Fantasy Draft
-
I don't get the obsessive n with Foster. We have Collins and Kirksey. The Browns are going to be in a 4-2-5 defense 80% of the time. Why would we invest a first round pick on someone who won't be on the field most of the time?
I don't get the obsessive n with Foster. We have Collins and Kirksey. The Browns are going to be in a 4-2-5 defense 80% of the time. Why would we invest a first round pick on someone who won't be on the field most of the time?
Foster is one of those special athletes that can take on just about any role in the defensive back 7 that does not have CB attached to it. He's one of those Kuechly type players that can read plays so fast that he often gets near handoffs or covers TE's and RBs out of the backfield if he's not eating the QB for lunch. Just too great a player to pass up if we have a legit shot at him.
-
I agree Ag but Osiris has a point. Then again, Kirksey's contract comes up in the next year or two. As POTUS says, "you always gotta be willing to walk away."
-
I agree Ag but Osiris has a point. Then again, Kirksey's contract comes up in the next year or two. As POTUS says, "you always gotta be willing to walk away."
I agree Ag but Osiris has a point. Then again, Kirksey's contract comes up in the next year or two. As POTUS says, "you always gotta be willing to walk away."
So we take a guy, in Kirksey, that we drafted not particularly early, put a lot of effort into developing, see him become a very good player, important part of our D, so we can take another guy? Create a hole where one doesn't exist because we *can* fill it?
I'm not saying I'm against drafting Foster, but suggesting the reasoning is because Kirksey's contract is coming up is crazy. This is how we keep ourselves in this situation - in the rare cases we draft someone worthy of a second contract, when was the last time we kept one? Haden? Nobody from 2013. Nobody from 2012. Nobody from 2011. Haden from 2010. 2014 draft is coming up for resigning and there are two guys who have developed into very good players in Bitonio and Kirksey and it makes less than no sense to let them walk.
Other players we developed into important starters have gone on to feature heavily in playoff teams, including Ward, Mack, Schwartz, among others. I don't want to keep dredging up history but if you don't learn from it you're an idiot (not you specifically war).
Keep the players that have actually developed into competent starters.
-
Foster is an elite player that can make the rotation more versatile -
some mismatches on our lbs happen - they get outrun by some of the
faster te's and slot receivers/rbs in the league. I guess the same logic
would say we shouldn't draft Garrett or Allen because we already
invested in our dline...
Would an Adams at safety be more a dramatic impact player? yep.
Trubisky? Not immediately? Howard or Njuku at TE? yep.
I thought to do another mock, but it's hopeless. Even if the Browns signed
Kirk Cousins if he becomes a FA, it's tough. Garrett is elite at the top. But
maybe a trade down with the Bears, if you aren't going to draft a qb at one...
you could still get Lattimore or Adams or Peppers with your first pick,
and whoever else at 12...
It's crazy. The Browns defense needs pass defense and more speed on
the pass rush... right now, the pass defense desperately needs fixing.
Hell if I know. It's crazy.
-
I agree Ag but Osiris has a point. Then again, Kirksey's contract comes up in the next year or two. As POTUS says, "you always gotta be willing to walk away."
So we take a guy, in Kirksey, that we drafted not particularly early, put a lot of effort into developing, see him become a very good player, important part of our D, so we can take another guy? Create a hole where one doesn't exist because we *can* fill it?
I'm not saying I'm against drafting Foster, but suggesting the reasoning is because Kirksey's contract is coming up is crazy. This is how we keep ourselves in this situation - in the rare cases we draft someone worthy of a second contract, when was the last time we kept one? Haden? Nobody from 2013. Nobody from 2012. Nobody from 2011. Haden from 2010. 2014 draft is coming up for resigning and there are two guys who have developed into very good players in Bitonio and Kirksey and it makes less than no sense to let them walk.
Other players we developed into important starters have gone on to feature heavily in playoff teams, including Ward, Mack, Schwartz, among others. I don't want to keep dredging up history but if you don't learn from it you're an idiot (not you specifically war).
Keep the players that have actually developed into competent starters.
So we take a guy, in Kirksey, that we drafted not particularly early, put a lot of effort into developing, see him become a very good player, important part of our D, so we can take another guy? Create a hole where one doesn't exist because we *can* fill it?
I'm not saying I'm against drafting Foster, but suggesting the reasoning is because Kirksey's contract is coming up is crazy. This is how we keep ourselves in this situation - in the rare cases we draft someone worthy of a second contract, when was the last time we kept one? Haden? Nobody from 2013. Nobody from 2012. Nobody from 2011. Haden from 2010. 2014 draft is coming up for resigning and there are two guys who have developed into very good players in Bitonio and Kirksey and it makes less than no sense to let them walk.
Other players we developed into important starters have gone on to feature heavily in playoff teams, including Ward, Mack, Schwartz, among others. I don't want to keep dredging up history but if you don't learn from it you're an idiot (not you specifically war).
Keep the players that have actually developed into competent starters.
Fair enough. I'm just speaking of the hypothetical where Kirksey's agent really tries to bend you over. Hopefully he won't.
-
I don't get the obsessive n with Foster. We have Collins and Kirksey. The Browns are going to be in a 4-2-5 defense 80% of the time. Why would we invest a first round pick on someone who won't be on the field most of the time?
Foster is one of those special athletes that can take on just about any role in the defensive back 7 that does not have CB attached to it. He's one of those Kuechly type players that can read plays so fast that he often gets near handoffs or covers TE's and RBs out of the backfield if he's not eating the QB for lunch. Just too great a player to pass up if we have a legit shot at him.
Foster is one of those special athletes that can take on just about any role in the defensive back 7 that does not have CB attached to it. He's one of those Kuechly type players that can read plays so fast that he often gets near handoffs or covers TE's and RBs out of the backfield if he's not eating the QB for lunch. Just too great a player to pass up if we have a legit shot at him.
I get that he is special, but can he play safety? I guess my point is, let's say you take Foster and he replaces Kirksey or Collins. Sure, he might be better than both of those guys, but by how much? You are taking two steps forward and one step back. If you can find a way to get him on the field without taking snaps away from Kirksey or Collins, okay, I can see it, but otherwise, no, just no. It isn't a sound investment. The net increase in replacing a good starter with a great one isn't worth it.
If we instead take the top safety on the board we take two steps forward without taking two steps back. The net increase in the talent of the starting eleven increases more when you replace bad starters with good ones, and that's what we should be doing.
So we take a guy, in Kirksey, that we drafted not particularly early, put a lot of effort into developing, see him become a very good player, important part of our D, so we can take another guy? Create a hole where one doesn't exist because we *can* fill it?
I'm not saying I'm against drafting Foster, but suggesting the reasoning is because Kirksey's contract is coming up is crazy. This is how we keep ourselves in this situation - in the rare cases we draft someone worthy of a second contract,
This. Plus we need to start signing and paying guys to second contracts because it makes us more attractive to young free agents.
-
I don't get the obsessive n with Foster. We have Collins and Kirksey. The Browns are going to be in a 4-2-5 defense 80% of the time. Why would we invest a first round pick on someone who won't be on the field most of the time?
Foster is one of those special athletes that can take on just about any role in the defensive back 7 that does not have CB attached to it. He's one of those Kuechly type players that can read plays so fast that he often gets near handoffs or covers TE's and RBs out of the backfield if he's not eating the QB for lunch. Just too great a player to pass up if we have a legit shot at him.
There are very very good FSs that will be there in Rnd 2. There will not be for MLB/ILBs.
Foster is one of those special athletes that can take on just about any role in the defensive back 7 that does not have CB attached to it. He's one of those Kuechly type players that can read plays so fast that he often gets near handoffs or covers TE's and RBs out of the backfield if he's not eating the QB for lunch. Just too great a player to pass up if we have a legit shot at him.
This... and I'll add that a Collins-Foster-Kirksey LB-crew allows you to play your base more. It's the kind of crew that can fuel a D that dictates what an O must do. So long as there is a TE and an RB on the field, this crew can work.
"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 -
There are very very good FSs that will be there in Rnd 2. There will not be for MLB/ILBs.
Foster is one of those special athletes that can take on just about any role in the defensive back 7 that does not have CB attached to it. He's one of those Kuechly type players that can read plays so fast that he often gets near handoffs or covers TE's and RBs out of the backfield if he's not eating the QB for lunch. Just too great a player to pass up if we have a legit shot at him.
This... and I'll add that a Collins-Foster-Kirksey LB-crew allows you to play your base more. It's the kind of crew that can fuel a D that dictates what an O must do. So long as there is a TE and an RB on the field, this crew can work.
There are very very good FSs that will be there in Rnd 2. There will not be for MLB/ILBs.
This... and I'll add that a Collins-Foster-Kirksey LB-crew allows you to play your base more. It's the kind of crew that can fuel a D that dictates what an O must do. So long as there is a TE and an RB on the field, this crew can work.
Okay, but do you really want to play your base more? To what end? What makes playing your base more attractive when teams are trotting out 3-receiver sets more often than not?
-
There are very very good FSs that will be there in Rnd 2. There will not be for MLB/ILBs.
This... and I'll add that a Collins-Foster-Kirksey LB-crew allows you to play your base more. It's the kind of crew that can fuel a D that dictates what an O must do. So long as there is a TE and an RB on the field, this crew can work.
Okay, but do you really want to play your base more? To what end? What makes playing your base more attractive when teams are trotting out 3-receiver sets more often than not?
Okay, but do you really want to play your base more? To what end? What makes playing your base more attractive when teams are trotting out 3-receiver sets more often than not?
I want to play my best unit as much as possible. What team doesn't?
Why do 3WR sets scare Ds into nickel sets?
"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 -
I don't get the obsessive n with Foster. We have Collins and Kirksey. The Browns are going to be in a 4-2-5 defense 80% of the time. Why would we invest a first round pick on someone who won't be on the field most of the time?
I don't get the obsessive n with Foster. We have Collins and Kirksey. The Browns are going to be in a 4-2-5 defense 80% of the time. Why would we invest a first round pick on someone who won't be on the field most of the time?
I didn't intend to but when I watched film of Allen; but Foster was jumping off the screen with his instincts and God givens flying to the football. He made everyone else on the best defense look like they were in slow motion in comparison, which is pretty tough to do. It felt like I was saying who the flock of seagulls was that repeatedly. Rewind. It's Foster again.
-
I want to play my best unit as much as possible. What team doesn't?
Why do 3WR sets scare Ds into nickel sets?
Because of the potential mismatch that the third wide receiver presents if a linebacker were to cover them.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
so Foster, being explosive, fast, etc etc etc... lets the base defense set be
more versatile........ I keep watching film of Foster, he has instincts that
other players just don't have. He is amazing. and he can back up his instincts
with serious quickness, strength and skill.
-
Because of the potential mismatch that the third wide receiver presents if a linebacker were to cover them.
And that is exactly what a player like Foster can do like no other LB out there. Plus it's also under my contention that we go with BPA, not position chasing. If he is still there (a huge IF), take him @#12. I might even consider trading up for this guy. Combine him with Garrett and who we already have and this is instantly a D to recon with. Add a S and CB the second day and then you have instant Browns fans filling seats in NE Ohio.
-
Because of the potential mismatch that the third wide receiver presents if a linebacker were to cover them.
And that is exactly what a player like Foster can do like no other LB out there. Plus it's also under my contention that we go with BPA, not position chasing. If he is still there (a huge IF), take him @#12. I might even consider trading up for this guy. Combine him with Garrett and who we already have and this is instantly a D to recon with. Add a S and CB the second day and then you have instant Browns fans filling seats in NE Ohio.
And that is exactly what a player like Foster can do like no other LB out there.
Foster runs a 4.6 40 time - according to the college. You look up and down the league at third receivers and they don't run a 4.6 40 time. Hawkins and Gabriel for a start. Tedd Ginn. Tyler Lockett. Tyreek Hill. You want Foster covering those guys?
I could get behind the thinking that you can remove a *safety* for a nickel back because Foster can play both the OLB/SS role in those downs potentially, but suggesting he's as effective as a straight corner back is just crazy.
-
Because of the potential mismatch that the third wide receiver presents if a linebacker were to cover them.
Now we understand why BB is a big fan of using zone coverages.
He never asked LBers Bruschi or Vrabel to cover WRs or RBs. He asked them to cover a hook zone or flats and close on the football thrown to any opponent in that area. In the process, we'd occasionally see Bruschi in big games beating faster athletes to the football because of his schematic positioning and instincts.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
Because of the potential mismatch that the third wide receiver presents if a linebacker were to cover them.
Then use a DB... last I looked at a base 4-3 there were still 4 out there.
"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 -
Because of the potential mismatch that the third wide receiver presents if a linebacker were to cover them.
Now we understand why BB is a big fan of using zone coverages.
He never asked LBers Bruschi or Vrabel to cover WRs or RBs. He asked them to cover a hook zone or flats and close on the football thrown to any opponent in that area. In the process, we'd occasionally see Bruschi in big games beating faster athletes to the football because of his schematic positioning and instincts.
Now we understand why BB is a big fan of using zone coverages.
He never asked LBers Bruschi or Vrabel to cover WRs or RBs. He asked them to cover a hook zone or flats and close on the football thrown to any opponent in that area. In the process, we'd occasionally see Bruschi in big games beating faster athletes to the football because of his schematic positioning and instincts.
Even Bill gets caught... Ninkovich victimized on AtL's last TD, but still you have to play to your strengths.
-
Then use a DB... last I looked at a base 4-3 there were still 4 out there.
That works if your defense employs safeties with man coverage capabilities, but most safeties are used in deep zone coverage on pass plays. That's why they are called safeties, they are the last line of defense against a pass attack. You put them in man-coverage at your own risk.
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