Peeker calls himself an expert and says draft a DB

[Ziner]

I don't snowboard. CDT would be the snowboarder, its reserved for serious potheads that say "dude" too much.

[leadpipe]

I could see loading up an are on offense, but loading up on defense now? Ehhh, gonna have to make me a better case than at least Doo Doo did when he was banging that drum, and I still wasn't really sold.

Football has been built as a copycat league. With everyone focusing on O, the Browns could be one of the 1st-movers to try and correct that by focusing on D and hell, it just may be that they get a competitive advantage to boot.


When everyone zigs, you zag.

Yes except that everyone is focused on QBs, CBs, WRs, and pass rushers (with a smattering of receiving TEs mixed in). So I'm not sure I see how going WR or CB here is anything but copycatting.

You want to zag you pick the 3-tool (block, run, catch) RB and get a RT at 22. Continue building an offense that is centered around the RB. I'm not advocating that but just stating that would be the anti-conventional logic move.

If you are watching the current NFL, and understand the rules, and want to move the ball and win, you'd better be zigging right along with everyone else.

To Zag away from passing, or concerning your self with the pass is a great idea if you wanna get an ass whooping.

Go ahead and build a RB centered offense, even though it's friggin 50 times harder to move the ball in that fashion. That'll showem'

[JCoz]

Philly sure had a stout D last season, finishing right in the middle of the pack in yards per attempt, and just about every other passing defensive statistic, and they had 2 better CB's AND a third to boot.

Right on, surely Cromartie and Revis had nothing to do with the Jets having the 3rd best defensive passer rating, it was clearly all their stud D-Linemen...

Oh and those pesky Texans, the ONLY reason they went from absolute worst passing D in the league to the 2nd best was because of JJ Watt and Wade Phillips. Nothing to do with the 3 new starters in the secondary. Everyone knows those guys are worthless.

Sure, the D-line does a ton to help stop the pass, probably more than the secondary, but don't act like the secondary has no effect on stopping the pass.

Yeah Actually I'll put every bit of that on the Texans pass rush which was probably the best in the NFL.

I think the point here is lost with this one off statements. I dont think CB's are worthless, and with the rookie wage scale you can better afford a move like that now than 3 years ago. I think Claiborne is the 2nd best player likely to be available, so I'm fine with that pick compared to Tanny or Blackmon. He's a good player, and he'll almost certainly be good for 2-3 times as long as Richardson.

And Realistically you can get a much better RB below richardson than you could a CB under Claiborne, and if you worked something out with the Rams, you'd probably still get him at 6.

So there is plenty to like about that pick. I'd like a tradedown with Claiborne as the pick at 6 probably as the best, most realistic scenario. In lieu of the tradedown I'd slightly still prefer Richardson but I wont burn the house down if it's claiborne.

[motherscratcher]

So, then it's settled?

[CleSportsTruth]

Mo C has average size, average to below average speed, average ability, and is dumber than a box of cut hair.

So what make him an elite corner prospect? I see a bandwagon and benefit via association and "experts" in consensus more than a an elite prospect. He's the Justin Blackmon of DB's this draft.

Peterson was a far better prospect and he was "meh" on defense.

You aren't passing on a Suh to draft BPA offense here.

He can play?

That he smothers the WR's? That he is like a Joe Haden clone?

And he didn't look too slow running away from everyone returning kicks.

Fantastic! Will he be playing both ways now, too? B/c passing on a stud skill player for a DB is madness.

[CleSportsTruth]

And why does he think it's zero sum? You could (and teams will) select someone other than TR at RB in this draft and get a great player. I bet it happens. I bet TR isn't even the best/most productive back that comes out of this draft.
Will JB be okay if he's wrong and the Browns are better? I will if they take someone other than Claiborne and they're better.

You believe that nonsense? Who will be better, in this draft, than TR? And why?

[motherscratcher]

And why does he think it's zero sum? You could (and teams will) select someone other than TR at RB in this draft and get a great player. I bet it happens. I bet TR isn't even the best/most productive back that comes out of this draft.
Will JB be okay if he's wrong and the Browns are better? I will if they take someone other than Claiborne and they're better.

You believe that nonsense? Who will be better, in this draft, than TR? And why?

It not that there is a guy who is better, its more a matter of odds. TR is great, but there are other good backs.

If you want to bet on who wil be the best back, you take TR and I'll take the field. I think my odds are better.

[peeker643]

And why does he think it's zero sum? You could (and teams will) select someone other than TR at RB in this draft and get a great player. I bet it happens. I bet TR isn't even the best/most productive back that comes out of this draft.
Will JB be okay if he's wrong and the Browns are better? I will if they take someone other than Claiborne and they're better.

You believe that nonsense? Who will be better, in this draft, than TR? And why?

It not that there is a guy who is better, its more a matter of odds. TR is great, but there are other good backs.

If you want to bet on who wil be the best back, you take TR and I'll take the field. I think my odds are better.

Exactly- Marshawn Lynch was the 12th pick in the same draft that Ahmad Bradshaw was the 250th.

In '09 Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown and Chris Wells all went in round one. I'll take the undrafted Arian Foster.

I know you can play that game with DBs as well, but given all other issues I'm just not interested in the RB. Although all the SUperbowls AP has won in MN and them not needing a QB becuase of him being such a weapon is tempting

[Hikohadon]

Y'all being silly.

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

The Browns are a bad team with plenty of holes. Almost any of the guys they could draft at 4 will fill a need and help. None of them will make a HUGE difference.

Feels like you peeps are just making a desperate effort to inject some emotion into who they take at 4.

[motherscratcher]

And why does he think it's zero sum? You could (and teams will) select someone other than TR at RB in this draft and get a great player. I bet it happens. I bet TR isn't even the best/most productive back that comes out of this draft.
Will JB be okay if he's wrong and the Browns are better? I will if they take someone other than Claiborne and they're better.

You believe that nonsense? Who will be better, in this draft, than TR? And why?

It not that there is a guy who is better, its more a matter of odds. TR is great, but there are other good backs.

If you want to bet on who wil be the best back, you take TR and I'll take the field. I think my odds are better.

Exactly- Marshawn Lynch was the 12th pick in the same draft that Ahmad Bradshaw was the 250th.

In '09 Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown and Chris Wells all went in round one. I'll take the undrafted Arian Foster.

I know you can play that game with DBs as well, but given all other issues I'm just not interested in the RB. Although all the SUperbowls AP has won in MN and them not needing a QB becuase of him being such a weapon is tempting

Peterson has been a stud since the day he stepped foot onto that field. But the only season where the Vikings were worth much of a shit happens to be the only season where they had a competent QB taking the snaps. (Although I seem to recall Tavaris Jackson guiding them to a Derek Andersonesque 10-6 one season, so I suppose there are exceptions).

So, the Browns can draft TR and that would be fine and dandy. I like the dude. He looks like a stud. And with him the Browns will continue to be a crappy to below average team. Only now with a pretty good running back.

Of course, you can switch out TR with a half dozen other RBs in this draft and there is essentially no difference in the end result.

[jb]

Fantastic! Will he be playing both ways now, too? B/c passing on a stud skill player for a DB is madness.

^^^^

gets it.

[jb]

Y'all being silly.

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

The Browns are a bad team with plenty of holes. Almost any of the guys they could draft at 4 will fill a need and help. None of them will make a HUGE difference.

Feels like you peeps are just making a desperate effort to inject some emotion into who they take at 4.

I'll take "What if John Paul Sartre were an NFL GM for $ 500, Alex."

[jb]

It not that there is a guy who is better, its more a matter of odds.

How may 7th rounders could trading the 4th overall new us?

[jb]

http://www.cantonrep.com/browns/x1780478351/Mel-Kiper-sizes-up-Browns-likely-draft-picks

An "expert" opinion.

^^^^

The devil made me type that.

[FUDU]

Bottom line is all the guys being listed as possible picks at 4 will make us better (damn I feel like I've been saying that for 20 years). As a fan what I think you want the Browns to avoid is over paying for a non skill/high impact position or player and/or an over reach in the first round.

At this point I don't care how much this league is predicated on a top flight QB and passing game, we've been so bad on offense just give me TR a RT and a WR and hopefully we can strengthen the team by keeping the D off the field, no matter how outdated an approach that might be.

[mistero]

Y'all being silly.

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

The Browns are a bad team with plenty of holes. Almost any of the guys they could draft at 4 will fill a need and help. None of them will make a HUGE difference.

Duh and double duh. That's why I think when you have a steaming pile of shit at QB you have to take Tannehill. I could give two shits that he'll be over drafted by 10 or 20 slots. Whoppdy doo, I still get my franchise QB. You don't think Miami would be thrilled to have Tanny at 8? Why? Because he fills the biggest hole for them, just like he would for us. You don't draft Tannehill nothings going to change.

[e0y2e3]

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

I strongly disagree with this. Elite pass rusher is clearly the second most important position on the football field at this point, it isn't even really arguable.

After that you can start splitting hairs between WRs and Corners and whoever else, but pass rusher is cleary a necessity.

[rk]

They ain't picking Blackmon.

And you should contribute.

I'm busy.

And this statement is crazy: Yet he is capable of shutting anyone in the NFL down.

He's never played one down on Sunday.

I was referencing Haden.

[Hikohadon]

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

I strongly disagree with this. Elite pass rusher is clearly the second most important position on the football field at this point, it isn't even really arguable.

After that you can start splitting hairs between WRs and Corners and whoever else, but pass rusher is cleary a necessity.

Fine. Draft Coples then.

[Hikohadon]

Y'all being silly.

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

The Browns are a bad team with plenty of holes. Almost any of the guys they could draft at 4 will fill a need and help. None of them will make a HUGE difference.

Duh and double duh. That's why I think when you have a steaming pile of shit at QB you have to take Tannehill. I could give two shits that he'll be over drafted by 10 or 20 slots. Whoppdy doo, I still get my franchise QB. You don't think Miami would be thrilled to have Tanny at 8? Why? Because he fills the biggest hole for them, just like he would for us. You don't draft Tannehill nothings going to change.

While your point is well taken, drafting a QB high just for the sake of drafting a QB isn't an answer either. You have to take the RIGHT QB.

For instance, would you be happy if the Browns took Kirk Cousins at #4?

No? Why? He's a QB. Some scouts think he can be a franchise, starting QB if put in the right system and given time to "grow". He'll probably be better than Colt. Why not Cousins at 4?

Because he's not worth being picked that high, despite his position? Because he's a project that you don't have high hopes for? Because there are other QB's in this draft that you think will be better? Because taking a QB like him that high means that you have to throw 3 or 4 years at him, and if he doesn't work out (which is probably likely), then you just wasted both time and the pick?

The way you feel about taking Cousins at 4 is the way I feel about taking Tannehill at 4.

Hell, if Tannehill were still available at 22, I'd probably still take Weeden over him. That's how much I am not into Tannehill.

So while I agree that selecting a franchise QB is of utmost importance to a franchise QB, I submit to you that there are none left in this draft, so you sure as hell don't take a project at #4 just for the sake of taking a QB.

I'd rather have a RB/CB/WR that makes a mediocre positive impact than a QB that makes a huge negative impact.

[rk]

Wing T

You kid but I think a team that built for the T would be more successful than the teams trying to emulate the Colts/Saints/Pats offenses of the past few years. The people screaming that you have to go with the trend because the trend is not going to change have obviously never heard of the Maginot line. Denver and to a lesser extent San Fran and Baltimore basically went with a run oriented offense. All three saw improved defenses as a result to the amount of time they spent off the field and were plenty capable of scoring.

Defenses are going with smaller, faster LBs/DEs/DBs. That should correlate with a more unconventional run based offense having success. Running backs are cheap and big running backs, especially, are undervalued. That is the exact time to build a team around a run first offense. You invest in the OL, big blocking WR/TEs, and then big running backs. Get a team stacked with guys like Hillis, Jacobs, and Bensons (all very cheap this offseason) and then a QB who can sell the play action and you are going to be a matchup headache for 75% of the teams in the league who are investing in undersized DE/LBs to defense the 95% of teams building up their passing attacks.

The most competitive the Browns have been in the past few years has been when they had Hillis running behind Vickers and Colt focusing on just handing it off. There's a reason for that. They unexpectedly (even to them) zagged and caught teams like Pittsburgh, New Orleans, and New England unprepared.

Talent is talent and if you have guys with talent and can build a scheme around them that takes advantage of it then you win. I don't care if the rules are artificially helping boost the passing game. You still gain an edge by being an outlier when it comes to other teams preparing for you.

I don't know if there is a team out there that would have the balls to go that way but I would love to see them try. And quite honestly if Belichick outlasts Tom Bundchen I can see him going that route. He is one of the few people in the NFL with the power to make a change like that and the confidence to understand how it can succeed. Not to mention he could give a shit whether or not people will enjoy watching it.

[JCoz]

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/04/cleveland_browns_gm_tom_hecker_14.html
I guess Heckert says they have made a unanimous decision for the #4 pick.

[CleSportsTruth]

I think Peek might be right, though. They probably like Claiborne over anyone else, and if they're divided, Tom's going Claiborne.

FWIW: My ideal scenario- TR at 4, best avail. WR at 22*, Weeden at 37 and an RT at 67.

*If you could move up a few and get Floyd or Wright, WITHOUT trading 37, I'd do that too.

[rebelwithoutaclue]

So while I agree that selecting a franchise QB is of utmost importance to a franchise QB, I submit to you that there are none left in this draft, so you sure as hell don't take a project at #4 just for the sake of taking a QB.

Can you just make this your signature? You've probably posted 30 variations of this exact argument in the last week.

[leadpipe]

Wing T

You kid but I think a team that built for the T would be more successful than the teams trying to emulate the Colts/Saints/Pats offenses of the past few years. The people screaming that you have to go with the trend because the trend is not going to change have obviously never heard of the Maginot line. Denver and to a lesser extent San Fran and Baltimore basically went with a run oriented offense. All three saw improved defenses as a result to the amount of time they spent off the field and were plenty capable of scoring.

Defenses are going with smaller, faster LBs/DEs/DBs. That should correlate with a more unconventional run based offense having success. Running backs are cheap and big running backs, especially, are undervalued. That is the exact time to build a team around a run first offense. You invest in the OL, big blocking WR/TEs, and then big running backs. Get a team stacked with guys like Hillis, Jacobs, and Bensons (all very cheap this offseason) and then a QB who can sell the play action and you are going to be a matchup headache for 75% of the teams in the league who are investing in undersized DE/LBs to defense the 95% of teams building up their passing attacks.

The most competitive the Browns have been in the past few years has been when they had Hillis running behind Vickers and Colt focusing on just handing it off. There's a reason for that. They unexpectedly (even to them) zagged and caught teams like Pittsburgh, New Orleans, and New England unprepared.

Talent is talent and if you have guys with talent and can build a scheme around them that takes advantage of it then you win. I don't care if the rules are artificially helping boost the passing game. You still gain an edge by being an outlier when it comes to other teams preparing for you.

I don't know if there is a team out there that would have the balls to go that way but I would love to see them try. And quite honestly if Belichick outlasts Tom Bundchen I can see him going that route. He is one of the few people in the NFL with the power to make a change like that and the confidence to understand how it can succeed. Not to mention he could give a shit whether or not people will enjoy watching it.

You are ignoring the rules.

These arguments are great if the rules didn't favor the pass.

By. A. Ton.

And Coach Bill has already switched - not from run to pass but from defense to offense, BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THIS.

And SF could run the ball with Gore for plenty of years. Reason they moved the ball better this year is they got better QB play.

And also, Jacobs and Hillis aren't setting up play action. Again, run to set up the pass is no longer. You pass to set up the pass. Guess why Brady and Brees have so many play action opportunities - they pass the ball and gain yards on first down.

Good Christ this isn't the facet to go contrarian. If they moved all major league fences back to 500 feet, you wanna load up with slow power guys instead of speed? You'll get em' cheap.....

[Hikohadon]

So while I agree that selecting a franchise QB is of utmost importance to a franchise QB, I submit to you that there are none left in this draft, so you sure as hell don't take a project at #4 just for the sake of taking a QB.

Can you just make this your signature? You've probably posted 30 variations of this exact argument in the last week.

Perhaps I should. People keep trying to convince me that Tannehill is a good idea. I don't know what else to say at this point. The draft needed to be 2 weeks ago... at least.

[JCoz]

So while I agree that selecting a franchise QB is of utmost importance to a franchise QB, I submit to you that there are none left in this draft, so you sure as hell don't take a project at #4 just for the sake of taking a QB.

Can you just make this your signature? You've probably posted 30 variations of this exact argument in the last week.

Perhaps I should. People keep trying to convince me that Tannehill is a good idea. I don't know what else to say at this point. The draft needed to be 2 weeks ago... at least.

Do you have a petition.....? I'd sign on.....

[Triple-S]

Going by the Heckerts probable thought process. I imagine things are rated like this on their board:

1. Claiborne-A+
2. Richardson-A
3. Blackmon- B+

It's going to be Claiborne. Is it a bad pick? Not necessarily. If he and Haden can shore up the defense, and you get a pro-bowl caliber player for the next decade it will have looked like the safe pick all along.

do I agree with it? No, because, I've been wanting to jam a tire iron up my eye everytime the offense takes the field this past season, and in 2010 for the lack of any sort of receiving threat. The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

[rebelwithoutaclue]

The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

They do have 2 other picks in the top 37. No rule that says they can't take offensive players with both if they defense with #4.

[rk]

Going by the Heckerts probable thought process. I imagine things are rated like this on their board:


1. Claiborne-A+
2. Richardson-A
3. Blackmon- B+

Hilarious.

So just to be clear the Browns GM, notorious for not saying anything, has allowed people to read his thoughts just a week before the draft just so he can tip off every team to his intentions? And his tip off just happens to be that he is most interested in the guy that most pundits think will be going to the team picking immediately after the Browns?

That's shocking. Probably needs to be fired for making such a big slip.

I believe I also heard him think that he is seriously considering buying a bridge for sale so now we know he's thinking about buying a bridge. Based on the inflection and tone of his thoughts I'm thinking his bridge board is looking like this. Maybe:

Brooklyn A
London B++
Golden Gate C

[rk]

You are ignoring the rules.

These arguments are great if the rules didn't favor the pass.

By. A. Ton.

And Coach Bill has already switched - not from run to pass but from defense to offense, BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THIS.

And SF could run the ball with Gore for plenty of years. Reason they moved the ball better this year is they got better QB play.

And also, Jacobs and Hillis aren't setting up play action. Again, run to set up the pass is no longer. You pass to set up the pass. Guess why Brady and Brees have so many play action opportunities - they pass the ball and gain yards on first down.

Good Christ this isn't the facet to go contrarian. If they moved all major league fences back to 500 feet, you wanna load up with slow power guys instead of speed? You'll get em' cheap.....

Thanks for reciting the conventional logic once again.

Can anyone else say the same thing again? Maybe with more of an emphasis on how this is a pass friendly league? And that the only way a team can win is by being the best at pass defense and the best at passing?

If a few more people can restate conventional thought maybe it'll become even more conventional. I think there's at least 10 people in this thread who haven't restated it.

[Nicastro13]

Even though it is a pass happy league I still don't see how it can hurt to have an elite RB? Its not like were passing on Megatron to grab him. I dont want Tanny, or blackmon. If they take Claiborne I'll be cool with that, and if Kalil is there it changes things, but staying put at 4 and drafting TR is not a bad thing.

[Gradysmanldy]

Y'all being silly.

Outside of QB, there isn't one single position that will vastly change a franchise in any significant way. You can say Position X > Position Y, but you're splitting hairs.

The Browns are a bad team with plenty of holes. Almost any of the guys they could draft at 4 will fill a need and help. None of them will make a HUGE difference.

Duh and double duh. That's why I think when you have a steaming pile of shit at QB you have to take Tannehill. I could give two shits that he'll be over drafted by 10 or 20 slots. Whoppdy doo, I still get my franchise QB. You don't think Miami would be thrilled to have Tanny at 8? Why? Because he fills the biggest hole for them, just like he would for us. You don't draft Tannehill nothings going to change.

This is quite possibly the MOST wrong thing ive ever read in the last few weeks of pre-draft insanity.

Passing on quality skill players that make the team respectable by BURNING a #4 OVERALL is the opposite safe. It's a HUGE risk, because if he doesn't play at a franchise/elite level, he's a complete waste of a pick. If TR is average or Blackmon is no better than Greg Little, he still fills a void of competency for the next 10 years. Tannehill becomes a completely useless backup QB, which we already have 2 of.

If you pass on Tannehill, you make the team around him better, which means there are LESS holes to fill next year; you can grab some players in Free Agency to fill holes because you aren't a complete joke to the whole league, and you can focus your picks on other positions of need.

Wasting a pick means spinning your tires, getting a good complimentary peice means you are at least progressing. Only way the Tannehill pick is worth it at #4 is if he locks down the QB position for years, which has a below 50% probability of happening regardless.

To be frank, I could give a shit which of the three gets drafted, because Heckert has a good draft history, and I trust him to have enough bright minds working at the problem to decide whether he has the potential or not. If he does, fine, i'm all for it. If he doesn't, I certainly am not going to lament over it all year like some here will. I'm good with ANY of Claibourne, TR, Blackmon, Kalil at 4, because it fills the need and keeps the team progressing.

[SoulDawg74]

Going by the Heckerts probable thought process. I imagine things are rated like this on their board:

1. Claiborne-A+
2. Richardson-A
3. Blackmon- B+

It's going to be Claiborne. Is it a bad pick? Not necessarily. If he and Haden can shore up the defense, and you get a pro-bowl caliber player for the next decade it will have looked like the safe pick all along.

do I agree with it? No, because, I've been wanting to jam a tire iron up my eye everytime the offense takes the field this past season, and in 2010 for the lack of any sort of receiving threat. The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

SD:

according to King of SI ,, Blackmon is Heckerts choice , while Holmgren wants him to choose Tannehill .

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/rapid-repo ... t/18607645

Lane confirmed its a real debate in Berea .

Myself I think Heckert wants to stay pat , and Homie is channeling Butch Davis and wants to move up , because QB salvages the draft and erases that Shit sandwich the Skins fed him and made him choke on it .

SoulDawg

[mistero]

This is quite possibly the MOST wrong thing ive ever read in the last few weeks of pre-draft insanity.


Passing on quality skill players that make the team respectable by BURNING a #4 OVERALL is the opposite safe. It's a HUGE risk, because if he doesn't play at a franchise/elite level, he's a complete waste of a pick. If TR is average or Blackmon is no better than Greg Little, he still fills a void of competency for the next 10 years. Tannehill becomes a completely useless backup QB, which we already have 2 of.

So Richardson's and Blackmon's floors are that of being an average player? Isn't it just as possible they could bust too? Why are they guarenteed to be at least average? This is not an exact science. Isn't it just as likely Tannehill is an immediate upgrade over Colt McCoy and at worst an average starter. That would be pretty cool too. And even better wouldn't an upgrade at QB make a bigger difference than an upgrade at WR or RB? I think yes.

If you pass on Tannehill, you make the team around him better, which means there are LESS holes to fill next year; you can grab some players in Free Agency to fill holes because you aren't a complete joke to the whole league, and you can focus your picks on other positions of need.

Picking Tannehill at 4 doesn't mean we forfeit the rest of our draft. I'm still getting Hill at 22 and Miller at 37, a RT in the 3rd, maybe another WR in the 4th.

Wasting a pick means spinning your tires, getting a good complimentary peice means you are at least progressing. Only way the Tannehill pick is worth it at #4 is if he locks down the QB position for years, which has a below 50% probability of happening regardless.

Filling every single complimentary peice but not fixing the QB is the exact definition of spinning your tires. You're not likely to cross the 6 win threshold.

To be frank, I could give a shit which of the three gets drafted, because Heckert has a good draft history, and I trust him to have enough bright minds working at the problem to decide whether he has the potential or not. If he does, fine, i'm all for it. If he doesn't, I certainly am not going to lament over it all year like some here will. I'm good with ANY of Claibourne, TR, Blackmon, Kalil at 4, because it fills the need and keeps the team progressing.

Sure almost any picks will help us. We'll be better no matter what. I was just hoping to start winning some games. That would be neat.

[Hikohadon]

Going by the Heckerts probable thought process. I imagine things are rated like this on their board:

1. Claiborne-A+
2. Richardson-A
3. Blackmon- B+

It's going to be Claiborne. Is it a bad pick? Not necessarily. If he and Haden can shore up the defense, and you get a pro-bowl caliber player for the next decade it will have looked like the safe pick all along.

do I agree with it? No, because, I've been wanting to jam a tire iron up my eye everytime the offense takes the field this past season, and in 2010 for the lack of any sort of receiving threat. The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

SD:

according to King of SI ,, Blackmon is Heckerts choice , while Holmgren wants him to choose Tannehill .

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/rapid-repo ... t/18607645

Lane confirmed its a real debate in Berea .

Myself I think Heckert wants to stay pat , and Homie is channeling Butch Davis and wants to move up , because QB salvages the draft and erases that Shit sandwich the Skins fed him and made him choke on it .

SoulDawg

Yeah, why settle for a shit sandwich when you can have a shit 5 course meal? You get your shit poppers, a bowl of shit soup, your shit souffle, then shit steak with a side of shit, and top it all off with a huge slice of shit pie.

[CleSportsTruth]

The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

They do have 2 other picks in the top 37. No rule that says they can't take offensive players with both if they defense with #4.

Yes, but it's a matter of "impact." You can get GOOD offensive* players at 22 & 37, absolutely. But are they just as likely to be "gamechangers" as someone at 4?

[rebelwithoutaclue]

The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

They do have 2 other picks in the top 37. No rule that says they can't take offensive players with both if they defense with #4.

Yes, but it's a matter of "impact." You can get GOOD offensive* players at 22 & 37, absolutely. But are they just as likely to be "gamechangers" as someone at 4?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can get players who are major upgrades without them being gamechangers. This is the Browns. If they go CB at 4 then WR at 22, whoever it is will be a major upgrade.

[CleSportsTruth]

The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

They do have 2 other picks in the top 37. No rule that says they can't take offensive players with both if they defense with #4.

Yes, but it's a matter of "impact." You can get GOOD offensive* players at 22 & 37, absolutely. But are they just as likely to be "gamechangers" as someone at 4?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can get players who are major upgrades without them being gamechangers. This is the Browns. If they go CB at 4 then WR at 22, whoever it is will be a major upgrade.

Great, but I want, no demand, a gamechanger! Have we had one since '99? Not really, and I'm tired of watching just "good" (read "mediocre") players with no studs.

[motherscratcher]

The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

They do have 2 other picks in the top 37. No rule that says they can't take offensive players with both if they defense with #4.

Yes, but it's a matter of "impact." You can get GOOD offensive* players at 22 & 37, absolutely. But are they just as likely to be "gamechangers" as someone at 4?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can get players who are major upgrades without them being gamechangers. This is the Browns. If they go CB at 4 then WR at 22, whoever it is will be a major upgrade.

Great, but I want, no demand, a gamechanger! Have we had one since '99? Not really, and I'm tired of watching just "good" (read "mediocre") players with no studs.

Weren't Couch, C Brown, Edwards, and Winslow supposed to be gamechangers?

[leadpipe]

You are ignoring the rules.

These arguments are great if the rules didn't favor the pass.

By. A. Ton.

And Coach Bill has already switched - not from run to pass but from defense to offense, BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THIS.

And SF could run the ball with Gore for plenty of years. Reason they moved the ball better this year is they got better QB play.

And also, Jacobs and Hillis aren't setting up play action. Again, run to set up the pass is no longer. You pass to set up the pass. Guess why Brady and Brees have so many play action opportunities - they pass the ball and gain yards on first down.

Good Christ this isn't the facet to go contrarian. If they moved all major league fences back to 500 feet, you wanna load up with slow power guys instead of speed? You'll get em' cheap.....

Thanks for reciting the conventional logic once again.

Can anyone else say the same thing again? Maybe with more of an emphasis on how this is a pass friendly league? And that the only way a team can win is by being the best at pass defense and the best at passing?

If a few more people can restate conventional thought maybe it'll become even more conventional. I think there's at least 10 people in this thread who haven't restated it.

Before you get so condescending, understand that you read those posts and still can't get it through your skull that a run oriented offense, or "Wing T," is about the dumbest idea on God's green earth.

Keeps getting repeated because some seem obtuse to that point.

And I understand your "contrarian" ideas, just that they make zero sense in this case.

Clearly.

Lastly, your welcome.

[SoulDawg74]

Going by the Heckerts probable thought process. I imagine things are rated like this on their board:

1. Claiborne-A+
2. Richardson-A
3. Blackmon- B+

It's going to be Claiborne. Is it a bad pick? Not necessarily. If he and Haden can shore up the defense, and you get a pro-bowl caliber player for the next decade it will have looked like the safe pick all along.

do I agree with it? No, because, I've been wanting to jam a tire iron up my eye everytime the offense takes the field this past season, and in 2010 for the lack of any sort of receiving threat. The idea of walking into next season with no major upgrades on that side of the ball, and SHUR running the show, makes me shudder.

SD:

according to King of SI ,, Blackmon is Heckerts choice , while Holmgren wants him to choose Tannehill .

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/rapid-repo ... t/18607645

Lane confirmed its a real debate in Berea .

Myself I think Heckert wants to stay pat , and Homie is channeling Butch Davis and wants to move up , because QB salvages the draft and erases that Shit sandwich the Skins fed him and made him choke on it .

SoulDawg

Yeah, why settle for a shit sandwich when you can have a shit 5 course meal? You get your shit poppers, a bowl of shit soup, your shit souffle, then shit steak with a side of shit, and top it all off with a huge slice of shit pie.

SD:

You really really really really like he thought of holmgren over riding the draft and going Tannehill dontcha ..


Really.


SoulDawg

[Fire Marshall Bill]

If there is going to be a drunken JB vs. Peeker throwdown after the Browns pick I am flying back and getting a seat at the bar at the Wright Place on Wednesday morning.

No. I am too old.

And I am not bringing my transcripts.

I may just not show at all now. That will show all of you.

^^^

(For Peeker, FMB and CDT to tee of on.)

I'm in

[FUDU]

Regardless of the make up of the league you still need legit talent in the backfield, we don't have it, so if the consensus most talented RB in the draft is available to you why not grab him when you can.

As much as some of us like to say we've seen enough of Colt and would rather see no more, you could say the same thing about Hardesty with no problem. So while a RB my not fit the description of the most pressing need in today's game, it is a pressing need for us none the less.

I just wish this draft would come and go already so I can go ahead and feel whatever way I'm supposed to feel when it's done.

[Triple-S]

I have a thought here.

Lets say we do, in fact draft Weeden, which, he seems to be the hint that is happening. and lets say, we don't give up the 2nd round to move up, hold tight and draft either a combo of Richardson/Hill or Blackmon/Martin or Wilson, or a RT. Whichever is preferable.

And, lets say, when he comes out, it's found out he's of a Schaub/Flacco/Dalton level of talent, in terms of numbers, and this happens right away. He comes out and sees no significant problems.

Is this good enough for the Browns as they are right now? Does a Schaub/Flacco/Dalton level talent instantly make this team watchable?

That's kind of what I'm wondering about. As I had seen those three QB's look "good to okay" when they're sorrounded by a decent amount of talent. Schaub for example has Andre Johnson, and Arian Foster. Flacco? Ray Rice, Boldin and Torrey Smith. Dalton? AJ Green. Can the Browns even pull something like that off? or do they have to pray that they land the football version of LeQuit?

[OldDawg]

It not that there is a guy who is better, its more a matter of odds. TR is great, but there are other good backs.

If you want to bet on who wil be the best back, you take TR and I'll take the field. I think my odds are better.

But you can't draft "the field." Just because you think the "best back" is out there to be discovered doesn't mean you're going to be the lucky team to find him.

Sincerely,
Montario

[jb]

Before you get so condescending,

Good luck with that.

Give it time though. FWIW, and not much, I'd stake RK any day as a poster.

[SoulDawg74]

Nt

[jb]

http://draftbreakdown.com/category/videos

Brian, absolutely zero ball breaking intended. Didn't know if you saw this resource. It still isn't game 22's with shuttle control and these are only 1 game clips, but instead of highlight reels that kind of all run together like Chappelle's slo-mo skit, they show every play; good, bad, indifferent.

Thought you & others on ;one might enjoy this site if you were using you tube instead.

[rk]

Give it time though. FWIW, and not much, I'd stake RK any day as a poster.

That would be a better bet than someone staking you on your command of the English language - but not by much.

I assume you're still at the same cell number as the last draft? I'd want to hear from you if the Browns draft Kalil and then defense at 22. That would be the single most blatant middle finger a franchise ever made to their fanbase. Only person I'd rather hear from at that point is Oberle.