@thaak said:

Right now, we only have three safeties under contract, Elam, Adams and Ventrone. I certainly don't want Ventrone as FS.

Don't forget Sorenson

@jasont44094 said:

He's a serviceable starter. Not stellar, but he's serviceable.

Right now, we only have three safeties under contract, Elam, Adams and Ventrone. I certainly don't want Ventrone as FS.

@thaak said:

ROFL. You serious, i'm talking about a legit starter.

@jasont44094 said:

What about Adams?

@the-gipper said:

The term 'need' is relative. We did upgrade at QB, LB, RT, and CB which I know isn't saying much but we could justify ignoring all 4 of those positions in the 1st round. We probably won't though because the best player available at #7 will probably be at S/CB. For instance, if we took best available last year it would have been because it didn't matter what position it was, it was an upgrade. This year, we have more leverage and that's why I think we'll be looking at best player available. And that's a position I like being in.

@mopaji said:

We can choose the best out of multiple positions because, unfortuneatley we have needs at all those positions LB, CB, S, RB, G, or WR.

@miktoxic said:

I think we need a safety more at this point....though certainly a quality corner is still a need. The problem is the Browns need a lot, so maybe they should just go out and get the best guy out there.

@jasont44094 said:

Good point! Actually, I thought about that over my lunch break.

@jasont44094 said:

That is an incredibly incomplete way of looking at things.

I say this for two reasons:

1) From a draft board creation procedure, if a team absolutely does not want a particular player, they will remove him from the draft board. No matter how much skill the player may have. Amongst probably other reasons, this is done for character, injury, and/or lack of need. Dez Bryant is probably one removed for character reasons. The top rated center and long snapper are probably removed for lack of need. Some players may be so skilled, that you leave them on the board despite lack of need, much as the Vikings did with Adrian Peterson. But regardless, each teams draft board is going to look different. If a player is on their draft board, that means they think he’s worth drafting. Then they assign values to each player. Is he worth a top 10? Is he worth a 1st rounder? Is he worth a 5th rounder? If a the Best Player Available (BPA) is valued in the top10 to 15, and they can’t trade out of the #7 overall, they take him. For example, lets say that, in order, the Browns top 11 looks like Suh, McCoy, Bradford, Okung, Berry, Baluga, D Williams, T Williams, Haden, Spiller, Morgan… and Okung falls to #7 but Suh, McCoy, and Bradford are off the board. They take Okung (don’t debate this yet, take a look at my 2nd reason below). But if Suh, McCoy, Bradford, Okung, Berry, Baluga are all off the board, and the Browns for whatever reason have removed D Williams, T Williams, and Haden from the board, they take Spiller at #7. Teams might also rate players on there board in order, somewhat based on need. In other words, they might rate Bradford #1 overall because they need a QB more than they need Suh or McCoy.

2) The Browns right side of the offensive line is still very questionable, even with the addition of Pashos. I mean Womack/Pashos G/T on the right side (interchangeable?) might be a one or two season stop gap at best anyways. So they need a RT or RG in the draft. That’s why Okung, Baluga, or Campbell might be options. There are some Guards that are rated 18th through 32nd on the draft board. If the Browns trade back, they may pick up a Guard.

So yes, there is a ton of smoke and mirrors leading up to a draft. And depending on how you put your draft board together, you may skew it slightly based on need, but overall you should draft BPA regardless of any specific needs. For example: If the Browns have Odrick rated as a #18 to 24 and They have Haden, Spiller, and Dan Williams available, which they have rated #6 to 15, they take one of the later three instead of Odrick, unless they can trade back to where they have him valued.

BPA drafting doesn’t mean you don’t try to target specific players and specific positions, but you don’t reach for those positions if the value isn’t there.

@mopaji said:

No I am saying that hypothetically if we do really want someone, lets use Clausen as an example, we could smokescreen and say that we dont want him so that teams later on wont feel the need to jump ahead of us to grab Clausen, thus the player we actually want (Clausen) is still there when we pick

@cribbs-is-the-man said:

Sorry...but you snuck in there.

That was at jason

@mopaji said:

He's saying we don't want Clausen and somebody leap frogs over us to take him someone like Berry could be available.

@cribbs-is-the-man said:

See, that doesn't make sense because what do we care if a team moves ahead of us to take a player that we don't want?

@choco said:

That was a pre draft trade agreement. Eli still wanted to be #1 overall like his brother but would not sign with San Diego. About our corners good enough for this year that you can grab another one in the 2nd or 3rd. Right now we don't have a starting fs, unless you think Sorenson is the answer.

@cribbs-is-the-man said:

I dont think saying we are picking the BPA is a smokescreen, we need help everywhere (except LT and C, maybe TE) and we should pick the most talented player that would best help out team

That's one of the points i was trying to make, thanks for explaining it for me.

@choco said:

Brown and Wright...and brown is out of his prime. Nothing after that....

Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?

C is center (Alex Mack), CB is corner. and no I dont think we are deep at the corner position

Brown and Wright...and brown is out of his prime. Nothing after that....

Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?

@mopaji said:

You don't say you're not taking a guy in order to confuse teams, that works against you and you have nothing to gain. So say if SF wants Haden and you say you're not taking him, well then, SF isn't going to worry about trading up if you're the only team that may need Haden. Afterall, you're not taking him right? Teams will then offer SF trades instead of you because you're not taking him anyways right? If you do end up taking him well then what's the point of lying about it? You gain nothing by saying you're not taking a guy.

However, if you express interest in say, Jimmy Clausen even thought you know you're not taking him (see Mike's recent backtrack on clausen) and SF may really like him. And if they think you want him and he may not be there for them, then they will start making offers to move up. That, is how it works. I think some people call it a 'smokescreen' whenever they don't agree with the statement.

A smokescreen could actually work the other way around as well. I am not saying that the Browns are doing this, but by saying you dont particularly like a player or saying you wont take him may make teams not trade a spot ahead of you and pick the guy. For example, HYPOTHETICALLY (I DONT think we're actually doing this), we could say we arent interested in Clausen so that SF or Buffalo wont trade to the #6 slot to pick Clausen, thats a smokescreen as well.

I dont think saying we are picking the BPA is a smokescreen, we need help everywhere (except LT and C, maybe TE) and we should pick the most talented player that would best help out team

@choco said:

OK...that's a first...

if its a position your really strong in. Only applies in the first round. Like us taking a LT or Indy or NE taking a qb ( and i'm talking about a hybred like Teabow ).

OK...that's a first...

@brownindian said:

Because we do, thats called being a fan.