|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,579
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,579 |
http://factoryofsadness.co/2014/04/19/khalil-mack-problem-cleveland-browns/The Khalil Mack “Problem” for the Cleveland Browns Most analyst believe that the NFL Draft has 4 stud players and a ton of good ones. Khalil Mack, along with Jadeveon Clowney, Greg Robinson and Sammy Watkins, is one of those stud players, and a “problem” for the Cleveland Browns. The Browns drafted an outside linebacker, Barkevious Mingo, and signed another to a huge contract, Paul Kruger, last year, as well as have Jabaal Sheard at the position as well. Mack has the flexibility to play a number of positions but should/could the Browns add another big investment to the linebacking core? ESPN’s Pat McManamon had a similar question: Pettine said his nickname once was Blunt Force Trauma. Mack seems to fit that mold. He’s a 6-foot-2, 250-pound linebacker who can rush the passer and drop into coverage, a pretty rare combination of skills in this day of specialization. Would the Browns take Mack? Why not? The fact that the Browns haven’t had a high level quarterback in years, that they could use a #2 receiver and could fill a big hole on the offensive line, makes Mack a “problem” for the decision makers. One, two or three of the top QBs could be available when the Browns pick. Watkins and Mike Evans might both be available. Robinson or Jake Matthews could be there as well for the Browns. With all those options available could the Browns brain trust of Mike Pettine and Ray Farmer really take a player who does also fill a need? Will they hold tight to their board rankings? Before they do, they have to believe two things. The first is that the top quarterbacks are not good enough to take with the No. 4 overall pick. The second is that they can find a receiver lower in this receiver-deep draft to pair with Josh Gordon as opposed to using the No. 4 pick on Sammy Watkins (who remains the preferred choice in my draft corner, though Mack is a not-very-distant second). Great statement’s by Pat, we have each other’s cell phone numbers so I think I can call him Pat. If the QBs aren’t top notch and they believe, like many do, that finding a #2 type receiver could be very easy in this years draft, either at 26 or even in the second round, then Mack has to be in play. Robinson and Matthews might be the reason the decision becomes more difficult. Do they think they can get much out of lower level linemen in the Zone Blocking Scheme or see a need for another big time guy to protect and run block? Is Mack the exceptional talent many say he is? ESPN.com Senior Editor Chris Sprow has worked with Mel Kiper Jr. for five years, helping Kiper with reports and information. He went to the Ohio State-Buffalo game and focused specifically on Mack. He points out that the balance with Mack is this: If he’s a great pass-rusher, he’s a top-five pick. But if he doesn’t develop into a great pass-rusher, a team then is using a pick on a very solid outside linebacker. Mack’s coverage skills and his ability to play in space are excellent, but the pass-rush skills are what put him over the top. It seems like it. His overall skills are what make it clear he could play inside linebacker at a high level while giving the Browns multiple looks to throw at the offenses. He can cover backs and tight ends, rush from the inside, use stunts well and overall cause havoc. Many of these reasons are what led us to draft Mack at #4 in our recently published 7 Round Browns Mock Draft, click that link it will open in a new page. How do you think the Browns will/should deal with the Mack “problem’? Are you the “We need offense” type? Are you the “Spend the pick where we have a need” type? Or do you believe we haven’t seen enough from Mingo and Kruger to keep from picking Mack?
Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
http://factoryofsadness.co/2014/04/19/khalil-mack-problem-cleveland-browns/
The Khalil Mack “Problem” for the Cleveland Browns
Most analyst believe that the NFL Draft has 4 stud players and a ton of good ones. Khalil Mack, along with Jadeveon Clowney, Greg Robinson and Sammy Watkins, is one of those stud players, and a “problem” for the Cleveland Browns. The Browns drafted an outside linebacker, Barkevious Mingo, and signed another to a huge contract, Paul Kruger, last year, as well as have Jabaal Sheard at the position as well. Mack has the flexibility to play a number of positions but should/could the Browns add another big investment to the linebacking core? ESPN’s Pat McManamon had a similar question:
Pettine said his nickname once was Blunt Force Trauma. Mack seems to fit that mold. He’s a 6-foot-2, 250-pound linebacker who can rush the passer and drop into coverage, a pretty rare combination of skills in this day of specialization.
Would the Browns take Mack?
Why not?
The fact that the Browns haven’t had a high level quarterback in years, that they could use a #2 receiver and could fill a big hole on the offensive line, makes Mack a “problem” for the decision makers. One, two or three of the top QBs could be available when the Browns pick. Watkins and Mike Evans might both be available. Robinson or Jake Matthews could be there as well for the Browns. With all those options available could the Browns brain trust of Mike Pettine and Ray Farmer really take a player who does also fill a need? Will they hold tight to their board rankings?
Before they do, they have to believe two things. The first is that the top quarterbacks are not good enough to take with the No. 4 overall pick. The second is that they can find a receiver lower in this receiver-deep draft to pair with Josh Gordon as opposed to using the No. 4 pick on Sammy Watkins (who remains the preferred choice in my draft corner, though Mack is a not-very-distant second).
Great statement’s by Pat, we have each other’s cell phone numbers so I think I can call him Pat. If the QBs aren’t top notch and they believe, like many do, that finding a #2 type receiver could be very easy in this years draft, either at 26 or even in the second round, then Mack has to be in play. Robinson and Matthews might be the reason the decision becomes more difficult. Do they think they can get much out of lower level linemen in the Zone Blocking Scheme or see a need for another big time guy to protect and run block? Is Mack the exceptional talent many say he is?
ESPN.com Senior Editor Chris Sprow has worked with Mel Kiper Jr. for five years, helping Kiper with reports and information. He went to the Ohio State-Buffalo game and focused specifically on Mack. He points out that the balance with Mack is this: If he’s a great pass-rusher, he’s a top-five pick. But if he doesn’t develop into a great pass-rusher, a team then is using a pick on a very solid outside linebacker. Mack’s coverage skills and his ability to play in space are excellent, but the pass-rush skills are what put him over the top.
It seems like it. His overall skills are what make it clear he could play inside linebacker at a high level while giving the Browns multiple looks to throw at the offenses. He can cover backs and tight ends, rush from the inside, use stunts well and overall cause havoc. Many of these reasons are what led us to draft Mack at #4 in our recently published 7 Round Browns Mock Draft, click that link it will open in a new page.
How do you think the Browns will/should deal with the Mack “problem’? Are you the “We need offense” type? Are you the “Spend the pick where we have a need” type? Or do you believe we haven’t seen enough from Mingo and Kruger to keep from picking Mack?
I don't see it as a problem at all. If (and that's a big IF) Mack is there at #4, the Browns should take him, no matter who else is available.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I wouldn't complain.
As other's would say in the world of NFL Draft speak, I've been pimping Mack for quite some time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
You grab Mack at 4, Fuller at 26. And the Defense is done.
Grab a QB, WR, G, maybe a RB in the 2-4th rounds and boom. Draft complete.
I think Dansby is a great guy for Mack to learn from also.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563 |
I would not have a problem with clowney or Mack... Especially if they don't think one of the qbs is worth number 4
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I would not have a problem with clowney or Mack... Especially if they don't think one of the qbs is worth number 4
I wouldn't have a problem with Clowney if he is there but Mack isn't and I'm not sure that you could find a single team that thinks that any of the QBs are worth it at #4. The situation facing the teams that are actually looking at a QB is whether any of the QBs will be there when they draft next.
It's already been reported that the Texas and Rams want to move out of the top 2 spots. They'll take someone if they're stuck there, but they don't really want to be there. The problems that they're facing is that teams will generally only move up to those spots to get a QB and none of those are deemed worthy of the cost to move up.
Our problem is that if the Texans and Rams are stuck, they may select a player that we may want out of necessity because they're stuck there and have to selection someone.
Maybe one of them will move out of the #1 or #2 spots, but it's likely to come at a much reduced price tag because nobody will move up to the #1 or #2 spots to draft one of the QBs and that's really the only reason a team would pay the cost to move up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Is this thread purposely attempting to be the dumbest thread of all-time? Y'all don't really believe all that nonsense, do you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,560
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,560 |
it wouldnt even make top 100 dumbest but taking Mack at 4 would be pretty dumb in my opinion. I dont think he is as good as Sheard and Sheard will be our breakout player this year. I think he is really gonna shine if Mingo can improve enough to keep Kruger and Sheard fresh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
It's pretty dumb, Mourg.
I think Mingo is a guy that is going to sprout big time at some point.
He has a ton of talent. I might be the only guy that believes in his talent, but believe me, bro...............I see he has major talent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 380
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 380 |
At four? Hey all I know about Mack is the game against osu (which he dominated) and what others say. I don't care how good he is. Bpa vs need. It has to be a combination of both IMO. We do not need a olb. Plain and simple. Or a olb playing ilb with the fourth pick.
I'm a go offence first two picks guy. Qb if they feel he the guy or Sammy at 4. Go the other with our second 1st. I'd might even go g with second rounder after that.
Only way I'd not go offence would be with a trade down. Then I'd target a cb first, really like that denard. And use a bunch of picks we have to upgrade. Grab a second from trade down and package that with our second and get back in first round. 3 first round picks. Use 2 thirds to get back in second round. Then use two 4ths to get back in 3rd. Quality not quantity.
Yeah that's crazy thinking. But picking Mack at 4 is crazy also. For the Browns it is. But someone else wanting to trade with us, it's a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
I would have no problem taking Mack. If and only if, they believe he can play inside. We dont have the luxury of taking BPA with this high of pick yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
I would have no problem taking Mack. If and only if, they believe he can play inside.
I agree with this. Except it's probably not a good idea to take an inside linebacker at with the fourth overall pick (unless you are sure that that player is the next NaVorro Bowman or Patrick Willis). It's also probably not a good idea to take a player that has to change positions at pick four either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
I would have no problem taking Mack. If and only if, they believe he can play inside.
I agree with this. Except it's probably not a good idea to take an inside linebacker at with the fourth overall pick (unless you are sure that that player is the next NaVorro Bowman or Patrick Willis). It's also probably not a good idea to take a player that has to change positions at pick four either.
I agree... thats why I want Watkins at 4.
But Mack is intriguing. The possibilities of having him as an inside pass rush threat combined with our DL and our current OLB's gets me salivating. We could very well end up with the best defensive front 7 in the league.
And again, if they think he can transition easily. I think he has the physical tools to be able to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,136 |
Quote:
It's pretty dumb, Mourg.
I think Mingo is a guy that is going to sprout big time at some point.
He has a ton of talent. I might be the only guy that believes in his talent, but believe me, bro...............I see he has major talent.
I see Mingo as a great athlete but just a so-so football player. I hope this is a breakout year for him but I am not counting on it.
Procrastination is caused by the fear of success
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,129
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,129 |
j/c
IMO, the only appropriate value at #4 (assuming that no QB this year is worthy of the #4), is Clowney (who should be gone) and Robinson/Matthews. No way can you pick an ILB at #4 unless he is All-World...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
Quote:
The first is that the top quarterbacks are not good enough to take with the No. 4 overall pick.
Exactly the point I have been making...other than maybe Bortles, the QB talent in this draft is not worthy of a top 5 pick.
With the #4 pick, the Browns must get a player worthy of such a high pick and that player should be of "starting" quality from day one. Khalil Mack would fall into that catagory and so would Sammy Watkins.
Due to the QB talent in this draft being good, but not great, the Browns might be looking at QB at 26 or in the 2nd round.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I don't like the idea of taking an OLB at 4 with the intention of switching him to ILB. I feel the same way, to a lesser degree, about drafting OT Robinson and putting him at RG. I think that the guy you take at 4 should have an immediate impact, with the possible exception of a supremely talented but not-quite-ready-for-primetime QB. I don't see that QB in this draft, but I could be wrong. If the Browns don't see that QB in this draft, then I'd be happy to trade back to 10 (Detroit is rumored to want a top 5 pick) and take CB Dennard. We should net a #2 from that trade down and we could use 26, 35, and 41 to fill holes at WR, OG, and future QB. Then in the 3rd we could look ILB, FS, or RB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Smoke screen if you ask me. I really do not see Farmer's first pick as a GM to be a LB taken in the top 5??? Especially when we know for a fact (before draft BS came into effect) that Pettine and our new DC were Gaga over Mingo and wanted him in Buffalo and were pleased to have him here. I could remotely see if they hated the prospects of Mingo and its a "well we didn't draft him" situation them petitioning Farmer to get Mack??? But fact is they LOVE Mingo and can't wait to coach him.
Jmho
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
I don't like the idea of taking an OLB at 4 with the intention of switching him to ILB.
I don't like the idea of taking another linebacker, out or inside, with our #1 pick again. I think it'd be an utter stupid part on the front office's behalf given we have Groves, Jabaal, Kruger and Mingo who are all strict outside backers.
Drafting a defensive prospect high again with hopes he can play on the inside, seems like acid to me. Get a credible inside backer from the draft in the later rounds, and get/fulfill more pressing needs on the offensive side of the things with the top pick. Going defense (unless it's a corner at 26) in the first round for our team, and IMO, would be a silly move.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
If Watkins and Robinson are gone then you just about have to draft Mack. You can't leave that much talent on the board. We could try and trade down, but if we can't you have to take the talent. It's no wonder we keep going bust yr. after yr. We refuse to draft the talent by always trading down. It's time we stepped up to the plate and swing for the fences.
Edit: Who was it that said you don't pass up good football players just because you already some? You can never have enough good football players.
Last edited by bleednbrown; 04/20/14 10:09 AM.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,687
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,687 |
I don't know if he fills our biggest needs, but if Watkins and Robinson are gone and we can't trade out-Mack seems to be a very good talent that would help and I don't think we would be reaching.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Yep, and that's the whole point.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 380
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 380 |
Quote:
Edit: Who was it that said you don't pass up good football players just because you already some? You can never have enough good football players.
BUT you can have too many olbs. Which we have
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
No, the point was you don't pass up talent just because you already have some. You get the best players you can. Do we already have all-pro's at the OLB? No, we don't. You can always up grade. Should we pass on the Best WR in the draft because we already have Gordon? You never turn down talent. Look what happened to us over the yrs. because we keep trading down or we feel we already have a player or two at a certain pos.. Players get hurt or move on. You have to keep getting the most talent you can no matter the pos.
Edit: Look what happened to us over the yrs. by always drafting for need. It's time we tried drafting BPA.
Last edited by bleednbrown; 04/20/14 10:45 AM.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
I don't know if he fills our biggest needs, but if Watkins and Robinson are gone and we can't trade out-Mack seems to be a very good talent that would help and I don't think we would be reaching.
Then this:
Quote:
Yep, and that's the whole point.
That may be the whole point in your opinion. But, there are other opinions out there.
For example, I think it would be moronic to pass on either Bridgewater or Manziel at the top of the draft.
I think it would be stupid to draft Mack--and OLBer---and move him to ILBer. I previously posted the number of ILBers drafted in the top 10 picks. Teams just don't do that.
While you may have your own opinions, it is unfair to say that it is the whole point. You win w/QBs in the NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
You win w/QBs in the NFL.
Truth...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Quote:
While you may have your own opinions, it is unfair to say that it is the whole point. You win w/QBs in the NFL.
You, however left out the point that you have to have a good QB in order to do this. None of us know if any of these QB's are worth the #4 pick. There are to many ??? about these guys to take a chance on at #4. Do you think a new FO is going to hang it's hat on a maybe QB, when they could draft a more certain prospect? I don't. To much is at stake for a new group to blindly reach for a QB. Their jobs are on the line if whoever QB busts.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I didn't leave it out. I think there are good QBs available.
Not asking you to agree, but you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that all of those guys stink.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,279
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,279 |
Quote:
I think it would be stupid to draft Mack--and OLBer---and move him to ILBer. I previously posted the number of ILBers drafted in the top 10 picks. Teams just don't do that.
Vers, this is not directed at you simply using your quote on the topic.
If people think Watkins is a good pick at #4 why is it not a good idea to draft Khalil? Many preach having Gordon and Watkins would be ideal. On the other side of the football why would it not be equally great having four stud outside linebackers constantly rotating?
To go a step further, why would it not be stellar having two top OT?
This is what Farmer faces. He has potential of making one of three positions into a league leading force. Or, he drafts a QB. QB's that most likely won't start year 1, and Farmer has seen two teams go to the super bowl having a non-first-round QB.
I'm not against drafting a QB. I find it a difficult decision at #4. Farmer and Pettine are staring at a make or break career decision. They haven't even made the field or ran their first practice.
With the fourth pick in the 2014 draft the Cleveland Browns select...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Quote:
but you sure as heck aren't going to convince me that all of those guys stink.
I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Just reading you for the last couple of months seems you are setting yourself up for a big time fall. Your my way or the highway. I hope for your sake that the Browns do take someone you want otherwise we'll never hear the end of it. I'm not looking forward to that 
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
Edit: Who was it that said you don't pass up good football players just because you already some? You can never have enough good football players.
Yeah, some teams who've been on the winning side of things, have HAD a great base in place in terms of player/talents... have that luxury. For us, we don't. We need to take guys to fill dire holes that have been holes for years and years.
We don't have the luxury to take the top talent "just because" cause we simply don't, IMO, have that overall and broad base that we can neglect some needs to add icing to the cake.
Defense isn't going to give us winning seasons, we witnessed that last year.
All JMO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
The first is that the top quarterbacks are not good enough to take with the No. 4 overall pick.
Exactly the point I have been making...other than maybe Bortles, the QB talent in this draft is not worthy of a top 5 pick.
With the #4 pick, the Browns must get a player worthy of such a high pick and that player should be of "starting" quality from day one. Khalil Mack would fall into that catagory and so would Sammy Watkins.
Due to the QB talent in this draft being good, but not great, the Browns might be looking at QB at 26 or in the 2nd round.
Then you can look at the talent at WR in this draft. It's so deep and we already have Josh Gordon, Travis Benjamin, Andrew Hawkins, Greg Little (still under contract to 2015), Josh Cooper & Nate Burleson on the team. I don't really think that WR is a huge need but we could probably use a selection on one but I highly doubt that it would be at #4.
Take a look at Pettine's history and his philosophy and it seems that the Browns will be making the defense into an elite unit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
With the fourth pick in the 2014 draft the Cleveland Browns select...
Khalil Mack!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Quote:
Defense isn't going to give us winning seasons, we witnessed that last year.
Funny you mentioned D. The D lost us more games as the season went on. Which is why, if we can upgrade it, then do it.
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Defense isn't going to give us winning seasons, we witnessed that last year.
All JMO
You saw defense last year? They ended the season giving up 406 points, 26th in the league.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Defense isn't going to give us winning seasons, we witnessed that last year.
Funny you mentioned D. The D lost us more games as the season went on. Which is why, if we can upgrade it, then do it.
+1 
That's also in-line with Pettine's philosophy.
I can see the 'fans' that want a QB and WR high in the draft as being upset if the draft doesn't go their way and saying "if the team drafts <insert player's name here>, I'm done." I fully expect that not one of these folks will cancel their accounts and never post here again. They'll be back with more of an attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The first is that the top quarterbacks are not good enough to take with the No. 4 overall pick.
Exactly the point I have been making...other than maybe Bortles, the QB talent in this draft is not worthy of a top 5 pick.
With the #4 pick, the Browns must get a player worthy of such a high pick and that player should be of "starting" quality from day one. Khalil Mack would fall into that catagory and so would Sammy Watkins.
Due to the QB talent in this draft being good, but not great, the Browns might be looking at QB at 26 or in the 2nd round.
Then you can look at the talent at WR in this draft. It's so deep and we already have Josh Gordon, Travis Benjamin, Andrew Hawkins, Greg Little (still under contract to 2015), Josh Cooper & Nate Burleson on the team. I don't really think that WR is a huge need but we could probably use a selection on one but I highly doubt that it would be at #4.
Take a look at Pettine's history and his philosophy and it seems that the Browns will be making the defense into an elite unit.
I dont think we are set at WR at all. I like the addition of Andre Hawkins, i hope he can step up into the #2 role. Burleson is a gamble, Benjamin is special teams specialist, Little too inconsistent and gets lost in games.
I think the philosophy of "well this position is deep in the draft" is bogus. Why not get the best of that position, instead of getting "someone who will do". Regardless of who is on defense this year, the offense has to develop some type of ball control or our defense will wear down at the end of games/season just like last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317 |
j/c
There are a variety of ways this FO can approach the draft, starting at pick #4. OT, LB, QB or something no one expects, all are possible. I don't accept that there is one absolutely right way for it to be done. I don't believe drafting Mack is an absolute must. Instead I believe it is in line with I've heard both Farmer and Pettine say consistently. Build a team with defense and an effective running game. Improve the team overall and find a QB who is an effective passer, efficient and not prone to mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
I want an offense that could actually "do" something with the turnovers and etc that the defense generates. How many times did our D get a turnover, fantastic field position, etc to be resulted in a 3 and out that lasted shorted than any tv commercial break out there?
I think our D got gassed and deflated as the offensive woes continued throughout the season. Burning our top pick on Mack isn't going to help the offense. Hoping we can convert him to ILB seems dismal at best in my eyes. It's a waste of his talent anyway. Put him into a system where he can rush frequently. He's the next young Julius Peppers if put into the right environment. Let "us" find a linebacker that has known coverage and run plugging skills as a linebacker (inside) and I think that can be accomplished in the later rounds.
Can't really be all that "upset" if we take Mack. Watched some video on him, freaky... but it's by far from the my views of what the team really needs or should do.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2014 NFL Season NFL Draft 2014 The Khalil Mack “Problem” for
the Cleveland Browns
|
|
