Random musings on The Draft, Our Draft and Who Knows What Else...
-
Oakland and Washington wasted picks on guys that don't improve their team.
lol... if there is a hell, then I be there arguing with you (or a replicant, if you've been good) about "always looking..."
One talking head today (Casserly I think) called these "currency picks". If the QBs develop, but are simply backups on your team, then they are tradeable assets before their rookie contracts expire. The Pats have done this a couple times. As have the Packers....
I would not mind if we joined them.
-
1. My only problem was the occasional "reach" for players I thought were either UDF or 7th rounders at best. Why waste the higher pick there? It felt like the proverbial "throw it on the wall" method at times.
2. We had a plan of attack on two of our worst flaws, lack of pressure on the other team's QB and the lack of commitment to the fact that wr's are in fact important. Our QB injuries had a lot to do with no fleas being open.
3. The fact we went after those two problems lends hope to the same approach every year until this ship is sailing.
4. We will be in great position next year to get Myles Garrett. Regardless of war's thoughts on the fit, you design the D around the talent and that guy is the best I've ever seen come out of A&M D lines in pressuring QBs.
-
Really don't need Garrett if Ogbah and Nassib work out and Orchard or Mingo take the next step. But we'll see.
-
Oakland and Washington wasted picks on guys that don't improve their team.
lol... if there is a hell, then I be there arguing with you (or a replicant, if you've been good) about "always looking..."
One talking head today (Casserly I think) called these "currency picks". If the QBs develop, but are simply backups on your team, then they are tradeable assets before their rookie contracts expire. The Pats have done this a couple times. As have the Packers....
I would not mind if we joined them.
lol... if there is a hell, then I be there arguing with you (or a replicant, if you've been good) about "always looking..."
One talking head today (Casserly I think) called these "currency picks". If the QBs develop, but are simply backups on your team, then they are tradeable assets before their rookie contracts expire. The Pats have done this a couple times. As have the Packers....
I would not mind if we joined them.
But what if they draft a player who actually plays (and thus contributes more). They can trade him just the same.
-
1. Going to save a lot of time in 2017... no sense spending any time on Day 3 picks. I can't even pretend to have a clue about our 2016 haul on Day 3. At least on Day 2 I have a shot and Day 1 a chance.
2. When it comes to tabbing "WTF" players, we are in elite company. Deciphering the Pats' Drafts has required a Rosetta Stone for years. And now ours does as well.
3a. If you're going to cast a net... may as well be a big one. Four WRs in one draft is a big fucking net. Can't see them all making the final 53, but with 14 picks... who cares?
3b. If you're one of our existing, "diminutive" WRs... How'd you sleep last nite?
4. You always have to be looking... The Raiders and WSH get it... and spent a 4th for Cook and a 6th for Sudfeld respectively. Personally, I think Hue gets this, too...
5. We spent 9 of 14 on Offense and 5 of 9 on receivers. How's that for a power run team?
6. Hue really likes the RB he nabbed from Cinci. Only new blood in our backfield over the weekend comes in the form of UDFAs James (a less-than-fast, mid-sized Rutgers product) and Skov (an undersized, less-than-less-than-fast GaTech FB).
7. Speaking of Hue... was he celebrating "getting his way" or "agreement with the geek squad" in the War Room? Excepting Kessler... I think it was more the latter. Not unusual to give a HC "a pick" every draft as we learned from the Jets' Hard Knocks season.
8. The future is.... well... in the future. Posed with ammo to go after any player we want in 2017, we've a lot to look forward to. Let's just hope that if "any player" is a QB, he's not one of those who is not available at any price.
9. "We wanted to trade up for a couple players...", but couldn't make it happen. Most disturbing Sashi thought in his post-draft presser. Maybe a rookie syndrome Sashi will outgrow? Maybe overly cautious GMs not wanting to get "Moneyballed"? Something to address in the future. I have a feeling we got jumped by the Bears for Kwiatkoski, but may just be a self-serving view.
10. Last (for now), but not least... said it before, but I was very, very impressed with how air-tight our organization was with its plans, its board. This may be the brightest sign of all coming out of this draft.
6. Hue really likes the RB he nabbed from Cinci. Only new blood in our backfield over the weekend comes in the form of UDFAs James (a less-than-fast, mid-sized Rutgers product) and Skov (an undersized, less-than-less-than-fast GaTech FB).
I came away with this too. I kept waiting for a RB, but he never came and the only explanation is that Hue really likes what he already has. I don't pretend to know 100% for sure which RB(s) he likes, but rest assured, he likes at least one that's already on the roster.
-
lol... if there is a hell, then I be there arguing with you (or a replicant, if you've been good) about "always looking..."
One talking head today (Casserly I think) called these "currency picks". If the QBs develop, but are simply backups on your team, then they are tradeable assets before their rookie contracts expire. The Pats have done this a couple times. As have the Packers....
I would not mind if we joined them.
But what if they draft a player who actually plays (and thus contributes more). They can trade him just the same.
But what if they draft a player who actually plays (and thus contributes more). They can trade him just the same.
Possible... but you tend to need and use more of just about every other position... and QB commands the greatest price to track record ratio.
Is it safe to assume they liked the QBs they took better than anyone else on their boards at the time they took the QB? Same as we did with Kessler?
-
I don't have a problem with them taking a backup if that's a need for something. I just have a problem with the "always be looking" thing, if that makes sense.
-
Makes sense... in the strict sense that I understand what you are saying...
Actually my rule does allow for two one-year exceptions:
- the year after you land your franchise QB; and
- the year after you know you've landed your developmental back up to your franchise QB.
Otherwise it's back to the draft-mines...
"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 -
Really don't need Garrett if Ogbah and Nassib work out and Orchard or Mingo take the next step. But we'll see.
Really don't need Garrett if Ogbah and Nassib work out and Orchard or Mingo take the next step. But we'll see.
LOL! You are the only GM in the NFL that would not draft Garrett if he was sitting there @ your pick.
It would be like "well there's Von sitting here for free, so I think I'll just pass because we have good pass rushers already." -
Doubt that. This team's too shallow to do BPA like that. Need to address needs.
-
What stood out for me and the Browns draft was the amount of picks. Yes 14 is a lot and I just wonder if they had a plan all along to stockpile picks. They did next to nothing in FA and this explains why. Next year however I see more happening in FA even though we have a lot more draft picks to go.
-
Makes sense... in the strict sense that I understand what you are saying...
Actually my rule does allow for two one-year exceptions:
- the year after you land your franchise QB; and
- the year after you know you've landed your developmental back up to your franchise QB.
Otherwise it's back to the draft-mines...
Actually my rule does allow for two one-year exceptions:
- the year after you land your franchise QB; and
- the year after you know you've landed your developmental back up to your franchise QB.
Otherwise it's back to the draft-mines...
Using your same rules, this may explain why we did not draft a RB. Duke, why kill his confidence or any of them with T. Watson already in the house? Times ticking on The Crow (but let him prove his contract year) but Duke needs more than 1 year? Edit- one post, sashi see's FA equaling Forget About it
Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends -
Hue said in the press conference after day three that he is very happy with the RB roster and what the new coach Wilson is doing with them.
-
Pretty good ESPN look at our picks one by one: http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/18747/2016-cleveland-browns-draft-picks-analysis-for-every-selection
-
Really don't need Garrett if Ogbah and Nassib work out and Orchard or Mingo take the next step. But we'll see.
LOL! You are the only GM in the NFL that would not draft Garrett if he was sitting there @ your pick.
It would be like "well there's Von sitting here for free, so I think I'll just pass because we have good pass rushers already."LOL! You are the only GM in the NFL that would not draft Garrett if he was sitting there @ your pick.
It would be like "well there's Von sitting here for free, so I think I'll just pass because we have good pass rushers already."Can Garrett stop the run? Or is he a sack show-pony?
-
Quick!!! Name three Pats not named Brady!
Started the day thinking (AKA musing) about our Draft and the lack of "starpower" we plucked vs. other teams. And then I started thinking about the Pats... who was the last "star" they drafted? THE model organization in the NFL builds stars; they do not draft stars.
And they do not build that many. Were you able to name three?
What they do is develop as many very good players as they can. Then acquire very good players via FA or trade to fill gaps. And if by trade, they often give up a "star" who has already peaked for a "very good" with further to rise, e.g., Seymore to OAK a couple years ago.
Our 14 picks cast a huge net looking to catch as many good players as possible so we can see how many have a shot at being very good. Odds are 2017 will be a repeat, with the possible exception of QB. Probably 2018 as well, but maybe by then we are also adding pieces...
-
This draft has D Bone written all over it. I have been pretty vocal over the years of the Browns drafting "football players" and not "workout warriors". I have been pretty vocal on my dislike for the combine, where players rise up some jackass media guru's draft board because he ran around some little orange cones really, really fast. This year we seemed to target guys who were very productive on the field, and we left the workout warriors to someone else.
Obviously I am very thrilled to see a bunch of guys that have proven themselves on the field, and some for several seasons. I get that in the lower end of the draft you can go ahead and take a workout warrior, as the penalty if he fails is a small one, and it can be worth the risk. I'm just glad we didn't do it early on.......... I've had my fill of David Veikune's and Mingo's.
So, I got what I wanted and hopefully for all of us it isn't a 'careful what you wish for' draft, but you can give me a bunch of productive, tough, smart, hardworking guys any day....... After all, you can't be productive at the college level without talent.
Now it's up to the coaches to get the most out of them, and for the first time since I can remember, I really do believe in my heart that we finally have the coaches that will do so.
-
D Bone, most of our guys shredded the combine.
-
They did?
"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