Should the Browns draft an offensive lineman at #4?
-
that gif is the best thing ive seen in a looooooong time, fucking dying here
-
Robinson is the only guy Id draft at 4, because hed immediately make our run game elite. Id draft him over Watkins, and possibly Mack. If QB is out of the question, imo, it should be Robinson, or a trade down for Gilbert or Clinton-Dix.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
Robinson is the only guy Id draft at 4, because hed immediately make our run game elite. Id draft him over Watkins, and possibly Mack. If QB is out of the question, imo, it should be Robinson, or a trade down for Gilbert or Clinton-Dix.
wow. that is exactly my thinking.
dead on.
-
Now that we have Burleson I think Watkins can come off the table. A QB to me is off the table with the 1st pick...so "to me", that leaves us with the choice of Mack/Clowney if we go defensive and Robinson/Matthews if we go offense. I really don't know much about Robinson and Matthews but if Robinson is the next Jonathan Ogden than I hate to say it cause I love defense, but you gotta take one of those OL if they're projected to be that dominant. Although I love Mack...it's still a question if he has the brain to transition to ILB and become our team captain. If not, than we could have a shot at some guys like Mosley/Borland/Bulloch with the 26th pick. But if the Browns think that Mack could be the next Ray Lewis...than he's got to come off the board at #4.
-
Please point to the team in the past 5 years who won by spending all their 1st and 2nd round picks on linemen? If someone falls to use at 26 or 35, fine. I'd take a top 15 talent at 26 or a 1st round talent in the 2nd any day of the week regardless of position. But drafting for need there? Every successful team either grabs the guy who fell, or develops late round talent. Unless your team needs a LT, which ours doesn't, you don't draft linemen so high.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
Not only no, but hell no. Stupid ass idea.
-
Please point to the team in the past 5 years who won by spending all their 1st and 2nd round picks on linemen? If someone falls to use at 26 or 35, fine. I'd take a top 15 talent at 26 or a 1st round talent in the 2nd any day of the week regardless of position. But drafting for need there? Every successful team either grabs the guy who fell, or develops late round talent. Unless your team needs a LT, which ours doesn't, you don't draft linemen so high.
Please point to the team in the past 5 years who won by spending all their 1st and 2nd round picks on linemen? If someone falls to use at 26 or 35, fine. I'd take a top 15 talent at 26 or a 1st round talent in the 2nd any day of the week regardless of position. But drafting for need there? Every successful team either grabs the guy who fell, or develops late round talent. Unless your team needs a LT, which ours doesn't, you don't draft linemen so high.
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
-
IMHO, you only go Left Tackle (with immediate need) that high & we're set there. Offense or defense, get a PLAYMAKER at 4.
Mike
IN DORSEY I TRUST -
Please point to the team in the past 5 years who won by spending all their 1st and 2nd round picks on linemen? If someone falls to use at 26 or 35, fine. I'd take a top 15 talent at 26 or a 1st round talent in the 2nd any day of the week regardless of position. But drafting for need there? Every successful team either grabs the guy who fell, or develops late round talent. Unless your team needs a LT, which ours doesn't, you don't draft linemen so high.
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
The chiefs have had an awesome draft record the past 6 years or so and they just needed a coach to tie everything together. I don't think drafting an OL is what turned the corner for them.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
Guys, the only reason id advocate drafting a lineman that high is the fact Robinson is a monster. Hes an Orlando Pace type talent. All those 3rd and 1's we couldnt convert to save our lives last year.....not a problem anymore. Top 10 rushing team guaranteed if we draft this guy. If were going with Hoyer we have to be able to run the ball. Xavier is good but hes not on Robinsons level, and wouldnt have near the immediate impact on this team.
-
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
The chiefs have had an awesome draft record the past 6 years or so and they just needed a coach to tie everything together. I don't think drafting an OL is what turned the corner for them.
-
Burleson should have no impact on who we draft. And Walter White loves Manziel so anything else is a bad pick.
Elite lineman are not a bad thing and I wouldn't hate the Robinson pick.
-
Bottom line is it really doesn't matter who we Fans want. I have faith in Farmer, Pettine, et al.
Mike
-
Here's the thing:
You get the guys who can play on the oline where you can.
The Squeelers have a 2nd backup at LT and RT, a 1st round RG, and 2nd round RT
The ratbirds have a 1st round LT, and 2nd round LG.
The Bengals have a 2nd round LT, and a 1st round ROG, and a 1st round RT
No small wonder that the squeelers oline struggled with a 7th round pick at LT....
Personally, I prefer Bortles at 4, if not a qb, then Mack. A trade down would work wonders,
but this draft doesn't look like it's going to be a strong draft on trade ups to the top ten.
Or.... Watkins, and a RT, then the qb Savage in the second or third.
Yes, this draft has me very confused....
If I had to do a mock, I'd have Bortles at 4, Landry at 26, and maybe Moses in the second for
RT.
I mean, some people complain about Swartz, and he was a second round pick, and a good one.
He just isn't solid enough for whatever reason, the last half of the season last year.
Bitonio is an interesting OL. Really tough, quick feet.... can play most of the oline... first pick in the 3rd maybe
Weird draft.
-
@walterwhite said:
Only an inept group of nitwits would take a RT at 4.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? This is why The Browns suck balls.
I want Xavier Sau Filo at 26 because he's athletic as shit and that's the main thing we need on the offensive line.
Joe Thomas will be here for a few more years and Schwartz improved as the season went on.
You either draft Bortles, Manziel, Watkins, Mack, or Clowndick if you like him
Anyone who still thinks Manziel should go as high as 4 should give up the meth. Watkins is definitely elite but really not needed on our offense ( I wouldn't cry if we took him). I do not believe that Mack is the best lb in this draft . I think Barr is.
-
i agree with canton mike. i don't know wtf is going to happen draft day(s) but i too believe that farmer and pettine know who they want where and have contingency plans ABC and D.
i don't think any player you take @4 is going to hurt us unless it's a ridiculous scout report and they totally whiff like with the last top 5 pick we made.
this is where people's mocks all start changing and some of these 'top ten' guys that were rated that way a month ago are going to fall and the projected late round picks will start to move up making it a mess in the middle of the first round.
i've seen evans move up 2-3 spots in some analysts mocks. i've seen people who were supposed to go top 3 drop to 8-10.
-
IMHO, you only go Left Tackle (with immediate need) that high & we're set there. Offense or defense, get a PLAYMAKER at 4.
Mike
IMHO, you only go Left Tackle (with immediate need) that high & we're set there. Offense or defense, get a PLAYMAKER at 4.
Mike
Exactly Mike. If Robinson is that good, what you going to do, slide potential HOFer Joe Thomas over to right tackle? Ridiculous. Wake up people- Robinson and Matthews will be drafted to play left tackle- only. Immense waste of talent otherwise.
You take an impact player @ #4 overall- even if Matthews or Robinson are the second coming of King Kong on the o-line, they're going to have far less impact @ RT on game outcome than a pass rusher, WR, or qb would.
With a team that has as many holes as the Browns do, it's crazy talk to even be discussing o-line @ #4.
-
Please point to the team in the past 5 years who won by spending all their 1st and 2nd round picks on linemen? If someone falls to use at 26 or 35, fine. I'd take a top 15 talent at 26 or a 1st round talent in the 2nd any day of the week regardless of position. But drafting for need there? Every successful team either grabs the guy who fell, or develops late round talent. Unless your team needs a LT, which ours doesn't, you don't draft linemen so high.
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
The Chiefs also traded for a decent starting QB, which was all they needed with their defense to win them games. They drafted Eric Fisher who didn't even play well. The Eagles got a coach who runs a high tempo offense and has one of the best young QB's in the game of football. They drafted Lane Johnson who was decent, but by no means the reason they won more games than the season before. The Chargers road the back of a renewed Phillip Rivers throwing targets to a great rookie WR in Allen. All three teams had new head coaches, and all had most of their personnel in place, but needed that one or two players to get them going (In most cases the player being a QB or WR). None of these team won games because of the offensive linemen they drafted and none of them had more than 2 guys on the line, including their rookie tackles, that were drafted in the first round.
-
The chiefs went from worst to first and they took a OL first overall last year.The Eagles took one last year as well and made it to the playoffs and so did the Chargers. We're on the same team here and I hate the idea of drafting one this year, but there's precedent to taking OT with your top pick. I love Mack though and at this point if they go defense I hope they take him. It really boils down to if they think Hoyer is the real deal.
The Chiefs also traded for a decent starting QB, which was all they needed with their defense to win them games. They drafted Eric Fisher who didn't even play well. The Eagles got a coach who runs a high tempo offense and has one of the best young QB's in the game of football. They drafted Lane Johnson who was decent, but by no means the reason they won more games than the season before. The Chargers road the back of a renewed Phillip Rivers throwing targets to a great rookie WR in Allen. All three teams had new head coaches, and all had most of their personnel in place, but needed that one or two players to get them going (In most cases the player being a QB or WR). None of these team won games because of the offensive linemen they drafted and none of them had more than 2 guys on the line, including their rookie tackles, that were drafted in the first round.
All three teams had new head coaches, and all had most of their personnel in place, but needed that one or two players to get them going (In most cases the player being a QB or WR).
I still don't disagree with you, but the core of what you said could easily be said about the Browns going into this season. I'd argue most of our pieces are in place offensively (if you believe in Hoyer that is) and defense has the makings to be a pretty solid unit. Also, we have a rookie coach. I'll say it again: I hope they don't take an OL, but you can make a reasonable case for one that is backed by precedent in the NFL. OL isn't the sexy pick but it's the safe pick more often than not. I still want Mack at this point though.
-
All three teams had new head coaches, and all had most of their personnel in place, but needed that one or two players to get them going (In most cases the player being a QB or WR).
I still don't disagree with you, but the core of what you said could easily be said about the Browns going into this season. I'd argue most of our pieces are in place offensively (if you believe in Hoyer that is) and defense has the makings to be a pretty solid unit. Also, we have a rookie coach. I'll say it again: I hope they don't take an OL, but you can make a reasonable case for one that is backed by precedent in the NFL. OL isn't the sexy pick but it's the safe pick more often than not. I still want Mack at this point though.
I still don't disagree with you, but the core of what you said could easily be said about the Browns going into this season. I'd argue most of our pieces are in place offensively (if you believe in Hoyer that is) and defense has the makings to be a pretty solid unit. Also, we have a rookie coach. I'll say it again: I hope they don't take an OL, but you can make a reasonable case for one that is backed by precedent in the NFL. OL isn't the sexy pick but it's the safe pick more often than not. I still want Mack at this point though.
How much better would all of those teams been if they had drafted a play maker instead of an offensive linemen. I will agree that those were the best options those teams had last year, except for The Chiefs who already had a good LT and picked a poor tackle prospect, but those teams would have performed better if there had been any play makers on offense worth a selection. Heck I'll argue that they would have been better if they had taken some of the defensive talent. Lotulele or Ansah would have been better options for the Chiefs or Eagles, Lotulele for the Chargers. Heck can you imagine how impactful Tavon Austin could have been in the Eagles offense instead of being stuck with Bradford? Just take the #3-5 WR from this years draft and throw them into last years and those players would have won all three of those teams more games last season.
It hasn't been our O-Line that has given us a poor passing or rushing offense. It has been our QBs, WRs, and RBs. It was Willis McGahee who gave us a poor rushing attack last year, not anyone on our line. It was teams keying towards Gordon and Cameron, our only two play makers, that killed drives. It was our QB's, Hoyer still being a question mark, that couldn't get off their first read to find an open man.
-
I still don't disagree with you, but the core of what you said could easily be said about the Browns going into this season. I'd argue most of our pieces are in place offensively (if you believe in Hoyer that is) and defense has the makings to be a pretty solid unit. Also, we have a rookie coach. I'll say it again: I hope they don't take an OL, but you can make a reasonable case for one that is backed by precedent in the NFL. OL isn't the sexy pick but it's the safe pick more often than not. I still want Mack at this point though.
How much better would all of those teams been if they had drafted a play maker instead of an offensive linemen. I will agree that those were the best options those teams had last year, except for The Chiefs who already had a good LT and picked a poor tackle prospect, but those teams would have performed better if there had been any play makers on offense worth a selection. Heck I'll argue that they would have been better if they had taken some of the defensive talent. Lotulele or Ansah would have been better options for the Chiefs or Eagles, Lotulele for the Chargers. Heck can you imagine how impactful Tavon Austin could have been in the Eagles offense instead of being stuck with Bradford? Just take the #3-5 WR from this years draft and throw them into last years and those players would have won all three of those teams more games last season.
It hasn't been our O-Line that has given us a poor passing or rushing offense. It has been our QBs, WRs, and RBs. It was Willis McGahee who gave us a poor rushing attack last year, not anyone on our line. It was teams keying towards Gordon and Cameron, our only two play makers, that killed drives. It was our QB's, Hoyer still being a question mark, that couldn't get off their first read to find an open man.
How much better would all of those teams been if they had drafted a play maker instead of an offensive linemen. I will agree that those were the best options those teams had last year, except for The Chiefs who already had a good LT and picked a poor tackle prospect, but those teams would have performed better if there had been any play makers on offense worth a selection. Heck I'll argue that they would have been better if they had taken some of the defensive talent. Lotulele or Ansah would have been better options for the Chiefs or Eagles, Lotulele for the Chargers. Heck can you imagine how impactful Tavon Austin could have been in the Eagles offense instead of being stuck with Bradford? Just take the #3-5 WR from this years draft and throw them into last years and those players would have won all three of those teams more games last season.
It hasn't been our O-Line that has given us a poor passing or rushing offense. It has been our QBs, WRs, and RBs. It was Willis McGahee who gave us a poor rushing attack last year, not anyone on our line. It was teams keying towards Gordon and Cameron, our only two play makers, that killed drives. It was our QB's, Hoyer still being a question mark, that couldn't get off their first read to find an open man.
Well you're making a subjective point, but getting to the playoffs doesn't get much better for teams that had 2-5 win seasons. I'll say it a third time: I hope they take Mack if they see him as a ILB prospect as it's a glaring need and he's an awesome prospect. With that being said, if they think Hoyer is the answer taking at OL at 4 isn't going to make me burn my browns gear. This year's WR class is incredibly deep. We have a potential feature back in Tate, a true #1 in Gordan, a pro-bowl TE in Cameron, a veteran in Bess, and an unknown but speedy and potential playmaker guy in Hawkins. Couple that up with Thomas, Mack (assuming he stays) and a book-end tackle and that sounds better than most years offensive schemes
With that being said and if they go that route, I hope they take a WR at 26 or 2nd round. A guy like Marquise Lee, Benjamin or even Sammy Watkins teammate Bryant would make me happy. It's always nice going sexy with the top pick, but that also hasn't worked well for the browns lately (Braylon Edwards, Trent Richardson, etc).
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