DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Number One Need

Agree. Hyatt ran a bunch of go routes where his natural athleticism won out. I would not have an issue with the Browns taking him in the second but I'd be quite surprised if he was a Day one pick.

Haslam would be doing cartwheels down the hallway.

Josh Downs should be added to this list of potential WRs for the Browns to target.

In reality, I will be surprised if the Browns go WR with their 2nd round pick. Especially, if they give DPJ a contract extension this offseason.

I will preface this by stating that the Browns rarely do what I want them to do in the draft, so my thoughts probably don't mean much.

I am leaning towards getting a WR or two in the draft because the price of FA WRs has skyrocketed in the last year. We saw it w/guys like Adams, Hill, Deebo, AJ Brown and even guys like Christian Kirk. Furthermore, this year's FA WR class isn't all that and I think a guy like Tee Higgins is a pipe dream. I think our FA money would be more wisely spent on filling other needs such as Interior DL, Edge, etc.

Not saying I am right, but that is my line of thinking.

I do not disagree. I envision a scenario where the Browns do not use 2nd on a WR, but rather further down the draft. Maybe a cheap FA WR like Mecole Hardman like Memphis had mentioned.

I believe that when it comes to NFL owners and FO's their goal is to market the team and put on the best show they can for the fans. In Haslam's very first press conference he said "It's a marketing world". The NFL only allows teams to change uniforms every five years. Haslam has done so every five years to market new gear. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but it points out that he employs that strategy at every possible turn. They committed to the 230 million dollar man. That's one helluvan investment. Giving him quality targets will be the #1 goal during the off season. Vers is right that the price of FA WR's has skyrocketed. I'm not sure that will stop the Browns from signing one, but if not you can bet they'll have the WR as a high draft priority. They will make building the team around watson priority #1. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that either. It just wouldn't make any sense to sign a QB to a 230 million dollar guaranteed contract and not give him all the weapons he needs to help insure and maximize his success.

DJ Chark could be another option. I like him a fair amount.

His injury history is concerning. If he came cheap, might be worth a shot

I would prefer to use the draft to fill other positions. Sign a couple of FA veteran WR instead - DJ Chark / Mecole Hardman are great examples. Jakobi Meyers, Noah Brown and Smith Schuster others. For a speedster Philip Dorset might be viable, but I have not seen him play much so idk if he still has the same speed he once did.

A 5'7 192 pound DT.

So you're going to try out for the team again?

Damn skippy

FYI FA starts March 15

The #1 need is to have Stefanski give up play calling.

It's been suggested that Stefanski give up play calling duties so he can concentrate more on other aspects of being a HC. I vigorously disagree w/him giving up the play calling duties. I think he is a very good play caller and it would be a mistake to give those duties over to someone else. Play calling is actually one of our strengths as a team.

I think what the Browns did by signing Schwartz was the only logical solution. It's obvious that there are two ways to go about this. Some HC's oversee the entire team. They are hands on in both the D and the O. They allow the OC and DC to make the game plans and call the plays. They oversee the creation of those game plans as well as the implementation of those game plans and step in when adjustments need to be made. Stefanski isn't that guy. And he really doesn't have to be.

There are HC's who run things the same way Stefanski does with much success. They are either former OC's or DC's who simply don't try to run the workings of the entire team. They concentrate on what they do best, either run the O or the D and find competent people to run the other side of the ball. Nobody can predict the future but Schwartz has the resume' to be such a guy. NFL HC experience and a record of success creating good D's. A no nonsense kind of a guy who will demand respect. You can see that one of two ways. You can see it as the Browns actually have two HC's in Stefanski and Schwartz. One HC running the O and one HC running the D. Or you can see it as having an OC in Stefanski and a DC in Schwartz with neither actually filling what one considers a traditional version of the HC role.

Or maybe you see something else all together.

I agree. I don't think there's a one way or the other is better rule here. Both ways have proven successful. I liken it to people who say they want to see fire from the HC on the sideline. They seem to feel that a leader who remains calm in the face of adversity as a bad thing. Both ways have shown they can be quite successful and I've never seen a stressful situation in my life where I have felt that remaining calm and rational in such a situation wasn't a good thing.

I wonder how many coaches actually have their hands all over both sides of the ball? It might be zero. It might one or two? I doubt it is much more than that. I also doubt that there are very few coaches who don't have any interaction w/one side of the ball or the other? I'd say zero. Maybe one or two? I doubt it is much more than that. I think people on here make this a bigger issue than it is. By a longshot.

I am serious, I am sick of watching teams run the ball down our throats.

Actually I agree with you at least in part. I don't think it's a big deal at all because both ways have been shown to be successful. As far as it goes for the rest of your post I think it's big stretch between "don't have interactions" and even "having their hands all over" something and being pretty much hands off on one side of the ball. I think a simple way to look at that is to see how many NFL HC's allow both of their coordinators to call the plays and schemes on game days and which ones don't. For those that do it seems those HC's oversee the big picture and they permit coordinators to implement the predetermined schemes decided upon during the week. They in turn are overseeing things as they unfold during the course of games and work with both coordinators to tweak things as the game progresses. You can also see it in how a HC divides his time communicating with both coordinators during the actual games.

I'd say that includes far more than one or two. As per usual I think we have people who overemphasize the division of how these two methods are employed and some who wish to underemphasize it. The actuality of it lies somewhere in between.

.

Yes, give the play calling to AVP since that's his job. My proof that he runs a better offense is based on when we slammed the Steelers in the playoff game in their house. When Kevin came back the following week against KC he couldn't get it done and got too conservative.

I don't consider play calling overrated when you refuse to run the ball, don't have Chubb and Hunt in the backfield at the same time, Twin I formation, and then go for the endzone on 4th and 1. I've yet to hear an explanation from him on all those things. Instead all we get some weird fake form of non-human conversation with no emotion.

Freddie Kitchens is a better offensive coordinator\play caller than Stefanski.

Freddie is dumber than an Alabama tree stump. Overall I’m good with one more season of KS as the play caller. His future is tied to what Watson can do next season. Really it’s the bottom line.

So, Kevin is "too conservative" and refuses "to run the ball?"

So, AVP should call the plays. Even though he has never done that in his career.

Based on one game... where it was 28-0 after 12 offensive plays... due to three turnovers by the opponent.

Yeah, no.

I think it does beg to question why an NFL HC would hire and put someone in the position of OC they feel they can't trust to call the plays. Not that it's strictly an issue with the Browns coaching staff.

#1 need....Lombardi in a trophy case in Berea.

About 1/3 of NFL coaches call the plays, most of them have OCs.

It doesn't necessarily mean none of these guys can be trusted to call plays, it usually means the coach is better.

Wouldn't it be even stranger to have no OC regardless of whether you're calling the plays?

That depends on whether you want an OC that can run the offense or not. If not it seems that he's the OC in name only and having that title is rather meaningless. I don't see having a figure head having a title as anything meaningful.

No big deal, others echo your sentiments. I just don't see how the "OC in name only" is a thing when there are so many more duties than calling plays...

Scheme, play design, weekly strategy, roster management, dealing with all the position coaches.

I think fans make it a "in name only" thing, and even belittle the duties, for the sake of complaining about a HC's play-calling.

I won't say he does nothing or doesn't fill a needed role. But let's face it, this is Stefanski's scheme and play designs. Some of it he brought with him from the Vikings and some was his own. I'm not sure why you would give him credit for either the designing of the plays or the scheme. Those are some of the very things people give Stefanski so much credit for. And I would venture to guess that the weekly strategy and roster management are Stefanski's call and not Van Pelt's. Just like you're guessing that it is AVP's.

I guess that's why we disagree in what AVP's title should be. I simply don't see his role quite fulfilling what I think of as a legitimate OC's job to be.

And edited to add. I'm more along the line of thinking that Stefanski is a pretty good play caller. There are very few plays that he calls which I question. I think calling plays that could likely catch the opposing defense off guard is a good thing, not a bad thing and that predictable play calls are easier for the opposing D's to prepare for and stop. People just tend to complain when and if those plays don't work. I've never called for Stefanski to be fired nor do I intend to. I do not by contrast think he's almost perfect or God's gift to coaching. He hasn't had the job of an NFL HC long enough to make that determination IMO. I certainly feel he's the best HC the Browns have had since their return and that's by a huge margin!

Well said. I read some of the comments on here about the job responsibilities of certain coaching positions and just shake my head.

Just as long as he understands 7-10 isn't good enough. He acts okay with it in his press conferences and there's no sense of urgency which pisses me off. Nobody including him said they apologize or were sorry for the bad year.

Personally I don't think Stefanski is the guy to get us to the super bowl. I'd love to be wrong though. I just have ZERO confidence in him.

Not to mention the value of working with someone who has so much experience (basically his whole career) translating to the QB. He may have very well been the catalyst to Brissett looking so comfortable as quickly as he did.