Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Dee Milliner, CB, Alabama
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ACDC_Rocks024


Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 10720
Location: THE Ohio State University
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...
_________________
Everybody Come Alive, Everybody Live Alive, Everybody LOVE ALIVE

-Jimi Hendrix
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LETSGOBROWNIES


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 7687
Location: CINCINNATI
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
pmk


Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 12007
Location: NYC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Reginaldm9


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 3152
Location: Kent State University
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:


I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs.

Coverage sacks Very Happy
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elfman55


Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 1054
Location: Ashtabula,Ohio
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
TRAIL'S END#307


Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Posts: 69
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
nugpimpen


Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 18214
Location: 10 Miles South of Cleveland
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dawgpoun8017


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 11797
Location: Waterloo,NY
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuHWgeEjIrg
_________________
2013 Joe Blackburn HOF Award Recipient

Adopt a Brownie

TJ "Trauma" Ward

TKL- 75, INT- 2, Sack- 1.5,PDF-7, TD-2

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roger murdock


Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 5970
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd take him over Moore. Hes definitely in my top 5 for the draft.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reginaldm9 wrote:
Entropy wrote:


I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs.

Coverage sacks Very Happy


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 teamís 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
View user's profile Send private message
Fullback40


Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Posts: 311
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
derekfelty


Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 738
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DawgSoldier


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 5947
Location: Medina OH
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Very Happy


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 teamís 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. Wink
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nugpimpen


Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 18214
Location: 10 Miles South of Cleveland
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Very Happy


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 teamís 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. Wink



Pass rushers can make the secondary look better than the secondary can make the pass rushers look.

Sounds weird, but you get the point.
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group