It's been awhile since I've recapped the columns that Terry Pluto of the Plain Dealer writes. With the Browns already having played this week, Pluto brought up an interesting note today regarding the nose tackle position:
In the past two games, the Browns have allowed 75 yards (Pittsburgh) and 91 yards (San Diego) on the ground, a dramatic change for a team that had been being run over for 155 yards per game. The Browns believe part of the reason is Ahtyba Rubin taking over at nose tackle for the injured Shaun Rogers. They've discovered that Rubin does a better job of clogging up the middle against the run. Rogers is the better pass rusher and far more athletic. Next season, this could lead to Rubin being in the middle of the 3-4 defense with Rogers as one of the ends.
Surprisingly, the run defense has seemed better without Rogers in the lineup. As Pluto mentions, that's not a "dig" at Rogers, but more so shines light on the opportunity of having Rubin and Rogers in the lineup at the same time next year. Combine that with the creative schemes of pass rushing Rob Ryan has unleashed recently (Matt Roth, Marcus Benard, etc), and our defense could be on the right track for next season.
Pluto also discusses the unique defense that Ryan called during some of the passing situations, using five linebackers, six defensive backs, and no defensive linemen. It worked against Ben Roethlisberger Thursday, just like it worked for Eric Mangini against him two years ago:
The coaches showed the players the 2007 game between the Jets and Steelers when the 4-12 Jets upset Pittsburgh, sacking Roethlisberger seven times. In their 27-14 loss at Pittsburgh, the Browns were not able to get players to rush Roethlisberger from the proper angles. This time, they did.
Click here for the rest of Pluto's column, where he discusses the benefits that have come from the team's "opportunity sessions," how the Browns have been better off without Braylon Edwards and Jamal Lewis, and how there has been a change in attitude for defensive lineman Corey Williams.
Since the Browns already played this week, you can use this thread as an open discussion for all of today's games. If you're living in the Cleveland area, then there will be a lot of great games to catch on television. That's what happens when the Browns don't clog up one of the timeslots.
I think this will be the first time this season I'll have a chance to watch Drew Brees and the Saints' offense live as opposed to just seeing the highlights of their routs. There are two other important games being played today -- Indianapolis vs. Denver and Miami vs. Jacksonville.
0 recs | 71 comments
That was a good article by Pluto with plenty of valuable information. I was actually going to post his quote about Rubin and disuss the possibility of him starting at NT next year and moving Rogers to DE. Rogers is much better against the pass than the run and he may be better suited to playing end and focusing on rushing the quarterback. Football Outsiders has the Browns ranked second to last against runs up the middle and that is something which should improve if Rubin is playing NT. The last two games have certainly shown that to be true.
Buckeye Brad - December 13, 2009
Corey Williams has floundered on the outside in the 3-4 but was successful inside at GB in a 4-3 and played solid at NT Thursday night. Any thoughts on Rogers actually being less productive if moved to end?
Monsters of the Midway - December 13, 2009
Williams was all over the line on Thursday. If he can play like that more, he might actually become worth his contract.
I am pretty sure Rogers can play anywhere and be good. Not so certain Rubin’s PT increase is directly causing our run D to be better.
rufio - December 14, 2009
Having depth at RB would be huge for this team. Could also effect our draft in freeing up one less immediate fill, perhaps opening a first round RB possibility.
L Train - December 13, 2009
i can’t remember who said it, but somebody on this board said our defense would improve without rogers, and so far its hard to argue with the results. aside from moving rogers to end, might this make a trade a little more likely? not saying i think its going to happen, but it at least raises the chances.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2009
That was me. I’m very much in favor of moving Rogers to end next year. A two-gap nose needs to stay home more than rush. Rubin is our best option at NT.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2009
Points to you, golanbatrac. From Rubin’s play thus far, the idea of him and Rodgers on the line simultaneously is pretty intriguing….
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 13, 2009
Since I have been hard on Savage often, I need to give him a lot of credit for Rubin. To get a valuable run stuffer at that point in the draft is impressive.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2009
Likewise.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2009
Rogers-Rubin-Suh. Damn.
(We would probably have to trade C-will if we do this so we can draft a CB)
TheRealSlimShady - December 13, 2009
Williams would be tough to trade, unless we could find a desperate team like Carolina.
Roger Dorn - December 13, 2009
This is assuming TB and STL can win another game, correct? And we’d have to not win anymore games. (I mention that because I see KC and OAK as very winnable games.)
Simmsinns - December 13, 2009
Yeah I don’t see us getting the #1 pick (and I assume that’s what we would need to get Suh). Although the Bucs play Seattle next week and the Rams close with the 49ers, and I think both of those games are winnable for those teams, but I don’t see both teams winning (and even if they did then we’d only be tied and wouldn’t be guarenteed the first pick). And, as you said, we have a couple winnable games left on our schedule. Hopefully we can get the 3rd or 4th pick and get Berry.
Question (if anybody knows the answer): is strength-of-schedule the first tiebreaker or do they use head-to-head results when comparing two teams. For example, if only us and the Lions are tied with 2 wins do we get the higher pick because we lost to them or is it only by who played the weaker schedule?
Buckeye Brad - December 13, 2009
From NFL.com:
golanbatrac - December 13, 2009
Found the following on a blog (so no guarantee of accuracy):
http://www.east-coast-bias.com/2007/12/nfl-draft-order-tiebreakers.html
golanbatrac - December 13, 2009
Yeah, s.o.s. is the first tie breaker, so I’m pretty sure we’d be ahead. I’ll check on that and post it.
Simmsinns - December 13, 2009
As old as Rogers and Robaire are, and as unproven as Rubin is, it’s probably for the best that we’re stuck with him, bad contract or not.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2009
^reply fail. Talking about Corey Williams.
golanbatrac - December 13, 2009
Is switching to the 4-3 completely out of the question?
Simmsinns - December 13, 2009
that’s what i was thinking as well. it would also help out Corey Williams who people say plays better in the 4-3.
The Brown Note - December 13, 2009
I don’t believe it’s a good idea to switch the preferred style of the coaches because of personnel one year. There’s so much turnover in the NFL that it’s easier to find more players than switch style.
gahnki - December 13, 2009
i could picture a Wimbley-Rogers-Williams-Smith front 4
Sizemorgasim - December 13, 2009
I don’t know if it’s completely out of the question. I mean, we lined up in some pretty interesting formations on Thursday where we used no linemen and some other unique formations. I’d say if lining up in 4-3 would help the defense then we’d probably do it, but I feel like we’ll probably stay with a 3-4 as the base defense.
shep615 - December 13, 2009
Only for certain looks. Roth might be able to play LDE for a bit.
rufio - December 14, 2009
If it works...
If it really works out that Rodgers is better suited at End with Rubin at NT, do it. They have a couple more games to find out if this set up really works or if the past 2 games were a fluke. We need to know before the season ends so we know what to go after first in the Draft.
dragon43078 - December 13, 2009
except rogers is on IR, so we really can’t know till next year.
notthatnoise - December 13, 2009
Savage was very good at finding talent; he just had no long-term vision.
He mortgaged the future for short term gain and it killed him.
gahnki - December 13, 2009
Plus the 08 draft was _ (many words could fit in this blank)
TheRealSlimShady - December 13, 2009
Does anyone think we can sign Domenik Hixon in the offseason
TheRealSlimShady - December 13, 2009
He has a bit of the dropsies… but I’m all for him, but the last Akron alum didnt fare so well..
Red-Right-88 - December 14, 2009
And that matters how?
Buckeye Brad - December 14, 2009
Isn’t much of Hixon’s value in the fact that he’s also a better than average return guy, and we already have Cribbs? Granted, it can’t hurt to have more than one guy who can take a punt or kick back to the house, but we have one of the best return guys in the NFL already. I would think Hixon would be more valuable to a team that needs some help in the return game.
woodsmeister - December 14, 2009
While we’re on the topic of the line, what do people reckon about Robaire Smith?
To me he doesn’t really seem to be.. there. Nothing outstanding.
skipkirk - December 14, 2009
He’s getting old and showing his age, IMO.
rufio - December 14, 2009
he’s not what he once was, but he’s still a solid rotation guy out there, and would probably get decent playing time on most teams.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2009
I don’t disagree but a few years ago I thought he was great for us. He’s moved down toward “solid”, IMO.
rufio - December 15, 2009
And having I thought about it I guess the other way to look at it would be to say he isn’t bad either.
skipkirk - December 14, 2009
Hows about Rubin at nose, Rogers at left DE and Suh at right DE? 8-)
Brownsyup - December 14, 2009
I think Suh is probably out of grasp at this point. The Rams and Tampa aren’t winning again, and Suh is not going lower than 2nd.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2009
Yeah but I can dream can’t I? The thing is, the Rams need a QB. Tampa also looks to need a QB. So there are possibilities there IF they don’t go for BPA (which is probably unlikely especially for TB which tends to draft high-skill defensive players as a rule). The other possibility is that we lose out and Tampa or the Rams win another game. Not impossible but unlikely (and in our case for me at least, unwanted). Yeah, Suh is becoming more and more unlikely for us if we start to get on track… but I like getting more on track I guess. At leas the Browns will get some kind of marquee player with their pick but I’d have definitely liked to have seen Suh.
Brownsyup - December 14, 2009
Jake Locker just announced that he is returning to UW next season.
So take the possibilty of Locker pushing Suh closer to us.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2009
take away*
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2009
That works two ways though. One fewer top shelf QB makes the other top QB’s all that more valuable. If the Rams want a QB, they may feel that they have to take him #1 or #2 rather than trade down a few spots and take whichever of the top QB’s is left.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2009
Jake Locker just announced that he is returning to UW next season.
good. now mocks can quit saying we’re drafting him.
emily522 - December 14, 2009
Yeah, now they’ll say we’re drafting Jimmy Clausen…
…and Golden Tate will fall to us in the second round.
…and Charlie Weis will be our head coach.
Bumblyjack - December 14, 2009
Tampa just drafted a 1st round QB this year. They will probably take Suh.
TheRealSlimShady - December 14, 2009
Correct, I don’t see any way Suh gets past Tampa. Probably best thing to do is root for a Tampa win.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2009
People probably thought we weren’t winning again, and we did. Against pittsburgh. Anything can happen.
rufio - December 14, 2009
I’d like us to draft Eric Berry, Gerald McCoy, or maybe Dez Bryant (if we beat Kansas City and Oakland).
By the way, do you know why Deion got mixed up in the Dez Bryant scandal?
He wanted to show he could still shut down a star WR.
Bumblyjack - December 14, 2009
Gerald McCoy wouldn’t be a good fit in the 3-4
TheRealSlimShady - December 14, 2009
If Cody continues to fall down draft boards, he’d be worth a look. No sooner than late in the second round, though.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2009
It would seem to be a waste of some of his ridiculous quickness, but I wouldn’t be totally opposed to drafting him.
I do think that there will be so much talent where we are drafting that he won’t be the top guy on the board when our pick comes up.
rufio - December 15, 2009
I guess I am in the minority.
I am not a fan of moving Shaun Rogers. If we move Rogers aren’t we doing the opposing offense a major favor? As of right now, Rogers has to be double teamed everydown. He is a factor on every single play. If we move him to DE, teams can gameplan away from Rogers.
He is the one for sure thing that we have on this team moving forward. Why mess with the one thing that has worked for this defense? Rubin may be a nice player, but Rogers is the best DT/NT in the NFL.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2009
I’d think that Rogers will draw a double team no matter where we put him, and if he’s on the outside, he’s going to free up the OLBs.
golanbatrac - December 14, 2009
Agree. It’s also hard to argue with the results with Rubin at nose. The run D seems to be doing a lot better even with our starting ILB’s on IR.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2009
I am not against Rubin, but stopping the Chargers’ and steelers’ running games is not as impressive as it would have been 2 or 3 years ago.
Tomlinson is not what he once was, and while I haven’t seen the game yet, it sounded like SD could pass anytime they wanted.
pittsburgh is now a passing team. They no longer are as good at running the ball. Their line is pretty bad. And, we played them on a night where they couldn’t throw the ball because of the weather. We sold out to stop the run as a team. A win is a win is a win, but the running stats don’t tell that whole story, I don’t think.
Still, I think that because Rogers is versatile enough to switch positions, you do what you need to do to get your best 3 linemen on the field, your best group of three. If Rogers + Rubin + Williams is our best group, you put them out there. If Smith + Rogers + Coleman work better, you put them out there.
Regardless, we are about 6 deep on the line, and all 6 should get some PT.
rufio - December 14, 2009
The fact that the Steelers only ran the ball 22 times in that weather should be enough for Arians to be shown the door. Ben dropped back to pass 40 times.
Browns ran it 37 times, while Quinn dropped back to pass it 20. Sometimes it’s that easy.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2009
not to mention that Schaefering is looking decent
TheRealSlimShady - December 14, 2009
The Steelers definitely pass too much now, but Mendenhall has been very solid for them since taking over the starting job.
Roger Dorn - December 14, 2009
I don’t have an issue with getting Rubin some PT, but it should be limited to when Rogers needs a rest and for different wrinkles to catch and offense by suprise.
If Rogers became a full-time DE, I can’t see why an opposing offense would run towards him. Just run stretch plays and off tackles to the other side. Move the pocket away from him on passing plays.
Shaun Rogers is the most explosive, disruptive DT that we have had in Cleveland in a long, long time. Why should we give an opposing offense the choice to simply avoid Rogers? Rubin looks like a pretty decent player, but he is no Shaun Rogers.
IMO, our defensive line depth is probably the biggest reason we should switch to a 4-3 if we hire a new coach.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2009
you made my point for me. if we know which side the offense is going to, isn’t that a major advantage?
also, a 3-4 DE is more like a tackle in a 4-3. they’re involved in pretty much every play.
notthatnoise - December 14, 2009
I don’t think it is an advantage if our best defensive player is taken out of the play.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
We don’t have the elite pass rusher for weak side DE, so I wouldn’t switch to the 4-3. We’re doing a good job getting pressure based on scheme so I would stick with things the way they are. Of course, I would consider starting Matt Roth on the strong side and maybe putting David Bowens in Eric Barton’s spot.
Plus, if we move to the 4-3 we might not get to see six linebackers on the field in passing situations like we did on Thursday.
Bumblyjack - December 14, 2009
But we don’t have a OLB pass rusher. Trusnik and Roth have looked nice, but not corner stones. We need to fill a hole one way or another.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
The strength of our front 7 is probably our DL right now. All of the guys that play on our DL would be DTs in what most people would call run from a 4-3.
If we went to a 4-3, that just means we take one of those guys off the field (2 DT in a 4-3 vs 3 DL in a 3-4) in our base defense.
What we lack are guys who would be 3-4 OLBs or 4-3 DEs. Wimbley is solid, and I think a better LOLB in our 3-4 than he would be a DE in a 4-3. I like Matt Roth, but I am not sure he would be any better in a 4-3.
A lot depends on the DC if we get a new one. I’ve heard Ryan prefers the 3-4, and was never allowed to run it in Oakland. Do what your DC likes.
rufio - December 15, 2009
Right, but we would have the best DT depth in the NFL. We could run guys in and out all game. Rogers, Williams, Rubin, and Coleman or Schaefering would be awesome.
As for DE, we could use Roth, Wimbley and Alex Hall. Draft another player and look around some other teams trash for help.
Agreed. I am not going on some crusade, I just think that Rogers and Williams would be more productive in a 4-3, and considering that we don’t have any other true building blocks on defense, this would be as good of time as any to make a switch.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
Co Willy was one of the stars vs. PIT. Why would his attitude have changed all of a sudden?
JulioBernazard - December 14, 2009
Williams only shows up when he feels like it
North Coast Flea - December 14, 2009
Randy Moss has no problem with this approach.
Bernie19Kosar - December 14, 2009
he plays when he wants to play
notthatnoise - December 14, 2009
I put 50% of the blame on Moss and 50% of the blame on Belichick. To send a guy home for being late in a snow storm is stupid.
But to just quit on your team is sickening.
Bernie19Kosar - December 15, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.