Cleveland Browns 2019 Season

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

My concern is what we saw against KC - a team we may very well see in the playoffs this year. KC spent that entire game throwing short routes, then gashing us for major YAC. Schobert was out, and we were helpless defensively.

The Browns have invested a ton of money/draft assets in the defensive line and defensive backfield, and teams will respond to that by throwing underneath to mitigate our pash rush and deeper coverage. We obviously can't put the same level of money in the linebackers, but we must have guys back there who are intelligent, and decent in coverage or all that money spent to pressure the QB is going to be wasted because teams will do what KC did. Schobert isn't a sack machine, so perhaps that will help keep his price down, and is only good not great against the run. But he's absolutely one of the best coverage linebackers in the league, which is what the Browns in particular really need from that position to close the biggest potential hole in our defense.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/ne...-nfls-top-coverage-linebacker-through-week-10

I think this is of sufficient important that the Browns will likely be targetting one of the better coverage linebackers in the draft -- perhaps someone like Pratt - a converted safety -- in the third round.

Uh... if the other team is throwing underneath consistently, I think you're in great shape. That's today's NFL--you're throwing somewhere. I'd rather keep it in front of me than get burned by the big play. Also, throwing underneath doesn't really demand anything special from your linebackers. It will still allow corners and safeties to make plays. It still allows the DL to get after the QB, and get hands up in throwing lanes to knock down passes. If your defense takes away things, that's the most you can ask for. Pigeon hole an offense into short passes and you're golden. Mix up coverages and eventually a mistake will be made.

Regarding PFF's claim that Schobert's the best coverage linebacker in football... to me, those stats speak a lot more to scheme and gameflow than they do to the player's performance. I don't think Schobert's an elite man coverage linebacker. He's good in zone, but not irreplaceable.

I don't want to get rid of him. I think we keep him all year. I think he plays really well in Wilks's scheme because we want an intelligent MLB who can make good reads dropping into that middle zone. But, if we do move him I won't claim the sky is falling.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Uh... if the other team is throwing underneath consistently, I think you're in great shape. That's today's NFL--you're throwing somewhere. I'd rather keep it in front of me than get burned by the big play. Also, throwing underneath doesn't really demand anything special from your linebackers. It will still allow corners and safeties to make plays. It still allows the DL to get after the QB, and get hands up in throwing lanes to knock down passes. If your defense takes away things, that's the most you can ask for. Pigeon hole an offense into short passes and you're golden. Mix up coverages and eventually a mistake will be made.

Forcing the offense into settling for shorter passes, screens, etc., is great if you are able to prevent the offense from consistently making those passes. We weren't, and KC slaughtered us with underneath routes because our linebackers in that game couldn't cover or make the correct reads.

Regarding PFF's claim that Schobert's the best coverage linebacker in football... to me, those stats speak a lot more to scheme and gameflow than they do to the player's performance. I don't think Schobert's an elite man coverage linebacker. He's good in zone, but not irreplaceable.

Okay, so that brings us to this:

1) The NFL has devalued linebackers unless they excel at bringing pressure on the QB.

2) Schobert does not excel at bringing pressure on the QB

3) Schobert is good but not great in coverage

4) We can't afford the $12M+/year that Schobert will demand.

Seems to me that there's a bit of a contradiction between 1) and 4). I don't see why there is the assumption by some -- and maybe not by you - that Schobert is going to be too expensive. If the league has devalued that position, why would a guy like Schobert who doesn't excel at bringing pressure, and is not a great run-stopper, be too expensive?

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Forcing the offense into settling for shorter passes, screens, etc., is great if you are able to prevent the offense from consistently making those passes. We weren't, and KC slaughtered us with underneath routes because our linebackers in that game couldn't cover or make the correct reads.



Okay, so that brings us to this:

1) The NFL has devalued linebackers unless they excel at bringing pressure on the QB.

2) Schobert does not excel at bringing pressure on the QB

3) Schobert is good but not great in coverage

4) We can't afford the $12M+/year that Schobert will demand.

Seems to me that there's a bit of a contradiction between 1) and 4). I don't see why there is the assumption by some -- and maybe not by you - that Schobert is going to be too expensive. If the league has devalued that position, why would a guy like Schobert who doesn't excel at bringing pressure, and is not a great run-stopper, be too expensive?

I don't think your points 1-4 are true. I think there's a ton of value in a LB who can cover. That's probably the second most in-demand trait for a LB after bringing pressure.

I think Schobert's going to get at least 8 million a year. I also think that's too rich for our blood when you factor in how much Myles/Baker/Denzel are going to get, along with the current contracts already on the roster.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't think your points 1-4 are true. I think there's a ton of value in a LB who can cover. That's probably the second most in-demand trait for a LB after bringing pressure.

Okay, fair enough. Others have made that point, so consider my argument addressed to them instead.