|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,267 Likes: 168
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,267 Likes: 168 |
Ok, we have gone through 3 drafts and I am beginning to see some tendencies.
Plays the first draft choice safe. (With the exception of Weeden, the picks have made sense). See second rounder...
Tends to reach a bit on the second rounder (Ward, Schwatrz)
Third and Fourth rounders are huge reaches, head scratchers ( Hughes, Benjamin, Marceic)
5 to 7 tend to be very solid.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
He drafts defensive and offensive lines early and often.
He isn't afraid to admit mistakes.
He does not care about so called reaching.
He likes to mix unathletic smart players and athletic yet dumb players.
Isn't afraid of "work ethic" problems.
Some of those are good things, some of them are okay, and some can be downright scary at times.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,746 Likes: 396
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,746 Likes: 396 |
Absolute huge fan of Heckert.
We haven't had a foundation like this in forever.
We have a ton of young pieces in place that have a chance to be above average. Even guys that won't be around in a couple of years are at least young. We have one of the best and youngest OLs and DLs in the league. Gone are the days of the Andruzzis and Bartons and Bowens and Elams and the failed experiment that continued to be the 3-4.
We need a WR, FS, and an OLB. Rounds 1 and 2 next year.
Don't look now, but we are finally on our way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
I tend to agree, although I think we have a OLB, and will need a DE opposite Sheard instead.
I LOVE the Acho pick, BTW. I think he could be an instant starter, IMO.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
He drafts like he believes 100% in his board.
That's a good and a bad thing.
It's good to have conviction in your beliefs.
It's not good to draft a guy in the third round that the rest of the free world has as a UDFA.
What I'm saying is he needs to do a little more predraft intelligence on the other teams. Not sure what the best way to do that is....one way would be to feed some nuggets to the Kipers, McShays and the Mayocks of the world from time to time.
This is the only real issue I have with him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Just flip-flop the Billy Winn pick and the John Hughes pick if it makes you feel better.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
My main problem is that we aren't competitive in our own division and when we're taking the John Hughes of the world we're not helping ourselves.
We're going backwards.
Take a look at the drafts of Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati. If you can convince yourself that we're closing the gap well then you're a better man than i.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
I think we are closing the gap. The problem is that Baltimore and Pittsburgh are great teams, and that gap doesn't close overnight. But I think we went from a bad team to an average team after this draft. Thus, we are taking steps to get closer.
When we finally have a good/great QB, and a good defense, you can take chances on guys, and overload on skill positions. We aren't at that point yet, so we have to take guys who do things really well instead of taking WR'er prospects really high.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 249
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 249 |
I always felt Tom Heckert had a better eye for defensive talent than offensive talent and that's entirely refutable of course but just a personal opinion. This year will hopefully disprove that. I agree with the post above who said he "believes in his board" he certainly does and why wouldn't you (as a GM), I think at the very least, he addressed some key needs.
HB, QB, RT, all very important. After that, well...
The last two years drafts speak for themselves, IMO, we've become a better team with Heckert as our GM... we've had some speed bumps but hopefully the wheels will start spinning this year instead of just being stuck in the mud. I've been fighting to keep optimistic about the team at times.
Last edited by Enigmatic Evil; 04/29/12 09:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
I think we are closing the gap. The problem is that Baltimore and Pittsburgh are great teams, and that gap doesn't close overnight. But I think we went from a bad team to an average team after this draft. Thus, we are taking steps to get closer.
When we finally have a good/great QB, and a good defense, you can take chances on guys, and overload on skill positions. We aren't at that point yet, so we have to take guys who do things really well instead of taking WR'er prospects really high.
Wide Receiverer? 
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Bad habits die hard... 
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,564 Likes: 814
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,564 Likes: 814 |
Quote:
My main problem is that we aren't competitive in our own division and when we're taking the John Hughes of the world we're not helping ourselves.
The thing is, you don't know we didn't help the team.
Everything I have read is the guy is a superb run stuffer and we had him high on our board for that reason because we needed a 3rd player to do that.
Once Wright was selected, we went to the highest rated player on our board. I don't think Heck screwed up and started looking at 6th and 7th round projections.
I think the need pushed him high on our list. I think he was one of the guys we felt we needed to have and stuck him high up to make sure we ended up getting him.
I see a nice 3 man rotation at tackle, leaving us fresh and not missing a beat as we did when we had to go with Schafering or Eason.
Out D just got better.....even if only from a consistency standpoint.
I don't mind the pick at all.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
He drafts like he believes 100% in his board.
That's a good and a bad thing.
It's good to have conviction in your beliefs.
It's not good to draft a guy in the third round that the rest of the free world has as a UDFA.
What I'm saying is he needs to do a little more predraft intelligence on the other teams. Not sure what the best way to do that is....one way would be to feed some nuggets to the Kipers, McShays and the Mayocks of the world from time to time.
This is the only real issue I have with him.
I agree his/our counter intelligence is poor.
His picks are not necessarily bad selections, they are, or seem to be made earlier then they should be.
What I liked about the Draft:
We fortified our lines, you got'ta love that and brought in a true gunslinger at QB who should give us more big plays down field and that can only help our running game and short to medium passing game.
We drafted some LBers who we could really use (if) one can take over one of the OLBing positions.
The Bad:
We're still are lacking in offensive playmakers and seem to over value what we have now.
We will still be counting on father time S. Brown to man one of the CB positions and still have no true Deep Safety.
With that said I knew we would come out of this Draft still a few peaces short of the puzzle.
If we don't create more needs next year we should be a pretty loaded roster by this time next year.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,746 Likes: 396
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,746 Likes: 396 |
Question to you guys: how do you know the counter-intelligence is poor or that we selected guys too high? In almost every instance, including Hughes, reports surface later that the guy was rising up draft boards and there were other teams interested around the same spot.
So what are you basing your belief stated as fact off of? Kiper, McShay, magazines?
Or maybe the Browns leaked the "rising up draft boards" to the press to avoid egg on their face?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
I can't answer your question, but there's alot of posts that said we took "The Schwartz" a round to high. I don't think so. If you read the evaluations on this kid, he's the only one that did not have ?? marks about moving from G to RT. Or vice versa.
Now tell me we picked him to high. Why draft a guy that might have problems down the road converting to a new spot just because Kiper say's so? Heckert said, I think, last week that our board was not the same as the media, Where they had a guy with a 1st round grade, but we had the same guy at a third round grade.
See how that works? I'm sure we scouted Hugh's and liked what we saw. I didn't like the pick, but I'm trusting those who chose him over what I know.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,564 Likes: 814
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,564 Likes: 814 |
Quote:
His picks are not necessarily bad selections, they are, or seem to be made earlier then they should be.
I agree, but I think at times you have to do that, especially the way he sets the board, it is like he eliminates players from the mix. I say that based on him saying we had 18 players with first round grades.
This year, for whatever reason, I think we got a little behind our board, meaning our target players started getting selected just a few slots before our pick.
I think the Hughes pick was where he said screw it and decided to get ahead of everyone else to see to it we started getting the players we had as targets for this team. My guess is Hughes was actually listed as a 4th rounder on our board but just bumped it up so we didn't keep getting snookered and losing the guys we wanted. We lost Wright a few picks before us, so he just moved things up. We got the guys we wanted, be it earlier that we had hoped.
If any of you play fantasy sports and have player drafts, I think you can understand what I am talking about. If you have some players you really want and keep getting them taked just before you pick, you bump things up as well.
I also think this draft was a bit unusual for Heck. I think they know we need to start winning and this draft was based more on needs then in previous years.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575 Likes: 37
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575 Likes: 37 |
IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
Question to you guys: how do you know the counter-intelligence is poor or that we selected guys too high? In almost every instance, including Hughes, reports surface later that the guy was rising up draft boards and there were other teams interested around the same spot.
So what are you basing your belief stated as fact off of? Kiper, McShay, magazines?
Or maybe the Browns leaked the "rising up draft boards" to the press to avoid egg on their face?
What evidence to the contrary do you have.
Rising up the Draft board is pretty thin ice to form a conclusion on. We all make fun of the talking heads, but let's face it they have the contacts and the knowledge of those contacts and also former GM's and players who help them formulate their Boards. Mike Mayock is usually pretty spot on with his round projections and when he is wrong, so to is everyone else ie: AJ Jenkins going to the 9ers @ pick 31. He gave him a 3rd round grade (as did I), but that's not like taking a projected UDFA in the 3rd round (at least we traded down). I wouldn't go as far as to say Hughes would not have been drafted, but with the Comp. Picks we basically have an 8th round, so you talking about a 5 round jump up the board there and that's bound to bring about the second guessing of the selection and I have no problem with the player per say. If he turns out to do what he is being drafted to do, then this will be a moot point, because keeping Rubin and Taylor fresh for the 4th qrt. Was a big concern I had during the season and going into the Draft.
He figured to go where Billy Wynn was selected and visa versa, but now we're getting into what I loved about our Draft reaches aside .
Before the Combine I said that I would Draft Schwartz at pick 37 even though he was seen to be a 3rd round prospect.
Silly season came and went, with others grabbing the spotlight. Myself like most others felt we could take another OT at 22 and when they fell into the 2nd round, fans where naturally calling for one of them to be our selection at 37, so that brought about the questioning of reaching after we passed on the others for Schwartz. As I already stated before the Draft and before the Combine he would have been my choice anyway, so I don't really see this selection as a reach.
Exhibit A however in some fans minds was the worst reach, because of it coming in the first round.
If you care to do your investigating my Mock was the first anywhere (talking heads included) to have us taking Brandon Weeden at pick 22 and once again I knew we would appear to be reaching with the selection there.
For the very same reasons as the Brass gave (to risky to allow him to fall to us at pick 37) I responded to that criticism that I knew was sure to come with, but this pick also allowed me to use the 37th selection on Schwartz and the RT position.
I hit on two picks of this years Draft, so I guess I should just shut my pie hole and be happy, but I can't help it, because I am a perfectionist like many other here I strive and long for excellent and I have been at this hobby/passion a lot longer then many of those talking heads
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,459 Likes: 32
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,459 Likes: 32 |
Quote:
I also think this draft was a bit unusual for Heck. I think they know we need to start winning and this draft was based more on needs then in previous years.
I think you're going to start seeing that become the norm with most franchises with the new rookie salary structure. Everybody would rather build with the draft as opposed to over-paying for FA. So, you wait out the big $$ FA guys, then try to fill all your "needs" in the draft.
It's a little less risky to reach for a need now, since a "bust" won't be so cost-prohibitive to the team (especially this season for us when we went in with 13 picks and came out with 11). With all the extra picks you're definitely going to see some "need" picks vs. BPA just because you CAN.
Also, even if we got behind in our board in the mid-rounds (I think Peen is spot on with this assumption), we made up for it with our gems in the 6th and 7th rounds. If our draft unfolded in this order instead, I think we'd all be jumping for joy at how we did such a good job:
1 - Trent Richardson
1 - Brandon Weeden
2 - Billy Winn
3 - Mitchell Schwartz
4 - James-Michael Johnson
4 - Emmanuel Acho
5 - Trevin Wade
6 - Travis Benjamin
6 - Ryan Miller
7 - John Hughes
7 - Brad Smelley
I see 3 day-1 starters on offense with TRich, Weeden and Schwartz in Rds 1-3, Winn gives us a solid 4-5 man rotation at DE with Sheard, Rucker, Parker and Benard and then in Rds 4-5 I see 3 solid depth guys on defense all with starting potential upside. Rds 6-7 look like "need" and "flier" type guys. Sounds just about right to me when you re-arrange the order and look at it this way.
![[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: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Also, even if we got behind in our board in the mid-rounds (I think Peen is spot on with this assumption), we made up for it with our gems in the 6th and 7th rounds. If our draft unfolded in this order instead, I think we'd all be jumping for joy at how we did such a good job:
1 - Trent Richardson
1 - Brandon Weeden
2 - Billy Winn
3 - Mitchell Schwartz
4 - James-Michael Johnson
4 - Emmanuel Acho
5 - Trevin Wade
6 - Travis Benjamin
6 - Ryan Miller
7 - John Hughes
7 - Brad Smelley
You know, I've seen this on the board a number of times since the draft started, and I think it's total BS. As a bad team, we have to make a good decision on every pick. If a good player falls, especially if he's at a position of need, you have to take him. Just because we got bailed out in the 6th and 7th by some good players falling doesn't mean we did a good job. What if those guys hadn't fell? Was our stategy "well, we're going to reach on our pet project backup defensive tackle in the 3rd and hope we get a CB and DE that can push to start with our 6th and 7th-round compensatory picks?" Because that is totally ridiculous. You can even hear in the interviews with Holmgren and Heckert that they didn't want to take Weeden at 22, but when their one target went off the board two picks ahead of them (to a team desperate for a WR right after a team desperate for a WR and right before another team desperate for a WR... good planning, guys) they just panicked and said "well, we don't want to miss out on the guy we were going to take at 37, so let's take him 40% earlier in the draft than we planned to."
We still didn't get a legit receiver out of the draft. "We like our receivers." Break me off a piece of that Kit Crack bar.
Bottom line is, we ended up with an acceptable group of players after reaching with each of our first four choices. Yes, I think spending #4 + #118 + #139 + #211 on Richardson in the first was a reach. #4 wouldn't have been a reach, but all those picks IMO were... especially since it also prevented us from picking up our #22 target by not being able to move in front of all those teams that desperately needed the same position of the guy we were targeting. In fact, we probably would have been better off just straight up trading #22 to the Vikes with #4, since we probably would have been able to get Weeden at 37 and Schwartz at 67 looking back at how the draft played out. Would have has pick 100, 118, 139, 160, 204, 205, 211, 245, and 247 instead of 87 (which was wasted anyways), 100, 120, 160, 204, 205, 245, 247.
I think H/Hs backup plan at WR were Jenkins in the third or Posey in the fourth round, then Jenkins went in the first (Holmgren: "Some things happened in the first round that... we decided to just go ahead and take Weeden there") and Posey in the third (right after they traded back.) Obviously I can't substantiate that, but it's hard to believe their target in the third round all along was a backup defensive tackle  .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,459 Likes: 32
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,459 Likes: 32 |
I don't think anybody questions that Hughes in the 3rd was the dud of the draft for us. You just have to hope that he fills the role he was drafted for. A backup DT who is a great run-stuffer behind Rubin/Taylor. Given that we DID get some high caliber guys late in the draft to make up for that dud....I'm perfectly fine with it. Had we not gotten some of those guys late I'd be right there with you. Call it luck if you want, but it still happened.
Honestly, going into yesterday afternoon I was pretty "meh" about our whole draft but those late round selections turned it around for me. You can't EXPECT to get more than 3-4 starters out of any draft. I think we definitely did that this year...and at positions of need.
I hate picking RBs high because of value, but as far as TALENT goes...TRich was #2 on my board right behind Luck. He's just a flat out stud. Same idea with Weeden. I had him as a 2nd round grade purely because of his age. Based on talent alone? I had him as the 2nd best QB in this draft behind only Luck. Schwartz isn't a glamorous pick but he'll be a day 1 starter for us at RT. Then, to know we've added depth on D with Winn, Hughes, Johnson, Acho and Wade...all of whom could develop into starters at some point? Yeah I'm good with that.
I agree with you though, the one position we completely whiffed on is WR. But, you only have so many picks and so much you can fix at one time. We'll just have to take a wait and see with that position group and fix it next year if it's still under-performing (most likely).
The other thing to note is how COMPLETELY revamped the DE position will be this year even without spending any top draft picks on the position. Our projected 5 man rotation this year includes:
Jabaal Sheard - rookie last year
Jaqua Parker - FA
Frostee Rucker - FA
Billy Winn - draft pick
Marcus Benard - IR last year
80% of that rotation will be new/different from last season.
Fear us, for we are the BROWNS, led by the mighty BM! Only in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Quote:
What I'm saying is he needs to do a little more predraft intelligence on the other teams. Not sure what the best way to do that is....one way would be to feed some nuggets to the Kipers, McShays and the Mayocks of the world from time to time.
I think that's a terrible way to draft. You trust your evaluations and ignore what everyone else thinks. If the Browns have John Hughes as a third-round pick, take him in the third round. Follow your board.
I will admit I'm disappointed in the lack of wide receiver additions, but Heckert has done a great job of adding talent. We questioned the Ward pick, but he's one of our two best defensive backs now. He can evaluate, and he's aggressive. He isn't afraid to make "unpopular" moves.
The one thing that bothered me about Savage (in hindsight) is that he always tried to make moves that would please fans and get rave reviews, not move that would actually work. Heckert doesn't do that.
And I don't know how anyone can possibly say this was a need draft when we drafted only one wideout, and that in the fourth round. Heckert drafted to add talent, not fill needs. Note the two linebacker additions. Of course he drafted for need with a few picks, he'd be stupid not to. Even Ozzie Newsome, the most famous BPA guy out there, drafted for need. But this was not a need draft.
I have almost no faith in Mike Holmgren making personnel decisions, but I have a ton of faith in Tom Heckert.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
In thinking back on the 4th we wasted on Marecic, Hughes is this seasons brain fart by Heckert.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
We still didn't get a legit receiver out of the draft. "We like our receivers." Break me off a piece of that Kit Crack bar.
Me too, but this goes with my thinking that their formula is out dated.
Not so much that they see the WR position as a dime a dozen, but that this is harking back to the old school thought that you don't need to have that star WR. Lunch pale guys will do.
If this is a QB driven League today ... Cough!, they don't say that because the QB is simply a game manager and handing the football off to the RB.
If someone thinks or is telling you that Greg Little (and I like him) is a Top 10 WR, then their smoking some chronic Weeden  
He has to first show me that he can catch a ball that hits his hands. If it hits your hands then you can't put the blame on the QB, that's just ridicules to state that. It's a crutch that I don't buy into.
If it's in your catch radius at this level then you should catch 9 out of 10 if you are a starting WR in this League.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
My main problem is that we aren't competitive in our own division and when we're taking the John Hughes of the world we're not helping ourselves.
We're going backwards.
Take a look at the drafts of Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati. If you can convince yourself that we're closing the gap well then you're a better man than i.
I see it the same way.
Quote:
Baltimore's draft:
OLB - Courtney Upshaw (starter)
OT - Kelechi Osemele (starter)
RB - Bernard Pierce (takes some of the burden off Ray Rice)
OG - Gino Gradkowski (OL depth)
WR - Tommy Streeter (a steal in the 6th round)
DE - Deangelo Tyson (depth in the rotation, if he makes the team)
I wasn't big on their DB choices (S Christian Thompson & CB Asa Jackson).
Quote:
Bengals draft:
CB - Dre Kirkpatrick (immediate starter)
OG - Kevin Zeitler (immediate starter)
DT - Devon Still (immediate starter as a run stuffer)
WR - Mohamed Sanu (immediate starter)
DT - Brandon Thompson (may be better than Still)
TE - Orson Charles (a nice target that had a bad Combine)
CB - Shaun Prater (good depth who'll get time in nickel & dime packages)
WR - Marvin Jones (a speedy prospect to push for a job)
RB - Dan Herron (powerful runner)
The first five picks would be immediate starters on most every team in the league.
Quote:
The Steelers draft:
OG - David DeCastro (pro-bowl guard for a decade or more)
OT - Mike Adams (very good tackle despite off-the-field issue with pot)
LB - Sean Spence (starter on day 1)
DT - Alameda Ta'amu (monster DT to replace Casey Hampton when he retires)
RB - Chris Rainey (speed, speed, more speed)
And then...
Quote:
The Browns draft:
RB - Trent Richardson (a can't miss RB)
OT - Mitchell Schwartz (quality RT)
OG - Ryan Miller (can't be worse than what we got)
LB - Emmanuel Acho (depth)
DT - Billy Winn (productive rotational at DT)
CB - Trevin Wade (good for nickel & dime packages)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388 |
Just because you think they're day one starters doesn't make them good, (ala John St. Clair, he started) nor does it mean they will. You guys need to calm down.
"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: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
Quote:
IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.
I agree. We will finally be where we want to be when we can just take best player available and upgrade an already talented roster. It did seem we had to reach because of need this year. I have no problem with it. Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and even Hughes were all guys they scouted, wanted badly and made sure they got. You could argue each one were taken "early" but if you really want a guy you get him early or you might miss them. IMO, that is why the end of the draft seemed so much better because they stopped drafting for need and started taking best player available which then started looking like everyone else's cheat sheets. All of a sudden, we think they are finally doing well because they are taking guys that we expect them to.
I like the Weeden pick. It is an upgrade. I still believe the Browns need to keep their eyes open for another young franchise QB that could sit for a couple of years behind Weeden. If the Browns suck this year and we are looking at another top pick, I wouldn't hesitate to select a franchise guy if they are available. The nice thing is now the Browns won't have to desperately reach next year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,976 Likes: 356
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,976 Likes: 356 |
Quote:
Quote:
IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.
I agree. We will finally be where we want to be when we can just take best player available and upgrade an already talented roster. It did seem we had to reach because of need this year. I have no problem with it. Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and even Hughes were all guys they scouted, wanted badly and made sure they got. You could argue each one were taken "early" but if you really want a guy you get him early or you might miss them. IMO, that is why the end of the draft seemed so much better because they stopped drafting for need and started taking best player available which then started looking like everyone else's cheat sheets. All of a sudden, we think they are finally doing well because they are taking guys that we expect them to.
I like the Weeden pick. It is an upgrade. I still believe the Browns need to keep their eyes open for another young franchise QB that could sit for a couple of years behind Weeden. If the Browns suck this year and we are looking at another top pick, I wouldn't hesitate to select a franchise guy if they are available. The nice thing is now the Browns won't have to desperately reach next year.
And this was the plan that Holmgren put forth when he first got here ........ find a QB, then keep drafting young QBs behind him to develop.
If you have a legitimate starter at QB, then you can look for guys with certain traits to work with. Sometimes you can even trade those guys for value. Other teams do it, why not us? However, when you have no starter, it makes it hard to do anything at all. You can't develop a guy "the right way". The young player will be forced into the lineup early, and will fail. This is especially true if you take a young QB with flaws that you hope to "coach out of him".
McCoy fans should be happy that he's being benched. It could be the best thing that could happen to him. He could now get a chance to develop quietly on the sidelines, and maybe see how the game is supposed to be played at the NFL level. Then again, maybe the team will decide that he doesn't have enough of the qualities they want, and decide to move on without him.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,267 Likes: 168
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,267 Likes: 168 |
No If it was an entirely need based draft the order would have been.
RB - Hillis is gone,
QB - McCoy was not the man
RT - Keep Weeden verticle
WR - another target, not a KR
RDE - Rucker and that other guy are fill ins.
S - Young is not a high level safety...
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,976 Likes: 356
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,976 Likes: 356 |
I am trying to remember .... but I think that I had our needs prioritized as follows at the top:
QB
RB
RT
WR
OLB
CB
My thoughts about what to do at 4 bounced around a lot once RG3 was out of the picture. I never imagined that I would be as happy with the draft as I wound up being though. Considering that I was really furious over losing out on an elite QB, I think that the Browns did a masterful job of recovering, and I think that this is, by far, Heckert's best draft. He took a chance here or there, and also picked some really solid guys with upside.
Like I said on another thread, I expect that we will see 5 starters, this year, out of this draft:
RB: Richardson
QB: Weeden
RT: Schwartz
OLB: Johnson
FB: Smelley
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Just because you think they're day one starters doesn't make them good, (ala John St. Clair, he started) nor does it mean they will. You guys need to calm down.
I didn't think that John St. Clair was starter quality. I thought he was barely qualified to be a back-up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IMO this was ENTIRELY a need based draft.
I agree. We will finally be where we want to be when we can just take best player available and upgrade an already talented roster. It did seem we had to reach because of need this year. I have no problem with it. Richardson, Weeden, Schwartz, and even Hughes were all guys they scouted, wanted badly and made sure they got. You could argue each one were taken "early" but if you really want a guy you get him early or you might miss them. IMO, that is why the end of the draft seemed so much better because they stopped drafting for need and started taking best player available which then started looking like everyone else's cheat sheets. All of a sudden, we think they are finally doing well because they are taking guys that we expect them to.
I like the Weeden pick. It is an upgrade. I still believe the Browns need to keep their eyes open for another young franchise QB that could sit for a couple of years behind Weeden. If the Browns suck this year and we are looking at another top pick, I wouldn't hesitate to select a franchise guy if they are available. The nice thing is now the Browns won't have to desperately reach next year.
And this was the plan that Holmgren put forth when he first got here ........ find a QB, then keep drafting young QBs behind him to develop.
If you have a legitimate starter at QB, then you can look for guys with certain traits to work with. Sometimes you can even trade those guys for value. Other teams do it, why not us? However, when you have no starter, it makes it hard to do anything at all. You can't develop a guy "the right way". The young player will be forced into the lineup early, and will fail. This is especially true if you take a young QB with flaws that you hope to "coach out of him".
McCoy fans should be happy that he's being benched. It could be the best thing that could happen to him. He could now get a chance to develop quietly on the sidelines, and maybe see how the game is supposed to be played at the NFL level. Then again, maybe the team will decide that he doesn't have enough of the qualities they want, and decide to move on without him.
By keeping Colt as the #2 it also would allow us to cut Wallas and save a couple of million.
Colts a good person and I think that he will settle in and be a good team player bidding his time until his number is called.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
Quote:
No If it was an entirely need based draft the order would have been.
RB - Hillis is gone,
QB - McCoy was not the man
RT - Keep Weeden verticle
WR - another target, not a KR
RDE - Rucker and that other guy are fill ins.
S - Young is not a high level safety...
WR is a need according to you (and others) but the way the Browns drafted, I know that they looked at film and what they learned was WR wasn't a need. They could be wrong, but it is obvious to me that they did not feel that WR was a need. Receivers were open. Game plans had to be watered down because of Colt. Whatever it was, WR was not felt to be a need by the Browns. They looked at film and discovered that they needed a rotational defensive tackle and they felt that Hughes was the best one available. I don't know if Hughes was the best available, or if the Browns are wrong about needing a WR but Hughes was still a need pick according the guys in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,267 Likes: 168
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,267 Likes: 168 |
I don't disagree with what you said, but it is not as though we have Fitzgerald catching passes from Kolb versus Warner...
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
I seriously doubt they concluded that WR wasn't a need. More likely, they concluded there were only 2 or 3 top WRs in this draft and a bunch of #2,3 & 4 wideouts after that. We've already got our 2's, 3's and 4's. The WR we picked was a value pick that lended some speed to an otherwise slow group.
CM was certainly a significant part of the problem, but our WRs ARE crap. Trading down in the third only to select a rotational DT was an epic gaffe on Heckert's part. Sanu was there for the taking at 67. IMO, he was the last of the wideouts who would have been a clear improvement over the flotsam we currently have at the position. Oh well...
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
I don't disagree with what you said, but it is not as though we have Fitzgerald catching passes from Kolb versus Warner...
Well yeah, but there wasn't a Fitzgerald in this draft. I'm tending to agree that any WR outside of Blackmon or Floyd might not have been any improvement of what we currently have. Why waste a pick with the same player you have when you can try to improve other areas?
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
I posted this in the Hughes-thread before this thread was out, so just a c/p:
I think I get what style of GM Heckert is by now...he's NOT a BPA guy, regardless of what they tell us....he is, what I call, a "target" guy...he has only several players he really, really likes at a particular spot and those are the guys he wants then, regardless of who falls
Pros of this approach:
- there is a clear plan, they're not drafting just talent, they build a team
- high confidence in the selections, resulting in pretty good Top50 choices so far
Cons:
- less flexibility on draft day, often resulting in position reaching (ie Ward, Hardesty)
- prone to uptrades and/or overdrafts to go get the targets...when a target tier is gone, they dip into next round's instead of considering falling talent regardless of position
It could be that this approach is somewhat forced since we don't have a good overall team yet, but more and more he seems to be the contrary of Ozzie or Jerry Reese in NY, who's style I'd categorize as value "whores"...Upshaw selection being a good example...he wasn't their target, if he was he would not have traded out of the 1st...it was a pure BPA pick based on talent....again, this difference could be and probably is the direct result of the team's overall talent level and competitiveness..simply put: GMs of good teams have the luxury to go value whoring, while GM's of bad teams have o fix high value positions 1st...it can be a vicious circle if those "forced" gambles don't pan out (McCoy, Weeden...)...at least this regime gets it though and tries to fix it...sometimes you need a little timing and luck too (GB with Rodgers, what was Belly before lucking into Brady?)
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
If you care to do your investigating my Mock was the first anywhere (talking heads included) to have us taking Brandon Weeden at pick 22 and once again I knew we would appear to be reaching with the selection there.
Ahem....I think I slotted Weeden at #22 in January, when we didn't even have a Draft section yet...so I win that pissing contest 
Ah, I remember all the age jokes and trashing being "way out there" with that projection...as usually, reality was on my side
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Wrong. At least as early as November: https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php?...true#Post867882 Quote:
If Indy doesn't want Luck I'd give them 3 1sts + to get him...they'll draft him though
Blackmon-Weeden in the 1st is the way to go, which means the Browns won't do it
This is what you said in October...
https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php?...true#Post854098
Quote:
All valid points...my reasoning with taking Weeden even in the 1st would be "opportunity"....we have the opportunity with all those picks and value is totally different when it comes to QBs...you see a franchise QB talent? You get him no matter where or how old he is....Watkins was a 1st round G this year and he was 27...a GUARD...QB have so much more value and it takes just 1 team to see you as a franchise QB and I can't see at least 1 team come up with that stamp on him when they evaluate his tape...that's why I think he will "climb" (on real GMs board he already is much higher Im sure) into the 1st easily and if we would take him I would be ok with it
Last edited by CleveSteve; 04/30/12 11:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Nobody cares who said it first.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Scouting Tom Heckert
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
