D. Jeremiah has Browns taking TT Edge Rusher David Bailey at #6 (see video)
-
Me too. If he’s there at 6 l would be mighty uncomfortable picking anyone else, even if edge rusher is low on the priority list.
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
-
It all depends on what happens in FA. Supposedly, there are OLinemen that could help us going to be available. Of course the other edge of the knife is that FA is expensive compared to a draft pick...and we don't have much money to toss around.
BEING A BROWNS FAN IS A TEST TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAKE -
Me too. If he’s there at 6 l would be mighty uncomfortable picking anyone else, even if edge rusher is low on the priority list.
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
If Downs is there... I'd take him... You just don't come across talent like that too often.. Safety is one of those hard positions to nail.. the Jack Tatums and Ed Reeds don't grow on trees
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
Me too. If he’s there at 6 l would be mighty uncomfortable picking anyone else, even if edge rusher is low on the priority list.
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
Not really, but l probably put more emphasis on line of scrimmage defensive players.
-
It all depends on what happens in FA. Supposedly, there are OLinemen that could help us going to be available. Of course the other edge of the knife is that FA is expensive compared to a draft pick...and we don't have much money to toss around.
It all depends on what happens in FA. Supposedly, there are OLinemen that could help us going to be available. Of course the other edge of the knife is that FA is expensive compared to a draft pick...and we don't have much money to toss around.
If there’s one thing Jimmy’s good at it’s spending money, and Berry is good at salary cap voodoo. I wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow manage to dole out a few decent sized FA contracts.
-
It all depends on what happens in FA. Supposedly, there are OLinemen that could help us going to be available. Of course the other edge of the knife is that FA is expensive compared to a draft pick...and we don't have much money to toss around.
If there’s one thing Jimmy’s good at it’s spending money, and Berry is good at salary cap voodoo. I wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow manage to dole out a few decent sized FA contracts.
If there’s one thing Jimmy’s good at it’s spending money, and Berry is good at salary cap voodoo. I wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow manage to dole out a few decent sized FA contracts.
Since interior OLinemen tend to be cheaper, I can see a scenario where they are added this offseason via free agency and/or trades and tackles are added through the draft.
Or at least that's what I would do.
-
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
If Downs is there... I'd take him... You just don't come across talent like that too often.. Safety is one of those hard positions to nail.. the Jack Tatums and Ed Reeds don't grow on trees
If Downs is there... I'd take him... You just don't come across talent like that too often.. Safety is one of those hard positions to nail.. the Jack Tatums and Ed Reeds don't grow on trees
True, and we don't want any more Pollyneedsahaircut clones getting drafted by the Steelers. That pedigree's best contribution to society is Head and Shoulders commercials.
-
If there’s one thing Jimmy’s good at it’s spending money, and Berry is good at salary cap voodoo. I wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow manage to dole out a few decent sized FA contracts.
Since interior OLinemen tend to be cheaper, I can see a scenario where they are added this offseason via free agency and/or trades and tackles are added through the draft.
Or at least that's what I would do.
Since interior OLinemen tend to be cheaper, I can see a scenario where they are added this offseason via free agency and/or trades and tackles are added through the draft.
Or at least that's what I would do.
I mentioned this guy recently - Indy veteran RT Braden Smith is going to be a free agent. A former 2nd round pick out of Auburn in 2018. He would restore instant reliability to the RT spot that's been missing. Aside from that - his experience will be helpful on one of our edges. This also allows the Browns to go LT and WR (at least once) with our next 2 picks. It's an intriguing option.
Indiana Jones had his best season until he got injured; while RB Jonathan Taylor also lit it up. I'm sure Smith was a big help to Taylor getting outside/off tackle while Jones appreciated the time to throw.
-
Me too. If he’s there at 6 l would be mighty uncomfortable picking anyone else, even if edge rusher is low on the priority list.
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
Honestly could you get upset if the Browns drafted perhaps the best player in the draft in Caleb Downs either?
It is a What we need vs BPA question. This was beaten to death a couple months ago.
i don’t care what state a position group is in with a few exceptions you don’t pass up a guy that is 2/3 on your board at 6 to take a guy that is 12 because you need that position. Not a fan of squandering assets. We sucked and the NFL has awarded us with the 6th best chance to grab the best player at the college level.
Caleb Downs is the complete package. Cerebral and athletic and productive and no injury history.
You can take Downs and draft 3 lineman and 2 WRs and add more in free agency.
The Dallas trade ideas I could get on board with too
-
I don't know how you can pass on Downs if you are the Browns. I just think he won't be there. Chicago and Cincy are two teams that have S as one of their top needs. I don't see them drafting any defensive player though - the impact of a top offensive player, OG/OT would be more of a dramatic impact.
-
I don't know how you can pass on Downs if you are the Browns. I just think he won't be there. Chicago and Cincy are two teams that have S as one of their top needs. I don't see them drafting any defensive player though - the impact of a top offensive player, OG/OT would be more of a dramatic impact.
I don't know how you can pass on Downs if you are the Browns. I just think he won't be there. Chicago and Cincy are two teams that have S as one of their top needs. I don't see them drafting any defensive player though - the impact of a top offensive player, OG/OT would be more of a dramatic impact.
Does the guy that typed the 1st sentence above communicate with the feller that typed the last sentence? Is Chicago or Cincy drafting before pick #6 all of a sudden?
Here's a cut and paste that's going to alarm some guys in here as to the SUDDEN impact from the negligence this FO has had toward drafting OL in recent years. There's an inventory of 3 starters on the OL becoming FAs joining the 2 vacancies at OTackle giving us a possibility of needing 5 new OL starters here. Yeah, I adore skilled position guys that make big plays and become the Big Sexy draft picks too. I DO! That said, at what point do we ever want to compete again on the line of scrimmage offensively? We don't have to take a Tackle slotted for the 12th pick or a guy that will get moved to OG with our 6th pick overall. How/Why? We research the prospects of interest way we did last year to take the best Tackle remaining in this draft (hopefully it's the 1st OTackle). If anyone thinks this position isn't going to get raided between pick #7 & #23 - I have some land for sale in South Florida...
Again, signing Indy FA veteran RT Braden Smith could make that idea to go after Caleb Downs much more appealing than waiting until the 1st 5-6 OTackles are drafted before pick #24. What often outweighs BPA? A run on position groups with limited supplies. Supply and demand. The supply of LTs is much smaller than the supply of RTs (many that will get Bitonio'd to OG) so keep that in mind. I've been hearing the phrase "next year" since "The Drive" but next year never comes DOM GUMMIT!
-
Bailey would be an excellent pick. We would also get a lot of interest from other teams wanting to make that selection.
We pay scouts a lot of money to grade out players which goes a long way towards setting our draft board. It makes no sense to me to invest into the resources to then throw it out the window on draft day. I get team needs will dictate much of the first 4-5 picks, but I also don't want us reaching much further down our draft board just to fill those needs. Sometimes you just need to let the board come to you. My theory is never pass on a player who you think is going to be a very good NFL player.
If needs are so great, you might be ok to reach down a little, but if not just take the gift you can get or trade down. Trading down allows to address needs while staying aligned with your board. The further down the board, players start to bunch up rating wise allowing more flexibility in which player you take.
-
Bailey would be an excellent pick. We would also get a lot of interest from other teams wanting to make that selection.
We pay scouts a lot of money to grade out players which goes a long way towards setting our draft board. It makes no sense to me to invest into the resources to then throw it out the window on draft day. I get team needs will dictate much of the first 4-5 picks, but I also don't want us reaching much further down our draft board just to fill those needs. Sometimes you just need to let the board come to you. My theory is never pass on a player who you think is going to be a very good NFL player.
If needs are so great, you might be ok to reach down a little, but if not just take the gift you can get or trade down. Trading down allows to address needs while staying aligned with your board. The further down the board, players start to bunch up rating wise allowing more flexibility in which player you take.
Bailey would be an excellent pick. We would also get a lot of interest from other teams wanting to make that selection.
We pay scouts a lot of money to grade out players which goes a long way towards setting our draft board. It makes no sense to me to invest into the resources to then throw it out the window on draft day. I get team needs will dictate much of the first 4-5 picks, but I also don't want us reaching much further down our draft board just to fill those needs. Sometimes you just need to let the board come to you. My theory is never pass on a player who you think is going to be a very good NFL player.
If needs are so great, you might be ok to reach down a little, but if not just take the gift you can get or trade down. Trading down allows to address needs while staying aligned with your board. The further down the board, players start to bunch up rating wise allowing more flexibility in which player you take.
I was just about going to write almost the same thing.
In a perfect world, we come out of picks 6. 24 and 37 with two starting tackles and a WR.
But what I'm worried about is taking a decent starter too high because of the need while passing up great players at different positions. I wish there was a Tackle at 6 for example that was a slam dunk, but I'm not sure that guy exists in this draft. There's a decent amount of tackles I like, but more in the 10-20 range.
-
Bailey would be an excellent pick. We would also get a lot of interest from other teams wanting to make that selection.
We pay scouts a lot of money to grade out players which goes a long way towards setting our draft board. It makes no sense to me to invest into the resources to then throw it out the window on draft day. I get team needs will dictate much of the first 4-5 picks, but I also don't want us reaching much further down our draft board just to fill those needs. Sometimes you just need to let the board come to you. My theory is never pass on a player who you think is going to be a very good NFL player.
If needs are so great, you might be ok to reach down a little, but if not just take the gift you can get or trade down. Trading down allows to address needs while staying aligned with your board. The further down the board, players start to bunch up rating wise allowing more flexibility in which player you take.
I was just about going to write almost the same thing.
In a perfect world, we come out of picks 6. 24 and 37 with two starting tackles and a WR.
But what I'm worried about is taking a decent starter too high because of the need while passing up great players at different positions. I wish there was a Tackle at 6 for example that was a slam dunk, but I'm not sure that guy exists in this draft. There's a decent amount of tackles I like, but more in the 10-20 range.
I was just about going to write almost the same thing.
In a perfect world, we come out of picks 6. 24 and 37 with two starting tackles and a WR.
But what I'm worried about is taking a decent starter too high because of the need while passing up great players at different positions. I wish their was a Tackle at 6 for example that was a slam dunk, but I'm not sure that guy exists in this draft. There's a decent amount of tackles I like, but more in the 10-20 range.
As much as that makes sense Dutch, the problem is an OL needs 5 starters so this is one of those times we gotta rob Peter to pay Paul. We didn't even really have decent on either side of Center last year. Our OL looked like something you'd see on an expansion team (all returning starters had a lot of wear and tear depreciating their value and performance).
We can also look to FAs especially since we could be losing some to it or retirement; but they cost more than the rookie salary cap restricted contracts fwiw.
Last but not least, didn't last year's boycott of OL in our draft enable us to draft great players at TE, LB, and RB?
-
I was just about going to write almost the same thing.
In a perfect world, we come out of picks 6. 24 and 37 with two starting tackles and a WR.
But what I'm worried about is taking a decent starter too high because of the need while passing up great players at different positions. I wish their was a Tackle at 6 for example that was a slam dunk, but I'm not sure that guy exists in this draft. There's a decent amount of tackles I like, but more in the 10-20 range.
As much as that makes sense Dutch, the problem is an OL needs 5 starters so this is one of those times we gotta rob Peter to pay Paul. We didn't even really have decent on either side of Center last year. Our OL looked like something you'd see on an expansion team (all returning starters had a lot of wear and tear depreciating their value and performance).
We can also look to FAs especially since we could be losing some to it or retirement; but they cost more than the rookie salary cap restricted contracts fwiw.
Last but not least, didn't last year's boycott of OL in our draft enable us to draft great players at TE, LB, and RB?
As much as that makes sense Dutch, the problem is an OL needs 5 starters so this is one of those times we gotta rob Peter to pay Paul. We didn't even really have decent on either side of Center last year. Our OL looked like something you'd see on an expansion team (all returning starters had a lot of wear and tear depreciating their value and performance).
We can also look to FAs especially since we could be losing some to it or retirement; but they cost more than the rookie salary cap restricted contracts fwiw.
Last but not least, didn't last year's boycott of OL in our draft enable us to draft great players at TE, LB, and RB?
IMO robbing Peter to pay Paul is how you remain a poor team.
Like i said before, I think the odds are pretty good that we trade down to keep our selection near our board valuation. I agree on guards and even center. I wouldn't be so fixated on needing 2 tackles. At this point I would draft the best offensive lineman no matter the position.
-
As much as that makes sense Dutch, the problem is an OL needs 5 starters so this is one of those times we gotta rob Peter to pay Paul. We didn't even really have decent on either side of Center last year. Our OL looked like something you'd see on an expansion team (all returning starters had a lot of wear and tear depreciating their value and performance).
We can also look to FAs especially since we could be losing some to it or retirement; but they cost more than the rookie salary cap restricted contracts fwiw.
Last but not least, didn't last year's boycott of OL in our draft enable us to draft great players at TE, LB, and RB?
IMO robbing Peter to pay Paul is how you remain a poor team.
Like i said before, I think the odds are pretty good that we trade down to keep our selection near our board valuation. I agree on guards and even center. I wouldn't be so fixated on needing 2 tackles. At this point I would draft the best offensive lineman no matter the position.
IMO robbing Peter to pay Paul is how you remain a poor team.
Like i said before, I think the odds are pretty good that we trade down to keep our selection near our board valuation. I agree on guards and even center. I wouldn't be so fixated on needing 2 tackles. At this point I would draft the best offensive lineman no matter the position.
Thanks for your pov. I don't mind trading back a little to gain another pick as I've stated in other threads. Like you said we agree on the C and OGs. However, the part I bolded from you above if the Browns had actually drafted/prioritized OTackle higher than round 4 in any draft after 2020 there wouldn't be a sum of negligence polarizing our responses to it. And when the plan is only that 4th round draft choice that has ended every one of the last 3 seasons on IR after showing up to training camp way overweight 2 of the last 3 seasons - the pass pro boundaries shrunk down to LG to RG with Flacco or 2 rookie QBs = unwatchable offense. That also shrunk down where the RBs could only find daylight to between the OGs to the extent that area recruited more defensive traffic to help stop Judkins/running game. Not only that, our promising rookie RB took such a pounding from all the gang tackling he ended up on IR.
Nowhere to run + no time to throw = the unwatchable offense we all gagged on. That is why I carefully worded it to Dutch "this is one of those times we gotta rob Pete to pay Paul." IMO, the response to 5 years of neglect has to exceed ho-hum. What I'm talking about is drafting zero OTackles in the 1st 3 rounds (all the while Conklin remained oft-injured/unreliable to the extent a GM better than AB doesn't extend the contact/raise the salary of this kind of liability).
-
I agree that our past drafting has been somewhat of a head scratcher. I think it is pretty much a sure thing we draft a OT in the 1st round and another somewhere else.....maybe around round 4.
In the end I think our 1st round picks will end up around 12, and we stick at 24. OT and WR will be our 1st round picks. 2nd round might go defense. We do need a corner and a safety on that side of the ball.
Somebody is going to want our pick at #6
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
I agree that our past drafting has been somewhat of a head scratcher. I think it is pretty much a sure thing we draft a OT in the 1st round and another somewhere else.....maybe around round 4.
In the end I think our 1st round picks will end up around 12, and we stick at 24. OT and WR will be our 1st round picks. 2nd round might go defense. We do need a corner and a safety on that side of the ball.
Somebody is going to want our pick at #6
I agree that our past drafting has been somewhat of a head scratcher. I think it is pretty much a sure thing we draft a OT in the 1st round and another somewhere else.....maybe around round 4.
In the end I think our 1st round picks will end up around 12, and we stick at 24. OT and WR will be our 1st round picks. 2nd round might go defense. We do need a corner and a safety on that side of the ball.
Somebody is going to want our pick at #6
Yeah, I could see that. Some of the guys were talking about a trade-back that would add a pick. I forgot what sports media guy said Indy veteran RT Braden Smith (previously 2nd round pick out of Auburn in 2018) would be a good FA idea for the Browns but I liked it in terms of adding a solid starter with experience/potential leadership potential. I'm not smart enough to think that up; but I guess I'm not a bad parrot sometimes
Free agency can definitely help us this year IMO.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
In his three rouhd mock, he has us taking a OTackle, WR, CB and Center.
-
I agree that our past drafting has been somewhat of a head scratcher. I think it is pretty much a sure thing we draft a OT in the 1st round and another somewhere else.....maybe around round 4.
In the end I think our 1st round picks will end up around 12, and we stick at 24. OT and WR will be our 1st round picks. 2nd round might go defense. We do need a corner and a safety on that side of the ball.
Somebody is going to want our pick at #6
We do need a corner and a safety on that side of the ball.
Yes we do !
Thought Greg Newsome turned into a little whining bitch, at the time he was asked to play the inside slot corner position. We finished the season with a 7th rounder Myles Harden playing slot corner.. while UDFA Ronnie Hickman was starting at FS ? due to injuries
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login