Unsympathetic Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know? There is one when it comes to the Browns. In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien. All others turned out not so good Browns drafted Craig Powell in the first round at one point. [A very low point] Should we be scared away from Ohio State defensive players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Well, my bias is toward winning. And the Browns have not been doing any winning. And a lot of that can be attributed to a lack of a quality quarterback. Defense IS absolutely a priorty...but it isn't the highest one imo, And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB. We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Browns drafted Craig Powell in the first round at one point. [A very low point] Should we be scared away from Ohio State defensive players? Probably not.....but.....apparently they think they must! The Browns have not drafted an Ohio State defensive player since then. In fact, the only two OSU players taken by the Browns since then were TE Darnell Sanders, and WR Brian Robiskie. They would have been better off taking a few more imo. Many of you are clamoring for that edge rusher......I wanted the Browns to get one last year that is better than any coming out this year.....Bosa, OSU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB. We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3. Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours. For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense. It takes far more to make a big difference on defense. Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs) Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end. And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours. For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense. It takes far more to make a big difference on defense. Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs) Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end. And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested. Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation. :lol: But consistent with backing a Class of 2017 QB #1 overall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 But I don't think the Browns should concentrate on one area at the expense of the others. (though, of course, they must make hard choices) Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct? Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation. :lol: No, I have been about 50/50 with Ghoolie for many years. I just don't get all bombastic if I disagree with him. I simply say: I disagree with you....just like I did with you above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct? Yes, if that one QB were Watson or Kizer.... Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking.... Or, how about concentrating on drafting a top notch QB prospect....that every national writer out there says will be a top QB draft choice. And from my point of view, I see no "elite" defensive talent out there. There is promising talent, but nothing mind boggling elite. If we had wanted elite defensive talent....then we should have taken Bosa at #2 last year. Face it, Nate Orchard had almost double the number of sacks in college than the guy you all seem to be touting. ...in the Pac 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct? Yes, if that one QB were Watson or Kizer.... Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking.... Or, how about concentrating on drafting a top notch QB prospect....that every national writer out there says will be a top QB draft choice. And from my point of view, I see no "elite" defensive talent out there. There is promising talent, but nothing mind boggling elite. If we had wanted elite defensive talent....then we should have taken Bosa at #2 last year. Face it, Nate Orchard had almost double the number of sacks in college than the guy you all seem to be touting. ...in the Pac 12. # of sacks do not define a player.......and, compared to Trubisky, Allen and Garrett are definitely elite.....period... You are the one who always points to rankings, and mocks, etc etc etc.....go look at the player scores and tell me they are on the same plain....cause they arent..... So....if we concentrate on "need" instead of "talent".....we are more likely to lose again..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 # of sacks do not define a player.......and, compared to Trubisky, Allen and Garrett are definitely elite.....period... I know, but that was a big thing to our FO. And you have no real clue as to the "eliteness" of any of these players when it comes to how they will perform in the pros. Not one damn clue. You are the one who always points to rankings, and mocks, etc etc etc.....go look at the player scores and tell me they are on the same plain....cause they arent..... I didn't see any scores published. Where do you see scores assigned to anyone? And any of these scores, based on the systems that I put down in another thread.....are just some writer/scouts projection/opinion. Yes, I will note the rankings, mocks, scores......but I am not a slave to them. I will use them when I choose, I will abuse them when I choose and I will disabuse them when I choose. And I will use my instincts when I choose....as much as anything else. We can go back to the old worn out example: ain't nobody knows what a player will really be like once he hits the pros. Good ole #2 ranked QB in 1998 sure ranked/scored much higher than ole #199 in 2000. How did that work out? So....if we concentrate on "need" instead of "talent".....we are more likely to lose again..... Or, perhaps if we marry the two....we may start winning. Do you truly believe that NFL GMs and FOs don't look at their needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchie Posted January 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours. For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense. It takes far more to make a big difference on defense. Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs) Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end. And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested. I assume we've all played some organized football. If so, you probably know that more than any sport, there is a direct link between the play of one player and that of the other players; the play of one unit (esp. offense vs defense) and the play of the other unit. So any upgrade makes the whole team better. Get a blocking lineman and the RB goes probowl. Get a pass rusher and suddenly the CB is a "shut-down" corner. Wide open WR makes the QB look good and an accurate passer makes a WR into thinking he walks on water. A good offense allows the defense to rest more and perform better. I could go on and on. So with so many needs, hitting on the draft and adding a few great FA's will tremendously improve the play of the entire team - no matter which position. But in today's passing era, the QB in football is the most important position and therefore the biggest priority. Next comes the pass rush, and then receivers and the defensive secondary. The rest is a lower priority - although, like I said, it's all connected and it's all necessary. Bottom line, the Browns are 1-15 but probably 6 good players (and a little bit of luck) away from a .500 team. It starts with the QB. Unquestionably important and unquestionably our weakest position relative to the other teams we play against. Until we solve it, we're going to be a losing team. No single player can transform the Browns like a great QB. We have to keep drafting and/or signing them until we find one. So if 3 QB's are going to be drafted with the top 6 picks, can we really afford not take one at #1? Only if we can get one through FA or in a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 No, I have been about 50/50 with Ghoolie for many years. I just don't get all bombastic if I disagree with him. I simply say: I disagree with you....just like I did with you above. I have not been offended by our difference in opinion. In fact been kind of fun pulling each other's tail. It only matters what this FO decides and in them I have little faith anyway. Would not surprise me at all if they trade out of all elite players like the baseball traders that they are. Then no one here will be happy and there will be another boring year of shit on the field. Edit: I believe Hue talked them into Kessler @ #3 last year and they are not going to trust him on a QB again. I also believe there is good chance that the new DC was promised first shot as condition of taking the job. We had both better pray that at least that proves out, otherwise who knows what the baseball boys will talk themselves into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 I have not been offended by our difference in opinion. In fact been kind of fun pulling each other's tail. It only matters what this FO decides and in them I have little faith anyway. Would not surprise me at all if they trade out of all elite players like the baseball traders that they are. Then no one here will be happy and there will be another boring year of shit on the field. Edit: I believe Hue talked them into Kessler @ #3 last year and they are not going to trust him on a QB again. I also believe there is good chance that the new DC was promised first shot as condition of taking the job. We had both better pray that at least that proves out, otherwise who knows what the baseball boys will talk themselves into. Well, to say that we all do not know what this FO is thinking is absolute truth. There are so many questions: A. Do we think that they will ultimately want to solve the QB issue? B. Will they, as you say, want to give the new DC new toys to play with? Be it DL/LB/DB. C. Or, will they say to him: we brought you in to do a much better job with what we think are pretty good toys that we have already supplied. We will get you some help, but you must do better with what is on hand. D. Do we help that new QB that we take....or trade for and go early for O Line? The draft is always FA loss/FA gain contingent. Will the Browns live up to Haslam's word and do their best to keep what we have and go out and get more? Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babernakle Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 One side or the other all in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 I assume we've all played some organized football. If so, you probably know that more than any sport, there is a direct link between the play of one player and that of the other players; the play of one unit (esp. offense vs defense) and the play of the other unit. So any upgrade makes the whole team better. Get a blocking lineman and the RB goes probowl. Get a pass rusher and suddenly the CB is a "shut-down" corner. Wide open WR makes the QB look good and an accurate passer makes a WR into thinking he walks on water. A good offense allows the defense to rest more and perform better. I could go on and on. So with so many needs, hitting on the draft and adding a few great FA's will tremendously improve the play of the entire team - no matter which position. But in today's passing era, the QB in football is the most important position and therefore the biggest priority. Next comes the pass rush, and then receivers and the defensive secondary. The rest is a lower priority - although, like I said, it's all connected and it's all necessary. Bottom line, the Browns are 1-15 but probably 6 good players (and a little bit of luck) away from a .500 team. It starts with the QB. Unquestionably important and unquestionably our weakest position relative to the other teams we play against. Until we solve it, we're going to be a losing team. No single player can transform the Browns like a great QB. We have to keep drafting and/or signing them until we find one. So if 3 QB's are going to be drafted with the top 6 picks, can we really afford not take one at #1? Only if we can get one through FA or in a trade. Holy whiplash... After paragraph one I was expecting a BPA argument.... and ended up with a position value argument. Gonna need some Advil tonite... And that all here have played is a bad assumption... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Well, as I see it, the BPA and Position value arguments are married when it comes to the Browns: BPA a QB....we need it BPA a OL....we need it. BPA a DL....we need it BPA a LB...we need it BPA a DB...we need it. BPA a K or P....well, maybe here it don't apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchie Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 Holy whiplash... After paragraph one I was expecting a BPA argument.... and ended up with a position value argument. Gonna need some Advil tonite... And that all here have played is a bad assumption... Sorry to disappoint. It was not a BPA argument. BPA is a great strategy if you can afford it and, as I said, any upgrade helps the entire team get an upgrade. But if glaring deficiencies exist - as it does with the Browns, then you have to look at fixing them as a priority in FA and the draft. The Browns have to solve their QB issue somehow! Some say 2017 FA QB possibilities are not worth the $$$ and that value might not be there at #1 pick. (However, they have no issue with 3 QB''s going in the draft between 2-5?) Anyway, I think the Browns made a bad decision last year based on Hue's assessment of Wentz. Some people with the BPA concept might say that Cody in the third round was better value than Wentz in the first, but here we are at 1-15 still looking for a QB. We could tell by game one that Wentz could make all the throws and that the Browns made another massive mistake. If the FO get fired next year, that decision will have been the catalyst. So as unfortunate as it is, it's either Garropolo, or the #1 pick, or we get lucky at a lower picked QB, or RG/Cody improves. Otherwise, even with a great draft, we're in the primordial ooze trying to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 Just having a little fun with my reaction... I will only say that if a team was ever in a BPA-ripe position, it looks to me it's us. Other than LT and NT what is really set? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 Anyway, I think the Browns made a bad decision last year based on Hue's assessment of Wentz. Some people with the BPA concept might say that Cody in the third round was better value than Wentz in the first, but here we are at 1-15 still looking for a QB. We could tell by game one that Wentz could make all the throws and that the Browns made another massive mistake. If the FO get fired next year, that decision will have been the catalyst. Odd assessment considering how much Wentz struggled during the second half of the season. Sure, he looks to be better than what we have now, but the jury is still out on whether the Browns made a franchise altering mistake. With that being said, just because we NEED a position, doesn't mean our need aligns with a player currently available to make that significant impact. Nobody has been able to refute my Geno Smith reference yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchie Posted January 15, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 Outside of the goalie in Hockey, no position in team sports exceeds the importance of a QB in football. And despite this importance, and with all sorts of analysis, analytics, and evaluation experts, too many top-selected QB's bomb while lower selected ones excel. Not all of them, but too many of them. This tells me that we have to stop thinking we can predetermine value at that position (too many intangibles, I guess) and keep picking them until we're satisfied that there are two or three good ones on the roster, one of which has the ability to be a top QB in this league. I'm not saying throughout all this analysis - what I am saying is that when you need a QB, and you're sitting with the #2 pick (last year), and a QB is seen as worthy of that pick, has the size, accuracy and arm strength you're looking for, take him!! Don't kid yourself into thinking you know they are going to be a top 30 QB but not top 15. No question in my mind that the lack of selection of Wentz was a mistake. I would have no problem with the Browns selecting a QB at #1 or #12 (not both) and sign a FA or keep RG3. Whatever it takes, as long as we keep trying until we get it right ... and we must get it right to compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 I will only say that if a team was ever in a BPA-ripe position, it looks to me it's us. Other than LT and NT what is really set? Exactly.....when you need to improve at virtually every position.....that is the PRIME time for BPA.... Passing on better talent in order to pick for a specific need is a loser move.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Odd assessment considering how much Wentz struggled during the second half of the season. Sure, he looks to be better than what we have now, but the jury is still out on whether the Browns made a franchise altering mistake. With that being said, just because we NEED a position, doesn't mean our need aligns with a player currently available to make that significant impact. Nobody has been able to refute my Geno Smith reference yet. What is your Geno Smith argument? He wasn't considered good enough to be a first round pick....even in a league that is QB desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillmotion Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Exactly.....when you need to improve at virtually every position.....that is the PRIME time for BPA.... Passing on better talent in order to pick for a specific need is a loser move.... definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted September 28, 2017 Report Share Posted September 28, 2017 In here, there is a reference to my Bet with Stan. I bet him that Trubisky would go in the Top 5 of the draft.....just peruse this thread. The original bet may have been made in a different thread....but it is recounted here. In fact.....it appears that Zombo made the same bet with me.....so it looks like the BOTH owe me a pitcher of Margaritas. See page 2. Also....Z has not yet cleaned out his PMs and I have not been able to get him my number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted September 28, 2017 Report Share Posted September 28, 2017 How about this: If he goes Top 5, then you have to bring Zoe and her sister to the party. And...see above: Z is supposed to bring a big titted broad with him to the Margarita party!! (his present girlfriend is exempt however) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.