Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Cleveland Browns Draft Talk 2010

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Cleveland Browns Draft Talk 2010
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Dec 24, 2009 4:32 PM
I think the Browns should trade up to land Suh.
Dec 24, 2009 4:32pm
P

pkebker

Senior Member

760 posts
Dec 24, 2009 5:20 PM
Footwedge wrote: I think the Browns should trade up to land Suh.
DT isn't that big of a need right now. Big Shaun Rogers is one of the best in the league. We should focus on LB/S/CB...or even DE
Dec 24, 2009 5:20pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Dec 24, 2009 5:24 PM
Ehh, Suh is great but we shouldn't trade up for him. There will be guys like McClain or Berry that will have near the same or more impact for the Browns at positions of greater need.
Dec 24, 2009 5:24pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Dec 24, 2009 5:28 PM
Footwedge wrote: I think the Browns should trade up to land Suh.
Worst idea ever. You don't trade up when you need so much. Especially when you don't know how he can play at DE.
Dec 24, 2009 5:28pm
P

pkebker

Senior Member

760 posts
Dec 24, 2009 6:01 PM
devil1197 wrote: Ehh, Suh is great but we shouldn't trade up for him. There will be guys like McClain or Berry that will have near the same or more impact for the Browns at positions of greater need.
I agree totally...The DT is not a position that we need...S/LB are positions we actually need.
Dec 24, 2009 6:01pm
F

Fidmeister

Senior Member

249 posts
Dec 24, 2009 8:16 PM
Holmgren's guy will prefer the 4-3. You put Suh next to big Shaun and suddenly, the ends pressure better and the DBs are better.

Plus, you'd never get run on.

That said, I like Eric Berry where the Browns can draft.
Dec 24, 2009 8:16pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Dec 24, 2009 8:48 PM
Footwedge wrote: I think the Browns should trade up to land Suh.
Wow.
Dec 24, 2009 8:48pm
wes_mantooth's avatar

wes_mantooth

Tomfoolery & shenanigans

17,977 posts
Dec 24, 2009 9:03 PM
Fidmeister wrote: Holmgren's guy will prefer the 4-3. You put Suh next to big Shaun and suddenly, the ends pressure better and the DBs are better.

Plus, you'd never get run on.

That said, I like Eric Berry where the Browns can draft.
This post is right on. Suh will be an absolute beast in the 4-3, but no way the Browns can move up to get him.....without paying through the nose. Berry really fits a need as well.
Dec 24, 2009 9:03pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Dec 24, 2009 9:07 PM
While Holmgren's teams have used the 4-3, we don't know for certain he'll blow it all up on the defensive side of the ball. He could very well decide to hire a GM that has experience finding 3-4 players and keep that part of the team intact.

We also don't know that he's going to automatically fire Mangini right away. He could very easily let him coach one more year and then make a chance if it doesn't get better.

In any case, I think the Browns have to go best player available regardless of where they end up drafting. There are needs all over the place, so they almost can't go wrong with that philosophy in this draft.
Dec 24, 2009 9:07pm
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Dec 25, 2009 12:10 AM
Well, whoever thinks we don't need help in the defensive line, despite having Shaun Rogers is out of their mind. With that being said, we aren't in a position to lose picks and trade up when we will still get a defensive stud like McCoy, Berry, Haden, McClain, Hughes, Morgan, etc.

But Suh would have an immediate impact with us whether he plays DE next to Rogers or UT next to Rogers in a 43.

Suh is absolutely dominant in the passing game, and even more so in the rushing game. If we can learn how to stop the run, the linebackers jobs and the job of the secondary increases exponentially.

If we get a dominant defensive line for our 34 defense, we can get somebody in there to actually get pressure on the QB forcing the QB to make quicker reads and not making the secondary cover receivers for 7-9 seconds a play.

If we can stop the run, we can stop needing to blitz so many and let the linebackers stroll out in coverage more, or do more elaborate blitzing schemes, and maybe more zone blitzes.

Suh would be a luxury at this point, and unless we draft #1 or #2, we may as well get past the fact that we won't get him, just like we had to with Curry last off-season.
Dec 25, 2009 12:10am
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Dec 25, 2009 10:15 AM
pkebker wrote:
KnightRyder wrote:
charliehustle14 wrote:
KnightRyder wrote:
pkebker wrote:
KnightRyder wrote:
SportsAndLady wrote:
devil1197 wrote: Everything I've read so far is that the Rams need a QB going into next season. They will have the #1 pick so if they take a QB then that will push guys like Suh and Berry down one. You never know what Detroit will do, I am thinking Cleveland will land Berry or McClain.

RB is a need. Once again do you honestly trust any of the RB's carrying a #1 RB load next season. We all would like to think that but Come On Man.
No one is saying RB isn't a need...they're simply saying there are more dire needs than that position. You have to build your core parts (OL, defense) then worry about your running back.
this is probably the last capped season, the browns do need help on the o-line but its the ride side of the 0-line. you never ever draft right o-linemen in the first round. that could easily fixed thru free agency. but there are some home run threats at rb in draft such as cj spiller that might make a good pick
I could see Spiller used like a Reggie Bush in our system...but he's a first rounder and that would be a dumb first round pick for us. Defense, defense, defense....
our system? what is our system? whatever it is , its probably in for a major overhaul with holmgrem now in command. and if anything can be said for holmgrem he likes to have a high powered offense so dont be surprised if they go offense with the 1st pick.
Well hopefully Holmgren is much smarter than you and realizes that one first rounder isn't going to make much of a difference on that offense.
no shit einstien, do you think he is only gonna use one pick on the offense? i highly doubt it. but whoever he brings in to handle the draft i guarantee he is going to be on the same page as holmgrem. you all keep forgetting about free agency like the its been abolished , look go that route to fill some holes also
We've never had much success with FA before...
the best player on the browns team was a undrafted free agent
Dec 25, 2009 10:15am
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Dec 25, 2009 10:27 AM
Oh wow one case of FA success which truly wasn't a FA like we are talking about. Cribbs was a rookie invited to camp, so you think we will fill holes like you stated by picking up undrafted rookies??? Are you that stupid jesus. For every one success I can name you two failures. Let's start Stallworth and Furrey, both ineffective WR's picked up via FA.
Dec 25, 2009 10:27am
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 25, 2009 10:47 AM
Suh would help, and you are right he would have a nice impact. However, I kind of think they could get by with what they have. They other more pressing needs IMO
Dec 25, 2009 10:47am
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Dec 25, 2009 3:23 PM
jordo212000 wrote: Suh would help, and you are right he would have a nice impact. However, I kind of think they could get by with what they have. They other more pressing needs IMO
There is nothing bigger than the need for a dominant defensive line in a 34. The 3 man line is the most important part of the defense, and regardless of who you have as your LB's, and in your secondary, if you can't get the big boys to take up space and eat blockers, then you won't succeed defensively in a 34.

Suh is the most obvious choice, but there's no use in trading up for him when there's so much talent still left after him.
Dec 25, 2009 3:23pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Dec 25, 2009 6:08 PM
DaBrowns41 wrote: if you can't get the big boys to take up space and eat blockers, then you won't succeed defensively in a 34.

Suh is the most obvious choice, but there's no use in trading up for him when there's so much talent still left after him.
You contradict yourself. If having big boys to take up space on the D-line is of upmost importance (which I agree) then Suh is not the choice whatsoever. He would be wasted as a "big man eating up blockers" and as a DE in a 3-4. Even if we went to a 4-3, trading up in this draft when we will have a top 10, maybe even 5 pick, would be useless. There will still be talent left in the draft.
Dec 25, 2009 6:08pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Dec 25, 2009 8:36 PM
devil1197 wrote: Oh wow one case of FA success which truly wasn't a FA like we are talking about. Cribbs was a rookie invited to camp, so you think we will fill holes like you stated by picking up undrafted rookies??? Are you that stupid jesus. For every one success I can name you two failures. Let's start Stallworth and Furrey, both ineffective WR's picked up via FA.
no, but you are extremely stupid. you dont realize that phil savage is gone and so is butch davis, also mangini wont be signing the free agents he is probably done in cleveland. this is new era for the browns. those guys where horrible in signing free agents. plus with the cap coming to end and lerners wealth and holmgrem calling the shots chances are things will change. maybe you just dont keep up with current events and werent aware that the browns hired mike holmgrem or you just the stupidest poster on this site
Dec 25, 2009 8:36pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Dec 25, 2009 8:45 PM
KnightRyder wrote:
devil1197 wrote: Oh wow one case of FA success which truly wasn't a FA like we are talking about. Cribbs was a rookie invited to camp, so you think we will fill holes like you stated by picking up undrafted rookies??? Are you that stupid jesus. For every one success I can name you two failures. Let's start Stallworth and Furrey, both ineffective WR's picked up via FA.
no, but you are extremely stupid. you dont realize that phil savage is gone and so is butch davis, also mangini wont be signing the free agents he is probably done in cleveland. this is new era for the browns. those guys where horrible in signing free agents. plus with the cap coming to end and lerners wealth and holmgrem calling the shots chances are things will change. maybe you just dont keep up with current events and werent aware that the browns hired mike holmgrem or you just the stupidest poster on this site
Really, so you can state a good ROOKIE pickup that Cleveland had but my examples aren't good because those coaches won't be here? I wonder who in the hell put Cribbs on the team, I bet that coach is still with Cleveland you idiot. Your whole entire post is hypocritical to what you stated to start off with.

I know more about Browns football than you could ever imagine. Yes I know Holmgren is coming in but until I see results I'll still state that Cleveland has had horrible success in the FA market of already NFL players. Its due to a number of things but basically Cleveland isn't the greatest place to play football. We have to overpay FA's to come here and they hardly produce.

And it's Holmgren you idiot.
Dec 25, 2009 8:45pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 25, 2009 8:49 PM
KnightRyder wrote:
maybe you just dont keep up with current events and werent aware that the browns hired mike holmgrem or you just the stupidest poster on this site
anybody love the irony in this sentence?
Dec 25, 2009 8:49pm
S

Sonofanump

Dec 25, 2009 9:17 PM
devil1197 wrote:
KnightRyder wrote: ... and werent aware that the browns hired mike holmgrem or you just the stupidest poster on this site
And it's Holmgren you idiot.
FTW!
Dec 25, 2009 9:17pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Dec 26, 2009 9:54 AM
devil1197 wrote:
KnightRyder wrote:
devil1197 wrote: Oh wow one case of FA success which truly wasn't a FA like we are talking about. Cribbs was a rookie invited to camp, so you think we will fill holes like you stated by picking up undrafted rookies??? Are you that stupid jesus. For every one success I can name you two failures. Let's start Stallworth and Furrey, both ineffective WR's picked up via FA.
no, but you are extremely stupid. you dont realize that phil savage is gone and so is butch davis, also mangini wont be signing the free agents he is probably done in cleveland. this is new era for the browns. those guys where horrible in signing free agents. plus with the cap coming to end and lerners wealth and holmgrem calling the shots chances are things will change. maybe you just dont keep up with current events and werent aware that the browns hired mike holmgrem or you just the stupidest poster on this site
Really, so you can state a good ROOKIE pickup that Cleveland had but my examples aren't good because those coaches won't be here? I wonder who in the hell put Cribbs on the team, I bet that coach is still with Cleveland you idiot. Your whole entire post is hypocritical to what you stated to start off with.

I know more about Browns football than you could ever imagine. Yes I know Holmgren is coming in but until I see results I'll still state that Cleveland has had horrible success in the FA market of already NFL players. Its due to a number of things but basically Cleveland isn't the greatest place to play football. We have to overpay FA's to come here and they hardly produce.

And it's Holmgren you idiot.
yes precisely , your examples are useless because the entire staff is all but out the door. but with the salary cap gone that changes the free agent game dramatically. but that you wouldnt understand because you cant get thru that cro magnon head into your 40cc brain.oh and i dont think you know anything about the browns, well maybe the city they play in, i'll give you that.
Dec 26, 2009 9:54am
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Dec 26, 2009 12:11 PM
So then your example for a good pick up is also worthless, just like your posting.

Why will it change the FA market dramatically? Cleveland is still going to have to overpay the FA to come here because it isn't a great place to play right now. If the Patriots and Browns are offering the same guy 4 mil, who will he go to. A team that is proven to put you into the playoffs almost every year with a shot at the title or a team that is used to 3-5 win seasons? Cleveland is automatically going to have to tack on money just to even get the interest of the player, until proven otherwise Cleveland still has terrible luck in the FA market, and Cleveland is not appealing to come to outside of now having Holmgren in the FO. So yes the salary cap may be gone but that doesn't change the fact that Cleveland will be overpaying talent that have a track record of producing shit.

Please, continue to act like you know everything. You have been wrong with about 50+ of your 73 posts. There hypocritical and flat out stupid.
Dec 26, 2009 12:11pm
P

pkebker

Senior Member

760 posts
Dec 26, 2009 12:41 PM
I think the salary cap being gone is a terrible idea for the NFL...
Dec 26, 2009 12:41pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Dec 26, 2009 12:45 PM
pkebker wrote: I think the salary cap being gone is a terrible idea for the NFL...
I agree, but if you have the money then you might as well spend it. The NBA has a salary cap but the great teams like LA, Cavs etc. continually go over the cap and pay the luxury tax. Having a cap means little to the big teams who have owners that will pay the money.

But having no salary cap won't help Cleveland at all. They are still going to have to one up the better teams to even get interest. Unless the new HC is well liked by the NFL players.
Dec 26, 2009 12:45pm
P

pkebker

Senior Member

760 posts
Dec 26, 2009 12:57 PM
Having no salary cap will make it like baseball, where the New York's, Dallas, New England, and all the other teams with money will dominate because they will spend the most money for players. And I believe that it would have a bigger impact in football than in baseball, so we won't see as many underdog teams, like the Rockies, make deep post season runs.
Dec 26, 2009 12:57pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Dec 26, 2009 1:13 PM
pkebker wrote: Having no salary cap will make it like baseball, where the New York's, Dallas, New England, and all the other teams with money will dominate because they will spend the most money for players. And I believe that it would have a bigger impact in football than in baseball, so we won't see as many underdog teams, like the Rockies, make deep post season runs.
It all depends who the owners are of the teams and how much money they have which I honestly havent' looked at recently.

Without knowing who the Cavs owner was, if the NBA went to a no salary cap would you think Cleveland would be one of those dominant teams? I wouldn't even think of putting them in there because Cleveland isn't a place of money but Gilbert has it.

Now Randy Lerner has a net worth of 1.5 billion dollards, owns the Browns and Aston Villa. You named Dallas as being a top team, well Jones net worth improved with the building of the new stadium to 1.8 billion. Lerner actually has a higher net worth than most of the owners of the teams you listed above.

It sure looks like he has money, now the question is will he spend it.
Dec 26, 2009 1:13pm