Flyin J Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 the best BALANCED offense with a great defense.So youre saying all this about running the ball and playing D but advocating drafting a WR at 4? Id rather have Mosley, or that Auburn LT if they deem none of the QBs worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 just cuz carr's brother sucked doesn't mean he will. True, but as some genius tried to argue the other day by the fact that Eli is not as good as Peyton, it does not mean that Derek is more likely to be better than David. You don't draft a WR to make your QB position better. You actually draft the QB. Teams have tried... a lot, in fact. It's wagging the dog. The idea is to improve the passing offense... Name three teams that have tried and failed to improve their passing offense by adding great WRs to their roster... But now it's preferred to take a WR when they already have Gordon and Cameron? I think it's mighty presemuptious to assume Hoyer can be a star, and that Manziel, Bortles and Teddy will all flop. Your argument is no more compelling than one that demands a QB be taken. Right now, I don't see how, based on their philosophy and the shape of the league--a franchise QB doesn't just allow you to pass better, he opens up the running game by keeping teams honest--they can afford to not take the best prospect. a premier signal caller is required. Who that is I don't know yet or have a final opinion on. Some are saying star vs flops, but don't think I am and I do not think that has to be the case. You simply have to presume that Hoyer can be as good as any of the three prospects for as long as any of the three prospects. When I believe that "WR" is the best player in the draft, yes, I take him. The arguments for Sammy vs. "a top QB" may be equally compelling, but one of them will in time prove to be wrong. Which one? Beats me, but until time passes I can only go with what my head is telling based upon everything I have seen/ analyzed... same as you... same as Shep... same as xXx... same as Phil In-The Blank ... I like my odds, but then it's my judgment. A "franchise QB" does not "open up the running game", an effective passing attack does. A franchise QB certainly helps a passing attack to be effective, but is not a prerequisite for a passing attack to be effective. I think the SF Offense is an example of the latter. Colin's big plus is that he contributes to the running game as well. Ditto for Wilson... Ditto for Newton... That a running QB helps to open up the running game is essentially axiomatic. I have to add that introducing the term "franchise" into the convo is not helpful. I do not know whether it implies "elite" or simply means a QB that is good enough to start for an extended period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I dont think we need to really improve "the passing offense to the extent of adding a top 5 reciever. We definitely need to address the running game though. If we come to the conclusion that none of the QBs are worth that selection, there are other positions that would help this team more. CJ Mosely and Greg Robinson. Also, this is the strongest WR draft Ive seen in a few years, there's a lot of value to be had later. WR is probably gonna be the deepest position in FA also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I know this is about Carr, and ill reply to you Tour when I get to a computer, but I think it would be interesting to see how many people argued against taking WRs high in the draft previously, but are now advocating for Watkins, just to make a point against taking a QB. If Gordon didn't explode, maybe Watkins over a QB, but he's a luxury pick IMHO. I agree with the "luxury pick" phrase describing Watkins. It is not an ideal pick, but he's one of the three "stars" in thd draft along with Matthews and Clowney so I wouldn't hate it. I'm still pro-QB in this draft, just not sold on trading up...yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 So basically to make the playoff you have to be in the upper half of the league in passing... Added a few to 23's nice digging... Of the 12 teams that made the playoffs... More Offensive Stats: 6 of 12 were in top 16 in time of possession (1 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 27th 8 of the 12 were in the top 16 in rushing yardage (4 out of 4 remaining) - Browns were 27th 4 of the 12 had a postive turnover differential <====== SHOCKER! (3 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 14th at +1 8 of 12 were in bottom 16 in sacks allowed (2 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 30th 8 of 12 were in bottom 16 in QB hits allowed (2 of 4 remaining) - Browns were dead last Defensive Stats: 5 of the 12 were in top 16 of fewest yards allowed per game (2 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 9th 6 of 12 were in top 16 of fewest penalties (3 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 11th 6 of 12 were in top 17 (ties) in lowest rushing YPA allowed (2 of 4 remaining) - Browns were T-7th 7 of 12 were in top 16 in lowest rushing YPG allowed (3 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 18th 8 of 12 were in top 16 in lowest opponent QBR allowed (3 of 4 remaining) - Browns were 16th 8 of 12 were in top 17 (ties) in most sacks (3 of 4 remaining) - Browns were T-16th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Going back to offensive balance, here are sone interesting stats on our o-line: We ranked 18th overall in run blocking We ranked 9th on 1st down/goalline conversions from 2 or less (surprising) We ranked 28th on 2nd level run yds We ranked 31st in open-field rushing In directional running, here is our rank and % of run plays called toward that direction vs. league avg... Left end 31st 4% vs. 11% Left tackle 1st (not surprising) 11% vs. 13% Guard/center 22nd 68% vs. 54% Right tackle 25th 11% vs. 11% Right end 15th 6% vs. 6% Looks like weak Guard play, weak run-blocking from Schwartz, bad playcalling, and no explosive RB were the culprits in our poor rungame this year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 ... I think it would be interesting to see how many people argued against taking WRs high in the draft previously, but are now advocating for Watkins, just to make a point against taking a QB. If Gordon didn't explode, maybe Watkins over a QB, but he's a luxury pick IMHO. Based upon need, I understand why Watkins at #4 could be considered a luxury, but I try not to consider need. I believe that to take need into consideration is a fool's errand. As for your previous draft curiosity... I for one was against us drafting both Green and Jones, but both drafts pre-date my activity here. I did not think either was built to last in the NFL (a familiar theme of mine). I do not remember who I was advocating over them, but I remember I applauded the trade down with Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Based upon need, I understand why Watkins at #4 could be considered a luxury, but I try not to consider need. I believe that to take need into consideration is a fool's errand. As for your previous draft curiosity... I for one was against us drafting both Green and Jones, but both drafts pre-date my activity here. I did not think either was built to last in the NFL (a familiar theme of mine). I do not remember who I was advocating over them, but I remember I applauded the trade down with Atlanta. I wanted Jones. We just have to find you a prospect that you rate as high as Watkins at a position of greater need....challenge accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Cool... I need all the help I can get... Need is a perfect tie-breaker, but only player close to tied with Watkins on my board right now is Clowney. The two questions that I have with Clowney are his motivation and his fit into a 3-4. If we return to a 4-3, one of those goes away. If his motivation ceased to be a question, then I'd wrestle with his value vs. Sammy's. I think you'd agree we are deeper at DE than WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Cool... I need all the help I can get... Need is a perfect tie-breaker, but only player close to tied with Watkins on my board right now is Clowney. The two questions that I have with Clowney are his motivation and his fit into a 3-4. If we return to a 4-3, one of those goes away. If his motivation ceased to be a question, then I'd wrestle with his value vs. Sammy's. I think you'd agree we are deeper at DE than WR. How about one of these TEs? Amaro or Ebron? I think Robinson would be a fantastic addition for our run game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 How about one of these TEs? Amaro or Ebron? I think Robinson would be a fantastic addition for our run game. And here I thought your offer was serious... I think Amaro will be a good TE, but his college numbers were pumped up by Tech's system. While I think Ebron will be even better than Amaro, I do not see elite. If I want a more traditional TE, Iowa's Fiedorowicz strikes me a as much better value in the late 3rd or early 4th. I am not sure which "Robinson" you are referring to... the Citadel FB? More likely the Auburn OT. If the latter... no, there is one elite OT in the draft and he will not be there at #4. If the former... hell no... While I agree we need a RT upgrade, again there are better values for the position in subsequent rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Mathews isn't elite? Or Robinson? I think they both end up top 10. Robinson would be my preference because of the switch to the right side, and his domination when run blocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Mathews isn't elite? Or Robinson? I think they both end up top 10. Robinson would be my preference because of the switch to the right side, and his domination when run blocking. well the right side of the OL definitely needs to be fixed, somehow. i don't know if you take the OL @4 even though i see some draftniks have him looming in the 5-8 area. if went back to a 4-3 clowney would be my pick IF bortles was off the table. i think bortles will be there, but seeing as how this org. is being run right now will probably do a skins move to trade up to number 1 to get johnny and be fucked for the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoeticG Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I could see a 3-4 front of Rubin, Taylor and Clowney. What about Des Bryant you ask? I'm not sure that we can put a lot of faith in the guy. Wasn't that the second time that he' missed time for heart issues? What if he can't make it back. Granted, we still have Kitchen, Hughes, Winn and Armonty Bryant, but they are not the same caliber of player, yet. Clowney could be great... or he could be the next Warren. John Manziel could be great... or he could be the next Akili Smith. Derek Carr could be great... or he could be the next David Carr. Bridgewater could be great... but most likely will not be... Watkins could be great.. Braylon Edwards... We could do this until May and it wouldn't change the fact that it's all a risk, nobody is a fortune teller. Anyone could be a success; anyone could be a bust. It's all about what is inside that person... Hell, Weeden could have even been good... at baseball... well, maybe not anyone could be a success... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin J Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I could see a 3-4 front of Rubin, Taylor and Clowney. What about Des Bryant you ask? I'm not sure that we can put a lot of faith in the guy. Wasn't that the second time that he' missed time for heart issues? What if he can't make it back. Granted, we still have Kitchen, Hughes, Winn and Armonty Bryant, but they are not the same caliber of player, yet. Clowney could be great... or he could be the next Warren. John Manziel could be great... or he could be the next Akili Smith. Derek Carr could be great... or he could be the next David Carr. Bridgewater could be great... but most likely will not be... Watkins could be great.. Braylon Edwards... We could do this until May and it wouldn't change the fact that it's all a risk, nobody is a fortune teller. Anyone could be a success; anyone could be a bust. It's all about what is inside that person... Hell, Weeden could have even been good... at baseball... well, maybe not anyone could be a success... Rubin could be on his way out actually. Clowney Taylor Bryant would be nasty. I see Clowney as a 4-3 end but he could be a force at 3-4 end also. Id take him over Watkins at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I could see a 3-4 front of Rubin, Taylor and Clowney. What about Des Bryant you ask? I'm not sure that we can put a lot of faith in the guy. Wasn't that the second time that he' missed time for heart issues? What if he can't make it back. Granted, we still have Kitchen, Hughes, Winn and Armonty Bryant, but they are not the same caliber of player, yet. Clowney could be great... or he could be the next Warren. John Manziel could be great... or he could be the next Akili Smith. Derek Carr could be great... or he could be the next David Carr. Bridgewater could be great... but most likely will not be... Watkins could be great.. Braylon Edwards... We could do this until May and it wouldn't change the fact that it's all a risk, nobody is a fortune teller. Anyone could be a success; anyone could be a bust. It's all about what is inside that person... Hell, Weeden could have even been good... at baseball... well, maybe not anyone could be a success... Some people are better at it then others consistently. See: Ozzie, Bellichik (chooses personnel), Cowher era. Then there's other competent GMs like Elway, Pioli, several others. Then there's Mike Lombardi... Its still too early to judge this go around, but maybe possible hits are Hoyer, Mingo, Des Bryant, Armonty Bryant. Everyone misses, but there's no reason to be confident in the people who are running the browns. And I couldn't complain much about a pick like Bridgewater, Clowney, Watkins. All seem to be decent picks at #4. A QB is just more risky. We take a QB we have a greater chance for bust, and lose out on a potential impact player for years to come (Clowney, Watkins) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Some people are better at it then others consistently. See: Ozzie, Bellichik (chooses personnel), Cowher era. Then there's other competent GMs like Elway, Pioli, several others. Then there's Mike Lombardi... Its still too early to judge this go around, but maybe possible hits are Hoyer, Mingo, Des Bryant, Armonty Bryant. Everyone misses, but there's no reason to be confident in the people who are running the browns. And I couldn't complain much about a pick like Bridgewater, Clowney, Watkins. All seem to be decent picks at #4. A QB is just more risky. We take a QB we have a greater chance for bust, and lose out on a potential impact player for years to come (Clowney, Watkins) This statement is not true at all. Any player at any position can be a bust. Also, depends on your definition of a bust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Mathews isn't elite? Or Robinson? I think they both end up top 10. Robinson would be my preference because of the switch to the right side, and his domination when run blocking. Mathews is elite and I have said so repeatedly... I believe you misread me. Robinson... I have not seen elite yet, but have not film studied him. Since he is an underclassman I have spent no time on him. Now that he has declared I will. Schwartz was supposed to a be a roadgrader, too. Turned out he has a problem locating quicker DE be it in pass protection or run blocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 This statement is not true at all. Any player at any position can be a bust. Also, depends on your definition of a bust... Disagree with your disagreement... While, yes, any position can produce "busts", it seems to me that the greater the skill set required... the greater the chances of "busting". And IMO... QB skill requirements are the greatest of the 24 starting positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 His first name is Derek and his last name is Carr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Bump.Fuck you captain hindsight. Can we lock this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.