DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Roster

Quincey Carrier pretty much analyzes the roster to the same conclusion that you included in your post. "We got rich people's problems!"

I don't think any team knows if or what there liabilities may be until they play the games. Judging that based on what looks good on paper has been shown to be a fatal flaw.

If Newsome isn't healthy Mitchell stands a chance to start

And of course it depends on what you call a starting WR. I look for the browns to run a lot of four WR sets so if you count that as four starting WR's I think Tillman will be in that group.

If Mitchell ends up starting that's great. That means he beat out Emerson and Green and possibly Ford who are all proven veteran players with NFL game experience, (purple inferred).

truthfully, one of my big concerns now is the kicker

That is not a good sign. More of an indication as to how the Deshawn Watson trade has deprived the team of young talent.

Even a good team will have a rookie starter.

Actually Woof, we do have some good young talent on this team. I don't think the DW trade has hurt us that much especially if he plays well. Yes, we traded 3 1st round picks but as I've stated before just about all our 1st round picks since we've come back in "99 have been busts with the exception of 3 or 4. We've drafted better in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. That has to change in the future if we expect to be competitive. I like what I see of our roster.

I will just say as a general rule I value those first round picks.

Fort many years the Browns were totally inept. AB has done better.

I think we have some good young talent, but what he's describing is probably going to end up happening in a few more years.

I get that this is a discussion forum and that topics arise organically. But this sudden concern or issue, whatever you choose to call it about rookie starters is odd to me. I've never heard a GM or football analytics geek correlate rookie starters to winning. I"m unaware of any empirical data that would indicate an impact or wins or losses. If anyone can produce such information I'd really be interested in reading it. I'm also aware of a sentiment on this board that no rookies be handed starting assignments. I don't know if any of the posters who hold to that are also now questioning the absence of rookies from the first team.

I don't feel strongly one way or another but some seem to have staked out a claim on this issue and it's not clear to me why suddenly it is an issue. Rookie development seems more important. Starting a rookie for the sake of saying you've done so seems arbitrary.

j/c:

This is the best roster, on paper, that we've had since 1999 and I don't think it is even remotely close. Sure, it all has to come together but I'm optimistic it will.

Hopefully we can limit injuries and be in "mid-season form" sooner rather than later. If so, this is a team that will surprise many in 2023.

Thanks, DePodesta!

I agree. Most of the roster seems set. But I remain open to more upgrades. Our PS can be vital this year to develop players for the future, and we have some well- qualified players to help them along.

But point of this post: I am tired of winning on paper, and of talking heads' snarky cheap shots. I want wins and respect in gametime. Do our talking on the field.

I agree 100%

You raised an eyebrow with me, as I wondered how many 1st round picks actually start Week 1. As usual, google is a b**** and I get apple pie recipes instead.

I did find this which is very interesting as it breaks down success rate by position. Obviously not answering your question as to whether it correlates to success. I'm guessing Woofer was just making a matter of fact statement that came off as sour grapes. At the end of the day, he's right in the fact that you have a much slimmer chance of a rookie starting, week one, without a first round pick. "Troubling"? Not in the least.

I would say that most teams expect to start their first rounder week 1.

Second is a maybe, or a contributor, and anything else is a unexpected bonus.

KC started a couple of rookies on their oline a couple years ago, after they did a wholesale changeout.

That worked out for them.

The old adage is that starting a rookie will cost your team a game at some point in the season, but now I am praising George Allen.

Success rate is very position dependent... and OL dwarfs all others. But I get your point.

I think, in most cases, it's easier for good teams to start rookies. Strong system, mistakes not usually as devastating, leadership on the field.

The very idea of the draft is to try and get quality players that can become foundational players for your team on cheap contracts. You can sign first rounders to a fifth year extension. Joe Thomas was a first rounder. Chubb was a second rounder. The cream is there for those who can identify and draft them. In the case of the Browns they overall haven't been very good at that. So that part of the conversation is certainly worthy of discussion. But those 1st round draft picks are one of the, if not the most valuable asset an NFL team has in terms of acquiring top tier talent on the cheap.

Yet at the same time your team will never sustain any long term success with out a franchise QB. That is the most valuable asset a team can have in regards to a player on the field.

Whether such a trade is worth those draft picks it dependent on the outcome. Only time will provide the answer to that one.

The writing is on the wall for Schwartz probably not making the team as a WR. With Ford due to miss some time, perhaps we could do something similar to what we did with Felton and give him some RB time. I think he'd get to focus more on ball security there practice-wise, which it seems he could use. Supposedly, the transition from college to pros at RB is one of the "easier" positions, and Schwartz could perhaps be a mismatch for defenders there.

No, we've known in preseason in years past where our liabilities were, and then the pundits acted all surprised when those things were our downfall.

We didn't address DLine or WR's several years in a row and they were consistently a problem. Then, last year, we began addressing these things and this year we hit them hard.

Where the next deficiencies are will be a case of being relative to how much we've built this stuff up and where injuries hit, but it is a fairly complete roster at this point, so it is FINALLY difficult to tell where our weaknesses are.

Not that you owed me an explanation but by giving more of your reasoning I definitely understand more clearly.

I think I addressed part of this in my post to mac. The Browns hoarded a lot of money towards the cap year after year in order to invest it when they felt the time was right. When they signed watson they now feel they have the QB that may give them an opportunity to compete to win a SB. So spend it they did.

I should never have stated that in seasons past it wasn't more obvious what the teams weaknesses and liabilities were. It most certainly was. So we agree there. So as it stands, we don't know what they may or may not be as of now until games are played.

https://www.brownsnation.com/espn-analyst-reveals-rankings-for-browns-roster-this-season/

Interesting this guy ranks the roster as #5 overall.

Or as your own link says....

I think Anthony Schwartz had a good game and I could see him making the roster, this time, it's not his fault they drafted him 4 rounds "udfa" too early, and I think he's better today than Austin and probably Harley too, at least.

and he got robbed of that catch he caught tonight being called a no catch, that was a catch, the ball never hit the ground.

Coaches don't throw go routes, boo.

I think York's days might be numbered

York the FG kicker...
But if he has a low percentage it is a great reason/excuse for head coach to go for it again on 4th down instead of taking the 3 points like he should, which results in the head coach costing you points
game after game,
in the first half. n.t.i.t.f.h. Negative, three, in, the, first, half,

I like the starting roster with the exception of DT. It may seem odd to read that at first, BUT DT is the one position group where the "starters" rarely play much more than 50% of the snaps. We need (4) guys there that can play almost an equal amount of snaps. We've got (2) guys at DT who are proven and not too old or too inexperienced...just right.

But after those (2) guys you could put their names in a hat and pull out (2) others and I don't think we'd know the difference. We know that Ika isn't getting cut...so pull his name out of the hat for now. Then we know that Elliott has $1.5MM guaranteed that he recently signed. So the 2nd (2) "starters" will be a rookie and most-likely a young, vet DT that has continuously NOT played well or developed. I keep reading that we will deploy a bigger DE at DT on obvious passing downs...so that's comforting...but why must we settle for/with a guy at #4 DT who is just not a good player?

I like the starting LBs well-enough and prefer TakiTaki over A Walker...JOK is still a prove-it guy for me. The backups are...meh. With the concern I have at DT ^ I don't know if these LBs are the right group...or what we can do about it. If we had another LEGIT DT I could be made Ok with the LBs. I don't think any of these guys are "special". This is an easy group to upgrade.

It feels like we have an embarrassment of riches at DE. We arguably have (4) starters and at least one other backup-worthy guy there. Again...maybe the DE-at-DT on passing downs will make that overall DT group work.

The only thing I don't care-for in the backfield is what they are doing - or not doing - in the slot. I don't know why Newsome got pigeon-holed there last year, but it never seemed right. And no...I don't have a better idea for what to do there. I'm curious to see how the slot plays out and to see how the CBs put their money where their mouths are with a press-man scheme.

The weirdness at QB in Berea continues...just in a different form. How Mond is on this team (was and that still is) is beyond me...as is why Dobbs got the deal he did. They are both PS guys. DTR is better than either one by a long shot.

We went from (3) pretty-good RBs at this time last year to (1) this year. We need to quit screwing around here and find a backup to Chubb. I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I think Ford should be viewed as RB3 and we need to find a legit RB2...asap. Old guy...young guy...K Hunt...I don't care.

We are set at TE with (2) guys who are starter quality. The days of (3) TE sets are likely over. If Bryant and "pick-one" are the (4) there we should be fine. None of these guys are special.

We have a lot of bodies at WR...some intriguing guys...but only (1) is special...looks like Moore may make it (2) special guys. It seems like we brought in 6-8 guys who are/were always battling for (1) spot. Cooper, Moore, PJ, Tillman, Bell are making this team. I hatehatehate burning a roster spot on a KR.

The OL is - as it probably should be - almost a forgotten group. For the starters, the middle is very good and the edges can be shaky...but are good when healthy...again (5). Harris is getting all the shots in the world and there is a picture of Drew Forbes next to the slang term of 'Bad Penny'...he just keeps coming back...not unlike Gossett. I can't imagine the FO letting Wypler get away...D Jones (6) isn't going anywhere and Hudson (7) isn't a turd like some people seem to think. I think it's Harris v Wypler for C2 (8) and Dunn/Martin/Forbes for G3 & G4 (9th & 10th).

For STs we have a P and LS, but likely need a K.

I think we need a better HC.

Just my $.02

MoreForYouCleveland
@MoreForYou_CLE
#Browns are signing RB Jordan Wilkins, per
@AaronWilson_NFL

Well G. Delpit did not play, and I had not heard why, then I heard he was excused for a college graduation ceremony, so, Whew.
well at safety if they keep five that includes D. Bell and R. Hickman.

Dobbs traded to the Cards. Didn’t see that coming this morning.

The Cleveland Browns and Arizona Cardinals have agreed to the following trade:
Browns receive:
2024 5th round pick
Cardinals receive:
QB Joshua Dobbs
2024 7th round pick
Dobbs was active but did not play in the first 11 games for the Browns in 2022.
In 2024, the Browns currently have one pick in round two, one pick in round three, two picks in round five, two picks in round six and one pick in round seven.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/browns-trade-joshua-dobbs-to-cardinals

Complete overhaul of DT position- enough said. Kicker, reported 6 for 6 today- if we lose a game due to missed makeable FGs he could be toast, win games with missed FGs, he probably still on team due to youth, strong leg, draft choice.....time will tell.

-->10 x OL
LT Wills
LG Bitonio
OC Pocic
RG Teller
RT Conklin
T Hudson
T Jones*
OC/OG Wypler*
OG Dunn
OC Harris

--> 7 x WR
Cooper
Moore
Jones (DPJ)
Tillman*
D. Bell
Watson Jr.
Grant

-->2 x QB
Watson
Robinson* (DTR)

3 x TE
Njoku
Akins
Bryant (IR?)
(Likely to be a position of interest on the waver wire and cuts.)

-->3 x RB
Chubb
J. Ford
Felton

= 25 on offense

-->5 x DE
Garrett
Smith
Obo
McGuire*
Wright (IR)

-->4 x DT
Tomlinson
Harris
Ika*
Elliott
Hurst (after Wright is placed on the IR)

-->6 x LB
Takitaki
JOK
Walker
Fields
Kunaszyk
Diabate*

-->6 x CB
Ward
Newsome
Emerson
Green
Mitchell*
M. Ford

-->4 x S
Thornhill
Delpit
McLeod
Hickman*
(D'A. Bell has a better chance at making it through waivers to get him to the PS)

= 25 on defense

51-53 > ST
(*) Rookies