What would you think of our top 3-4 picks going D
-
Garrett's an asshole?
Probably not....its just that you don't think that a guy whose screen name if TexasAg may have an A&M bias.
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
-
Garrett's an asshole?
Probably not....its just that you don't think that a guy whose screen name if TexasAg may have an A&M bias.
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
Garrett's an asshole?
Probably not....its just that you don't think that a guy whose screen name if TexasAg may have an A&M bias.
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
My greatest bias is towards defense. No problem admitting that. But if you have paid attention to other posts I have made, I have clearly stated I would not be averse to taking Allen @ #1 as long as we addressed our very clear problem of edge rusher @#12. I don't see Allen as an edge rusher, so my "biased" view is to address the edge rush rush deficit @ 12 unless we take Garrett @ #1. Would I like to see a Clowney in Cleveland? Sure. But I can live with other alternatives.
So my "bias" is we have a major edge rush problem that must be addressed early in this draft which is far greater in terms generating the wins that will keep this franchise above water. A QB #1 will not do that due to the very long learning curve involved. We will be firing another whole crew before that pick generates any dividends for the Browns.
-
Garrett's an asshole?
Probably not....its just that you don't think that a guy whose screen name if TexasAg may have an A&M bias.
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
My greatest bias is towards defense. No problem admitting that. But if you have paid attention to other posts I have made, I have clearly stated I would not be averse to taking Allen @ #1 as long as we addressed our very clear problem of edge rusher @#12. I don't see Allen as an edge rusher, so my "biased" view is to address the edge rush rush deficit @ 12 unless we take Garrett @ #1. Would I like to see a Clowney in Cleveland? Sure. But I can live with other alternatives.
So my "bias" is we have a major edge rush problem that must be addressed early in this draft which is far greater in terms generating the wins that will keep this franchise above water. A QB #1 will not do that due to the very long learning curve involved. We will be firing another whole crew before that pick generates any dividends for the Browns.
My greatest bias is towards defense. No problem admitting that. But if you have paid attention to other posts I have made, I have clearly stated I would not be averse to taking Allen @ #1 as long as we addressed our very clear problem of edge rusher @#12. I don't see Allen as an edge rusher, so my "biased" view is to address the edge rush rush deficit @ 12 unless we take Garrett @ #1. Would I like to see a Clowney in Cleveland? Sure. But I can live with other alternatives.
So my "bias" is we have a major edge rush problem that must be addressed early in this draft which is far greater in terms generating the wins that will keep this franchise above water. A QB #1 will not do that due to the very long learning curve involved. We will be firing another whole crew before that pick generates any dividends for the Browns.
Well, my bias is toward winning. And the Browns have not been doing any winning. And a lot of that can be attributed to a lack of a quality quarterback.
Defense IS absolutely a priorty...but it isn't the highest one imo, We need a talent infusion in so many areas. A franchise QB. A couple of OL, and, yes, defenders at all levels, DL, DB, LBs.
But I don't think the Browns should concentrate on one area at the expense of the others. (though, of course, they must make hard choices)
-
Garrett's an asshole?
Probably not....its just that you don't think that a guy whose screen name if TexasAg may have an A&M bias.
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
Browns drafted Craig Powell in the first round at one point. [A very low point]
Should we be scared away from Ohio State defensive players?
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
My greatest bias is towards defense. No problem admitting that. But if you have paid attention to other posts I have made, I have clearly stated I would not be averse to taking Allen @ #1 as long as we addressed our very clear problem of edge rusher @#12. I don't see Allen as an edge rusher, so my "biased" view is to address the edge rush rush deficit @ 12 unless we take Garrett @ #1. Would I like to see a Clowney in Cleveland? Sure. But I can live with other alternatives.
So my "bias" is we have a major edge rush problem that must be addressed early in this draft which is far greater in terms generating the wins that will keep this franchise above water. A QB #1 will not do that due to the very long learning curve involved. We will be firing another whole crew before that pick generates any dividends for the Browns.
Well, my bias is toward winning. And the Browns have not been doing any winning. And a lot of that can be attributed to a lack of a quality quarterback.
Defense IS absolutely a priorty...but it isn't the highest one imo, We need a talent infusion in so many areas. A franchise QB. A couple of OL, and, yes, defenders at all levels, DL, DB, LBs.
But I don't think the Browns should concentrate on one area at the expense of the others. (though, of course, they must make hard choices)
Well, my bias is toward winning. And the Browns have not been doing any winning. And a lot of that can be attributed to a lack of a quality quarterback.
Defense IS absolutely a priorty...but it isn't the highest one imo,
And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB.
We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3.
-
There's an A&M curse? Does Denver know?
There is one when it comes to the Browns.
In checking....since 1950 the Browns have taken just one single good player out of A&M: Cody Risien.
All others turned out not so good
Browns drafted Craig Powell in the first round at one point. [A very low point]
Should we be scared away from Ohio State defensive players?
Browns drafted Craig Powell in the first round at one point. [A very low point]
Should we be scared away from Ohio State defensive players?
Probably not.....but.....apparently they think they must!
The Browns have not drafted an Ohio State defensive player since then.
In fact, the only two OSU players taken by the Browns since then were TE Darnell Sanders, and WR Brian Robiskie.
They would have been better off taking a few more imo.
Many of you are clamoring for that edge rusher......I wanted the Browns to get one last year that is better than any coming out this year.....Bosa, OSU.
-
Well, my bias is toward winning. And the Browns have not been doing any winning. And a lot of that can be attributed to a lack of a quality quarterback.
Defense IS absolutely a priorty...but it isn't the highest one imo,
And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB.
We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3.
And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB.
We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3.
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
-
And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB.
We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3.
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation.
:lol: -
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation.
:lol:Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation.
:lol:But consistent with backing a Class of 2017 QB #1 overall...
-
My greatest bias is towards defense. No problem admitting that. But if you have paid attention to other posts I have made, I have clearly stated I would not be averse to taking Allen @ #1 as long as we addressed our very clear problem of edge rusher @#12. I don't see Allen as an edge rusher, so my "biased" view is to address the edge rush rush deficit @ 12 unless we take Garrett @ #1. Would I like to see a Clowney in Cleveland? Sure. But I can live with other alternatives.
So my "bias" is we have a major edge rush problem that must be addressed early in this draft which is far greater in terms generating the wins that will keep this franchise above water. A QB #1 will not do that due to the very long learning curve involved. We will be firing another whole crew before that pick generates any dividends for the Browns.
Well, my bias is toward winning. And the Browns have not been doing any winning. And a lot of that can be attributed to a lack of a quality quarterback.
Defense IS absolutely a priorty...but it isn't the highest one imo, We need a talent infusion in so many areas. A franchise QB. A couple of OL, and, yes, defenders at all levels, DL, DB, LBs.
But I don't think the Browns should concentrate on one area at the expense of the others. (though, of course, they must make hard choices)
But I don't think the Browns should concentrate on one area at the expense of the others. (though, of course, they must make hard choices)
Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct?
Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking....
-
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation.
:lol:Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation.
:lol:No, I have been about 50/50 with Ghoolie for many years. I just don't get all bombastic if I disagree with him. I simply say: I disagree with you....just like I did with you above.
-
But I don't think the Browns should concentrate on one area at the expense of the others. (though, of course, they must make hard choices)
Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct?
Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking....
Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct?
Yes, if that one QB were Watson or Kizer....
Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking....
Or, how about concentrating on drafting a top notch QB prospect....that every national writer out there says will be a top QB draft choice.
And from my point of view, I see no "elite" defensive talent out there. There is promising talent, but nothing mind boggling elite.
If we had wanted elite defensive talent....then we should have taken Bosa at #2 last year.
Face it, Nate Orchard had almost double the number of sacks in college than the guy you all seem to be touting. ...in the Pac 12.
-
Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct?
Yes, if that one QB were Watson or Kizer....
Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking....
Or, how about concentrating on drafting a top notch QB prospect....that every national writer out there says will be a top QB draft choice.
And from my point of view, I see no "elite" defensive talent out there. There is promising talent, but nothing mind boggling elite.
If we had wanted elite defensive talent....then we should have taken Bosa at #2 last year.
Face it, Nate Orchard had almost double the number of sacks in college than the guy you all seem to be touting. ...in the Pac 12.
Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct?
Yes, if that one QB were Watson or Kizer....
Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking....
Or, how about concentrating on drafting a top notch QB prospect....that every national writer out there says will be a top QB draft choice.
And from my point of view, I see no "elite" defensive talent out there. There is promising talent, but nothing mind boggling elite.
If we had wanted elite defensive talent....then we should have taken Bosa at #2 last year.
Face it, Nate Orchard had almost double the number of sacks in college than the guy you all seem to be touting. ...in the Pac 12.
# of sacks do not define a player.......and, compared to Trubisky, Allen and Garrett are definitely elite.....period...
You are the one who always points to rankings, and mocks, etc etc etc.....go look at the player scores and tell me they are on the same plain....cause they arent.....
So....if we concentrate on "need" instead of "talent".....we are more likely to lose again.....
-
Unless it means drafting a lower rated QB over higher rated defensive players....correct?
Yes, if that one QB were Watson or Kizer....
Just concentrate on drafting a suspect QB, when there are elite defensive talents sitting there for the taking....
Or, how about concentrating on drafting a top notch QB prospect....that every national writer out there says will be a top QB draft choice.
And from my point of view, I see no "elite" defensive talent out there. There is promising talent, but nothing mind boggling elite.
If we had wanted elite defensive talent....then we should have taken Bosa at #2 last year.
Face it, Nate Orchard had almost double the number of sacks in college than the guy you all seem to be touting. ...in the Pac 12.
# of sacks do not define a player.......and, compared to Trubisky, Allen and Garrett are definitely elite.....period...
You are the one who always points to rankings, and mocks, etc etc etc.....go look at the player scores and tell me they are on the same plain....cause they arent.....
So....if we concentrate on "need" instead of "talent".....we are more likely to lose again.....
# of sacks do not define a player.......and, compared to Trubisky, Allen and Garrett are definitely elite.....period...
I know, but that was a big thing to our FO.
And you have no real clue as to the "eliteness" of any of these players when it comes to how they will perform in the pros.
Not one damn clue.
You are the one who always points to rankings, and mocks, etc etc etc.....go look at the player scores and tell me they are on the same plain....cause they arent.....
I didn't see any scores published. Where do you see scores assigned to anyone?
And any of these scores, based on the systems that I put down in another thread.....are just some writer/scouts projection/opinion.
Yes, I will note the rankings, mocks, scores......but I am not a slave to them.
I will use them when I choose, I will abuse them when I choose and I will disabuse them when I choose.
And I will use my instincts when I choose....as much as anything else.
We can go back to the old worn out example: ain't nobody knows what a player will really be like once he hits the pros.
Good ole #2 ranked QB in 1998 sure ranked/scored much higher than ole #199 in 2000. How did that work out?
So....if we concentrate on "need" instead of "talent".....we are more likely to lose again.....
Or, perhaps if we marry the two....we may start winning. Do you truly believe that NFL GMs and FOs don't look at their needs.
-
And mine is towards a defense that, imo, will get us those wins far quicker than a new, untested QB.
We both see the problem, winning. We both have different ways of insuring that happen next year. I just think my way is on more solid ground than yours, which I see as a longshot for immediate success. I'm going for the layup two pointer while your shooting for the half-court 3.
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
I assume we've all played some organized football. If so, you probably know that more than any sport, there is a direct link between the play of one player and that of the other players; the play of one unit (esp. offense vs defense) and the play of the other unit. So any upgrade makes the whole team better. Get a blocking lineman and the RB goes probowl. Get a pass rusher and suddenly the CB is a "shut-down" corner. Wide open WR makes the QB look good and an accurate passer makes a WR into thinking he walks on water. A good offense allows the defense to rest more and perform better. I could go on and on.
So with so many needs, hitting on the draft and adding a few great FA's will tremendously improve the play of the entire team - no matter which position. But in today's passing era, the QB in football is the most important position and therefore the biggest priority. Next comes the pass rush, and then receivers and the defensive secondary. The rest is a lower priority - although, like I said, it's all connected and it's all necessary.
Bottom line, the Browns are 1-15 but probably 6 good players (and a little bit of luck) away from a .500 team. It starts with the QB. Unquestionably important and unquestionably our weakest position relative to the other teams we play against. Until we solve it, we're going to be a losing team. No single player can transform the Browns like a great QB. We have to keep drafting and/or signing them until we find one. So if 3 QB's are going to be drafted with the top 6 picks, can we really afford not take one at #1? Only if we can get one through FA or in a trade.
-
Oh, now you are in big trouble, actually agreeing with goulie, an act of desperation.
:lol:No, I have been about 50/50 with Ghoolie for many years. I just don't get all bombastic if I disagree with him. I simply say: I disagree with you....just like I did with you above.
No, I have been about 50/50 with Ghoolie for many years. I just don't get all bombastic if I disagree with him. I simply say: I disagree with you....just like I did with you above.
I have not been offended by our difference in opinion. In fact been kind of fun pulling each other's tail. It only matters what this FO decides and in them I have little faith anyway. Would not surprise me at all if they trade out of all elite players like the baseball traders that they are. Then no one here will be happy and there will be another boring year of shit on the field.
Edit: I believe Hue talked them into Kessler @ #3 last year and they are not going to trust him on a QB again. I also believe there is good chance that the new DC was promised first shot as condition of taking the job. We had both better pray that at least that proves out, otherwise who knows what the baseball boys will talk themselves into.
-
No, I have been about 50/50 with Ghoolie for many years. I just don't get all bombastic if I disagree with him. I simply say: I disagree with you....just like I did with you above.
I have not been offended by our difference in opinion. In fact been kind of fun pulling each other's tail. It only matters what this FO decides and in them I have little faith anyway. Would not surprise me at all if they trade out of all elite players like the baseball traders that they are. Then no one here will be happy and there will be another boring year of shit on the field.
Edit: I believe Hue talked them into Kessler @ #3 last year and they are not going to trust him on a QB again. I also believe there is good chance that the new DC was promised first shot as condition of taking the job. We had both better pray that at least that proves out, otherwise who knows what the baseball boys will talk themselves into.
I have not been offended by our difference in opinion. In fact been kind of fun pulling each other's tail. It only matters what this FO decides and in them I have little faith anyway. Would not surprise me at all if they trade out of all elite players like the baseball traders that they are. Then no one here will be happy and there will be another boring year of shit on the field.
Edit: I believe Hue talked them into Kessler @ #3 last year and they are not going to trust him on a QB again. I also believe there is good chance that the new DC was promised first shot as condition of taking the job. We had both better pray that at least that proves out, otherwise who knows what the baseball boys will talk themselves into.
Well, to say that we all do not know what this FO is thinking is absolute truth.
There are so many questions:
A. Do we think that they will ultimately want to solve the QB issue?
B. Will they, as you say, want to give the new DC new toys to play with? Be it DL/LB/DB.
C. Or, will they say to him: we brought you in to do a much better job with what we think are pretty good toys that we have already supplied. We will get you some help, but you must do better with what is on hand.
D. Do we help that new QB that we take....or trade for and go early for O Line?
The draft is always FA loss/FA gain contingent. Will the Browns live up to Haslam's word and do their best to keep what we have and go out and get more?
Time will tell.
-
One side or the other all in
-
Well, I think my way is on more solid ground than yours.
For a simple reason: It takes ONE person to make a big difference on offense.
It takes far more to make a big difference on defense.
Ghoolie is right in this respect: far more championships have been won by teams with top franchise QBs than have been won by team with top notch defenses (an mediocre QBs)
Fact is, imo....yes we need both. But I think you are wrong. A top QB WILL get you there faster than a defense....but both are absolutely needed in the end.
And, also, imo, an untested defender is no different than an untested QB. Both are untested....and every rookie is untested.
I assume we've all played some organized football. If so, you probably know that more than any sport, there is a direct link between the play of one player and that of the other players; the play of one unit (esp. offense vs defense) and the play of the other unit. So any upgrade makes the whole team better. Get a blocking lineman and the RB goes probowl. Get a pass rusher and suddenly the CB is a "shut-down" corner. Wide open WR makes the QB look good and an accurate passer makes a WR into thinking he walks on water. A good offense allows the defense to rest more and perform better. I could go on and on.
So with so many needs, hitting on the draft and adding a few great FA's will tremendously improve the play of the entire team - no matter which position. But in today's passing era, the QB in football is the most important position and therefore the biggest priority. Next comes the pass rush, and then receivers and the defensive secondary. The rest is a lower priority - although, like I said, it's all connected and it's all necessary.
Bottom line, the Browns are 1-15 but probably 6 good players (and a little bit of luck) away from a .500 team. It starts with the QB. Unquestionably important and unquestionably our weakest position relative to the other teams we play against. Until we solve it, we're going to be a losing team. No single player can transform the Browns like a great QB. We have to keep drafting and/or signing them until we find one. So if 3 QB's are going to be drafted with the top 6 picks, can we really afford not take one at #1? Only if we can get one through FA or in a trade.
I assume we've all played some organized football. If so, you probably know that more than any sport, there is a direct link between the play of one player and that of the other players; the play of one unit (esp. offense vs defense) and the play of the other unit. So any upgrade makes the whole team better. Get a blocking lineman and the RB goes probowl. Get a pass rusher and suddenly the CB is a "shut-down" corner. Wide open WR makes the QB look good and an accurate passer makes a WR into thinking he walks on water. A good offense allows the defense to rest more and perform better. I could go on and on.
So with so many needs, hitting on the draft and adding a few great FA's will tremendously improve the play of the entire team - no matter which position. But in today's passing era, the QB in football is the most important position and therefore the biggest priority. Next comes the pass rush, and then receivers and the defensive secondary. The rest is a lower priority - although, like I said, it's all connected and it's all necessary.
Bottom line, the Browns are 1-15 but probably 6 good players (and a little bit of luck) away from a .500 team. It starts with the QB. Unquestionably important and unquestionably our weakest position relative to the other teams we play against. Until we solve it, we're going to be a losing team. No single player can transform the Browns like a great QB. We have to keep drafting and/or signing them until we find one. So if 3 QB's are going to be drafted with the top 6 picks, can we really afford not take one at #1? Only if we can get one through FA or in a trade.
Holy whiplash...
After paragraph one I was expecting a BPA argument.... and ended up with a position value argument. Gonna need some Advil tonite...
And that all here have played is a bad assumption...
-
Well, as I see it, the BPA and Position value arguments are married when it comes to the Browns:
BPA a QB....we need it
BPA a OL....we need it.
BPA a DL....we need it
BPA a LB...we need it
BPA a DB...we need it.
BPA a K or P....well, maybe here it don't apply
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