DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What area deserves our 1st pick?

No need to backpedal.

Somewhere earlier I said Wimbley turned out to be a good pick.

If there is nitpicking, it is on the other side.

Like I said, whoever we take, they better to be able to contribute right away...from the start.

My only point on Wimbley is how much improvement could the guy have made from week one to week two?

I doubt much.

If the player is good, rac needs to play them. If not, then Savage has a problem.

Jules, just to further your point.. Wimbleys first tackle as a Brown, was on the very first play of the Saints second series in the first quarter of the first game.... so his first tackle was 7 minutes and 29 seconds into the first game........ He had 4 tackles in the game, which oddly enough is dead on his season average...

So he may not have "started" in the most technical sense in that he wasn't in on the first play... but it's not like RAC held him out....

I can see us drafting Adrian Peterson in the first round this year and in our first game next year we'll come out in a 4 WR set and he won't be on the field and Peen will be mad because he didn't "start"... <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I agree it dont look good . but its WAY TO EARLY to give it a final grade .. U know damm well it takes 3 years for preliminary grades and 5 to get a DECENT final grade ... especially when his 2nd rnd pick was a Jr. that wasn;t physically ready for the NFL at that point ...

Way to early ... and quite frankly that was a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE DRAFT .. lots of GM's HAD TERRIBLE drafts that year . go look at the guys taken 3 - 12 ... I bet u have 3 or 4 complete WASTES in that group ... off the top of my head .. M. Williams ... T. Williamson .... C. Benson ....

and thats not to defend Opie ... I wish he went OL on day 1 ... in both drafts .. but this was a VERY TALENT DEPLETED draft .... u agree???

General Reply

I know its a bit off subject but subject is going everywhere anyway.
I think it would help if we knew what we wanted to do on either O or D. Are we a spread it out offense or do we want to be a ground and pound offense? Are we simply a zone 3-4 with a true bend dont break philosophy or do we want to be an attack defense?

2 years and i have no freaking clue and I know someone will point out that I never had a clue to begin with lol so :PPPPPPPPPP

[color:"white"]I don't think that's really a big issue Mourg. We know we're a 3-4 team on defense, and need the base players to run it.

On offense, nothing works without an O-line, so unless we're planning on running the wishbone, we really don't need to look at changing QB's <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

We need major help on both lines. No system runs without those players.[/color]

[color:"red"]and quite frankly that was a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE DRAFT [/color]

I didn't think it sooo horrible at rds 1- 2 but 4-7 required some serious scouting and evaluating(Dallas made out well in that draft)..which I commented on another thread.
The fact we have little to show on the second day makes it look even worse.
The problem Phil had was that he was brought in in January..his scouting team was newly assembled and then he went away to scout some more..because he had to ..time which no one was on the same page with..
I think it hurt more than normal..Opie even said that in one of his pressers about the time spent evaulating the players around Feb-March.
I feel he never had a clear vision (nor his staff) of what the Browns truly needed on the second day..since he used those picks for Rac's 34...there were several D linemen and tweeners but the scouting reports had them with health questions(Chris Canty comes to mind..).
If they had more time to evalute those players that second day might have yelded a better return than it did.

I agree that it's hard to see what we want to be, but my guess would be that it is because we're currently stuck being whatever it is we're able to pull off.

Whatever it is we WANT to be, we've been stuck with what the opponent has ALLOWED us to be..... so far. A few more draft and free agency periods to bring in solutions and not the short term band-aids we've had to go with so far just so we could field a team, and we should start to get a better idea of things. My guess though is we'll still be a bit of the chameleon... we'll just be whatever we want to be that week by OUR choice, not the opponents.

I completely agree it was a poor draft top to bottom. Last year was loaded. This years draft is looking more like that 2005 draft. There arent 15 players in this draft that I think will be worth a damn and one has been on crutches since game 1 in Michael Bush

DL I think Branch is another Warren, just the way he carries himself inspires laziness. Joe Thomas looks the part but he is reminding me a lot of Gallery in the things i didnt like with Gallery. Quinn is another Eli Manning. Troy Smith = Akili Smith. Adrian Peterson = Lee Suggs

Calvin Johnson is special. Best receiver in football with one of the worst QBs every year. He is everything Edwards isnt. Great hands. Tremendous work ethic. Flawless route runner. Defends the bad pass.

Gaines Adams is john Abraham with cover skills
Blaylock is the next Shawn Andrews
Ben Grubbs OG from Auburn is good. Real Good.
Kyle Young is gonna be there in the 3rd and a steal.

There is some talent but man its slim.

[color:"white"]Gotta be careful with Blaylock. The Shorthorns ran the same kind of zone-blocking run schemes that we use, and they didn't block very well all year. In fact, they were one of the worst run-blocking units in relation to years past. Blaylock looks the part, but is living off of the hype that Young generated. He's a legitimate prospect, and I'm not saying he isn't, but he didn't prove himself to be a standout on a line that itself didn't stand out.[/color]

I don't think Branch is lazy. If he is the same guy I'm thinking of.I remember watching the Michigan game and being impressed with one of their interior l-men. Probably was Branch. At least in that game he went hard all game.

To begin my response, you're pimping Joe Thomas, a man how blew his ACL out last year. Simply put, I'd be more afraid of Thomas' injury history than Peterson's because Peterson's injuries were all minor (high ankle sprain and clean collarbone break) and won't affect him in the future, whereas Thomas' was very severe. You can't compare Peterson to Lee Suggs because Suggs also blew his knee out during college. Again, if Peterson's injuries are what's keeping you from drafting him, you need to do more research. He's expected to be completely fine and will play in his bowl game in less than a week.

Also, you say that fixing the line will fix everything, but I'll disagree with you there. We're probably going to start Frye next year (a guy who wasn't brought in to have to stretch the field) and if we leave our RB situation alone, we get another year of Droughns and lack of big play ability. If Droughns has had problems hitting the holes when they've been there this year, why would a 1st round pick lineman suddenly turn him into a Pro Bowl back. Droughns' stats were grossly inflated by the Denver system. I'm sure you don't think Ron Dayne is great shakes, but look at how he's doing in Houston running Shanahan's ZBS. The bottom line is that Droughns was never incredible to begin with and is slowing down - the fact that Jason Wright (who is completely average) looked explosive compared to Reuben should attest to that.

If you look at Parker, he's not an outstanding back, but he's good and explosive enough that when the line gives him a hole, he makes the most out of it. Even when his holes close up, I've seen him bust huge runs by re-routing to the outside when nothing is there. He's the kind of back that can make plays happen rather than only getting what his line gives him. With Droughns at RB, teams know right off the gate that a) most of the rushing will be in between the tackles and b) there's no big play threat in the rushing game. Think they're going to pull defenders back, giving Droughns running room? I doubt it.

Make no mistake, I want to address the o-line with a number of picks and free agent signings. However, when there's a skill player worthy of a Top 3 selection at a position of need, I'd choose to go with that player, and then build the o-line after. You don't need a Top 5 pick to build a solid line. Many of the league's best lines are built with non-1st picks and free agent signings. Why would we just get an o-lineman when we can get o-linemen anyway but add a marquee running back along with them.

[color:"white"]
That's a pretty bad twist on things Spectre. You make it sound as though we can still build a good line while simultaneously getting a premier back.

When you have a chance to get a premier left tackle, you take one, especially when your line sucks.

Furthermore, by taking Thomas, we solve not only our left tackle problem, but right tackle as well, by moving Shaffer over to where he's better suited.

The greater need on this team is O-line, and when it's all said and done, I'm willing to bet that Thomas is the higher rated player. That makes it a no-brainer for me on which way we go. [/color]

HEH..this type of conversation is going to be repeated more often than any of us will care to think about until April...

Kinda like watching the Egyptians building the Pyramids, how many people were questioning at the half way point...WTH kind of house is this? <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

We as a team have been bad for so long that the lack of talent previously on this team will keep us out of contention for quite some time. I do not want Cleveland to end up like another Detroit (changing coaches and schemes again). We have to continue to draft and acquire talent to which we can build on. Although I always have high hopes for the Browns 07 will not be our playoff run but more of a stand up and take notice year. 2008 we should be in a better position to make that playoff run. Rebuilding takes time and if the end result will be to restore this franchise to its glory years, then I will wait.

We can. IMO, the real problem with our line this year hasn't been the tackle play, but the atrocious play of our guards. If the guy to Shaffer's right isn't doing his job, it's going to make Shaffer look very bad. I don't think Shaffer is incredible, but I think he's solid enough that we can consider looking elsewhere with our first pick. The way that I see it, given that we'll have about $33m in cap room, we can sign at least one premier lineman and one solid one. Put someone like Steinbach at LG, draft a 2nd round tackle (whether it be a solid slip tackle in Brown, or one with all the potential in the world in Gaither) and a guard in 3-4, and we're looking at a revitalized line without having to spend a Top 5 pick on one. Plus, everyone keeps writing off Tucker, but he was our best graded lineman before this year and he's said himself that he fully plans on playing next year.

Again, I really dislike all these offensive line cliches that keep popping up, like "When you have a chance to get a premier left tackle, you take one." Why, then, did the Saints pass D'Brick when their offensive line wasn't all that good the year before. The sole reason is because there was a stud playmaker on the board, and a stud playmaker will do more to revitalize an offense like ours than an offensive lineman. I know you love Droughns, so I know that you'll keep supporting him, but I'm of the opinion that even with a great offensive line, he's still nothing special.

The way I look at it - "When you have a chance to get a premier left tackle, you take one unless you have a chance at an incredibly gifted playmaker at a position of need." Now, if passing on Thomas means we don't touch our line, then I'll take him, because we need a lot of upgrades. I just don't see that as the case.

The Saints passed on Ferguson because they felt sure that Jamaal Brown could move to left tackle and anchor their line for the next 10 years. No matter your opinion of Shaffer, he sure can't anchor our line. If Thomas is there we take him, simple as that. Running backs can be a focus next year, along with possibly quarterback. Give me Joe Thomas in round 1, and Arron Sears in round 2 to play right guard, and get a left guard in free agency (possibly Dielman) and our line will look pretty good in my opinion:

LT- Joe Thomas
LG- Kris Dielman
C- Hank Fraley (assuming Bentley is out)
RG- Arron Sears
RT- Kevin Shaffer

Give the Browns that line and our QBs may be able to scan the field, step up in the pocket, and throw and our RBs may be able to actually see a little daylight instead of a wall of opposing players. JMHO.

[color:"white"]Shaffer's problem isn't a bad guard next to him. He's played very poorly all by himself. Note that Savage himself hinted that Shaffer may be moved, which is something many have speculated on since the day we signed him.

[color:"white"]

Because 'Brick is only a left tackle, and they allready had planned on moving Jamal Brown, the previous year's 1st round pick <img src="/images/graemlins/naughtydevil.gif" alt="" /> over to left tackle.

Besides, as I'd noted with Thomas being rated higher than Peterson, Bush was rated higher than 'Brick <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[color:"white"]*shrug* This isn't about Droughns, who's never been touted as special by me or anyone who's opinion I hold in high esteem. This is about the bigger need and the higher rated player, so it's unadvisable to try and make this into something it isn't <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[color:"white"]....is the way you look at it, but if we draft a back, we're fixing one problem. If we draft Thomas, we're fixing TWO problems, and most likely taking the higher rated player to boot. Just because we have $33 mil in cap space doesn't mean we get to pick and choose which players we want. We gave Shaffer that contract to play left tackle now and right tackle down the road. Sure, it's my opinion, but it was my opinion on day one, and Savage has substantiated that belief by hinting that Shaffer could be moved. Tucker is about done, and the other right tackles on the market aren't necessarily better than Shaffer. We also have to worry about fixing OTHER needs as well, which include all three defensive line positions, two guards, and center. The simple economics of the situation suggest it's wiser to fix two needs with one draft pick if we can, so that we can fix other needs right now.

Drafting Peterson fixes one need
Drafting Thomas fixes two, and free's up money and draft choices for other needs. It's a simple choice to me.[/color]

You said in your response the same thing I was going to...

Like Jamaal Brown, Joe Thomas is an Outland Trophy winner... The success rate is high when you snag one of them...

I would ONLY want Adrian Peterson if Thomas is gone before we pick.. Then again, if Thomas and Quinn go #1 and 2 respectively, that just made the #3 slot one of the most coveted spots to be in in the draft with AP and Calvin Johnson sitting there... My mouth is watering thinking of ALL the possibilities with this pick...

GO TEXANS!! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't believe I've ever seen Sphinctre and my mouth is watering in the same post before.

[color:"white"]*L*[/color]

I've posted with a watering sphinctre before, does that count...

ROLFL.... <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Nothing gets by you man! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Only until April??? We are still debating the drafts from 1999 - 2006 to this day... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

There are a number or ways we can go without really being wrong. Would Thomas be a good pick? YES. Would Branch be a good pick? YES Would Peterson be a good pick? YES. Would the Browns be well served by trading down and getting a lower first round pick and an additional second round pick? YES. Would Calvin Johnson be a good pick? YES. The only unreasonable top 5 picks would be a QB ( Quinn, Brohem, or Troy Smith), a TE, a Saftey, or a Linebacker. A CB would be reach in the top 5.

If we get anyone other than Thomas in the first round, second and third round should be OLine. There is some decent OLine depth in this draft. We could probably get some decent DLine in the second or third round also, but with the requirements of the 3-4, I really hate to pass on Branch. He could play NT or DE.

Sounds like you ate some bad Chinese.. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If the Browns don't get Thomas/Branch (not going to repeat myself) because of them being gone..and they DON'T GET A D/OLINEMEN in the second /third rounds..then they've blown it..AND THATS how it could go wrong.

Yes, that's right, resort to name calling, makes you look brilliant. The only reason Peterson is related below Thomas is because of his injury, not because of his talent level. I guarantee you, if the man had been healthy all year, he'd be a Top 2 prospect, interchangeable with Calvin Johnson, who is also a bonafide stud at his position. I don't care that Kevin Shaffer is "going" to move to RT down the road, as he probably should, he'd be serviceable for one year at LT while we build this offense up from the ashes and IMO he'd be more serviceable at LT than I think Droughns would be as a feature back. Running back is a NEED, despite whatever people say to the contrary. We platooned our "solid" back with Jason Wright for Pete's sake and Wright looked BETTER!

Whatever, I could defend my points at length and tell you just what Peterson adds to the team, maybe even *GASP* helping you to learn something in the process, but no one will care. All you people are going to do is resort to name calling and laugh with each other like a bunch of sheep, falling in line with consensus opinion, no matter how poorly proven, so there's no need for me to post on this board unless my tagline is "DRAFT ALL LINEMEN ZOMG". I don't even know why I came back here - the same closed-minded ignorance that was so characteristic of the board before the re-creation is here now.

I'll leave you be to congratulate each other on how "right" your identical opinion is, because heaven forbid, someone comes in and provides an alternative your infinite wisdom.

I'm out.

That about sums up my feelings, although for some reason I can't help but shake the feeling that the odds are better in Branch than Thomas. Both have impressed me when I've watched them, so there's no real evidence behind it I can cite...I wonder if Robert Gallery has influenced my hesitance...

Bye...

You sound heart broken to see him go.

SPECTRE..

I apologize that you are a little sensitive with the name.. My bad...


No one is doubting how dynamic your boy is... Hell I want the kid and BAD! He is a Reggie Bush type talent that is just as lethal as a receiver, has a nice tall frame and blocks like a fullback and oh ya, has sub 4.4. speed with the field vision of LT... I do not need you or anyone else to "school" me on what the kid is capable of... Could he righ tnow with THIS O-Line have had a better year than ANY of our RB's? ABSOLUTELY! The point is that we cannot get ANY push on inside the 5 yardline, we are HORRIBLE on 3rd and short and we haven't kept a QB out of the infirmry in YEARS...

It is not that I do not want Adrian and have stated SEVERAL times all over this board how I would want him in a heartbeat IF Thomas went before our pick...

The 2008 Draft is going to be one of the BEST RB Drafts EVER and I can handle a mediocre feature back in Droughns for one more season if that means us having a kick ass O-Line thanks to grabbing the SMART pick now...

How would you fix the O-Line IF we were to grab Adrian Peterson??

The line makes the WHOLE offense tick... It all starts there man

Do you think I care? I've found that the best way to go about things is to go into a situation football related, with an opinion, but open to other ideas. If someone can make a good point about the draftee they want to get, I'll be open to the thought of drafting that player. If they make an excellent point about him, I might even switch who I prefer. The bottom line is that I've seen people make points for Thomas on this board consisting of: Outland Trophy winner history, Pro-Bowl lineman draft slots, and a vague quote by Phil Savage about Shaffer. Now, does that seem to anyone else like a bunch of people just looking for more reasons (no matter how ridiculous) to support their viewpoint rather than being open to other possibilities or is it just me?

I've researched the draft a ton, watched all the film I could on all the top prospects I've liked, and I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Peterson would be a great selection for us. Now, would Thomas be a bad selection? No, I'd actually be very happy with him. If we already had a franchise back in place, I'd be drooling over the thought of Thomas being there for our pick. I just have a different drafting philosophy than most of the posters here and you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

That's all I'm saying. On all the other draft boards I've been to, I've been able to have civil, enlightening conversations with people who realize that opinions exist other than their own and that they may actually hold validity. If that's not possible here, then why should I stay around? The whole point in bringing up points is to have a good debate about them in order to gain more knowledge about the other side (or maybe even your own).

Why bashing the other opinion with name calling comes into play just because you disagree with their point of view... well, I just can't figure it out. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.

Welcome back, we missed you...

I'm not incredibly sensitive to name calling, but it really tees me off when someone ignores valid points by calling someone a name and continue with their own point of view. I completely understand that we need line help, nor did I suggest anything less. We need line help, and we need RB help.

You're willing to wait a year with Thomas in place in order to tap into the draft class of 2007, but I have several issues with that. You said yourself that Droughns is a mediocre back. If we want to take a crack at a top running back class, you need not look farther than the 2005 NFL draft, where the top three running backs went in the Top 5. If we want a shot at McFadden or any other backs people covet enough that they're willing to pass on a stud this year, we're going to be needing to pick in the Top 5. I don't want to pick in the Top 5 ever again.

Our offense had a lot of problems this year and it wasn't just because of a lack of offensive line protection. One of our playmakers (Braylon) underachieved and Winslow's knee was killing him all year. Our offense couldn't spread the field worth a lick and Droughns has looked slow enough to coaches that Romeo said Jason Wright (again, who is an average back) was a breath of fresh air. Putting Thomas in at LT won't suddenly make Droughns faster and more capable of hitting what few holes our line gives him.

Try looking at it this way: What, in your opinion, does our offense need more - consistency or explosiveness? If you think consistency - draft Joe Thomas as better protection will do wonders to ensure our performance is consistent. If you think we need to be more explosive - draft Peterson. That's what I happen to believe. Even when our offensive line had a good blocking game, our offense was still very vanilla and bland, and several teams said they knew what was coming before it happened. As much as we want to blame Mo for it, it has as much to do with a bland running back and short field passing game.

If we take Thomas, I truly believe we'll be in position to take a good running back next year, because I don't see much improvement. However, one more year of mediocrity could mean the end for both Romeo and Savage. Rebuilding Part IV. Honestly, with how disenfranchised people are getting about the Browns, we need an IMPACT player. Peterson is more of an impact player than Thomas IMO. If we pick up linemen through other avenues than our first pick (free agency and our other 6), we could be looking at a rejuvenated offense.

That's why I pimp Peterson. We NEED someone like him after how our offense looked this year.

You seem a bit too sensitive about the alleged name calling than would normally be expected. Is your name really Sphincter? <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

I also wonder why you seem to think that people are picking on your because of your opinions on the draft. Nobody is ganging up on you...they just think you're wrong on this one. Just as you think they are wrong. Seems to me you're just the same as the people you disdain.

Personally, I think the Oline has to be fixed before we go drafting anymore RB's or WR's. But that's just me. One of the blissfully ignorant, I guess.

Not at all, I cared more about how my post was completely ignored for the name calling more than the name calling itself. I personally couldn't care less if someone does it like you just did. <img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />

I don't think other people are wrong at all about wanting Thomas. He'd be a great pick. I just happen to have a different view about our current situation than most. If they think I'm wrong in this one, then let's volley opinions back and forth. That's what I came here for in the first place. If I wanted to go somewhere to convince myself that passing on a great tackle for Adrian Peterson was worth consideration, there's absolutely no way I'd come back to a place that has wanted "Best OL available" with our first pick for as long as I can remember, even when one wasn't even close to a good pick at our slot. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

the way gallery has panned out so far, has me hesitant too but eveyrbody talked about him having short arms so...





I dont remember hearing branch's name called very much against OSU and that was pretty much the best team they played against, and I only saw JT play a few games against inferior competition.

They both scare me to tell you the truth but all draft picks do. I will be watching both branch and thomas intently in the bowl games as well as a few others.


If peterson cant get through a whole 12 game college season than we should take a pass. The RB crop next year will be better and deeper and we might be able to get a good one outside of the top 10.


Taking another Wolverine so high has me scared too....

Not sure what trading opinions back and forth for more than a couple of posts would accomplish. Frankly, I've never seen the sense on trading post after post on the same subject. After one or two posts I'd know what you thought and you'd know what I thought. Continuing on after that usually turns into a pissing contest or a bore. And that goes for pretty much any topic on a message board. It's a rare day that anyone changes their opinion because of what they read on here.

But it is interesting to see what other people think. That's why I read the stuff on here. And I still think the Spincter comment was much more funny than it was insulting. Even if your name is Spincter..... <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I took the liberty to give you an idea of what the 2008 draft class holds for the RB position...




ALOT of good names there and all capable of being explosive behind a good O-Line... We fix the line in the 2007 draft, we should be looking to pick around the same position as we did last year... ONE of these great backs will be avaiable in the teens in 2008 (granted Peterson and Lynch will leave this year)... Yes I would be content shoring up a long awaited need in 2007 and plug in a stud from 2008 into the backfield...

In response to the list of RBs that will be available, Peterson, Lynch (like you said) and Pittman (if he's smart anyway) will come out this year, leaving your senior RB class consisting of Hart, Walker and Bradshaw. That list isn't going to drop anyone's jaw, so it's up to the Juniors to make the class something special.

McFadden is going to be the prospect everyone wants, so I doubt we'll be able to get him. Yet, he's the only one on that entire list that I'd rank at Peterson's level. Many of those prospects will be solid, but also come with question marks, like Ray Rice's size, Walker's speed, etc. Even if all do choose to enter, and while the list is good enough to be tempting, I still think a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush in this case.

I don't know if we can afford to wait for another year. Our coaching staff/GM might already be in hot water, and another year of horrendous play might be their undoing. Then, it doesn't matter who we draft, because we're looking at at least 1-2 years of adjustment, heaven forbid if we bring in a non-3-4 coach. Just my opinion of course, but I don't know that we can bank on a future draft.

Slaton will be out in 08 and he will go ahead of Hart.

Hart will be the 4th or 5th RB taken in 08.

If he cant run away from college guys he isnt going to be a game breaker in the NFL.

Short guys who dont have blazing speed arent top RB draft prospects.