|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 433
1st String
|
1st String
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 433 |
I would gladly take Mack.The guy is a flat out playmaker,who can be moved around if needed.Those kind of LBs don't come around every year,and could be the missing piece to get that defense over the hump.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,686
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,686 |
I agree, but I don't see a problem. I see us holding a very tradeable pick.
If the reports are true about Carr, I'd love a trade down of a few slots. Another 2nd or a future would look pretty good to me.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
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.
They're all gambles. To state the truth about it, the Browns are gambling that Gordon keeps his nose clean. That would be the case if they drafted another WR or not.
Quote:
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".
He's probably looking for someone to fit his scheme, period. And he has stated that he'd find a use for any player they take.
Quote:
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.
Which is why I think that the Browns keep Hoyer as their primary option at QB going into training camp. If the Browns take a QB in the first round, I'll be shocked. If they do, it'll be because the QB is there at #26 and they don't think that they would be there at #35. It remains to be seen if anyone beats Hoyer out for the job or not, but it should be his job to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
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?
With Norv Turner as the OC and the likes of Brandon Weeden & Jason Campbell running the offense? 
Quote:
I think our D got gassed and deflated as the offensive woes continued throughout the season.
That happens when your defense has gotten the opposing team into 3rd & long and allow them to get a 1st down.
Quote:
Burning our top pick on Mack isn't going to help the offense.
Okay, getting the offense better starting field position won't help the offense? Generating turnovers won't help the offense? Okay. Gotcha.  I'm sure that getting this year's version of Geno Smith (Teddy Bridgewater) or a QB that is a smaller version of Colin Kaepernick in the draft is going to be better.
Quote:
Hoping we can convert him to ILB seems dismal at best in my eyes.
Why would you convert him to an ILB? You could grab one of those in the draft too. However, he could play there on some plays and line up outside on others. I like the fact that he can be versatile. I imagine that Pettine likes that too.
Quote:
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.
So, you wouldn't want to draft a player like Julius Peppers?
Quote:
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.
You'd have been better off saying that he may not be there for the Browns to select anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
I agree, but I don't see a problem. I see us holding a very tradeable pick.
If the reports are true about Carr, I'd love a trade down of a few slots. Another 2nd or a future would look pretty good to me.
Do you really want 11 rookies? I'd be happy with an extra high pick, but we should be trading up if you ask me.
I'm a HUGE fan of Mack. He reminds me of Terrelle Suggs who was a beast at Arizona State.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I'd be ecstatic with 11 rookies, honestly. This team needs a fresh start and having a very, very youthful movement kicking that off is fine by me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
I'd be ecstatic with 11 rookies, honestly. This team needs a fresh start and having a very, very youthful movement kicking that off is fine by me.
We're the 2nd youngest team in the league.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I'm well aware. I'll take 11 rookies over people like McQuinston and Hawkins every day of the week. Especially with the holes we have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
Quote:
Quote:
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?
With Norv Turner as the OC and the likes of Brandon Weeden & Jason Campbell running the offense?
Don't play dumb, our offense has sucked and it has sucked for years outside the likes of Brandon Weeden and Campbell and the dud Norv Turner, who I thought was an awesome hire until he started calling the games...
Quote:
I think our D got gassed and deflated as the offensive woes continued throughout the season.
That happens when your defense has gotten the opposing team into 3rd & long and allow them to get a 1st down.
... or it happens when, you know... the defense is on the field more often than the offense, never getting any breathers or breaks. But yes, valid point. The 3rd down world of the defense was frightful.
Quote:
Burning our top pick on Mack isn't going to help the offense.
Okay, getting the offense better starting field position won't help the offense? Generating turnovers won't help the offense? Okay. Gotcha. I'm sure that getting this year's version of Geno Smith (Teddy Bridgewater) or a QB that is a smaller version of Colin Kaepernick in the draft is going to be better.
As noted in my my first reply, generating turners, field position, all is meaningless to an offense that can't move the football. No further comment needed... but yeah, adding another blue egg to a basket full of blue eggs is by far the smartest thing to do. Superbowl here we come. Let's keep stock piling outside/edge rushing linebackers. Heck, maybe we can find one that can play WR, QB and a few positions on the offensive line too. We can call that person a "hybrid" player 
Quote:
Hoping we can convert him to ILB seems dismal at best in my eyes.
Why would you convert him to an ILB? You could grab one of those in the draft too. However, he could play there on some plays and line up outside on others. I like the fact that he can be versatile. I imagine that Pettine likes that too.
Convert him because we already have a TON of outside edge rushing linebackers. A TON. You're suppressing the talent of an already talented group by adding another high-level talent that is equally only good for rushing and "maybe" fighting against the run, all while neglecting the spots that truly need the personnel, the upgrade and etc. People were talking about converting to ILB. If Pettine likes him, drafts him, then we need to trade someone and as of right now, the only OLB i'd be willing to part ways with is Mingo or Groves.
Quote:
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.
So, you wouldn't want to draft a player like Julius Peppers?
A stellar defense won't win you games, said it again, will need to keep saying it evidently.
Quote:
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.
You'd have been better off saying that he may not be there for the Browns to select anyway.
Why, cause I have an opinion just as you have yours on what the team should do with the first pick? It's like saying you are better off not sticking up for Mack since you dont want the selection of a needed QB to occur, is it not? All matter of opinions bro and ultimately, not a decision for neither of us to have much say in lol...
My replies are in white.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
I'm well aware. I'll take 11 rookies over people like McQuinston and Hawkins every day of the week. Especially with the holes we have.
Not a lot of slot WRs better than Hawkins, but I understand with your point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Quote:
Your my way or the highway
Coming from the guy who said........."that's the whole point."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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?
With Norv Turner as the OC and the likes of Brandon Weeden & Jason Campbell running the offense?
Don't play dumb, our offense has sucked and it has sucked for years outside the likes of Brandon Weeden and Campbell and the dud Norv Turner, who I thought was an awesome hire until he started calling the games...
I fought with whether I should use the font and decided that it should come across as sarcasm. The use of the font will be used when noting sarcasm in messages addressed to you from here on out.
Quote:
I think our D got gassed and deflated as the offensive woes continued throughout the season.
That happens when your defense has gotten the opposing team into 3rd & long and allow them to get a 1st down.
... or it happens when, you know... the defense is on the field more often than the offense, never getting any breathers or breaks. But yes, valid point. The 3rd down world of the defense was frightful.
And the defense doesn't have any culpability in that? They were awful and when they couldn't get a single one on several series, that's on them and not the offense.
I've got to go, so I'll have to address the rest later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Did bad special teams play a part? I felt like we sucked returning punts and kicks after Benji went down.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Did bad special teams play a part? I felt like we sucked returning punts and kicks after Benji went down.
Well, we did have Bess back there making fair catches. And we did lose a bit of production there because we didn't stick with just a single guy (and Bess never should have been back there) at the position of returning punts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
It really boils down to what the Browns really think of that first group of QB's.
I don't want them to just "find a guy in the middle rounds". They need to find the guy they see best fit for this team, if he exists in this draft. If they see one of these guys outside of Manziel-Bortles-Bridgewater as that guy, I can live with that. I can't live with settling on one of those other quarterbacks, because they wanted to take a linebacker at 4. That's how you end up with Colt McCoy and guys like that.
I love Manziel, I'd be happy with Bridgewater, and Bortles I seem to go back and forth on. I have a hard time thinking we are drafting any of these guys for a few reasons... For one, Ray Farmer is a rookie GM who is working a guy who just fired a regime after a year. There's no doubt that when you draft a QB high, especially top 5, you are putting yourself out there. Does he want to risk his reputation with Jimmy this early into his tenure? The other thing is that they have Brian Hoyer in their back pocket.
Let's say they pick someone else at 4, and also not a QB at 26.. Maybe not even at all. Then Brian Hoyer either goes out and gets hurt again, or plays all the games and is the definition of average... If Manziel or one of those other top guys blows up with their team, Farmer takes heat, but not as much as he would for drafting one of them, and having them fail. It's a slippery slope.
I just hope the people evaluating these quarterbacks know what they're doing, but I really wonder if their board goes 1. Clowney 2. Mack 3. QB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,129
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,129 |
Quote:
...when you draft a QB high, especially top 5, you are putting yourself out there. Does he want to risk his reputation with Jimmy this early into his tenure?
IMO, I imagine the question is whether he can afford NOT to take a QB at #4. We will pick a QB (or two), but where...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,869
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,869 |
Drafting another OLB with QB's on the board. I don't even know what to say to that. I am just amazed that this happens so often.
End of the season -> unanimous, we need a QB
Two weeks before draft day -> take this guy we don't really need, pass on QB's
If we take a WR or an OLB at #4 I am just going to drink myself into a coma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
Quote:
Drafting another OLB with QB's on the board. I don't even know what to say to that. I am just amazed that this happens so often.
End of the season -> unanimous, we need a QB
Two weeks before draft day -> take this guy we don't really need, pass on QB's
If we take a WR or an OLB at #4 I am just going to drink myself into a coma.
ahaha
But what if Farmer truly doesn't like any of these guys? I can't imagine a GM not liking at least one of the 3-4, but I guess it's possible..
This is a really tough task for a guy who just took on this job. What a decision.
The other thing is, like Vers mentioned, why are people just giving up on Mingo so early. Sometimes players in that position take more than a year to develop. Is it smart, financially to draft another guy in essentially the same position 2 years in a row?
Man I would love to get a peek at our board...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,596
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,596 |
Quote:
Drafting another OLB with QB's on the board. I don't even know what to say to that. I am just amazed that this happens so often.
End of the season -> unanimous, we need a QB
Two weeks before draft day -> take this guy we don't really need, pass on QB's
If we take a WR or an OLB at #4 I am just going to drink myself into a coma.
People seem to be "defense crazy".
Look at last year. Top two FA investments were D. Our top draft pick was D. This year, our top two FA investments were D.
Our O has been totally anemic and yet what are some suggesting?
MORE top investment in the D and let's continue ignoring high investments in the O. It's like they keep traveling in the same direction but somehow believe that will help the team go in the other direction.
Since last year, four top FA investments were made in the FA market and the #6 overall pick in the draft have all been D. When do people start to feel that having a well rounded team means somewhat close to equal investments on both sides of the ball?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
As noted in my my first reply, generating turners, field position, all is meaningless to an offense that can't move the football. No further comment needed... but yeah, adding another blue egg to a basket full of blue eggs is by far the smartest thing to do. Superbowl here we come. Let's keep stock piling outside/edge rushing linebackers. Heck, maybe we can find one that can play WR, QB and a few positions on the offensive line too. We can call that person a "hybrid" player
Your analogy doesn't really fit. What's the harm in drafting a player that knows how to play his position and to do it superlatively? You say that we're loaded at OLB, but are we? If Kruger has accomplished what you think he should, then maybe you're right. I don't think that he's done what he was brought here to do. And his versatility means you can put him inside... or outside on all three downs.
Kruger was a situational pass rusher for BallsNoMore and he was thrust into full-time duty last year and his production fell off. He may think that he's a full-time player and his contract may say it, but his production doesn't. He's not a pass-rushing OLB except situationally. He should be moved back there. When you do, you can move Mack inside next to Dansby.
Quote:
Convert him because we already have a TON of outside edge rushing linebackers. A TON. You're suppressing the talent of an already talented group by adding another high-level talent that is equally only good for rushing and "maybe" fighting against the run, all while neglecting the spots that truly need the personnel, the upgrade and etc. People were talking about converting to ILB. If Pettine likes him, drafts him, then we need to trade someone and as of right now, the only OLB i'd be willing to part ways with is Mingo or Groves.
See explanation above. And why part with any of them. Groves is a free agent next season. Curiously, so is Sheard's and you only hope to retain him. After this season, you could cut Kruger loose if he doesn't increase his performance and you pay him the $3.6 million in signing bonus and nothing more. That's it.
Quote:
A stellar defense won't win you games, said it again, will need to keep saying it evidently.
We know that defenses haven't won any games. Exactly how short is your memory?
Quote:
Why, cause I have an opinion just as you have yours on what the team should do with the first pick? It's like saying you are better off not sticking up for Mack since you dont want the selection of a needed QB to occur, is it not? All matter of opinions bro and ultimately, not a decision for neither of us to have much say in lol...
Indeed, but we're only discussing why we should draft one player or not. In this case, that player is Khalil Mack.
As for a QB, I think that the Browns will draft a QB, but I don't think it's necessary to take one early (or even often) in the draft.
You're right that neither of us have much say in it. We'll find out what the Browns do on May 8th. If they make a pre-draft trade, then we're both wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
MMQB Quote:
Houston, at No. 1, isn’t set on Jadeveon Clowney. In fact, one FORS (Friend of Rick Smith) told me the Texans general manager likes Khalil Mack over Clowney, and we still don’t know which quarterback Houston would choose if it chooses one first overall. I still think the Texans would go with a more sure thing with the first overall pick than a quarterback—and that sure thing could also be tackle Greg Robinson. But imagine Mack, the outside linebacker from the University of Buffalo, being the first pick in a stacked draft. Wouldn’t that be something—a second straight Mid-American Conference player (Eric Fisher, Central Michigan, by Kansas City) as the top pick in the NFL draft?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
MMQB
Quote:
Houston, at No. 1, isn’t set on Jadeveon Clowney. In fact, one FORS (Friend of Rick Smith) told me the Texans general manager likes Khalil Mack over Clowney, and we still don’t know which quarterback Houston would choose if it chooses one first overall. I still think the Texans would go with a more sure thing with the first overall pick than a quarterback—and that sure thing could also be tackle Greg Robinson. But imagine Mack, the outside linebacker from the University of Buffalo, being the first pick in a stacked draft. Wouldn’t that be something—a second straight Mid-American Conference player (Eric Fisher, Central Michigan, by Kansas City) as the top pick in the NFL draft?
What part of trading away your starting QB that had you in the playoffs 2 out of the past 3 seasons, then picking up a worse QB on a two year back up salary scream "We don't want to draft a QB #1 overall"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
People seem to be "defense crazy".
Look at last year. Top two FA investments were D. Our top draft pick was D. This year, our top two FA investments were D.
Our O has been totally anemic and yet what are some suggesting?
MORE top investment in the D and let's continue ignoring high investments in the O. It's like they keep traveling in the same direction but somehow believe that will help the team go in the other direction.
Since last year, four top FA investments were made in the FA market and the #6 overall pick in the draft have all been D. When do people start to feel that having a well rounded team means somewhat close to equal investments on both sides of the ball?
The year before that 4 of our top 5 draft picks were offense.. 2 of them (2 first rounders) are now gone and one of the others doesn't play much... We have brought in offensive FA's as well, the defensive FA's are just bigger deals because they were replacing pretty productive players that we lost. For example, if Jordan Cameron had left, people would be screaming that we needed a TE.. that's just how it works.
But look at the offense, what are our biggest needs? I would say, OG, #2 WR, RB (even though we picked up Tate), and QB...
Well if you don't believe in any of the QBs, what are you going to do at #4? Take an OG or a RB? I hope not. That leaves you with WR#2.. Sammy Watkins is probably the only WR even worth discussing at #4....
Fact is that at #4 we need a guy that makes a serious impact... and if you don't believe any of the QBs are that guy, then what do you do?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Everything screams QB for the Texans. Except the red flags around all of the QBs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
Quote:
Fact is that at #4 we need a guy that makes a serious impact... and if you don't believe any of the QBs are that guy, then what do you do?
In that exact situation, trade down.
I don't want to see another Julio Jones/Phil Taylor situation. If we drop back, I'd prefer to stay before the 20's hit.
As far as the QB's go, if you don't like a guy at 4, then don't turn around and like them at any other 1st round pick... I think QB's in the draft are different than everyone else in that sense... If you aren't in love with a guy but want to take a middle to late flier on him? That's totally cool but I hate the idea of wanting a guy like Carr at 26, but not at 4. I don't think that's smart.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
I will feel supremely more confident in our selection of a QB if we take them at 4.
Like some have said. If you're not cinfident enough in a QB to take them at 4, then how confident can you be that they'll be the guy?
I even think theres a difference between taking a guy in the second round, and taking a guy at 26.
I guess we'll figure out how they feel about these QBs in a couple weeks.
It'd be fun to discuss, but I assume the board is ganna crash a few minutes after the 4th pick :P
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
I say that if you think Mack can be a dominant beast at ILB, then you pull the trigger. If you are simply looking for another OLB, let it slide because we're fine there. Maybe use him to see if you can bait someone into trading up for him, netting us another pick in the process.
A beast ILB would be great next to Dansby. A potentially great OLB would be nice, but we already have a few of those.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
In that exact situation, trade down.
Ideally I agree but we all know that requires a partner willing to trade and make you a decent offer.. which I never count on. I always assume we will use our pick because the right offer may never come.
Quote:
As far as the QB's go, if you don't like a guy at 4, then don't turn around and like them at any other 1st round pick... I think QB's in the draft are different than everyone else in that sense... If you aren't in love with a guy but want to take a middle to late flier on him? That's totally cool but I hate the idea of wanting a guy like Carr at 26, but not at 4. I don't think that's smart.
I kind of disagree with this. If you like a QB but don't love a QB.. then take the difference maker of your choice at 4 and wait.. if the guy is still sitting there at 26 and you want to take him, fine. We did that with Richardson/Weeden and while obviously neither worked out, I still think the logic is sound.
I just don't think you can afford to miss at 4... maybe you have very similar grades for 3 QBs in the draft and are kind of indifferent and expect one of them to fall to 26.. that might be another reason to wait.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
With first round pick QB's, should you only draft a guy you "like"?
Take Brandon Weeden. No way you would have taken him at 3 (or 4 if they didn't trade) but it's ok at 22? I'm not saying it's guaranteed to always work out that way, but do you see the thinking?
If you are going to invest a first rounder on a QB, I think you really have to love the guy.
Take Carr for instance. If you like him that much to consider at 26, but don't at 4, I think there is a problem there. You're talking about the most important position on your team, and a whole lot of money.
The Browns liked Brady Quinn, but not enough to take him where they took Joe Thomas, and while we all love Joe, and he's most likely headed for Canton, you don't draft an LT over a QB you absolutely love.
I want this organization to draft a QB that they LOVE. 100% behind, both feet in, face of the organization.
I just see nothing but bad things if they draft at guy at 26...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Drafting another OLB with QB's on the board. I don't even know what to say to that. I am just amazed that this happens so often.
End of the season -> unanimous, we need a QB
Two weeks before draft day -> take this guy we don't really need, pass on QB's
If we take a WR or an OLB at #4 I am just going to drink myself into a coma.
People seem to be "defense crazy".
Look at last year. Top two FA investments were D. Our top draft pick was D. This year, our top two FA investments were D.
Our O has been totally anemic and yet what are some suggesting?
MORE top investment in the D and let's continue ignoring high investments in the O. It's like they keep traveling in the same direction but somehow believe that will help the team go in the other direction.
Since last year, four top FA investments were made in the FA market and the #6 overall pick in the draft have all been D. When do people start to feel that having a well rounded team means somewhat close to equal investments on both sides of the ball?
It's defensive players or offensive linemen. Occasionally the forum will like some big, strong and slow runningback.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
Everything screams QB for the Texans. Except the red flags around all of the QBs.
What about the red flags around all the other top prospects?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
Quote:
It's defensive players or offensive linemen. Occasionally the forum will like some big, white, strong and slow runningback.
fixed, ahahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,596
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,596 |
And the year before that we went D once again. So three of the past four years we have gone "D crazy". Where has that gotten us so far? Without a QB or an O to speak of. Four and five win seasons. I see a pattern there.  But you're right that we struck out on both Weeden and TRich. So does that mean we just keep going down the opposite path and give up on high investments on the O side of the ball? And let's look at your QB question. If you don't believe in any of the QB's, do you draft one at all? Do you actually draft any player you don't believe in? If that is at all the case, you certainly wouldn't draft one until the late third round if not later. Charlie Frye and Colt McCoy ring a bell? And even then the fan base will say if you drafted him, you saw him as the answer at the franchise QB position. Out of these top rated QB's, I simply don't believe there are enough questions that this FO can't find one that they believe in. And if they do, they need to get him. If they actually don't see one? I sure don't think they're looking hard enough. Not only will they be judged by the QB they draft, they too will be judged on "the one they let get away". As an example...... If Bridgewater is on the board at #4 and they don't draft him.... Then he goes on to be a great QB, nobody they could possibly draft could excuse that. Especially in a city that knows we're a QB away from contention. They better look long and hard. And they better get it right.
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: 305
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 305 |
Quote:
And the year before that we went D once again. So three of the past four years we have gone "D crazy". Where has that gotten us so far?
Sadly it hasn't gotten us a dominant defense. 
Last edited by BleedsOrange; 04/21/14 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And the year before that we went D once again. So three of the past four years we have gone "D crazy". Where has that gotten us so far?
Without a QB or an O to speak of. Four and five win seasons. I see a pattern there.
The difference is that a defense isn't so dependent on one guy like the offense is. I'd say our D talent and our O talent are actually fairly similar, difference is we don't have a QB on offense and without that the whole O struggles.
Quote:
But you're right that we struck out on both Weeden and TRich. So does that mean we just keep going down the opposite path and give up on high investments on the O side of the ball?
No, it means you don't reach like we did for Weeden. I'll admit to being shocked that TRich wasn't at least decent.. I never had much faith that the Weeden pick was the right move.
Quote:
And let's look at your QB question. If you don't believe in any of the QB's, do you draft one at all? Do you actually draft any player you don't believe in? If that is at all the case, you certainly wouldn't draft one until the late third round if not later. Charlie Frye and Colt McCoy ring a bell?
And even then the fan base will say if you drafted him, you saw him as the answer at the franchise QB position.
Your last statement is about fan perception and fans are illogical so there isn't much I can say there... to your first point, it becomes about value, opportunity cost... I think the Frye and McCoy picks were both good picks. What you don't do is take a 3rd round QB and expect him to be the savior in year 1.. not sure either of them would have amounted to much but even the Seahawks were surprised when Wilson did what he did.. 3rd round QBs just generally don't do that.
Quote:
They better look long and hard. And they better get it right.
And on this we agree.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
With first round pick QB's, should you only draft a guy you "like"?
.......
If you are going to invest a first rounder on a QB, I think you really have to love the guy.
I disagree when you have 2 first round picks and absolutely have to have a QB... if you aren't 100% sold on a QB but like what several have to offer, then I think you go BPA at #4 and then take the risk at 26...
Quote:
The Browns liked Brady Quinn, but not enough to take him where they took Joe Thomas, and while we all love Joe, and he's most likely headed for Canton, you don't draft an LT over a QB you absolutely love.
This is actually the exact scenario I'm talking about.. who did we pass on for JT? Quinn, Kolb, Stanton, Beck?... Now I'm not saying this years class is THAT bad but what if this year works out the same way.. Mack or Robinson or Watkins turns out to be a perennial pro-bowl player and the 26 QB turns out to be a bust? Now what about the flipside? We take the same QB at 4 and then we are hoping the #26 pick becomes a perennial pro-bowler...
I would just take a lot more risk with that 2nd first rounder than I'm willing to take with the #4 pick.. that's all I'm saying.
I think this draft class is weird.. I think there is 1 or 2 guys in this draft that are going to be very good NFL QBs but I don't ever remember it being this wide open on which ones it's going to be... As Pit said, I think we will take one of them (either at 4 or 26) and I just hope we are right.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
No, what I'm saying is if you don't love a QB at 4, don't take him at 26...
If you don't love Weeden at 3, don't take him at 22.
If you don't like Quinn at 3, don't trade back in to get him, etc..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
Quote:
Everything screams QB for the Texans. Except the red flags around all of the QBs.
What about the red flags around all the other top prospects?
Hence the reason they prefer Khalil Mack over Clowney.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 344
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 344 |
I don't think Mack is a problem. We are in perfect position. If He or Watkins are there when we pick, we can either take the one that is left or trade the pick to one of the other teams that truly wants either of them. JMHO Go Brownies!!!!
Who Let Da Dawgs Out? Woof, Woof, Woof!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,891
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,891 |
Quote:
No, what I'm saying is if you don't love a QB at 4, don't take him at 26...
If you don't love Weeden at 3, don't take him at 22.
If you don't like Quinn at 3, don't trade back in to get him, etc..
Have to agree.
If you like a QB at #26 but not enough to take him at #4 then why take someone you "Kinda Like, But Not That Much" in the 1st rd? Way to much BPA talent to like at #26 to pass up on "a flier" at QB you sorta like..
At #4 and #26, take a BPA at WR, CB, OL, ILB, S, etc you absolutely love. You should end up loving them for 3-4-10 years.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2014 NFL Season NFL Draft 2014 The Khalil Mack “Problem” for
the Cleveland Browns
|
|
