Browns Draft Strategy beginning in 2016
-
Not true AJ Green and Julio Jones make their respective offenses a lot better.
If Julio makes his offense better, why do the Browns have a better record over the last 2 years than the Falcons?
If Julio makes his offense better, why do the Browns have a better record over the last 2 years than the Falcons?
Falcons have no defense.
-
Our passing attack was better in 2013 with Josh Gordon than it was in 2014 without him.
-
Our passing attack was better in 2013 with Josh Gordon than it was in 2014 without him.
Our passing attack was better in 2013 with Josh Gordon than it was in 2014 without him.
Oddly it seemed better in 2014 without him than in 2014 with him.
-
Yet the Falcons and Bengals are a combined 1-6 in the postseason since drafting their studly weapons.
Yet in the playoffs.
Yet in the playoffs.
Very true.
Except the Falcons were in the playoffs in 2008 and 2010, right before Julio was drafted, and Bengals in 2009.
So these shiny new WR's took playoff teams to...right back where they were before.
-
Both Julio and AJ were drafted in the belief that they were the "last pieces". It's why ATL and CIN paid to move up and get them.
Both, when healthy, have more than fulfilled their promise.
Yet neither team materially improved their results.
Q.E.D.
"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 -
We have good receivers. We have a good OL. We don't have a good quarterback. We have a good running game. That combination is enough to win games. You can tweak this or that here or there and the results will be the same. It's all about balance.
-
Both Julio and AJ were drafted in the belief that they were the "last pieces". It's why ATL and CIN paid to move up and get them.
Both, when healthy, have more than fulfilled their promise.
Yet neither team materially improved their results.
Q.E.D.
Both Julio and AJ were drafted in the belief that they were the "last pieces". It's why ATL and CIN paid to move up and get them.
Both, when healthy, have more than fulfilled their promise.
Yet neither team materially improved their results.
Q.E.D.
I believe I posted the win totals of teams that took top 20 receivers the past 5 years and how only 2 teams improved their record the following season.
So QED indeed.
-
-
The Seahawks and Patriots "proof" only works insofar as you ignore the other TEN playoff teams all to a "man" having what people would regard as a great number 1 receiver....
Also, Gronk. Also, Wilson's legs. So you see, there are many ways to skin a cat.
-
The Seahawks and Patriots "proof" only works insofar as you ignore the other TEN playoff teams all to a "man" having what people would regard as a great number 1 receiver....
Also, Gronk. Also, Wilson's legs. So you see, there are many ways to skin a cat.
So you see, there are many ways to skin a cat.
And there it is. Not every team employs the same strategy to find success. Although it does seem that the most successful teams focus on positions more important than WR. Belicheck has never selected a 1st RD receiver and only has 4 Super Bowl rings.
-
But he has signed some highly touted free agent wide receivers and has Gronk.
And I'm not sure if people realize this or not, but merely saying "x team went to the playoffs, drafted a stud WR, then didn't" does not prove the point. I'm pretty confident in saying I could find those same results with any position on the field.
-
Who defines top 20?
Does the team use a draft pick in the top 20 of the first round - is usually how it's done?
-
Oh I thought you meant they had one of the top 20 receivers in the league on their team.
Although as I said, I think I could do your analysis with any position.
-
Hey, if you have the time...
But this discussion was about one position in particular... WR.
Your Patriot FA example may have come closest to making the WR case.... once... in Moss' first year. The year the Pats were nearly perfect. They were pretty damn complete before he joined them. ANd of course he wasn't a draft pick.
Other Pat FA WRs either did nothing special, e.g., Chad Johnson, or were made by the Pats use of them, Welker.
-
But if it's true for other positions, then why is it relevant for WR? You do have to make picks in the first round, so if every position can work to make you win more games or lose more games in the next season, then why single out WR as a position not to draft?
Ok, you're right, and I proved in my post about the SHOT that those guys weren't any good any more. I'm just addressing what the pessimists here would have called having a great WR1. Belichek is kind of an anomaly anyway, as every Super Bowl winner going back several years prior to them had decent receivers. But if we insist on doing everything his way then we are certainly not on the correct path. The things he's done have worked for HIM and that doesn't mean they will work here. I don't know who everyone's SB picks are for this year but I'm going to bet both involve teams that have great receivers, with the exception of again, Seattle and New England. That those were the teams that made it this year only gave the SHOTers a year to push their point but it is unlikely to last long.
And I am still adamant that excluding Gronkowski from the discussion is pointless. He does receive balls. He's been a safety valve for Brady for years. There isn't a good reason to consider him not a receiver for purposes of our discussion here. If we had a great receiving tight end, then I could say (and this would ONLY work for purposes of Browns analysis), ok, they cancel out, let's look at everything else. But we don't.
As I asked of the SHOTers in my thread on the subject, I will ask again here, if one is so adamant about the theory, then shouldn't we get rid of Hawkins and Gabriel (who graded in the top 17) in favor of help at other positions? Shop Benji around, maybe? Certainly not keep a potential stud like Pryor.
Great QB
Great OL/running game/scrambling QB (Lynch and Wilson completely mask deficiencies in their OL)
Great receivers (including TE)
Great defense
You better have three of them if you want to be a great team, and even if you do have the three non-QB options, you probably still need someone in the middle of the pack.
So while I think we have great receivers here, most folks don't, in which case we merely have a great OL and might have a great defense. For those folks, I don't know where their optimism comes from.
-
Our passing attack was better in 2013 with Josh Gordon than it was in 2014 without him.
Oddly it seemed better in 2014 without him than in 2014 with him.
Oddly it seemed better in 2014 without him than in 2014 with him.
It did but not sure if he was "fully invested" in 14
-
But if it's true for other positions, then why is it relevant for WR? You do have to make picks in the first round, so if every position can work to make you win more games or lose more games in the next season, then why single out WR as a position not to draft?
Ok, you're right, and I proved in my post about the SHOT that those guys weren't any good any more. I'm just addressing what the pessimists here would have called having a great WR1. Belichek is kind of an anomaly anyway, as every Super Bowl winner going back several years prior to them had decent receivers. But if we insist on doing everything his way then we are certainly not on the correct path. The things he's done have worked for HIM and that doesn't mean they will work here. I don't know who everyone's SB picks are for this year but I'm going to bet both involve teams that have great receivers, with the exception of again, Seattle and New England. That those were the teams that made it this year only gave the SHOTers a year to push their point but it is unlikely to last long.
And I am still adamant that excluding Gronkowski from the discussion is pointless. He does receive balls. He's been a safety valve for Brady for years. There isn't a good reason to consider him not a receiver for purposes of our discussion here. If we had a great receiving tight end, then I could say (and this would ONLY work for purposes of Browns analysis), ok, they cancel out, let's look at everything else. But we don't.
As I asked of the SHOTers in my thread on the subject, I will ask again here, if one is so adamant about the theory, then shouldn't we get rid of Hawkins and Gabriel (who graded in the top 17) in favor of help at other positions? Shop Benji around, maybe? Certainly not keep a potential stud like Pryor.
Great QB
Great OL/running game/scrambling QB (Lynch and Wilson completely mask deficiencies in their OL)
Great receivers (including TE)
Great defense
You better have three of them if you want to be a great team, and even if you do have the three non-QB options, you probably still need someone in the middle of the pack.
So while I think we have great receivers here, most folks don't, in which case we merely have a great OL and might have a great defense. For those folks, I don't know where their optimism comes from.
Essentially under-invested to the point of being detrimental... Still can't get that late loafing vs. Indy out of my head.
But if it's true for other positions, then why is it relevant for WR? You do have to make picks in the first round, so if every position can work to make you win more games or lose more games in the next season, then why single out WR as a position not to draft?
Ok, you're right, and I proved in my post about the SHOT that those guys weren't any good any more. I'm just addressing what the pessimists here would have called having a great WR1. Belichek is kind of an anomaly anyway, as every Super Bowl winner going back several years prior to them had decent receivers. But if we insist on doing everything his way then we are certainly not on the correct path. The things he's done have worked for HIM and that doesn't mean they will work here. I don't know who everyone's SB picks are for this year but I'm going to bet both involve teams that have great receivers, with the exception of again, Seattle and New England. That those were the teams that made it this year only gave the SHOTers a year to push their point but it is unlikely to last long.
And I am still adamant that excluding Gronkowski from the discussion is pointless. He does receive balls. He's been a safety valve for Brady for years. There isn't a good reason to consider him not a receiver for purposes of our discussion here. If we had a great receiving tight end, then I could say (and this would ONLY work for purposes of Browns analysis), ok, they cancel out, let's look at everything else. But we don't.
As I asked of the SHOTers in my thread on the subject, I will ask again here, if one is so adamant about the theory, then shouldn't we get rid of Hawkins and Gabriel (who graded in the top 17) in favor of help at other positions? Shop Benji around, maybe? Certainly not keep a potential stud like Pryor.
I am finding it hard to follow what position you are arguing to support.
Regardless of anyone's view of our WR corps, we did not spend high picks to construct it. So if you think it's great, then it refutes the SHOT.
Of other positions I'd say RB is currently in SHOT territory.
QBs are definitely not.
O-line and D are mixed. TEs I can't say...
I did think of another expensive WR that completed two different teams and made a enough difference to carry them to the promised land... Paul Warfield.
Cost us a 7th overall in '64 and we went on to the title.
Cost the Fins the 3rd overall to pry him away in '70 and they went on to perfection in '72...
-
Off topic what does SHOT mean?
-
Shiny Hood Ornament Theory...
Ok thanks! I guess my position isn't you need to draft a WR top 10 but they could've done better than Vince Mayle. Maybe a Perriman or a move for Jalen Strong at worst Sammie Coates. 2014 they could've had Benjamin instead of Manziel or could reached for a Jordan Mathews or Allen Robinson. You put together Hawkins, Gabriel & Jordan Mathews now you've got speed, hands & size.
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