With Upgrade at Cornerback, is Brandon McDonald Enough to Lower CB Priority in Draft?
by Chris Pokorny on Apr 3, 2010 2:09 PM EDT
in General News
Email
PrintIn case you missed the trade between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Cleveland Browns yesterday, here is a brief summary:
The Browns traded a linebacker that Eric Mangini and Rob Ryan never seemed to favor (Alex Hall), and two of the many draft picks we've been stockpiling the past year (a fourth-rounder and a fifth rounder) to the Eagles. In exchange, Cleveland acquired a utility linebacker that Mangini covets (Chris Gocong) and a huge upgrade at cornerback in Sheldon Brown, who will most definitely be a starter. Also, the majority of Browns fans seem thrilled, while many Eagles fans seem disappointed and bitter.
I won't go into much detail on the scouting report of the two players we acquired, because Jason from our SBN Eagles affiliate already did a wonderful job with that. What I want to evaluate is how this affects CB Brandon McDonald and the need for drafting a cornerback in this month's draft.
As our draft board stands right now, Joe Haden is ranked fourth. Chances are that Eric Berry, Ndamukong Suh, and Sam Bradford will be gone when we're picking at No. 7. Prior to the acquisition of Brown, I wouldn't have minded taking a shot on Haden. With Brown on board though, certainly the mentality changes, right? While we are not very good at cornerback after Eric Wright and Brown, I don't see how you spend a draft pick that high on a player who wouldn't be able to contribute as a starter for a few years (excluding quarterbacks).
I don't buy the case that Brown is too old at the age of 31 either. Cornerbacks can still play at a high level in this league at that age (see Charles Woodson [age 33] and Champ Bailey [age 31]). Now the question becomes how comfortable you would be with Mike Adams or Brandon McDonald at the nickel back position this year. When McDonald performed poorly as a starter, many of us have always resorted to saying, "he really needs to go back to the nickel back position." Now I'm getting a little greedy though -- I see the opportunity to upgrade at the cornerback position a little later in the draft.
The question is, is cornerback still enough of a priority that we upgrade the position, or should we divert all of our attention to other positions (note: I'm not really referring to taking a flier on a cornerback in the 6th or 7th round). Here are the draft picks we currently own:
1st Round - No. 7
2nd Round - No. 38
3rd Round - No. 71
3rd Round - No. 85
3rd Round - No. 92
5th Round - No. 134
5th Round - No. 146
5th Round - No. 160
6th Round - No. 177
6th Round - No. 186
What round would you start thinking about drafting a cornerback, and did this trade influence that decision? Is Joe Haden a non-option at this point?
122 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Option 1: take Berry. Done.
Option 2: take Iupata, look for both a corner and a safety in rounds 2-5. Done.
Option 3: take Haden, move Brown to safety (where his speed is less of a liability). Done.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I’m always in favor of trading down. Option 2 and 3 would both involve a trade down.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I assume option 1 is not going to be there for us. So I vote for Option 2 plus trade down, but I fear that there will be no trade down possibilities where we could still get Iupata (I think he goes in the teens). I am beginning to think (contrary to my strongly held views to the contrary) that we should think about taking him with a 7. If we get a franchise guard — a Hutchinson type — I don’t see how we are going to look back in a few years and say that we “drafted a guard too high.”
by TheDriveStillHurts on Apr 3, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
If we get a franchise guard — a Hutchinson type — I don’t see how we are going to look back in a few years and say that we "drafted a guard too high."
agreed; but the consequences of overpicking and reaching for a guy, then having him “bust”, would be devastating at this point.
And paying a guard a top 12 salary is just insane. Thats tieing franchise quarterback, left tackle and defensive end money up into both of our guards, since Steinbach is one of the highest paid in the league already.
"Smokescreen."
And paying a guard a top 12 salary is just insane. Thats tieing franchise quarterback, left tackle and defensive end money up into both of our guards
If both of those guards are Pro Bowlers, who cares?
The Browns do not have a high priced DE, OLB, SS, FS, WR, TE, RB or ILB.
This shows me that the new regime knows where to spend money.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 5, 2010 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if both guards are pro bowlers it is a huge problem. Pro bowl guards should make pro bowl guard money, not pro bowl LT or DE money. And if you have two guards on huge long term deals then you might not have enough money to resign your franchise quarterback, defensive end, nose tackle, or Joe Thomas. The best guard in the NFL shouldn’t make top 12 money because the top 12 spots are disgustingly overpaid for even the high value positions.
"Smokescreen."
if they don’t have enough to resign joe thomas, he’ll just print his own money. who’s gonna call him on it?
by Dawg Nuts on Apr 5, 2010 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
haha…rec
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
by Kimble_79 on Apr 6, 2010 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think teams could negotiate the salary based on the fact that a player plays OG.
Also, pending new CBA rules and if we are clever, we could take huge salary cap hits this year on contracts and then lessen the blow in the years to come, making this rookie class’ contracts largely irrelevant.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I hope so. I’m not really sure how it will work. I think some teams might try and frontload large amounts of money into this season though.
The problem with the draft is that the convention is to have each pick cost just a little bit less than the previous and a little more than the next pick. The first 12 picks are grossly overpaid for even the most expensive positions (QB, LT, DE) and taking a less valuable position up that high can lead to a big financial problem even if the player becomes one of the elite at the position. And if your player busts out in the top 12? Yeah that is what keeps teams noncompetitive for a dozen years at a time.
"Smokescreen."
If teams just ate the signing bonus in the year it was actually given (this year) instead of pro-rating the signing bonus over the life of the contract, there would be no (or significantly less) penalty for cutting a guy early, and the yearly salaries could be incentive-ridden or lower because of a huge signing bonus.
Position is taken into account when negotiations happen. If someone picked a QB at 12 the year before, and you pick a OG, I think that’s a clear situation where you can talk the agent down from the kind of raise based on last year’s pick that usually happens.
If your pick busts and he was a top 12 pick, money/cap probably won’t be the worst thing about that pick, true.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
It doesn’t matter what position your choice plays. The convention in the NFL is that each choice makes less than the choice before him and more than the choice after, also the salary for the #1 pick goes up each year, so everyone’s salary goes up. No matter who you take at #7 or what position he plays, you will have to sign him for a little less than #6 overall and a little more than #8 overall. What position you drafted doesn’t matter. If we take Berry #7 overall he probably immediately becomes the highest-paid safety in the NFL, or damn near anyway.
Scott Pioli would argue that this amount of money is more than any safety is worth and thus the Browns should either take a player of higher positional value (LT, QB or Pass Rusher) or trade down. He will not take a safety at #5 overall because in his opinion no safety has enough impact on the outcome of the game to be worth that type of investment. All of the top 12 picks are grossly overpaid anyway, so you have got to take a QB, LT or Pass Rusher to possibly justify the expense.
As much as I love Eric Berry, the positional value argument is compelling. Perhaps he is a guy who can make a truly rare impact from the safety position, perhaps he won’t be all that much better than Earl Thomas. That is up to the Browns to find out.
"Smokescreen."
It doesn’t matter what position your choice plays.
Untrue. QB’s get paid more.
Josh Freeman pick 17 2009: 5 years, 26 Million
Gosder Cherilus pick 17 2008: 5 years, 12 million
You think if the 49ers draft Mike Iupati that the contract negotiation will start at 5 years 26 million? Positions play a role in negotiation.
Scott Pioli would argue that this amount of money is more than any safety is worth and thus the Browns should either take a player of higher positional value (LT, QB or Pass Rusher) or trade down.
Insane thinking like this is the reason that Ed Reed lasted to 24th pick in the draft and Troy Polamalu the 16th pick. BPA is BPA outside of LT and the foolish positions (K and P).
Anyone who has watch Eric Berry knows he is special. He is on another level.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 6, 2010 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Josh Freeman pick 17 2009: 5 years, 26 Million
Gosder Cherilus pick 17 2008: 5 years, 12 million
This is exactly the type of things I am referring to. Maybe that price tag goes up to 15 million, but there’s no way it more than doubles if another OL is picked there.
Berry is worth it. And “it” won’t be as much as it would be if it were a QB.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Even if both guards are pro bowlers it is a huge problem.
Not true. Look at the Jets. Brick is high money. So is Faneca. As is Woody. Mangold will get paid big time. Yet they continue to add salary (Bart Scott, BE, etc.)
If there is one place that a team can afford to spend extra money, it is on the offensive line. Did you watch the Jets offensive line carry that horrendous offense to the AFC Championship game?
And if you have two guards on huge long term deals then you might not have enough money to resign your franchise quarterback, defensive end, nose tackle, or Joe Thomas.
This is a baseless assumption. Joe Thomas is already paid elite money. Same for Shaun Rogers. Again, we don’t need to pay DE’s big money. As soon as we have a franchise QB I will worry about resigning him.
The best guard in the NFL shouldn’t make top 12 money because the top 12 spots are disgustingly overpaid for even the high value positions.
You keep repeating this but you aren’t looking at the facts. Offensive guards are not “disgustingly overpaid”. Offensive tackles are. Joe Staley is earning the more money that Steve Hutchinson. Levi Brown more than Kris Dielman. You keep underestimating the impact of guards.
What do you think “Pro Bowl Guard Money” is?
2009’s Pro Bowl Roster and salary according to Rotoworld:
Steve Hutchinson: 7 years, 49 Million
Chris Snee: 6 years, 42 Million
Leonard Davis: 7 years, 50 Million
Davin Joseph: 1 year, 1.72 Million (Rookie deal expired)
Alan Faneca: 5 years, 40 Million
Kris Dielman: 6 years, 39 Million
Brian Waters: 6 years, 27 Million
Offensive lines and defensive lines win games. Simple as that.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 6, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Injuries aside, it is very hard for an offensive lineman to “bust”.
Gallery is always pointed at as a “bust” but he has been a very good guard for the Raiders.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 5, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Same reason why the Lions should take Okung instead of Suh. If they take suh then they have two DTs on gigantic contracts between Suh’s massive #2 deal and Corey Williams’ fat albatross that we pushed on them. Fantastic trade given the Browns got rid of that massive Phil Savage folly and won’t have to pay an exorbitant cap penalty.
This is the perfect offseason to jettison as many big contracts as we can (Derek Anderson, Corey Williams, Kam Wimbley, Braylon Edwards) because It won’t have any cap penalties for the Browns and now they are in fantastic salary cap position, as long as they get good value for or trade out of the #7 pick. Even drafting Berry makes me a bit wary because unless he is a true game changer at the safety position (fantastically difficult to do) the #7 spot pays him way more than he is worth.
"Smokescreen."
Renegotiate.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Gallery: No.
Raiders: you’re cut.
Gallery: OK, my contract is guaranteed. Enjoy that salary cap penalty. I’ll sign with another team (division rival ?) for pretty good coin (for a guard) and come back and beat your asses.
This is why the draft is so important. When you draft a player in the top 12, you are stuck with them. Because they are so grossly overpaid, they are a huge risk. If they bust (and by ‘bust’ I mean “do not become elite gamebreakers who win you football games and bring results equal to their elite salary level”) you are totally up shit creek until either the contract expires or you release or trade the contract and eat the salary cap penalty for a year.
The Jets might be in deep shit after this season because they are paying Mark Sanchez and Vernon Gohlston each a fortune and if neither becomes a truly elite player (and they play the valuable positions, where impacting the outcome of the game is easier to come by.) the Jets are stuck with two planet-sized albatross contracts and could be in salary cap hell for a number of seasons.
"Smokescreen."
You don’t understand the salary cap.
Guaranteed salary ≠ cap hit.
Base salaries and other things that players get paid that are not based on performance are considered “guaranteed”. If a player is cut, they do not see this “guaranteed” money, nor do teams have to account for it under the cap.
The only thing a team would eat would be the portion of the signing bonus (or other monies) that has been paid but unaccounted for under the cap. And if you utilize the June 1 rule, you can split that number in half, even.
The Jets could cut Vernon in the 2010 uncapped financial year, thus accelerating their cap hit all into the 2010 (lack of) cap. I also think it would take at least 3-4 years to figure out if Sanchez is any good, and a lot of his contract will be accounted for by then. They have a lot of options.
You really shouldn’t act like you know everything about the situation if you don’t know what you are talking about.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t know what you are talking about. You almost always have to pay out that “guaranteed” money. You absolutely do. Matthew Stafford’s base salaries are fully guaranteed through 2012. He under no circumstances can the Lions choose to not pay his salary or he will become a free agent, and his cap number includes a proration of his $17 million option bonus that he could receive for the 2014 season. There is also a clause that triggers an increase in his base salaries from 2009 to 2013 up to his cap number if the lions choose not to pick up his option (basically he is guaranteed to receive that $17 million even if the Lions don’t want him for the 2014 season.
Yeah the word “guaranteed” doesn’t always mean fully guaranteed and the math is very complicated. However the fact of the matter is that every pick in the top half of the first round has his team on the hook for a significant financial commitment and if he busts the team has both wasted a first round choice and saddled themselves with a bad financial burden. Due to complexity of the deals, they might not be quite as backbreaking as they initially appear (the $41.7 million “guaranteed” that Stafford received isn’t fully guaranteed, but he will almost certainly receive nearly all of it. The entire first round of the 2009 NFL signed deals totaling about $600 million, $400 million of which is “guaranteed”.
I don’t pretend to know everything about the NFL salary cap and the details of these contracts, but I do know this:
Missing on a first round draft pick is bad. Being saddled with a terrible financial mistake is even worse. This is why people want a rookie salary scale. The top 12 picks are almost a self fulfilling prophesy, because they are paid like franchise-cornerstone impact players before they ever play a down in the NFL. If you take a player in the top 12 and he doesn’t become an immediate impact player like a Joe Thomas, Dwight Freeney or Peyton Manning, you have not only missed on a first round choice, but have also saddled your team with a very poor investment, who could effect your team’s financial situation for a full four seasons to come.
"Smokescreen."
Question 1.7a
If a player earns a contract that is 5 years and pays him a total of $20 Million, he counts $4 million per year against the cap, right?
Answer: If it were only that simple.
Teams with heavy payloads learned quickly that the best way to combat the Salary Cap was to circumvent it. They did this by back loading contracts, pushing all of the big money to the end of the contract. For example, a 5-year, $20 million contract (not counting a signing bonus) signed in 2005 as described above could possibly allocate the money in the following manner:
Year 1 (2006): $450,000 (min. cap given to players with 4+ years experience)
Year 2 (2007): $1 million
Year 3 (2008): $1.5 million
Year 4 (2009): $5 million
Year 5 (2010): $12 million
…
Question 1.7b
Okay…this helps the team in the first three years of the contract, but what happens when Year 4 hits and the salary begins to escalate?
Answer: The team can do one of two things.
They can either outright release the player (to avoid having to pay his salary all together) or they can renegotiate a more “cap friendly” contract.
Question 1.7c
Hold on. You said the team could release the player BEFORE the big money kicks in. Are you telling me that the contracts are NOT guaranteed?
Answer: That’s right. The team is not obligated to fork over the money for remaining years of the contract if they cut the player.
Also, Stafford’s contract is unusual for the NFL in that it has guaranteed base salaries. However;
As soon as news came out that Matthew Stafford agreed to a deal with the Lions, we found out that nearly $42 million of his contract was guaranteed. That figure was a record for guaranteed money, and as you can imagine, many were upset that he got such a big contract. Well, as it turns out, Stafford is only absolutely guaranteed to receive around $17 million. Chances are he will end up receiving most of the originally-reported $42 million, but there are incentives he has to achieve and an option for the 2014 season that has to be picked up by the Lions in order for that to happen…
In reality, though, that’s not the amount that Stafford is guaranteed to receive — it’s the amount that he COULD BE guaranteed to receive, if he achieves certain qualifiers and the Lions exercise his option.
http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/05/matthew-staffords-contract.html
Yes, missing on a first round draft pick is bad because of wasted years, potentially fired coaches, and a big chance to make your team better.
I disagree that being saddled with the financial mistake is worse.
Owners want a pay scale so they don’t have to actually pay rookies that much. Players want it because they want better players who have earned their money get money as opposed to unproven rooks.
The top 12 picks are almost a self fulfilling prophesy
What?
Contracts in the NFL are highly flexible, malleable, and hardly iron clad. Teams can get under the cap when they need to, even if they are utterly stupid with money like the Raiders or Washington.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
the top 7 picks of the 2009 draft all had several years of full guaranteed salaries if i’m not mistaken. It is because of this that the top 12 picks are the most dangerous: they come with very large amounts of Guaranteed money, the kind that usually only elite veteran players get. This money hits your salary cap even if the player busts and is cut, which is the very problem with drafting in the top 12.
"Smokescreen."
he literally just explained to you why this isn’t true.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 7, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The only parts of Stafford’s contract that he’s fully guaranteed to receive right now are most of his base salaries and the protected value of his option bonus. He did not receive a signing bonus, which isn’t unusual for a high draft pick. In 2008, none of the first seven players drafted got a signing bonus. Stafford’s base salaries are $3.1 million for 2009, $395,000 for 2010, $1.17 million for 2011, $1.95 million for 2012 and $2.7 million for 2013.
USA Today reports his salary cap number as 3.1million for this past season. If they cut him now, they would be responsible for the rest of the 17 million. If he never hit his escalators for winning the starting job (read: if he ended up sucking and never playing) he would have been paid only the 17 million.
Sucks to miss on the first pick, but that cap number is not crippling if you do.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Gallery: OK, my contract is guaranteed.
Wrong. This isn’t the NBA or MLB.
Jets are stuck with two planet-sized albatross contracts and could be in salary cap hell for a number of seasons.
Then why are they are able to keep acquiring talent? Cromartie, BE, etc.
This isn’t 1995, teams know how to handle the cap. Only in rare occasions do teams have cap issues.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 7, 2010 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
If I’m not mistaken, the only part of the contract that is guaranteed is the “guaranteed” money. It’s just we have no cap, so no cap penalties. In this way, it is exactly like the NBA or MLB. If Randy Lerner has the money to shell out the guaranteed money, will just pay to cut the player but take no cap bonus, just like the Panthers cut Jake Delhomme. I could very well be talking out my ass with all of this, but this is what I was under the impression of.
Hope I didn’t misread this whole thread.
One picture is worth 128K words.
If I’m not mistaken, the only part of the contract that is guaranteed is the "guaranteed" money.
Correct. It is usually a signing bonus and maybe some other sort of bonuses.
But trying to find concrete numbers for a NFL contract is damn near impossible.
Agents lie through their teeth to try and make every contract sound like it is the best deal ever negotiated. Better for them.
Some agents have called the first year salary “guaranteed” money because it is almost a lock that they player will see that money. This is why it is almost impossible to get the real numbers of a contract. The best website I have found is rotoworld and most of that is based on agent speak and water cooler rumor. Even with all of that, most contracts have so much funny money built into them (fake bonuses and unreachable goals) to not only make them sound better, but to create salary cap space.
Didn’t mean to go bross all over you there.
It’s just we have no cap, so no cap penalties. In this way, it is exactly like the NBA or MLB.
Correct, only the guaranteed money though. In MLB and NBA the guaranteed part is the entire contract. That is why guys are rarely ever just cut.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 7, 2010 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions
“Guaranteed” money usually includes things like base salary and other things that can make the agents looks good—exactly. These monies are not actually guaranteed to be paid to the player (and thus recorded on the cap).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
of course they keep adding salary, this year there isn’t a salary cap. If the cap comes back and is quite low next year, they will be in trouble. Especially if they cannot get something out of Gohlston and Sanchez doesn’t become a solid starter. The Jets have gambled their future to win now. I think if the cap comes back they will be in big trouble.
"Smokescreen."
This isn’t true.
If the Jets were in any sort of financial situation you would have seen them cut Gholston and probably Shaun Ellis.
You keep forgetting that NFL teams have ways around large salaries. Yes it is a very important factor, but talent is 100x more important.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 7, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
The Redskins had higher total salaries than the cap number every year for a long time (and they still might). They worked around it and still signed ridiculously expensive FAs.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Yep.
This is why every single NFL team has a man/woman who has the sole job of figuring out ways around the cap.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 10, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think our front office would used a first round pick Iupata, or for that matter any offensive linemen? I would love the pick, bulk up our O line for the next 10+ years.
by The Brown Note on Apr 3, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe that the browns should look for a cornerback in the third round. we do have brown but he is 31 and might only have a few more years. a CB we get in the late third isn’t going to be ready to start right away anyways and shouldn’t start right away. however, if we can ease him into a role and have him playing nickel lets say in 2011 and eventually take over for brown, that could work. I believe we need a young CB to have an impact a couple years down the line. we don’t need it now but quite possibly will need it in a few years and the late third or 4th rounds are the best place to get a guy who can sit for a year or two.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
thats a guy I was thinking of. Owusu-Ansah is highly talented player who is lightning quick and has great size for the position. however he is still very raw. he could develop into a great CB but he should sit on the bench for a year or two. perfect example of what I think the browns should get.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
From what I have read on him, he is also kick return specialist, so he might be able to fill in there a few times and take some hits off Cribbs. Especially if the Browns get Cribbs more involved in the set offense.
Too Many Needs!!!!!
Taking a corneback in rounds 1-4 would be a BIG mistake. Holmgren w& Mangini will not. Guaranteed. But, should Berry fall to us . . . sweep him up and count on the Browns having an elite secondary for the first time in a VERY long time. DEFENSE!!
Nick
Safety in the first, Colt McCoy in the 2nd, and we have 3 third round picks…
what else do you think the browns should use the third rounders on? We could use a RT maybe…maybe a pass rusher…maybe a ILB…maybe DL. I would say all of the needs I just mentioned are now even with CB, maybe CB is still higher.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
LB
We are stockpiling Linebackers right now, but none of them are very young (or Pro Bowl caliber). Picking up another right tackle could be a good move too
Nick
We have a good amount of young LBs. I would say that we may not have pro bowl caliber LBs, but it is as likely as DQ or Matt roth makes a pro bowl (maybe even more likely) than a guy we draft in the third round makes a pro bowl.
we could use another right tackle, but like I said, we have 3! picks in the third round. we can take a right tackle AND THEN take a CB.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Guard is our biggest need on the line followed by youth. With Pashos, Womack and St. Clair, we have plenty of depth at RT for this year and next. I’d look at potential guards as high as the third round (if we don’t manage to snag Iupata) but hold off on tackle until the 5th or 6th.
If I’m not mistaken, Fujita, Bowens and Barton are our only linebackers over 26. I think outside of the first couple of rounds, a linebacker would be redundant. We have plenty of young, developing players at the position.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I consider Womack a guard though. He can play either and played both well. I do think we need some youth on the line but I would be happy with Porkchop at guard and Pashos at Tackle.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
He was our best RT last year. St Clair absolutely cannot play OT for us again.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’d take Bulaga over Iupati every time. Bulaga can definitely play guard, but there are huge doubts that Iupati can play tackle. More versatility is a good thing.
Iupata every time for me. Whether or not he can transition to RT doesn’t even enter into the equation (though I suspect he can and will ultimately play whichever position better than Baluga).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I would like to take Calloway like Bernie suggested. He would make a good guard or maybe RT and has very low bust potential.
Scientific research has proven that you lose exactly 5.37 billion brain cells every time you listen to Todd McShay.
by TheRealSlimShady on Apr 3, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I got confused for a second, because you listed the Browns still owning a 4th round pick, but they just traded it and it’s just a typo. Should be a 3rd round pick at No. 92 instead.
http://dawgscooper.blogspot.com/
Dawg Scooper: An Unofficial Cleveland Browns Source
Ty, fixed.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Apr 3, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Sheldon Brown is still old. If we find a cornerback we like at a specific spot, take him.
by gahnki on Apr 3, 2010 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Couldn’t agree more.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Apr 4, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s a fool’s paradise to believe we fixed a pathetic def backfield with a single quality acquisition. I would continue to draft def backfield and def line as our primary need.
I agree about having a safety, the question is specifically about a cornerback though.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Apr 3, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Very interesting how there is pretty much a 50-50 split regarding the vote. However, I have a feeling I should’ve asked whether we should take a corner in rounds 1-2. With three 3rd rounders, we have a lot of flexibility with who we pick in that round.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
I was looking for that distinction, as I’m now against CB in the first (especially at #7) but would almost certainly want a CB at some point in the first four rounds.
Actively seeking inspiration for a new handle
Id take a cb at the bottom of the third, If it is a good value. We still have practically nothing in terms of a nickelback. If you think a Javier arenas or Brandon Ghee is a great value low in the third round who can play nickelback, great. I guess it all depends on who is there. Best part about this trade is that you don’t have a gigantic gaping need at #1 corner. So you can just sit and wait and see who falls to your pick, rather than targeting a certain position
"Smokescreen."
I was thinking that as long as Brown is still starting quality that the Browns could look at the bottom of the third (92) or top of the 5th (134) to go after a corner. Another consideration, just as with the QBs, is what the CB draft class will likely hold in 2011. If it’s likely to be thin then one of the earlier 3rds might be the smarter choice, but I’m almost starting to feel that the Browns could go BPA starting with the 2nd 3rd-rounder and come out with a pretty decent roster.
Are there any rumors on what S. Brown’s new contract will be?
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
NM got it.
Everything seems less funny to me since I quit drinking.
by Brownie's Year on Apr 3, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
B
P
A
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The Offense was the worst part though.
Scientific research has proven that you lose exactly 5.37 billion brain cells every time you listen to Todd McShay.
by TheRealSlimShady on Apr 4, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
A great D can carry a weak O better than the opposite, just ask Trent Dilfer.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Apr 4, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Just look at the Jets. granted they had an excellent running game…but if you look at it, so did the ravens. their passing game was inept but they had a great rushing attack. Jamal Lewis was having a terrific rookie season and Priest holmes was an excellent COP back.
The Ravens rushing attack that year ran for almost 2000 yards between the top 2 backs and had a 4.45 ypc average.
The jets between Greene and Thomas Jones had about 1950 yards and a 4.42 ypc.
So a great D by itself cannot carry an anemic offense…however, if there is a strong running game, coupled with the D, it can be a great Team.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Not actually the case. Ask the Colts. When bob Sanders is injured they basically have one terrific defender: Dwight Freeney. The offense carries the team. However their one elite defender just happens to play the most important position on that side of the ball: Edge pass rusher.
"Smokescreen."
But hasn’t it been pointed out many times that the Colts defy all logic?
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Apr 5, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
They don’t defy logic. They prove the brilliance of Bill Polian as the architect of a team. He basically instituted a new paradigm in the NFL. They went all in on their offensive strategy and racking up yards and touchdowns through the air. They have a very good group of pass catchers every year because Polian apparently knows how to pick them and/or Peyton Manning makes them look better than they are. They have two superstar players (well 3 if you count the perennially injured bob sanders).
What makes them successful? their superstars are at two of the top 3 most important positions. Quarterback and pass rusher. The colts have a plan and they execute that plan. They have undersized defenders and often get gashed in the running game (unless Sanders is healthy, then they are actually respectable). But they don’t care how poorly they do at the point of attack as long as their linebackers and safeties flow to the ball and don’t give up big plays. They can give you 4.5 YPC and a huge time of possession advantage because their big play passing attack can still score faster than your power running attack, and you can’t catch up because they are really small and fast on defense and consequentially their cover 2 makes you have to dink and dunk them (see 2009 week 2 Colts @ Miami). If they can get you into a third and long, Dwight Freeney and their undersized speedy 4 man front can disrupt your passing game.
Peyton Manning might be thought to “defy logic” by being incredibly tough to sack despite the fact that he isn’t very athletic and the Colts offensive line has no superstars. A testament to well designed plays and Manning’s ability to make quick reads. If the Colts actually had an elite left tackle, they might be even more difficult to beat.
The point is: It isn’t magic. It’s a system. Its a style of play. It has been very effective for them, but it is certainly not perfect. Ask the Patriots and Saints.
"Smokescreen."
Too long DNR.
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Apr 6, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The point is: It isn’t magic. It’s a system. Its a style of play. It has been very effective for them, but it is certainly not perfect. Ask the Patriots and Saints.
No, it’s Peyton Manning.
He should win the MVP every season.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 7, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
the only reason he doesn’t is because it would be boring, but he definitely deserves it every year.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 7, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s not just Peyton Manning. Don’t be a moron, it’s not just one player. Great as they are, Peyton Manning and Dwight Freeney are cogs in a system that makes the most of their talents. You have over-simplified the Colts effective gameplan. They come into every game with a plan to hit big plays and play a style of defense that doesn’t necessarily stop the other offense, just slows them down as much as possible. The weakness of the tampa-2 is it can be gashed in the running game but doesn’t give up many big plays. The defense is designed to make you have to pound the ball and take a lot of time off the clock to score while their offense can score much more quickly.
Now I’m not taking away anything from Peyton Manning, he puts up fantastic production every year and is incredibly difficult to sack despite not having a franchise left tackle. Like I said if there is anything that defies logic and makes him MVP-worthy, it is his success despite his blindside protection. However, the Colts know what they need and that is why they are pursuing Marcus McNeill.
"Smokescreen."
you’re right, their system is very different and is very unique. the thing is, without peyton manning, that system doesn’t work. that gameplan doesn’t mean shit without one of the best quarterbacks ever handling the ball.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 7, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I was under the impression everyone thought the Colts had a pretty simplified offense. I thought I heard last year that they only run like 10 different pass plays or something. Peyton is a freak of nature with all knowing, all seeing eyes. Peyton is about the only person in the world that “may” be able to see Joe Thomas coming.
A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths --- Steven Wright
Peyton is about the only person in the world that "may" be able to see Joe Thomas coming.
you’ve completely embarassed yourself. bravo.
by Dawg Nuts on Apr 7, 2010 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Every offense is simple at it’s core: move the ball, score points. Get your receivers open, make one defender responsible for two receivers, confuse the defense. Get opposing players blocked in the running game. Block, run, throw, catch.
I would not be surprised if the Colts ran only about 10-15 passing concepts with any regularity. The thing is that within those 10-15 concepts, there would probably be endless permutations, adjustments, options, motions, etc.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
It’s not just Peyton Manning. Don’t be a moron, it’s not just one player.
Then you haven’t paid much attention to the Colts. Every other position on their offense has changed. Harrison to Wayne. Edge to Addai. Pollard to Clark. Their offensive line is filled with undrafted players and junk pile additions. Coaches have come and gone.
There has been one person that has stayed the same. Peyton. At this point in time he is the offensive coordinator. Tom Moore is nothing more than a soundboard and suggestion box.
Peyton Manning and Dwight Freeney are cogs in a system that makes the most of their talents. You have over-simplified the Colts effective gameplan.
I don’t care about Dwight Freeney. He is 100% replaceable. Robert Mathis has done it before. In fact Freeney hasn’t played in 16 games since ‘06. Massively overrated. As for Peyton, there isn’t one other QB in the NFL that would win like he does in Indy. No one.
You have over-simplified the Colts effective gameplan. They come into every game with a plan to hit big plays
What offense doesn’t want big plays?
The weakness of the tampa-2 is it can be gashed in the running game but doesn’t give up many big plays. The defense is designed to make you have to pound the ball and take a lot of time off the clock to score while their offense can score much more quickly.
Again, this is because Peyton Manning can do whatever he wants on offense. You think the Colts could do this with Jim Sorgi at QB?
That team starts with Manning and ends with him. He is the one person that allows them to be ass backwards.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 7, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not saying that they can do without him. I’m saying that the system benefits him and he benefits the system. Peyton Manning wouldn’t be the same player on another team that hasn’t built its entire gameplan (offensive and defensive) around what he does well.
Bill Polian – Tony Dungy – Peyton Manning is a bit like the NFL equivalent to the Urban Meyer – Tim Tebow symbiosis. It just happened to be the right guy with the right system at the right time.
Peyton Manning is a fantastic player, absolutely the best quarterback in the league. But don’t oversell him. The reason the Colts need him so badly is because they have built their entire gameplan around him.
Don’t sell Freeney short, either. I’d say his bum ankle was a big factor in the Saints superbowl victory (along with Gregg Williams’ gameplan)
"Smokescreen."
Totally false! The reason the colts need him is because they are NOTHING without him. put Jim Sorgi in there, and that is definitely not a playoff team and they finish below .500. Peyton manning has a skill set that can succeed in ANY system. give 8 games to learn the system, and he could put up superstar numbers in Denver. he could do the same in Jacksonville. There isn’t a team that he can’t be a superstar on.
That Comparison is vastly inaccurate. Tebow thrived because of the system. the system thrives in Indy because of peyton.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Bill Polian – Tony Dungy – Peyton Manning is a bit like the NFL equivalent to the Urban Meyer – Tim Tebow symbiosis
My God, is everything about Tebow? You forget to mention that Dungy was Manning’s second HC. Now Manning is on his 3rd HC and still winning.
Peyton Manning is a fantastic player, absolutely the best quarterback in the league. But don’t oversell him. The reason the Colts need him so badly is because they have built their entire gameplan around him.
Again, you keep giving this “system” credit. If it is just a “system” then why doesn’t every team in the NFL run it? Because there is only one Manning. It’s that easy.
Don’t sell Freeney short, either. I’d say his bum ankle was a big factor in the Saints superbowl victory (along with Gregg Williams’ gameplan)
Nope. He misses games every season and the Colts keep moving. Personally I think Mathis is just as good.
by Bernie19Kosar on Apr 8, 2010 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Mathis is not as good. But one of the reasons Freeney can play to his strength (pass rushing) a high % of the time he is on the field is because the opposing team thinks they have to throw to win.
Freeney is good against the run too, he’s just a ridiculous pass rusher.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The reason the Colts need him so badly is because they have built their entire gameplan around him.
This is true, the Colts would have done things differently if they didn’t have Peyton.
But it still doesn’t defeat B19K’s point. The only reason they’ve been able to build that way and have the success they’ve had has been Manning.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
With some of the CBs available in the third like Franks, Arenas, Cox, Spievy, Owushaalsd (sp), etc that might be a fine pick with Sheldon’s age.
Drafting Berry or Earl Thomas would also work nice, and we could maybe start them out at safety and after a few years switch them to CB if they can handle it and put Brown at safety. Just a thought.
Scientific research has proven that you lose exactly 5.37 billion brain cells every time you listen to Todd McShay.
by TheRealSlimShady on Apr 3, 2010 11:31 PM EDT reply actions
I really thought Alex Hall flashed some promise his rookie year and was really surprised to see his regression and lack of production last year. I guess Mangini felt more comfortable with Gocong, but when I read about his struggles I kept thinking him and Veikhune are eeriely similiar.
Mangini and Gocong...
I read an article about a week ago about Mangini wanting to draft Gocong when he was in N.Y., but Heckart jumped in and drafted him instead. Clearly, the coach and G.M. are on the same page with this guy which is a really good thing. Mangini and Ryan might have a distinct plan for this guy. I’m gonna bet he’s not another Veikune!
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
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
