Whitner has to go. I still like dansby


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1782193 wrote:Whitner has to go. I still like dansby


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dansby has a some left in the tank but he's slipping. Whitner can GTFO. He's a liability back there.

DGAF either way. We don't have anyone better than either behind them. If they stay great, if they go, great.

like to see the Brownies pick up both Little Animal AND Long...


http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2016/02/68027/los-angeles-rams-release-james-laurinaitis

Posting this for BR

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2608297-br-nfl-1000-ranking-the-top-35-left-tackles-from-2015/page/36

[h=3]Pass Block[/h] 45/45

In terms of consistent dominance, it gets no better than Joe Thomas.


[h=3]Run Block[/h] 44/45

Thomas has always been known to excel as a zone blocker—a scheme in which he could use his athletic ability to take advantage of in-line angles. But 2015 saw Thomas have what may have been his best season as a complete run-blocker. That includes downhill, in-line run plays.

Commander of Awesome;1782873 wrote:Posting this for BR

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2608297-br-nfl-1000-ranking-the-top-35-left-tackles-from-2015/page/36

Pass Block

45/45

In terms of consistent dominance, it gets no better than Joe Thomas.


Run Block

44/45

Thomas has always been known to excel as a zone blocker—a scheme in which he could use his athletic ability to take advantage of in-line angles. But 2015 saw Thomas have what may have been his best season as a complete run-blocker. That includes downhill, in-line run plays.

Bitonio, Mack, Greco & Schwartz must all suck then because they can't run the ball worth a shit. :rolleyes:

BR1986FB;1782885 wrote:Bitonio, Mack, Greco & Schwartz must all suck then because they can't run the ball worth a shit. :rolleyes:

Or the RBs weren't good. The passing game didn't scare the defense. The WRs are too tiny to block on the outside. Coaches sucked and couldn't call run plays worth shit.

A lot of reasons why the run game sucked, Joe Thomas was not one of them.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/22/report-gipson-expects-to-move-on-from-browns/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/22/report-mack-expected-to-opt-out-could-still-return-to-browns/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

SportsAndLady;1782889 wrote:Or the RBs weren't good. The passing game didn't scare the defense. The WRs are too tiny to block on the outside. Coaches sucked and couldn't call run plays worth shit.

A lot of reasons why the run game sucked, Joe Thomas was not one of them.

So the running game, with essentially the same personnel (RB's) was fine in 2014, but they suddenly sucked in 2015? The passing game was the least of their worries. I might bite on the WR's being poor blockers & coaches but not the first two. Still doesn't explain why on 1st & goal from the 1 that they didn't have the confidence to try to punch in in on the ground, consistently, and opted for passes.

No everyone, Br is right. Every expert agrees JT is an excellent run blocker (as well as pass blocker), but it doesn't matter because stubborn br disagrees. [emoji849]

like_that;1782894 wrote:No everyone, Br is right. Every expert agrees JT is an excellent run blocker (as well as pass blocker), but it doesn't matter because stubborn br disagrees. [emoji849]

All I said is that if JT is perfect, as those metrics implied, the rest of the O-Line must suck. If one guy is doing his job properly, the others must NOT, otherwise, they'd be able to run the damn ball. If he & "Pwnio" are so great on the left side, they shouldn't have issues punching it in on 1st & goal. I know other factors play into it but one would think a blind squirrel would find a nut, once in a while, if they were so dominant.

The RB's aren't THAT bad. If the O-Line was so damn good they'd be able to run the ball. Maybe you're right? Maybe JT is the outlier? If that's the case, the other four suck.

SportsAndLady;1782889 wrote:The passing game didn't scare the defense.

Ill go with this.

Benjamin hitting FA, DRGAF. I think this past season was an anomaly. He's a nice to have, but not a must have.

Commander of Awesome;1782983 wrote:Benjamin hitting FA, DRGAF. I think this past season was an anomaly. He's a nice to have, but not a must have.

Schwartz is the real "must have" as far as resigning but I have a feeling he's going to bolt. Mack is a coin flip as to whether he wants to be here or not.

On a "not football" note but a "thanks for kicking Cleveland in the nuts" note, Bruce Springsteen started off his CLEVELAND concert last night with "hello Pittsburgh !" GFY Bruce....

Question for the "take a QB at #2" guys because I've seen this debate a few times and am not a fan of it. I've seen/heard some comments that even if Wentz is the better QB prospect (by a slight margin, not clear cut) than Goff you still take Goff because Wentz hasn't played the level of competition of Goff. Again, keep in mind Wentz wouldn't be a landslide choice but just a marginal one with better tools in the front office's eyes.

I personally think this is bullshit and you take the best prospect in your staff's eyes. There have been a few examples (McNair, Flacco, Roethlisberger) who haven't played the top level of competition and they've turned out fine.

I've heard stuff like "if you think Wentz is the guy, you're still apprehensive to turn in the card at 2 because of the schools he's played against" and "it's better to play it safe and take Goff when you can't afford to miss on this pick."

Thoughts?

Interesting. Mayock says Wentz is on Andrew Luck's prospect level.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/23/mike-mayock-thinks-carson-wentz-compares-to-andrew-luck/

Azubuike24;1783019 wrote:Interesting. Mayock says Wentz is on Andrew Luck's prospect level.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/23/mike-mayock-thinks-carson-wentz-compares-to-andrew-luck/

I've been leaning toward Wentz but think they will be ok with either him or Goff. I heard the stuff Mayock said on the radio this morning. He's the one, out of the draft guru's, whose word I take the most stock in. I think Kiper & McShay are crap.

BR1986FB;1783013 wrote:Question for the "take a QB at #2" guys because I've seen this debate a few times and am not a fan of it. I've seen/heard some comments that even if Wentz is the better QB prospect (by a slight margin, not clear cut) than Goff you still take Goff because Wentz hasn't played the level of competition of Goff. Again, keep in mind Wentz wouldn't be a landslide choice but just a marginal one with better tools in the front office's eyes.

I personally think this is bullshit and you take the best prospect in your staff's eyes. There have been a few examples (McNair, Flacco, Roethlisberger) who haven't played the top level of competition and they've turned out fine.

I've heard stuff like "if you think Wentz is the guy, you're still apprehensive to turn in the card at 2 because of the schools he's played against" and "it's better to play it safe and take Goff when you can't afford to miss on this pick."

Thoughts?

Take the best qb at #2. Period.

Azubuike24;1783019 wrote:Interesting. Mayock says Wentz is on Andrew Luck's prospect level.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/23/mike-mayock-thinks-carson-wentz-compares-to-andrew-luck/

Mayock just looking for relevancy.

He already isn't an AL prospect because no one had even heard of him until a few months ago. We heard about Luck since he was a freshman at Stanford. Luck was the clear cut #1 pick. Wentz will maybe be the second pick.

Cosell said goff is a better prospect than Winston. Good enough for me. I'm going to with goff.

Trend bias given that these guys are in the upcoming draft often causes these comparisons.

Does anyone honestly feel if Mariota and Winston were in this draft, they would fall below Goff or Wentz?

Azubuike24;1783030 wrote: Does anyone honestly feel if Mariota and Winston were in this draft, they would fall below Goff or Wentz?

No

I'm interested to see Goff's hand size, if it's under 9 I'll be very concerned about taking him. He'd have to wear gloves and he had a lot of fumbles in college.

Commander of Awesome;1783040 wrote:I'm interested to see Goff's hand size, if it's under 9 I'll be very concerned about taking him. He'd have to wear gloves and he had a lot of fumbles in college.

He could gain some weight too.

BR1986FB;1783044 wrote:He could gain some weight too.

Yeah skinny knees. 2/10 would not draft