OROY

[wackywabbit]

32 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Count me in as that 10%, then.

Given Cleveland's situation - highly drafted pass rusher the year before, highly drafted S the year before, two games a year against Antonio Brown and AJ Green - a top flight CB is a much greater need than another pass rusher, OL, LB or S. CB was (is?) a weakness for the Browns, and with so many teams running their base offense out of 3WR sets, getting a CB who can potentially eliminate one of those WRs is a weapon to rely on.

Edit: Bizzaro ET AKA @MWil23 broke it down much better than I did.

It's not about Ward being good. I literally said in my original post on the subject "if you want to stump for Ward over those guys, that's fine". If they took Bradley Chubb I still wouldn't call it a "terrific pick" by the GM. I bring up Chubb, Nelson, Smith, and James (though he slid lower than expecred) is that all the options that high would have gotten you a great option. There was no way to not have a great player that high in this draft.

I guess the difference between you guys and me is that you guys would say Ryan Grigson made a "terrific pick" taking Andrew Luck, whereas I give him 0 positive credit for that being on his resume. Is that accurate or would I be misrepresenting you there?

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, wackywabbit said:

I guess the difference between you guys and me is that you guys would say Ryan Grigson made a "terrific pick" taking Andrew Luck, whereas I give him 0 positive credit for that being on his resume. Is that accurate or would I be misrepresenting you there?

Shoulda taken Kuechly or Fletcher Cox and grabbed Russell Wilson in the 3rd.

[ET80]

2 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

It's not about Ward being good. I literally said in my original post on the subject "if you want to stump for Ward over those guys, that's fine". If they took Bradley Chubb I still wouldn't call it a "terrific pick" by the GM. I bring up Chubb, Nelson, Smith, and James (though he slid lower than expecred) is that all the options that high would have gotten you a great option. There was no way to not have a great player that high in this draft.

I guess the difference between you guys and me is that you guys would say Ryan Grigson made a "terrific pick" taking Andrew Luck, whereas I give him 0 positive credit for that being on his resume. Is that accurate or would I be misrepresenting you there?

Allow me to rephrase - they found the best pick for them. Nobody else available in that range provides the same sort of short term and long term sustainability than the top rated CB. 

As far as your analogy - Ryan Grigson did make a good pick with Luck at #1. He proceeded to make a series of bad picks later on, tanking the team around Luck - which carries more weight than that one single pick on his resume. Fast forward to Chris Ballard, who redefined that OL by drafting Quentin Nelson - by your definition, is that not a "terrific pick"? It fits the same criteria that Ward to the Browns did - they could have went with James or Smith or Minkah Fitzpatrick or Marcus Davenport or Leighton Vander Esch - all would have been fine picks, but which one provides the most short and long term improvements?

I'd say Nelson.

[wackywabbit]

40 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Shoulda taken Kuechly or Fletcher Cox and grabbed Russell Wilson in the 3rd.

Well... yea. If they exceeded the value of the stupidly obvious move by that much, it would have been terrific.

But in a world where Russell wilson doesn't exist (I forgot he was the same draft) and Luck was 100% obviously the "right" pick it's still not a great GM move to take the player everyone would have taken. It's just expected. 

[Vee-Rex]

12 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

K.

I don't think "objective" fans would call taking Ward over Chubb, Nelson, Roquan Smith, and Derwin James to be a "terrific" or "A+" pick. I think that 85-90% of people who would agree with that are Browns fans. 

You say I have an antagonistic approach, but I think you are being overly optimistic if you are using that particular pick as a sign of great things to come.

Terrific doesn't necessarily mean PERFECT or FLAWLESS or BEST. I thought I clarified that before.

Yes, you are zeroing in on terminology now because your stance is crumbling. Ward, a rookie CB is a pro bowler and grades out extremely well statistically. He was, indeed, a terrific pick.

[wackywabbit]

1 hour ago, Vee-Rex said:

Terrific doesn't necessarily mean PERFECT or FLAWLESS or BEST. I thought I clarified that before.

Yes, you are zeroing in on terminology now because your stance is crumbling. Ward, a rookie CB is a pro bowler and grades out extremely well statistically. He was, indeed, a terrific pick.

Enjoy the pro bowl. He was not a terrific pick and I still think the next three non-QBs taken all are and will be better. As an "antagonistic" divisional rival fan, I'm glad they passed up the chance to pair Garrett with Bradley Chubb.

Guess we'll find out. 

[MWil23]

9 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Enjoy the pro bowl. He was not a terrific pick and I still think the next three non-QBs taken all are and will be better. As an "antagonistic" divisional rival fan, I'm glad they passed up the chance to pair Garrett with Bradley Chubb.

Guess we'll find out. 

I'm still awaiting a response from my monologue with evidence located about the bottom 1/3 of last page (page 41), which you completely ignored. I'm sure that it was just an honest oversight and not at all you dodging the breakdown.

[wackywabbit]

3 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I'm still awaiting a response from my monologue with evidence located about the bottom 1/3 of last page (page 41), which you completely ignored. I'm sure that it was just an honest oversight and not at all you dodging the breakdown.

I read it before and re-read it now. I think you take the best/most valuable player when picking in the first round and especially in the top 5, regardless of current roster composition*. I think that would have been the double digit sack pass rusher.

*Unless BPA is a QB and you already have one, in which case TRADE DOWN

But my main point was not that they should have taken X over Ward. It was about not giving a GM much credit for drafting a promising talent #4 overall. That should be the expectation. I bring up the other players in the draft to show that it would have taken an extraordinary effort to NOT have a great prospect at that pick. But this debate is pretty dead. All the responses I get are along the lines of "Ravens' fan doesn't think Ward is as good as he really is", with 0 regard or acknowledgment  of the premium draft capital spent on him.

[MWil23]

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I read it before and re-read it now. I think you take the best/most valuable player when picking in the first round and especially in the top 5, regardless of current roster composition*. I think that would have been the double digit sack pass rusher.

Like I said, that one is very much still up for debate and I wouldn't have minded either way. A lockdown CB and a stud DE are both highly valued positions and you could honestly flip a coin. IMO tie goes to the clear weakness, which was CB.

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

*Unless BPA is a QB and you already have one, in which case TRADE DOWN

Apparently they didn't get good value in a trade down, and from all organizations to suggest that they should trade down, Cleveland would be the last, giving that they've done this time and time again for the last decade. I love trade downs as well, but if you don't trade down and still land a STUD/Pro Bowl player (which they did), then you can't really argue this.

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

But my main point was not that they should have taken X over Ward. It was about not giving a GM much credit for drafting a promising talent #4 overall. That should be the expectation.

And if they didn't get an absolute stud in Nick Chubb in the 2nd round, make a trade for a horrific QB in Kizer for a quality FS in Randall, and draft another really good player on Day in in Genard Avery, to go with what looks to be a legitimate good to great franchise QB in Mayfield and Pro Bowl rookie CB (another highly rated position aside from DE), then you may have a point.

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I bring up the other players in the draft to show that it would have taken an extraordinary effort to NOT have a great prospect at that pick.

And yet so many Browns GM's have wallowed in such incompetence they've managed to find just that.

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

But this debate is pretty dead. All the responses I get are along the lines of "Ravens' fan doesn't think Ward is as good as he really is", with 0 regard or acknowledgment  of the premium draft capital spent on him.

Premium draft capital for a premium player=good pick. (Mayfield and Ward)

Decent draft capital for a premium player=GREAT pick (Chubb)

Just my opinion

[wackywabbit]

Mayfield was a great pick. Chubb was a great pick.

Ward was an ok pick.

Just my opinion.

[Vee-Rex]

14 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Enjoy the pro bowl. He was not a terrific pick and I still think the next three non-QBs taken all are and will be better. As an "antagonistic" divisional rival fan, I'm glad they passed up the chance to pair Garrett with Bradley Chubb.

Guess we'll find out. 

Eh, I'm guessing that if we had taken Chubb over Ward, you'd be sitting here arguing we should've taken a CB pro bowler who graded out very well statistically in a position of need. So you saying you're 'glad' we didn't pair Garrett with Chubb is pretty meaningless to me. As I'm sure you were glad we took Mayfield #1 overall on draft day.

 

[MWil23]

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Mayfield was a great pick. Chubb was a great pick.

Ward was an ok pick.

Just my opinion.

I'd say that Mayfield was a great pick because it was riskier, not as obvious, and definitely against the grain. I was a Darnold apologist, so it took me a while to support the pick.

Ward was a good pick. He's a Pro Bowl 21-22 year old at one of the biggest impact positions in the NFL. If they would have taken Chubb, then that also would have been a good pick to go opposite Garrett, but they still have/would have had glaring holes in the secondary. Honestly I feel like you flip a coin there, but those are the ONLY two options. Roquan, Nelson, and Derwin, as great as they are, aren't the guys because of the strength that the Browns have in those spots. 2 of those 3 positions the Browns already have/had a Pro Bowl player (Schobert at MLB and Bitonio at OG)

Chubb was a great pick.

Corbett was an awful pick at #33, as was Chad Thomas at almost pick #70. Hopefully they can contribute somewhere in some capacity.

That said, you draft 3 quality starters, all three which may get Pro Bowl consideration, and that's a great draft.

[wackywabbit]

37 minutes ago, Vee-Rex said:

Eh, I'm guessing that if we had taken Chubb over Ward, you'd be sitting here arguing we should've taken a CB pro bowler who graded out very well statistically in a position of need.

Nope. Would have been easily contradicted with all my draft related posts.

[Vee-Rex]

1 hour ago, wackywabbit said:

Nope. Would have been easily contradicted with all my draft related posts.

Fair enough.

[VigilantZombie]

There are 2 separate issues here imo.

Who is the best player?

Who is more deserving of OROY?

The answer isn't the same.  The best, most talented rookie is Saquon Barkley, by a mile.

Having said that, the Giants were still a terrible team.  Baker Mayfield had a much greater impact on his team than Barkley did on his.  At least Cleveland was actually in contention for the playoffs, the Giants never stood a chance.