@unsympathetic said:

Who do you want to cut to acquire the cap space to achieve this?  Njoku & MJ Stewart

Mitchell outperformed Kevin Johnson, agreed, and we also have several other FA's to sign such as Vernon and Higgins with the few FA dollars we do have.

Vernon would be lucky if his knee is ready by next October/Nov. .. Some team may grab him in a playoff run in November of 2021.. I don't see a team making him a new deal offer just yet

@tiamat63 said:

Cut out Vernon and I'm on board with that last paragraph.  

And to answer your first question - Richardson would be the first name to mind.

I'd hate the idea of losing both vets of our defense Richardson & Vernon.. Richardson is the trash talkin, prick defenses need.. When Myles & Vernon were both out? Richardson was the defensive leader grabbing the media presser mic...

@sdbacker80 said:

Vernon wasn’t valuable to this team before the Achilles injury. (disagree) If he wants an incentive laden 1 year prove it deal fine otherwise he’s out. (he's out till Oct.) 

Richardson saves 10.5M. My preference is restructure but I think you can find a comparable player in this free agency class (especially with all the cap issues of other teams) for half the price. (gotta name? NYG's Dalvin Tomlinson, i liked at time drafted..he may cost more) 

Njoku saves 6M. (Kyle Rudolph at age 32 for a year should cost same or less?) 

Landry is a restructure candidate. (adding years to his contract ain't a bad idea either)

Going to say this but I don’t know if I mean it.  OBJ for a 2nd rounder.  And it also saves 15M.

OBJ? ^^ You don't mean that (yet)..Until teams can see him back on the turf ?...No* teams taking on that contract number in a trade giving up a 2nd on a dude walking around with a limp...

Zombo said:

You don't think we'll be able to sign two free agents? We will.  (Sure we will..A starting DE..The draft won't offer a 3 down starter where we sit ala Bradley Chubb)

Edit--Most restructures coming out? are adding more fluff years to a contract that Big Ben won't see..It's a GM tactic Berry could certainly use... 

Seems a sneaky cap-friendly move.. Because Gustin and Carlson are both full FA [both came into league as UDFA], this means that next season their contract would be at the veteran minimum.  Surprisingly [to me anyway] they're both actually better than any replacement.. Porter Gustin and Stephen Carlson. 

Outside of not having that position on the roster, can't really ask for better performance-for-$$ from the TE4 and DE4 (or5) spots..

@sdbacker80 said:

 Going to say this but I don’t know if I mean it.  OBJ for a 2nd rounder.  And it also saves 15M.

Getting a 2nd rounder and $15M off the books for OBJ would be a no-brainer IMO. 

Guy has missed 25 of his last 64 regular season games, and is a mediocre version of the younger OBJ at this point. 

Richardson saves 10.5M. My preference is restructure but I think you can find a comparable player in this free agency class (especially with all the cap issues of other teams) for half the price. 

Njoku saves 6M.

Landry is a restructure candidate. 

Going to say this but I don’t know if I mean it.  OBJ for a 2nd rounder.  And it also saves 15M.

ive said it before we don’t have the bad contracts that many teams have.  Our long term commitments are coming though but there are guys that everyone is chalking up as “we have to save now to pay them later” don’t be surprised when it doesn’t happen and they turn into 3rd and 4th round compensatory picks.

Three keys...Berry nails these middle round picks the next three years, Baker continues to develop and Myles becomes the best defensive football player in the NFL. 

@unsympathetic said:

Who do you want to cut to acquire the cap space to achieve this?

Current liabilities are at last year's cap.. so the drop to this year's cap takes 13M [198-185]. Rookies are 7.8.

You may note that the listed "Cap Space" on OTC doesn't include rookies.. so 20.8-7.8 is where I have been getting the 13M of one-year cap as our total space.  That's not much at all, despite the clickbait on DBN and other places.

Actual FA dollars available is why I've switched to projecting we do the increase of DB talent through the draft..

Mitchell outperformed Kevin Johnson, agreed, and we also have several other FA's to sign such as Vernon and Higgins with the few FA dollars we do have.

Cut out Vernon and I'm on board with that last paragraph.  

And to answer your first question - Richardson would be the first name to mind.

Zombo said:

Sign Mitchell as an insurance policy and grab a slot corner in FA

Who do you want to cut to acquire the cap space to achieve this?

Current liabilities are at last year's cap.. so the drop to this year's cap takes 13M [198-185]. Rookies are 7.8.

You may note that the listed "Cap Space" on OTC doesn't include rookies.. so 20.8-7.8 is where I have been getting the 13M of one-year cap as our total space.  That's not much at all, despite the clickbait on DBN and other places.

Actual FA dollars available is why I've switched to projecting we do the increase of DB talent through the draft..

Mitchell outperformed Kevin Johnson, agreed, and we also have several other FA's to sign such as Vernon and Higgins with the few FA dollars we do have.

Zombo said:

Grant Delpit and Greedy Williams will be starters next year.

The other two starters in the backfield will be Ward and Harrison. 

We need a slot corner. Plenty available in FA. We can resign Mitchell for the extra corner or find/draft another guy.

We need another 3rd safety, that guy is probably not on the roster.

But we are talking Depth moves here ... we do not need to draft a defensive back at the top of the draft...............

Z

...and of course this makes sense.  Delpit & Greedy were drafted to be starters.  But Greedy wasn't drafted by this regime.  Although I'm sure Berry researched him while he was in Philly.  I wasn't overly enamored with him when last we saw him...but he was a rookie...and he was injured some of the time (missed 4 games). 

There's an old saying, You can never have too many CB's.  But you CAN have too many highly paid CB's.

@mjp28 said:

Gumby catching the essence of Michigan football....... everytime !

Yes sir! Ya can count on me ?.. Go Bucks!

now back to defensive moat digging  https://brownswire.usatoday.com/2021/01/29/browns-base-4-2-5-defense-no-more-4-3-joe-woods-lb-snap-counts/   Once Micah Parsons & or JOK comes off the board?

I don't have a favorite LB to beat out the Bucks Baron Browning or Justin Hilliard... calling me a Buckeye homer sounds more legit...  

@gumby73 said:

did someone call for a homo?        there's not a defensive position we can't take on.. But a starting DE would be a good start... 

Gumby catching the essence of Michigan football....... everytime !

I thought this thread was going to be about Kollman's 4.5 hr analysis this afternoon of the OSU-Indiana game from this past year.. He spent longer than the entire game originally took and only analyzed Ohio State's offensive snaps..

I  agree with the first three, but not necessarily the last 3.   But sure,  third round sounds about right. 

@sdbacker80 said:

-Quite honestly, we had offensive coordinators redesigning game plans to exploit our secondary play or guys out in our secondary.  And Coupled with some circumstantial points that redirected/avoided focus on running against us- Although we were Top 10  We were paper tigers in this area.

Perfectly stated. 

That's what good coaching & game planning does- expose an opponent's weakness. 

I trust that Andrew Berry & company recognize this and will set out to address as many of the weaknesses as possible.

Mitchell can hang. He’s a must sign IMO.

@gunz41 said:

See Gip, this is another time that you appear to contradict yourself. I point it out for the simple fact that this back and forth has gone on BECAUSE of that. As in again, I have never said anything remote to ANY offensive player. The only thing I have said with it is say that I wouldn't do it no matter what the "grade". So now you say what I have said from the start. I don't think enough of myself to assume I had a thing to do with that.

And you ask if it is important. I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It doesn't really matter to me or others I am sure. But it is the reason that some of these things end up back and forth, and I don't know if it helps you with having a respected opinion. And don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of changing an opinion when presented with new data, I am speaking of to completely opposite takes in the same thread (likely day or less apart).

But in your words, so be it. I don't need to post in this thread anymore. Have a good weekend 

I would say that giving it a rest is a wise decision, as you seem all distressed over it.  I suspect that if I really wanted to I could dissect your posts and find a plethora of inconsistencies,  but I  have neither the care nor concern nor the birr to do so. 

@the-gipper said:

See Gip, this is another time that you appear to contradict yourself. I point it out for the simple fact that this back and forth has gone on BECAUSE of that. As in again, I have never said anything remote to ANY offensive player. The only thing I have said with it is say that I wouldn't do it no matter what the "grade". So now you say what I have said from the start. I don't think enough of myself to assume I had a thing to do with that.

And you ask if it is important. I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It doesn't really matter to me or others I am sure. But it is the reason that some of these things end up back and forth, and I don't know if it helps you with having a respected opinion. And don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of changing an opinion when presented with new data, I am speaking of to completely opposite takes in the same thread (likely day or less apart).

But in your words, so be it. I don't need to post in this thread anymore. Have a good weekend 

@gunz41 said:

I don't know the answer on PFF. PFF can be once piece of data, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it for solid proof. They have their grading system/algorithm, but I don't trust that. 

I don't think any  of us would "rely" on that sort of thing.  We are fans, we are here only for the entertainment to see what some source like that has to say..  And we would only use it for that purpose, nor for any reliance reason.   But...would the Browns FO  rely on that or something similar?  That is a good question. 

Case in point, by their rankings. #11 Trent Williams, #15 Justin Jefferson, #17 Ryan Tannehill, #18 WYATT TELLER, #19 Garrett Bolles, #24 Jessie Bates, #27 Adrian Amos, #31 DJ Humphries, #35 Adam Thielen, #42 David Onyemata, #43 MYLES GARRETT, #44 DeMarcus Lawrence, #45 BAKER MAYFIELD, #46 JOEL BITONIO, #64 Jalen Ramsey, #90 David Montgomery, #91 Justin Herbert, #92 Folorunso Fatukasi

And I don't remember the exact number, but in one of the last Browns games when they do their introductions at the beginning of the game, Jacob Phillips was ranked like #9 at his position (I believe it was over 75 eligible there.)

As for his numbers, I believe he was going off my examples of saying that for instance all of those guys are 80 compared to examples of 90+ for the offensive guys.

I believe that on the ESPN or maybe Kiper mock draft it had Slater as the 1st OL off the board, but again I used him as an example because of his versatility.

Had not seen that.  I just know that Sewell is the name most talk about as a very high prospect. 

You seem to not notice all of the times throughout that the word example is used. And I don't mean this to be mean, but I ha e wondered a few times now if you actually have forgotten what you wrote previously.

Maybe. I go from post to post and reply accordingly based on what I am thinking at that moment.  Maybe I say something different than what I have said before.  

Is it important? 

Example: Not ONCE in this entire thread have I even hinted at an offensive player, in fact multiple times I have said the opposite.

So be it. 

And you asked what PLAYER would give an improvement. I answered that can't be answered at this moment on multiple factors. And said you can't be focused on a position group (since you keep using LB). And then you ask if DEFENSE is a position group. NO, IDL, DE/EDGE, LB, CB, S are position groups.

OK then...I will say the Browns need to focus on Defense....somewhere.  Just my opinion. 

Trade down, sure. But in all these conversations the question has been about who to get with the Browns FIRST PICK, #26. If you want to change the conversation, then that is a different discussion.  

Well....I think there may be a formula at play there:

 A.  Looking at "scores"  PFF..or whatever you (you being the Browns FO)  want to use....when it comes your turn to draft....assume  there is a player there rated much higher than anyone else on the board?  Like  a "91" compared to a "77". 

B.  But what if that player absolutely is NOT  at a position a team intends to draft....like that OL for the Browns.  

C. Also assume that there is a team with a desperate need for a top rated player at that position?   

D. What choices do the Browns have then?    Choose the 91 regardless of need?   Choose a lesser ranked player...the "77"  at a need position?   Trade the pick to that team with the desperate need, and hope you get an overvalued boatload in return?    The latter is clearly a viable option. (as long as you don't have to go down too far).   It would be even better if you had  2-3 teams that had that desperate need. 

@the-gipper said:

I don't know the answer on PFF. PFF can be once piece of data, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it for solid proof. They have their grading system/algorithm, but I don't trust that. 

Case in point, by their rankings. #11 Trent Williams, #15 Justin Jefferson, #17 Ryan Tannehill, #18 WYATT TELLER, #19 Garrett Bolles, #24 Jessie Bates, #27 Adrian Amos, #31 DJ Humphries, #35 Adam Thielen, #42 David Onyemata, #43 MYLES GARRETT, #44 DeMarcus Lawrence, #45 BAKER MAYFIELD, #46 JOEL BITONIO, #64 Jalen Ramsey, #90 David Montgomery, #91 Justin Herbert, #92 Folorunso Fatukasi

And I don't remember the exact number, but in one of the last Browns games when they do their introductions at the beginning of the game, Jacob Phillips was ranked like #9 at his position (I believe it was over 75 eligible there.)

As for his numbers, I believe he was going off my examples of saying that for instance all of those guys are 80 compared to examples of 90+ for the offensive guys.

I believe that on the ESPN or maybe Kiper mock draft it had Slater as the 1st OL off the board, but again I used him as an example because of his versatility.

You seem to not notice all of the times throughout that the word example is used. And I don't mean this to be mean, but I ha e wondered a few times now if you actually have forgotten what you wrote previously.

Example: Not ONCE in this entire thread have I even hinted at an offensive player, in fact multiple times I have said the opposite.

And you asked what PLAYER would give an improvement. I answered that can't be answered at this moment on multiple factors. And said you can't be focused on a position group (since you keep using LB). And then you ask if DEFENSE is a position group. NO, IDL, DE/EDGE, LB, CB, S are position groups.

Trade down, sure. But in all these conversations the question has been about who to get with the Browns FIRST PICK, #26. If you want to change the conversation, then that is a different discussion 

@gunz41 said:

There is really no way to assess that at present, which is another reason why you can't be focused in on a certain position group. Free agency/i.e. pre draft determines a big part of a draft board. 

Well, do you consider "Defense"   a certain position group? 

And comparing a draft grade to a NFL season/PFF will give you a false sense of value.

Oh, I get that it should be nigh on impossible to judge a rookie against a multi-year veteran....,  but, correct me if I am wrong, but it appeared from  Unsymp's post that  PFF  purports to give a number to a draft prospect based on the same criteria that they give a number to a veteran.  Don't they?  Otherwise how could he say that  Collins rates an 80 compared to a 43 for Mack Wilson?   .....or was he just speculating on that number for Collins?

I don't know the exact numbers, but Lawrence will have a 95+ grade (maybe even like 98). I doubt Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, etc. are there. Moreover, just take a position that has been THE need for Browns recently (now nobody would say so); OT. I would venture to guess that all the top guys in draft would have a higher number than either Wills or Conklin.

I am skeptical of that.....from what I have seen of the mocks,  there seems to be only like one OT rated that highly:  Sewell.  So, if it is true, I would like to see it.   (but based on what you say.....it appears that Yes, PFF does give grades to Draft prospects the same as to veterans?)

And to continue with where I was and Unsympathetic added, you not only have to factor in the difference between what you have currently and what you would get, but also the corresponding parts with them, and the drop off to other needs.

A wholistic approach in other words?  Sure, only seems prudent. 

Again, these are just my opinions, but I absolutely don't like the only BPA idea. That is what I have been trying to say. If a Rashawn Slater is there at 26 with a 91 grade, and the best option on any defensive player is for example a 77. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe that Slater has played both G and T. But which of Wills, Bitonio, Teller, Conklin is replaced? Best player doesn't equate to best move or best team.

A situation like that screams of "TRADE Down!"  fair to say? 

Currently, with what is on the team (not factoring in FA, etc) and there are 4 guys at 4 positions all rated the same (Farley, Barmore, Collins, Rousseau), while I don't necessarily consider them THE biggest needs currently, I would probably be picking between Farley and Rousseau). That theoretically ends the look at those groups, and as referenced, will be on field more. 

Again, seems fair.

Now, I am wondering:  Has PFF assigned these numbers to each  draft prospect as yet?  And to each NFL player...including each Brown?  It could be entertaining to see that data, and do this kind of comparison.     (or, is that a prescription service that you have to pay for?  

@the-gipper said:

Good way to look at it:   What player that we can draft would give us the most (theoretical)  improvement over what we have.  I see you are using PFF as a guide. So, yea, a guy that grades an 80 would be a vast improvement over a guy that grades  43.    And, as you say, if you have a guy that rates a 78, and maybe there is an 80 on the board, that is not really the place to put your most valuable asset:   a first round draft pick. 

There is really no way to assess that at present, which is another reason why you can't be focused in on a certain position group. Free agency/i.e. pre draft determines a big part of a draft board. 

And comparing a draft grade to a NFL season/PFF will give you a false sense of value.

I don't know the exact numbers, but Lawrence will have a 95+ grade (maybe even like 98). I doubt Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, etc. are there. Moreover, just take a position that has been THE need for Browns recently (now nobody would say so); OT. I would venture to guess that all the top guys in draft would have a higher number than either Wills or Conklin.

And to continue with where I was and Unsympathetic added, you not only have to factor in the difference between what you have currently and what you would get, but also the corresponding parts with them, and the drop off to other needs.

Again, these are just my opinions, but I absolutely don't like the only BPA idea. That is what I have been trying to say. If a Rashawn Slater is there at 26 with a 91 grade, and the best option on any defensive player is for example a 77. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe that Slater has played both G and T. But which of Wills, Bitonio, Teller, Conklin is replaced? Best player doesn't equate to best move or best team.

Currently, with what is on the team (not factoring in FA, etc) and there are 4 guys at 4 positions all rated the same (Farley, Barmore, Collins, Rousseau), while I don't necessarily consider them THE biggest needs currently, I would probably be picking between Farley and Rousseau). That theoretically ends the look at those groups, and as referenced, will be on field more.