Guest Aloysius Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Looked VERY bad against Buffalo in run defense. That's an understatement. He was horrible (though he looked better in other games that I watched). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewDago Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Everybody says it's easier to get a ILB in FA...if that is the case why haven't the Browns had one in 40 years? Also to JD....English is a LATE first rounder and may even make it to second round after being beaten by Oher most of the senior Bowl....no way on God's green earth is he a top 10ner IMO> we say it's easier to get an ILB than a pass rusher because there's been one instance of a dominant pass rusher hitting the market in the prime of his career and that's reggie white. it doesn't help that there's an absolute dearth of pass rushing talent available this year. i included english and sintim in the event that the FO is planning a trade down and targeting them with the idea of getting a pass rusher and also stockpiling picks, not with the idea that we'd take either at five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 as to Pitt Farrior and foote are KA together Not a singletary, but together are the best in football. Mayo and Bruchi are very close...I don't follow the chargers but as I recall they got Gashed inside on the run all year...jets have Harris whom I wanted badly...Miami is a mystery to me! I think you see my point though. You don't have to have that "dominant" ILB in the 3-4. To be honest, there is probably all of 3 dominant ILB/MLB in the NFL today any way. As you said elsewhere, CLE hasn't had a MLB/ILB really hold his weight since Holmes. I'd take a guy who can do what he did, and that can be found in FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solon16 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Gotcha.... I still think and always will Qb on O and QB on D (MLB) is of MAJOR importance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Gotcha.... I still think and always will Qb on O and QB on D (MLB) is of MAJOR importance I don't disagree with that thinking. But that QB on D (MLB) doesn't always have to be a beast or a thumper. Anymore, the FS is starting to look like that huge key piece on D in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.