Sunday Notes: Ahtyba Rubin over Shaun Rogers & Week 14 Games to Watch
by Chris Pokorny on Dec 13, 2009 11:40 AM EST
in General News
71 comments
It's been awhile since I've recapped the columns that Terry Pluto of the Plain Dealer writes. With the Browns already having played this week, Pluto brought up an interesting note today regarding the nose tackle position:
In the past two games, the Browns have allowed 75 yards (Pittsburgh) and 91 yards (San Diego) on the ground, a dramatic change for a team that had been being run over for 155 yards per game. The Browns believe part of the reason is Ahtyba Rubin taking over at nose tackle for the injured Shaun Rogers. They've discovered that Rubin does a better job of clogging up the middle against the run. Rogers is the better pass rusher and far more athletic. Next season, this could lead to Rubin being in the middle of the 3-4 defense with Rogers as one of the ends.
Surprisingly, the run defense has seemed better without Rogers in the lineup. As Pluto mentions, that's not a "dig" at Rogers, but more so shines light on the opportunity of having Rubin and Rogers in the lineup at the same time next year. Combine that with the creative schemes of pass rushing Rob Ryan has unleashed recently (Matt Roth, Marcus Benard, etc), and our defense could be on the right track for next season.
Pluto also discusses the unique defense that Ryan called during some of the passing situations, using five linebackers, six defensive backs, and no defensive linemen. It worked against Ben Roethlisberger Thursday, just like it worked for Eric Mangini against him two years ago:
The coaches showed the players the 2007 game between the Jets and Steelers when the 4-12 Jets upset Pittsburgh, sacking Roethlisberger seven times. In their 27-14 loss at Pittsburgh, the Browns were not able to get players to rush Roethlisberger from the proper angles. This time, they did.
Click here for the rest of Pluto's column, where he discusses the benefits that have come from the team's "opportunity sessions," how the Browns have been better off without Braylon Edwards and Jamal Lewis, and how there has been a change in attitude for defensive lineman Corey Williams.
Week 14 Games
Since the Browns already played this week, you can use this thread as an open discussion for all of today's games. If you're living in the Cleveland area, then there will be a lot of great games to catch on television. That's what happens when the Browns don't clog up one of the timeslots.
- Cincinnati Bengals vs. Minnesota Vikings - 1:00 PM on CBS
- New Orleans Saints vs. Atlanta Falcons - 1:00 PM on FOX
- San Diego Chargers vs. Dallas Cowboys - 4:00 PM on CBS
- Philadelphia Eagles vs. New York Giants - 8:20 PM on NBC
I think this will be the first time this season I'll have a chance to watch Drew Brees and the Saints' offense live as opposed to just seeing the highlights of their routs. There are two other important games being played today -- Indianapolis vs. Denver and Miami vs. Jacksonville.
0 recs |
71 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
That was a good article by Pluto with plenty of valuable information. I was actually going to post his quote about Rubin and disuss the possibility of him starting at NT next year and moving Rogers to DE. Rogers is much better against the pass than the run and he may be better suited to playing end and focusing on rushing the quarterback. Football Outsiders has the Browns ranked second to last against runs up the middle and that is something which should improve if Rubin is playing NT. The last two games have certainly shown that to be true.
Corey Williams has floundered on the outside in the 3-4 but was successful inside at GB in a 4-3 and played solid at NT Thursday night. Any thoughts on Rogers actually being less productive if moved to end?
by Monsters of the Midway on Dec 13, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
i can’t remember who said it, but somebody on this board said our defense would improve without rogers, and so far its hard to argue with the results. aside from moving rogers to end, might this make a trade a little more likely? not saying i think its going to happen, but it at least raises the chances.
That was me. I’m very much in favor of moving Rogers to end next year. A two-gap nose needs to stay home more than rush. Rubin is our best option at NT.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Points to you, golanbatrac. From Rubin’s play thus far, the idea of him and Rodgers on the line simultaneously is pretty intriguing….
"Everybody loves progress but not a lot of people love change." - E. Mangini, 12/11/2009
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 13, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Since I have been hard on Savage often, I need to give him a lot of credit for Rubin. To get a valuable run stuffer at that point in the draft is impressive.
Rogers-Rubin-Suh. Damn.
(We would probably have to trade C-will if we do this so we can draft a CB)
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 13, 2009 1:06 PM EST reply actions
This is assuming TB and STL can win another game, correct? And we’d have to not win anymore games. (I mention that because I see KC and OAK as very winnable games.)
Yeah I don’t see us getting the #1 pick (and I assume that’s what we would need to get Suh). Although the Bucs play Seattle next week and the Rams close with the 49ers, and I think both of those games are winnable for those teams, but I don’t see both teams winning (and even if they did then we’d only be tied and wouldn’t be guarenteed the first pick). And, as you said, we have a couple winnable games left on our schedule. Hopefully we can get the 3rd or 4th pick and get Berry.
Question (if anybody knows the answer): is strength-of-schedule the first tiebreaker or do they use head-to-head results when comparing two teams. For example, if only us and the Lions are tied with 2 wins do we get the higher pick because we lost to them or is it only by who played the weaker schedule?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 13, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
From NFL.com:
TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION MEETING
If two or more clubs are tied in the selection order, the strength-of-schedule tie breaker is applied, subject to the following exceptions for playoff clubs:
1. The Super Bowl winner is last and the Super Bowl loser next-to-last.
2. Any non-Super Bowl playoff club involved in a tie moves down in drafting priority within its tied segment as follows:
* For a loss inthe Wild-Card playoffs, a plus factor of one-half.
* For participation, win or lose, in the Divisional Playoffs, a plus factor of one.
* For a loss in the conference championship Game, a plus factor of one.
3. Clubs with the best won-lost-tied records after these steps are applied will drop to their appropriate spots at the bottom of the tied segment. In no case will the above process move a club lower than the segmentin which it was initially tied.
4. Tied clubs will alternate priority throughout the 7 rounds of the draft. In case of a tie involving three or more teams, the club with priority in the first round will drop to the bottom of the tied segment in the second round and move its way back to the top of the segment in each succeeding round.
If any ties cannot be broken by strength of schedule, the divisional or conference tie breakers, whichever are applicable, are applied. Any ties that still exist are broken by a coin flip.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Found the following on a blog (so no guarantee of accuracy):
6) If SOS fails to break the tie, and the teams are in the same division, apply the division playoff tiebreakers (except the “loser” picks higher).
7) If SOS fails to break the tie, the teams are not in the same division, but the teams are in the same conference, apply the conference playoff tiebreakers (except the “loser” picks higher).
8) If the teams are still tied, or are in different conferences, a coin toss decides the order.
http://www.east-coast-bias.com/2007/12/nfl-draft-order-tiebreakers.html
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
As old as Rogers and Robaire are, and as unproven as Rubin is, it’s probably for the best that we’re stuck with him, bad contract or not.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
that’s what i was thinking as well. it would also help out Corey Williams who people say plays better in the 4-3.
by The Brown Note on Dec 13, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
i could picture a Wimbley-Rogers-Williams-Smith front 4
by Sizemorgasim on Dec 13, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know if it’s completely out of the question. I mean, we lined up in some pretty interesting formations on Thursday where we used no linemen and some other unique formations. I’d say if lining up in 4-3 would help the defense then we’d probably do it, but I feel like we’ll probably stay with a 3-4 as the base defense.
If it works...
If it really works out that Rodgers is better suited at End with Rubin at NT, do it. They have a couple more games to find out if this set up really works or if the past 2 games were a fluke. We need to know before the season ends so we know what to go after first in the Draft.
except rogers is on IR, so we really can’t know till next year.
by notthatnoise on Dec 13, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Savage was very good at finding talent; he just had no long-term vision.
He mortgaged the future for short term gain and it killed him.
Plus the 08 draft was _ (many words could fit in this blank)
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 13, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
Does anyone think we can sign Domenik Hixon in the offseason
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 13, 2009 6:29 PM EST reply actions
He has a bit of the dropsies… but I’m all for him, but the last Akron alum didnt fare so well..
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 14, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
but the last Akron alum didnt fare so well..
And that matters how?
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 14, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
Isn’t much of Hixon’s value in the fact that he’s also a better than average return guy, and we already have Cribbs? Granted, it can’t hurt to have more than one guy who can take a punt or kick back to the house, but we have one of the best return guys in the NFL already. I would think Hixon would be more valuable to a team that needs some help in the return game.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 14, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
While we’re on the topic of the line, what do people reckon about Robaire Smith?
To me he doesn’t really seem to be.. there. Nothing outstanding.
he’s not what he once was, but he’s still a solid rotation guy out there, and would probably get decent playing time on most teams.
by notthatnoise on Dec 14, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I think Suh is probably out of grasp at this point. The Rams and Tampa aren’t winning again, and Suh is not going lower than 2nd.
Yeah but I can dream can’t I? The thing is, the Rams need a QB. Tampa also looks to need a QB. So there are possibilities there IF they don’t go for BPA (which is probably unlikely especially for TB which tends to draft high-skill defensive players as a rule). The other possibility is that we lose out and Tampa or the Rams win another game. Not impossible but unlikely (and in our case for me at least, unwanted). Yeah, Suh is becoming more and more unlikely for us if we start to get on track… but I like getting more on track I guess. At leas the Browns will get some kind of marquee player with their pick but I’d have definitely liked to have seen Suh.
Brownsyup
Jake Locker just announced that he is returning to UW next season.
So take the possibilty of Locker pushing Suh closer to us.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 14, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
That works two ways though. One fewer top shelf QB makes the other top QB’s all that more valuable. If the Rams want a QB, they may feel that they have to take him #1 or #2 rather than trade down a few spots and take whichever of the top QB’s is left.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Tampa just drafted a 1st round QB this year. They will probably take Suh.
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 14, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
I’d like us to draft Eric Berry, Gerald McCoy, or maybe Dez Bryant (if we beat Kansas City and Oakland).
By the way, do you know why Deion got mixed up in the Dez Bryant scandal?
He wanted to show he could still shut down a star WR.
Gerald McCoy wouldn’t be a good fit in the 3-4
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 14, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
If Cody continues to fall down draft boards, he’d be worth a look. No sooner than late in the second round, though.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 14, 2009 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
I guess I am in the minority.
I am not a fan of moving Shaun Rogers. If we move Rogers aren’t we doing the opposing offense a major favor? As of right now, Rogers has to be double teamed everydown. He is a factor on every single play. If we move him to DE, teams can gameplan away from Rogers.
He is the one for sure thing that we have on this team moving forward. Why mess with the one thing that has worked for this defense? Rubin may be a nice player, but Rogers is the best DT/NT in the NFL.
I’d think that Rogers will draw a double team no matter where we put him, and if he’s on the outside, he’s going to free up the OLBs.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Agree. It’s also hard to argue with the results with Rubin at nose. The run D seems to be doing a lot better even with our starting ILB’s on IR.
I am not against Rubin, but stopping the Chargers’ and steelers’ running games is not as impressive as it would have been 2 or 3 years ago.
Tomlinson is not what he once was, and while I haven’t seen the game yet, it sounded like SD could pass anytime they wanted.
pittsburgh is now a passing team. They no longer are as good at running the ball. Their line is pretty bad. And, we played them on a night where they couldn’t throw the ball because of the weather. We sold out to stop the run as a team. A win is a win is a win, but the running stats don’t tell that whole story, I don’t think.
Still, I think that because Rogers is versatile enough to switch positions, you do what you need to do to get your best 3 linemen on the field, your best group of three. If Rogers + Rubin + Williams is our best group, you put them out there. If Smith + Rogers + Coleman work better, you put them out there.
Regardless, we are about 6 deep on the line, and all 6 should get some PT.
The fact that the Steelers only ran the ball 22 times in that weather should be enough for Arians to be shown the door. Ben dropped back to pass 40 times.
Browns ran it 37 times, while Quinn dropped back to pass it 20. Sometimes it’s that easy.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 14, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions
not to mention that Schaefering is looking decent
by TheRealSlimShady on Dec 14, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t have an issue with getting Rubin some PT, but it should be limited to when Rogers needs a rest and for different wrinkles to catch and offense by suprise.
If Rogers became a full-time DE, I can’t see why an opposing offense would run towards him. Just run stretch plays and off tackles to the other side. Move the pocket away from him on passing plays.
Shaun Rogers is the most explosive, disruptive DT that we have had in Cleveland in a long, long time. Why should we give an opposing offense the choice to simply avoid Rogers? Rubin looks like a pretty decent player, but he is no Shaun Rogers.
IMO, our defensive line depth is probably the biggest reason we should switch to a 4-3 if we hire a new coach.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 14, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
you made my point for me. if we know which side the offense is going to, isn’t that a major advantage?
also, a 3-4 DE is more like a tackle in a 4-3. they’re involved in pretty much every play.
by notthatnoise on Dec 14, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it is an advantage if our best defensive player is taken out of the play.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 15, 2009 3:29 AM EST up reply actions
We don’t have the elite pass rusher for weak side DE, so I wouldn’t switch to the 4-3. We’re doing a good job getting pressure based on scheme so I would stick with things the way they are. Of course, I would consider starting Matt Roth on the strong side and maybe putting David Bowens in Eric Barton’s spot.
Plus, if we move to the 4-3 we might not get to see six linebackers on the field in passing situations like we did on Thursday.
We don’t have the elite pass rusher for weak side DE, so I wouldn’t switch to the 4-3.
But we don’t have a OLB pass rusher. Trusnik and Roth have looked nice, but not corner stones. We need to fill a hole one way or another.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 15, 2009 3:32 AM EST up reply actions
The strength of our front 7 is probably our DL right now. All of the guys that play on our DL would be DTs in what most people would call run from a 4-3.
If we went to a 4-3, that just means we take one of those guys off the field (2 DT in a 4-3 vs 3 DL in a 3-4) in our base defense.
What we lack are guys who would be 3-4 OLBs or 4-3 DEs. Wimbley is solid, and I think a better LOLB in our 3-4 than he would be a DE in a 4-3. I like Matt Roth, but I am not sure he would be any better in a 4-3.
A lot depends on the DC if we get a new one. I’ve heard Ryan prefers the 3-4, and was never allowed to run it in Oakland. Do what your DC likes.
The strength of our front 7 is probably our DL right now. All of the guys that play on our DL would be DTs in what most people would call run from a 4-3.
Right, but we would have the best DT depth in the NFL. We could run guys in and out all game. Rogers, Williams, Rubin, and Coleman or Schaefering would be awesome.
As for DE, we could use Roth, Wimbley and Alex Hall. Draft another player and look around some other teams trash for help.
A lot depends on the DC if we get a new one. I’ve heard Ryan prefers the 3-4, and was never allowed to run it in Oakland. Do what your DC likes.
Agreed. I am not going on some crusade, I just think that Rogers and Williams would be more productive in a 4-3, and considering that we don’t have any other true building blocks on defense, this would be as good of time as any to make a switch.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 15, 2009 3:44 AM EST up reply actions
Williams only shows up when he feels like it
The sporting gods hate Cleveland, they give us false hopes, then yank it out from under us like a tablecloth.
by North Coast Flea on Dec 14, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
Randy Moss has no problem with this approach.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 14, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions
I put 50% of the blame on Moss and 50% of the blame on Belichick. To send a guy home for being late in a snow storm is stupid.
But to just quit on your team is sickening.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 15, 2009 3:46 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
