DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Shaping the Roster

I realize that it's waaay early to get specific on shaping the roster this year...but I'm going to post about it anyway.

Before I start, there are at least three things that struck me as odd during the draft.

PS said that he did not see where we would draft a WR...unless...he felt like one could be brought in who might be better than the group of Wilson, Steptoe, Sanders and the other FA/UDFA we have or will get who will compete for the 5th WR spot. (Note: 5 WRs...check.)

PS mentioned somewhere along the line that DL was an unlikley priority...unless...he felt like there was one who was better than last year's draft picks who are on our PSquad. He is quoted on a draft day thread in here about asking the room if Rubin could make our team...the reported response was a resounding YES. (Note: Smith, Smith, Rodgers, Williams, ...Rubin? and who?...assuming we go with 6 DL.)

In the mix, we trade a valued pick for another TE. There is much talk about two TE sets with KW and the new kid running down the field creating mismatches. (Note: 2 TE sets...sounds like we keep 4 TEs then...hmmmm.)

So...here's the question...what does the roster look like from purely a numbers perspective? Is it this?

QBs - 3
RBs - 5
WRs - 5
TEs - 4
OL - 9

K - 1
P - 1
LS - 1

DL - 6
CB - 5
S - 4
LB - 9


I suppose we could go with 3 TEs still...but only if we are concerned about having only 9 OL.

I suppose we could go to 4 RBs, but the odd man out would be either Ali - who is a special teams guy - or Harrison - who is coming in to his 3rd year... and we know what the 3rd year does for some guys.

The QBS are set...DA, BQ, KD

The RBs - I think - are set - Lewis, Wright, Harrison, Vickers, Ali

The TEs are set - assuming we keep 4 for now

At WR - 4 are certain...fight between the guys mentioned above for the 5th spot

OL - JT, Steiny, Fraley, Tucker, Shaffer, Freidman, Hadnot/McKinney, Sowells (if he's come along and because he can play T), Bentley (because I want it to be so.) Maybe Bents starts on PUP?

DL - As noted above with 137 guys fighting it out for the other two spots...or 136 guys fighting it out for 1 spot with Rubin a draft day comitted guy

LB - Hang on a minute

S - Jones, Pool (Vers' pick for "Likely to be the Most Improved Brown in '08"), Baxter (I hope...sort of) but Adams should beat him out if he is ok, and one of 46 other guys we will look at

CB - Wright, McDonald, Holly, and two of 3,759 other guys we will look at

LB - Wimbley, Peek, DQ, Willie, Davis, Bell, Orr, Williams, McMillan?

This thread could go in a million different directions...but what I am ultimately trying to get to are the position battles in consideration of sheer numbers per position.

ie. If you want a sixth RB, what other spot do you sacrifice?

Also, who are your surprise cuts? Meaning guys I have penciled in above who ultimately don't make it.

Should be interesting...and no QB controversy talk in here, ok?

I think the back mix will go lower by keeping either Ali or Vickers.

So could the TE mix....we don't need 4 even if we run 2 te sets. Dinkins doesn't bring much value to the mix IMO. If extra blocking is what you want, line up one of the reserve linemen. I am sure one of them could catch a dump pass early on just so it isn't a automatic tip to a run play.

So that opens 2 spots for the best of the rest....and maybe Ali is considered a best of the rest due to ST play.

Quote:

---

OL - JT, Steiny, Fraley, Tucker, Shaffer, Freidman, Hadnot/McKinney, Sowells (if he's come along and because he can play T), Bentley (because I want it to be so.) Maybe Bents starts on PUP?

---

Just a note- pretty sure we lost Friedman in the offseason. Hadnot, in theory, fills his shoes but I liked Friedman as a backup guy.

Friedman is still on the roster as I think we signed him to a 1 year deal. Cant say for sure though.

Browns sign Friedman
Jeff Walcoff, Staff Writer
03.11.2008

The Cleveland Browns have signed offensive lineman Lennie Friedman to a one-year contract, the team announced Tuesday.

Friedman has appeared in all 32 games for the Browns since being traded to the team from the Chicago Bears for a conditional draft pick on Aug. 24, 2006.

During 2007, Friedman appeared on special teams, including on the team's kick return unit, helping Joshua Cribbs lead the league with a 30.7 kick-return average and qualify for the Pro Bowl.

The guard/center started 2 games in 2006 along the offensive line -- one at left guard and one at right guard.

Friedman, 31, who will enter his 10th NFL season this fall, is a veteran of 97 NFL games with 34 starts for the Broncos, Redskins, Bears and Browns.

The club signed fellow interior offensive lineman Rex Hadnot, formerly of the Miami Dolphins, to a two-year deal Monday.

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=8276

I thought we did sign him. Thanks Diehard for the link. Good looking out.

Isn't there a minicamp this weekend? If so, we might have some more idea on some of the new guys then.

Quote:

---

I suppose we could go to 4 RBs, but the odd man out would be either Ali - who is a special teams guy - or Harrison - who is coming in to his 3rd year... and we know what the 3rd year does for some guys.

---

Harrison is light years ahead of Wright when it comes to carrying the rock. He is not the scat back he was when he came into the league. If his blocking is any better he will be the no. 2 back.

Quote:

---

Smith, Smith, Rodgers, Williams, ...Rubin? and who?...

---

Purcell got the nod in the last game over Pittman. I don't know why. We also had the guy we picked up off of waivers during the year from St. Louis (Lenoard Louis). Without knowing what any UDFA's offer I would say thes our the guys.

I know Purcell has bulked up since he was drafted. Louis was only on the roster because he had to be. We'll see how things shake out.

Quote:

---

S - Jones, Pool (Vers' pick for "Likely to be the Most Improved Brown in '08"), Baxter (I hope...sort of) but Adams should beat him out if he is ok, and one of 46 other guys we will look at

---

I think we signed Sorenson to a 3 year deal. He is stricktly a special teamer. Adams is going to make the team because of his versatility. He played a lot last year as the 3rd safety. He is undersized as a safety but can (and does) play CB. I hope Baxter comes back healthy, but I'm not counting on it.

Quote:

---

CB - Wright, McDonald, Holly

---

Adams will also be here as a CB. AJ Davis was an early 4th rounder last year who ended up on our PS.

I'm assuming that Romeo and Savage think the combination of Baxter, Adams and Davis can shore up the back end of our corner backs. We didn't draft one, that's why I'm assuming. Unless of course they feel they can get one after June 1st. I think that is too risky for Savage.

Quote:

---

LB - Wimbley, Peek, DQ, Willie, Davis, Bell, Orr, Williams, McMillan?

---

You missed Griffin, who I think has a very good chance of making it. I think McMillian will be on his way out if any of the UDFAs make an impression. If Bell lights it up early on, Davis might turn into trade bait. I didn't think Willie would make it through last year, but he did. I think he may be a bubble guy do to his age catching up with him.

I wonder about the 7th rounder (Hall) also. Typically they either make the PS or are cut outright. I'm intrigued by him because of his reputation of being a pass rush specialist. I think being from such a small school (Div. II St. Augistine) he is more of a wild card. He had much greater production then 7th rounders, probably due to the lack of quality opponents.

Crennel won a Super Bowl with Earthwind Moreland (a Butch Davis cast-off) and a converted WR playing CB for him. I don't think that having a stud CB is that big a deal for us as long as the front 7 get their thing done the way they are supposed to.

I would not be surprised to see us go with what we have already plus one or two of the best UDFA's in our camp.

Good point in the CBs. Plus I think either Terrell or Zenon will stick in camp, and it wouldn't surprise me if both made the team.

PDawg,

I forgot all about Griffin...and I like him. If we change the number of players at any position, I think it is here...all the back end LBs play ST - Orr, Bell, McMillan, Griffin. The spot would be picked up by going to 3 TEs.

There will be some tough decisions on the OL, DL, LB spots and some raised eyebrows at DB, S and likely WR.

Purp,

I was very worried about us not taking DBs. Then you get to thinking about it...and just like with the new DLs...we picked our CBs BEFORE the draft...then a few more after. If Adams is viewed as a CB, then we only need one of the AJ Davis/UDFA/Pickup to get to 5 CBs. I remain worried about S...maybe Sorenson - who I also forgot initially - is viewed as a guy who CAN play some from scrimmage.

In all my angst over the DB situation, I forgot all about Tucker being a DB-guy along with RAC and their ability to polish DBs into guys who can contribute.

I can't really imagine any prior-year-Brown getting released or traded. Other than maybe McKinney if Hadnot is better and LCB is back. Unfortunately, the LCB return looks like quite a stretch.

I think Davis gets another year...along w/ Willie. Dinkins is maybe the odd man out...but w/ alot of 2 TE sets possibly in the scheme and two present TEs recovering from surgery???

This exercise gets tougher every year (lately), eh?

QB-Anderson, Quinn, Dorsey
RB-Lewis, Wright, Harrison
FB-Vickers, Ali
WR-Edwards, Stallworth, Jurevicius, Cribbs, Hubbard?
TE-WInslow, Heiden, Rucker, Dinkins?
OL-Thomas, Steinbach, Tucker, Fraley, Shaffer, Hadnot, McKinney, Friedman
DL-Rogers, Williams, Smith, Smith, Rubin, 1 more?
ILB-Jackson, Davis, Williams, Bell, Orr, Griffin
OLB-Wimbley, McGinest, Peek, McMillan?
CB-Wright, McDonald, Holly, Wright, 1 more?
S-Jones, Pool, Adams, Sorensen
K-Dawson
P-Zastudil
LS-Pontbriand

We really need 1 more DL and CB. We're set at OL, QB, RB, FB, TE, WR, OLB, ILB, S and special teamers. Louis Leonard and maybe Zenon or Baxter? Of course McMillan and Dinkins might get cut in favor of another OL and/or DB. 25 on O 25 on D, a K and a P and a LS is how we do it. Hubbard might get beat out by Wilson or some other WR.

We will probably keep 1 FB.....

I think Dink is gone for sure.

I am just saying if we run in to a numbers game, we can dump a fullback.....we don't need 2.

My attitude on special teamers is for everyone you keep, you probably cut someone who would have done just as well.

To me, the only special teamers you really have to search for are the kickers, returners, and snapper. Chaun was a good special teamer for us....something tells me someone is going to fill in just fine.

If the fullback is integral to your offense, then you have to have 2... if one goes down, you can't be scrambling in the middle of the game to put a TE back there and you can't completely change your gameplan at halftime...

Ok...you have 8 OL and 10 LB...I think 8 is light for the OL, but they are a versatile 8...could be.

I hope someone...anyone...turns up better than K Wright.

You think Baxter is finished?

I'm with you on this DC...if we are going to USE a FB...we better have two.

I think the numbers crunch will involve TE (3 or 4)...OL (8, 9, 10)...and LB (9,10)

I think the other numbers as laid out above will be the ticket.

Did any OL play ST last year? Other than Freidman, of course.

Quote:

---

You think Baxter is finished?

---

Baxter is finished, I dont count on him making the team. Also as we get better & better talent there are gonna be a few hard cuts to make, Will tucker be brought back as a guard / tackle maybe...Will A.Davis be let go if Bell can handle the middle starting this year, Wilson will be let go if Hubbard is what they say he is, there are gonna be alot of tuff cuts, which is why they have training camp.

I think the only way Baxter makes the team is as a safety.

The fact that we have some tough cuts to make is a good thing to me. Our depth on offense is matched only by a couple of teams (Colts/Pats). While the Cowboys and Chargers have great O's, imagine the Chargers sans Gates or LT, and the Boys if TO or Romo were to go down. We can lose pretty much anyone on offense other than Thomas and still be a good unit.

The D on the other hand is a question mark for me. The DL looks solid but there are alot of questions in the LBs and secondary, can Peek step it up, will Bell be a good run stopper in place of AD, will Pool get some instincts, will the young corners step it up?

JMHBabblings but if the defense can step up to around 15th or so...this team can make a run at the whole shebang.

Isn't it neat to actually be talking about having to cut decent talent because you don't have room... instead of keeping marginal talent just because you need somebody to fill the slot?

Good point.

I'll add on that the rules changes 5 or 6 years ago dealing with contact has drastically changed CBs abilities to "shut down" a WR. Most teams have gone to zone coverages and the value of highly skilled CBs have thus diminished.

Eric Wright is a good example of what teams are looking for in today's zone CB. Bodden on the other hand would be a good example of the type teams looked for a decade ago.

I wouldn't call a 2 TE set a spread, but if that is what it is, then yes, that is what we should run.

I wouldn't say it would be passing 80% by any means, but 2 options like Winslow and Rucker create some big match-up problems for other teams, which IMO would create many running opportunities when you start talking about replacing a backer with a DB.

TE's are perfect options in a climate like Cleveland's...a good portion of what they do is underneath, shorter stuff that isn't hurt as much by wind etc..

Not to mention it is my belief you don't need a FB to run the ball.

Fullbacks are good on the goaline....something tells be we could find a guard or back-up D-lineman who could line up in the backfield to act as a lead blocker if needed. There are only about 4 holes you run to in those cases...I am sure one of those guys could figure it out with about 15 minutes of practice sometime this summer.

I also question the attitude these guys can't and don't block. They might not be great drive blockers, but the reports I have seen that say Rucker has never blocked anybody seem a little bit exaggerated, don't you think?? I would bet the guy has blocked before.

Quote:

---

I also question the attitude these guys can't and don't block. They might not be great drive blockers, but the reports I have seen that say Rucker has never blocked anybody seem a little bit exaggerated, don't you think?? I would bet the guy has blocked before.

---

Your so right Peen....I chuckle every time I hear or see a report that says Winslow or rucker or somebody else cant block....I've havent seen Rucker play alot watched a couple missouri games remember him but didnt focus on his blocking, but lets think minute Blocking....Do we expect Winslow / Rucker or any of our TE to block like our O-Line does...Block like Thomas - Stinbach....well if thats the case than no Winslow & rucker cant block, but is that what there drafted or signed to do....NO...A TE blocking is a couple types,

1. Keep the guy in front of you and make him take the outside longest route around you, use your hands.
2. Normally in motion you hit the uncovered DE / LB just hit him, slow him up knock him off balance just dont let him run free.....if he comes close to the line of scrimage you hit him there, if he stays deeper you turn up and seal him off from the play, once again just get a hit on him.

3. also the TE is used to help tackles, before they release downfield there asked to just stick a shoulder into the DE / LB to just slow them down to help the tackle.

4. sure theres other things but the TE isnt asked in our OfÜense to hold a block for 4-5 seconds, there mostly run into the guy slow him down and quickly run your route.

We dont ask for or expect Rucker ect to hold blocks sure i'm sure theres times or situations when we might or need to, but those are normally few and far between and due to adjustments we didnt forsee happening during a game..Evey player learns to block the very moment he puts on pads...every year were taught to block and practice blcoking, some do it better some are expected to do it better & more often. Our TE dont block they more less run interfearence....or too me blocking isnt a issure or a problem for them.

2 TE sets, I hope people realize were not designing our offence, we might see a more 2 TE sets, but all this is is a option for situations which come up 3-4 times a game, dosent mean we will use it, but it give our Offence another option another look, something else for the Opponents Def. to prepare for, a 2 TE set isnt gonna be used every series. Also 2 TE sets are nice to run the ball with in November when we have the lead and need to run the clock out. Outside TE push the LB / DE outside or just get in front of them and the O-line pushes forward with Jamel gaining 3-4 yards per carry...this also gives the Def. a rest.

Just my .02 take for what it's worth.

Okay, at any rate, I hardly doubt the acquisition of Rucker is going to make the use of a fullback in our offense obsolete. Rucker and Winslow are the same type of TE: a gifted pass-catcher who has a knack for lining up anywhere on the field and is often seen as more of a receiver than a true TE. Yes, having them both in there will create mismatch nightmares for defenses league-wide. But as Clay pointed out, we will not be running double-tight sets all of the time. It will be seldom. I believe that most of the time that Rucker sees will be in place of Winslow so that he can catch his breath and take a break, especially as the season wears on. K2 has even said that somedays he can't even get out of bed toward the end of the season. Rucker will be a nice option to go to so that we can still run our offense and K2 can take a breather. Rucker will add to Winslow's longevity... I hope. Anyway, some of the scenarios you're suggesting, like lining up a guard at the FB spot to block in goalline situations is just not conventional and I really don't see it ever happening. Could we do it? Yes. Should we or will we? I doubt it. Not when Vickers is playing the way he has. And I agree with you on Rucker blocking. I'm sure the caption "Never Blocked A Soul" was a mild exaggeration on NFL Network's part.

The offensive line will be 7 or 8 by the time the roster is cut to 53, I can't imagine 9 OL. The OL has to be one unit, the starters have to perform as one unit for the Browns to have excellent success.


I Think they will only hold onto 3 tight ends with Dinkins, Heiden, and Rucker fighting for two spots. When do you use 4 TE's in one game, only if they win a spot on special teams returns or coverage.

I cant imagine more than 6 Wide receivers on the roster, I don't consider Josh Cribbs a Wide Receiver, he is a kick returner and slash offensive player, shoot let him play defense also, he makes plays keep him out there.
I imagine probably Steptoe, Hubbard, and Wilson, will be fighting for 2, 1 , or no spots. Either way all 3 are better than chivarini was in 99

I think the team can pretty much stay together with the additions of Rucker for Dinkins, and Bell for ?

Either way Tim Carter is not on the roster and was for the Reg, season games last year, so whatever you want to take from that.

I can see the Browns playing a lot of Tackles (Thomas) playing TE on running plays this year.

So they will probably keep 3, Winslow, Rucker and Heiden. A tackle will be moved to TE on the short yardage plays.

That looks about right.

I go..


QB-3
RB-3
FB-1
TE-3
WR-5
OL-8

23

DL-7
LB-8
CB-5
S-3

23


K-1
P-1
LS-1
Ret-1
best of the rest-3

7

The best of the rest could be another FB and another safety or corner as an example....just have to see how it pans out and who shows up to play.