Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. # 12 and # 19

# 12 and # 19

The Browns Board
64 35 3.5k
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    @mudfly said:

    ... considering the depth on our D-line, we will have to pick a difference maker early if he has any chance of becoming a starter and actually improving the line play.....the better(and deeper) we become, the harder it is to find players that are upgrades

    Not that the DL needs outweigh the O line needs....But to me, it appears we can improve our O line with later picks, while that option isn't really available with D line.....

    I can see a 2nd-3rd round OL pick making this team and possibly starting....but, with D line, Im not so sure there is one there who will improve us or start over our current players...

    So we are so deep in the D-line at such a high level that only a top 12 has a chance of upgrading that unit??? Rubin?

    We can improve our O-line depth with later picks, but not our starters. Sure, late rounders can step in and start (We passed on a late rounder last year that could have helped us immensely, he said as he banged his Seantrel Henderson gong one last time), but that's not an everyday occurrence. For every Henderson there are a dozen McDonalds and Seymours.

    My point is that our greater-est need after QB is O-line depth... but maybe it's greatest-er.

    @tiamat63 said:

    Apologies, but when mentioning injuries upon the Oline - the first name into anyone's mind is Mack.

    None needed or wanted. I just wanted to emphasize that O-lines are more flexible than needing a HQ Center to back-up a HQ Center.

    @tour2ma said:

    So we are so deep in the D-line at such a high level that only a top 12 has a chance of upgrading that unit??? Rubin?

    We can improve our O-line depth with later picks, but not our starters. Sure, late rounders can step in and start

    My point is that our greater-est need after QB is O-line depth... but maybe it's greatest-er.

    I guess my point is that we have needs at starting positions and we have needs in terms of depth....and I see O line as needing an upgrade in depth and some other positions as needing upgrades at starting positions.....

    And I think using your highest picks to add depth and using lower picks to add starters is kind of backwards.....so, a 4th round DT or LB isn't likely to make this team, but a 4th round OL or WR project just might.....

    So, in my little world, we could conceivably get a starting LB and DL in the first.....and improve both these groups talent and depth wise...

    Then pick WR and OL in the 2nd-3rd rounds and still have a good chance of getting starters....meaning our first 4 picks have a good chance of HELPING us immediately....

    But, If we reverse those picks, I see us getting more like 2 starters(wr/ol) and some DL & LB's that are about the same as we already have.....

  • Mud, we're arguing the same for the opposite line.

    Bottom line...

    I see Pet's D system not needing the talent level that the ZBS does to be successful... not D-line.

    I see no comparison between O-line and D-line drop offs from starter to back-up. On the O-side it's a fall off of the 20th floor; on the D-side 2nd floor... 3rd floor tops.

    If you add LBs to the argument, I'll argue it is greater than D-line, but still less than O-line.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    Mud, we're arguing the same for the opposite line.

    Bottom line...

    I see Pet's D system not needing the talent level that the ZBS does to be successful... not D-line.

    I see no comparison between O-line and D-line drop offs from starter to back-up. On the O-side it's a fall off of the 20th floor; on the D-side 2nd floor... 3rd floor tops.

    If you add LBs to the argument, I'll argue it is greater than D-line, but still less than O-line.

    @tour2ma said:

    Mud, we're arguing the same for the opposite line.

    Bottom line...

    I see Pet's D system not needing the talent level that the ZBS does to be successful... not D-line.

    I see no comparison between O-line and D-line drop offs from starter to back-up. On the O-side it's a fall off of the 20th floor; on the D-side 2nd floor... 3rd floor tops.

    If you add LBs to the argument, I'll argue it is greater than D-line, but still less than O-line.

    Basically both lines need to be addressed. Defense (my lips/keyboard to Gods ears) that monster 3tech I crave to see and a quality swingman or two along the Oline.

    Seymour isn't that and McQ can get doubled fucked at SeaWorld by Shamu for all I care.

  • Desmond "was" that monster 5 tech for us last year. Not so much this year, maybe the hear thing slowed him down who knows. I'd stay with him though for now and try to get after Bosa next year as his eventual replacement.

Log in to reply