Free Agents Still Out There
-
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition. It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
-
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
#Justsayin' -
So, you got nothing.
Thanks for playing.
So you have no response and, in true pussy fashion, you throw in a smartass one liner instead of providing any contradiction.
So far all you've said was "gr, Gipson is teh b3st because I watched him play and liked it. So did this guy who is also a Browns fan. Keep your fancy statistics and logic out, there's no room for that here"
-
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
I haven't seen a single blurb of praise on Gipson from our coaches. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but show me where they have praised him.
I have seen a heck of a lot more praise for Bademosi than Gipson.
-
We're making this way more complicated than it has to be.
Gipson played credibly last year... and better than credibly when he returned from injury, especially in the Pittsburgh game. He looked like he belonged. He looked like a draftable player.
Dick Jauron said a lot of nice things about Tashaun. He said the more he watched him live and on film, the less he understood how he wasn't drafted, perhaps even pretty high. Jauron was a huge fan. He believed Gipson had the instincts and athleticism to be a really good starting safety in the NFL. Jauron knows a thing or two.
When the new regime came in, a few fairly benign comments were tossed out about Gipson. Nothing special, really, just that he's a promising young player who flashed ability last year. They said he would enter camp as the starter and they didn't feel overly compelled to look for a replacement in free agency (and didn't). Then we also heard Bademosi would compete. Then they waited until round 6 to take Slaughter, perhaps the biggest endorsement of all.
So far, it appears the new regime likes Gipson just like the old one did. He played good football last year. He showed some potential, a hint that he might've been a steal. We'll see. Bademosi is faster (to be fair, he's faster than almost everybody) but Gipson has really good "functional speed," plays plenty fast and some.
-
To add to this, Sobo repeatedly says the Browns like their defensive backfield and aren't wringing their hands at all (like some fans) about the talent there. They like Skrine, McFadden, and Owens. They never thought seriously about spending a first round pick on a corner and thought they could top the free agent crop early in round 3. McFadden was one of the eight they saw as early NFL starters. And they think they have a couple guys in Gipson and Bademosi who could well be better than anything they could've drafted from round 3 down or signed in free agency at a value-based price.
-
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
-
just came across an old Cabot article from February quoting Banner regarding the upcoming draft and his outlook on the defense at that time. still seems relevant to this discussion even now.
On the defensive overhaul: Banner made his most pointed comments to date regarding the changes made to the defensive scheme and coaching staff.
"We felt like the defense wasn't good enough, to be very direct about it," Banner said. "If you went into some of the more sophisticated breakdowns of the defense this year, and by that I mean some of these systems that take out certain plays and that truly measure your success at crucial times in crucial situations, and so on and so forth, we were ranked 20 or lower in most of those categories."
Banner said the club wanted a more aggressive defense than the one employed by former coordinator Dick Jauron. New defensive coordinator Ray Horton, while working for Arizona last season, called for the second-most blitzes in the NFL, behind only Houston.
On guard: Banner indicated that Alabama guard Chance Warmack won't be an option at No. 6.
"I wouldn't rule anything out but it wouldn't philosophically fit with how we're approaching the priorities and how we're building the team," he said.
Likewise, he said the Browns won't reach for a cornerback just because they need a starter. The only sure-fire first-rounder at the position is Alabama's Dee Milliner.
"We're not going rush and make a mistake because we have a need and leave ourselves in a position where we have to solve the same problem twice. We do have an order of what we'd like to solve if the world falls the way we want it to, but if it doesn't we're not going to force it just so that we're not going into this season with some glaring hole when it's really going to hurt us with where we want to be two, three years from now."
-
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
-
I think any coach would find Bademosi interesting. He's a really smart kid from Stanford... and a freaky athlete who runs a sub 4.4. He played his ass off on STs and you can't help but wonder why he couldn't become a special player.
But football's funny that way. It doesn't always translate. Didn't at Stanford. But we'll see. Right now, Gipson has shown he can play free safety in the NFL, albeit in small samples. We probably got a 3rd round value in Slaughter if he's healthy. I think we have a lot of options at FS.
If we sign Rhodes, and we might, so be it. I just hope it isn't at the expense of finding a 5-7 year starter already on the roster.
-
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
I actually expect to see more of Bademosi at FS, if he adjusts to that position well. He is the more talented of the two, and has good coverage skills. I'm still just hoping for the competetion with those 2 and Slaughter, and again do not want to see that hampered by throwing too much money into FA at a position we already have players at.
Imagine if the Steelers would have brought in a high-priced, aging, FA pass-rusher instead of letting James Harrison, an UDFA, battle it out for his job... OR, If the Colts brought in a FA C instead of moving Jeff Saturday, a UDFA, to C after his rookie season struggles at G... OR, if San Diego would have upgraded their TE position instead of letting 2nd year UDFA Antonio Gates get another shot after only a 25 catch season as a rookie...
Get the picture?
I understand that for each of those stories there's a few hundred stories from the oppositie side. All I'm saying is that sometimes it's better to "wait and see" what you HAVE... instead of the "glass is half empty" approach.
-
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition. It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
You also cannot find any objective analyst or professional who says he isn't starter material. Link anything by some "neutral observor" that says that. He is purely an unknown commodity. The only people that do this thing for a living are: the Browns front office and coaching staff. Last year's group thought enough of him to have him start toward the end of the field. This years new FO/coaches will have their time with him...and with Bademosi, and will evaluate him accordingly.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition.
Well, he beat out Eric Hagg...and Usama Young...and so far he seems to be ahead of Bademosi.
So, you CANNOT say he hasn't had competition. I mean, I know those guys aren't the cream of the crop...but they were veteran NFL defensive backs. I mean, do you require that he beat out Ed Reed and Ronnie Lott?
It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
3.3 tackles, for a DB is pretty good. Maybe not for a MLB...but 3.3 is "highly adequate"
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
No, I would say that "we are better at that position"...and better is something. From my view, Kerry Rhodes may in fact be Usama Young revisitited. I would hope not. You never know. As I said, I am not opposed to getting Kerry Rhodes to provide that additional competition. I am just not as convinced as you are that Kerry Rhodes, indeed, would be an upgrade over Gipson. I think it is 50/50. If he were, fine. But I would have to see it.
More importantly....you need to convince the Browns FO/coaches that he is, enough to sign him up. If our FO doesn't go after him....after having hired his DC for the last two years, then, to me, that would be telling. It would be telling me that they don't think much of him. They, who are in a position to know.
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Again, I personally would not object to this arrangement...if it works out that way.
-
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
You also cannot find any objective analyst or professional who says he isn't starter material. Link anything by some "neutral observor" that says that. He is purely an unknown commodity. The only people that do this thing for a living are: the Browns front office and coaching staff. Last year's group thought enough of him to have him start toward the end of the field. This years new FO/coaches will have their time with him...and with Bademosi, and will evaluate him accordingly.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition.
Well, he beat out Eric Hagg...and Usama Young...and so far he seems to be ahead of Bademosi.
So, you CANNOT say he hasn't had competition. I mean, I know those guys aren't the cream of the crop...but they were veteran NFL defensive backs. I mean, do you require that he beat out Ed Reed and Ronnie Lott?
It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
3.3 tackles, for a DB is pretty good. Maybe not for a MLB...but 3.3 is "highly adequate"
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
No, I would say that "we are better at that position"...and better is something. From my view, Kerry Rhodes may in fact be Usama Young revisitited. I would hope not. You never know. As I said, I am not opposed to getting Kerry Rhodes to provide that additional competition. I am just not as convinced as you are that Kerry Rhodes, indeed, would be an upgrade over Gipson. I think it is 50/50. If he were, fine. But I would have to see it.
More importantly....you need to convince the Browns FO/coaches that he is, enough to sign him up. If our FO doesn't go after him....after having hired his DC for the last two years, then, to me, that would be telling. It would be telling me that they don't think much of him. They, who are in a position to know.
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Again, I personally would not object to this arrangement...if it works out that way.
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
You also cannot find any objective analyst or professional who says he isn't starter material. Link anything by some "neutral observor" that says that. He is purely an unknown commodity. The only people that do this thing for a living are: the Browns front office and coaching staff. Last year's group thought enough of him to have him start toward the end of the field. This years new FO/coaches will have their time with him...and with Bademosi, and will evaluate him accordingly.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition.
Well, he beat out Eric Hagg...and Usama Young...and so far he seems to be ahead of Bademosi.
So, you CANNOT say he hasn't had competition. I mean, I know those guys aren't the cream of the crop...but they were veteran NFL defensive backs. I mean, do you require that he beat out Ed Reed and Ronnie Lott?
It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
3.3 tackles, for a DB is pretty good. Maybe not for a MLB...but 3.3 is "highly adequate"
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
No, I would say that "we are better at that position"...and better is something. From my view, Kerry Rhodes may in fact be Usama Young revisitited. I would hope not. You never know. As I said, I am not opposed to getting Kerry Rhodes to provide that additional competition. I am just not as convinced as you are that Kerry Rhodes, indeed, would be an upgrade over Gipson. I think it is 50/50. If he were, fine. But I would have to see it.
More importantly....you need to convince the Browns FO/coaches that he is, enough to sign him up. If our FO doesn't go after him....after having hired his DC for the last two years, then, to me, that would be telling. It would be telling me that they don't think much of him. They, who are in a position to know.
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Again, I personally would not object to this arrangement...if it works out that way.
3.3 tackles per game for an entire season would yield about 52 tackles on the season.
There were 41 safeties who recorded more tackles last season.
I'm sorry, but that's not "highly adequate". That's just "bad".
If we get Rhodes, I'll be happy. If we don't, I'll be upset and will firmly believe that it was a stupid non-move reminiscent of past regimes but I'll still pull for Gipson. Actually, I'm pulling hardest for Slaughter because I believe he has the most potential.
I don't want us to make moves just to make moves but I also don't want us to stand pat just to stand pat. if the move is logical and makes the team better, it should be made. There's been plenty of times this "wait and see" mentality has fucked us...many more times than it's worked out for us, actually.
-
If our DBs overall are making few tackles....to me, that is a good thing, because it means that the DL and LB are making all the tackles.
But, lets try do some comparisons here:
Gipson played 10 games, started only 3: had 23 tackles and 6 assists
U. Young played 13 games started 11: had 36 tackle and 16 assists
Hagg: played 11 games, had 4 starts: had 20 tackles and 2 assists
Free safeties that made the Pro Bowl last year:
Earl Thomas played 16 games, started 15: 60 tackles 11 assists
Dashon Goldson played 16, started 16: 53 tackle, 14 assists
Ed Reed, played 16, started 16: 49 tackles 9 assists.
Not sure how you want to measure this: by games played or only by starts? Tackles or tackles and assists.
Lets start with the sure starters:
Thomas in 16 games had 3.75 solo tackles per game. Or 4.4375 solos and assists per game.
Or 4.0 solos and 4.73 solos and assists per start.
Goldson in 16 games played and started had: 3.31 solo tackles per game, or 4.187 solos and assists per game.
Reed in 16 games played and started had: 3.06 solo tackles per game, or 3.625 solos and assists
Usama Young in 13 games and 11 starts had: 2.77 solo tackles per game, or 4.0 solos and assists per game.
Or 3.27 solos per start, or 4.72 solos and assists per start
Hagg in 11 games played and 4 starts had: 1.818 solo tackle per game. Or 2.0 solos and assists per game.
Or 5.0 solo tackle per start, and 5.5 solos and assists per start.
Gipson in 10 games and 3 starts had: 2.3 solo tackles per game. Or 2.9 solos and assists per game.
Or 7.66 solo tackles per start, or 9.666 solos and assists per start.
So, I don't know what you want to take from this. Obviously you could have a situation where Gipson appeared in only a handful of plays in a game....or maybe he only appeared on special teams, and not at all on defense.
His per start average is quite high....but I guess we would have to know count just his tackle in starts rather than in all games to figure that out. Perhaps that is where that 3.3 figure comes from because I don't see it coming from here.
-
-
Everything has fucked us.
The positions where the Browns have left open to battle ... Fullback, guard, free safety ... Even punter and kicker ... Are positions where guys can emerge from anywhere on the roster.
This is the smartest, most organized front office and coaching staff we have had in 13 years.
Maybe something good will happen.
Z
-
Safeties are being asked to tackle less and cover more. Earl Thomas is probably the perfect safety in today's league. He's a willing and capable tackler but the dude can run and cover. He's smaller and faster than the prototype of even 10 years ago.
I can imagine the front office having this discussion: Are we better in 2014 and 2015 with one of the young guys by then an experienced YOUNG veteran at FS... or starting over after Rhodes moves on after two seasons, probably not his best two seasons?
-
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