2021 Browns Depth Chart

[SdBacker80]

29 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I think with the right coaching, J Phillips can fulfill that role. Speed, size and a good first step.

I agree...not there yet but he has the athleticism to do it.

I like Baron Browning LB OSU in that role.  He showed flashes of pass rushing skills his Junior year.  I think he would be further along than Phillips right now in that regard. Maybe one of third round choices? 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Gunz41 said:

There is a difference in a pass blocking back and a FB as a run blocker. 

That's not to say that any of these guys CAN'T do the job, just that to try and compare to a different era of the game doesn't translate into it. Someone like Hunt for example could be able to do the job, but it also could be a detriment to his value. Sure, you would then have a more skilled player on the field more, but the accumulated hits isn't easy on the body for 1, and when Hunt and/or Chubb need a breather, instead of replacing with the other fresher guy, you are then either using your 3rd guy or a less fresh Chubb/Hunt. Even if Hunt as the example can do it sporadically, I wouldn't want to do it for multiple games. 

Now, if the goal is to have both on the field together more often in similar ways as currently played, then that is a different discussion, as they wouldn't be a fullback.

I don't have actual numbers, but what you would have seen 30 years ago and further back is a huge majority of teams throughout HS and college running predominantly run offenses (I, Wishbone, Wing offenses, etc). It would be rare to see a spread, West Coast, etc. And that produced the use of blocking backs. 

Of course, at one time the "Fullback"  WAS the running back.  Jim Brown was listed as a fullback,  same for Jim Taylor, Marion Motley, Larry Csonka, John Riggins, Franco Harris was the "fullback" Earl Campbell etc.  The last good "running Fullback"  that I recall was Mike Alstott.  A bit earlier, for the Browns,   both  Kevin Mack and Mike Pruitt, prime RBs were, I believe, listed as Fullbacks.  (Byner,  Greg Pruitt being the "halfbacks")   Ernie Green ....listed as a halfback, was Jim Browns primary blocking back.   Nowadays I don't think you have any FBs that really run with the ball, except on rare occasions. They are more the Kyle Juczsyk types  (and you expect them to have a name like that:  Janovic, Jusczyk, Rathman...or a nickname like "Moose" Johnson,).    The best name for a fullback IMO  was  Vaugh Broadnax. 

[ballpeen]

17 hours ago, SdBacker80 said:

WR group with no other moves we would have OBJ, Landry, Higgins, DPJ, Hodge.  Are we keeping 6?

DL- I think we need a Day 1 and Day 2 pick in the rotation next season and we need to develop talent for 2022 big time 
 

LB- I hear ya...Wilson should have been gone yesterday.

QB- Keenum is here this coming season and he’s a great insurance policy.  Next season cap hit is around 7M and the dead cap number is around 1.5.  He’s probably worth keeping in 2022 too but it Might be sound to develop someone this coming season we have a great FO maybe we uncover a Gardner Minshew 6th round 2019,  Kyle Allen undrafted type prospect sooner rather than later.  

I know I said to keep drafting a QB, but the reality is most back-ups are veteran players. Every year there are several out there.  In the end, it isn't all that hard to find one.

[Unsympathetic]

Wasn't peyton hillis listed at FB?

[SdBacker80]

3 hours ago, ballpeen said:

I know I said to keep drafting a QB, but the reality is most back-ups are veteran players. Every year there are several out there.  In the end, it isn't all that hard to find one.

I don’t see anything wrong with it from least to most likely...

1. He becomes a starter eventually on your team. 

2.  He becomes a starter eventually on another team and you are able to acquire a better draft pick.

3. He’s a 3rd sting and then maybe a cheaper backup in a couple years. 

4. They don’t develop and you are out a 3rd day draft pick.  Anyway an alternative pick was Likely a special teams player or another position player that doesn’t develop. 
 

Most valued position in the league. So Play the lottery each year - can’t win if you don’t play.

[Gunz41]

5 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Of course, at one time the "Fullback"  WAS the running back.  Jim Brown was listed as a fullback,  same for Jim Taylor, Marion Motley, Larry Csonka, John Riggins, Franco Harris was the "fullback" Earl Campbell etc.  The last good "running Fullback"  that I recall was Mike Alstott.  A bit earlier, for the Browns,   both  Kevin Mack and Mike Pruitt, prime RBs were, I believe, listed as Fullbacks.  (Byner,  Greg Pruitt being the "halfbacks")   Ernie Green ....listed as a halfback, was Jim Browns primary blocking back.   Nowadays I don't think you have any FBs that really run with the ball, except on rare occasions. They are more the Kyle Juczsyk types  (and you expect them to have a name like that:  Janovic, Jusczyk, Rathman...or a nickname like "Moose" Johnson,).    The best name for a fullback IMO  was  Vaugh Broadnax. 

Well in the middle there is the key, Erie being the blocking back. Some don't realize that what we now refer to as HB/TB/RB was at that time the FB, and what is now the FB was the HB. That is actually where the 3 positions got their name (QB, HB, FB). 

If someone doesn't know the history (yes, I know you do), it's hard to follow 

 

[The Gipper]

36 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Well in the middle there is the key, Erie being the blocking back. Some don't realize that what we now refer to as HB/TB/RB was at that time the FB, and what is now the FB was the HB. That is actually where the 3 positions got their name (QB, HB, FB). 

If someone doesn't know the history (yes, I know you do), it's hard to follow 

 

I always thought that there was some sort of body mass criteria to what is...or at least what was a Fullback vs. a Halfback...whether they were running fullbacks or not.  Jim Brown,  Motley, Taylor,  Franco, Riggo, Campbell, Csonka et al were always the  "thicker" dudes in the backfield compared to their counterparts like  Ernie Green, Paul Hornung, Rocky Bleier,  Jim Kiick  etc.   Now that extra body mass translates to a blocking back rather than a runner. 

[Gunz41]

6 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

I always thought that there was some sort of body mass criteria to what is...or at least what was a Fullback vs. a Halfback...whether they were running fullbacks or not.  Jim Brown,  Motley, Taylor,  Franco, Riggo, Campbell, Csonka et al were always the  "thicker" dudes in the backfield compared to their counterparts like  Ernie Green, Paul Hornung, Rocky Bleier,  Jim Kiick  etc.   Now that extra body mass translates to a blocking back rather than a runner. 

Nope, it went        C

                              QB

                              HB

                              FB

As close as I could make it on my phone. Quarterback (1/4 back), Halfback (1/2 back), Fullback (Fully back). The Halfback also were called as such because they were on half side in a Full T Formation. 

In essence, what is commonly known now as Halfback/Tailback was in fact classified as Fullback in the day. So, when you get in an argument with a non Browns fan, Jim Brown can be referred to as the best RB, FB, and HB/TB of all time

 

[The Gipper]

32 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Nope, it went        C

                              QB

                              HB

                              FB

As close as I could make it on my phone. Quarterback (1/4 back), Halfback (1/2 back), Fullback (Fully back). The Halfback also were called as such because they were on half side in a Full T Formation. 

In essence, what is commonly known now as Halfback/Tailback was in fact classified as Fullback in the day. So, when you get in an argument with a non Browns fan, Jim Brown can be referred to as the best RB, FB, and HB/TB of all time

 

I think we are talking about 2 different things. 

[Gunz41]

39 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

I think we are talking about 2 different things. 

No, we are not.

What Alstott, Janovich, etc. are TODAY is known as a fullback. The position of fullback today is NOT what was classified as a fullback back then. 

I'm not going to debate this anymore man. It's pointless with you. You can know your stats/trivia all you want, but the history of the sport I will guarantee you don't know like that. Heck, I even have playbooks from that time period somewhere. In fact,, maybe even the Browns. You are very good at looking things up for your trivia stuff, it's not a hard search to do to find the origin of the positions

[Dutch Oven]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

Nope, it went        C

                              QB

                              HB

                              FB

As close as I could make it on my phone. Quarterback (1/4 back), Halfback (1/2 back), Fullback (Fully back). The Halfback also were called as such because they were on half side in a Full T Formation. 

In essence, what is commonly known now as Halfback/Tailback was in fact classified as Fullback in the day. So, when you get in an argument with a non Browns fan, Jim Brown can be referred to as the best RB, FB, and HB/TB of all time

 

I might have missed something in the conversation, so pardon me if I misunderstood this, but what you illustrated above was the I formation, which would have been:

C

QB 

FB

TB

wouldn't it? Also, I don't recall ever seeing Jim Brown lining up in the I formation. 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

No, we are not.

What Alstott, Janovich, etc. are TODAY is known as a fullback. The position of fullback today is NOT what was classified as a fullback back then. 

Well then...I guess I was partially  right... we are talking about two different things  while talking about the same thing.  Yes, the position of Fullback today IS different.  It is NOT the primary rushing back the way it was back then.  But the Fullback  IS today still the more "beefier"  of the two positions, just as it generally was then.  

I'm not going to debate this anymore man. It's pointless with you.

I think you are more debating with yourself, not with me.  All I did was state a couple of very simple facts:   In the time of yore, the denominated fullback was generally the bigger back and the primary running back.   Now it is primarily a blocking back position.    I don't see what there would be to debate about that. 

You can know your stats/trivia all you want, but the history of the sport I will guarantee you don't know like that. Heck, I even have playbooks from that time period somewhere. In fact,, maybe even the Browns. You are very good at looking things up for your trivia stuff, it's not a hard search to do to find the origin of the positions.

Another reason not to debate is because I don't think we disagree.  Being disagreeable is not the same as disagreeing. 

 

[Gunz41]

11 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

I might have missed something in the conversation, so pardon me if I misunderstood this, but what you illustrated above was the I formation, which would have been:

C

QB 

FB

TB

wouldn't it? Also, I don't recall ever seeing Jim Brown lining up in the I formation. 

That is what it is today, and while JB may have never been in an I, what is now considered the FB (in an I as the example) was not the fullback then. 

[Gunz41]

10 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

There was no disagreeing about size or anything as arbitrary, but it certainly had nothing to do with size as how they were named.

Just trying to impart a little knowledge. It's something I have spent a lifetime studying and learning and I still don't know even close to it all.

[The Gipper]

40 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

There was no disagreeing about size or anything as arbitrary, but it certainly had nothing to do with size as how they were named.

No, I never claimed that the players size was the reason for their name.  I am just saying that generally  a Fullback was the bigger dude.  There certainly can be some exceptions.  In recent times certainly Jerome Bettis was probably the beefier guy than the blocking back in front of him. 

Also, isn't it fair to say that the term "halfback"  has not really been in use in some time?  They are the tailback, or just the "running back".    When you look at a depth chart,  they just have  "RB"  

RB	24	Chubb, Nick 18/2	27	Hunt, Kareem SF19	30	Johnson, D'Ernest SF19	49	Kelly, John SF20	43	Stanton, Johnny SF20
FB	31	Janovich, Andy T/Den

 

 

[SdBacker80]

Are we talking about the Depth Chart?

Our FB right now is Andy Janovich. 

[Unsympathetic]

Rule is both ends of the formation have to be on the LOS.. hence "split end" and "tight end" denoted whether or not that side's end was flexed out or aligned next to the T.

If WR is a step or two behind the end, he's "flanking" the formation but still part of the group back behind the line - a flankerback [FL].

And about once a season there's a fun penalty if one of the WR's forgets either of the following:

1) By rule there has to be at least 7 on the LOS or

2) if you're on the LOS and not on the end, you're an ineligible WR

 

Also, "running into the kicker" used to be called "running into the fullback" - because of course the fullback did the kicking, he's the furthest behind the line.

[The Gipper]

23 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

Rule is both ends of the formation have to be on the LOS.. hence "split end" and "tight end" denoted whether or not that side's end was flexed out or aligned next to the T.

If WR is a step or two behind the end, he's "flanking" the formation but still part of the group back behind the line - a flankerback [FL].

And about once a season there's a fun penalty if one of the WR's forgets either of the following:

1) By rule there has to be at least 7 on the LOS or

2) if you're on the LOS and not on the end, you're an ineligible WR

 

Also, "running into the kicker" used to be called "running into the fullback" - because of course the fullback did the kicking, he's the furthest behind the line.

Remember when  "Special Teamers"  also had to man a position?   Roster sizes I guess demanded that.  Ergo you have a  guy play both Left Tackle and kick....see Lou Groza.  And you had a wide receiver  do the punting...see Gary Collins.    And, FYI, both of those guys did an outstanding job at both positions.    Collins leads the Browns in career TD catches....and may be at the top if not THE top  punter in Browns history as far as net punting distance.   

I also doubt that they had a designated "Long Snapper".   I suspect that the regular center did all the snapping as well. 

And, of course you had the two way players, like Chuck Bednarik who played both OC  and MLB for the Eagles.     While I did not see it,  I think that Otto Graham also played defensive back for the Browns, at least for a while. 

[Gunz41]

5 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

My gosh man, you refuse to listen to anyone about anything, no matter how much you less knowledge you have on the subject. I can perfectly understand why you end up in arguments and people block you.

So I will go ahead and give you what you obviously need. You have the most knowledge about every subject ever discussed on here. You are by far smarter than anyone. And your football knowledge (both history and the ACTUAL game) is what you would only find if you combined Walsh, Belichick, Landry, Lombardi, and Brown.

And no malapert, you didn't fully say that size is how they got their name, but you did say:

always thought that there was some sort of body mass criteria to what is...or at least what was a Fullback vs. a Halfback...whether they were running fullbacks or not. 

And when the previous discussion was in fact the ORIGIN of the positions and their names,, exactly how should that be taken?

 

Now, since you like to act superior on knowledge to everyone, how's about testing that real knowledge against the MANY who have shown VAST SUPERIOR knowledge on the ACTUAL game over you and your nerding out? Of course you don't because you are then in a losing position. It's blatantly obvious that you act the way you do because you feel inferior on these matters. But hey thats OK little fella. You take the line "You can't just step in the ring with Ali because you think you can box" a step further. You have never "boxed", yet you are the guy telling his buddies, " I could whip him."

 

You don't want to bring out my jerk side, because I will EMBARRASS you. All I was trying to do was help YOU with some knowledge. 

Now wisenheimer, say whatever you want because I am so tired of your cantankerous butt, because I will not respond. So go ahead and make your outlandish statement about how you are/will/etc...

 

[The Gipper]

34 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

My gosh man, you refuse to listen to anyone about anything, no matter how much you less knowledge you have on the subject. I can perfectly understand why you end up in arguments and people block you.

I am listening. But clearly you are not.  You clearly just want to contradict anything I say....even If I agree with you 100%. 

So I will go ahead and give you what you obviously need. You have the most knowledge about every subject ever discussed on here. You are by far smarter than anyone. And your football knowledge (both history and the ACTUAL game) is what you would only find if you combined Walsh, Belichick, Landry, Lombardi, and Brown.

Actually, that is nothing that I need...but it clearly is something you need in order to perpetuate your need to be  a contrarian. 

And no malapert, you didn't fully say that size is how they got their name, but you did say:

always thought that there was some sort of body mass criteria to what is...or at least what was a Fullback vs. a Halfback...whether they were running fullbacks or not. 

And when the previous discussion was in fact the ORIGIN of the positions and their names,, exactly how should that be taken?

I never engaged in any discussion of the origin of the positions or their names...that was nothing that concerned me.  I didn't care about that, I don't care about that.  And my God man,  I was just making generalities about the  usual observable  relative sizes of the players that had the denominations.  By criteria, I did not mean some sort of edict or mandate,  I meant simply some basic style or size of the players that were give those names. 

You make mountains out of molehills

 

Now, since you like to act superior on knowledge to everyone, how's about testing that real knowledge against the MANY who have shown VAST SUPERIOR knowledge on the ACTUAL game over you and your nerding out? Of course you don't because you are then in a losing position. It's blatantly obvious that you act the way you do because you feel inferior on these matters. But hey thats OK little fella. You take the line "You can't just step in the ring with Ali because you think you can box" a step further. You have never "boxed", yet you are the guy telling his buddies, " I could whip him."

Now you are just devolving into some crazy person getting all whipped up over some fantasy.  I have no clue where it is you think you are going with this.  All I know is that I have readily admitted that there are many here know more about internecine details of many aspects of football that I quite frankly have no interest in.  I just told Tiamati the same basic thing the other day.  So, if you want to go Rumpelstiltskin over something I have said I have no particular interest in...carry on. 

 

You don't want to bring out my jerk side, because I will EMBARRASS you. All I was trying to do was help YOU with some knowledge. 

I doubt it....but, you are free to impart whatever knowledge you think you have.  I generally take the position that when I respond to people that I am not just talking to that particular person.  I reply to the  statement, not the person as a general rule.  All I have said is that for the most part, now and historically,    fullbacks are the "meatier"  players than halfbacks.  You can impart your knowledge to the masses here on that subject if you wish, agree or not. 

Now wisenheimer, say whatever you want because I am so tired of your cantankerous butt, because I will not respond. So go ahead and make your outlandish statement about how you are/will/etc...

Yea.  I am the cantakerous one here.. ...sure sure sure.  What I will say simply is that I patronize this board for entertainment purposes primarily.  And occasionally to learn something. So, your only purpose here is to entertain me as far as I am concerned.  Having a meltdown on here, I guess, can accomplish that goal I suppose, as long as it does not deteriorate into dolefullness, of which you are on the border. 

 

 

 

[Tour2ma]

On 3/21/2021 at 6:39 PM, Gunz41 said:

Completely different game now. In A LOT of cases now, RBs aren't even taught the techniques required to block. 

Half right...

RBs still need to be able to pass block... especially if they are of the 3rd-down variety. They have to be able to ID and fill rush lanes opened especially for DBs. Hunt is very good in this department and Chubb is decent.

Run block as the "lead back"? Different beast... and one that is employed in power schemes, not ZBS which is the "different game" and what we primarily run.

 

EDIT: Much of which you got into in subsequent posts... so please don't give me your Gipper treatment...

 

 

[Tour2ma]

14 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

a flankerback [FL].

... or simply "flanker" as it said on my Gary Collins' trading card...

[Unsympathetic]

Good reference

Least Favorite FA Decision of each team -- "Cleveland showed once again that they are one of the smartest teams in the league"

[The Gipper]

20 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

Good reference

Least Favorite FA Decision of each team -- "Cleveland showed once again that they are one of the smartest teams in the league"

Pasting the Browns blurb:

Cleveland showed once again that they are one of the smartest teams in the league. They had two glaring issues within their roster entering free agency: The secondary and a second edge defender to line up opposite Myles Garrett.

Instead of risking it all on sack totals, as Cincinnati did, they went out and secured safety John Johnson III and slot corner Troy Hill, two of the top defensive backs on the market, to turn their secondary from a weakness into a strength. 

Last year, Cleveland ranked 22nd among the 32 defenses in expected points added (EPA) per pass allowed, and the secondary ranked 27th in combined coverage grade. Johnson, the seventh-highest-graded safety in coverage in his four-year career; and Hill, the highest-graded slot corner over the last two years, won’t let that happen in 2021.

[Tour2ma]

1 hour ago, Unsympathetic said:

Least Favorite FA Decision of each team -- "Cleveland showed once again that they are one of the smartest teams in the league"

Also interesting how Denver's grades have improved with Elway out of the GM role...

 

[Unsympathetic]

My favorite part of that article --- "New England: It Was All Pretty Questionable".  Is this commentary on more than football? You decide!

[Tour2ma]

1 hour ago, Unsympathetic said:

My favorite part of that article --- "New England: It Was All Pretty Questionable".  Is this commentary on more than football? You decide!

Certainly doesn't look like an objective take.

Every player they signed looks like a piece towards recreating a bygone puzzle from when TB 12 was young.

Yes, QB remains a question mark, but the Draft has answers, and it feels to me like BB and Kraft are willing to do what it takes to get one. It's not like they have a long future to mortgage.

[The Gipper]

Browns Depth Chart  with recent Transactions:     Defense Only:.   The guys in red are free agents who have not been given renewed contracts by the Browns to date, and likely will not return. 

Where do we need draft help? 

LDE	95	Garrett, Myles 17/1	91	Jackson, Joe W/Dal	69	Malveaux, Cameron SF20
LDT	98	RICHARDSON, SHELDON U/Min	90	Elliott, Jordan 20/3
RDT	99	Billings, Andrew U/Cin	00	JACKSON, MALIK CC/Phi
RDE	00	McKinley, Takkarist U/LV	97	Gustin, Porter SF19	54	VERNON, OLIVIER T/NYG
SAM	44	Takitaki, Sione 19/3	56	SMITH, MALCOLM SF20	59	Young, Trevon SF19	61	Weaver, Curtis W/Mia
MLB	00	Walker, Anthony U/IND	51	Wilson, Mack 19/5	93	Goodson, BJ U/GB
WLB	50	Phillips, Jacob 20/3	52	Lee, Elijah W/Det	60	Obinna, George CF20
LCB	21	Ward, Denzel 18/1	36	Stewart Jr., MJ W/TB	25	Allen, Brian P/Cin	38	Green, AJ CF20
SS	00	Johnson III, John U/LAR	33	Harrison, Ronnie T/Jax	42	Joseph, Karl U/LV	29	Redwine, Sheldrick 19/4	41	Meander, Montrel CF18
FS	22	Delpit, Grant 20/2	35	Moffatt, Jovante CF20	48	Benton, Elijah CF20	23	SENDEJO, ANDREW U/Min
RCB	26	Williams, Greedy 19/2	34	Jackson, Robert SF18
NB	00	Hill, Troy U/LAR

[gumby73]

DT-- Elliott is the only roster'd DT without a expiring contract after this season

DE--- We been saying this since passing on Bradley Chubb, while taking D.Ward.. call this intriguing.. 

Nate Ulrich

 

@ByNateUlrich

Michigan defensive end Kwity Paye said on Zoom he has spoken with the #Browns and he has studied All-Pro Myles Garrett. "We're kind of similar in build. ... He's a freak, so being able to watch him and seeing how he uses his weight to leverage O-tackles ... kind of helps me."

 

Starting LB'er caliber to challenge Phillips & Taki..Depth is old & Mack Wilson is not better than letting Kirksey walk..

1 challenging FS, better than Redwine

A Terrance Mitchell consistent Cornerback 3/4 .....Even if Greedy shines?  MJ Stewart ain't in Money Mitchell's league (not just yet).. edit-I'm still 3.5M pissed...

Kicker Parkey? bring in kicking legs...lots of them  

[Tour2ma]

Need another update...

Good God... sitting here looking at Ourlads' depth Chart while mentally penciling in Clowney.

 

And all I can think of is how cheap PSLs were just three, short years ago...