A gameplan for the Browns' draft.
by jaws. on Feb 1, 2010 2:18 PM EST
219 comments
Inspired by this post discussing the Browns' potential options in free agency, I wondered what my draft board would look like if I was sitting next to Holmgren and Heckert in the Browns' war room. Assuming the Browns did make a splash and land a free agent like Karlos Dansby, what would your Browns draft board look like?
Pick -by- Pick preview of how I would view each pick after the jump.
First Round Pick (7)
1) Eric Berry S, Tennessee
2) Joe Haden CB, Florida
3) Rolando McClain LB, Alabama
It might be a bit of wishful thinking that Eric Berry might slip to #7. However if he does of course the Browns would jump at him. Joe Haden isn't a bad consolation prize and the dozens of mock drafts that have the Browns selecting Haden might be on to something. If both Berry and Haden are selected before #7 (nightmare scenario) the Browns would probably be best served trading down 5-7 spots looking to select Rolando McClain.
Second Round Pick (38)
1) Mike Iupati OG, Idaho
2) Mardy Gilyard WR, Cincinatti
3) Brandon Graham DE, that school up north.
4) Ryan Matthews RB, Fresno State
Mike Iupati figures to be the first guard selected in this draft and his stock is on the rise thanks to a great week of Senior Bowl practices. Most mocks have him going late in the first round but if he were to fall to us at #38 he would be a tremendous value. I know the Browns don't have a great history when drafting WR in the second round but by all accounts Gilyard has looked like the real deal in front of the NFL scouts. Likewise virtually every account of senior bowl practices has rave reviews of UM defensive end Brandon Graham, if he fell to us in the second round he would be a fantastic value.
Third Round Pick (72)
1) Myron Rolle S, Florida State
2) Javier Arenas CB, Alabama
3) Sean Weatherspoon LB, Missouri
4) Jon Asamoah OG, Illinois
I have to confess I love Myron Rolle. The All-American safety turned Rhodes Scholar who just so happened to work out religiously during his year of study in England, and showed up to the Senior Bowl in the best shape hes ever been in, and looked good to the scouts to boot. Talk about self-motivated. If the Browns could land Rolle with this pick, I would probably unleash a John Rocker-esque fist pump of joy. Arenas would make a great nickel corner and despite his size has shown good instincts around the ball.
Third Round Pick (93)
1) LeGarrotte Blount RB Oregon
2) Koa Misi LB Utah
3) Pat Angerer LB Iowa
4) Darryl Sharpton LB Miami
Mel Kiper says the Browns needs a big bruiser of a RB and Blount fits the bill. He has had some off the field issues and needs some work on his field vision and patience. This kid is the kind of athlete who can really be a star in the NFL. If he falls this far in the draft (hes a big talent but with the obvious baggage) I would take a chance on him.
From here the Browns have a ton of options because they have 6 picks in the final 4 rounds of the draft. A couple of names I'd have my eye on in the later rounds:
1) Ciron Black OT LSU
Good size and great character for a guy who was the keystone of LSU's offensive line for the last 3 seasons. Showed great durability starting 40 consecutive games for the Tigers. Black's current grade places him at a good value in the fourth round.
2) Jimmy Graham TE Miami
Ok this is my token "Project" pick. Graham has fantastic size and athletic ability but is totally unpolished. After using up his basketball eligibility Graham chose to play one season of football for the 'Canes instead of heading across the pond to play basketball with the euros. Turns out this kid is a pretty effective weapon on the gridiron and scored 5TDs this season. Not a great route runner or blocker but just might be the next Antonio Gates, you never know. He is graded as a fifth round talent and that means the Browns are in a great position to take him, having an early 5th pick (131) and two additional picks in the fifth round (just in case he is a bust).
0 recs |
219 comments
Email
Print
Comments
needs some work on his field vision
correct me if i’m wrong, but i don’t think there’s really any way to improve vision, you either have it or you don’t.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 1, 2010 6:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
He has had some off the field issues
also im sure his issues are about as on field as they get
by jsneides on Feb 2, 2010 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can we have a rule for mock drafts on this site? NO WIDE RECEIVERS IN THE SECOND ROUND!!!
Brandon Graham was certainly fun to watch in the Senior Bowl. He blew by the LT both inside and outside. He played at twice the speed as all of the other players on the field.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Feb 1, 2010 6:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yep…you read terry pluto’s column too???
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm. Are you outright assuming we´re going to a 4-3?
by mooncamping on Feb 3, 2010 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
assuming Graham can make the transition to rush OLB (like Orakpo)
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 3, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t answer him like a normal human being.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Feb 3, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
graham definitely can transition though.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. Never use transition and definitely in the same sentence ever again.
Nothing is ever definite for a 4-3 DE to turn into a 3-4 OLB. Just ask Vernon Gholston.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Feb 3, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from his height and weight, nothing about Gholston’s game made it seem like he could transition. Graham is quite the opposite. That said, nothing is definite.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree nothing is definite. I would say he has a good chance but definite was more my opinion.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jimmy Graham would be a nice pickup in the later rounds. If he’s gone I’d look at Moeaki if he ‘s still there. Healthy he’s a 6’4 255 lb basketball athlete who can block. Injury is a major concern but I’d risk a 5 or 6 on him if the doctors say he can play.
"I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren
by johnnyphoenix on Feb 1, 2010 10:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
1st round: I love all those guys.
2nd: besides gilyard I love the options. I just don’t feel comfortable taking an WR in the second round with our history there…especially I feel less confident about gilyard. If we don’t get haden though I would consider a top CB (like Ghee or Kyle Wilson) there. I would also consider Daryl Washington from TCU. with a few pounds added on, he could be a great ILB.
3rd rounders: I am not personally a fan of javier arenas. he has good skills but is still a little raw in coverage (didn’t play a ton at CB) and doesn’t have elite speed…plus I don’t consider height that much but his height really is a hindrance. I also am not as high on rolle as some others. he could be good but I am not salivating over him. I also think blount is a stretch in the 3rd.
some guys I would consider in the 3rd. trevard lindley if we haven’t taken a CB yet (he reminds me of a more talented leigh bodden), Mike Neal (DT who is over 300 pounds and has enough size to play a couple snaps a game at nose), Ciron black who we would be lucky to get in the 3rd honestly, Micah Johnson (if we didn’t pick up an ILB).
but overall…some good options.
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 12:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like that Wilson pick in the second. I say screw the 1st round CB and pick up a awesome RT.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 2, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think there are any that would come close to justifying a 7th overall pick. (Unless Okung falls to us and we move to him to the right side.)
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 2, 2010 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but I don’t see Okung as being a true RT. running backs run much more to the right side. Okung is not the run blocker you would need at RT. I would consider McClain over Okung.
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So I guess you agree with me that it is not realistic to take a tackle at 7.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 2, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes.
a RT is rarely worth the value that the 7th overall pick carries. we already have a pure LT. LTs and RTs are similar but not the same. Okung is not a RT.
It is realistic to take an LT there if you don’t have an elite LT. we do though.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 12:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They are both important positions. I don’t see your logic in saying that RT isn’t as important.
running backs run much more to the right side
Double talk much?
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 3, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think you’d be hard pressed to find a coach or GM who doesn’t think a RT is less important than a LT.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 3, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s saying. He’s going off what the “draft experts” say and doesn’t know what’s real.
“You can’t draft a RT because he’s not in Mel’s top 20”.
Give me a fuckin’ break!
We could EASILY draft the best lineman on the board for the RT possition, then get Wilson in the 2nd to opposite Wright. It just sounds good to me.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 3, 2010 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The issue is that LT must protect the “blind side” and often goes against the best pass rusher the other team has to offer.
The RT must be able to pass block well enough so that the defense doesn’t flip their best pass rusher over there to dominate him (as in, do what Dumervil did to St. Clair in this year’s Denver game).
That said, a RT can often get by with significantly less movement skills because the QB can “periph” his block, while he cannot see the LT’s block.
Also, when running to the right, some teams will ask the LT to pull all the way around on a play like the power play. That means the RT just has to be able to push the guy in front of him, while the LT has to have the agility and speed to get all the way to the other side of the line, find his guy, square him up, and THEN push his guy. At LT, you are looking for a 310lbs+ man with the power of a bear and the balance and grace of a ballerina. The RT can be someone with the power of a bear and less grace, which is a much more common and thus less valuable player.
That’s the conventional thinking, anyway.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s down right ridiculous Mr. Rufio. A RT should be capable of pulling to the left. He’s gotta move, baby! He just not some big moron taking up space like you claim him to be. Yes, protecting the "blind side" is very important, but protecting the front side is also. Which is why I don’t understand why this is up for debate.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 4, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is not at all what I said. A RT is by no means some big moron taking up space.
Your RT should probably be the 2nd best pass protector on your line and has an edge of his own to protect. The LT just has to be on a whole ‘nother level. Like I said, if your RT sucks, the other team can just flip their line and then you’ve got Dumervil on St. Clair.
But at least your QB can see that hit coming and he doesn’t get Joe Theisman-ed, which would happen if you had St. Clair on the left and Thomas on the right.
You need a dominant blind side protector. You don’t need one AS dominant on the right. So while teams consistently reach for guys in the 1st who they think can be that kind of elite LT (Gosder Cherilus, Kwame Harris), they let guys who can play on the right fall to the later rounds. You need that one elite OT, he is invaluable.
Getting a second elite, dominant pass protector with the kind of physical talent that Jake Long or Joe Thomas have just doesn’t give you that much more on the field.
In the run game, I would all but guarantee the LT is asked to pull more and to complete blocking assignments that require more athleticism than the RT. You can even line a TE up on the right without really giving anything away to the defense and have him perform the more athletic assignment if you need. Last year when Harrison scored the long TD against Buffalo, Joe Thomas was pulling.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 4:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a reason that LT’s are paid much more than RT’s, and they’re the second-highest paid position in the NFL behind quarterbacks. The proof is in the money — LT’s are more valuable that RT’s. That doesn’t mean that RT’s aren’t important, of course, but they’re clearly behind LT’s.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 4, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll agree that they are different positions that require different skills, but why not have two awesome Tackles? What’s wrong with having the best line in the league?
Look at our line. The right side is freaking garbage. There are 3-5 OTs that will be taken in the first this year. I think we should steal one and put him on the right.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 4, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No one’s saying anything’s wrong with it. You said that we should use a number 7 draft pick on a right tackle. I pointed out that there was not an RT in the draft worth that. You disagreed. Apparently, most people agree with my original positoin — we may all be wrong, but you have not thrown a single RT that we should draft at 7. Not a single name.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 4, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn’t have to be a ‘true’ RT, which is what I failed to say and therefor you guys aren’t understanding my point. Here’s what I’m saying… draft a sic LT and put him on the right side. You can’t go wrong with that move.
I really like Bryan Baluga from Iowa. Anthony Davis and Charles Brown aren’t as good, but both could help our line tremendously on the right side.
Just have a little faith in what I’m saying. I have a interview for Murrieta Valley H.S’s OC position in a couple months. I have also taken two Pop Warner teams to the National Championships in Florida. I know the game in and out.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 4, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
while I like Baluga, the Browns have pressing needs in the defensive secondary. If Berry or Haden is available at #7 they both present great value and fill a dire need for the Browns. However, if both Haden and Berry are gone, all bets are off. If the Browns like McClain they might take him at 7 or trade down to the middle of the round looking for a tackle or Earl Thomas.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 4, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be upset if we drafted Haden in the first. Berry is over rated in my opinion. He’s just a name.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 4, 2010 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree on berry. berry is a guy with IMO no big question marks really. him and suh are those guys who are just the safest picks in the draft.
by bross09 on Feb 5, 2010 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Thomas too. He’s a freaking stud! Him or Kyle Wilson would be excelent 2nd round picks.
I’m pretty sure Wilson will be available when we’re up in the 2nd. If we don’t grab him, I’ll throw a fucking fit.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 4, 2010 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like thomas but I don’t know exactly how well he plays against the run. he is pretty good but still could use some work. he also doesn’t seem to have that blitzing instinct and rob ryan likes to blitz everyone. I love earl thomas, don’t get me wrong, especially if we trade to around 13-15, but you earlier call berry overrated and now call thomas a freakin’ stud.
I wonder who you actually think is better??
by bross09 on Feb 5, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn’t have to be a ‘true’ RT, which is what I failed to say and therefor you guys aren’t understanding my point. Here’s what I’m saying… draft a sic LT and put him on the right side. You can’t go wrong with that move
I’m confused, why would you draft a sick LT and then move him to RT? I think the argument is that you wouldn’t want to use a 7 pick on a player who is going to end up being your RT, regardless of what position they currently play.
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
by Villeslgr on Feb 4, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me put this to where you can understand.
1. Draft a kick ass line man.
2. Put him opposite of Thomas.
3. Have a burly O-Line that is dominate on both sides.
How do you not see the common sense in that move?
I’m talking to ‘arm chairs’ here that probably don’t have any coaching experience .
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 4, 2010 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is nothing wrong with that plan.
But wouldn’t you rather be able to draft that RT in the 2nd or 3rd round, and take a CB, LB, QB, etc early?
That’s what I am saying. Guys who we can draft and who will succeed on the right side will be available later. They won’t be that much worse than the guys in the 1st.
Hell, Womack did a very good job at RT for us in the last 5 games. You don’t think there is anyone better than him in the 2nd? Our right side WAS garbage for the first 5-6 games of the season. After we pulled St. Clair, we looked much better as a unit.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree, especially the part about womack and pulling st. clair. I remember either readin somewhere or someone here bringing it up that hadnot actually graded out fairly well as a RG. we wouldn’t be great, but we would be able to survive and have an adequate line with him and womack on the right side. that being said, if we get a chance at a ciron black in the 2nd or 3rd rounds, I would definitely take him.
by bross09 on Feb 5, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we have 3-4 guys who can all play RG. Womack is the only one I kind of trust to play RT, and that’s if we are running as much as we did at the end of the season.
I wouldn’t have a problem with a RT outside of the top 15ish picks.
by rufio on Feb 5, 2010 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right I forgot all your pop warner coaching experience. What you’re really lacking however is reading comprehension experience. No where did I say that that I felt what you were suggesting was wrong. I stated that the argument which you were involved in was centered around
I think the argument is that you wouldn’t want to use a 7 pick on a player who is going to end up being your RT, regardless of what position they currently play.
I didn’t say that was my opinion nor did I say that was correct.
This is what I said
I’m confused, why would you draft a sick LT and then move him to RT
I said this because nowhere did you state your reasoning behind choosing to do this except for your desire for a burly O-line, while everyone else has presented evidence as to why it would be better to go with a different pick at that position.
How do you not see the common sense in that move?
When you are the only one anywhere advocating a positiion it is not common sense, it is your opinion.
You might want to start looking around the table.
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
by Villeslgr on Feb 5, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t go wrong with that move.
Yes you can. You can reach for a guy who you think is a sick LT and pass up an incredible player at another position.
Good luck with your interview. If you think you know everything about the game, you probably don’t. Unless your dad is a HoF coach and you are a quite accomplished defensive coordinator in your own right.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And your brother is the head coach of the Jets?
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 5, 2010 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s no HoF coach, but he’s pretty good. :)
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 5, 2010 4:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing is wrong with having the best line in the league. There is something wrong with having the best line in the league and no good players anywhere else.
The difference between an elite NFL line and an above average NFL line just isn’t enough to win a whole lot of games.
And the only way any of those OTs would be a “steal” would be if he were there in the 2nd. Which is where we should be waiting to see who falls to us.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was simply speaking in terms relative to the LT. LT vs RT value isn’t really up for debate. If you believe that Rufio’s explanation is wrong, I’m afraid that not only will most of us disagree with you, but so would just about everyone involved in the NFL and football in general.
by danvail on Feb 4, 2010 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not saying just with draft experts. the value of a RT in the draft is lower than a LT. LTs get drafted very high b/c they have to protect the blind side from the elite pass rushers (the freeneys, john abrahams, and charles grants of the world). RTs end up getting drafted lower because they are of a lesser value. Still, an RT is worth more than an interior lineman.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What if we had a left handed QB……? LT becomes a dire need. Not that we will, I’m just sayin…….if we pick a LT high, lok for a QB move
Please Lord, Just one Browns Superbowl in my lifetime.......
by DaveDawg09 on Feb 5, 2010 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t feel comfortable taking an WR in the second round with our history there
This is poor logic. If you don’t like Gilyard, fine. You don’t pass on a position because you’ve had bad luck/bad drafts at that position.
Washington is tiny. Scary tiny. His best shot in the NFL is in a “Cover-2 system”, not ours.
Neal is not big enough to play NT, not even in our 4 man fronts. That said, I think he can be a solid pro.
by rufio on Feb 2, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not just history though with WRs. I just don’t think drafting a guy there is a huge need. we could use WRs but we just drafted 2. to me it just doesn’t make as much sense as other positions.
I forgot about Washington’s size. that is true. however, he is not a ton smaller than DQwell was coming out (just saying). DQwell was 6’0-6’1 and 228 pounds at the combine. Daryl Washington is about 6’2-6’1 and I have seen between 230-235 pounds. I do agree with you he is smaller but he is not THAT much smaller than jackson.
I agree with neal. What I was saying with him is he has enough bulk to play maybe a snap or 2 a game at the position to relieve rogers or rubin. he definitely does not have the size to play the position consistently but there are guys in the league that do play nose that are of a similar size.
also, lineman do gain significant weight their first couple years. Rubin came into the league at 315 pounds and is up to 330. a lot of guys I look at and within the first couple years, they ad 15 pounds or so to their bulk (carriker did it, branch did it, etc…). I am not saying that he will be a star NT, but if his weight coming in is around the 300-305 I have been seeing in many places, in a year or two he will have enough bulk to play the occasional snap at nose (being close to 320 and 6 foot 3).
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Weren’t we just praising Heckert because he was drafing BPA in the 2nd? Who cares about need? We need good players, that’s all. It isn’t like we are competing for the super bowl and need that one last piece to the puzzle. We need players.
Rubin did not come in to the league at 315, nor do I believe he is 330 now. Some of our ends are 330. Furthermore, I don’t think you can add that a guy has the potential to do something like add 15 healthy pounds to his draft resumé. Neal is not a NT, and if he suddenly legally, healthily added strength and bulk and could play. He can play DE for us right now, and he does not have the ability to play NT right now, and we can’t count on his ability to be able to play NT in the future.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rubin weighed in at the combine at 315.
In most places I see his weight at 330.
I am not saying at all that we should draft him because he might have the ability to play NT. that late, he is a good pickup just for his ability to play DE.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
320.
I am guessing he went through a lot of workouts/dieting to try to slim down for the combine, so 320 was probably quite small for him.
Regardless of that, I have a hard time believing he is below 340 right now, my guess would be 355, and I don’t care what you read his weight as. Rogers is consistently listed at 350, and he has said he played last year at about 370—and this type of thing is quite common among NT/DTs.
And, aside from that, weight isn’t what determines a NT’s career. Kelly Gregg is a very good NT, and he is tiny compared to the rest of them. The real reason Neal can’t play the nose is because he can’t play the nose. It is there on tape.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you completely.
my only argument (which admittedly wasn’t a good argument) was that he would have enough size to occaionally play a snap there. (like 2-3 snaps a game or something like that).
I agree with you on the whole listed vs actual weight thing. I should have taken that into account but didn’t.
either way, that whole part of my argument was off.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, 5 lbs at the combine isn’t all that much, especially on a 315+ guy.
Maybe Neal could eventually play on a few passing downs at NT, I didn’t realize that was what you were saying.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 4:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah.
that was all I was trying to say. maybe I worded it badly. I just though coming out he had good size for a 3-4 DE. in general though, in that round he is a good pickup overall just for a DE.
by bross09 on Feb 4, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think 3rd or 4th. I think i suggested taking him with our 2nd pick in the 3rd.
by bross09 on Feb 4, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
tell you the truth I am hesitant to take wideouts high in the draft too, but Gilyard was a man among boys at the senior bowl all week. He has adequate size and decent speed. While he isn’t going to become an elite deep threat, he runs polished routes and is the fastest guy in the draft in and out of his cuts. If he and Robiskie could develop the ability to recognize holes in zone coverage the Browns would have two guys who absolutely fit Mike Holmgren’s west coast system.
by jaws. on Feb 3, 2010 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I also think there are just bigger needs. yes we could use a WR but a WR will not make as much of an impact as an Inside LB, a Corner, a guy on the right side of the line, or a pass rusher.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Teams that draft WRs high consistently:
a. Suck
b. Suck at evaluating WRs
by Roger Dorn on Feb 3, 2010 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s true, but you could say the same thing about any position. If a team is drafting any position high consistantly then they’re probably not hitting on their picks so they suck at evaluating talent. I don’t think there is really anything special about WR’s when it comes to that statement.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 3, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really agree. There are teams that can consistently draft any specific position on the defensive side of the ball high and still field a quality team. Depth and talent in some areas is just more important than at WR.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 3, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I would say that if you’re consistently drafting CB’s or DE’s high (for example) then you’re doing something wrong as well.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 3, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could be way off base here, but haven’t the packers been spending high draft picks on linebackers for a few years now?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 3, 2010 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve taken a LB in the first two rounds three times in the past eight years. That may be more than some teams but I wouldn’t say it’s anything unusual. They have taken a LB in the first round twice in the past four drafts (Hawk and Matthews) so maybe that’s what you’re thinking of, but again I wouldn’t call that unusual.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 3, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they drafted matthews so he could play OLB in the 3-4. they have drafted guys that fit their scheme.
the thing is more like the browns drafting WRs several years in a row.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we’ve already sucked at evaluating WRs, why not draft another one now that we (hopefully, potentially) don’t suck at such evaluation anymore?
As in, if you are Matt Millen and you pass on Calvin Johnson (after admittedly making a few really dumb moves) is that really a better decision than drafting him?
I say no.
WR is still a need, and if there are great players out there, why not take them?
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Given where the Lions were at, Calvin Johnson was and is still not the best choice. And I think he is awesome.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 4, 2010 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excepting possibly QBs, when there is elite talent available you take it. I’ll grant that Thomas may have been a better pick, but they’re both looking like HoF candidates. I refuse to condemn the pick on that basis, though.
by danvail on Feb 4, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LT is far more important than WR. It’s impossible to say Calvin is on pace for the HoF at this point.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 4, 2010 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I called him a candidate, meaning he has the personal tools needed to reach it.
I don’t think it would be fair to set Thomas ahead of CJ in a HoF race at this point.
LT may be more important (and I’d like to hear what football insiders have to say about this), but it’s at minimum a stretch to say LT is “far” more important.
Here’s the bottomline: while you could say that there might have been one more valuable player available to the Lions on that pick, to call out the choice and state emphatically that is wasn’t the best choice implies it was a mistake. There’s no way I’m comfortable calling that pick a mistake.
Most or second most talented pick of the draft + most or second most valuable pick of the draft = great pick.
by danvail on Feb 4, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thomas has made 3 pro bowls and is probably the best LT in the game right now.
Calvin just came off an injury plagued 3rd season, and has really only produced at close to a HoF caliber level in his 2nd season. I love Calvin, don’t get me wrong, but Thomas is way ahead right now.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 4, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed but I would not yet even put money on either being HOFers…even thomas. there are injuries, regression. even for him it is still too early but I agree he is way ahead.
by bross09 on Feb 4, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
okay, but thomas isn’t gonna regress. don’t disagree entirely with your point, but thomas isn’t regressing in this lifetime.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 12, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not even gonna disagree. I am not going to say it is a guarantee he doesn’t but I would put money on him not regressing.
my point is to project 3rd year players as HOFers at this point is ridiculous. Although I think the HOF is entirely possible for thomas.
by bross09 on Feb 12, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson is one of the rare WRs who can produce with a bad line, a bad QB, and other bad skill players around him, despite the defense rolling everything his way.
The Lions knew they would be picking in the top 10 sometime soon and could have banked on getting a LT then.
That said, I thought they picked 4th that year, not 2nd.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But I would argue that concerns over picking a WR in the top 5 would be different than picking one in the top 5 of the second round.
In the top 5, you must consider positional value and player talent because almost all the players are still on the board. You can’t have a player who slipped to you at #2 overall. In the 2nd, you can have a WR “fall” to you.
I think taking Dez Bryant with the 7th overall pick would probably be foolish. If he were there in the 2nd, I would have no problem with us picking him.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on positional value. There are certain positions that GMs feel are worth more. This is why I don’t think Suh will go number 1. I think he is worth the #1 pick but with that first overall pick in the draft, teams usually want to grab a face of the franchise. since peyton manning was drafted (including that year) there were maybe only 3 years where a QB didn’t go #1.
history of the draft shows that teams might seem like they will go after player talent first, but on draft day end up going QB b/c of positional value. in 2007, many people thought Calvin Johnson would go to the raiders. it made a lot of sense b/c he was a skill position player but al davis ended up drafting russell.
the only times QBs are not drafted @1 are in some of the worst QB draft classes. I will not say this class is spectacular but it isn’t the worst. it is the middle of the pack.
by bross09 on Feb 4, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is possible that a QB goes #1, but I would probably say a guy with Suh’s size, strength, consistency, and talent is rare. Supply and demand. There are only so many Suhs out there.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that statement too.
I also look at history. many said the same thing about calvin johnson (but I think suh is a much rarer breed) and there was much talk al davis would draft him. davis drafted a QB to be the face of a franchise.
To me it is about positional value, PR and Marketing. QBs are usually taken with the first pick in this mass media day in age. I don’t think they always should be but that is what the people who run the teams think should be done. these people want that face that they can market as the face of a franchise. if a team has the #1 overall pick, there is obviously turmoil. they want to market the franchise to the fans and have that one guy that the players can get behind and truly root for. fans in general do not root for an amazing DT like many of us might with suh (i will root for him whichever team he goes to honestly) and they usually try to root for the QB because he is the most visible. because of this, they use words like “QB of the future” which is a QB that is young, was drafted high, and is being groomed to be a leader of the team and face of the franchise.
I also went back and looked and just about all (if not all) teams in very modern football that didn’t draft a QB number 1, had recently drafted a QB high in the draft and they were hoping this QB would be their QB of the future, traded for a promising young QB, or traded for an quality QB before the draft.
-2008 Dolphins-Had not drafted a QB high for a while but had just acquired chad pennington, a pro bowler and former first rd pick. they also got chad henne in the 2nd.
-2005 Texans-Drafted Car #1 overall. actually starting to show promise.
-2000 Browns-you really think even the worst GM in the league would draft a QB 2 years in a row??
-1997 Rams-They had drafted Charlie batch recently and were grooming him…plus they got orlando pace (and it was a weak QB draft with only one in the 1st and only 1 guy who was a multiple yr starter, jake plummer, taken 42 overall)
-1996 Jets (traded for Neil O’Donnel Before draft. good starter entering his prime)
-1995 bengals (acquired jeff blake in ’94 and played well for them and was young)
-1994 bengals (same as above…forgot to mention drafted david klinger in first in ’92 and were grooming him)
-1987 bucs (I wanted to stop at ’90 but had to point out that this team drafted steve young, decided he was a bust and TRADED HIM and then in ’89 drafted testaverde)
-1992 colts (drafted jeff george #1 overall 2 yrs before…george wasn’t great but it was a horrible QB draft anyways)
-1991 cowboys (AIKMAN…FIRST OVERALL PICK IN ’89)
in the past 30 years, there have only been TWICE that a QB was not drafted first overall AND the team did not have a young QB in the wings
-1985 Bills. this was a relatively weak QB class. the best in it was kosar (who I love but only was drafted at the end of the first). they also drafted HOFer bruce smith so I am not going to criticize the pick either.
-1980 lions. they desperately needed a QB. sadly this draft though was devoid of QBs too. the best was a late first rounder who started 53 games and had an overall QB rating of 62. the 2nd best was probably paul mcdonald (who was a mostly just a backup on the browns and started for 1 season after sipe retired, then was a bench player once kosar was drafted).
I know it was a lot, but at the same time to find a team that really needed a QB and didn’t take one, you have to go back 25 years. on the rams roster they have Bulger who is completely washed up, Boller who was a former #1 pick but now a bust, and Keith Null, a 6th rounder last year.
(also, when I was on football reference, I saw projected record…I was curious at the browns…and the way they performed, they should have won 1 less game…I commend mangini for that)
I know this was very long but the point of it all is that history tells us that a team drafting #1 that definitely needs a QB and has no promising player/established starter on their team, will more often than not draft a QB. only twice out of 30 years has a team not. I would assess QB as one of the biggest needs for the saints.
A conservative prediction that they will take clausen (or bradford) IMO is about 88 percent.
the percentage of times a QB was not taken/not needed was 93 1/3 percent of the time (only twice not taken when needed out of 30 drafts).
the percentage of times that a QB was not taken and was also not needed was 83 1/3 percent of times a QB wasn’t taken.
the average of those is 88 percent. I feel the chances are above 90 because history speaks for itself.
Don’t misunderstand this whole thing. I think suh is the best player in the draft (and berry is 2nd) but history is history and I am putting my money on the history of the draft.
by bross09 on Feb 5, 2010 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you really loved Kosar, you would know he wasn’t drafted at “the end of the first.” He was the first guy taken in the Supplmental Draft that year — it was a huge story at the time, because we pulled some shenanigans to do it and there was some sort of arbitration with another team over the whole thing.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 5, 2010 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes…I typed that and then realized that he was a supplamental and didn’t change it. I knew he was a supplamental though. he was still at the end of the first technically (he was between the first and the 2nd rounds).
the point is more that when do you see a QB not drafted #1 overall?? when a team does not need a QB…
by bross09 on Feb 5, 2010 2:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I read about 25% of that. The reason people continuously take QBs high is because there is such a high demand for them because of the few who are elite in the league and the amount of difference they make on a team.
Wins = Marketing.
by rufio on Feb 5, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree…Sorry it was so long…
I totally understand why they do it.
I just have noticed that if a team needs a QB and drafts #1, they will just about always draft a QB. the teams that did not draft a QB #1 just about all had recently drafted a QB in the first round and already had that guy they were grooming to be the “QB of the future”. if not that, they had recently acquired a very good veteran starter.
by bross09 on Feb 6, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this the longest comment ever posted?
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 5, 2010 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It might have been shorter if it was the first comment (so it was wider). it is not wide at all. I tried to break it up though…
cliff notes.
-QBs almost always go #1
-when they don’t it is usually b/c the team already has drafted a QB high within the last 3 drafts
-The rams have suckky QBs;
by bross09 on Feb 6, 2010 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a guy with Suh’s size, strength, consistency, and talent is rare.
We hear that every year
by Rocland on Feb 5, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes and every year the team drafts a QB instead (unless they recently drafted a QB high)
by bross09 on Feb 5, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Went back and looked at Dorsey’s college stats.
My bad. I withdraw that picture.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 5, 2010 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dorsey wasn’t nearly as consistent as Suh.
Dorsey’s best season is very comparable to Suh’s junior year.
Suh’s senior year was far and away better than anyone else I could think of (Dan Wilkinson, Steve Etman).
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 8, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dorsey was inconsistent all the time. Not only season-to-season, but game-to-game, and often play to play. He’d look great one play, flashing his ridiculous potential, and then he’d disappear.
Suh wins his matchup much more consistently.
by rufio on Feb 8, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To my amateur talent scouting eye, Dorsey was not in Suh’s league in college games.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 9, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s true, but do you really think that suh is a surefire lock at all at going #1?
by bross09 on Feb 9, 2010 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the NFL draft. There are no surefire locks.
by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 2:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is very very likely Suh goes number 1.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree… completely. i think it is almost certain that a QB goes #1.
can you name the last time a DT went #1 overall???
by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really care when the last time a DT went number 1 overall was. I am saying based on what I know about the Rams and the fact that I follow the team somewhat, I believe the Rams will select Suh number 1 overall.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
based on what I know about the draft and the history of the draft, they will take a QB.
by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
uhhh, suh isn’t very consistent himself
by Rocland on Feb 12, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?!? He was dominant in every game this season . . . how much more consistant can he be?
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 13, 2010 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I read somewhere (think it was walterfootball’s scouting report) about Suh maybe being a “one year wonder”, so maybe that’s what he means.
by emily522 on Feb 15, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He impressed me last year, too, after BQiB/TRSS linked some of his highlights here. His junior film showed a lot of the things his senior film did. And it would be natural to see a lot of growth over the course of a college player’s career.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Feb 15, 2010 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant that he was shut down in some games this year just like Dorsey was his final year. But the consensus was that Dorsey was just as dominant as Suh is being portrayed this year. Most people already had Dorsey locked into the hall of fame before he even stepped into the league.
by Rocland on Feb 17, 2010 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, he was not at the elite level last year that he was this year, but what college player performs at that level for 4 years? he was already considered one of the top 5-15 prospects coming into the preseason by many. this is just going off of talent and his junior season.
by bross09 on Feb 15, 2010 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren’t we writting off Momass & Robo a little quickly here? WR’s usually take 2-3 years to really fit in in the NFL. They may be fine and drafting another WR will just put one more confused, talented rookie on the field. We don’t need a rookie WR, we need a vetran WR.
by Crazy Ray on Feb 3, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to grab a veteran like Chambers. That said, I wouldn’t mind drafting a WR in the 2nd if Holmgren and Heckert saw one they liked. If all 3 youngsters worked out, great, we have 3 good WRs and could trade one. If not, we still hopefully have more than one good WR.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I look at it like this.
Regardless of position, we need playmakers.
If the FO thinks they have a draftable playmaker in the second round, they damn well better draft him no matter what the position.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 4, 2010 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think Robo or Mass have the physical or natural talent to be anything more than decent NFL WR’s. Robo looks lost out there and Mass won’t out-jump, out-run, out-hustle or out-muscle most CB’s so I’m not comfortable depending on him as a #1 WR.
by Rocland on Feb 4, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on Robo & Mass but unless there is a WR that is head & shoulders above the rest of the draft class, we don’t need another rookie WR picked at #1 or #2. We need someone that has been around the block a few times.
by Crazy Ray on Feb 4, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think the Bengals might get to him first.
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
by Villeslgr on Feb 5, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If he and Robiskie could develop the ability to recognize holes in zone coverage the Browns would have two guys who absolutely fit Mike Holmgren’s west coast system.
I’d really like you to explain this. Because I view Robiskie and Gilyard as very different types of players, I can’t think of any characteristics they both share that wouldn’t make them just “good receivers” but “good fits for Mike Holmgren’s west coast system” (which we may or may not be running next year, as Holmgren is not coaching).
So yeah, if they can both run good routes, are good in and out of their cuts, and can recognize holes in zone coverage and they are both on the Browns, great. But I don’t see how any of that is exclusive to the West Coast.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not exclusive to the west coast offense, but traditional prototype receivers of the west coast offense are wide receivers who can run good precise routes, break open at the right times, catch the ball in traffic and find holes in the zone. Conversely, vertical passing attack type offenses often demand larger, faster receivers who are more suited to attack the field vertically, but do not necessarily have to run absolutely perfect routes or develop perfect timing of their cuts so as to break open in perfect sync with the quarterback.
According to scouting reports for the draft this year and last, Gilyard and Robiskie both share these traditional west coast possession receiver qualities, while neither has elite size or speed.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 4, 2010 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say Robiskie has pretty good size for a WR. 6’3" is tall enough to play for San Diego. As I understand it, Walsh actually liked bigger WRs because they needed to go over the middle for him. Gilyard does not seem to fit that mold. And honestly, I don’t think Gilyard’s routes are particularly good. He did seem to develop a nice connection/timing with Pike, though.
Route running is important regardless of system, and Holmgren’s version of the WCO has adapted to fit personnel. A WCO QB is commonly thought to be a QB who is deadly accurate and good at throwing short routes. Does that sound like Favre to you? Holmgren made it work. The Eagles drafted players like Maclin and Jackson, who were both highly rated because of their speed and not necessarily their precise routes or timing. Reid (a Holmgren disciple) and Heckert made it work.
Maybe I just don’t buy in to the mysticism surrounding the WCO, or the belief that somehow the type of player we need will change based on it’s concepts. I would be happy to draft Gilyard, but I don’t think we need to be looking at a particular type of offensive player, we just need good ones.
by rufio on Feb 4, 2010 5:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you completely. A great coach can both find players who fit their system and adjust their system to fit their player’s unique talents (like Holmgren and Favre)
The main praise for both Robiskie and Gilyard that the draft “experts” have used is polished route running above and beyond their peers. Because of this, a short passing WCO is probably the system that is most designed to take advantage of their talents immediately, to take nothing away from their ability to have success in other systems.
In addition, unlike Robiskie, so far Gilyard is looking like a pretty good value early in the second round, rather than a reach. If he is there at #38, the Browns should consider it.
Like you said, however, thats no reason to go completely out of our way to draft certain guys, hopefully Holmgren and Heckert will find guys who are good values at each draft selection, and Mangini and the coaching staff can then gameplan around the strengths of the players that they have.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 4, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Browns have much more pressing needs than DT I’m afraid. If Rogers and Rubin can share snaps at NT (Rubin on running downs and Rodgers on 3rd and long) Rodgers can also get some snaps at 5 tech. It seems like the position is set for at least one season. Injecting some youth at 5tech DE and some athleticism at ILB seem to be more prudent moves.
if we had some depth and athleticism at LB the browns would probably be well served to use the Belicheck 1-5-5 nickel set. with Rogers lined up at nose to collapse the pocket and 5 linebackers for the more athletic pass rush or zone coverage.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 3, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We used the 0-6-5 set last year, and maybe a 0-7-4 as well. LB depth is not our problem. The problem with our LBs is that we have a lot of solid role players with no stars. We need star-caliber talent there.
Our biggest need is QB, then 2+DBs who are better than McDonald/Furrey. After that, then you can debate RT, star-caliber RB/WR/TE, and star-caliber front 7 guy.
That said, screw need, draft players. We need players with elite talent and we need them wherever we can get them. There are no positions outside of LT and C that we should be taking off our draft boards at any point in the draft.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can take FB off the board imo.
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 Feb 4, 2010 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did LeGarrette Blount have a lot of off the field issues before the incident against Boise State?
by BornInThePound on Feb 2, 2010 12:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
showed up to training camp last year out of shape.
by jaws. on Feb 2, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he had been suspended twice for violating team rules
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 3, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats a lot of baggage for a player that was projected a first round pick and is still considered a 4th or 5th round pick after being suspended.
Do you guys think he would be worth a flier in the 5th? That is if we pass on a RB in rounds 2 & 3. I understand no team wants to have players on their roster with this kind of background, but as long as you don’t overload the team with these kinds of players I don’t think it would hurt.
by BornInThePound on Feb 3, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d be very careful about how i structured that contract, but yeah i wouldn’t mind throwing one of our 3 fifth rounders at him.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Feb 3, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Heckert wanted Gilyard, he could probably wait for the 4th round.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 2, 2010 5:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
After the Senior Bowl, Gilyard’s stock jumped up, he’ll go mid-2nd to early-3rd.
The only way I take Gilyard is if he falls to the 3rd.
by SamIngro814 on Feb 3, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Get off it. He’s not that great.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 3, 2010 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It only takes one team to think he is a 2nd rounder to make it so. I think that is actually pretty likely.
by rufio on Feb 3, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the Browns would probably be best served trading down 5-7 spots looking to select Rolando McClain.
I can’t think of a scenario where McClain isn’t gone by pick 11, if they’re not grabbing him at 7, he’s probably gone either at pick 9 or 11. (Bills and Broncos both really need an ILB)
I call it... The Avaslug!
I am the 1st and probably only official member of the David "Dr." Jones fanclub.
Syracuse Basketball 2010: Making Hoya's cry.
by UZ on Feb 3, 2010 8:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is sound by conventional standards, so congratulations on that.
But the Browns are not conventional.
1. First pick. None of these are available at pick 7. We bundle up a fat batch of late round picks, and Quinn or Anderson in some three way trade, and trade up to pick 1 for Jimmy Clausen. Neither Quinn nor Anderson are our future QB, but to take that hurdle, we darn near need to get the annointed one. No one is more talented than Jimmy Clausen, and to get him you must make a monumental statement.
2. Second Round. I want my Coroner Backs. Convert OLB Dekoda Watson, Florida State, to CB, he´s the first in this round. Then convert SS Justin Woodall, Alabama, to CB and grab him later on.
3. Third Round. Arizona State Guard Sean Luvao.
4. At this point, due to the heavy haul, our luck has run out. Keep your eyes peeled for a FREAKY FLANKER, a Speedster Receiver, or a classically proportioned (Chris Zorich) NG.
by mooncamping on Feb 3, 2010 10:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
those plaers mentioned. they are nothing special. they also don’t deserve to be drafted in the rounds you are saying. neither Dakota Watson or Woodall have the speed to ever be a Corner.
seriously, are you al davis because this seems like his drafting strategy.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Al would want speed.
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
by Villeslgr on Feb 3, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true, but only al davis would take a guy not projected to be drafted, in the 2nd round.
by bross09 on Feb 3, 2010 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do Coroner backs hit you so hard they kill you, then diagnose it while still on the field?
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 Feb 3, 2010 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Great. Now I want our next starting CB to be named Blunt Force Trauma.
by danvail on Feb 4, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mangini would never go for a player whose first name was Blunt.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 4, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps with Holmgren and Heckert though, they could see that a guy whose middle name was “Force” and whose jersey would say “TRAUMA” would be worth having around.
by danvail on Feb 4, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point. I’d buy a TRAUMA jersey myself.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 4, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want my Coroner Backs.
Are they deadly in coverage?
Heyyy-ooooooo!
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 3, 2010 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t Jack Klugman play coroner back?
by JustBob on Feb 3, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.jpg)
Alright lets trade all our picks for second round picks, then we have proof it evens out.
by mooncamping on Feb 4, 2010 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
In fact, in the already evolving future we have already done this, and due to the inevitable speculation of what mooncamping would do, it has already led everyone to predict we would do this, preemptively leading them to strategically lower these guys draft rank, to make it harder for us to procur them.
by mooncamping on Feb 4, 2010 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t even know what to say about this sentence.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 4, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he just got into a causality argument with himself. This may be a legitimate sign of schizophrenia.
by danvail on Feb 4, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all. Sometimes reality is actually changed just by reactions to someone’s stated intent, without the stated events ever actually coming to pass. Of course, whether moon’s influence stretches that far now that he’s abdicated his official role is open for debate.
Also, someday I’ll release an album entitled “The Already Evolving Future”
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 4, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A companion to the Moody Blues’ “Days of Future Past”?
by drjeo on Feb 4, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, someday I’ll release an album entitled "The Already Evolving Future"
it should be in the style of herb alpert and the tijuana brass. good stuff, and funny to envision moon blasting this in his bunker while he types out his crazy plan for world domination.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 12, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I had more of an acid jazz feel in mind, but maybe I’ll split the difference!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 12, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, let’s see: a fusion of Tiajuana Brass with Acid Jazz. Hmmm….Tiajuana Acid, maybe?
by drjeo on Feb 16, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like it. I’ll be sure to credit you when I drop that term in a press release.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Feb 16, 2010 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is a musical revolution. i’m glad i’m on board from the beginning.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 17, 2010 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I call musical agent.
RDC is now the official musician of DBN.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Feb 17, 2010 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think the name of one of the songs on the first album should be called “Fairly Hog Certain.” that has smash hit single written all over it.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 17, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It takes some panache´ to find that kind of fault within an obviously humorous statement.
Have you been diagnosing other posters based on their participation in a blog? Your onto an entirely new field of psychology here.
by mooncamping on Feb 5, 2010 6:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I´m not laughing, but glad that´s the intent.
by mooncamping on Feb 6, 2010 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Update 2/5
First:
I’m Convinced now that Eric Berry is more likely in play then we probably think. Walter Football’s mock draft has me thinking more and more that Clausen will go #1 and Suh falls to #2. If that is the case, Berry will probably fall down to Pete Carroll’s Seahawks at #6.
I’m not sold that Pete Carroll will fall completely in love with Berry especially if his own guy Taylor Mays keeps sliding down to an early second round grade. If G. McCoy goes to the Bucs at #3 and the Chiefs go with LT, Berry is definitely in play for the Browns.
Second:
With much of the focus on Rolando McClain, Brandon Spikes has slid under the radar a little bit. Like Laurinaitis and Rey Maulaluga last year, Spikes is a first round talent who could slip to the Browns Early in the second. Unless the Browns shore up the ILB position in free agency Spikes could really provide a good value and fill a need at the same time at #38. Especially with Iupati and Brandon Graham rising to the point where they are virtual locks to go in the first round now.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 5, 2010 11:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That link you gave was for the ESPN trade machine.
I hate that trade for the Cavs.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 6, 2010 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really? it feels like the cavs are getting the best of it since they only have to be without shaq and z for 30 days.
link to what he is talking about
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 6, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That trade would never happen, anyways. The Cavs wouldn’t give up both of their centers only to hope that they get a buyout and can return to the team later, which is no guarentee.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 6, 2010 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
Can’t have Andy and Stoudamire as our only bigs.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 6, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In my very amateur opinion, that trade would be terrible for the Cavs.
by rufio on Feb 7, 2010 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Terry Pluto today writes about the impact Shaq has had on the Cavs this season. We shouldn’t trade him or Z unless we get a major asset in return because we’re playing very well right now and those two have a great partnership going at center.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 7, 2010 8:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the key to the trade would be shaq and z both reaching buyouts and returning to the cavs for the rest of the season (the sixers and suns just want their big expiring contracts) the cavs are only losing JJ and Parker and would have to do with out a real center for a month while they wait for shaq and z to come back, but thats it.
As far as im concerned the cavs absolutely must make a deal right now because they dont have the cap room to resign lebron and also make any other significant play in the free agent market. They gotta make a big move and get a guy like stoudemire or iguodala now so they can go over the cap and re-sign them next year. Then LeBron might be convinced to stay. Having bigass expiring contracts and not moving them right now when they are at a premium value is a big mistake.
If the cavs don’t make a deal, they are vunerable to the upset this year (nuggets look really good.) and LeBron is gone next year to a team where he can play with D Wade or Bosh. If LeBron goes, Shaq goes, z retires, and the cavs are back to 90s mediocrity just like that.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 7, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lebron wants to play on a winning team. NY & NJ are out (would you want to play there? Rebuilding). What team can pay Lebron/Wade/Bosh and has the other parts to be a top team? Only the teams that already have one of them on their roster now. Lebron isn’t leaving.
by Crazy Ray on Feb 7, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What team can pay Lebron/Wade/Bosh and has the other parts to be a top team?
As I understand it, no one. How are you going to pick up 2 max guys and a bunch of playoff-caliber role players in one offseason?
by rufio on Feb 7, 2010 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, no one is. The only ones that could even consider it is the team with one of the three who could go over the cap to resign their own player. I don’t think any team will take on 2 top contracts. Thus, for Lebron to be on a championship caliper team, he stays in Cleveland.
by Crazy Ray on Feb 9, 2010 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, Cleveland doesn’t have the cap space to resign LeBron and sign Wade or Bosh. They would have to renounce the rights to LeBron to be able to afford one of those guys, but that means they couldn’t resign LeBron.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 9, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I’m doing a poor job of expressing it. My point is I don’t think Lebron is going anywhere. We can pay him the most AND we have an owner & GM that are always striving to improve the team.
by Crazy Ray on Feb 9, 2010 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we also have an owner who is smart and knows how to build for now AND later. ferry has publicly stated recently that unless some miraculous offer he couldn’t refuse comes along, he is not even thinking about making a trade…especially with hickson. he is impressed with hickson’s improvement and thinks it would not be smart to give him up right now.
by bross09 on Feb 9, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree. I don’t think LeBron is going anywhere either, especially if (when) the Cavs win the title this year. He knows that winning will determine his legacy and his best chance of doing that is in Cleveland. And he’s already one of the most popular athletes on the planet so he doesn’t need to play in New York to gain attention and earn more endorsement money.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 9, 2010 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think winning a championship would be an easy way to convince LeBron to stay, and the chances of that happening go down with your trade. Parker is an excellent fit for us. Bron let JJ follow him around all summer and he is beginning to understand what he needs to do to capitalize on his minutes. Amare and Shaq looked terrible together last year.
The Cavs might not even have to do win one this year. The only thing the Cavs can do is show Bron that they will spare no expense to make him happy and provide him with rings. Everything else is out of their control.
They don’t have to make any sort of move, they are the best team in the league. Just keep winning. The Nuggets look awful in comparison, and I am in their home market so I get to see them every game.
by rufio on Feb 7, 2010 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But, as I said above, it’s no guarentee that Shaq and Z would both reach buyouts and return to the Cavs and the team isn’t going to risk the chance that it doesn’t happen. The NBA doesn’t allow the Cavs to negotiate the buyout deals with the other teams before the trade and if they thought there was some kind of “handshake” agreement under the table then the Cavs could get in big trouble. So the point is that you can’t make any trade and assume that Z or Shaq will just get bought out and return to the team because that is not a certainty to happen in any trade, so it would be very risky for the Cavs to make any trade like this because it would leave them thin at center if the players aren’t bought out.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 7, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
clearly you guys aren’t thinking like cleveland sports fans. We thought we were the best team in the league last year too. The Nuggets De-constructed the lakers twice this year too, and beat them even worse than we did. not to mention they beat us once already this year. We’ll see how we they stack up to us now though when we play the second game with them.
we cant pay another “superstar” to come in here in free agency next year, the only way to get one is to make a trade now or to work some miracle sign and trade next year, but without our expiring contracts we don’t have much in trade assets that we want to give up.
There are quite a few teams that have the cap room and could potentially add 2 out of the 3 elite superstars (wade, lebron, bosh)
the team that scares me the most is the bulls. They play in a huge market, LeBron has been a fan since he was a kid, and they could have a damn good lineup around their two new mercenaries. If they get rid of kirk heinrich’s contract they have the cap room to bring in 2 of the 3 biggest free agents. Lebron could go play there with Bosh and the starting lineup would be:
D. Rose, Lebron, Lueol Deng, Chris Bosh, Joakim Noah.
If i were lebron i wouldn’t mind playing with those guys, would you?
given the cleveland curse is in play, while i have loved watching the team as-is and agree with lots of your points, i am scared that the cavs are vulnerable come playoff time, especially how they play down to the level of competition.
mo williams dissappears in the playoffs, he isn’t robin, hes jason todd. if we waste this opportunity to bring in someone who is actually a legitimate #2 superstar that can take some focus away from LeBron in the games that really matter, lebron should probably leave.
as for being afraid of not getting Z back, don’t be. The teams were talking about trading with just want to cut salary, they have no desire for Z’s services (or shaqs) they just want the expiring contract. Moreover Z doesn’t want to play anywhere else, a buyout would be mutually beneficial, the only problem with a deal like that is the cavs would have to be without z (or z AND shaq but that trade is unlikely of course) for 30 days while they wait for him to become eligible to resign.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 8, 2010 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn’t matter what Z wants; if the team doesn’t want to cut him then they won’t. My entire point is that your trade proposal has the Cavs trading both Z and Shaq and they can’t risk that because there is no guarentee that they will be coming back to the Cavs. You can hope that will happen but it doesn’t mean that it will. It’s too risky of a move for the Cavs to make. Now, I could see them trading Z if they could get the right deal, but your proposal had them trading both and that’s what I said will never happen.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 8, 2010 7:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you even know what deconstruction is? I believe the term you were looking for is “destroyed”.
The Nuggets are a mirage. Trust me.
by rufio on Feb 8, 2010 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Shaq has been exactly what they need and will be even more important in the playoffs, when matchups become so much more crucial.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 7, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup. You can see the difference already when the Cavs play the Lakers and the Magic.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 7, 2010 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Shaq will turn it up a notch at the needed time in the playoffs too. Right now he is just coasting along.
by Crazy Ray on Feb 9, 2010 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats what he always does. he starts off the season really slow but he just keeps rolling and getting better. if you look at his stats, he is better each month, each stretch of a month…by playoffs he will be close to dominant in the post
by bross09 on Feb 9, 2010 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He has been playing like a role player because he doesn’t think he needs to play like a star right now. If the playoffs roll around and Shaq feels like we need another star out there, I have a feeling he’ll be able to up his game yet again.
by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 2:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
at the same time, even when he was with phoenix and a little with miami, he has done this. even when he was in his prime, he would be averaging a few more PPGs in march compared to november. it has been more visible with age b/c he has still been good but gotten off to much slower starts.
I don’t know if you follow the indians much but if eric wedge’s coaching became an NBA player, it would be shaq right now (except probably better).
by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 3:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t sure. basically eric wedge would get the indians off to slow starts but would be awesome after the all star break. this is what shaq has been like the last few years.
by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 10:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds about right for both. Both sports have seasons that are way too long.
by rufio on Feb 11, 2010 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the Eric Wedge Metaphor fails. Wedge ran the team wound too tight early in the season and then when they tumbled out of contention he would ease off and the team would play loose and relaxed after the all star break and actually look like major leaguers.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 11, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes but in the basic sense of comparing performance after and before all star games, it does work in a sense. although the performance was so for 2 different reasons.
by bross09 on Feb 12, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never brought up any baseball “metaphor”.
by rufio on Feb 13, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. 2 weeks ago I would say yes lets make a trade…but the way the team is playing I don’t want to. it takes players a while to get acclimated to our system (wally) and it would be dumb to risk ruining a good thing.
by bross09 on Feb 6, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We are the best team in the league, have been since Christmas. Unless someone came with a deal we couldn’t refuse, I say keep things the way they are.
by rufio on Feb 7, 2010 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This year it will be okay to stay put. Holding on to Wally’s expiring contract last year was a big miscalculation, in my opinion.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 7, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems pretty easy to see now how Wally wasn’t going to be able to guard anyone in the playoffs, or to score against anyone in the playoffs. Z can score and defend people on the Magic, Lakers, Celtics, Nuggets, Hawks, etc.
by rufio on Feb 7, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. Maybe 2 weeks wasn’t the right number. I was thinking more about the beginning of the calendar year. but either way, the team has been so hot it would be dumb IMO. the deal would have to be ridiculously good IMO.
by bross09 on Feb 8, 2010 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
here’s the right link for Walter Football by the way.
copy pasted the wrong tab my bad.
"My signature is only one line. You're welcome."
by jaws. on Feb 6, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Antonio Cromartie is apparently available. Surely after only a handful of years in the league he is still valuable. What if on draft day, Berry doesn’t fall to us? I like Haden and all, but what if we tried to trade out of position 7 in a move that acquires Cromartie?
My proposition: We swap first round positions, we give them one of our 3rds and we get Cromartie. Now we hold the 28th pick in the draft, we get a good corner, and we have a chance to trade up just a bit to get Graham or Iupati (Which should be possible considering how many lower round draft picks we have).
I would prefer getting Berry, but if he doesn’t fall to us what are the chances of making a draft day trade?
"There is a small, but important difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool." - Demitri Martin
by Browns town on Feb 17, 2010 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t want this. Cromartie has a rep for making plays, but also allowing a lot of plays. The Shonne Greene TD in the playoffs was about 75% his fault.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 17, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, he does seem to be boom or bust. With that in mind, is this why the Chargers have soured on him? If that’s the case, then maybe he’s available for a lot less. What’s the most you would give for him?
"There is a small, but important difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool." - Demitri Martin
by Browns town on Feb 18, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would guess, they might be trying to capitalize on his inflated perception around the league as a playmaker. Maybe Al Davis bites.
I would give up a mid-round pick, 3rd at highest, as I feel he is a bit better than Lito Sheppard who got a 4th.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 18, 2010 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They want to get a starting running back for Cromartie so I don’t think they’d do that trade.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 18, 2010 8:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure they wish they could have Michael Turner back.
"There is a small, but important difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool." - Demitri Martin
by Browns town on Feb 18, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would do a Harrison for Cromartie deal.
I wouldn’t give up a high pick, even in a swap situation. Cromartie has slipped from his Pro Bowl level.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 18, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. This may actually be something that they could be interested in.
by Rocland on Feb 19, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not a brown's fan
I’m actually a saints fan for life, but i know you like our team has a…lets just say “not good” past. But it’s all about rebuilding, no on player will set your team straight it’s a full team concept. We started in 2006 rebuilding, dropping all our players (ie. aaron brooks) and pretty much grew from the ground up from there. I think the Browns really need to get a Free Agent QB ( like we did) and build the Defense in the draft and some FA (which by all of your mock drafts and whatnot looks like ya’ll want to do). I think Rolando McClain is what you need, he’s a natural leader in bama, and a great athlete and all around middle line-backer. The 49ers went a similar route a couple years ago taking Patrick Willis with the 11th pick. I know they’re not a huge threat by now, but they’re getting there slowly. McClain is huge too! 6’4" 258 (well for a LB he’s bigger). and idk what the chances of the browns gretting eric berry or haden will be there. and you could use an upgrade at LB anyways.
PSN: greenwald2004
Hit me up on the sticks! Madden 10 is my game now.
by greenwald200 on Feb 19, 2010 6:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Browns News/Information
Pro Football Critics
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Blogs
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities
The Watercooler
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Waiting for Next Year
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
