And After Last Night's Giants Win.....
-
To answer your question... well you've got a much better chance than you do without him.
But your plan is to make sure the Browns don't score enough points to pick any lower than 10th next season? I don't get it. You can make the Browns defense as good as you want, they're still going to lose 10 games and score under 200 points.
To abuse a metaphor, you're essentially saying, forget the car, get the best pit crew we can... we'll still lose... just not by quite as much.
-jj
no, i don't like nascar so i don't pay any attention to anything that comes from it.
here's my point (as i've stated many times before). best case scenario iun my mind as far as the upcoming draft, we trade down, gain another 2nd round pick and still grab claiborne or some other impact defensive player in a posiiton of need. and that's a term you will hear me speak about throughout this thread: position of need. the last couple of years we could have won at least three games more than we did. it wasn't colt's fault that the jets just threw a sideline pass to (whoever) and we missed a game saving tackle. it's not colt's fault that we couldn't punch the ball into the endzone being 2 yards out. there is plenty of fault o go around.
if all the pieces were in place and colt was our qb and we won ten games would we be having this conversation. all the blame falls onto the qb. how about the tackle that missed blocking the opponent's left side DE all game long? how about the wr who couldn't outrun a turtle and if he did get open dropped the ball?
we are going NOWHERE next year. add to the D make them top 5. add someone on the OL that can handle a dt/de on the right side. a wr and a speed back. i don't care how you do it....FA or draft. but since we are going NOWHERE why waste the top pick on an unproven (yet very athletic) qb who's already been hurt once in his career and sat out most of a season, plays in a spread offense and is just the 'man of the minute'?
add those pieces above and see what happens. if colt shit s the bed, we can all suck on barkley's balls or who ever other man-child people will be salivating over next year.
no, i don't like nascar so i don't pay any attention to anything that comes from it.
here's my point (as i've stated many times before). best case scenario iun my mind as far as the upcoming draft, we trade down, gain another 2nd round pick and still grab claiborne or some other impact defensive player in a posiiton of need. and that's a term you will hear me speak about throughout this thread: position of need. the last couple of years we could have won at least three games more than we did. it wasn't colt's fault that the jets just threw a sideline pass to (whoever) and we missed a game saving tackle. it's not colt's fault that we couldn't punch the ball into the endzone being 2 yards out. there is plenty of fault o go around.
if all the pieces were in place and colt was our qb and we won ten games would we be having this conversation. all the blame falls onto the qb. how about the tackle that missed blocking the opponent's left side DE all game long? how about the wr who couldn't outrun a turtle and if he did get open dropped the ball?
we are going NOWHERE next year. add to the D make them top 5. add someone on the OL that can handle a dt/de on the right side. a wr and a speed back. i don't care how you do it....FA or draft. but since we are going NOWHERE why waste the top pick on an unproven (yet very athletic) qb who's already been hurt once in his career and sat out most of a season, plays in a spread offense and is just the 'man of the minute'?
add those pieces above and see what happens. if colt shit s the bed, we can all suck on barkley's balls or who ever other man-child people will be salivating over next year.
I understand your point. I just disagree. And, by your own example, you fix the defense, and win 3 more games. Great. Now you're 12-20 over two seasons.
And I suspect, if the Browns were equipped to be winning 10 games with Colt McCoy at quarterback, it would be beginning to be obvious that he's the weak link. So... let's just say, possibly. It was pretty obvious that the quarterback was more of a hindrance than a help the last time they won 10 games, so I would be less than surprised if folks were looking to move him out.
Then again, they haven't won 10 games. They haven't won half that. So what are we talking about really?
First, let me state that I'm not a quarterback guy. I haven't once suggested the Browns draft #1 quarterback since their return. Even in 1999, I was all for drafting Ricky Williams and Shaun King. So, what do I know. Although, I still contend that King was every bit as effective as a pro as Couch was. That said, my interest in RGIII has nothing to do with wanting to replace Colt McCoy with whoever is the next best quarterback out there. What I'm saying is, based on what I see with my own eyes, with the exception of Andrew Luck, this is the best QB prospect to enter the league since the Browns '99. And, coincidentally, the Browns have a chance to draft him.
I don't believe for one second that Griffin is a "man of the minute." At least not in my opinion. I don't have a minute for him to be the man of. I've only ever graded 2 quarterbacks worthy of a top 5 pick.
There are no guarantees in the draft. There's no way you can say that adding a couple of draft picks makes the Browns defense top 5 and make it sound anything like a fact. So the reason you "waste a draft pick on an unproven (yet very athletic) quarterback, is that he is the best player on the board after Luck. He is an immediate upgrade at a position where the team is sorely lacking. And, save the fact that he's in the same draft as Andrew Luck, he's the best pure passer to enter the draft in more than a decade. That's why.
Obviously, we're of different minds on the idea. But, I just don't get this sort of 5 year plan that starts with building up the defense and waits to get a quarterback, when there's one of the best players ever sitting right in front of you.
That's where we disagree. I'm a believer that this kid is a once in decade kind of talent. And when is the right time to add someone of that stature?
The second he becomes available to you.
-jj
-
That was funny ..... Maybe not if i was the owner.
That was funny ..... Maybe not if i was the owner.
That was so cute. I love Betty White!
-
Are we talking about the Browns? I'm not sure how you watch that and not say, "Man, these guys need a quarterback." I don't know if there's a quarterback in the league that contributes more to his own lack of success. I'm not a big "big arm" guy, but when you match the lack of that with the rest of McCoy's shortcomings, it really compounds matters.
If I'm scouting McCoy from a defensive standpoint, I compress the top of the zone, and blitz him to death. His pre-snap is laughable. I've never seen a kid more surprised by guys in his face, and less equipped to do anything about it. You can blitz out of either slot at will, and he almost never sees it. He's very slow moving through his progressions, and he's way early, or way late with nearly everything. Then watching that ball that looks like it weighs 20 lbs. flutter through the air... it's just not up to NFL snuff.
The only thing more expensive and time-consuming for an NFL team than developing a young quarterback, is developing a young quarterback with serious deficiencies in his game. The Browns have a chance to cash out the Colt McCoy experiment and replace him with a complete player at quarterback... And not just a complete player, but a guy so gifted, that it's actually difficult to describe.
So, you can take the most important position on the field an upgrade it by a factor so large, that I'm quite not sure can actually be calculated, and you're not OK with that?
That's like a NASCAR team saying, "We don't want a faster engine... 'cause we've got a driver that tries real hard." What?
If you haven't run a decent race in a decade, and you have a chance to replace the engine with a dramatically better engine... you do it.
They draft RGIII, they immediately turn the most important position into a strength instead of a weakness. If they somehow fail to make a deal to get to #2, and Griffin falls to #4... run, don't walk to the podium.
-jj
1) See what happened with Tim Couch.
2) I think people are making him out to be the next Cam Newton. I don't think he will be. He's fast and has a strong arm, but he's also only 6'2".
I think if we get RG3, we sit him a year until we can surround him with talent and not hang him out to dry like we did with Tim Ouch.
1) See what happened with Tim Couch.
2) I think people are making him out to be the next Cam Newton. I don't think he will be. He's fast and has a strong arm, but he's also only 6'2".
I think if we get RG3, we sit him a year until we can surround him with talent and not hang him out to dry like we did with Tim Ouch.
With all due respect, Tim Couch is not Robert Griffin III. He's not even in the conversation.
And I don't think he's the next Cam Newton. He's better than Cam Newton... by a wide margin.
-jj
-
Sign Mario Williams
Sign a WR
Draft RGIII/Claiborne
Trade back and take Claiborne/Richardson or whoever is best available. Then take a WR/DE/LB at 22. Sign Manningham for sure.
-
Sign Mario Williams
Sign a WR
Draft RGIII/Claiborne
Trade back and take Claiborne/Richardson or whoever is best available. Then take a WR/DE/LB at 22. Sign Manningham for sure.
-
1) See what happened with Tim Couch.
2) I think people are making him out to be the next Cam Newton. I don't think he will be. He's fast and has a strong arm, but he's also only 6'2".
I think if we get RG3, we sit him a year until we can surround him with talent and not hang him out to dry like we did with Tim Ouch.
With all due respect, Tim Couch is not Robert Griffin III. He's not even in the conversation.
And I don't think he's the next Cam Newton. He's better than Cam Newton... by a wide margin.
-jj
With all due respect, Tim Couch is not Robert Griffin III. He's not even in the conversation.
And I don't think he's the next Cam Newton. He's better than Cam Newton... by a wide margin.
-jj
Wow....no. Cam Newton took an average Auburn team and won the National Championship. Without him they win maybe 5 or 6 games. You can't say the same for Griffin. He didn't even win a Big 12 Championship in a conference that doesn't play defense.
-
With all due respect, Tim Couch is not Robert Griffin III. He's not even in the conversation.
And I don't think he's the next Cam Newton. He's better than Cam Newton... by a wide margin.
-jj
Wow....no. Cam Newton took an average Auburn team and won the National Championship. Without him they win maybe 5 or 6 games. You can't say the same for Griffin. He didn't even win a Big 12 Championship in a conference that doesn't play defense.
Wow....no. Cam Newton took an average Auburn team and won the National Championship. Without him they win maybe 5 or 6 games. You can't say the same for Griffin. He didn't even win a Big 12 Championship in a conference that doesn't play defense.
The SEC is the only conference that plays defense and Baylor without RG3 is a 4 win team at best. Plus OU and Oklahoma St play in the Big 12, both having pretty good years. Everyone needs to quit with the notion that the Big 12 doesn't play defense. You have to keep in mind the Big 12 has some of the best, if not the best offenses in college football (the Pac 12 is the only other conference that can compete.) It truly amazes me that RG3 catches all this flack for playing Big 12 defenses but I've yet to hear a peep, on this board or in national media, about Andrew Luck playing Pac 12 defenses who play at the same level as Big 12 defenses.
-
i don't know. i think any player from the SEC is steps above anyone in any other conference, especially on the defensive side of the ball. then the big ten/12...whatever it is now.
offensive numbers of the pac 12 big west conf's mean nothing since they basically conceed giving up 40 points a game for having more speed and scoring 50 points a game.
see how that scheme works in the afc north division in december. HA!
-
I would love to see us go all D in the first 3 rounds. The Giants dominated the line of scrimmage from the defensive side of the ball. A ball buster defense will set up our offense and shorten the field so they will be able to score more often.
Look at the steelers when their defense is hitting and making plays Big Gay only has to move the ball 50 yards or less.
We need to gain yards and not just inches when it comes to field position.
-
With all due respect, Tim Couch is not Robert Griffin III. He's not even in the conversation.
And I don't think he's the next Cam Newton. He's better than Cam Newton... by a wide margin.
-jj
Wow....no. Cam Newton took an average Auburn team and won the National Championship. Without him they win maybe 5 or 6 games. You can't say the same for Griffin. He didn't even win a Big 12 Championship in a conference that doesn't play defense.
Wow....no. Cam Newton took an average Auburn team and won the National Championship. Without him they win maybe 5 or 6 games. You can't say the same for Griffin. He didn't even win a Big 12 Championship in a conference that doesn't play defense.
An "average" Auburn team? Yeah, an average Auburn team that was ranked #22 before anyone knew who Cam Newton was. And produced 2 top 15 NFL draft picks. And, sorry, no, they're in contention in the SEC west with or without him. Their defense, while ranked in the middle of the pack (54th), boasted an FEI in the top 10 in the nation.
Baylor, on the other hand, began the year ranked 68th (with Griffin already installed and expected to be among the nation's best QBs). Finished the year ranked 13th. And boasted among the nations worst defensive units - ranked 112th BEFORE they gave up 620 yards to Washington in the Alamo Bowl... a game they won by the way.
When I say "better than Cam Newton," I'm talking about his quarterback play. Watch the game tapes. Griffin is as clean and polished a passer as you will find in any draft... not just this one. He's better than Stafford was on tape. He's put more NFL throws, sets, and reads on tape than Sam Bradford ever did. And he's a much better pure passer than Newton. Newton is an athlete that is going to take a couple of years to learn to be a quarterback. I know, I know 4000 yards and 21 touchdowns... still not a quarterback. Chud did a nice job of building that offense around his strengths. He also has a whole season's worth of tape out now. It won't go so well next year.
It actually started this season. Once his early season tapes made the rounds... while the team was actually doing better, Newton as a passer was becoming more and more compartmentalized in the offense. Only once in his last 5 games did he complete more than 15 passes, and only broke 200 yards twice. He didn't manage a single 300 yard performance after week 4. He's just not ready to be a championship level NFL quarterback. And that's not to say he won't be. I'm simply saying that he was nowhere near the prospect coming out of Auburn as Griffin is coming out of Baylor in 2011.
-jj
-
Mik.....it wouldn't bother me is we went D.
IMO the D is closer to being a decent unit. A few more top picks with the right guys might make it a darn good unit. Nothing wrong with that.
There is something to be said for being very good on at least one side of the ball, and if your team is going to be that polar, it is probably better to be excellent at defense. IMO it is easier for a O to have a bad day then a D having a bad day. Defense is largely hustle and desire, and those are two things that should never "slump".
In other words, I think it is a better bet the D is going to keep you in a game than is a O going out and outscoring the opponent every week.
Go with the odds. Build the D. A corner, backer, and DE and we have a D that can push people around.
Mik.....it wouldn't bother me is we went D.
IMO the D is closer to being a decent unit. A few more top picks with the right guys might make it a darn good unit. Nothing wrong with that.
There is something to be said for being very good on at least one side of the ball, and if your team is going to be that polar, it is probably better to be excellent at defense. IMO it is easier for a O to have a bad day then a D having a bad day. Defense is largely hustle and desire, and those are two things that should never "slump".
In other words, I think it is a better bet the D is going to keep you in a game than is a O going out and outscoring the opponent every week.
Go with the odds. Build the D. A corner, backer, and DE and we have a D that can push people around.
I think you're ignoring the fact that offense and defense arent two totally separate units. If our offense cant stay on the field for any lasting amount of time, our "strength" of our Defense (our D line, which is 3 players and no depth, Rubin, Taylor, and Sheard) are going to get exhausted and not be effective, especially late in the game. Then we get no pass rush, and no teams secondary can last with no pass rush. Additionally, field position is huge for a defense. If our offense cant acquire good field position, our defense is going to have a real tough time keeping points off the board.
On the other hand, if an offense is strong with a poor defense, the offense will most likely have to stray from their gameplan in order to catch up to the other team..
I think we need to get both O and D up to an "average" playing level before we focus on making one "elite".. I think we may just be 2-3 starters on both to get to the average status though. Id say go with a somewhat balanced draft, with the top picks offense heavy because we just need some talent/spark on that side..
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
It didn't win them SHIT. A dropped pass -------------- is what gave them the ball back. The Giants D had nothing to do with that. The Giants D was " so good" that Brady passed for a SB record against them.
Manning to Manningham...................... THAT was the game winner.
Defenses were shagged out and long since quit.
Manning to Manningham.
Manning, MVP.
Case closed.
OK, I agree with some of that, but it is still a fact that the Pats had an 8 point lead in the 4th quarter....and it stayed an 8 pt. lead only because the Giants defense began seriously dogging Tom Brady.
It was the play of their defense that allowed M&M to mount that comeback.
Yes, the dropped pass helped, but that could have been caused somewhat by the Giants defensive intimidation.
-
If we draft Coples at #4 he is going to be a huge bust. He is either A: going to be the kind of player who has a monster game one week and then is none existent the next, or B: the kind of person how legit just doesn't has a interest in playing football and will retire after only 2-4 seasons. There are several DE in the draft that are not only more talented the Coples but who actually have a consistent drive to want to play football.
Are you saying: Hello Kameron Wimbley part two?
Are you saying: Hello Kameron Wimbley part two?
Why would this guy be Kam Wimbley part two? When Wimbley played for us, he was playing out of position and not at his natural spot at 4-3 defensive end. Some guys just can't make the transition to 3-4 outside linebacker. I would slide down two or three spots and take Coples, and pick up some extra picks, if he is there and Blackmon and rg3 are both gone. Then take Kendall Wright or Michael Floyd at 22 if either one of them is there.
-
Mik.....it wouldn't bother me is we went D.
IMO the D is closer to being a decent unit. A few more top picks with the right guys might make it a darn good unit. Nothing wrong with that.
There is something to be said for being very good on at least one side of the ball, and if your team is going to be that polar, it is probably better to be excellent at defense. IMO it is easier for a O to have a bad day then a D having a bad day. Defense is largely hustle and desire, and those are two things that should never "slump".
In other words, I think it is a better bet the D is going to keep you in a game than is a O going out and outscoring the opponent every week.
Go with the odds. Build the D. A corner, backer, and DE and we have a D that can push people around.
I think you're ignoring the fact that offense and defense arent two totally separate units. If our offense cant stay on the field for any lasting amount of time, our "strength" of our Defense (our D line, which is 3 players and no depth, Rubin, Taylor, and Sheard) are going to get exhausted and not be effective, especially late in the game. Then we get no pass rush, and no teams secondary can last with no pass rush. Additionally, field position is huge for a defense. If our offense cant acquire good field position, our defense is going to have a real tough time keeping points off the board.
On the other hand, if an offense is strong with a poor defense, the offense will most likely have to stray from their gameplan in order to catch up to the other team..
I think we need to get both O and D up to an "average" playing level before we focus on making one "elite".. I think we may just be 2-3 starters on both to get to the average status though. Id say go with a somewhat balanced draft, with the top picks offense heavy because we just need some talent/spark on that side..
I think you're ignoring the fact that offense and defense arent two totally separate units. If our offense cant stay on the field for any lasting amount of time, our "strength" of our Defense (our D line, which is 3 players and no depth, Rubin, Taylor, and Sheard) are going to get exhausted and not be effective, especially late in the game. Then we get no pass rush, and no teams secondary can last with no pass rush. Additionally, field position is huge for a defense. If our offense cant acquire good field position, our defense is going to have a real tough time keeping points off the board.
On the other hand, if an offense is strong with a poor defense, the offense will most likely have to stray from their gameplan in order to catch up to the other team..
I think we need to get both O and D up to an "average" playing level before we focus on making one "elite".. I think we may just be 2-3 starters on both to get to the average status though. Id say go with a somewhat balanced draft, with the top picks offense heavy because we just need some talent/spark on that side..
what difference does it make, right now? would you rather have an average offense AND and average defense next year and still go nowhere? or would you like to have an above average defense which would be basically set for years to come, letting you address and build the offense the next year?
there are waaaaay to many holes to fill on offense to do it all in one year. BUT we CAN fill the holes on defense and make it a dominate unit with this upcoming draft. HEY that's not to say we can't get a WR and an OL to hopefully add some stability to that side of the ball. we then get to see how good/bad mccoy is with another weapon and a little more protection. but if he sucks and we need a couple more skill players.....all those picks we'll have next year....you can complete the team.
-
I think you're ignoring the fact that offense and defense arent two totally separate units. If our offense cant stay on the field for any lasting amount of time, our "strength" of our Defense (our D line, which is 3 players and no depth, Rubin, Taylor, and Sheard) are going to get exhausted and not be effective, especially late in the game. Then we get no pass rush, and no teams secondary can last with no pass rush. Additionally, field position is huge for a defense. If our offense cant acquire good field position, our defense is going to have a real tough time keeping points off the board.
On the other hand, if an offense is strong with a poor defense, the offense will most likely have to stray from their gameplan in order to catch up to the other team..
I think we need to get both O and D up to an "average" playing level before we focus on making one "elite".. I think we may just be 2-3 starters on both to get to the average status though. Id say go with a somewhat balanced draft, with the top picks offense heavy because we just need some talent/spark on that side..
what difference does it make, right now? would you rather have an average offense AND and average defense next year and still go nowhere? or would you like to have an above average defense which would be basically set for years to come, letting you address and build the offense the next year?
there are waaaaay to many holes to fill on offense to do it all in one year. BUT we CAN fill the holes on defense and make it a dominate unit with this upcoming draft. HEY that's not to say we can't get a WR and an OL to hopefully add some stability to that side of the ball. we then get to see how good/bad mccoy is with another weapon and a little more protection. but if he sucks and we need a couple more skill players.....all those picks we'll have next year....you can complete the team.
what difference does it make, right now? would you rather have an average offense AND and average defense next year and still go nowhere? or would you like to have an above average defense which would be basically set for years to come, letting you address and build the offense the next year?
there are waaaaay to many holes to fill on offense to do it all in one year. BUT we CAN fill the holes on defense and make it a dominate unit with this upcoming draft. HEY that's not to say we can't get a WR and an OL to hopefully add some stability to that side of the ball. we then get to see how good/bad mccoy is with another weapon and a little more protection. but if he sucks and we need a couple more skill players.....all those picks we'll have next year....you can complete the team.
What difference does it make ?
If we have an average O and average D we can win against the teams we can win against by scoring and preventing them from scoring.If we have a monster D, then we will stop them from scoring but will struggle to score and thereby only win against teams we can win against.The end product therefore is the same. Also, If you think we can complete the team building with the picks we have next year - i think you are overvaluing how much talent we have.
You need to go BPA.
-
man you're missing my point.
answer this: either way we draft defense or offense, are we making the playoffs?
if the answer was no (which is the answer) wouldn't it be wiser to focus on the side of the ball which needs the least amount of positional help (defense)? let's see: a DE, a CB and a LB would (if the players pan out ) make us a dominate defense.
in your mind on offense we need a qb, 2 wrs, rb, RT.
why not use our top picks to get dominate defensive players and then concentrate on offensive needs.
mccoy is not the reason the browns sucked last year. the only bright spot of the whole year is the way jauron's defense stepped up. ward(gotta stay healthy) haden, rubin, taylor, sheard, jackson.....imagine adding a claiborne opposite haden or a coples opposite sheard and a beast LB like hightower crushing anything crossing the line of scrimmage. you've got to be nuts not to like that scenario.
not making the playoffs anyways. so if mccoy shits the bed, sit him or cut him and draft all of your offensive wunderkind.
and WTF is BPA?
-
BPA-best player available.
I feel it will be more useful to draft WR/RB. Im not sold on McCoy but i dont necessarily believe that RG3 is the solution.
-
BPA-best player available.
I feel it will be more useful to draft WR/RB. Im not sold on McCoy but i dont necessarily believe that RG3 is the solution.
BPA-best player available.
duh. brain fart.
wr yes. rb (IMO) no. and pleez no qb. i'm not sold on colt either. if he gets a little help with a running game and a #1 receiver and lays an egg, i guess we're looking at barkley next year.
-
Ballpeen, I agree but what about reversing that order? A DE, a Backer, a corner... as in Mercelious, Burfict and Minnifield.
But I also see merit in Drafting RG3, Wright and Minnifield. Or Blackmon, Wright and Minnifield... anyway you slice it you gotta get Minnifield! We are the Dawgpound and Minnifield started the DPound and Chase is a "CHIP off the old Block".
I haven't really thought about it but what about Blackmon AND Wright in the first? I think that our Wide Receiver Corps goes from worst to first in a hurry!
Blackmon
Wright
Little
Cribbs
OUTSTANDING! I think I have a new mock... as long as we get Minnifield and address RT in the Third!
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