Fixing The O-Line Will Not Solve Much
-
i'm back in.
guys, this is a piss over here or piss over there thread. the line is been pretty straightly drawn before the last snap the browns took this past year. after this being about the 50th thread about our 1st draft pick at number 4 and who that pick should be.....well we've got a couple of months left on that one and it's either RG3 or trade down. that would be the practical move if no taking RG3 if he's there?
then we know it's a CB or DE or WR. then it's repeat rinse and recycle.
for all you thrill seekers...if i were to do a browns blow me outta the water move it would be our #4 and #22 plus hillis and massaquoi and next year's #1 for ANDREW LUCK and MATHIS.
goodnite!
i'm back in.
for all you thrill seekers...if i were to do a browns blow me outta the water move it would be our #4 and #22 plus hillis and massaquoi and next year's #1 for ANDREW LUCK and MATHIS.
goodnite!
I know you're kidding. Irsay would get run out of town on a rail if Manning gets released and they don't draft Luck. In reality it would probably take both our firsts, a second and either Joe Thomas or Haden to even get the Colts mildly interested- and that's just for Luck. -
Ghoolie hit the nail on the head. I don't get why (especially at the beginning of the season) everyone gets the "it's a new team", "the guys are excited", "it feels different." Baloney! Some people will continue to be happy eating at the shit buffet. Personally I want to taste the steak before I say it's good. Not just look at it and say this is a great steak. Yummy yum yum...
-
I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board who would rather take the low odds of a late round QB winning a Super Bowl than the overwhelmingly higher odds of a 1st-round QB winning the Super Bowl. Over 50% of Super Bowl winners have come from 1 round. Remember that there are 7 rounds in today's NFL and there used to be more in the past. Also you have to add in undrafted free agents. That means that after you leave the first round, the odds of finding a winning QB in any given round decrease dramatically. Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.
-
I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board who would rather take the low odds of a late round QB winning a Super Bowl than the overwhelmingly higher odds of a 1st-round QB winning the Super Bowl. Over 50% of Super Bowl winners have come from 1 round. Remember that there are 7 rounds in today's NFL and there used to be more in the past. Also you have to add in undrafted free agents. That means that after you leave the first round, the odds of finding a winning QB in any given round decrease dramatically. Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.
I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board who would rather take the low odds of a late round QB winning a Super Bowl than the overwhelmingly higher odds of a 1st-round QB winning the Super Bowl. Over 50% of Super Bowl winners have come from 1 round. .... Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.
Web, you have some valid points and good numbers, just a bad adverb. Arguments like this "force of history" type that you adhere to are great for general guidelines, it just gets a little messier when the specifics of the situations come into play.
"Overwhelmingly" is a reach, because it refers to something higher than 50% by definition (unless you are talking presidential elections). Coins don't land on heads an overwhelming amount of times, for example. Seriously though, 50% is pretty damn good, rest on that simple point and open up to the fact that the other 47% or so had some good success too and I'll say strong post.
Until then: Roger Staubach was a 10th rounder. JP Losman? Another stellar first rounder that didn't sniff the SB. Kurt Warner? Undrafted. Fran Tarkenton - 3rd Rounder. Joe Theisman, fourth rounder, but SIGNED in Canada (neat twist). I'll close with Ryan Leaf - 1st round GOLD!
PS: thrash you in Math and Poker. $ in the bank
-
I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board who would rather take the low odds of a late round QB winning a Super Bowl than the overwhelmingly higher odds of a 1st-round QB winning the Super Bowl. Over 50% of Super Bowl winners have come from 1 round. .... Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.
Web, you have some valid points and good numbers, just a bad adverb. Arguments like this "force of history" type that you adhere to are great for general guidelines, it just gets a little messier when the specifics of the situations come into play.
"Overwhelmingly" is a reach, because it refers to something higher than 50% by definition (unless you are talking presidential elections). Coins don't land on heads an overwhelming amount of times, for example. Seriously though, 50% is pretty damn good, rest on that simple point and open up to the fact that the other 47% or so had some good success too and I'll say strong post.
Until then: Roger Staubach was a 10th rounder. JP Losman? Another stellar first rounder that didn't sniff the SB. Kurt Warner? Undrafted. Fran Tarkenton - 3rd Rounder. Joe Theisman, fourth rounder, but SIGNED in Canada (neat twist). I'll close with Ryan Leaf - 1st round GOLD!
PS: thrash you in Math and Poker. $ in the bank
c-dawg said:
Web, you have some valid points and good numbers, just a bad adverb. Arguments like this "force of history" type that you adhere to are great for general guidelines, it just gets a little messier when the specifics of the situations come into play.
"Overwhelmingly" is a reach, because it refers to something higher than 50% by definition (unless you are talking presidential elections). Coins don't land on heads an overwhelming amount of times, for example. Seriously though, 50% is pretty damn good, rest on that simple point and open up to the fact that the other 47% or so had some good success too and I'll say strong post.
Until then: Roger Staubach was a 10th rounder. JP Losman? Another stellar first rounder that didn't sniff the SB. Kurt Warner? Undrafted. Fran Tarkenton - 3rd Rounder. Joe Theisman, fourth rounder, but SIGNED in Canada (neat twist). I'll close with Ryan Leaf - 1st round GOLD!
PS: thrash you in Math and Poker. $ in the bank
C-dawg I was referring to the first round compared to any given round, and not all other rounds and free agents combined. You likely just misunderstood my point. For example, I was saying that there's a greater than 50% chance that a first round QB won any given Super Bowl, while there is probably a 5% chance that any given Super Bowl was won by a 4th rounder. I don't want to get into a probability class and start pulling out the n! equations. They can make your head hurt.
-
c-dawg said:
Web, you have some valid points and good numbers, just a bad adverb. Arguments like this "force of history" type that you adhere to are great for general guidelines, it just gets a little messier when the specifics of the situations come into play.
"Overwhelmingly" is a reach, because it refers to something higher than 50% by definition (unless you are talking presidential elections). Coins don't land on heads an overwhelming amount of times, for example. Seriously though, 50% is pretty damn good, rest on that simple point and open up to the fact that the other 47% or so had some good success too and I'll say strong post.
Until then: Roger Staubach was a 10th rounder. JP Losman? Another stellar first rounder that didn't sniff the SB. Kurt Warner? Undrafted. Fran Tarkenton - 3rd Rounder. Joe Theisman, fourth rounder, but SIGNED in Canada (neat twist). I'll close with Ryan Leaf - 1st round GOLD!
PS: thrash you in Math and Poker. $ in the bank
C-dawg I was referring to the first round compared to any given round, and not all other rounds and free agents combined. You likely just misunderstood my point. For example, I was saying that there's a greater than 50% chance that a first round QB won any given Super Bowl, while there is probably a 5% chance that any given Super Bowl was won by a 4th rounder. I don't want to get into a probability class and start pulling out the n! equations. They can make your head hurt.
C-dawg I was referring to the first round compared to any given round, and not all other rounds and free agents combined. You likely just misunderstood my point. For example, I was saying that there's a greater than 50% chance that a first round QB won any given Super Bowl, while there is probably a 5% chance that any given Super Bowl was won by a 4th rounder. I don't want to get into a probability class and start pulling out the n! equations. They can make your head hurt.
I get the adjustment, appreciate the clarification.
Yes, the probabilities/likelihoods shift significantly with that array. 1st round dominates.
-
It is just as likely that any team that drafts a QB in the first round is more likely to stick with their decision and build around him than replace him with another QB. More than likely a first rounder will get more time and consideration than a QB drafted later in the draft... JMHO.
-
I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board who would rather take the low odds of a late round QB winning a Super Bowl than the overwhelmingly higher odds of a 1st-round QB winning the Super Bowl. Over 50% of Super Bowl winners have come from 1 round. Remember that there are 7 rounds in today's NFL and there used to be more in the past. Also you have to add in undrafted free agents. That means that after you leave the first round, the odds of finding a winning QB in any given round decrease dramatically. Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.
I wouldn't want to gamble with a lot of the geniuses posting on the board. Of course this concept will go over the head of most people in this forum who failed math class.
andrew luck or RG3?
so if andrew luck is 'the guy' and you can't get him and there's a scramble for our #4 you wuldn't trade down 2 slots and gain another 2nd rounder?
hey slaughter was my guy back in the day too but i wonder what he would think about this draft? maybe u got him on speed dial?
-
How good are these 3: Brock Osweiler, Brandon Weeden, Kirk Cousins ?
Can we take Blackmon and one of these 3 QB's?
-
No Ordinary Joe
When a team picks a tackle in the first round they’re thinking that guy is going to keep his quarterback clean. We’ve mentioned countless times the impact pressure can have on a passer, so just imagine how much worse Colt McCoy could be if he didn’t have the most efficient tackle in the league blocking for him. I am, of course, referring to Joe Thomas, who in allowing just three sacks, a hit and 15 hurries on 527 pass blocking snaps, is flying high with a 97.2 PBE rating. He narrowly beats out Andrew Whitworth of the Bengals and David Stewart of the Titans (97.1 ratings), though it should be noted he has given up eight penalties.
Interestingly, Thomas isn’t the only Brown to do well in the tackle rankings. Tony Pashos has struggled to impose himself in the run game, but with just 17 total pressures given up on 398 pass blocking snaps, he ranks fourth out of all right tackles. With the rest of the Top 10, you kind of understand them being there, and it’s only really Pashos whose name sticks out. He finds him behind the aforementioned Stewart, Tyson Clabo and rookie sensation, Tyron Smith.
-
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/tony-pashos/140759?q=tony-pashos
According to this, he had a ton of sacks. 37? That can't be right.... can it? @@
-
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/joe-thomas/469511?q=joe-thomas
Joe Thomas - 37 sacks.
While the Offensive Line needs fixing, fixing it is not going to catapult us into a .5 team without playmakers.
-
I continue to hear many misguided Browns fans say that we need to prioritize taking a chance on a unproven right tackle over taking a chance on an unproven quarterback. However, statistics show that the Browns offensive line should not take the majority of the blame for the sorry offensive output. The top passing teams were all over the spectrum in terms of sacks allowed. 3 of the top 10 passing teams (Packers, Cowboys and Steelers) allowed just as many or more sacks(41,39 and 42 sacks respectively) than the Browns(39) despite fewer passing attempts .
Yes its true that the top passing team the Saints allowed only 24 sacks. However, so did the middle of the road Titans. The difference is that the Saints totaled nearly 100 more passing YPG than the Titans. This is because the Saints have a much better QB than the Titans. Similarly, the Packers, Cowboys and Steelers have much better QB's than the Browns.
To me its very clear that the difference between success and failure in the passing game is not necessarily the offensive line, but the playmakers. And the biggest playmaker, the only one who touches the ball every play, is the quarterback. Therefore, it would be much wiser to take a chance on a QB than to take a chance on a RT. And by the way, Colt McCoy is not a good player and probably never will be.
I continue to hear many misguided Browns fans say that we need to prioritize taking a chance on a unproven right tackle over taking a chance on an unproven quarterback. However, statistics show that the Browns offensive line should not take the majority of the blame for the sorry offensive output. The top passing teams were all over the spectrum in terms of sacks allowed. 3 of the top 10 passing teams (Packers, Cowboys and Steelers) allowed just as many or more sacks(41,39 and 42 sacks respectively) than the Browns(39) despite fewer passing attempts .
Yes its true that the top passing team the Saints allowed only 24 sacks. However, so did the middle of the road Titans. The difference is that the Saints totaled nearly 100 more passing YPG than the Titans. This is because the Saints have a much better QB than the Titans. Similarly, the Packers, Cowboys and Steelers have much better QB's than the Browns.
To me its very clear that the difference between success and failure in the passing game is not necessarily the offensive line, but the playmakers. And the biggest playmaker, the only one who touches the ball every play, is the quarterback. Therefore, it would be much wiser to take a chance on a QB than to take a chance on a RT. And by the way, Colt McCoy is not a good player and probably never will be.
Colt was responsible for the fact that he wasn't sacked 5 times per game. He made a lot of plays to avoid sacks. A quarterback doesn't need to be sacked to kept from passing for high yardages. There were a lot of plays where he had to throw the ball away or force a throw outside the pocket.
-
It says Pashos gave up 37 sacks last year and only 39 in his career. That's a pretty terrible drop off in performance lmao.
-
Those numbers are bogus. Pashos did have 6 penalites... 9 sacks in 2012. If that number is even right.
Pashos has been injured here and there, and he's getting older.
-
I continue to hear many misguided Browns fans say that we need to prioritize taking a chance on a unproven right tackle over taking a chance on an unproven quarterback. However, statistics show that the Browns offensive line should not take the majority of the blame for the sorry offensive output. The top passing teams were all over the spectrum in terms of sacks allowed. 3 of the top 10 passing teams (Packers, Cowboys and Steelers) allowed just as many or more sacks(41,39 and 42 sacks respectively) than the Browns(39) despite fewer passing attempts .
Yes its true that the top passing team the Saints allowed only 24 sacks. However, so did the middle of the road Titans. The difference is that the Saints totaled nearly 100 more passing YPG than the Titans. This is because the Saints have a much better QB than the Titans. Similarly, the Packers, Cowboys and Steelers have much better QB's than the Browns.
To me its very clear that the difference between success and failure in the passing game is not necessarily the offensive line, but the playmakers. And the biggest playmaker, the only one who touches the ball every play, is the quarterback. Therefore, it would be much wiser to take a chance on a QB than to take a chance on a RT. And by the way, Colt McCoy is not a good player and probably never will be.
Colt was responsible for the fact that he wasn't sacked 5 times per game. He made a lot of plays to avoid sacks. A quarterback doesn't need to be sacked to kept from passing for high yardages. There were a lot of plays where he had to throw the ball away or force a throw outside the pocket.
Colt was responsible for the fact that he wasn't sacked 5 times per game. He made a lot of plays to avoid sacks. A quarterback doesn't need to be sacked to kept from passing for high yardages. There were a lot of plays where he had to throw the ball away or force a throw outside the pocket.
Well why didnt throw to the open receivers or WR's ? Could it be because his throws were not accurate enough ? Or Could it be because the receivers were not open enough ? That sounds like a lack of playmakers problem. And fixing the O-line is not going to solve that problem.
-
It says Pashos gave up 37 sacks last year and only 39 in his career. That's a pretty terrible drop off in performance lmao.
-
Those numbers are bogus. Pashos did have 6 penalites... 9 sacks in 2012. If that number is even right.
Pashos has been injured here and there, and he's getting older.
There is no denying the fact that Pashos is getting older and we need to find a replacement. But even if me draft Kalil and make him the RT. I dont think that will translate into Touchdowns. That is the point im making.
-
That is true.... cept it would help the running game to the right.
The Browns need a blazing tall catch everything veteran from FA. AND a wr from the draft.
-
That is true.... cept it would help the running game to the right.
The Browns need a blazing tall catch everything veteran from FA. AND a wr from the draft.
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