Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 18, 2011 7:09pm
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.
.jpg)
september63
Posts: 5,789
Jan 18, 2011 7:15pm
Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.
R
rydawg5
Posts: 2,639
Jan 18, 2011 7:22pm
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.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Jan 18, 2011 7:25pm
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.
D
DaBrowns41
Posts: 1,304
Jan 18, 2011 7:34pm
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.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 18, 2011 7:35pm
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.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Jan 18, 2011 7:46pm
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.
R
rydawg5
Posts: 2,639
Jan 18, 2011 7:47pm
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.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 18, 2011 7:50pm
LMAO, pwn of the day.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.
OQB
Posts: 6,679
Jan 18, 2011 11:14pm
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.
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.
shook_17
Posts: 3,023
Jan 19, 2011 7:58am
so would you rather have aj green or julio jones? jones does scare me a lil bit. good thing we're not in chargeOrrvilleQB;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.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jan 19, 2011 8:15am
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.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 9:03am
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.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Jan 19, 2011 9:29am
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.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 9:34am
You are more of an impact player. You are more of a difference maker. You have more value.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 9:35am
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.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 19, 2011 9:41am
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.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Jan 19, 2011 9:45am
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.
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.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 9:50am
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/
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 9:54am
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
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
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 19, 2011 10:00am
ytownfootball;643689 wrote:think about what you post
Good luck getting him to do that.
N
Nate
Posts: 3,949
Jan 19, 2011 10:00am
Pay rate has no direct correlation to player play performance.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 10:01am
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.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
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.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 10:02am
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?
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 10:05am
Value =/= Need