Skip to content

Browns Draft Needs

The Browns Board
77 14 2.3k
  • @orion said:

    ...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.

    @tiamat63 said:

    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.  

  • @the-gipper said:

    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?

    @mld-woody said:

    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. 

  • @mld-woody said:

    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. 

    @the-gipper said:

    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?

  • @the-gipper said:

    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?

    @mld-woody said:

    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. 

  • @mld-woody said:

    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. 

    @the-gipper said:

    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-gipper said:

    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

    @gunz41 said:

    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.

    @unsympathetic said:

    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..

    @unsympathetic said:

    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. 

  • @sdbacker80 said:

    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?  

    @the-gipper said:

    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.

  • @the-gipper said:

    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.

    @barry said:

    Think Mike Hilton.

    OK:    Mike Hilton.   Tell us about him,   and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.   

    Paris Hilton

  • @barry said:

    Think Mike Hilton.

    OK:    Mike Hilton.   Tell us about him,   and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.   

    Paris Hilton

    @the-gipper said:

    OK:    Mike Hilton.   Tell us about him,   and how we can distinguish him from Paris Hilton.   

    Paris Hilton

    Well...for starters Paris' highlights video is far more impressive than Mike's.

  • 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". 

    @the-gipper said:

    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". 

    In a nut shell, speed and size.  They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.

    When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers.  People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.

  • I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending 

    My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3..  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/  Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen ?️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris ? 

  • @gunz41 said:

    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. 

    @the-gipper said:

    You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.

    But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.

    And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.

    But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.

    You mentioned BOTH Ravens games. 

    Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.

    And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in. 

    So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.

    To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters. 

    Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.

  • I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending 

    My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3..  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/  Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen ?️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris ? 

    @gumby73 said:

    I don't mind the need order...but I'd put LB ahead of a WR..Melvin Hall & Alexander Hollins were both added late.. both are young & faster than what we have.. results pending 

    My real main concern is, not losing our insurance CB3..  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2021/03/01/browns-nfl-draft-cornerbacks-jaycee-horn-free-agents-terrance-mitchell/6843439002/  Re-Sign Terrance Mitchell.. here... have a pen ?️ ..sign our own, we have enough defensive needs..Morning Paris ? 

    Kind of quiet on the Mitchell front but I’d argue he might be the most important FA we have. He put together a nice season and Greedy is a question mark at this level and his health is also a question mark.  If you take a look at the number of quality and middle of the road type DBs hitting free agency this year.  I’m confident the Browns can get something done without overpaying.

  • @the-gipper said:

    You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.

    But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.

    And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.

    But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.

    You mentioned BOTH Ravens games. 

    Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.

    And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in. 

    So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.

    To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters. 

    Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.

    @gunz41 said:

    You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed.

    But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct.

    And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game.

    But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley.

    You mentioned BOTH Ravens games. 

    Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game.

    And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in. 

    So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason.

    To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters. 

    Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.

    You may be talking about specific plays.    I am talking about games.  

    You can call what I say generalities, or you can say there are other factors in their losses,    but it still a simple sort of arrangement:     The more the Browns gave up in running yards,  the more likely they were to lose.   Six of their 7 losses were the games they gave up the most yards rushing.    I am not going to overthink that fact. 

    You bring up the passing yards the opponents threw for in a couple of games.  But it seems that giving up a lot of passing yards was not an apparent critical factor in their losing:   They won all the games in which they gave up the most passing yards. 

  • @the-gipper said:

    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". 

    In a nut shell, speed and size.  They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.

    When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers.  People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.

    @ballpeen said:

    In a nut shell, speed and size.  They don't have the size to hog offensive linemen and don't have the speed to cover modern tight ends or track down the modern QB.

    When you think about it, we were on the trend with the drafting of Peppers.  People complained that he wasn't big enough for what then was typical of linebackers and not really fast enough to be a true DB, but today, he is the perfect linebacker.

    Exactly, Peppers excels now and he did well for us when he was closer to the LOS. Covering the flat, jumping a TE curl route, blitzing and stuffing a run or chasing a QB.  The Center field coverage stuff part was his demise.
     

    We brought in Karl Joseph to fill that role.  And he did decently well close to LOS...it was the center field stuff that our D coordinator put him in that kind of flopped. 
     

    I think you can make a strong argument that Peppers and Joseph play the New LB role or even LB better than Mack Wilson.  
     

    Peppers is no longer on the team, Joseph may no longer be on team and if you are finding the next guy in line you need a center field coverage type complement with them.  Maybe it’s Ronnie Harrison? 
     

    So we have two maybe three holes depending on how you view Ronnie Harrison.