The Gipper Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 As I have stated a few places, my philosophy of NfL free agency is to achieve equilibrium, that is, replace talent that you lose with talent you gain....and try to come out ahead of the game. Have the Browns achieved that? Do you think we have gained as much as we have lost at least? or are we behind...or ahead. Hopefully we achieve no less than a zero sum gain. Here is one way to look at things: Lose Hoyer......gain Josh McCown and Thad Lewis.....positive or negative? Lose Buster Skrine.....gain Tramon Williams.....positive or negative? Lose Jordan Cameron....gain Brian Hartline....positive/negative (or apples for oranges?) Lose Jabaal Sheard....gain Randy Starks....positive/negative? Of course we also have to look at the FAs that the Browns still look to lose: Miles Austin....may not be back....Hartline more of a replacement for him than Cameron? Sion Fua.... Aytahba Rubin.....both Rubin and Sua are DTs. Starks is likely more of a replacement for then than for Sheard. As I see it, we are likely still down one TE and one DE/OLB. Browns still need to sign Charles Clay IMO to create equilibrium at that position....or Jermaine Gresham or Toni Moeaki. And to create equilibrium at DE/OLB Browns could look at the likes of Greg Hardy, George Selvie, Rolando MCClain, Sam Acho, Kroy Bierman, Geno Hayes, Joe Mayes, Brandon Spikes, Lawrence Timmons, Phillip Wheeler, Colin McCarthy. If they don't do anything more in FA at those 2 positions, then I feel they must be draft priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoeticG Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Negative...negative...negative...negative... we got older for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Lose Hoyer......gain Josh McCown and Thad Lewis.....positive or negative? POSITIVE - better mentor Lose Buster Skrine.....gain Tramon Williams.....positive or negative? Big POSITIVE - he's taller, too. Lose Jordan Cameron....gain Brian Hartline....positive/negative (or apples for oranges?) different positions... Lose Jabaal Sheard....gain Randy Starks....positive/negative? Starks - bigger, stronger, has 4 ints even. Let's say POSITIVE I'm not buyin the old age thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Negative...negative...negative...negative... we got older for no good reason. It's called experience. We were the 2nd youngest team in the league last year... We need a few vets to help our young guys develop... McCown for Hoyer- WASH (neither is the long-term answer, and neither are that good) Williams for Skrine - Positive (Williams is the better player) ______ for Cameron - still waiting... ______ for Sheard - still waiting... Hartline for Austin - Positive (Hartline is just as reliable as Austin in terms of routes and hands, but Hartline seems less injury-prone) Starks for Rubin - Positive (still leaves a space at NT that needs filled, but Starks is far greater than Rubin overall) Last year, we added Whitner and Dansby for their vet leadership. It seems this year we are adding a few guys who may serve the same function... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCDawgFan13 Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Rather have Hoyer. I like the Hartline deal, but more of a replacement for Austin. We still need a TE. Williams or Skrine....it's a wash. Starks is a good pickup but still need more to balance the losses on the d-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 The QB's are a wash talent wise. none of the 3 are very good The CB posistion took a HUGE leap forward. Skrine is a overpaid slot 3rd corner WR/TE is about the same. Cameron is 1 concussion away from retirement DL is better. Sheard played bad/hurt last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 As I have stated a few places, my philosophy of NfL free agency is to achieve equilibrium, that is, replace talent that you lose with talent you gain....and try to come out ahead of the game. Have the Browns achieved that? Do you think we have gained as much as we have lost at least? or are we behind...or ahead. Hopefully we achieve no less than a zero sum gain. Here is one way to look at things: Lose Hoyer......gain Josh McCown and Thad Lewis.....positive or negative? Lose Buster Skrine.....gain Tramon Williams.....positive or negative? Lose Jordan Cameron....gain Brian Hartline....positive/negative (or apples for oranges?) Lose Jabaal Sheard....gain Randy Starks....positive/negative? Of course we also have to look at the FAs that the Browns still look to lose: Miles Austin....may not be back....Hartline more of a replacement for him than Cameron? Sion Fua.... Aytahba Rubin.....both Rubin and Sua are DTs. Starks is likely more of a replacement for then than for Sheard. As I see it, we are likely still down one TE and one DE/OLB. Browns still need to sign Charles Clay IMO to create equilibrium at that position....or Jermaine Gresham or Toni Moeaki. And to create equilibrium at DE/OLB Browns could look at the likes of Greg Hardy, George Selvie, Rolando MCClain, Sam Acho, Kroy Bierman, Geno Hayes, Joe Mayes, Brandon Spikes, Lawrence Timmons, Phillip Wheeler, Colin McCarthy. If they don't do anything more in FA at those 2 positions, then I feel they must be draft priorities. QB- wash. Lose efficiency, lose age, lose scheme/team comfort. CB- improvement. Lost a nickel, gained an experienced #2. I compare Starks to Rubin moreso than Sheard...and in that case - improvement. Starks improves the pass rush game, brings versatility. WR - improvement. Hartline is a younger, more dynamic Austin. TE - haven't filled Cameron's shoes, so not an improvement. OLB - haven't filled Sheard's shows so not an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 QB- wash. Lose efficiency, lose age, lose scheme/team comfort. CB- improvement. Lost a nickel, gained an experienced #2. I compare Starks to Rubin moreso than Sheard...and in that case - improvement. Starks improves the pass rush game, brings versatility. WR - improvement. Hartline is a younger, more dynamic Austin. TE - haven't filled Cameron's shoes, so not an improvement. OLB - haven't filled Sheard's shows so not an improvement. That is precisely the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 what the hell does Starks have to do with Sheard? Two completely different positions. Is Randy gonna line up on the edge in a two point? Is he gonna drop back in the slot and dare a ngr to come into his zone? Rubbish. We lost a solid OLB'er in Sheard. Do I think he's a better 4-3DE? yes of course. Well, that was my question.....was Starks for Sheard a like kind of exchange. You say no....and I basically agree. The only thing is that Sheard is the one DL/LB that we lost and Starks is the only DL/OLB we gained. No need to get your panties in such a bunch. And I wish we would have used Sheard and Kruger to spell each other and gotten a true 3-4 Will on the other side, Mingo has one more year in my eyes to prove he's that guy. Sheard would have been much better for us if he basically only stood up on running downs. Just like Kruger I think both would have pressured the QB more with their hands down. But we had no choice last year but to use basically two hybrids on a lot of downs because of our depth. So far from what I see, the Browns did themselves no favors by letting Sheard walk. If Sheard was apt to come back than i'm real mad. If he was gonna leave unless we paid him some ridiculous salary....than fine it was the right call. But we need to replace him. We have two OLB'er spots to fill...another hybrid type and a smaller will type like Mingo. I agree.....Mingo will have to step up and perform to his draft status. Otherwise, yes, the Browns are gonna need a DE and an OLB in the draft....or see about getting one of those FAs in my original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 what the hell does Starks have to do with Sheard? Two completely different positions. Is Randy gonna line up on the edge in a two point? Is he gonna drop back in the slot and dare a ngr to come into his zone? Rubbish. We lost a solid OLB'er in Sheard. Do I think he's a better 4-3DE? yes of course. Well, that was my question.....was Starks for Sheard a like kind of exchange. You say no....and I basically agree. The only thing is that Sheard is the one DL/LB that we lost and Starks is the only DL/OLB we gained. No need to get your panties in such a bunch. And I wish we would have used Sheard and Kruger to spell each other and gotten a true 3-4 Will on the other side, Mingo has one more year in my eyes to prove he's that guy. Sheard would have been much better for us if he basically only stood up on running downs. Just like Kruger I think both would have pressured the QB more with their hands down. But we had no choice last year but to use basically two hybrids on a lot of downs because of our depth. So far from what I see, the Browns did themselves no favors by letting Sheard walk. If Sheard was apt to come back than i'm real mad. If he was gonna leave unless we paid him some ridiculous salary....than fine it was the right call. But we need to replace him. We have two OLB'er spots to fill...another hybrid type and a smaller will type like Mingo. I agree.....Mingo will have to step up and perform to his draft status. Otherwise, yes, the Browns are gonna need a DE and an OLB in the draft....or see about getting one of those FAs in my original post. Starks is not an OLB, positionally he's basically Phil Taylor. NT/DE in a 34, pure DT in a 43. Sheard is an edge rusher (in name, mostly...) and has yet to be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Starks is not an OLB, positionally he's basically Phil Taylor. NT/DE in a 34, pure DT in a 43. Sheard is an edge rusher (in name, mostly...) and has yet to be replaced. I know that, I was saying that he is the ONLY either LB or DL that we have picked up as FA.. He, in all likelihood replaced Rubin, while not lost yet....may very well be. (or Sione Fua). And yep, we need that edge rusher. Since this coaching staff wants to make Mingo a runstopper/coverage LB (a tactic I disagree with) we certainly need that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 To me...Starks doesn't replace anyone who has left.....IE: He's an end in this system and we stlll have all our ends. Sheard is OLB and Rubin is NT......neither of which have been addressed yet.... So, 2 new holes to fill......and, by signing Hughes and Stark, it indicates that some of the existing DL are on the bubble......(Winn, Des & A Bryant).... Roster has 11 D-linemen right now.....and we WILL draft more(1 or 2, Id guess)......and we'll only carry 7....maybe 8.... R. Starks A. Bryant D. Bryant B, Winn P. Taylor j. Hughes I Kitchen Plus...we still have....Meder, Barnett, McDaniel and Tupou.....plus whomever we pick..... So, the easy part is to say cut the last 4 guys(mostly practice squad/back up guys)....and kitchen?....though we did just tender him..... Another possibility is we will cut Des Bryant....who WAY under performed and is our highest paid DL and 5th highest paid Brown(so not worth it).....maybe chop him and his salary??....dunno.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hasn't Desmond Bryant been hurt a bunch? All of our DL got hurt last year, no? Taylor, Winn, Hughes, both Bryants all lost for big chunks of time? That is why our run defense suffered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hasn't Desmond Bryant been hurt a bunch? All of our DL got hurt last year, no? Taylor, Winn, Hughes, both Bryants all lost for big chunks of time? That is why our run defense suffered. Yes....lots of injuries and constant line up changes.....though Bryant was one of the more heathy ones this year. He missed a couple games early, with a wrist problem, but was there for most of the season...... Though there is not one single Browns lineman who didn't miss games due to injury.... In my view, it was Phil Taylor and John Hughes who went down early and caused the most problems with their absence..... Then you add Rubin and all our big bodies were out......Winn, Bryant and a bunch of reserves were left to carriy it ....like Fua, Meder & Kitchen.... So, while I know we are all clamoring to draft DL early( and a great NT would be awesome!!! )....I believe the line will be MUCH improved just with the return of our starters.... heck, at this time last year, everyone said DL was our strength.....so, when healthy, they should be again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Did Bryant underperform or was he asked to do different things than what Horton asked of him? It seemed to me all of our D lineman were doing a lot less attacking last season. You would "think" that would have meant we would have been better against the run...less lineman getting trapped upfield. Strangely not the case. I still think our front 7 was better overall under Horton and that it was the secondary last year that basically made the season at least somewhat respectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 To me...Starks doesn't replace anyone who has left.....IE: He's an end in this system and we stlll have all our ends. Sheard is OLB and Rubin is NT......neither of which have been addressed yet.... So, 2 new holes to fill......and, by signing Hughes and Stark, it indicates that some of the existing DL are on the bubble......(Winn, Des & A Bryant).... Roster has 11 D-linemen right now.....and we WILL draft more(1 or 2, Id guess)......and we'll only carry 7....maybe 8.... R. Starks A. Bryant D. Bryant B, Winn P. Taylor j. Hughes I Kitchen Plus...we still have....Meder, Barnett, McDaniel and Tupou.....plus whomever we pick..... So, the easy part is to say cut the last 4 guys(mostly practice squad/back up guys)....and kitchen?....though we did just tender him..... Another possibility is we will cut Des Bryant....who WAY under performed and is our highest paid DL and 5th highest paid Brown(so not worth it).....maybe chop him and his salary??....dunno.... Kitchen stays. As do the Bryants and Taylor. I think Taylor moves inside with Starks and DBryant at the ends, and then ABryant , Winn, Hughes and Kitchen rotate in. Draft not a priority but Taylor needs replaced next year. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Kitchen stays. As do the Bryants and Taylor. I think Taylor moves inside with Starks and DBryant at the ends, and then ABryant , Winn, Hughes and Kitchen rotate in. Draft not a priority but Taylor needs replaced next year. Zombo I have the impression that the powers picking the Browns draft may give priority to the DL.....so I would predict that one of our 1st rounders....assuming we keep them....would be DL. But, as noted, the Browns DL would be greatly improved just by guys staying healthy. But...WTF, this is the Browns, so you know that won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I for one am really looking forward to how this D is going to play in 2015. Corner already improved and DL sure to get a run stuffer @ 12 (if not a trade down for Brown from someone wanting to jump another team for a different player). I would be disappointed if we went wr there with the only exception being Cooper or White being available which I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Agree, but we haven't exactly shored up out run D as yet. Once Shelton is off the board I would not get too rambunctious moving down from that #12 slot if Brown is the next best NT prospect on our board. Brown is going to follow Shelton on stage fairly fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 i'm really interested to know what we plan on doing at OLB'er with the draft. Obviously we aren't going to address the position in FA otherwise we already would have. I would have to think the Starks signing means that #12 will not be DL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 i'm really interested to know what we plan on doing at OLB'er with the draft. Obviously we aren't going to address the position in FA otherwise we already would have. I would have to think the Starks signing means that #12 will not be DL. Im curious too.....w/o filling the Sheard gap, you know someone is getting picked high.....unless they REALLY like Mingo.... But I dont see Starks changing our primary need for a NT....So, for me, it's still Shelton or Brown at the top of the list.... At OLB, I see them looking for DE's who they can convert(like Sheard). Not saying thats the plan, but you know they are considering it ....so, with the exception of beasley(who I think they'd grab) I think they'll be looking at DE's more than your traditional LB types.... My guess is they are looking to replace Sheard with a similar hydrid ....Im leaning toward picks like Alvin Dupree, Nate Orchard, Lorenzo Mauldin and Eli Harold.....with the exception of Dupree, these guys are 2nd round and later picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Kitchen stays. As do the Bryants and Taylor. I think Taylor moves inside with Starks and DBryant at the ends, and then ABryant , Winn, Hughes and Kitchen rotate in. Draft not a priority but Taylor needs replaced next year. Zombo So, keep all 7?....plus at least one draftee makes 8.....which is 2 more than we carried last year....so 2 xtra roster spots used here??? and it seems like we could be adding a third QB this year......so 1 xtra roster spot used here too..? and we only carried 2 extra OL and (I think we could add one here).....so 1 extra spot used here too?(maybe not) which means 3 to 4 less roster spots elsewhere.....not sure where we'd start choppin tho....(ok wr, but then where?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Could Armonty Bryant be a candidate to move to OLB? He has the speed, athleticism, and his size is better suited to play that spot. As a pass-rusher, he is a major improvement over Sheard (IMHO) and he can't be much worse against the run. I wonder if he has any coverage skills...? He worked out as an OLB during the draft process and old reports I've read say he looked good as a LB... Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Could Armonty Bryant be a candidate to move to OLB? He has the speed, athleticism, and his size is better suited to play that spot. As a pass-rusher, he is a major improvement over Sheard (IMHO) and he can't be much worse against the run. I wonder if he has any coverage skills...? He worked out as an OLB during the draft process and old reports I've read say he looked good as a LB... Just a thought... Gotta say thats not one I had never considered....though he is Krugerish in size....dont have a clue how he'd do.... Though I think we have a lot of guys who could play a lot of places in Pettines system and he's game to put em there....I never know what they're thinking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenew23 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Gotta say thats not one I had never considered....though he is Krugerish in size....dont have a clue how he'd do.... Though I think we have a lot of guys who could play a lot of places in Pettines system and he's game to put em there....I never know what they're thinking... Kruger - 6'4" 270lbs Sheard - 6'3" 264lbs Bryant - 6'4" 265lbs No difference in size to me. If anything, Bryant is even more athletic than both of the others. Remember, Mingo is quite undersized for the position at 6'4" 240lbs. Also, Scott Solomon looked decent the last couple games and he's an OLB. Last year, Sheard lined up close to the line of scrimmage and even in a 3-point stance much of the time. I wonder if the plan is to utilize Bryant the same way. It just makes too much sense to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I know they like Mingo, but he's not the hybrid jack backer. Mingo is the cover 3-4 OLB'er. I don't think we even have anyone currently on roster that could even remotely adequately fill in for Kruger. As it stands now they'd have to ask Robertson to do it as I think he's the only other guy besides Mingo on the current LB'er corp that could fill that role. Ideally I wish we would have retained Sheard and drafted another LB'er more like the Steelers prototype....that 250lb guy that isn't going to fold completely against the run but can also cover. Beasley would fit that mold real well. Still think we need to pick up a 265-270'ish DE/OLB to spell Kruger. I would actually love for them to convert Armonty to that role as I think that suits him better than the 5 tech. He can spot relief Kruger and come in on certain packages where they're sending the whole squad so he'll put his hand down anyway. And Armonty can of course fill in on the D line as the end as needed. Maybe that's what they have planned with the Starks signing...move Armonty away from the interior and get him out to the edges where he is going to be an absolute beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Kruger - 6'4" 270lbs Sheard - 6'3" 264lbs Bryant - 6'4" 265lbs No difference in size to me. If anything, Bryant is even more athletic than both of the others. Remember, Mingo is quite undersized for the position at 6'4" 240lbs. Also, Scott Solomon looked decent the last couple games and he's an OLB. Last year, Sheard lined up close to the line of scrimmage and even in a 3-point stance much of the time. I wonder if the plan is to utilize Bryant the same way. It just makes too much sense to me... yeah, it's along the same lines as what I was yakking about above....that me thinks they're gonna grab a DE to be the next OLB... Just never thought of Bryant....it will be interesting to see what they do(draft wise)....heck, they could move Taylor or Hughes back to nose and then everything changes....again.....oy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I know Armonty is listed at 265 but you guys know that's that's not accurate right? He's "at least" Krugers weight...likely a little more, pushing 280. He has to be. You cannot play the 5 tech in the NFL at 265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Beasley would fit that mold real well. If I was the coach, Beasley would be the one Im after first.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I know Armonty is listed at 265 but you guys know that's that's not accurate right? He's "at least" Krugers weight...likely a little more, pushing 280. He has to be. You cannot play the 5 tech in the NFL at 265 yeah...he's got a lot of junk in the trunk.....sure looks bigger to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.