Blake and The Flying J's

Spectralcow

How late do people expect him (Seastrunk) to be available?

Despite the gaudy numbers, the fact that Taliaferro went to a smaller school and played against lesser competition (as well as the fact that he'll probably be used as a FB) could mean that he's available late. I like it.

Tim Couch Pulls Out

@spectralcow said:

How late do people expect him (Seastrunk) to be available?

The fact that Taliaferro went to a smaller school and played against lesser competition could mean that he's available later.

He could be had in the later rounds or even as a UDFA. What I like about him is that he's a smart player and individual. He had a comment at the Senior Bowl about his education and was quoted saying "As much as I love the game, it's only temporary. One day I'll have to walk away but my degree lasts forever".

PoeticG

CROW- I've done the mock draft website and was able to land him early in the second. I would expect him to be gone by the second round sometime.

TCPO- Would you prefer L.T. over Hyde as a converted FB from HB?

Spectralcow

If the Browns were able to get two first-round players, I could live with Seastrunk in the 2nd. I would be much more comfortable if they could grab three other players in the first two rounds and then pick up Seastrunk in the 3rd round, but I'm guessing he won't be there. Given my preference, I don't think I'd choose for the Browns to take a RB before the 3rd round at the earliest, and I'd really prefer the 4th round.

Tim Couch Pulls Out

@poeticg said:

CROW- I've done the mock draft website and was able to land him early in the second. I would expect him to be gone by the second round sometime.

TCPO- Would you prefer L.T. over Hyde as a converted FB from HB?

I would, yes. Hyde is a great runner with good size, but his blocking technique is poor. He routinely goes low on run blocking plays, which puts a ceiling on his blocking potential. He's good for one block maximum on running plays, which would essentially force our hand into a lot of iso runs.

His pass blocking is just bad. His technique is bad, his footwork is bad, and his hands are bad. He doesn't put his weight over the balls of his feet, which results in chipped and missed blocks. He often tries to go shoulder to shoulder, almost like he's running through a defender, and that results in missed blocks.

I think Hyde can be a solid mid round runningback, especially if used in the right capacity as a complement or change of pace back. But as a fullback, I just don't see it. The only thing he has going for him is size.

Hyde, to me, is a runningback who is just big enough to sometimes block.

Taliaferro, in comparison, is a fullback who is capable of running and receiving.

Used in the same capacity, Taliaferro would be the better pick based on his skill set, size, and the fact that he can be had much later in the draft.

Tim Couch Pulls Out

If we could take Storm Johnson or Dre Williams in the 3rd-5th and Taliaferro in the 6th or 7th, we'd have a pretty solid backfield.

We'd have a speedy, elusive back in Dion Lewis. We'd have a power back, between the tackles runner in Andre Williams (who led the nation in 30+ yard plays). And we'd have a blocking FB and receiving threat in Taliaferro.

We could have a receiving backfield that doesn't sacrifice any size with Lewis and Taliaferro. We could have a jumbo backfield with Taliaferro and Williams. We could have a dual threat backfield with Williams and Lewis.

Spectralcow

I'm good with this (what TCPO suggests above).

miktoxic

i'm not unless they turn him into a CB.

Tim Couch Pulls Out

@miktoxic said:
i'm not unless they turn him into a CB.

I don't get it.

hoorta

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:
He could be had in the later rounds or even as a UDFA. What I like about him is that he's a smart player and individual. He had a comment at the Senior Bowl about his education and was quoted saying "As much as I love the game, it's only temporary. One day I'll have to walk away but my degree lasts forever".

So TC, what's your take on Tre Mason as our "pure " RB, and how high do you think he'll go in the draft?

Tim Couch Pulls Out

@hoorta said:

So TC, what's your take on Tre Mason as our "pure " RB, and how high do you think he'll go in the draft?

I think Mason could go in the second half of round one, which isn't a shocking opinion, I know. I just haven't done enough research to complete a full mock yet. I like Mason, but I don't see the need for an every down back. The NFL is erring more and more towards an RBBC every season, with Lynch and Peterson being the exceptions.

Spectralcow

I'm not in love with RBBC because I think it disrupts the running game for some backs. And then the whole argument kind of feeds itself (feature running backs become less effective because we use them less often, and we use them less often because they become less effective). A certain type of back needs a chance to gain some momentum and wear down a defense. Regardless of my opinion on him, a lot of people think Jerome Bettis was a good back. He wouldn't have been very good in a RBBC situation. He needed carries and repetition to wear defenses down.

That being said, I'm not arguing against the notion that this is the direction in which the NFL is headed. I just think that its popularity marginalizes a certain kind of back who can be effective with a greater number of (frequent) carries. And maybe that's okay, too. Sometimes trends emerge that cause formerly popular positions/styles to seem less desirable to most teams (FBs, for instance). And then we call the teams/players that do still use those now unpopular methods anomalies (Lynch in Seattle).

PoeticG

Exactly.^

That what happened to Trent Richardson, Trent would go out on 3rd downs and other backs eating his time. Allowed Defense to focus on Trent in the games, in that moment. By the fourth quarter, if your pounding the defense, it's gonna wear down.

Tim Couch Pulls Out

What happened to Trent is that he's really not that good. That's what happened to Trent.

Spectralcow

Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*

Tim Couch Pulls Out

@spectralcow said:
Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*

Really? A 30+ year old runningback was less effective than a Heisman trophy winner?

Oh, I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!

Trent sucks. Just because McGahee also sucks doesn't mean that Trent doesn't.

RoyceRolls

@spectralcow said:
Lol, SOOOOOOO not engaging in this discussion again. *coughs and points at the LESS effective Browns rushing game in 2013*

Lets see how effective TR is when he's 32. My guess is that we won't have the chance because when Trent is 32 he'll be celebrating the 6 year anniversary of his last NFL game.

Spectralcow

So because the Browns chose to pick up a really old guy, it's okay that they made the running game less effective? What sense does that make? In that case, let's get rid of everyone, get a bunch of guys who are too old to be effective, and then it will ALL be okay!

I'm not saying that McGahee should have been better than Richardson, I'm saying that if they were going to get rid of Richardson, there should have been some kind of plan in place so that they didn't struggle to score just 4 rushing TDs on the year.

bbedward

@spectralcow said:

So because the Browns chose to pick up a really old guy, it's okay that they made the running game less effective? What sense does that make? In that case, let's get rid of everyone, get a bunch of guys who are too old to be effective, and then it will ALL be okay!

I'm not saying that McGahee should have been better than Richardson, I'm saying that if they were going to get rid of Richardson, there should have been some kind of plan in place so that they didn't struggle to score just 4 rushing TDs on the year.

McGahee was just as effective as Richardson.

And by that I mean, not effective at all.

Spectralcow

Lol, okay, I'm done arguing it. If you guys aren't willing to admit that the running game was less effective in 2013 than it was in 2012, then there's not even a logical enough basis to have a discussion. It's understandable to be disappointed in Richardson or to criticize his (lack of) abilities, but to refuse to acknowledge that the Browns didn't run as well in 2013 is just stubborn and irrational.

You guys are so blinded by your dislike for Richardson that (again) you're responding to something I didn't even say. I said, "The Browns run game was less effective in 2013." You responded with "Richardson sucks." Well done.