Cleveland Browns Training Camp 2009: Wide Receiver Preview (Part 1)
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 5, 2009 7:14 PM EDT
in 2009 Training Camp
Email
PrintLast year, the Browns brought 10 wide receivers to training camp. Not including Braylon Edwards, let's take a look at some of the names on that list, including where I ranked them and their contributions:
2. Donte Stallworth: Injury-plagued, could barely match Tim Carter's production.
3. Travis Wilson: Didn't even make the team.
4. Kevin Kasper: Went on injured reserve before the season started.
9. Syndric Steptoe: Ended up being our No. 2 receiver, and played like the ninth best receiver from training camp.
I don't think I'm reaching when I say that our wide receiver position was pathetic last season. This year, we haven't added any other big-name receivers, but we have stayed in line with Mangini's philosophies at other positions: adding several sound veterans and having some youth from the early rounds of the draft. Will that pay dividends? Let's hope so, as this week is titled "see ball, catch ball...and block". The blocking part relates more so to the tight ends (which will be covered later in the week), but is also an important attribute for the wideouts to have.
1. BRAYLON EDWARDS - NO. 1 STARTING WIDE RECEIVER
Braylon Edwards (#17)Height: 6-3
Weight: 215
College: Michigan
Experience: 5 years
Stats: 873 yards, 3 TD
It was not a very pleasant season for Braylon Edwards last year, and it became tiresome in the offseason to hear he would be traded to the New York Giants, without anything actually happening. There was a one group of fans who thought Edwards' days in Cleveland were over. There was another group of fans who thought it would be ridiculous to toss Edwards away after one bad season. I was in that second group, so I'm satisfied. With Kellen Winslow traded to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, we still needed a receiver on our roster who could create double teams and mismatches down the field.
Worst Attribute: Dropping Passes - While he has never been a sure-handed player, last years struggles were completely unprecedented for Edwards. In 2007, he has nearly 1,300 yards receiving and 16 touchdowns. If the ball was thrown deep and he was in the vicinity, more times than not he would come down with it. Last year, except for two games, Edwards was practically invisible in terms of production. He wasn't quiet like Stallworth though; he had a huge impact on every game. Like in Week 1 against the Dallas Cowboys, when he was wide open on a deep route but simply dropped the ball. In Week 9 against the Baltimore Ravens, he dropped another deep pass that could've been a walk-in touchdown.
It wasn't just the big plays Edwards disappointed on though; he was dropping the ball on short-to-mid-range passes on a consistent basis as well. This was beyond Quincy Morgan and Dennis Northcutt dropping, and I'm sure it is what turned off many Browns fans (well, that, and also his arrogant demeanor at times despite his struggles). There's a difference between not making the catches that should be made and not making the catches that are difficult to make. If Edwards started struggling on jump balls where he is double covered, you can pawn it off to bad luck. You can't do the same when it's back yard pitch and catch drops.
Best Attribute: Field Recognition - This one goes back more so to the 2007 season, but it should be something that you just don't lose. Unfortunately, it does go hand in hand with having an accurate quarterback and being able to catch the ball. Against most cornerbacks, Edwards can get solid positioning in the end zone and snag fade passes out of the air right by the sidelines, making it impossible for opposing players to defend. I'm confident that Edwards is one of the best in the league at doing this, even if the plays aren't in the end zone. If he improve upon his ability to catch the ball again, Edwards' field recognition will make Brady Quinn's job a lot easier.
Various Concerns / Comments - This could be Edwards' last year with the team. He was a demon in training camp last year, looking every bit like the Pro Bowler he was the season before. After Stallworth stepped on his foot though, Edwards wasn't the same the rest of the year. Will Edwards' mentality get back on track? This year, we'll find out who the real Braylon Edwards is as a wide receiver.
Job Security: A+
Player Quality Potential: A+
Final Roster Odds: 100%
2. BRIAN ROBISKIE - NO. 2 STARTING WIDE RECEIVER
Brian Robiskie (#80)Height: 6-3
Weight: 209
College: Ohio State
Experience: Rookie
Note: 2nd round pick
Robiskie is the early favorite to start opposite Edwards. I'm happy that one our rookies will probably be starting, because for the past several years, our lower-level rookie receivers were held back by not being given the opportunity to play with the No. 1 team.
While he might lack ideal speed, Robiskie was labeled as a polished receiver coming out of college who was ready to make an immediate contribution. He drew praise from the coaches and local writers for his efforts in minicamp and the offseason training activities. With many Browns fans also being Buckeye fans, it won't be difficult for many of you to project just what type of contributions Robiskie will make to the team.
After he was drafted, I featured a piece on Brian Robiskie, where many fans also gave their thoughts on the selection. I encourage everyone to check that out, especially if you didn't see it the first time. After some initial dissapointment with the pick, 85% of you voted your approval in the Browns taking Robiskie at No. 36 overall.
Job Security: B
Player Potential: TBD
Final Roster Odds: 100%
3. MIKE FURRY - SLOT WIDE RECEIVER
Mike Furrey (#87)Height: 6-0
Weight: 195
College: Northern Iowa
Experience: 7 years
Note: 1,098 yards in 2006
The slot receiver position should be a highly contested position, with veterans Mike Furrey and David Patten trying to make more noise than rookie Mohamad Massaquoi does.
Furrey has had an interesting career, thanks to the oddities of coach Mike Martz. Furrey began as a receiver with the St. Louis Rams, before being converted to safety in 2005 and starting 11 games at the position. The very next season, when he and Martz both went to the Detroit Lions, Furrey became a starting receiver and had over 1,098 yards receiving. Although he started, much of his production came in positions which would be ideal for a slot receiver. Furrey had a concussion last year and was placed on the injured reserve, much to Furrey's dismay, as he felt he was perfectly fine to return to action.
Furrey is a possession receiver -- during that 2006 season, his longest reception went for 31 yards. For more on Furrey along with some of our readers' initial reactions to the signing, check out this post from May 2009.
Job Security: C
Player Potential: B-
Final Roster Odds: 90%
4. MOHAMED MASSAQUOI - COMPETING FOR SLOT WIDE RECEIVER
Mohamed Massaquoi (#11)Height: 6-2
Weight: 210
College: Georgia
Experience: Rookie
Note: Other 2nd rounder
Before long, I think the nickname "MoMass" is going to become popular for Massaquoi, to avoid the confusion of spelling his name correctly (although it's not really that difficult after getting used to it).
When I did a write-up following the draft on Massaquoi, a few fans from our Georgia affiliate responded with something that really stood out for me:
"As far as his strengths, MoMass is a tenacious blocker, a superb route-runner, and has above-average downfield speed."
If you search the Internet for scouting reports of "Massaquoi" and "blocking", the two seem to go hand in hand. Edwards was a suitable blocker for the Browns last year, but not many other receivers were. Syndric Steptoe? Not in a million years.
In college, he was inconsistent catching the ball, which makes it difficult for me to believe he will win a competition against a veteran like Furrey. I'm considering him more of a project than Robiskie is, although it would not be a shock if he performed well enough in training camp to win the job over Furrey. It might be more realistic to see Furrey and Massaquoi share reps at the slot position this season, depending on the situation we're facing in the game.
Player Potential: TBD
Final Roster Odds: 100%
5. DAVID PATTEN - BACKUP VETERAN WIDE RECEIVER
David Patten (#81)Height: 5-10
Weight: 190
College: W. Carolina
Experience: 13 years
Note: Former Brown
It's been nearly a decade (9 years to be exact) since David Patten has been a member of the Cleveland Browns.
That's right -- "In the year 2000...in the year 2000..." Patten played in 14 games with the Browns, recording 38 catches for 546 yards and a touchdown. If Patten was the Browns' slot receiver this year, I don't think he would be able to match that production from nine years ago; I think Furrey and Massaquoi have more potential.
Patten is a respectable veteran and a three time Super Bowl champion. In the team workouts prior to training camp, patten has been acting as a vocal leader/encourager, giving props to the younger players. That's encouraging, and while Patten is past his prime, it's not like he would be in a Willie McGinest situation where he is being asked to start. Patten will probably see some training camp reps at the No. 2 receiver position because he is a veteran, but if he makes the roster, I can't see him being more than a No. 5 receiver. That will be difficult though, because if you count Joshua Cribbs as a receiver, we really don't need anybody else after Edwards, Robiskie, Furrey, and Massaquoi.
Player Potential: C-
Final Roster Odds: 50%
Final Roster Odds: 100%
*6. JOSHUA CRIBBS - CAN WE CALL HIM A WIDE RECEIVER?
Joshua Cribbs (#16)Height: 6-1
Weight: 215
College: Kent State
Experience: 5 years
Stats: 16 career catches
Any time I don't include Joshua Cribbs on a list as a wide receiver candidate, a few people always complain with comments such as "ummm...aren't you forgetting about Cribbs?" From now on, I should probably counter with "how many times have we heard that" versus "how many opportunities/catches has he actually had"?
2005: 1 catch, 7 yards
2006: 10 catches, 91 yards
2007: 3 catches, 37 yards
2008: 2 catches, 18 yards
I'd really like to believe that Cribbs can play a nice specialty role as a receiver, but at least during the Crennel era, we didn't see it. As for whether that'll change during the Mangini era, we simply don't know yet. With Cribbs, I'm not expecting him to compete for a job at receiver. Rather, his versatility should be used at random during a game, including some plays at receiver. Cribbs doesn't fit in on a depth chart; he gets a nice little asterisk next to his name instead.
Player Potential: NA
Final Roster Odds: 100%, if not traded
WR Position Quality (Starters / Competing Players): B
Wide receiver Donte Stallworth is not included on this list, and he will not be included in Part 2 either, as he is facing an indefinite suspension. Our depth is better now than it was at the start of last season, with the added bonus that we have two rookies the team has invested quite a bit into. While Edwards and Robiskie seem to be a sure bet at No. 1 and No. 2, the slot position is wide open. There's even an outside chance that a Syndric Steptoe or Paul Hubbard could win that role, because you never know how things will turn out from year to year.
We have several days to discuss the wide receiver position, and there are five players left to cover. I haven't decided whether Part 2 will be up on Tuesday or Wednesday; I will try to have an update on that on Monday. In Part 2, we will take a look at Devale Ellis, Paul Hubbard, Lance Leggett, Jordan Norwood, and Syndric Steptoe. Four of those receivers will be fighting for spots on the practice squad. Steptoe, who is not eligible for the practice squad, will have a very difficult time making the roster this year.
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We should move Lewis to FB make Harrison our starting RB and move Cribbs to RB to split reps with him and open up the RB pass plays lol
by North Coast Flea on Jul 5, 2009 10:33 PM EDT reply actions
or we could be smart and just put Cribbs at RB every once and a while.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
What you call the Slot Receiver I call the Flanker. The Flanker flanks the line, which as you indicated requires him to block on running plays. He is your first short to medium range passing option. A flanker is usually slight in build, quick and agile, sure handed and tough enough to take a hit. Wes Welker and Hines Ward are good examples. With the players on our roster that would be Syndric Steptoe, Jordan Norwood, David Patten or Devale Ellis.
But considering we have a standout athelete in Braylon Edwards, who is more of a spectacle on long routes than a classic cool calm and collected wide receiver, and due to the fact that I would intend pounding the line of scrimmage vertically with two fullbacks, his freakish athleticism would lead me to employ him as an atypical body type at Flanker, because I want an outside threat, a horizontal danger man, to complement my vertical punishment. Edwards would be wonderful as a blocking threat and an option to get a handoff on sweeps and reverses (also excellent for horizontal field positioning), and a huge after the catch threat on underneath, short and medium range routes. He´s a beast of burden, I would put that to work at the Flanker position.
The for Wide Out, like I said I prefer classic stealthy mid sized receivers, my choices for number one and two receiver are Mike Furrey and Mohammad Massaquoi, possibly Leggett, and Joe Jurevicious if he can be tempted and assuaded to come back.
At tight end I like John Madsen, he looks like a wirier stronger Mark Bavaro to me, maybe we can find a way for him to prove his worth.
I agree, that Cribbs is more of a novelty, because he also has the athletic linebacker body which could enable him to fill in at a lot of positions if called for. But I think most people would agree that his calling is as a specialist punt and kickoff returner, and he should be able to concentrate on that.
Clearly, Edwards is a fifth wheel on our team. With 4 fullbacks in the backfield and 6 shuffle passes per game, we need a possession type receiver. I envision deploying 2 tight ends and packing them in tight next to our tackles. Then, we fake to the one of the fullbacks and shuffle the ball to the tight end breaking past the line of scrimmage. Our tight end could drag a couple of linebackers or safeties 15 yds downfield.
Why line up a WR when you are probably going to hand off to the FB? Can’t we put another FB at the flanker position so that he can just block the weaker DB?
Why cant we put a FB at DB. Before the WR moves 5 yards he will be clobbered by the FB, leaving no people to catch the ball while the FBs who replace the LBs pass rush!! ITS GENIOUS!
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
To do that you would first need a few fullbacks.
And upon last checking, I count one blocking fullback, one that you want cut, and a few tightends that you are keeping because you think they would make good fullbacks.
no i want to keep Ali. And Lewis is built like a fullback.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you refering to Conan Obrien when you say the whole “in the year 2000…”?
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions
Yep, absolutely.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 6, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I would like to see Massaquoi getting used some in the slot this year, kinda like DeSean Jackson last year. I also think he could be used as a deep threat sometimes.
David Patten should at least be a good backup, in 2007 he had over 700 yards, until he gets injured and misses the rest of the year.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 11:24 AM EDT reply actions
I really hope Robiskie turns out well. Before the draft it didn’t seem like anyone here considered him to be better than a mid-round pick. Back then I had the impression that he was a tough player, if not an especially fast receiver. Hopefully that toughness (that I thought I saw) will translate into winning possession over those pesky defenders.
If Cribbs is figured in as a special teams/Flash package player, is there any reason why all five of these guys can’t be activated on game day? I suppose it would have to depend on Mangini’s game plan, but from the way he talked about adjusting the game plan to exploit a given team’s weaknesses I think there could be potential for pass-heavy Sundays. Are any of opponents this year projected to be especially weak against the pass?
I think we will see 5 guys who can play WR active, at least for a few games. Mangini was criticized in New York for spreading the field on 3rd down too often, so I’d think he would want enough WR active to be able to do that and still go to a 4WR set if someone got hurt.
Unless McDaniels’ new 3-4 without a NT is somehow monstrous, we should be able to get whatever we want against the Broncos. Buffalo doesn’t have any pass rushers that really scare me, and we might need to throw a bit if TO and Lee Evans go off. Detroit is Detroit. KC is also transitioning to a 34, Travis Daniels is among their top 4 CBs, and Brandon Flowers is their best one. Jacksonville is hard to run at and I don’t think their CBs are too great.
I will be very disappointed if we dont beat denver this year. Last year, Quinn almost led us to the win, but two plays cost us the game. If it werent for Cutler though, the game wouldnt have even been close.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The slot
MoMoss is the better, more skilled, and has the most raw talent. The slot position is a tricky one. You really need a veteran to fill it, the routes need to be exact. So although MoMoss has more potential, they need furry to fill the spot. Purhaps, they can can slowly inch him into that spot as the season goes on. I think Furry would be a great guy to learn from, considering his exp. on offence and defence.
Mass will get plenty of PT if he is indeed that good a blocker. I would think we will see him on a lot of red zone plays, because he has the ability to both block well and catch TDs
Chud would have loved Massaquoi. That running play where we put Cribbs in motion and have him block a stationary lineman would be great. During the Colts game we actually used Steptoe to make that block. Steptoe.
Anyway, we could put Braylon, Robiskie, Cribbs, and MoMass at WR to spread the field and then run the ball and they would all probably be able to take their CB out of the play. Running Harrison to the outside from that formation and pulling Steinbach to block the Dime LB could result in some nice plays.
Sounds like a good play.
How does this sound.
Cribbs and Massaqoui on the right and Braylon on the left. Royal is on the right side.
Hopefully Braylon gets double teamed.
Once the ball is snapped Royal and maybe the RT go to block for Cribbs when he catches the screen, while Massaqoui also blocks.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Thats one of the first things you’ve said that i agree with
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
The nickname is supposed to be MoMass, not MoMoss. Not that it makes a difference towards your guys’ views though…
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 7, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
My nickname so I could remember his name coming out of the draft was “Mogwai Massacre”, you know like the type of animal the character Gizmo is in Gremlins.
by mooncamping on Jul 10, 2009 6:15 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
This is his new name. Please archive this post cause this will be Massoquoi’s new name now
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 10, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Why MoMass?
What is it about MoMass that makes everyone think slot?
The combine ain’t everything, but it gives you an idea of some strengths that can be built upon. I am using Robiskie as a comparison because he is deemed a well rounded player, but not high-end. MoMass’ 40 time (4.66) was slower than Robiskie (4.59). His routes were marginal from the games I have seen. While he is a physical receiver, his measures of explosiveness were confusing. In the vertical he was beaten by Robiskie and was outside the top 10 and broad jump Robiskie didn’t participate, but MoMass was 4th best. I’ve seen him a bunch over the last 2 years and he is a slower long striding player that I’m unsure how he fits as a NFL receiver. Slot players should have explosion and good cutting ability and I don’t see how MoMass fits that mold.
by blockersave93 on Jul 8, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
He really doesn’t fit that mold of the quicker, sometimes smaller short-area receiver. He is not Wes Welker. I do think he will have good explosion, though. I wouldn’t exactly say he is a “long strider” either, but I am not Ed Orgeron. The kid can move pretty well and is a pretty good athlete, I don’t care what the times and measuring tapes say because they didn’t set off any alarms (they were within the range that you would have guessed looking at his film). He got open in the SEC.
Fortunately, just because he lines up in the slot does not mean we have to try to make him do something he can’t do (be Wes Welker). Massaquoi could very well be the 3rd or 4th WR coming in to games, and unless we are always using bunch formations for 3 and 4 WR sets, someone is going to have to go into the slot. The routes, route combinations, etc. can still play to his strengths if we do it right.
I do agree, though, he isn’t going to be a human joystick-esque quick little guy. His best chance to succeed is playing like the big physical receiver he is.
That's a good point
I always see slot recievers as short quick hard to cover for hot routes with RAC yards. But it is a valid point, that is how many places do it, not all.
To me, he is better as an on the line guy that can fight a man2man coverage at the line, make some space and get up to speed…not typical slot guy, but good second receiver material…and maybe even a higher celing. So is he gonna see the field that much in the first year with the 2 receivers in front of him, I’d think not.
So my question is, why did we draft 2 guys that look like solid #2 recievers back to back?
by blockersave93 on Jul 8, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
If they think both are good why not? I actually think that even if MoMass is the number 4 guy, he will probably still see the field more than Furrey who is better suited for the slot position. Robiskie may start, but MoMass will see plenty of time with his blocking ability subbing in at the 2 spot for Robo and occassionally the 1 for Braylon
So my question is, why did we draft 2 guys that look like solid #2 recievers back to back?
Because we were in great need of depth at that position. I didn’t have a problem with it at all.
In 7 rounds and 256 picks, only 2 times did a team pick the same position in the same round…both times were the Browns. If you are using a #2 on your 4th WR you are not getting a good value for your pick. Sure we needed depth, but odds are that we could have found a 4th WR in the later round, which would have been a better value.
More to the point, how is MoMass supposed to improve and become NFL ready if he rarely sees the field. If rufio is correct in his analysis below, then I am off point, but it is a concern since this is the bed we have made.
by blockersave93 on Jul 9, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
So if I already have Larry Fitzgerald, is Calvin Johnson not worth my first round pick because he will be my “#2 receiver”? That’s pretty ridiculous. The same principle can apply to the “3rd/4th” receiver.
Just because a guy is 4th on the depth chart now doesn’t mean he can’t play. Can both of those guys play, and can the coaches put them in position to be successful on the field? No one can answer that yet. If that turns in to a no/no in December, it’s time to blast Mangini. Not yet, though.
Honestly, from an outsider’s perspective, the only guys we could have picked instead of Massaquoi that I liked were Loadholt, Kruger, SenDerrick Marks, Moala, and Gilbert. They passed on all of those guys again to get Veikune, so they couldn’t have been that high on them. Plus, 3-4 of those guys would have played DE for us and we already have ~5 guys that can play there for 2 spots. Additionally, although they weren’t in the same round, Jacksonville picked OTs in back to back picks. I am sure if they were in the same round and they felt good about the guys they were getting, they would have done it in the same round.
Back to WRs; Furrey is 32 and Patten is 34. In a dream scenario, one rookie clicks right away, Braylon stops whining about people booing him, grows up a little and catches the ball, and Patten or Furrey can give us 1 or 2 more good years while the other rookie learns how to play in the NFL. Then, once the old guys retire or move on, we’ve got 3 very good WRs. Remember, the Colts’ base offense is a 3WR offense: you can play 3WR a high % of the snaps and be successful in the NFL.
If there is one thing I trust about this new regime, it’s the communication between the GM and the coach.
So if I already have Larry Fitzgerald, is Calvin Johnson not worth my first round pick because he will be my "#2 receiver"? That’s pretty ridiculous. The same principle can apply to the "3rd/4th" receiver.
Yes…yes that is absolutely correct. Why did Detroit pass on Crabtree? Because has history has shown us teams only need one #1 reciever at one time, and a solid compliment on the other side. Why waste a draft pick on a selection that isn’t necessary to be successful when you have a scrub taking up space in one of your positions that can be replaced by a star prospect? The necessary talent that’s needed to play next to Johnson could be found in round 2 or 3, so detroit did the smart thing and decided to upgrade a position where they needed much more help in. A strategy that cleveland should have pursued.
Regardless; that same principle you mentioned CANNOT apply to 3/4th receivers because 1/2 receivers are always on the field and therefore have the biggest impact on the game, while 3/4 wr’s impact in most systems are negligible or easily fulfilled since they aren’t used tremendously when they’re on the field, which isn’t even that often. The talent necessary to succeed in the 3/4 receiver position isn’t very drastic at all, and players can be substituted at will without wasting high draft picks.
but whats most important IMO is the fact that the potential we get out of MoMass could have easily been attainable later in the draft. EASILY.
Honestly, from an outsider’s perspective, the only guys we could have picked instead of Massaquoi that I liked were Loadholt, Kruger, SenDerrick Marks, Moala, and Gilbert. They passed on all of those guys again to get Veikune, so they couldn’t have been that high on them.
Who they were high on is irrelevant if one believes they screwed up the picks. there was talent left on the board for positions that were in more dire need to fill. You cannot say that the WR position was so lacking that we needed to fill in an extra 4th reciever because, IMO thats the same thing as saying a 4th wr is more important than a decent starter at another position. Its quite hypocritical IMO.
Additionally, although they weren’t in the same round, Jacksonville picked OTs in back to back picks. I am sure if they were in the same round and they felt good about the guys they were getting, they would have done it in the same round.
There is a huge difference between the two being two different rounds, and they likely used a strategy which includes playing them at different ends of the line or putting one at guard, which are completely different positions. the second and third #2 reciever does the same thing…
I’m not against them taking 2 WR’s in the draft, but the position they were taken and the other players on the board at the time boggles my mind. I bet if the management would have taken a different draft strategy(for example Maclin and Wood), if I or someone else would have brought up the idea of the browns taking non-impacting WRs back to back with Maualuga, Brown Smith, Gilbert on the board, we would have gotten laughed of the forum…
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 9, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Because has history has shown us teams only need one #1 reciever at one time, and a solid compliment on the other side.
I am sure the Cardinals are really regretting taking Fitz. I mean,they already had Boldin and it’s not like that duo has done much.
there was talent left on the board for positions that were in more dire need to fill.
Who!?! Who was going to be a “decent starter” for us at a different position? As far as we (or Kiper/McShay/etc.) can evaluate talent, there was no one sitting there who was a clear upgrade at a position of dire need for us.
Maualuga was not on the board when the Browns picked Massaquoi. Neither were Smith (who I do not believe will be good) or Brown. If you are going to blast the Browns for taking 2 WRs in a row, you can’t also have wanted those players instead of the 2nd receiver: they were already gone.
1/2 receivers are always on the field and therefore have the biggest impact on the game,
Both #1 and #2 WRs come off the field at least occasionally. Also, you completely ignored the fact that you can win with 3 good WRs and even turn them in to full time starters.
thats the same thing as saying a 4th wr is more important than a decent starter at another position. Its quite hypocritical IMO.
I am pretty sure that isn’t “hypocritical”, but I didn’t say we took a 4th wideout over a decent starter at another position. I in fact believe that there were no better draftable players who really fit our needs.
Who they were high on is irrelevant if one believes they screwed up the picks.
It absolutely is! It is a commonly used draft strategy: take the best player available regardless of position. Even if Kokinis uses a “tiered” system, who the Browns thought was good could still be quite relevant. You believe they screwed up the pick, but you still have only given one draftable player you would have rather seen them take, at a position where we will have at least 3-4 good players competing for 2 spots.
You don’t know how good these guys will be in the NFL (nor does anyone else) and based on the information anyone had at the time, the picks were far from “screwed”. If anything, Kokinis was criticized for being “solid but unspectacular” or “too conservative”.
Let these guys get into a game or maybe a preseason game or at least training camp before you start thinking you know they can’t play. Its not like we did anything as egregious as Oakland.
The talent necessary to succeed in the 3/4 receiver position isn’t very drastic at all, and players can be substituted at will without wasting high draft picks.
I assume you mean that you don’t need a lot of talent to be a 3rd/4th WR in the NFL. Good teams are versatile: if you are weak against the pass, they can spread the field with 4 WR and you have to account for all of them.
You need talent if you want to be a good WR in the NFL, and if you are good it doesn’t matter how many guys there are in front of you because a good coach can use you to win ballgames, period.
Eric Wood is a terrible prospect compared to Alex Mack. Terrible.
I am sure the Cardinals are really regretting taking Fitz. I mean,they already had Boldin and it’s not like that duo has done much
I’m not sure what your point is. I’m not saying that a team has never done it or never will. But looking at that situation, next to Boldin in the 03 season Arizona had Freddie jones. FREDDIE JONES as their #2 reciever:| He barely broke 500 yards in a pass happy offense that shows you the level of his play. Fitz was coming off a heisman worthy season, they needed a immediate starter and their offense called them to draft Fitz who I knew was gonna be the best WR in the league one day.
Compare that to our situation. Even for the people who keep saying “but he will start one day!” That’s irrelevant because he’s not starting today, his potential level is no different than prospects later in the draft and if the intent was to have him play “down the road” then they should have drafted a WR “down the road” and focused higher draft pick for the “now”
Maualuga was not on the board when the Browns picked Massaquoi. Neither were Smith (who I do not believe will be good) or Brown. If you are going to blast the Browns for taking 2 WRs in a row, you can’t also have wanted those players instead of the 2nd receiver: they were already gone.
BTW my opinion is made by looking at the draft as a whole. I believe the draft, from the trades to the picks, to be bad. So when I complain about the WR’s taken I look at the robiske pick as a mistake also, regardless of how loved he is as a local favorite
Those players were on the board when they picked Robiske and since no other team even thought about drafting a WR throughout the entire second round I would have risked picking up one of the early round draftees who were in the correct or even “steal” range rather than reaching for our receivers.
And you may talk about how “polished” Rob is or his work ethic, but regardless scouts never attributed him to ever be dominant or special receiver. I personally could have done without another Morgan to pick up someone who could actually finish a tackle. I could have skipped out on another Northcutt in order to draft someone who could halfway cover a WR.
But we have 2 players who will catch 20-30 passes while we continue to give up 150 rushing yards a game and get to the QB once every game. That makes my heart feel confident about next year:)
but I didn’t say we took a 4th wideout over a decent starter at another position. I in fact believe that there were no better draftable players who really fit our needs.
Once again this is a hypocritcal statement IMO, because I don’t see how you can evaluate a need for a 4th reciever as higher than the need for one of the positions that we lacked or lost from last year like our secondary, RB, pass rushing or someone next to D’Qwell. Especially since we’ve been stacking WR’s who will get more playing time than him. And I sure in heck don’t see how any of the players taken later are any less “draftable” than massaquoi. Please explain that to me to help me understand.
And robiske wasn’t the best player at that selection and Mass definitely wasn’t being projected a 3rd or 4th round pick.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 10, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what your point is. I’m not saying that a team has never done it or never will.
My point is this: Arizona took the WR when they already had a “#1 WR”, and it is working out pretty well for them. They had other needs they passed over to take the WR. Also, last season we had Braylon and Steptoe. I’d have taken Jones as our #2 last year over Steptoe.
since no other team even thought about drafting a WR throughout the entire second round
Come on.
I could have skipped out on another Northcutt in order to draft someone who could halfway cover a WR.
Again: WHO? I would have loved to have gotten Nnamdi in the 6th round, but he wasn’t available.
If you can name someone that we clearly overlooked while Massaquoi was on the board, who is clearly better, that would help your position a lot.
Once again this is a hypocritcal statement IMO
(n) hypocrisy, lip service (an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction)
(n) hypocrisy (insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have)
We addressed the secondary by getting Abe Elam and Rod Hood. Both are under 30 years old. We also drafted 2 CBs, one of which carried 2nd round grades from some “draft gurus”.
Those players were on the board when they picked Robiske
Then criticize them for drafting Robo, NOT for drafting 2 WR in a row. If Massaquoi was the best player on the board, they couldn’t have just drafted him and gone back in time and undone the Robiskie pick.
I don’t care about who is/was a local favorite. If you help the Browns win, you will become a local favorite. If you bust in Cleveland, you won’t.
Mass definitely wasn’t being projected a 3rd or 4th round pick.
Fact: Scouts inc had him at an 83/100, with 80-89 being a second round grade.
And I sure in heck don’t see how any of the players taken later are any less "draftable" than massaquoi
By “draftable”, I meant "someone who was eligible for the draft and had not yet been picked. NOT “good enough for us to draft”.
But we have 2 players who will catch 20-30 passes while we continue to give up 150 rushing yards a game and get to the QB once every game.
You are acting as if the season is 100% guaranteed to play out that way. It isn’t. The draft is an odds game: you do lots of work to make sure you get the best odds at getting players who will be good, but nothing is 100%. 99%, maybe, but not 100. I am completely aware that there is a possibility that this blows up in the Browns’ faces, but I think they did a good job because the probability of that is low.
The fact is we don’t have the results of the season yet. In my eyes and the eyes of a lot of other people and a lot of people who get paid to study this kind of thing, our draft doesn’t look anywhere close to as bad as you think it does.
Again: WHO?
Are you blind?! Sean Smith, the top ranked CB by the NFP was still on the board as well as Sharrod Martin.
as a matter of fact, all these players were projected ahead of Mass
19 Andy Levitre OL
20 Cleveland David Veikune DL
21 Philadelphia LeSean McCoy RB
22 Minnesota Phil Loadholt OL
23 Atlanta William Moore S
24 Indianapolis Fili Moala DT
25 Baltimore Paul Kruger DE
26 New England Sebastian Vollmer OL
27 Carolina Sherrod Martin DB
28 NY Giants Will Beatty T
29 Miami Sean Smith DB
30 Tennessee Sen’Derrick Marks DE
31 Arizona Cody Brown DE
32 Denver Richard Quinn SE
Facetious yes, but you still PHAIL to see the point that Mass was a tremendous reach and there were WR’s that went in later rounds that were ranked higher than him.
We addressed the secondary by getting Abe Elam and Rod Hood. Both are under 30 years old. We also drafted 2 CBs, one of which carried 2nd round grades from some "draft gurus".
I guess I have to break it down because you don’t seem to comprehend my posts. We got terrible value out of that draft pick. simple as that, any idiot with ESPN and the internet could have seen that. You mentioned that we picked up Elam and Hood, as well as the 2 other guys. But you continue to ignore we picked up Rob, Patten, Furrey, as well as have other players that could take up the 4th WR space on the bench pretty easily.
Let me break it down to were even you shouldn’t be able to damage control this. Why should we have invested that pick in someone whose position isn’t going to get much action when we could have placed that pick towards someone who would. McCoy, Loadholt, Moore, Smith, Martin, Levitre all would have been competing for starting time or second place in the depth chart. I’m a CPA, I know about risk vs return. So you may say that we picked up some CB’s later down the line but since they are low risk and aren’t expected to do much now, so they SHOULD have been taken down the line. A 4th WR who wont receive any significant time should have been taken down the line also! Francies, Carey, and Mass are in the same position, will probably see the same amount of field time and are all future prospects, but one was taken 4 rounds earlier. Do you get what I’m saying now or are you going to continue to act like Cleveland can do no wrong?
And since you continue to ignore most of my points, I am criticizing the Rob pick also, you know…by me stating this…
BTW my opinion is made by looking at the draft as a whole. I believe the draft, from the trades to the picks, to be bad. So when I complain about the WR’s taken I look at the robiske pick as a mistake also, regardless of how loved he is as a local favorite
but the Mass pick was even more retarded for the fact that they made such a reaching previous pick. IMO the entire draft was screwed up and could have went much better. I’m sorry I can’t sit around and act like everythings kosher while we addressed our needs by going to a Jet garage sale
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 11, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I completely understand what you are saying, I’m just completely disagreeing.
I also don’t appreciate your personal attacks. Look, I just think you are putting too much faith in what “draft experts” say. They don’t really know where a players’ draft stock actually is (see: Maualuga).
The only guys you listed I would have considered were Loadholt, McCoy, and Kruger, but all of them have their question marks. You have a lot more room to be critical of the Robiskie pick because Maualuga and Brown were still on the board.
I am not blind. I don’t think Sean Smith is that good. He is/was intriguing because he is huge for a CB, but he struggles where tall DBs usually do: in changing direction and being able to turn and run with WRs. If he turns in to Champ Bailey in 2 years, you can rub my face in it all you want, but Massaquoi over him isn’t as ridiculous at this point in time as you are making it sound.
So you don’t feel taking the arguably 10th ranked WR right after a better WR over the arguably 1st ranked CB when we need CB’s isn’t significant? I’m not saying Smith or any of the other players of the 2nd are gonna be stars, just that I would have risked taken them more since they offered more value than Mass who may have been on the boards in the later rounds, and if not there would have been other players with just as much potential available.
You are correct though, this debate has focused on the Mass pick but like I stated earlier my beef is with the draft as a whole. Our pass rush is absolutely pathetic and our run defense is ungodly bad and we ignored both areas. You even said yourself in the ILB thread that we’re missing that attacking LB to play next to DQ but you seem absolutely fine that we passed on the arguably best one in this years draft.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 14, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
But we got defensive players back in the trade with the Jets. Are you forgetting that? They have to be considered part of our draft.
And Mauluga sucks — there’s a reason every team passed on him at least once.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 14, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
But, even if MoMass is just a 4th WR as a rookie, that doesn’t mean he’ll be a 4th WR the rest of his career. Plenty of great receivers have started as 3rd or 4th receivers their rookie year.
That’s like saying why draft Matt Stafford first overall if he’s going to be your #2 quarterback his rookie year. You draft him to learn and get some playing time his rookie year, and get ready for him to be a starter down the road. The Browns aren’t drafting MoMass to be a 4th WR, as you said, they’re drafting him to be a big part of the offense down the road.
Do you really expect all rookies to step in and start right away? I don’t get your point at all.
.bq But, even if MoMass is just a 4th WR as a rookie, that doesn’t mean he’ll be a 4th WR the rest of his career.
But he’s gonna be a 4th WR this year, and if the intent was for him to be a future project then a WR could have been taken later with just as much or better potential than him in later rounds. In fact Mike Thomas. Iglesias, Brandon Tate, Derrick Williams and Mike Williams was ranked higher than him by the NFP, and Iglesias was ranked higher than Robiske.
The Browns aren’t drafting MoMass to be a 4th WR, as you said, they’re drafting him to be a big part of the offense down the road.
We could have even picked up somebody next year because I don’t see the pressing need for a 4th WR who won’t be significant for 3 years enough to waste a consecutive 2nd round pick for him with other needs on the board. You don’t draft “future” players in the 2nd round, you draft “now” players in the second and value picks. the rest of the day is for future picks, especially when you reach 2 or 3 rounds for that pick.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 10, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
But he’s gonna be a 4th WR this year
Do you have the depth chart in hand?
you draft "now" players in the second
Who is your “now” player that would grab a starting job on the Browns and be an upgrade over our existing starter? Name someone picked after Massaquoi and we can judge the immediate impact of that player vs. MoMass after some football is actually played.
So, wait, you’re criticizing the Browns’ draft because of how their players was rated by some draft “expert”? Are you kidding me?!?! Draft experts are wrong all the time, so who cares what other receivers they had rated ahead of Massaquoi. You need a much better argument than that for why we shouldn’t have taken him.
And you can’t just say that if he’s not going to contribute a lot this year then they should have just waited to draft a receiver next year, because most receivers take a couple years to get acclimated to the NFL so you need him in the league NOW learning how to play, not drafting someone next year and then waiting for him to learn the system. Also, nobody said he “won’t be significant for 3 years” so I don’t know why you’re assuming that. Massaquoi definitely can contribue “now” in the NFL. You are making a lot of faulty assumptions and basing your entire argument on draft rankings, as if those guys are smarter than the men running an NFL team.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 12, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions
So, wait, you’re criticizing the Browns’ draft because of how their players was rated by some draft "expert"? Are you kidding me?!?! Draft experts are wrong all the time, so who cares what other receivers they had rated ahead of Massaquoi.
weren’t you one that was criticizing Oakland for taking Heyward-Bey? I smell double standards!
You need a much better argument than that for why we shouldn’t have taken him.
My argument is based upon the lack of value we got for him and the players that were available on the board. But just that alone is good enough for criticism. You’re argument against my argument consist of saying that because cleveland took him, it must have been the right choice. I’m sorry I can’t think that shallow minded.
You are making a lot of faulty assumptions and basing your entire argument on draft rankings
So are you saying position rankings are irrelevant? If you keep that opinion I can bet you’ll have your foot in your mouth later in this discussion.
but anyway my argument isn’t based upon draft rankings but POSITION rankings and relative value with potential. I’m just saying that his potential must not be so great that he couldn’t be passed on. And past the initial 6 WR’s, no more stood out any moreso than the rest of the pack IMO. So I feel like we could have got a WR of equal value later and done something better with that second round pick.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 14, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I never said draft rankings are all wrong or irrelevent. But you can’t treat them like the absolute truth like you’re doing. There just people’s opinions, and they often disagree so how do you know which one is right? You’ve just been using ONE GUY’s rankings, which is completely worthless.
And when the hell did I ever say “if Cleveland took him then it must be the right choice”?!? You can’t just make up something that someone said and then criticize him for it. You obviously don’t really have any argument if you’ve resorted to that.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 14, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Mangini apparently loves to spread the field. He saw it done in another cold-weather city in New England with great success, and he did it in New York en route to a W-L record that the Browns would consider a great success as well. Based on the assumptions I have made from the press conferences, a big chunk of Daboll’s offense will be similar to that of NE, as well. Purely speculation on my part, but we won’t know for sure until they play games.
Clearly, to run some spread sets, we need people who can catch the ball. That, combined with the fact that we didn’t really have any depth there was probably why they felt OK taking 2 WRs, even if they appear to be #2 guys in the NFL. Tom Brady won some Super Bowls with Patten. Givens, and Branch as his top 3 WR (right?) and they have all been viewed as #2 guys. That would be the logic as I see it, but I’m not in their war room.
Next year
With Edwards leaving next year, He is just not worth the amount he’ll ask for – since we have young talent. It will be the year of the RB. Will we trade up ( or not have to depending on the season. ) Or do we spend the cash on a young emerging RB in free-agency or a trade. And I’m not talking about a guy who acouple years ago ran for 1,500 yards. I mean the real deal – young 20’s asking a insane amount of money but worth every penny. People forget, A great RB is better than a great WR any-day. A RB will be in 50% of your offence. Where as a great WR will on touch the ball 10-15% of your time on offence. I done and tired, with these worn down, on there last leg players we get. Lewis was a 1,000 yard rusher * by 1 yard!* I can’t think of to many teams that don’t have a 1,000 yard rusher. Its just a given in todays game. Lets be like the cavs for once, and get the real deal – no matter the cost. Good luck Brownies!
I think we can resign Braylon.
RBs are not 50% of the offense. Good RBs usually get about 100 yards a game. Good QBs get well over 200.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
If there is no cap next year, then Braylon is not a FA. Otherwise, we can franchise him if we want. We also have to worry about extending Jackson, so I’d like to see one of the two get upped this offseason.
Is there anyone else thats contract ends? I think Leon’s does but he is far from irreplaceable.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I would definatly resign Vickers and Pool.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 8, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
We probably wouldnt have to trade up to get a guy like Dwyer in the 1st, and we would almost defineatly be able to get a guy like Best or Murray.
The guy I’m most interested in though is LeGarrette Blount, because he might not be a day 1 pick
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Running backs wear down too easily to give them a huge long-term contract. Plus, if you have a good O-line, you can have a good running game with only an average back. You see it happen all the time in the NFL.
what’s the scale that the grades of these positions previews are being merited upon? Are these grades comparable? Its weird seeing so many of our components graded "b"s given the quality I’m looking at. Our WR’s are graded “B” when all we have is one guy who had a pretty bad 08 year, and the rest of the depth chart consists of non-impacting rookies, a cut slot receiver and a guy who has 16 catches in 4 years? Our D line is a B when we have one guy whose admittedly a beast; but the rest are underachieving position players? I would imagine a team like Arizona and New England to be A’s in WR and to say the browns are a grade below them is pretty laugh inducing.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 6, 2009 3:52 PM EDT reply actions
I agree with BQIB. You’re just a pessimist.
by SpecialBrownie on Jul 6, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, the grading scale is very, very loose. Perhaps before next year’s training camp preview, we as a community can try to come up with some type of calculated grading system.
The grades are intended to reflect the potential our players might have at their peak. A lot of times, the grades take no accountability for the chemistry that player has with the team.
I was thinking the same thing, looking back at every position. "Man, I’m grading every position with a “B”…that makes it sound like we’re solid at every position".
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 6, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Braylon’s inconsistency and having four new players that we are counting on makes this position really hard to grade.
If Furrey has a season like he is playing under Martz, the rooks can get us 400-500 yards each, and the real Braylon is actually the guy with top 5 in the NFL skills then an A is too low of a grade. If we get Braylon from last year, Furrey from last year, and two rookies that play like rookies…
But honestly is Furrey likely to give us 1000 yards? Is Braylon likely to stop moisturizing with butter before he goes onto the field and are the rookies likely to play like rookies?
That’s what I think is most important; at least for my own sanity. I’m not the type of fan who sets my seasonal standards on what I would want to happen, moreso what is more realistic. But even if those conditions that you presented were to happen, how would an “A be too low a grade”? Still looking at comparisons for sakes, Arizona has the best WR in the game and another that could get you 1500 yards easily, a 1000 yard receiver, and 2 young players who could get you 500 yards on top. This is what most likely will happen and thats an A+. And in comparison Furrey and two rookies; no matter how rosey my glasses may be, look minuscule in comparison. Thats not even B’ish, thats more C’ish. So looking at it that way the WR position isn’t hard to grade at all IMO
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 7, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Absoluetely not likely for Furrey. If he approaches 800 yards as our #2 option, I will be extremely happy with his production.
Braylon should be expected to get 1200 yards and not have an outrageous amount of drops. Every other year at Michigan and in the NFL he’s had hasn’t been that bad with the dropsies, so I am going with last year as the freak year.
I don’t know what to expect out of the rookies, and I really think it’s anyone’s guess. Robiskie is supposed to be the most polished guy coming out at WR from probably the past 2-3 years. Last year 2nd round picks at WR DeSean Jackson and Eddie Royal were good very quickly and they weren’t supposed to be as polished. Also, our QB situation is completely unknown right now, and about half of our line is too. What does the running game look like?
A WR’s traditional stats are based so much on other people that it is pretty hard to judge them based on yards, TDs and catches. If Braylon only has 800 yards and 4 TDs but doesn’t drop a ball that comes his way are you going to grade him poorly on that? What if DA is our QB and never throws a pass within 5 yards of him? What if Quinn is the QB and never throws a pass longer than 15 yards? What if we have no running game at all and defenses know we have to pass? That’s why it’s hard to grade.
I still rank Fitz behind Andre Johnson in terms of “best WR in the NFL”. Fitz’ postseason performances leaves him fresh in the mind of everyone, and people tend to think that the playoffs carry more weight than the other games. Also, Breaston had 1000 yards, but he needed 4 playoff games to get there. That’s an additional 1/4 season.
If Braylon replicates 2007, Furrey is actually a Wes Welker clone, and either rookie gives us a DeSean Jackson/Eddie Royal year That’s an A+ in my book. That’s potential not anything having to do with likelihood.
The grades are intended to reflect the potential our players might have at their peak.
I was talking about potential, so it’s kinda not fair for you to be blasting me about something I wasn’t even attempting to speak on. The potential for an A+ receiving corps is there, even if the likelihood that it actually is an A+ group is very low.
If you want likelihood, I’ll go with Braylon as a game-changing WR who makes defenses account for him and doesn’t drop the ball as much as 2008, Furrey as 500 yards and nothing great but a reliable and solid target (i.e. Joe J), Robiskie as looking very good for a rookie and giving us 600 yards or so, and Patten or Massaquoi being solid as the 4th guy to the point where we as fans actually like it when we spread the field.
I don’t think B or even B+ is crazy for that scenario. 2/3 of NFL GMs would kill to have Braylon of 2007 on their teams, and we’d have solid if unspectacular players backing him up. That’s probably optimistic, but that’s the way I am. If you want to be a pessimist, C-ish is too high.
Braylon should be expected to get 1200 yards and not have an outrageous amount of drops. Every other year at Michigan and in the NFL he’s had hasn’t been that bad with the dropsies, so I am going with last year as the freak year.
Braylon should be expected to play the way he has in his latest effort, or what he normally accomplishes. 07-08 was the first season he had over 900 yards. You tend to focus your perception on braylon like he’s normally accustomed to 1200 yard performances. But the case can EASILY be made that his monster performance was an abberation, and what he accomplished last year was more in line with his average numbers. Breaston has just as many 1000 yard seasons as Braylon with half as many played
I still rank Fitz behind Andre Johnson in terms of "best WR in the NFL". Fitz’ postseason performances leaves him fresh in the mind of everyone, and people tend to think that the playoffs carry more weight than the other games
You could very much be correct, or every other sports analysist and journalist could just be crazy. I don’t know, but the consensus is that both are projected to have much better years than Braylon. But that’s not whats important here…
Also, Breaston had 1000 yards, but he needed 4 playoff games to get there. That’s an additional 1/4 season.
lol I don’t know where you’re getting your info from
If Braylon replicates 2007, Furrey is actually a Wes Welker clone, and either rookie gives us a DeSean Jackson/Eddie Royal year That’s an A+ in my book.
Now you’re changing your constraints. Before you stated that if the rookies gave 500 yards and welker gave 1000 then that would be an A+. But giving the scenario you just presented an A+ is just as ridiculous IMO, since it still wouldn’t even come CLOSE to the lovely situation that is presented in Arizona, which we both can agree is a clear un-debatable A+.
But regardless of that common sense, it makes no sense to comment on unattainable “potential”. Every team in the league is an A+ in that regard since every player could “potentially” become the best player in the league. But the fact alone that we have to depend on free agency leftovers and first year rookies in a WR weak draft speaks more about the true potential than stats from years ago that maybe….just maybe…if we all pray and the moon and stars align…will possibly come true.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jul 7, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Braylon increased his production in both catches and yards each of his first three seasons in the NFL, which is about what you’d expect from an NFL receiver. Receivers are known to usually “break out” in their third year and that’s exactly what Braylon did. It’s no coincidence that his great season also coincided with his first season with a steady quarterback. During last year’s down season, Braylon played with four different QB’s which can’t be good for any receiver. Obviously he had a lot of drops, which were all his fault, but I’m sure the unsteady QB play contributed to his poor season.
So it’s not really fair to say he’s only had one great season out of four because you don’t usually expect receivers to be great their first two years (there are exceptions, of course). If the Browns get steady QB play then there is no reason to think he can’t come close to matchin his 07-08 numbers. He may not be that great, but I can easily see him with 70 catches and 1000 yards.
Explain how this was a weak year in the draft for WRs. Last year there were none in the first round and there were 6 this year.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought this year was very deep at WR where you could get a solid prospect but not supreme talents
Crabtree was viewed as a supreme talent. Maybe Nicks, too, depending on who was evaluating him.
Regardless, it was viewed as a deep WR class with maybe 2-3 first round worthy picks.
Yea, I did specifically mention how I viewed it, not how the experts viewed it. I wasn’t as high as Crabtree as most everyone else on this site and the rest of the internet, although I do think he will be a good player.
Nicks was one of my favorite players as well in this year’s draft
There was no Megatron this year, though. I can’t believe he is putting up those kinds of numbers in Detroit.
speaking of megatron, i saw that transformers movie today. It was really good.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 8, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
They aren’t going to top the animated movie from the 80s in my book. I was all young and wide-eyed and that movie was the best thing ever. I did enjoy the new ones, though.
I wasnt around in the 80s so i dont know much about that movie
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 9, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Ok, I was incorrect on Breaston. That offense still throws it a million times per game and doesn’t run the ball, and someone has to catch it. Plus, Breaston has the benefit of the defense trying to take care of Fitz and Boldin. Is it not fair to say that 1000 yards over-inflates his value as a WR just a little? I do not disagree about Arizona’s WR situation being the standard against all other should be judged. They are in great shape (except for Boldin not being happy).
A lot of ESPN guys still agreed with me about Johnson being better as recently as before the super bowl. If that one game put Fitz over the top in their minds, then that’s fine, I’d still take Johnson to win a game to save my life. Johnson is also not playing with Kurt Warner and alongside another stellar WR. He has been pretty much all Houston has had and defenses know he’s getting the ball and they still can’t do anything about it.
As for Braylon, an ACL tear takes 9 months to rehab to where a knee is playable, and it usually takes another full year to regain full speed and strength. He came back in 2006 after his rookie year, but didn’t have all of his speed and strength. The following year, look what happened. There’s also that conception about WRs usually having a breakout season in their 2nd or 3rd year. Also: Charlie Frye and Trent Dilfer.
Again, I was talking about potential and not likelihood. You don’t need to convince me the scenario in which our WRs get an A+ is incredibly unlikely, I ALREADY SAID THAT.
I did, however, present a optimistic yet realistic situation where they could earn a B. The only thing you consider wildly out of touch with reality about that situation is that Braylon will actually catch some footballs. I don’t think that’s insane.
Part 2 will be up a little bit later today.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 8, 2009 4:39 PM EDT 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
Related FanShots on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
