DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum With the cuts today our draft history looks ... terrible

j/c

Name a former Brown who is still in the league today who would make our roster today.

I'm going with Chris Crocker

I think most would agree that there is a difference between picks that turn out to be busts and reaching for picks that are busts.

Veikune was considered a reach and he might end up being a huge bust.

Brady Quinn being picked later in the 1st round was considered a steal. Turns out he was a bust.

They do.. but when the whole world has a guy slotted as a late first round guy and you take him late first round and he doesn't work out.. oh well.

When the whole world has a guy as a 4th round pick and you take him in the 2nd and he doesn't pan out.. then you look stupid.

I just think these guys outhink themselves a lot trying to find that one magic pick that will make them look like a genius...

Quote:

---

and then you have the whole world looking at a guy like Cribbs thinking he's not good enough to be in the NFL and today,, he's a record holder!

---

Well sure but that would be like Suh turning into a premier cornerback... Josh Cribbs was a QB who turned into something else so its not a real solid example...

Quote:

---

Drafting, dispite what some would have us believe, isn't an exact science. can't be, we're dealing with human beings. It's all feelings, numbers, intuituion and guess work at best.

---

This is all true but in general if you stick with what the vast majority think.. you will tend to do better.. obviously nothing is going to make you perfect but sticking to conventional wisdom is the safer way to go..

Name a former Brown who is still in the league today who would make our roster today.

I'm going with Chris Crocker

Go ahead..because today I still don't like him as a DB...

Leigh Bodden would make it, if he were healthy.

Winslow could make this team. I hate to admit it, but Edwards could as well.


I'm quite happy to say that NONE of our former QB's could.

I know he's without a team right now... but Antonio Bryant is pretty good.

Jeff Faine has been a starter in the league from 2006 to 2009. I don't know if he would start but he would make the team.

Shaun O'Hara would make the team as he has started every game he has played in for the Giants (2004-2009).

Brodney Pool seems like a good player who just has concussion issues.

Wimbley would make the team.

Quote:

---

But then again, someone looked at him (savage I suppose) and said, this kid could be special as a receiver, RB or punt returner. we should give him a try...

---

Somebody saw a freakish athlete who did nothing in his first year but return kickoffs on a team with WRs on the roster like Frisman Jackson... Cribbs was a pure kickoff return man his first year and a host of "potential" to do other stuff... fortunately the "potential" to be good described darn near everybody on our roster in 2005... Cribbs is one of the few (the only?) one that actually worked out...

Quote:

---

If we still to what the vast majority think, then we don't need a High Priced GM.. we could get a monkey to do the draft...sometimes you gotta take those chances..

---

Maybe.. just seems to me that the vast majority of big reaches backfire.. and yes, we probably could get a monkey to do our drafting but we still need a GM unless the monkey can also negotiate contracts and work in free agency.

Or if we had, we could have had Brown on one end and Wimbley on the other.. that would be a formidable pass rush combo...

Nope....he is a finesse type safety and I've seen enough of those..he isn't physical enough and lacks coverage skills although his instincts are better than Elame's..

JC..


I think the stats of "drafting well" increase as a team becomes more stable from a player perspective. If you have a good team, full of average to above average starters, then you have freedom to draft and place people in a suitable environment to develop. If you have a bunch of high school level players and put your new draftees in, they don't have the talent around them to cover their rookie mistakes while they learn the pro game. And therefore, their talent level actually diminishes some, except in the case of the very rare super-star.

Overall, good teams appear to always draft good because they aren't trying to find 5 or 6 starters in every draft, they only need to bring in 1 guy who can start the rest can learn as things progress and are afforded the luxury of being taught. Rather than being thrown to the wolves.

Professionals or not, rookies can and will suffer from poor showings and media hype/ridicule if the capable vet isn't around to buffer some of that criticism.

Put a team of 22 1st round rookies out there and I'd bet they would lose the the Packers, Patriots, Colts. They're rookies, they need someone to show them the ropes, and we haven't had that luxury of someone capable enough to do so.

Quote:

---

Wimbley would make the team.

---

Of course he would.

He's a linebacker.

Good One !!

"Wimbley would make the team".



He was just traded away from this team..how would he make it???

jc...

Interesting tidbit that really means very very little in the grand scheme things...

Since returning in '99 the Browns have made twelve first-round draft selections. Of those twelve, eight are still in the NFL. Of those eight, all but one are starting for their current teams.

When you're always changing course mid-tack, not only is it hard to get anywhere, but it is also quite hard to tell whether you've got your sails right.

Veikune just got released..
great pick Mangenius...so many better talents and you take a project.
"oh but he had a great motor coming out of Hawaii!"....
what a Pinto?

I HATED the Veikune pick (you dont take a project in the 2nd round esp on a team as devoid of talent as the Browns) it was a moronic pick. Yeah not every pick is going to work, but that was a bone head pick. Mangini doesnt have a good track record (see Vernon Gholston).

I'll "homer" in here,....VG was a complete beast in college and anybody in that spot probably would have taken him. A little different when you compare that situation to Veikune, where Mangini needs to eat crow.

I'll take a pot shot on Gohlston, but he also drafted Mangold, right ?

You just don't hit on every draft pick,....

Quote:

---

The obvious big difference being that with the other three, most of those players are still on the team that drafted them.

---

Making my point that if we don't change regimes every ten minutes we have a team of veterans who've been playing together for some years.

I agree with some who say continuity for the sake of continuity is heading down the wrong path. But on the other foot, how did it work out with all the changes?

Our #1 picks are right in line with those other teams mentioned. Difference is ours are scattered around the NFL on different teams. I hate it being used as proof that a player lacks talent based on a new regime coming in and getting rid of him.

With the spirit of the thread, our draft history does look like crap. But there's more to it than simply calling them bad picks. As in any given play, game or season, there are so many variables involved that it's impossible to point a finger directly at the "one" problem.

IMO the biggest reason our drafts look so bad has to do with the direction from the top. more often then not the players themselves are not busts, the coaching staff and upper management of the team make them busts.

Take Kamerion Wimbley for example..the guy is a 4-3 defensive end plain and simple..thats what he is...he is a very good pass rushing 4-3 Defensive end...however he was NOT a good OLB..thats not what he was coming out..he was a DE.....the reason he will do well in Oakland is because he can do what he does best:

1. put his hand on the ground.
2, rush the passer upfield

in the 4-3 on running plays..all the De has to do is penetrate...thats what they are taught to do..penetrate inside..the OLB and MLB do the clean up...wimbley will have much less responsibility at DE..all he has to do is penetrate..rush thats it.

The Browns have lacked direction and have not used most of their draft picks correctly. Its not always about "who" we picked, but how we used the players we picked. The exmaple of Wimbley is just one of many..the guy is a De and we made him play OLB and the guy just wasn't suited to it.

The biggest problem this team has is adjusting its scheme to fit the players ya got.

Mangini is a guy that wants things "his way" he is not flexible enough to run a system that best suits his players...the reason the 3-4 is not good here is simply because we don't have any personel to run it.

Gocong is a 4-3 OLB thats what he is...he is noit a 3-4 ILB and looks out of place.

Fujita is a 4-3 OLB..he is not a 3-4 OLB..again he looks out of place.

Rogers is a 4-3 DT...he is NOT a 3-4 NT..there is a big difference..Rogers is a penetrator...4-3 Dt are supposed to be guys that penetrate inside..that is rogers skill set...we waste him using him as a Nt and telling him just to tie a guy up...its a waste of his talents.

Dqwell Jackson is more of a 4-3 MLB because he is fast and better in coverage...3-4 ILB have to be good blitzers and that is not Jackson;s forte...Jackson is a good pursuit tackler with good speed, a good sideline to sideline guy..he is a prototypical 4-3 MLB and i would rate him an above average one.

A good many of our personell is more suit for a 4-3 and we are putting square pegs in round holes just like we have done forever.

I see the 3-4 as a way to just outsmart yourself...if your going to play a 3-4 then its gotta be the 1-gap system from the Marty/cowher/Lebeu/Capers Tree...if your not going to run the 1-gap and your better off running the 4-3...

This team would do well to go back to the 4-3...its "much much much easier" to find personell to run the 4-3 then it is to find for the 3-4....you have to "project" a De can switch to OLB..thats a tall enough order considering the way the draft pans out.

most college runs the 4-3..you know when you draft a De he is going to play DE, the learnign curve is less, you know with more certainity what your getting and if it will work.

look our defense does not have to be complicated...not at all

I still hold that the Tampa 2 4-3 cover 2 or cover 3 system is the best overall base Defensive Scheme you can run in the NFL..it is simple, very sound Defense.

It does not give up the big play

It does not leave the middle wide open

It relies on speed

The big thing is it relies on your Defensive Line to generate pressure...leaving more guys in coverage while your fast DE apply pressure to the QB....pass rushing De are not hard to find...we could rebuild this d quickly.

tom Heckert comes from the Jim Johnson 4-3 system. He understands what kind of players you need to run that system. If we switch to the 4-3 i am more then comfortable with Heckert picking players for the 4-3 because thats what he did for years in Philly...i think Heckert would be more comfortable making those picks for that system as well.

the 3-4 is a very hard defense to run...it took the Steelers a very longtime to build such a good 3-4 unit over there...however they were much farther along in year 5 then we are...much farther along.

If we switch to the 4-3 with Heckert...I say the Browns could field a middle of the pack defense next year..easily....with the 3-4 your looking at another 2-3 years before we have a decent unit...

the 4-3 is more of a downhill Defense...guys don't need to think as much...its all about speed...The Tampa 2 forces teams to go 12-13 plays downfield to beat you while having to stave off your very fast good pass rushing DL..See the Super Bowl bucks under Gruden....with the occasiosal blitz mixed in just to mix it up.

the 3-4 is not working out because we haven't brought in players to run it...I still say Savage had plans to switch to the 4-3..thats why he brought in corey Williams and Rogers...both 4-3 Dt..he was trying to build a 2000 Ravens DL(Goose and Adams) and those two were going to be the cornerstones of that DL..he just never got the chance because he couldn't keep his trap shut...

the 2-gap 3-4 won't work in the AFC North because its not aggressive enough...we don't run blitz and such like the Steelers and we don't allow our DL to penetrate which is reuired for the 3-4 to be effective against the run.

Joe Montana said in an interview in an old Sports Illustrated I remember reading that "running against the 3-4 is easier then the 4-3" and it is...that is the reason Cowher and Lebeau came up with the modified one-gap 3-4 system..to counter the 3-4 inherent weakness against the run.

Bellichik and Parcells continued to run the origianl 2-gap 3-4 because they were competing with the 49ers and others running the WCO system at that time under Walsh and his understudies later on the tail end of Parcells tenure with the Giants in the NFC

As long as this team runs the Bellichik/Parcells 2-gap 3-4 this team will continue to struggle against the run...this system was more deisnged to combat the pass, the 4-3 was originally started to be more stout against the run. That was the reason Cower and Lebeau modified Marties old 1-gap 3-4 we ran here in the 80's to make it a little better against the pass while employing Marties 1-gap system which was an aggressive pentrating 3-4 designed to make up for inefficecy stoping the run.

the point of this post is..this team needs to go back to the 4-3..its easier to find personell for, and we can be competitive much faster without having to draft prospects De and hoping they can play LB..see Veikune..

or it could be that the 3-4 is more DIFFICULT to run, and if you don't execute, then yes, the offense will pick you apart..

Best post of all. since our return we have been reaching because we had inexperienced personnel men, who tried to build fast. we never had a foundation so it was no wonder we were always rebuilding.
With Mangini handpicking yet another snot nosed in diapers GM I was pulling my hair out. A stupid draft and lame trades and the Firing of kokinis and FINALLY with heckert and Holmgren we have some FOOTBALL WISDOM AND IQ. Thank God Mangini's mits are off trades.
I hated we traded Quinn and lambasted the choices of Wallace and Delhomme yet that has shown to be a wise move. I do not like the dumping of BMac yet I have no problem that Viekune got the gate< I was not excited we got so little for Wimbley yet....I still trust we are in good hands. I have not felt that way since Ernie Accorsi blew town.

Which of Mangini's trades do you dislike? Specifically?

Quote:

---

I HATED the Veikune pick (you dont take a project in the 2nd round esp on a team as devoid of talent as the Browns) it was a moronic pick.

---

OK look,, you called him a project.. that's great and your right,, you don't pick a project in the 2nd round..

But obviously, the powers in control of the browns drafting didn't see him as a project... so in thier eyes and in thier defense,, they didn't pick a project in the 2nd round.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing,, and even if you said he was a project when drafted, you gotta understand, you could say that with about most players. it's not a big leap to say that..

I'll respond to U and Daman at one time..the Veikune pick was the same type of decision that Botch made when he drafted Chaun Thompson..and the Browns were in the same position when Gini took Veikune..the Browns needed talent ..starter talent..Botch was trying to outthink every other GM and was enamoured with CT's speed..kid was from a unknown school who had one of the worse defenses in college football..and he was no standout..

Now flash forward to 09..Mangini does the same thing.Browns needed starter talent ,,,he takes a project with a HIGH pick..this is the plan playoff teams do who are loaded with talent,they can afford to do this..the Browns can't..if they want to develop a player get a late round pick and do that.
The most defeating part of this is two players selected right after the pick...



LeSean McCoy RB
Phil Loadholt OT

While LB was a need the fact is the better value would have been taking Loadholt and putting him at RT..we'd have a young developing starter there right now..
Genuis could have addressed the LB position either using the 1st second round pick (which he grabbed Biscuit with ),or using a later pick..IMO that first second rounder was the one I would have used..
But really there's your problem,people who shouldn't be making draft selections coming in and screwing up the draft ,wasting picks,not being able to evaluate talent and/or need and setting the team back..add to that Genuis ruined Veikune by not playing him to his strengths..switching him to several positions just fried the kid..