Cleveland Browns 2011 Super Awesome In-Season Thread

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Cleveland Browns 2011 Super Awesome In-Season Thread
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:09 PM
DeyDurkie5;643094 wrote:That logic is dumb...because green went to georgia, where momass went, green is going to be bad?

If green is avaliable, and we don't take him, i'll be extremely pissed

lol PWNED.
Jan 18, 2011 7:09pm
september63's avatar

september63

Senior Member

5,789 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:15 PM
Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.
Jan 18, 2011 7:15pm
R

rydawg5

Senior Member

2,639 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:22 PM
september63;643101 wrote:Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.

I'm not a big Julio fan, but you never know with receivers.
Jan 18, 2011 7:22pm
Y-Town Steelhound's avatar

Y-Town Steelhound

Underrated

1,388 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:25 PM
september63;643101 wrote:Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Jones is the DEFINITION of a down-field big jump ball receiver. The Browns need a quick receiver who runs great routes. Think Steve Smith (Panthers), not Larry Fitzgerald.
Jan 18, 2011 7:25pm
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:34 PM
september63;643101 wrote:Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.

Julio is a Braylon clone. Same physical mold, same type of player. Big time play maker, drops easy passes, but can catch the most ridiculous ones that should be dropped. Runs nice routes, but has a bit of a "me" attitude.

I like Julio. But I don't want Braylon part two.
Jan 18, 2011 7:34pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:35 PM
DeyDurkie5;643094 wrote:That logic is dumb...because green went to georgia, where momass went, green is going to be bad?

If green is avaliable, and we don't take him, i'll be extremely pissed

You are probably right, and I doubt the Georgia connection is a factor at all. But I'm saying as a fan, it is a connection that people might think about if AJ Green doesn't scceed right away. Also, you just don't know how some of those SEC guys will respond to the cold weather of the AFC North. I'm not sure if that is ever a factor when drafting, but I would imagine it would have to be. I think one of the SEC prospects this year already said something along the lines of wanting to play for a warm weather team.
Jan 18, 2011 7:35pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:46 PM
thedynasty1998;643035 wrote:I said he wasn't the best.

No, a starting QB is not a franchise QB. I'd say about 2/3 of the teams in the NFL do not have "franchise QB's":
Miami, Buffalo, Cleveland, Tennessee, Oakland, Washington, Minnesota, San Francisco and Arizona.

Ironic that all those teams are at the bottom of their divisions.

With your first round pick in the NFL draft, you select either a good or bad pick. WIth first round picks, there are no "in betweeners"... if someone is producing "in between" and were drafted in the first round, that is a bad pick.

Mack is producing at an elite rate, he was definitely a good pick.

And yes, a starting QB is a franchise QB because he is a QB of that franchise. "franchise QB" is an overplayed term used by retarded media analysts to suck on the cock of Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc.

Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.
Jan 18, 2011 7:46pm
R

rydawg5

Senior Member

2,639 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:47 PM
SportsAndLady;643146 wrote:With your first round pick in the NFL draft, you select either a good or bad pick. WIth first round picks, there are no "in betweeners" if someone is producing "in between" and were drafted in the first round, that is a bad pick.

Mack is producing at an elite rate, he was definitely a good pick.

And yes, a starting QB is a franchise QB because he is a QB of that franchise. "franchise QB" is an overplayed term used by retarded media analysts to suck on the cock of Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc.

Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.

I uhh,, I uh,, umm... I agree with SportsandLady.
Jan 18, 2011 7:47pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:50 PM
SportsAndLady;643146 wrote: Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.
LMAO, pwn of the day.
Jan 18, 2011 7:50pm
OQB's avatar

OQB

Senior Member

6,679 posts
Jan 18, 2011 11:14 PM
I really wish the Browns would've went after Boldin last offseason....he is a great short route guy that can catch the ball in traffic, but can also be a deep threat. Would've been a good fit in Cleveland.

In a west coast offense, you're looking for route running, and the ability to seperate yourself from defenders. You don't nessesarily need a 6'5" 225 lb WR...you just need that guy who can do the little things right and make the guys around him better.
Jan 18, 2011 11:14pm
shook_17's avatar

shook_17

Senior Member

3,023 posts
Jan 19, 2011 7:58 AM
OrrvilleQB;643446 wrote:I really wish the Browns would've went after Boldin last offseason....he is a great short route guy that can catch the ball in traffic, but can also be a deep threat. Would've been a good fit in Cleveland.

In a west coast offense, you're looking for route running, and the ability to seperate yourself from defenders. You don't nessesarily need a 6'5" 225 lb WR...you just need that guy who can do the little things right and make the guys around him better.
so would you rather have aj green or julio jones? jones does scare me a lil bit. good thing we're not in charge :D
Jan 19, 2011 7:58am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Jan 19, 2011 8:15 AM
Let's not act like we don't need a downfield threat just because we will be running the WCO. You still have to take your shots downfield to keep the defense honest. I would love to get a good WR via free agency and go after a DE or CB with our first pick, but I don't see us getting that WR.
Jan 19, 2011 8:15am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:03 AM
SportsAndLady;643146 wrote:With your first round pick in the NFL draft, you select either a good or bad pick. WIth first round picks, there are no "in betweeners"... if someone is producing "in between" and were drafted in the first round, that is a bad pick.

Mack is producing at an elite rate, he was definitely a good pick.

And yes, a starting QB is a franchise QB because he is a QB of that franchise. "franchise QB" is an overplayed term used by retarded media analysts to suck on the cock of Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc.

Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.

Is producing at an elite level as a LB more valuable than producing at an elite level at C? I understand Mack wasn't a "bad" pick, but I think they could have got more value at that spot, especially considering they kept trading down and could have taken a number of guys ahead of him.

I disagree about a franchise QB. A franchise QB is someone that you know will be your starter for years to come. A starting QB is not the same. And I said 2/3 and then decided to look at some teams. I didn't include teams like Cincinnati, Carolina or Seattle. Maybe it's not 2/3, but there is a big difference between teams with a franchise QB and those without.
Jan 19, 2011 9:03am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:29 AM
thedynasty1998;643624 wrote:Is producing at an elite level as a LB more valuable than producing at an elite level at C? I understand Mack wasn't a "bad" pick, but I think they could have got more value at that spot, especially considering they kept trading down and could have taken a number of guys ahead of him.

Please explain the difference between producing at an elite level as a LB and producing at an elite level as a C.
Jan 19, 2011 9:29am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:34 AM
You are more of an impact player. You are more of a difference maker. You have more value.
Jan 19, 2011 9:34am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:35 AM
Call Green Bay and offer Alex Mack for Clay Mathews straight up. I'd be interested to hear how quickly they hung up the phone.
Jan 19, 2011 9:35am
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:41 AM
thedynasty1998;643665 wrote:Call Green Bay and offer Alex Mack for Clay Mathews straight up. I'd be interested to hear how quickly they hung up the phone.

Why would we do that? We dont even know what defense we're playing, and they have a center. failanalogy.
Jan 19, 2011 9:41am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:45 AM
Yeah I mean some teams need LB's and some teams need C's. The Browns at that time needed to upgrade their o-line, so they took a C. They don't want to get rid of Mack just like the Pack do not want to get rid of Matthews.

Just because you do not hear lineman's name as much as you do LB's doesn't mean they do not hold premium value to a team. They are the ones who get the entire offense going, without them you do not have an offense. Just because you do not hear from the announcers "oh what a block by Mack" on every play does not mean he is not any less valued than our starting LB.
Jan 19, 2011 9:45am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:50 AM
Interesting what you can find with a simple google search:
Theoretically, NFL front offices should have figured out a rational pay scale—the more essential a player is to victory, the more money he'll take home each year. The most recent salary breakdown I've found is a 2005 data set (PDF) from the NFL Players Association. The figures below are in millions and represent the average salary of starting players at each position:

Quarterback: 5.15
Running back: 3.27
Offensive tackle: 3.17
Wide receiver: 2.97
Cornerback: 2.75
Defensive end: 2.54
Middle linebacker: 2.30
Defensive tackle: 2.06
Offensive guard: 1.94
Outside linebacker: 1.81
Tight end: 1.79
Center: 1.65
Free safety: 1.39
Strong safety: 1.27
Kicker: 1.23
Fullback: 0.84
Punter: 0.69

http://www.slate.com/id/2173817/
Jan 19, 2011 9:50am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:54 AM
What the hell does what they're getting paid have to do with how much they're needed?

Amazing what using a little common sense can do.

By your logic the best teams would employ 35 QB's a dozen RB's and a so forth...think about what you post
Jan 19, 2011 9:54am
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Jan 19, 2011 10:00 AM
ytownfootball;643689 wrote:think about what you post

Good luck getting him to do that.
Jan 19, 2011 10:00am
N

Nate

Formerly Known As Keebler

3,949 posts
Jan 19, 2011 10:00 AM
Pay rate has no direct correlation to player play performance.
Jan 19, 2011 10:00am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 10:01 AM
ytownfootball;643689 wrote:What the hell does what they're getting paid have to do with how much they're needed?

Amazing what using a little common sense can do.

By your logic the best teams would employ 35 QB's a dozen RB's and a so forth...think about what you post
Seriously? Guys are going to be paid based upon what NFL teams think of their value. They think QB's are the most important position, therefore they are paid more. They think punters are the least important, therefore paid the least.

It's basic economics and common sense.

Not sure how else I can prove that centers do not have as much value as some of the other positions that were of need to the Browns.
Jan 19, 2011 10:01am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 10:02 AM
Nate;643703 wrote:Pay rate has nothing no direct correlation to player play performance.

I understand it's not on performance, it's on value. That wasn't from one team, it was the entire NFL.

How else can you explain why a RB would be paid more than a C, other than that they are more valuable?
Jan 19, 2011 10:02am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 19, 2011 10:05 AM
Value =/= Need
Jan 19, 2011 10:05am