According to Pluto the move to the 3-4

[pod2dawg]

ain't no big concern.

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/ind ... he_69.html


Well he talks to the Browns in the know more than I so here's hoping they are right.

Bad news is the LB and DB situation.

....well that and the whole QB thing.

[mattvan1]

Buried within the article is an issue that has hurt the Browns D over the last few years. "So and so got xx sacks while playing 45% of the snaps"

Yes, to a degree the NFL is about specialization - this guy is a 3rd down pass coverage guy while this other guy is my run stopper.

The problem is there is no such thing as "a running down". Teams will wing it on first and 10, second and 3, third and 1. The Browns can't afford to try and use Sheard as a pass rush specialist when they have no idea when teams will run and when they will throw. They need guys who can take 85% of the snaps, not less than half.

The larger problem with the 3-4 is many times you have to take a hand down college guy and try and project him as a stand up OLB. Some teams seem to have that knack. Lombardi and company? Not so sure.

[peeker643]

Terry Pluto is a fucking idiot.

If the fact you don't currently have the resources to effectively and efficiently run the defense is no big deal then I guess that has-been is right.

Can Horton craft somehing out of the less than ideal pieces and parts while figuring out how to keep two of your best players in Rubin and Taylor engaged and involved?

Probably. But 'no big deal' is pretty much as big a falsehood as saying Pluto is still bringing his 'A' game and isn't a lazy joke.

[Hikohadon]

I think they might be OK with a Taylor-Rubin-Winn front 3, but they no where near have the personnel for the 4 LB spots. You project Sheard as one of the OLB's without having any idea if he can play it. Maybe he can, maybe he blows.

Let's not forget how much less effective DQ was in the 3-4.

[peeker643]

I think they might be OK with a Taylor-Rubin-Winn front 3, but they no where near have the personnel for the 4 LB spots. You project Sheard as one of the OLB's without having any idea if he can play it. Maybe he can, maybe he blows.

Let's not forget how much less effective DQ was in the 3-4.

You ain't changing the body type of Taylor. Maybe Rubin can do that to an extent. But you're looking at a team that spent a lot of picks and resources to build a solid 4-3 DL with a lot of interior 4-3 type defensive linemen. One position of depth on the team if you look at it.

We're about to find out I guess.

[pup]

We are going from the

23rd ranked total defense
25th ranked pass defense
19th ranked rushing defense
19th ranked scoring defense

I know we liked to pretend during the season that Dick J's 4-3 was doing great work, but in fact we still had a shitty defense.

And our defense was in all likelihood going to be shitty in 2013 as a 4-3 with Dick J running it.

I guess I just don't see the change as being that big of a deal because the defense wasn't exactly all that good anyway.

You needed a Lber. Now you need 2. Call off the Super Bowl plans.

[gotribe31]

I think they might be OK with a Taylor-Rubin-Winn front 3, but they no where near have the personnel for the 4 LB spots. You project Sheard as one of the OLB's without having any idea if he can play it. Maybe he can, maybe he blows.

Let's not forget how much less effective DQ was in the 3-4.

You ain't changing the body type of Taylor.

Hook him up with some Advocare?

[pup]

So we somehow have less depth at DL by going to a 3-4?

Take a look at the teams running 3-4. There are more Rubins playing DE than Sheards.

[jerryroche]

Pluto focuses on the little specifics but fails to document the bigger picture: we’ve got front-office personnel who think they’re the smartest guys in the room without having proved it to any degree in the past.

The Browns now have a CEO who wants to get involved for the first time in personnel matters; a VP Player Personnel with a questionable drafting record; a rookie head coach; and a defensive coordinator who will not part with his beloved 3-4, despite the personnel he’s inheriting.

Our only hope is that those four guys are what Jimmy Haslam (and they) seem to think they are. If they aren’t, we are doomed—for, like, the 14th time in 15 seasons, the 15th time in 16 seasons, and probably the 16th time in 17 seasons.

[pup]

You guys are all acting like we are breaking up the 85 Bears by switching schemes.

[googleeph2]

You guys are all acting like we are breaking up the 85 Bears by switching schemes.

Not true, Pup. We want this house to be built, really badly. It's taking over a decade now. Every two years, the general bails and a new one comes in with a change in direction. This time, it looks like some perfectly or potentially useful building materials may be rendered less useful because they don't fit the revised blueprint. And those items came with a heavy cost. Doesn't seem smart. We just want a nice house.

[Gradysmanldy]

You guys are all acting like we are breaking up the 85 Bears by switching schemes.

Not true, Pup. We want this house to be built, really badly. It's taking over a decade now. Every two years, the general bails and a new one comes in with a change in direction. This time, it looks like some perfectly or potentially useful building materials may be rendered less useful because they don't fit the revised blueprint. And those items came with a heavy cost. Doesn't seem smart. We just want a nice house.

Agree with this, actually. The defense had a lot of the building blocks in place to have a serviceable squad, especially in the games that Haden played. (They were the 10th scoring the previous year, or some such nonsense, despite giving up a lot of running yards because the DL sucked) If you're going to render some of the pieces of that squad useless just because its not a defense you "prefer" then you better be able to get back to respectability, and quick.

The biggest problem in that defense was DB play, injuries to Taylor/Rubin, and the inability of the offense to keep the defense off of the field. Hard to objectively tell what Jauron's defense would look like with an average offense and another couple draft picks/FA signings. (Especially if one of those picks was a 4-3 freakishly athletic RDE)

No use crying over spilled milk, but the reason we "thought" the defense looked respectable the last two seasons is because, by and large, they were serviceable, and featured a shitwhack of rookies learning on the job. (with potential to get better)

[jerryroche]

Can't forget that the D has some extra talent up front that can be traded, if the right trading partner(s) is/are found. There could be some 4-3 teams that might even be interested in D'Qwell, who doesn't really fit the 3-4 so well. If the FO can pull off a couple such trades in the next few months, the switchover might not be as painful or as painstaking as it now looks to be.

[peeker643]

So we somehow have less depth at DL by going to a 3-4?

Take a look at the teams running 3-4. There are more Rubins playing DE than Sheards.

Phil Taylor, Billy Winn, Rubin, Sheard, Frostee Rucker, Juqua Parker, John Hughes, Ish Kitchen, etc. They have the roster and DL depth of a 4-3 team and very few 3-4 LB assets.

They don't currently have the roster of a 3-4 team. That was the point and Pluto saying it's not a big deal is as dopey as you saying it.

It is if you wanna be good at playing it. If you're fine with another couple years in re-making it then go on with your eye-rolling.

I'm fine with it myself other than it being another example of assets being wasted because regimes are fucking stupid.

Not the fault of the current guys but take it for what it's worth and stop telling me you just jam square pegs in round holes.

I would not be surprised to one of Rubin/Taylor go in a trade to recoup a 2nd if possible.

[Gradysmanldy]

So we somehow have less depth at DL by going to a 3-4?

Take a look at the teams running 3-4. There are more Rubins playing DE than Sheards.

Phil Taylor, Billy Winn, Rubin, Sheard, Frostee Rucker, Juqua Parker, John Hughes, Ish Kitchen, etc. They have the roster and DL depth of a 4-3 team and very few 3-4 LB assets.

They don't currently have the roster of a 3-4 team. That was the point and Pluto saying it's not a big deal is as dopey as you saying it.

It is if you wanna be good at playing it. If you're fine with another couple years in re-making it then go on with your eye-rolling.

I'm fine with it myself other than it being another example of assets being wasted because regimes are fucking stupid.

Not the fault of the current guys but take it for what it's worth and stop telling me you just jam square pegs in round holes.

I would not be surprised to one of Rubin/Taylor go in a trade to recoup a 4th or 5th round pick, given the proficiency of the GM

Fixed. I'm sure he'll see it as value, given that Rubin was a 6th rounder.

Wouldn't be remotely surprised to see half of the 4-3 assets (Rucker, Taylor, DQ, or Rubin) traded for pennies on the dollar. Until proven otherwise....

[pup]

They didn't have the roster to play a 4-3 is what I am saying. Frostee Freaking Rucker and Juqua Parker are JAGs. They gone...who cares?

They believe Winn and Rubin are fine as defensive ends in a 3-4. They also happen to be our 3 best defensive linemen, so it is good they will be on the field together without needing a Frostee Parker doing nothing.

Jabal Sheard is going to replace one of those guys on "obvious" pass rushing downs. Let him do what he does best and get him the hell off the field in the times he is meh.

We needed LBers a month ago and we still need them. And that is saying the kids we do have on the roster are not better fits for a 3-4 than a 4-3. You know LJ Fort isn't a good 3-4 LB? James Michael Johnson fits in better on the inside of a 3-4?

For a guy (Horton) to be on the cusp of getting a HC gig, it would be awful damn stupid for him to come into a situation where he did not think the talent fit his scheme and risk shitting on his own name. There weren't going to be any teams looking for a 3-4 coordinator, he had to come to Cleveland?

[Govbarney]

Well if your looking for potential FA additions , you have to figure that Horton will want to bring in some of his own guys, here is a list of AZ UFAs, none really stand out, and they are described as "Filler Material" by ESPN, but Id be shocked if one or two of them didnt end up on our roster next year.


Michael Adams CB 6/17/85
Nick Eason DE 5/29/80
Rashad Johnson S 1/2/86
James Sanders S 11/11/83

Only one I am familiar with is Sanders from his days with NE during there SB runs.

[jerryroche]

Well if your looking for potential FA additions, you have to figure that Horton will want to bring in some of his own guys, here is a list of AZ UFAs, none really stand out, and they are described as "Filler Material" by ESPN, but Id be shocked if one or two of them didnt end up on our roster next year.
Michael Adams CB 6/17/85
Nick Eason DE 5/29/80
Rashad Johnson S 1/2/86
James Sanders S 11/11/83
Only one I am familiar with is Sanders from his days with NE during there SB runs.

Eason was a Cleveland Brown for three seasons.

[Hikohadon]

I think they might be OK with a Taylor-Rubin-Winn front 3, but they no where near have the personnel for the 4 LB spots. You project Sheard as one of the OLB's without having any idea if he can play it. Maybe he can, maybe he blows.

Let's not forget how much less effective DQ was in the 3-4.

You ain't changing the body type of Taylor. Maybe Rubin can do that to an extent. But you're looking at a team that spent a lot of picks and resources to build a solid 4-3 DL with a lot of interior 4-3 type defensive linemen. One position of depth on the team if you look at it.

We're about to find out I guess.

I think it's more about penetration ability at 3-4 DE than body type. I've felt that Rubin was stouter, more a NT in a 3-4, whereas Taylor tries to shoot the gap more, which would mean he might be a better 3-4 DE than Rubin.

Where did Rubin play more in the last incarnation of the 3-4 here, DE or NT? I forget.

Either way, those are likely your 3 DL starters in some fashion with Hughes backing up the NT spot. Rucker might play some DE too, who knows.

[Gradysmanldy]

Rubin played NT frequently, but occasionally rotated out to DE for some sets, if i'm remembering correctly.

Rucker is gonezo from this roster, even if they have to cut him. Doesn't fit as a 3-4 DE, and he's serviceable enough for a 4-3 team.

Btw, Parker/Rucker had respectable numbers, when you combine their snaps. Definitely JAGs, but they also would have been the first replaced by our #1 draft pick, probably. Rucker stays on to give LDE/RDE some depth, and they pick up a FS/CB in free agency.

Not much changes for the 3-4, regardless of Sheards ability to stand up. (I think they believe he can, given the fact that he did it last year periodically and specializes as a pass rusher)

RDE/LDE: Winn/Taylor/FA depth
NT: Rubin/Hughes
ILB: DQ/JMJ/Fort/FA
WOLB: Gocong/Draft Pick
SOLB: Sheard/Robertson

They'll shift personnel based on looks, and I promise you'll see Sheard with his hand in the dirt and Taylor lined up at the nose, periodically. Robertson likely gets more run as a "nickel" linebacker, and I'll bet they bring in a solid FA with experience in the 3-4 (like they did with GoCong) to pair with the youth already. Only casualties I see are JaRucker.

That being said, this iteration of the switch wont have the same patience with the fans as the last couple switches, just because of the time invested and acquisition cost of getting to where they were at the end of 2012.

[peeker643]

I think they might be OK with a Taylor-Rubin-Winn front 3, but they no where near have the personnel for the 4 LB spots. You project Sheard as one of the OLB's without having any idea if he can play it. Maybe he can, maybe he blows.

Let's not forget how much less effective DQ was in the 3-4.

You ain't changing the body type of Taylor. Maybe Rubin can do that to an extent. But you're looking at a team that spent a lot of picks and resources to build a solid 4-3 DL with a lot of interior 4-3 type defensive linemen. One position of depth on the team if you look at it.

We're about to find out I guess.

I think it's more about penetration ability at 3-4 DE than body type. I've felt that Rubin was stouter, more a NT in a 3-4, whereas Taylor tries to shoot the gap more, which would mean he might be a better 3-4 DE than Rubin.

Where did Rubin play more in the last incarnation of the 3-4 here, DE or NT? I forget.

Either way, those are likely your 3 DL starters in some fashion with Hughes backing up the NT spot. Rucker might play some DE too, who knows.

To me Hughes, Taylor and Rubin are all positionally the same guy. Varyng degrees of ability, strengths/quickness/stoutness/weaknesses, etc, but they're all 6'3, 325-330lbs and all are NTs. Winn I think can play your DE position. Might be best suited for that actually. But the three big guys are NT/DT all day long IMO.

I haven't mentioned Austin English and Emanuelle Stephens yet. They have a glut of guys they can no longer use and a serious shortage (including a number fo guys who are actually here) in positions of need.

Pup- Horton is going to run what he knows. And it will be base 3-4 25% of the time and then some hybrid stuff the remainder of the time. So he'll mix and match and move guys in where their strengths are best utilized this season while the onus is on getting guys here who play his style to his preferences. Then he can go to his base more often if he likes.

LJ Fort and JMJ, huh? Sweet.I love the fact he Browns are an EEO believer. Love me some LBs that are under 6'0 tall, weigh less than 230lbs, aren't fast and aren't durable. Perfect for this scheme.

Most guys like that couldn't get NFL jobs but here they're embraced in any scheme apparently.

[pup]

So, if all of the current LBers blow, what are we losing?

Christ dude.

It isn't a matter of what Horton will do. It is the matter that he would have to be the biggest idiot this side of Shur and Mur to come into a situation that is so destined to fail while he is on the cusp of getting HC opportunities.

We bitch and moan about identities, then we go out and get a DC that has one and is going to implement it and we bitch because it isn't the scheme we are "set up" to run. Hate to break it to you, again, but the scheme we were so set up to run was good enough for about 2/3 of the NFL to be better than.

[Gradysmanldy]

Don't confuse aggravation with another wholesale swap with a lack of respect for what Horton is capable of doing; I think you're just hearing the frustration, Pup. Would have been nice to stay 3-4 with Holmgren and continue drafting based on what we have. Just sucks to have to waste all the picks again.

[pup]

Don't confuse aggravation with another wholesale swap with a lack of respect for what Horton is capable of doing; I think you're just hearing the frustration, Pup. Would have been nice to stay 3-4 with Holmgren and continue drafting based on what we have. Just sucks to have to waste all the picks again.

What picks?

[Gradysmanldy]

Basically we'll need to use picks 3-7 on defensive depth, again. We need to fill 3-4 slots/FA signings on front 7 depth, when essentially we were 1-2 pcks/FA slots at the end of the season. Would have liked to see DB help, a TE prospect, a backup QB, etc used with those perspective picks.

3-4 means a few extra players that we normally wouldn't need; there's a difference between being sucky and being incapable of playing in the scheme.

[peeker643]

So, if all of the current LBers blow, what are we losing?

Christ dude.

It isn't a matter of what Horton will do. It is the matter that he would have to be the biggest idiot this side of Shur and Mur to come into a situation that is so destined to fail while he is on the cusp of getting HC opportunities.

We bitch and moan about identities, then we go out and get a DC that has one and is going to implement it and we bitch because it isn't the scheme we are "set up" to run. Hate to break it to you, again, but the scheme we were so set up to run was good enough for about 2/3 of the NFL to be better than.

Did you read the article Pup. Did you read the first response? Terry Plutoi is a fucking idiot if he thinks the switch is no big deal because the Browns have the personnel to run it. He's not so big of an idiot that he thinks they have the LBs and he says they need a shitload of DBs and they'll also be sliding guys all over the line despite many of them never having played that position in the NFL, but Terry Plutio says it shouldn't be tough.

I said Terry Pluto is a fucking idiot.

I was hopeful Ray Horton would be the DC if you take the time to know what you're arguing about.

I had no idea the Browns defense blew the last couple years. None. I thought Sheldon Brown was a lockdown corner and TJ Ward was both durable and intelligent. Thought our LBs were fucking top notch game changing impactful motherfuckers.

They sucked? No shit?

Terry Pluto is a fucking idiot if he thinks the Browns current personnel is all set and ready to play a 3-4.

Nowhere does it say they have the personnel to play anything really well. Only that the last regime went out of their way to accumulate a lot of mediocre interior DL types.

Go Christ someone else. Maybe I need a Rosetta Stone series?? Am I speaking Greek?

Debo hablar en espanol, a lo mejor?

[pup]

I don't care how big of an idiot Terry Pluto. Has nothing to do with why I called.

So, if your only point is that, we are good.

If your point is this team is screwed because we are switching to a 3-4, then Christ dude.

[peeker643]

I don't care how big of an idiot Terry Pluto. Has nothing to do with why I called.

So, if your only point is that, we are good.

If your point is this team is screwed because we are switching to a 3-4, then Christ dude.

I'm fine with switch to 3-4. That's what Horton runs by and large and I like his defenses and I like him. I'm thrilled with him being here and said that 3 weeks ago when it was thought he could be had. I don't like the fact that this set of players is going to play it, but they'll phase out guys and get better suited defenders for it.

And Terry Pluto is a lazy, spoon fed hump whose skills have been diminishing for a decade. He's become another PD cartoon caracter.

[pup]

Basically we'll need to use picks 3-7 on defensive depth, again. We need to fill 3-4 slots/FA signings on front 7 depth, when essentially we were 1-2 pcks/FA slots at the end of the season. Would have liked to see DB help, a TE prospect, a backup QB, etc used with those perspective picks.

3-4 means a few extra players that we normally wouldn't need; there's a difference between being sucky and being incapable of playing in the scheme.

I see one extra spot needing to go to LBer and no extra spots needing to go to the DL. You go from 1-2 up to 3-4. I will buy into the high end of what we used to need and the low end of what we now need...which is one spot. Even in your worst case it doesn't require the entire back end of the draft to fill.

[Gradysmanldy]

Zero current depth a DE.
Zero current depth at LB.

I'm arguing that we'll need to use $$ in FA or draft picks to get said depth, because right now our shitty 4-3 depth isn't going to be capable of playing as shitty 3-4 depth.

Also, the current players (Parker, Rucker, Stephens, Fort, JMJ) may be one step above UDFA, but that current step means that we'll have to waste resources replacing them....unless i'm wrong and aforementioned shitty small linebackers and shitty depth DE's somehow prove that they're capable of playing in the other scheme.

Thats including the fact that Sheard is switching, which seems likely but not a lock.

In a 4-3, you replace the worst performers with talent, expect your kids to get better, and get into next year an improved squad.

[pup]

Again, if all these guys are shit, as I keep reading, they need replaced anyway.

We have enough depth for a 4-3 on the DL, and we know a majority of these guys have no chance at being able to play in the 3-4? Is that the argument? Because it is weak in my humble opinion.

We have shitty LBers where the depth all needs replaced, but by adding another LB to the needs we are completely off the rails?

This defense is today what it was a month ago. Below average and in need of a serious talent infusion. You are getting caught up in the positions next to guys names too much. We needed to add pass rushers then, we need pass rushers now. Just because before it was going to be a DE and now it is going to be a LB doesn't make it any different of a need.

[peeker643]

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora
Browns announce the release of DL Frostee Rucker

[justmebd]

Pluto focuses on the little specifics but fails to document the bigger picture: we’ve got front-office personnel who think they’re the smartest guys in the room without having proved it to any degree in the past.

The Browns now have a CEO who wants to get involved for the first time in personnel matters; a VP Player Personnel with a questionable drafting record; a rookie head coach; and a defensive coordinator who will not part with his beloved 3-4, despite the personnel he’s inheriting.

Our only hope is that those four guys are what Jimmy Haslam (and they) seem to think they are. If they aren’t, we are doomed—for, like, the 14th time in 15 seasons, the 15th time in 16 seasons, and probably the 16th time in 17 seasons.

The history of the expansion Browns is a string of Coaches/FO Guys who all thought they were the smartest guys in the room. All I've seen is a collection of arrogant jack-asses and complete idiots who didn't do shit.

Time will tell if this hampster wheel will keep on spinning.

[Hikohadon]

BTW - they'd be fuckin crazy to trade any one of their tradeable DL assets, no matter what the scheme. Can never have too many good DL-ers.

I'd be shocked to see them go any direction other than pass rushing 3-4 OLB in the 1st (with the possible exception of CB).

[pod2dawg]

We are going from the

23rd ranked total defense
25th ranked pass defense
19th ranked rushing defense
19th ranked scoring defense

The Cards were:

12th total d
5th pass d
28th rush d
16th scoring d

I like the top two numbers , but hoping Hort does serious "work" on the rush/scoring "D" Here.

Don't think we'll have to worry about lights going out on us in "2014" Super Bowl either.

[Prosecutor]

Terry Pluto is a fucking idiot.

If the fact you don't currently have the resources to effectively and efficiently run the defense is no big deal then I guess that has-been is right.

Probably. But 'no big deal' is pretty much as big a falsehood as saying Pluto is still bringing his 'A' game and isn't a lazy joke.

I'm confused because I read the Terry's Talkin' column a couple of times and I never saw the phrase "no big deal" or any variation of it used.

Pluto reported that both Taylor and Rubin have played in the 3-4 before, so that's a start. He also reported that the new coaching staff "loves" Winn and believes he can "easily" play DE in the 3-4. In fact, all of their linemen but Tayor are capable of playing DE, from what Pluto was told. I have no reason to doubt this statement.

He also noted that Rucker won't cost much to cut, which turned out to be right on the money since Rucker was cut the next day. They probably told him but asked him not to print it until they notified Rucker.

Pluto stated the Browns "need help at linebacker". Gocong is coming off surgery; Fujita and Maiava won't be back. DQ is not suited for a 3-4. (In fact, IIRC the Browns traded up for him precisely because he played 3-4 in college). Pluto added that after DQ, the most utilized Browns linebacker last year was Robertson, who only played 52% of the snaps. It doesn't sound like he's saying everything is just fine at linebacker. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In the secondary, Pluto pointed out that Patterson has already been cut and Brown will be the next to go. He didn't specifically say Skrine sucks (that's not his style), but he did say that Haden is the "only cornerback worthy of discussion". At safety, he thinks Young is a backup. He says the secondary is the defense's "biggest problem" and thinks they need two corners and a safety.

I'm really not hearing him say that the Browns have all the resources they need to convert to whatever defense Horton plans to run. In fact, he's saying that no matter what defense they use they need to upgrade 4-5 positions. I'm not getting any indication he thinks that converting to the 3-4 is "no big deal". He did report that the Browns think a couple of their 4-3 defensive tackles could successfully play DE in the 3-4, but that's the extent of it, unless I'm missing something.

I really don't see anything specific that I disagree with in that column, so I don't get the "fucking idiot" reaction.

[peeker643]

Terry Pluto is a fucking idiot.

If the fact you don't currently have the resources to effectively and efficiently run the defense is no big deal then I guess that has-been is right.

Probably. But 'no big deal' is pretty much as big a falsehood as saying Pluto is still bringing his 'A' game and isn't a lazy joke.

I'm confused because I read the Terry's Talkin' column a couple of times and I never saw the phrase "no big deal" or any variation of it used.

Pluto reported that both Taylor and Rubin have played in the 3-4 before, so that's a start. He also reported that the new coaching staff "loves" Winn and believes he can "easily" play DE in the 3-4. In fact, all of their linemen but Tayor are capable of playing DE, from what Pluto was told. I have no reason to doubt this statement.

He also noted that Rucker won't cost much to cut, which turned out to be right on the money since Rucker was cut the next day. They probably told him but asked him not to print it until they notified Rucker.

Pluto stated the Browns "need help at linebacker". Gocong is coming off surgery; Fujita and Maiava won't be back. DQ is not suited for a 3-4. (In fact, IIRC the Browns traded up for him precisely because he played 3-4 in college). Pluto added that after DQ, the most utilized Browns linebacker last year was Robertson, who only played 52% of the snaps. It doesn't sound like he's saying everything is just fine at linebacker. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In the secondary, Pluto pointed out that Patterson has already been cut and Brown will be the next to go. He didn't specifically say Skrine sucks (that's not his style), but he did say that Haden is the "only cornerback worthy of discussion". At safety, he thinks Young is a backup. He says the secondary is the defense's "biggest problem" and thinks they need two corners and a safety.

I'm really not hearing him say that the Browns have all the resources they need to convert to whatever defense Horton plans to run. In fact, he's saying that no matter what defense they use they need to upgrade 4-5 positions. I'm not getting any indication he thinks that converting to the 3-4 is "no big deal". He did report that the Browns think a couple of their 4-3 defensive tackles could successfully play DE in the 3-4, but that's the extent of it, unless I'm missing something.

I really don't see anything specific that I disagree with in that column, so I don't get the "fucking idiot" reaction.

Right. No big deal. Just replace everyone there is with quality players at every spot.

Should be good

Terry Pluto is a dog. Moral of the story is if you're getting your 'news' or 'analysis' from him, find another source. Preferably the one who spoon fed Pluto his information.

[neoleo]

Right. No big deal. Just replace everyone there is with quality players at every spot.

Should be good

Terry Pluto is a dog. Moral of the story is if you're getting your 'news' or 'analysis' from him, find another source. Preferably the one who spoon fed Pluto his information.

If the title of the thread were "Terry Pluto is a dog" or "Browns need to upgrade 5 spots on defense" you'd probably have a hard time finding people to disagree with you.

I think your message is getting lost behind the tie-in to the 3-4. Because I'm with Pup, it doesn't matter if the Browns run a 4-3, a 3-4 or aligns itself as a fucking soccer team, the defense needed a pass rusher, 2 LB's, a CB and S (and maybe a goal keeper). Those needs haven't changed. Switching to the 3-4 a big deal? Sure, but so was staying in the 4-3.

[peeker643]

Right. No big deal. Just replace everyone there is with quality players at every spot.

Should be good

Terry Pluto is a dog. Moral of the story is if you're getting your 'news' or 'analysis' from him, find another source. Preferably the one who spoon fed Pluto his information.

If the title of the thread were "Terry Pluto is a dog" or "Browns need to upgrade 5 spots on defense" you'd probably have a hard time finding people to disagree with you.

I think your message is getting lost behind the tie-in to the 3-4. Because I'm with Pup, it doesn't matter if the Browns run a 4-3, a 3-4 or aligns itself as a fucking soccer team, the defense needed a pass rusher, 2 LB's, a CB and S (and maybe a goal keeper). Those needs haven't changed. Switching to the 3-4 a big deal? Sure, but so was staying in the 4-3.

Well, had I actuually started the thread or written the first post in it, I'd be more inclined to agree with ya.

So consider it a commentary on Pluto and a response to the post that kicked off the thread.

[neoleo]

Right. No big deal. Just replace everyone there is with quality players at every spot.

Should be good

Terry Pluto is a dog. Moral of the story is if you're getting your 'news' or 'analysis' from him, find another source. Preferably the one who spoon fed Pluto his information.

If the title of the thread were "Terry Pluto is a dog" or "Browns need to upgrade 5 spots on defense" you'd probably have a hard time finding people to disagree with you.

I think your message is getting lost behind the tie-in to the 3-4. Because I'm with Pup, it doesn't matter if the Browns run a 4-3, a 3-4 or aligns itself as a fucking soccer team, the defense needed a pass rusher, 2 LB's, a CB and S (and maybe a goal keeper). Those needs haven't changed. Switching to the 3-4 a big deal? Sure, but so was staying in the 4-3.

Well, had I actuually started the thread or written the first post in it, I'd be more inclined to agree with ya.

So consider it a commentary on Pluto and a response to the post that kicked off the thread.

It's funny that I just assumed you started the thread, but I guess its because the only thing I've read in this thread is your argument against the 3-4 (even though you prefer Horton and his 3-4) and how bad Terry Pluto is at his job.

Looking back on it now that you point it out, it looks to me that this thread was started as a player personell discussion and simply cited Pluto as a source. You're the one who turned it into an argument against the 3-4 and used that argument as a vehicle to bash Pluto.

I'm not even taking a side in the argument, I was just pointing out where I thought you were losing people in your 3-4/Pluto bashing.

[peeker643]

I lose people all the time. That's what happens when one goes off on tangents.

Pluto drives me nuts and switching to a 3-4 from a 4-3 is a big deal after the last regime collected 4-3 linemen and personnel in bunches.

We can argue they weren't all that great in a 4-3 either and I am fine with the Horton selection and his defense.

But the transition will be painful in part because you need personnel they don't now have, regardless of the fact the personnel they did have for 4-3 was, in mnay cases, mediocre.

[Gradysmanldy]

Calling the inevitable shot:

Browns 23rd overall on defense again, and people throw a fit because they believe we would have been in the low teens.

Question is, what's the probability they are right?

Further question: How many drafts does Horton need to get the defense to that point, given his track record?

[mattvan1]

I think your message is getting lost behind the tie-in to the 3-4. Because I'm with Pup, it doesn't matter if the Browns run a 4-3, a 3-4 or aligns itself as a fucking soccer team, the defense needed a pass rusher, 2 LB's, a CB and S (and maybe a goal keeper). Those needs haven't changed. Switching to the 3-4 a big deal? Sure, but so was staying in the 4-3.

Except that a 3-4 pass rusher is not the same as a 4-3 pass rusher, and the LBs are not the same either. The only "no big deal" is at the CB and S positions.

Not sure I like the idea of using Phat Phil as the NT for 50 snaps a game. Across the entire front 7 techniques are different, reads are different, assignments are different.....It's not the end of the world, just another step backwards.

I can already set the O/U on wins at 6 and feel pretty comfortable.

[peeker643]

Further question: How many drafts does Horton need to get the defense to that point, given his track record?

Given I think he's a head coach next year or the year after I wonder about this myself.

[neoleo]

I think your message is getting lost behind the tie-in to the 3-4. Because I'm with Pup, it doesn't matter if the Browns run a 4-3, a 3-4 or aligns itself as a fucking soccer team, the defense needed a pass rusher, 2 LB's, a CB and S (and maybe a goal keeper). Those needs haven't changed. Switching to the 3-4 a big deal? Sure, but so was staying in the 4-3.

Except that a 3-4 pass rusher is not the same as a 4-3 pass rusher, and the LBs are not the same either. The only "no big deal" is at the CB and S positions.

Not sure I like the idea of using Phat Phil as the NT for 50 snaps a game. Across the entire front 7 techniques are different, reads are different, assignments are different.....It's not the end of the world, just another step backwards.

I can already set the O/U on wins at 6 and feel pretty comfortable.

So before you needed a DE (pass rusher) and 2 LB's, and now you need an OLB (pass rusher) and two other LB's.

The players needed to fill those voids aren't the same, but you have the same amount of needs at the same positions.

[Gradysmanldy]

Further question: How many drafts does Horton need to get the defense to that point, given his track record?

Given I think he's a head coach next year or the year after I wonder about this myself.

Well, he's not going to have the devastating D here without some work, so I'm not sure he gets the interview until he actually produces a quality product on the field. I think next year is a rebuilding year, defensively (with the end result being roughly the same as this year, which isn't a good look) and the following year we see a big "turnaround" that gets him legit consideration for the HC gig.

7 new HC's this year, 2-3 of them, at least, are bound to fail and get canned.

[Prosecutor]

I wouldn't go as far as to label Pluto a "dog" or a "fucking idiot", but I think that column was a waste of space. Any Browns fan who has been following the team closely already knows that Skrine sucks, Usama Young should be a backup, and Sheldon Brown won't be back. So yeah, Terry, we need a lot of ugrades in the secondary unless we decide to run a 5-4-2.

We all know Gocong is coming off a blown Achilles (same injury that ended Jamir Miller's career), Maiava is a free agent, Fujita is retiring, and both Fort and Richardson are undrafted free agents. Oh, and D'Qwell has problems in a 4-3. No new information there either, Terry, unless you're targeting the low-information fan.

The one thing I got out of it is that his Browns source(s) told him they think every DL they've got except Taylor can play DE in a 3-4. I think we kind of knew that already, but it's good to hear that the Browns agree. IOW, we don't need to dump every DL we've collected and start from scratch. The only one getting dumped is Rucker.

So maybe that's where the orginal poster came up with the idea that Pluto is saying the switch to the 3-4 "ain't no big concern." Pluto didn't really say that. He just said we're not going to need to clean house and start over on the DL.

There's a new management team in Berea and maybe Pluto hasn't gotten to know them yet, so he didn't really have anything new this week. Maybe he'll dig up some better stuff later, or maybe he's a dog and a has-been.

I think we can safely say this is going to be a defensive-heavy draft, though. I wouldn't be surprised if 5 of the 6 picks were on that side of the ball.

[Hikohadon]

I think your message is getting lost behind the tie-in to the 3-4. Because I'm with Pup, it doesn't matter if the Browns run a 4-3, a 3-4 or aligns itself as a fucking soccer team, the defense needed a pass rusher, 2 LB's, a CB and S (and maybe a goal keeper). Those needs haven't changed. Switching to the 3-4 a big deal? Sure, but so was staying in the 4-3.

Except that a 3-4 pass rusher is not the same as a 4-3 pass rusher, and the LBs are not the same either. The only "no big deal" is at the CB and S positions.

Not sure I like the idea of using Phat Phil as the NT for 50 snaps a game.

He won't, Hughes will get some snaps there, maybe Kitchen, probably Rubin in certain situations.

[Prosecutor]

From ProFootballTalk:

Horton’s had the job for a little while now, so we’ve already heard him talk about how his background running the 3-4 defense in Pittsburgh and Arizona doesn’t mean that he’s married to it in Cleveland. He repeated that on Tuesday, saying that he plans to run a scheme with multiple fronts that is tailored to make the best use of the personnel on the Browns roster. That personnel doesn’t need major overhaul because Horton saw “the perfect mix here of big guys that can run and little guys that will hit” when looking at the Browns defense.

He further explained what he meant by putting players in position to succeed by talking specifically about Jabaal Sheard. Sheard has 15.5 sacks as a defensive end in the last two years and expressed some trepidation about moving positions in Horton’s defense. Horton tried to put those fears to rest on Tuesday when asked if Sheard could move to outside linebacker.

“I would hope my answer would be, ‘Let’s not put limits on what players can and cannot do.’ Jabaal is a guy that I have seen on film that can rush the quarterback and is athletic. What we are going to do as a coaching staff is put each one of our guys in the best position,” Horton said, via Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “I’m looking at the offense we are playing and what they do best and what can I do to take it away. (Sheard) may be a strong safety some time, he can be a linebacker, he can be a D end. I want him to tell me what he can do best and not put a label on what he is.”

Really? The defense doesn't need a major overhaul? He's got "the perfect mix" of players already on the roster? He might put Sheard at safety?

That I have to see, but you gotta love the "can do" attitude.

[pod2dawg]

ain't no big concern.

is what the original poster/threader said.

That be me.

The intention was to reference Pluto as an introduction to start a lively discourse on the state of the Browns D and hope this Board could provide some insight and analysis.

It worked and I learned alot.

The cherry on top was lighting Peek's fuse.