Pluto: Childress, WCO, and the draft

[bob2the2nd]

That was AJ Green last year. Blackmon is nowhere near as good of a prospect as Green or Jones.

really? no where near as good as jones? browns didnt have the chance to take green and blackmon is a better prospect than jones.

 

[AZ_]

really? no where near as good as jones? browns didnt have the chance to take green and blackmon is a better prospect than jones.

Aside from the offense Blackmon played in, I see no reason to believe he's anywhere close to Jones in terms of prospect status.

They both had problems with drops in college, but Jones is far more athletic and familiar with a pro-style offense.

 

[BooyaCS]

Aside from the offense Blackmon played in, I see no reason to believe he's anywhere close to Jones in terms of prospect status.

They both had problems with drops in college, but Jones is far more athletic and familiar with a pro-style offense.

Jones is also bigger and faster. Jones is 6'3 220 and ran a 4.39

Blackmon is 6'1 and runs close to a 4.55

 

[RealKingofCleve]

How many teams in the NFL have two top 10 picks at corner? Not the way to build a team.

 

[Phills14]

MO...

I don't get your argument. 50% of the QB's mentioned above were 1st round draft picks. So your solution is to draft a QB in the 1st round???? As much as I like RGIII, drafting him or any QB in the first round doesn't guarantee anything. It's basically a 50/50 coin flip as to whether he'll be successful. Yes, this is better odds then picking a QB in later rounds, but we will be investing multiple years in developing RGIII, so if he doesn't pan out we've wasted 3 to 4 years of developing a QB. Look at the Jets with Sanchez. He sucks, yet they still keep running him out there because of the investment they put into him. St. Louis has so much invested in Bradford, and if he sucks next year, then what? At least with McCoy, since we only used a 3rd rounder on him, it's OK to replace him after one year with better alternatives.

Hopefully RGIII will be on the right side of the coin and will make this argument moot.

So we shouldn't take a QB in the first round because it's a 50/50 chance he'll be bad and it gets more likely he'll be bad the later in the draft you pick a QB? All the playoff teams have first round QBs. How do you suggest we get a QB or do you think we need to stick with what we have?

 

[bigjmac0815]

How many teams in the NFL have two top 10 picks at corner? Not the way to build a team.

it caps off our defense, we'd have one of the best secondaries in the league.....two shutdown corners would make our defense stronger

 

[Soda]

I agree offense over defense, but let's not pretend the defense is ok.

Haden is by himself as far as CB's go, and he even struggled big time in the division this past season. Gocong & Jackson had good seasons, but Fujita is aging. We have no pass rusher besides Sheard.

Like I said, I agree we need to address the offense first, but I wouldn't exactly be horrified if they decided to go D either.

This is how I feel too. The Browns' defense is improving and has potential to be even better next season, but at the same time, you don't want to waste that talent by not supporting it. Defense must be addressed at some point this off-season. If the FO's offensive guy(s) aren't on the board at 4, I would be satisfied with taking BPA regardless of which side of the ball they play on. I also would be satisfied if they traded down in that scenario. I'm just not for trading up as much because the team still is devoid of a lot of talent. The Browns need the picks just as much as they need a QB.

 

[DaNewCavs]

So we shouldn't take a QB in the first round because it's a 50/50 chance he'll be bad and it gets more likely he'll be bad the later in the draft you pick a QB? All the playoff teams have first round QBs. How do you suggest we get a QB or do you think we need to stick with what we have?

I didn't say we shouldn't take RGIII in the first round. I'd love to have RGIII. But if H & H aren't confident that he will be a great quarterback, then we shouldn't take him. Taking RGIII at 4 does not guarantee that we'll have a good/great quarterback as many QB's have busted at that pick or before. Getting a QB that busts at that high of a pick sets you back an additional 3 to 4 years.

 

[Soda]

If all are available this is who i want in order and why

1) RG3-Franchise QB of future, fast can strech the field and has a cannon
2) Claiborne-solidifies our defense and would make our secondary one of the best in league
3) Blackmon-if we decide to go with McCoy for 1 more year, go get 2nd best WR prospect since Calvin Johnson
4) Richardson- would like to see duo of Hillis (if re-signed) and Trent....Power and Speed. Understand RBs this high have failed, believe he's the exception

Like the list, but I may push Couples in there and drop somebody. I can't say who, but it'd either be Blackmon or Richardson. Overall, good list. You just forgot Luck atop it. :chuckles:

it caps off our defense, we'd have one of the best secondaries in the league.....two shutdown corners would make our defense stronger

I agree. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't work. You can't avoid the BPA because it hasn't happened before. In a passing league, pass rush and secondary play are paramount for defense.

 

[bigjmac0815]

I would of had Luck there but come on he won't be there even if we wanted him too

 

[Phills14]

I didn't say we shouldn't take RGIII in the first round. I'd love to have RGIII. But if H & H aren't confident that he will be a great quarterback, then we shouldn't take him. Taking RGIII at 4 does not guarantee that we'll have a good/great quarterback as many QB's have busted at that pick or before. Getting a QB that busts at that high of a pick sets you back an additional 3 to 4 years.

I can't argue with anything you said. Of course if H&H don't believe he's worth the pick then they won't pick him. And yes, when you select a QB that high you have to ride him out as long as you can. If he's not good then it can really set a team back 3+ years at least. In order to take a QB that high you have to have superior confidence in him. Anything less they should go in a different direction. That being said, I think RGIII has a great chance to become an elite level QB in the NFL.

 

[Noonan]

How many teams in the NFL have two top 10 picks at corner? Not the way to build a team.

Sorry, but you walked right into this one. The answer to that quesiton is the 2000 Ravens defense. The Ravens had Chris McAlister and Duane Starks at corner and Rod Woodson at safety. That's three top 10 picks used on cornerbacks on one of the best defenses of all time.

Of course, there's not just one way to build a team. And as the Ravens showed, having two shutdown corners isn't exactly a bad problem to have. Especially now, when the league is more pass heavy than at any time in history.

You also have to look at the value a position offers at a given point in the draft. Corners and left tackles have the highest success rate among top 10 picks. Corners can be moved to safety. Tackles can be moved to guard. The longevity of a career also needs to be considered. A corner can play well over a decade. That's a hell of a return on investment.

If the Browns aren't sold on RG3 then Claiborne would be a hell of a pick. Our secondary would obviously be dramatically better and so would our pass rush. Coverage sacks count just as much.

 

[Maximus]

How many teams in the NFL have two top 10 picks at corner? Not the way to build a team.

The New York Giants have used 5 of their last 10 1st round picks on their defensive secondary. Not top 10 picks, but just saying.

 

[Lee]

it caps off our defense, we'd have one of the best secondaries in the league.....two shutdown corners would make our defense stronger

2 top 10 defensive ends caps off your defense, not corner.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

Sorry, but you walked right into this one. The answer to that quesiton is the 2000 Ravens defense. The Ravens had Chris McAlister and Duane Starks at corner and Rod Woodson at safety. That's three top 10 picks used on cornerbacks on one of the best defenses of all time.

Of course, there's not just one way to build a team. And as the Ravens showed, having two shutdown corners isn't exactly a bad problem to have. Especially now, when the league is more pass heavy than at any time in history.

You also have to look at the value a position offers at a given point in the draft. Corners and left tackles have the highest success rate among top 10 picks. Corners can be moved to safety. Tackles can be moved to guard. The longevity of a career also needs to be considered. A corner can play well over a decade. That's a hell of a return on investment.

If the Browns aren't sold on RG3 then Claiborne would be a hell of a pick. Our secondary would obviously be dramatically better and so would our pass rush. Coverage sacks count just as much.

Good call. But Duane Starks wasn't anything special. Looking at today's best defenses, the 49ers didn't draft Carlos Rogers (even though he was a top 10 pick) and their other corner was a 5th rounder. The Steelers start a 4th rounder and 5th rounder at corner. The Ravens started a 3rd and 5th rounder. The Giants start a late 1st and a 2nd rounder at corner. You can find very good corners outside of the 1st round. Its normally not a good idea to draft WRs and corners in the top 10 and especially top 5. Claibourne really better be something special if you take him 4th overall. Like almost on a Revis type level. Otherwise, its not worth it.

And pass rush>>>> corner play