DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Joe Woods

Sorry to disappoint.I had no idea you were expecting a thesis on a UDFA that,chances are,he won't make the team.
If he's still here in Sept. I'll take a closer look.

Disapointment would require an investment. Look or dont look. Handle your business.

Marvin Wilson, appears, to have very big upside if all goes perfect in development.
"The Starters will be Question, Malik Jackson if healthy, and Question.

Elliott and Sheldon Day are 7, and 8 on the list above, and it's hard for people to see it. but that's just my opinion.

I think whomever, ends up 6-8 out of those, to be stashed somewhere other than the game day rosters, ir, ps. or waived.

Why would Wilson not require double teams? (say it out loud.) because he was a udfa.

Is that reasonable?

(Only if human nature forbids the possibility he was overlooked in the selecting of 259 top players,((individually in 15 minute intervals, reacting on the fly)), because human nature, of the NFL clubs, never overlooks anything.)

He definitely has a bit of an uphill battle, even moreso if Richardson somehow comes back, but he has a ton of potential.

I'm not going to sweat who is a starter and who isn't; I'm actually going to enjoy watching how it shakes out over the summer. There should be some pretty good battles on the interior of the DLine.

I agree with you. Yet at the same time I try to keep in mind that not living up to their potential is the very reason they weren't drafted in the first place.

You do realize that's the exact same thing people were claiming on here about the LB'er position before the draft where they drafted JOK, right?

I'm not buying it. I haven't seen any quote from our FO saying what you are claiming. And like I said, people that were doing nothing more than reading their crystal balls said the same thing about the LB'er position. It appears their crystal balls were out of adjustment.

All draft picks are paid cheaply. That's not disputed. Defensive end is a higher paid position across the league. That doesn't mean you just let every team run the ball up your gut while you "Let the cream rise".

Draft picks are a valuable asset that have much more value than the rookie contract you are paying them.

You are doing the exact same thing posters did when speaking about the LB'er position. You're basing an assumption of how a new FO will address the DT position after only one season of building a roster. We aren't even finished with this coming seasons roster yet.

I found out a long time ago you should never trust how a new recipe is going to taste before it's even gone into the oven.

Number one rule of working with data: correlation is not causation.

What you propose is merely one possible takeaway that only looks at isolated sets of the data. You absolutely could state it as "I think they don't value...", but in no way can you absolutely state for fact that this is the case.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while money was absolutely a factor in the release of Sheldon Richardson, it in no way indicates they do not value the position. In fact, their moves before and after strongly suggest otherwise; and applicability of the 80/20 rule probably plays a factor. e.g. They value the position greatly, and they value what Richardson brings, greatly, but the market for the skillsets doesn't support that level of play, especially if they feel they can get 80% of the production he brings in the skillsets they are looking for at a dramatically lower price point.

It isn't a sign of not valuing the position, but a sign of finding value at the position and not overpaying versus what the market supports.

Furthermore, when you take into consideration just the one simple fact that this entire scheme is predicated upon pressure up front and coverage on the back, that tells you that they very likely value all four spots up front VERY highly; it's just that they felt that the extra that Richardson might bring to the position wasn't enough to warrant the extra high pay in relation to younger, cheaper guys with a similar skillset, or skillsets that may more closely fit what Woods is wanting from his DT's.



You can't peer through a knothole and see everything on the other side of a fence.

Can you show me any statement from Depo supporting this? I haven't seen any. I can't say any better then PPE did about the DT position. Try reading his post and tell me what you think.

From reports they were tried to get Richardson to stay for around 8 million. Does that say they aren't willing to pay a DT?

Seems obvious to me that this FO is trying to create value or showing what they value for this situation, like with one-year and rookie first contracts. That will pay off later after their success during the present staging phase. Bigger names are bigger fish to fry IMO. I feel great about where we are with signings and setting the table for the future if we prove out.

jc

i hope joe woods can turn out to be a good DC. hopefully we can simply chalk last season to COVID, but man i'm still worried about the health of our secondary.

regardless, i'm excited about this defense. i do wonder who will win the #2 CB spot. Greedy hasn't played that much, so did he already leapfrog greedy or will there be a true competition?

i still don't like letting go of Richardson. i get this value perspective as far as the numbers, but there still has to be that element of things you can't statistically measure. from locker room/on field presence to experience.

i do really like our line, but having him included in our rotation just far more sense than cutting him for value. especially when this appears to be a championship window we're chasing.

but barring injury, there's gonna be no excuses. i get growing pains early in the season, but come mid season our defense better be in full form if healthy. he has the talent on the field, so lets go.

Can you steer me in the direction of the reports for around 8 million? I tried Google but I had no luck. I'm not doubting you but I would like to read about it.

You don't spend for a position, you spend for talent at a position and you pay based on what the market support. At no point, ever, do you say "well, he's a CB so I'm ok giving him $10 million more than what the market supports"

You're staying myopically focused on one little aspect without taking in the rest of the picture. It isn't (in my opinion based on my observations) that they won't spend because they don't value the position, it is that they won't spend because there isn't a talent at that position that warrants that much more. There is a distinction there that you're skipping over

I'm with you; I want Richardson back, but after the other moves we've made - if these guys pan out and can show up on the field - I feel a bit more comfortable with the notion. We are absolutely a better DLine with him here, and the man deserves to run with a winner. Until this past season, he has spent his entire career in NFL purgatory on bad teams. He's a really damn good player that is a leader and a role model type - he doesn't get into trouble, he just goes about his business, and he shows up and plays hard every week. There's a lot of value in a guy like that.

Unfortunately, he's asking more than we feel he is worth as a player, and the rest of the league seems to be waiting for his price to come down, too, so I'm ok with waiting it out. I definitely want him back, but Berry has the bases covered and we have enough here that we stand a really good chance of being Ok without him, even though we'd be better with him.

DE's are always paid higher than DT's. CB's and LT's are paid high as well. But there are salaries in place across the NFL that establish their value.

And unless I am misunderstanding you, the Browns will pay within that same pay structure for the position given that the player has the talent.

In the end the team has to balance a salary cap over an entire roster. In the case of Richardson, he was deemed to be making more than worth when balancing the entire salary scale.

The team decided cutting him was better than cutting maybe two players somewhere else.

When you are a good team, the decisions become harder. I don't think we wanted to cut him. The realities of salary cap, him being older and in the last year of his contract made him the man on the bubble.

For my part, I hope we remain in a position where cutting a play like Richardson becomes common. That means we have a good team.

We just saw some articles on Weaver. Maybe keeping a player like him was deemed more important moving forward than keeping Richardson for this year.

If this is the only coaching thread,

I just want to discuss, (I think, iirc.) Stefanski is still the offensive playcaller, And

there's a tiny bit... of evidence, (or a massive glaring picture), but
I like coach so a
tiny bit of evidence the team looked better in the ONE game, that Stefanski had to stay home and watch.

Alex Van Pelt, appears to have had some nice effect on the offense of the Browns' ingenuity.

None of those ^ really demands a change, in fact there is no change for a successful team but everything should always be "kept an eye on".

So, Coaching, just a hunch on my part, just a hunch, just a "keep an eye on"

For a team to have a head coach calling offensive plays, it is just a matter of time,

Look at it like this.
A team that has any head coach calling offensive plays, imo, (may be, not always but, May be)-
like having a 7 year old help you move, even if you give them easy things to carry and keep a sharp eye on them, it's just a matter of time until something breaks.

The only coaching thread.

Come on, TL. Andy Reid, Kyle Shanahan, Sean Peyton and Sean McVay call their own plays. That should put an end to your theory. If not, start a new thread.

That's the difficulty with small sample sizes. Did they look better, or did they just look different? Was it being different enough to catch teams off guard because they could only prepare for Stefanski's tendencies? It's hard to say one way or another, BUT.. like you said, ALWAYS remain open to change and improvement, not matter who is involved. Greatness within a team comes from individual humility and recognizing that someone else may be a better fit for things, or simply accepting that you may need help to get the most out of everyone.

I don't feel that Stefanski is against any of it. I get the feeling that he mostly wanted to retain control to get HIS offense in place in HIS way and to get the players AND coaches in line with that. I could absolutely see him allowing Van Pelt, or whomever, to take over those duties, if necessary, once he feels things are well enough established and he has a comfort level with whomever it is he hands it off to.



When military officers move up in rank and eventually take over larger commands, one of their biggest struggles is the one where they aren't the one that gets to go in the field with their men any longer... I envision becoming Head Coach and handing off all of the play calling to be rather similar.

In the spirit of humility, I must admit that your post was much more measured and just better than my own.

No - actually I think what you said hit the nail squarely on the head.

Hang tough, Tab! FGight the good fight.

Hope you're doing better tab!

Tab I wish you the best. My wife is going through a tough time right now so I understand what it's all about. Hang in there and you'll be in my prayers.

Don't you DARE Bungles it up and kick the bucket before we win it all at least twice, buddy. We'll resurrect your ass just to take you back out :lol:

If we have the 3rd best defense, the Super Bowl is a real possibility.

Gotta get to 3rd best 1st, though.

It will definitely be less enjoyable to celebrate a Brown's Super Bowl if one of our long time Dawg Talkers couldn't. Praying for you and let that be an incentive!! Go Browns!

Don't know how I missed your post earlier Tab ... sending good karma and positive energy your way friend.

113 days...

Indeed. For some people, the 'getting" is the easy part. The "letting go" is the problem.