|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,714
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,714 |
I realize that QB talk is all the rage, but I still think we have to seriously upgrade our D, and I mean early and often.
IMO we need - minimum - two of our top 4 picks to be D (depending on who's there obviously - and whatever trades we make - but that's the framework I start with).
That's how I'd approach it if I were drafting. We need help on the back 7 and an early D-lineman should be in the equation, too. QBs are glamorous but we need some muscle.
Thoughts?
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
I personally want 2 DB's first. I like Haden as our first pick and Allen in the second to play safety but I'm assuming Berry isn't there and we don't trade up. There's a few linebackers I wouldn't mind either. I'm definitely with you, I want a great defense.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Yeah cause the Saints, Colts, Chargers, Vikings, Steelers, and Vikings have such magnificent D's. Look at all of the championship contenders what do they have in common.... A QB with is believed to be a franchise guy Brees, Philips, Manning, Rothlisberger, Farve...What do most of them not have....especially stout defenses. They may have opportunistic defenses but by no means are they greatest defense ever. In fact I don't think either super bowl team had a top 10 defense...but they both had top 5 QBs.
Look if we have a chance at a franchise QB go after if we don't then we should probably choose BPA cause we certainly have enough holes to fill on the offensive and defensive side of the ball. The only position I would not draft at 7 would be offensive line.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 553
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 553 |
Sorry Loki but every team you have mentioned has achieved an excellent defense.
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.
John Barrymore
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,851
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,851 |
out of the 5 picks we have in the first three rounds.. I'm guessing we pick two safeties and one CB with those picks.. the other two will be QB and WR.
Our secondary will and SHOULD look completely different from 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
Saints, Colts, Chargers, Vikings, Steelers, and Vikings
I guess you really like the Vikings, huh?
They're known for having the meanest D line in the NFL. The Williams boys plug up the middle and the ends attack.
The Steelers D has been the reason they have so many playoff appearances over the last decade.
The Colts D has been one of the most reliable D's in the league the past few years.
The Chargers play in such a pitifully weak division that 8-8 is a playoff ticket. I wish we had four combined games each year against the Chiefs and Raiders. And just how many playoff games has Philip Rivers won ?
We need to draft defense with four of our top five picks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Sorry Loki but every team you have mentioned has achieved an excellent defense.
Define Excellent? When I think of Excellent I think of top 5 defense. I sort the defenses by points given up and guess what:
Colts: 8th
Vikings: 10th
San Diego: 11th
New Orleans: 20th....Yep the 20th ranked D
Pittsburgh: 12th
New England: 5th
Green Bay: 7th
Houston: 17th
Almost all of those were playoff teams and 1 of them won a Superbowl. So lets review out of 8 teams only 1 had a top 5 defense by points given up. Let's look at Passing TDs from the same teams
1) Brees
2)Farve
2b) Manning
4) Rodgers
5) Schuab
6)Brady
6b) Rivers
10) Rothlisberger
Lets review we have the top 7 passing QBs and the other is in the top 10. The Superbowl team had the best passer and a 20th ranked defense. I hope its plainly obvious that a franchise QB is more important than a defense..
Stats: Espn.com
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,714
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,714 |
You have been watching the past few seasons, right? Y'know, when our bend-then-break defense was consistently letting teams shove the ball down our throats?
We need help on D, loki.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
You have been watching the past few seasons, right? Y'know, when our bend-then-break defense was consistently letting teams shove the ball down our throats?
We need help on D, loki.
I don't dispute that our defense isn't that great. What I dispute is that Defense is more important than a franchise QB. I would rather us trade most of our picks and get our hopeful franchise QB then use every pick on defense. Until we have a franchise QB/developmental franchise QB then we are a boat without a rudder.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,714
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,714 |
I certainly agree we need a quarterback, not sure this is the draft to get one early.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,489
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,489 |
Quote:
I don't dispute that our defense isn't that great. What I dispute is that Defense is more important than a franchise QB. I would rather us trade most of our picks and get our hopeful franchise QB then use every pick on defense. Until we have a franchise QB/developmental franchise QB then we are a boat without a rudder.
The problem is you assume that franchise QB exists in this years draft. Personally, I don't think he does. What this draft DOES have is incredible depth and talent on the defensive side of the football. You think we should choose to skip getting possibly great talent to upgrade our bad defense just to get a marginal talent to upgrade our bad offense simply because the position is more important? Sounds like a bad recipe to me.
Put it this way. Pair a marginal QB with a bad defense and your team is terrible (drafting a marginal QB just b/c you need a QB and don't address the defense).
Pair a marginal QB with a great defense and you're in contention for the playoffs.(Stick with Delhomme/Wallace and build the D through this draft).
Now if you're talking Super Bowl, then yeah eventually we're going to need that "franchise" guy to take us from just contention onto the next level. We can always go get him in the draft once he actually exists. See: next year.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/GraffZ06/browns_factory_sig.jpg) Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
are those QBs good b/c the team is good or is team good b/c the QB is good.
chicken or egg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
i agree with you. the strength of this draft is OT and Defense (particularly CB, S, and DT). we need to improve our defense, so we should do so.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
The Browns were 32nd on offense 31st on defense.
Arguing which side needs more improvement seems kinda silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Uhhhh, can we talk about your sig pic, Loki? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,052
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,052 |
Quote:
The Browns were 32nd on offense 31st on defense.
Arguing which side needs more improvement seems kinda silly.
Agree - pick the best player regardless of whether they play offense or defense. Deciding to pick a safety or CB or whatever before you know which players will or won't be available is a prescription for disaster.
The difference between Jesus and religion
Religion mocks you for having dirty feet
Jesus gets down on his knees and washes them
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Browns were 32nd on offense 31st on defense.
Arguing which side needs more improvement seems kinda silly.
Agree - pick the best player regardless of whether they play offense or defense. Deciding to pick a safety or CB or whatever before you know which players will or won't be available is a prescription for disaster.
We were 32nd in offense because our RB was Tippy-toes Lewis and our QB was the absolute worst in the league. Our RB situation dramaticly improved just by getting rid of JL and 1st round QB's rarely experience success in their first year.
We need to legitimize our D by adding at least a starting safety and CB. A second safety wouldn't hurt.
Let's fill our QB needs later in the draft or in FA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943 |
Quote:
The problem is you assume that franchise QB exists in this years draft. Personally, I don't think he does.
So being the winningest QB in all of college football with 45 victories under his belt means he probably "isn't the one"?
Quote:
What this draft DOES have is incredible depth and talent on the defensive side of the football. You think we should choose to skip getting possibly great talent to upgrade our bad defense just to get a marginal talent to upgrade our bad offense simply because the position is more important?
If I agreed with your initial logic I would agree with you. But I don't, so I won't. I agree with you in round 1 though!
Quote:
Put it this way. Pair a marginal QB with a bad defense and your team is terrible (drafting a marginal QB just b/c you need a QB and don't address the defense).
I guess the difference is that many people who make a living weighing out these drafts disagree with you in terms of McCoy. I happen to agree with those people.
Quote:
Pair a marginal QB with a great defense and you're in contention for the playoffs.(Stick with Delhomme/Wallace and build the D through this draft).
I don't know if you watched or understand how badly Delhomme played last year. Did you know he threw an int. for every 10 pass attempts? We have no way of knowing what we'll get out of JD. Certainly not stable enough to call him "maginal" or not. MH only signed him to a two year deal for a reason. That reason being he KNOWS JD is NOT a long term answer.
Quote:
Now if you're talking Super Bowl, then yeah eventually we're going to need that "franchise" guy to take us from just contention onto the next level. We can always go get him in the draft once he actually exists. See: next year.
Yeah, that's what you do, you wait till you have the team assembled to contend for a SB, then go out and draft a rookie that will take two or three years for him to develop enough so HE'S ready to lead us to a SB!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 553
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 553 |
Quote:
I sort the defenses by points given up
Okay, that's a pretty good definition of a good defense. I do remember the Saints D sealing off their SB win picking off Manning. They get a ton of turnovers. I also remember Dwight Freeny being banged up which slowed down the Colt pass rush. Picks and sacks have a pretty big impact on wins and losses.
There is a very good reason the Saints give up points, the same as the Colts....They give the ball back to the other team every time they score.
The teams who slow the game down give up the fewest points typically, combined with a conservative D. That doesn't always equate to wins.
So, okay, by that definition the Saints don't have an excellent D. They are just really good at getting turnovers.
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.
John Barrymore
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,052
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,052 |
Combined with a QB who couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat let alone complete a pass to a wide open receiver.
The difference between Jesus and religion
Religion mocks you for having dirty feet
Jesus gets down on his knees and washes them
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
At least Loki gets it.
The best way, maybe the only way to improve the defense is to invest in the offense.
I think the missing or hard to recognise thing is that these great quarterbacks, are the reason these teams defenses can have alot of turnovers.
You play different defense if you have the lead than if you are trailing.
You don't have the lead unless you can score points
The best way to score point is with a great offense!
Even if you are trailing if you have an offense that can keep your team in the game ( if you can keep the outcome in doubt) than you can play defense that matters.
Lets look at it this way
( a point in a game where the score is opponents 30, and Browns 13 )
For however much of the season is played in that situatuion, game clock, time of posession for the whole season... down by 17 points...
The best defense in the WHOLE WORLD, the hall of fame defense, a defense of all hall of famers, in that situation is going to do what?
I estimate that hall of fame defense would get a turnover for a touchdown and another turnover that sets up the offense in scoring position. Ok they'd get another stop, they'd stop the team with negative yards on another posession.
With the Browns offense, WE HAVE YEARS OF FILM TO PROVE THIS, FROM GARCIA TO FRYE TO QUINN
Without an offense the team in that situation could not capitalize on EITHER!!!!! EITHER the set up in scoring position provided by your hall of fame defense, or
or
or the posession provided by the stop for negative yards that your hall of fame defense gave you.
Boo your hall of fame defense, without a Quarterback! without a passing game! without an offense that can score points! your hall of fame defense is nothing.
You know the real reason the Browns beat the steelers in the 2nd meeting last year. It wasn't because the Browns defense played great, ... because they did
but even though the Browns defense played great, the game was still in doubt, the game was still up in the air. ... and it wasn't because the Browns offense was so great. ( because it was individual performances not team dynamics on offense that scored the points)
The reason the Browns beat the steelers in the 2nd meeting last year is because the Browns refused to be tackled and also the steelers had poor tackling.
If they refuse to invest in the offense until the 4th or 5th round AGAIN then you can count on one thing.
The amount of respect they the team gets around the league will not improve!
And thats why I don't want your hall of fame (defensive) draft pick, EVEN IF he will be in the hall of fame!
Last edited by THROW LONG; 04/21/10 02:39 PM.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943 |
I will say keeping your D on the field for three fourths of the game certainly won't help your D any. That's what some people don't get. Controling the ball and resting your D is one of the best ways to help them IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
That's what some people don't get. Controling the ball and resting your D is one of the better ways to help them IMO..
Fixed..the truely best way is to actually aquire quality starters..because even if your offense can put up points and sustain drives..your defense will be on the field at some point and in some games the defense HAS to win the game..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943 |
I said "one of the best", not "the best"! I don't see but one O player in this draft high enough to take at #7 and that's Bradford. And I don't feel he's worthy of a #1 overall. So I do promote picking D if we stay at #7. Even if we could trade down, I really still believe you'll get better quality in depth at D for the most part. There's 14 O players in my first round mock and 2 are QB's while 7 are OT's and one is a G. That leaves 4 "skill positions" (other than QB) I even have rated high enough to be first rounders. So yeah, I'm for drafting D in the first round. But the premise of this thread is to devote most all of our draft to the D side of the ball. To me that is simply unrealistic.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
The offense needs a big play WR/RB..and a OT/QB..
Thats it..thats all I would devote picks to..
The rest go to defense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,489
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,489 |
I was responding more to Loki's comment saying "I would rather us trade most of our picks and get our hopeful franchise QB." The only franchise QB's we'd be trading our draft picks away in order to move up and draft would be Bradford or Clausen. I want zero, no negative, to do with Clausen. Bradford is where I was trying to make my point. I'd rather keep our draft picks and vastly improve our defense instead of trading them all away just to go get Bradford (who I view as a marginal franchise QB when compared to who we might be able to get next year - Jake Locker). 3 years from now do we want Eric Berry at S, a starting corner (Akwasi Owusu-Ansah, Brandon Ghee, Myron Lewis etc) with a pass rushing OLB like Jason Worilds and an OG like John Jerry from this draft paired with a QB like Jake Locker NEXT year....(just as an example) Or would we rather have 0 of them but have QB Sam Bradford? That's an easy choice IMO. Quote:
So being the winningest QB in all of college football with 45 victories under his belt means he probably "isn't the one"?
Tim Tebow? Really? REALLY? You want to sell me on this guy? The future NFL H-Back? Great, awesome kid. I don't think he'll ever be an NFL QB. Ever.
Quote:
I guess the difference is that many people who make a living weighing out these drafts disagree with you in terms of McCoy. I happen to agree with those people.
Now, when it comes to round 2, I'd be alright with us drafting Colt McCoy there. Not ecstatic but alright. He'll ride the bench but he MIGHT be a good fit down the road and it could be worth the gamble. That way though we still get to draft multiple immediate contributors on the defense and OLine.
Quote:
I don't know if you watched or understand how badly Delhomme played last year. Did you know he threw an int. for every 10 pass attempts? We have no way of knowing what we'll get out of JD. Certainly not stable enough to call him "maginal" or not. MH only signed him to a two year deal for a reason. That reason being he KNOWS JD is NOT a long term answer.
Oh I know how bad he was last year. I think he can still be "marginal" though. If he's not though so what? That's why we grabbed Seneca Wallace (who I actually like more than JD but that's another debate). We aren't winning anything this year anyway. We're building for the future. Stick with the vets at QB and build the rest of the team with the parts this draft is the deepest.
Quote:
Yeah, that's what you do, you wait till you have the team assembled to contend for a SB, then go out and draft a rookie that will take two or three years for him to develop enough so HE'S ready to lead us to a SB!
No I want to be able to plug a young QB in early in their career but in an ideal situation (great defense, great OLine, great running game) so he doesn't HAVE to win games for us, just not lose them. Young QBs can come in and do that but most teams that are drafting franchise QBs in round 1 are drafting them there for a reason - because the team around them sucks. And besides I'm not saying wait 4 years to find a franchise QB. I'm saying wait until NEXT YEAR. We aren't going to be ready to win a super bowl for 3-4 years minimum anyway. That's plenty of time to develop a young QB drafted next year.
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943 |
The winningest QB in college football history is not Tim Tebow. It's Colt McCoy with 45 w's. No I wouldn't draft a QB at the #7 pick. (assuming Bradford is gone there) Nor would I package picks to move up in order to do so. You can look around the league and see that rookies aren't "super bowl bound". Play well? Yes, sometimes, but not to the Super Bowl level. So IMO, you draft your rookie QB a year or two ahead of time so he's ready for prime time when the rest of the team is. jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
The winningest QB in college football history is not Tim Tebow. It's Colt McCoy with 45 w's.
and he replaced Ken Dorsey at the top.
there are plenty of legitimate arguments for and against Colt. that is not one of them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,943 |
It's one on the list. Not the be all end all.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
j/c
I don't think anyone will argue that we need play makers on both sides of the ball. Do we need a franchise QB? You bet. Do we need a franchise defensive player? Absolutely.
The Saints won last year because they had the best offense with an opportunistic defense that forced turnovers. The year before that, the Steelers won with great defense and an opportunistic offense.
What does that tell me? Build one side of the ball and get a play maker for the other side. I would think our defense should be built and get a franchise QB, and next year's class is filled with them while this year's draft class is filled with defensive playmakers.
But everyone is right and wrong in this debate.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,489
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,489 |
Quote:
No I wouldn't draft a QB at the #7 pick. (assuming Bradford is gone there) Nor would I package picks to move up in order to do so.
Well good then we agree  .
Quote:
You can look around the league and see that rookies aren't "super bowl bound". Play well? Yes, sometimes, but not to the Super Bowl level.
So IMO, you draft your rookie QB a year or two ahead of time so he's ready for prime time when the rest of the team is.
I'd agree with you there too! We'll be ready (hopefully) for playoff contention in 2 years and super bowl contention in 3-4 years. That means if we draft Locker next year he's got a full season to 2 ahead of him to get ready for "prime time" as you put it. This draft is great in D, so we build the D. Next year is great for QB so we get our QB. Mix it all up and let simmer for 2 years and then we'll be ready to make our mark.
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
Quote:
I'm saying wait until NEXT YEAR.
NO MORE!
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
Quote:
I'd agree with you there too! We'll be ready (hopefully) for playoff contention in 2 years and super bowl contention in 3-4 years. That means if we draft Locker next year he's got a full season to 2 ahead of him to get ready for "prime time" as you put it. This draft is great in D, so we build the D. Next year is great for QB so we get our QB. Mix it all up and let simmer for 2 years and then we'll be ready to make our mark.
Where do you think Locker will be picked so that we could make him our QB. I think we'll probably go 8-8 next year at least and so we might have to trade up to get him. That's fine but you really want to be sure of a guy if you're going to do that
Plus I always find that speculating on next year's crop of a position is dangerous. Many things can happen between now and then.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm saying wait until NEXT YEAR.
NO MORE!
I agree but for different reasons....
You NEVER let next years draft influence this years draft. ESPECIALLY a specific player. Lockler, Lockler , Lockler...Well guess what.....The only GUARANTEED way to get him is to lose every single game. We are NOT going to do that. And for discussions sake...say we do...what if Lockler has a career ending injury??? Even if you KNEW that next years draft class was the second coming of the 83' QB class...you STILL DO NOT ALTER this years draft plans.....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 305
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 305 |
Figured this is as good a place as any for this, I did not know Gruden was interviewing other posistions (thought it was just the QB's). Sorry if this has already been posted. If Berry is gone I would not be surprised at all to see us take ET @ 7. I think he is better than Haden (more dynamic and very versitle). Anyway I enjoyed it this is Gruden sitting down with Earl Thomas. ET Interview
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388 |
Trying not to get sucked into the BSPN here, but I would be ok with the ET pick. how about them taking Gruden's tires though? What in the world was up with that and why was thta shown?
"The medium for the bad news was ESPN, which figured. The network represents much of what is loud, obnoxious and empty in sports today."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 305
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 305 |
Pretty wild....I wisht he would have kept grilling ET on his play, I love hearing players talk about what they see and how they react to it. Gruden always goes into that other stuff.
I coach, and it's not uncommon in Texas for a high school AD to have "For Sale" signs thrown in his yard after a tough loss. I even heard of a guy that woke up saturday morning with a UHaul van sitting in his driveway and a for sale sign leaning up against it......Now that is a hint!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,851
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,851 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think Haden is a better overall player than Earl Thomas, but I would not be upset at all with Earl because he is a fantastic player and one at a position of greater need.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,851
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,851 |
Give me Eric Berry in the 1st.. and Reshad Jones in the 3rd.
Two head hunters!! wow!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) Gimme some D...
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
