With the Twelfth pick ......
-
Similar reason I put Thomas second if Allen is gone.
Not a big disagreement, but do you really think that Solomon is big enough to play inside starting Day one?
-
And some team is, or teams are, going to "reach" for one of those RBs. Ditto for QB... Double ditto for WR...
That's how one of my "impact players" falls to 12.So, in addition to Garrett at 1, Id like one of the following at 12......(in this order).....Adams, Hooker, Lattimore, Thomas, Howard, Allen, foster, Williams.....
Same thought process... different ordering of players...
My list goes: Adams, Foster, Lattimore, Thomas, Howard, Allen, Hooker, Reddick
Adams and Foster are one-two for a couple reasons. First... they are thumpers. They'd instantly inject "attytude" and physicality into our D. Second, they're leaders. Not sure who has that role on our Defense ATM. And MG does not seem to be primed for that role. Add either and that question no longer exists.
The remainder of the list are a simple combo of talent as I see it and the gap in quality of the consolation prizes I see in Round 2.
If any of the names from Adams thru Hooker are there at 12, then I sprint to the podium with my pick. If Reddick is the only one there, then I at least answer the phone to see who is offering what. I really like Reddick. I see Clay Sr. ability in him, but the need at OLB is less.
I can't put a WR in the mix at 12. Too many options in a deep WR class. Too easy to add a WR "down the road" if we find the position wanting after this season.
(damn iggles.....they won too many games because of the QB that we should've had)
That there is the kind of circular set up Kirk used to blow up Nomad... "Must sterilize!"
And some team is, or teams are, going to "reach" for one of those RBs. Ditto for QB... Double ditto for WR...
That's how one of my "impact players" falls to 12.
My list goes: Adams, Foster, Lattimore, Thomas, Howard, Allen, Hooker, Reddick
Adams and Foster are one-two for a couple reasons. First... they are thumpers. They'd instantly inject "attytude" and physicality into our D. Second, they're leaders. Not sure who has that role on our Defense ATM.
If any of the names from Adams thru Hooker are there at 12, then I sprint to the podium with my pick. If Reddick is the only one there, then I at least answer the phone to see who is offering what. I really like Reddick. I see Clay Sr. ability in him, but the need at OLB is less.
I can't put a WR in the mix at 12. Too many options in a deep WR class. Too easy to add a WR "down the road" if we find the position wanting after this season.
Gotta say that Foster was(is) high on my list too......BUT, when i have that list of elites, then it's usually minor things that can differentiate between the best and next best candidates.....and(for me) Foster has a couple negatives that Im not finding with the other candidates.....
#1 - not a position of need, compared to the others.....DE - DT - FS -SS - CB.......>>>>>....then ILB....and thats a biggie, when those "need" guys are there
#2 - he seems like a prick. And I understand he can be a prick and still be a great player....but is he the type of prick we want added to our team?......Im not sure, either way....which raises some concern(that I dont have with the others)......
perhaps the type of concern that can prevent a consensus??
Im down with your thoughts on WR.....In the end, I highly doubt I could actually pull the trigger on WR at 12
O.J. Howard in NFL Draft 2017: 5 reasons the Browns should pick him
http://www.cleveland.com/nfl-draft/index.ssf/2017/04/oj_howard_innfl_draft_20175_re.html
I would say it's hard to find reasons NOT to draft him.....
Take a look and see hat you think. Seems pretty damn stout/quick to get through gaps.
Looks good to me .......I think he'd do fine inside.....
-
I simply don't see a 273# DT surviving a year in the NFL trenches. Maybe someday as his body matures I move him inside, but in my 2017 base, he's a DE.
Situational packages? By all means... step on in... except goalline...
If Foster is only a prick to opponents and candy-strippers... I can live with that. Before the Combine thing, when he his interview clock was running as he waited for medical procedures, did anyone hear he had temper issues? I didn't...
As for need... here comes my sermon again... it's a tiebreaker... period. So when I recognized Adams' and Foster's leadership potential and "attytude" infusion they separated themselves in my mind from the other names I like at 12. They became a subset group of two. Within their new group SS>MLB
-
I know I've seen Jonathan Allen slightly start to slide in the eyes of the "experts", but I have to believe that's total garbage. He might not be #2 anymore, or maybe he is, but I really don't see him escaping the top 5 or 6. His production was simply too massive, and the fact that he played for Alabama places him at near God like status in the eyes of many talent evaluators who LOVE the SEC. That being said, if I'm somehow wrong, I'd absolutely KILL to have both him and Garrett on day 1. It'd be the "A++" first round draft grade. Also, if one of the QB's we happen to like is still on the board in the low 20's, watch for us to attempt to trade in front of Houston and come away with three first round players. I'm not sure I'd necessarily AGREE with this, but then again, if Hue Jackson feels our QB of the future is there to go and get, I guess I'd have to understand. Right now, my favorite QB is Mitchell Trubisky. He's not going to last that long, and I keep going back to Deshaun Watson. I understand his throwing velocity was scary awful, and I get that he played in a wonky offensive system, and I also understand that he played with good talent that bailed him out all too often...but I keep wondering if Watson is just "a guy who can play the game", and someone who rises above the measureables. The guy I compare him to is Russell Wilson. As I've said before, I watched Russell Wilson terrify Florida State for years, and then I watched him kick MORE ass playing for Wisconsin. I was SCREAMING to draft this guy because he was someone who just appeared to know how to play the damn game. He was short, and scouts wanted to know how in the hell he'd see over the OL. Teams couldn't get over things like small hands (not sure of his hand size, just an example), being under a certain height, or whatever else. Now, Russell was a totally different player than Watson, and I get that. Russell has a very accurate, quick-paced throwing style. Watson does not. However, I keep thinking that what Watson did in college on the biggest stage...might mean more than some people think. And I get that the NFL is littered with college players who dominated the field, but can't get off the bench in the pros. I get that Tim Tebow dominated college football and eventually flamed out. I know I'm rambling, but I can see a situation where Watson turns into a solid player because of aspects that can't be measured in testing.
EDIT: One more thing, Mud. I think one of your guys will be available to us for the reasons I mentioned in my first rambling response, LOL, PLUS the fact Hassan Reddick has a chance to go in the top 11. I've been reading more and more about him, and teams seem to be interested in what he brings to the table.
-
I know I've seen Jonathan Allen slightly start to slide in the eyes of the "experts", but I have to believe that's total garbage. He might not be #2 anymore, or maybe he is, but I really don't see him escaping the top 5 or 6. His production was simply too massive, and the fact that he played for Alabama places him at near God like status in the eyes of many talent evaluators who LOVE the SEC. That being said, if I'm somehow wrong, I'd absolutely KILL to have both him and Garrett on day 1. It'd be the "A++" first round draft grade. Also, if one of the QB's we happen to like is still on the board in the low 20's, watch for us to attempt to trade in front of Houston and come away with three first round players. I'm not sure I'd necessarily AGREE with this, but then again, if Hue Jackson feels our QB of the future is there to go and get, I guess I'd have to understand. Right now, my favorite QB is Mitchell Trubisky. He's not going to last that long, and I keep going back to Deshaun Watson. I understand his throwing velocity was scary awful, and I get that he played in a wonky offensive system, and I also understand that he played with good talent that bailed him out all too often...but I keep wondering if Watson is just "a guy who can play the game", and someone who rises above the measureables. The guy I compare him to is Russell Wilson. As I've said before, I watched Russell Wilson terrify Florida State for years, and then I watched him kick MORE ass playing for Wisconsin. I was SCREAMING to draft this guy because he was someone who just appeared to know how to play the damn game. He was short, and scouts wanted to know how in the hell he'd see over the OL. Teams couldn't get over things like small hands (not sure of his hand size, just an example), being under a certain height, or whatever else. Now, Russell was a totally different player than Watson, and I get that. Russell has a very accurate, quick-paced throwing style. Watson does not. However, I keep thinking that what Watson did in college on the biggest stage...might mean more than some people think. And I get that the NFL is littered with college players who dominated the field, but can't get off the bench in the pros. I get that Tim Tebow dominated college football and eventually flamed out. I know I'm rambling, but I can see a situation where Watson turns into a solid player because of aspects that can't be measured in testing.
EDIT: One more thing, Mud. I think one of your guys will be available to us for the reasons I mentioned in my first rambling response, LOL, PLUS the fact Hassan Reddick has a chance to go in the top 11. I've been reading more and more about him, and teams seem to be interested in what he brings to the table.
... I keep going back to Deshaun Watson.
Ditto... but not at 12...
-
Attaboy, Terry...
Cleveland Browns please, PLEASE don't force quarterback issue in draft! -- Terry Pluto (video, photos)
Cleveland Browns: Terry Pluto says, let's think defense during the draft
By Terry Pluto, The Plain Dealer on April 07, 2017 at 6:31 AM, updated April 07, 2017 at 6:36 AM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Do the Cleveland Browns need to take a quarterback in the 2017 NFL Draft?Absolutely, positively ... yes ... with an asterisk.
The asterisk is not with the No. 1 or No. 12 picks.
Maybe I'm having quarterback fatigue. Or maybe I'm just coming to my senses.
But the quarterback obsession will lead to some horrible first-round picks in this draft.
I don't want the Browns making that mistake.
I have some other ideas.
Let's talk about it!
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index.ssf/2017/04/cleveland_browns_pleasepleased.html
-
We should only draft a QB if we trade down from 12 to 22 first
-
... I keep going back to Deshaun Watson.
Ditto... but not at 12...
-
solomon thomas is NOT a DT. Why on earth would any of you want a guy like that rushing from the inside which isn't his forte? IF we were to draft Thomas at 12, which he won't be there but if, he would be the other DE opposite Garrett. Even if Thomas slides to 12 we'd be dumbasses to draft him instead of taking Howard or one of those ridiculous safeties.
-
I know I've seen Jonathan Allen slightly start to slide in the eyes of the "experts", but I have to believe that's total garbage. He might not be #2 anymore, or maybe he is, but I really don't see him escaping the top 5 or 6. His production was simply too massive, and the fact that he played for Alabama places him at near God like status in the eyes of many talent evaluators who LOVE the SEC. That being said, if I'm somehow wrong, I'd absolutely KILL to have both him and Garrett on day 1. It'd be the "A++" first round draft grade. Also, if one of the QB's we happen to like is still on the board in the low 20's, watch for us to attempt to trade in front of Houston and come away with three first round players. I'm not sure I'd necessarily AGREE with this, but then again, if Hue Jackson feels our QB of the future is there to go and get, I guess I'd have to understand. Right now, my favorite QB is Mitchell Trubisky. He's not going to last that long, and I keep going back to Deshaun Watson. I understand his throwing velocity was scary awful, and I get that he played in a wonky offensive system, and I also understand that he played with good talent that bailed him out all too often...but I keep wondering if Watson is just "a guy who can play the game", and someone who rises above the measureables. The guy I compare him to is Russell Wilson. As I've said before, I watched Russell Wilson terrify Florida State for years, and then I watched him kick MORE ass playing for Wisconsin. I was SCREAMING to draft this guy because he was someone who just appeared to know how to play the damn game. He was short, and scouts wanted to know how in the hell he'd see over the OL. Teams couldn't get over things like small hands (not sure of his hand size, just an example), being under a certain height, or whatever else. Now, Russell was a totally different player than Watson, and I get that. Russell has a very accurate, quick-paced throwing style. Watson does not. However, I keep thinking that what Watson did in college on the biggest stage...might mean more than some people think. And I get that the NFL is littered with college players who dominated the field, but can't get off the bench in the pros. I get that Tim Tebow dominated college football and eventually flamed out. I know I'm rambling, but I can see a situation where Watson turns into a solid player because of aspects that can't be measured in testing.
EDIT: One more thing, Mud. I think one of your guys will be available to us for the reasons I mentioned in my first rambling response, LOL, PLUS the fact Hassan Reddick has a chance to go in the top 11. I've been reading more and more about him, and teams seem to be interested in what he brings to the table.
I know I'm rambling, but I can see a situation where Watson turns into a solid player because of aspects that can't be measured in testing.
...IMMEASURABLES........IT DOES NOT COMPUTE........IMMEASURABLES......IT DOES NOT COMPUTE.....
That also explains Kessler. He won a lot of games in a time of turmoil in college.
Judging by what was done in last year's draft, we won't draft a QB in round 1.
But adding the factor of 'how thick the ice they're standing on is'...it could make them panic in the war room.
-
"I think the Browns have a chance to have a really good defense", "The Browns need an identity" -TP
No argument here.
-
"I think the Browns have a chance to have a really good defense", "The Browns need an identity" -TP
No argument here.
"I think the Browns have a chance to have a really good defense", "The Browns need an NEW identity" -TP
No argument here.
Fify
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