimore.

Maybe we do. LB is a position that's very scheme dependent. A scheme casualty for a team that's going through coaching changes could be a boon for us.

j/c,

I'm somewhat surprised that people are not talking more about our lack of depth @DE. Clayborn is a good PRS, but not so good vs the run and Thomas is a liability in either case. With Vernon's injury history ... we are one injury away from being week on the edge.

I remember Andra Davis had a tremendous game against Pittsburgh his rookie year (IIRC) .. I remember thinking “hmm, he might be a steal” .. he was a good pick in retrospect

I think the path is clear for us to pick up a Lb who gets cut. The FO has shown that they don't value the position group as strongly as the DL or backfield, so didn't want to spend a lot of money in FA on it. Not to mention that there weren't that many decent ones available, and the value just wasn't there.

There will be Lbs who are decent and have good value who will be cut. With all the improvements the FO has made in other areas, I can't see them depending on the current players. At least I hope not.

I might be alone in this, but I thought Bryan Cox did a nice job last year. He isn't real flashy, but he he set the edge fairly well and got some penetration. I also liked his motor.

He's with the Bills now.

What? We cut him?

I don't remember whether we cut him, or just didn't re-sign him, but he's definitely with the Bills now.

Okay. Thanks.

That's a bummer. He wasn't a flash player, but I was impressed by just how solid and steady he was. I think we should have kept him over Chad Thomas.

He won't make the Bills roster...he's JAG. I'd rather have Ogbah.

Why not spend some cap money on Warford, all pro guard 3 yrs in row and 28.....attitude....don't understand why he's on third team in few years....GO Browns!!!!

Gotta think where there was coaching/ scheme changes, there might be someone available.
I am not quite sure the differences in Wilks 4-3. vs. Woods. As far as offense we do know the Oline will operate differently. Maybe a trade of some sort for scheme fit reasons.

Players that could be cut

Posted this in another thread, but it probably fits better here, sorry.

They already got 1 cut right with Warford.

I'd look for a couple of these LBs to be cut or available via trade for minimal compensation. Not sure which ones would be a scheme fit, but I suspect Berry will try to add another veteran to the LB group.

Alex Mack is 35?!?!?

I was shocked to read that as well. After checking, I can report that he is 34 ...... and won't be 35 until November.

Wasn't he drafted by Mangini?

IIRC he was like 23-24 when he was drafted, but even with that I would have thought he was like 32

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Mack

34 until November, but still

This bulletin just in: people get older. Who knew?

I'll back away from Mack for two reasons,

1. He's 35..

2. Don't like the way he played us.

It only gets worse as you get older. Time has a way of compressing. Things you think you did maybe 8 years ago turn out to be 25 years ago.

good point ... we’re all getting OLD!!

Only the lucky ones.

I agree...In addition, Clayborn can only play the LE spot. And unable to play the other side, due to his health condition...Which really leaves us suspect at the other DE spot...So def, need to keep looking at that spot.

Look at it this way, if you aren't getting older, you just died.

That is the reality we all face. Mother Nature is Unforgiving, she spares nobody when she acts up. Father Time in unrelenting. He doesn't stop for anybody. When he pulls your number, you're done.

I don't think Mack played us. We didn't extend him when we should have (season or just before the start of the season before he could become a FA) and he was transition tagged with a new regime.

For 5 seconds thought the Browns were getting a new OLB.

We don't need a center, but I truly do not understand comments like this.

The NFL is a business. Teams cut players all the time. Loyal players like Joe Haden, Phil Dawson, etc. Are the teams "playing" those players or just doing business. Teams do players dirty far more than players doing teams dirty.

Why would a great player like Alex Mack want to play for a team that was going to purposely lose games when he could go somewhere else and play for a good team while earning big money?

I wanted to keep him, but I’ve never, for one moment, blamed Mack for wanting out.

Not sure if you played competitive sports or not, but bro....can you imagine how difficult it would be to play for a team that is purposely trying to lose?

It's why I never agreed w/the plan from the get-go. It makes more sense in baseball and basketball because they play so many more games and you are bound to win some of the games. Also, you don't have much time between games so you don't dwell on the losses as much.

Football? There are only 16 games compared to 162 and 82 in the other sports. You have all week to dwell on the loss. More media focus on one game than in other sports because it's a week between games.

It's so hard for players to endure losing in football and I would NEVER want to be part of a team that was trying to lose because the geeks in the FO thought it was "smart." This team has acquired talent, but it's years later and they still haven't figured out how to win on a consistent basis. Dumbest plan ever!!!

I have, but not at a high level. Stopped playing TEAM sports competitively in my early teens (hockey and baseball, and never played for a loser, btw haha).


Anyway, yeah it would suck, and if my allegiance wasn’t strongly tied to the city I played in, I’d be bolting an incompetently-run franchise as soon as I got the chance, as Mack did.

Edit: interesting angle about a team bring a constant loser, and how it might be worse for the players in football than other sports. Never considered that, but it makes a lot of sense.