Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vee-Rex

  1. He's going to get 15 million.

    Myles is going to get 20+ next year. Baker and Denzel the following year. We don't even know how the salary cap will be, given the covid-19 pandemic. It would feel pretty Dorsey'ish to give up a 1st and 3rd + 15 million like that.

    For his limited time I thought Morgan Burnett was solid - let's roll with Joseph/Sendejo and see what we have there alongside Delpit.

  2. 11 hours ago, Kiwibrown said:

    His athletic ceiling is a lot higher and he played well in preparation season.  

    Teller, a part from a forward roll was pretty average last year. 

    I'd sooner Hubbard than him at rg

    I wouldn't be upset if our worst O-line starter was just average.

    Teller is the safest bet. Forbes is a wildcard. With this virtual offseason we're having, Forbes will have to clearly and definitively show SOMETHING in order to win that RG spot.

  3. 41 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

    I don’t think anyone should expect any rookie to be an immediate impact type of player year one (Myles only had 5.5 sacks iirc).

    I do think he can be decent enough to hold down the spot respectably year one though, provided we give him the appropriate amount of help and put him in a position to succeed.

    Myles had 7 sacks in 11 total games.

    But I agree - hopefully Wills can be a solid player year one and blossom into an impact player going forward.

    • Like 1
  4. 4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

    If nothing else against Baltimore, make Lamar make throws outside the numbers. Take away inside throws by alignment with your overhang/force defenders, align your CB inside and plan some variation of man/press man, maybe mixing in some type of Cover 2/Match 2 under 3, have Myles line up in WIDE 9 on rush situations, and make those outside WR run out routes, comebacks, and other heavily involved timing routes that rely on rhythm and timing throws. I can't watch any more seam balls to TE.

    Fully agreed. Take away his comfort areas (middle of the field) and mix up coverages + blitzes. Set the edge on every down.

    Someone made an interesting point - teams that play him a lot seem to do quite well defending him. Chargers in 2018 playoffs, Browns in 2019, Titans in 2019 playoffs. He had one of his worst games of the year against the Steelers in week 5. While we can't predict what strides he continues to make, I do think if his ball placement doesn't improve the same the NFL will do a lot better defending him in 2020 than 2019.

  5. 2 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

    I think Chubb is an average receiving back. He isn't a route runner, but he's perfectly fine catching a swing or a stick out of the backfield. But Mixon is certainly better than him at creating separation with his true route running ability. That's the only area where Mixon beats Chubb. Chubb takes a diarrhea shiz on him in every other area of the game.

    Yeah, Chubb isn't a route runner. He could still be a proficient receiving back if he catches the ball with a little space. His vision, acceleration, and ability to break tackles are all superb. He's not gonna do much before the catch but after the catch - look out.

    • Like 1
  6. 2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

    Better talent around him, clearly. The Browns have had better talent at nearly every offensive position since they’ve been in the league.

    For a guy who writes dissertations about why Baker is so much better than any numbers would indicate because of a laundry list of variables, you’re being willfully obtuse on this one.

    If you don’t think he’s nearly as good as Chubb, that’s fine, we can agree to disagree, but trying to sum up the difference using ypc as “proof” while dismissing other context is idiotic.

    I read it as "the ypc is a big deal". Which it is. 1.1 is nothing to sneeze at - which is why he made the Eric Dickerson/Trent Williams comparison.

    I think Chubb is clearly better. Mixon is awesome but I don't think he's close enough to be viewed as a 'wash' with Chubb. You can talk about offensive talent all you want (even though in 2018 it would closer than you think) but when I watch Chubb as a runner he is simply better, and that's dating back to his time at Georgia (pre-injury) vs. Mixon at Oklahoma.

    He blows Mixon away with advanced stats too - it's just disingenuous to suggest they're a wash (not saying you're doing this, but given the comparison with the Bengals).

    • Like 2
  7. 34 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

    uhhh no kidding. But you have to do something. You can't just sit there and let them chuck the ball all over the yard against us. You have to aggressively attack them. If they hit a wheel route out of the backfield, so be it. Make Lamar make that throw. Don't let the TE's catch it wide open in the middle of the field.

    And I'm telling you - teams have tried that. There's no simple approach to it.

    You have to be aggressive AND conservative depending on the situation, and focus on limiting the portions of the field where Lamar is most dangerous. The more you open yourself up to big plays, the easier you make it for them to hurt you. It's not as easy as "Make Lamar make that throw". Harbaugh will stubbornly run Ingram 5 times in a row down the pipe while you're sitting there blitzing the edges and giving up 5-8 yards per run. They have a dynamic offense. I'm arguing against the notion that you will "send 6 every time against empty against that joke QB". You're seriously underestimating Lamar.

    I really suggest you watch some Ravens games during the quarantine.

  8. 36 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

    Im sending 6 every time against empty. Play 0 and tell that joke QB he has 1 second to throw the ball. 


    I would run heavy man coverage (Cover 0) and blitz the crap out of Lamar's right side.

    This isn't Madden. Someone like Greg Roman would figure that out in no time. The Ravens throw a lot of screens and wheel-routes out of the backfield which would punish that kind of aggressive defense.

    Man coverage against Lamar isn't always the best thing either. There's a reason why zone coverage is a decent option against scrambling QBs - many defenders have their eyes on the QB. They're a lot quicker to react if he tries to take off or make a play with his arm.

    Go watch the Rams/Ravens game last year. Wade Phillips stubbornly ran a ton of man coverage and Lamar torched them with big plays on the ground. All of the defenders would have their backs turned running with their receivers and Lamar would be 10+ yards downfield before they even realize he was running. Similarly, the Patriots got smoked by Lamar due to so much man coverage on defense.

    Now go watch the Titans/Ravens in the playoffs and you'll see they played a LOT of zone especially in the middle of the field. It allowed them to keep eyes on Lamar while shading the tight ends.

    IMO, the best strategy is to offer a wide-9 look on the defensive line to secure the edge, and tight man coverage on the outside with zone in the middle. The only issue with this is that it can be weak against the run or vulnerable to hard play-actions. It has to be mixed in with fire zone blitzes that load up on one side or the other, as you suggested in the 2nd quote.

    TLDR: It's not easy at all to defend Lamar. I think we're starting to learn what works best against him and he'll need to improve to beat it. He'll certainly regress this year (statistically), but man you gotta have the right calls going, right players, and some luck in order to contain him. 2nd and 3rd and longs are what does the trick, and having an offense that can put points on the board.

  9. 51 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

    I think the only question mark would be scheme and coaching, especially with the goofiness that’s likely going to play out re: covid.

    I don’t know that it was buying into media clippings as much as just coaching imo.

    I was a huge Freddie fan after ‘18, but with some of the rumors that came our it’s surprising they let him finish the season tbh.  You can’t practice something all week and then abandon it on Sunday because of a gut feeling.  He also completely ignored analytics and reportedly wasn’t much of a worker.

    It was obvious at times, but I’ve never seen a coach get less out of more in my life.

    This is what is so apparent to me. How much WORSE could it have gone? Not talking about injuries here because obviously that's always a concern, always will happen, and can't be measured, but in terms of performance... I really don't see how it could get worse. Chubb was excellent and STs were solid, but that's it. We finished 6-10 in SPITE of:

    • Schedule turning out to be more difficult than thought, with the Browns facing the strongest defenses throughout the first 12 games (Steelers x2, Jets, Bills, Patriots, Broncos, 49ers, and the Rams + Jets weren't slouches either). I mean, come on... you see what Baker tends to do against bad defenses. Schedule didn't help. That's a FORMIDABLE group of defenses, we certainly drew the short straw on that.
    • Baker leading the league in unlucky interceptions
    • Baker having a full year's worth of tape, allowing defenses to gain the upper hand in scheming
    • Baker losing confidence in the pocket
    • Offensive tackles getting smoked
    • Insane amount of penalties to start the year (which got better, but it severely impacted us early on)
    • Coach throwing away gameplans
    • Coach mismanaging time
    • Coach putting Baker in terrible situations with playcalling. Calling 4 verts or long-developing routes on 5-wide with terrible blocking is a recipe for disaster. It's like he summoned the Ghost of Todd Haley and along with Monken's philosophies decided that Baker was gonna be the next Mahomes
    • Coach losing respect in the locker room and disrespecting opponents
    • Team having no offensive identity
    • Team having no offensive chemistry - Baker and OBJ were so unfamiliar that it literally led to multiple turnovers
    • Myles suspension

    I mean... come on. I think we saw rock bottom for this core of players. We won 6 games on talent/Chubb alone. If Stefanski is a terrible hire (I strongly doubt it - I am the biggest fanboy of his concepts) then can he actually be worse than Kitchens?

    • Like 4
  10. 23 hours ago, AkronsWitness said:

    Ive watched some of these player interviews post-draft and one thing that irritates me is how poor some of these reporters are asking questions. They stutter and fumble over every question they ask or they ask the most basic questions.

    " Hey Jacob, ummm, I just wanted to uhhhh....ask how you felt playing again with ummmmm, Del.....Delpit and **3 second pause** another guy like uhhhhh. Gre...Greedy Williams.?"

    Like wtf did you people go to school for this or what? I would also love if one of these idiots could ask a football related question. Perhaps "Hey Jacob, we noticed you played primarily at this position, do you think you fit best at Mike in a base 4-3 or Will in a 3-4?"

    Somthing, anything other than "Hey we have bunch of LSU Tigers on this team, how do you feel about that?" Thats literally asked every other question.

    To be fair, they're asking questions the casual fan is interested in. The casual fan does not know Mike, Will, Sam, or defensive coverages and gap responsibilities.

  11. 4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

    After reading JT, I think he's evaluating them strictly off of potential of who they could/should be in sheer physical skills and truly undervaluing their "floors". 

    TBH, I don't know how more people don't have Thomas as OT #1 (and @Mind Character I understand the Wills argument/wouldn't argue with it as I think he's arguably #1 as well, albeit I like Thomas more).

    I personally believe that Thomas goes Top 5 and he's the prospect that goes high that every other pundit and casual fan has undervalued.

    For the Browns, here is how I have the tackles rated:

    1. Thomas

    2a. Becton

    2b. Wills

    3. Wirfs

    I am not very low on Wirfs, I'm just very high on Becton and think he could flourish (as JT put it) under Callahan. I'm honestly okay with any of them but I prefer any of the top 3. Andrew Thomas is a no brainer for me at #10.

  12. 1 minute ago, JoshBooty said:

    I'm against Trent Williams with #10 overall draft pick.  I'm giddy about getting him with a fifth.  A lot rides on what he costs and what offensive tackles are available at 10.  For now, I'm glad we're exploring our options so we're as prepared as possible for Thursday.

    Let's say Thomas, Wills, Wirfs, Becton, and Simmons are gone by #10. Would you be okay with trading down to pick up another 2nd and using it to acquire Trent? We'd still have our own 2nd and could draft someone like Cleveland.

    Imagine after the first two rounds we came away with - Trent Williams, Ezra Cleveland, and someone with our 1st round pick. Winfield or something.

  13. 7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

    Maybe, but do you plan for cutting or trading OBJ when he still has a couple years left on his contract? Landry is a probability but if salary increases like you suggest he may not be as overpaid and maybe they will want him for the final three years of his contract.

    Garrett's deal should get done this offseason, that's how you keep the player happy, Baker next offseason and the new money starts in 2021 for Garrett and 2022 for Baker. We could drag our feet and ride out the 5th year option but that doesn't always work out because sometimes you upset the player (or agent) and there is a short term holdout and then you could be forced into a tag situation which usually makes it worse. I'd try to get Garrett's deal done asap and the same with Baker if he does what he should this season

    That's a wait and see. Maybe Chubb is the best in the league at that point do you really want to cut ties with him because of overspending elsewhere? I don't.


    Bitonio is 10 per. Hooper is cheap this year then goes to 8.25 next and 13.25 the following two years. Conklin is 8, 13 and 15.


    Sure we won't hold on to all of them but I don't want spending in areas that don't appear to be a priority to be the reason.We're fine this year and next but things could start getting blurry after that We're 7 million under the cap heading into 2020 if we were to ignore the carryover. With the big contracts eventually coming that carryover is going to be gone most likely. Browns had the 2nd highest cap overall last year at 212m and the 6th highest active player cap. That's before Ward, Garrett and Baker even sniffed their first deal after their rookie contract. We have a few more contracts that we can remove (vernon/Richardson) to help carryover future but if you replace them with a high contract player you lose that.

    I haven't done the math, it just looks like there could be issues in the future if we start signing players to huge deals at positions where we don't need a huge impact player. I don't want to sacrafice ex: Chubb/Greedy/O-Line in a couple years so we can have Clowney. It would be fun if he and Garrett stayed on the field (Vernon and Garrett was supposed to be fun too) but we also don't want to cut a high contract player and start getting into dead cap hell if things go bad.

    This is very well said and probably put more eloquently than I could put it. We'd be fools to pretend like we KNOW how every piece is gonna fall within the next two years, "thus we should go ahead and blow our money on guys like Williams and Clowney because we know exactly how everything is going to play out"

    If Garrett has a full year and dominates (like we expect), we'll be looking to pay him after this year. And he'll either match or surpass Aaron Donald as the highest paid defensive player.

  14. I'll trust the actual analytics guys and their evaluation on whether or not we should be blowing everything within the next 2 years. You don't build your team through risky mega contracts in free agency, you use FA to infuse a much needed part or two and build through the draft. The more your team is built through big free agency contracts, the more holes you'll be looking to fill each draft year.

    Everyone seems to be acting omniscient about how things will play out in the next two years and it's clouding their judgment, IMO. The point in having a decent chunk of cap space is to act as a contingency plan in case something goes differently or an brand new opportunity arises. People are suggesting we'll be replacing Jarvis and OBJ in 1-2 years: well the reason we have them right now is to give us a shot. What if in 2020 we reach the playoffs and win a playoff game or two on the backs of some tremendous efforts by those 2? Will we be ready to reset the WR position and give Baker rookies? How would that affect Stefanski's offense that usually requires 1 or 2 really good receivers? Or would it be a harder decision to just let them both walk? Point is - if we're strapped for cash at this time then it really makes that a one-way decision.

    What if in 2021 we have an opportunity to acquire an all-pro but we're stuck paying Trent freaking Williams? Maintaining flexibility is important here too, and I don't think we should just go blowing cap space on risky players just because we have it.

    We got 43 million (ish) in cap space right now - this is before the draft. We need to cool our jets and not go spending a huge chunk of it on a risk as big as Trent Williams. I could go with an Anthony Harris if that's what our front office felt comfortable with but the players like him that are available are few and far in between.

  15. 2 hours ago, buno67 said:

    All true but don’t forget the cap will go up a decent amount the next few years because of the new CBA. So deals this offseason Might be considered deals or bargains In two or three years

    True, but the amount it goes up is still an unknown, right? So I think it's smart to be very cautious. I wouldn't be mad if we spent big money on someone but I can see how the conservative approach is desired as well.

  16. 29 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

    #1 in Cap Space:



    If all it takes is a 3rd or 4th rounder for Anthony Harris or Trent Williams, spend away on a big contract with an out after year 2.

    Why not even trade for both. Give up a 3rd and a 4th and a 7th.

    Front-load the heck out of both deals.

    Assuming the world isn't headed into Apocalyptic pandemic for years to come and there's a football season forthcoming, who cares if we don't have a top 10 cap space allotment for the next 2 years.

    The Browns will be fine.


    If I'm not mistaken, we have a lot of rollover cap space because we carried it over. You don't gain rollover cap space back.

    So let's say for example we sign Trent to 20 million for one year and let him walk next year. We will be at 24 million, not back up to 44 million.

    This is why it's imperative to use that money on cornerstone pieces that we know will be here for awhile.

  • Create New...