If you're already getting to the quarterback a lot, just "solving a problem twice" (Lombardi) doesn't really win you anything. I suspect with Kruger, Mingo, and Sheard, we'll be rattling the cage.

I agree, though, that it'd be nice to not need a bunch of starters really bad. Corner, safety, guard, TE seem possible but all could be solved already.

@the-gipper said:

I don't care who is there, if we had the chance to draft Clowney and passed, I find a strong rope and hang myself from my deck....it's a good 12 feet off the ground at one end.

This guy is a once every 25 year defensive player..... He dominates games every week. He'll do the same in the NFL after a season or two. I am thinking a little LeRoy Selmon, mixed with some Bruce Smith, with some Randy White punch them in the mouth attitude.....add in some Deacon Jones speed off the edge.

You don't pass that unless some village is missing their idiot.

@the-gipper said:

If the Browns are in position to take Clowney, and if it is believed that he is the talent that people think he is, then you take him regardless of need.

I am really hoping that this roster gets to the point where, in the draft, all the Browns have to say is: whoever the best player is out there, regardless of need, we take him. (The ONLY exception to this might be the QB position...you go for a QB high, you commit to him as your future starter.)

that's why even fans that didn't like the weeden pick (me included) hopes the guy steps up.

@shep said:

If the Browns are in position to take Clowney, and if it is believed that he is the talent that people think he is, then you take him regardless of need.

I am really hoping that this roster gets to the point where, in the draft, all the Browns have to say is: whoever the best player is out there, regardless of need, we take him. (The ONLY exception to this might be the QB position...you go for a QB high, you commit to him as your future starter.)

@mld-woody said:

Well, that is good. Though with the proliferation of new FBS schools, they don't have to dip into the FCS level.

Here is Ohio States non-conference opponents for the next several years:

2013: Buffalo, San Diego St., @ Cal, Florida A&M

2014: Navey, Kent St., Va. Tech, Cincinnati

2015: N. Illinois, @ Va. Tech, TBA

2016: Bowling Green, Tulsa, @ Oklahoma

2017: Oklahoma, @ North Carolina, TBA

2018: Cincinnati, @TCU, North Carolina

2019: TCU, TBA, TBA

2020: @Oregon, Boston College, TBA

2021: Oregon, @ Boston College, TBA

2022: @Texas, TBA, TBA

2023: Texas, TBA, TBA

And just FYI, here is Meeshugun's non conference future schedules:

2013: Cent. Michigan, Notre Dame, Akron, @Connecticut

2014: Appalachian St., @ Notre Dame, Miami Oh., Utah

2015: @Utah, Oregon St., UNLV, BYU

2016: Hawaii, Colorado, Ball St.

2017: Cincinnati, TBA, TBA

2018: Arkansas, TBA, TBA

2019: @Arkansas, TBA, TBA

2020: Va. Tech, TBA, TBA

2021: @Va. Tech, TBA, TBA

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

OK, perhaps I am confusing them with these new and upcoming Florida schools that seem to be blossoming in talent....may Florida Atlantic/Florida International/South Florida/Central Florida

I think that they are trying to come up with a sort of "MAC South" by adding these new Fla. teams to the FBS roles.

In fact, there are now 4 new teams that will come into the FBS roles in the next few years, all in the south: Georgia Souther, Appalachian St., UN-Charlotte, Old Dominion.

They will all be joining either the Sun Belt conf. or Conference USA which conferences include other newbies to Div. I like Texas St., UT-San Antonio, Middle Tennessee, La. Lafayette, Troy.

Zombo said:

Seems more like a 3-4 pass rusher to me.

Z

@miktoxic said:

With a freak like Clowney, and with how much our FO loves to draft pass rushers, it would happen. Having said that we could also get a kings ransom for trading the if we unfortunatly had it.

@the-gipper said:

There are two things that might point to that:

A. Notre Dame should probably be ranked ahead of Cal.

B. Fla. A&M is a FCS school. Though, like I said, in a head to head game with Buffalo/Cent. Mich/Akron Florida A&M could likely even be favored.

I don't know who would favor them. They went 4-7 last season and lost to some pretty bad teams.

The teams they played strong were weak teams, like SC State and NC Central and barely bested them.

I think you're giving them way too much credit. If Michigan were playing them next season, you'd be talking about how crappy of a team they are.

The worst part of this whole thing? I'm a Buckeye fan.

Z

being bored out of my mind with no projects started i watched a little of this game. the commentators were just sucking this dude's dick all game long and said that when tim brown had seen him play that he wanted to go down on the sidelines and give him his own heisman that he had won.

i guess he's also got the ? of injury.

the thing about clowney is, sure he has to be there this year, but suiting up in some adidas or nike sweatsuit and watching on the sidelines is a lot different than suiting up in pads and sticking your neck out when a 250 lb FB or TE is coming across a blindsides you with a legal block and your career is over.

but then the question comes in "well, hey that's not fair to the fans! we want to see the best players play, blah, blah, blah".

if i were a GM and the guy sat out and you couldn't see whether he is progressing in his football accumen, i wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

maybe a twenty foot pole, though.

@mld-woody said:

There are two things that might point to that:

A. Notre Dame should probably be ranked ahead of Cal.

B. Fla. A&M is a FCS school. Though, like I said, in a head to head game with Buffalo/Cent. Mich/Akron Florida A&M could likely even be favored.

@the-gipper said:

Jesus, now you have just given me motivation to root FOR Clowney. Though, since the Gamecocks are my father-in-laws favorite team (at 90 he lives just outside Columbia SC) , I might have been prone to favor him anyway. I too though would not root for an SEC team, except the Gamecocks.

Because OSU fans totally wouldn't root against someone that might win their second Heisman....

I'd still say OSU has an easier schedule though. If they aren't undefeated heading into the game it will be a disappointment

@mld-woody said:

Jesus, now you have just given me motivation to root FOR Clowney. Though, since the Gamecocks are my father-in-laws favorite team (at 90 he lives just outside Columbia SC) , I might have been prone to favor him anyway. I too though would not root for an SEC team, except the Gamecocks.

@mld-woody said:

The Ohio State schedule and the Michigan schedule this year are pretty much on par:

OSU's non conference schedule:

Buffalo (MAC), home

San Diego St. (MWC) home

@ Cal Bears

Fla. A&M home

Mich. non conf. schedule:

Central Mich (MAC). home

Notre Dame, home

Akron (MAC)

@ UConn.

Ohio State's Big Ten opponents:

Wisconsin

@Northwestern

Iowa

Penn St.

@Purdue

@ Illinois

Indiana

@ Mich

Michigan's Big Ten sched:

Minnesota

@Penn St.

Indiana

@Mich State

Nebraska

@Northwestern

@Iowa

Ohio St.

My only objection about Ohio States schedule is the scheduling of FCS Florida A&M. Though Fla. A&M may be as good as any MAC school, I just don't like them scheduling FCS schools.

Both schools have their MAC opponents.

UConn and San Diego St. are programs that are about on par with each other.

Ohio St. has Cal, Mich has ND.

Ohio St. has traditionally done a rotation schedule with Pac-12 schools, though that won't be the case the following years when they do a home and home with Va. Tech. In the 2015 season they start playing Rutgers and Maryland who will be in the Big Ten. Their non conference games will be reduced from 4 to 3.

The only seeming "strength" of schedule next year that Mich has vs. OSU is that game vs. Notre Dame. Based on last season it seems that ND is a stronger opponent than Cal. But I am not sure that for the decade prior to last year that claim could be made.

And yes, it would be so Woodson could remain the only primarily defensive player to win the Heisman.

I'm also not big on anything SEC, even though USC isn't that bad .

@mld-woody said:

You would root against Clowney winning the Heisman? Why? What does Woodson have to do with it? To be the only defensive player to have won it? Except, Woodson didn't really win it on the strength of his defense, but at least 50% on his return ability.

If he did not return kicks I do not believe he would have won.

I guess you just have to face it: 2 of the 3 top candidates will apparently be people you don't like. (the other being Manziel).

But, just like last year, I suggest someone will come out of the woodwork to become a top candidate.