P
pkebker
Posts: 760
Apr 4, 2010 8:39am
After reading that article, the DL scares me more than ever. Not only are they pretty bad, they are really old. We definitely need to address the DL in the draft.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 9:22am
Several recent mocks have Gerald McCoy falling to #7. Thoughts?pkebker wrote: After reading that article, the DL scares me more than ever. Not only are they pretty bad, they are really old. We definitely need to address the DL in the draft.
I think he's more of a 4-3 talent myself.
royal_k
Posts: 4,423
Apr 4, 2010 9:31am
Not sure about McCoy' ability to play the 3-4 either.BR1986FB wrote:Several recent mocks have Gerald McCoy falling to #7. Thoughts?pkebker wrote: After reading that article, the DL scares me more than ever. Not only are they pretty bad, they are really old. We definitely need to address the DL in the draft.
I think he's more of a 4-3 talent myself.
I still believe they target Berry if available or trade down to get Thomas with their 1st pick.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Apr 4, 2010 9:40am
He'd have to play DE, he's definitely a talent. I would probably use the #7 pick for someone that wouldn't appear to be a project at their respective position.
wes_mantooth
Posts: 17,977
Apr 4, 2010 10:08am
He is a beast, but if Berry is there....they need to take him.BR1986FB wrote:Several recent mocks have Gerald McCoy falling to #7. Thoughts?pkebker wrote: After reading that article, the DL scares me more than ever. Not only are they pretty bad, they are really old. We definitely need to address the DL in the draft.
I think he's more of a 4-3 talent myself.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 10:30am
This is all assuming Berry is gone. Highly doubt Berry AND McCoy will be there at 7.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Apr 4, 2010 10:36am
I hear this constantly with top talent..so I ask the question--why are we even in the 3-4?BR1986FB wrote:
I think he's more of a 4-3 talent myself.
royal_k
Posts: 4,423
Apr 4, 2010 10:44am
Yeah....that's highly unlikely unles 2 QB's are taken in the top 6.BR1986FB wrote: This is all assuming Berry is gone. Highly doubt Berry AND McCoy will be there at 7.
Evean if it were to happen, Berry has to be the pick. I think he is an immediate impact player and fills a postion of need more than a defensive lineman.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 10:47am
I think Bradford and Clausen will both be gone by pick #4. Also starting to think the Sea Chickens take Berry at #6. I hope Berry is there though.royal_k wrote:Yeah....that's highly unlikely unles 2 QB's are taken in the top 6.BR1986FB wrote: This is all assuming Berry is gone. Highly doubt Berry AND McCoy will be there at 7.
Evean if it were to happen, Berry has to be the pick. I think he is an immediate impact player and fills a postion of need more than a defensive lineman.
wes_mantooth
Posts: 17,977
Apr 4, 2010 10:56am
I would want no part of Clausen in the top 5....I just don't see it.
S&L, that is a good question. I honestly thought that with Holmgren coming in, they would go back to the 4-3.
S&L, that is a good question. I honestly thought that with Holmgren coming in, they would go back to the 4-3.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 11:00am
I thought the same thing too but if you look at some of the defensive players acquired (Gocong), it's implied the 3-4 isn't going away anytime soon.wes_mantooth wrote:
S&L, that is a good question. I honestly thought that with Holmgren coming in, they would go back to the 4-3.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 11:14am
http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/89843687.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ObrNewswire+%28OBR+Newswire%29
http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/browns/2010/04/trade-with-eagles-could-net-2-starters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ObrNewswire+%28OBR+Newswire%29
http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/browns/2010/04/trade-with-eagles-could-net-2-starters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ObrNewswire+%28OBR+Newswire%29
royal_k
Posts: 4,423
Apr 4, 2010 11:41am
Those articles just reinforce the Browns targeting Berry.
I don'y bye into not drafting a safety in the top 10, regardless of the injury problems associated with the position.
This guy is a flat out player.
I don'y bye into not drafting a safety in the top 10, regardless of the injury problems associated with the position.
This guy is a flat out player.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 11:52am
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 7:19pm
Pretty surprised to see that the Browns are SERIOUSLY considering a trade UP with their first round pick. That possibility is always there and it may not happen but with the numerous needs, this would surprise me.
B
Big Red Monster
Posts: 436
Apr 4, 2010 8:37pm
If you see them trade up from 7, that will no doubt be for either Bradford or Claussen.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Apr 4, 2010 8:40pm
I'm hearing that they are "seriously considering" it. Doesn't mean it WILL happen but if it does, I doubt it's for Clausen. With the McNabb to the Skins deal, Clausen will likely be there at #7.Big Red Monster wrote: If you see them trade up from 7, that will no doubt be for either Bradford or Claussen.
A
Al Capone
Posts: 1,727
Apr 4, 2010 10:45pm
Good job Holmgren, the hero of Cleveland. You could've had McNabb but will settle for eek and meek. hahaha.
Lovejoy1984
Posts: 5,277
Apr 4, 2010 10:52pm
Not getting McNabb was a good move for Cleveland.
wes_mantooth
Posts: 17,977
Apr 4, 2010 10:54pm
That is the question. McNabb is the superior qb to Delhomme, but Delhomme just cost money and McNabb cost picks. Which is the better deal?HighRoller74 wrote: Not getting McNabb was a good move for Cleveland.
Lovejoy1984
Posts: 5,277
Apr 4, 2010 11:00pm
^^^
McNabb would've bolted Cleveland after next season, unless he felt they were on the cusp.
Delhomme is just happy someone wanted him, and maybe he returns to form, maybe he doesn't. Only out some cash. Cleveland is drafting a QB this year anyone to groom.
So I think the picks are too great to give up, for a team rebuilding.
McNabb would've bolted Cleveland after next season, unless he felt they were on the cusp.
Delhomme is just happy someone wanted him, and maybe he returns to form, maybe he doesn't. Only out some cash. Cleveland is drafting a QB this year anyone to groom.
So I think the picks are too great to give up, for a team rebuilding.
A
Al Capone
Posts: 1,727
Apr 4, 2010 11:01pm
I agree. Seneca Wallace is much better. The joke of an organization continues. LMFAO.:huh:HighRoller74 wrote: Not getting McNabb was a good move for Cleveland.
A
Al Capone
Posts: 1,727
Apr 4, 2010 11:07pm
Holmgren is going to rake in a million dollars per win this season. Not bad.
B
big_hits24
Posts: 175
Apr 4, 2010 11:11pm
^^ Yep, the Eagles...They trade a starting CB and LB to the Browns for mid round picks and a LB who plays special teams, now today, they trade their QB from the last 10yrs, who was one of their best players if not the best, to a division rival for crap...Philly has really messed this whole McNabb thing up badly! He is probably glad to get out of there and now to have an opportunity to beat them twice in a season. I'm not even sure how good Kolb will actually be for the Eagles with no McNabb...so this organization has definitely been the joke this offseason.
A
Al Capone
Posts: 1,727
Apr 4, 2010 11:23pm
Offseason jokes:
1.Browns
2.Eagles
1.Browns
2.Eagles