In today's edition of Around the Pound, we take a look at the release of San Diego Chargers RB LaDainian Tomlinson, who Mike Mayock thinks the Browns should consider in the draft, and some notes from Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback regarding the offense.
It wasn't really a shock, but RB LaDainian Tomlinson is another casualty of a running back reaching an elite peak only to plummet down soon after, whether it be due to injury or "just not having it anymore."
Tomlinson wasn't the only running back let go. The Philadelphia Eagles have just released RB Brian Westbrook, another back who has had injury issues the past few years. Does anyone here think that either Tomlinson or Westbrook would be an attractive option for the Browns? I personally would stay away from them -- if we're going to get a veteran backup running back, I want someone who has already fulfilled that role. Plus, Tomlinson and Westbrook might still be teetering on that "I want to start" line, and I want Jerome Harrison to receive the starting role.
I still wouldn't mind signing Vikings RB and former Ravens RB Chester Taylor whenever he hits the market.
During a national conference call on Tuesday, NFL Network correspondent Mike Mayock had this to say about the Cleveland Browns and their first-round draft pick this year:
"The way I look at it, I think they've got to deal with wide receiver and cornerback," Mayock said on a national conference call on Tuesday. "Sitting there at No. 7, a Dez Bryant and a Joe Haden, I think, are the two logical guys.
"If Dez Bryant slides down to No. 7, I think you've got to take him. Braylon Edwards is gone. (Bryant's) a big, physical wideout that instantly makes those quarterbacks better. I would look at that position first because cornerback is so deep I think you can come back later and get a quality corner."
While cornerback is fairly deep, I'd still prefer to go the route of the veteran at wide receiver in free agency. While Brian Robiskie and Mohamed Massaquoi were relatively quiet last year, I'm not ready to spend such a high pick on another receiver yet. Mayock compares Bryant to the Houston Texans' Andre Johnson.
In his Monday Morning Quarterback column, Sports Illustrated's Peter King had two bullet points on the Cleveland Browns, particularly on how the new staff is working to change the offense:
7. I think these were the two interesting nuggets from my chat with Browns president Mike Holmgren on Sirius Radio Friday: He said his longtime aide, Gil Haskell, who came with him from Seattle, is meeting almost daily with offensive coordinator Brian Daboll, and it sounds as if the Browns will morph into some form of Holmgren's beloved West Coast Offense. "He [Daboll] is not running my offense ... yet,'' Holmgren said. And he said a decision hasn't been made yet on whether Brady Quinn will be the team's starting quarterback. In fact, no quarterback decision has been made, including anything involving backup Derek Anderson.
8. I think the toughest thing for Holmgren is to mesh three key people to the long-term success of the Browns who have not worked together before -- Holmgren, GM Tom Heckert (hired from the Eagles) and coach Eric Mangini -- and get their various core beliefs to mesh in such a short time. I don't remember three strangers being thrown together before like that to run a team.
0 recs | 217 comments
Hmm. Really if the CB class is deep and Berry isn’t there, why not Dez Bryant? While I’m not fully sold on the idea, I just think it’s a nice option.
No to LT and Westbrook. We might as well have held on to Lewis.
skipkirk - February 23, 2010
No GD WRs. We’ve covered this. They just aren’t worth it that high.
danvail - February 23, 2010
I am in favor of adding good WRs, that way we can get a fair reading of how our QBs are and if they don’t work, the next guy isn’t put in a position to fail.
TheRealSlimShady - February 23, 2010
Drafting WRs to get a fair reading on the QB makes less sense that selecting the best players to build a football team, though.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
I imagine if Haden and Berry are both gone, and no one wants to take a trade for our pick, then I might be ok with taking a WR with our 1st, I just think there are way bigger needs we can fill with that pick. No thanks on more aging backs trying to prove they can still start, but if one of them will play backup, for backup money, then either one would make a good mentor for Harrison.
North Coast Flea - February 23, 2010
Agree with you on avoiding LT and Westbrook.
Roger Dorn - February 23, 2010
+1
rufio - February 24, 2010
If Berry is gone we should take pass rush.
Derrick Morgan was a top 5 pick after the season, now I see him in the teens in mock drafts. What has he done since then to drop 10 spots?
Derrick Morgan is the most pro ready player in this draft. Not only will he help big time against the pass, he is a plus run defender.
Bernie19Kosar - February 23, 2010
Where does he play? He’s definitely not a linebacker convert. Can he be a 4 technique defensive end?
gahnki - February 23, 2010
He plays at GT and he is a 4-3 DE which we convert to a 3-4 OLB. How is this complicated?
SpecialBrownie - February 23, 2010
I think we go in this order:
Suh
McCoy
Berry
Haden
Morgan
Bryant
Obviously most of these will be gone at 7. 2 or 3 of these guys might be available since someone will take a QB or two.
jerseywahoo - February 23, 2010
Someone will take a QB and someone will take an OT. I reckon 3 of those will be around. Of course this is all pre-combine talk.
skipkirk - February 23, 2010
I say we go this sequence:
C Will Barker, Virginia
G Sean Luvao, Arizona State
CB Terrell Skinner, Maryland
CB Justin Woodall, Alabama
S Darrell Stuckey, Kansas
G David Moosman, Michigan
DT Kade Weston, Georgia
WR Verran Tucker, California
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Skinner and Woodall are late round safeties.
Weston was never a starter.
I haven’t heard of Barker, Moosman, Tucker.
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
IT’s complicated when the guy doesn’t profile as a 3-4 OLB.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
I meant comprehending it, not the whole conversion process.
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
Ironically, you are the one with the comprehension issues.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
I’m pretty sure he meant where does he play on the field, not where did he go to college. gahnki knows his football so I’m sure he know he went to GT. And he gave his opinion that he can’t be converted to linebacker — I’m not saying that’s right, but I don’t know why you had to say “how is this complicated?” is such a sarcastic manner. You can disagree that he can’t be converted to a linebacker but there is no reason to give a response like that.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
Well, if we´re still pushing the expectation that these defensive ends must also be able to play outside linebacker, then he may have a point in insisting this player will play only defensive end, period. But what´s the point when we play a 3-4.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
I was not asking the school; I’m asking where on the field does he play. He has very stiff hips and is pretty filled out on his frame already. Not all defensive ends can become linebackers.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
Once again I am in the minority but I think that Morgan can be a OLB, especially if the coaching staff is able to move him around. He doesn’t have blazing speed, but neither did LaMarr Woodley, Willie McGinest, Elvis Dumervil, Joey Porter, etc.
Si.com has an article up that mentions many teams are now considering Morgan at OLB.
As of right now, if Berry is gone at 7 (I am still in the camp of EB will be there) I think we should be leaning Morgan, IMO.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
This might incite the Clausen contingent, but I am starting to warm to the idea of Sam Bradford.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
I am a little bit too.
emily522 - February 24, 2010
It all comes down to the shoulder for me, but I assume Holmgren and Heckert will put in the due diligence. The guy is insanely accurate.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
Eli Manning had the same injury and turned out fine. In fact, that’s who Bradford’s been compared with. So hopefully he’ll recover as well as Eli did.
emily522 - February 24, 2010
I don’t really see them as similar QBs, but would take similar caliber. Although Eli is probably near the bottom of what I would want from our next QB.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
Yeah, Eli is not that good of a QB — definitely a legit starter, but nothing to write home about. He had a really great playoffs in 2007, but hasn’t really shown much greatness since then. (Of course, he smokes any QB we’ve had a long, long, long time.)
TheDriveStillHurts - February 24, 2010
Hmmm true. I guess compared to our QBs this year Eli looks like a god haha.
emily522 - February 24, 2010
Really? He is definitly a good QB.
TheRealSlimShady - February 24, 2010
What do you mean by “good”?
“Good” = legitimate starter in the NFL? Ok, he’s good.
“Good” = better than average/top 10 starter in the NFL? No, he’s not good.
“Good” = best QB taken in the first round of his draft? Nope; two better — Ben (hate to say it) and Rivers, of course. (OK, OK, this is not relevant to whether he’s “good,” but I still like to point out that Eli, although taken 1st, was the worst of the three taken in the 1st round that year, which was a pretty good year for QB’s.)
TheDriveStillHurts - February 24, 2010
Because it’s a fun exercise, here are the starting QB’s from last season — not in order — that I think are definitely better than Eli.
P. Manning
T. Brady
Brees
Rivers
Warner
Favre
Ben Roethlisdumbass
McNabb
Aaron Rodgers
These are guys I consider better, but are probably arguable, so put them in the same league as Eli:
Romo
Schaub
Matt Ryan
Carson Palmer
Guys with potential to be better, but not there yet:
Stafford
Henne
Flacco (OK, potential to be as good)
Cassell (same as Flacco)
TheDriveStillHurts - February 24, 2010
Palmer and Ryan had rough years.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
I can’t be the only person that thinks Carson Palmer is seriously hurt right?
Dude has fallen off a cliff. I think his elbow injury is much, much worse then the Bengals have let on.
I actually felt bad for the guy in last seasons playoffs, he was missing wide open WR’s.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
Yea, it was rough to watch. But after his comments on Ohio State, I have little sympathy for him.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
What he say?
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
Link
gahnki - February 24, 2010
The man shall burn in hell. Kiffin is going to run that program into the ground.
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
Yea, I hate Lane “Ass F’’’’” Kiffin.
The guy got a 13 year old to commit, his second middle school commit
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
Wow, what a douche.
North Coast Flea - February 24, 2010
I dislike OSU, but Carson is a bitch and REALLY hate USC.
That is pathetic to be payed millions of dollars to play in Ohio and then just whine about having to hear about a college team.
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
I’ll admit, its tough always hearing about college teams you hate (that’s how it is for me; I hate UK) but it’s pathetic for someone like him to whine about it.
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
+1
emily522 - February 25, 2010
I was immensely disappointed by Carson Palmer, too. And, I don´t like the Bengals.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Looking at that list I realize how bad our situation is right now.
Villeslgr - February 24, 2010
I think Eli is better than people give him credit for. His WRs are not all that great, and the running game the Giants used to have fell off a cliff last year. So did that defense. His line was having problems this year, too.
I would take his numbers with all of the other things going on with his team in what was probably a down year.
rufio - February 24, 2010
Would you take him over any of the guys I listed as “better”? Serious question, I am curious about your opinion. Any of the other guys on my list that you think you would rather have — I really like Henne (not sure that will make the Ohio State fans here happy) and I like Schaub a lot too.
TheDriveStillHurts - February 25, 2010
I’d throw out Warner in your list since he is retired, but currently he is better.
I would take Eli over McNabb, Palmer, Henne, Flacco, and Cassell. I would also potentially take him over Schaub because of the Schaub’s injury history but that would be the only reason.
Roger Dorn - February 25, 2010
I would definitely take these guys:
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
I would probably take these guys, despite a strong dislike for Rivers and Ben:
Rivers
Ben
Aaron Rodgers
Schaub
I don’t think Henne is in Eli’s league yet, but he’s a young guy. Eli has way more value to a franchise than Favre because of age.
rufio - February 27, 2010
He’s probably in the top third. I don’t have any special affinity for Eli, but I would consider him “good.”
Western Reserve - February 24, 2010
Eli is skinny and gawky. But he is for real.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Bradford has had two serious shoulder injuries in less than a year, though. To me, the frequency of his injuries is more worrisome than the operation itself.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
Wasn’t it just the same injury because he didn’t allow enough time to heal? I can see the thought that doesn’t matter, it happened twice, and I am not medical expert, but it seems like basically an aggravation of the first injury.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
I am by no means a Dr. but this is what I thought as well.
I never thought it was two separate injuries.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
I also thought he tried to come back too soon and re-injured it.
rufio - February 24, 2010
You know who had a similar injury, the shoulder popping out on the ground and right back in? I did, one time. The shoulder is still loose, it´s held in by the tendons, so I can still throw totally awesome, but the injury is permanent.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Rec for this line.
SpecialBrownie - February 25, 2010
Ditto
danvail - February 26, 2010
I actually have a similar injury I think, but mine happened pitching in baseball.
Roger Dorn - February 25, 2010
Not sure about shoulder structure, but I too am constantly re-injuring my shoulder because one time I threw a baseball way too hard. I was like 14, and I think I’ll be paying for it the rest of my life.
danvail - February 26, 2010
Mine came from over-throwing and pitching in a game 3 consecutive days. Doesn’t really bother me much but if I rotate it, it will pop almost every time.
Roger Dorn - February 26, 2010
How much you wanna bet I can throw a football over them mountains?
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
Yea, you’re definitly David Carr. Go ahead and admit it.
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
I still think Clausen is more accurate.
TheRealSlimShady - February 24, 2010
No way. Not even close.
rufio - February 24, 2010
68% in a pro style system? Not even Close?
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
+1
The Licensed Pessimist - February 26, 2010
So the ND fan, Rocland and mooncamping are all Clausen supporters. Who else?
Roger Dorn - February 26, 2010
I support Holmgren and the rest of the braintrust. If they support Clausen, count me in.
Villeslgr - February 26, 2010
It still cracks me up that everyone here can support any OSU player but I can’t support ND players.
TheRealSlimShady - February 26, 2010
I don’t think any Buckeye should be drafted in the first two rounds. I supported Sam Young more than you did. I think Clausen should be a top-10 pick. Bradford is simply more accurate—and that isn’t even to say that Clausen is especially inaccurate.
What is ridiculous is that I rate one player over a ND player in one area of the game and you get all defensive.
rufio - February 27, 2010
Exactly right. I’ve argued in support of Clausen many times on this site. The idea that all people on this site overrate all OSU players is just wrong. I think most of use here have shown that we can be objective when it comes to judging players no matter if they come from OSU or Michigan or ND or anywhere else.
Buckeye Brad - February 27, 2010
It’s nothing to do with that. If someone were overstating how good an OSU prospect is, I would call them out on it.
Roger Dorn - February 27, 2010
not everyone
Villeslgr - February 27, 2010
I actually like Notre Dame
North Coast Flea - February 27, 2010
Not even close.
rufio - February 27, 2010
That injury cost Oklahoma. He did not come back in. At the cost of quarterbacks, he´s rated so highly, I would not risk it.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
I was starting to wonder what your QB strategy was going to be; it seems we were running out of options, as all of them before us were bad.
I’d suspect if the front office had any inclination for a QB, they’d be looking long and hard at Bradford over some of the others, namely Clausen.
Western Reserve - February 24, 2010
Yea, I personally am low on Quinn and expect DA to be cut. I was entertaining a possible trade for McNabb or Kolb, but think it might be too costly to get McNabb and don’t think Kolb is even available. Bernie’s posts on drafting QBs has me thinking Bradford might be a good option.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
McNabb is a player if not even a gambler, that´s not your style Mr. Dorn. Kolb outright sucked, what a let-down from when he was a dark horse in the 2007 draft, I´m also pissed because that draft included Nate Ilaoa with a quality designation who was then uncerimoniously dumped, and then benching Kolb for two years (!!!), I don´t know what else they got, but it´s fishy.
Sam Bradford is a pegasus fluffy unicorn studmuffin pick. There is no promise on him.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Recced.
skipkirk - February 25, 2010
I can’t tell if he likes or dislikes Bradford.
Roger Dorn - February 26, 2010
Are you serious, Jimmy Clausen is possible?
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
I’ve heard many people (Kiper for one) say that Haden can become a top-level CB. If that’s true then I think we should definitely take him if Berry is gone.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
I am by no means the scout that Kiper and others are, but I just don’t see what the big deal about Haden is.
IMO, he was always the third best DB on that team. I am not saying that he may not be great someday, I just don’t understand why.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
Really? Who were better DBs? I had never heard anything like this.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
First of all, I am in the minority here big time.
Whenever I watched Florida (I have watched probably 25 UF games over the 3 seasons, I am a football junkie) it seemed to me that Major Wright and Ahmad Black were the better DB’s. It doesn’t mean that Haden wasn’t a good CB, it’s that he never jumped off the screen to me.
Last year leading up to the draft we kept hearing about the USC LB’s. Everytime I watched a USC game, Cushing was making plays and I wanted the Browns to draft him (Link for those who are calling hindsight BS) instead of the “flashy” Rey Mualuaga. When I watched Florida, it seemed that Black and Wright were making the plays, not Haden (In all fairness, Black seemed to take a step back this past season).
Haden for some reason just gives me the same feeling I got about Rey. He seems to make the majority of his INT’s on just really, really poorly thrown balls. He wasn’t making amazing plays to get into position, he was just standing there when the QB’s arm was hit, or when the LSU WR turned the wrong way, or when the UGA QB and WR weren’t on the same page.
The thing that really bothered me though was the fact that opposing teams had no issue throwing at him. As Ohio State fans we grew accustomed seeing Malcom Jenkins moved to safety to try and get him more involved because teams would just not throw at him. Teams had no qualm with throwing at Haden.
I know that I may be the only man in America that thinks like this, but from what I have seen, Haden just comes across as “meh” to me, and that makes me nervous when we are discussing the 7th pick in the draft.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
I don’t watch Florida games for whatever reason, so I am relying more on the draft experts, but is there any sort of element of Haden not being targeted when you watch? Or do you see him allowing a lot of catches?
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
It wasn’t like he was giving up a bunch of stuff underneath, I guess I was more worried with the fact that opposing QB’s and coaches didn’t feel a need to gameplan away from Haden. It didn’t look like opponents struggled getting open (you can only do so much with the views you get off of TV) but Haden showed good closing speed when the ball was in the air.
I have noticed that he likes to gamble and he seems to have his head in the backfield a lot (that very well could be coaching, I don’t know enough about the UF defense, but they seem to be a very heavy man coverage team).]
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
I believe Florida runs a lot of Cover-1/Cover-3. I would guess they run MOFC the majority of the time, but I have not watched all their games either.
rufio - February 24, 2010
Maybe you are watching wrong. To disclude a defensive back from play considerations is not a good thing. Sorry Champ Bailey and Asomugha, but not even the Flash would stop me from trying to access all areas of the field.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
“disclude”?
that’s unpossible!
rolub - February 25, 2010
I regree.
JustBob - February 25, 2010
Slight dissentment here but Ahmad Black and Major Wright were both safeties, which allowed them to make more “highlight” plays. I was very impressed with Haden the past two years against Julio Jones in the SEC Championship game, especially this last season. He did a good job on him in man coverage.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
True and I probably should have mentioned they are safeties.
As for Julio Jones, I am not so sure it was Haden who was stopping him, more of his offense.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
Are we scrimmaging against High Schools or something, because I really don´t see the reasoning in forcing the logic on getting average players high.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
All points taken but do you reckon Morgan is a reach at 7?
skipkirk - February 24, 2010
I don’t think it is a reach.
They only time I would get pissed about a “reach” is when you take a player rounds earlier. Taking a guy at 7 when he is “supposed” to go around 15 isn’t a big deal if you can’t trade down.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
This.
Ryan Kelsey - February 24, 2010
Ahmad Black didn’t even start all year.
TheRealSlimShady - February 24, 2010
Hence me saying over the past three seasons, not just this season.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
We still have Eric Wright at cornerback, and who else who is a decent “cover cornerback”? Poteat, McDonald, Francies, ect., ect….
The question would be, if we don´t go to a more physical format, what´s the point in getting another one?
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
POTEAT????
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
I don’t think anyone would consider any of those CBs as being “decent cover cornerbacks”, at least not over the course of last season.
rufio - February 27, 2010
Agreed here too. I wouldn’t say third best on the team but I’m not sure taking a CB that high is the right choice. It’s far easier to compensate for deficiencies in coverage than it is to scheme for pressure.
To me, Haden is a luxury that the Browns can’t afford.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
I guess I just have a different view on CBs versus pass rushers. After seeing what Ryan and Mangini did last year with no names and getting sacks, I think the system is more important than getting the right guys necessarily. A CB on the other hand almost always has to be really talented to succeed, no scheme can hide him when he is one on one.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
The Patriots have made a living off of no-name guys in coverage.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
Their group of DBs is far from bad.
TheRealSlimShady - February 24, 2010
Which isn’t the point. The Patriots sign marginal DB talent yearly and let players like Asante Samuel walk precisely because they do not value defensive backs as a high-priced commodity.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
The Pats D has been below average ever since they got cocky and let Samuel walk. Secondary in particular has struggled.
The main reason they kept winning is that they went for the high powered passing attack.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
According to FO’s DVOA, the differential between the 2007 Patriots D (Samuel’s last season) and 2009 is 7%.
And according to their Adjusted Line Yards Stat, their defensive line has regressed from the 18th best in the league to the 26th best in that time period.
Placing their marginal drop upon one player isn’t particularly accurate, especially when you have the dual impact of aging and losing impact players in the front seven (Bruschi, Vrabel, and Seymour) .
While their stats don’t accommodate separate defensive styles (gap control vs. penetration), I think their stat is a decent general tool to measure production.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
I wasn’t implying losing Samuel was the only reason. In the time frame from their first SB they also lost Ellis Hobbs, Rodney Harrison, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, etc.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
Front 7 was their problem this year.
TheRealSlimShady - February 24, 2010
Maybe I was watching the wrong games, but their secondary got lit everytime I turned it on.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
Which can be a function of poor front seven play. According to FO, their rushing DVOA declined 5.0% in two years while their passing only declined 2.7% or so.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
Actually, I apologize, I misread the numbers. NE’s rushing DVOA declined about 5% in two years and their passing DVOA declined close to 17% in two years.
Your eye did not lie.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
Thomas aging and the loss of Seymour really killed their pass rush.
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
That´s not true, they might very well be average and we´ll never know. They stay in front of the play at all times, it´s just a greater liberty that makes them look good and accumulate good stats. You can watch evey Patriots game this century, and all they do is not let the receiver get past them.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Pass rushers have more positional value than CBs.
I do think you need to draft CBs high, but I’d like to be drafting CBs in the second half of the first round. I don’t think a top-10 pick is worth it unless you are positive the guy will be Champ Bailey. And you can’t ever be sure of that.
I know we are trying to find guys who are top-notch prospects who fill our needs, but I just don’t think Morgan or Haden are worth it. I’d much rather trade down, even for cents on the dollar vs the draft chart. I wouldn’t mind trading down and then reaching for Brandon Graham or someone similar.
rufio - February 24, 2010
You don’t have to talk me into trading down, I am just going off the premise that we won’t be able to get anyone to move up even at a discounted rate.
Bernie19Kosar - February 25, 2010
Listen, you will not get Jimmy Clausen at a bargain position, which slot number 7 is, if you don´t turn everything upside down. And Mike Holgren must be considering him, he wants a fresh quarterback, and history has him by the balls, he needs the next fresh talent.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
In the case that neither of the two QBs, two DTs, or Berry fall to us, I am still leaning toward other options.
The problem if we can’t trade down is that there might not be anyone left on the board who I like better than Haden. I think I would consider McClain and Morgan, and maybe one of the other pass rushers. I don’t like taking a RT at #7 either. Haden very well might be my pick there, but I don’t think I would feel 100% comfortable about it.
rufio - February 27, 2010
Before we worry about the CB’s we need to get more pressure on the QB, drafting a CB that high will not help the pass rush. I’m talking about consistant pass rush to not the few games we got to the QB. Even the best CB’s will get beat if you get no pressure.
staplefud - February 24, 2010
The Browns were top 10 in sacks this year.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
I’m talking about consistant pressure not one game here one there. The last 4 games we had 15 sacks one game with 7 I’m sure you remember that game sucksburg on thursday night, thats a 3.75 avg. The other 12 we had 25, an avg of about 2. And not just sacks but Qb pressures we did have 40 sacks but still ranked 29th against the pass. their were 6 games we had 1 or no sacks and 6 games we gave up 300 yrds 2 of those 400 yrds
staplefud - February 24, 2010
It could just be my spotty memory, but I thought the pressures and sacks went up after we got Roth. I really hope they re-sign that guy.
JustBob - February 24, 2010
Roth is a sloth, and so are the other oversized linebackers. They must go.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Please keep rhyming. If you get good enough at it, your transition to comic book villain will almost be complete.
danvail - February 26, 2010
Awesome.
gahnki - February 26, 2010
He even has a name that sounds like a comic book villain.
North Coast Flea - February 27, 2010
Well, I will tell you right now, it is difficult when you parse stats like you are, to throw out the highest sack game, and then expect the team to maintain an average of closer to 4-5 sacks/game over the remaining 15 games.
2 sacks/game during their worst stretch of the year is not bad by any stretch, hence why the Browns finished in the top 10.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
Right. People always do that when they’re trying to make a certain point — take away the best game and their stats go down! Of course they do. Take away any team’s highest sack total and their stats aren’t going to look as good. But it doesn’t work that.
It’s very unusual to get 4 or more sack every game. Most teams have a few games with 1 or 2 sacks and a few games with 5 or 6 sacks because every game has different opponents with different game plans and different quality lines.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
You have a point there. We should have the bogus Jerome Harrison game revoked. I do not believe it was kosher.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
We got good pressure on the QB this year. Do you not remember Mel Tucker’s defense?
rufio - February 24, 2010
at the same time, lets say that we averaged 2 sacks a game all season.
That would put us around the middle of the league in sacks. we would have as many as the jets and ravens…so I would not consider that a huge need. at the same time, we have a much better pass rush with matt roth. I think this team will get a lot of sacks again…
bross09 - February 28, 2010
Were they passing out free money, too?
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
If you´re going to go CB from Florida, and I hope I´m not the idiot to reveal it here, but Major Wright is much much much more preferable.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Interesting article. He just reminds me of Vernon Gholston so much. If the staff is confident that he can be swayed, the choice could be a good one.
gahnki - February 24, 2010
I don´t want to outright slight your opinion, we all have opinions.
But I think you are secretly pushing the agenda, that we already have more 4-3 players on the roster than 3-4 players, and you´re trying to push the scale to tipping. Either that, or you have an advanced plan involving not differentiating.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
We play a 3-4. Morgan is a 4-3 defensive end.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
I actually agree.
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
but wasn’t our pass rush one of our strengths?
bross09 - February 28, 2010
Yeah, but we manufactured a lot of pressure due to Ryan sending any- and everyone at the QB. If we had a player who could command a double team on the edge it would help us out.
Plus there are maybe 1 or 2 teams in the league with enough pass rushers. Your pass rush can’t be too good.
rufio - February 28, 2010
I don’t disagree.
can’t you say that matt roth may develop into that guy that defenses gameplan against?
It is not like I feel we COULDN’T use a pass rusher but I see many more areas of need.
bross09 - February 28, 2010
I don’t think he will ever be that guy. I would love to be wrong.
Need should be irrelevant. We need a lot more good players and we need more stars. LT and maybe FB are the only positions I wouldn’t want to draft at all.
rufio - February 28, 2010
This.
Bernie19Kosar - February 28, 2010
Or we could get an awesome shutdown corner potentially, and allow for those all our pass rushes because we trust both Wright and this new corner to be okay on their own.
Roger Dorn - March 1, 2010
The hockey game was shown on MSNBC so that it could be shown live in all time zones. Had it been shown on the network NBC channel, the central and western time zones would have seen it tape delayed.
rolub - February 23, 2010
Yes. Additionally, NBC is required to take commercial breaks, while the game could be shown commercial free n MSNBC.
Roger Dorn - February 23, 2010
I am not a huge hockey guy, but that game was one of the best sporting events I have seen in quite sometime.
Bernie19Kosar - February 23, 2010
Same here. That was very fun to watch, and if NHL hockey was more like that then I might actually watch once in a while.
Also, does it really matter than the game was on MSNBC instead of NBC? How many people don’t have cable or satellite any more? I know there are some — my mother, for one — but it’s got to be a small minority. So I don’t really see the big deal anyways.
Buckeye Brad - February 23, 2010
The only reason it bothered me was for HD reasons.
I hate watching anything that isn’t in HD, but I am a TV snob.
Bernie19Kosar - February 23, 2010
Fortunately, my cable system has MSNBC in HD. It’s the only way to watch a hockey game. Heck, it’s the only way to watch the Winter Games. Too bad for those without MSNBC HD.
Spidey - February 23, 2010 via mobile
Same, I have MSNBC HD.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
Verizon FIOS? from what i read, that’s one of the stragglers in hosting MSNBC’s HD station.
and I agree, without even calling myself a TV snob. those who say they don’t see the big deal about HD haven’t watched sports in HD.
rolub - February 23, 2010
I have Charter which is so very weak.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
Looking at old data, but it suggests that about 30% don’t have cable/sat coverage. That’s a huge chunk of the population missing, since probably 99% have NBC.
Why would it seem like a big deal if you have the luxury of cable?
Chris Pokorny - February 23, 2010 via mobile
I wonder how old that is because that seems low. I found this site which quotes an 2008 article that says 90% of US households have cable or satellite coverage.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
Didn’t everyone need to switch to some sort of box last year?
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
All the over-the-air network signals were switching from analog to digital, so if you had an old TV which didn’t support digital you had to get a convertor box for your TV. That was only if you didn’t have cable or satellite and still recieved your programming with an antenna.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
Hmmm, I suppose you’re right.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/household-tv-trends-holding-steady-nielsen’s-economic-study-2008/
1/10 is still a lot ;)
Chris Pokorny - February 24, 2010 via mobile
More people would obviously see it if it was on NBC. A lot of this is after-the-fact arguing since an American upset is great entertainment. If the USA had lost, this would not be a big deal.
gahnki - February 23, 2010
Obviously they would, but my point was that I don’t think it’s that big of a deal if it’s only a small percentage of people who can’t see the game. Besides, it’s not like hockey is a big draw in the US anyways. If people really wanted to watch the game there are plenty of places they could have gone to find it on TV.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
thats like saying “if NFL games were like the Patriots vs. Giants super bowl I might actually watch once in a while.” So don’t hold your breath.
notthatnoise - February 23, 2010
I think it might surprise you. I don’t have any numbers- but just one anecdote. I went without cable for about 2 months this summer after moving to a new city. I got it by the time football season started. But I had about 5 friends over one evening to watch a game on ESPN and each of them didn’t have cable.
I think it is very common for the 24-32 age group to cut cable out these days. We are underemployed and get most of our news/entertainment from the internet.
ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC still absolutely kill any given cable network. MSNBC’s best rated show ever won’t get the viewers of the worst show on a broadcast network.
Ryan Kelsey - February 24, 2010
Yes, this was my intended point. (Thumbs up)
Chris Pokorny - February 24, 2010
The stats I found above showed that 90% of households have cable or satellite television.
I would guess that cable TV shows don’t get the ratings that network shows get because many of their shows are intended for a specific demographic or specific interest (i.e. sports, news, cooking shows, young adults, etc.) while network TV shows are meant to appeal to a broader audience. And, of course, there are so many more cable channels to choose from than network channels.
As I said above, if people really wanted to watch that game it’s not hard to find someone with cable or go to a bar to watch it. But I do understand that not everyone has cable, only that it’s a large enough percentage that I don’t think it really makes that big of a difference (there certainly is some difference, of course). 90% of people in the US having something is quite a large percentage — it’s rare to find anything that high in this country.
Buckeye Brad - February 24, 2010
Yeah, the only percentages I found higher were basically simple appliances like a refrigerator (99%)
Chris Pokorny - February 25, 2010
Anyone notice how Ellen said the exact same thing to every singer? She’s like Paula except without all the botox and crying.
SpecialBrownie - February 23, 2010
And the straightness….
TheRealSlimShady - February 23, 2010
She did say she “liked” every female singer…
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
Do you think expectations for Ellen to be great from the start were a little too high? She needs a few shows to get her schtick. I think she has a role to fill- that of the general public who just wants to see a good performance. The panel already has people to review the technicalities and pitchiness of the singers.
it will be interesting to see Simon’s replacement, but his role is well-defined that it might be easy. Every one of these shows (Dancing/Stars, etc.) has a straight-talking expert who is somewhat flamboyant.
Spidey - February 24, 2010 via mobile
I didn’t set my expectations low or high. When determining the top 24, she did the same silly speech to almost every contestant.
Last night, I thought she did fine though. Straight and to the point, without gloating on every contestant like Paula did.
Chris Pokorny - February 24, 2010 via mobile
She did have a very good explanation of the 17 year old.
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
You guys watch American Idol????
North Coast Flea - February 24, 2010
Can never have enough girlfriend brownie points my friend.
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
It’s the most watched non-sports program for the past how many years. I never get “omg i love that performance (cue mark out)” over the performances like some people do, but it’s still entertaining to watch. I’m not a big music guy, so it’s also my venue for staying somewhat current with music (in addition to Glee now).
Chris Pokorny - February 24, 2010
Wow. Now Glee is where I draw the very bold line.
Wow.
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
Best comedy.
Chris Pokorny - February 24, 2010
via the Golden Globes, I’m referring to.
Chris Pokorny - February 24, 2010
The Golden Globes are the poor man’s Emmy. Literally.
SpecialBrownie - February 24, 2010
i’m sure we could get into a whole ‘nother conversation about music in general, but you say that it’s your “venue for staying somewhat current with music”. Everything I know about American Idol (which is, mind you, much less than you) is that it’s the kind of current music I don’t want to know much about. What’s “good” is obviously dependent on everyone’s individual taste, and I wouldn’t say you should listen to what the internet media (such as, say, Pitchfork) tells you to like, but online music sites are a much better way to find current music that is, in my opinion, listenable and creative.
if you have DVR capabilities, here’s something i highly suggest: record the late night talk shows (except Tonight Show with Jay Leno V. 2.0) that have musical guests, and check them out. Letterman and Fallon have interesting, new acts on, as well as Conan in his previous stints. I’m not sure if Kimmel has as much music on as the other two, but you’re liable to catch a performance and like a song that by a band you’ve never heard of.
rolub - February 25, 2010
I think your statements are pretty much on the right track. As you said though, it’s about individual taste. I’m not really interested in seeking out music on my own, as I’m not a big music fan to begin with. The time I find it more enjoyable is when it’s presented on television.
That brings up a good point with your late-night suggestions, but the funny thing is that in the past, I usually record the shows to listen to the monologue and the first guest. The only thing I bypass is the musical performance :p I’m in the minority when it comes to music-lovin’ though.
Chris Pokorny - February 25, 2010
Just don’t make the mistake of actually watching Jimmy Fallon.
gahnki - February 25, 2010
i gave him 2 chances: his debut and a random night i couldn’t sleep. neither entertained me enough to do anything but fast forward to the musical act.
rolub - February 25, 2010
yeah. fallon sucks!!
bross09 - February 28, 2010
I would rather stay in the stone-age of music than watch American Idol, but then again most of the stuff I listen to is really old music anyway.
North Coast Flea - February 25, 2010
Same here. I consider the grunge era to be the newest stuff in my music collection.
Roger Dorn - February 25, 2010
24 is the shit. And President Taylor is garbage.
Just had to say.
TheRealSlimShady - February 23, 2010
I’d rather ink Vincent Jackson to a deal. Draft Defense and just hope good schemes can make the offense competitive. Ask Peyton Manning, good QB play makes wide receivers look good, not the other way around.
jaws. - February 24, 2010
Give me Brandon Marshall over VJax.
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
I’ll keep our draft picks.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
I got a question for ya, Cromartie for Harrison and a 5th?
Bernie19Kosar - February 24, 2010
I would most likely do that provided we had a viable and realistic plan for acquiring another RB. Harrison currently isn’t under contract, so it’s not like we are trading away a guy that we have for a number years more. He might sign his restricted tender offer and then try and bolt in free agency the following year for a big payday. Harrison doesn’t seem like the type of guy you use the franchise tag on.
Roger Dorn - February 24, 2010
The one hit wonder for franchise tag, you can´t be serious.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
I said we would not use franchise tag on him.
Roger Dorn - February 25, 2010
I wouldn’t touch Cromartie unless we get him for free. The guy is soft. He plays just enough run support to not get benched. No thanks.
If LT is willing to be a backup, I’d take him. I wouldn’t get Westbrook because of his concussion issues.
Legoman0721 - February 24, 2010 via mobile
Try Eric Wright and Abe Elam to the Chargers for whatever, just so they are utilized right.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Did you forget about the plan I put forth in a post earlier, regarding giving preferential consideration to NFL veterans above the devalued draft picks, because I had assessed that the wishing well towards the Browns, isn´t particularly high.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Yes, I forgot.
Roger Dorn - February 25, 2010
Great answer.
Buckeye Brad - February 25, 2010
Hahaha. Now that’s funny.
Western Reserve - February 25, 2010
Nope, he´s a Bronco.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
I prefer Legedu Nanee over Vincent Jackson.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
ummm……..
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
I’d take Chester Taylor over LT or Westbrook.
As to the draft, the first question to be answered is whether Holmgren wants Quinn to start. If not, then I’m guessing he will go for a guy in the draft, and I would expect him to do that with his first pick.
As for NBC, they cancelled My Name is Earl in favor of Parks and Recreation. They are dead to me.
JustBob - February 24, 2010
For no complaints Westbrook and L.T. are both viable.
Do I want them? No.
mooncamping - February 25, 2010
Viable? Are you suggesting that we breed LT and Westbrook together because their genes are viable?
LaBrian Tombrook?
SpecialBrownie - February 25, 2010
Bridanian Westlinson?
TheRealSlimShady - February 25, 2010
Those are sweet names.
rufio - February 27, 2010
Do you know how to make embryos from only sperm? You´ll be rich.
mooncamping - February 27, 2010
usa,canada
NBC did show the game on the msnbc channel, I watched it, if you don’t get that channel, then you prolly don’t get ESPN either, then you aren’t a real sports fan anyway.
is it that it was just too much energy to push that button on the remote?
allsides - February 25, 2010
Not all sports fans can afford cable, my parents are in that boat, doesn’t mean they like the Browns any less than I do.
North Coast Flea - February 25, 2010
You sound like a prick.
Chris Pokorny - February 26, 2010
To the point.
I like it.
I am a huge sports fan and I hate ESPN.
Bernie19Kosar - February 26, 2010
What a disappointment to see “15 new comments”, and then to find that they’re almost all from our buddy Mooncamping. Sheesh!
drjeo - February 25, 2010
I’m not going to lie, since I came into this conversation late I just found myself skipping to all the mc comments. Too much fun.
danvail - February 26, 2010
He’s easily the best comic relief on the site.
North Coast Flea - February 27, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.