Browns Draft Needs

[SdBacker80]

4 hours ago, gumby73 said:

I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending 

My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3..  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/  Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen 🖊️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris 👀 

 

Kind of quiet on the Mitchell front but I’d argue he might be the most important FA we have. He put together a nice season and Greedy is a question mark at this level and his health is also a question mark.  If you take a look at the number of quality and middle of the road type DBs hitting free agency this year.  I’m confident the Browns can get something done without overpaying.

 

[The Gipper]

9 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.

But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.

And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.

But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.

You mentioned BOTH Ravens games. 

Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.

And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in. 

So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.

To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters. 

Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.

You may be talking about specific plays.    I am talking about games.  

You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses,    but it still a simple sort of arrangement:     The more the Browns gave up in running yards,  the more likely they were to lose.   Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing.    I am not going to overthink that fact. 

You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games.  But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing:   They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards. 

[SdBacker80]

5 hours ago, ballpeen said:

In a nut shell, speed and size.  They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.

 

When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers.  People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.

Exactly, Peppers excels now and he did well for us when he was closer to the LOS. Covering the flat, jumping a TE curl route, blitzing and stuffing a run or chasing a QB.  The Center field coverage stuff part was his demise.
 

We brought in Karl Joseph to fill that role.  And he did decently well close to LOS...it was the center field stuff that our D coordinator put him in that kind of flopped. 
 

I think you can make a strong argument that Peppers and Joseph play the New LB role or even LB better than Mack Wilson.  
 

Peppers is no longer on the team, Joseph may no longer be on team and if you are finding the next guy in line you need a center field coverage type complement with them.  Maybe it’s Ronnie Harrison? 
 

So we have two maybe three holes depending on how you view Ronnie Harrison.

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

You may be talking about specific plays.    I am talking about games.  

You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses,    but it still a simple sort of arrangement:     The more the Browns gave up in running yards,  the more likely they were to lose.   Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing.    I am not going to overthink that fact. 

You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games.  But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing:   They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards. 

There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument.

In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games:

1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average.

So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game?

2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games.

3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation. But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62. 

4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year.

Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under

Tenn- 2 Way under

PHI-9 Under

IND-11 Under

LV-14 Way Over

DAL- 17 Under

NYG-19 Under

NYJ-23 Over

CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice

WASH-26 Slightly over

JAX-29 Over

HOU- 31 Slightly Under 

PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under

 

 

Chiefs-16 10 yards over

Every team from Washington up averaged 100+.

So in 18 games, compared to the teams average:

Over: 8 

Under: 10 

 

So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)?

Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games. 

So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again.

The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game. 

Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.)

But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility. 

A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion. 

 

 

[The Gipper]

24 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument.

In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games:

1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average.

So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game?

Again, I am only pointing out that the games they gave up the most rushing are the games they lost.  If there are other factors at play, so be it.  It is still a glaring statistic. 

2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games.

3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation.

Actually, I said exactly that:  that the big leads the Browns had in some games deterred the other teams from utilizing their run game.  How did you miss that? 

But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62. 

Sure, it helped some.  But the above comment was a more primary factor, 

4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year.

Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under

Tenn- 2 Way under

PHI-9 Under

IND-11 Under

LV-14 Way Over

DAL- 17 Under

NYG-19 Under

NYJ-23 Over

CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice

WASH-26 Slightly over

JAX-29 Over

HOU- 31 Slightly Under 

PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under

 

 

Chiefs-16 10 yards over

Every team from Washington up averaged 100+.

So in 18 games, compared to the teams average:

Over: 8 

Under: 10 

 

So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)?

Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games. 

So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again.

The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game. 

Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.)

But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility. 

No, I just, again, think that you are overthinking it.   Bottom line,  we need LBs to perform better....even IF we are only going to use  2 of them.  In fact, it is even more critical if we just use that number.  W draft them or pick up FAs.  

A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion. 

Actually, I think the numbers may  support the conclusion that JB is the best RB ever:   I believe he still holds the NFL record for both  Most average yards per rush and per game,. and he leads in most time leading the league in rushing in a season

 

 

 

[Unsympathetic]

Teams don't run to set up the pass.. they pass, period, and the rushing is an amusing aftereffect of the passing.  The Chiefs game gave up lots of run yards because they had a big lead and were busy icing it.. AND because mahomes got knocked out.  We'd have a lot more pass yards against the Browns on the final stat sheet if neither of those two things were the case.

In 2020, 41% of the plays against our D were run; 59% were pass. 69% of the yards our D gave up were through the air; 31% were from a run.

Stopping the pass is job #1 and #2 - first stop the thing they do more often and cause greater damage with.

23 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

If there are other factors at play, so be it

Yes, and those other factors are.. more important than rush yards.

 

This really should be separated from a thread about draft needs.. LB is a weakness but it looks like we've picked DL, OL, QB, WR and DB as our investable positions with LB and the non-top-tier starters being rookies on a first deal or identified middle-priced vet FA's.

Njoku for Gilmore? I'll take it.. one explanation for Gilmore's "struggle" in 2020

[SdBacker80]

a couple random thoughts on the two pages of post

-The Browns often times and with great effectiveness ran the ball and it set up the pass. We got so good as the season went on opposing teams tried to take it away at the start and it forced Stefanski and company to open it up downfield and we came back to pounding the rock after the Saftey and LBs started drifting back in coverage 

-Gilmore for Njoku absolutely. 

-The Raider game while a small sample of the entire season magnified our lack of running stuffing capability.  It was Man Ball against helpless victims.  
 

-the second Raven game was a flawed gameplan.  The Back 7 dropping and Turning their backs to Lamar and way too much reliance on man coverage.  Lamar had the yards but the backs if recall also had their output whenever they needed a run.

-To be fair, something worked (we committed to stopping the run) in Tenn. because D Henry was going backwards in the first half. 

-Quite honestly, we had offensive coordinators redesigning game plans to exploit our secondary play or guys out in our secondary.  And Coupled with some circumstantial points that redirected/avoided focus on running against us- Although we were Top 10  We were paper tigers in this area.

 

 

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

 

You are actively trying to have it both ways, which as I said hurts credibility (and I am sure you don't care, but it goes to the reason you are called out, when coupled with the fact that you even jokingly try to sound superior).

When the question was posed by someone about what games we lost because we couldn't stop the run...

You didn't try to justify your stance, you simply named those 5 games. By only answering those teams, you appear (whether incidentally or not) to be saying that those games were lost being the main cause as rush defense. And when questioned about it,, instead of clarification on your stance, you double down.You don't seem to want to qualify cause and effect, just want to use one basic data point to substantiate your belief. And whether you know it or not, that is absolutely fools gold in analysis. Again, you are the one who always wants to appear so in the know and using databases to back up whatever you are trying to argue.

Case in point, and I absolutely knew you would use some situational Stat for Jim Brown, which is the exact reason why I used that. You are ONLY using total rushing yards to try and bolster your point on the initial issue, not a thing more, not even a secondary rush Stat. Yet by that metric, JB isn't close. You see, you use different standards depending on your views.

You see, what I have noticed with you is when you need to you will try to say that you were misunderstood (very well could be true from your initial perspective). But in that, you expect that you were misinterpreted by the other person, not because you were confusing which led to the misunderstanding.

You see, just by answering the initial question without clarification, "rush defense" can be replaced with anything. Quarterback, rush offense, pass defense, etc. 

And even though I believe I already did, I will ask again in even simpler terms:

1. In the 1st Ravens game, the blowout, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (as your 1st comments showed) was the MAIN culprit (at least defensively) that the Browns lost? 

2. In the playoff loss to the Chiefs, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (again as you said the Browns lost because of) was the MAIN culprit for the loss?

3. By your OWN logic here, if those were losses because of RUSH DEFENSE, then are you also giving the Lions share of win against Titans to the RUSH DEFENSE?

Again, ALL of this could be avoided by simply clarifying a position or even just saying "I see how that was misunderstood." 

[The Gipper]

If there are other factors at play, so be it

Yes, and those other factors are.. more important than rush yards.

So...it is just highly coincidental that the games the Browns gave up the most rushing yards are the games the lost? 

15 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

You are actively trying to have it both ways, which as I said hurts credibility (and I am sure you don't care, but it goes to the reason you are called out, when coupled with the fact that you even jokingly try to sound superior).

When the question was posed by someone about what games we lost because we couldn't stop the run...

You didn't try to justify your stance, you simply named those 5 games.

They speak for themselves.

By only answering those teams, you appear (whether incidentally or not) to be saying that those games were lost being the main cause as rush defense. And when questioned about it,, instead of clarification on your stance, you double down.You don't seem to want to qualify cause and effect, just want to use one basic data point to substantiate your belief. And whether you know it or not, that is absolutely fools gold in analysis. Again, you are the one who always wants to appear so in the know and using databases to back up whatever you are trying to argue.

Just the facts, ma'am. 

Case in point, and I absolutely knew you would use some situational Stat for Jim Brown, which is the exact reason why I used that. You are ONLY using total rushing yards to try and bolster your point on the initial issue, not a thing more, not even a secondary rush Stat. Yet by that metric, JB isn't close. You see, you use different standards depending on your views.

I don't use different standards....I am just telling you the facts. 

You see, what I have noticed with you is when you need to you will try to say that you were misunderstood (very well could be true from your initial perspective). But in that, you expect that you were misinterpreted by the other person, not because you were confusing which led to the misunderstanding.

No, I don't overthink these things the way you do...the way you just did. 

You see, just by answering the initial question without clarification, "rush defense" can be replaced with anything. Quarterback, rush offense, pass defense, etc. 

And even though I believe I already did, I will ask again in even simpler terms:

1. In the 1st Ravens game, the blowout, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (as your 1st comments showed) was the MAIN culprit (at least defensively) that the Browns lost? 

Partly I suspect,    it didn't help

2. In the playoff loss to the Chiefs, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (again as you said the Browns lost because of) was the MAIN culprit for the loss?

Partly I suspect.   It didn't help

3. By your OWN logic here, if those were losses because of RUSH DEFENSE, then are you also giving the Lions share of win against Titans to the RUSH DEFENSE?

Partly I suspect, it helped. Though that was not MY logic in that situation....that is just your mistake surmise of what my logic is.   My logic was that in that, and other games where the Browns had huge leads, those leads led to the opposing team abandoning the run game. 

Again, ALL of this could be avoided by simply clarifying a position or even just saying "I see how that was misunderstood." 

I don't know how, or if it was misunderstood.   I don't know what you understand or what you misunderstand. I wouldn't even think of trying to get into your thought processes.   I am just saying that  in the Browns  6 losses, those were  6 of the 7 games in which they gave up the most rushing yards.   I don't think it is coincidental, but you are free to draw whatever conclusion you wish from that fact. 

 

[The Gipper]

This really should be separated from a thread about draft needs.. LB is a weakness but it looks like we've picked DL, OL, QB, WR and DB as our investable positions with LB and the non-top-tier starters being rookies on a first deal or identified middle-priced vet FA's.

Fair point.   

The question is:  should we now make LB an "investable position"  in our  FA/Draft process forthcoming. 

[Orion]

1 hour ago, SdBacker80 said:

-The Raider game while a small sample of the entire season magnified our lack of running stuffing capability.  It was Man Ball against helpless victims.

It was a horrible thing to watch.  WE knew they were going to run.  THEY knew that WE knew they were going to run.  They ran anyway.   And they bowled right over us.  - Having said that, our secondary was a mess and we couldn't stop the pass.  You can't throw a dart at our defensive dart board and miss a spot that needs a player.

[Tour2ma]

1 hour ago, SdBacker80 said:

The Browns often times and with great effectiveness ran the ball and it set up the pass.

Yup.... When your pass attack is as heavily Play-action dependent as ours/Stef's is, then you have to be able to run the ball.

If you run a spread/RPO, then not so much...

[Tour2ma]

As for arguing about need order/ prioritizing... that's just stupid...

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Tour2ma said:

As for arguing about need order/ prioritizing... that's just stupid...

It is called  "being a fan".  This is the sort of things fans do when talking about there team this time of year.   "What do we need in the draft"    If he sees no need for discussion about this subject, then it is stupid for him to even waste time clicking his keyboard. 

[Gunz41]

2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

If there are other factors at play, so be it

Yes, and those other factors are.. more important than rush yards.

So...it is just highly coincidental that the games the Browns gave up the most rushing yards are the games the lost? 

 

My goodness you must wear some combat boots because you just dig in.

I will go back to your original post and use Word for word:

"How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run"

You answered with those 5 games.

Whether that is your INTENT or not, that is saying that the run game was the key reason in losing.

Yet for passing yards you WANT to qualify that the yards are as a result of playing from behind. You don't give that same qualifier for rushing with the lead.

But enough about that, if you refuse to see past anything but total rushing yards or circumstances then whatever. 

But I will even give you credit again, your conclusion is solid. If a team ends up with yardage at the end like that, it usually does indicate a loss. But your hypothesis that it was based mainly on the outcome is extremely flawed (in the same manner as passing yards thst you qualify).

 

Now, as to looking too deep into it, yep that is what I do. I don't just take the final results and make a determination, I look at all the parts, all the data, all the circumstances and come up with my view.

Apparently, you just look at the outcome and go no further. Perhaps that is the difference in a judge and teacher coach.

But why not dive a little deeper. Heck, even put aside any kind of feelings of rivalry or whatever you think it is we have and answer this...

Did you honestly know that in 10 games (including the blowout loss to Ravens) that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE held the opponent to less than their average? 

And would you be surprised to find out that on the season, the Browns defense was 9th in the league in rushing defense? Teams they were higher than include Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Buffalo, Tennessee, Kansas City. 

And let's be generous (as I don't know the exact number). Lets say that the league average is 4 ypc. The Browns would be 2 carries (6 yards total pg) away from being Top 6. They would then only have trailed TB (Super Bowl Champs, obviously the stoutest rush defense), Indianapolis (who they beat), LA Rams (which was overwhelming thought as best defense), NO (thought as a Top 3 defense), and Seattle.

Even with those stats, I still believe that the Browns defense needs A LOT of improvement. But JUST by the numbers, that doesn't show that.

And my other point was that if you put the bulk of blame of those losses on Rush defense, then when they outperform then they should get the credit. 

But just for fun:

Why not go back and see how other teams did against the run in their losses.

Again, CAUSE AND EFFECT. If it all depended on winning/losing based on rushing, then the league would try to adopt the Ravens offense.

Or better yet, since you don't want to look any deeper, I will do it for you in ALL 6 losses.

Baltimore 1- 111 total (25 of those on last possession up by 32). So 86 yards before then.

Pittsburgh 1- 129 total (30 on last 2 possessions (not counting 3 kneels) up by 31). 99 before then

Las Vegas- 209 total (horrible showing). 69 yards last 2 drives up by 10. So 140 before

Baltimore 2- 231 total (another bad showing, but also a strange game). Most of Ravens yards late came through the air

New York- 131 total (probably the worst of them as they were just BAD). Not even looking through that game

Kansas City- 123 total (17 on final drive up by 5, 27 on final 2 drives up 5, 69 yards once Mahomes was injured). With Mahomes, the Chiefs rushed for 54 yards and were up 22-10). Without Mahomes, 69 yards rushing and 3 points. 

So using all 6 games, 2 in blowouts even, 3 of those opponents would be below 100 yards without running the clock out. 

As for the other 3 games:

Raiders game ABSOLUTELY was lost as a result of RUSH DEFENSE being the major culprit.

2nd Ravens game- While Baltimore built up the early lead (and Stat book) early, Lamar throwing in the end actually made the difference.

Jets game- defensive wise, yes I would agree that rushing played a big role (even though Jets had 0 TDs and only 6 1st downs off rushing), the main culprit of that loss was all the receivers being out, and questionable game plan to give Chubb and Hunt 15 carries TOTAL. 

So I look at these 6 games and when looking at the full story and not just one Stat (total rushing yards), my conclusions are:

Lost 1 game on the backs of rushing D (Raiders), 1 game by a combination of rushing and late throws (2nd Ravens game), 2 games because of passing (1st Ravens game and Chiefs), 1 game from just being poor EVERYWHERE (Steelers), and one because of player availability/questionable strategy (Jets).

My 2nd conclusion, the Browns need upgrades all over the defense. We have 1 for sure stud, 1 guy who is great when he plays, a few guys with promise, and some decent starter/rotation players. 

[The Gipper]

10 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

My goodness you must wear some combat boots because you just dig in.

I will go back to your original post and use Word for word:

"How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run"

You answered with those 5 games.

Whether that is your INTENT or not, that is saying that the run game was the key reason in losing.

Yet for passing yards you WANT to qualify that the yards are as a result of playing from behind. You don't give that same qualifier for rushing with the lead.

But enough about that, if you refuse to see past anything but total rushing yards or circumstances then whatever. 

But I will even give you credit again, your conclusion is solid. If a team ends up with yardage at the end like that, it usually does indicate a loss. But your hypothesis that it was based mainly on the outcome is extremely flawed (in the same manner as passing yards thst you qualify).

 

Now, as to looking too deep into it, yep that is what I do. I don't just take the final results and make a determination, I look at all the parts, all the data, all the circumstances and come up with my view.

Apparently, you just look at the outcome and go no further. Perhaps that is the difference in a judge and teacher coach.

But why not dive a little deeper. Heck, even put aside any kind of feelings of rivalry or whatever you think it is we have and answer this...

Did you honestly know that in 10 games (including the blowout loss to Ravens) that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE held the opponent to less than their average? 

And would you be surprised to find out that on the season, the Browns defense was 9th in the league in rushing defense? Teams they were higher than include Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Buffalo, Tennessee, Kansas City. 

And let's be generous (as I don't know the exact number). Lets say that the league average is 4 ypc. The Browns would be 2 carries (6 yards total pg) away from being Top 6. They would then only have trailed TB (Super Bowl Champs, obviously the stoutest rush defense), Indianapolis (who they beat), LA Rams (which was overwhelming thought as best defense), NO (thought as a Top 3 defense), and Seattle.

Even with those stats, I still believe that the Browns defense needs A LOT of improvement. But JUST by the numbers, that doesn't show that.

And my other point was that if you put the bulk of blame of those losses on Rush defense, then when they outperform then they should get the credit. 

But just for fun:

Why not go back and see how other teams did against the run in their losses.

Again, CAUSE AND EFFECT. If it all depended on winning/losing based on rushing, then the league would try to adopt the Ravens offense.

Or better yet, since you don't want to look any deeper, I will do it for you in ALL 6 losses.

Baltimore 1- 111 total (25 of those on last possession up by 32). So 86 yards before then.

Pittsburgh 1- 129 total (30 on last 2 possessions (not counting 3 kneels) up by 31). 99 before then

Las Vegas- 209 total (horrible showing). 69 yards last 2 drives up by 10. So 140 before

Baltimore 2- 231 total (another bad showing, but also a strange game). Most of Ravens yards late came through the air

New York- 131 total (probably the worst of them as they were just BAD). Not even looking through that game

Kansas City- 123 total (17 on final drive up by 5, 27 on final 2 drives up 5, 69 yards once Mahomes was injured). With Mahomes, the Chiefs rushed for 54 yards and were up 22-10). Without Mahomes, 69 yards rushing and 3 points. 

So using all 6 games, 2 in blowouts even, 3 of those opponents would be below 100 yards without running the clock out. 

As for the other 3 games:

Raiders game ABSOLUTELY was lost as a result of RUSH DEFENSE being the major culprit.

2nd Ravens game- While Baltimore built up the early lead (and Stat book) early, Lamar throwing in the end actually made the difference.

Jets game- defensive wise, yes I would agree that rushing played a big role (even though Jets had 0 TDs and only 6 1st downs off rushing), the main culprit of that loss was all the receivers being out, and questionable game plan to give Chubb and Hunt 15 carries TOTAL. 

So I look at these 6 games and when looking at the full story and not just one Stat (total rushing yards), my conclusions are:

Lost 1 game on the backs of rushing D (Raiders), 1 game by a combination of rushing and late throws (2nd Ravens game), 2 games because of passing (1st Ravens game and Chiefs), 1 game from just being poor EVERYWHERE (Steelers), and one because of player availability/questionable strategy (Jets).

My 2nd conclusion, the Browns need upgrades all over the defense. We have 1 for sure stud, 1 guy who is great when he plays, a few guys with promise, and some decent starter/rotation players. 

So, who...or what position do you think the Browns should concentrate on taking in the draft that will help with their run defense?  

[Gunz41]

12 hours ago, The Gipper said:

So, who...or what position do you think the Browns should concentrate on taking in the draft that will help with their run defense?  

Any defensive position. Don't get pigeon holed into a certain position. 

I may be more used to evaluating talent (not at the pro level obviously), but I can be just as wrong as anyone here. 

And even if you and I agreed on someone (just using us as examples), that doesn't mean that is what the team is thinking. 

Where you and I differ is that you seem to be focusing on one position to improve one source, I would look at what improves the overall defense (and I am not meaning that condescending). 

I don't know that I would subscribe to BPA even if say Chase or Smith were available (as assumed the top 2 WRs). But, assuming that the top 2 NEEDS were DE and LB, if Surtain or Farley is there, they are extremely hard to pass up.

Where position specifc comes in for me is if for some wacky reason at 26 these guys are left: Parsons, Barmore, Farley/Surtain, Rousseau/Payette (just using the guys named as tops of position). At that point, I then look at position and what kind of drop off I could expect to my next pick at the other positions.

But, like was said earlier in the thread by someone else, LB happens to be the RB of the defense in a lot of cases now. Really good ones are found later.

For analysis, in the past 4 years:

2021: 3 OLB, 3 ILB non 1st rounders 

2020: 3 and 4 (with the replacements(

2019: 2 and 2

2018: 2 and 4

That's around 50%

And, it's very unrealistic to expect ANY team to be at that caliber at most positions, the cap comes a calling if it does. 

In all honesty, I see 2 guys for sure that are at least rotation guys in Takitaki and Phillips. If they can improve, then they will work.

[The Gipper]

36 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Any defensive position. Don't get pigeon holed into a certain position. 

I may be more used to evaluating talent (not at the pro level obviously), but I can be just as wrong as anyone here. 

And even if you and I agreed on someone (just using us as examples), that doesn't mean that is what the team is thinking. 

Where you and I differ is that you seem to be focusing on one position to improve one source, I would look at what improves the overall defense (and I am not meaning that condescending). 

I don't know if I a focusing on it.  I only take the belief, as do many if not most others that LB is our weakest position and needs some serious help. 

I don't know that I would subscribe to BPA even if say Chase or Smith were available (as assumed the top 2 WRs). But, assuming that the top 2 NEEDS were DE and LB, if Surtain or Farley is there, they are extremely hard to pass up.

Where position specifc comes in for me is if for some wacky reason at 26 these guys are left: Parsons, Barmore, Farley/Surtain, Rousseau/Payette (just using the guys named as tops of position). At that point, I then look at position and what kind of drop off I could expect to my next pick at the other positions.

But, like was said earlier in the thread by someone else, LB happens to be the RB of the defense in a lot of cases now. Really good ones are found later.

For analysis, in the past 4 years:

2021: 3 OLB, 3 ILB non 1st rounders 

2020: 3 and 4 (with the replacements(

2019: 2 and 2

2018: 2 and 4

That's around 50%

And, it's very unrealistic to expect ANY team to be at that caliber at most positions, the cap comes a calling if it does. 

In all honesty, I see 2 guys for sure that are at least rotation guys in Takitaki and Phillips. If they can improve, then they will work.

My thinking is that if there is clearly a superior talent available when it comes one's turn to draft,  then you take that talent.   But if you have several what seem to be co-equal talents, then you draft the "equal"  that most fits your need.   In theory I guess that could even mean taking a WR, as I think we need a deep threat, even if  OBJ is expected back fine.  Or, does Peeps already represent that?  I think most conclude, no, while he is fast enough, he is not the  burner threat that could come in handy for the Browns. 

 

[Gunz41]

15 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

You miss the point, not saying LB isn't a serious need, and probably the area in most need of help. 

What I am saying is that LB isn't the only position that contributes to stopping the run. Furthermore, what my message above was about is that even if you want to use the assumption (which again I think I proved erroneous since they were 9th) that the rush defense is absolutely horrendous/the cause of losing, can be helped multiple ways.

As far as the 2nd part, In my opinion it would be a HUGE mistake to look at offense there, especially when you are already pretty good there. Look no further than the Cowboys last year. Their defense was MUCH worse than the Browns, yet they went with Lamb. He did have a better than average season, but it's more so what you are passing up to improve your TEAM, not just get the best value. 

But look no further, obviously not a single chance that it would happen, so purely hypothetical. 

Let's just say for arguments sake in this that the consensus Top 6 players available are: QB Lawrence, OT Sewell, WR Chase, TE Pitts, OT Slater, RB Harris. 

Now, say all 6 of them are available at that 26. And the top 3 defensive players left are your ranked 35,36,37 players. Obviously not nearly as highly ranked.

You ready to get rid of Baker, especially with his progression and already being in the system?

Not happy with either of the OT Browns had last year that was ranked #1 I believe. Then, which one? The one who will cost you a lot of dead money and has been a proven NFL player, or the #10 pick last year which performed well and thus then a wasted pick.

WR: I can see it IF OBJ isn't a Brown, and other factors. But I do believe the compensation for OBJ will be VERY low opposed to talent.

TE: Maybe, but I don't see Pitts being a Top dual player TE, and the only way this makes ANY sense is getting rid of Hooper (who is more dual threat). And then, with his contract the return would more than likely be low.

RB: People complained that they didn't touch the ball enough in games last year. What do you think happens when you add another one? Chubb is easily a Top 3 RB right now, and Hunt can do anything and is pretty cheap.

Then you also have to factor in what the new guys do to the chemistry to this team, that some think are right on the cusp. And their future.

My point is that there is much more to think about than just the talent of 1 individual. But hey, what do I know?

[The Gipper]

My point is that there is much more to think about than just the talent of 1 individual. But hey, what do I know?

Actually, I think that was exactly my point.  You can't get locked into a single individual.     Bill Belichick did that with Kyle Brady when he was here, and he was gone by the time the Browns picked and BB went apeshit.

My point is that if you have  co-equal talent to choose from,  then taking the more desperate need seems logical. 

 

[Gunz41]

2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

My point is that there is much more to think about than just the talent of 1 individual. But hey, what do I know?

Actually, I think that was exactly my point.  You can't get locked into a single individual.     Bill Belichick did that with Kyle Brady when he was here, and he was gone by the time the Browns picked and BB went apeshit.

My point is that if you have  co-equal talent to choose from,  then taking the more desperate need seems logical. 

 

I think we may be using the same conclusion with different parameters. My "not 1 individual" can be simplified even more. With what the Browns currently have, I would NOT take an offensive player with the 1st pick. That includes any of those guys I used in my above example. 

To make it even simpler (at least in my wacky mind):

Since most the "experts" have Lawrence as best prospect since... let's give him a 98 grade.

Lets give those others 90+.

Now, not saying they would be ranked that low, but let's say at #26 that Collins, Barmore, and Farley are available. And Those guys are at an 80 grade (as the top defensive guys left). That would be a decent grade difference. I STILL look at those guys. Sure, you may not end up with the best PLAYER, but in theory end up with a better, more balanced TEAM. 

Of course, none of it matters no matter who the pick is if you pick a bust. 

[Unsympathetic]

I'd add another step to that..

Use the same rating system and give a rating to all our current starters.

It's not just that Barmore et al are an 80.. the player you take is the one who in this situation is the biggest upgrade over our current starters.. and would play the most plays next season so you'd see the biggest improvement in overall rating of players on the field

So, yes, say Lawrence is a 98.. but Baker would be 93,94 in this situation.  

Collins at 80 would be a upgrade of 43 over Mack the Dull Knife's 37.. and Farley at 80 would be an upgrade of 13 over Mitch's 67, Barmore at 80 would be an upgrade of 8 over Sheldon Richardson's 72.. Rousseau at 80 would be an upgrade of 5 over Vernon's 75.  [I didn't know either that Vernon and Richardson performed that consistently last year.. Vernon looks like a great prove-it contract candidate..] 

If Farley and Collins are still around, I might take Farley because he would be playing every play and Collins may not.

And extending this example.. Even if WR Toney is a 80 also, he'd barely improve the WR3 spot over Higgins' 78.  Landry was 85 last season.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

I'd add another step to that..

Use the same rating system and give a rating to all our current starters.

It's not just that Barmore et al are an 80.. the player you take is the one who in this situation is the biggest upgrade over our current starters.. and would play the most plays next season so you'd see the biggest improvement in overall rating of players on the field

So, yes, say Lawrence is a 98.. but Baker would be 93,94 in this situation.  

Collins at 80 would be a upgrade of 43 over Mack the Dull Knife's 37.. and Farley at 80 would be an upgrade of 13 over Mitch's 67, Barmore at 80 would be an upgrade of 8 over Sheldon Richardson's 72.. Rousseau at 80 would be an upgrade of 5 over Vernon's 75.  [I didn't know either that Vernon and Richardson performed that consistently last year.. Vernon looks like a great prove-it contract candidate..] 

If Farley and Collins are still around, I might take Farley because he would be playing every play and Collins may not.

And extending this example.. Even if WR Toney is a 80 also, he'd barely improve the WR3 spot over Higgins' 78.  Landry was 85 last season.

Good way to look at it:   What player that we can draft would give us the most (theoretical)  improvement over what we have.  I see you are using PFF as a guide. So, yea, a guy that grades an 80 would be a vast improvement over a guy that grades  43.    And, as you say, if you have a guy that rates a 78, and maybe there is an 80 on the board, that is not really the place to put your most valuable asset:   a first round draft pick. 

[Gunz41]

16 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Good way to look at it:   What player that we can draft would give us the most (theoretical)  improvement over what we have.  I see you are using PFF as a guide. So, yea, a guy that grades an 80 would be a vast improvement over a guy that grades  43.    And, as you say, if you have a guy that rates a 78, and maybe there is an 80 on the board, that is not really the place to put your most valuable asset:   a first round draft pick. 

There is really no way to assess that at present, which is another reason why you can't be focused in on a certain position group. Free agency/i.e. pre draft determines a big part of a draft board. 

And comparing a draft grade to a NFL season/PFF will give you a false sense of value.

I don't know the exact numbers, but Lawrence will have a 95+ grade (maybe even like 98). I doubt Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, etc. are there. Moreover, just take a position that has been THE need for Browns recently (now nobody would say so); OT. I would venture to guess that all the top guys in draft would have a higher number than either Wills or Conklin.

And to continue with where I was and Unsympathetic added, you not only have to factor in the difference between what you have currently and what you would get, but also the corresponding parts with them, and the drop off to other needs.

Again, these are just my opinions, but I absolutely don't like the only BPA idea. That is what I have been trying to say. If a Rashawn Slater is there at 26 with a 91 grade, and the best option on any defensive player is for example a 77. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe that Slater has played both G and T. But which of Wills, Bitonio, Teller, Conklin is replaced? Best player doesn't equate to best move or best team.

Currently, with what is on the team (not factoring in FA, etc) and there are 4 guys at 4 positions all rated the same (Farley, Barmore, Collins, Rousseau), while I don't necessarily consider them THE biggest needs currently, I would probably be picking between Farley and Rousseau). That theoretically ends the look at those groups, and as referenced, will be on field more. 

 

[The Gipper]

1 minute ago, Gunz41 said:

There is really no way to assess that at present, which is another reason why you can't be focused in on a certain position group. Free agency/i.e. pre draft determines a big part of a draft board. 

Well, do you consider "Defense"   a certain position group? 

And comparing a draft grade to a NFL season/PFF will give you a false sense of value.

Oh, I get that it should be nigh on impossible to judge a rookie against a multi-year veteran....,  but, correct me if I am wrong, but it appeared from  Unsymp's post that  PFF  purports to give a number to a draft prospect based on the same criteria that they give a number to a veteran.  Don't they?  Otherwise how could he say that  Collins rates an 80 compared to a 43 for Mack Wilson?   .....or was he just speculating on that number for Collins?

I don't know the exact numbers, but Lawrence will have a 95+ grade (maybe even like 98). I doubt Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, etc. are there. Moreover, just take a position that has been THE need for Browns recently (now nobody would say so); OT. I would venture to guess that all the top guys in draft would have a higher number than either Wills or Conklin.

I am skeptical of that.....from what I have seen of the mocks,  there seems to be only like one OT rated that highly:  Sewell.  So, if it is true, I would like to see it.   (but based on what you say.....it appears that Yes, PFF does give grades to Draft prospects the same as to veterans?)

And to continue with where I was and Unsympathetic added, you not only have to factor in the difference between what you have currently and what you would get, but also the corresponding parts with them, and the drop off to other needs.

A wholistic approach in other words?  Sure, only seems prudent. 

Again, these are just my opinions, but I absolutely don't like the only BPA idea. That is what I have been trying to say. If a Rashawn Slater is there at 26 with a 91 grade, and the best option on any defensive player is for example a 77. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe that Slater has played both G and T. But which of Wills, Bitonio, Teller, Conklin is replaced? Best player doesn't equate to best move or best team.

A situation like that screams of "TRADE Down!"  fair to say? 

Currently, with what is on the team (not factoring in FA, etc) and there are 4 guys at 4 positions all rated the same (Farley, Barmore, Collins, Rousseau), while I don't necessarily consider them THE biggest needs currently, I would probably be picking between Farley and Rousseau). That theoretically ends the look at those groups, and as referenced, will be on field more. 

Again, seems fair.

Now, I am wondering:  Has PFF assigned these numbers to each  draft prospect as yet?  And to each NFL player...including each Brown?  It could be entertaining to see that data, and do this kind of comparison.     (or, is that a prescription service that you have to pay for?  

 

 

[Gunz41]

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

I don't know the answer on PFF. PFF can be once piece of data, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it for solid proof. They have their grading system/algorithm, but I don't trust that. 

Case in point, by their rankings. #11 Trent Williams, #15 Justin Jefferson, #17 Ryan Tannehill, #18 WYATT TELLER, #19 Garrett Bolles, #24 Jessie Bates, #27 Adrian Amos, #31 DJ Humphries, #35 Adam Thielen, #42 David Onyemata, #43 MYLES GARRETT, #44 DeMarcus Lawrence, #45 BAKER MAYFIELD, #46 JOEL BITONIO, #64 Jalen Ramsey, #90 David Montgomery, #91 Justin Herbert, #92 Folorunso Fatukasi

And I don't remember the exact number, but in one of the last Browns games when they do their introductions at the beginning of the game, Jacob Phillips was ranked like #9 at his position (I believe it was over 75 eligible there.)

As for his numbers, I believe he was going off my examples of saying that for instance all of those guys are 80 compared to examples of 90+ for the offensive guys.

I believe that on the ESPN or maybe Kiper mock draft it had Slater as the 1st OL off the board, but again I used him as an example because of his versatility.

You seem to not notice all of the times throughout that the word example is used. And I don't mean this to be mean, but I ha e wondered a few times now if you actually have forgotten what you wrote previously.

Example: Not ONCE in this entire thread have I even hinted at an offensive player, in fact multiple times I have said the opposite.

And you asked what PLAYER would give an improvement. I answered that can't be answered at this moment on multiple factors. And said you can't be focused on a position group (since you keep using LB). And then you ask if DEFENSE is a position group. NO, IDL, DE/EDGE, LB, CB, S are position groups.

Trade down, sure. But in all these conversations the question has been about who to get with the Browns FIRST PICK, #26. If you want to change the conversation, then that is a different discussion 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

I don't know the answer on PFF. PFF can be once piece of data, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it for solid proof. They have their grading system/algorithm, but I don't trust that. 

I don't think any  of us would "rely" on that sort of thing.  We are fans, we are here only for the entertainment to see what some source like that has to say..  And we would only use it for that purpose, nor for any reliance reason.   But...would the Browns FO  rely on that or something similar?  That is a good question. 

Case in point, by their rankings. #11 Trent Williams, #15 Justin Jefferson, #17 Ryan Tannehill, #18 WYATT TELLER, #19 Garrett Bolles, #24 Jessie Bates, #27 Adrian Amos, #31 DJ Humphries, #35 Adam Thielen, #42 David Onyemata, #43 MYLES GARRETT, #44 DeMarcus Lawrence, #45 BAKER MAYFIELD, #46 JOEL BITONIO, #64 Jalen Ramsey, #90 David Montgomery, #91 Justin Herbert, #92 Folorunso Fatukasi

And I don't remember the exact number, but in one of the last Browns games when they do their introductions at the beginning of the game, Jacob Phillips was ranked like #9 at his position (I believe it was over 75 eligible there.)

As for his numbers, I believe he was going off my examples of saying that for instance all of those guys are 80 compared to examples of 90+ for the offensive guys.

I believe that on the ESPN or maybe Kiper mock draft it had Slater as the 1st OL off the board, but again I used him as an example because of his versatility.

Had not seen that.  I just know that Sewell is the name most talk about as a very high prospect. 

You seem to not notice all of the times throughout that the word example is used. And I don't mean this to be mean, but I ha e wondered a few times now if you actually have forgotten what you wrote previously.

Maybe. I go from post to post and reply accordingly based on what I am thinking at that moment.  Maybe I say something different than what I have said before.  

Is it important? 

Example: Not ONCE in this entire thread have I even hinted at an offensive player, in fact multiple times I have said the opposite.

So be it. 

And you asked what PLAYER would give an improvement. I answered that can't be answered at this moment on multiple factors. And said you can't be focused on a position group (since you keep using LB). And then you ask if DEFENSE is a position group. NO, IDL, DE/EDGE, LB, CB, S are position groups.

OK then...I will say the Browns need to focus on Defense....somewhere.  Just my opinion. 

Trade down, sure. But in all these conversations the question has been about who to get with the Browns FIRST PICK, #26. If you want to change the conversation, then that is a different discussion.  

Well....I think there may be a formula at play there:

 A.  Looking at "scores"  PFF..or whatever you (you being the Browns FO)  want to use....when it comes your turn to draft....assume  there is a player there rated much higher than anyone else on the board?  Like  a "91" compared to a "77". 

B.  But what if that player absolutely is NOT  at a position a team intends to draft....like that OL for the Browns.  

C. Also assume that there is a team with a desperate need for a top rated player at that position?   

D. What choices do the Browns have then?    Choose the 91 regardless of need?   Choose a lesser ranked player...the "77"  at a need position?   Trade the pick to that team with the desperate need, and hope you get an overvalued boatload in return?    The latter is clearly a viable option. (as long as you don't have to go down too far).   It would be even better if you had  2-3 teams that had that desperate need. 

 

[Gunz41]

15 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

See Gip, this is another time that you appear to contradict yourself. I point it out for the simple fact that this back and forth has gone on BECAUSE of that. As in again, I have never said anything remote to ANY offensive player. The only thing I have said with it is say that I wouldn't do it no matter what the "grade". So now you say what I have said from the start. I don't think enough of myself to assume I had a thing to do with that.

And you ask if it is important. I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It doesn't really matter to me or others I am sure. But it is the reason that some of these things end up back and forth, and I don't know if it helps you with having a respected opinion. And don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of changing an opinion when presented with new data, I am speaking of to completely opposite takes in the same thread (likely day or less apart).

But in your words, so be it. I don't need to post in this thread anymore. Have a good weekend 

[The Gipper]

15 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

See Gip, this is another time that you appear to contradict yourself. I point it out for the simple fact that this back and forth has gone on BECAUSE of that. As in again, I have never said anything remote to ANY offensive player. The only thing I have said with it is say that I wouldn't do it no matter what the "grade". So now you say what I have said from the start. I don't think enough of myself to assume I had a thing to do with that.

And you ask if it is important. I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It doesn't really matter to me or others I am sure. But it is the reason that some of these things end up back and forth, and I don't know if it helps you with having a respected opinion. And don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of changing an opinion when presented with new data, I am speaking of to completely opposite takes in the same thread (likely day or less apart).

But in your words, so be it. I don't need to post in this thread anymore. Have a good weekend 

I would say that giving it a rest is a wise decision, as you seem all distressed over it.  I suspect that if I really wanted to I could dissect your posts and find a plethora of inconsistencies,  but I  have neither the care nor concern nor the birr to do so. 

[Zombo]

Grant Delpit and Greedy Williams will be starters next year.

The other two starters in the backfield will be Ward and Harrison. 

We need a slot corner. Plenty available in FA. We can resign Mitchell for the extra corner or find/draft another guy.

We need another 3rd safety, that guy is probably not on the roster.

But we are talking Depth moves here ... we do not need to draft a defensive back at the top of the draft.

Pass rusher, linebacker, DT, WR, and OL depth are all more, or equally important. 

We drafted a safety in the second round last year, there is nothing wrong with him.

We'll grab a corner in free agency. 

Its not a draft need until at least round three.

Z