Browns Draft Needs
-
Base sets have less and less LBs now, not worth the money
...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late. The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.
...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late. The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.
Because the analytics are showing it's more valuable to throw, so offenses pass the ball more, so defenses spend more time defending the pass.
I guess this could keep shifting so far that direction that in 5 years the best offense in the league is running behind a Brandon Jacobs like Runningback that just throws the hybrid DBs off of him haha
-
...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late. The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.
Because the analytics are showing it's more valuable to throw, so offenses pass the ball more, so defenses spend more time defending the pass.
I guess this could keep shifting so far that direction that in 5 years the best offense in the league is running behind a Brandon Jacobs like Runningback that just throws the hybrid DBs off of him haha
Because the analytics are showing it's more valuable to throw, so offenses pass the ball more, so defenses spend more time defending the pass.
I guess this could keep shifting so far that direction that in 5 years the best offense in the league is running behind a Brandon Jacobs like Runningback that just throws the hybrid DBs off of him haha
There's a large reason the last decade+ many offenses in college and NFL base their running games on "spread for power".
Brian Westbrook types and perimeter runners gave way to the Marshawn Lynch and Michael Turner backs.
-
Base sets have less and less LBs now, not worth the money
...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late. The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.
...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late. The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.
Most teams, since we're speaking of analytics, have a stable of running backs with various skill sets. Look at the Patriots the last 7-8 years a primary example. Unless you find a very special runner, front offices don't like paying 10+mil for ball carriers.
And even when you have that special runner, said teams are still rather, Shall I say... leary? - of paying that kind of cash.
-
So, OK, explain this comment from above to me:
Analytically-driven front offices don't typically invest heavily at linebacker, and the Browns are no exception.
So WTF is that all about? Why would analytics say "don't invest in LBs".
Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB.
Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.
Regarding the list, DT is a need too.
Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB.
Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.
Regarding the list, DT is a need too.
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
-
Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB.
Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.
Regarding the list, DT is a need too.
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
The unit needs attention...that’s why you hear the name Lavante David and lots of Analyst saying LB early. I’m not saying forget it.
For starters, I keep Wilson off the field. He was awful last year tackling and effort.Also we were top 10 fewest rushing yards allowed. Granted we had some awful games. Ravens x2, Raiders game that showed us we aren’t really that good. And teams were more occupied with taking advantage of our pass defense and injured secondary.
Phillips may show you something in a full healthy season, Taki appears to be a competent rotational piece as are/were Goodson and Smith if they are in the plans still.
I’d love to see a linebacker make a tackle behind the line of scrimmage. I think Phillips made one at the end of last year. Maybe sprinkle in some coverage where the QB has to come off of a RB or TE because they are covered by our LB.
-
Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB.
Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.
Regarding the list, DT is a need too.
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run?
And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?
And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
...and that's why it's slightly easier to run the ball of late. The catch is, today's RB's are being asked to be good receivers and route runners, so LB'ers would have to be able to cover them in space...so that makes the LB'er more of a Safety.
Most teams, since we're speaking of analytics, have a stable of running backs with various skill sets. Look at the Patriots the last 7-8 years a primary example. Unless you find a very special runner, front offices don't like paying 10+mil for ball carriers.
And even when you have that special runner, said teams are still rather, Shall I say... leary? - of paying that kind of cash.
Most teams, since we're speaking of analytics, have a stable of running backs with various skill sets. Look at the Patriots the last 7-8 years a primary example. Unless you find a very special runner, front offices don't like paying 10+mil for ball carriers.
And even when you have that special runner, said teams are still rather, Shall I say... leary? - of paying that kind of cash.
This is the football world that we live in. We have to take full advantage of our time with Chubb and Hunt in the same RB room. One really isn't the backup to the other. They are both 1st string players. We never have to rest the feature back. They're both feature backs. That's weaponry.
-
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run?
And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?
And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?
How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run?
And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?
And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
-
How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run?
And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?
And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!
...
We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?
-
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!
...
We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?
Yes, why don't we just get players that are good at everything? Genius! It's so simple!
Not at everything...at the position they play. Yes, players should be good at the functions of their positions.
...
We only put up 6 points against the Raiders. Was that loss really because we couldn't stop the run?
Partly, yes. The Raiders completely controlled the ball and sure, our offense didn't have a good day, but they had limited opportunities.
Note the time of possession:
Time of Possession Raiders 37:43 Browns 22.17 That was accomplished by running the ball down our throats.
-
How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run?
And in those games, how many were the result of not having "decent" linebackers?
And what is the tradeoff in other areas if we were to put in linebackers that were better against the run but worse in other areas?
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets
-
Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020
If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season. Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.
If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
To your second question: How about getting some LBs that are good in all areas of the position? Or at least try.
To the first question: Raiders game, Jets game, both Ravens games. Chiefs game.
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets
One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser).
Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing.
Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns.
None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets.
Sure, the pass defense also left a lot to be desired. But 3 of their 5 losses were games in which they gave up the most rushing yards.
Something that "helped" our run defense is the fact that in several games the Browns got huge leads...Dallas, Steeler playoff game and a few others, so the other team was forced to throw the ball all over the yard.
And just because the Ravens did have a good run game does not mean that the Browns could not have put up a better fight there. 231 yards was the nadir of their performance in the late game against the Ratfuckers. Our overall offense actually fairly well outperformed the Raves, Gaining 493 total yards compared to 385 for them. That, in a 5 point loss.
-
Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020
If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season. Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.
If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.
Trend of all Browns defensive alignments 2007-2020
If LB is the solution, I don't know what problem is being identified.. We were in 4-2-5 by far the most [2/3] of any formation last season. Competent assignment execution is always required for any play to not bust in the NFL.
If we didn't have such incompetence&injury at DB in 2020, we likely would have played even fewer LB snaps than what we saw.
As I said, the "trend" was that their regular season losses were the games in which they surrendered the most rushing yards. In fact, here are the stats re the highest run yards given up in order, and the result of the game
231 yards Lost 2d Ravens game
209 lost Raiders
140 won (2 pt win over Jags)
131 lost Jets
129 lost 1st Steelers game
123 lost (Chiefs postseason
111 lost 1st Ravens game
106 won Eagles
103 won Washington
All other games they gave up less than 100 yards rushing. All were wins.
So, it seems to me that if the Browns could have kept the opponents to around 100 yards or less running...they win. ALL of their losses came when they gave up mor than 106 yards.
So, while absolutely the pass defense needs help, I just think there should be a bit of a higher priority on getting help for the run defense. If that means getting quality LBs, better DL, or a run stuffing SS....so be it.
-
And, I don't know if you want to call this Ironic, but the top 5 games in which the Browns gave up the fewest passing yards are as follows:
100 yards Lost Raiders
148 yards Lost Steelers first game
153 yards Won Texans
154 yards Lost Ravens second game
202 yards Lost Jets
On the other hand, here are the 5 games in which the Browns defense gave up the most passing yards:
501 Won Steelers playoff game
481 Won Cowboys
387 Won Bengals second game
369 Won Titans
315 Lost Chiefs game.
-
Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.
Cmon, man..
-
Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.
Cmon, man..
Browns defense gave up the 9th fewest rush yards per game and the 9th fewest rush yards overall. Henry was stuffed for only 60 total yards when we beat the Titans.. and much of those passing yards were garbage.
Cmon, man..
Of course, but, note, as I said before.....when the Browns got off to those big, big leads, that negates the opponents run game. E.g. Against the Titans and Henry, the Browns had a 38-7 lead at the half. So they were going to be chucking the ball all over the yard, not handing it off to Henry.
Naturally, to me anyway, that IS the way I want to control the other team's run game. Love those 38-7 halftime leads. Or the 41-14 lead the Browns had after 3 quarters vs. Dallas. Or 28-0 first quarter leads like over Pittsburgh.
-
Because the modern trend is they get replaced on third down by another DB.
Bigger stronger Mike Backers were more prevalent with traditional schemes but Now you have teams 4 wide on 1st down incorporating short pass games as their running game.
Regarding the list, DT is a need too.
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
Think Mike Hilton.
-
OK, sure, that makes sense what all of you have said, More passing begets the need for more pass defenders, except for one thing:
When a team, like the Browns can't stop the fucking run because they don't have decent linebackers. And they lose games because of it, Then what do you do?
Think Mike Hilton.
Think Mike Hilton.
OK: Mike Hilton. Tell us about him, and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.
-
OK: Mike Hilton. Tell us about him, and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.
Well...for starters Paris' highlights video is far more impressive than Mike's.
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