Browns Draft Strategy beginning in 2016
-
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.
-
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.
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.
We have to consider that, at the time, our greatest position needs revolved along our lines. Our rush defense was by eye test and statistical fact, the worst in the league. Taking care of that early (Danny) and often (Coop) were brilliant moves. The next greatest needs we're debatable in order of importance, OLB, Oline depth and receiver. This front office stayed true to their BPA approach per those positions. Honestly they almost addressed them in that very same order.
However give credit to Farmer, didn't take Perriman (who has yet to really see the field for the Ravens) or Strong (who showed up completely out of shape and was called out by his own coach)
Truth is, when you have multiple spots on any given team that are bad - you address the one that will have the greatest impact on your team. For the Browns that was the defensive front and Oline depth, WR a distant third.
-
So tired of the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the WR spot. This team is deep at WR, and there are still so many things we don't know about this group. These guys can get open and catch the ball, I'm fine with that.
Furthermore, the Browns scored 16 touchdowns with a middle tier free agent and two rookies. Crowell scored 8 TDs as an UDFA. For a team that lost their prob owl center, that's pretty good.
I hear guys on the radio say shit like "the Browns might win 3 games this year" and it really blows my mind. This team is better and deeper than it was a year ago and we are supposed to believe that Cleveland was better off with Weeden, Massoquai, Little, Bess, McGahee etc.
Do people go to a steak house and say "that was one hell of a steak, but the parsley was gross! This entree might win three or four games..."
So tired of the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the WR spot. This team is deep at WR, and there are still so many things we don't know about this group. These guys can get open and catch the ball, I'm fine with that.
Furthermore, the Browns scored 16 touchdowns with a middle tier free agent and two rookies. Crowell scored 8 TDs as an UDFA. For a team that lost their prob owl center, that's pretty good.
I hear guys on the radio say shit like "the Browns might win 3 games this year" and it really blows my mind. This team is better and deeper than it was a year ago and we are supposed to believe that Cleveland was better off with Weeden, Massoquai, Little, Bess, McGahee etc.
Do people go to a steak house and say "that was one hell of a steak, but the parsley was gross! This entree might win three or four games..."
ESPN has the Browns at a best 9-7, or a worst 4-12. I could see either. McCown gets hurt- and we see bad Johnny, well how many we going to win?
I'm not in love with our wrs. Save Benji, Hawk, and Gabriel. Pryor is unproven, and I sure hope Bowe's lousy preseason was because he was coming off an injury. Have to wonder if Kuharich (former KC exec) had something to do with bringing him in. Moore is a waste of a roster spot. I'm on record I would have kept Lenz. We'll find out soon enough how good the team is.
-
No love for Hartline? He has the makings of McCown's 2015 security blanket...
Bowe is a question and Moore is not prime WR material, but we can't play enough WRs at once to get to him... or Lenz...
"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 -
Back to draft strategy. Find a way to get this dynamic duo in 2016 (Hall) and 2017 (Garrett), whom DC Chavis calls the best he's ever had as DE's.
More Aggies of course. PS - Trade up for Bosa and take Hall in the 2nd round.
-
I wouldn't trade up from 20ish to what it would take to get Bosa. Not worth it. Hall is probably not a 3-4 guy.
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