|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
35. Minnesota Vikings: Fletcher Cox, DT, Mississippi State
Not a chance Cox falls out of the 1st round.
Quote:
54. Atlanta Falcons: Whitney Mercilus, DE, Illinois
LOL and yet he has WR Alshon Jeffery going at #16 and Dwight Jones at #31.
And I do like WR Jordan White, only 3-4 rounds later.
Thanks for the humor 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Quote:
I go back and forth on Jeffery. I think he's very boom or bust. He has the best hands/catching ability in the draft and is a really smooth player. If he weighs in at a decent weight and looks good, I'll be on board. If he looks like crap, he comes off my draft board.
I am with you on Jeffery. A lot of people question his in-line speed and ability to create separation. I am not too worried about that. Jeffery is a guy who will go get the ball. Great hands. My concern is regarding his dedication. I hear many rumors that he is a little pudgy around the middle. How does a major college Wr get pudgy around the middle? If he is then in my mind he projects to Mike WIlliams (the USC one). Big guy, great hands, no dedication/drive, unsuccessful.
Make that 3....I already had him on my "dont draft" list but have him back to my torn list due to a glowing scouting report from a guy who's opinion I respect but who's strength isn't evaluating WRs....still would rather avoid him and go with Sanu later, who has les upside but also a higher floor imho....Sanu is pretty much a more polished version of Little and I'd be ok with that
Quote:
Deep - Any thoughts on Juron Criner? 1st - He is in this draft correct? I have seen mixed info but nothing conclusive. 2nd - Any scouting reports and round projection?
You're right, he's all over the place...probably a mid-rounder come draft day....seems like a decent WCO fit:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1620389/juron-criner
http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2010/05/juron-criner-scouting-report.html
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
Quote:
Turk, if you do your mock for all teams, at least the 1st round, then I am curious as to which WR you have off the board when you have the Browns taking Floyd.
yea.. Floyd may not be there.. I'm hoping a few things happen.. One that teams stray away from Floyd b/c of his off the field issues.. Alshon Jeffrey moves up people's boards.. and I think a team may pull an early trigger on Kendall Wright thinking that they might get a Mike Wallace.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Quote:
Deep - Any thoughts on Juron Criner? 1st - He is in this draft correct? I have seen mixed info but nothing conclusive. 2nd - Any scouting reports and round projection?
He is in the draft. Criner is a good athlete, but not very fast. He's had injury issues, but has good hands. I'd take him in maybe the fourth-round; however, there are many wide receivers I would take over him. It's a great wide receiver class.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Deep, what about the WR from Toledo, Eric Page?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
This draft isn't too much different for the Browns than what Mel Kiper had except he paired up Griffin with his buddy Kendall Wright.
I am against drafting 3 first round picks in a row from Baylor. There is something wrong with that.
I'm in the minority, but I would draft defense again. I just think to be a good team you need one side or the other to be dominant. I would get Morris Claiborne and then try to move up to get Courtney Upshaw. I would target an elite WR in free agency and a good RT and I like our chances.
If the Browns draft offense with the first two picks like this draft and Mel's draft, we will still have to wait a few years to see a decent offense and the defense won't be great like it could be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
1 draft spent on building the offense won't hurt us.. then we can go back to getting gems on the defense...
There will be good DE's in the 2nd..
There will be good OLB's in the 3rd/4th rounds..
Only big question mark other than that is cornerback. Is Sheldon Starting? If we don't draft a corner in the top 2/3 rounds, then chances are Sheldon starts again until someone beats him out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
chances are Sheldon starts again until someone beats him out. Quote:
That shouldn't be hard. He was beaten by opposing WRs all year long! 
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
If we draft offense in the first round we will have a good but not elite defense and still be years away on offense because QBs and WRs take time to develop. Plug in Claiborne and we will end up with coverage sacks and turnovers as QBs try to force the ball. Joe Haden will be a year more developed and fully recovered from his knee injury and will be covering the other teams 2nd best WR.
The offense will be good with a full offseason getting timing down with Deshaun Jackson and Greg Little on the other teams second best corner. The offense will also improve just from a decent OC hire.
My plan = playoffs in 2012. Drafting offense we might see the playoffs in 13 or 14
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'd rather forego the playoffs in 2012 if necessary to begin building a team that isn't just good enough to squeek into the playoffs but rather is ready to contend for it all in a few years...
Your plan, and you admit it takes QBs and WRs a few years to develop, seems to have our offense stuck in mediocrity for longer by delaying addressing those needs now. (And personally I think you greatly overestimate the steps our offense can take with the addition of one vet WR and another year of experience)
I would rather being laying the foundation now for an offense that could be pretty potent in a few years even if it means we go 7-9 this year and do not make the playoffs..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
If we draft offense in the first round we will have a good but not elite defense and still be years away on offense because QBs and WRs take time to develop. Plug in Claiborne and we will end up with coverage sacks and turnovers as QBs try to force the ball. Joe Haden will be a year more developed and fully recovered from his knee injury and will be covering the other teams 2nd best WR.
The offense will be good with a full offseason getting timing down with Deshaun Jackson and Greg Little on the other teams second best corner. The offense will also improve just from a decent OC hire.
My plan = playoffs in 2012. Drafting offense we might see the playoffs in 13 or 14
Interesting idea but if our offense doesn't improve, the defence is always on the field and fatigue sets in.
I'm not saying we go all offense in the draft...but I do want a potential #1 WR in the draft who Colt, or whoever our QB becomes, can develop a connection with and we finally have the QB-WR tandem that all championship teams have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Interesting idea but if our offense doesn't improve, the defence is always on the field and fatigue sets in.
It's not as big an effect as you would think:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot
We were 22nd in the league, but only averaged having our defense on the field for 1 more minute (about 3 more plays) than average.
Also, note that great passing teams are usually at the middle/bottom of the list. The only teams that deviate greatly are those with great running games (which will not be us due to offensive strategy).
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Quote:
Interesting idea but if our offense doesn't improve, the defence is always on the field and fatigue sets in.
It's not as big an effect as you would think:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot
We were 22nd in the league, but only averaged having our defense on the field for 1 more minute (about 3 more plays) than average.
Also, note that great passing teams are usually at the middle/bottom of the list. The only teams that deviate greatly are those with great running games (which will not be us due to offensive strategy).
Looking at that list its the next 2 lines I think bear out his point
First you have 2011 total which looks nice 29.06 your defense in on the field for 30.54 almost 2 minutes difference.
Now look the last game (Pitts) 20.49 defense was on the field for 39.11 thats a huge difference fatigue can be an issure.
Then look at the last 3 offense 25.51 again the defense averaged being on the field for 34.09 thats almost a 10 minute difference.
Not sure but at some point during the year we must have been holding the ball on offense alot more to get that final avg of 29
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
it was games like the Tenn game. we controlled the game clock (even early) because we moved the ball well up until we got to their 40/30 yd line. and, our defense gave up a couple of big plays (so we got blown out while controlling the clock)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
It's probably just me - but I've never bought into the whole "well the offense is tiring the defense out" thing.
I just don't get it. You bust your butt for what? 10 seconds at tops? Then you get 10 to 20 seconds to rest. TV timeouts. Throw in the fact that for half the game (roughly) you sit on the sidelines. Games take 3 hours. On avg, the defense is on the field for 30 minutes (or 34, in your example). 34 minutes out of 3 hours.
Add in that the opposing offense is on the field the same amount of time - why don't we ever hear about the offense getting tired?
Aren't these young, professional athletes? Is it really too much to expect them to be able to preform at a high level for 30 minutes out of 3 hours with the 10 to 20 second rest they get between plays?
I'm guessing it's just me that thinks that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Yeah I can understand what your saying but the reason the Defense gets tired while the offense stays fresh is lets say you are going to run to the store. You know where the store is and can run directly to the store. That is the offense.
Now your in a totally strange town you have no idea where the store is when you come to corners you must deside quickly which way to go and if you choose wrong you have to back track or find another side street thus lengthing your trip. That is the Defense. Its harder and takes more energy.
Look the line on offense your the mountain your job is to be in the way.
On Defense you need to MOVE the mountain out of the way. Which is easier and takes less energy?
Ever try to catch a pig or play tag? The RB is the pig just running around avoiding capture alot easier then chasing the darn thing down or being "it".
I think you kinda get the point, but I totally understand yours becuase they do get alot of rest, mostly I think the fatigue part comes when a team has a long drive then the offense goes 3 and out and the D is right back on the field.Thats when I see the guys bent over hands on knees trying to catch their breath.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
The way I look at it, if the defense can force stops, they wouldn't be on the field as long. Sure if the offense goes 3 and out they come back on quickly, but they also can get off quicker if they stop the opposing teams offense for a three and out.
I hate the reasoning that people use to say a defense gets tired. Using the offense's ability to move the ball is a cop out if you ask me. Your on the field for long drives because you are not stopping the other team, plain and simple.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 |
I don't like the idea of going into the draft saying we need to draft offense or we need to draft defense. I think we go in with the idea of taking the best player otherwise we end up drafting less talented players because of the side of the ball they play on. In the long run that isn't the best for the team.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
The way I look at it, if the defense can force stops, they wouldn't be on the field as long. Sure if the offense goes 3 and out they come back on quickly, but they also can get off quicker if they stop the opposing teams offense for a three and out.
I hate the reasoning that people use to say a defense gets tired. Using the offense's ability to move the ball is a cop out if you ask me. Your on the field for long drives because you are not stopping the other team, plain and simple.
Again im not disagreeing Im just stating why the defense gets tired fatigued faster then the offense. We had a game this year cant remember which one but the game was close the defense was playing tough solid ball. The offense for the team moved down the field we got a turnover and we went 3 and out or fumbled it right back to them. Defense was right back out there like 1 minute later. I think we held them to a FG the offense went 3 and out again. Defense right back out there. It may have been the game Cribbs ran back the TD on the KO it was just one of those games that I kept saying the D is doing everything they can to keep us in this game but the offense was just crapping the place up.
They (the D) get frustrated and tired trying to keep us in the game and as soon as they sit down to get a drink of gatoraid they are right back out there on the field.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830 |
Nice analogy. If Our offense got to the checkout counter more often and brought home the groceries our D wouldnt keep having to go to stores in strange towns.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Nice analogy. If Our offense got to the checkout counter more often and brought home the groceries our D wouldnt keep having to go to stores in strange towns.
LOL yeah that is so true!
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I don't like the idea of going into the draft saying we need to draft offense or we need to draft defense. I think we go in with the idea of taking the best player otherwise we end up drafting less talented players because of the side of the ball they play on. In the long run that isn't the best for the team.
I always like when managers put it as (and I've heard Heckert say this), "Draft the best player for the Browns"
Basically a mixture of need and BPA
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Basically a mixture of need and BPA
It is. Because if you drafted Luck last year you're not likely going to draft a QB this year even if you have him 1st on your board as the BPA. You don't need one.
The method, I believe, for a building team like us is to draft the BPA if your team needs that position. As talent starved as we are if the BPA is a player of a position we don't need then we can simply move to the next BPA and will likely find that an area of need.
The mistake, I believe, especially for a building team like us is to determine needs and then draft those needs even if they are not your BPA. That method is "reaching" for a player for a position of greatest need which may cause you to pass on a much better player for a position of a lesser need.
That's why I hate the idea of taking a WR with our #4 pick just because we need one. If someone of A.J. Green's or Megatron's, or Fitsgerald's talent were there then yes, take him. But I don't think there is any WR in this draft, Blackmon included, worth anywhere near the #4 pick. To me, taking Blackmon just because he's the best of the crop and we need one would be a big mistake. There are other players who are better value at #4 for one of our other positions of need.
As teams fill their roster with quality players and are consistent contenders they can afford to draft the BPA even if it's not currently a need but will be in 2-3 years.
On the other hand those teams can trade down and stock future draft picks. I used to marvel at how the super bowl winning Patriots would constantly have 2 first round draft picks. They did it by trading down for the future.
Many others on here have a much better grip on the methods and thinking behind all this but that is mine.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,276 |
Quote:
Quote:
Basically a mixture of need and BPA
It is. Because if you drafted Luck last year you're not likely going to draft a QB this year even if you have him 1st on your board as the BPA. You don't need one.
The method, I believe, for a building team like us is to draft the BPA if your team needs that position. As talent starved as we are if the BPA is a player of a position we don't need then we can simply move to the next BPA and will likely find that an area of need.
The mistake, I believe, especially for a building team like us is to determine needs and then draft those needs even if they are not your BPA. That method is "reaching" for a player for a position of greatest need which may cause you to pass on a much better player for a position of a lesser need.
That's why I hate the idea of taking a WR with our #4 pick just because we need one. If someone of A.J. Green's or Megatron's, or Fitsgerald's talent were there then yes, take him. But I don't think there is any WR in this draft, Blackmon included, worth anywhere near the #4 pick. To me, taking Blackmon just because he's the best of the crop and we need one would be a big mistake. There are other players who are better value at #4 for one of our other positions of need.
As teams fill their roster with quality players and are consistent contenders they can afford to draft the BPA even if it's not currently a need but will be in 2-3 years.
On the other hand those teams can trade down and stock future draft picks. I used to marvel at how the super bowl winning Patriots would constantly have 2 first round draft picks. They did it by trading down for the future.
Many others on here have a much better grip on the methods and thinking behind all this but that is mine.
I think your grip on the methods and thinking behind all this is right on the money 
About the only thing I can add is this - and primarily because we need so much help:
Let's say we identify our top (5) needs as QB, WR, DE, CB, RT...in that order. (The order is not so important as to the point that follows.)
At #4 overall, we might have our choice of the 2nd best QB (vomit), and likely the best at three of the other four positions.
That fact takes me out of the QB derby...especially given my opinion of RGIII. I don't want the 2nd best when I can have THE best at a position of dire need.
Our next biggest need is WR and we have a shot to take THE best one in this draft. Let's pretend he (Blackmon) is there.
If that WR is not ELITE and an Elite DE, CB or RT is available...I am taking one of the elite players.
So...my top two needs were QB-WR...and the best left at that time were available to me...I'm taking the ELITE guy at one of the other three positions of dire need.
That philosophy probably wouldn't work every year. But THIS year with OUR pick and OUR needs...I would proceed as I stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
That philosophy probably wouldn't work every year. But THIS year with OUR pick and OUR needs...I would proceed as I stated.
I dunno. I think you just want your favorite players.......... Why didn't you just say the players you liked?
Sometimes the best at a position isn't as good as the 2nd best at another. That's why you scout players individually and take a look at their skills individually, rather than comparing them to a group.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to make a case against Robert Griffin (just because he's the 2nd best QB, lol) Well sometimes the 2nd best QB might be a better prospect than the 1st best WR or CB or whoever........
------------------------------
Edit: NM I reread your post and you at least said, if this position isn't elite, don't take them. I agree. But just admit that sometimes there can be two elite players at one position
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 01/22/12 12:16 PM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
I agree whole heartedly Willie.
Take the elite player at a position of need even if it's not the greatest position of need.
The only time I'd waver on that is if the position of greatest need doesn't have enough value for that slot. For instance, taking the best LT at #4 so we can make him a RT is bad value as Pro Bowl RT's can be had much later.
I don't know enough about RG3 and his ability to fit what we are doing. I expect Holmgren & Heckert do so if they make that chose I'll be behind it.
Of course that would mean they also believe that Colt has no chance to be the guy but I'm not sure they're thinking like that. They have more patience than yer average fan.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,276 |
I agree...the "second best" at his position may STILL be an elite player...no doubt that that can happen.
And certainly there may be two/multiple elite players available when we pick...especially picking where we are/do-too-often.
My thoughts on the matter also help me justify a possible trade-down.
For example: If the only elite player available is a DT, I am trading the pick if I can. If we were a more-established team...I'm going with that DT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I agree...the "second best" at his position may STILL be an elite player...no doubt that that can happen.
And certainly there may be two/multiple elite players available when we pick...especially picking where we are/do-too-often.
My thoughts on the matter also help me justify a possible trade-down.
For example: If the only elite player available is a DT, I am trading the pick if I can. If we were a more-established team...I'm going with that DT.
I agree with this. If the only elite players on the board are Richardson and Claiborne (and we don't like RG3), I'd like to trade down if possible. I'd pick Richardson over Claiborne though. I just think we already have a stud CB in Haden, And Skrine and Patterson both can hold it down. I'm fine with drafting another corner, but we can get one later in the draft.
I'd rather take a guy like Richardson who will get the ball a bunch of times every game and be ridiculously useful to us during playoff time/the end of the season when we have all our games against Baltimore and Pitt. I guess some of this depends on who we re-sign, I'm sorta thinking our shot at Hillis returning is 50% either way.
If Hillis returns, I'd like to trade down with possibly Seattle for their first rounder next year or something, if we can get their 2nd rounder too, that would be great.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
good posts I agree with all of it. Im on board with Blackmon but I have this strange feeling that we will be trying to move back again this year and getting picks next year. We have alot of picks this year.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
Quote:
good posts I agree with all of it. Im on board with Blackmon but I have this strange feeling that we will be trying to move back again this year and getting picks next year. We have alot of picks this year.
I agree and actually believe that trading down and gaining more quality picks is a pretty solid strategy for building this team. The plan is not to be drafting high every year so adding more quality players now to a roster and top end draft talent makes the team better overall than one player and ensuing lower picks. By trading down last year alone We drafted last years leading Receiver in Greg Little with the added second rounder from Atlanta and granted I think the pick stunk Owen Marecic with the 4th rounder. Plus Whoever we draft this year with the 22nd(Plug in whoever you like). So Phil Taylor, Greg Little, Owen Marecic, and another 1st for Julio Jones.
I say follow the same strategy this year. For trading down that one pick we can get another Quality receiver and draft a quality replacement for Mitchell or a New Linebacker or OL. Still first and second round talent instead of hoping for a 3rd or 4th round pick to step in. A solid team built on high expectations instead of a few guys built on high expectations and some hoping to pan out.
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
granted I think the pick stunk Owen Marecic with the 4th rounder
I think Marecic will be much better next year. Have faith. He was just a rookie last year with no OTA's and no one teaching him our offense.
I do think it would have been smart to give Vickers one more season with the team before letting Owen take over (as we did with Terrelle Smith and Vickers), but I think you'll see that Marecic, who was better at the end of the season, will shore up his catching and prove to be a much better blocker, which is most important.
He's always been regarded as a very smart guy and an insane workout freak. This year will be a big jump for him. He's gonna look like a tank out there. Plus he's very good at special teams.
Don't give up on him yet
But yeah, I wouldn't have a big problem with a trade down at all. We can really use some help at multiple positions. And a trade down could work in our favor, especially if we don't want RG3 and we don't view Blackmon as elite/he isn't there.
What I'm as excited about the draft though is FA. I really am interested in seeing who we get so that I can start putting together a draft wish list. I mention guys I want, but that will all change depending on who we get in FA
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
JC/
You know the Browns are far from finalizing a draft board...Why are we??? Everyone is so sure about taking such and such player here and here.. Frankly.....I like what the Browns WILL DO....(Did I just say that?????...wow...after 10 years of frustration I actually like and halfway trust this FO and their approach in the draft....I'll say it again....WOW) They are going to create their draft board... and it will include everyone..including Luck.......who everyone and their 5th cousin on their father's college roomate's side knows is gone at #1. And they will rank them not only by physical abilities and how they rank as a prospect. But how they fit as a Cleveland Brown.
For example...They MIGHT list Tannehill higher than RGIII based on factors of how he fits the WCO and the Browns team. Now I am not saying they do have him ranked higher nor do I "think" that they have him ranked higher...I just wanted to give an example.
I believe they will sit pat at #4. I do not believe the Browns will trade up. If they were further down in the draft they might consider moving up......But I believe they know they can get a great player that can help this team at #4 regardless of what happens in front of them and will sit there. At #4 they will listen to any and all trades proposals along the way and while on the clock. If nothing suits their fancy, they turn the card in with the top name on the board. Whether that name is Claiborne, RGIII, Blackmon, or Joe Schmoe from Idaho. It will be whoever is on the top of that board...REGARDLESS OF POSITION. It's all about the board....and their board is really about who helps the Browns the most....Not who looks like the best football prospect.
But I believe if they do trade down. It won't be very far. it won't be the kind of drop we saw last year. even if someone offered us what Atlanta did last year. They have said all along that they want to draft an IMPACT PLAYER. And the further from the top you get, the harder that becomes.
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: 9,806
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 |
jk
Courtney Upshaw - I know this guy is ideal as a 3-4 OLB but I am curious as to peoples opinions on how he would fit into our defense. He is such a solid and at times dynamic playmaker could he transition to a 4-3 DE and be that pass rush presence opposite Sheard. I think he could do that but can he be stout enough against the run? If we had him would he be better served as a 4-3 OLB. Here he would definitely be stout enough against the run and provide pass pressure from the OLB position. But can he handle dropping into coverage? Would we be wasting his pass rush talents?
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think you'd see us use him as a speed-rusher and take him off the field on run-downs.
That's great if you draft a guy like that in the 3rd round, but he's got much more value to a 3-4 team. So, while he could serve a role for us, not one that is good enough for where he will be drafted IMO.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Quote:
I think you'd see us use him as a speed-rusher and take him off the field on run-downs.
That's great if you draft a guy like that in the 3rd round, but he's got much more value to a 3-4 team. So, while he could serve a role for us, not one that is good enough for where he will be drafted IMO.
Wrong Courtney Upshaw. He's a run-defender, not a pass-rusher. You have his strengths and weaknesses confused.
I'm not an Upshaw fan. I like him as an Anthony Spencer-type in the NFL--good run-defender, meh pass-rusher. I really don't like him in a 4-3 defense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
I like Upshaw as a Mike prospect. Good lateral quickness and he appears to have good instincts for the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think you'd see us use him as a speed-rusher and take him off the field on run-downs.
That's great if you draft a guy like that in the 3rd round, but he's got much more value to a 3-4 team. So, while he could serve a role for us, not one that is good enough for where he will be drafted IMO.
Wrong Courtney Upshaw. He's a run-defender, not a pass-rusher. You have his strengths and weaknesses confused.
I'm not an Upshaw fan. I like him as an Anthony Spencer-type in the NFL--good run-defender, meh pass-rusher. I really don't like him in a 4-3 defense.
no, I don't. I am trying to project a 3-4 OLB to a 4-3 DE. He did okay at blitzing this year and did get 9.5 sacks.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/382614/courtney-upshaw
for a DE, he would be fast (compared to other DEs). for a DE, he would be small (compared to other DEs). He should be able to develop speed-rushing moves because he should have an advantage there. Similarly, OTs should have a field day run-blocking on him.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
You know the Browns are far from finalizing a draft board...Why a
Actually, Heckert himself says his board is pretty closed to finalized by the end of January or so (after the meetings).
I think in general Teams big boards are finalized, and then the information that is on them slowly diffuses (through leaks etc.) to the draft experts and starts to close in on the consensus board as well.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
He's 272 pounds on a 6'2" frame. Not lacking bulk. He'll run in the 4.7s. Not all that fast for a defensive end, and, more importantly, he doesn't have great burst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Quote:
You know the Browns are far from finalizing a draft board...Why a
Actually, Heckert himself says his board is pretty closed to finalized by the end of January or so (after the meetings).
I think in general Teams big boards are finalized, and then the information that is on them slowly diffuses (through leaks etc.) to the draft experts and starts to close in on the consensus board as well.
Exactly.
The board is posted. Right now.
It'll get tweeked as they conduct interviews most importantly. But the work is almost completely done right now.
If you went into the right room in Berea you'd see it posted. Steve Doerschuk with the Canton Rep has seen it.
If you see him, tackle him. And tell him to spill the beans.
btw....
How much fun would it be to spend the week leading up to the draft in Berea in this draft meetings? Maybe I'll pitch them a documentary to do just that!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) DeepThreat Mock Draft
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)