What's your first two days draft board look like? Round and position.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

Completely agree... and not due to being lovestruck. Philosophy is a perfectly valid basis for breaking such a tie.

 

But where you think "vs. Orchard or Ogbah", I think opposite Nassib or Ogbah. Which raises the issue of scheme. I'd want my Myles with his hand in the dirt on early downs and roaming on 3rd... up, down, whatever.

 

I think great pass-rushers make their opposite better just by the pressure they bring.

See: Kruger, Paul.

[TexasAg1969]

I think great pass-rushers make their opposite better just by the pressure they bring.

 

Totally agree. Just about every game announcer who does A&M games talks about how opponents MUST start their offensive game plan based on what they must do to keep #15 out of the plays. One of the reasons #10 may go high in the draft is that he has lived off the benefits of being on the opposite end from Garrett who is usually double teamed and occasionally chipped by a RB as well. Hall (#10) is a decent player in his own right, but just not on the same level (but then no one is).

[The Gipper]

This FO will go with the greatest ROI and nothing else.

 

If a trade back enables us to gather two more exceptionally valuable draft picks (first two rounds), this FO will no doubt take it. We stand to benefit from taking any of the top 15 prospects at the current moment.

 

I still firmly believe we lack starter level talent at edge rusher, cornerback, both safety positions, right tackle, and center.

That's all? Seems like more.

 

While elite level talent is great, it does not turn a bottom feeding team into a contender. I believe we are one year removed from adding elite level cogs to our machine.

Can anyone the Browns drafted the last two years become "elite" level? Maybe Shelton....and Coleman?

 

 

Teams like SF, Chicago, NYJ, even possibly Miami will finish in the top ten and will likely be chasing a top quarterback. A slight shift back from 1 to, say 6, would enable us to acquire (at the very least) a 2018 first round pick and a 2017 second round pick.

 

We'd then possess two first rounders and three second rounders. Assuming a whiff% of 50 still leaves us with 2.5 high-level starting players from the first two rounds of one draft - which is better we'd get with a 0 whiff% in a routine 7 pick draft.

Browns history says they blow those picks....no matter how many and how high they are. Is this group different?

 

All this plus we still have 7 picks in rounds 3-7. Assuming even a whiff% of 75 still nets us about 2 starters from that group.

 

Worst case - we end up with 12 backups and go into 2018 with another 2 first round picks.

 

That is how this FO is looking at this. It's simple return on investment.

Yea, they look at the long term.....all the while getting very well paid. We fans, on the other hand, are the ones that have to suffer.....and we have to pay for the privilege.

 

We could net Adams, Hooker, Davis and Elflein with our first four picks and have four legitimate starters over our current players.

People will gripe at you for suggesting the Browns take OSU players. And Adams...you mean the LSU DB? What about Teez Tabor, Florida CB (we did well with one Fla. CB)

 

I find that a little more enticing than taking a QB at #1....and that's maybe the first time I've said that.

TRibisky keeps moving up most boards.

[gftChris]

 

This FO will go with the greatest ROI and nothing else.

 

If a trade back enables us to gather two more exceptionally valuable draft picks (first two rounds), this FO will no doubt take it. We stand to benefit from taking any of the top 15 prospects at the current moment.

 

I still firmly believe we lack starter level talent at edge rusher, cornerback, both safety positions, right tackle, and center.

That's all? Seems like more.

That seems about right to me.

While elite level talent is great, it does not turn a bottom feeding team into a contender. I believe we are one year removed from adding elite level cogs to our machine.

Can anyone the Browns drafted the last two years become "elite" level? Maybe Shelton....and Coleman?

Sure. But that's not necessarily what the FO is aiming at - multiple starter level guys in a D give a lot better D than one third elite two thirds scrubs.

 

Teams like SF, Chicago, NYJ, even possibly Miami will finish in the top ten and will likely be chasing a top quarterback. A slight shift back from 1 to, say 6, would enable us to acquire (at the very least) a 2018 first round pick and a 2017 second round pick.

 

We'd then possess two first rounders and three second rounders. Assuming a whiff% of 50 still leaves us with 2.5 high-level starting players from the first two rounds of one draft - which is better we'd get with a 0 whiff% in a routine 7 pick draft.

Browns history says they blow those picks....no matter how many and how high they are. Is this group different?

So, stop drafting? Give up? What's your point here? Bad teams can't become better?

All this plus we still have 7 picks in rounds 3-7. Assuming even a whiff% of 75 still nets us about 2 starters from that group.

 

Worst case - we end up with 12 backups and go into 2018 with another 2 first round picks.

 

That is how this FO is looking at this. It's simple return on investment.

Yea, they look at the long term.....all the while getting very well paid. We fans, on the other hand, are the ones that have to suffer.....and we have to pay for the privilege.

They're looking at the quickest route to a superbowl, not the quickest route to 6-10 or 7-9. Problem?

We could net Adams, Hooker, Davis and Elflein with our first four picks and have four legitimate starters over our current players.

People will gripe at you for suggesting the Browns take OSU players. And Adams...you mean the LSU DB? What about Teez Tabor, Florida CB (we did well with one Fla. CB)

People will gripe with taking OSU players just because they're OSU players. People won't gripe if they're BPA.

I find that a little more enticing than taking a QB at #1....and that's maybe the first time I've said that.

TRibisky keeps moving up most boards.

And if he weren't an Ohio native, people here would be talking waaaay less about him. He looks a good prospect, but not Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning's college love child.

 

[jiggins7919]

First pick - Myles Garrett (I will HURT someone if Browns win too many games and lose this pick, LOL)

Eagles 1st Rounder - Safety/DB (SEVERAL to choose from. Draft's deepest position)

Browns' 2nd Rounder - OL...for obvious reasons

Titans 2nd Rounder - DB, Safety, OL, middle linebacker

[LogicIsForSquares]

First pick - Myles Garrett (I will HURT someone if Browns win too many games and lose this pick, LOL)

Eagles 1st Rounder - Safety/DB (SEVERAL to choose from. Draft's deepest position)

Browns' 2nd Rounder - OL...for obvious reasons

Titans 2nd Rounder - DB, Safety, OL, middle linebacker

I was none too impressed with Garrett against Bama but from what I heard he was injured. Jonathan Allen from Bama would be my pick. The rest of your picks look good.

[gftChris]

I'm not so sure - if DB is the draft's deepest position, do we want to be using such a high pick on one? Presumably, if it's that deep, we can get one with one of our second rounders.

 

Side note - people bitching about trading back, we now have a chance to get four important players for our team in the first two rounds.

[The Gipper]

TRibisky keeps moving up most boards.

And if he weren't an Ohio native, people here would be talking waaaay less about him. He looks a good prospect, but not Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning's college love child.

Maybe, maybe not. People here are always going to talk about which QB prospect is considered the very best prospect because of our need for a QB. We would be asking the serious question about whether to take him....just like we asked about Goff and Wentz when they became considered the best pro QB prospect....and they weren't from the Cleveland area.

[Unsympathetic]

Watson looking very much not like the #1 overall

[Tour2ma]

While elite level talent is great, it does not turn a bottom feeding team into a contender. I believe we are one year removed from adding elite level cogs to our machine.

 

I find that a little more enticing than taking a QB at #1....and that's maybe the first time I've said that.

 

I think that if you see elite talent at most positions, you take it. Not because that one player makes you a contender, but because it eliminates one position from the quest. I don't think you can be a year early adding such talent... especially given the 5th year option for R1 picks under the CBA.

 

Does your QB statement have more to do with your assessment of the 2016 crop than other factors?

[Tour2ma]

 

We'd then possess two first rounders and three second rounders. Assuming a whiff% of 50 still leaves us with 2.5 high-level starting players from the first two rounds of one draft - which is better we'd get with a 0 whiff% in a routine 7 pick draft.

Browns history says they blow those picks....no matter how many and how high they are. Is this group different?

 

 

Yes, this is a different group made up of different personnel... and not just at the top. If you'll recall they even released many scouts from their contracts early before the 2016 draft. A draft in which their approach was markedly "different"... 14 picks worth of different... 5 WRs worth of different.

 

Results? TBD... but we aren't heading down the same path...

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

I think that if you see elite talent at most positions, you take it. Not because that one player makes you a contender, but because it eliminates one position from the quest. I don't think you can be a year early adding such talent... especially given the 5th year option for R1 picks under the CBA.

 

Does your QB statement have more to do with your assessment of the 2016 crop than other factors?

 

 

A little. I haven't really dove into any game tape this season. I do like Trubisky from the bits and pieces I've seen, but I've seen (at most) a full quarter of his play.

 

I think he has potential, but I don't like him as the top QB and a top ten pick right now.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

 

A little. I haven't really dove into any game tape this season. I do like Trubisky from the bits and pieces I've seen, but I've seen (at most) a full quarter of his play.

 

I think he has potential, but I don't like him as the top QB and a top ten pick right now.

 

I like Trubisky more and more the more I watch him. He has some issues, but they are coachable.

 

As far as his prospect comparison, I think he's in the same boat as Manziel was when he came out - he just plays football.

 

He has the ability to make all the throws and displays some flashes of dominance, but he plays the game the way he wants to play it. He doesn't seem to have any sort of care for footwork or mechanics. His motion is not repetitive - he mostly throws overtop but sometimes delivers from different angles even when he doesn't have to. He just goes out there and plays.

 

That's not to say his playstyle is anything like Manziel's whatsoever. Trubisky operates within the confines of the offense. He runs a structured offense. He's not a liability to run around and break the called play. He will go out there and understand the offense and know his progressions and run the play, he just probably won't be a guy who is consistent.

 

He doesn't seem to be much of a technician at all. If we want to get lofty with it, that's a quality Brett Favre exemplified - you just go out there and be a gunslinger and rifle the ball to your players. A welcome quality when it wins you games, a resented quality when it loses you games.

 

My consensus - If Kizer and Watson end up ahead of Trubisky when all is said and done, that would be perfect for us. I think Trubisky would benefit greatly going to a system that has a coach who understands how to mold a QB into an effective NFL player, while not forcing a square peg into a round hole. I could see him being a franchise QB, I could also see him becoming a Bortles (sadly, I'll admit - Bortles is not living up to snuff so far).

 

If that sounds like someone familiar....you could probably guess what my feeling is on it.

 

However, I still believe us to be in a great position to add upper-to-slightly-above-average-echelon level NFL starters at 4, possibly even 5 different positions.

 

 

 

What if I told you that Hue wants to ride with RG3 next year again and wait for Lamar Jackson to come out?

[wargograw]

Then why wouldn't he just take another year with Kessler? I'm down with that.

[Tour2ma]

What if I told you that Hue wants to ride with RG3 next year again and wait for Lamar Jackson to come out?

 

I could see that... and would prefer it over Farve 2.0.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

I could see that... and would prefer it over Farve 2.0.

Whoa now, I didn't say all that.

 

But it would be nice...

[Tour2ma]

Whoa now, I didn't say all that.

 

But it would be nice...

 

lol... no problem... just extrapolating.

 

Have I mentioned I think Favre is the most overrated QB in my lifetime?

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

lol... no problem... just extrapolating.

 

Have I mentioned I think Favre is the most overrated QB in my lifetime?

Maybe. But he's a HOFer, and I'll take it.

[gftChris]

I'd happily let an overrated QB lead us to a championship.

[gftChris]

So, has this changed for anybody? Personally I'm interested to see what the shape looks like - we're surely not having Collins as a stand up, 3-4 OLB replacing presumably schobert. But do we switch to a 4-3 as discussed elsewhere, with Kirksey, Davis and Collins as the backers, and Ogbah, Nassib ends, Meder & Shelton tackles? If so, is it permanent?

 

If it's permanent, I think the favourite is going to be Garrett over Allen, for positional reasons. We'll need to pick up another LB of some description - we'd currently have Collins, Kirksey, Davis, Schobert, Alexander and Tank Carder (scoobs on the PS). Depth would be nice there, along with some flexibility in terms of skillset. We'd also probably be looking to pick up a DT or two, since Meder is solid depth but not exactly all pro, and Desmond Bryant might likely be cut, while Xavier Cooper has shown roughly diddly to warrant staying around.

 

The secondary, along with the O, remain unaffected in terms of priority, obviously, but it might shape some mid round picks. Last year there were some very solid DTs going in the third and fourth rounds, for example.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

So, has this changed for anybody? Personally I'm interested to see what the shape looks like - we're surely not having Collins as a stand up, 3-4 OLB replacing presumably schobert. But do we switch to a 4-3 as discussed elsewhere, with Kirksey, Davis and Collins as the backers, and Ogbah, Nassib ends, Meder & Shelton tackles? If so, is it permanent?

 

If it's permanent, I think the favourite is going to be Garrett over Allen, for positional reasons. We'll need to pick up another LB of some description - we'd currently have Collins, Kirksey, Davis, Schobert, Alexander and Tank Carder (scoobs on the PS). Depth would be nice there, along with some flexibility in terms of skillset. We'd also probably be looking to pick up a DT or two, since Meder is solid depth but not exactly all pro, and Desmond Bryant might likely be cut, while Xavier Cooper has shown roughly diddly to warrant staying around.

 

The secondary, along with the O, remain unaffected in terms of priority, obviously, but it might shape some mid round picks. Last year there were some very solid DTs going in the third and fourth rounds, for example.

 

I just don't see us going with Garrett now that we've acquired Collins. Too much money in one positional grouping for a team that's supposedly building a roster on analytics.

 

Then again, by the time we'd be paying Garrett, Collins would be 31 and nearing the end of his contract...

 

 

I talked myself back into it.

[tiamat63]

- we're surely not having Collins as a stand up, 3-4 OLB replacing presumably schobert.

 

 

 

Oh Rly?!?!?

[TexasAg1969]

I just don't see us going with Garrett now that we've acquired Collins. Too much money in one positional grouping for a team that's supposedly building a roster on analytics.

 

Then again, by the time we'd be paying Garrett, Collins would be 31 and nearing the end of his contract...

 

 

I talked myself back into it.

 

That draft, cut and redraft has to be a new NFL record there Tim.

[Tour2ma]

So, has this changed for anybody? Personally I'm interested to see what the shape looks like - we're surely not having Collins as a stand up, 3-4 OLB replacing presumably schobert. But do we switch to a 4-3 as discussed elsewhere, with Kirksey, Davis and Collins as the backers, and Ogbah, Nassib ends, Meder & Shelton tackles? If so, is it permanent?

 

Not sure why the Collins acquisition would change a draft plan that targets an edge rusher... It's not as if Collins is a sack machine.

 

What he is is a 3-down LB... make that OLB because whether 3-4 or 4-3 that's where I see him primarily. So if we sign him, then that's one less LB to shop for.

 

As for the 3-4/4-3 debate... that currently is tipped by the DEs we can put on the field. Our best ones are currently better suited for the 4-3 IMO. Des Bryant's presumed return next season certainly would improve our 3-4 look. I half believed we'd take a shot at landing Richardson from the Jets to continue a move in that direction.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

That draft, cut and redraft has to be a new NFL record there Tim.

I almost considered not even posting it, but I figured everyone should see the internal struggle I just put myself through.

[jrb12711]

Remove the QB from the equation and whether or not you think Kessler is the dude. What is amazing is the fact that despite quite literally playing SIX QB's in EIGHT games, the browns are 12th in total offense (although PPG is low to be fair). Point is, the offense and the powers that be know how to move the ball around despite that incredible fact.

 

On the other side of the ball it's beyond a shit show. We literally could use help at every position depsite the acquisition of Collins and the good play of Ogbah so far. Unless something drastically changes we gotta draft defense high, and Garrett certainly seems to make sense as of today.

[LondonBrown]

I almost considered not even posting it, but I figured everyone should see the internal struggle I just put myself through.

lol awesome sentence

[Tour2ma]

Remove the QB from the equation and whether or not you think believe Kessler is the dude.

 

Fixed... "know" is too high of a bar, but "think" is just too weak. You have to at least "believe" Kess is the guy, otherwise you go fishing again.

 

I almost considered not even posting it, but I figured everyone should see the internal struggle I just put myself through.

 

And a classic Id vs. Ego struggle it was...

[gftChris]

Of course this all depends on which, if any, free agents are added. In the mould of Demario Davis, middle of the road, second contract guys is what I'm expecting, if anything. Probably one in the secondary, maybe one in the OL?

[tiamat63]

 

Not sure why the Collins acquisition would change a draft plan that targets an edge rusher... It's not as if Collins is a sack machine.

 

What he is is a 3-down LB... make that OLB because whether 3-4 or 4-3 that's where I see him primarily. So if we sign him, then that's one less LB to shop for.

 

As for the 3-4/4-3 debate... that currently is tipped by the DEs we can put on the field. Our best ones are currently better suited for the 4-3 IMO. Des Bryant's presumed return next season certainly would improve our 3-4 look. I half believed we'd take a shot at landing Richardson from the Jets to continue a move in that direction.

 

I don't think it necessarily changes the draft plans, but it does give certain room to look at other avenues now. Again, if I can't find a dominant edge rusher - having someone that can play along the line for interior pressure in our 34, 33 and 43 looks is the next best thing. Hence why I'm caught up with Allen at the moment. Accounting for interior pressure is a motherfucker and very hard to scheme against.