Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Gipper

Browns Draft Needs

Recommended Posts

Article from wkyc.com:

5. Safety

In theory, the Browns already know who their starting safeties will be in 2021. After being acquired in a trade with the Jacksonville Jaguars last offseason, Ronnie Harrison should return for his second season in Cleveland, while 2020 second-round pick Grant Delpit will be set to make his NFL debut after missing his rookie campaign with a torn Achilles.

But between Harrison entering the final season of his rookie contract and the nature of Delpit's injury, it would make sense for the Browns to continue to invest in the safety position. With Karl Joseph and Andrew Sendejo set to hit free agency, Cleveland also currently lacks depth at a spot that saw uneven production in 2020.

4. Linebacker

Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception. Last offseason, Cleveland's linebacker acquisitions included a third-round pick (Jacob Phillips) and a pair of one-year contracts given to veterans B.J. Goodson and Malcolm Smith.

Still, that doesn't make linebacker any less of an offseason need for the Browns, especially if they fail to re-sign Goodson, who played well as Cleveland's starting middle linebacker. While it's unlikely the Browns will use a first-round pick or spend significant money at the position, don't be surprised if they use multiple mid-round picks on athletic, high-upside linebackers.

3. Wide receiver

Between Jarvis Landry and Odell Beckham Jr.'s contracts alone, the Browns already have plenty invested at the wide receiver position. But Beckham's injury-induced absence exploited the unit's overall speed -- or lack thereof -- especially in comparison to teams like the Kansas City Chiefs and Buffalo Bills.

What Cleveland is willing to spend at the receiver position will likely depend on a combination of Beckham's future with the franchise and whether or not it re-signs Rashard Higgins. But regardless of what happens with either player, the Browns could stand to add some vertical speed to their offense.

2. Cornerback

Denzel Ward is a cornerback of the Browns' defense and could be in for a long-term extension as early as this offseason. But Terrance Mitchell and Kevin Johnson are set to hit free agency and Greedy Williams just missed the entirety of the 2020 season with a shoulder injury.

Even Williams returns in 2021, which Berry said he expects to happen, Cleveland could use both an upgrade opposite Ward, a new starting nickel back and overall depth. With the No. 26 pick in the draft, the Browns could have some intriguing options and it wouldn't be a surprise to see them also be a player at the position in the trade and free agency markets.

1. Defensive end

Despite the presence of Myles Garrett, Cleveland ranked just 15th in the NFL in sacks in 2020 with 38. With Olivier Vernon having suffered a torn Achilles' and set to hit free agency, Garrett is the only Browns players set to return in 2020 to have recorded more than five sacks last season.

As a result, Cleveland finds itself in need of not just a new counterpart for Garrett, but overall depth at one of its most important positions. Look for the Browns take multiple swings on pass-rushers in the draft and explore their options both via trade and free agency in the months ahead.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,  OK,  explain this comment from above to me:

Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.

So  WTF is that all about? Why would analytics  say  "don't invest in LBs". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

So,  OK,  explain this comment from above to me:

Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.

So  WTF is that all about? Why would analytics  say  "don't invest in LBs". 

 

Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB. 

Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.  
 

Regarding the list, DT is a need too. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

So  WTF is that all about? Why would analytics  say  "don't invest in LBs". 

That's the new wave rippling along the NFL defensively.  Go with more safety's and corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's why I can't see them taking LB Zaven Collins of Tulsa, no matter how much sense it makes or how many mocks have us going with him.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

So,  OK,  explain this comment from above to me:

Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.

So  WTF is that all about? Why would analytics  say  "don't invest in LBs". 

 

Linebackers are the Runningbacks of the defense. Not worth the investment.

 

Invest in hybrid DBs, safeties, etc. Base sets have less and less LBs now, not worth the money 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Base sets have less and less LBs now, not worth the money

...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late.  The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Orion said:

...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late.  The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.

Because the analytics are showing it's more valuable to throw, so offenses pass the ball more, so defenses spend more time defending the pass. 

I guess this could keep shifting so far that direction that in 5 years the best offense in the league is running behind a Brandon Jacobs like Runningback that just throws the hybrid DBs off of him haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Because the analytics are showing it's more valuable to throw, so offenses pass the ball more, so defenses spend more time defending the pass. 

I guess this could keep shifting so far that direction that in 5 years the best offense in the league is running behind a Brandon Jacobs like Runningback that just throws the hybrid DBs off of him haha

There's a large reason the last decade+  many offenses in college and NFL base their running games on "spread for power".    

Brian Westbrook types and perimeter runners gave way to the Marshawn Lynch and Michael Turner backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orion said:

...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late.  The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.

Most teams, since we're speaking of analytics, have a stable of running backs with various skill sets.  Look at the Patriots the last 7-8 years a primary example.   Unless you find a very special runner, front offices don't like paying 10+mil for ball carriers. 

And even when you have that special runner, said teams are still rather, Shall I say... leary? - of paying that kind of cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SdBacker80 said:

Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB. 

Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.  
 

Regarding the list, DT is a need too. 

 

OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said,  More passing begets the need for more pass defenders,    except for one thing:

When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers.  And they lose games because of it,   Then what do you do?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said,  More passing begets the need for more pass defenders,    except for one thing:

When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers.  And they lose games because of it,   Then what do you do?  

The unit needs attention...that’s why you hear the name Lavante David and lots of Analyst saying LB early.  I’m not saying forget it.

For starters, I keep Wilson off the field.  He was awful last year tackling and effort. 

Also we were top 10 fewest rushing yards allowed.  Granted we had some awful games. Ravens x2, Raiders game that showed us we aren’t really that good.  And teams were more occupied with taking advantage of our pass defense and injured secondary. 

Phillips may show you something in a full healthy season, Taki appears to be a competent rotational piece as are/were Goodson and Smith if they are in the plans still. 

I’d love to see a linebacker make a tackle behind the line of scrimmage.  I think Phillips made one at the end of last year.  Maybe sprinkle in some coverage where the QB has to come off of a RB or TE because they are covered by our LB. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said,  More passing begets the need for more pass defenders,    except for one thing:

When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers.  And they lose games because of it,   Then what do you do?  

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

And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?

 

And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

Most teams, since we're speaking of analytics, have a stable of running backs with various skill sets.  Look at the Patriots the last 7-8 years a primary example.   Unless you find a very special runner, front offices don't like paying 10+mil for ball carriers. 

And even when you have that special runner, said teams are still rather, Shall I say... leary? - of paying that kind of cash.

This is the football world that we live in.  We have to take full advantage of our time with Chubb and Hunt in the same RB room.  One really isn't the backup to the other.  They are both 1st string players.  We never have to rest the feature back.  They're both feature backs.  That's weaponry.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

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

And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?

 

And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?

To your second question:   How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position?  Or at least try. 

To the first question:  Raiders game,  Jets game,  both Ravens games.  Chiefs game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

To your second question:   How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position?  Or at least try. 

To the first question:  Raiders game,  Jets game,  both Ravens games.  Chiefs game. 

Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!

 

...

 

We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!

Not at everything...at the position they play.  Yes, players should be good at the functions of their positions.

 

...

 

We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?

Partly, yes.  The Raiders completely controlled the ball and  sure, our offense didn't have a good day, but they had limited opportunities.  

Note the time of possession:   

Time of Possession Raiders   37:43    Browns 22.17

 

That was accomplished by running the ball down our throats. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

To your second question:   How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position?  Or at least try. 

To the first question:  Raiders game,  Jets game,  both Ravens games.  Chiefs game. 

One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser). 

Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing. 

Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns. 

None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020

If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season.  Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.

 

If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser). 

Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing. 

Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns. 

None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets.

Sure,  the pass defense also left a lot to be desired.   But 3 of their 5 losses were games in which they gave up the most rushing yards. 

Something that "helped" our run  defense is the fact that in  several games the Browns got huge leads...Dallas,  Steeler playoff game and a few others, so the other team was forced to  throw the ball all over the yard. 

And just because the Ravens did have a good run game does not mean that the Browns could not have put up a better fight there.   231 yards was the nadir of their performance in the late game against the Ratfuckers.   Our overall offense actually fairly well outperformed the Raves,  Gaining  493 total yards compared to 385 for them.  That, in a 5 point loss. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020

If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season.  Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.

 

If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.

As I said,  the "trend"  was that  their  regular season losses were the games in which they surrendered the most rushing yards. In fact, here are the stats re the highest run yards given up in order, and the result of the game

231 yards   Lost   2d  Ravens game

209    lost    Raiders

140  won   (2 pt win over Jags)

131  lost    Jets

129  lost  1st Steelers game

123 lost   (Chiefs postseason

111  lost  1st Ravens game

106  won   Eagles

103  won   Washington

All other games they gave up less than 100 yards rushing.  All were wins. 

So, it seems to me that if the Browns could have kept the opponents to  around 100 yards or less running...they win.  ALL of their losses came when they gave up mor than  106 yards. 

So, while absolutely the pass defense needs help, I just think there should be a bit of a higher priority on getting help for the run defense.    If that means  getting quality LBs,  better DL, or a run stuffing  SS....so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And,  I don't know if you want to call this Ironic,   but the   top 5 games in which the Browns gave up the fewest passing yards are as follows:

100 yards    Lost   Raiders

148   yards   Lost   Steelers first game

153 yards   Won   Texans

154  yards  Lost  Ravens second game

202 yards  Lost    Jets

On the other hand,  here are the 5 games in which the Browns defense gave up the most passing yards:

501   Won   Steelers playoff game

481  Won  Cowboys

387  Won  Bengals second game

369  Won  Titans

315    Lost   Chiefs  game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.

Cmon, man..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.

Cmon, man..

Of course, but,  note, as I said before.....when the Browns got off to those  big, big leads, that negates the opponents run game.    E.g.  Against the Titans and Henry, the Browns had a 38-7 lead at the half.   So they were going to be chucking the ball all over the yard,  not handing it off to Henry.  

Naturally,  to me anyway, that IS the way I want to control the other team's run game.     Love those  38-7 halftime leads.   Or the 41-14  lead the Browns had after 3 quarters vs. Dallas.  Or  28-0  first quarter leads like over Pittsburgh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Gipper said:

OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said,  More passing begets the need for more pass defenders,    except for one thing:

When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers.  And they lose games because of it,   Then what do you do?  

Think Mike Hilton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Barry said:

Think Mike Hilton.

OK:    Mike Hilton.   Tell us about him,   and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.   

Paris Hilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

OK:    Mike Hilton.   Tell us about him,   and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.   

Paris Hilton

Well...for starters Paris' highlights video is far more impressive than Mike's.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Gipper said:

So,  OK,  explain this comment from above to me:

Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.

So  WTF is that all about? Why would analytics  say  "don't invest in LBs". 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 👀 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Gipper 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×