2010 Draft thread (Part 2)
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 9, 2010 8:59 AM EST
Email
PrintSince the first draft thread has reached over 1000 comments I thought we should start a second thread. I know the draft is still months away and we'll definitely have more posts to come as we get closer to the draft, but since people seem to have plenty to discuss now I wanted to start a second thread to keep those discussions going. If you want to continue current discussions in the first thread that is fine, but please post any other new comments here.
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
950 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
nerd jokes for the win
The sporting gods hate Cleveland, they give us false hopes, then yank it out from under us like a tablecloth.
by North Coast Flea on Jan 9, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions
i think you meant n3rd j0k35 FTW
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 1:01 AM EST up reply actions
I’ll forward my last question from the previous thread here:
Joe McKnight recently announced that he will enter the draft, any projections on him?
I’ve heard 2n’d-3’rd based on what fans would take him at. I remember someone calling him “a poor man’s Reggie Bush”. I’d be happy with Toby Gerhart.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
we don’t need a poor man’s reggie bush, we need a poor man’s lendale white. i think dixon projects better in the NFL than gerhart. gerhart was more of a one year wonder whereas dixon has had 1,000 yards rushing for the last 4 seasons and had about 1,400 yards his senior year. he is good at finding lanes and is a smart runner. gerhart will go higher than he should b/c he had this season. granted it was a great season but he got tons of touches and is somewhat of a 1 yr wonder. i would not take him higher than the third round, and he will likely go in the second (i see him as a late third rounder). dixon should be available and is liked my many scouts, although everyone is salivating over gerhart’s season.
Isn’t Dixon the guy who got suspended for punching a Boise St. player?
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 6:31 PM EST up reply actions
Never mind, I was thinking of the kid from Oregon.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
yeah…blount. dixon is kinda unknown. he is really solid and has been a starter for over 3 years. has about 4,500 career yards from scrimmage (4,000 rushing). he is just consistent and harder to bring down than gerhart (plus a step faster). He doesn’t have great speed…he also didn’t play great against the elite SEC defenses (but he still was decent).
these are the ranks of the defenses (in rushing) that gerhart faced: 19, 23, 35, 39, 42, 45, 59, 69, 82, 89, 117 and 199 (2nd worst!)
these are the SEC (and other) defenses dixon faced: 1, 11, 22, 34, 43, 53, 60, 65, 78, 87, 91
in general, the defenses dixon faced were better. the SEC is consistently good especially in run defense whereas the PAC 10 is a good conference but had an off year.
Yes, but with all of those yards, scouts are going to question how many miles his legs will have in the pros.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 9:36 PM EST up reply actions
but at the same time, he has never been hurt. his biggest strength is his durability. that is like criticizing a student for too many As and saying they are mentally worn out. he has never been injured or missed any playing time. he also is the least fumble prone back in the draft (or at least one of the least). he produced against top defenses and he had a lot of yards but was not overused. if adrian peterson hadn’t had injuries they wouldn’t have questioned his durability. they had similar college careers in stats (except that dixon NEVER got hurt)
Okay, then what round WOULD you take Gerhart?
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps, but it’d be even better to get BOTH. I’ve got mad man love for Gerhart, especially after that ( I think it was) the Arizona game.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Why both? Essentially they’ll still be rookies. I don’t want two rookie RBs, Harrison, Jennings and Davis (who I’ll consider a rookie as well).
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
Because then we have (including Vickers) 6 running backs. I say, with the exception of Harrison + Vickers, let them fight for roster spots and show their talent. I like having a good stable of running backs. Rotate on who’s hot, and with a good offensive line paving the way it becomes very easy to wear down defenses. Baltimore constantly rotates between three backs, and San Diego really has four running backs (two RB’s, and two FB’s who run and catch like RB’s). In my opinion, you can never have enough good backs.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 10, 2010 9:53 AM EST up reply actions
maybe, but using 2 early draft picks on RBs would be complete lunacy given all the weaknesses we have. we have a couple of serviceable backs already, with davis returning. i’d say fill other needs first.
yeah. dixon was just as productive but just didn’t get as many carries. he also has a track record of success and projects more as a feature back. he is very polished. he has an excellent burst to the hole and when he get going he is a cannonball going through the line. he finds seems and holes very well and is a very smart runner. he is maybe the best pass blocker as a back in the draft (something harrison doesn’t do well) and has solid hands. with that combo, he could be a great third down back. even though third down back are the harrison mold, he could be one, plus he has good mobility. his pass catching skills with addition to his blocking and run power makes him a feature back. he can pound it in on first and second downs and receive the ball and block on third downs.
middle to the end of the third. his skill set is similar to jacob hester who was drafted in the middle of the third round. he has been compared to jacob hester out of LSU who was a late 3rd rounder. I think h could be a hybrid between hester and mike alstott if he gains a bit of weight. I do not think gerhart will be an every down back in the NFL. he could be a great goal line back and change of pace. he has no second gear and doesn’t have much after his initial burst. he is not as balanced to be a feature back in the NFL. i do not hate gerhart but he might go as high as early 2nd/late first. he is a mid third round talent and so is dixon. he would be a spectacular running fullback though, he is a good run blocker.
You are the only one who thinks that. You remind me of mooncamping.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
why. Haden has not looked as comfortable in man but in a zone. unless he plays in a tampa 2 I see him being more effective as a FS. he has good size, great speed and lays out guys but he makes poor reads too often to be a great CB right away. If you have him play a little of both and playing the nickel a lot, I wouldn’t mind it.
maybe i make some odd predictions but I am not at all like mooncamping…TheRealSlimShady, i could say the same about you, but you stay on topic too. I am not the only one who thinks that haden could possibly be more successful as a FS. I have seen some scouting reports where they say so. also ppl on here have liked the Idea when I say it. You also think that clausen has shown over a long period of time, better decision making than bradford (who has been a prolific passer from day one whereas clausen was only good really this yr, with great receivers).
actually someone posted as a response to me and I read it. I would have to look through days of my internet history to find it…It would be easier on here…
Also, i CAN get you a report that says his skills in man coverage are suspect (and I have noticed them myself as well).
http://www.footballfanspot.com/joehaden.htm
this website does rate Clausen higher than I am on him (I think he could be good honestly though, just not right away…but starting right away, he still might b slightly better than quinn, but I digress) and rates clausen higher than haden, and rates mcclain higher than haden too.
does this site not exist???
or is it not a real site b/c it criticizes your boy clausen?
Stop thinking I am a clausen hater too. I just don’t want to draft him at number 7.
Of course it exists. Have you ever been in an English class where you have to write a research paper and site 5 sources or whatever? One of the first requirements is ALWAYS use credible sources. For example: If I were to write a research paper on the importance of recess to elementary children, a paper written by my elementary age sister is not a credible source. A book written by a Ph. D. in child psychology about the psychology of elementary age children would be a credible source.
Someone who has been blogging for 3 years isn’t a credible source. Hell, I’ve blogged for over 3 years. I’m certainly not a credible source on draft prospects.
but there are very few credible legitimate sources. name me one scouting website run by true NFL scouts. I do not know of many run by actual scouts out there.
also when he says find a real site, it is saying that it is fake (which it isn’t) or that it is COMPLETELY illigitamite (which is questionable, especially when comparing to what sites are actually out there)
There’s a difference between sites like Scouts Inc., ESPN, and sites like that… And a site that is “For football fans, by a football fan”. As it stands, I could use my xanga website to post my own thoughts about the draft and prospects and stuff and it would be just about as legitimate as footballfanspot.com. Scouts Inc is backed and run by MSN and foxsports.com. ESPN is ESPN. These are all respected and well known sources… footballfanspot.com could just as easily be some 30 year old guy living in his mom’s basement.
agreed…at this time though ESPN and scouts inc do not have much info on this…so anything any of us say is really just speculative…neither scout.com nor ESPN have true scouting reports (unless someone is an insider and I dunno if anyone here is)
ESPN has a ton of scouting information if you’re an Insider. It’s only about $45 a year so if you really like reading about the draft and prospects then you should definitely get that. You also get a subscription to ESPN the Magazine (although I didn’t want that so I had it sent to my younger brother; you can also have it sent to a soldier overseas if you’d like).
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 14, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
Well, that all depends on how much you’d use it. You seem to like reading scouting reports on players and they have a ton of good information on Insider. I know $45 may seem like a lot, but that’s less than $4 per month so if you read it often then it’s well worth the money.
It’s your money, of course, and I’m not telling you what to do, just saying that if you want accurate, detailed scouting reports on players then it’s a good investment.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 15, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
I like Haden, too.
It sounds like Lendale White might be available by trade. For a mid-round draft pick, he might be a better value than picking up someone in the draft.
He is a restricted free agent.
I think he would be a great get. Dude may be fat, but he is very talented.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 9, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
i dont think the tender will be that high. i can only see it being us having to give them a 4th rounder…good deal. they might want a third rounder but nothing more. he was a second rounder, but they also don’t have much of a need for him now that chris johnson is a star.
I wouldn’t go any higher than a third.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I wouldn’t even give that for him. He’s relatively old for a back; I’m sure you can find someone similar to him in the 3rd round that has fresher legs.
This.
We don’t need to give up anything for him other than a contract.
We have too many holes to give away picks. LenDale is talented though.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 9, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
yeah…i highly doubt that they will give him that high of a tender. i feel that at most, realistically it is a 4th round pick…maybe not even a pick at all. they don’t have much need for him and they don’t really want him…but i wouldn’t consider thim that old he is as old as harrison and hasn’t run that many carries in his career to be worn out. plus he was slimmer this year than in previous years. he is under 230 pounds.
You can only have a 4th round tender if the player was drafted in the 4th round.
If LenDale is tendered an offer it goes like this:
2.562 Million for first and third
2.017 Million for first
1.417 Million for second
927K for drafted round (can’t be applied if player was taken in first)
Since LenDale was taken in the second, there is no way he could be anything lower than a second round tender.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 9, 2010 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
And he’s clearly not worth a second.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
i doubt they would give him a contract that would make a team have to give up a second. they really don’t want to keep him that badly from what i have heard and no one would give up a 2nd for him
And plus he doesn’t want to sign back. I just want him drinking his Tequila again!
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 9, 2010 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
lol…i don’t. so you want him fatter?? I would rather have him a little slimmer b/c he can still break tackles. (btw, i am for drafting anthony dixon in mid rounds. i think he could be a better pro than gerhart…check out some info on him…)
This.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 11, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Let’s add to it early in the draft.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 11, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
please let Iupati fall to the second
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. I also like the OT from Maryland as a RT, but he will probably be overvalued and taken long before our 2nd rounder.
If McClain, Haden, Berry, and Suh were gone, I wouldn’t mind trading down and getting him.
what about sam young in the second?? Elite run blocker
(and I doubt all of those guy will b gone by our pick…and if that is the case, it is likely that bradford is available…)
Sam Young is garbage. Maybe 4th or 5th round.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t call him garbage. as a RT he is good. he paves the way well for a RB and although he isn’t great in pass protection, he is still better than any of our RT options. RT is more of a run blocker (running to the strong side) whereas LT blocks the weak side end who is the teams best pass rusher. He looked good against the not as fast DEs. as a RT he could be elite and be worth maybe a mid second rounder (7th pick might be a little bit of a reach IMO).
maybe…Right now I see him as a mid-second. He isn’t a great pass blocker but has tremendous strength. he looked decent against slower ends, the type that are on the strong side. he did get torn apart in pass coverage against weak side ends. he is like a train in the run blocking game. he is a possible first round talent that is gonna fall to the second b/c RTs rarely go in the first.
I agree. Sam Young is just not very good.
by Western Reserve on Jan 12, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
He projects as a very good RT right now…with his strength and ability to get to the second level, he is worth a look in the second.
No matter how he projects, I’m not high on him at all, and I don’t think he’d be worth our spending a second round pick on him. I think he’s severely underperformed.
by Western Reserve on Jan 12, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
possibly. He underperformed against elite pass rushers. in the run game he still did look elite and performed up to his abilities most of the time. he just isn’t a pass blocker and is not a LT…no worries, we do not really need that. he is adequate enough in pass protection to b a RT. he also faced the team’s best rush end on every play last yr. when he faced not as great of rush ends (equivalent to the strong side rush end) he wasn’t bad.
He played RT last year and still wasn’t that good.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 12, 2010 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
against the pass he wasn’t that good. he will never be great against the pass but ND had good success running to the right side last yr when he was blocking there.
There is a reason why ND fans are glad he’s gone.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 14, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
I think Black is a 2nd/3rd rounder.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
I try to follow college football more…I mostly read scouting reports and watch game tape (scouting report is only an opinion). there are some nice Tackles in the draft, but no elite ones and most of them are pass blocking LTs who do not have the strength to play RT which is more of a run blocking position. none of them i don’t think will ever be as good as Thomas, not even against the pass, so it would be a waste to draft one to put on the left side and move thomas over.
yes. its about value. gerhart will be going in the mid second probably b/c he had a great season against the mediocre PAC-10 rushing Ds. Dixon had a similar YPC in a much harder SEC and still gained 1500 yds.
I will have to respectfully disagree. He was projected as a mid to late third rounder before the season but after this season many mock drafts have him as an early second rounder. I think I even saw one where he was picked by NE in the first round (their projected pick was like 26 pr 27…but it will b higher). he is a third rounder and I feel will never be a feature back.
I think it would be absolutely stunning if he went that high.
by Western Reserve on Jan 12, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
It would stun me too. doesn’t mean It won’t happen. his stock has been rising with that senior season. he should only be a mid-late third rounder but will be vastly overvalued IMO. (I wouldn’t be surprised if NE takes him with their second pick in the draft. they have a lot of decent backs but most are older and none are signed on the team through through 2011. faulk is 33 and his contract is up in 2010. i don’t think they will resign morris or fred taylor b/c of age. that leaves them with maroney and benjarvus green-eliis. they definitely could use a back who is young and somewhat reliable.
I agree. He wants out of tennesee too. he wants playing time and to go to a team without a defined running back. he used to be getting 15 carries a game but since johnson broke out this year, he got 5 in the last 11 games or something like that. he is really pissed and he would want to leave. he sees our RB situation as a plus here b/c of playing time. I would get him for a mid rounder.
I would really, really prefer a safety, someone who can play all over the field. But I guess the drop-off in available players after Berry is just too big?
You don’t take a safety in the top ten unless he’s a ‘sure thing’ like Berry. I can see us using our second on a safety though.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I’ve heard that, but don’t understand the basis for it. Is it because safeties have a less significant impact on the game? Or they are all pretty equivalent outside of Reed/TP? Or they are difficult to project?
I think it’s a function of there being so few safety prospects who possess the potential combination of elite speed, elite ball skills, elite tackling, and the ability to play up in the box or on an island. Guys who can tackle like a linebacker and cover like a Corner are pretty rare.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Personally I think that outside of a special few (Reed, Polamulu, Wilson, and Sanders) they don’t make plays close enough to the LOS to use such a high choice on them.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 9, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
The VORP for most safeties just isn’t that high. There are a few Dawkins (in his prime), Polamalu, Reed, maybe Wilson, who are ridiculous standouts. Those guys are worth the pick. Most other guys don’t have a big impact on the game versus what the next guy would give you.
I’ve seen Reed and Polamalu both show blitz in the A gap before the snap, and make it all the way back to cover the deep half of the field in cover-2. That’s effing ridiculous.
is VORP really a good stat in football? i was under the impression that since football is such a fluid game and everybody runs different systems as well as requiring different positions that such an all-encompassing stat wasn’t all that reliable.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
VORP isn’t a stat for football; I think he was just using the term as an idea, not an actual number. Basically he’s saying that the difference between most safeties isn’t that big, outside of a few elite guys, so it’s not worth it to spend big money or a high pick on those players unless it’s someone of Berry’s caliber.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
Right. Which is why you hear front office guys talk about drafting specific positions in the first round. You can find a good LB in the 2nd and 3rd round, but certain positions like LT and CB are typically only found in the 1st round.
sometimes you can find a good CB in later rounds. I really like Trevard Lindley from Virginia in the 2nd or third. I think he is the best polished CB and will make the biggest impact on our team. While I feel haden is fit to play a zone b/c his man coverage is very suspect, that is where Lindley excells. the browns play a ton of man coverage and lindley shuts down the other receivers in a man. he isn’t super fast but has just enough speed. he is kinda like a more athletic version of leigh bodden, plus he has good jumping ability and is 6’0’. Most CBs coming out struggle in the man, he excells.
I also like Kyle wilson in the third round from boise state. he has decent speed and is a good playmaker. He isn’t super athletic but is very smart. After Lindley he is probably the best in the draft in man coverage.
ok thanks for clearing that up, that had me confused. I’m familiar with the baseball stat, but couldn’t believe it could be accurately applied to football. I get the overall point, and i tend to agree.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
It’s the goal of DVOA and the FO family of stats to be the football equivalent of Sabermetrics, but even as far as those stats have evolved they’re still fundamentally tied to team play and can typically only be applied to skill positions.
yeah i’m aware of those, and i do think they have some value, but i think they should also be taken with a big grain of salt.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
very good point
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
yeah…god point…there are the elite guys and everyone else. Berry could be elite. most Safeties that end up being projected in the top 10 do very well (laron Landry, Sean Taylor, Roy WIlliams, except williams cannot play man coverage). what do u think about haden putting on some pounds and becoming a safety?
yeah…god point
Woah . . . when I told you to be nice I didn’t mean you needed to start calling me “god”.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
this is very nit-picky and not necessary, but i can’t help pointing out that punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks, unless you are in the UK. I really am sorry to be such a grammar nazi, its just an irrational pet peeve of mine
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
Wrong. Punctuation goes inside the quotation marks when the entire sentence is quoted. It goes outside if only a word or phrase within the sentence is quoted.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Nope. It goes inside the quations regardless.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
I just read up on it. I apparently learned logical punctuation rather than american style punctuation. Thank Christ I didn’t go to public schools.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Private schools are so rigged it’s ridiculous.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Private schools are bias in the fact that minority families can’t pay.
It’s a shame that people need to pay for a better/ exclusive education.
Our country’s education system is seriously flawed.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
There are plenty of white families that can’t afford to pay for private school, too, so it’s not a racial thing.
I don’t see what is wrong with parents who want to send their kids to private school, and have the means to do so, doing that. That is their right. That is no different than a parent paying for private music lessons or a basketball summer camp.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions
Of well of course. I was in a progressive education class last semester and it really opened my eyes though. I meant minority in terms of grade – wise. Like if a school fails to adhere to NCLB, a charter school gets to send waivers to the best kids in the school because the public school can’t afford to keep them anymore. And until that public school gets better grades, it’ll never pass NCLB. So the fact that charter and private schools can take the best and ruin under privileged public schools is therefore, wrong. You’re a fellow teacher, you’d understand this flaw right?
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 11:06 PM EST up reply actions
I meant minority in terms of grade – wise.
What does this mean?
and how does it mean this
Private schools are bias in the fact that minority families can’t pay.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I tried to clarify afterward. Minorities tend to have lower grades on average which also shows a decrease in minorities in private schools by the method I had brought up. And then the paying part was just to say that if they willing wanted to go they couldn’t, which Brad, in fact, did clarify in my absent mindedness.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
It is not that private schools are that horrible. I think the problem is NCLB…I will agree that that is horrible. NCLB is the thing u should be upset at…this is the problem with socialism…
Huh?
Schools have been bad before NCLB and I’ve never heard anyone call Bush a socialist.
I’ll stop this is heading towards politics.
Do the LT SLIDE ELECTRIC GLIDE!
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Just saying, LBJ started NCLB which made it socialist, technically.
PICK UP THE BLITZ!
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
Didn’t know the full history but if Bush signed wouldn’t he have then been promoting socialism?
WAVE TO YA MOM!
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Kind of, but the U.S. wants education progress regardless of the outlook. All he really did was re – define it. LBJ started it under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The more you know!
TAKE A KNEE FOR VICTORY!
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
It’s funny that someone who supports the idea of public education and excoriates privatized education would be so quick to condemn socialism.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 12, 2010 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
FYI, you can use the up button to see which comment someone is replying to.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 12, 2010 9:07 AM EST up reply actions
It’s not charter and private schools that are ruining underprivileged public schools; those schools were ruined long before any charter schools were established.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
Right but then the idea of NCLB and the use of giving vouchers to private and charter schools makes it even a worse mess. And some families can’t get out of it.
I’m getting annoyed of talking politics now. Let’s just agree to kind of be on the same page.
CATCH THAT PASS!
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 11:51 PM EST up reply actions
what i think you meant to say was
I READ THE DEFENSE!
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Jan 11, 2010 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec fro pointing out that BB clearly missed the pattern.
CHALLENGE THAT CALL!
(…I don’t like that call…)
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 12:01 AM EST up reply actions
No wonder these draft threads reach 1000 comments.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 12, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
? i don’t get that. so now you look like you’re either an idiot or from a foreign country, and that’s a good thing?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
note: not trying to call you an idiot
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
I also prefer the metric system. America isn’t always right.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I prefer the metric system as well, and i’m not making a rightness or wrongness claim. The fact is, we use a different system in america. There isn’t anything right or wrong about different grammar systems, but if you use the conventions of another country while in this country, you are doing it wrong.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Cormac McCarthy, probably our greatest living writer, doesn’t use either system. Is he wrong?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
grammar wise, yes. just because you are a very good writer doesn’t mean you are using proper grammar.
Also if this were three years ago I would argue in favor of Kurt Vonnegut, but i digress…
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly, the man can write how he wants.
How do you think the idea of grammar came about? The fact that people wrote however they f – ing felt like.
The Road is one of the best written books I’ve ever read and he never once uses quotations.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
I totally agree with this. He can write however he wants, because he does it really well.
organized grammar rules exist because it would be incredibly difficult to decipher what everybody was talking about if they did it a different way. I don’t think grammar rules are always needed, but unless you are ignoring them for a stylistic reason (a la McCarthy), you should probably stick to them in your everyday conversations.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Yep
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Oh and to you grammar Nazi I say… Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
some public schools are in fact better than some private schools. it depends on the school and the public school system…private school is not a be all, end all, for better education. sometimes it is but at the same time, there are excellent public schools out there.
I felt that was what it was…maybe I misenterpreted it…he was saying he was glad to go to private school
I didn’t mean to imply that public schools are bad or are worse than private schools, though I understand where you got that from what I said.
By ‘thank Christ I didn’t go to public schools’, I meant ‘thank Christ I didn’t go to a school where the curriculum and course work are determined by bureaucrats and political appointees in the state capitol’.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
oh…in that sense…totally agreed. I went to public school and that annoyed me. however at my school, if u took Honors and AP classes, it was like going to a private school…
My public school is a lot better than the private school in my city.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
same
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
(for the most part, there are a lot of private schools around here)
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I went to a private school (Catholic) and teach at a public school. They are vastly different worlds. Although the content taught it virtually the same (outside of religion class, of course) the attitudes and behavior of students — and parents, too — is much different.
By the way, I do know that punctuation is supposed to go inside quotation marks but I often forget to put them there.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree. it is for that very reason that many private schools have mandatory religion class or can teach the civil war as “the war of northern aggression.”
this also doesn’t explain your original comment. it was in response to the fact that you learned a grammar system not used in the U.S. what does that have to do with government mandated curriculum?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
We learned the punctuation always being in the quotations in my high school, and yet I still find ways to put it outside.
The amusing part is that a lot of legal documentation in the US exclusively puts punctuation outside of quotations marks almost always. Doesn’t really make sense, but I don’t think lawyers signed up to be lawyers because of the grammar and writing.
punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks, unless you are in the UK.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/marks/quotation.htm
although i should have said periods and commas, not all punctuation, sometimes question marks go outside.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
MLA 2009:
Quotation Mark Punctuation
1. Periods and commas usually go inside the quotation marks.
*After Marcus took me to a monster truck rally for our date last night, I suggested that maybe we should just be
"friends."
* "I did not commit murder," the defendant answered.
2. Question marks and exclamation marks may go inside or outside, depending on how they are used.
* "What does that mean?" she asked.
* Why did that woman say, "I’ll see you on Saturday"?
* "Golly"
thats what i said, isn’t it?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
from the comment directly above yours:
although i should have said periods and commas, not all punctuation
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
haha its ok, we all fail with reading comprehension once in a while
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, this is the second one you’ve found.
Genius.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I see Coleman going in the second round. He was a beast this year.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 9:36 PM EST up reply actions
Most draft sites consider him a 3rd-4th rounder. Maybe we could use our second 3rd round pick.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 9, 2010 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps, but I’d like to lock him up asap w/o over picking. I think our first 3’rd is reasonable.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
he would be a 3rd rounder (or a 4th) IF he puts on some weight and has a good combine. right now he is puny for a safety and to be even a free safety (the smaller safety) he needs to put on a good 10-15 pounds. He makes plays and made them in college but his physical skills will make him overmatched in the pros. he runs just under a 4.6 which is not good for a safety. I like anderson russel who also mad plays plus has 3 inches, 20 pounds and a 40 speed that is .4 faster than coleman. russell has a safety body whereas i think coleman will be somewhat of a tweener. not big enough to be a safety but not fast enough to be a cornerback.
Russell is garbage in coverage.
Pass.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
he might not have russel’s hands but he is in fact better in a man coverage than coleman. he is maybe slightly worse in the zone but russell is a decent zone player. in a man, coleman gets burned. russell can also play the run well.
i’d rather have donnie nickey then anderson russel, meaning he better never seen our facility in berea
russel is an arm tackling joke
by strongsafety on Jan 10, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
he might not have russel’s hands but he is in fact better in a man coverage than coleman
No, period, no.
This is just absolutely fallacious. AR gave up two touchdowns in Cover 0 against Navy. Kurt didn’t give up two touchdown in man coverage all year. AR was benched because he couldn’t play man coverage.
You are way over-valuing Anderson Russell.
agreed. I like haden but i have a couple concerns about him. he has spectacular talent but he is about 5-10 at best (his height might b more like 5-9..who knows) that is not a major problem b/c of his leaping abilities. he also does not have great instincts and makes most plays on atheticism, that doesn’t always work in the pros. he also takes plays off.
If berrry is gone, i like rolando McClain. he is very similar to patrick willis. he has a little less speed but s stronger and bigger, which helps since our other ILB (jackson) is undersized at about 230 pounds. McClain has good enough speed and is also big. he has good field instincts and even was more of a playmaker in college than willis….but i have been hoping the browns get white as a FA for the past week since i found out he was a FA.
I think this draft has some decent draft due to quite a few more players coming out that might not have were the CBA going to be in effect. I’ve read that there is an opinion that the 2011 or subsequent seasons might end up with a rookie salary cap similar to that found in other sports. So more players that want the big payday are coming out next year rather than finish their senior year. I think it is a good year to have some extra picks even if they are late.
Brownsyup
This is a good point and most of the underclassmen have not said if they will stay or go still.That is why I am holding out to see who comes out then will start to toss out names.
But what does everyone think of QB Dan LeFevour? Not a 1st or 2nd but if he is there in the 3rd would he be a intresting pick? He looks good even on rolling out keeps his shoulders lined up and has a decent arm.
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 9, 2010 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
yes. i have seen him in action. there is something about QB’s. a combination of decision making and poise. some have it and some don’t. i saw russell and DA and knew they didn’t have it. LeFevour does. he doesn’t have a great arm but that isn’t a huge deal. he has poise, is a playmaker, has pocket presence and reads the progressions well. those things are more important in the West Coast offense than arm strength (which doesn’t really matter). he is really athletic and can run for yards and escape potential sacks. he is really tough and durable and throws very well on the run. while he played in the MAC which is a mid major conference with not great D, he did dominate buffalo’s good passing D (which was by far the best in the MAC). he makes plays, he never gives up on a play and looks downfield when scrambling, and just racks up yards. when i saw him he wasn’t dominant but then I look up and he had 268 yards passing and almost 100 yards running. he didn’t make huge plays but he just tore apart buffalo’s solid secondary and was very efficient.
I am also watching WR Freddie Barnes he might be a nice 3rd-4th pick if he is around great hands and even though a little slow for a WR he always seems to get teh yards.
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 9, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
yeah…right now, we can probably get him later. I also like Naaman roosevelt who is also a MAC player and plays similar. barnes and Roosevelt are both not that big which means they might be more slot guys. barnes is a little more bulky (although the weight room can fix that) whereas Naaman roosevelt has better speed. roosevelt had similar production to barnes plus very good hands and leaping ability. his speed is sub 4.5 which is good. he also gets the yards. they both used to be QBs and i think that helped roosevelt b/c he is one of the best receivers i have seen in college in YAC. he uses his speed and good explosion to create YAC (plus he is fairly elusive). he also always seems to find the right seam and he doesn’t go deep often but has long plays b/c he finds seams and holes in the D after the catch, and finds blockers and runs behind them. after the catch, he is almost like cribbs on a return.
If the talent pool ends up being a bit deeper, would it become advisable for the Browns to go with BPA in the 1st and 2nd rounds and focus the rest on needs? I kind of like the idea of flipping that – target needs in the first two rounds and go BPA after that.
On another note, does the fact that the Jets got a WC win bump the value of the Edwards trade to a 2nd or is it tied strictly to his production?
Production. He has a catch target. The way he’s going now, we won’t get a 2nd.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
We should have asked for a drop ball target……
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 10, 2010 5:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If you’re the Jets and you don’t want to get cheated (because he is almost sure to hit whatever number you throw out there), where do you set the line? 20 drops? 30? 40?Do drops that would be sure TDs carry more weight?
I like the idea of a negative incentive laced deal. How else could we make this apply? Number of times a punter kicks it less than 25 yards. FGs missed inside of 30 yards. Number of times burnt on man coverage.
by Chief WaDrew on Jan 11, 2010 2:54 AM EST up reply actions
Best player available is sometimes good but it depends on needs. some would argue that at #7 the way its going Okung will b the BPA but he is a pass blocking LT who doesn’t have great strength. We do not need another LT and i would rather have Thomas at LT than Okung, because thomas is better pass blocking AND run blocking compared to okung…and okung would not survive at RT. i usually say go with BPA anyways, but combine it with needs…like we probably need a receiver more than a middle linebacker (possibly slightly more need than a safety) but taking Dez bryant at that pick is a reach and not wise. the BPAs by that point that we might need are Joe Haden, CB and Rolando McClain, ILB (but the speed to play outside if needed).
You forget, before this year he was a RT. They moved him over because he was their best OT.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 9:38 PM EST up reply actions
yes. but he was an average run blocker at best. he also does not have great strength. he has good hands, athleticism and pass blocking but we do not truly need that. most of the big tackle names do not project really as right tackles b/c of below average NFL strength and average run blocking.
That’s fine since my top picks look like they would be DB’s, but we still need a young RT and RG to solidfy this o-line for the future.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
I might not take a DB in the first. i like the value at DB in the later rounds. Haden does not fit a man scheme b/c he gets burned b/c of his very poor reads. when he can track the ball in the air and make a hit, he is successful. he would honestly b a better safety (with training). the much safer pick who also has upside is rolando McClain. he is a ILB who runs a 4.6 40, is very instinctive, big at 260 pounds and could get bigger and faster since he is only 20.
I don’t dislike picking a ILB either, but I don’t think it’s a top need compared to other spots. Maiava did just fine filling in for DQ (see Baltimore Monday night → contained Ray Rice perfectly)
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
yes, maiava is just fine, but McClain has enough speed to play outside. plus even though maiava looked nice, he doesn’t make big plays and most of his plays made were 4-5 yards downfield. you have to really watch sometimes. yes trusnik and maiava got a decent amount of tackles, but by that point, the back was to the second level. McClain’s strengths are getting into the backfield, stopping the run, instincts, tackling, and shedding blockers. He is a great ILB in a 3-4 b/c of it. Dqwell is nice but he also does not make enough tackles behind or at the LOS. that is important as a ILB. the best ILBs stop players pretty consistently at or behind the line. I like jackson but i feel we need a guy who is a little better, on the other side to compliment him. with all your talk about our ILBs, our run defense was very holey. yes, they also run to the outside at times, but that is where McClain’s speed comes in. he is a sideline to sideline defender, whereas maiava and jackson aren’t. there specialty is tackling the guy 2-3 yards after the LOS. McClain loves to get into the backfield and specializes in it. plus jackson maiava and trunik all are poor sideline to sideline defenders (jackson might be average but average and poor are not a good combo).
the point is the ILB sets the tone for the offense. he stops the run, he lays guys out in coverage, and occasionally blitzes the QB. McClain can set the tone for the D.
You don’t take LB’s in the top ten.
They are the defensive equivalent of the Running Back.
Unless we are talking a once in a generation player, the value isn’t high enough.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:07 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, linebackers are mostly dime a dozen. Good one’s tend to pop up in every round.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
but at the same time, McClain is NOT a dime a dozen. he has a rare blend of size (260 pounds) speed (4.6 40), ability to shed blockers, high motor, and great instincts. he could be similar to ray lewis, he might be a step slower than lewis but his instincts and tackling are just as good. i feel that McClain will be an enforcer on the defense and set a tone.
He plays behind the biggest NT in all of the NCAA.
He plays on one of the most dominant defenses in the NCAA.
He plays under one of the best defensive minds in all the NCAA.
Yet he isn’t even the best linebacker on his own team.
He doesn’t jump off the page. He should be better than he is.
You don’t take “meh” ILB’s in the first round.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:46 AM EST up reply actions
1. Yes he plays behind one of the biggest NTs in the game but many of his tackles are outside the offensive tackles. he has sideline to sideline range.
2. It is dominant partially because of his play and run stopping ability up front.
3. Ehhh, debatable.
4. who is, Corey Reamer? McClain was a monster and was a moving wall at the line of scrimmage. he was easily one of the top 2 players on his team. (behind cody who didn’t make a ton of plays but did hold up blockers).
5. Maybe he doesn’t jump off the page to you but 2 INTs, 14 TFLs, 15 QB Pressures, 4 Sacks, 5 pass knockdowns, a couple force fumbles, and 5 QB hits seems to jump out at me. it jumps that he is around the football and just makes plays.
I would not call him meh. he has size, speed, instincts, tackling ability, work ethic, college production and intangibles.
he never takes a play off. he is bigger than patrick willis, has a quicker first step (although slightly slower), he is extremely instinctive, and he even produced slightly better than willis did in more games. his 3 years at Bama compare somewhat favorably to Aaron Curry’s 3 1/2 starting seasons at wake forest.
4. who is, Corey Reamer? McClain was a monster and was a moving wall at the line of scrimmage. he was easily one of the top 2 players on his team. (behind cody who didn’t make a ton of plays but did hold up blockers).
Did you watch Bama early in the season? Dont’a Hightower was far and away the better player.
3. Ehhh, debatable.
Please tell me why Nick Saban isn’t one of the best defensive minds in the NCAA. I’m all ears.
Maybe he doesn’t jump off the page to you but 2 INTs, 14 TFLs, 15 QB Pressures, 4 Sacks, 5 pass knockdowns, a couple force fumbles, and 5 QB hits seems to jump out at me. it jumps that he is around the football and just makes plays.
Those numbers are “meh” when he is practically unblocked on every down. He never has to shed blocks because of Cody. He is free to run from sideline to sideline. He should have twice those numbers. Like you said, he has the size and “speed”, he isn’t blocked, the guy should be everywhere.
and he even produced slightly better than willis did in more games.
This isn’t true. Willis only started 22 games in his Ole Miss career. He saw a lot of time in his Soph season, but he didn’t start.
His career totals:
355 tackles, 33 TFL, 11 Sacks, 1 INT (The Ole Miss site doesn’t list FF.
That was starting two seasons and seeing a good amount of playing time in another. McClain can’t touch that.
When you add in the fact that Willis didn’t play behind the best NT in the NCAA and under Nick Saban, it is a joke to compare McClain to Willis.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 2:17 AM EST up reply actions
yes…hightower was more talented…i forgot that McClain was not as talented as a guy who played in less than 4 FULL GAMES. he didn’t look that much better than McClain and didn’t play as well. close but not as well…and the season is 14 games, not 4.
You’re right.
Injured players have no right being considered talented.
Good thing the NFL thinks different.
I guess you decided that the rest of the post was no longer relevant?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 3:10 AM EST up reply actions
I am saying yeah, they had a 5 star recruit that was more talented that played for 4 games…did the guy produce better than McClain when on the field?? absolutely not. will he ever be better than McClain?? possibly…are you now going into the realm of speculating 2-3 years into the future to make your point?? absolutely! Is it possible you will be wrong?? Absolutely!!
No, I am saying that if I could choose today, I would take Hightower and not even think twice about it.
He is much further along at this point in his career than McClain was, plus he is a better pass rusher.
Is it possible you will be wrong?? Absolutely!!
Of course I can. I wanted Robert Gallery. I liked Ryan Leaf. Anyone who says that they know everything about the draft is a ratard (that’s right, a hangover term) or a genie. Since I don’t mess with genies, I assume the other.
The draft is a crap shoot. But avoiding certain pitfalls are easy.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 3:27 AM EST up reply actions
yeah. saban IS one of the best defensive minds but I wouldn’t jump to automatically call thim the best…i could argue that tressel is as good, urban meyer’s florida team, mack brown at texas. all these schools have great defenses every year. Kirk ferentz at Iowa and Joe Pa…both of those guys led top 10 defenses that are consistently in the top 5 to top 10…
I watched him play. he was blocked at times but he could shed blockers. terrence cody is one guy and I know he is good, he does NOT take up the whole offensive line. McClain does often get blocked (especially since the O line Keys on him) but can shed the blocks very well. those numbers show he is just about everywhere. if you watch him play he is just about everywhere.
He played in more games than McClain and likely saw more minutes on the field. McClain didn’t even start right away his freshman year. willis played a majority of downs his sophmore year. he played more his sophmore yr than McClain did his freshman year…plus he played a few games his freshman year…
the point was that McClain made as many plays as the “playmaker” patrick willis.
his totals of 355 tackles are for 2 seasons where he started every game, one where he played every game and played as much as some starters, and one freshman season where he got 20 tackles.
McClain had only 270 tackles in a little less playing time…but he also had 5 interceptions 35 tackles for a loss and about 10 sacks…similar stats and maybe slightly better. more polished in coverage…
one player (terrance cody) does not a team make. the cardinals had very talented receivers before they brought in warner but they weren’t a good team…
without cody, McClain would have put up similar numbers.
saban IS one of the best defensive minds but I wouldn’t jump to automatically call thim the best
I didn’t call him the best.
without cody, McClain would have put up similar numbers.
I disagree. Since Cody has come on to campus McClains numbers have gone up. Granted some of that is because he was maturing as a player, but Cody keeping him clean was a huge part.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 3:31 AM EST up reply actions
It was some part but what you are doing right now is purely speculation. it is more likely based on coincidence than fact. he put up good numbers before that and put up even better numbers after…you know what, he was young for a freshman and he is 20 entering the draft. he still could be improving. I will not disagree that cody helped but i do think a lot of it was his maturing. freshman year he was playing and wasn’t even 18 yet. his body hadn’t truly matured. the body really starts to mature in the years of 18 and 19. that part of why the NFL mandates players to stay in college…to let their bodies fill out…kevin durant has gained over 30 pounds since high school and that is only from the ages of 18-21.
Kevin Durant is a basketball player.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
yeah…I actually thought he was a hockey player…
duh he is a BBall player. the point i was making is that bodies fill out and players mature physically between the ages of 18-21. you can say that cody was the reason he succeeded but he was blocked some of the time…yes they coincided but a player gets better in his junior season in general when compared to his sophmore season…at least the good players do.
Tressel and Mack Brown are offensive coaches — Jim Heacock runs the OSU defense and Will Muscamp runs the Texas defense. Those two head coaches have very little imput on defense.
It is absolutely crazy not to call Saban one of the best defensive minds in college football. That guy is designing blitzes and coverages 24 hours a day.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2010 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
I’d just like to say… McClain plays behind Terrance Cody, yes. TC is 6’5", 360 lbs…
We have a pretty darn good NT also. Shaun Rogers: 6’4" 350 lbs.
So anyone playing behind Rogers should have an advantage, and we don’t need to draft someone at 7th overall to do so?
The fact that McClain plays behind Cody means that he should look good, due to the advantage he has compared to other MLBs/ILBs, who aren’t playing behind Cody.
Right, I don’t think Cody is the reason McClain is successful. I’m just saying that if his numbers are jacked because he plays behind a monsterous NT, then his numbers have the potential to be jacked in Cleveland, where he would play behind a monsterous NT.
That said, I’ve heard alot of good things about him. My bro and I were talking about him today, and he said that McClain basically calls all the defensive plays for Bama. My bro said that McClain does for Bama’s defense what Peyton Manning does for the Colts’ offense (reading the offense, making adjustments, calling audibles, etc.). So he seems really smart. And like Bross said, he may not be the fastest dude, but right now he has decent speed and he’s young and could probably bulk up/speed up. I think once we get right down to the basics, you gotta have the instincts to make plays and the physical tools to get you there to make those plays. Once he gets to the NFL, he’s going to have a whole new system to learn, and the coaches are going to design schemes to put him where he needs to be to make plays. So whether he makes plays because he lines up behind Cody or not, if he has the skills and the intelligence I’m not all that worried.
Now, this is all assuming I’ve been given good info about him. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that my bro doesn’t know what he’s talking about in this case :-p
Yes, but if we took player Y, whose numbers were just as “jacked” as McClain’s—while NOT playing behind a monster NT—and then put him behind Rogers, wouldn’t we expect that player to be better than McClain?
McClain is very good at making adjustments, and does seem to be a “coach on the field” type. I just see him as DQwell Jackson plus about 20 lbs and 2 penalties per game. Is that worth 7th overall? Maybe. Depends a lot on who is there.
This.
While McClain may very well be a great player, there isn’t enough value at pick 7 to take him there.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 13, 2010 2:21 AM EST up reply actions
he had 2 penalties in one game…you cannot judge a player for one game, so because he had one bad game with a couple of penalties, he won’t commit that many every game…by that logic, Harrison should run for 286 yards every game. McClain does not make 2 penalties a game. and Rufio, Cody isn’t there on every play…even for a NT, one of ppls biggest concerns is his stamina and ability to stay on the field which is very bad for a NT…and NT does not effect a whole defense either…McClain does make a significant amount of his plays outside the tackle. I agree with who is there. I think he is, right now, just about even IMO with haden for BPA…the way most mocks are going, berry, suh, clausen, and bradford will be gone. the BPAs at that point might b LTs who only fit that position…
The penalties thing is a trend, not a one-game deal. For as smart as he is, he commits some really dumb penalties.
Saying my logic leads to believing Harrison runs for 286 yards every game is insulting.
yeah…It is somewhat insulting. At the same time, he did not committ 2 dumb penalties a game.
Yes he did commit some, but I do feel mangini would help with that…
he did not committ 2 dumb penalties a game.
Virginia Tech.
He got two personal fouls on one play.
He was whistled for a late hit, then when he was arguing with the official, he slapped the hands of another official away from him.
He should have been tossed.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 13, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
yes. I agree, Rufio seemed to implying he averaged 2 dumb penalties a game. Maybe he did, but everyone is just talking about one game. I don’t think he committed an average of 2 penalties a game for his career (or the season). If he did, it would like to see the stats…It would surprise me, plus I dunno where to find this kind of statistic, especially for college.
Rufio seemed to implying he averaged 2 dumb penalties a game.
He never said anything close to this. Nobody said anything close to this.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 13, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
That is why I didn’t say he said it. I just said it seemed like it. I guess this part was just a misinterpretation.
shep…I HAVE heard McClain called a QB on defense. He also is a film rat and a gym rat (2 things that are always a positive). He also has good instincts, I agree, from what i heard is a team player and team leader. He also only takes a play off when Saban says so. He is always giving it every play.
He also only takes a play off when Saban says so. He is always giving it every play.
Nick Saban tells him to give a half-asses effort on a play?
Either you have got some facts messed up or we talking about different Nick Saban’s.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 13, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
at the same time, he has looked good when cody wasn’t at ‘bama. cody isn’t always in on every play (he has very bad stamina, even for a NT which is a problem) and even then McClain looks good. McClain also is a sideline to sideline defender and makes A LOT of plays ouside the tackle. cody only effects the interior of the line really. he doesn’t take up blockers on the outside. It is an unfair and somewhat inaccurate assessment to judge McClain lower b/c cody is there. cody also makes a lot of plays that would normally go to McClain…you could argue that with cody gone, he would lose a few plays, but also gain a few…
He reminds me of Andra Davis. Pass. We have one really good ILB as it is and enough quality depth that ILB is pretty low on my list of priorities.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
We can find ILB’s all throughout the draft. No need to take one in the top 10.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 2:38 AM EST up reply actions
true, but very few ILBs that have either elite speed or strength…none who have both, except McClain. none who really have a ton of upside and none who project to be big playmakers in the NFL. he not only is the best player coming out but has the highest ceiling.
I am not even saying with this that we HAVE to take him, but who would you want the browns to take if berry is gone???
maybe. I also feel that haden will be more successful at free safety (at least for right now). his skills translate to a good corner but an elite safety. he has corner speed but still gets burned at times. this is b/c he makes poor reads in man coverage and ends up being out of position. he also takes plays off and needs to be a harder worker. his intangibles do not go well with a CB. He is best when playing the zone b/c there, he can read and react; he can see the ball leave the QBs hands and run to it and either lay a big hit on the guy or pick it off. he will not be a shutdown corner in the league from what I have seen, he doesn’t have revis’ intangibles. He does however, have great tackling ability for a safety, and if he was to declare playing safety in college and put on 10-15 pounds so he would weight about 205 (about polamalu’s weight) he would be a better safety propect than mays. he wouldn’t be that far behind berry and would only be drafted lower than berry, purely for the fact that he played CB in college. he might even be a better tackler and has almost as good of speed…with that said. I think berry could do to go to the weight room himself. he is somewhere under 200 pounds and most safeties, even the lankiest rangiest ones, are at least 200. he can bulk up to about 205 or more and still probably run under a 4.4. this would make him a better prospect and he would b able to play the run better…
My personal Pick of who I like is Rolando McClain. he has great instincts and never takes a play off. he is big fast and strong, sheds blockers well, and gets to the ballcarrier. he also projects as a prototypical ILB in the 3-4, similar to ray lewis.
he is not at all like andra davis. his skill set more rivals patrick willis or ray lewis. he is more like lewis b/c lewis is also bigger. andra davis ran a 4.85 at the combine. Rolando McClain has unofficially run a 4.6 flat. even if it is unofficial, there is a big difference. he has ray lewis speed with a huge 260 pound body. in the 3-4 ILB does a lot more than you might think. they blitz the QB once or twice a game, they play the pass and are stalwarts against the run. they are the most important cogs in a 3-4. you can’t stop the run without good ILBs and you can’t win if you can’t stop the run.
While the numbers for maiava and trusnik might look good they are misleading. many of their tackles came 4-5 yards past the line of scrimmage in the running game. by that time, the back was at the second level. they mediocre at best, at stopping the run. Dquell jackson is better but not by a ton. he is good but he has somewhat of the same problem. he oftentimes makes tackles 4-5 yards downfield. he does it less than those guys, but still. with another good ILB, the pressure will be off of jackson and he will play better. McClain and Jackson next to each other, in 2 years, could easily be the backbone of a great run D.
He is by far the best linebacker on his team. He did not get the highlight plays that Hightower got before injured because they had different roles. Hightower blitzed much more frequently than McClain because he played outside.
McClain made all the calls for Saban and was the enforcer in the middle. I don’t think God could craft a better MLB than McClain himself.
let’s see. there is always a linebacker who gets drafted in the top 10.
2009 Aaron Curry. OLB who could play the Inside in a 3-4. similar to McClain except McClain is a little bigger, stronger, and slightly less fast.
2008. Vernon Gholston. while he hasn’t panned out he WAS a top 10 pick.
Also in ’08. Keith Rivers. similar type of LB as McClain except smaller. If they were both in the draft, I would take McClain
Again in ’08. Jerrod Mayo. a little smaller and faster than McClain but now faster by much. good solid player.
2007 willis was 11 so just missed top 10 there…
2006. AJ Hawk. has had a solid pro career so far.
2005 ware was 11, 2004 Vilma was 12.
2003. terrell Suggs.
2002 was not a good LB yr
2001. Justin smith is now a OLB. dan morgan was drafted number 11.
2000 Urlacher.
1999 Chris Claiborne
1998 Greg Ellis and Keith Brooking.
1997 Peter Boulware and james farrior
Now Look at this…it seems like there is a LB drafted just about every year in the draft in the top 10. not only that but there is only one guy out of 15 that I would consider a bust (Claiborne, its early with gholston). Most of them had very solid careers and made a few pro bowls. there is only one guy i would truly consider a once in a generation player and that is Urlacher. you could maybe make the argument for terrell suggs but either way, your statment is based in falsehoods. many teams have taken linebackers in the top 10 and most of these teams have good front offices.
You’re not listening. I said nothing about OLB’s that rush the passer. That excludes Ware, Suggs, Greg Ellis and Boulware.
So you look at the list again and we are left with Urlacher, Mayo and I will even include Willis. 3 guys in 12 seasons. That isn’t a great ratio. In fact, it is pretty poor.
2001. Justin smith is now a OLB.
100% untrue. I have proof.
2006. AJ Hawk. has had a solid pro career so far.
I love AJ but he was benched this season for Poppinga. You can’t keep just making things up.
1998 Greg Ellis and Keith Brooking
Keith Brooking wasn’t a top 10 pick.
Most of them had very solid careers and made a few pro bowls. there is only one guy i would truly consider a once in a generation player and that is Urlacher.
We are talking about a top 10 pick. That isn’t a pick to get a guy who has a solid career. This is a pick to get a game changer or building block for the future. That is a massive difference.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 2:30 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but all of those guys are really good in Madden ’09. That has to count for something…
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
they are all good players and make an impact on their defense. although they might not all be stars like receivers drafted that high like Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson, they are better than charles rogers, mike william, or reggie williams, (or david terrell).
They’re by and large no better than Demeco Ryans or Lofa Tatupu (2nd rounders), Lance Briggs or Joey Porter (third rounders), Zach Thomas (a fifth rounder) or Adalius Thomas (a sixth rounder). Which is the point. Unless you’re near 100% certain that a guy is a can’t miss all world linebacker, you don’t drop a top ten pick and top ten money on them. Moreso than any other position, good and, sometimes, great linebackers come in every round in every draft.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
what I am saying is it’s better than dropping that money on Akili Smith, Matt Leinart, Cadillac williams who cannot stay healthy long enough to produce, deangelo hall, charles rogers, reggie williams, dunta robinson, byron leftwich, joey harrington, david carr, ryan sims, albert haynesworth, run DMC…I don’t mind spending top 10 money to know I will be getting a certified good quality product…plus the physical skills of McClain rival those of urlacher and ray lewis…he is no chopped liver and has much more upside than ryans or tatupu. worst case scenario, he is as good as them…
1. Its hardly fair to drop a list of top 10 busts at every single position. we know picks bust, but for every bad player you listed there, we could list a super-star.
2. you wouldn’t want Albert Haynesworth?
3. top 10 money for even a solid linebacker is too much. you can’t over-pay players like that. top 10 money is for perennial pro-bowlers, and no one else.
4. The point the entire time has been why take AJ Hawk in the first round if you can pick Joey Porter in the third? yes, McClain could be a great linebacker, but its not the sure thing you make it out to be. we would be just as well off drafting a second or third round linebacker.
by notthatnoise on Jan 10, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
1. I think It is fair. My point is that Linebackers in the top 10 almost never bust. It is one of the safest picks in the top 10 along with safeties and O Lineman and D-Tackles. skill position players in the top 10 tend to be boom or bust….and for every player I listed in the top 10, you could not list a superstar. Out of 14 receivers drafted in the first round since 2000, only 4 have been superstars. another 8 are complete busts. if you consider Roy Williams or BE busts, that moves the bust number up even more.
skill positions end up being boom or bust b/c teams fall in love with combine warriors who don’t have the instincts to survive in the NFL.
2. I would want Haynesworth for where he was drafted.
3. I would say that from what I have seen of McClain, he has the potential to be a perennial pro bowler, plus he is a physical specimen and his body hasn’t fully matured yet (he is still 20). a good ILB is invaluable in a 3-4. McClain has the potential to be more than solid. he has great upside…he is not a laurinitis guy where he will b a good starter, but not a ton of playmaking ability or upside.
4. I understand that. yes LBs drafted later end up panning out but I am just saying if you are going to draft high. I have heard him compared to guys like Brian Urlacher and Ray Lewis. I even saw a mock draft where the browns drafted him b/c he has upside, was one of the BPAs, and fits a 3-4 Well…
Justin smith i guess was switched this year to DE but the last few years he was an OLB.
he was benched to games!! you take irrelevant stats and try to make them relevant. he started 14 games and had a very nice season. Look up YOUR FUCKING INFO
Oh…i made one mistake. maybe he was number 11.
A guy who makes a few (3-4 pro bowls) is a building block. most guys who get drafted there at any position end up not being game changers. many end up being busts.
since 2000, there have been 14 wide receivers drafted in the top 10. only 4 have lived up to their potential (larry fitzgerald, plaxico burress, andre johnson and calvin johnson although calvin still could b a bust), 2 haven’t lived up to their potential but aren’t complete busts (roy williams and BE) and the other 8 are true busts.
I don’t see how not counting Rush linebackers is right. these guys were drafted AS LINEBACKERS but because they weren’t YOUR vision of a true linebacker, they don’t count. They are all linebackers and played their career standing up.
out of the 12ish linebackers I named, only one can be considered a true bust. many lived up to their potential, and some did not live up to it completely but were still excellent players (vilma, boulware, farrior). i would rather draft Johnothan vilma at 12 than reggie WIlliams at 9. my point is that whereas many receivers in the draft are boom or bust guys and that high, tend not to pan out, positions like linebackers do. skill positions oftentimes are busts (in the same draft as reggie williams…deangelo hall and dunta robinson, chris perry at 26 in that draft). Yes, skill positions hit a star more often than a linebacker but sometimes it is more wise to draft a linebacker, or lineman on either side (Or a QB if it is the right one). the bigger guys tend to not have as much star potential but are much less likely to turn into busts. QBs can be busts too b/c some ppl salivate over arm strength and do not care as much about poise and draft a guy like jamarcus russell.
like in the NBA, you can’t teach size. stats for the front seven defensive players translate oftentimes the most accurately of any position to the NFL (although some speed rush ends can be bust but that is more of a skill position as a true speed rusher). safeties also translate well into the NFL and they are a generally safe pick…except berry will likely b gone by 7.
My philosophy is draft skill positions later unless there is a guy that is a surefire knockout, and even then maybe not (reggie bush was a knockout).
Justin smith i guess was switched this year to DE but the last few years he was an OLB.
Nope. Never. Look for yourself.
he was benched to games!! you take irrelevant stats and try to make them relevant. he started 14 games and had a very nice season. Look up YOUR F——-G INFO
When your top ten ILB is benched for Brandon Chillar, it is a big deal. That isn’t irrelevant, it shows that a 4th round draft pick is a better fit for the defense. I did look up my info. That is how I know my facts check out.
since 2000, there have been 14 wide receivers drafted in the top 10. only 4 have lived up to their potential (larry fitzgerald, plaxico burress, andre johnson and calvin johnson although calvin still could b a bust), 2 haven’t lived up to their potential but aren’t complete busts (roy williams and BE) and the other 8 are true busts.
Who has said anything about WR’s? We are talking ILB’s. Stay focused.
I don’t see how not counting Rush linebackers is right. these guys were drafted AS LINEBACKERS but because they weren’t YOUR vision of a true linebacker, they don’t count. They are all linebackers and played their career standing up
Once again, we have been talking ILB. Don’t change the subject.
i would rather draft Johnothan vilma at 12 than reggie WIlliams at 9
Textbook definition of a strawman argument.
safeties also translate well into the NFL and they are a generally safe pick…except berry will likely b gone by 7.
What does any of this have to do with ILB’s?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 3:20 AM EST up reply actions
yes, but smith played 50% of downs in san fran for his first couple of years at OLB.
I admit Hawk was benched early in the season for 2 games…but he still started 14.
You know what, there is no need to quote me and treat me like a child, that is what someone who is childish actually does. a mature adult does not make comments like you are trying to make. The point i was making is countering you point. you were saying that Linebackers do not end up being that great of stars. I would rather draft a guy knowing he will most likely be a very good player and possibly a star (in the top 10) than a guy who could break records, but could also leave the league in 3 years. I was pointing out, using receivers that in general, skill positions are more boom or bust in the top 10. while ILBs an LBs in general are not as big of boom, they are rarely a bust. that is how it has to do with LBs.
My point about the johnothan vilma thing is that vilma didn’t live truly up to the potential of his pick but wasn’t a bust. reggie williams WAS a bust. i was just giving an example of 2 guys drafted in the same year, a skill postition player that busted and a ILB that didn’t bust but didn’t boom.
why risk a 1st round pick and all that money is my idea…and who would you have the browns take…Joe Haden who cannot play in man coverage because he makes very poor reads and has bad instincts…yes he could be a superstar, but in our defense, he would not be good. drafting is not all about grabbing the quickest guy, but the most practical pick. lets look at other guys who might be available. Okung who will never be a true run blocking Right Tackle and just above average likely for his career? would you want derrick morgan whose skills do not really fit as a rush linebacker in a 3-4? I am talking about who we should take there…who do you suggest?
yes, but smith played 50% of downs in san fran for his first couple of years at OLB.
I should have learned my lesson on the Washington KR thing.
I’m done. Have a nice evening bross09.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 3:44 AM EST up reply actions
I dunno what you mean…He did play 50% of his downs at OLB. yes it was a stretch to call him that and that was kinda out there, but if you still don’t understand my point that linebackers in general are one of the safest picks at that position, then we must have misconnected. I agree with your points but at the same time, i see getting a player as an investment. getting a receiver is like gambling with AIG stock (or another high risk stock). it could go up really high all of a sudden or you could lose all your money. ILBs are like that stock who stays the same, gets slightly better every year, doesn’t soar, but you know it is doing very well…
Dude, you’re the one who told him to “look up YOUR F—-ING INFO”, so I don’t see how you can say that he’s acting childish. You are being immature and changing your argument whenever he shows you that you’re wrong.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
wait…when did I change the argument. the whole time I have been just really talking about how linebackers are a much safer pick in the top 10. while they turn out to be stars a lot less than skill position players, they also very rarely bust. I would rather pay a guy a lot of money knowing he will be at least a good starter, then pay him a lot of money thinking he could be a star and then flames out.
The discussion started with Bernie saying that ILB’s aren’t usually drafted in the top 10, then you responded by listing a bunch of players who are OLB’s and DE’s (along with a few ILB’s, but his point was correct). Then you started talking about WR’s, which had nothing to do with his point at all and I have no idea why you even brought it up.
The point is that ILB’s are rarely drafted in the top 10 because you can usually find good ones later in the draft. Nobody is arguing if LB’s are usually safe picks, so that’s what I mean about you changing the argument.
Also, please stop using all the foul language. We try to stay away from that kind of stuff on here.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2010 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
I guess you still don’t understand the significance of wide receivers. when you draft a player in the top 10, in many ways it is an expensive investment. skill positions are high risk stock. they occasionally explode but more often then not end up underachieving. Whereas, ILBs are that rare investment where you don’t lose any money and you definitely get some gains. I would rather get a guarenteed gain with that money then have a possible loss.
Maybe you do not see that kind of money as an investment but that is how my mind works. in that way, a safer pick who still has upside is a much better investment. and if a ILB is projected in the top 10, they are usually special and end up being very good. McClain i have seen projected actually being taken by the browns, but most other drafts have him going 10. but at 7 for our needs, he is the top 3 BPAs for what is projected to be available.
Actually, Justin Smith has been a DE his entire career.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJu20.htm
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
but in san fran, although listed as a DE, he played about 50% of downs standing up…and that one doesn’t really even matter that much. I saw SF games and he played at linebacker.
Because they signed on to a team that uses a 3-4, he does stand up sometimes. But 3-4 teams have a knack for calling formations that let their DE’s put their hand on the ground and just flat out rush the passer.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 10, 2010 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree. Inside linebackers in a 3-4 set the entire defense. The best defenses are strong up the middle (DT, ILB, Safeties), and if you look at the AFC North, the entire division is strong up the middle.
McClain would be a heck of a pick at 7. Play him next to D’Qwell and you have a much stronger defense.
I’m pretty sure he played LT his junior year.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 9, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
I like best value available in the 1st, especially as high up as we are. Guards aren’t worth it. RTs either, probably. RBs aren’t worth it unless they are Adrian Peterson and you instantly become a playoff team by drafting them. Safeties outside of Berry aren’t worth it. TEs probably not worth it.
Factor in position value and our needs, but don’t let them scare us away from taking a game changer.
this is exactly how i feel.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 10:39 AM EST up reply actions
yes…there are only 2 guys that I see as possible game changers that will likely be available AND fit the browns system. Those would b Rolando McClain and Haden. McClain is an ILB and I usually wouldn’t draft just any ILB in the first, but he is not ur ordinary guy. He runs a 4.6 40 (similar to ray lewis speed, much better than maualuga or laurinitis) and is 260 pounds. he is big AND fast. granted so is taylor mays, but McClain is much more polished. he sheds blockers well, he has great instincts and never takes a play off. he is one of the few defensive players i see having an impact from day one.
Haden can have an impact but I would love to see him more at safety and he could be like polamalu. Haden has elite 4.4 speed and he has great hands and is a punishing tackler. with that said, he makes very poor reads in man coverage. if he gains 10-15 pounds and still runs a low 4.4 he can be an elite safety in the mold of polamalu.
on Joe Haden:
http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2010/1/3/1232426/joe-haden-nfl-draft-scouting-report
Man coverage: Haden’s press skill is excellent and he can handle large receivers at the line. A picky defensive backs coach might want to work with Haden on his backpedal. He’s more of a side step, which gets him in trouble against shifty receivers. Once Haden is turned and running with the receiver, he stays right on them and uses his hands well here.
Speed: Shows that he has optimum playing speed. Stayed in stride with just about every receiver he lined up against, especially when running in a straight line. Is an explosive closer. Gets up to speed in an instant.
Final word: There is no better college cornerback than Haden.
I should also not that some teams teach a side-step instead of a backpedal, so that may not be an issue.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2010jhaden.php
Joe Haden is a very talented cornerback with a very well-rounded game, but some teams might be scared off by his lacking instincts, which is critical at the NFL level where pro receivers are great route runners.
http://www.footballfanspot.com/joehaden.htm
He’s more of a zone roaming corner than a man-to-man corner. He’s better at roaming a zone and making the big play, like a tackle or an interception or a pass breakup, than he is guarding receivers. He can get burnt easily and struggles some with man coverage. He hits like a safety and catches like a receiver, but struggles with some cornerback fundamentals
most cornerbacks are better at zone coverage than man coverage. The comments on his man coverage skills are all very minor. they are the only criticisms, and small ones at that. I’m not trying to say he’s perfect, but you can’t find a better corner in this year’s draft.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
at the same time, from some of the places I have read, his man coverage skills make him more of a project player right now at CB. the browns play their CBs almost always in a man. his skill set would make him an elite playmaking FS in the form of a polamalu (if he adds a few pounds of muscle).
That said, there are some CBs who actually excel in man and I would rather see the browns go after them (unless they will convert Haden to a FS). I would like to see them get Trevard Lindley from Kentucky or Kyle Wilon from BSU in later rounds. these guys are playmakers with enough speed, plus they have great instincts in man and are much better in man coverage.
Well to look at this from a different perspective, Mangini covets versatility. Haden being able to play safety right off the bat, mixing in CB time, may make Mangini beg for him that much more.
That one even suggest he can play free safety. the ones I read say he is better in zone coverage. that is why I suggest a team move him to free safety. however he is still a project player as a CB and even more as a safety.
of course he can play free safety, most good CBs can
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
very solid point
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
yeah…I do like him, don’t get me wrong. but with the browns Defensive scheme, I would rather see him add muscle and become a Safety. he is the hardest hitter at CB but his skill set fits a safety a little more…he could be like polamalu if he added a little size.
i think at least he’ll be a corner like Antoine Winfield, and I think he has a higher ceiling than that.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
As a physical, hit the WR at the line type of corner that can be even just decent at CB1-level man coverage, he would make an amazing add.
yeah…the question is what are his skills in the man. that is his one weakness and that is how we use our CBs almost all the time. he is an amazing player in a zone but we do not usually play a zone.
To be fair to Rex Ryan, he does this amazing thing where he tries to play to his players’ strengths. While that may sound douchetastically sarcastic, it is only to the point of demonstrating that we aren’t used to seeing it.
So, if we had Haden, I would expect Ryan to be able to scheme to his talents as well. Just because Wright and co. play best in man doesn’t mean we have to draft players alike them.
Yeah but you’re making the comment that he would make a better safety than CB anyway. Also, as far as predicting the scheme – that’s no longer something I’m willing to do. Maybe Ryan will disappoint next year, but I’ve grown to respect his ability to scheme and maximize talents. I think you might be pleasantly surprised by how well Ryan could make Haden fit.
Not saying I don’t like ryan, really. I more like him as a Mike adams type…Plays safety but in the nickel plays some corner against the nickel receiver. he could thrive in that role.
He’s much, much more physically gifted than Adams (whom I think had an absolute career year in 2009). He would have to be able play safety at an elite level and corner and a high level to be worth the #7 in your scenario.
I do agree he is much more physically gifted.
My point is that there are still questions about haden’s work ethic and his skills in man coverage. for a guy of his speed he god burned waay to often. he makes some poor reads and he really has amazing potential. All I am saying is that I have seen him play zone better (he can track the ball and make a big hit). right now, I would not be that confident in his cover skills much more over BMac. there were times where adams played CB in the nickel to line up against the slot guy. this is what I am talking about, play haden in the nickel there and have him play other downs at safety. he is good at locating the ball and running to the play, but still very unpolished in man-coverage (which is what our CBs play most of the time). with a little bit of bulk he could IMHO be the next troy polamalu…the skills are there.
He is the best man corner in a couple years and I have heard nothing about work ethic problems. Quit making stuff up.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 14, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
I dunno if antoine winfield ever had elite speed. he was slightly above average when I started to watch football. winfield’s strength though is more his instincts in coverage. this is haden’s weakness.
winfields strength has nothing to do with instincts, his strength is his stregth, he doesn’t let guys off the line. My point is Haden can be that kind of physical corner, or better, because as you said winfield never had elite speed, haden does.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
There has been some talk about lendale white. He is good but there is a nice back in the draft. His name is anthony dixon. He is probably a 3-4th rounder. He won’t be an every down back in the NFL but is excellent at short yardage. he is durable and although he doesn’t have great skills at making guys miss, he has been able to handle a lot of carries. for a power back he has decent speed. he runs a mid 4.5 (which is the same speed brandon marshall has). white ran a 4.64 in the draft and was the same size. he does have good explosion and gets to the whole quick which is important for a big back. he is similar to tyrone wheatly who was a serviceable back. I found a website that lists teams possibly tracking a certain player and they say we are likely tracking him in the third round with our 72nd pick.
I don’t think you should bring up 40 times before you see what they run at the combine. I do like Dixon though. He might just be a workhouse.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 9, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
yes. the 40’s aren’t that important. he was productive every year in college and has major skills. he does a lot of things that don’t show up on the combine. even though he has average speed, he has a quick first step and doesn’t plod to the hole like jamal. he also is very underrated as a receiver and has soft hands which are rare for a power back. he doesn’t have great elusiveness, but can run over most players. when he gets going, he is a wrecking ball with his great size and above average speed. he has shown he can be an every down player and played against the toudhest competition in the SEC. he is also probably the most durable back in the draft and is the least fumble prone.
My wish list…..
1) top right tackle
2) Eric Berry or Kurt Coleman
3) Toby Gerhart and/or Joe McKnight (you can never have enough good backs)
4) Cover corner
5) Top TE to pair with Moore.
6) RG
would be bad to take 2 DB’s with are first two picks seeing how there is not many DB’s worth picking in the first place
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 9, 2010 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
I like Haeden in the first if Berry isn’t there. Plus Coleman, and I think we’ve built a good young secondary.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
yes…i kinda like haden…i would honestly rather draft kyle wilson from Boise st. in the third round then haden. haden is good but he doesn’t project as a good man to man CB. He hits like a safety and catches like a receiver, but struggles with some cornerback fundamentals. he is great in a zone when he can wait for the throw and run to the receiver and dole out a hit or pick it off. although he has elite speed, he gets burned constantly in a man-to-man defense because of his recognition skills and instincts. they are very poor instincts and he takes off plays in man coverage.
I like kyle wilson b/c he has great speed and is pretty athletic but he also has very good instincts and can play in a man defense. imagine a not as good version of dre bly (a guy who was slightly shorter but was smart and pretty fast).
Actually he doesn’t get burned frequently and he does have good instincts. If you really need a CB you should draft them in the first. Kinda like QBs.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 9, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
actually from what I saw, he got burned in man coverage when against a decent receiver. he played a lot of zone where he could locate the ball and make a hit or pick. in a zone he could be good or even as an elite safety. but he does not the instincts to play man. the browns play man coverage most of the time and no matter what your speed, if you make bad reads and have mediocre instincts, you WILL get burned.
Or wait until someone drops to you in the 2nd because of something like height, despite their film, which is outstanding.
Or character issues. That’s how we landed Wright.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 11, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
yeah…and he was pretty clean by the time we drafted him…on that note, i want to say grossi sometimes is a complete idiot. I am commenting on his to browns players. I think wright already is a good #2 CB in the league and is a year or 2 away from being a shutdown corner…and he was ranked lower than pontbriand…
i want to say grossisometimesis a complete idiot.
Fixed.
(By the way, it’s completely fine to call Grossi or any other member of the media an idiot. That’s actually encouraged here.)
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I have noticed ppl rag on grossi here at times so i felt comfotable saying it…I just don’t see how u can rank a very good corner less valuable than a long snapper. even if he was a HOF long snapper, he is sill just a long snapper.
yeah…kyle wilson from boise. great in man coverage. similar to dre bly. could be an elite #2 corner. his 40 speed and size will be under the microscope, but he won’t be a bust. the reason CBs (like dante hall and dunta robinson) turn out to be busts is b/c they can’t play man coverage. they are drafted for speed but end up not being able to cover. wilson can cover, is a playmaker and has deceptive speed. also he is from the WAC so all of this lead to him being a mid 3rd rounder. with an inch more height and if he went to USC, he would be a late first rounder.
but he’s not an inch taller, and he played inferior competition. I’m not saying he won’t be great, he very well may be, but i think you are overvaluing him a little. like you said below though, too early to really tell.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
I am not saying that Wilson will be a star. He is more of a late third rounder b/c he doesn’t have elite speed AND he played in the WAC. he also doesn’t have elite height and occasionally does not do well against the run or with jump balls. that being said, he does excel in man coverage, has deceptive speed and makes plays. I was not saying as a first rounder but with the jets third rounder or our 4th rounder, he is worth taking a hard look at, if he is still there.
You need speed to play CB in the NFL, period. Especially to be an above-average starter, which is what we are looking for.
yes. WIlson has enough speed though to be a good starter in the NFL. his 40 time (projected) is about a 4.44 ish. he also is quick and the scouting reports I have read say he plays faster than his speed.
you could even argue everything is projected an unofficial until the combine. many heights are fudged to make them look higher until the official combine. also size is inflated and guys could easily add weight between now and then…until the combine, nothing is truly official and everything is unofficial.
whoops. The above was exactly my point. 40 times don’t matter until the 40s are actually run. Tape is the only thing that isn’t projected
yes. true…and we have not all watched every single minute of tape on these guys either. the results are still inconclusive.
I agree with the competition thing, but height is way overrated when it comes to CBs, IMO. There was an interesting Draft Lab over at the Worldwide Leader on SydQuan Thompson that included some interesting thoughts on CB height. It was insider-protected, though.
I hate that hole insider thing…
Agreed about height. yes, he did face subpar competition but he did face a few top 25 teams including TCU and Oregon and looked good in those games. That is why he is projected as a mid third rounder-early 4th rounder. I think he could be a good starter though. Another weakness he does have is run support. besides that, he plays great in man coverage and has good talent…( wilson).
I don’t like Syd’Quan. He can’t play man at all and is too small for safety.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
If he were 5’11", he’d be a first round projection right now.
He plays off a lot in Cal’s scheme, so obviously he will have to answer those questions about playing up closer to the LOS and playing man from there.
I want to see him run and I want to see him do the drills at the combine, but I think he is underrated at this point.
haden is always playing in a zone. he has awesome skills but so did phillip buchannon who was a bust (and dunta robinson who only had one good season and he has kinda busted too). even though he is lightning fast, he gets burned when playing man b/c he has bad instincts and makes poor reads. he also is known to take plays off and get lazy at times. honestly if he put on a few pounds and was able to still run a 4.4ish, i would put him at safety. he would be an elite safety b/c he can play centerfield and make big hits which are his specialty. if he puts on a bit of weight, he can be like nick collins on the packers but maybe a bigger hitter. he just does not make the reads to play in man coverage right now.
Let’s get a big Gator’s fan to answer this question once and for all…
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
Didn’t say you were, just saying let’s get the Gator’s blog guy to inform us about Haden’s strengths and weaknesses.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yea, I wasn’t accusing you. Just saying that the Gators really do play a bunch of man coverage.
Their base defense is “1-high” which means they are a Cover 3/ Cover 1 team. You can’t be a 1-high defense and not play man.
Now, the Gators did play a lot of Cover 2 in 2007 because of youth.
I have read in places that he played more zone than man. plus you were saying cover 3/cover 1. anything cover is not really man. cover (plus a number higher than 0) implies a zone. either way, when they did play guys in a zone, he was always playing in a zone. some of his bigger hits and better plays were from playing in a zone. his skills are also better for zone b/c he can wait to make the big play and roam. he hits like a safety and catches like a receiver…but his instincts cause him to get burned sometimes in a man scheme even though he runs a 4.4. he lacks many fundamentals and does not fit a man coverage scheme, which is what the browns run. he fits a zone great especially b/c he can play the run well. also, he would be a spectacular cover 2 safety if he gained some weight to be about 201-210 pounds (he is 190). granted he might lose a little speed, but he might drop to maybe 4.44 which is still very elite for a safety. if he switches to safety, i see him being very similar to polamalu, but as a corner, i see him maybe being a star, but just as likely being wildly inconsistent.
Anything that isn’t cover 0 isn’t really man coverage? Are you high?
True, different teams run different versions, but all cover 0 means is that EVERYONE is in man coverage, with no saftey help over the top. Cover 1 means just one saftey on top, and you can have cover 2 man. Cover 3 is somewhat similar to cover 1, except that the corners drop back with their receivers, and take the deepest threat on their side of the field, and in cases where their threat is running a go route (or anything deep), almost the same thing as a man coverage.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 10, 2010 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
And no matter what they played, he looked much more comfortable playing in zone coverage. he makes poor reads often and gets burned. pysical skills only get you so far.
yes, but there is a difference between just a cover 2 and a cover 2 man. you really like arguing about small points. the point is, haden right now is a below average CB in man coverage, but great in the zone. he can locate the throw and make a play. as going 1-on-1 against a receiver he doesn’t play great b/c he takes plays off and makes many poor reads
I stress these details, because they make all the difference. A Tampa-2 means that the corner gaurds the flats and leaves deep routes to the safties. So of course he’s gonna get “burned”. It’s because he’s not supposed to gaurd them in the first place!
Additionally, Tampa-2 is a very vanilla defense that mostly relies on it’s D-line to pressure the QB with minimum to no blitzing. I highly doubt that this is what Florida does.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 10, 2010 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
That is beside the point. when I saw florida play, haden got burned a couple times when in man coverage. that is trying to say whereas you are arguing semantics that have nothing to do with haden. whatever defense they played, haden played in both man and zone coverage. His instincts are more suited to safety b/c he plays the zone as good as anybody but lining up 1-on-1, he occasionally makes mistakes. unless he fixes that problem he will never be a shutdown corner. he has the talent but I would rather move him to free safety and have him gain some muscle. if he did that, he would basically be polamalu with better hands even.
I don’t know any cornerback that isn’t more comfortable in a zone. When you know you have help, you are always going to be looser.
there are a couple in the draft that play the man very well but are not as good in a zone. Wilson from boise st and lindley from kentucky
I have heard major question marks (and seem a little on film) about haden’s ability to play the zone. he does make poor reads to often for a #7 pick in the draft (IMO). he also projects in some ways, as a better safety. I would love that…he adds 10-15 pounds and he could be just like polamalu…but without the hair.
and i like coleman later on. I truly do not think he has the physical skills for the NFL (to be good in the nfl). yes he makes big plays but he is 5-10 195. i would rather have anderson russell. he not only is a bit faster but has 3 inches and almost 30 pounds on coleman. coleman has average CB size at best and below average safety size. he also does not have elite speed to play CB. to be a mid rounder, he probably needs to get to about 205 pounds but still be just as fast. if not, he is a marginal prospect.
He wouldn’t be playing corner though, he’s a safety. To me, having that big play ability is more important then speed for a safety.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
yes. he can make big plays but the NFL is much faster. that is something that rookies say. he has great instincts and is a decent hitter, but he will never be that good against the run. unless he gains weight he is the size of your average corner which is not a good size against the run. he also does not have great speed and even if he is smart, he can get burned. i like him, but I do not think he will produce a ton unless he puts on some weight and also maintains his 40 speed (which will be hard). he has marginal safety speed to play in the high speed of the NFL. if he goes upt to about 205-210 pounds and still runs about a 4.58, maybe he is worth a 4th rounder but college production does not always translate into the pros. they are different games.
Okay, so he has to put on weight. Tons of rookies put on weight before draft day, and even more between seasons 1 and 2.
I won’t knock Dixon since he sounds like a solid player, but Kurt Coleman could be Donte Whitner good.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:03 PM EST up reply actions
I do like dixon and feel he can be a feature back.
I do agree they can put on weight and he probably will, but the question is will he lose some speed.
Donte Whitner is the complete opposite of coleman. whitner is a physical specimen who didn’t have great instincts. whitner is also a bust.
I don’t think coleman will be a bust, however he does not have whitner upside. I do not think that coleman will be a pro bowler (though i wouln’t mind being proven wrong). as a physical specimen he is mike adams as a twin (when he puts on a couple pounds). same athleticism, same size, same speed. adams was also very instinctive. adams however was from D1AA. coleman also has better hands too. both are sure tacklers. however, i worry about coleman being able to wrap up big backs at the next level. even if he puts on significant weight, he is still average size at best for a FS (who is more of a cover safety). he is pretty quick but still only has average speed for a safety which hinders him in recovery and covering eliter receivers. his physical skills are average at best. he has great instincts but he doesn’t have a lot of upside.
that said, i think he can be a good starter in the league. he will never be grat or elite b/c he does not have the speed to cover enough ground. he also will never be a great run stuffing safety b/c of his size limitations. he can be a solid starter but does not have a ton of upside.
Chad Jones from LSU looked like a boss in the Capitol One Bowl, he was all over the feild. He would be a solid early second rounder.
by Sizemorgasim on Jan 10, 2010 11:06 PM EST up reply actions
yeah. I honestly would rather draft him than Mays. while jones does not have elite speed (4.5) he has just enough. he also is as big as mays and just as hard of a tackler (and a more reliable one). he also overruns plays less on offense than mays and generally makes good decisions. he hits hard and always lays a solid hit. he is great for a 3-4 b/c at the SS, he is another LB playing up in the box. He is much better against the pass compared to mays and actually started off as a CB. like you said, he was all over the field, he just makes plays. he does everything well and is maybe the best blitzing safety (and rob ryan loves to blitz mike adams and elam). he projects to be an adrian wilson type. physical enforcer and playmaker who is very good in coverage.
maybe true. if he came into the draft though, he would be blue chip and might fall to the browns at their second round pick.
If you can hit a curveball or throw one you’d be a fool to play in the NFL.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Heck yeah. Guarenteed contracts, longer career, less risk of injury. Anyone who can play both sports would be a fool to pick football.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
true…at the same time, baseball is not as much guarenteed. I don’t know what position he is a prospect at, but many prospects, even great ones, end up only making the majors for a small period of time. with football, he is guarenteed he will get a chance to play in the NFL…granted, college Baseball players tend to succeed better, but still.
I also wonder the position of chad jones.
MLB contracts are 100% guaranteed.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
yes but making it into the majors isn’t. even for the best prospects. look at adam Miller, he could have been a star. instead he might end up being just an average player for his career.
Actually, he might never throw again, but that’s besides the point. His freak case is not a good example.
there are many cases of elite prospects not panning out. granted, college guys tend to be safer picks in baseball, but even they do not have a 100% success rate.
in both sports, they are driven by incentives. baseball has more guarenteed contracts and they have bigger contracts, however the success rate is lower. much fewer players make it into the majors, even for one year. Chad Jones is projected in the first 2 rounds which means he will get at least a decent contract.
there are many cases of elite prospects not panning out.
as danvail tried to point out above, Adam Miller’s injuries, and lack of career path, are not your normal case. he’s not a prospect that didn’t pan out as much as he is a victim of horrible luck with non-health/injuries.
Saying he didn’t pan out is like including a plane that crashes among those that are “delayed”.
You are reading my signature.
a lot of guys in the first round in baseball DO end up not making it…the success rate is higher than other rounds.
CJ Henry: Yankess drafted him in ’05 in the mid first round…he is out of baseball.
Jeremy Sowers. 6th overall pick 2004…yes he made the majors but he is average at best.
Thomas Diamond…drafted a few picks after sowers. he is now almost 27 and has not played one game in the majors
Kyle Sleeth: third overall pick in 2003. retired in ’08
Jeff Allison: 16th pick in ’03. still in AA (literally…had drug problems too, but that was after he was a washup).
The point is, that what happened to miller isn’t some bizarre occurance that almost never happens. you can find probably 7 or so guys AT MINIMUM from drafts ‘03 and earlier where a guy hasn’t made it yet. more often then not, a guy makes it to the majors eventually, but there is still a good percentage that flame out…not a ton even live up to their potential either…
The baseball draft is a crapshoot and making it into the majors is an even bigger crapshoot.
if you could see me right now, you’d see the blank expression with which i’m staring back at your response.
The point is, that what happened to miller isn’t some bizarre occurance that almost never happens.
nobody is arguing that it is. it’s the means to the end that is the rare occurrence. back to my original analogy… the aviation industry will probably admit that flights arriving late are not uncommon; however, flights arriving late because they crashed in the ocean are a bit more rare.
You are reading my signature.
yes…I know.
I never really meant that everyone gets injured like adam miller…
My wording was somewhat incorrect for what I mean. adam miller was a freak occurance and there are freak occurances everywhere INCLUDING the NFL. at the same time, if you get drafted in the NFL you are going right to the big leagues of football and even with a freak accident in your career, you still made it.
the point is that in the NFL as a second rounder, you will most likely play in the leage for at least 3 years. it is not guarenteed as a baseball player, even an elite one, to make it into the pros.
While MLB has better contracts, that is just an economic incentive. it is harder to make it into the pros in baseball compared to football (technically i could argue just as hard for FB but it is harder in baseball as an elite prospect).
This is why I feel a salary cap would be detrimantal to baseball. one of the main reasons many people go in (several sport stars choosing Baseball) is the guarenteed major league contracts and the higher salaries. the risk of declaring for the baseball draft is high but the reward is high.
the difference…football: pretty much guarenteed you will b on an NFL roster as a first day pick, money not guarenteed.
Baseball: high salaries and guarenteed money, not guarenteed of making it.
Depends. There’s a lot of variation in baseball, and if you aren’t sure that you can reach the Majors, it might be wiser to take a fat rookie contract in the NFL.
But first round MLB picks get fat rookie contracts, too. Sure, if you’re going to be a 20th round MLB pick and 1st round NFL pick then you should probably play football, but if you’re going to be a 2nd round pick in both then go baseball all the way.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
yeah…they get a fat contract like a first rounder in football does, but then they are also much less likely to make it into the highest level…first rounders in football are basically guarenteed of playing in the league, and even if they don’t perform up to their potential, they will still usually have a job for several years. the minors is full of former MLB first rounders who didn’t live up to their potential.
Right, but those former first round picks in the minors are still making big-time money.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
somewhat…but if they never make it up, they are out of luck…that is my point. it also depends on if they also want fame with fortune. football provides more of a chance at fame.
Anthony Gonzalez (32nd pick in the 07 draft)
5 years, 7.5 million with 5.4 million guaranteed
Dwayne Bowe (23rd pick in the 07 draft)
5 years, 9 million (7 million guaranteed)
Ted Ginn (9th pick in the 07 draft)
5 years, 19 million with 14 million guaranteed
Jeff Smardzija was projected as a late first / early second round pick in the NFL draft. The cubs used their 5th round pick in the MLB draft on him and signed him to a 5 year contract worth 10 million (all guaranteed).
Smardzija would have had to be taken in the top ten in the NFL draft to best the guaranteed money he got as the 149th pick in the MLB draft.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
yeah. I unerstand this…there are more and bigger guarenteed contracts in the MLB. I didn’t argue that. I was saying that the chances of making it big and at least making it to the highest level are much greater in the NFL. many first round picks flame out in both sports (and honestly, a lot more in baseball, that draft is a crapshoot). but in football, you made it to the big time. no matter how much you made, you got your 15 minutes of fame (and then some). there are many first round picks that are 30 and still stuck in the minors…there is no fame for that. in baseball, you are competing against a much larger group of players just to make it to the highest level.
Because of this risk, it is good that baseball has large contracts. business and economics is based on incentives and figuring out those incentives. teams can afford to give out these big contracts b/c of the lack of a salary cap. that money is the incentive for a player to choose baseball over another sport. it is risky, but it is worth the reward if you become a great player.
football is the safer option whereas baseball is the more appealing option for those who want to make money.
Chad Jones said this sentence:
“Baseball is my love by far. It is not even close.”
Granted it was awhile back, but you add in the fact that he throws mid 90’s and he is a lefty, I wouldn’t count on him being a footballer anytime soon. Plus he can play in the OF.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 12, 2010 2:04 AM EST up reply actions
yeah…It is possible…plus it seems like he loves it…
Lebron liked football more but he had more of a career in Basketball…he could be just as successful at football as in baseball it seems like…
Lebron liked football more but he had more of a career in Basketball
Where did you read this? I think LeBron could play TE in the NFL right now, QB in a year, or even DE, LB, or LT if he had some time.
LeBron could probably do ANYTHING. Hell, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of him SINGLE-HANDEDLY winning the Super Bowl for the Cleveland Browns… WHILE SITTING IN THE STANDS!
He’s just that good.
He would probably pull for the Cowboys.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 13, 2010 2:22 AM EST up reply actions
I believe you’re just curious about the liking football more than basketball part of the comment, but just in case:
Playing TE in the NFL does not yield $90M contracts from Nike at the age of 18. It also means playing in college until you’re 21, not getting paid (much). Finally, show me any NFL player that has a chance at bringing in as much salary as LeBron is expected to over the course of his likely 20+ year career. PS: Injury risk.
exactly danvail. there is debate every day about who the best player in the NFL is…lebron is THE BEST NBA player.
I don’t know if everyone would agree with that.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
People might not agree with that, but they’d be wrong.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 13, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The two parts of my comment were to be separate and not confused for an argument that LeBron should play in the NFL. He certainly could. I should have separated them.
Financially, obviously the NBA was the right decision. I still don’t buy it that LeBron liked football more than basketball as he seems to have an extraordinarily large amount of fun playing BBall, and an unhappy man with that much money would lead pretty easily into some sort of epic downward spiral.
Yes Lebron could still be a very good player in the NFL, but nowhere near the star caliber that he is in Basketball. with basketball, he is one of the best in the league (IMO THE BEST) at ANY position. I doubt if he would b able to play QB tho…I don’t think he ever played the position. Yes he could b good in the NFL but not at the level he is now…plus the NBA is more of a star sport…And in the NFL, he might get more banged up.
He has admitted though that he was more of a football fan.
LeBron would be a ridiculous talent in the NFL. A big WR is 6’3", 220. LeBron is 6’9", 265+. And he can run. And he can cut. And he is agile. And he has great ball skills. Did you see the video of him throwing the football in the hoop? He would be at Peyton’s level of fame instantly.
Should he play football? Bad decision for him. Could he play football? Easily.
this is simply not true. Steven Strasburg, who received the largest rookie contract in baseball history by a long shot, still doesn’t make as much money as most top ten football draftees int the last year or two.
Stephen strasburg makes 3.75 million dollars a year over four years. To put that in perspective, Vernon gholston will make at least 32.5 million over 5 years, or a little over 6 million a year.
that means gholston makes almost twice as much as strasburg, and for one year longer.
I also think this shows bross’s point because if gholston were an mlb prospect he would probably never make the majors and never get another big contract. For all the hoopla surrounding strasburg’s big contract, he’s not even making as much as vernon gholston, and if he were a similar caliber nfl player but he chose baseball and flamed out he would be missing out on 18 million dollars (3*4+6 for the extra year).
for those of you wondering, even if the jets cut gholston he gets over 20 million guaranteed, so still more than strasburg.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
exactly…some MLB contracts are more and are guarenteed but they are part of the incentives b/c it is much harder to make it….
being drafted in the first 2 rounds, you are basically guarenteed to play in the NFL.
For a little while at least. But really, second round picks don’t make much money on rookie contracts, and can be gone in no time.
Yes, but that’s just one aspect of the discussion. I think the whole discussion is kind of a moot point, though, as it should really come down to personal preference. There are probably more wealthy former NFL players, but more extremely rich former MLB players.
this is where i come down. If I were an equal prospect in each sport, i would pick whichever one i liked more. Sure money is important, but it isn’t the only factor going into happiness.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Haden and Pool would be a dream come true
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 10, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
yeah. coleman could be nice player. I see him being mike adams with better hands. adams was one of our better players and is very underrated. I just wouldn’t draft KC that high.
as a safety, I LOVE haden, but I do not trust him as a pure CB. he has good speed, but he takes plays off and loses focus. he also is ineffective in man coverage and makes bad reads to often to be a shutdown corner. as a free safety who can roam, get picks and make big hits he could be a star in the polamalu mold. the one thing though with haden is he needs to be a gym rat if he wants to be a safety. he is only 190 pounds and should bulk up to be about 205ish. if he does that and maintains his low 4.4 speed he could be a special player in the troy polamalu mold. polamalu ran about a 4.4 where I saw his 40 time, plus he is similar size to haden (if he adds that weight). they both are great cover safetys and are big hitters.
So you’re first and second wants are DB’s?
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
It’s our greatest need. Pool may be done and is a FA to boot, McDonald is a nickel back at best, Elam and Adams are solid but unspectacular. Francies is a question mark, and probably not all that good given where we got him in the draft, and his inability to pass Furrey or Adams on the depth chart. Wright is our only sure-fire starter, and he’s probably best as a #2.
We could use a talent upgrade at three of the four positions. A corner and a safety early (first three rounds with at least one of the two taken on day one) would be ideal.
That being said, I’m all for BPA, and I’m not opposed to taking a Guard or Tackle early.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Well, ya. But the list was more of a singular list of wants, not round by round. Just saying.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
I do agree with a CB or safety. i do not see that true steal at safety who has the potential to be anything more than solid. many people are high on kurt coleman who is a very nice player but just lacks the phsical skills to be anything more than very solid. I agree at getting a CB b/c I do not like McDonald, but I do not like haden. my though on haden is he should gain weight and become a safety. for his size he is a punishing hitter and has elite speed. he also is spectacular in a zone and lays out guys and can get big picks. however, he makes bad reads often when in a man and does get burned. i don’t like him as a cornerback and wherever he goes, he won’t be a great starter but more a project (he makes bad reads more often than BMac in the man. with a switch to FS, it would take a learning curve) and i don’t want a project with the 7th pick, i want an immediate starter.
and with francies, the reason he wasn’t playing is he went after some players trying to prank them back for their hazing on him. because of this he was underplayed by mangini even though he had talent. yes we drafted francies in the 5th round but he has great size and in fact was projected before the combine as a late 2nd-early 3rd rounder. he had the talent and produced in college but his speed came under the microscope at the combine. he also was injured at combine. he was a little better at his pro day but not fully healthy. this injury and subpar combine led to his fall from grace. he honestly is much more talented than BMac but has been in mangini’s doghouse and since mangini cares more about his doghouse than talent, he hasn’t played.
and with francies, the reason he wasn’t playing is he went after some players trying to prank them back for their hazing on him. because of this he was underplayed by mangini even though he had talent.
That’s quite interesting.
yeah…its also quite true…francies had talent, he was a 4 star draft choice on scout.com. many of the reports said he probably wouldn’t play much on a good team, but when we are playing a UFA gerald lawson who is basically a return specialist, significant time, where is the time for francies. his talent deserves getting game exeperience last year.
yeah…its also quite true…
Evidence?
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 10, 2010 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
yes. he was actually starting to get more playing time in practice but he lost it after this incident…i was more commenting quite true on his talent level.
Just a tip, if you are going to say things like they are a fact, you may want to give everyone a link.
Otherwise you are just making things up.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions
just a tip, don’t disbelieve everything I say. you counter everything I say.
you know what, i read it so long ago I don’t have a link. this was an incident that happened in early november…do you have the ability to find an obscure, hard to find link that you found 2 months ago??? If you do then good for you but I have been able to find it and cannot. I am actually not making anything up…I am not the kind of person that would do that.
If only there was some way to search for articles on the internet…hmmm…
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
The only reason I counter what you say is because you make things up.
You keep saying that “you read it in an article” or “read a report”. Without showing where you read it, how do we know that you aren’t making things up? In fact I have checked some of the stuff you have said and it is false.
Use this website, it is great for finding things.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 2:33 AM EST up reply actions
hahahaha…you posted a link to google.
I really do not make anything up…you keep accusing me of making stuff up like me saying that it must be false that AR plays man a little better than KC…first of all, that is OPINION, and opinion is never truly fact so it can never be truly false…only an asshole would say someone’s OPINION is false, especially say its false and not back it up. (and i can actually back up why i think it is true in fact, NOT opinion).
most of the stuff you have checked me on that are false are OPINION related. the one thing that was fact related was this damn article from 2 months ago that i couldn’t find. I don’t remember what I searched before, I tried francies and other combinations but it didn’t come up.
first of all, that is OPINION, and opinion is never truly fact so it can never be truly false…only an asshole would say someone’s OPINION is false, especially say its false and not back it up.
Or you could be talking to a Buckeye fan that has watched every game of Anderson Russell’s career (except for this seasons Toledo game).
As for the whole opinion thing, if I posted that Brady Quinn was faster in pads than Chris Johnson, my opinion would be wrong.
I actually consider someone saying that Anderson Russell is good in man coverage even more incorrect than the Quinn statement.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 3:39 AM EST up reply actions
I watched the buckeyes too.
the quinn vs johnson thing cannot be argued.
I can argue that anderson russell is better in coverage. although he does not have the hands KC does, he still can go up and defend the ball. He also has a little better speed and quickness than KC and will get burned that way less. however KC has better instincts so he makes better reads. that being said, AR’s reads are not as bad as you make them out to be. yes they could use work, but there is always coaching. you can’t coach size and speed.
Browns rookie throws ice, punch
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
No need to be an ass.
You said you couldn’t find the article and were mad people were giving you crap for it, so I figured I would help you out.
Next time I won’t waste my time.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I never said that the fight didn’t happen.
bross09 used this incident as the sole reason that Francies was not receiving playing time. That, from what I can tell, is totally made up.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly the point I was asking for evidence on. It’s entirely speculation based on everything demonstrated here so far.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 10, 2010 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
It wasn’t actually speculation but you can believe that. I honestly do not care. but i did read something that said something like that.
No worries, but I’m going to file this notion away with Mothman and Ogopogo if there’s nothing to back it up.
I have no doubt you read this somewhere, but without knowing where or what the credibility of that source is, that’s not really useful.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 10, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
C’mon bross. You said:
and with francies, the reason he wasn’t playing is he went after some players trying to prank them back for their hazing on him.
“The” reason would make it the sole reason.
You know, it’s OK if you change your mind after you wrote something. Nobody’s going to point and laugh….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 10, 2010 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
yeah. I realized my mistake. I will admit when I am wrong and I do now. Francies is somewhat of a raw player anyways
Well said. I have high hopes for Francies still, but we’re just going to have to wait and see…
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 10, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
Lawson = return specialist = earning his spot on the active roster through special teams play.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 10, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
Lawson played in one more game than Francies this year.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I was wrong. Francies actually played in one more game than Lawson, not the other way around.
Here’s Lawson’s stat sheet (click over to the ‘Career Stats’ tab):
http://www.nfl.com/players/gerardlawson/careerstats?id=LAW600791
5 games played, 1 tackle, 5 kick returns, 1 punt return.
Here’s Francies stat sheet (click over to the ‘Career Stats’ tab):
http://www.nfl.com/players/coyefrancies/careerstats?id=FRA067996
6 games played, 3 tackles, 1 ast
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I don’t ever remember playing Lawson at corner.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 10, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
You sure the stats didn’t come from special teams?
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 10, 2010 9:23 PM EST up reply actions
i am not talking about stats…stats don’t mean much because he didn’t record a lot of stats anyways. on special teams, he really didn’t play outside of a backup returner. he didn’t play on punt coverage or on kick coverage. he did play a decent amount of snaps on D…but again, why are you arguing semantics?
Because I have no clue what the word ‘semantics’ means.
Now if we’re talking about details, then those make all the difference.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 11, 2010 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
semantics are small details that DON’T matter. there are details that do matter but the word semantics is used in english literature to talk about details that are insignificant.
The word ‘semantics’ does not mean what you think it means.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I know it doesn’t exactly mean that, but many words in the english language do not technically mean the same as how they are used. I know its not technically correct by the english language, and if you are a lit major, I am sorry, but that is how a language evolves. It has become part of the vernacular of the english language.
that is not correct. that is not what most people think semantics means. “arguing semantics” refers to arguing based on the strict interpretation of what words mean. it strictly deals with the way words are used and sentence structures, it does not apply to all details.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
I know what semantics means. What a word means and how it is used in modern language are sometimes 2 different things. I was using it in the modern language sense and not the technical sense. I admit it is technically wrong but languages evolve over time. Incorrect uses and phrases become part of the language.
If anyone is looking for an example of irony, I present you this comment.
by danvail on Jan 11, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Because I am arguing semantics??
I am just saying that incorrect grammar and words become part of the english language. “hopefully” literally means in a hopeful manner. in the phrase “he waited to see the results of the test hopefully”
It is used incorrect 90% of the time in ways like “Hopefully I will not be hung over tomorroe” (which literally means being hung over in a hopeful manner which is pretty oxymoronic).
You’re correct in words evolve in usage. Your example is one of them.
I think we’re just in the side that thinks ‘semantics’ has no modern usage. Either ’"semantics are small details that DON’T matter" is entirely wrong, or none of us have heard it. Chill.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
I guess I have just heard a different usage then most people. Usage of words comes from the ppl around you. Whereas my family uses hopefully correct (and 99% of ppl don’t) i guess we use semantics wrong.
Hopefully this discussion of semantics is over.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
i laughed in the library and everyone stared at me.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
lol…no there was something else…
my friend and I were facebook chatting.
He said he got one of those tickets from the cameras. they said they got him going through a red light when he was turning right on red.
he was trying to say it was legal to turn right…
he said “it was legal to turn red”
“*Right”.
I sent to him 88
He didn’t get it…
significant time
thats what you said. one or two plays a game at corner is not significant time. I’m also pretty sure he didn’t even get that.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
he played more time than francies and that was my point…again people arguing semantics about what I say.
that is a correct use of “arguing semantics,” but in this case there is a huge difference between “singnificant time” and “more time than francies.” hell, by that definition, Robi played “significant time”
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
and with francies, the reason he wasn’t playing is he went after some players trying to prank them back for their hazing on him. because of this he was underplayed by mangini even though he had talent.
he honestly is much more talented than BMac but has been in mangini’s doghouse and since mangini cares more about his doghouse than talent, he hasn’t played.
First off, Francies was taken in the sixth round. Late in the sixth. Pick 191.
Second, all of this about francies being in Mangini’s doghouse over the ice bucket incident is nothing more than speculation on your part. He wasn’t playing before the incident. In fact, the four games he did play in were all after the incident.
The most likely explanation for why he only played in four games this year, and never, I think, as a part of the defense, is that he was buried on the depth chart behind players who were better than he was this year (McDonald, Furrey, Adams, and even Poteat, I suppose). The one thing we know about Mangini is that he expects players to earn their way onto the active roster in practice, and to earn their way onto the offense and defense by playing special teams. Hopefully, with a full year of practice and preparation under his belt he comes in next year and contributes, but if he does, that would make him the exception among 6th round picks (most of whom are out of the league in very short order).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 10, 2010 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
i wouldn’ say furrey is that much more talented than francies. francies honestly has shutdown corner potential. don’t judge him on the pick. like i said, he in fact was injured at the combine and only posted a mid 4.5 which dropped him. plus he plays as fast with pads as without. he plays as very fast and you would think he ran a 4.4ish if you saw him play.
the point i was making is someone was saying francies was untalented when in fact, he had great talent but just fell b/c of a bad combine. it happens a lot. also, BMac was a 5th rounder and did not even post the kind of combine numbers francies had. yes he is somewhat raw but at the same time, anyone is better than poteat. honestly, i could run out deon sanders how he is now and he would be better than poteat.
i wouldn’ say furrey is that much more talented than francies.
This year he was.
francies honestly has shutdown corner potential. don’t judge him on the pick. like i said, he in fact was injured at the combine and only posted a mid 4.5 which dropped him. plus he plays as fast with pads as without. he plays as very fast and you would think he ran a 4.4ish if you saw him play.
Yes, he’s a good athlete with a lot of the tools you look for in a DB. Regardless of athletic prowess, it’s perfectly natural that a player with very limited experience against top shelf talent in college (one year in the Pac-10 in 2006) would struggle out of the gate as a pro. He’s a project, and he’s probably right about where he should be in terms of game experience at this point in his career.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Furrey only looked more talented b/c he played more. honestly he wasn’t that good in my opinion as a safety. i know he is more of a project player, but at the same time, guys with less experience and less talent (gerard lawson) were jumping him on the depth charts. poteat also sucks and i would take anyone over him. I understand he is a prospect but when you are playing a WR at safety, a return specialist in the nickel package and poteat in the dime, and you are 1-11, doesn’t it make sense to play a project player? as a coach I would b/c they need game experience. If mangini actually wanted to develop him, he could have easily found more playing time…maybe mangini didn’t really want to develop him.
Maybe Francies didn’t play cause he just wasn’t ready. Same for Robiskie.
Lawson = CB and ST contributor
Francies = CB
Allen = WR and ST contributor
Robiskie = WR
maybe mangini didn’t really want to develop him.
Sure.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
yes. its possible. at the same time, sometimes you want to get your guys game expericence. in a losing season, it makes sense to give your young guys at least some game experience.
the whole point of my post is that francies is not a fringe talent that ppl think he is.
Furrey only looked more talented b/c he played more. honestly he wasn’t that good in my opinion as a safety.
Yeah, guys who play generally look more talented than guys who don’t play.
i know he is more of a project player, but at the same time, guys with less experience and less talent (gerard lawson) were jumping him on the depth charts.
Lawson only played in 5 games. And besides, since when does a second year player jump a rookie 6th rounder on the depth chart? Isn’t it up to the rookie to jump the more experienced player? To earn his way onto the active roster?
poteat also sucks and i would take anyone over him.
No argument here. Poteat is atrocious.
I understand he is a prospect but when you are playing a WR at safety, a return specialist in the nickel package and poteat in the dime, and you are 1-11, doesn’t it make sense to play a project player?
Furrey was a Safety before he was a wide receiver. And a decent one at that. He’d likely never have played WR if not for Mike Martz. I don’t think Lawson ever saw the feild outside of special teams this year. Adams and Furrey took turns at the nickelback and Poteat saw very limited action in the dime (for good reason).
It doesn’t make sense to play a project player if he’s not ready. And if he’s not ready, to throw him in ahead of players who have practiced better and prepared better and can contribute in a multitude of ways is to undermine the core tenant of Mangini’s philosophy — that the team operates as a meritocracy and that roster spots and playing time are earned through practice and preparation.
If mangini actually wanted to develop him, he could have easily found more playing time…maybe mangini didn’t really want to develop him.
Or maybe Francies wasn’t ready. Maybe having played at three different schools in five years and not having played against top flight opponents since 2006 left Francies with a lot of work to do in order to pass anyone (even Poteat) on the depth chart.
Sure, he was pretty good in his one year in the WAC. A guy with the skillset to play in the PAC-10 should be a dominate player in the WAC. But athletic prowess means nothing in the NFL. Just ask Darius Heyward-Bay.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
gerard lawson was a practice player with no game expericence before now. it is not like he had a ton of experience. he also was waived once or twice. Lawson actually played a bi in the dime. I understand the points, the whole point of this was pointing out that he is a good talent, but not the fringe talent ppl think. i think anyone would be better than poteat though…
gerard lawson was a practice player with no game expericence before now.
Lawson played in 15 games with the Browns last year.
he also was waived once or twice.
When? A quick look on google didn’t find anything. Not that it matters. James Harrison was waived once or twice before he was named Defensive MVP.
I understand the points, the whole point of this was pointing out that he is a good talent, but not the fringe talent ppl think. i think anyone would be better than poteat though…
Well, had that been all you said, I would have agreed, in so far as that having talent doesn’t mean that he’s an NFL ready prospect.
But that’s not all you said. The speculation as to Mangini’s motives for not playing him are entirely baseless. If he were ready, he would play.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
most of those games he played on special teams. he didn’t take more than a snap or 2 on the defensive side of the ball.
true…maybe I went out on a limb with the mangini thing…i probably did…but with a guy like that, my mind always seems to jump to an ulterior motive. honestly, i trust belichick more than I do him…
He was drafted in the 6th not 5th.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 10, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
After watching the Jets tonight, I can see a strong argument for a team that wants to run the ball spending high picks on the O-line.
You can never go wrong with drafting an offensive lineman.
People always say that Tony Mandrich was a huge bust. While he wasn’t all he was cracked up to be he still started 63 games in his NFL career.
This league always boils down to blocking and tackling.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 9, 2010 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
1. Pass Rush (D-Line or OLB)
2. Offensive Lineman (RT and RG)
3. Running Back
4. Best DB’s available
5. Big TE (I really like Jake Ballard)
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 9, 2010 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
I like Ballard too. I think he’ll come pretty cheaply since he wasn’t thrown to that often, and there isn’t much film.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
I’d try and get him in the fourth if I don’t get any of the highest ranked TE’s. I’m a big believer in drafting guys where YOU think they should go, not based on where they’re projected or how you think other teams will draft. My experience is that teams will always scew you over if you wait too long.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
I’d rather we throw some money at Ben Watson and see what happens. And send Royal to the glue factory.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Why? With his hands, the glue won’t even stick paper together.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
i kinda understand your point. but i don’t know if the browns think he should go in the 4th. maybe you do, but many scouts don’t. i like him as a player and to be honest, i think he could have a good pro career but there are still a lot of question marks. he is definitely a good blocker and for that is worth taking a look but it is unknown what he can contribute in the passing game. he was not thrown to a lot, being buried behind rory nicol and then when pryor came in, the offense wasn’t passing as much. he also doesn’t have great speed (about a 4.8 or maybe slightly higher). i think he can be a steve heiden type but maybe even better. Ballard actually was recruited as a Right Tackle for his run blocking skills but was athletic enough to switch to TE. that being said, since he didn’t get many targets and he was not truly recruited as a TE, there are a lot of questions about his hands. he is a nice pickup and I see him going in the mid-late 5th round. if he puts together a good combine and looks good on the JUGS machine, he could rise, but as of right now, i would take him with the browns 5th round pick.
pass rusher is a decent need but I do like roth. roth had 4 sacks in 6 games with the browns. he isn’t a 1 year wonder either and produced similar numbers in Miami with playing time. he also has good talent. with him and wimbley we do have a decent pass rush…maybe not pittsburghs pass rush but definitely an above average 3-4 pass rush. plus you get a nice rush if you move rogers to the end and play rubin at the nose.
yes i think we need an RT but there aren’t that many in the draft. its easier sometimes to use free agency (although st clair is a bust). the best RT is projected maybe as a 3rd rounder…not anything that special, but a possible solid starter.
running back, yes, but i think gerharts stock will be higher than it should be. anthony dixon is a mid rounder and has more of the potential to be a feature back.
yes good DBs but there aren’t that many great ones.
a good TE but i dunno if i would use a draft pick in the first 4-5 rounds on him.
gerhart got a lot of yards against the subpar run defenses of the Pac-10. the only major conference with worse running Ds is the Big-12 (and not by that much)
There is aren’t that many good right tackles in the draft. the best true right tackle (ciron black) is a late second rounder that i wouldn’t waste our second rounder on. I don’t mind him in the third round…but there is no top right tackle in the draft.
Eric berry will be gone by the time we draft. kurt coleman is a decent pick but i wouldn’t pick him until our second 3rd rounder. he doesn’t have great speed, he isn’t big, and will have to switch positions. as it is, he probably needs to gain 10 or so pounds. if he gains that weight, he might lose speed and if he does he will drop in stock. he is 5-11 and a bit under 200 pounds. he doesn’t have great speed or size but does make plays.
gerhart i think will get overrated b/c of this season when he got tons of touches and ran against mediocre defenses. McKnight will be good but he is a harrison type. i think we need more of a power back which is why i like dixon in the third; anthony dixon is good and under the radar. he projects as a much better pro than gerhart who can’t catch well and can’t block.
at CB, there is not that elite player. haden is good but has question marks. the best value i think is kyle wilson from boise state who will be a mid rounder.
first of all, i hope you aren’t all that high on moore. he might be decent but i don’t think he is really even an average starter. dennis pitta and ed dickson are decent options in the mid rounds. but i wouldn’t waste more than a third on a TE (probably would just use a 4th)
guards are harder to find in free agency and we aren’t bad at that position. porkchop actually played fairly well, and hadnot is solid (but a free agent).
Why would he switch positions. You can be a 5’10 safety in the NFL.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 9, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
yes you can be a 5’10 safety but a strong safety is more of the run stopper. he has nowhere near the bulk to stop the run and was only above average in college (and will be much below average in the pros). he is about 190 pounds which is Cornerback size. even if he was to switch to free safety, he would have to get up to about 205 pounds to be at all effective against the run. if he can get to that rate and still run his pedestrian (for a safety) 4.58, he might be a mid rounder, but besides that he is a marginal player. he has great instincts and make plays but the NFL is a much faster game and he has marginal speed to survive. he also cannot play safety effectively at his weight b/c the NFL is bigger.
I honestly like anderson russell from OSU better. he runs about a 4.5. he also has 2 inches on coleman, 20 pounds and makes just as many plays in the OSU secondary
he has the potential to be decent. you have to make quick decisions as a safety in a cover 2, but you also have to cover a lot of ground. I just don’t think he has the elite speed to be a “great” player. eventually with coaching (like 2-3 years down the road) he could be a solid starter, he just does not have the skills to be a “great” nfl player. I am not saying he will be bad, just not great. anderson russell is honestly just as much of a playmaker (except coleman has better hands) as coleman and doesn’t get a ton of credit.
You can’t always go by measurables. What is it that we’re always hearing? 40 times are overrated because they’re in pads? I’ve heard stories from guys who ran near 4.2 and were getting out run by veterns who ran around 4.9 when they were in pads.
And if he keeps making big plays like we say at OSU, I think he’ll be a pro bowler.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
I do not think he has pro bowl potential. the NFL is a much bigger and much faster game. he has great instincts but average size and speed for a college safety. he is below average in both. I just don’t feel he will have good safety range playing in a zone. that said, i think he may have the potential to be a decent starter if he can get his weight up to 200 and not lose any speed, but at the same time, he is still risky in the third round. he made aton of plays this year, but besides interceptions, he has never made significant plays in his career. he has played in the box as a safety, but never made many stops behind the line. if he makes a bad read and gets burned, he does not have the recovery speed to make it up. when playing the run, he will get run over by above average sized backs (unless his weight goes up to about 205, but even then, he still won’t be great in run coverage).
When they say the game is faster, they mean from a mental perspective. Besides, I’ll take interceptions any day. The job of the front 7 is to stop the run. If we do that, he won’t have to be a great run stopper. And bulk can always be added on before draft day + second season. In fact, that’s when guys tend to get bigger fastest.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
They also mean physically. in college, there are slower players. the NFL is the fastest of the fast. I just don’t have confidence in his upside. i seem him being a little better than mike adams but nothing more. his speed is similar to mike adams and so is his athleticism. neither one is elite. adams is also short and kinda small. if coleman adds 10 pounds he basically is a young mike adams. adams is a good player but i would not draft a young mike adams in the first 3 (or even maybe 4) rounds. mike adams is also a ballhawk of sorts and has good instincts but often gets burned b/c of his below average speed.
If you want to measure how a safety will translate speed-wise, the 40 times is a poor measurement. The 40 is run in a completely linear fashion, while a safety will be moving laterally more often than not.
And AR is not “just as much of a playmaker.” AR was demoted after the first game. He can’t play man and has stone-hands.
Like I said, I want my safties to have great instincts and ball hawking skills.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
yes, i understand that, but the NFL is much bigger and much faster then college. he is 5-11 and 190 pounds and only has average speed for a safety. he also has very little bulk, owing to the fact that he used to be a corner. he does have great instincts and is a ball hawk but he never was that great against the run. he will be really suspect against the run and the only running backs i see him being able to bring down on his own are scatbacks like harrison. he doesn’t have the true athleticism to keep up with harrison though. most NFL backs will run over him with that size. even if he went to free safety, he would have to play the run some. he has good ball hawking skills in the secondary, but even if you are a ball hawk and only have average speed, you will not be able to defend andre johnson or randy moss. i like his skills, but because of his lacking in size and athleticism, i do not see him as having a ton of upside.
Anderson russell i would not say has stone hands. he has about 5-6 interceptions in the last couple years, yes coleman has better hands. anderson is a good playmaker. he is solid in coverage and makes plays close to the line.
Key statement: 5-6 interceptions in a COUPLE of years. Not that great for a saftey at OSU, I believe.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 9, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
He made plays close to the line because his position was moved after the first game. OSU flipped him and Jermale Hines. AR went from safety to the “Star” position which is a linebacker/ safety hybrid used against spread teams. He basically became the nickel-back in zone coverage.
I hate to bag on AR but he simply isn’t the player that KC is. While he may have the measurables, he simply doesn’t make plays like Kurt.
what i said to browndog1409 i will repeat. i do not hate coleman but i do not want to draft him high. you know who i think of when I see coleman?? a young mike adams.
Mike adams: 5-11 200 pounds. 4.59 40
Kurt Coleman 5-11 (or 5-10), 190-195 pounds. 4.58 40.
these guys are very similar in build. if coleman adds a few pounds he basically is mike adams. mike adams was probably more of a playmaker than coleman was in college but he was in 1-AA (but delaware, a good FBS school). he went on to be undrafted and has made a decent career for himself. he isn’t an elite athlete but is a ballhawk and has great instincts for a safety. He is a nice backup and an average to below average starter in the pros because of his physical skills.
with that said, i think that coleman has significantly more upside. first of all, he will get drafted b/c he went to a big school and had a good coach. he also has better hands than adams. with that being said, he still is a similar type of player and will never be great. that doesn’t mean he cannot be pretty good. 3-4 years down the road, i see him being a pretty good to good starter. he doesn’t have as much upside as AR but he might end up being a better pro. that being said, he will never be a pro bowler as some people think, but he will be a nice piece in the puzzle for a defense.
I don’t get the AR infatuation. As someone who has watched him for four years, I can guarantee that he will be drafted significantly later that KC. He may even go undrafted.
I am not saying that AR is that great, I am saying he has more upside. you know more what you get with coleman and with him, there is not a ton of upside….but honestly AR does a lot of things pretty well. he plays the man (better than KC) and the zone well. he also plays the run well which is more important for a Strong Safety (which is where he is projected and played most of the time). he is not afraid to go in the pile on running plays and is a better blitzer. they will both go around the same area of the draft but it is hard to tell who will be a better pro. a case can be made for either.
honestly AR does a lot of things pretty well. he plays the man (better than KC)
You are making things up.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
actually I am not. AR plays much faster and is faster than KC. KC, although he has good instincts is not great in man coverage. AR generally does man coverage on a slot receiver (which is the typical man assignment for a safety) and is adequate. AR does not do any one thing that great but he is fairly balanced. he is decent in the zone and in the man. he has decent range and decent instincts. he also plays the run well (better than Coleman)
Ever since AR blew out his knee in 2006, he hasn’t been the same player. He was a future stud as a freshman, but his knee injury killed him.
He simply isn’t the player that KC is- there is a reason one player was benched after the Navy game and the other wasn’t.
anderson is a good playmaker. he is solid in coverage
This is 100% untrue.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
this is an opinion by an amateur blogger.. I not only have watched him but listen and read reports. I think he is solid in coverage. not great but solid. from the scouting reports i have read, they do somewhat agree with me. although AR isn’t great, it is not like KC will be a pro bowler. they both project to be decent NFL starters. because of versatility and athleticism, AR has more upside but also is a little more of a risk.
Show me a report that has Anderson Russell rated as a higher safety than Kurt Coleman.
I could only find one, and it hasn’t been updated since the start of the season.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:56 AM EST up reply actions
http://www.footballfanspot.com/andersonrussellscout.htm
this has a report of anderson russell. they don’t seem to be on the same website together but i would not say one is definitely better than the other.
AR might have not had as good of a season as KC but that doesn’t mean he isn’t draftable. in fact, most scouts see him having more upside. the places I have seen Russel I have seen him as being a third rounder and i Have seen KC as an early 4th rounder but a possible late third if he puts on some weight.
I will be 100% honest, my computer won’t let me see that site because it says it is a malware site, so I will take your word.
AR might have not had as good of a season as KC but that doesn’t mean he isn’t draftable.
I never said he wasn’t draftable, I just said the Browns better not draft him. We have enough DB’s who can’t cover.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 2:36 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t honestly want the browns to draft either, especially before their second pick in the 4th round. AR is a boom or bust. He has more upside than KC (if he gets somewhat better in coverage) but also has more of a bust potential. KC is a very safe pick but b/c of he has slightly less physical skills, he does not have as much upside. this is all I have been saying. I think KC will be a good NFL player and has a pretty good chance at being better than AR, but at the same time, he does not have much upside. he has almost reached his ceiling. i see him being similar to mike adams except a bit better with much better hands. he is the kind of guy who i see being a decent starter but nothing that great. sometimes with those later picks though I like a team to go for a boom or bust guy. lower salary= lower risk…boom=fairly high reward. My theory on how teams should drafts (and I am no expert) is avoid skill positions in the first round, especially in the top 10. they are very boom or bust types of players. go with guys who might not ever be a superstar, but will at least be on the team in 4 years. in the later rounds, go for more project players, players with talent but are from small colleges, guys with high upside…
Anderson Russell is nowhere close to as good as Kurt Coleman. He just isn’t that good. If he wasn’t a senior, I doubt he would have been playing as much for OSU. There are a whole bunch of talented guys behind him that I wanted to see play over him all year.
He didn’t produce as much as KC but he does have more pure physical talent. I honestly like KC better but he just doesn’t have the speed to tranlsate into being a great player in the NFL. it is a much faster game pysically. with that being said, i think that KC will likely end up being a better player but AR has more upside. AR is more of a boom or bust prospect wheras with KC you know what you are getting. KC is basically mike adams with better hands. a nice starter at safety, good part of a defensive backfield rotation but not a huge impact player (but does make some plays)…although i say KC has slightly better hands (and physical skills), I do not know if he has adams’ high motor. His is good but if he shows he can be a playmaker in the NFL he can be a nice player.
you have the right to disagree. he is not a better player but is faster, bigger, and stronger than KC. that being said, KC has performed better in his career. the thing is, because KC supposedly runs about a 4.6 40, isn’t very strong, and is a few inches shorter, he has less upside. he is very polished and makes more plays but he is much closer to his peak than AR.
you keep saying this, but I don’t see anything backing it up. Projected 40 times mean nothing. I completely disagree about his speed and strength.
okay. you can disagree. i am agreeing with you in the fact that KC will probably be a better pro but has a lower ceiling b/c he does not seem to have as much physical skill (smaller and slower). He has much better instincts and coverage skills. I don’t think we are that off. KC will likely be better IMO but AR has a little higher of a ceiling and b/c of that, a team will take a chance on him…that being said, KC will probably not be higher than a mid third rounder and could fall farther with a not great combine.
We are completely off. My evaluation is that Anderson Russel isn’t worth drafting, even in our depleted secondary. He is not fast and does not have a high ceiling.
Yours is completely unlike mine. Just drop it.
I would not draft him, but I am saying a team will take a flier on him in the mid 4th round b/c of some of the physical skills he possesses. you may not think he has as high of a ceiling but his physical skills (if the projected 40s are correct) are a little better than KC. I watched him play and I was honestly not that impressed…but b/c of his school and his size and supposed speed, a team will take a flier on him…that is all I am saying…
Who is this guy you all are talking about?
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 12, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions
but a strong safety is more of the run stopper.
Mangini has publically stated he likes two safeties with similar skillsets, not the bigger SS/faster FS idea.
Just a thought to get some more discussion going – has anyone thought about the idea of pairing some of our extra picks this draft with our first round pick next year to get a second 1st rounder this year? If this draft is going to have more talent in it as some have pointed out, why not make a splash with the FO? I say pair a 3rd rounder with next year’s #1 and get another pick in the early/mid teens. It’s a gamble, but if we improve next year, we might actually do what we did a few years ago and end up getting a better pick (in that we picked higher than we did in the following year). It might not be bad getting two quality defensive guys to start plugging holes.
Just some food for thought… would you trade a 3rd round pick this year and the first rounder next year for a early-mid teens pick this year? If you could address two issues this draft who would you pick? Personally, I’d only do it if I wasn’t drafting a QB – but then again I don’t think we should go anywhere near a QB this draft. O-line and defense are my priorities (not necessarily in that order).
I just wanted to believe.
I personally am not a fan.
I would rather add picks for next season (a third for a second next season type deal) than give up picks.
I would love to add a second first rounder, but only if it is using the picks from this years draft. With 11 picks, we will be hard pressed to get 11 rookies on next years squad, so we should have some picks to play with.
We have the ammo to make some moves up the draft board, I would just rather not have to use next years picks to do that.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
but at the same time, there is so muc more talent in this draft than in next years. 2011 is a deeper recruiting class than 2012. most of the elite 2011 players are leaving which leaves very few stars left. there will not be a ton of elite 2012 juniors next year.
A bulk of our picks are in the 2nd day though. I wouldn’t mind some sorta package of 5th round picks plus players traded away for next year’s 2nd rounders.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
true they are a lot of second day picks…but this draft is deep and it is good to have those picks…next year will be a very shallow draft compared to this yr.
And other teams will be saying the same thing. What makes you think that they’ll want to give up a first this year? Extra picks might do it, but I seriously doubt anyone would want to pass up on someone they really want if they’re availble in the first.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 11, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
I’d rather we package someone like Corey Williams with a pick to either move up in this years draft, or pick up multiple mid round picks in next years draft.
With 11 picks already, we’re looking at 20% of our roster being rookies next year. I don’t think we really want to add more picks for 2010.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I do like moving up to get another first rounder. however I cannot see a team biting on a guy like williams…either way, i would rather have more picks this yr than next year. this is one of the deepest and most talented drafts in a long time. a guy like gerhart who would be a surefire first day pick is projected in the third this yr. if you placed a lot of the top guys in other drafts, they would be number one picks…
I think a 4-3 team with some cap room would swap a 3rd for a fourth or a fourth for a fifth to land Williams.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
do we even consider moving rogers?
while he is a pro bowler & the guys has some mileage under his belt & hasn’t exactly gotten along with mangini ….
by strongsafety on Jan 10, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Depends on the return.
I would do it for a first, anything else I would be hesitant.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 10, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
yeah…he is worth AT LEAST a first. I do feel he won’t be as useful in successive years, however what does that leave us on our D-Line. I would love to get Suh along with that but he will not fall to number 7. If we trade rogers, I would want a mid-first rounder. with that pick we have the possibility of getting terrance cody or cameron heyward who can step in immediately and not truly replace him but revitalize our line. If those guys are gone by the pick we trade for, I would like to trade down a little farther to get damian williams who is IMO the best WR in the draft but is projected as more of a later first rounder.
But trading a 3rd rounder (this year) and our 1st (next year) to get another 1st this year doesn’t add any more rookies to our roster this upcoming year – it just technically moves one of our 3rd rounders to a first round.
I’d rather use one of the later rounds, but I just don’t see that happening.
I just wanted to believe.
If the depth is good, then keep the picks we have. It means we can get better value in the later rounds THIS year. If next year really is as talent drained as people say coughbscough then we need to hold on to next year’s first to ensure we still get a shot at the talent availble.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 11, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
yeah. I agree. there is also a lot of talent this year in the first 2 rounds. the first 2 rounds are much deeper than the last 5. they are still much deeper than average but the first 2 rounds have a lot of player that would go in the first round (I am talking second round players now) in other years. Chad jones would probably be a mid to late first rounder last year but instead he is end of the first and could fall to use in the second. same with Tevard Lindley from Virginia.
I don’t know why you see it as BS. most of the elite prospects from the 2011 class (Rolando McClain, Earl Thomas, Joe McKnight, Jevan Snead, Brian Baluga, Thad GIbson, Joe Haden, Eric Berry, etc…) have declared for the 2010 draft. the only elite senior prospects that will be out there will be locker, mark ingram, Michael Morgan, and Cam Heyward.
More players will develop into elite players. Maybe not as much as this draft, or even more than this draft. We won’t know till then.
Probably the only Cleveland Browns fan in all of Sydney, NSW.
Yes more players will develop into elite players and some juniors will come out but the way it looks right now, this looks like a better draft. It is hard to tell right now, but there are signs.
I just feel that not only are the seniors in this draft good, but most of the elite prospects are in the draft. Very few seemed to return for a senior season
But that happens every year. That’s exactly why elite prospects leave early — because they are elite. If they weren’t elite then they wouldn’t be a high pick and most likely wouldn’t leave early. Next year we’ll have more elite players who may not be considered elite right now. There are always players who break out in their junior year and shoot up the draft boards.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
good point. at the same time, it feels like there are a much smaller percentage of juniors considered draft worthy that are staying in school…maybe the CBA situation has to do with it…
I won’t disagree that this draft may have more depth and talent then next year’s, but to say that a draft will be talent depleted is just stupid.
Next year there will be juniors who weren’t draft eligible making the jump, and seniors who will emerge as a result of them staying and playing better. There’s never going to be a draft similar to the NBA where so many guys leave school early that there really isn’t anyone else who gets drafted in the first round and deserves to be there.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 14, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
Snead sucks. Ingram will be a junior next year.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions
I missed about the last 200 posts of the first draft discussion, and haven’t read any of these but come with a suggestion:
Would it be possible for Chris, a mod, a minion, to create separate threads for different draft discussions, have them grouped and bumped to the top of the Fanposts? For example, separate threads to talk about Browns needs, prospects by position (QB, Skill positions, OL/DL, LB, and secondary), miscellaneous? Just a minor suggestion that might make the talk more concentrated, productive, and efficient.
You are reading my signature.
Not sure, but when talking about positions, the other ones somehow get involved. We need player X who plays Y position. Yes, but we need a player at Z position first, and so on and so forth.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 11, 2010 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
that’s true, but probably mainly for DL/LB positions. I can’t imagine anyone’s looking at cornerbacks to be drafted as WRs, and if anyone even suggests drafting Tebow to play tight end, i’m checking out of here.
You are reading my signature.
too late, someone already suggested drafting him as a project tight end in the third round.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
on a side note, my brother-in-law mentioned a month ago how Tim Tebow might be the first pick in the draft. Once I stopped laughing 18 minutes later, I told him he wouldn’t even be drafted in the first round, let alone first pick. He proposed a bet ($20) which I gladly accepted. Yesterday he said everyone with college football acumen that he knows (he admittedly doesn’t really follow college football) is sure he’ll win the bet. I have a friend on the BGSU coaching staff that is fairly confident in my side, thinking he’s a 3rd/4th round pick.
What say ye?
You are reading my signature.
I’d have asked if he wanted to bet $2000.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
to be clear, the bet is that he won’t be a first round draft pick. i still have high confidence in my bet, but felt i should throw that out there.
Also! His college football IQ is so low, he has not heard of Clausen, Suh, or Ingram. I don’t claim to be able to name Oregon’s offensive line, but I feel I have a better grasp of the college talent preparing for he draft.
You are reading my signature.
seriously, you should have asked to bet a hell of a lot more money.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Even though Tebow definitely shouldn’t go in the first….hell to tell you the truth he shouldn’t even be drafted…But this year’s QB depth went from the projected best in years, to one of the worst with the returning of Mallet and Locker, and the sucking of Snead and McCoy. So if there somehow are more than 2 teams drafting a QB in the first round this year, there is a less slimmer chance of him being one of the first 32 picked than initially thought. There is no lack of coaches justifying Tebow’s lack of talent(see espn)
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 11, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
I can undestand not knowing Suh, but he didn’t know the Notre Dame quarterback OR the Heisman trophy winner?!?! That is crazy. Does he never watch ESPN?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
he’s a Steeler fan, the kind who thinks Tomlin should be fired. He knows nothing of college football other than Larry Fitzgerald went to Pitt.
I’m really betting with the lowest common denominator here, so the inexplicable loss would not hurt my wallet, but my pride, ego, and dignity.
You are reading my signature.
i don’t know much about Barnes other than he put up Madden numbers in the bowl game and my buddy was the one coaching him.
You are reading my signature.
oh…then ur buddy is good. I really like barnes. the MAC has some really nice prospects that get overlooked. there is also naaman roosevelt who is a very good WR. Lefevour could be a nice QB and James Starks from buffalo was a top 3-5 senior RB before he got injured.
I don’t see how he is a first rounder.
Only way is a team just falls in love with the rah-rah crap. I think he is at best a second rounder.
Enjoy that $20.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 11, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that’s why he traded down three times to pick a center. Also why he passed on maualuga to take a possession receiver.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
An he’s taking the Sanchize to the Sanchbowl!
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
I was thinking we’d probably do a more thorough breakdown of each position when we get closer to draft time and we get a better idea of where the players rank. I know people want to talk about all this now, and that’s great, but we do have over 3 months to do this and so many things can change between now and then. This is supposed to be just a general draft discussion before we get in to more in-depth previews.
But we can see what other people think and go from there. I have no idea what Chris has in mind; those were just my thoughts.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
that’s fair. it was mainly the amount of comments over a short period that made me think it could be separated a bit more.
You are reading my signature.
yeah as strange as it sounds there is still a lot we don’t know about these players, and there is still an opportunity for some of that to be cleared up at the senior bowl or in the combine. If anybody could accurately predict the draft in january i would ask them for tomorrow’s lottery numbers.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 11, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
We need to do a game thread for the combine.
I don’t have NFL network now. I hate cable.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 11, 2010 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Dish provides it free of charge. It’s AWESOME.
The combine is so much fun to watch.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
What do you guys think of Tony Pike? He looks like he’s put up some good numbers this season… Just wondering what you guys think of him and what kind of a draft pick you might use on him.
yes system, and competition. he didn’t look so hot against Florida…granted they are an excellent team, but he still would have to face those kinds of Ds in the NFL
I hear alot of people talking about how sometimes the system makes the QB… I don’t understand it, really. I mean, sure, his numbers could get inflated since they don’t run much, but when it all comes down to it he still has to find the open man and throw it to him, right? I watched some highlight stuff of his on youtube and he looked like he had good pocket presence, and when the pocket broke down he could scramble and still make good throws on the run. He seems to make accurate throws and hit receivers in stride and he looks like he can throw the long ball.
Of course, this is just what I’ve seen on some highlight videos :-p They are “highlights” so it’s kinda one sided evaluation. Have you guys seen anything else?
And as far as the Florida game… He threw for 170 some yards and 3 TDs. I mean, that’s not a stellar game but against a very good Florida team, it was a pretty good game I think.
I see him: mid third rounder…matt cassel type…decent starter in the right system, but not right away, back up for a few yrs.
yeah…not great competition in the big east. Pitt almost went undefeated and I think they would be an average team in the big 10 (and might have not been bowl eligible).
Buffalo, a MAC team played them well and should have beaten them. they ripped apart the Pitt D. the only reason buffalo lost is b/c of bad turnovers…not turnovers forced by a good D but bad play by the offense, like a fumbled kickoff, a pass that flew over the receiver’s head…take away the points off of the bad turnovers and Buffalo would have one…offensively they outplayed pitt but made a lot of mental errors and suffered from the bad throws of an inexperienced starting QB, starting only his second career game.
His frame won’t hold up in the NFL and he has a noodle arm.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
Well here is another one.
Two more Gators declared today, according to ESPN.
Not going to pretend that I know enough about Pouncey to give an opinion yet. As for Dunlap, my thought is, looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 11, 2010 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
Which Pouncey? There were two of them.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 11, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
If Jane drank like a sailor… and if she gouched people’s eyes on purpose, only to get suspended for one half against Vanderbilt.
No, it’s extremely funny.
Just in a different way then first planned.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 11, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Thats because moonca…Bross09 feel the need to reply to every single post
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 11, 2010 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
wait…please stop calling me mooncamping. and I do not reply to every post. there might b (and probably are) people on here that have commented more…
I absolutely guarantee you that every since you’ve started your consistent posting that no one has even a third of how many posts you have. I’m sorry for calling you out and you do make some good points when you debate, its just annoying dredging through threads when literally one fifth of the posts consists of you replying to every one else’s posts with 3 paragraph stories. There have been times where you had 4 replies back to back in a row
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
I think I probably have as much on here as Bernie19Kosar or rufio or buckeye brad. there are also major parts of threads I didn’t comment on that they did comment on a lot.
I also do not write that many 3 paragraph stories…and no one is forcing you to read them anyways…
When was there a time where I have replied 4 times in a row. It might have been possible but I would like to know where and when…
just for conformity, for the first draft thread my browser showed 29 new unread posts by me. You were responsible for 15.
Like I said I really don’t care much, and I enjoy reading some of the things you post, but the issue of how these threads become huge came up, and honestly you’re probably the reason why these threads inflate the way they do. The 1 minute it took for me to type this you’ve had 5 new posts
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
It seems like you are blaming it on me…like I said, truly back it up…I bet there are ppl on here commenting as much if not more then me….on the first thread on the draft, there was probably a string (out of the 1,000 messages) of about 350-500 comments where I do not appear at all. It is mostly guys who comment a lot like bernie19kosar or dorn, or Buckeye Brad, or rufio. not that this is a bad thing. I am just saying, try not to say the whole onus is on me…these draft discussions were getting big even before I got involved.
I would wager that There are probably ppl with more posts…I will not take your word that I have the most as fact unless you check all of the threads I have commented on and counted out everyone’s posts.
Don’t worry. No one likes him anyways haha
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
lmao you sound like a grade schooler
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Macaroni & Cheese is my favorite crayon! And dinner!
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
(says the guy using internet chat lingo)
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Jan 12, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
ZING!
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Internet chat lingo is immature? That’s news to me
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
especially considering the fact that we’re chatting on the internet.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Well if this was Eharmony.com and I was looking for a compatible soulmate that likes to shorthand every once in a while, then yes.
We’re trying to conduct civilized, intelligent conversations here.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
save for my propensity for not always using capitalization, i like to present my self as intelligent and mature whether it be in person, over the phone, and over the internet. I don’t use “ur” in text messages, nor do I LOLZZ when someone posts something on a web forum that humors me.
You are reading my signature.
So using worldwide excepted internet chatter on an un-intelectual internet forum is immature, but not using proper capitalization isn’t. That’s pretty hypocritical, and the lack of capitalization makes you look more remedial than internet chatter ever could.
The comment is even more ridiculous considering the context in which it was used. I could say you need to get off my nuts, which regardless of it being true…is an immature statement. Not if you were too say “lol that’s immature”, someone bringing attention to the lol part proves that they’re commenting because of a grudge to the person saying it, not the comment itself or the issue would be brought up with both comments.
Then again its hard to have intellectual conversation with someone who uses “i” instead of “I”
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions
No what’s intellectual is saying,
“Laughing my ass off!” No you’re not.
I can read the context of “i” better than “lmao.” Don’t be a 12 year old, pubescent teenage girl please.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
lol now you’re trying to pick you’re battles. Abbreviations of the sorts are used more to convey feelings and reactions just as much aso to express the fact that the other person is laughing their ass off. For example, when chatters end with a :) or meh.
It doens’t matter what you feel you can read the context of, because obviously you’re going to go against whatever I say. I’m sure you didn’t have trouble with the lol at the beginning of my paragraph. But looking at how retarded you’re coming off in this discussion I’m willing to bet you did.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
Meh is an onomatopoeia. It’s a part of speech. Perfectly fine.
And considering that it’s 3 on 1. I don’t think I’m the one who looks stupid.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
Gang mentality won’t cause me to back down. Two of you are trying to argue that you can come off as unintellectual by using standard, widely accepted internet abbreviations despite using them in the correct context. But somehow not using proper capitalization and punctuation doesn’t come off as unintellectual because I’m not the one doing it.
Many times on this forum have you came off as a grammar and sentence structure Nazi, and every time you’re shown yourself to be a pretentious jackass. And following that up with you’re immature, kindergarten popularity jab, you don’t have any room to question another persons intelligence and capacity. So until you straighten yourself up, don’t every try to put me in check.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Cut SB some slack, Rocland. He’s in College. It’ll be a few years before he realizes he doesn’t know everything.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
This is completely true and it’s also the mentality I’ve learned from my father. I literally can’t help it.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
So, you’ve proven I’m a possible hypocrite and a jackass every once in a while because I like jabbing people in their sides?
Okay.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
at the same time, while I did use that once. people should stop using the word Nazi to describe grammar sticklers. I know we, as intelligent humans, can come up with a better word.
Canadian.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
FAIR ENOUGH. I HAVE NO GRUDGE OR ISSUE WITH YOU.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT IN YOUR “INTELLECTUAL” RESPONSE TO ME, YOU MADE DAMN SURE YOU USED PROPER CAPITALIZATION, GRAMMAR, AND PUNCUATION, WHEN YOUR LAST THREE COMMENTS WERE LACKING IN ALL THREE.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Jan 12, 2010 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
OMG I MISSPELLED PUNCTUATION, LOL
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Jan 12, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
REC.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
My friends always ask why I fully write out words in texts.
Um, because I’m not stupid.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
When I see someone type “lmao” or “lol” I think of my high school students (although many of them are more mature than that). You have an entire keyboard on your computer, so use it. You’re not texting.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 12, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
What is it that makes you think of your high school students. Internet abbreviations and chatter was here before texting became big, so to say “you’re not texting” doesn’t make sense at all considering text lingo comes from internet lingo
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Texting comes from the ability to use a keyboard.
Computers and phones use keyboards so the argument, in fact, does hold water.
You are not texting or AIM – ing. Type like a big boy please.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
What are you talking about? You really are special I guess…
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Yep, someone special who can spell better than someone who thinks they are perfectly sound of mind.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I don’t usually visit message boards where people use “lmao” and “lol” all the time. I like to have discussions with people who act like adults and can speak intelligently. And “lmao you sound like a grade schooler” is not intelligent conversation.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 12, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
Intelligent conversation is a subject matter, not a posting style. I believe you mean you like to discuss things intelligently, which is a different animal all together since this isn’t an intellectual community nor subject for the board.
But as long as you realize, like you did, its all about personal opinion. I personally don’t like discuss with people bitching about how other people post, who get bent out of shape over personalities like Mooncamping, or feel for some reason they’re intelligent when they have a immature way of looking at things. That’s why I personally skip over a good portion of your posts, and I’m sure you do the same with me.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
red herring fallacy rockland. all he is saying is that most people tend not to use LMAO on the internet. some younger people do but at the same time, I hope you can understand how it is annoying when he is trying to have an intelligent debate…next someone is going to type like a valli girl…“like oh my god…it could so, like happen”.
lmao is like saying git’r’done…neither one is ever used in intelligent conversation…maybe occasionally it is, but oftentimes, the person using it is either unintelligent, or immature. maybe you aren’t either and I am not presuming you are, but by using “text speak” when you have a perfectly good keyboard sends that message. It is not always about what you mean, but how a person is likely to interpret it…
I could say I respect slightly b/c of the innovations the germans made in warfare, but if I said that, i would look stupid b/c someone could interpret it horribly.
It’s not about what you say, it is about thinking about how people will interpret it logically.
bross, you just posted “lol” a few replies down from here…
And you must not know what a red herring is…
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
actually I do, it is diverting the topic, which you were doing…now, the classic ad hominem fallacy. instead of going at the issue, you criticize and attack me. a sign of a fight lost.
I was not saying I was or wasn’t posting anything. I was just pointing out that I understand his point and that there are implications for everything you type. yes I did say LOL, but it was a momentary lapse of judgement. you on the other hand are standing by it, which in a way is admirable…Also on the scale, lmao is more childish than lol. I have not seen anyone over the age of 14 use lmao for a long time…it is like using the really stupid emoticons, or saying brb. lol is one that has become somewhat part of the jargon, although that isn’t a great thing. It is much more socially accepted than lmao though.
also
lmao you sound like a grade schoolerdoes that sound like a mature, intellectual response. you could have not responded but you stooped not only to his level, but a few notches below. he dragged you down and that is why people are giving you criticism.
And I didn’t bring up your hypocrisy in order to do distract because I’m not discussing the issue with you in the first place. Its just funny seeing someone say such things and commit the offense not soon afterward, and its even funnier seeing you justify it. Its lol worthy
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
actually i had said the lol before i criticized you at all. also, i admit my momentary lapse in intelligence…you still seem to claim that saying “lmao he is talking like a 4th grader” or whatever you said sounds intelligent.
All I am saying is you set yourself up on this one. you made the bed and now you are lying in it.
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Mother F—-ing Ass Off B——
Right?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 12, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Wow. That was good.
I have been trying for about 5 minutes now.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 12, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
And like I said, and Western said below, this is a quite pointless debate. But one thing i do know is that it makes no sense for these makeshift sports blog “intellectuals” to come at me for using lol which is an internet term regardless of what the pretentious “elites” say in this forum, when it was in response to someone saying “No one likes him anyways haha”. Was that an intellectual statement Brad, SP? I didn’t think so.
Regardless of what the pretentious slobs want to believe, this is an open public internet forum supported by different people which different ways of thinking. If you want to have conversation like this damn scholar forum, then feel free to head somewhere else. But since no one owns this forum in this discussion, Chris didn’t indicate internet lingo wasn’t to be presented, then I’m going to continue to use speech in this forum that’s appropriate to the environment. If I don’t complain about how a select few trot around the forum like they have a lead pipe up their behind, then I feel comfortable with a few abbreviations every once in a while
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
No, SP did not make an intellectual statment with that, but YOU stooped down to his level and then stooped even lower. Now I think the ppl here are all just having a little fun at your expense. yeah, you were using “lmao” and they probably don’t like that…but to put up the unnecessary fight that you did just looks bad on you. it makes you look like an immature whiner (I am not saying you are at all, but that is the perception people get and the message you send).
there is no need to keep insulting them and calling them pretentious slobs. I have learned here that even if they call you names (and that first comment was the only real attack) you should just take the high road…like what has happened, retaliating, justifying, and being stubborn gets you into a deeper pile of shit and only makes you look bad.
the ppl here are all just having a little fun at your expense
that’s pretty much all it is.
so…. there’s this draft in 3 months…
You are reading my signature.
but to put up the unnecessary fight that you did just looks bad on you. it makes you look like an immature whiner (I am not saying you are at all, but that is the perception people get and the message you send).
there is no need to keep insulting them and calling them pretentious slobs. I have learned here that even if they call you names (and that first comment was the only real attack) you should just take the high road…like what has happened, retaliating, justifying, and being stubborn gets you into a deeper pile of shit and only makes you look bad.
You all kept going back and forth. Reminded me of . . .
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I didn’t make that statement so I don’t know why you’re talking to me.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 12, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I
And like I said, and Western said below, this is a quite pointless debate. But one thing i do know is that it makes no sense for these makeshift sports blog "intellectuals" to come at me for using lol which is an internet term regardless of what the pretentious "elites" say in this forum
Agreed this is a pretty stupid argument. I’ve seen and I think so has everyone else Rocland post enough to know he is not a stupid teenager regardless if he uses lol or any other slang.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Didn’t Rocland chime in near the top of this thread with a complaint about thread size and too many replies being made?
Now that’s comedy!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 12, 2010 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
Possibly. I think with all this commotion surrounding the team, DBN has been pulled into some weird parallel universe of semantic arguments and lolz.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
Simple stand alone declarations like ‘lmao’ and ‘lol’ don’t bother me. Using ‘u’ for ‘you’ and ‘r’ for ‘are’ drives me straight up a wall.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
For texts or for text discussion period? I developed a habit of using “ur” and “r” in texts because ATT has a crappy text character limit
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 12, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
I live with it. If you go AT&T to AT&T it doesn’t put a limit on texts.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
Internet only. I’ve never owned a cell phone.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Good idea. Watch that radiation poisoning. I’ll be dieing at an early age.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 12, 2010 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
Most of this whole conversation is generally completely worthless, in my humble opinion, but, wow, never has owned a cell phone?!
by Western Reserve on Jan 12, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed. I have no problem with “lmao” or “lol” because, frankly, the alternative often sounds forced. Typing out “haha” or “I just laughed at this” makes you seem like a loser anyway.
Hi bross. I really don’t want to be a jerk — and I certainly don’t want to get in the mess that rocland got himself into — but this thread, as of when I clicked on it, had 793 posts. You had a whopping 289 of them. 289! More than a third!
And it would be one thing if you were posting completely different things, but you might as well have copy and pasted 2/3 of those comments. How many times did you say that Coleman was just like Mike Adams? How many times did you say that Haden had bad instincts and man coverage skills? How many times did you repeat that Haden should be a safety? How many times did you talk about Russell’s upside? How many times did you quote McClain’s 40 time and compare him to Ray Lewis?
Again, I really don’t want to be a jerk. You have some very interesting ideas, and you clearly know more about college football prospects than I do. But good lord is this thread unreadable.
by Chemo on Jan 14, 2010 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
then don’t read it…you know what…50% of them were from the first couple days I was using this site….we have already gone over this at another point…
If you are/were all for posting the same thing over and over again about Adams, Haden, McClain, Russell, and the like… Will it really be that big of a deal to tell people why you initially posted stuff over and over again… Well… over and over again? You have been posting a little bit less each day it seems, which is cool. It’s just that in this case maybe you made your bed so you’ll have to lay in it a little bit?
then don’t read it
This isn’t the attitude to have when someone is giving you advice.
Chemo was nicer than most people here would have been. Don’t be rude to others.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 14, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
For those that haven’t seen/heard anything on Mike Iupati here is some video.
Destroying some poor kid at Utah State.
He is 6-6 330lbs. Beast.
the force is strong with this one
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 12, 2010 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
FYI: bross09 has 267 posts in this thread.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 13, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
that’s it? i would have taken the over.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Jan 13, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Anyone want to set the over/under for Part 3?
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 13, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
Instead, could you maybe take the time to formulate a coherent and well researched fanpost on the topic of your choice? This business of shitting out the first thought that pops into your head a dozen times a minute is wearing thin.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 13, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
me?? I don’t just shit out the first thought that pops into my head. I thought we were done with name calling???
wow…hateful…
I could do a fanpost topic on something I wanted, but then someone like you would just post rude comments then if this is how you really feel.
Please read that comment again; he didn’t call you any names.
He does have a point, though. We appreciate everyone’s comments and participation but ever since you started posting here in the last week or so you’ve probably posted about five times as many comments as anyone else. Don’t you think that’s a little much? After a while you start to repeat yourself over and over again, especially when we’re talking about the draft. Once you’ve told us how you feel about a certain prospect a few times is it really necessary to keep repeating the same message in multiple comments? Don’t you see how that can start to get annoying for some people?
Again, don’t get me wrong, you have some interesting things to say and we appreciate your participation, but in the future maybe you should focus on quality over quantity.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 13, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
yeah i wouldn’t normally be one to say “stop posting so much,” but 267 posts is about a third if this thread. thats a lot.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 13, 2010 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I would have almost preferred a “can you please stop posting as much” or “stop posting as much” to
This business of shitting out the first thought that pops into your head
while the last option might sound like it is a little more elegant and well worded, it is also twice as insulting at least…you know what, I am posting less and less each day…
but on prospects, if somone starts questioning me i will respond…A lot was in the first couple of days but I have toned it down since then. And I do not think it was 5 times as many…
I am focusing more now on quality and not quantity.
I wasn’t even shitting out the first thought that came into my head (that is a way of insulting someone to say they are supid even though it doesn’t directly say it). It is just is a polite way to put rude thoughts. shit with glitter on it is still shit. I think we were all making jokes and he came out of nowhere and bashed me…that is all.
Even if someone has a point (which I admit he did) he doesn’t have to indirectly insult my intelligence and take a joke and make a rude statement.
You seem to have a lot of information on draft prospects, bross, and as someone who barely watches college ball, that’s pretty interesting material for me.
While I wouldn’t have swung the hockey stick golanbatrac did, he does have a point. I admit to getting comment fatigue after all of your posts in these threads. It’s hard to tell what you feel strongly about and what’s just idle talk.
If you honed some of your opinions into a couple of concise fanposts here, I think those would be of great value and would generate a lot of interesting discussion. (Obviously we’re nuts about draft talk here these days!) Food for thought, at least….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 14, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
agreed.
I think i got a little crazy when i found this site (kid in a candy store kinda thing). I will admit I made a lot of bizarre comments, but people look at stuff i have written starting sunday or monday, it is very sane, very logical, and in much less numbers. Each day i write less and less and what I write gets better and better.
I do agree he had a point…I just felt a little insulted by the tone (i would have preferred just him asking me to comment less but I dont care that much anymore)
He said I was wrong and I only said he had around a fourth of the total posts in these threads
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 15, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
All I know
is we need to draft Dan LeFevour.
Ever tried? Ever failed? No Matter, try again, fail again, Fail better.
in the 4th round or so.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 13, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Any reason why you’re so sure of this? I’m not saying you’re wrong… I actually like LeFevour. I’m just wondering why you want to draft him.
Honestly, its just that Ive been watching him for years ( Im a big MAC guy) and he’s been awesome. Beyond his numbers and physical skills, his shown leadership and clutchness(clutchability?) in his C.Michigan career.
Ever tried? Ever failed? No Matter, try again, fail again, Fail better.
by BringBackKosar on Jan 13, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
This has nothing to do with the draft but i didn’t know where else to post it and this way everyone will see it.
Does anybody know if there is a free site online to watch nfl games? I’m not talking streaming, i wanted to watch a couple of the games i missed this year.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
iTunes sells rebroadcasts of certain games.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 13, 2010 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
I know we’re not in the market for an early-round wide receiver, but does anyone know where Arrelious Benn is likely to go? I think he’s going to be easily the best receiver in the draft, but his horrible offense suppressed his stats and could push him down a bit. Maybe he’s still a late first-rounder (and thus nowhere we’re likely to get him), but man do I love that guy.
We could probably get him with our 2nd.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 14, 2010 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
I think he will end up being a first rounder. 6-2 220 and plays special teams?
Hell he is a 4.4 away from being the Raiders pick.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 14, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
He still didn’t produce much, which dropped him.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
I think that most front offices will realize that Juice Williams did a better job stopping Benn than any defense he faced.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 16, 2010 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
You still worry about a WR who had less than 500 yards
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
I agree. DHB had 600 yards last season and was a top 10 pick.
I don’t know if that helps or hurts his case.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 16, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
That was kind of BK19’s point. The Raiders having picked a guy who didn’t produce much, who then went on to not produce in the NFL will hurt Benn’s stock. The fact that they picked him at 7th overall could go either way.
Benn will probably have a good speed/size ratio, like Hakeem Nicks.
I think the new offensive coordinator might have been more of a problem than Juice. After all, Benn had 1055 yards the season before with Juice as his QB. But yeah, it certainly wasn’t the defenses that kept him in check.
This is what the Sproting News eary Mock draft looks like for us and I pray that are first pick is not who they think it is!
They have Eric Berry going THIRTEENTH!?!?! Are you kidding me?
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 15, 2010 10:04 AM EST up reply actions
That was the first thing I noticed other then the 3 OT’s in the top 6.
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 15, 2010 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
I thought Oakland traded their first rounder to New England for Richard Seymour?
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 15, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
wow, i’m far from an expert, but that is trash. 3 OTs in the top six?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 15, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
Sporting News is bad every year. I have read their draft previews and have been misled by them. The year we got Beau Bell and Tuba Rubin, SN had them both rated as first rounders, and I thought after the draft that Sporting News would think we had the best draft ever getting them both late.
thats really strange. I mean, I know next to nothing about most college prospects, and I could have done a better mock, and for a lot less money than they paid whoever cranked that out.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 15, 2010 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Last season SN first mock draft had Alex Mack going in the top 7-10 picks.
I love Alex Mack, but if we took him at 5, I would have been super pissed.
Sporting News mocks are trash.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 15, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
I might actually be OK with Bradford. But only if Berry is gone.
The OTs this year are not worth those picks. I do like the kid out of Maryland, though.
count me among those that wouldn’t be disappointed with bradford if berry is gone (though i’d like to see him throw at the combine).
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 15, 2010 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
I do agree with you completely. if berry was gone, i would not have an objection to bradford. granted there would probably be guys I would rather have, but if he is there, i don’t mind. I do agree on the OTs though. this is one of the weaker OT classes in a while. the last few have been spectacular and b/c of that, OTs seem to be getting drafted higher (and they are important). but we do not need another pass blocking LT, especially not one who won’t be as good as thomas.
Sporting news always gives terrible efforts at mocks. I mean, Trent Williams first tackle?
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
If you want some comedy read the comments on yahoo. Texas fans are talking about Colt McCoy being by far the best QB in this draft and how Clausen won’t go until the third.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
Who would you all want if Suh, Okung, Haden, Berry, McClain, and G McCoy are gone?
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 8:08 PM EST reply actions
Bradford.
Value is just way too high. Plus you would think we could maybe trade down if someone loves a tackle.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 16, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, either him or Clausen — I trust Holmgren to make the right call. My guess is that he likes Bradford better if his health isn’t a concern.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 16, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
If we’re only talking QB’s, then I like Bradford. The guy’s got wicked accuracy from what I’ve heard. I won’t be upset if we pick him up, but I still have my heart set on Quinn working out.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 16, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
but I still have my heart set on Quinn working out.
Me too, but it’s continuing to look less likely :( Glad I bought your jersey for $70, Brady. Haha.
I got mine for christmas back in 08’. I was more excited to get that than I was when I got an Xbox 360 that same day.
by BrownDawg1409 on Jan 18, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
I think he takes one hit from a huge D-lineman and he’s done.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
He is almost the same size as Clausen.
Bradford (6-4 223)
Clausen (6-3 223)
Why will Bradford get killed?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 1:04 AM EST up reply actions
Because he isn’t from ND.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 17, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve seen Bradford listed under 215, so let’s see how he measures at the combine.
And in 08, Bradford had the best O-line in the country. In 09, he didn’t and look what happened. The hits only get harder in the NFL
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 17, 2010 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
His size had nothing to do with his injury. It was a fluke accident that he rushed back from.
Eli Manning had the same injury and he is fine. Here is a good article on the injury.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
It isn’t just a coincidence that the skinnier QBs like Pike and Bradford are the ones with more injuries.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 18, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
Steve Young was built like a FB and I seem to remember him being hurt a lot.
Body type isn’t the issue. The issue is that Pike and Bradford have both had serious injuries.
Peyton Manning was rather skinny in college, too. That worked out pretty well.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
The reason I ask is because I am participating in a mock with people representing each team and that might end up being the players that are gone. I won’t take a QB, so could you all throw out another name. How about Earl Thomas, or Sergio Kindle, or Anthony Davis, or Dez Bryant, or CJ Spiller,
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 16, 2010 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
with that pick?? If haden is gone I would go McClain. thomas is a reach there, I feel spiller is and I am not completely sold on him. would not draft any receiver in the top 10 this year (and am not sold on dez). Isn’t davis a LT? I would not think of taking an LT. I do not think we need another kamerion wimbley (kindle has the same skill set). this is hard, if McClain and haden are gone…
Derek Morgan.
Pass rush, pass rush, pass rush.
Even if Morgan isn’t the greatest candidate for a 3-4 defense (and I am not saying this is true yet) then our coaching staff needs to be smart enough to use Morgan a way to rush the passer.
Drafting a RT or lesser safety than Berry would be a waste . Taking a WR with our garbage QB situation is also a waste.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 1:13 AM EST up reply actions
I would not call our QB situation complete garbage. It very well might be but we also had a lot of receivers who could not get open. I do like our pass rush though and even though I do like morgan, I look at it as being more of a luxury pick than a CB or safety (or even ILB). Morgan would add to our pass rush but our pass rush this year was greatly improved. rob ryan is good at mixing up blitz schemes and can get pressure from most positions on the defense. also, our OLBs, while maybe not superstars, are very good. plus they are both young and still improving. after this last season, i feel it is still too early to write off wimbley as a complete bust. He could very easily improve this year and he already had 6.5 sacks last year. now that he has matt roth taking pressure off of him for 16 games, he could blossom.
I would not call our QB situation complete garbage. It very well might be but we also had a lot of receivers who could not get open.
Our QB’s finished the season with a combined 55.8 QB rating. I am not saying QB rating is the greatest way to decide if a QB is great or not, but 55.8 sucks. Big time. That is JaMarcus Russell territory. That is garbage.
I do like our pass rush though and even though I do like morgan, I look at it as being more of a luxury pick than a CB or safety (or even ILB).
Pass rush is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Drafting a pass rusher helps the secondary. I refuse to get into the ILB debate with you again.
Morgan would add to our pass rush but our pass rush this year was greatly improved. rob ryan is good at mixing up blitz schemes and can get pressure from most positions on the defense.
I love blitzing. It drove me nuts that Tucker never blitzed. But the majority of our sacks came off of blitzes. We sent 5-6 even 7 people at times. We had to do this because we don’t have a great pass rusher. Imagine getting pressure only rushing four players? Our defensive backs would be much better with the added coverage.
also, our OLBs, while maybe not superstars, are very good. plus they are both young and still improving. after this last season, i feel it is still too early to write off wimbley as a complete bust.
They aren’t young. Next year will be Roth’s 6th NFL season and Wimbley’s 5th. Derek Morgan just turned 21 last week. That is young. Wimbley isn’t a bust, he just isn’t who we thought he was (I’m Denny Green!). He isn’t a great pass rusher. He is good in coverage and decent against the run. I would have zero issue replacing him this offseason. I personally want pass rush out of my OLB’s.
He could very easily improve this year and he already had 6.5 sacks last year.
At this point, it would be a miracle if Wimbley became a pass rush monster. It has been four seasons. Good pass rushers don’t just put it together after four seasons of solid PT. Don’t hold out hope for him, it will save you some time.
now that he has matt roth taking pressure off of him for 16 games, he could blossom.
Matt Roth is a nice player. You don’t pass up talent like Derek Morgan because Matt Roth.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 2:30 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t know much about Morgan but I agree with you that we neeed pass rushers. We don’t have any defenders that scare the offense and that is what you need to be a great defense. Roth is a nice player but he’s not the elite pass rusher we need, and anyone who thinks he can be that is kidding themselves. And Wimbley isn’t going to suddenly blossom in to an elite pass rusher after four seasons, as you said.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
I think the general point though is that we did a good enough job rushing the passer last season, we should focus on areas where we have holes, like offensive skill positions or defensive backfield.
Not that I wouldn’t love a pass-rushing LB or would be upset with the pick, i just think there are larger areas of need right now.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
The original question was who should the Browns take if Suh, Okung, Haden, Berry, McClain, and G McCoy are gone (and no QB’s)?
I agree we did a good job at creating pressure. But we had to do that because our main pass rushers (OLB’s) couldn’t do the job. At what point do we stop robbing Peter (coverage) to pay Paul (pressure)?
I agree we have holes, but adding Morgan, who is great against the run, and IMO the best pass rusher in the draft, would help in plugging those holes.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
Problem is I don’t think the coverage problem had to do with linebackers vacating their positions, but rather issues with our secondary. This has less to do with pressure than it does with below average secondary players.
I can see that, but I think drafting any DB not named Berry or Haden is a reach at the 7 pick.
IMO, you can win in the NFL with a below average defensive backfield if the pass rush is strong enough. You can’t say the same about the inverse.
Now, our DB’s sucked last year. But we should be able to sign some band aids this offseason while the younger guys hopefully develop (Francies).
Draft talent, sign needs. I don’t see a DB talent, outside of Berry and possibly Haden, worth the 7 pick.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Right. We certainly have needs in the defensive backfield, but unless Berry or Haden are there then I don’t think any DB is worth the 7th pick. And we have far too many holes on this team to draft for need in the first round. Take the best player available — outside of LT, RB, and possibly DL — and worry about filling needs later in the draft or FA. Teams get in trouble in the draft when they start reaching for players based on need.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
If the BPA at 7 is a linebacker, trade down, or look at the next best player available.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
The same goes for an OLB position/pass rusher though, you don’t reach if the right guy isn’t there. I think one of Berry or Haden is likely to be there at 7, in fact quite likely.
If Morgan can show that he is good enough standing up to pass for an OLB, then I don’t think he is a reach.
That being said, I’m not sold on Haden or Morgan for the Browns yet.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
I dont think Earl Thomas is a reach at 7. He arguably(or maybe not arguably) was a bigger playmaker than Berry this year.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 18, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
You also do not go with one year, but the whole package. berry has been productive every year. earl thomas has shown he has great hands and can play in coverage but berry over his career has shown he can do everything. he can intercept passes, play in coverage, stop the run, get into the backfield well, and blitz the QB. while thomas is good, Berry has shown more balance and more playmaking ability behind the line of scrimmage. thomas has not shown he has the ability to get to the QB consistently on blitzes (no sacks for his career). he also does not make many plays behind the LOS (7.5 career TFL) compared to berry (15.5 TFLs the last 2 yrs). Berry has played better in the box.
I like thomas but as of right now, he has not shown a ton of ability to play the run anywhere near as well as berry. he has not shown he can get to the QB. while this might not be that important, safeties do blitz often, and rob ryan blitzes safeties, and other positions more than a lot of D coordinators.
I think one reason for our bad QB play was lack of WRs.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 17, 2010 6:44 PM EST up reply actions
That’s really the worst possible situation for you in a mock draft.
I am giving a big “no freakin way” to Spiller.
I don’t like Davis, I’d rather have Campbell, but since this is not real life you really have nothing to lose going with the upside of Davis.
Bryant would definitely be an option. He seems to be the clear #1 WR in this draft, so there might be value in that pick, too.
I don’t think Thomas is worth the 7th pick.
Kindle is probably my favorite among those names, particularly if he really is up to 250+lbs. Honestly, I am worried about Kindle’s ability to hold up against the run and Morgan’s ability to finish plays due to his speed. I think Kindle stands a better chance of shoring up his weaknesses. He already can rush the passer and has a great motor.
You might want to reach for Jermaine Gresham. He’s ridiculous, but also a TE (bad value). We really need someone who can stretch the middle of the field vertically, and he could do that, plus block. You might be criticized for “reaching” at this point, but once he is healthy and can run/work out for scouts, they’ll be drooling. I am looking for him to shoot up draft boards at/around the combine.
I ended up with Haden, but I’m hoping for Gresham in the second.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 18, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
At this point, it would be a miracle if Wimbley became a pass rush monster. It has been four seasons. Good pass rushers don’t just put it together after four seasons of solid PT. Don’t hold out hope for him, it will save you some time.
Wimbley has been in coverage for three years now. Fix the secondary and we can turn him loose again.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Yes he plays coverage, but so do other OLB’s.
But here is a thought. Maybe Wimbley is in coverage more than other OLB’s because the coaching staff has decided that he isn’t a pass rusher? I am not saying that his ability to cover is not valuable, but I equate it with a first baseman that can do a lot of things but doesn’t have any power. He may be a good player, but he isn’t giving you what you need most.
Rob Ryan is Wimbley’s third defensive coordinator. He has played under three so-called defensive guru’s (Crennel, Mangini, and I am being liberal with Ryan). Other than his rookie season, he has been medicore at best as a pass rusher.
Crazy idea, but what about moving Wimbley inside?
I love the idea of a Roth/Trusnik, Wimbley, DQ, Morgan as our LB’s. With Rogers protecting Wimbley, he should be able to use his most valuable assest, speed, all over the field. Plus Wimbley coming through the A gap is sweet thought.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
But here is a thought. Maybe Wimbley is in coverage more than other OLB’s because the coaching staff has decided that he isn’t a pass rusher? I am not saying that his ability to cover is not valuable, but I equate it with a first baseman that can do a lot of things but doesn’t have any power. He may be a good player, but he isn’t giving you what you need most.
When you’re so thin in the secondary that your number two corner is McDonald, and guys like Hank Poteat, Mike Furrey and Terry Cousin get significant playing time,you have to drop a linebacker who can cover into coverage.
What we need most are players in the secondary. Wimbley’s playing the pass most of the time, yet still led the team in sacks. When he’s asked to bring it, he can bring it. Add some quality players to the secondary, and we can turn Wimbley loose.
Rob Ryan is Wimbley’s third defensive coordinator. He has played under three so-called defensive guru’s (Crennel, Mangini, and I am being liberal with Ryan). Other than his rookie season, he has been medicore at best as a pass rusher.
Yes, he’s played under multiple coordinators and multiple gurus, but all of those coordinators (other than Mel Tucker) and gurus believe in bringing pressure ‘from different angles and from different people’, as Terry Pluto put it in today’s PD. We generate pressure via scheme, not with playmakers, which is a major reason why our defense improved once our best playmaker went down — Rubin played his role in the defense; Rogers ‘freelanced’ (again, Pluto).
Look at the Patriots. They won three Superbowls without a single player cracking double digits in sacks (McGinest had 9.5 in 2004, Vrabel had 9.5 in 2003, Pleasant and Mcginist tied for the team lead with 6 in 2001). They brought pressure from everywhere.
Crazy idea, but what about moving Wimbley inside?
I don’t see why we need to. If we were going to send anyone through the A gap, I’d think it would be D’Qwell, but he’s in the same boat as Wimbley — spending all of his time in coverage and run support.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
We have needs all over this team. Draft the best player available.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yea, I think the point a lot would argue is that Haden and Berry are better than any pass rush prospect this year.
I agree completely with that. But this discussion is about who we would take if those players are not available.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
Not if the best player available is a front seven guy. We have quality and depth in the front seven (not ideal quality or ideal depth, but enough that we should look to use our early picks to shore up areas of greater need).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I don’t think we are good enough at any position to pass on the BPA.
Unless it is a RB or ILB.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly. Our defense was awful for much of the year and it wasn’t all on the secondary. I don’t know how anyone could say that we’re good enough at LB to pass on an impact pass rusher if that player is available.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 17, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
I think we’re young enough and deep enough at linebacker to make do. We have nothing in the secondary outside of Wright.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
The problem is that no CB or S is worth the 7th pick. Morgan and IMO Kindle will be such better players than Thomas or Patrick Robinson that reaching for a secondary guy isn’t worth it.
I really dislike Robinson as a prospect. He’s very overrated to me.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 18, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
Tom Heckert on Best Player Available:
“First the picks, the more picks you can get, the better we are, so that’s great. The philosophy is, everybody says ‘the best available player,’ and that’s the ideal situation, is to not have a need. Obviously, Eric and Mike and I will get together and we’ll figure out what our needs are and see if we can solve something in free agency. That’s the best case scenario, is to get some of your needs done in free agency and then worry about the draft and then take the best available player, because that’s the last thing you want to do, is force a pick in there just because of a need. That’s our goal, is to hopefully build this team where you don’t have to do that. You can draft the best player that’s available and then you don’t have to worry about reaching for somebody.”
It sounds as if Heckert isn’t opposed to reaching if a need exists. I don’t see us filling all of our many needs in free agency (especially considering the impact not having a CBA will have on free agency). I say that if it comes down to a linebacker being BPA at 7, you do what you can to trade down, or look for a player projected in the 8-12 range in the draft who fills a greater need than a linebacker.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Two points.
1. I think the above quote makes it sound like the brain trust will take BPA.
2.
I don’t see us filling all of our many needs in free agency (especially considering the impact not having a CBA will have on free agency).
I think the other way. I think it is going to be a bloodbath this off-season. Teams are being a get out of jail free card on bad contracts. We are going to see players that we haven’t even thought of that will be cut. Charlie Casserley just named a great name for the Browns, Kerry Rhodes. He lost his job in NY this season and had his best seasons under Mangini. He is due a bonus after the season and will be cut. It wouldn’t shock me that we cut Corey Williams. Reggie Bush and any other over paid player should be cut.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Bush is a restricted free agent, so he will probably be given some form of tender scaring away every other team in the league.
I double checked, Reggie Bush signed a 6 year contract in ‘06. I don’t think he is a RFA.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
Apologies, sometimes I try to fly too much off of the top of my head. It’ll be interesting if they do decide to cut Bush. I also wonder if his good performance in the playoff game will have much impact on the decision.
No hard feelings, I make mistakes all the time.
By the way, if we move Cribbs, I would be very interested in Reggie Bush.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 2:19 AM EST up reply actions
this is a good move. while rhodes didn’t have a good season, he really blossomed under mangini (and then regressed this year). While I still do not love elam really, I wouldn’t mind the jets safeties back there (elam and rhodes). rhodes is a good enough player to start if we don’t land berry.
what do you think the chances are than NE resigns bodden?
He seems to have recovered from the injuries that slowed him in Detroit. I wouldn’t mind him as a third corner at all.
I would say he is better than BMac though. so even i we don’t draft anybody or get another FA, I see him as a number 2. his speed was never spectacular, but neither was BMac’s. he also is still under 30 and should still have decent speed. where he is really valuable is his man coverage instincts and his ability to play man. BMac makes too many poor reads.
I would rather have Michael Bush than Reggie Bush
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 17, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
very good points. our secondary is bad and i would say that needs the most work.
true, you can survive without double digit sack guys and morgan probably won’t be that but he would be a guy who gets about 8-9 (so he is close). that being said, I think next year wimbley gets at least 7.5 sacks (i would take the over in an over/under on 7) and roth could get 8 or so.
Who would you all prefer between Morgan and Kindle
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 17, 2010 6:58 PM EST reply actions
I’d definitely want the one that would be a better fit for the 3-4. Not sure who that is at this point.
I think Kindle, because he used to play OLB so he can play in coverage.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 17, 2010 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
I like Morgan because I think his ceiling his higher than Kindle.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 12:53 AM EST up reply actions
Kindle. Better pass rusher, better motor, better speed. He can and will get stronger and better at stopping the run. I don’t know if Morgan will be fast enough to finish plays in the NFL if he can’t chase down Ricky Stanzi. I want to see Pierre-Paul try to cover guys, too.
I am a huge Pierre-Paul fan, but I think he is more of a Justin Tuck type DE, not a hybrid guy.
by TheRealSlimShady on Jan 18, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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
- 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
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
