LOCKED: Browns BS Drama Continued...

posted by BR1986FB

You mean like the running back, Trent Richardson?

Or manziel, coleman, erving, weeden, etc.  We have plenty of offensive first round flops. 

posted by like_that

Or manziel, coleman, erving, weeden, etc.  We have plenty of offensive first round flops. 

Was doing that more for the effect of how much more it stings, at least to me, when you are using a top 5 pick on a luxury position and it flops. If a QB, LT or a CB ends up sucking, at least you took a swing to fix that problem.

History has proven time & time again that good RB's can be had later in the draft. Plus, I know this is beating a dead horse but how many elite RB's have taken their team to a SB? In the (somewhat) modern era, the top 3 RB's that come to mind are Barry Sanders, Ladainian Tomlinson and Adrian Peterson and none of those guys sniffed a SB.

posted by BR1986FB

Was doing that more for the effect of how much more it stings, at least to me, when you are using a top 5 pick on a luxury position and it flops. If a QB, LT or a CB ends up sucking, at least you took a swing to fix that problem.

History has proven time & time again that good RB's can be had later in the draft. Plus, I know this is beating a dead horse but how many elite RB's have taken their team to a SB? In the (somewhat) modern era, the top 3 RB's that come to mind are Barry Sanders, Ladainian Tomlinson and Adrian Peterson and none of those guys sniffed a SB.

How many left guards have? How many edge rushers have?

you need an elite QB, and good talent around him. If we grab an elite QB, and saquon at 4 ends up being a stud RB for us, not a single person will complain. Same can be said for Chubb. Or minkah. Or Nelson.

I don’t really care who we take at 4. I want our first pick to be the best QB in the class and then whoever we pick at 4 to be a good player. 

posted by SportsAndLady

How many left guards have? How many edge rushers have?

you need an elite QB, and good talent around him. If we grab an elite QB, and saquon at 4 ends up being a stud RB for us, not a single person will complain. Same can be said for Chubb. Or minkah. Or Nelson.

 

I don’t really care who we take at 4. I want our first pick to be the best QB in the class and then whoever we pick at 4 to be a good player. 

Probably more edge rushers have flamed out than running backs because most NFL GM's realize the edge rusher is a more important need than a RB, so there are more taken higher. Left guards would be a moot point because Nelson, if taken top 5, would be the highest offensive guard taken in decades.

We agree to disagree on this as I'd rather have my cake & eat it too when I could have QB at 1, Chubb at 4 and Guice (a RB who will likely give similar production) with the high 2nd or trade back to lower 1st.

posted by BR1986FB

Was doing that more for the effect of how much more it stings, at least to me, when you are using a top 5 pick on a luxury position and it flops. If a QB, LT or a CB ends up sucking, at least you took a swing to fix that problem.

History has proven time & time again that good RB's can be had later in the draft. Plus, I know this is beating a dead horse but how many elite RB's have taken their team to a SB? In the (somewhat) modern era, the top 3 RB's that come to mind are Barry Sanders, Ladainian Tomlinson and Adrian Peterson and none of those guys sniffed a SB.

Not sure if I posted this before, but if you look back dating back to 1998 only two teams won the SB with a first round RB (a RB they actually drafted, not traded for).  You can argue one of them (Reggie Bush) was not even close to the main piece of that SB title. 

posted by like_that

Not sure if I post this before, but if you look back dating back to 1998 only two teams won the SB with a first round RB (a RB they actually drafted, not traded for).  You can argue one of them (Reggie Bush) was not even close to the main piece of that SB title. 

Peterson never got close until the Vikings added Favre.

posted by BR1986FB

Probably more edge rushers have flamed out than running backs because most NFL GM's realize the edge rusher is a more important need than a RB, so there are more taken higher. Left guards would be a moot point because Nelson, if taken top 5, would be the highest offensive guard taken in decades.

We agree to disagree on this as I'd rather have my cake & eat it too when I could have QB at 1, Chubb at 4 and Guice (a RB who will likely give similar production) with the high 2nd or trade back to lower 1st.

I’m axtually not really disagreeing. I’d rather Chubb at 4 too (and a RB later on). I’m just saying I’m not gonna jump off a high rise because we took a RB at 4 like some of you would.  If he’s productive and a top 5 RB in the league, no one will QQ. Not to mention having a great rushing attack will only help our rookie QB grow. 

My initial point was not a lot of teams are carried to a super bowl by any one player, unless that player is a QB. We just need talent at 4, and if that is Chubb or minkah or Barkley, I’ll be happy. 

posted by SportsAndLady

I’m axtually not really disagreeing. I’d rather Chubb at 4 too (and a RB later on). I’m just saying I’m not gonna jump off a high rise because we took a RB at 4 like some of you would.  If he’s productive and a top 5 RB in the league, no one will QQ. Not to mention having a great rushing attack will only help our rookie QB grow. 

My initial point was not a lot of teams are carried to a super bowl by any one player, unless that player is a QB. We just need talent at 4, and if that is Chubb or minkah or Barkley, I’ll be happy. 

My point as always is teams that win the Super Bowl draft well at high value positions.  In today's NFL, the RB is not a high value position.  Not for a first round pick.  

posted by like_that

My point as always is teams that win the Super Bowl draft well at high value positions.  In today's NFL, the RB is not a high value position.  Not for a first round pick.  

Agreed, esp at the contract. Not many positions on the field that I value less than the RB TBH.

posted by like_that

My point as always is teams that win the Super Bowl draft well at high value positions.  In today's NFL, the RB is not a high value position.  Not for a first round pick.  

I just disagree. If you have a RB that can run and catch out of the backfield (like leveon  Bell), it can transform your offense in so many different ways. If Barkley can do that, it would be a great pick. 

posted by SportsAndLady

I just disagree. If you have a RB that can run and catch out of the backfield (like leveon  Bell), it can transform your offense in so many different ways. If Barkley can do that, it would be a great pick. 

A large sample of teams drafting well at high value positions and winning titles agree with me/disagree with you. 

Also, the Steelers drafted him in the 2nd round.  Not to mention, they value him so much that they still haven't offered him an extension.

posted by like_that

A large sample of teams drafting well at high value positions and winning titles agree with me/disagree with you. 

Also, the Steelers drafted him in the 2nd round.  Not to mention, they value him so much that they still haven't offered him an extension.

Not to mention the steelers offense was still pretty high powered when bell was out due to injury/suspension.  Probably because they have a good qb, good WRs and a good line.  All positions valued higher than a RB...

posted by SportsAndLady

How many left guards have? How many edge rushers have?

I agree with your overall premise, just wanted to point out Peyton Manning won with Dwight Freeney and Von Miller. The SBs he lost, Freeney had a sprained ankle and torn ligaments and Miller was on IR. 

posted by Laley23

I agree with your overall premise, just wanted to point out Peyton Manning won with Dwight Freeney and Von Miller. The SBs he lost, Freeney had a sprained ankle and torn ligaments and Miller was on IR. 

I hear ya. Moreso just pointing out that whether we draft an edge or a guard or a RB, none of it matters if the QB we take at 1 isn’t elite. 

Since you all love to bag on your local media's sports reporting, here's something even more hilariously stupid!

https://sports.yahoo.com/browns-asking-trouble-select-2-qbs-draft-033221590.html

Yahoo! football columnist Charles Robinson wrote a column that can be summed up like this.

1. What if Cleveland, not having had a QB worth shit in ages, drafted one with the first pick and ONE WITH THE FOURTH PICK!!!! Anyone think anything about that.

2. Welp, asked an NFC front-office type and he talked to me like I was a tard.

3. But what if they drafted two QBs -- one in the first round and one in a later round?!?

4. Long-winded comparison to how the Redskin dynamic suffered because they drafted RG3 and Cousins in the same year, leading to two guys thinking they could be the starter, neither of whom really felt the club had their back.

5. WHAT IF, PEOPLE, WHAT IF?!?!?

6. Oh yeah, they have Tyrod Taylor, too. And he probably thinks he's a starter.

7. Better end this shit. Running out of WHAT IFs.

posted by Heretic

Since you all love to bag on your local media's sports reporting, here's something even more hilariously stupid!

https://sports.yahoo.com/browns-asking-trouble-select-2-qbs-draft-033221590.html

Yahoo! football columnist Charles Robinson wrote a column that can be summed up like this.

1. What if Cleveland, not having had a QB worth shit in ages, drafted one with the first pick and ONE WITH THE FOURTH PICK!!!! Anyone think anything about that.

2. Welp, asked an NFC front-office type and he talked to me like I was a tard.

3. But what if they drafted two QBs -- one in the first round and one in a later round?!?

4. Long-winded comparison to how the Redskin dynamic suffered because they drafted RG3 and Cousins in the same year, leading to two guys thinking they could be the starter, neither of whom really felt the club had their back.

5. WHAT IF, PEOPLE, WHAT IF?!?!?

6. Oh yeah, they have Tyrod Taylor, too. And he probably thinks he's a starter.

7. Better end this shit. Running out of WHAT IFs.

TBH, if there's a developmental QB in the later rounds, I'd have no issue with it.

Ha, 92.3 reporter that Dorsey won’t be telling Hue who is going #1 until Wednesday night. Seems normal

posted by SportsAndLady

 Not to mention having a great rushing attack will only help our rookie QB grow. 

 

This, in essence, was my thought process when posting what I did. We will draft a top rookie QB, and he will need help. Period.

posted by vball10set

This, in essence, was my thought process when posting what I did. We will draft a top rookie QB, and he will need help. Period.

Got it and understood but with the addition of Carlos Hyde, they can afford to wait on the RB until 2nd round or later. If they take Barkley at 4, he's a three down back. You might at well release Hyde (wasted signing) and try to trade Duke because they will essentially no longer be needed. Barkley is a double threat out of the backfield. Whoever Barkley is drafted by is going to put him on the field, day 1, as their featured back.

posted by BR1986FB

Got it and understood but with the addition of Carlos Hyde, they can afford to wait on the RB until 2nd round or later. If they take Barkley at 4, he's a three down back. You might at well release Hyde (wasted signing) and try to trade Duke because they will essentially no longer be needed. Barkley is a double threat out of the backfield. Whoever Barkley is drafted by is going to put him on the field, day 1, as their featured back.

Point taken, but I still would be thrilled if they drafted him--I think he's an Elliott type of impact player. That being said, I would be equally as thrilled if they took Chubb/Fitzpatrick. To be honest, I want them to draft Darnold, but if they went with Rosen or Allen I wouldn't go crazy--that emotion is reserved for if they were idiotic enough to take Mayfield.