http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/13/browns-add-quentin-groves-to-ray-hortons-defense/New Browns defensive coordinator Ray Horton is bringing one of his guys to Cleveland.
Free agent linebacker Quentin Groves, who played in Horton’s defense when they were together in Arizona last year, has come to terms with the Browns, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports.
A 2008 second-round pick of the Jaguars, Groves spent two years in Jacksonville and then two years in Oakland but wasn’t a great player in either stop. In Arizona last year, however, Groves had career highs in tackles (46) and sacks (four) while playing in all 16 games and starting seven.
Now Groves will attempt to repeat that success, and he’ll give Cleveland a player who already knows the new defense.
Sounds good, the Defense is looking different and better already ...
Not a great player, but we need LBers and maybe Horton saw something in him.
I didn't look ..... did he play ILB or OLB in Arizona?
Quote:
Not a great player, but we need LBers and maybe Horton saw something in him.
Does that mean were not building a "Dream Team" ... 
Never mind ..... he played OLB.
Probably a backup/situational guy.
Its nice to see us getting some solid guys.
Interesting signing, always good when a player knows the system! This regime obviously has a plan & it's fun watching them execute. How sweet would it be if Millner falls to us @ 6? Sit back and enjoy the ride
Quote:
Quote:
Not a great player, but we need LBers and maybe Horton saw something in him.
Does that mean were not building a "Dream Team" ...
Depth guy w/ a chance to get a little PT.
Quote:
I didn't look ..... did he play ILB or OLB in Arizona?
I think it was OLB b/c he replaced O'Brien Schofield when he tore a ligament in his knee
Quote:
Interesting signing, always good when a player knows the system! This regime obviously has a plan & it's fun watching them execute. How sweet would it be if Millner falls to us @ 6? Sit back and enjoy the ride
If Milliner falls to us @ 6.. I'm gonna be so dang on hype for our defense this year..
Milliner @ 6.. then Rambo in the 3rd.. DREAM come true.
As a 3rd OLB/situational pass rusher he is a good fit and a good move imho but if we intend to start him at WOLB and trade Sheard it would be a bad move
Any word on the money? Shouldn't exceed 2.5-3.5mil/year...if it's more, he's viewed as a starter...
He looks like he'd fit in as the rotational guy we were looking for.
I thought Horton would target him..I like the pickup.
Groves was a second round pick in 2008 who likely would have been a first round pick, had a heart issue not been detected during the 2008 combine.
This from wiki web page
Heart surgery
While undergoing medical tests at the NFL Combine, Groves was discovered to have Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, which results in him having a rapid heartbeat because of electrical impulses in the heart taking extra pathways. Groves told the media "It's an extra circuit in the heart, and it speeds up your heartbeat, it's nothing too critical, but you have to take care of it."
Often this condition can be treated with medication, however, not in all cases. Groves elected to have a surgical procedure called ablation, which is described as "minor". After the procedure Groves sent a letter to all NFL teams informing them that he was able to play, according to his doctors. "Some teams had questions so that's when my agent said to get it fixed," Groves said. "The letter said that the doctors said I was 100% healed, and I'm good."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Browns are Groves' 4th team since 2008...that raises a red flag...something is just not right...it might be that his heart condition is more of an issue than reported.
Jacksonville Jaguars (2008–2009)
Oakland Raiders (2010–2012)
Arizona Cardinals (2012-2013)
Cleveland Browns (2013–present
I hope he was signed with agreement that he would have to compete for a starting job and not as a starter. Groves career high in tackles (37 tackles, 9 assists) ranked him tied at #243 in tackles, for 2012.
Apart from the players, I like the "inside-out" approach and targeting low supply positions on the market first
I'll happily say that I'm impressed so far with how they're going at things...pretty much avoided the guys I didn't want (Cook, A.Smith, Wallace, Avril, the 2 top Gs) and got 2 guys that were high on my wishlist
Groves I had no real opinion on, he's a very talented guy that has underachieved and disappointed in his first 4 seasons, probably because he was drafted as a miscast 4-3 DE by JAX...we will see, hope the money isn't crazy...everything north of 3.5mil/year would be too rich for me
I'll add that I wanted V.Butler slightly over Groves for the 3rd OLB spot....will be interesting to see what both those guys will get, as I think it should be close based on age/talent/production....guess we got Groves because Horton wanted him, for good or bad, we will see
Quote:
I hope he was signed with agreement that he would have to compete for a starting job and not as a starter.
I hope every player we sign, draft, or bring back from last year has that same understanding.
It makes the draft easier. They are always backed into a corner because they have to draft for need ..now if they continue to fill the bigger holes now,it opens the draft to do some things.
I have to admit that I like our signings so far though if you look at who we signed, it is a little hard to understand considering we were 10th in total defense and 25th in total offense last year...
I know switching to the 3-4 requires some adjustments and I'm glad we aren't waiting 3 or 4 years to draft all of our 3-4 guys... but is anybody else beginning to wonder if we aren't setting our draft up to go offense, offense, offense? Though we do still need secondary help..
It's early. Maybe we will get a couple of offensive players, but yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I was even thinking [shudder] that we might draft Gino Smith at #6. I hope not, but ....
Quote:
It makes the draft easier. They are always backed into a corner because they have to draft for need ..now if they continue to fill the bigger holes now,it opens the draft to do some things.
woah woah.... they didn't "need" to change to a 3-4. They created their own mess and put themselves into a corner.
had they stayed the same we would only really need a CB/FS possibly a LB/DE or two for depth.
this year we needed 2-3 LB's (already signed 2) we signed another non need-DL
we still need
a CB
a FS
and depth
almost all of that money could have gone to the other side of the ball and we could be walking around with a new WR/G/FB/ and maybe even a FS.
we would still have enough left to sign a CB and our team would only need a QB to produce/depth.
now... it is what it is and we will see where we end up. I hope we win the Super Bowl but I won't hold my breath.
Quote:
woah woah.... they didn't "need" to change to a 3-4. They created their own mess and put themselves into a corner.
So you were happy w/the record of the last two years?
I don't have a issue with the34 .I said years ago when Rac was here it was my favorite scheme as long as it was a attack style and not a read-n-react.
When they brought Horton in it was going to change. The HC likes the 34, and thats what they went to.
However they're filling the biggest holes now which is the smart thing to do. It won't take this D long to get going.
Quote:
I have to admit that I like our signings so far though if you look at who we signed, it is a little hard to understand considering we were 10th in total defense and 25th in total offense last year...
I know switching to the 3-4 requires some adjustments and I'm glad we aren't waiting 3 or 4 years to draft all of our 3-4 guys... but is anybody else beginning to wonder if we aren't setting our draft up to go offense, offense, offense? Though we do still need secondary help..
I don't think that's the case. I just think that they see a lot more potential/ potential depth on O, and we are a lot younger on O, and we've only been able to sign players for like 16 hours so far. I think some players will be added on O, but depth was definitely something we needed last year on D as well.
Quote:
Not a great player, but we need LBers and maybe Horton saw something in him.
A "Mangini-esque" move bringing in a player who knows, and alllows you to play, your system. Makes sense...
Quote:
Quote:
woah woah.... they didn't "need" to change to a 3-4. They created their own mess and put themselves into a corner.
So you were happy w/the record of the last two years?
that has 0 relevance to the equation as to why we lost.
We still had huge holes that needed to be filled on the D. (we still have them today even after signing 3 players and switching to a 3-4)
I mean... how many times are we going to keep going 4-3 to 3-4 to 4-3 to 3-4 in a decade
swapping to a different D just buys time to install their D and time to keep the fans/media off their back.
Switching D"s eliminates the type of player that was already here and you have to clean out the young talent. that is another great reason why we can never develop players in CLE.
If you can only see your nose when there is a Picasso painting in front of your face... I can't help you with that.
Quote:
woah woah.... they didn't "need" to change to a 3-4. They created their own mess and put themselves into a corner.
While I agree with you in theory, it's not like we had a dominant top 5 defense that was winning games for us. We had a decent defense statistically that still couldn't seem to get stops when it needed them.
So you don't go get a new coach/DC to fit your scheme, you go get one that plays the way you want to play then you get him what he needs to do that. I know we have probably lost site of that because we change coaches every 2-3 years but hiring a coach/DC is supposed to be a long term arrangement so switching to the 3-4 shouldn't be that big of a deal.
j/c
The deal is for two years at a total of $2.8 million, according to Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Mary Kay Cabot.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000150300/article/report-cleveland-browns-sign-quentin-grovesNot too shabby money-wise for a guy Horton wants to help install the defense.
Quote:
Quote:
Not a great player, but we need LBers and maybe Horton saw something in him.
A "Mangini-esque" move bringing in a player who knows, and alllows you to play, your system. Makes sense...
In fairness, tons of coaches do this.
Quentin Groves: #24 pass rusher available. Had 4 sacks in 2012. Started in 7 of 16 games for Arizona.
It's clear what the Browns are doing. Look for it to continue in the draft.
I like what they have done so far in FA.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not a great player, but we need LBers and maybe Horton saw something in him.
A "Mangini-esque" move bringing in a player who knows, and alllows you to play, your system. Makes sense...
In fairness, tons of coaches do this.
He didn't say it was a bad thing...
Quote:
we change coaches every 2-3 years but hiring a coach/DC is supposed to be a long term arrangement
Off topic I know, but does anybody really believe Horton will stay here (as DC) longer than a year or two? He is borderline HC material...
Quote:
Quote:
we change coaches every 2-3 years but hiring a coach/DC is supposed to be a long term arrangement
Off topic I know, but does anybody really believe Horton will stay here (as DC) longer than a year or two? He is borderline HC material...
HE thinks he's HC'ing material. I highly doubt he gets a HC'ing job anytime soon though. Don't want to ruffle any feathers but we all know why he gets HC'ing interviews....
I think if he does well here he will get a HC job within 3 years.
Quote:
Quote:
woah woah.... they didn't "need" to change to a 3-4. They created their own mess and put themselves into a corner.
While I agree with you in theory, it's not like we had a dominant top 5 defense that was winning games for us. We had a decent defense statistically that still couldn't seem to get stops when it needed them.
So you don't go get a new coach/DC to fit your scheme, you go get one that plays the way you want to play then you get him what he needs to do that. I know we have probably lost site of that because we change coaches every 2-3 years but hiring a coach/DC is supposed to be a long term arrangement so switching to the 3-4 shouldn't be that big of a deal.
so... lets say you want to build a house in the woods.
you decide to build a log cabin home-
The house gets 75% of the way you want it built, you spend years teaching your crew how to properly build it, the crew learns how to master the crafts of building the house and start to become efficent, in fact they start growing trees in the woods (late round draft picks/UFA's) that are exactly what you will need to replace logs as they wear out and need replacing in the home. The only major thing left you have to do is put the roof on over the house to provide coverage.
All of a sudden, your bank sells your loan and now the new bank is not happy that the roof hasn't been put up yet but is on schedule to be fully functioning 2 years from now (as expected). The new bank had different ideas and they are not happy so they issues new terms that are completely different..
Now... the new bank comes along and says they don't care what you want and they are going to kick you out of your home before you install a roof. They fire your crew, bring in a new crew and different home builder.
The new home builder sees the logs on the outside and says... I don't like those logs. I like brick homes better. He heads to the bank and convinces the bank to get bricks and replace the outside walls.
After months, He gets a whole new staff in place that will have to learn how to use mortar, how to replace the outside log walls that were already up in the old log cabin. They also have to go to the woods and cut down the tree crops and replace the trees with pallets of clay, water, and a furnace to be molded into bricks.
after they get all that setup... they still have to go back and put a roof on the house.
Makes perfect sense to me. 
Quote:
j/c
The deal is for two years at a total of $2.8 million, according to Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Mary Kay Cabot.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000150300/article/report-cleveland-browns-sign-quentin-groves
Not too shabby money-wise for a guy Horton wants to help install the defense.
Wow, that's a GREAT deal considering that Groves was a former 1st round talent who was on a "prove-it" 1year deal and had a solid (for him even "career" season as a pass rusher) season....that's really peanuts and makes this officially another good value signing for me
We don't have the exact structures of the contracts yet but looks like we've spent 16-18mil of our cap, let's say 20mil if we front loaded a bit....if we had 48mil, let's safe 10 for our own guy's extensions + a generous 8mil for the draft and we still have somewhere between 10-15mil to shop with....+ we can safe another 8mil I think by cutting Usama, Colt and Gocong...I would give Gocong another shot, but would ask him to take a massive pay cut and maybe make it incentive-laden, so that he can earn most of it back if he plays and performs
We can easily add 2 more high quality starters....Heckert did one heck (yeah, I know 
) of job cleaning up this roster and this new regime so far is doing as good a job investing that cap space, I think that's a fair assessment
Quote:
Wow, that's a GREAT deal considering that Groves was a former 1st round talent who was on a "prove-it" 1year deal and had a solid (for him even "career" season as a pass rusher) season....that's really peanuts and makes this officially another good value signing for me
We don't have the exact structures of the contracts yet but looks like we've spent 16-18mil of our cap, let's say 20mil if we front loaded a bit....if we had 48mil, let's safe 10 for our own guy's extensions + a generous 8mil for the draft and we still have somewhere between 10-15mil to shop with....+ we can safe another 8mil I think by cutting Usama, Colt and Gocong...I would give Gocong another shot, but would ask him to take a massive pay cut and maybe make it incentive-laden, so that he can earn most of it back if he plays and performs
We can easily add 2 more high quality starters....Heckert did one heck (yeah, I know ) of job cleaning up this roster and this new regime so far is doing as good a job investing that cap space, I think that's a fair assessment
Stop with the positive talk already. Your starting to scare me.
Wow, that's an elaborate analogy but I believe you are really overstating the problem.. to modify your analogy to I would say it more like this.. (and in my analogy, the outside of the house is the defense and the inside of the house is the offense)...
You are building a house and the stud walls are up, the roof joists and sheathing are on and the siding is going on.. the outside of the house doesn't look to bad but the inside of the house looks absolutely awful.. well it's all being done by the same contractor so you can't just fire the inside guy.. so you fire the contractor and hire a new one.
The new contractor has a much better resume and team for doing the interior but he also needs to hire a new exterior guy. The exterior guy prefers brick to siding so he has to remove some siding, change out some of the moldings to ones that work with brick and away you go. Because the studs (Rubin, Taylor, DQ, Haden, Ward) they work just fine whether it's siding or brick.. and we added 3 nice pallets of brick yesterday and we have a superintendent in Horton who already knows how to put it together.
Needless to say, I think you are overstating the whole "Tear it down to the foundation, cut down the trees, and start over" nature of what we are doing...
The better analogy might even be.. you are building a house, a guy comes along and pays you a billion dollars for the land and what you have in place.. because it's his money he tears it down and builds what he wants... as his neighbor, all you can really do is watch and hope it turns out nice because you have to look at it for years......
mind = blown
amazing analogy DC
Thank you for that. Nice start to the morning.
-jc-
Back-up Depth guy and perhaps an insurance card if Sheard can't play OLB.
Quote:
I have to admit that I like our signings so far though if you look at who we signed, it is a little hard to understand considering we were 10th in total defense and 25th in total offense last year...
I know switching to the 3-4 requires some adjustments and I'm glad we aren't waiting 3 or 4 years to draft all of our 3-4 guys... but is anybody else beginning to wonder if we aren't setting our draft up to go offense, offense, offense? Though we do still need secondary help..
late to the party, but I cannot let this one pass. our defense last year was below average. ranked #22 by football outsiders based on efficiency:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef
our offense was worse (ranked #27), but the holes we need to fill there may be easier to find on the secondary FA market (OG: Green?, TE: Myers?) than the defensive guys that are flying off the shelves right now.
Quote:
Wow, that's a GREAT deal considering that Groves was a former 1st round talent who was on a "prove-it" 1year deal and had a solid (for him even "career" season as a pass rusher) season....that's really peanuts and makes this officially another good value signing for me
completely agree. I really like Groves as the 3rd OLB for passing downs. It's what he did in Arizona last year and he was good at it. He must really love playing for Horton to take what I think would be a smaller salary than he could have gotten on the market (with so many teams switching to the 3-4 this year).
Quote:
It makes the draft easier. They are always backed into a corner because they have to draft for need ..now if they continue to fill the bigger holes now,it opens the draft to do some things.
I agree all the way. If you head in to a draft having to fill holes, your screwed.
Quote:
Quote:
It makes the draft easier. They are always backed into a corner because they have to draft for need ..now if they continue to fill the bigger holes now,it opens the draft to do some things.
I agree all the way. If you head in to a draft having to fill holes, your screwed.
+1
At least I think this regime saw what we saw. The group from last year had problems stopping the rush. Glad to see the additions. Now I am wanting an OG., and a DB or S.
Quote:
At least I think this regime saw what we saw. The group from last year had problems stopping the rush. Glad to see the additions. Now I am wanting an OG., and a DB or S.
Sounds about right B....though I'll take a corner and a safety.
I love it. We are actually going after decent players and not sitting on our butts the first days of FA only to pick up a few scraps later on as we have done the last several years.
If nothing else it at least shows we are trying to get better.
Quote:
I love it. We are actually going after decent players and not sitting on our butts the first days of FA only to pick up a few scraps later on as we have done the last several years.
If nothing else it at least shows we are trying to get better.
I love it too, but you must have missed the part where "sitting on our butts" made this splash possible by carrying over cap space through unlikely to be earned bonuses and clearing all the dead money of other regimes before
Think about it, if Heckert was still running the show, he would HAVE TO spend the money too this offseason due to the 89% rule, right? We will never know who he would have targeted, but since this "consensus" so far is looking at good players, I won't complain 
Quote:
I love it too, but you must have missed the part where "sitting on our butts" made this splash possible by carrying over cap space through unlikely to be earned bonuses and clearing all the dead money of other regimes before
No doubt, and I didn't miss it.
To me you want to strike a balance, and when you are a bad team it makes sense to me to try and get better.
Their problem was they thought the guys they had were better than they really were. Add in the fact the head coach was was much poorer then they could even imagine...it's no wonder they hit the road.
My feeling is had the Browns taken a turn upwards, Lerner wouldn't have sold the team. I think he finally got tired of dealing with hiring new people.
Quote:
all you can really do is watch and hope it turns out nice because you have to look at it for years......
It's been a bad neighborhood for a long time.
I don't think I'm overstating it. I was writing that whole analogy from a DC point of view vs 1/3 owner 1/3 coach 1/3 fan POV
We do have to cut bait on our backups (trees) because they should be the replacement players that will come in when someone gets hurt and our crop was based around a 4-3 vs attacking 3-4.
the bank was the new owner with the loan terms changes
I was using the outside walls as an example of DL and the roof as an example of the the DB's (roof= coverage) and our HC certainly doesn't have a better resume than s
the whole thing probably went over a lot of people's heads.
btw if you think Horton has a better resume than our previous DC... you might be a little
if you think Chud has a better resume than Shurm that one is plauseable... they both have no real experience.
if you think Banner/Lombardi is better H& H... you are nuts. Holmgren sucked but not Heckert.
I mean... any moron that drafts a kicker in the first round should be automatically thrown out of the NFL and never say the word football again. That's like some one telling you to pick a number 1-10 and choosing 4,537.
Haslam ran back to his truck stops to let someone else run the Browns within owning it for less than 4months because he probably didn't know what he was doing. (speculation)
RL at least owned it for a decade and was smart enough to swindle a billion out of the current while retaining something like 30% share and making a ton of restrictions. (helmets, colors, relocating the team, ticket prices etc)
so I'm not sure where you think anyone is better than the previous regime... not ever the owners
Quote:
if you think Banner/Lombardi is better H& H... you are nuts.
Oh, Oh!!!... I pass.
I'm am digging this signing. Especially since Horton of all people should know this guy inside and out...
Corner, safety are our needs now... in addition to adding some depth across the board.
Quote:
-jc-
Back-up Depth guy and perhaps an insurance card if Sheard can't play OLB.
Pretty sure Groves started 7 games last season on the way to his best year statistically. Sheard may or may not stick. Adding Groves gives us some flexibility for the draft.
I like what we've done so far in FA. We needed front seven help big-time and we got a running start with Kruger, Bryant and Groves. I think we're good at the nose. We could still add another DE and/or OLB. Good start!
I think you are over simplifying things.
Jauron has a longer resume than Horton..yes, better...debateable.Jauron has made alot of stops along the way but that doesn't prove he is a better DC than Horton.
Everyone keeps kicking the dead horse about Lombardi drafting a kicker in the 1st round. Two words: Al Davis.
Lerner was a horrible owner who's only goal was to be as far away from the Browns as possible until the moment he was able to sell the team.
Quote:
RL … was smart enough to swindle a billion out of the current while retaining something like 30% share
That's not even true, but go on.
Quote:
I think you are over simplifying things.
Jauron has a longer resume than Horton..yes, better...debateable.Jauron has made alot of stops along the way but that doesn't prove he is a better DC than Horton.
Yup, this. Juaron had more bottom-5 run defenses in his years as DC than top-10 run defenses.
Quote:
RL at least owned it for a decade and was smart enough to swindle a billion out of the current while retaining something like 30% share and making a ton of restrictions. (helmets, colors, relocating the team, ticket prices etc)
The Billion covers 100% of the team. He's only paid 70% up front. And will pay the other 30% in a couple years.
But lets not let facts get in the way..
Had read on the ticker tape on NFL Network...Groves pretty inexpensive...2 years for a total of 2.8 million. So if anyone thinks this move was made instead of a #6 investment for OLB...think again
As for this Resume bs...who cares. This is a new NFL. I liked Jauron much better than our O that is for sure...good coach. But his defense was pretty old. If we had more leads I think the Air D would have been exposed more...instead if got "STATS" that said we were TOP 5 NFL good...it was not. Resume...much more extensive. More up to date to the new offenses that are coming up in the NFL along with the AIR AIR AIR attack going on. One thing is evident...we have to ATTACK THE QB...its the way to beat Brady, Brees, Manning n the rest! I see that in Horton's resume regardless of the thickness of his history on paper.
Shurmur vs. Chud...Shurmur was an extension of Holmgren I don't think he had much freedom. His Offense was totally old fashion n I saw no change to the talent we had.
Chud has shown just the opposite. I'm sure he has a vision but he will EVOLVE into that vision rather than force it on all. He seems more apt to get what he can out of the talent that he possesses. Also our previous O n D under the Shurmur/Holmgren HC Leadership was be on your heals let the other teams O n D dictate to you n take what you can get. Or Read n React.
Chud was very specific...TORA! TORA! TORA!!! We will dictate we will attack at both ends of the candle.
Well that is the impression I'm getting...I thought we were getting good young talent n that made me very enthusiastic with the old regime. System??? pretty archaic.
JMHO
I agree with everything you said. I would also like to add that, in order to beat QBs like Brady/Manning/Brees, etc. you have to be able to shake things up on defense. Give those guys things they've never seen before so they can't peg you down before the ball is even snapped. I'm no Mangini apologist, but the scheme he and Ryan concocted against the Saints in 2010 is the perfect example of what a D needs to be capable of doing at times.
I think that was one of the biggest problems we've had the last two years on both sides of the ball. Everything seemed to be a one-size-fits-all. We very rarely adjusted scheme to expose another team's weakness or make the other team adjust. We also very rarely focused on applying the strengths of our players to the actual scheme itself (this was more related to offense than defense).
That was the most frustrating thing for me about the 2011 and 2012 seasons.
Quote:
I don't have a issue with the34 .I said years ago when Rac was here it was my favorite scheme as long as it was a attack style and not a read-n-react.
When they brought Horton in it was going to change. The HC likes the 34, and thats what they went to.
However they're filling the biggest holes now which is the smart thing to do. It won't take this D long to get going.
Based on what? Kruger?
Because other than him we haven't signed any other legit. starter. Just some underachieving depth guys. We're really only one player better off than we were before Horton got here.
I don't see why so many get so excited about a couple of second tier guys being signed. Sounds just like the last bunch who just left with the only real acception being the signing of Kruger.
And as was mentioned, they created their own need in terms of needing depth of 3-4 players. It's nice to see we are signing some players that at least know Hortons 3-4 but other than Kruger, none of them seem to be high quality players.
And that's so exciting to people how again?
Quote:
And as was mentioned, they created their own need in terms of needing depth of 3-4 players.
Say we didn't switch to the 3-4, what would we have needed on defense? A pass rushing defensive end, an outside linebacker, a free safety, and a corner (or two).
We didn't stay with the 4-3, so now we need: a pass rushing outside linebacker, a defensive end, a free safety, and a corner (or two).
Am I missing something?
Bryant was arguably the best DT on the market and Kruger the best 3-4 OLB...that's never easy to do, getting the best DT and pass rusher
I'm as big as skeptic as you regarding this regime, but they're doing a good job so far
Quote:
Based on what? Kruger?
Because other than him we haven't signed any other legit. starter.
Wrong. Desmond Bryant will start a DE/DT in the Browns new hybrid defense and was a legit pass rushing DT.
Quote:
In the span of less than day, the Cleveland Browns transformed their defensive front seven from a respectable unit into one to be reckoned with.
Cleveland helped kick off the NFL’s free-agent period by signing Paul Kruger away from Baltimore, then helped punctuate Tuesday evening’s activity with the addition of defensive tackle Desmond Bryant.
Both deals are pricey — Kruger at about $8 million per season, Bryant at five years and $34 million. But with those two in place, plus OLB Jabaal Sheard, DE Ahtyba Rubin, NT Phil Taylor, ILB D’Qwell Jackson and either James-Michael Johnson or Chris Gocong at the other ILB spot, Cleveland is set up for a quick transition to the 3-4.
They’re also in prime position to improve on a defense that ranked 23rd in yards allowed and 19th in points last season (not to mention 25th against the pass). All this while Pittsburgh struggles with the salary cap, Baltimore endures a roster migration and Cincinnati plays it relatively low key.
The Browns still have a ways to go before they’re considered an AFC contender, but they made meaningful progress Tuesday.
Bryant had 10.5 sacks over the past three seasons in Oakland. He’s a high-motor guy more than capable of dropping into the Browns’ 3-4 after playing in the Raiders’ 4-3.
Bryant does have a couple of red flags — most notably, his recent arrest on the charge of criminal mischief; he also was hospitalized during a game last year due to an accelerated heartbeat. Still, he rated as the league’s sixth best DT or NT last season, according to Pro Football Focus, above Pro Bowler Henry Melton.
As for Bryant’s contract, the Browns are a bit in the not-all-that-uncommon situation of occasionally having to overpay free agents to come to Cleveland. That’s part of the cost of struggling year after year.
Grade: A-minus. Knock on the money spent here, if you want — and, in the long run, you might be proven right. But Bryant is a terrific get for the Browns as they revamp their D.
Share this:
http://nfl.si.com/2013/03/12/desmond-bryant-signs-with-cleveland-browns/
The articles at the end of the season are all that matter. A writer singing praises for what they project on paper is as meaningless as a Draft grade given before the first Mini-Camp has even taken place. I'll save my excitement for when this group actually does something on a field.
If I were to try to put statistics on it....
The board is comprised of 50% homers who rationalize any decision made as the best one possible.
A very vocal 15% who thinks all any Browns front office decision is the wrong one.
And then there are the 35% who try to see things for what they are.
----------
For me I knew the conversion to the 34 was going to be an overhaul. I knew that going in.
We now have 2 starters in Kruger and Bryant and a rotational guy in Groves added to our front 7. We're not close to done. And we have pieces that are more valuable in a 43 than what they project to be in this 34. It makes sense that they'd be considered in trade. We'll probably see at least one guy moved by the end of training camp, maybe two out of Sheard, Taylor and Rubin.
If I'm a betting man DQ stays but I think it's more of a function of his salary preventing an amicable trade than anything else. I expect to see a dropoff in his play this year but heck he may surprise. People keep bringing up Washington and he was apparently really effective so that's a good reason to be hopeful.
So wedge me into that 35%.
I think we took a few steps backward with the 34 change. But it's the scheme that is preferred top to bottom in this new organization. Chud thinks it's much harder from a QB perspective to play against so I'm ok with it.
And we took a couple steps forward with the signings thus far...but we're nothing but a mid to lower tier defense as it stands today. Hopefully with the draft and another signing or two we can be an average defense this year.
And that'd be one heck of an improvement overall.
Vers, you were happy the previous SIX running the 3-4? The GLORIOUS 3-4 we ran under Ryan got us two 5-11 seasons. Under RAC before him got us ONE winning season and our D SUCKED that year.
The premise they are going by is that our current roster was BETTER suited for a 3-4. That's what you've been harping about since Chud was hired. He will change his system to fit our current players..... so that means our current players are BETTER suited for our new D right? GREAT. LOVE that. I can expect a GREAT defense starting in September because our former regime were idiots playing all of our players out of position..All these defensive tackles we are collecting will pay off..... ..
The real truth is we were far better suited to run a 4-3. They could have changed philosophy of how to RUN our 4-3 to attack..... But talent wise we were a LOT farther along building a 4-3. They decided to make HUGE holes on this roster. So I don't want to hear excuses that we don't have the players to run it. Come September I expect to see a top notch defense.
They can sign ten more defensive tackles. Fine with me. They seem to be collecting them for some strange reason. But I better see wins come September.....
Quote:
Say we didn't switch to the 3-4, what would we have needed on defense? A pass rushing defensive end, an outside linebacker, a free safety, and a corner (or two).
We didn't stay with the 4-3, so now we need: a pass rushing outside linebacker, a defensive end, a free safety, and a corner (or two).
Am I missing something?
You're missing quite a bit.
We have some very talented people on our D that produced quite well in the 4-3.
That in no way indicates they will do well in the 3-4.
More often than not, players don't transfer well from one scheme to the other. Just watch how many people we had playing well in the 4-3 that won't produce nearly as well as in the 3-4.
Then you'll get it. Until then, people are so convinced that everyone will just transfer SO WELL!
We'll know very soon......
Reality will bite!
Quote:
The board is comprised of 50% homers who rationalize any decision made as the best one possible.
A very vocal 15% who thinks all any Browns front office decision is the wrong one.
And then there are the 35% who try to see things for what they are.
...and 99% of the posters think they're part of that 35%. 
lol i was thinking the same thing
Quote:
We have some very talented people on our D that produced quite well in the 4-3.
individually sure. but we haven't had a productive defense in years.
Quote:
Quote:
The board is comprised of 50% homers who rationalize any decision made as the best one possible.
A very vocal 15% who thinks all any Browns front office decision is the wrong one.
And then there are the 35% who try to see things for what they are.
...and 99% of the posters think they're part of that 35%.
While those player may have never played in the 3-4, they do not create a hole (for now). Sheard, Taylor, et cetera will play for us in 2013 in the 3-4. Those are not holes. Holes are when you do not have a player to play that position. We have players, they are just question marks.
You would agree that there is a non-zero chance that Sheard can play outside linebacker in the 3-4, right?
Quote:
The real truth is we were far better suited to run a 4-3. They could have changed philosophy of how to RUN our 4-3 to attack..... But talent wise we were a LOT farther along building a 4-3. They decided to make HUGE holes on this roster. So I don't want to hear excuses that we don't have the players to run it. Come September I expect to see a top notch defense.
They can sign ten more defensive tackles. Fine with me. They seem to be collecting them for some strange reason. But I better see wins come September.....
And obviously they are collecting them because we didn't have what they needed for the 3-4.
But people seem to eat up everything this FO feeds them and are being spoon fed garbage. Hope it tastes good to them.
Like you, if we were just as close or closer to the 3-4 as we were the 4-3, then with these FA signings, I won't accept ANY excuses on D this year.
But we will see all of the excuse makers coming forward if that doesn't happen.
Quote:
You would agree that there is a non-zero chance that Sheard can play outside linebacker in the 3-4, right?
No, I believe if anyone of our current roster has a good chance to transfer to the 3-4, it would be sheard.
And while we do have "bodies" to play all the positions, to feel, expect and think they will play as well in the 3-4 as they did in the 4-3 is nothing more than a pipe dream.
The ones who transfer sub par in the 3-4 are indeed holes needed to be filled. No matter how you spin that.
Quote:
Like you, if we were just as close or closer to the 3-4 as we were the 4-3, then with these FA signings, I won't accept ANY excuses on D this year.
Excuses for what? For going 6-10? For not being able to get off the field in crucial situations? For not being able to put teams away?
As I see it, if this team is as good or better next year on defense, you will do whatever you need to do in order to not give any credit to the new regime that you loath so much..
Quote:
Like you, if we were just as close or closer to the 3-4 as we were the 4-3, then with these FA signings, I won't accept ANY excuses on D this year.
I asked you earlier and you didn't respond. What did we need when free agency started that we wouldn't have needed had we stuck with the 4-3.
With the 4-3:
DE - Sheard,???
DT - Taylor, Rubin
OLB - ???, ???
MLB - Jackson
CB - Haden, ???, ???
S - Ward, ???
With the 3-4:
DE - Taylor, ???
NT - Rubin
OLB - Sheard, ???
MLB - Jackson, ???
CB - Haden, ???, ???
S- Ward, ???
I understand the concerns with Sheard converting to OLB. No one knows what will happen. I do know that coming out of college (only two years ago) he was projected to be a 3-4 outside linebacker.
Quote:
As I see it, if this team is as good or better next year on defense, you will do whatever you need to do in order to not give any credit to the new regime that you loath so much..
Incorrect. I just feel it's pretty foolish of people to actually believe that a 4-3 D was just as equally gifted to convert to the 3-4.
That makes zero sense. So we'll see....
Quote:
I understand the concerns with Sheard converting to OLB. No one knows what will happen. I do know that coming out of college (only two years ago) he was projected to be a 3-4 outside linebacker.
So was Kameron Wimbley and a host of others who disappointed in the 3-4. Projections mean very little in that regard.
And the questions are most of the LBer's including DQ who did very poorly in the 3-4 before along with all of the DT's.
No need to list them because we have no idea if any of them will truly transition to the 3-4. The only acception is Rubin who has done a pretty good job at NT in the past.
Otherwise, the entire list is nothing more than a list of ????
Another question, what would you rather have?
A) People running a team with a scheme they are not familiar/comfortable with.
B) People running a team with a scheme they are familiar/comfortable with
Quote:
And while we do have "bodies" to play all the positions, to feel, expect and think they will play as well in the 3-4 as they did in the 4-3 is nothing more than a pipe dream.
Last year our defense was 14th in points, 23rd in yards allowed, 25th in passing defense, and 19th in run defense. We had the 14th most sacks. It's not like we are breaking up a great defense.
I expect our defense to be better than last year because we will have better coaching and better players. If our defense is not better at the end of the season I will be disappointed and will say so. I will not freak out if after four games our defense is below average.
I'm a FAN...I'm a big time Homer n don't see how that is possibly considered a negative Whatever we do I wish to believe we will WIN this year...I hate to lose but don't go suicidal if we do. I stopped trying to be the genius who knew better than Not other posters but our GMs n Coaches. I instead tried to see the vision they had n make heads or tails of it. All I know is this. My personal taste aside I got on board with the O systems n the D systems. Tried to see the potential in our youth n where the Vets fit in. Most posters will snicker n state under breath...yeah n you were always Wrong.
Maybe so..maybe not. What I do know is we never stuck with anything PLAN...Never stuck with any SYSTEM. Even the last group who thought they had it all secure for at least 5 years...were done after 3. Butch n RAC had 4 but were all but done after 3. I was never a fan of the 4-3 nor WCO but studied both n got into it. Cause I chose to be a FAN the only way I knew and that was to be a HOMER n buy in.
All I know is we got a knew owner...I was scared poopless about Banner. But you know what...Power - Totalitarianism is not bad in football. The more I see some decisions made the more I can buy in n believe in Banner/Lombardi.
The System...I cannot exclaim my enthusiasm that we have chosen our new LONG TERM PATH (They better be true to their words 
) cause it just so happens my PERSONAL choice of system is exactly what we are looking to utilize on both Offense n especially Defense.
I don't need BOZO's to tell me about our team...as if they know...talking about RUBIN as a DE Bozoism at its best. I'm sure if injuries mount at DE he can fill in there. But he was a darn good NT. Anyways...where players go...I will do my homer thing n believe Horton actually knows more than I n in what he sees in our players. We do have good young talent...and I'll tell you this (anyone who ever played the game can attest to this) There is NOT A DEFENSIVE PLAYERS who does NOT like to ATTACK!!! The kids will get into it fast n the passion for it will be infectious! I've always been happy to be a Browns fan - I don't care about the heart ache...It is better to have loved n lost than to never have loved. WE GOT OUR BROWNS BACK! But with this staff n system n the premise/promise to stick long term with it! I am ECSTATIC...there is that HOMER enough for you all. I do object to labels cause a dawg might use it to discredit me...oh he's a HOMER what he says cannot be believed.
Just don't fear me. Don't think I'm uppity. Don't expect me to dummy down my football. I write little Novella's so that I don't THROW MY OPINION DOWN PEOPLES THROATS but give them my PURE FOOTBALL LOGIC I have behind it...cause there usually is a method to my madness. So I don't know what Percentile I belong in and quite frankly I don't care...I try to respect all of you... You have no idea how much I like ya all as people cause you are ACES in my book cause you love the same team I DO!
Any player we spend 7 mil on a year...we expect him to be a starter n provide some Impact...That would be Bryant at DE n Kruger at OLB. Groves n the TE kid...bring it on n get into it n make good of your opportunities
I like the job Farmer did...Banner n yes even Lombardi 
JMHO
Quote:
The articles at the end of the season are all that matter. A writer singing praises for what they project on paper is as meaningless as a Draft grade given before the first Mini-Camp has even taken place. I'll save my excitement for when this group actually does something on a field.
I understand what you are saying and don't disagree in principle, but none the less, I am at least a little excited.
In the Ravens case, change isn't good. In our case, change brings renewed hope.
No?
Quote:
And the questions are most of the LBer's including DQ who did very poorly in the 3-4 before along with all of the DT's.
Jackson was very good in the 3-4 in 2008. He was then injured and missed most of 2009 and all of 2011.
I believe that were question marks with the linebackers even if we didn't switch. I would have had very little confidence in Robertson, Fort, and/or Johnson being effective long term players fgr us. Robertson and Fort are both situational players (as are most linebackers). Johnson had the best and has the best chance of sticking.
Taylor has never played in the 3-4 in the pros, neither has Hughes, Winn, or Kitchen. But all their skills translate well to the 3-4.
Quote:
Otherwise, the entire list is nothing more than a list of ????
Answer this question: How many holes needed to be filled if we stayed with the 4-3?
Finally a poster I can relate to. I think I see it the same way you do.
I must admit I wanted the switch. I don't feel we had the necessary pieces to play great defense in the 4-3. I know I was in the minority there, but Its just how I saw it. I was not a huge fan of the Kruger signing but I do understand it. He fits what we want to do and has the experience playing as an OLB. Avril did not and that was more then likely why he wasn't signed.
It looks like the brass wants Kruger and Bryant to become two of our starters on the front 7. I'm not sure what this means to some of our other D-linemen yet. Maybe we move one maybe we don't. Either way wouldn't surprise me.
I'm completely with you on DQ, again in the minority. He is just serviceable to me. I'd rather see D. Jones or Dansby brought here to replace him. He could be let go and find a team that plays a 4-3 where he is a more natural fit.
Going by what we did as a defense last year I'm not sure we took a step backwards per say. I think the scheme itself will be a step forward, if that makes sense. I truly believe by the end of the year our defense will be at least statistically better then it was this past year, and with a few more pieces will be much improved.
"Taylor has never played in the 3-4 in the pros, neither has Hughes, Winn, or Kitchen. But all their skills translate well to the 3-4"
I was enjoying this recourse between you and Pit,really didn't want to interrupt,but;
Do you think you could expand on that statement?
Exactly what skills do each of these linemen possess that would allow them to perform well in an even or odd front?
I feel the same way. It seems like these guys have a plan and they are executing it. BTW, I miss and always enjoyed your "what I saw" posts that seemed to get post game discussions initiated constructively. I hope you do it this coming season.
I believe that Taylor has the size and quickness to play both nose tackle and end in the 3-4. His size and strength will allow him to occupy blockers and make the tackles if a player comes in his area as a nose tackle. As an end his quickness along with his size and strength will help penetrate the line causing one of several things; he will beat his man (assuming Rubin, the nose tackle, is being double teamed) and have a clear shot at the QB/RB, he will be double teamed leaving one of the other defensive linemen one-on-one, or he will occupy his man/men leaving the outside rusher a one-on-one matchup. Taylor will be useful against both the run and the pass for the above reasons.
Hughes, Kitchen, and Winn are all situational player that will be able to do single aspects of what I believe Taylor will be able to do all by himself. I believe Hughes and Kitchen will be able to occupy blockers and play well against the run and Winn will be able to penetrate against slower guards against the pass.
Rubin is a prototypical nose tackle and has been successful in that role previously.
I don't know much about Desmond Bryant.
Ideally you would want to draft and develop players to fill these roles. But most 3-4 defensive ends were at some point defensive tackles in their career.
That was a good answer,a wee bit optimistic,but a good answer none the less.
One thing I will take from that,any linemen that is big,strong and quick can play in either scheme,is that what you're saying?
One thing I have maintained,I think forever,is it's never about the scheme,it's about the talent.
You put enough talented players on the field,you'll be successful,regardless of scheme.
The Browns don't have enough talented players,although by all accounts they've added 2 more,but still 3 short of a dozen.
Glad to see you made it over Eotab!
I like this move and think we probably need to add one more...
it will be interesting to see what they think of Sheard by what they do with the #6 pick....if they think he is a bona fide starter they may go corner/offense with that pick and address OLB in the mid rounds for a developmental guy but if not they could go with a guy like Dion Jordan as an Aldon Smith style guy
Quote:
One thing I will take from that,any linemen that is big,strong and quick can play in either scheme,is that what you're saying?
Big men that can run usually can play in any defense. I will add that they have to be smart enough to know what they are doing.
Quote:
You put enough talented players on the field,you'll be successful,regardless of scheme.
Heckert was a good GM. He got us many talented players. I was/am conflicted about his departure.
Getting the OLB's doesn't mean we won't draft one you are correct. What it does mean is we don't HAVE to get an OLB at 6 like we would have without the signings.That alone makes it less likely we won't go OLB in rnd 1 now
I'm loving the ability to go BPA in the draft....have not seen that in a while.
Quote:
Vers, you were happy the previous SIX running the 3-4? The GLORIOUS 3-4 we ran under Ryan got us two 5-11 seasons. Under RAC before him got us ONE winning season and our D SUCKED that year.
The premise they are going by is that our current roster was BETTER suited for a 3-4. That's what you've been harping about since Chud was hired. He will change his system to fit our current players..... so that means our current players are BETTER suited for our new D right? GREAT. LOVE that. I can expect a GREAT defense starting in September because our former regime were idiots playing all of our players out of position..All these defensive tackles we are collecting will pay off..... ..
The real truth is we were far better suited to run a 4-3. They could have changed philosophy of how to RUN our 4-3 to attack..... But talent wise we were a LOT farther along building a 4-3. They decided to make HUGE holes on this roster. So I don't want to hear excuses that we don't have the players to run it. Come September I expect to see a top notch defense.
They can sign ten more defensive tackles. Fine with me. They seem to be collecting them for some strange reason. But I better see wins come September.....
You know what, you're absolutely right. The 3-4 is a one size fits all defense. Belichick, LeBeau, Phillips, Capers, they all run it the same way. What were we thinking!!!!!
Quote:
I have to admit that I like our signings so far though if you look at who we signed, it is a little hard to understand considering we were 10th in total defense and 25th in total offense last year...
I know switching to the 3-4 requires some adjustments and I'm glad we aren't waiting 3 or 4 years to draft all of our 3-4 guys... but is anybody else beginning to wonder if we aren't setting our draft up to go offense, offense, offense? Though we do still need secondary help..
There has been a philosophy I've heard several times over the years and mostly during F/A and before the draft.
For the most part, "Draft Offense and sign F/A Defense players".
It's thought/said for the most part that O players (QB's, RB's, WR's, LT's, etc) are more inclined to be head cases during F/A with their me-me-me-me-me attitude shining much more brightly during the F/A period, hence signing F/A D players and drafting O players.
Not that there aren't a few HEAD CASE CB's in the league.
Quote:
GREAT. LOVE that. I can expect a GREAT defense starting in September because our former regime were idiots playing all of our players out of position..All these defensive tackles we are collecting will pay off..... ..
I thought you were going to cool it w/this regime stuff? Every post you make is slanted. You are knocking every move. You are negative about everything. You are making crazy demands.
You have the potential to be a great poster. You have knowledge. You are intelligent. Too bad you can't let go of your bitterness.
For the record, I don't think we needed to shift to a 3-4. I don't prefer one defense over the other. I didn't think we needed to switch to a 4-3 last time, but it wasn't a huge deal. This switch isn't that huge of a deal either. Would the transition have been easier if we stayed in a 4-3? Sure, it would have been.
With that said, we brought in an aggressive head coach who favors attacking on both sides of the ball. We then brought in an excellent D-coordinator who is very aggressive. This is the defense they wanted. I can live w/that. I don't think the transition is going to be as big of a challenge as you do. Will there be some guys who don't fit? Yes, there will be, but we still needed many of the same pieces.
We needed a corner. We still do. We needed a FS. We still do. We needed an edge rusher. We took care of that. We needed help at LBer. We still do. The only thing I see is that we are going to have to get one more LBer than we would have. I think our d-line is going to rotate like crazy and we are going to go after the qb hard.
I also can't understand why you keep acting like we are going to be in a 3-4 all the time. Horton himself said we would run multiple fronts. 3-man fronts. 4-man fronts. 5-man fronts.
We are going to be mixing things up a lot. Trying to confuse the offenses. Bringing guys from different places. You always used to complain about not pressuring the qb, yet now we get a guy who wants to do just that, and you are complaining again.
And I think you are dead wrong to pigeon-hole players into one position. I think you are going to see most of the guys lining up in various places. This isn't the NFL of the 1970s.
I have a big concern. If you wanna complain, perhaps you should switch your argument to this. You really expose your secondary when you attack so much. You better have corners who can cover and a FS who can roam the field. Yes, quick pressure will hide some problems in the secondary. However, there are going to be plenty of times the pressure won't get there. Our secondary is a huge weakness.
Haden is pretty good, but overrated by most. There are WRs who run away from him when they run crossing routes. Yes, those plays take time to develop, but he gives up those plays. I am not saying he is weak, but he is not quite as great as almost everyone says he is.
Our other corner is a huge question mark? It better not be Skrine or we are in trouble. We need a corner. BAD!
Ward is good in the run game. He will probably blitz a lot under Horton. He will make big plays. But, he is terrible in pass coverage. Some of the worst hips I have ever seen. Doesn't read well. Gets lost in space.
FS? We don't have one and this is the most glaring need on our team. Mike Adams is good enough for Denver, but not us. I am not saying he is great, but he is better than what we currently have. All I know is that we really need an upgrade here. I wanted Golston from SF so bad. Detroit just got Houston's FS. I hope we address this position.
So, if you want to continue your subtle bashing of the FO, perhaps you shift your focus to them not improving the secondary. At least you would have some ammunition.
good stuff Vers, and here's hoping we get Rhodes to patch that FS spot.
I am thinking more and more about this move ...... and how this guy is supposed to be extremely fast ..... and I wonder how he would be in coverage.
The reason I ask is this ...... we currently have an opening at ILB ...... and in Horton's defense, it seems as though his ILB needs to be able to cover ...... and it seems like Groves might have the ability to do it. I wonder if he could be an ILB for us?
If he could, then a starting 4 of Sheard, Groves, DQ, and Kruger would combine pass rush ability with speed, and might just be pretty good.
ytown here's a link about groves.
6'3 265 lbs ran a 4.57 40
it seems to me he wasn't used properly until he got with horton last year.
http://www.cantonrep.com/browns/x1959355220/Browns-sign-former-NFL-Combine-star-Quentin-Groves
Groves main asset is his speed and ability to get that edge on the pass rush. You move him to ILB and you take away that asset.
Maybe Horton could use him like Daryl Washington when DQ subs out, but I wouldn't mess with what worked on Groves.
Yeah, but my thinking is this:
If we use Sheard at one OLB spot, and Kruger at the other, then where does Groves fit in? As a backup? I was trying to figure out how they get him on the field, and with his speed, that seems like a possibility ...... especially with Horton's affinity for "big men who can run".
Quote:
Quote:
As a backup?
Yes.
definitely. his best use is situational and his contract bears out that is what we have in mind.
For what its worth, Groves did play some ILB while in Oakland. Don't have any details on how well he played there.
Quote:
Answer this question: How many holes needed to be filled if we stayed with the 4-3?
3 Maybe 4.
Now? We have no idea until the rubber hits the road.
And as I stated and you know all too well. The old line about "their skills translate well" actually means very little. We have seen this logic in many draft flops all across this league.
Once again, we don't have a clue how many of our current players will respond to the 3-4.
I don't even know why you would suggest otherwise.
[Talking about how many needs we had if we had stayed with the 3-4]
Quote:
3 Maybe 4.
I assuming you would be talking about defensive end, corner, and safety. With the maybe being an outside linebacker.
With the 3-4 we needed an outside linebacker, corner, and a safety. Maybe another inside linebacker.
Quote:
And as I stated and you know all too well. The old line about "their skills translate well" actually means very little. We have seen this logic in many draft flops all across this league.
We have also seen players who seem to be built for a certain system flop.
Quote:
Once again, we don't have a clue how many of our current players will respond to the 3-4.
If we had stayed with the 4-3 how do we know that Sheard hasn't plateaued? Maybe this is as good as he was going to get.
No one knows for certain how any unestablished player will do any system. The main point is that no new holes were created by switching defenses. Are there unknowns? Yes. But there are no new holes. We have players that are capable of playing these new positions.