Desmond Bryant

[The Gipper]

Most teams don't employ a backup for every DL position in order to free up a roster spot. That's where utility players come in handy.Same goes for offensive linemen.

 

I'm not asking that we do that, but it would make sense. Name any other 3-4 team that's been this deep at DL with solid quality players. It's a waste of talent to a certain extent.

 

If we could turn Rubin into a good player at another position of need as well as a depth player, it makes sense. You bolster your roster with talent any way you can.

 

He'd be more valuable to us as a rookie OG that plays every snap than as a 28 year old DT that plays 60-75% of the snaps.

 

 

Sorry, but to me it sounds Retarded to weaken your team just when you have tried to strengthen it. Besides....these guys need to be football players. They can't be giving us this horseshit that "I can't play the 3-4, I can only play in the 4-3" or vice versa. Play football...tackle some sumbitch on the other team.

[Erie Dawg]

He's plenty fast and athletic, he had plenty of teams looking at him as a 3-4 OLB in the draft. What I AM saying is that he WILL NOT play 3-4 DE. I'm not saying he will or will not make the transition to 3-4 OLB, but I am saying they will try before ever trying to trade/release him. I don't feel Groves will come in and upseat him as a starter, I'll say that much in certainty.

Ok the reason im saying that I dont know where he fits is he has never been in the olb role. His job has been put a hand down and run at the qb.

I agree he is athletic and that is why I think you are assuming that he will be great in pass protection/coverage. His biggest knock on him was that he is above avg. In run stopping, and his unknown coverage skills and instincts. We will see. Maybe some of the questions will be answered at the presser in Cleveland today.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Sorry, but to me it sounds Retarded to weaken your team just when you have tried to strengthen it. Besides....these guys need to be football players. They can't be giving us this horseshit that "I can't play the 3-4, I can only play in the 4-3" or vice versa. Play football...tackle some sumbitch on the other team.

 

And that's why nobody takes your opinion seriously on matters of personnel or philosophies.

 

The mere fact that you don't understand the difference between a 3-4 OLB and a 4-3 OLB shows me you're not ready.

 

 

And taking a surplus player and trading him in hopes to address a period of need is hardly weakening the team. You fail to grasp simple concepts

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

And you're thinking injuries don't happen either. Taylor was out 1\2 the season last year, remember? So who plays nose in that case? Rubin. Cripe, we finally have quality depth at a position, and you guys want to trade it away.

 

Incidentally with all these defensive pickups, it wouldn't be out of the question to draft Warmack with our #1, assuming there isn't a CB there we don't love.

 

 

That's the risk you take in filling out a roster.

 

 

What happens when we have no injuries? We let a perfectly talented player sit and rot waiting for his chance to become the starter?

 

In a perfect world we'd be three deep with quality players at every position. Roster limitations prohibit that. We have to find the balance between depth and talent. Right now were in a great position because Rubin is valuable to us either way, but depending on the offer he may be more valuable to us as trade bait.

 

You have to make moves to make your team better.

[hoorta]

That's the risk you take in filling out a roster.

 

 

What happens when we have no injuries? We let a perfectly talented player sit and rot waiting for his chance to become the starter?

 

In a perfect world we'd be three deep with quality players at every position. Roster limitations prohibit that. We have to find the balance between depth and talent. Right now were in a great position because Rubin is valuable to us either way, but depending on the offer he may be more valuable to us as trade bait.

 

You have to make moves to make your team better.

 

Ever hear of a rotation to keep guys fresh?

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Ever hear of a rotation to keep guys fresh?

 

You show me a successful 3-4 team that employs 6 starting DL.

 

Depth is a nice and welcome commodity, but when you have 4 or more major holes like we do...you do what you can to fill them.

 

Once you get them filled, then you focus on depth.

[The Gipper]

And that's why nobody takes your opinion seriously on matters of personnel or philosophies.

 

The mere fact that you don't understand the difference between a 3-4 OLB and a 4-3 OLB shows me you're not ready.

 

 

And taking a surplus player and trading him in hopes to address a period of need is hardly weakening the team. You fail to grasp simple concepts

 

Oh, I understand that people like you think that the game of football is all nuance and technique and that all the players should be be treated delicately like they were fairy princesses. But I see that as a lot of excuse for failure.

 

But at its core, I go with Vince Lombardi's credo over yours: "it is all about blocking and tackling." We need football players. Guys that are bigger, stronger, faster than those on the other team. All those nuances can and will be overcome if you have better, smarter football players, and that is whether they play the 4-3 or 3-4 or the 5-3 or the 46 defense.

 

And I sure the hell disagree that anyone that we have now on this front 7 is "surplus".

The Browns defense last year ranked 19th against the run and 25th against the pass. I don't see how any one of these players can be "surplus" until they have like a top 5 ranking in those categories.

 

I mean, does anyone out there really give a flying fadoodle if the Browns run the 4-3 or the 3-4? I don't. Do you?

[hoorta]

You show me a successful 3-4 team that employs 6 starting DL.

 

Depth is a nice and welcome commodity, but when you have 4 or more major holes like we do...you do what you can to fill them.

 

Once you get them filled, then you focus on depth.

 

I'll just say this- BS. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell what the Browns Front office will do.

[The Gipper]

You show me a successful 3-4 team that employs 6 starting DL.

 

Depth is a nice and welcome commodity, but when you have 4 or more major holes like we do...you do what you can to fill them.

 

Once you get them filled, then you focus on depth.

 

You have a 53 man roster. There are 22 starting positions (not including kicker/punter).

Seven of those 22 positions are on the defensive front 7. That is 31.8% of your starting football team. If you dedicate 14 roster positions to that front 7 that is only 26.4% of your roster. Having 6 DL and 8 LBs on the roster does not seem out of line, nor does it seem that having backups for each position is "surplus".

 

Or, if you want to break it down further: If you have a 3-4 then 13.6% of your starting lineups are Defensive linemen. If you have 6 DL on your 53 man roster that is only 11.3%.

In a 3-4, the 4 LBs constitute 18.18% of your starting lineups. Having backups for each position gives you 8 LBs. 8 LBs makes up 15.09% of a teams starting lineups.

 

So, as I see it, taking into account the special teamers...a team that uses the 3-4 SHOULD have 6 DL and 8 LBs on their roster.

 

In the words of Bill Clinton: its arithmetic, stupid. Keeping 6 DL and 8 LBs is the perfect ratio for this team going forward with the 3-4.

 

Don't open one hole to fill another. Just fill the other fucking hole.

[Zombo]

You show me a successful 3-4 team that employs 6 starting DL.

 

Depth is a nice and welcome commodity, but when you have 4 or more major holes like we do...you do what you can to fill them.

 

Once you get them filled, then you focus on depth.

 

The Ravens had 7 DL on their Super Bowl roster.

 

What do you mean by 6 starters?

 

There will be three starters. Bryant, Rubin and Taylor get paid to start.

 

Winn and Hughes get paid to be backups.

 

Sheard will be a LB.

 

I think the problem with the math here may be your over-inflated opinion of the depth guys. They are rotational guys. Every team needs them.

 

Zombo

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Oh, I understand that people like you think that the game of football is all nuance and technique and that all the players should be be treated delicately like they were fairy princesses. But I see that as a lot of excuse for failure.

 

But at its core, I go with Vince Lombardi's credo over yours: "it is all about blocking and tackling." We need football players. Guys that are bigger, stronger, faster than those on the other team. All those nuances can and will be overcome if you have better, smarter football players, and that is whether they play the 4-3 or 3-4 or the 5-3 or the 46 defense.

 

And I sure the hell disagree that anyone that we have now on this front 7 is "surplus".

The Browns defense last year ranked 19th against the run and 25th against the pass. I don't see how any one of these players can be "surplus" until they have like a top 5 ranking in those categories.

 

I mean, does anyone out there really give a flying fadoodle if the Browns run the 4-3 or the 3-4? I don't. Do you?

 

 

Gip, you're right. How could I and every coach/exec/coordinator be so blind?

 

Schemes are useless. Lets line 11 players up wherever they want. After all, it's just tackling a person with a ball.

 

 

 

Your ignorance of the sport is astounding.

 

You show me any team that runs a 5-3 base defense or a 46 defense and I'll show you a 0 win team.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

The Ravens had 7 DL on their Super Bowl roster.

 

What do you mean by 6 starters?

 

There will be three starters. Bryant, Rubin and Taylor get paid to start.

 

Winn and Hughes get paid to be backups.

 

Sheard will be a LB.

 

I think the problem with the math here may be your over-inflated opinion of the depth guys. They are rotational guys. Every team needs them.

 

Zombo

 

You do realize Kruger and Sheard will both rotate in at DE, right? Kruger plays with his hand in the dirt about a quarter of the time.

 

That's Taylor, Rubin, Bryant, Kruger, Sheard, Winn and Hughes rotating at 3 spots.

 

 

Any one of those players, excluding Hughes, can start for many teams in the NFL.

[VaporTrail]

The Ravens had 7 DL on their Super Bowl roster.

 

What do you mean by 6 starters?

 

There will be three starters. Bryant, Rubin and Taylor get paid to start.

 

Winn and Hughes get paid to be backups.

 

Sheard will be a LB.

 

I think the problem with the math here may be your over-inflated opinion of the depth guys. They are rotational guys. Every team needs them.

 

Zombo

 

I think you're grossly underestimating the value of Winn and maybe Hughes. Yes, they were picked to be backups, but you're suggesting that they'll never be anything more than that. Given that they're both rookies and that they started behind Rubin, the 13th best DL, and Taylor, the 39th best DL (and those ranks include DE's as well), you can't honestly expect them to have more playing time than these guys who have been doing it for longer. What we have seen in their limited playing time of their rookie year, however, suggests that these guys, especially Winn, could very well be starters on other teams in the near future.

 

For one team to have 5 defensive tackles that are as talented as ours is unheard of. Is that much talent for 3 positions necessary? Debatable. Is it a good thing? Absolutely. Why is it good? If we retain all of them, they are going to beat the shit out of the offensive line. If we keep em, we must ask, for how long? I guarantee that if their level of play continues, they're going to leave to start somewhere else when their contracts expire. If we trade them, maybe that will allow us to snag another piece in the draft. There are upsides and downsides to both choices, and the consideration of both is much better for the Browns than the outright dismissal of either.

[Zombo]

You do realize Kruger and Sheard will both rotate in at DE, right? Kruger plays with his hand in the dirt about a quarter of the time.

 

That's Taylor, Rubin, Bryant, Kruger, Sheard, Winn and Hughes rotating at 3 spots.

 

 

Any one of those players, excluding Hughes, can start for many teams in the NFL.

 

Yes, I realize that, and it's five positions because Sheard and Kruger will be playing LB the majority of the time.

 

Billy Winn cannot start for many teams. Billy Winn is a guy we picked up in the 6th round that will help out in the rotation.

 

You are getting kind of "Poetic G" about Billy Winn.

 

Zombo

[CLEVELANDwantsPLAYOFFS]

Billy Winn showed tremendous quickness for his size making him a "Big Man that can run"

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Yes, I realize that, and it's five positions because Sheard and Kruger will be playing LB the majority of the time.

 

Billy Winn cannot start for many teams. Billy Winn is a guy we picked up in the 6th round that will help out in the rotation.

 

You are getting kind of "Poetic G" about Billy Winn.

 

Zombo

 

 

Kiper and McShay both had him as a third round prospect, so Im not the only one.

[Harry Buffalo]

Kiper and McShay both had him as a third round prospect, so Im not the only one.

 

That's funny because regardless of where they had him graded, he was still picked in the 6th.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

That's funny because regardless of where they had him graded, he was still picked in the 6th.

 

 

So was Tom Brady, what the fuck is your point?

 

6th round players can't be good?

[Harry Buffalo]

So was Tom Brady, what the fuck is your point?

 

6th round players can't be good?

 

No, my point is that you don't blindly name a 6th round pick great after 1 year. People are already talking like he is the second coming of Christ. We don't know how good he can be as a starter. He did good as a rotation guy last year, I hope he does good again as one this year, and I hope he turns into a great player... but I haven't seen enough of him to hand him the keys to the kingdom like everyone else wants to do.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

No, my point is that you don't blindly name a 6th round pick great after 1 year. People are already talking like he is the second coming of Christ. We don't know how good he can be as a starter. He did good as a rotation guy last year, I hope he does good again as one this year, and I hope he turns into a great player... but I haven't seen enough of him to hand him the keys to the kingdom like everyone else wants to do.

 

I never said he was great. I said he could be a starter, which he can be.

 

Unless we fill a couple more holes, I'm not sure the Browns are a kingdom I would want to inherit.

 

And Banner said he's okay with the DL depth.

[Harry Buffalo]

I never said he was great. I said he could be a starter, which he can be.

 

Unless we fill a couple more holes, I'm not sure the Browns are a kingdom I would want to inherit.

 

And Banner said he's okay with the DL depth.

 

Exactly, I'm not saying we should cut him or anything, cause we need him. He will just be used in the same compacity as he was last season, which isn't a bad thing. He could be a starter, but I'm happy we got someone we know will be a starter.

[beefjerky]

Phil Taylor is listed at 6'3 335, and Winn 6'4 295, I would rather have more size at that position to collapse the pocket and let the LBs get sacks. Winn can be a rotational player I'm sure, but I can't fathom why some of you want Winn in over Taylor.

[hoorta]

Phil Taylor is listed at 6'3 335, and 6'4 295, I would rather have more size at that position to collapse the pocket and let the LBs get sacks. Winn can be a rotational player I'm sure, but I can't fathom why some of you want Winn in over Taylor.

 

I sure don't. What some guys aren't getting is:

 

1) Bryant, Taylor and Rubin won't be playing every snap on defense.

 

2) Horton won't strictly be running a 3-4. Gee, maybe Rubin AND Taylor will be the DTs, Winn and Bryant DEs.

[The Gipper]

Gip, you're right. How could I and every coach/exec/coordinator be so blind?

 

Schemes are useless. Lets line 11 players up wherever they want. After all, it's just tackling a person with a ball.

 

 

 

Your ignorance of the sport is astounding.

 

You show me any team that runs a 5-3 base defense or a 46 defense and I'll show you a 0 win team.

 

The 1985 Bears ran the 46 defense. They went 15-1 and are considered one of the best teams in history.

Because of the players they had on that team, they could come back today and run the same defense and be very successful. Or, they could run the 3-4 and also be successful.

 

So, maybe here is where we differ: Apparently, you believe success is ALL about the scheme.

 

I say that success all about the quality of the players and the coaching. Hordes of coaches have tried to duplicate the LeBeau scheme...but none of them have been as successful because they don't teach it as well.

The scheme a team runs is a minor factor in success.

And my further point is that it is fucking absurd that a well paid professional football defensive player could not adapt to a different scheme.

[The Gipper]

You do realize Kruger and Sheard will both rotate in at DE, right? Kruger plays with his hand in the dirt about a quarter of the time.

 

That's Taylor, Rubin, Bryant, Kruger, Sheard, Winn and Hughes rotating at 3 spots.

 

 

Any one of those players, excluding Hughes, can start for many teams in the NFL.

 

And we should keep them all. If Sheard and Kruger are also to play LB, then those 7 players would be rotating at 4 spots, not 3.

[Harry Buffalo]

You do realize Kruger and Sheard will both rotate in at DE, right? Kruger plays with his hand in the dirt about a quarter of the time.

 

That's Taylor, Rubin, Bryant, Kruger, Sheard, Winn and Hughes rotating at 3 spots.

 

 

Any one of those players, excluding Hughes, can start for many teams in the NFL.

 

You do realize that a guy lined up at 3-4 OLB CAN put his hand down in the dirt, don't you? Or that we WILL be running a few 4-3 formations as well?

 

I mean what do you think is going to happen if we pushed Kruger and Sheard down into the 3-4 DE spot? Run the defense with 9 guys that play? We have 3 DL spots, 3 with tested starting talent, 3 with tested reserve talent. We are not going to be cutting people loose. Don't believe me? Listen to Banners interview from yesterday.

[Unsympathetic]

I said he could be a starter, which he can be.

 

You do not know that. Nobody knows that. You are making an assumption. You could very well be correct, but as of today you are making an assumption.

 

Winn was not starting at the end of last season - Hughes was, and if we had the same defense next season with the same coordinator, the other DE starter opposite Sheard was going to be.. Hughes, not Winn.

[Zombo]

You do not know that. Nobody knows that. You are making an assumption. You could very well be correct, but as of today you are making an assumption.

 

Winn was not starting at the end of last season - Hughes was, and if we had the same defense next season with the same coordinator, the other DE starter opposite Sheard was going to be.. Hughes, not Winn.

 

Billy Winn may be the most over-adored reserve since Ben Gay.

 

Zombo

[Unsympathetic]

Billy Winn may be the most over-adored reserve since Ben Gay.

 

Zombo

 

Kelly Holcomb is immortal!

[miktoxic]

hey ladies. can the browns ever complete a squad on one side of the ball, defense or offense, without fucking it up?

 

i mean we grab some good FAs within 48 hours of the opening bell and now that we have them signed (giving us starters and depth) fans now all of a sudden want to trade other players away to fullfill their arm chair GMs fantasy?

 

GTFO!

 

of course the FO will entertain trade offers BUT at what cost? are we gonna trade rubin who is arguably the 2nd best DT on the team? for who or what? on first thought i say keep everybody and weed the weak out in training camp.

 

would you trade rubin straight up for mallet? ok. maybe. only if there is a replacement in the draft sitting there when we pick. but that's not the point. now we have resources that we've needed for years and when we finally get them you want to break up the team.

 

c'mon man.