FIRST GUESS ON 2009 DEPTH CHART.... DEFENSE
by Ryan Kelsey on Apr 29, 2009 1:18 PM EDT
Email
PrintContinuing with my last post on the offense, here is what I expect to see on the defensive depth chart, as of now. I have a little more knowledge of the style and scheme of the defense Mangini plans to run than I do of the offense. And while I still am concerned that it will be a Patriots/Crennel style, bend-but-don't-break 3-4, instead of a attacking Ravens/Steelers style attacking 3-4, again, I think the improvement from how our depth chart ended in 2008 in obvious.
DL
1. Shaun Rogers
2. Corey Williams
3. Kenyon Coleman
4. Shaun Smith
5. Robaire Smith
6. C.J. Mosley
7. Ahtyba Rubin/Santonio Thomas
First, I don't think we are going to carry 8 DLs in a 3-4 scheme. Rubin and Thomas are my favorites to win the 7th spot. Luis Leonard and Melila Purcell will also be in this battle. Rogers is the anchor of this defense and hopefully he and Mangini put their drama behind them. Williams needs to improve if he wants to stay a starter, and may find himself on the bench by the time the games start to count. Robaire Smith has a tough injury to come back from, but assuming he can, the top 6 linemen make a decent enough rotation that we can expect better run stopping than last year.
OLB
1. Kamerion Wimbley
2. David Bowens
3. Alex Hall
4. David Veikune
5. Leon Williams
I still really like Wimbley, Hall and Wiliams. And I like Veikune. I think these are the types of super athletic pass rushers that can rack up sacks in the right scheme with the right coaching. I hope Mangini and Ryan can make the most out of them. Bowens is blah, and is, less old than Willie McGinest, so I guess that's an upgrade.
ILB
1. D'Qwell Jackson
2. Eric Barton
3. Beau Bell
4. Kaluka Maiava
Barton and Jackson are solid enough. They'll both rack up a lot of tackels, hopefully at least a few of them will be before the ball carrier has gained 5 yards. Overall, I'm a little disappointed with our moves at this position (and LB in general). Who knows what Bell and Maiava can do. Maiava has a lot to learn and Bell was a ghost for 98% of his rookie year.
CB
1. Eric Wright
2. Brandon McDonald
3. Corey Ivy
4. Hank Poteat
5. Corye Francis
6. Don Carey
I like Wright a lot. I also like McDonald more than most. I think he can be a #2 and I think he was blamed for a lot of plays last year that had more to do with luck, coaching and blown Safety help than it did with McDonald's ability. Still, I think Ivy and Poteat are going to threaten his playing time at first, but McDonald's youth and ability should fend them off and keep the two vets in nickle and dime situations. Fracis seems like a high upside guy that fell into our lap--- a Phil Savage type pick. ("We got 2nd round talent in the 6th round!!") With the players in front of him, he can ease- let him impress on special teams and learn as a dime back before seeing the field in pressure situations. Carey seems destined for special teams and from what I've read, could be a Safety convert before all is said and done.
S
1. Brodney Pool
2. Abram Elam
3. Mike Adams
4. Hamza Abdullah
5. Nick Sorensen
Hopefully Pool can stay healthy. With only Elam as an addition, we remain pretty shallow at Safety. Safety, like TE, is not a position I like investing a ton of resources in, but its also something you can't ignore. Adams and Sorensen were nice surprises at the end of last year, only in that they didn't totally suck. Still, I don't want them seeing the field for long stretches.
OVERALL: Underwhelming. I am happy with the depth at DL and CB, even OLB. I also think Wright and Rogers are probowl caliber. It seems like we are missing a playmaker though, either at LB or S. As with the offense, there is a clear upgrade in talent and depth from the end of 2008, but the success of the unit will be up to the creativity with the coaches and the execution of the players. With a new staff and so many new parts its tough to guess any level of success.
Hope you all liked these two posts. It was helpful to me, to get an idea on what our team looks like after the FA signings and the draft. GO BROWNS.
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
110 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rubin is the guy for the last DL spot. He is enormous and showed flashes last year of being able to be a solid NT. No one else on the team has that potential (Rogers aside). I don’t think Shaun Smith can be an effective NT. His attitude is starting to wear on me.
I like McDonald too.
Wimbley is the key to this defense from where I’m sitting. If he doesn’t get back to being someone opposing teams have to identify, people could be scoring a lot of points on us.
And please, can we get creative this year? Pool, McDonald, and Wright all have good ball skills; put them in a cover-3, have the front 7 do any and everything, and put Abe Elam up in the box to be a headhunter. Especially on 3rd down.
Did we lose Leon Williams? He’s still listed on the roster over at clevelandbrowns.com. Not that that means much.
If so, I’d put him ahead of Bell at ILB.
Carmona for Cy Young 2009
I have to agree with bernie on this. Mcdonald is good, but I really think Francies is worth the risk of starting right away. Perhaps we could slide Mcdonald into a rotation with Ivy and Poteat for the dime package.
Right now McDonald is #2 and u say you want him to be #6?
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Apr 29, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
whoa. “McDonald is good” doesn’t make sense if you want him in a rotation for the dime back. Either you think he is a good player, or you think he is a fringe NFLer.
Maybe I should explain myself better as I didnt have alot of time to make my last post. Mcdonald is a great CB and I want him to stay at #2 but work in Francies at that spot as well as work in Mcdonald in the dime. I’m not to sure if hes played that as I was only able to watch 2 games last year lol. Sorry about that, I won’t make any more posts when my time is limited.
I think the confusion is more based on the fact that you’re describing a dime package as the situation that the #3 CB would enter under. That’s actually where the #4CB would typically get involved, as it is a 6 DB package, one more than a 5 DB package (thus the term “nickel” to describe the 5).
I believe what you’re trying to say is you’d like to see McDonald and Francies rotate between the #2 CB and #3 CB positions, rotating them between the edges and the slot.
Personally, I think that’s a tall order for a 6th round pick. That said, there isn’t a mountain in front of him if he does show that level of talent (or more likely, we need him to step up due to injuries ala McDonald two years ago).
Carmona for Cy Young 2009
Dont corners take at least a year to develop?
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 1, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
it really makes me nervous that wimbley, bowens and hall are our top three pass rushers. really nervous.
i hope ryan and mangini can coach ’em up (esp. wimbley and hall).
i really like wright, and then i agree that our db depth seems pretty good, although it’s fairly average depth, if that makes sense.
Pass rush can be created by one of two ways, pure talent or scheme. Most teams would kill for the Giants approach of just having awesome down lineman. We only have one beast, so we will have to go the way of scheme.
Hopefully Ryan and Mangini can create some pass rush lanes and do anything and everything to get to the passer. While my hopes are reserved when it comes to Mangini, I am thrilled that we were able to bring in Ryan as a DC. The Raiders had 32 sacks last year even with Derrick Burgess having a very poor year.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 29, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Yea i agree. Sorenson is nothing more than a practice squad guy but Mike Adams isnt that bad
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Apr 29, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Leon is an ILB
I think Hall will be ahead of Bowens and Veikune might even be
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Apr 29, 2009 5:18 PM EDT reply actions
You see Hall starting? I hope your right, but he is going to have to come a long way in impressing Mangini and Ryan. Like I said, I’m not impressed with Bowens, but he is a body with some experience.
I heard the coaches like Alex’s potential.
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Apr 29, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
alex hall definitely has some good potential. i think francies does as well. overall depth and youth wise we are a much better team on paper. weather that translates to the field is still to be seen but ManKok has my approval so far. i think they went offense in this draft to at least give the fans some hope. i mean we didnt score an offensive td in the last 6 games. i fully expect them to look over exactly what we have on defense this year and draft defense heavy next year. it wouldn’t surprise me for wimbley, and the smiths to all be gone next yr. corey wiliams also if he cant have a better yr in the 3-4 then he did last yr.
I think Wimbley will have a better year with a good DC. Maybe even as good as his rookie year
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 1, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Mel Tucker didn’t get anything out of Wimbley. He can be a lot better than he was last year in terms of rushing the passer.
Also, Wimbley’s coverage skills are underrated.
Wouldnt it be nice if we could get 10+ sacks out of and solid to good play out of hall, DV, Bowens or Laboy(if we could get him)
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 1, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I meant to put his name for the 10 sacks and solid play from everyone else
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 2, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Wherever they come from, I am glad we at least have players who we can hope can get to the passer this year. Last year after Peek went down, we pretty much had nothing.
If only because we have new faces, we at least have something to root for.
The OLB race should be exciting.
- Wimbley pretty much has his spot locked up
- Bowens is a vet and already knows mangini’s system
- Hall has crazy potential and the coaches know it. Correct me if I’m, wrong but in his 3 first games last year he had 10 tackles, 1 forced fumble, and 3 sacks.
- Veikune has showed off his football IQ and is said to be doing great in his transiton from DE to OLB.
I am hoping that Wimbley and Hall are the starters and DV gets some time too, but ManKok probably knows more about these players than me so i’ll just see how they do
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 2, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Random thoughts:
Even with the achilles injury, I’d rate Robaire Smith higher than Shaun Smith on the depth chart.
Veikune was Purcell’s understudy and successor at Hawaii. I think Purcell’s chances at making the roster depend on that relationship and whether the coaches think Purcell can help Veikune adjust to the NFL.
Who replaces Simon Fraser on the Special Teams unit?
Athyba Rubin will make the team. He’ll finish the ’09 season ahead of both Smiths and Mosley on the depth chart.
Josh Cribbs may get a shot at being the #3 or #4 Safety on the depth chart.
Fraser was with the Atlanta Falcons last season. I know we missed him on special teams, just wondering if you thought he was still on our roster last season.
Cribbs at safety could end up being a reality, but something we won’t be able to fairly project until training camp rolls around.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on May 2, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t know where Fraser wound up, but I did know that he left after the ’07 season, and that the kick return unit struggled last year without him.
i think it’s a bit of a leap to say that the kick return unit struggled b/c of the absence of simon fraser.
also, there is no chance melila purcell will make the team b/c the coaches think purcell can help veikune make the transition to the NFL. purcell is still making that transition! and he sucks! it’d be one thing if this were a grizzled vet who knows the ropes, but no way w/ a 2nd year scrub.
a lot of people are talking about cribbs at safety. i know we all love him and are amazed by his athletic ability, but to assume that he could, after a couple of weeks of practice, step in ahead of guys who’s been playing safety their whole lives is silly. cribbs at S would most likely be a 2010 proposition.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 4, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Fraser was a beast up front on the return unit. He didn’t just block the opposition, he moved them ten yards out of their lanes. The Browns didn’t have a replacement in ‘08, and I’m not sure they have one now (though the rules change limiting the wedge to a maximum of two players may have eliminated the need for a replcement).
If Purcell and, say, Thomas are dead even for the last spot on the line, Purcell’s relationship with Veikune, good or bad, could come into play. That’s all I was saying.
A lot of people are talking about Cribbs at safety because it makes sense. He’s an excellent tackler with DB hands (not WR hands) and a good head on his shoulders. He’s also the right size and has the speed for the position.
The Browns have little depth at Safety. Like I said before, Cribbs could (and should) get a shot at being the #3 or #4 safety. If given a chance, I don’t think it’s out of the question that he could pass Sorenson or maybe Adams on the depth chart sometime this season.
Why would we waste Cribbs as the #3 safety, who would play a very, very low % of the defensive snaps? We don’t have much/any depth there, but Cribbs should be on the field, not on the bench. Pretty hard to effectively play 3 true safeties at the same time with any consistency on defense.
Simon Fraser was not the reason our special teams were down in 08. He had a few good blocks, ok. One man doesn’t make a kick return unit, and if it did Cribbs’ high ankle sprain was a lot more to blame for our ST woes than missing Fraser.
The Browns ‘waste’ Cribbs at safety this year, so that they don’t waste him next year and the year after that. This will be, what, his fifth year? The man needs position. Elite returners have a short shelf life, and if the Browns don’t begin developing him now, I think he’s out of the league in three years. There’s a hole at safety, and Cribbs has the size, speed, and nose for the ball to fill it. If he can cover (which is the biggest unknown) he could develop into a starter next year (and for years to come) If he can’t cover, he’s a situational pass rusher / in-the-box run supporter / headhunter. Roy Williams with a brain.
If the Browns had an established offense, I’d be more excited about the possibilities he presents as a slash type player. But on an offense with a first year QB, two rookie wideouts, a suspect running game, a rookie center, and a first year coordinator, I think a slash type player masks deficiencies in the playbook and retards the development of the wide recievers and QB.
In my recollection of 2007 Fraser had more than a few good blocks. More often than not, Cribbs made his cut off of Frasers’ backside. In 2008, Cribbs rarely got a chance to make a cut because the wedge collapsed at first contact. Maybe that had more to do with Cribbs’ high ankle sprain than frasers’ absence…it’s impossible to argue without looking at gamefilm.
Cribbs has more than 3 years in him.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 11, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Roy Williams didn’t have a job for a long time for a reason. Guys who only can be “in the box” safeties are becoming extinct, and Mangini has publicly stated that he wants two interchangeable safeties who are both versatile players.
How would making Cribbs do something he has never done before help him settle in at a position? If not having a position is really a problem, wouldn’t it be best to keep him at WR, the position where he has been working part time for several years? He is already good at advancing the football. Why not let him advance the football if continuity is really what he needs? I think he will be good wherever we put him, he just needs to be on the field…
It would be a waste to move Cribbs to safety and to leave him as the 3rd safety. It would be very rare that we would have 3 safeties on the field. If he is a starter anywhere, that’s a different story. You said he had a shot at becoming the #3 or #4 safety, which would result in him sitting on the bench and be a waste of his talent in my opinion.
I don’t see Cribbs as a runner who really makes any cuts off “off of blocks”. When I see him go for long runs, I see him pick a hole that no one thinks he is going to pick because he uses subtle moves, hit it at full steam (not making much of a cut), and then be very hard to take down if anyone can catch him. I also don’t see Simon Frasier making any more blocks, working any harder, or getting any better blocks than anyone else on these highlights. If you want to dig something up and prove me wrong, then I’m wrong about Frasier. Right now, I’m not seeing it. It still takes more than one man to make a ST unit. If any one of those guys weren’t doing their job, Cribbs couldn’t do what he does.
Josh Cribbs as a Roy Williams type safety is the worst case scenario. The best case scenario has Cribbs developing over the next year or two into a versatile playmaker at safety. I don’t think it’s ever a waste to develop a player at a position of need. The bigger waste ths year would be to sit Harrison or Massaquoi (sp?) or Furrey or Robiskie so that Cribbs can play decoy.
And I don’t see where playing Cribbs at safety is ‘asking him to do something he’s never done’ any more than asking him to play wide receiver is. How many times has he lined up as a wideout? A dozen times in four or five years? He’s a project no matter where they put him. He’s an excellent tackler, he’s got a nose for the ball, and he can make pre-snap reads and adjustments. All that he lacks is experience covering receivers (a big deal at safety, but like you said, “he’ll be good wherever [they] put him”).
That’s the same highlight reel I looked at last night. They zoomed in on Cribbs to the point where you can’t tell who’s doing what. There doesn’t seem to be any suitable game film available online, and even if there were, it’d all be highlights. The returns to the forty and to midfield are the ones I’d want to look at to evaluate Fraser.
Also, saying that Fraser was a beast doesn’t mean that I think he did it all or that the other players were half-assing it. The return unit played well as a unit in 07, and Fraser was a standout on that unit. In 08, the level of play deteriorated significantly because, in my opinion, the Browns didn’t have anyone on returns with Fraser’s size, speed, and motor. That’s all I’m saying
by e.c. matter on May 12, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I think if you watch the highlights I linked to, you will see him line up at WR at least a dozen times. He has actually lined up at WR and QB. He has never actually lined up at S. That’s how I think it is asking him to do something he has never done before. BUT…
…I am not saying Cribbs can’t make a transition. You are the one that thought he needed to find a position, right? I think we should line him up everywhere, and thus make several transitions even in one game.
Frasier’s number was 75. I could see it pretty clearly several times, and even if you can’t make it out, such a phenomenal player who makes such superlative blocks should be easy to find on film. I just see everyone doing their job, including Frasier. No one looks particularly dominating—at least not consistently. If he was a standout, he should stand out, right?
So, let’s say Cribbs lines up everywhere. What percentage of the total offensive snaps? How many snaps at QB? How many at HB? How many at FB? How many at WR? Tight End?
Who sits? How many touches do Harrison and Lewis lose. What about Vickers? Do they give up on getting him the ball? Does Quinn remain in the game or does he sit out a play? A series? Half the snaps? What about the receivers? Do Furrey, Robskie, and Massaquoi take turns on the bench to make room for Cribbs?
Where did Fraser start on those plays and where did he finish? More often than not, he started between the hashes and wound up near the sideline. And why is the other teams wedge buster all the way over by the sideline? Because that’s where Fraser put him.
Let’s hope the Browns had better game film than that YouTube highlight reel when they evaluated this years picks.
In truth, because of the community affection for Cribbs, I think fans too often assume that Cribbs will be effective everywhere he lines up. I like Cribbs a lot, but he still needs to prove he can be effective outside of special teams before we start treating him like a multi-dimensional player
Exactly. He’s at best #5 on the depth chart at WR, and #5 on the depth chart in a thin backfield.
I like him as much as everyone else, but he’s not the solution to all that ails the Browns.
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
No one claimed he was the solution to all that ails the Browns! Straw man.
Cribbs has skills that none of our other WRs RBs, or QBs have. Depth charts don’t mean as much as you think they do.
You should bust out some of the the Latin terms for logical fallacies. Argumentum ad Nauseum. That’d really impress your friends on the high school debate team!
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude to tell you the truth this argument and this is getting pretty annoying.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 13, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I was never on my high school debate team.
Go ahead and keep attacking me personally and sidestepping my arguments. You’re just proving how dumb you are.
That’s a pretty low threshold for what constitutes a personal attack.
But at least you’ve demonstrated that you’re above such lowly tactics… Keep up the good work!
Depth charts only mean something at Safety, eh?
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
number of WR you can reasonably play on the field at the same time: 5.
number of S you can reasonably play at one time: 2.
Cribbs does have unique talents we could use on offense, he might have unique talents we could use on defense.
This is another straw man. Those are words that you just put in my mouth in order to introduce false contradictions in my logic. If Cribbs isn’t good enough to make it on the field as a versatile safety and he rides the bench, that’s wasting him, no matter where he is on the depth chart. If he can get on the field in multiple receiver sets and help move the chains/score, that’s using him; again, it doesn’t matter where he is on a piece of paper. It matters that he is inside the white lines and not outside of them.
Cribbs has potential on both offense and defense. Potential. Nothing more. He hasn’t proven anything on either side of he ball.
He’s as much a proven commodity a Right Tackle as he is at Wide Receiver or Safety.
I agree with this. His ability as a WR has been mostly unimpressive for me. I like the idea of using him in trick plays, but outside of that, don’t think he is that dynamic on offense
To be clear, I didn’t say that he was a great or even good WR. This argument was started because I pointed out that Cribbs has more experience at WR than S (which is as objective of a fact that there is).
That other guy said that “I don’t see where playing Cribbs at safety is ‘asking him to do something he’s never done’ any more than asking him to play wide receiver is.” This is pretty clearly false.
My argument about Cribbs playing on offense is based on the assumption that we could work him on to the field more (albeit without a “true” position) on offense whereas he would not get worked in on D as a safety. I never said he was a great WR, just someone defenses would have to pay attention to and study for.
There are simply 2 safety spots (3 in very rare prevent-D situations), vs. 5 skill position spots and one QB spot where he could line up on O. There are just more chances for him to get on the field on O and I would rather have Cribbs on the field than off at this point.
Not thinking that he needs just one position, I believe Cribbs could make appearances on both sides of the ball if he had the defensive skills to do something really well in a special package. I am in no position to know that.
My argument was never that he had more than potential anywhere except on ST and with the ball in his hands.
He has had success with the ball in his hands and advancing it down the field. I consider that an offensive skill that he does undoubtedly have.
He does have experience lining up at WR. He does not have experience lining up at S.
Very few snaps at QB. None at FB or TE. A few at HB and most at WR. He should be on the field around 25% of the snaps on offense, depending on how the other team is reacting to him. That’s enough to keep him fresh for ST.
Lewis can lose a lot of touches. Harrison and Cribbs could both line up as RBs in the shotgun formation. That would mean Braylon, MoMass, Robo, Harrison, and Cribbs are all on the field. Who are you concerned about losing snaps? Robo and MoMass are rookies, I certainly don’t expect them to play 80% of the snaps. Lewis is getting old. Harrison shouldn’t be a 20 touches/game kind of guy anyway. Royal does not excite me much. Heiden is coming off of a serious injury. We don’t know much about Rucker. Who else is there?
How are you going to criticize the quality of that film and then try to make arguments based on it? If you got what you needed out of it, it was good enough. And what does that have to do with my point? NOTHING. Frasier didn’t stand out on ST. Frasier did his job. Everyone else did their jobs too; if any given player didn’t block, none of those big plays would have happened. Frasier didn’t have much/any value over the next guy the Browns found block for Cribbs.
So…it’s better to have Cribbs involved in 25% of the offensive plays than it is to plug him in at Safety? Mike Adams was the #3 safety last year. I’d bet that he was in on at least 25% of the snaps. Hell, Sorenson was probably on he field for 10% of he snaps.
So why again is playing Cribbs at Safety (where the Browns have little depth) a waste, and playing him here, there, and everywhere on offense (where they have plenty of depth) not a waste? He’ll likely be involved in the same number of plays either way (unless Poole and Elam manage to make it through all 16 games unscathed).
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
i would say 2 things to that:
first, “plugging him in” as a safety sounds like it just as easy as making the decision to trot him out there. for a guy who has never so much as played a down at S in college or the pros, a switch to a new position (much less a new side of the ball) will be much more of a process than just plug and play. i’m sure you realize that.
second, playing him at safety is more of a waste than playing him all over on offense b/c, so far, his greatest value is realized with the ball in his hands. maybe he turns into a great safety…but that won’t be until 2011. he can make a big difference on offense in 2009.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 13, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t base any arguments on that youtube highlight reel. How could I? My arguments are based on my recollections of Frasers’ performance in 07. Take ’em or leave ’em.
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Where did Fraser start on those plays and where did he finish? More often than not, he started between the hashes and wound up near the sideline.
So this is based entirely on your memory of two football seasons ago? I’ll try to see what I can make up remember from two years ago. To counter that. I’ll get back to you.
My counter argument is pretty much that Simon Frasier is not a good NFL player, and that you are basing your feelings of how good he is on memories that you made up, not any sort of fact.
It is also that he never jumped out at anyone as a blocker on a ST unit: he did the same good job that everyone else did in 2007.
So far, you’ve had nothing of substance against that.
how in the world could a player who offers an expansion of the playbook, a weapon that instills fear in the other side, and presents the possibility of breaking a big play every time he touches the ball “mask deficiencies” and “retard” development?
by DontCallMeJoey on May 12, 2009 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Only if you want to pretend that the offense is farther along than it is.
They need to establish a sound offense before they start adding trick plays and chicanery. I’m not interested in short-term success, or a team that competes only in years when the schedule is weak. I want a decade of sustained excellence.
by e.c. matter on May 12, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
you’re treating “a sound offense” and “trick plays and chicanery” as mutually exclusive propositions. that is clearly not accurate.
as well, i don’t think a team competes, even in weak schedule years, on the strength of halfback passes and the like. how many wildcat plays did the dolphins run last year (the most ardent employer of that strategy)? i’d wager it was less than 5%.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 12, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
dude, once more, you’re missing the point.
for one thing, if cribbs were to touch the ball on offense on 5% of the plays this coming year, i’d be willing to bet that would be a substantial upgrade over his touches this year.
furthermore, you once again presume mutual exclusivity where it doesn’t exist — cribbs will most likely be our “changeup” option in cases when we deploy that strategy, but that doesn’t mean that he can’t be involved in the “sound offense” to which you refer.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 12, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
What position does he play in normal offensive sets? Who sits to make room for him? Ronnie Brown and Rickey Williams line up at their natural position (RB) in the Dolphins normal offense and in the Wildcat. That’s why the Wildcat is as effective as it is. The defense doesn’t know when it’s coming. The Dolphins don’t telegraph it with personnel changes and formation shifts.
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Scratch those last two sentences. I’m thinking of some of the Wildcat derivatives that sprung up across the league last year where he ball was snapped directly to the halfback in the normal offensive set.
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Scratch all of thoselast twosentences
fixed
by DontCallMeJoey on May 13, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
honestly…who gives a shit? there’s not such a dynamic playmaker on this offense that we can’t possibly bear to have someone on the sidelines in favor of cribbs.
if anything, cribbs is our most dangerous guy w/ the ball in his hands, so line him up anywhere.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 13, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
And sit one of the second round picks or one of the best fullbacks in the league? Or give up on getting Harrison the ball…? No thank you. Let’s see what Robiskie and Massaquoi have to offer and let’s see what Harrison and Vickers can do with a QB who doesn’t throw 100 mph knuckleballs at their back shoulder before we decide that Cribbs is the Browns’ only playmaker.
if you’re arguing that cribbs is NOT our most dynamic player with the ball in his hands then you’re just being dishonest with yourself. i’m not sure what else to tell you.
also, you present, what, a 5th or 6th false choice. in football, you use multiple receivers and multiple backs—on a given play and in the course of a game. if you’re saying to me that we can’t find 5-10 plays in the “standard offense” to put cribbs on the field, well, that’s absurd. no one is saying that another player need to be permanently benched to get cribbs in the game.
try to keep up.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 13, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said that Cribbs wasn’t he Browns’ most dynamic player with the ball in his hands. Straw man.
I said we don’t know what he players the Browns have are capable of, and come 2010 we still won’t know if they sit them to make room for Cribbs.
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
ok … last try. it’s getting old you putting words in my mouth. PLEASE try to pay close attention to this one:
what i am saying is not to sit Robo (for example) so that we can play Cribbs at WR. what i am saying is that there are probably 2 plays a game where Robo can sit and get Cribbs on the field…and 2 plays a game where MoMass can sit, and Quinn, and Furrey, and Lewis, and Harrison… that’s 12 plays for an entire game where you put Cribbs on the field, and no single player’s playing time has been substantially negatively impacted.
this way, you can get the ball in our most dynamic playmaker’s hands 4 times a game (out of those 12 plays) on offense, as well as play the rest of the talent enough to get a sense of their abilities.
playing cribbs and finding out what we “are capable of” are NOT mutually exclusive propositions. they just aren’t.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 13, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
So, 4 touches on offense > expanded depth at safety. I’ll remember that when one or both starting safeties goes down and the Browns are combing through free agent castoffs for backups.
this presupposes that he’s a capable safety. no one here has any way to evaluate that point. we all have decisive visual evidence that he is dangerous with the ball in his hands.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 18, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh, I don’t know if I’d go that far. I haven’t seen enough from Cribbs offensively to give him that title
doesn’t even have to just be offense. consider him fielding kicks. i don’t think it’s close, quite frankly.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 18, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Do I need to draw you up some plays?
Good lord. 5 skill players play at a time. Only one of them gets the ball, unless we are going to run a HB pass or something.
All of this happens regardless of whether Cribbs is in the game or not.
And I say let it happen without Cribbs on the field. Cribbs is needed elsewhere (at safety).
by e.c. matter on May 13, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Does Cribbs’ ability to block as a WR (or lack of, which I doubt) increase his value as a WR over others? One of his talents appears to be an ability to read the field, which could help maximize the play of others.
If Cribbs could block better than other WRs, it could only add to his value.
With him, Braylon, Robo, and Massaquoi, we have four WR who can block really well. That sort of thing would be great for screens and running the ball from the shotgun.
It doesnt matter who sits. Its only for a play or two. Its not like we will sit them for a quarter
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 13, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Bowens vs. Hall vs. Veikune should be one of the best training camp battles to watch, as I believe any one of them can win the job. Experience vs. Last Year’s Hype vs. Second Rounder This Year.
Backup safety stands out as a concern for me. I liked Mike Adams last year, but I haven’t been sold on Abdullah and Sorensen as backups.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
I am more sold on Sorensen. He is oddly tall for a DB, and can at least compete for the jump ball in the endzone. He also looked good in the Giants game where he was mostly used as a blitzer.
Nowhere close to ideal, but if I had to cut one of those two, it’d be Abdullah.
Really looking forward to seeing Veikune/Hall/Bowens. If we could have Shaun Rogers and 3 LBs who can get to the quarterback if they only saw one blocker…
I wonder if any of the safties we signed as UDFAs will make the roster.
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 2, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
bowens/hall/veikune will be very intriguing to watch as a battle, but i’m not sure i’m convinced we’ll get a lot of production out of the winner. bowens is old, hall is raw, and veikune is transitioning.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 4, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the difference between a bend don’t break defense and an attacking defense
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 3, 2009 10:38 PM EDT reply actions
This is an aggressive, attacking defense. Just about everything the Browns did last year was a “bend don’t break”.
Aggressive defenses look to control what the offense does; they try to dictate what happens on the field and they try to make the first move regardless of what the offense is doing. They typically blitz more and do more “exotic” things.
“Bend-don’t-break” defenses usually concede the offense small gains, aiming not to give up big plays and to frustrate an offense by making it grind out yards slowly. Instead of blitzing on 3rd down, a bending defense will aim to let a receiver catch the ball, but short of the yellow line.
I forgot about that awesome post, rufio. This is why despite acknowledging some of our defeciencies in drafting and player development, I think the coordinators/coaching has been just as big of a hindrance to success since we came back.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
To add- The Browns have played the bend-but-don’t-break D under Crennel. The Patriots, basically play this style under Belicheck. Both out of a 3-4 base front. The Ravens and Steelers are two examples of teams that play a 3-4 base front, but are more exotic in where they send their 4th and often 5th rusher.
Obviously both can be effective. I think it was Jim Tressel who pointed out the number of 70+ yard drives that were over 5 plays and didn’t include an defensive penalty are extremely few. Basically, if you don’t shoot yourself in the foot and don’t give up the big play, you are going to hold the other team to a low number of points. And its worked in the NFL.
However, the attacking style can lead to huge momentum swings with sacks and turnovers. The defense becomes a weapon, instead of a shield.
My biggest frustration is that, despite the Patriot’s success, I hate a bend-but-don’t-break style in a 3-4 front. It is too easy to run on it, especially with smaller ILBs. And if you are just sending the same guy from the same position using the same move as your only “blitzer” (WIMBLEY 2006-2008) on almost every play, you have essentially lost any advantage of a 3-4. Instead you are playing a 4-3 with smaller linebackers and less athletic DLs. Its a combination that eventually drove Crennel out of Cleveland. I say a little prayer every night that Mangini/Ryan do not believe in this same scheme, even though Mangini’s pedigree suggests otherwise.
While you’re praying for the Browns every night, you might want to say a few for the Indians. They need the help.
by Buckeye Brad on May 4, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The reason why Belichick’s 3-4 works is because he has intelligent and versatile players and his schemes are complex, creative, and surprising even when they are constructed under a bend-don’t-break philosophy.
Belichick does a lot to confuse a QB. He moves people around, he will bring safeties up to the LOS and move CBs 15 yards off of it. He will send different blitzers after the QB even if he doesn’t send many of them. He knows what an offense wants to do and how to take it away.
Romeo simply didn’t do much of that. It wasn’t that it was a bend-don’t-break style, it was the lack of creativity and complexity. When you send the same OLB after the QB over and over (Wimbley), you aren’t even playing a 4-3 with slow linemen and small LBs—you are asking 3 linemen NOT to aggressively rush the passer, and you play with 1 LB who really is more of a DE. I don’t think its really about size. Andra Davis’ problem wasn’t that he was small. DQ isn’t huge, but our defense didn’t suck because he was small.
Not to mention, the Patriot’s 3 DL are all pretty much monsters.
The bend-don’t-break becomes really frustrating when it can’t get the opposing offense off the field. Maybe offenses don’t have a lot of long, clock eating, scoring drives in the NFL, but when you are down by 7 and you need the ball back in the 4th and a field goal pretty much puts the game out of reach, you need to step up and get your offense the ball.
I was going to respond up thread, but that would be a waste with the vitrol and crazy indents going on up there.
Cribbs could be a good safety in 2-3 seasons. And that’s if he spent all his time doing that. I think it would be wasteful considering he is extremely valuable as a returner and gunner on special teams right now. Also, he has spent the better part of 3 years improving as a WR/RB. The previous coaching staff didn’t use him very well there, but that doesn’t mean the new regime will similarly struggle to get the ball in his hands where he can succeed on offense.
Look, without his talents with the ball in his hands he is nothing more than a special teams tackler. Those are dime a dozen in this league. Guys you draft in the 7th round and UDFAs. Not good enough to play on defense for one reason or another. Cribbs has separated himself from these guys because of what he can do with the ball in his hands. First on returns, then reverses and screens, and then as a wild-cat QB.
Since one poster was particularly dense in seeing these things, let’s put it this way. What career path do you find more valuable: Antwan Randle El/Hines Ward or Nick Sorensen.
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.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
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
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
