Browns Unlikely To Trade Up
-
So pass of Goff and take Bosa? Quite a turnaround for you bb.
Welcome aboard.
Bosa probably won't even end up the best DE/OLB in this draft when it's all said and done. There's a ton of good talent there in this draft.
-
I think most of us felt that our new "analytical" approach would virtually derail any trade up to the #1 pick. Giving up resources when you're trying to build from next to nothing is difficult to stomach. Trouble is, we need a QB, so there's that. Hopefully we have another QB candidate rated high enough to take with the second pick. I'm not even sure trading down is a good idea. Several of the teams behind us might not need a QB, but you never know who they could trade with, and we don't want to get burned. If we grade a QB out high enough, and we think he can be the guy, then we take him at #2...no matter what.
I think most of us felt that our new "analytical" approach would virtually derail any trade up to the #1 pick.
Or analytics might make a "can't miss" case for a single player...
"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 -
So pass of Goff and take Bosa? Quite a turnaround for you bb.
Welcome aboard.
Bosa probably won't even end up the best DE/OLB in this draft when it's all said and done. There's a ton of good talent there in this draft.
Bosa probably won't even end up the best DE/OLB in this draft when it's all said and done. There's a ton of good talent there in this draft.
barring injury, and not going to some dumbass 3-4 team who's DC thinks he'd make an outstanding cover OLB"er.......he's going to be one of the best DE's in the entire league in 3-4 years, if not "the" best.
-
I think he meant in the lead up to the draft, nobody can foresee injury, especially one as serious as clowneys.
Right, Clowney was remarked as the best DE prospect of the last 10 years when he came out. People like Wentz and Goff it seems, but neither one will get that "Andrew Luck" label which is just fine. 95% of franchise dudes don't get that grade either.
-
I think he meant in the lead up to the draft, nobody can foresee injury, especially one as serious as clowneys.
Right, Clowney was remarked as the best DE prospect of the last 10 years when he came out. People like Wentz and Goff it seems, but neither one will get that "Andrew Luck" label which is just fine. 95% of franchise dudes don't get that grade either.
Right, Clowney was remarked as the best DE prospect of the last 10 years when he came out. People like Wentz and Goff it seems, but neither one will get that "Andrew Luck" label which is just fine. 95% of franchise dudes don't get that grade either.
I think Bosa's getting similar levels of praise, though maybe not quite so much of it. A lot of Clowney's hype came from *that* hit.
-
Right, Clowney was remarked as the best DE prospect of the last 10 years when he came out. People like Wentz and Goff it seems, but neither one will get that "Andrew Luck" label which is just fine. 95% of franchise dudes don't get that grade either.
I think Bosa's getting similar levels of praise, though maybe not quite so much of it. A lot of Clowney's hype came from *that* hit.
I think Bosa's getting similar levels of praise, though maybe not quite so much of it. A lot of Clowney's hype came from *that* hit.
Clowney was regarded more of a once in a generation type of player predraft iirc.
My point was more questioning your comment that he's done "diddly" and wondering how you can come to that assumption when he missed nearly his entire rookie year with serious injury, and his second season (or the half that he played).
To me next season will be enormous for him, but its far too soon to suggest he won't realise his potential, obviously he needs to stay healthy and then perform, but I saw enough in his final couple of games this season to suggest he still could be a beast yet.
Just my opinion.
-
He missed his rookie season and in his second season got 40 tackles and 4.5 sacks. Playing opposite JJ Watt. For two years, for a 'generational' talent that was supposed to come in and dominate, I call that diddly. Mingo had more sacks in his rookie year, for example.
I'm not saying he won't go on and become a good player, or even a pro-bowl player, but he's not exactly done much to date.
-
Agree... I do not think injury takes "diddly" off of the table.
And "the hit" did fuel the hype, but Clowney had a freakish explosion off of the ball to support the hype. The question was his "desire" and no characteristic is tested more by injury than desire.
"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 -
If Clowney and Bosa were in the same draft I would take Bosa over him every time. People would probably call that crazy but here's why I think he's a better player than Clowney was. Clowney was a track star. He's like a thoroughbred that was bred to get to the QB one way, but has those skinny legs that thoroughbreds do. Bosa on the other hand is a draft horse with some quicks when he needs it. Bosa holds up at the point way better than Clowney ever could and probably ever will, he's just not built to stop the run like Bosa is.EVen in pass rush I like the angles Bosa can take to the QB way more than Clowneys. Of course Clowney can backside run down plays like Bosa never will, but I'll still take Bosa anyday over Clowney if I was building a 4-3. I'd love both of em cause in Clowney you have the high arc and with Bosa you're taking away the step up.
-
Agree... I do not think injury takes "diddly" off of the table.
And "the hit" did fuel the hype, but Clowney had a freakish explosion off of the ball to support the hype. The question was his "desire" and no characteristic is tested more by injury than desire.
Agree... I do not think injury takes "diddly" off of the table.
And "the hit" did fuel the hype, but Clowney had a freakish explosion off of the ball to support the hype. The question was his "desire" and no characteristic is tested more by injury than desire.
Not saying diddly is off the table, just far too soon to make an accurate assumption at this point.
-
I'm confused! Please enlighten me in my ignorance. I read comments, which make sense, saying take the best player available when it comes to our turn picking. But, supposing Goff and Bosa were both available still on second pick- how do you determine who to go for? They are both currently thought to be good players so how do you determine who is the better player when they play vastly different positions?
Is it therefore best to determine your need first and pick a player in that position if they are still available? To put it another way, it seems pretty clear that Manziel has let everyone down and should be traded. So at no2 pick we have determined we should pick a QB. Why wouldn't we pick a QB if there are 3 highly regarded QBs in this draft even though Bosa, Elliot and whoever else are still available?
Have Denver proved you don't need a great QB (any longer) to make the SB? In which case won't Josh and Connor be fine?
Sorry, I feel like I've gone around in circles there, but as I say I'm just confused.
Okay final question: are there some teams that always draft well and in which case why is this?
Loyaultie me Lie. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor! -
Agree... I do not think injury takes "diddly" off of the table.
And "the hit" did fuel the hype, but Clowney had a freakish explosion off of the ball to support the hype. The question was his "desire" and no characteristic is tested more by injury than desire.
Agree... I do not think injury takes "diddly" off of the table.
And "the hit" did fuel the hype, but Clowney had a freakish explosion off of the ball to support the hype. The question was his "desire" and no characteristic is tested more by injury than desire.
The stuff the combine doesn't show. Anyone with a brain should've been able to see the red flags with Clowney, I know I saw them and repeatedly said it before the draft........ Hell, I said Barr would be the better pro, and not because of his combine #s, but because of his game play - ( I saw a ton of him being a UCLA fan ).
Hopefully our guys will look past all of the draft hype from people who probably never even played the game at the high school level, and let the draft rising - workout warriors be over drafted by someone else.
Hey, our local JC QB is 6'6", 240lbs and went 11-1 this year.......... I bet he can run around cones really fast and has big hands, and that will be enough to get the "draft gurus" all wet and wild.
-
...sorry just noticed part of my text didn't get included! I think I was asking isn't it therefore best to determine what position vacancy you need first? If we have determined Manziel is a bust don't we need to pick a QB? There seem to be two highly regarded QBs in this years draft so we will get one of them.
Then I go on to question that by saying isn't it just good enough to have a good QB like Denver currently do (albeit great in the past) as opposed to constantly searching for a great one- didn't do Green Bay any good?
-
Deputy - if you've got two guys ranked about the same on your draft board, you can look at what position you need. For example, Laremy Tunsil might grade out on a par with Bosa, but he's a left tackle and we've got Joe Thomas. But if he's the best player by a margin, you take him anyway - or hope a team wants him real bad and trades up.
The other thing to consider of course is the impact on the team overall - why punters don't get drafted highly but QBs get over drafted.
-
I'm confused! Please enlighten me in my ignorance. I read comments, which make sense, saying take the best player available when it comes to our turn picking. But, supposing Goff and Bosa were both available still on second pick- how do you determine who to go for? They are both currently thought to be good players so how do you determine who is the better player when they play vastly different positions?
Is it therefore best to determine your need first and pick a player in that position if they are still available? To put it another way, it seems pretty clear that Manziel has let everyone down and should be traded. So at no2 pick we have determined we should pick a QB. Why wouldn't we pick a QB if there are 3 highly regarded QBs in this draft even though Bosa, Elliot and whoever else are still available?
Have Denver proved you don't need a great QB (any longer) to make the SB? In which case won't Josh and Connor be fine?
Sorry, I feel like I've gone around in circles there, but as I say I'm just confused.
Okay final question: are there some teams that always draft well and in which case why is this?
I'm confused! Please enlighten me in my ignorance. I read comments, which make sense, saying take the best player available when it comes to our turn picking. But, supposing Goff and Bosa were both available still on second pick- how do you determine who to go for?
If you rank the prospects essentially even, then nothing wrong with going for your position of greater need and higher relative importance. The combination can be referred to as value.
What you do not want to do is allow need and importance make you reach for a perceptibly lesser player.
-
Cheers Chris and Tour. So are there any teams which consistently seem to have good drafts?
-
I'm confused! Please enlighten me in my ignorance. I read comments, which make sense, saying take the best player available when it comes to our turn picking. But, supposing Goff and Bosa were both available still on second pick- how do you determine who to go for? They are both currently thought to be good players so how do you determine who is the better player when they play vastly different positions?
Is it therefore best to determine your need first and pick a player in that position if they are still available? To put it another way, it seems pretty clear that Manziel has let everyone down and should be traded. So at no2 pick we have determined we should pick a QB. Why wouldn't we pick a QB if there are 3 highly regarded QBs in this draft even though Bosa, Elliot and whoever else are still available?
Have Denver proved you don't need a great QB (any longer) to make the SB? In which case won't Josh and Connor be fine?
Sorry, I feel like I've gone around in circles there, but as I say I'm just confused.
Okay final question: are there some teams that always draft well and in which case why is this?
I'm confused! Please enlighten me in my ignorance. I read comments, which make sense, saying take the best player available when it comes to our turn picking. But, supposing Goff and Bosa were both available still on second pick- how do you determine who to go for?
Nowhere on earth has anyone said the Goff is expected to be as good as Bosa. You take Bosa IMO.
They are both currently thought to be good players so how do you determine who is the better player when they play vastly different positions?
Is it therefore best to determine your need first and pick a player in that position if they are still available? To put it another way, it seems pretty clear that Manziel has let everyone down and should be traded. So at no2 pick we have determined we should pick a QB. Why wouldn't we pick a QB if there are 3 highly regarded QBs in this draft even though Bosa, Elliot and whoever else are still available?
Have Denver proved you don't need a great QB (any longer) to make the SB? In which case won't Josh and Connor be fine?
Sorry, I feel like I've gone around in circles there, but as I say I'm just confused.
Okay final question: are there some teams that always draft well and in which case why is this?
Better more astute scouting department. Browns have failed badly at this, clearly.
-
I think most of us felt that our new "analytical" approach would virtually derail any trade up to the #1 pick. Giving up resources when you're trying to build from next to nothing is difficult to stomach. Trouble is, we need a QB, so there's that. Hopefully we have another QB candidate rated high enough to take with the second pick. I'm not even sure trading down is a good idea. Several of the teams behind us might not need a QB, but you never know who they could trade with, and we don't want to get burned. If we grade a QB out high enough, and we think he can be the guy, then we take him at #2...no matter what.
I'm not even sure trading down is a good idea.
I'm certain it isn't, based on my analytical approach of recent drafts when we screwed it up so bad lol.
The draft is designed to make bad teams better by selecting their draft picks, not to make bad teams trade away picks. I think Sashi is smart enough to know this. We've got #2, 32, & 65. Right there is enough to fill 3 holes.
-
I'm confused! Please enlighten me in my ignorance. I read comments, which make sense, saying take the best player available when it comes to our turn picking. But, supposing Goff and Bosa were both available still on second pick- how do you determine who to go for?
Nowhere on earth has anyone said the Goff is expected to be as good as Bosa. You take Bosa IMO.
They are both currently thought to be good players so how do you determine who is the better player when they play vastly different positions?
Is it therefore best to determine your need first and pick a player in that position if they are still available? To put it another way, it seems pretty clear that Manziel has let everyone down and should be traded. So at no2 pick we have determined we should pick a QB. Why wouldn't we pick a QB if there are 3 highly regarded QBs in this draft even though Bosa, Elliot and whoever else are still available?
Have Denver proved you don't need a great QB (any longer) to make the SB? In which case won't Josh and Connor be fine?
Sorry, I feel like I've gone around in circles there, but as I say I'm just confused.
Okay final question: are there some teams that always draft well and in which case why is this?
Better more astute scouting department. Browns have failed badly at this, clearly.
Nowhere on earth has anyone said the Goff is expected to be as good as Bosa. You take Bosa IMO.
No one? Anywhere? Interesting typo at NFL.com...
Player .................... Pos Ht. Wt. College Grade
Tunsil, Laremy ........ OT 6'5" 305 OleMiss 7.7
Jack, Myles .......... OLB 6'1" 245 UCLA ... 7.5
Buckner,DeForest .... DE 6'7" 281 Oregon 7.3
Elliott, Ezekiel .......... RB 6'0" 225 Ohio St. 7.2
Smith, Jaylon .......... OLB 6'3" 229 NotreD 7.1
Ramsey, Jalen ......... CB 6'1" 202 FSU .... 6.8
Bosa, Joey ............ DE 6'6" 275 Ohio St. 6.7
Goff, Jared ............ QB 6'4" 215 Californ 6.7
Stanley, Ronnie ..... OT 6'5" 304 NotreDm 6.7
Billings, Andrew ....... NT 6'2" 310 Baylor . 6.7
Hargreaves, Vern .... CB 5'11" 192 Florida 6.7
Not only is Bosa's rating the same as Goff's, Bosa is not the top DE on NFL.com's board.
Really looking forward to your next reply, Gip...
"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