|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Good post. Lot's of football talk.
I have read several of you guys on here talking about Milliner. I disagree w/you about how effective he will be in the NFL.
I do see where Milliner will occasionally get beat deep, but this guy is a tremendous competitor and always comes back to make big plays. He is my favorite player in this draft. He will be fine in a press-coverage type of system. I totally disagree w/this notion about his hip fluidity. I think his hips are excellent. He has the best closing speed of any cb coming out in recent memory. This guy makes plays. I think he will excel at corner for year and then switch to FS and be a star there, much like Lott and both Woodson's before him.
I think Trufant is a bit overrated. He is not a complete corner. I do think that he will do a good job of covering slot receivers, but I don't think he is worth such a high pick to do that. His tackling is poor and he gets beat for big plays in press coverage. However, he does do a good job of mirroring guys at times. I will be disappointed if we drafted him anywhere in round one.
Rhodes is very good, but I think he can only play in a press-man system. He looks awful in zone coverages and really seems to get lost out there. He is also a poor tackler at times and does a bad job of setting the edge. I would not be unhappy w/the guy because he is very physical at the LOS and will really excel in press-man.
Anyway, good post. I enjoyed reading your analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Quote:
We were told that our D personnel in the front 7 was just as well equipped to play the 3-4 as it was the 4-3.
lol! Why on Earth would ANYBODY here have believed that junk???
Hehe!
Well, given that we were poorly equipped to be on the field, period, I guess the statement *technically* isn't false. Our secondary was crap for the 4-3, and it is now just as well a load of crap for the 3-4. Hah!
Man, this depresses me
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
That's fair Vers, I'll tackle some of that.... Quote:
Heckert was overrated. People on the boards act like he was so great---among the best in the entire NFL. Yet, he didn't get a job while guys w/no previous GM experience did get jobs.
I've seen this argument around and rejected it every time with an article and quote of Heckert saying he'll take a vacation by default since he gets paid good dollars still. Money he probably wouldn't see an the open market btw. Also don't discount the fact that he had heart surgery just one year ago. Time off will help there too probably. Oh, and the Jets wanted him, but he declined..it's out there, I don't make this up. Either way I obviously have a higher opinion of him than you, that's ok and probably carries on to our differing views concerning the talent level of this roster...
Quote:
There is a difference between being young and being young and talented. I think people get confused because we had so many young guys on the field. They automatically think those guys are going to end up being good. Our roster was so poor that chumps like Haag, Wade, and Maracic saw significant playing time. That doesn't mean they are good or will ever be good. And it is a FACT that our record did NOT improve by even one game during their tenure here.
Absolutely, that was by design obviously and some of the picks (more the late rounders who were pushed to start) simply failed to stick, that's why I think it's stupid to continue down this path as most of the early rounders have proven themselves to be NFL material, we have a foundation now that we didn't have when Heckert took over...it's time we plug the holes left, that's why I asked and still ask for more urgency in FA this particluar offseason, because as of now, we will again start some 4th to 7th rounder at FS, ILB etc....what's the difference? If you think it was stupid then, why apologize for it now? At least I argued WHY it made sense then and not anymore now. I think this is an example of you not being fair or consistent in your argumentation.
As for the record stuff. Sure, we didn't improve, but I consider it a success to have still won as many games as with "veteran rosters" of Mangini and rebuild the roster completely in the meantime. To my eye we also were MUCH MORE competitive than anytime under Mangini...younger and better. We should have won more games, but we didn't lose by 2-3 scores by the 4th Qtr as often as under Mangini. Even in games we did like the NYG game, we shut down the place and were about to go into HT with a 2 score lead....then everything went bad and a young team with little leadership at HC crumbled. I'm not alone with that sentiment, there are numerous good posters on here that saw the same, so I really absolutely can't see how you come to the conclusion that we were awful last season. For me it was the first in many years, probably since 2007 that was enjoyable to watch, especially how they came back from an 0-5 start...and even thos games were hard fought for the most part. The national media also recognized the Browns for "being better than thei record" multiple times....it wasn't the "same old Browns" imho
Quote:
I despised their drafts for the most part. I do like guys like Schwartz and Winn, but that was so terribly offset by moving up w/Minni for TRich and then drafting the bone-headed Weeden. It was a perfect year to trade down and garner more picks. Perfect. H and H decided to get sexy. Take the hot guys. Two freaking stupid picks that are going to hurt this franchise for awhile.
I could care less about Holmgren or Shurmur, they haven't been better than the Mangini regime...what was an upgrade over Mangini was Heckert the GM and as much as I like him I've been on record saying that he deserved to be fired if both TRIch and Weeden busts, esp. TRich imho....taking a gamble on a QB at 22 because you don't have one isn't great, but was a necessitiy imho, as there was no way Shurmur wanted another season with Colt, that was pretty evident in every sentence about him ("he battled"). I asked Toad this question too and all he came up with was ultimately to go into the season with the catastrophic QB depth chart of Colt and Seneca again...an armchair GM can think like that, but not a real one whos job is on the line and has his HC/OC in his ear every day about an upgrade at QB. That said, if TRich busts alone Heckert was a bust...by far the most disappointing pick of his tenure, no doubt about it. Taking a low value position player with medical concerns and burn 3 other picks in the process? That was simply moronic...btw, I took Claiborne in my mock last year. He was the pick to make imho
Quote:
So, while you and others are either sad/mad that they are gone, I am celebrating. I don't know if the new guys are any better, but I don't see how they could be any worse. And I am going to call you guys on it when you act like we are NOW doomed. Hell bro, I thought we were doomed before.
It's funny, I think we never liked the same regime, lol I hated Mangini, you defended him, maybe its a viscious cycle since then? You hating H&H because Mangini was gone? I having hope because he was gone? I'm sure there's something to it, hehe
Anyway, I only bemoan the loss of Heckert, didn't care much for the rest. What I don't think is fair from posters like you is to trash the past regime for being a Bob LaMonte regime, nepotism regime (which is absolutely correct btw) etc, but then giving Banner a free pass on bringin along his retread buddy from nfl.com. If it was nepotism over talent THEN, it is now too. No?
I like the Coaches brought in and I think that alone will make the team much better, if we would have kept Heckert as GM instead of Lombardi, I would probably be the biggest homer on this board. I think it's not even worth a discussion who has the better eye for talent. As a nerdy draftnik, I've read a lot of "thoughts" about past drafts from Lombardi and he's a complete tool. He would have burned a 2nd and 1st for Chad Henne because he was too cheap to burn a 2nd to trade up one spot for Ryan and he had Ryan as his no1 QB and Henne no 2...I mean, think about it, how stupid is that? And that's not even taking into account the wrong talent evaluation. It's simply bad logic and showing no clue about value. He didnt want to burn a 2nd for one spot because it would have made him look bad then turns around and says he absolutely has to get in front of the Ravens and burn a 1st for it for Henne, lol. Ravens, as we all know now took Flacco btw. So Ozzie already shooled him virtually. I don't expect that to suddenly change in two weeks, do you? If so, what makes you hope?
Lombardi also famously would have wasted a top 50 pick on Pat freaking White and he constantly trashed drafts that turned out good and applauded bad ones. He like Gabbert as much as me (I failed with him here obv). Guy has absolutely no clue, I know that for myself 100% and he along with Banner's "cloudy" at best past in personnel make me nervous....those 2 and Haslam, who seems like an owner who likes to have a voice too on draft day are going to make the "consensus" calls and I don't feel good about it. As for Banner, I doubt he had any clue with regards to the draft process in Philly as he was quoted saying he watched clips of 3rd day picks the night before the 3rd draft day that scouts preferred...I'm not kidding. Do you want a guy like this calling the shots? I don't, but who knows, maybe they can surprise me, they've managed to do so a couple times already. We will see...
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
So...is Horton's D one where we need a press CB or a zone CB?
I was of the impression that he preferred a pressing type CB who is more physical.
In any event...I have a hard time seeing us NOT taking a CB in Rd 1...regardless of who is there and at what # we actually end up picking (trades).
If Milliner switches to FS in the near future - or that is the ideal scenario - we might really need to get a guy like Rhodes (not X) to mentor while we get "there" and NOT spend a high(er) pick on a FS in this draft. (Unless T Gipson really is the answer at FS?)
Ultimately, that leaves us needing (2) CBs in the early rounds this year - which is fine with me. (Or we are looking at finding yet another new CB2 next year.)
I'm curious what Attack has to say as he is a DB kind of guy.
I reeeeeeeally want to believe that the new regime is doing everything this year to "set-up" next year. From the cap...to FA...to the draft. From what's projected to be available next year in FA and the draft. I understand that such may be wishful thinking.
I'm thinking that the perrenially good-to-great teams have found and -maintained - the balance between winning now and staying that way.
I'm ready for my team to be THAT team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160 |
Quote:
As for the record stuff. Sure, we didn't improve, but I consider it a success to have still won as many games as with "veteran rosters" of Mangini and rebuild the roster completely in the meantime. To my eye we also were MUCH MORE competitive than anytime under Mangini...younger and better. We should have won more games, but we didn't lose by 2-3 scores by the 4th Qtr as often as under Mangini. Even in games we did like the NYG game, we shut down the place and were about to go into HT with a 2 score lead....then everything went bad and a young team with little leadership at HC crumbled. I'm not alone with that sentiment, there are numerous good posters on here that saw the same, so I really absolutely can't see how you come to the conclusion that we were awful last season. For me it was the first in many years, probably since 2007 that was enjoyable to watch, especially how they came back from an 0-5 start...and even thos games were hard fought for the most part. The national media also recognized the Browns for "being better than thei record" multiple times....it wasn't the "same old Browns" imho
Much more competitive? Hmmm, I seem to recall Mangini's Browns were able to beat (at) New Orleans (30-17) and (home) New England (34-14) in 2010. Mangini's first year he beat Pittsburgh.
In 2011 under H, H, & S, Browns beat Indianapolis (without Manning or Luck), Miami, Seattle, and Jacksonville. Not once that season did they score over 30 points. Last year they beat Cincinnati (first conference win and first time they scored more than 30 points), San Diego, Pittsburgh (minus Big Ben), Oakland, and Kansas City, of which two are drafting prior to Cleveland this year. In two years, they were only able to score 30+ points 3 times. Mangini scored 30+ twice his first year. Mangini also went two season beating at least one conference team. In 2010, Mangini's career was on the line having the second toughest schedule in the league and a GM who knew he wasn't returning in 2011.
I don't agree with your logic on more competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
I don't agree with your logic on more competitive.
Sure you don't. You're still day dreaming of Mangini's boot camp of 2009, lol
Nice job of cherry picking stats though. I was talking and comparing both seasons as a whole. I can cherry pick too, go watch: remember when Mangini's Browns were down by 2-3 scores after 3 Qtrs in 6 of their first 8 games to start the season? Ah, good times
Mangini is so long gone and been proven a complete utter failure, you're fighting windmills here Mr Don Quixote
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
Quote:
We were told that our D personnel in the front 7 was just as well equipped to play the 3-4 as it was the 4-3.
lol! Why on Earth would ANYBODY here have believed that junk???
lol! Why on Earth would ANYBODY here have believed that junk???
The key is were we really told that? This is what I was referring to earlier when I think people sometimes misrepresent the truth [Pit] and others [Prpl] understandably believe it.
I was reading the transcript of Chud introducing Horton to the media. Here is the link: http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-brow...erence-1.368916
Here are some interesting items from the press conference:
I think that people are wrong when they say we are only going to be running a 3-4 defense. Here is one example.
We’re going to look like an aggressive, forward attacking defense that has big men that can run and little men that can hit. I’ve seen that on tape and that’s the most important thing to me is what do we look like, not what we line up in. We may be a 3-4 on one snap. We may be a 4-3 on another snap. I guarantee we’ll be a 5-2 sometimes and we’ll be a 4-4 sometimes. We are a multi-front, attacking defense and that’s the most important thing, not what player lines up where, how he stands, what stance he’s in.
Here is another: [btw--there are more, but everyone should get the point.]
(On how much of an overhaul he has to do to the defense to turn it into a 3-4)- “Going back, I use the word multiple front. Coach Rob uses hybrid. They’re the same term. They’re just different semantics of language. We are going to be a defense that gives offenses problems. Our guys can play a multitude of things. I don’t like to get pigeonholed into, ‘Well, he is this.’ Here’s what we’re going to be. We’re going to be a team that looks at the offense tries to take away what they do best. Now, that may mean one snap being a 5-2. The next snap it may be a 4-4. It will be predicated by what the offense does and we have athletes that can stand up, that can put their hand in the ground and that can run. That’s why I go back to the multi-front defense. I can’t tell you what we’re going to be right now, it depends on who we line up game one against. What do they do? What do we need to take away? The thing I’m most excited about is I have a group of athletes that can run and hit and they’re not limited to just saying, ‘Coach, line me up in a specific front, number system and play.’ Just run and hit.”
Here's a comment from Horton about transitioning to his defense:
(On how long it takes players to get up to speed to play all of the multiple defensive fronts)- “Hopefully not long. I would hope the biggest transition is terminology because if I’m a nose tackle, I’m somewhere in the vicinity of the center. If I’m an end, I’m somewhere in the vicinity of the guard or the tackle. Now, whether you line up on the outside shade, head up or the inside shade, you’ve played football before. All I’m asking my players to do is trust us as a coaching staff that we’ll put them in great positions. So whether you’re a guard, center, tackle on offense or on defense whether you’re on the center, guard or tackle, it’s still football and I keep going back to my point, I’ve got big men that will run, little men that will hit. That’s all I need and it’s still football.”
Another from Chud:
(On if he sees a big period of adjustment for the defensive players switching to a new scheme)- “There’s always a period of adjustment anytime there’s a new scheme or new terminology put in place and I think Ray spoke to that. As far as the roster itself, we felt like from the very beginning that this roster, that this group of players had some flexibility. As we get into the process a little more deeply of looking at specifics and different guys playing specific positions, we’ll get to those and have those discussions at that time. But, if you’re a good football player, you’re a good football player. I don’t think that in what we talked about that the scheme is so different that good football players won’t fit and be able to play in this scheme.”
I don't know, but it seems that we really weren't told what Pit said we were. Additionally, this entire premise of us being exclusively in a 3-4 is pure nonsense. It's like people are looking for reasons to complain.
Personally, I love the fact that we aren't going to be so generic, predictable, and boring on D. I love that we are going to run multiple fronts and move guys around. I love that we are not pigeon holing guys to one spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,199
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,199 |
Quote:
I do try and talk football. No one responds to those posts. The only conversations we have on here is when we are arguing. I've broken down scouting departments, I have analyzed the roster, I have spoke of team needs, I have profiled Weeden over and over---yet no one wants to discuss those things. This garbage is all we have.
just yesterday I complimented you on the breakdown of how the draft works. It was really helpful and I'm sure lots of people appreciated it. I have my thoughts and opinions on things but I avoid arguing. I don't really see the point. You bring up lots of good points, you voice your opinions, and sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't. I think a lot of people talk football on here most of the time.
Hunter + Dart = This is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with your logic on more competitive.
Sure you don't. You're still day dreaming of Mangini's boot camp of 2009, lol
Nice job of cherry picking stats though. I was talking and comparing both seasons as a whole. I can cherry pick too, go watch: remember when Mangini's Browns were down by 2-3 scores after 3 Qtrs in 6 of their first 8 games to start the season? Ah, good times
Mangini is so long gone and been proven a complete utter failure, you're fighting windmills here Mr Don Quixote
Cherry Picking? 
Wow...what a reach...you keep believing...!! 
It's not worth the time nor the effort. I was nearly pointing out it wasn't a major difference! If you think it was...well ok then...!  Who am I to stand in your way. Yep, good times in 2011-12!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Very hard for me to post...a lot of stances on regimes.
I loved mangini - I loved Heckert, I am not blindly following either. I see the positives both did n recognize it. I can make some here who hated Mangini angry by posting n some who hate Holmgren/Heckert/Shurmur. In hind sight I come down hard on a lot of guys who I think have failed as they LEAVE THE BROWNS. I'm not a LOVE THIS GUY FOREVER TYPE. I LOVE CAUSE THEY ARE WITH THE BROWNS...when Gone I get a lot more real in my observations.
Mangini...great coach hated by the media...its what I see.
Holmgren worked hard his first season...then got lazy.
Heckert I thought was a great GM man oh man If only he n Mangini could have worked as ONE.
But Heckert is gone I don't Idolize him...but I see his body of work, I don't over rate...I just rate him. He simply has gotten the Browns to a draft built foundation for the first time since 1999. If dawgs wish to nit pick each n every pick??? Sorry won't do that.
All I know is we got a bunch of football players...a lot of them. All I know is we got a lot of Big guys who can run n Little guys who can hit...something that our New DC LOVES ABOUT THIS TEAM. Heckert brought the vast majority here for this DC to LOVE what we got as a personnel beginning!
Bademosi, Carder, Fort, Gipson, Haden, Hagg, Hughes, JMJ, Kitchen, Prince Miller, Robertson, Sanford, Sheard, Skrine, Taylor, Wade, Ward and Winn.
18...all young - all brought here by Heckert. 5 Starters pretty much established n 13 more competing n contributing visibly as depth n ST. I see 3 bums (harsh word ) that will have a very hard time making our team. Carder, Miller n Sanford...n still they can probably contribute at the bottom of the roster...honestly I don't have a clue about this Miller kid. ???
Its not about how many ProBowlers - its about bringing competitors on this team who can progress into legitimate NFL Players. Especially for an organization who simply NEVER came close to achieving with their youth in the past.
But how can I disrespect Heckert when its a fact that one of the reasons HORTON came here was the YOUNG PERSONNEL accumulated here. The NFL average will have probably 75% of the roster turn over in 3 years. Well probably 75% of these kids won't be here 3 years from now. But we have a BLUE PRINT to Raise the Bar of young talent on this team!
Now I am cautious about the new Regime but guess what?
So far I love our choices of Coaches n System - I like the plan that was told to us prior to FAgency. I like the fact we have stayed true to the plan. I like the choice of talent brought in here.
Cap Room...again Heckert set us up in such a great Cap Position and Banner seems to know what to do with it so that we can build this thing without ever having to blow it up. Some day we will actually have a Franchise QB...by that time it might take close to 20 mil per season to keep him. Well we will be in a position to do so without having to Sacrifice because we got that Cap Room that Banner did not have to CREATE - It was here for him to utilize!
I don't see the wrong in praising Heckert for the job well done. Would he have completed that 5 year plan with a great dynasty team??? We will never know. All I know is he has put us in a GREAT PLACE that no OTHER BROWNS TEAM SINCE 1999 Has been in!
I really like what is happening with the new Regime...still a lot to be critical on things to come (draft especially). I hope our Owner stays true to his promise that we will become an organization of continuity - Cause I think we have something special brewing. It is impossible to think that if we didn't praise Heckert for what good he did. Perfect...nah terrible choice of Shurmur...Terrible. But Cap Room and Young Personnel foundation...nothing but praise.
JMHO I will be hesitant to predict greatness for 2013 but no way will I judge the End All cause of one season. Greatness will be determined by Weeden right now. If not our search will continue.
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 123
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 123 |
Quote:
Tight end: Sure, there are five tight ends on the roster. But coach Rob Chudzinski has an affinity for the position. And none of the tight ends on the roster will be confused for Tony Gonzalez.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/10/team-needs-cleveland-browns-3/
While I agree with the fact that none of our tight ends are even in the same ballpark as Tony Gonzalez in regards to career accomplishments, call me crazy but I truly believe that Jordan Cameron can develop into as lethal a threat as Tony Gonzalez in the near future. Sure, he is unlikely to have the kind of overall career in the long term as arguably 'the best TE of all time', but his raw and untapped ability are very intriguing. He has all of the measurables of a Jimmy Graham, I don't remember him dropping anything thrown his way last year, and he has nowhere to go but up.
With a TE oriented HC like Chud along with the creative offensive mind of Norv Turner, I think that they will create every opportunity for Jordan Cameron to become a force to be reckoned with at the TE position for years to come.
If there was one weakness in Cameron's game, it would be that he needs to learn how to catch the ball and explode upfield and gain the ability to make tacklers miss. He has very sure hands and would slowly turn upfield and I rarely every remember him making a tackler miss. He would also almost always go down at first contact. This, I think, will improve with more experience. I mean technically he was a rookie last year and he was probably just focused on catching the ball above and beyond anything else, anything after that was a bonus. He will gain more elusiveness and explosiveness as he gains more confidence in the new offense.
JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517 |
I'm just curious here,but what have you seen that makes you believe that?
Technically,he wasn't a rookie.This will be his 3rd year,and so far he's done zilch.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Your comment on Milliner describes Joe Hayden as a rookie.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,468
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,468 |
Honestly, I considered him something below a rookie when we drafted him. Coaches like Shurmer certainly didn't help with his development. Chud and Norv will
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Before I address your post, I have to say this: I made a reply to Ppl and used direct quotes to back-up what I was talking about. I hate taking the time to do that, but it proved that a lot of people are full of crap on this change to the 3-4 and how players transition. It was a true football post. Not one freaking person replied to that post. Wanna know why? Because w/in a couple of days and throughout the summer, people wanna bash the new regime about switching to a 3-4. Let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant and bash.
Dj, there was a lot of excellent comments in those quotes. We could be having great discussions on how best to utilize our talent base. How we can use different personnel groups in many different fronts to attack the opposing offenses. But, not ONE freaking person wants to talk about that. Just freaking ignore it and bash the new regime for changing from a 4-3 to running strictly a 3-4. Never mind that it isn't true........that's not freaking important. Unfairly bashing, lying, and exaggerating is the way to go.
Heck w/it. I ain't in the mood to address your post right now!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in your response, as I didn't even mention the switch in my last response, but I don't know if your hatred was for me or in general?
I think what Ppl is referring to was discussions on THIS board BEFFORE you guys came over. I remember Toad and others taking the "Company line" from our FO and coaches arguing that it wouldn't take extra personnel for the switch and others disagreed. I don't remember anyone saying that is what the coaches said...it was OPINION and absolutely WOTHY of a discussion
You as well as me know exactly that we can't take every word from them literally, esp. at this point of the season where they are still going to add and realease players, so they can't committ one way or the other.
To me it was clear as day that we needed 2 extra bodies to make this run...even if it's a hybrid, you can't go into the season thinking the Ewoks we have at LB are enoug for ILB...so we need an extra ILB we would not have needed for a straight 43, no matter if it is a pure 3-4 or hybrid, we need an extra ILB, that's fact for me and from all I've read you seem to agree that we need an extra ILB. In a 4-3 DQ, JMJ and Robertson would have been sufficient
Further, I was pretty alone claiming that we needed a n extra 5T as Winn clearly isnt a 3 down player in ANY scheme...many projected him at one DE spot with Rube and Taylor at the other 2 spots...I wanted Bryant or DeVito for 5T and we got Bryant, which proved my analysis from months ago to be right, as our FO saw the same hole. We can argue all day about it, but to me it is pretty clear that we NEED those extra bodies if we move out of a pure 43, which we do 100%. To me it's irrelevant if it's a pure 3-4 or hybrid, the move OUT OF the 4-3 prompted 2 extra needs we didnt have before...to me a least that's pretty evident. Kruger was a wash, since we needed a 43 RDE or 34 OLB
What I agree with you is that thiy hybrid scheme has more upside than any pure scheme and that we have and had several players that can play multiple roles in it and added two more via FA....that's all good, but I think you're over-reacting when a poster claims that the switch caused a couple of more needs. Nobody is saying that we don't have the personnel or that the guys we had on the roster can't play in the new scheme, although there are a couple of VALID question marks about the effectivity of it (Sheard, Taylor, DQ)....
Vers, not every OPINION that is skeptic about something or questions something the new FO does is automatically a "bias", "hate" or "agenda" post...I and others really think you need to dial down your sensitivity with regards to this, because in all honesty it prevents as much from having good football talk as "real" agenda posts. Nobody wants to see the Browns or new regime fail...if so, would we be here every day discussing about it like diehards? I doubt it
Sure, we can talk about how Winn and Bryant can line up at DE and DT in ANY front, that players like Kruger and Sheard can switch from hands down to standing up etc...I think everybody realizes that already and it's great to have this kind of flexibility, but there are also players we miss for certain looks, like a thumper next to DQ in a 3-4 alignement..and we didn't have to worry about it before, so I think it's absolutely LEGIT to worry about it, as all the new looks and pass rush possibilities won't be effective, if we get run over up the middle. That's a pretty BASIC concern right there....add to that, that DQ is most probably less effective to begin with when he has one less DL in front of him. Please tell me why it is not worthy of a discussion? You wanted us to sign McClain yourself and I wonder why...probably because you saw the same problem, right? So why cry foul and denounce an "agenda" bias when it gets mentioned then?
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
Quote:
Rhodes is very good, but I think he can only play in a press-man system. He looks awful in zone coverages and really seems to get lost out there. He is also a poor tackler at times and does a bad job of setting the edge. I would not be unhappy w/the guy because he is very physical at the LOS and will really excel in press-man.
From Brandt and his new Top 100.
9) Xavier Rhodes, CB, Florida State (Prev 28)
Rhodes has a history of struggling with off coverage, which was why I ranked him at No. 28 in February. Since then, however, he's done a great job working to get better, recognizing his weakness and doing his best to fix it; everybody who works him out now says he's improved in off coverage quite a bit.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000...all-draft-class
That's exactly what I wanted to hear from guys like Brandt. Wanna see it from Mayock too.
We can't go wrong with Milliner or Rhodes, but this is the year I really REALLY wanna move down. Equal talent from 6 to 15 this year.
And there's 3 spots I want. There's solid guys that fit right into these spots in terms of Value. No reaching needed. And these 3 spots are what we missed on in FA so far.
CB
FS
TE
Django----I know we both like Kelce. Have you seen Escobar at all? Anyone? West Coasters?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 123
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 123 |
Quote:
I'm just curious here,but what have you seen that makes you believe that?
Technically,he wasn't a rookie.This will be his 3rd year,and so far he's done zilch.
This will be hist 3rd year, but his first year he was all but red-shirted. My opinion is based on the fact that he has sure hands and can jump through the ceiling. His 40 yard dash is as fast Jimmy Graham's. He's never been put in a vertical offense, always this dink and dunk crap where once he catches the ball, he is surrounded by 3 defenders.
Have any of our TE's had great years in the H & H regime? Let's see what this kid can do with Chud at the helm before we go using one of our top 3 picks on a TE.
JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Django----I know we both like Kelce. Have you seen Escobar at all? Anyone? West Coasters?
Here's what I wrote about Escobar in the TE thread in the draft forum:
"Watched Escobar vs Boise State and wasnt impressed. He wasn't bad but nothing I saw that makes me think this guy would be worth a Top 100 selection. He's a decent receiver, pretty crappy blocker for his size, simply lacks the attitude and technique to do it. I guess there's a lot of projection involved surrounding his hype, since he's a JR and size/speed....maybe starting late 4th/5th but I like others more, both as players and value. "
I wasn't impressed and thinks he's over-hyped...he's not as athletic and for his size is not a good blocker. He does have good hands and offers a big target though, but I don't see a no1 TE and for a no2 he's not good enough a blocker imho, I hope we stay away, he's what I like to call a "neither-nor" player. Would rather draft a guy that you know can at least do one thing at a high level (blocker or receiver)...I like Gragg the most, esp. since I think he's very underrated as a blocker and think that he CAN be lined up inline occasionally.
FWIW, here's my ranking of the guys I watched:
1 Eifert...mid 1st
2a Kelce...mid 2nd
2b Ertz....mid 2nd
4 Gragg...3rd
5 Rivera....4th
6a Sims...late 4th
6b Reed...late 4th/5th
6c Escobar...4th/5th
9 Otten...mid/late 5th
10 Lutzenkirchen...6th
11 Fauria...7th/UDFA
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Of course the kid we are targeting isn't even on your list 
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Of course the kid we are targeting isn't even on your list
Which part of "the guys I watched", didn't you get? 
Anyway, went back to the thread and remembered to have watched some of Kasa and V.McDonald too, here's my take:
Quote:
Kasa: Seems like a decent receiver, but doesn't look as athletic as he's hyped to be. Pretty terrible reach blocker and gets no movement. Doesn't move his feet and doesn't use his hands, he just grabs his guy and hopes it is enough. Based on what I saw I would not draft him in the top 5 rounds and not sure I would at all to be honest
V.McDonald: Oh boy, this dude is hyped as a Top 100 selection? Looks like Taylor Thompson all over again. Where to start....I haven't seen him line up as an inline blocker ONCE, he's mostly lined up in the slot as a WR and either catching screens from there or blocking on the move. He has terrible hands, at least "inconsistent" as I've seen him drop or double clutch 3-4 simple screens in 2 games. He caught at least 50% of his passes on screens btw and I haven't seen him run even 5 routes. On the positive side, he seems to be a tough dude who likes the physical aspect of the game, so he likes to block although it's wild and not always coordinated, little technique, but the willingness is there. Body language is good too.
All that said, he's a MAJOR project and I hope we aren't the dumb team to draft him in the 3rd or 4th round. Maybe a 6th/7th flyer because the athleticism and toughness is there, but you have to start from scratch with him and I don't know if he'll make it simply because of his hands...I just don't see it, he's ALL hype.
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Actually we are targeting Kasa...McDonald is just due diligence nothing more - they are two different type of TEs.
Kasa you are over analyzing
Quote:
Pretty terrible reach blocker and gets no movement. Doesn't move his feet and doesn't use his hands, he just grabs his guy and hopes it is enough.
I know you put a lot of time in this Draft stuff...more than the average bear...Bless you...but sometimes I don't know if you actually know what that stuff means...lol  let alone evaluate it.
Of course I don't know you personally - I'd actually love to sit down n break film with ya someday n see what you really do know.
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
Zero merit? LMAO So, you and Dj know more about how to handle the cap than Banner. Okie Doike!
Look man, it's not just about this year, it's about the future. You can talk all the crap you want, but Banner has an excellent reputation of how to manage the cap. His Philly teams were competitive for years in large part because of how he managed the cap.
I have given Banner credit for being a very good cap manager. But trying to excuse not addressing your biggest weakness when you have around 30 mil. in cap space, that falls on deaf ears.
Quote:
The secondary is a mess because Heckert left it that way. He double-drafted at QB, RB, and WR. Meanwhile, our offense still sucks! You wanna turn things around and blame Banner for it?!?!
So a late third round project in McCoy was a serious attempt to find your franchise QB? And when you have no WR's, how many do you need?
You see, I'm judging my opinion of Banner by what Banner does, not by what Heckert did.
Quote:
This team has a plethora of needs because of poor drafting and management. It's not going to turn into a playoff contender in one year. You can fool some posters with your BS, but you ain't fooling me. This has been our best off season--pre-draft---ever!
Tell me that when this entire change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 falls on its face in year one. You see, this regime created even more holes by doing this very thing. So most of this FA process has been addressing holes they themselves created. Not addressing the ones we had.
Quote:
One more thing, I just love how you guys who preached that we need to build through the draft and it is stupid to bring in free agents while H and H were here are now crying about how we aren't bringing in enough free agents. 
I believe that it makes no sense to bring in a lot of top name FA's until you have some foundation to work with. But even I was not happy with the fact that H&H did not sign more. So this is nothing new for me.
You keep bringing up a regime that failed to compare them to the current regime. Is that your answer? To say they did as well as people who have failed before them?
The concept is simple, we have two huge gaping holes in our secondary. CB and S. There was tons of cap space and even around 30 mil in cap space now. There were a lot of average or above CB's on the FA market going into this FA signing period. This FO neglected tro go out and get one.
Now you spin that all you want. Compare how the last bunch who was here didn't do it either. Yeah, say this FO is following the same plan that failed before. That makes sense!
Tons of cap space available. Gaping hole. Talent available on the market. No solution was obtained. That's just how it is. We not only need a starting CB, we need one of quality depth. Don't try to use some BS how it was a matter of cap space or blame the past regime for the actions of this one. The two are hopefully very different or we'll see yet another one fail.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I have given Banner credit for being a very good cap manager. But trying to excuse not addressing your biggest weakness when you have around 30 mil. in cap space, that falls on deaf ears.
I like most of the moves Banner and company have made, but I do agree that they have missed the mark on cornerback.
Quote:
So a late third round project in McCoy was a serious attempt to find your franchise QB? And when you have no WR's, how many do you need?
You see, I'm judging my opinion of Banner by what Banner does, not by what Heckert did.
McCoy was handed the starting job without any legit competition. That was a clear and precise indication that he was the more-than-one-year plan at the QB position. The blame for that shouldn't just fall on Heckert. I would argue that most of that blame should fall on Holmgren, as that was his own admitted pet-project.
As for judging Banner, it should be noted that it's Banner and company, and that it would be wise to wait until after free agency has ended and the organization has had their first draft before making judgments.
Quote:
Tell me that when this entire change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 falls on its face in year one. You see, this regime created even more holes by doing this very thing. So most of this FA process has been addressing holes they themselves created. Not addressing the ones we had.
As had been proven more than once, the defense wasn't good as a 4-3 unit and the number of holes were virtually the same in either the 4-3 or the 3-4. It wasn't as though the FO had taken a good unit and scrapped it. I happen to believe we're more talented now than we've been in years on defense, and that happened in one free agency period. If we add someone like Milliner, we'll have taken a leap forward in talent. I hardly believe we'll "fall on our face."
Like you I was highly critical of Holmgren's plan in acquiring free agents. They could have accessed the ton of present and future cap space and put a solid team on the field, one that may have possibly allowed them to retain their positions. They failed. I liked most of the moves Banner made, but am not approving of the lack of Safety and CB so far. I'm reserving judgment until the draft is over before passing judgment for the year, but also realize that this team was so devoid of talent that trying to fill every single hole in one off-season is likely a path to failure.
The bottom line is that this roster was devoid of average NFL talent, so expecting us to make huge strides in one off-season would be setting one's self up for disappointment.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160 |
Quote:
Tons of cap space available. Gaping hole. Talent available on the market. No solution was obtained. That's just how it is. We not only need a starting CB, we need one of quality depth. Don't try to use some BS how it was a matter of cap space or blame the past regime for the actions of this one. The two are hopefully very different or we'll see yet another one fail.
What talented CB and S was worth spending over inflated money? Grimes? He is a bit damaged goods to pay a multi-year 6 million plus contract.
It is a good thing you don't own a business. It makes no sense spending money on maybe improvements. You do realize paying FA's over inflated prices either pisses off current players and/or causes overpaying existing players. The fallout of not paying is they walk further adding holes to repair. Throwing money at a problem is not always a viable solution.
Personally I like to see that so called ton of cap spent on in-house players. As this team improves you'll have the cash to bring in the undamaged star player. There is a possibility a star QB could be coming out of contract in a year or two. It sure would be nice to have cap to make a strong bid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Cool info, eo. Tell us who else the Browns are targeting. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 343
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 343 |
Quote:
What talented CB and S was worth spending over inflated money? Grimes? He is a bit damaged goods to pay a multi-year 6 million plus contract.
It is a good thing you don't own a business. It makes no sense spending money on maybe improvements. You do realize paying FA's over inflated prices either pisses off current players and/or causes overpaying existing players. The fallout of not paying is they walk further adding holes to repair. Throwing money at a problem is not always a viable solution.
Personally I like to see that so called ton of cap spent on in-house players. As this team improves you'll have the cash to bring in the undamaged star player. There is a possibility a star QB could be coming out of contract in a year or two. It sure would be nice to have cap to make a strong bid.
For the thousandth time, CBs were under market-value when compared to the past two-three years (because there were so many starting-quality ones this year). The Cleveland FO may not have liked any of them except for Grimes for whatever reason, but the Browns would not have been paying "over-inflated" prices had they signed a CB this offseason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160 |
Quote:
Quote:
What talented CB and S was worth spending over inflated money? Grimes? He is a bit damaged goods to pay a multi-year 6 million plus contract.
It is a good thing you don't own a business. It makes no sense spending money on maybe improvements. You do realize paying FA's over inflated prices either pisses off current players and/or causes overpaying existing players. The fallout of not paying is they walk further adding holes to repair. Throwing money at a problem is not always a viable solution.
Personally I like to see that so called ton of cap spent on in-house players. As this team improves you'll have the cash to bring in the undamaged star player. There is a possibility a star QB could be coming out of contract in a year or two. It sure would be nice to have cap to make a strong bid.
For the thousandth time, CBs were under market-value when compared the past two-three years (because there were so many starting-quality ones this year). The Cleveland FO may not have liked any of them except for Grimes for whatever reason, but the Browns would not have been paying "over-inflated" prices had they signed a CB this offseason.
You ever wonder why market value is under? Have you ever heard of an economic term called "supply and demand?" What CB was worth better money than drafting a CB? In the end, what CB is worth paying more? It is obvious drafting a CB is better value when quality of DB in this years draft is high. If you don't get the DB of choice, then it is acceptable to pay for FA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 343
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 343 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What talented CB and S was worth spending over inflated money? Grimes? He is a bit damaged goods to pay a multi-year 6 million plus contract.
It is a good thing you don't own a business. It makes no sense spending money on maybe improvements. You do realize paying FA's over inflated prices either pisses off current players and/or causes overpaying existing players. The fallout of not paying is they walk further adding holes to repair. Throwing money at a problem is not always a viable solution.
Personally I like to see that so called ton of cap spent on in-house players. As this team improves you'll have the cash to bring in the undamaged star player. There is a possibility a star QB could be coming out of contract in a year or two. It sure would be nice to have cap to make a strong bid.
For the thousandth time, CBs were under market-value when compared the past two-three years (because there were so many starting-quality ones this year). The Cleveland FO may not have liked any of them except for Grimes for whatever reason, but the Browns would not have been paying "over-inflated" prices had they signed a CB this offseason.
You ever wonder why market value is under? Have you ever heard of an economic term called "supply and demand?" What CB was worth better money than drafting a CB? In the end, what CB is worth paying more? It is obvious drafting a CB is better value when quality of DB in this years draft is high. If you don't get the DB of choice, then it is acceptable to pay for FA.
No, it's not obvious at all according to the actions of the Saints, Chiefs, Patriots, Chargers, Dolphins, Bengals, Broncos, and Lions.
The Browns may not have liked any of the FA CBs other than Grimes (which is fine), but let's not pretend that their decision to not sign one was the "obvious" correct move. Because many other teams didn't agree.
BTW: Do you realize that most CBs are terrible in their rookie year?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
Do you realize that most CBs are terrible in their rookie year?
So that would mean that our second year guys could possibly develop also.....just saying 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Tell me that when this entire change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 falls on its face in year one. You see, this regime created even more holes by doing this very thing. So most of this FA process has been addressing holes they themselves created. Not addressing the ones we had.
This puzzled me a bit and I couldn't let it go without commenting.
We were a 3-4 before with Crennel and Mangini. Then, Shurmur is brought in and the defensive scheme changes to a 4-3. Now, he's gone and it's back to the 3-4. How come changing from the 4-3 to the 3-4 created even more holes but changing from a 3-4 to a 4-3 didn't?
I don't follow the logic. The old regime and coaches are gone. New ones are here and they aren't going to play the same type of defense as the prior group. So they fill some holes (which they created) and so we have to address a new season with holes that weren't addressed. So, are you advocating that the Browns trade back and draft Chance Warmack & Jonathan Cooper or Larry Warford then?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,468
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,468 |
Because when Shurmer and co. came in, we drafted heavy on the defensive side of the ball. Big Phil, Sheard, Robertson, Acho etc. Plus our FAs (Rucker and Parker). Some of those guys we know, right off the bat, won't fit into a 3-4. We'll find out who else won't fit as time goes on.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
We were 3-4 before Holmgren & Co. then changed to the 4-3 after Mangini got fired and are now switching back to the 3-4.
I just don't get the thoughts about us now needing to draft or use free agents to fill needs in the 3-4 when we did the same when we changed to the 4-3.
And, several of the players on the defense will be able to make the switch to the 3-4 from the 4-3.
As for Acho, he didn't see a down of play during the season and was traded.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Because when Shurmer and co. came in, we drafted heavy on the defensive side of the ball. Big Phil, Sheard, Robertson, Acho etc. Plus our FAs (Rucker and Parker). Some of those guys we know, right off the bat, won't fit into a 3-4. We'll find out who else won't fit as time goes on.
If Phil or Sheard struggle in the 3-4, and by struggle, I mean basically are lost and can't do what's asked of them, we could easily trade them to a 4-3 team for a late first/early second.
However, they are both talented guys, I doubt they'll crap out in the 3-4, I imagine Phil is going to be a solid NT, and I've already seen Sheard rush standing up...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
Quote:
We were 3-4 before Holmgren & Co. then changed to the 4-3 after Mangini got fired and are now switching back to the 3-4.
I just don't get the thoughts about us now needing to draft or use free agents to fill needs in the 3-4 when we did the same when we changed to the 4-3.
And, several of the players on the defense will be able to make the switch to the 3-4 from the 4-3.
As for Acho, he didn't see a down of play during the season and was traded.
Amen bro.
Fans waaaaaaay over-think this 3-4 and 4-3 thing.
The single biggest question in any 3-4 is taking a 4-3 DE and moving him to OLB. Simply for the ability to drop into coverage when required. THIS is the one spot that not every 4-3 DE can transition to.
Front 3 is rather simple but everyone makes a huge deal out of it. 99% of 3-4 Ends were TACKLES in college. They move outside in a 3-4 simply because you want SIZE as a 3-4 End. Nose Tackles need to be a Big-Ass-Fatty that can occupy. It's really as simple as that.
Bottom line is that if you have TALENT, you can be moved. Our problem in the past is that the guys that we were attempting to move SUCKED where they originally were and SUCKED when we moved them. Such is NOT the case now. There's talent all over our Front 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
In a 4-3 DQ, JMJ and Robertson would have been sufficient
I don't agree w/that. I think our LBer group was terrible. Are you seriously telling me you would have been comfortable w/an untested JMJ and an inexperienced Robertson as our starters? JMJ might be okay, but we really don't know that. I think the LBer unit needed upgraded, no matter what.
I think that the addition of Kruger is huge!!! I think adding Groves was solid. Furthermore, Sheard is going to be playing on the opposite edge. I see Robertson as an ILBer in the nickel packages in Horton's defense. I think we draft another ILBer.
Quote:
Vers, not every OPINION that is skeptic about something or questions something the new FO does is automatically a "bias", "hate" or "agenda" post...I and others really think you need to dial down your sensitivity with regards to this, because in all honesty it prevents as much from having good football talk as "real" agenda posts.
Oh, I don't have problem w/people being skeptical. I don't have a problem w/it being discussed. I do have a problem w/the fact that it's all some of you talk about. Constantly. Ad nauseam. Over and over and over. Everything is negative. Everything is a mistake. The past regime was so great. We are doomed now. Sorry man, being skeptical and discussing it occasionally is different from this hateful crusade some of you are on.
Quote:
Sure, we can talk about how Winn and Bryant can line up at DE and DT in ANY front, that players like Kruger and Sheard can switch from hands down to standing up etc...I think everybody realizes that already and it's great to have this kind of flexibility, but there are also players we miss for certain looks, like a thumper next to DQ in a 3-4 alignement..and we didn't have to worry about it before, so I think it's absolutely LEGIT to worry about it, as all the new looks and pass rush possibilities won't be effective, if we get run over up the middle. That's a pretty BASIC concern right there....add to that, that DQ is most probably less effective to begin with when he has one less DL in front of him. Please tell me why it is not worthy of a discussion? You wanted us to sign McClain yourself and I wonder why...probably because you saw the same problem, right? So why cry foul and denounce an "agenda" bias when it gets mentioned then?
Again, we can discuss it. And I have criticized the new FO some. Heck, I was the first guy to bring up the CB/FS thing. I would have given McClain a shot. So yes, we can talk about it. However, we aren't talking about other stuff at all. Look at all the posts that follow yours. Almost every single poster is talking about the move from the 4-3 to the 3-4. Not one freaking poster mentioned that we aren't going to be running the 3-4 exclusively.
I showed 2 examples of where Horton says that we are going to be running multiple fronts. I provided a link. There were more examples in there of that being the case. Yet, no one wants to hear facts!!! I provided examples of Horton talking about how he wasn't going to pigeon-hole players into one position. How he was going to move them around. Sometimes w/their hand in the dirt. Sometimes standing up. No one talks about that....at all.
Does anyone realize how much flexibility this gives us? 3-man fronts. 4-man fronts. 5-man fronts. Guys moving around. It's exciting and would be a great discussion. But no, let's ignore the facts and talk about how we messed up by going to the 3-4. It's like the truth is being ignored because it gets in the way of the agendas.
Me, I would love to talk about different packages. Don't you guys see how these multi-dimensional fronts can better utilize the talents of guys like Sheard, Kruger, Taylor, Winn, Hughes, etc? We're going to have all sorts of different personnel packages where we put guys in positions of strength. The possibilities are wide-ranging. It would be fun trying to figure it out.
But no, let's ignore the facts of what Horton and Chud REALLY SAID, and just strictly talk about what a mistake it was for the coaching staff to change from a 4-3 to a 3-4, never minding that it isn't even really true! Again, HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES DO YOU GUYS NEED HORTON AND CHUD TO SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING A HYBIRD OR MULTI-FRONT DEFENSE BEFORE YOU BELIEVE IT AND STOP W/THIS NONSENSE OF US EXCLUSIVELY RUNNING A 3-4?
Seriously, is there ANYONE out there that would like to discuss the possibilities of which guys will be playing more in certain fronts? About personnel packages? About which fronts and personnel we will use on certain down and distances? About when we will use Ward as a blitzer and how disruptive he might be coming behind Kruger? I mean.....I haven't seen one freaking post about all of that stuff. But, I sure have read a lot about us not getting a CB or FS. Okay guys. We got it. Heck, I was the first one to bring it up. So yeah, we got it by now. Those of you saying it over and over and over come across as only wanting to bash the new regime. And yes, we all realize there will be a transition when you switch to a new defense. We got that, too. Even if we were too stupid to figure it out, the 20 or so posts a day reminding us of it have finally sunk in.
I am not saying to never address it, but do you think we can actually talk about something else, such as the things I brought up a little while ago? I find those topics fascinating. Interesting. Worthy of discussion. Of course, if one only wants to rip the new regime, those topics would have to be off limits. After all, they would put an end to this nonsense that we are going to be strictly running a 3-4 and guys are only going to be lining up in one position! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
Quote:
...Seriously, is there ANYONE out there that would like to discuss the possibilities of which guys will be playing more in certain fronts?
Not me...I'm not technically knowlegeable to participate in that discussion. BUT, I'm more than willing to read and learn... 
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,160 |
Quote:
Does anyone realize how much flexibility this gives us? 3-man fronts. 4-man fronts. 5-man fronts. Guys moving around. It's exciting and would be a great discussion. But no, let's ignore the facts and talk about how we messed up by going to the 3-4. It's like the truth is being ignored because it gets in the way of the agendas.
Honestly Vers I have thought about it a lot. I think we have seen the last of pigeon holing guys is specific positions such as LDE or RDT. It wouldn't surprise me seeing a different man at each position on every play. It'll look like a hockey game where coaches match up lines.
I love it when people say DQ will struggle in a 3-4 as if all 3-4 defensive schemes are alike. I think DQ will thrive in Horton's schemes. As with the DL, I believe they move LB's all around.
For QB's facing this seven, it will look like a different front every play. Game film study becomes a nightmare. Based on all this shuffling around guys become unaccounted. This is where I see Browns making a name for themselves and bring defenses back into fold attacking offenses.
With all the confusion created by the front seven, Browns secondary will feast. Between the four you will see some play man-to-man and others zone. The missing person in this scheme is the ball hawk safety. I wonder who will be this guy. Is he on the team now, in the draft, or someone they get later. Something tells me this guy will have a unique skill set. Horton will find some off the wall guy no one heard of before.
I'm really curious how Lombardi drafts. I am guessing Lombardi's approach is like Belichick character, multi-positions, and athletic skill sets. Belichick drafted this way for years. It always been said your most "football" talent players are taken in the 2nd and 3rd round. In years to come, I see Lombardi focusing in this area.
I think this team will struggle first half of the season learning schemes, but once it starts rolling it will be a lot fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,855
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,855 |
Quote:
I think we have seen the last of pigeon holing guys is specific positions such as LDE or RDT.
LOL, Not on this board.. if a guy played RDT very effectively it seems there is an automatic assumption that he can't play LDE. they don't even think to see how they intend to use him before the bashing and questions begin.
Take Sheard. Chud has made it clear that Sheard is going to play OLB. Yet, the questions are bouncing all around that he can't play that position. How bout we let him try. Let's see what Horton has in mind.
I was re-listening to Hortons presser the other day.. Man, this guy does NOT appear to be stuck on one formation at all. There doesn't seem to be much about him that is traditional in the sense he says he likes to mix it up A LOT.
So who's to say that this guy can't do something or even that he can.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
So who's to say that this guy can't do something or even that he can.
Which, unlike someone's opinion seems to dictate, is the entire question. People wish to discuss what said player will be doing or how they will be lined up when we have no idea whether they can or can not fit in this D.
There are just far more questions than answers at this point.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Team needs: Cleveland Browns
|
|
