Stopping the run The Truth

[Clevfan4life]

oh and just read a recent article about Bosa that lists him at 285. I think there might be some pre draft shit that goes on. Cuase he ain't 285 and Watt wasn't 290

[bbedward]

oh and just read a recent article about Bosa that lists him at 285. I think there might be some pre draft shit that goes on. Cuase he ain't 285 and Watt wasn't 290

 

Combine weight is what matters. Watt was 290, we don't know what Bosa will be until then (but it probably is around 270)

 

But Bosa = Watt, no.

 

Bosa = Jared Allen, maybe.

 

(NFL.com compares him to Ryan Kerrigan)

[Clevfan4life]

 

Combine weight is what matters. Watt was 290, we don't know what Bosa will be until then (but it probably is around 270)

 

But Bosa = Watt, no.

 

Bosa = Jared Allen, maybe.

 

(NFL.com compares him to Ryan Kerrigan)

 

I looked at tape of Watt a few weeks ago and frankly if the two were coming out right now i'd still be somewhat more in favor of Bosa. But that's "NOT" knowing what Watt ended up being. Just based purely on their college tape I still like Bosa better because he looks more honest in run defense. Watt looked like he just wanted to get upfield asap, which is fine in pass rushing situations which is why I would grade him a more overall pure pass rusher and Bosa as the 5 tool guy.

 

Obviously Watt became the do all, I get it. As for the comparison to Allen, no. Like Allen, but i'd take Bosa right now over Jared Allen at any point in his career "for the Browns". We don't need a pure pass rusher like Allen. We could get away with that if we have better LB'ers, which we don't.

[The Gipper]

 

Combine weight is what matters. Watt was 290, we don't know what Bosa will be until then (but it probably is around 270)

 

But Bosa = Watt, no.

 

Bosa = Jared Allen, maybe.

 

(NFL.com compares him to Ryan Kerrigan)

I compare him to Howie Long. No one has disputed that.

 

Oh? WTF....weren't you guys around to see Howie Long play.

 

Learn your fucking history of the game.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

I compare him to Howie Long. No one has disputed that.

 

Oh? WTF....weren't you guys around to see Howie Long play.

 

Learn your fucking history of the game.

Doesn't matter anymore.

[Tour2ma]

wtf he was 290 coming out of college? and listed as a DE? No fucking way...

Way... Combine numbers can't be fudged.

 

anyway, Joey was benching 440 in HS and runs I the 4'7s while Watt ran 4'8's coming out.

Hand times can easily be 0.1 sec "faster" vs. electronic times, but if Bosa has a shot, it'll be in the 40.

 

I actually look for Watt's 10-yd split, vertical jump and standing broad to produce the biggest differences. Explosion out of a stance is the biggest physical difference I see in the two players.

 

I think JJ's will got him three or so final bench reps that I don't think Bosa has in him.

[The Gipper]

Doesn't matter anymore.

Why not?

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Why not?

 

 

It's comparing apples to oranges - just like comparing a prospect 30 years from now to JJ Watt will be the same way. Howie was absolutely phenomenal at the time that he played, but we have no way of knowing how great he'd be today just because of the fundamental ebb and flow of the game. Watt is phenomenal today, but we have no way of knowing if he'd have been great then, nor if he would be great in 2046.

 

That's why comparing current prospects to guys that haven't played in a decade or more is just silly, IMO.

[The Gipper]

 

 

It's comparing apples to oranges - just like comparing a prospect 30 years from now to JJ Watt will be the same way. Howie was absolutely phenomenal at the time that he played, but we have no way of knowing how great he'd be today just because of the fundamental ebb and flow of the game. Watt is phenomenal today, but we have no way of knowing if he'd have been great then, nor if he would be great in 2046.

 

That's why comparing current prospects to guys that haven't played in a decade or more is just silly, IMO.

Well, the fact is.....Howie Long and Bosa are almost the exact same height/weight and play essentially the same position. I don't know about "40 time" as I don't know if they measured it much in his days.

 

And the last time I looked, the game of football is still all about blocking and tackling.

In terms of analyzing how he moved, what techniques they each used....as far as I am concerned it is still comparable if you analyze film.

 

It is like people say that you could not tell how well Jim Brown would do today. The fact is, Jim Brown would still be bigger, faster, stronger than today's RBs.

The league has gotten bigger in the last 40 years in the interior lines, but RBs, WRs, and DEs are not really any bigger. Deacon Jones played DE at 6'5" 275. Isn't it fair to say that is a pretty typical size for a DE today?

As far as the game....these player would have been smart enough to play the game today. Is it different? Sure, but Howie Long and Deacon Jones would have eminently been able to adapt. Even if Jones had to give up his famous head slap he could have played with the best of them.

So...to me, comparing today's players to former players is not silly at all. Anyone that doesn't want to do it just doesn't know the history of the game that well...or is lazy.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Well, the fact is.....Howie Long and Bosa are almost the exact same height/weight and play essentially the same position. I don't know about "40 time" as I don't know if they measured it much in his days.

 

And the last time I looked, the game of football is still all about blocking and tackling.

In terms of analyzing how he moved, what techniques they each used....as far as I am concerned it is still comparable if you analyze film.

 

It is like people say that you could not tell how well Jim Brown would do today. The fact is, Jim Brown would still be bigger, faster, stronger than today's RBs.

The league has gotten bigger in the last 40 years in the interior lines, but RBs, WRs, and DEs are not really any bigger. Deacon Jones played DE at 6'5" 275. Isn't it fair to say that is a pretty typical size for a DE today?

As far as the game....these player would have been smart enough to play the game today. Is it different? Sure, but Howie Long and Deacon Jones would have eminently been able to adapt. Even if Jones had to give up his famous head slap he could have played with the best of them.

So...to me, comparing today's players to former players is not silly at all. Anyone that doesn't want to do it just doesn't know the history of the game that well...or is lazy.

 

 

On the contrary, saying "the game is about blocking and tackling" is lazy. Sure, the game is about blocking and tackling...to a layman. If it were solely about those two aspects and nothing else, the best prospects would routinely be the physical specimens and nothing else.

 

There's an infinite amount of minute details that go into becoming the greatest player of your time...and those details are in constant motion. The edge rushers of today would have had more issues in the run-happy league of yesteryear, and vice versa. Not only because of size and technique differences, but because of blocking designation changes over the past twenty years.

 

As physical prospects? Sure. They're pretty close. Long was about 10 lbs. lighter, seemingly quicker, and played more relentlessly than I see Bosa playing, personally. But Bosa is closer to Long's size than, say, Watt's.

 

On the field? I don't see the comparison. Long played a 3-4 DE at 265 lbs. Bosa is figured to be a 3-4 OLB at 275 and will certainly be used in coverage more often than Long ever was. The game has changed.

 

You can take up another one of your long-winded Gipper posts trying to uselessly defend a moot point, but I'm done with it. You have your wrong opinion and that's fine.

[jrb12711]

Well, the fact is.....Howie Long and Bosa are almost the exact same height/weight and play essentially the same position. I don't know about "40 time" as I don't know if they measured it much in his days.

 

And the last time I looked, the game of football is still all about blocking and tackling.

In terms of analyzing how he moved, what techniques they each used....as far as I am concerned it is still comparable if you analyze film.

 

It is like people say that you could not tell how well Jim Brown would do today. The fact is, Jim Brown would still be bigger, faster, stronger than today's RBs.

The league has gotten bigger in the last 40 years in the interior lines, but RBs, WRs, and DEs are not really any bigger. Deacon Jones played DE at 6'5" 275. Isn't it fair to say that is a pretty typical size for a DE today?

As far as the game....these player would have been smart enough to play the game today. Is it different? Sure, but Howie Long and Deacon Jones would have eminently been able to adapt. Even if Jones had to give up his famous head slap he could have played with the best of them.

So...to me, comparing today's players to former players is not silly at all. Anyone that doesn't want to do it just doesn't know the history of the game that well...or is lazy.

 

Gip, I think you're misunderstanding and getting offended at the argument when really no one is disagreeing with you. Howie Long was a good football player back in his playing days, and stacks up physical traits wise to other dudes. The simple point is, football and any other major sport changes over time. There's really no way to say Jim Brown would be good or bad today, just like there's no way to say if Joey Bosa would be good 30 years ago. Players who are elite are trained to be football players in the era they played in, and that's just fine. But to argue one player who played a generation before another one is "better" just doesn't make sense.

 

To provide context in another sport. Shaq was a dominant, all-time center. However, it's widely known that in today's game he would have been called for ALOT more offensive fouls due to his style of play. That doesn't take away from what he did, but to compare a guy like Dwight Howard to him is really unfair in this regard. You're wayy too caught up in the idea of young whipper snappers thinking old timers aren't good, but no one thinks that way that I talk to. It's simply that it's useless to compare players who despite playing the same sport live in an entirely different era of the game. Can you imagine Jack Tatum playing today in the NFL? He's considered an incredible safety but he would likely be out of the league with the safety rules in place.

[The Gipper]

 

 

On the contrary, saying "the game is about blocking and tackling" is lazy. Sure, the game is about blocking and tackling...to a layman. If it were solely about those two aspects and nothing else, the best prospects would routinely be the physical specimens and nothing else.

It is not lazy....but it is a basic shortcut describing the game.

The Denver Broncos beat the Patriots because they blocked for Manning and company.....and Brady's OL did not block well enough for him to win.

 

There's an infinite amount of minute details that go into becoming the greatest player of your time...and those details are in constant motion. The edge rushers of today would have had more issues in the run-happy league of yesteryear, and vice versa. Not only because of size and technique differences, but because of blocking designation changes over the past twenty years.

Are there nuances in the game? Sure. Do schemes change a bit? Sure. But it can still come down to one guy beating the other guys ass. See what Geno Atkins did to Cam Erving. There wasn't anyting different in what Atkins did that wasn't done 20-30-40-50 years ago. Atkins knocked him on his ass.

 

As physical prospects? Sure. They're pretty close. Long was about 10 lbs. lighter, seemingly quicker, and played more relentlessly than I see Bosa playing, personally. But Bosa is closer to Long's size than, say, Watt's.

That is what I said: Bosa is the same size as Long.

 

On the field? I don't see the comparison. Long played a 3-4 DE at 265 lbs. Bosa is figured to be a 3-4 OLB at 275 and will certainly be used in coverage more often than Long ever was. The game has changed.

Long is listed at 275....did you think I fucking made that up.

 

You can take up another one of your long-winded Gipper posts trying to uselessly defend a moot point, but I'm done with it. You have your wrong opinion and that's fine.

A useless point? The point is football.....the bigger stronger better player wins. Or is that a moot point to you?

It is called fucking football.

Bosa and Long have almost exact physical measurements. At this point you have no clue how Bosa is to be used. In college he was used almost exactly the same way Long was used with the Raiders. Maybe today's game may call for a bit more coverage skilss. I have no doubt Long could have handled that. He did handle that. Have you ever heard of Howie Long? Did you ever see him play. He could handle it. It is stupid to think he could not.

 

Where does this ignorance and arrogance come from? Is that all we get from "millenenials?

[Clevfan4life]

Way... Combine numbers can't be fudged.

 

 

Hand times can easily be 0.1 sec "faster" vs. electronic times, but if Bosa has a shot, it'll be in the 40.

 

I actually look for Watt's 10-yd split, vertical jump and standing broad to produce the biggest differences. Explosion out of a stance is the biggest physical difference I see in the two players.

 

I think JJ's will got him three or so final bench reps that I don't think Bosa has in him.

 

It'll be interesting to see. I would not be surprised to see Bosa loaf at the combine though so he drops a couple back. That's the one thing I don't like about him, his attitude about where he plays. You can tell he'd like to go the team of his choosing which would probably mean Jacksonville, Miami or Tampa.

[The Gipper]

 

Gip, I think you're misunderstanding and getting offended at the argument when really no one is disagreeing with you. Howie Long was a good football player back in his playing days, and stacks up physical traits wise to other dudes. The simple point is, football and any other major sport changes over time. There's really no way to say Jim Brown would be good or bad today, just like there's no way to say if Joey Bosa would be good 30 years ago. Players who are elite are trained to be football players in the era they played in, and that's just fine. But to argue one player who played a generation before another one is "better" just doesn't make sense.

 

To provide context in another sport. Shaq was a dominant, all-time center. However, it's widely known that in today's game he would have been called for ALOT more offensive fouls due to his style of play. That doesn't take away from what he did, but to compare a guy like Dwight Howard to him is really unfair in this regard. You're wayy too caught up in the idea of young whipper snappers thinking old timers aren't good, but no one thinks that way that I talk to. It's simply that it's useless to compare players who despite playing the same sport live in an entirely different era of the game. Can you imagine Jack Tatum playing today in the NFL? He's considered an incredible safety but he would likely be out of the league with the safety rules in place.

Well, again, to me it seems to me that you are assuming that guys who played in yesteryear could not have adapted to the game played today.

If Jack Tatum were playing today he would be taught and counseled on the proper methods of tackling. The fact that he used the forearm shiver to tackle in his day because it was acceptable does not mean he had to use it to be good....just that he could use it.

Same with Deacon Jones and his head slap. Same with Howie Long and playing more coverage than he did.

 

I don't think Jim Brown would have had to change anything at all really. Just run people over. Are DTs and LBs bigger and faster now than then? Sure. But that does not mean he would not have been great. He would have run over todays DBs just like he did then.

The guys blocking for him would have been bigger, stronger faster as well.

[jrb12711]

Well, again, to me it seems to me that you are assuming that guys who played in yesteryear could not have adapted to the game played today.

If Jack Tatum were playing today he would be taught and counseled on the proper methods of tackling. The fact that he used the forearm shiver to tackle in his day because it was acceptable does not mean he had to use it to be good....just that he could use it.

Same with Deacon Jones and his head slap. Same with Howie Long and playing more coverage than he did.

 

I don't think Jim Brown would have had to change anything at all really. Just run people over. Are DTs and LBs bigger and faster now than then? Sure. But that does not mean he would not have been great. He would have run over todays DBs just like he did then.

The guys blocking for him would have been bigger, stronger faster as well.

 

That's exactly what I'm trying to say though, there's no way to know because it's just a different time. Jim Brown could have easily been a good player and adapted, but it's a useless argument because it's impossible to know. One can "guess" but it really is a waste of time. It's a two way-street on that though, for example could a guy like LeSean McCoy have been good 30 years ago?

 

Great players were great players, but to do an argument on x player from 30 years ago being on par to x player now just doesn't make sense because there will be no way to ever prove it. It's not about taking away how good players were or will be, it's just something that doesn't add up.

[The Gipper]

 

That's exactly what I'm trying to say though, there's no way to know because it's just a different time. Jim Brown could have easily been a good player and adapted, but it's a useless argument because it's impossible to know. One can "guess" but it really is a waste of time. It's a two way-street on that though, for example could a guy like LeSean McCoy have been good 30 years ago?

 

Great players were great players, but to do an argument on x player from 30 years ago being on par to x player now just doesn't make sense because there will be no way to ever prove it. It's not about taking away how good players were or will be, it's just something that doesn't add up.

Well, I think that there are some objective things that you can look at.

It is often said that players today are bigger, faster, stronger.....but I am of the opinion that basically only applies to the interior lines.

Jim Brown at 6'2 232 lbs. is bigger than Adrian Peterson. Don't know about speed/40times/vertical jumps etc....but I don't think JB would have been at all behind at these.

WRs...again, heights, weights, speed not really different.

DEs seem to be the same......as noted, a Deacon Jones is every bit as big as DEs playing now.

QBs do seem to be generally taller.

We have noted in the "Camps" that are being discussed on here that those guys are like 6'5, 6'6 etc.

QBs of the 50s and 60s were generally 6'0, 6'1, 6'2.

QBs of the 70s were more generally 6'3" ...that is the height of Bradshaw/Fouts/Staubach/Elway

There were exceptions

 

It is the OL and DT where the weights have increased drastically.

Merlin Olsen was 270, Bob Lilly only 260 Much smaller than today's interior linemen.

 

But my point about skilled position players stands. Look at all the short receivers we have. It looks like a bunch of Lance Alworth's out there.

[Mudfly]

Always tough to compare past players with todays players.....usually I just look at how superior that player was to his contemporaries compared to the modern player and his level of play vs his contemporaries...

 

I would also think that if Jim Brown was playing today, he would be just like the other players of today....bigger, faster and stronger.....which is a pretty scary thought....

 

Well never know....but personally....I think he'd be pretty damn good in any era.....

[TexasAg1969]

Always tough to compare past players with todays players.....usually I just look at how superior that player was to his comtemporaries compared to the modern player and his level of play vs his comtemporaries...

 

I would also think that if Jim Brown was playing today, he would be just like the other players of today....bigger, faster and stronger.....which is a pretty scary thought....

 

Well never know....but personally....I think he'd be pretty damn good in any era.....

 

I'd give anything to have him on the Browns now exactly as he was in his prime. Our running game would actually exist as a threat. Guess we'll have to settle for Henry. :lol:

[Mudfly]

 

I'd give anything to have him on the Browns now exactly as he was in his prime. Our running game would actually exist as a threat. Guess we'll have to settle for Henry. :lol:

Id take him too....no doubt.....and Ill settle for anyone who gets the job done.....

[The Gipper]

 

I'd give anything to have him on the Browns now exactly as he was in his prime. Our running game would actually exist as a threat. Guess we'll have to settle for Henry. :lol:

Comparing Henry to The Crow as best as I could find:

 

Crowell 5'11 Henry 6'3"

Crowell 224 lbs. Henry 240 lbs

Crowell 4.57 40 time Henry 4.50

Crowell 38 inch vertical leap Henry 35 inch

 

The following come from Crowell's Combine.....not sure what Henry's are right now:

31.5 arm length

9 1/4th " hand size

23 reps

117 broad jump.

 

Henry is a bit bigger, not necessarily faster.

 

Does anyone think taking him would be a vast improvement over Crowell?

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Comparing Henry to The Crow as best as I could find:

 

Crowell 5'11 Henry 6'3"

Crowell 224 lbs. Henry 240 lbs

Crowell 4.57 40 time Henry 4.50

Crowell 38 inch vertical leap Henry 35 inch

 

 

 

The following come from Crowell's Combine.....not sure what Henry's are right now:

31.5 arm length

9 1/4th " hand size

23 reps

117 broad jump.

 

Henry is a bit bigger, not necessarily faster.

 

Does anyone think taking him would be a vast improvement over Crowell?

No, and it's not because I think Crowell is good.

 

Henry is wholly average.

[The Gipper]

No, and it's not because I think Crowell is good.

 

Henry is wholly average.

I am not of the opinion that the Browns by any means should use their #32 pick on him. I would rather see them pick up a big, good WR there.

LIke I said, RBs are fungible, and you can get them in the late rounds.

I mean the Browns RB draft picks have been almost as bad as their QB picks. TR of course 1st round, West 3rd round. Montario Hardesty 2d round. Going back to William Green another first round best essentially.

You have to go back to Eric Metcalf or Ernest Byner to find a really good RB drafted by the Browns......and with Metcalf it was as much his special teams contributions that made him good as it was his RB skills.

 

Think about it: Byner taken in 1984....no true quality full time RB drafted since. And the last quality QB they drafted? Bernie in the Supp draft.

 

Think about it.....no real quality RB or QB in over 30 years drafted by this team. Really. Even if we give you Metcalf that was 1989.

Two important skill positions....no quality draftee in 25 years.

And Byner was a 10th round pick by the way. Today he would be UDFA.

Maybe Duke Johnson can break that spell.

[Mudfly]

Think about it: Byner taken in 1984....no true quality full time RB drafted since. And the last quality QB they drafted? Bernie in the Supp draft.

 

Think about it.....no real quality RB or QB in over 30 years drafted by this team. Really. Even if we give you Metcalf that was 1989.

Two important skill positions....no quality draftee in 25 years.

And Byner was a 10th round pick by the way. Today he would be UDFA.

Maybe Duke Johnson can break that spell.

And we drafted Mack the same year as Byner, except it was in the USFL Supplemental Draft....

 

In contrast, the 30 years preceding this drought, we drafted Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly, Greg Pruitt and Mike Pruitt.....which carried us right upto Mack & Byner......then, it was over.....

[The Gipper]

And we drafted Mack the same year as Byner, except it was in the USFL Supplemental Draft....

 

In contrast, the 30 years preceding this drought, we drafted Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly, Greg Pruitt and Mike Pruitt.....which carried us right upto Mack & Byner......then, it was over.....

Right. The Browns did good with that USFL Supp draft. And in getting good RBs. Even to this day hardly any team has done better in their history....even with the 30 year drought.

[TexasAg1969]

I'm telling you now that some team that is committed to the run will be glad he is there for the tough inside yards for first downs and setting up play action.

[Tour2ma]

I really want to see an edge rusher at 32...

 

Really hoping Spence is there or within reasonable trade up range.

[Flugel]

This won't be the first time divine intervention will put solutions on our door step;but it might be the first time we're counting on an intellect at the top that understands this.

 

Our FO and HC should be able to get their QB at #2 overall leaving us in perfect position to snag a quality defensive lineman at #32 in a draft loaded with DT/Dline talent. Many of us also like the big WR from TCU (Doctson) especially considering how often we've been able to rely on Josh Gordon around here.

 

I know we're not going to go wild in free agency; but there will be some of Hue's former players like Marvin Jone and Mo Sanu that would see his offense as a perfect fit. We don't have enough draft picks to solve everything while we're possibly losing starters via free agency so I gotta believe we'll still use the process. In doing so, it make it easier to focus on drafting help in the trenches and other areas of importance. Sometimes the draft doesn't always align itself with what we need. This year, however, it looks like we'll have some great options for our situation at #2 and #32.

[Flugel]

Comparing Henry to The Crow as best as I could find:

 

Crowell 5'11 Henry 6'3"

Crowell 224 lbs. Henry 240 lbs

Crowell 4.57 40 time Henry 4.50

Crowell 38 inch vertical leap Henry 35 inch

 

The following come from Crowell's Combine.....not sure what Henry's are right now:

31.5 arm length

9 1/4th " hand size

23 reps

117 broad jump.

 

Henry is a bit bigger, not necessarily faster.

 

Does anyone think taking him would be a vast improvement over Crowell?

 

I remembered hearing everyone praise us for drafting Trent Richardson when that was allegedly a terrific idea. That was before hindsight 20/20 showed up to remind us and Trent he wasn't in Alabama any more - just like Dorothy once needed to be reminded she wasn't in Kansas any more.

 

FWIW, Crow averaged something like 5.4 yards per carry midway through his rookie year. Do you think he just woke up as a bad football player somewhere in his 1st 2 years and that's all there is to it? Let's say we pretend we have a line that dominates opponents like Alabama always does, would we even be worrying about Crow?

 

Even though Mack made another Pro Bowl - I still didn't like our run blocking consistency inside the tackles. It felt like it took the right opponent like SF for everything to click. When it did, Crow was able to succeed exactly like those Alabama RBs seem to do when they have those favorable conditions all the time.

[wargograw]

I'm a dedicated #CrowHoe. Elliot is the only guy I would give up on him for this year. I would, however, probably have Crowell on a fairly short leash this season and if he's not getting it done by midseason, you bring someone else in and give them the reigns. But he will get it done.

 

Tour or anyone, have you guys broken down what kind of scheme Crowell ran in at Georgia and Alabama A&M? Curious as to how much the new blocking scheme will benefit him this year.

 

Also, I doubt Henry runs a 4.5 flat or better at the combine. Very slow feet in the backfield, which means his first 10 yards won't be very good. He does have pretty good long speed though. Will it be enough to salvage a great time? Who knows.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

On the flip side, I played with the Seahawks in Madden last night and it made me realize two things with absolute utmost certainty:

 

We need a quarterback.

We need two edge rushers.

 

 

That frees up everything else.