Alshon Jeffery WR South Carolina.... 22 or 37
by gentryholdem on Jan 16, 2012 8:37 PM EST
Email
PrintI'd do a backflip if the kid fell to us in the 2nd round. Anyone seen his highlight videos? SC suffered from poor QB play this year which could allow him to slip to us. Here's his highlight video. Careful, it's over 8 minutes long.
I'm convinced, based on my personal bias and my knowledge of Heckert & Holmgren, we are not taking RGIII at 4. We'll go for Richardson just because he fits into the West Coast style and he's a beast. I think we trade down to Richardson and pickup a kings ransom for doing it. Then add a WR with the late first rounder or preferably with our 2nd round pick.
That adds two young starters at skill positions to McCoy's options. And we get a real grade. If it doesn't work out we're still in good position to pick up a QB in 2013.
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
116 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like Jeffery, but I know some users here shy away from him. And yes he does run a 4.5 but in the video, he burns a bunch of defenders. Now I don’t know if those were just slow horrible corners, but dre Kirkpatrick is ranked in the first round. And he embarrassed him.
by lightninmcqueen on Jan 16, 2012 8:53 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Eh I wouldn’t go that far. But he does fit well.
by lightninmcqueen on Jan 16, 2012 9:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The best comparison of skills to RG3 I have heard so far is Steve Young, a WC QB. He is bigger than Vick, Smaller than Newton, Faster than pretty much every other 6’2’’ QB, has a good arm, etc..
I don’t think he’ll be Young but you get the picture.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Young was more Michael Turner, RG is more Chris Johnson in terms of running style. He seems to be a “QB who can run” as opposed to a “running QB” though.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’d say they definitely have different running styles. I wish there was a better comparison, but I can’t think of one.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Dixon is much less bulkier than RG3, he also doesn’t have RG3s speed or Arm and definitely never showed the accuracy of RG3 in college.
I actually saw a good comparison: Steve mcnair…but with maybe less bulk (RG3 can add some)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
you’re right…I shouldn’t have engaged.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
IF you look at the tape of Rich Gannon you see RG3
Simi sideways release… same pocket awareness… accuracy… RG3 is pretty much a carbon Copy of Rich Gannon during his probowl years.
Not to be overly obsequious, Rufio, but I highly respect your opinion. What that said, what would you like to see at 4, 22, 37, etc?
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on Jan 17, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
If we can get Griffin or Luck and the front office believes in either guy, I’d like to pull the trigger. We might never have this kind of ammo combined with a pretty solid defense, a guy like Colt who could start and be improved and lead us to not be completely horrible if we wanted to let the new guy sit, and these kinds of players available to us in the draft.
Whoever we get at 4 has got to be a great player and he has got to be a great value—meaning that the combination of quality of player, position played, our current roster, and the rarity of that kind of guy would need to be there. Great QBs are rare. Great LTs are rare. Great NTs are rare. Great WRs are rare. Great pass rushers are pretty rare, as are CBs and Ss. Great QBs, NTs, pass rushers, and LTs have a huge impact on the game. Great WRs have less of an impact. Plus, we already have a HoF LT and pretty good DTs. You get what I am saying?
At 22, I think I would go just pure BPA. It would be great if that guy played WR, S, or LB. I would even entertain the idea of taking a RT there—as long as we stay committed to later picks to find guards. I think position sill would be a little important at 22. We’d probably want the guy to start soon if not right away, and it would be best if we could get someone in an area of need.
At 37, again, BPA. And at that point we could really open up to any position, not considering position at all. I would love to draft a RT at 37. I would take a RB there, or another corner. Even a really good guard. Probably not FB or punter or kicker or anything like that, but any other position.
I think at the end of the offseason we need to come away with one guy who can play OT (if Pashos goes down or as an upgrade to him, maybe a guy who could fill in at guard too) and some kind of speed on offense. Other than that, I’d say just take guys who are good if the price is right.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I agree that he’s going to rise up the draft boards. If he’s still there, I’d take him and not think twice. However, I don’t think I would trade up for Alshon.
by Legoman0721 on Jan 17, 2012 1:29 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Everyone says it’s the QB situation that effected his play. I don’t understand how there were worse WRs in the NCAA with worse QB’s on worse football programs, and yet were able to put up better numbers than a WR who some claim to be top 5 worthy. I don’t see that as justification for his horrible year. A good WR should be able to put up a much better performance than Alshon and elevate his QB. Ask ND
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 16, 2012 9:27 PM EST reply actions
I wouldn’t necessarily say he had a “horrible” year. Here is a pretty interesting take on how his year went. http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/1/5/2685263/alshon-jeffery-nfl-draft-stats
I logged off for an hour or so, what the hell happened to the giant Colt McCoy thread?
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
I assume that person got banned and his posts removed. Both of his fanposts are gone.
by macdowellm03 on Jan 16, 2012 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
Too bad… They were looking like a lot of fun.
by Legoman0721 on Jan 17, 2012 1:31 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
It was troll filled. Kind of irrelevant too.
by macdowellm03 on Jan 17, 2012 4:24 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Ugh. To put it simply. You know nothing of H&H. Anyone can fit the WCO if they can play ball. H&H are not stupid enough to pick Richardson at 4 even if they don’t want RGIII. And that’d pretty absurd anyways. People are so sure they can just trade down but even that would probably prove difficult even if certain people are on the board.
Simply put, Heckert has made claims that they will pick where their picks are this year. They know they need talent and to trade down is to run away from talent, which in this draft, we can’t do.
XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 17, 2012 12:12 AM EST reply actions
I never said we’d take Richardson at 4. I said I thought we’d take Richardson. I expect us to trade down 2-4 spots and take Richardson. Picking up an extra high pick and then following with 22 & 37+ the extra pick. Just because H&H said they were sticking with their picks in a press conference doesn’t mean they don’t trade. In fact, Heckert’s record shows he can and will pull the trigger on a trade.
by gentryholdem on Jan 17, 2012 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t doubt his willingness to wheel and deal, but I don’t see him taking a RB in the top half of the first. At least, that’s my hope…
by Legoman0721 on Jan 17, 2012 1:34 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
If he takes a running back at 6 six I want him fired on the spot.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2012 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
Richardson is a just as good a running as Adrian Peterson.
by gentryholdem on Jan 17, 2012 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
I just barfed a little.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
HA….AHA!
Wait, wait. AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa.
XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 17, 2012 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
even if you were to argue stats, he is not in the ballpark of Peterson…
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
wow. to think there are actually people who believe this
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 18, 2012 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think he is that good. BUT, even if he is that good, ask Minnesota how much AP helped them this year. They were just awesome, right? Oh yeah, they are drafting one spot ahead of us.
You can say that about any player. Ask Detroit how much Suh helped them this year on defense. Ask Seattle how much Okung has helped them on offense. Ask the BROWNS how much Mack and Thomas has helped them on offense. Oh yea, we’re still at 4. Ask KC how much losing Charles has hurt them all together.
I would personally love it if AP was on this team. How much did not having a running game hurt this team this year? Oh yea…
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 19, 2012 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, yes he is. What makes you think otherwise? If you wanna argue that you don’t need a dominating RB in order to succeed, history shows there are teams who have experience success without dominating at many positions. If you want to argue that you can find dominating RB’s later in the draft, then history shows you can find dominating everything later in the draft also.
It’s all about finding value for your picks. If there was a RB who would take our team from one of the worst to one of the best in the league, you bet your ass I would take him
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 22, 2012 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
I’ll have to admit, and I said this several months back too, even though I hope we don’t draft Richardson, if he can take our team from one of the worst to one of the best in the league, then I’ll immediately be turned around on him. Of course, if I thought he was capable of that I’d want us to draft him. I don’t think he’s close.
"The tragedy of life is not that man loses, but that he almost wins."
The problem is that the days of a RB being able to carry a team is over. Chris Johnson had one of the best seasons I have ever seen in ’09 and his team finished at 8-8. Adrian Peterson had his best season in ’08 and the Vikes lost in the first round to the Eagles.
Barry Sanders was the best RB I ever saw with my own eyes, and his teams never did anything.
Now I understand that this is a team game, but wasting picks or money on Runningbacks are a waste.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2012 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
Rivers is one of the best QBs in the league and yet what has he done in the playoffs?
It’s not about the positions themselves, its about the team as a whole. We have the best LT in the league and yet it has taken us nowhere, but you wouldn’t say they’re not important would you?
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 22, 2012 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
Rivers is one of the best QBs in the league and yet what has he done in the playoffs?
You forgot to mention Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger. Guys who carried their teams to Super Bowl wins.
You can’t do that for RB’s.
As for your O-Line question, you need a good offensive line to win in this league. You don’t need a RB. Huge difference.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 22, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
As for your O-Line question, you need a good offensive line to win in this league.
It’s funny you make this post considering the fact that Manning, Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger all had some of the worst offensive lines in the league yet won the superbowl. You’re running around in circles once again.
So no, you don’t need a good offensive line to win in this league apparently. Just as simply having a great QB doesn’t get you success, as shown with Rivers. Winning a superbowl is no longer contingent on a good RB like it was before, but winning superbowls ARE contingent on moving the chains. And if a RB will do that for you then you go with it.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 23, 2012 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
Just as simply having a great QB doesn’t get you success, as shown with Rivers.
Rivers isn’t great. He’s good. Look at his playoff numbers. Go figure, a QB who plays poorly in the playoffs, loses.
Still waiting for you to name a RB that carried his team to the title. Take your time.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2012 8:22 AM EST up reply actions
Jim. Brown.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Rivers isn’t great. He’s good
Rivers is considered a top 5 QB.
Still waiting for you to name a RB that carried his team to the title. Take your time.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 23, 2012 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Rivers is not a top 5 QB.
Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Brady, Eli, Ben Roethlisberger and I could argue that Stafford and Romo are both better as well.
And by your picture, I’m guessing you still haven’t found a RB that has carried his team to a title.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Rivers has had a top 3 QB rating the last three years prior to this one. And yet he’s not top five?
It backwards opinion like this which causes what you think or “could argue” mean absolutely nothing. Along with the fallacies and strawman, which you’re using now with the “carried a team to the title” crap that no one in this thread claimed.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 23, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
He hasn’t had the playoff success of Rodgers, Brees, manning, Brady or Eli, despite having weapons around him for quite a few years that were as good as any of these guys.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Winning a superbowl is no longer contingent on a good RB like it was before, but winning superbowls ARE contingent on moving the chains. And if a RB will do that for you then you go with it.
What else would this mean?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2012 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
Actually those guys had much better O Lines when they won SBs. When their O Lines were injured they didn’t fare as well.
Plus I think the Packers had a good O-line last season.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
and even if their O-Lines were mediocre in the regular season in those years, they did seem to step it up in the playoffs.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
The hell are you talking about? Those O lines were horrible
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 23, 2012 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
The difference that I think you’re intentionally ignoring is that while yes, a great QB doesn’t guarantee anything, there are tons of recent examples of great QBs carrying teams. There are exactly zero examples of running backs doing the same thing.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 23, 2012 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
We’re not talking about the effectiveness of QBs, we’re talking about the efficiency of high draft picks
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 23, 2012 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
He has a fantastic point. If there is zero examples of a RB being the key cog in a Super Bowl winning team, why would you use a high draft pick on it?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Those are the same thing. If a Quarterback is much more effective than a running back in turning a team around, then taking a quarterback is a much more efficient use of a high pick.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 23, 2012 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
No, LTs are important, and having a RB that does what you need is important.
But why throw that cap space and pick at a back when you can get one later that will give you the same added value? You can’t get the franchise LT in the second round, you can get that back in the second.
And any team picking as high as we are or trading up to pick where we are would be foolish to spend that pick on a back. Even the best ones will be on their way down 5 years later. And when you are that bad, there’s not a back in the history of the league that could carry you to the super bowl.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I agree. The discussion lost track from the original point. There is no RB in this draft I would take in the first round period. But if there was an AP 2.0 in the draft and we were in position for him, I would have no problem taking him high. After having a team of mediocre players for so long, I just want dominance at as many positions as possible.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Jan 23, 2012 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
But a dominant RB doesn’t mean anything in this league anymore.
It’s a wasted pick.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 23, 2012 8:23 AM EST up reply actions
I agree on that point. I take a softer stance on running backs in the first than others here. I think if you see a guy who is going to be the best back in the league the second he takes the field you have to pick him.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 23, 2012 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
Oh definitely. I think he would easily be the BPA. So much that we’d have to draft him, despite my dislike for drafting RBs in the first.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
He’ll probably go around the 17-18 area. Would you trade up a bit to get him? That would, what, cost us a third? A Griffin/Richardson 1st round sounds intriguing.
by Brownie's Year on Jan 24, 2012 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Of course it totally depends if we can and do take Blackmon @4 which I think we should. Alternatively, if they choose RG3 I’m happy with that and then take Jeffery if he is there @22. However do not trade up, wasting a pick, for anyone. Enough WR talent will be around to get a good one @ 22 if Jeffrey is gone. I don’t think we should take Richardson @4 or 6. Too many other holes to fill. A competitive RB can be taken later if they like but not that high up.
I'm entitled to my opinion. Especially if I'm wrong.
Understand the importance of this offense to get better. I have for years love the way Giants draft DL. I would hope the Browns do the same with at least one in there first 3 picks.
I think a rightside DE at 22 would be awesome. The kid from Illinois fits the bill.
by gentryholdem on Jan 17, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
What about your knowledge of H&H makes you think they won’t take Griffin?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
I would love for them to trade back with someone and get a 1st and 2nd and next year’s 1st for it. I could see us trading back into the 5-10 range if we get a sh*t ton of picks for it. Especially since we traded back into what? The 20’s last year? I don’t think 5-10 would be that much of a stretch.
They’ve stated they don’t want to trade down that far this year. I also don’t think anyone would offer us that much to move up a few picks.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Teams do it all the time. I’d take a 2nd rounder to move down 2 spots. That’s another starter!
by gentryholdem on Jan 17, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
a 1st and 2nd and next year’s 1st for it.
Teams don’t do this all the time, which is what I was referring to. If a franchise quarterback is sitting there, there aren’t enough picks you could offer me.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2012 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
I believe Holmgren took maybe one QB in the first round…. his entire career?
by gentryholdem on Jan 17, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
While you’re right, Tom Heckert came from a franchise that used a second round pick on a QB when they already had an established starter. I don’t think he is too shy on going after a QB.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly. For much of H&Hs tenures in a front office, they have not needed to take a QB in the first round, but still have taken developmental guys fairly high.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Depends on the price tag.
I would be interested for a fourth rounder.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2012 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
Then I would be all in for Blackmon at 4.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
He also had Brett Favre or Matt Hasselbeck for pretty much his entire career.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2012 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
Steve Young
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I just meant as a head coach.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Green Bay traded a first round pick to Atlanta for Favre, so I can’t see any reason why H&H wouldn’t draft a QB early. Heckert had McNabb his entire tenure in Philly and has never been in this situation or had this kind of opportunity in the draft. Based on those facts I don’t see how anyone can make a statement predicting what they may do based on past tendencies. It’s an ignorant argument.
What does that MEAN - TO PLAY US OUT?!!?!?
I’m worried about taking Jeffrey in general… i like him, but wouldn’t you argue his skill set is comparable to Little’s? We need a receiver that can stretch the field… Little, nor anyone else on the roster can… Is Jeffrey fast enough? they say 4.5, but i’m not convinced… i want to see his combine…
I’d like to see us get a receiver who can run in the 4.4’s or 4.3’s. Doubtful though.
by macdowellm03 on Jan 18, 2012 6:33 PM EST up reply actions
There are a lot of those guys out there. The problem is the whole catching the ball thing.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Someone tell me how the Squealers have gotten so damn lucky in the mid and late rounds of the draft getting 3 fast Wr’s who can catch the ball and are developing into very good receivers. I hope our scouting for WR’s is better than when we took Massaquoi and Robiskie
by OldTimeDawg on Jan 21, 2012 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
