Pass rusher at #12
-
fuck the trade back, i want a james harrison type LB or a Suh type DL with pick 12, this D is a ILB and a DL away from being an elite D. Then get me a RT at pick 19. After that go PBA with the rest of the picks.
fuck the trade back, i want a james harrison type LB or a Suh type DL with pick 12, this D is a ILB and a DL away from being an elite D. Then get me a RT at pick 19. After that go PBA with the rest of the picks.
While I don't think many of us disagree you may not find anything better at #12 than you would at #19 based on draft order. If you get "your" guy at #19 and trade #12 for a later first and a third you may get two guys you love in the first round and another guy in the third that makes you deeper.
Remember we thought Gilbert at #8 was another lockdown corner.....still thinking
-
fuck the trade back, i want a james harrison type LB or a Suh type DL with pick 12, this D is a ILB and a DL away from being an elite D. Then get me a RT at pick 19. After that go PBA with the rest of the picks.
fuck the trade back, i want a james harrison type LB or a Suh type DL with pick 12
and, Im curious, which 2 would they be?....there's a Suh in this draft at 12???
Harrison???.... so are you suggesting we go get an undrafted LB from Kent State?
-
fuck the trade back, i want a james harrison type LB or a Suh type DL with pick 12
and, Im curious, which 2 would they be?....there's a Suh in this draft at 12???
Harrison???.... so are you suggesting we go get an undrafted LB from Kent State?
-
fuck the trade back, i want a james harrison type LB or a Suh type DL with pick 12
and, Im curious, which 2 would they be?....there's a Suh in this draft at 12???
Harrison???.... so are you suggesting we go get an undrafted LB from Kent State?
-
Just hoping, cause im tired of the pansies we draft
I am as well but if I was picking for the Texans last year I would've drafted Clowney as well and we see how that's working out.
Drafting isn't as easy as 1-2-3, and I've been very hard on Farmer, but I'd rather miss doing the right thing based on need and best talent available as opposed to locking in a particular player.
-
"I WANT!!!"
too bad. it's not about what you want.
-
Kruger had to have an epidural last year because he was literally playing every down the entire season. And that was with Sheard still on the team. Yes the Mingo injury meant that Kruger and Sheard had to pull more duty..with all 3 healthy we would have had a better rotation. But now that Sheards gone you wanna go through the season with zero depth? We have guys that could "possibly" fill Mingo's will spot but no one right now save perhaps if they think they can convert Armonty to the jack spot....can spell Kruger. We absolutely have to replace Sheard if they're not going to have Armonty pull some LB'er duty.
So you go LB in the first round for a back up? Go first round for someone who will not play every down? No. You don't waste a first rounder on someone who is going to play a couple plays and learn on the bench. Especially at Lb. 3rd 4th 5th rounds imo is better and makes more sense. We need more help in offense. We can't win games with a laughable offense.
So you go LB in the first round for a back up? Go first round for someone who will not play every down? No. You don't waste a first rounder on someone who is going to play a couple plays and learn on the bench. Especially at Lb. 3rd 4th 5th rounds imo is better and makes more sense. We need more help in offense. We can't win games with a laughable offense.
Well.........yeah. Cause they're not gonna be backups for long. And if Kruger or Mingo get hurt, than that guy is now your starter. Look if the Browns had a history of finding players late in the draft and developing them into studs...ok fine, but we don't. We're not the Patriots or the Steelers who have a pedigree at certain positions that gets handed down. If a guy like Beasley falls to 12 then yes, you take that in a heartbeat even if he splits duty on both sides of the line as the Jack or Will.
I agree we need more help on offense, but I disagree that we can't win games with the current offense. This defense is what let us down last year. In the North you earn respectability first with the defense.
-
Kruger had to have an epidural last year because he was literally playing every down the entire season. And that was with Sheard still on the team. Yes the Mingo injury meant that Kruger and Sheard had to pull more duty..with all 3 healthy we would have had a better rotation. But now that Sheards gone you wanna go through the season with zero depth? We have guys that could "possibly" fill Mingo's will spot but no one right now save perhaps if they think they can convert Armonty to the jack spot....can spell Kruger. We absolutely have to replace Sheard if they're not going to have Armonty pull some LB'er duty.
While I agree if you have 2 players equally rated talent wise I'd go defense over WR at this point. I don't think you simply draft a DT or OLB simply to get another guy in the rotation.
While I agree if you have 2 players equally rated talent wise I'd go defense over WR at this point. I don't think you simply draft a DT or OLB simply to get another guy in the rotation.
unless the DT's name is Shelton and the OLB'ers name is Beasley....now you're looking at "possible" NFL greats.
-
While I agree if you have 2 players equally rated talent wise I'd go defense over WR at this point. I don't think you simply draft a DT or OLB simply to get another guy in the rotation.
unless the DT's name is Shelton and the OLB'ers name is Beasley....now you're looking at "possible" NFL greats.
unless the DT's name is Shelton and the OLB'ers name is Beasley....now you're looking at "possible" NFL greats.
Unless Winston or Mariota is there at #12 the Browns wouldn't draft anyone else ahead of these 2 but none of the 4 will be there at 12.
-
If Shelton is gone I'm betting we go OT at 12 and NT at 19. i am assuming that White and Cooper are go already as well in that scenario.
-
If Shelton is gone I'm betting we go OT at 12 and NT at 19. i am assuming that White and Cooper are go already as well in that scenario.
If Shelton is gone I'm betting we go OT at 12 and NT at 19. i am assuming that White and Cooper are go already as well in that scenario.
I'll take that bet
IF Shelton is gone it'll be Malcolm Brown, reach for a 2nd tier pass rusher like Dupree or trade down.
-
So you go LB in the first round for a back up? Go first round for someone who will not play every down? No. You don't waste a first rounder on someone who is going to play a couple plays and learn on the bench. Especially at Lb. 3rd 4th 5th rounds imo is better and makes more sense. We need more help in offense. We can't win games with a laughable offense.
Well.........yeah. Cause they're not gonna be backups for long. And if Kruger or Mingo get hurt, than that guy is now your starter. Look if the Browns had a history of finding players late in the draft and developing them into studs...ok fine, but we don't. We're not the Patriots or the Steelers who have a pedigree at certain positions that gets handed down. If a guy like Beasley falls to 12 then yes, you take that in a heartbeat even if he splits duty on both sides of the line as the Jack or Will.
I agree we need more help on offense, but I disagree that we can't win games with the current offense. This defense is what let us down last year. In the North you earn respectability first with the defense.
Well.........yeah. Cause they're not gonna be backups for long. And if Kruger or Mingo get hurt, than that guy is now your starter. Look if the Browns had a history of finding players late in the draft and developing them into studs...ok fine, but we don't. We're not the Patriots or the Steelers who have a pedigree at certain positions that gets handed down. If a guy like Beasley falls to 12 then yes, you take that in a heartbeat even if he splits duty on both sides of the line as the Jack or Will.
I agree we need more help on offense, but I disagree that we can't win games with the current offense. This defense is what let us down last year. In the North you earn respectability first with the defense.
We can't just go on the past and say Browns can't develop players. But I get what your saying. I just think a receiver or OL would be better than using #12 on D
-
If Shelton is gone I'm betting we go OT at 12 and NT at 19. i am assuming that White and Cooper are go already as well in that scenario.
I'll take that bet
IF Shelton is gone it'll be Malcolm Brown, reach for a 2nd tier pass rusher like Dupree or trade down.
-
2 different publications have mock drafts that had Ray, Beasley, Fowler and Gregory off the board by pick #10 BEFORE we got the news Gregory couldn't refrain from marijuana again.
That pretty much puts us in a position of do we blow of any 1st or 2nd rated prospects at other positions we need help with to take the 5th or 6th highest rated pass rusher at #12? I think this is where we need to go BPA instead of forcing something else...
or trade back......??
I now have 7 guys I like at #12....and 13 overall that I like at #19.....meaning all the ones Id like to pick could easily be gone.....so trades, reaches or BPA become the options.....(and I hate reaches)......
so, trade back and gain a couple picks?.....or pick a RB, SS or TE where you'd rather pick D?......some ugly scenarios are likely, if your askin me...
or trade back......??
I now have 7 guys I like at #12....and 13 overall that I like at #19.....meaning all the ones Id like to pick could easily be gone.....so trades, reaches or BPA become the options.....(and I hate reaches)......
so, trade back and gain a couple picks?.....or pick a RB, SS or TE where you'd rather pick D?......some ugly scenarios are likely, if your askin me...
Absolutely on the trade back for more picks thing!
-
We go best available talent. Honestly I rather get a reciever before a pass rusher. If our D stays healthy they are a top 10 Defense. Our offense needs so much work it only makes sense to get someone that is a reliable deep threat. Bowe Hartline Hawkins and Benjiman/Gabriel is not scaring any defense.
Kruger had to have an epidural last year because he was literally playing every down the entire season. And that was with Sheard still on the team. Yes the Mingo injury meant that Kruger and Sheard had to pull more duty..with all 3 healthy we would have had a better rotation. But now that Sheards gone you wanna go through the season with zero depth? We have guys that could "possibly" fill Mingo's will spot but no one right now save perhaps if they think they can convert Armonty to the jack spot....can spell Kruger. We absolutely have to replace Sheard if they're not going to have Armonty pull some LB'er duty.
Kruger had to have an epidural last year because he was literally playing every down the entire season. And that was with Sheard still on the team. Yes the Mingo injury meant that Kruger and Sheard had to pull more duty..with all 3 healthy we would have had a better rotation. But now that Sheards gone you wanna go through the season with zero depth? We have guys that could "possibly" fill Mingo's will spot but no one right now save perhaps if they think they can convert Armonty to the jack spot....can spell Kruger. We absolutely have to replace Sheard if they're not going to have Armonty pull some LB'er duty.
Looks you're onto something with the AB prediction......Oneill just did an interview and said AB would start sliding outside more and playing that hybrid OLB/DE role....doesn't sound like a complete switch over, just a flex role....
and he said what Pettine has been saying...they are going for an elite D and looking to pick some impact players on that side of the ball first......
one name they discussed was Nate Orchard...sounded like they like him......and...could be a smoke screen, but sounded luke warm on their overall need at NT.....said we already had the guys to get er done now.....so, theres his perspective
-
Kruger had to have an epidural last year because he was literally playing every down the entire season. And that was with Sheard still on the team. Yes the Mingo injury meant that Kruger and Sheard had to pull more duty..with all 3 healthy we would have had a better rotation. But now that Sheards gone you wanna go through the season with zero depth? We have guys that could "possibly" fill Mingo's will spot but no one right now save perhaps if they think they can convert Armonty to the jack spot....can spell Kruger. We absolutely have to replace Sheard if they're not going to have Armonty pull some LB'er duty.
Looks you're onto something with the AB prediction......Oneill just did an interview and said AB would start sliding outside more and playing that hybrid OLB/DE role....doesn't sound like a complete switch over, just a flex role....
and he said what Pettine has been saying...they are going for an elite D and looking to pick some impact players on that side of the ball first......
one name they discussed was Nate Orchard...sounded like they like him......and...could be a smoke screen, but sounded luke warm on their overall need at NT.....said we already had the guys to get er done now.....so, theres his perspective
Looks you're onto something with the AB prediction......Oneill just did an interview and said AB would start sliding outside more and playing that hybrid OLB/DE role....doesn't sound like a complete switch over, just a flex role....
and he said what Pettine has been saying...they are going for an elite D and looking to pick some impact players on that side of the ball first......
one name they discussed was Nate Orchard...sounded like they like him......and...could be a smoke screen, but sounded luke warm on their overall need at NT.....said we already had the guys to get er done now.....so, theres his perspective
You're fucking right they discussed him.
-
What a headache, Start from page 1. Trade up. Trade Back. How about stick to the plan. Take your highest rated player at your pick. Forget moving up, your team did not suck enough. Trade back 3 slots to pick up a pick and a chance of losing 1 or 2 of your rated player. Just take your guy of need. We got 10 picks. 4 starters and 6 better depth I would take it..
-
What a headache, Start from page 1. Trade up. Trade Back. How about stick to the plan. Take your highest rated player at your pick. Forget moving up, your team did not suck enough. Trade back 3 slots to pick up a pick and a chance of losing 1 or 2 of your rated player. Just take your guy of need. We got 10 picks. 4 starters and 6 better depth I would take it..
What a headache, Start from page 1. Trade up. Trade Back. How about stick to the plan. Take your highest rated player at your pick. Forget moving up, your team did not suck enough. Trade back 3 slots to pick up a pick and a chance of losing 1 or 2 of your rated player. Just take your guy of need. We got 10 picks. 4 starters and 6 better depth I would take it..
There was more to the trade back intrigue than wanting it to be Plan A. In a place where we've gagged on a choice like Craig Powell, there's nothing wrong with our war room maintaining composure with a proactive plan in lieu of reliving another episode of knee jerk - achey breaky.
If a lot of front office faves are off the board by #12 - there's 2 choices: 1) Invent some that don't exist at that value; or 2) add picks by trading back a little further into round 1 where there's multiple choice of faves matching need with BPA. You're right about the 10 picks so why get desperate at #12 if Mr Magic ain't there?
I agree with you about the trade up. Haven't seen it help us yet. This dates all the way back to the epic blunder of handing the Miami Dolphins HOF WR Paul Warfield so we could move up to draft Mike Phipps at #3 overall. How do you keep defenses from loading the box to stop Csonka, Kiick and Morris? You put Paul Warfield on the perimeter to leave all of their opponents in pick your poison mode. That trade helped make one team perfect and it wasn't us. We also traded up for Kellen Winslow while our hated rivals in Pittsburgh celebrated staying put later in the round for a franchise QB that's led them to 3 Superbowls. If we had the RIGHT front office, we trade back a few spots, add picks and BEAT Pittsburgh to a franchise QB rather than getting desperate for 1 player that could still get injured enough to miss 2 of his first 3 NFL seasons. And then there was trading up 1 spot for Trent Richardson. There's other examples too - just take your pick....
If we put a lie detector on history, a team that frequently massacres the first round while experiencing extensive injury volumes - should prefer trading back to trading up. I've certainly been wrong before though...
-
What a headache, Start from page 1. Trade up. Trade Back. How about stick to the plan. Take your highest rated player at your pick. Forget moving up, your team did not suck enough. Trade back 3 slots to pick up a pick and a chance of losing 1 or 2 of your rated player. Just take your guy of need. We got 10 picks. 4 starters and 6 better depth I would take it..
There was more to the trade back intrigue than wanting it to be Plan A. In a place where we've gagged on a choice like Craig Powell, there's nothing wrong with our war room maintaining composure with a proactive plan in lieu of reliving another episode of knee jerk - achey breaky.
If a lot of front office faves are off the board by #12 - there's 2 choices: 1) Invent some that don't exist at that value; or 2) add picks by trading back a little further into round 1 where there's multiple choice of faves matching need with BPA. You're right about the 10 picks so why get desperate at #12 if Mr Magic ain't there?
I agree with you about the trade up. Haven't seen it help us yet. This dates all the way back to the epic blunder of handing the Miami Dolphins HOF WR Paul Warfield so we could move up to draft Mike Phipps at #3 overall. How do you keep defenses from loading the box to stop Csonka, Kiick and Morris? You put Paul Warfield on the perimeter to leave all of their opponents in pick your poison mode. That trade helped make one team perfect and it wasn't us. We also traded up for Kellen Winslow while our hated rivals in Pittsburgh celebrated staying put later in the round for a franchise QB that's led them to 3 Superbowls. If we had the RIGHT front office, we trade back a few spots, add picks and BEAT Pittsburgh to a franchise QB rather than getting desperate for 1 player that could still get injured enough to miss 2 of his first 3 NFL seasons. And then there was trading up 1 spot for Trent Richardson. There's other examples too - just take your pick....
If we put a lie detector on history, a team that frequently massacres the first round while experiencing extensive injury volumes - should prefer trading back to trading up. I've certainly been wrong before though...
There was more to the trade back intrigue than wanting it to be Plan A. In a place where we've gagged on a choice like Craig Powell, there's nothing wrong with our war room maintaining composure with a proactive plan in lieu of reliving another episode of knee jerk - achey breaky.
If a lot of front office faves are off the board by #12 - there's 2 choices: 1) Invent some that don't exist at that value; or 2) add picks by trading back a little further into round 1 where there's multiple choice of faves matching need with BPA. You're right about the 10 picks so why get desperate at #12 if Mr Magic ain't there?
I agree with you about the trade up. Haven't seen it help us yet. This dates all the way back to the epic blunder of handing the Miami Dolphins HOF WR Paul Warfield so we could move up to draft Mike Phipps at #3 overall. How do you keep defenses from loading the box to stop Csonka, Kiick and Morris? You put Paul Warfield on the perimeter to leave all of their opponents in pick your poison mode. That trade helped make one team perfect and it wasn't us. We also traded up for Kellen Winslow while our hated rivals in Pittsburgh celebrated staying put later in the round for a franchise QB that's led them to 3 Superbowls. If we had the RIGHT front office, we trade back a few spots, add picks and BEAT Pittsburgh to a franchise QB rather than getting desperate for 1 player that could still get injured enough to miss 2 of his first 3 NFL seasons. And then there was trading up 1 spot for Trent Richardson. There's other examples too - just take your pick....
If we put a lie detector on history, a team that frequently massacres the first round while experiencing extensive injury volumes - should prefer trading back to trading up. I've certainly been wrong before though...
Really enjoy your insights as most on this site, that makes it the best anywhere. Just feel no need to reach up or down on our first 4-5 picks will get us talent. Falling back for a few picks, log the names that come off the board and watch them. From your post you see it also. Thanks for sharing my pain. We shall see..
Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends -
Up, down or pat... you have to go through the scenarios. There is no such thing as "the plan" since you cannot predict what every other team will do. You can do homework to make the best predictions you can, but they are still educated guesses.
In my working life Scenario Planning was one of tools we used in project analyses. This was our guidebook: Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation by Kees van der Heijden. I wonder if Farmer knows the name.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
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