|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Then it's faulty logic, as "building" isn't tied to "winning" WHILE you're building. You BUILD to win and win when you're done building. If you were winning, then you would not be building, right?....if you think you can build AND win at the same time, then you're either asking for too much or you haven't used the right words
I would argue that the Niners are the example of a team doing just that: Winning AND building at the same time. They've continued to stock-pile draft picks having just come off a Super Bowl appearance. While most teams would acquire high-priced free agents both through free agency and trades of draft picks, the Niners have gone the other way, ensuring that they talent level will continue to grow for the future, not just the present.
Perhaps your definitions and interpretations of the words differ from mine, but teams have done, and can continue to do, both.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
how long did it take the 49ers to build up enough talent to do that though?
they were as bad as we were until the past couple of years. they just started building the right way from the start (what Holmgren/Heckert did) the same way that Houston did from their expansion years. strip everything away, build up young talent, don't miss the obvious in the draft (as much as possible) and eventually the talent will shine through.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
It's entirely possible that I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation, where-as I'm out of context central to the point you're making, in which case I'll apologize if I've complicated the topic. Having said that, I believe your point is about building through the draft as the right way to go, in which I'd agree. It seems you're referencing H&H which may be part of an earlier conversation in this thread, to which I wasn't really talking about specifically.
I gotta be honest, much of the rhetoric on the boards recently is just stuff taking up space which I've not even been interested in reading, so again I may be missing the context of the bigger discussion.
The only specific point I was making is that I believe you can both be a winner and build at the same time. A plan of going "all in" is the antithesis to "building" and from where I'm sitting the Niners aren't going all-in at all.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
The only specific point I was making is that I believe you can both be a winner and build at the same time. A plan of going "all in" is the antithesis to "building" and from where I'm sitting the Niners aren't going all-in at all.
Ok, I see where you are going there, so let's limit it to that point. Yes, I agree that you can go all-in with an unsustainable model or continue to build while being competitive.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Holy Hell...so two people are capable of getting on the same page on these forums. Whoda thunkit? 
So now that we're speaking apples to apples...do you believe it's possible to be a winner and still be building at the same time? I believe the Niners are doing just that due to their ability to stock-pile picks and not make huge pushes on the most expensive free agents possible.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
to an extent, you can do it. the problem is when you lose key pieces (to age, retirement, or get priced out of your cost structure). see: Baltimore Ravens this offseason.
The Steelers and Pats for years were able to continually build their youth in depth while playing their veterans. Then, replace their veterans with youth when needed (rinse and repeat). The problem for Pitt has become they are losing too many pieces (and it was a problem for NE on defense for awhile too).
But, both teams were able to build behind contending teams for more than a decade. I'd gladly take a model like that one.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
DJ - What are your thoughts on Amerson the CB from NC St moving to FS?
He is definitely a ballhawk. Gets beat on some double moves but he wouldn't have the same temptation at FS as he would at Cb.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
...do you believe it's possible to be a winner and still be building at the same time?
I think when you start building, by most definitions, you are likely starting from a point of not winning. The Niners were there for a while. They were building and losing. They acquired the talent but still struggled with what Harbaugh showed was a lacking in coaching. At least in the year before he got there.
They started to win big and continued to build and continue to win big.
I believe every team is building. The winners and the losers alike. I suppose those with truly bad rosters are re=building. But it's still building.
In our case we had a severe lack of talent coupled with a lacking in coaching. When the previous regime cleaned house and started, (from a point of not winning), they began to build from the draft.
Having had 3 years of drafting they'd built a decent base of young talent. At that point they were still not winning. Perhaps a lack of coaching contributed to that. But that's on them too. They refrained from buying FA players who might be in the second or third year of their new contracts before the young players caught up. Then the bottom dropped out for them and they were fired as a regime. Business.
Now the new regime takes over. I believe they will continue in the same vein as the old one. Building through the draft. What they have done different so far is added two quality starters to the young foundation through FA. They didn't go crazy and try to fill every hole in FA.
I believe they think the young roster, that took 3 years to acquire, along with their own addition of a new, more competent coaching staff, is closer to winning than going down the tubes. That is why the roster was not gutted as the regime before them did. The previous regime took over an aging roster with no future. The new regime took over a young roster with promise.
I believe that was the qualifier for the FA signings, unlike the previous regime who were still looking at a greater possibility of losing with only 2 years of drafting behind them so continued to stay out of FA. Possibly this year they would have done as has been done by the new regime and brought in a couple of FA starters.
I don't think the new regime's philosophy is much different that the old one. They're still counting on the young players, (even the new FA starters are young players), and beyond those two starters have added only competition-type players for the remaining of FA so far. They've not gone hog wild filling in all the holes in an attempt to win now.
They're still building. There's an upcoming draft, still some FA's available and the June cuts.
Perhaps we'll start winning now that we have a more competent coaching staff, a solid group of young players and a couple of new additions plus this season's draft picks.
Regardless, we'll continue to build.
Even the Rats, who just won the Superbowl, though they took a major step back right after, they're still building.
San Fran, who came that close to winning it all are still building.
Every team is building.
Some are winners and still building at the same time and some are losing and building at the same time.
Maybe this is nothing in my comments that refers to your point. I can be guilty of missing the point.  Regardless, I'm still right.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Gee, I wonder if Pit will correct you for not staying on topic.  The guy isn't smart enough to figure out that if guys can play more than one position in multiple fronts, than perhaps the number of team needs aren't quite as high.  To your post: What about Seattle? They had the same records as the Browns in 2008 and 2009. The Big Show arrived here in 2010, the same year as Pete Carroll did in Seattle. Remember Seattle wanted no part of The Big Show? I also remember how everyone was mocking Carroll and dissing Seattle. Look at them now. Compare what they did in Seattle to the goof balls that were running the Browns. It isn't close. Teams like Seattle and SF flew by us because they had a superior front office and superior coaching. I ain't buying all this supposed talent we have here. We were garbage. There is a huge difference between young guys and young talented guys. The new regime has a lot of work to do to catch up to teams like SXattle and SF, who were just as--or almost as--putrid as the Browns when The Big Show and Reach Heckert arrived in Cleveland. Isn't this fun? Screw the football talk. Let's talk agendas! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,805 |
Quote:
NRTU
Trying to get back on football, reading some of the posts about our "multiple fronts" and "attacking defense" isn't Horton kinda known for letting his corners blitz alot off the edge?
I can also see Ward blitzing a little more.
Just thinking out loud here.....but wouldn't another safety almost be more important than another corner?
Maybe a trade down would allow us to target that safety in the 1st if there is one worth taking there?
Vers and some of the other guys that seem to be pretty knowledgable on DB's, could you give some thoughts on that? Is there a free safety in this draft worth a mid to late 1st round pick?
Would that allow us a little wiggle room with picking a corner later, possibly 2nd or 3rd round?
Again, just thinking out loud, but I am getting the impression that a safety MAY be a more pressing need for us than a corner?
We need both but we'd be fools to take Vaccaro inside the Top 15 when there's virtually equal Safeties that will go 40-50.
Horton wants TOUGH. Little guys that can Hit?
Eric Reid FS LSU.
Stay away from Matt Elam Florida. For every solid hit he makes he misses 10. And I see Baccari Rambo as a Bengal Type problem in the NFL.
Rhodes CB
Reid FS
Kelce TE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
Quote:
...Horton wants TOUGH. Little guys that can Hit?
Then you'd be looking at DJ Swearinger in perhaps the 3rd round...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
What about Seattle?
I've thought about that every time I've seen them play. They did a great job there capping it off by lucking into a good QB. Honestly, I don't think they knew he was going to be that guy. They paid a small fortune for Flynn but Wilson took over surprising them, I believe, every bit as much as he surprised everyone else.
My post was in reply to Toad when he asked can a team build and win at the same time. What I didn't say was that I don't believe you can fill a team full of FA's to win now and build through the draft at the same time.
Once you've got all those FA contracts you've got to play them, effectively keeping young, drafted talent on the bench except for maybe your first couple of picks each season. I prefer letting the young guys get experience. Then, sign the good ones to their second contract. I think it's the slow, deliberate way to build but also the way to build continuity into a roster.
I really don't think there's much difference between the philosophy between the past and the new regime. But my point was not one of arguing one regime against the other. I attempted simply to lay out a sort of time line as I thought it all played out.
In as far as the talent level of the roster I have only hope. But what this roster has that it hasn't had for quote some time is promise. Too often we've had rosters of older players who, while playing acceptable at that time, were on the wrong side of their careers to have any future promise. Plus, we didn't have enough acceptable talent on the roster at any one time to put up a winning record.
2007 was an exception and I'd credit Chud for a lot of our offensive success. I think that team could have continued to improve with a better QB. But even then the "snake bit" curse took over and at the beginning of '08 we lost a big part of our playmakers to preseason injuries, including our best WR and our QB. We started losing out of the gate and by the time everyone was healthy enough to right the shop DA goes down after playing 9 games. Then Quinn after 3, then Dorsey after 3 with Gradkowski wiping ass in the last game.
I always felt that if the same regime and team were able to regroup for 2009 we'd have gone back to the 2007 success. But the fall from a 10 win season to 4-12 earned a regime change regardless of the circumstances which brought it about. I always felt that if we had fired RAC then and promoted Chud as HC for the 2009 season we could have picked up where we left off in '07.
But a regime change and a defensive/offensive philosophy change along with some big changes to the roster along with a FO disaster (Kokinis) that season was doomed to start over rocky.
Eventually we change the regime again. Now, here in the present, in 2013, we at least have a young, promising roster. I think this new regime believes this too. But I also think that they aren't sold on it totally which is why they haven't filled another couple of holes with FA's.
We brought in 2 starting FA's as we'll continue to give our young guys experience and build through the draft. This season is not the one to go into FA in effort to put us over the top. We're not that close.
So we go into 2013 with a young promising roster, a couple of proven FA starters on defense, a new coaching staff with an attacking mentality on both sides of the ball. In the front office we have, in Banner, a guy who's proven in the executive role. It definitely seems things are headed in the right direction.
The jury's still out on the factual talent level of the roster. We have a lot of young players who are being asked to step it up and become quality players. While I think this season, like most first seasons for a new regime, is an evaluation season to see how this roster responds to the new coaching and schemes, I also think there's enough talent here now to do better than last season.
I think the next off season is going to tell us a whole lot more about what the new regime thinks of this roster when we see how much turnover the FO does in preparation for the future.
As I said earlier in this post, my reply to Toad was not agenda-based as in comparing the new one to the old one, I tried hard not to appear to take sides. I was simply trying to draw a time line and what I thought I saw each regime contribute.
To say that we have a much more young, promising roster than at any time previously is not to say the old regime is better than the new one. It's simply saying what the national media says when it states that this new regime is taking over at a time when the Browns are in decent shape with a promising, young roster and plenty of cap space. It's a a lot better than taking over and aging roster in cap hell.
In other words, we're in the best shape we've been in for a long time. The old regime set that up. The new regime just needs to continue to build on it and they're off to a good start.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
DJ...rare gets drafted early. As in skills for QB for Left Tackle, Edge pass rusher n Cover Corner.
If it is a rare piece to get as you say we will see a FS move up into the top 10 especially this year as that is not very strong. But I am not sure it is as you say...RARE a quest similar to QB moving up. If so we would see one going top 10.
I do agree with you that SS is much more available but that is because there are many light LBs that would transition better to SS But in the same sense I think some CBs who are thought to be Zone guys not press coverage if they got a little size to them will be NFL candidates for FS???
But I'll tell you one thing. RARE goes early in the draft...throughout EARLY. Yet we will see a FS taken late first round not early. I'm sure if there is a One in Ten year talent he would go early. But Rare would have the first one get taken in the top half of the Draft. not back half. Just curious how many NFL FS were college CBs???
JMHObservation or Rare commodities.
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
I've thought about that every time I've seen them play. They did a great job there capping it off by lucking into a good QB. Honestly, I don't think they knew he was going to be that guy.
dub, I've seen a number of people say this,but last year either right before or at the start of training camp last year, Pete Carroll said something along the lines of "Going into the draft, there were two players we'd have been absolutely sick over missing... Irvin and Wilson."
I think Carroll thought he'd be good. You never know for sure but I don't think he was surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Team Needs: Turbo Tax
awesome
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
I think Carroll thought he'd be good. You never know for sure but I don't think he was surprised.
Well then, that being true, it sure surprised me and a bunch of others.
I'm not an evaluator of talent.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Quote:
Team Needs: Turbo Tax
awesome
+1010101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Team Needs: Turbo Tax
awesome
+1010101
+85?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
I was going for more of a +1 / lol...
"jokes for one," I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
As I said earlier in this post, my reply to Toad was not agenda-based as in comparing the new one to the old one, I tried hard not to appear to take sides. I was simply trying to draw a time line and what I thought I saw each regime contribute.
I wasn't accusing you of bashing the current regime. It's obvious who has some legitimate apprehension and who simply hates the new guys because H and H are gone.
We disagree on how much talent is here, but that's okay. I was simply venting about guys like Pit and Dj who constantly spew garbage. Sorry you misunderstood my intent, bro.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
DJ - What are your thoughts on Amerson the CB from NC St moving to FS?
He is definitely a ballhawk. Gets beat on some double moves but he wouldn't have the same temptation at FS as he would at Cb.
I'm somewhat torn on Amerson, in that I want to like him because of his athleticism and great hands, but there's a lot that I don't like. He's a tweener in a "bad way". I've come to the conclusion that he's not a good enough tackler as your last line of defense and as a CB I question his recovery speed in man coverage and coverage instincts overall....he's a pure zone-DB that doesn't like to tackle. If he was good in man coverage I could overlook his tackling issues and if he would be a good tackler, I would move him over to FS which would work well with his zone play. Since he's bad in both I don't want to draft him in the top 4 rounds
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194 |
Quote:
Gee, I wonder if Pit will correct you for not staying on topic. The guy isn't smart enough to figure out that if guys can play more than one position in multiple fronts, than perhaps the number of team needs aren't quite as high.
Thanks for not taking the approach you ascribe others should take.
I see you're standing quite tall in that saddle of yours again.
Way to go Verse!
Maybe you can explain who in our line up is so versatile they'll be playing S and CB for us then?
Of course you're right, we don't need those.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,058 |
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
I'd like to see both Bademosi AND Gipson on the field more at FS. Usama Young, a major disappointment. What would have been the harm giving these rookies more reps is beyond me. It isn't like Young had ballhawking or decent coverage skills.
Never know what you have until you give them a shot. Usama had a beyond fair shot IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
Quote:
...we may be pigeon-holing ourselves into drafting for need over BPA.
With the lack of studs and the depth of the draft this year, probably this is one of the few years that you could draft for need as there is not an obvious BPA...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gee, I wonder if Pit will correct you for not staying on topic. The guy isn't smart enough to figure out that if guys can play more than one position in multiple fronts, than perhaps the number of team needs aren't quite as high.
Thanks for not taking the approach you ascribe others should take.
I see you're standing quite tall in that saddle of yours again.
Way to go Verse!
Maybe you can explain who in our line up is so versatile they'll be playing S and CB for us then?
Of course you're right, we don't need those.
Surprised you'd expect anything different?
Gee, that is hilarious.
So typical of you. Gutless.
You know, while you and others were crying how we were going to get rid of Sheard, Rubin, and Taylor......I was pointing out that we needed help at corner and FS. Way before any of you guys did. Now, I am ignoring it. LMAO
You guys don't like me and I definitely don't like you. But bullies like you and Pit don't scare me at all. You want to keep us this mindless war? Fine.
Now, back to the topic.
My point was that if we are indeed running multiple fronts, [unless you guys are saying Horton and Chud are lying] than there will be positive roles for guys like Sheard, Taylor, DQ, Robertson, Winn, Hughes, Kitchen, etc and they won't be worthless because we are STRICTLY playing a 3-4, which is what Pit and others were originally saying.
The issues in the secondary exist no matter what freaking defense we're playing. Or are you guys trying to tell me that had we stayed in a 4-3, we would be fine at corner and FS? Now, that's
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,058 |
Still surprised why he'd expect anything different.....
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194 |
Quote:
So typical of you. Gutless.
Just the type of response I would expect from you. And many others pretty much expect the same.
Quote:
You know, while you and others were crying how we were going to get rid of Sheard, Rubin, and Taylor.....
I for one, like many, simply said nobody knows how all of these players will adapt to the new D. And you don't either. I've also said I think Sheard has the best chance of making the change. So why are you so intent on lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one group?
Quote:
I was pointing out that we needed help at corner and FS. Way before any of you guys did. Now, I am ignoring it. LMAO
It's what this whole circus you started with me was about in the first place Verse. And anyone who wished to scroll back will see that.
Quote:
You guys don't like me and I definitely don't like you.
That's a personal issue with you. I could care one way or the other about you. I have no issues with you. I think it's silly how you attack those who disagree with you in any way then turn around and call them the bullies. I do see a lot of humor in that.
In the immortal words of Coach B..... "Pot meet kettle"
Quote:
My point was that if we are indeed running multiple fronts, [unless you guys are saying Horton and Chud are lying] than there will be positive roles for guys like Sheard, Taylor, DQ, Robertson, Winn, Hughes, Kitchen, etc and they won't be worthless because we are STRICTLY playing a 3-4, which is what Pit and others were originally saying.
Our base D IS the 3-4. will we run other types of D as options and not our main D? Yes we will. But if we need so many "situational players", wouldn't that require one heckuva a lot of players? Yes it would. They'll either fit in the overall new D or they won't. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
The issues in the secondary exist no matter what freaking defense we're playing. Or are you guys trying to tell me that had we stayed in a 4-3, we would be fine at corner and FS?
Of course we would. The only real difference is that holes wouldn't have been created that needed to be filled in the FA market like they were in this case. We had to sign a 3-4 LBer and a 3-4 DE that wouldn't have been the case otherwise.
If you seriously trying to indicate we're going to fill a bunch of roster spots with players we can only use in "certain sitations" that's quite comical. The "base D" is the 3-4. The players who do not fit that scheme won't be here long.
Now which players will or won't fit the 3-4? Your guess is as good as mine. But no better.......
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
Just the type of response I would expect from you. And many others pretty much expect the same.
Do they? That seems kinda weird that you talk to others about me. I really don't think about you after I respond to one of your posts, never mind talk about you to others. Weird.
Quote:
I for one, like many, simply said nobody knows how all of these players will adapt to the new D. And you don't either. I've also said I think Sheard has the best chance of making the change. So why are you so intent on lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one group?
I'm not and I don't. It's just that some of you are way too obvious and obnoxious about it. Sorry that you don't like me calling you out, but as long as you keep up the phony charade, I will do just that.
Quote:
It's what this whole circus you started with me was about in the first place Verse. And anyone who wished to scroll back will see that.
Scroll back? I am talking about weeks ago. When I first joined this board. There were guys going off on how we were going to trade Reubin, Taylor, and Sheard because we signed Kruger and Bryant. I told them to relax and that our new defense would more than likely make use of these guys and that if they really wanted to complain about something, they should complain that we are weak at CB and FS. Weeks ago!!!! Before anyone else on here was harping on it. Now, you act like I don't think it's a concern. LOL. It is a concern, Pit. It's been a concern for years. The difference is many of you gave the previous regime a free pass and yet expect the new regime to fix EVERYTHING in one FA period that hasn't even ended yet. Gee, that isn't hypocritical.
Quote:
That's a personal issue with you. I could care one way or the other about you. I have no issues with you. I think it's silly how you attack those who disagree with you in any way then turn around and call them the bullies. I do see a lot of humor in that.
LOL.......for someone who doesn't care about me one way or the other, you sure spend a lot of time trying to discredit my opinions. And I will say this once again........ddubia and I disagree on the regimes. Many others disagree w/my take. I don't have problems w/them. But, I do have problems w/you, mac, and Dj [to a certain extent] because I think you guys don't play fair. I could care less if you don't like that. I think you are a manipulator and intentionally try to mislead people. And as long as you do that, I am going to call you out. Unless, of course, you can talk Purple into banning me once again. God forbid someone has an opposing opinion, right Pit?
Quote:
Our base D IS the 3-4. will we run other types of D as options and not our main D? Yes we will. But if we need so many "situational players", wouldn't that require one heckuva a lot of players? Yes it would. They'll either fit in the overall new D or they won't. It's as simple as that.
And finally...........some actual football talk.
We have quite a few players and many of them already fit into certain roles. That is why I was trying to get you guys to talk about the hybrid defense or the multiple-front defense. It really opens up a lot of possibilities for us. We can use a lot of the guys we have to fill certain roles. It's a great topic and I really, really wish that some of you would want to discuss it. Will we come up w/all the answers? I doubt it, but dang man.....it would be fun trying to figure out who would fit in w/what front. On top of that, it really explains why we brought Bryant in here.That cat is going to give us a lot of flexibility. Come on, Pit.......you know your football. Let your guard down and let's really talk. Please?
Quote:
Of course we would. The only real difference is that holes wouldn't have been created that needed to be filled in the FA market like they were in this case. We had to sign a 3-4 LBer and a 3-4 DE that wouldn't have been the case otherwise.
You shouldn't have said that. It makes you look uninformed. During the course of last season, even before we knew that H, H, and S were going to be fired and that we were going to scrap Jauron and his passive 4-3 defense, almost everyone to a man said that our biggest need on defense was an edge rusher. A couple of people mentioned CB and FS as needs, but ALMOST EVERYONE said our number one priority--on offense and defense--was an edge rusher. Well, the new regime filled that NEED early in the FA period. They went after Kruger hard and they got their man. Funny how that wasn't a need according to guys like you. It was only a need because we switched to the 3-4, even though we won't strictly be running a 3-4, but why let facts get in the way of a good freaking bash? Pit, we needed an edge rusher [Kruger] no matter what defense we were going to employ.
You also said that we went after...wait...let me scroll back up.....a 3-4 DE. Right? And we did that out of need. Right? Bryant played in a passive 4-3 defense in Oakland. He wasn't a 3-4 DE. He mostly played in the interior. I really wish you guys would stop making crap up to validate your OPINION that our new FO sucks. Please stick to the facts.
I have no proof, but I really think Bryant will be very good in this defense. He is quick off the ball. He is very explosive and pretty strong. He was asked to read and react in Oakland's passive 4-3 defense. I believe Horton will have this guy attacking the backfield and that is his strength. I do NOT think we picked him up because we made another hole on our defense. I think we picked him because they view him as a force in our attacking defense.
Quote:
If you seriously trying to indicate we're going to fill a bunch of roster spots with players we can only use in "certain sitations" that's quite comical.
Comical? Perhaps to you. I say that I think we have a lot of guys that can move up and down the line and we can plug them into our various fronts. I also say that a LBer like Robertson is a guy who will be playing ILBer on passing situations. Once again, I ask you--and others--to try and discuss this w/me. It will be fun. We have versatility here because we finally have a freaking coach that isn't going to MAKE US run one freaking system. I'm telling you.....hiring Horton was a god-send. We might not start off great because there is a lot to learn, but this guy is going to be a huge asset to our success in the future.
Quote:
Now which players will or won't fit the 3-4? Your guess is as good as mine. But no better.......
Never said mine was better. All I am asking is for some of you guys to discuss it w/me. You see, I am not like you.....it isn't important to me what others think. I don't need everyone on my side. I am perfectly happy standing alone, much like I did when Timid was our QB or during the Brady wars. Remember those, Pit? Do you really think I worry about what others think? LOL......
Here is what I do want.......I want some intelligent football conversation. I want to help educate other posters. I want other posters to educate me. I want us to bounce ideas off of each other. We do NOT have to agree. Sincere and fair debate typically leads to learning and I am all about learning. You wanna take me up on that offer [and that goes for all y'all out there] or do you wanna keep this petty BS pecking contest up? Your call.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
J/C
If we stuck with the 4/3 we'd still need a WILL and another DE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Team Needs: Turbo Tax
Team Needs: Really good legal defense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
J/C
If we stuck with the 4/3 we'd still need a WILL and another DE
And a few corners. . . and a safety. But we are not allowed to mention that.
This defense was built and ready to go!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
I told them to relax and that our new defense would more than likely make use of these guys and that if they really wanted to complain about something, they should complain that we are weak at CB and FS. Weeks ago!!!! Before anyone else on here was harping on it.
Quoted for nomination of priceless comedy award, I still can't stop laughing at it considering all the posts you were accusing me of how I whine about not filling CB and FS in FA
Thanks for the laugh Vers
#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:
J/C
If we stuck with the 4/3 we'd still need a WILL and another DE
RDE? Sure, that's the Kruger signing, it's a wash in both schemes. WILL is highly debatable. I think Robertson is a 3down WOLB in a 4-3. I'm sure Mourg would agree Let's put it like that: he's a MUCH better 3 down bet in a 4-3 than 3-4, thus the need and questin marks get magnified
The need that absolutely was created ws 3-4 DE and we filled that with Bryant, who was a high-prized FA, so the FA/coaching staff saw the same hole. In a 4-3 we were set up pretty good with Rubin, Taylor, Winn and Hughes at DT
Mind you, for a "switch" the transition is pretty smooth since we have several versatile players that fit a hybrid scheme, no doubt, but that doesn't mean there were no extra needs, because there clearly are. The bigger question though for me are not the 1-2 additional needs created. The bigger question is if important pieces like Sheard, Taylor and Rubin will be as effective as before....that nobody knows yet but adds to the question marks pile. There's also some upside involved as they might take off in an attacking hybrid scheme, but whenever you leave a scheme there is always risk/reward involved and I don't know too many instances where everything went "as planed"
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194 |
Quote:
Do they? That seems kinda weird that you talk to others about me. I really don't think about you after I respond to one of your posts, never mind talk about you to others. Weird.
I haven't talked to others, but I can read. And just from that alone, people have clearly indicated this. It's not rocket science.
Quote:
It's just that some of you are way too obvious and obnoxious about it. Sorry that you don't like me calling you out, but as long as you keep up the phony charade, I will do just that.
You really do not read everything posted nor do you comprehend it if you do. I supported the signing of Kruger. I support the signing of Nelson. I felt very good about their decision and ability to at least get some compensation for McCoy and replace him with Campbell who is a much better for in the system they plan to run here on O. I believe Sheard has a very good chance of making the transition into the 3-4. So I haven't trashed this FO on their every move as you seem to indicate that I have. And I have fully given them credit on things I agree with that they have done.
But of course Verse, don't let the facts get in the way of your rants and useless attacking style. I have given them credit for several moves and state when I disagree with them.
Just because I don't give them card blanche' doesn't dictate that I have an agenda. Do I give them blind trust as I've done so many times in the past? No, I don't. They'll either earn that trust or they won't.
Quote:
Scroll back? I am talking about weeks ago. When I first joined this board. There were guys going off on how we were going to trade Reubin, Taylor, and Sheard because we signed Kruger and Bryant. I told them to relax and that our new defense would more than likely make use of these guys and that if they really wanted to complain about something, they should complain that we are weak at CB and FS. Weeks ago!!!! Before anyone else on here was harping on it. Now, you act like I don't think it's a concern. LOL. It is a concern, Pit. It's been a concern for years. The difference is many of you gave the previous regime a free pass and yet expect the new regime to fix EVERYTHING in one FA period that hasn't even ended yet. Gee, that isn't hypocritical.
Since you only came back "weeks ago" how do you know people didn't raise those same issues with the former FO? The only difference I see is there were a LOT of needs that needed to be filled prior when the former FO was here. They had many needs to fill and now those needs aren't as many. I do and did have my gripes about the former FO as well. Do I need to list those for you since you weren't here to read them all? You ASSume that everyone who has their questions about this FO MUST have been lovers of the last FO or they would never have questioned this one. That's simply false.
Quote:
LOL.......for someone who doesn't care about me one way or the other, you sure spend a lot of time trying to discredit my opinions. And I will say this once again........ddubia and I disagree on the regimes. Many others disagree w/my take. I don't have problems w/them. But, I do have problems w/you, mac, and Dj [to a certain extent] because I think you guys don't play fair. I could care less if you don't like that. I think you are a manipulator and intentionally try to mislead people. And as long as you do that, I am going to call you out. Unless, of course, you can talk Purple into banning me once again. God forbid someone has an opposing opinion, right Pit?
Manipulate? If you actually bothered to read many of my posts, you'd find we agree on more things than we disagree on actually. And it's not my fault you are having some disilusional paranoia. I never spoke to PPE or any Ref on this board about you being banned. I was actually kind of surprised you were to be honest.
Each person has their own mind for their own opinions. I express mine, but to suggest I'm trying to manipulate anyone is totally laughable at best. And many people disagree with me as well. I'm just not fond of being attacked by the ones that do as has been done here. But I'm the one not being fair?
Quote:
And finally...........some actual football talk.
Here's the bottom line to all of your "pure conjecture" as it pertains to switching D's.
You can NOT completely switch defenses and be successful at it without a lot of roster turnover to accomplish it and making it a top flight D.
Now I have no problem with you making your "conjecture" as it pertains to your opinion of how SO MANY of our 4-3 guys will translate to the 3-4. I however strongly disagree.
I do believe they can only accomplish so much in one off-season and are "trying out" a lot of the current roster "in hopes" that a lot of them will make the transition but would say if the truth were known, they highly suspect many of them will not.
I believe during the FA signing period next year, combined with this year and next years draft, there will be a big turnover to acquire defensive players that will make Hortons D a far better D than it ever could have been with our current roster. Whether you wish to admit it or not, that makes a ton of sense!
So while you call what you're doing as "talking football", I would refer to it as a lot of guesswork that will not come to fruition. But you are more than entitled to that and I won't try to pick it apart. I will read it, smile and watch as most of the theories slowly fall apart.
Quote:
Never said mine was better. All I am asking is for some of you guys to discuss it w/me. You see, I am not like you.....it isn't important to me what others think. I don't need everyone on my side.
That's rather odd? It seems you don't even mention a handful of people, only three actually, when mentioning who "you have a problem with". So it appears it's me who is much closer to standing alone here, not you. And it also seems to me you are the one throwing a tissy here, not me.
Quote:
I am perfectly happy standing alone, much like I did when Timid was our QB or during the Brady wars. Remember those, Pit? Do you really think I worry about what others think? LOL......
To a great extent, yes I do. It seems you truly enjoy your "band of followers" who look up to you and your opinions that seem to be here now and are highly critical and demeaning to those who strongly disagree with you.
Quote:
Here is what I do want.......I want some intelligent football conversation. I want to help educate other posters. I want other posters to educate me. I want us to bounce ideas off of each other. We do NOT have to agree. Sincere and fair debate typically leads to learning and I am all about learning. You wanna take me up on that offer [and that goes for all y'all out there] or do you wanna keep this petty BS pecking contest up? Your call.
As I stated, trying to look into our crystal balls and guess how our current players may or may not fit into the new D is conjecture at its finest. and that's fine for those who wish to indulge such a hypothesis. However, I do not. I think from much of what I've been reading in such regards, it's far more wishful thinking than actually discussing football.
I do think there is plenty of room for threads on such matters where it can and should be discussed. I do not however feel jumping into a thread that specifically is titled "Team Needs" and jumping all over people who are discussing "Team Needs" and then trying to disguise the fact you did that as being acceptable in any fashion is laughable at best. And that is exactly what you are still in the process of doing here. Of course I know you don't care what I think but that is pretty much how a message board is supposed to work. at least in theory.
So you can continue with your attacks and try to change the topic away from team needs if you so wish. That's your choice. It seems we agree that we have dire needs at S and CB. Yet you said it before I did...... At least since you have been back...... So somehow I shouldn't be saying it and the fact that I did started all of this.
Does that sound logical to you?
So where this goes from here is up to you. You can continue to try to change the topic and blame someone who was actually discussing the topic for your tirade or you can start a topic to actually discuss the new D and how the current roster fits it.
That's up to you verse. But to pretend people can't honestly read and comprehend how this actually went down? I believe you think many of our posters are far more naïve than they really are.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5 |
can anyone explain or elaborate as to why we are not talking to Dansby?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Sure.
They may be talking to him but they don't tell us. So not getting reports on it we think it ain't happening. We may be two inches away from signing him. We just don't know.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 833
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 833 |
Quote:
Land a CB--Preference to RHODES & TRUFANT
I'm a bit confused here. How can you question hips/ fluidity with Milliner and then suggest Rhodes? Rhodes is incredibly high-hipped and about as fluid as mercury. I still can't help but see a safety with him once he learns a bit better tackling technique.
Then again, alot of people are starting to look at bigger corners with all the 6'4" and up WR's around.
I'd still have Milliner comfortably in the 6-10 range, but I only have 3 guys for my legitimate top 5 sooo...
People ask me what I do in spring when there's no football. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for fall
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
can anyone explain or elaborate as to why we are not talking to Dansby?
Because he plays the ILB position that DQ plays, and he is older to boot. (31) He's not going to play the coverage role that Horton uses one of his ILB for.
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.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Team needs: Cleveland Browns
|
|
