Automatik
Posts: 14,632
Jan 19, 2011 10:06am
So is it pretty much set that they are going for a receiver with their first pick?
I know its early and boards will change, but what about Marcell Dareus or Quinn from UNC?
I know its early and boards will change, but what about Marcell Dareus or Quinn from UNC?
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 19, 2011 10:17am
Automatik;643713 wrote:So is it pretty much set that they are going for a receiver with their first pick?
I know its early and boards will change, but what about Marcell Dareus or Quinn from UNC?
Its hard to specualte on Dline prospects bc we dont even know what defensive scheme we're going to run. I would assume switching to the 4-3, which would mean a complete overall of our dline. Overall though my guess is its WR/DE in the first.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 19, 2011 10:24am
thedynasty1998;643704 wrote: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.
You can't prove it. Center is a VERY important position. Especially in a division like the AFC north where you go against N'gata, Hampton and the steelers defense. You need a guy on the line to make the calls and keep our QB from getting killed. I wonder if the Jets would take Matthews for Mangold, I highly doubt it.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Jan 19, 2011 10:48am
Peter King's All-Pro team for 2010:
Just sayin...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/01/18/nfl-all-pro-team/index.html?eref=sihpC: Alex Mack, Cleveland. Doubt this? Watch the job Mack did on Vince Wilfork in the Browns' beatdown of the Patriots.
Just sayin...
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 19, 2011 10:57am
Yup, Thanks Y, nice pwn.Y-Town Steelhound;643759 wrote:Peter King's All-Pro team for 2010:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/01/18/nfl-all-pro-team/index.html?eref=sihp
Just sayin...
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Jan 19, 2011 11:26am
thedynasty1998;643704 wrote: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.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong (Dr. Cox voice).
SIMPLE ECONOMICS says that QB's are paid the most not because of importance, but because of lack of quality options. There are a ton more guys out there who can kick or punt, but not guys who can run an NFL offense efficiently. QB is the most important position, but not because they're paid the most.
Offensive line is the 2nd most important unit. However, because there happens to be more abundance of available bodies (cough cough substitutes) their value is less and hence they're paid less, but it doesn't make a quality player (such as Mack, Steinbach, or Thomas) any less valuable.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Jan 19, 2011 11:52am
The Alex Mack for Clay Matthews hypothetical is not even a valid hypothetical because Clay Matthews is arguably the best LB in the league. Alex Mack is arguably a top 5 center.
Greg Jennings is arguably a top 5 WR in the NFL..Antonio Gates is arguably the best TE in the league. I bet you the Chargers would not trade Antonio Gates for Greg Jennings, even though WR is the more important position.
Greg Jennings is arguably a top 5 WR in the NFL..Antonio Gates is arguably the best TE in the league. I bet you the Chargers would not trade Antonio Gates for Greg Jennings, even though WR is the more important position.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:06pm
lhslep134;643816 wrote:Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong (Dr. Cox voice).
SIMPLE ECONOMICS says that QB's are paid the most not because of importance, but because of lack of quality options. There are a ton more guys out there who can kick or punt, but not guys who can run an NFL offense efficiently. QB is the most important position, but not because they're paid the most.
Offensive line is the 2nd most important unit. However, because there happens to be more abundance of available bodies (cough cough substitutes) their value is less and hence they're paid less, but it doesn't make a quality player (such as Mack, Steinbach, or Thomas) any less valuable.
Yes, QB's are paid the most for obvious reasons. But you are ignoring all other positions in their ranking. Center just isn't as important as some others.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Jan 19, 2011 12:11pm
thedynasty1998;643885 wrote:Yes, QB's are paid the most for obvious reasons. But you are ignoring all other positions in their ranking. Center just isn't as important as some others.
Because you can find serviceable Cs easier than some other positions. That doesnt mean a top C in the league isnt worth his weight in gold though. There are more serviceable Centers in the league than RB, but the top 5 Centers can still be as valuable to a team as a top 5 RB. But a RB will be paid more because you have to overpay just to find one serviceable thus the pay scale rises for the great ones. Centers pay scale wont jump as much, because the serviceable ones cant demand as much, so the jump for the great ones wont jump as much.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:12pm
SportsAndLady;643858 wrote:The Alex Mack for Clay Matthews hypothetical is not even a valid hypothetical because Clay Matthews is arguably the best LB in the league. Alex Mack is arguably a top 5 center.
Mathews was taken just a few picks after Mack, how is it not a good hypothetical?
Again, I'm not saying Mack isn't a very good player. I just think that the Browns could have better utilized that draft.
Y-Town Steelhound
Posts: 1,388
Jan 19, 2011 12:12pm
How about the Browns just make it a point to draft Casey Matthews and therefore make this a moot discussion?
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:15pm
I guess we can just agree to disagree.
Jester
Posts: 700
Jan 19, 2011 12:19pm
Where's BR when you need him. I remember back on the huddle when the Browns drafted Mack. Me, him, and maybe one or two others understood the importance of the O-line. Everyone else was pissed because it wasn't some "flashy" player/pick.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 12:23pm
Point is you don't take the best available with every draft pick you have because it may not fill a NEED, or a future need ie aging vet. It's that simple.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:34pm
ytownfootball;643916 wrote:Point is you don't take the best available with every draft pick you have because it may not fill a NEED, or a future need ie aging vet. It's that simple.
I understand that. I really do. Mack was one of the best draft picks the Browns have made in recent years. Him and Thomas are anchors that are a great foundation for the offense. However, I think there were other positions of need that might have been more important.
The Browns had the 5th pick and passed on guys like Sanchez, Raji, Cushing, Freeman, Maclin, Harvin and Mathews.
I know that it's much easier now to look back and say they should have done something different, however, that's the position we are currently in. They passed on two franchise QB's, two elite LB's and a WR that would have made a difference.
And for those who are talking about the value of a C, why are they not taken in the top 10 picks of an NFL draft? Why are they hardly ever taken in the first round? It's because teams are looking for more value with their first picks.
hoops23
Posts: 15,696
Jan 19, 2011 12:41pm
SMH
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 12:42pm
No it's supply and demand.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:45pm
ytownfootball;643939 wrote:No it's supply and demand.
What do you mean by that?
There is much more supply than demand? That would be my argument.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 12:46pm
More demand than supply.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jan 19, 2011 12:50pm
Jester;643909 wrote:Where's BR when you need him. I remember back on the huddle when the Browns drafted Mack. Me, him, and maybe one or two others understood the importance of the O-line. Everyone else was pissed because it wasn't some "flashy" player/pick.
I was very happy with the pick. I'm a big believer in the lines. I think many (coughdynastycough) have this mentality of the flashy wow pick.
Jester
Posts: 700
Jan 19, 2011 12:52pm
+39428758472876846782436hoops23;643937 wrote:SMH
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:52pm
ytownfootball;643952 wrote:More demand than supply.
Care to explain? If there were more demand than supply, you would see larger contracts for centers and more going in the early part of the draft.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 12:53pm
The Browns needed it. The longevity of O linemen exceeds that of the "flashy pick guys" and we all remember what happens to flash when standing behind a wall of turnstiles cough cough Couch.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 19, 2011 12:54pm
The demand is higher for QB's, RB's etc that are impact players because there are fewer of them. Not C's and RG's.
thedynasty1998
Posts: 6,844
Jan 19, 2011 12:55pm
ytownfootball;643971 wrote:The demand is higher for QB's, RB's etc that are impact players because there are fewer of them. Not C's and RG's.
I understand that. What point exactly are you trying to make?