I've never played football. I just understand how rosters are built and basic logic/reason.like_that;1643828 wrote:Dline depth is completely different than QB depth. Have you ever played football? Your example was horrible at best.
You would think so. I think with this dragging out they are just making him sweat. It is in the hands of a mediator or whatever right now and I have to believe that the delay is a good sign. I dont think the NFL would drag this out and put the browns in this bad of a position. Plus......I agree with your assessment on the Gordon and Manzeil. They saw what the ratings were this weekend and I bet are eyeing those flex weeks to get them in prime time as I think they just have one night game all season. Questions remains is if I will see Manzel vs the steelers in week 1 when I go or Hoyer....BR1986FB;1643824 wrote:The longer this drags out, the better off you'd think he'd be. If Goodell gives him the full season, he's really sticking it to the Browns.
Someone should just tell him "pssst, Roger.....Johnny Football to Josh Gordon is good for the league.....give him a pass."
I'd assume with Crennel being their D-Coordinator they'd be running a 3-4. I don't know the Texans roster in and out but maybe they aren't comfortable with their NT situation?sleeper;1643829 wrote:I've never played football. I just understand how rosters are built and basic logic/reason.
I guess by your and COAs logic the Texans should trade any and all assets to get D-line depth, despite having the best D-line in the league.
Your logic. Is broken.
100% agree. You need alot of good DL to rotate into the game. QB depth you realistically hope for 1 that can be productive and the 3rd, if you even carry one, is just there to save your ass if the other 2 go down.like_that;1643828 wrote:Dline depth is completely different than QB depth. Have you ever played football? Your example was horrible at best.
I think you're going to see Manziel. I heard Chris Simms on the radio the other day and apparently he's "besties" with the Browns OC, Kyle Shanahan. Simms gave the impression he knew something and said Shanny raved about JFF. I'll be very surprised if Manziel wasn't the week 1 starter which is a 360 of where a was about 2 weeks ago.thavoice;1643830 wrote:You would think so. I think with this dragging out they are just making him sweat. It is in the hands of a mediator or whatever right now and I have to believe that the delay is a good sign. I dont think the NFL would drag this out and put the browns in this bad of a position. Plus......I agree with your assessment on the Gordon and Manzeil. They saw what the ratings were this weekend and I bet are eyeing those flex weeks to get them in prime time as I think they just have one night game all season. Questions remains is if I will see Manzel vs the steelers in week 1 when I go or Hoyer....
lol that's not what I said AT ALL. I just point out that if they could trade for a stud dline player for an old beat up overpaid injured WR they should do it. AJ has more name value than field value. Quite simple really. lolfail at you not understanding that.sleeper;1643829 wrote:I've never played football. I just understand how rosters are built and basic logic/reason.
I guess by your and COAs logic the Texans should trade any and all assets to get D-line depth, despite having the best D-line in the league.
Your logic. Is broken.
I'll be surprised if anything happens. Just throwing out what Rosenfels, who is connected with the Texans, threw out there. Why anyone would covet Hoyer is baffling to me. One good and one decent NFL start and suddenly he's coveted? Doubtful....thavoice;1643839 wrote:In terms of trade rumors in the NFL if they involve player for player then I usually dismiss them pretty quickly. Most NFL trades are a person for a draft pick.
Waking up in August and realizing you're depending on Ryan Fitzpatrick to move your offense can make people do crazy, crazy things.BR1986FB;1643840 wrote:I'll be surprised if anything happens. Just throwing out what Rosenfels, who is connected with the Texans, threw out there. Why anyone would covet Hoyer is baffling to me. One good and one decent NFL start and suddenly he's coveted? Doubtful....
Except the trade is to get a QB. The d lineman is an extra bonus for them.sleeper;1643829 wrote:I've never played football. I just understand how rosters are built and basic logic/reason.
I guess by your and COAs logic the Texans should trade any and all assets to get D-line depth, despite having the best D-line in the league.
Your logic. Is broken.
I think that's part of the reason for these rumors. HC's usually don't take kindly to 30 point blowouts, even in preseason.Heretic;1643843 wrote:Waking up in August and realizing you're depending on Ryan Fitzpatrick to move your offense can make people do crazy, crazy things.
Not sure what playing football has to do with roster allocation. Do you even optimize bro?like_that;1643846 wrote:Except the trade is to get a QB. The d lineman is an extra bonus for them.
Again, try playing football or have a better understanding of the game. You're comparing 3 first rounds picks (in your example) to an aging WR who currently is sidelined by hammy issues and doesn't want to be in Houston. Stick to the baby boomer talk, you're not going to win this argument.
Yeah, I know quite a few women who know more about the game than some men so playing isn't necessarily a prerequisite.sleeper;1643849 wrote:Not sure what playing football has to do with roster allocation. Do you even optimize bro?
See: Kevin KolbBR1986FB;1643840 wrote:I'll be surprised if anything happens. Just throwing out what Rosenfels, who is connected with the Texans, threw out there. Why anyone would covet Hoyer is baffling to me. One good and one decent NFL start and suddenly he's coveted? Doubtful....
sleeper;1643849 wrote:Not sure what playing football has to do with roster allocation. Do you even optimize bro?
You're right, but I know that anyone who played football for a decent team would know that d-line depth is completely different than QB depth. LOL.BR1986FB;1643853 wrote:Yeah, I know quite a few women who know more about the game than some men so playing isn't necessarily a prerequisite.
I'm not even its worth my time explaining the logic to you. Yeah, let's trade all assets to get Suh, Clowney, Watt, Long, Atkins, Dunlap and Pierre-Paul on the same team because we need D-line depth and you can NEVER have enoguh D-line depth.like_that;1643858 wrote:You're right, but I know that anyone who played football for a decent team would know that d-line depth is completely different than QB depth. LOL.
It's not a prerequisite but anyone who follows the game should know that. There's only one QB on the field at a time while there's usually 3 to 4 DL, hence your depth example.like_that;1643858 wrote:You're right, but I know that anyone who played football for a decent team would know that d-line depth is completely different than QB depth. LOL.
And this make sense too, if I'm reading it right. Yes, you need a few studs but you don't necessarily need top notch studs for depth, correct? It's kind of like how the current Cavs will be constructed....Lebron, Kyrie, Love and a bunch of ham & eggers.sleeper;1643860 wrote:I'm not even its worth my time explaining the logic to you. Yeah, let's trade all assets to get Suh, Clowney, Watt, Long, Atkins, Dunlap and Pierre-Paul on the same team because we need D-line depth and you can NEVER have enoguh D-line depth.
Sorry, but you don't understand roster utilization and optimization. Assuming there are no constraints, maybe you are right, but unfortunately this is reality and reality has constraints.
Right because we live in reality. Not sure where COA and LT live, but I live in reality.BR1986FB;1643863 wrote:And this make sense too, if I'm reading it right. Yes, you need a few studs but you don't necessarily need top notch studs for depth, correct? It's kind of like how the current Cavs will be constructed....Lebron, Kyrie, Love and a bunch of ham & eggers.
A simple "you are right like_that" would suffice. You can keep recycling your flawed argument, but all that will do is display your lack of knowledge for the game. Dlinemen are like pitchers in baseball, you can never have enough (especially good DTs like Taylor). The 2007 Giants (and numerous other recent SB winners) agree with my logic. Just look at the draft ever year. Plenty of DTs/DEs being taken.sleeper;1643860 wrote:I'm not even its worth my time explaining the logic to you. Yeah, let's trade all assets to get Suh, Clowney, Watt, Long, Atkins, Dunlap and Pierre-Paul on the same team because we need D-line depth and you can NEVER have enoguh D-line depth.
Sorry, but you don't understand roster utilization and optimization. Assuming there are no constraints, maybe you are right, but unfortunately this is reality and reality has constraints.
That's an extreme example which is not in reality (despite the fact sleeper is bringing up reality). Those guys would take up all of your salary and you would have to trade major assets to get them.BR1986FB;1643863 wrote:And this make sense too, if I'm reading it right. Yes, you need a few studs but you don't necessarily need top notch studs for depth, correct? It's kind of like how the current Cavs will be constructed....Lebron, Kyrie, Love and a bunch of ham & eggers.
Clearly you don't if you are trying to make unrealistic trades to prove a shitty point. LOLFAIL, keep grasping though little guy.sleeper;1643865 wrote:Right because we live in reality. Not sure where COA and LT live, but I live in reality.
Clowney is a hyrid DE/LB which fits their 3-4 scheme. He's also a once in a generation type talent; a true physical freak.like_that;1643870 wrote:A simple "you are right like_that" would suffice. You can keep recycling your flawed argument, but all that will do is display your lack of knowledge for the game. Dlinemen are like pitchers in baseball, you can never have enough (especially good DTs like Taylor). The 2007 Giants (and numerous other recent SB winners) agree with my logic. Just look at the draft ever year. Plenty of DTs/DEs being taken.
The texans drafted clowney despite already having the best DE in the league. That was a stupid draft pick, because they obviously did not consider their roster optimization #derpsleeperlogic.
Can never have enough D-line depth though. 53 man roster should have at least 25 D-linemen.like_that;1643873 wrote:Clearly you don't if you are trying to make unrealistic trades to prove a shitty point. LOLFAIL, keep grasping though little guy.
Having 11 bodies in Training Camp = depth? Browns would be stupid to trade for a WR then since we have 12 on our current roster. LOLFAILsleeper;1643876 wrote:Clowney is a hyrid DE/LB which fits their 3-4 scheme. He's also a once in a generation type talent; a true physical freak.
The Texans have DE/DT depth. They have 11 defensive linemen, and 19 LBs on their depth chart totaling 30 players who can play on the front 7. Granted some of these players will get cut, but the reality is they don't need more DL and the Browns certainly aren't going to trade one of their best pieces for a 30 year old WR.
