@kentlife said:

tell that to casey hampton

and haynesworth

Last I checked those were big guys who had been documented for being lazy by how the acted on the field and in practice and Taylor is just a 334 pound DL. The only comparison I am seeing between all these players is size, so your argument would be that anyone above a certain weight in football is lazy even though there are several 330 plus DL players in the NFL who have great work ethics and stamina. Don't count this kid as lazy just because of his size while there is documented proof that he works hard and played more snaps than most of the DL players that cam out in this draft.

Taylor is young, and a very big kid, and he's a player who loves the game. You watch him on film and he's scary.

Hillis-iz-Boss said:

For the 10th time Taylor played 80 snaps a game last season, there isn't any reason he can't do it for the Browns next season. Heavy weight does not mean lazy.

tell that to casey hampton

and haynesworth

@mdhq said:

Taylor has to be on the field on 3rd down for this to happen. He has the size, I really hope that he works on conditioning he could be the next beast NT.

For the 10th time Taylor played 80 snaps a game last season, there isn't any reason he can't do it for the Browns next season. Heavy weight does not mean lazy.

Hillis-iz-Boss said:

But we are not going to know until he gets back on the field this season. I personally don't think a poor player who just happen to be the best person on defense is going to put up numbers like he did just because.

Jackson, when he was playing and when he was healthy, was at best an average LB. I do not list him as a starter because he hasn't played in 2 years.

Let's put it this way: with the Browns going to the 4-3, Dairy Queen isn't going to make the list of 4-3 MLB greats alongside the likes of Dick Butkus, Ray Nitscke, Jack Lambert, Ray Lewis,Joe Schmidt, Sam Huff, Mike Singletary, Chuck Bednarik, Willie Lanier or even current guys like Patrick Willis and Brian Urlacher. He will be lucky if he is mentioned with Tom Cousineau.

In next year's draft there may be a few MLB prospects worth looking at:

Vontaze Burfict of Arizona State

Luke Kuechly of Boston College

Manti Te'o of Notre Dame

Hillis-iz-Boss said:

yea but he is the player who has played for the Browns the longest, being drafted in 2006.

Actually, long snapper Ryan Pontbriand has been here longer. He was drafted in like '04 or '03. And of course don't forget Phil Dawson who has been here since 1999, though he wasn't drafted.

@choco said:

And if I recall.....our offense sucked which meant the D spent alot of time on the field. So the data may be skewed due to the number of playshe was on the field.

He may have been the best of a terrible defensive unit....that does not mean he's good by any stretch.

But we are not going to know until he gets back on the field this season. I personally don't think a poor player who just happen to be the best person on defense is going to put up numbers like he did just because.

He may have been the best of a terrible defensive unit....that does not mean he's good by any stretch.

Anything besides number of tackles that makes u think he's worth a roster spot?

@choco said:

Occupying a roster spot isn't much use in this discussion....been here 5 years, played (poorly) for only 3.

He has actually played well the years he wasn't on IR. I don't know how you can consider the season he had 150 tackles a poor performance.

Hillis-iz-Boss said:

You forgot about Jackson.

D'Qwell Jackson? He hasn't started in two years with injuries and I am not sure he will be a starter this coming season.

@choco said:

I was alluding to what Hopper is saying. In an ideal world, homo is right. Bringing along the rookies at their own pace is perhaps the best for development. But to do that in the case of the browns is to admit that we are giving up before the year begins to get luck next year.

U need organizational stability to bring on the rookies sllowly....and that's something the steelers have and browns don't. So while the idea is good, its not practical when switching systems under a new coach. That's just the reality. We need players, as we barely have enough to complete a roster. Age caught up to us as well so we have to get young fast. Trial by fire....

It is also true when so many of a team's former draft picks didn't pan out. As I see it, right now, the only starters on this team that have been Browns draftees are:

Lawrence Vickers drafted in 2006....if he stays with the team and starts

Joe Thomas drafted in 2007

Eric Wright drafted in 2007....if you consider him starter. Right now more the nickelback

Ahtyba Rubin drafted in 2008

Alex Mack, Robo, MoMass, drafted in 2009

McCoy, Haden, Ward drafted in 2010

Look at the dearth of 4-5-6 year drafted veterans that most decent teams should have. If Vickers is gone and Wright is a backup that would leave us with 1 player of that nature: JT.

I would suspect that a team like the Steelers or Ravens would probably have 10-12 of their 4-5-6 year veteran draftees playing for them, wouldn't they? Maybe Robotron can tell us.

I just know that the Browns DON'T have those players as they should, and so, yes, there may indeed be an unfortunate reliance on the rookies that are going to be brought in.

U need organizational stability to bring on the rookies sllowly....and that's something the steelers have and browns don't. So while the idea is good, its not practical when switching systems under a new coach. That's just the reality. We need players, as we barely have enough to complete a roster. Age caught up to us as well so we have to get young fast. Trial by fire....

@the-gipper said:

From the Browns official website, these are the names of the people that play DL for the Browns that show up on their roster:

Titus Adams

Travis Ivy

Jayme Mitchell

Scott Paxson

Ko Quaye

Derreck Robinson

Ahtyba Rubin

Brian Sanford

Brian Schaefering

Robaire Smith

Other than Smith, Schaefering and Rubin I do not recall ever hearing any of these other names called making a tackle when the Browns played this year. Do you?

Robinson saw some time and showed some promise, especially in preseason. He should be able to convert to a 4-3 LDE occasionally and also see action at the 3 technique.

Mitchell is not signed yet, but by all accounts Heckert likes him and thinks he could be a nice edge rusher, basically insinuating EM didn't use him like he should have.

Titus Adams

Travis Ivy

Jayme Mitchell

Scott Paxson

Ko Quaye

Derreck Robinson

Ahtyba Rubin

Brian Sanford

Brian Schaefering

Robaire Smith

Other than Smith, Schaefering and Rubin I do not recall ever hearing any of these other names called making a tackle when the Browns played this year. Do you?

Homotron said:

I totally agree and that wasn't a direct comparison. Dip sh.it zombo just took it that way. It was said that the rookies that started and failed just sucked and I argued that Couch would have been just fine had he not been rushed under center with absolutely NOTHING around him. The Browns organization ruined Tim Couch. It wasn't because lack of talent, that was my point. Phil Taylor should be fine but then people go on to mention Sheard and 2 others. Little was/is VERY raw and missed a lot of time. I just wouldn't be comfortable with 4 rookies starting. One or two fine, but 4? Most of the time that only happens in time of substantial injury. Insert GB of last year as well as the Steelers. Only we had to emergency sign Adams and put Pouncey in at center.

Well, you know, the Browns have the same kind of emergency, unfortunately. The don't have people to play those positions. Especially the D-Line. Maybe at WR they can give Little some time to develop by putting Robo and MoMass in there, but at DLine with the release of Shaun Rogers they really don't have the bodies to fill in. Shear and Taylor will have to come in and contribute right away. Oh, I suppose they could put Schaefering in.....or some street FA that is basically a roster filler, but unless they go out and really get something of quality in whatever FA field will be out there, these two rooks may be the best the Browns have.

@the-gipper said:

I think it is less a problem with a DT than it is for say a QB.

I totally agree and that wasn't a direct comparison. Dip sh.it zombo just took it that way. It was said that the rookies that started and failed just sucked and I argued that Couch would have been just fine had he not been rushed under center with absolutely NOTHING around him. The Browns organization ruined Tim Couch. It wasn't because lack of talent, that was my point. Phil Taylor should be fine but then people go on to mention Sheard and 2 others. Little was/is VERY raw and missed a lot of time. I just wouldn't be comfortable with 4 rookies starting. One or two fine, but 4? Most of the time that only happens in time of substantial injury. Insert GB of last year as well as the Steelers. Only we had to emergency sign Adams and put Pouncey in at center.

Zombo said:

Shut up, Homotron. The Packers started four rookies last year, sometimes five.

Were their fans "REALLY Uncomfortable" that they had a rookie TE, rookie RT, two rookie LBs and a rookie Safety? Hell, they never trailed by more than a TD the entire year.

You play the best players. Phil Taylor will be starting at DT ... that's good for the Browns. DT is not QB, your Tim Couch comparison is laughable. If three other rookies are ready to lineup on oppening day, than that means they were better than the guy that used to play that spot. Just shut up ... why do you have to keep arguing when you are forced into talking out your ass? Just quietly slip away and maybe we'll forget how stupid you are until next time.

Zombo

They HAD to start those rookies because a absurd amount of injuries just like the Steelers. I'd say that's a big difference. I'm also not saying the rookies aren't possibly capable but rather may be forced into the lineup because there isn't anything better. Which in my opinion isn't a positive but rather a negative. I like Phil Taylor and would have liked to have him as a Casey Hampton replacement. I just find it odd that some are excited about 4 rookies starting or possibly starting. It's not a positive. I just means you have sh.it else to start.

Homotron said:

Don't discredit the potential for free agents if and when this lock out ever ends. I'd say one of the worst things you can do with a rookie is throw him into the starting line up when he's not ready. It has the potential to kill confidence and form bad habits.

I think it is less a problem with a DT than it is for say a QB.