It's difficult to run in the NFL anymore.

Not impossible if you have a great offensive line. Jets, Vikings and Cowboys to some degree. Cowboys have a big line and it's good for the running game but the tackles are slow off the ball, which is why they struggled at Minnesota in the playoffs. Ravens line is above average and they have a beast running back in Rice.

But unless you have a great offensive line and good running back you're not going to run with a lot of success against good defenses when it matters.

Browns should have a pretty good line. It's up to them to decide how much they think of it. If they're confident it can be a top group they can still feature the smashmouth approach and then having an efficient, WCO QB is not a necessity. The passing would be more based on drawing the defenders up and going play-action. This isn't really a McCoy, Bradford style of offense.

They would be more like what most of the league has gone to with the QB at the controls, spread it out. It's also the Holmgren way. The smashmouth is better pure football but actually more difficult to pull off in today's NFL.

I agree it's more difficult to run these days, that's why aging RB's are a dime a dozen. Living in the AFC central, it's always been two things that have to be relied upon in order to be successful, run the ball with at least a little consistency, and be able to stop the run defensively.

The Steelers have gotten away from that, due in most part to the lines inneffectiveness. The Browns were able to establish themselves as a bit of a running team late in the season though against lesser opponents. As long as the Browns are able to get three yards on any given down regardless of situation, I'll be happy. I don't think we need to amass 180 yards a game to be successful.

Pittsburgh played the smashmouth game when they had Bettis and a good line. When you have that type of running game, even a Kordell Stewart or a rookie Ben Roethlisberger can succeed. Same with the Jets and a rookie Sanchez. Ravens with a rookie Flacco.

Browns would need a much more bruising running back than they have now if they like their offensive line enough to employ this offensive style consistently. The QB wouldn't matter too much, but athletic, tough, can throw the play-action pass would be some of the basic skills.

In the WCO, the feature running back obviously needs to catch. The QB must be a quick-decision maker and accurate. The line must pass protect and not have the timing disrupted. The receivers are catching a lot of short passes so there better be a mixture of run-after-the-catch and tough, possession guys.

I said this on another thread...

I am not buying the talk about Bradford coming from Holmgren. It's a smokescreen.

My gut says they're going to take McCoy in the second -- and Pike might be the choice if they decide to go later (3rd round).

Pike would be the best option of "spread QB's" available, but their track record of NFL success is abysmal at best, non existant in most cases.

I'd rather they pick a QB in next year's first round, especially if there is a rookie cap in place and a guy worth taking. I think they can get a good qb in the 2nd or 3rd though.

Honest question..what real good qbs are there in next years draft?

Somebody is immediately going to point to Locker -- but he didn't show anything special this year that makes me want him that much.

Mallet is another big name, but who knows if he's really going to improve enough to be considered a prime NFL QB.

Something about Locker and Mallett screams career clipboard carrier to me. I have been hearing about their skill and NFL potential, but I've never seen anything remotely resembling consistent quality performance.

There's the guy from Stanford too, he should be a high pick. There's also of course the wild card being the possibility of a certain Pittsburgh native who plays in Ohio and just might declare ala the guy he's often compared to. I'm not even going to say it because everyone will just shoot me down.

I dont get what people see with Locker, either. Mallet has potential though, IMO.

krazie45 wrote: There's the guy from Stanford too, he should be a high pick. There's also of course the wild card being the possibility of a certain Pittsburgh native who plays in Ohio and just might declare ala the guy he's often compared to. I'm not even going to say it because everyone will just shoot me down.

LOL...this guy definately does not fit the mold of Holmgren. He's got Oakland written all over him. Anyone that can't speak the english language worth a shit, I don't want anywhere near the Browns. I'll never forget his debacle over the whole Vick killin dogs deal. He was quoted something like this..."I dont see what the big deal is...everybody does kills people and stuff"....WTF???!!! No thank you!! JMO

Heretic wrote: Something about Locker and Mallett screams career clipboard carrier to me. I have been hearing about their skill and NFL potential, but I've never seen anything remotely resembling consistent quality performance.

No to either...especially Locker. Not all that good.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4998541


like I said crazies, a rejuvenated sense of starting over for a new team

I'm hoping they take Tim Hiller from Western Michigan with one of their many last round picks.

CCRolly wrote: I'm hoping they take Tim Hiller from Western Michigan with one of their many last round picks.

Just because he's a local boy?

Please no more "local boys."

You mean no more boys just beacuse they are locals? Hiller had a phenominal career at Western. He is no firt round choice, but has the talent to emerge as a late round sleeper pick

Hiller's stats speak for themselves. He's got good size, is pretty athletic/agile, and is a smart guy. It has nothing to do with him being local. What does it hurt taking this guy later in the Draft if he's still there? Nobody thought Tom Brady would turn out like he did...

yes but Tom Brady played at Michigan, not Western Michigan...big difference in the talent level...

Yeah, Greg Jennings played at Western....and Brian Robiskie at Ohio State...I think I'd take Jennings at WR. There are too many of these same comparisons people could go through.

WR and QB are very different positions. A QB needs to be able to read fast defenses, which Hiller probably did not playing in the MAC. A WR can be good if he's fast and can catch...

There are a handful of Qbs whose time reading defenses in the MAC didn't prepare them very well for the NFL.

http://realbitsofpanthers.com/2010/03/15/jake-delhomme-signs-with-cleveland-browns/

BR1986FB wrote: http://realbitsofpanthers.com/2010/03/15/jake-delhomme-signs-with-cleveland-browns/

This basically echos what Holmgren said was JD's primary contribution was to be as relayed to him when he was brought in. At least that what he said in the presser yesterday.