| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ACDC_Rocks024
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 10654
Location: THE Ohio State University
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I really want this guy. He's a top talent at corner. He would give us the duo we need. Unfortunately, the dire need for a pass rusher is so outstanding that I don't know whether we can afford to use #6 on him...
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LETSGOBROWNIES
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 6830
Location: CINCINNATI
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| nugpimpen wrote: | | Dawgpoun8017 wrote: | | DawgSoldier wrote: | If the browns stand pat on CB I expect Wade or Bademosi to be the #2 CB with it more likely being Wade . With Skrine in a Nickel role.
I think it will be highly likely they target a FA CB though. |
That scenario with either of them being the #2 is a GD nightmare |
Thank you
Granted it totally depends what we do in FA.
If we get a stud CB in FA, then that is cool, if not, it is a HUGEEEE need. |
That's the key.
I'd be shocked if we didn't bring in at least 1-2 starters with the focus of their attention probably being at FS, CB and DE.
_________________
First Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pmk
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 11653
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Didn't watch Millner much this year, how does he stack up against other CBs who have gone top 10 the last few years (Haden, Peterson, Gilmore, etc)?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Entropy
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 1908
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| pmk wrote: | | Didn't watch Millner much this year, how does he stack up against other CBs who have gone top 10 the last few years (Haden, Peterson, Gilmore, etc)? |
I think his coverage skills are comparable, as well as his athleticism. Maybe not the same class as those guys with closing on the ball in a zone.
Overall, I would say that he might play man-press as well as any of them.
I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reginaldm9
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 1613
Location: Kent State University
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Entropy wrote: |
I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs. |
Coverage sacks 
_________________
ReggieCamp on the sig. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elfman55
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: Ashtabula,Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't care how we do it, were we get him from, if this team is going to get to the next level on defense we need to get another CB to team with Joe. The better he is the better this D will be. Most seem to think DE is more of a priority, Iam not sure of that. WE have our 1st rd pick, FA or possible trade to find one. If CB is not our #1 priority it should be a very close 2nd.
elfman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TRAIL'S END#307
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Can we all agree that Millner is the best corner in the draft? If he is there at #6 we have to take him! Go Browns! Just my thoughts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nugpimpen
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 12097
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TRAIL'S END#307 wrote: | | Can we all agree that Millner is the best corner in the draft? If he is there at #6 we have to take him! Go Browns! Just my thoughts! |
Agree he's the best, but if Moore is there, i'm taking him.
_________________
| hornbybrown wrote: | | We also have the highest amount per capita of Jedi in New Zealand. I'm one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawgpoun8017
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 9088
Location: Waterloo,NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roger murdock
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 5211
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'd take him over Moore. Hes definitely in my top 5 for the draft.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Entropy
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 1908
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Reginaldm9 wrote: | | Entropy wrote: |
I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs. |
Coverage sacks |
I'm not directing this at you reg, but I'd just like to point out that any sack that doesn't occur directly after the snap is a coverage sack.
I say this because it seems that some think of the term "coverage sack" as being more of a function of DBs maintaining coverage for an extended period of time (thereby creating an "inevitable" sack) than getting good pass rush from members of the front 7.
But when you really examine it, sacks occur most often because the QB was unable to find an open receiver before the number of pass rushers were able to tackle the QB, therefore they are mostly coverage sacks.
First of all, it is nearly impossible to maintain coverage on all receivers for more than 3 or so seconds after the snap without having extra defenders in the secondary, thus decreasing the pass rushers.
Secondly, pass rushers rarely sack the QB within 3 seconds of the snap.
Thirdly, almost every QB in the league averages less than 3 seconds before they will pass even if it's to throw the ball away.
So I think we should look at passing the ball as far more inevitable than not passing the ball.
I think the team’s need, right now, is far greater for better players to defend the inevitable pass than to limit the pass in the first place.
Now, surely a good pass rush does more than produce sacks. A good pass rush can hurry a throw and force a mistake, or force a throw away, BUT it can also play into the opposing team's hand by forcing a checkdown to a player that is covered by DB that is not a good player. And that will have (and has had) a greater impact on the game than getting an occasional sack.
The bottom line is that all the work that pass rushers do can be negated by a weak defensive backfield.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fullback40
Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Posts: 311
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Derek Cox in free agency for me.
I don't really like any of the cornerbacks as a #2 guy in this draft outside of the first round.
Maybe if David Amerson falls...but he's probably gonna be a FS convert, if you ask me.
I don't like the CB class at all outside of Milliner, who is solid, but not nearly as good as the other CB's in the past few drafts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
derekfelty
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 566
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Draft a CB in the frist round and pick up a DE in the free agent, a decent one. I wouldnt mind the guy from the Lions Cliff #92.
_________________
NFL: Titans_Ravens_
NCAA: Texas_LSU_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DawgSoldier
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 5947
Location: Medina OH
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Entropy wrote: | | Reginaldm9 wrote: | | Entropy wrote: |
I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs. |
Coverage sacks |
I'm not directing this at you reg, but I'd just like to point out that any sack that doesn't occur directly after the snap is a coverage sack.
I say this because it seems that some think of the term "coverage sack" as being more of a function of DBs maintaining coverage for an extended period of time (thereby creating an "inevitable" sack) than getting good pass rush from members of the front 7.
But when you really examine it, sacks occur most often because the QB was unable to find an open receiver before the number of pass rushers were able to tackle the QB, therefore they are mostly coverage sacks.
First of all, it is nearly impossible to maintain coverage on all receivers for more than 3 or so seconds after the snap without having extra defenders in the secondary, thus decreasing the pass rushers.
Secondly, pass rushers rarely sack the QB within 3 seconds of the snap.
Thirdly, almost every QB in the league averages less than 3 seconds before they will pass even if it's to throw the ball away.
So I think we should look at passing the ball as far more inevitable than not passing the ball.
I think the team’s need, right now, is far greater for better players to defend the inevitable pass than to limit the pass in the first place.
Now, surely a good pass rush does more than produce sacks. A good pass rush can hurry a throw and force a mistake, or force a throw away, BUT it can also play into the opposing team's hand by forcing a checkdown to a player that is covered by DB that is not a good player. And that will have (and has had) a greater impact on the game than getting an occasional sack.
The bottom line is that all the work that pass rushers do can be negated by a weak defensive backfield. |
The converse argument is also true.
The Real Bottom line. Pass rushers help vs the run CB's not so much. 
_________________
The Dawgpounds new three headed monster!
Adopt a Brown: QB Brandon Weeden
247/433 57% 2820yds 6.5avg 13 TD 15 Int |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nugpimpen
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 12097
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DawgSoldier wrote: | | Entropy wrote: | | Reginaldm9 wrote: | | Entropy wrote: |
I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs. |
Coverage sacks |
I'm not directing this at you reg, but I'd just like to point out that any sack that doesn't occur directly after the snap is a coverage sack.
I say this because it seems that some think of the term "coverage sack" as being more of a function of DBs maintaining coverage for an extended period of time (thereby creating an "inevitable" sack) than getting good pass rush from members of the front 7.
But when you really examine it, sacks occur most often because the QB was unable to find an open receiver before the number of pass rushers were able to tackle the QB, therefore they are mostly coverage sacks.
First of all, it is nearly impossible to maintain coverage on all receivers for more than 3 or so seconds after the snap without having extra defenders in the secondary, thus decreasing the pass rushers.
Secondly, pass rushers rarely sack the QB within 3 seconds of the snap.
Thirdly, almost every QB in the league averages less than 3 seconds before they will pass even if it's to throw the ball away.
So I think we should look at passing the ball as far more inevitable than not passing the ball.
I think the team’s need, right now, is far greater for better players to defend the inevitable pass than to limit the pass in the first place.
Now, surely a good pass rush does more than produce sacks. A good pass rush can hurry a throw and force a mistake, or force a throw away, BUT it can also play into the opposing team's hand by forcing a checkdown to a player that is covered by DB that is not a good player. And that will have (and has had) a greater impact on the game than getting an occasional sack.
The bottom line is that all the work that pass rushers do can be negated by a weak defensive backfield. |
The converse argument is also true.
The Real Bottom line. Pass rushers help vs the run CB's not so much. |
Pass rushers can make the secondary look better than the secondary can make the pass rushers look.
Sounds weird, but you get the point.
_________________
| hornbybrown wrote: | | We also have the highest amount per capita of Jedi in New Zealand. I'm one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
