jri111 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 ALOT can happen before the draft, but put yourself in the Browns shoes. Right now you're a young teams with a lot of holes. Your starting QB is Charlie Fry and your starting tailback is a 27-year old has been named Jamaal Lewis. When the 3rd pick comes up you're faced with taking a potential franchise QB or a game changing RB. What do you do? (assuming Quinn or Russell are still there, specifically Quinn) Personally, I would take the QB. 1. Franchise QB's are EXPOTENTIALLY harder to get then good running backs. 2. Runningbacks are a dime a dozon (with the exception of LT, LJ, and Alexandar), especially compared to QBs. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many potential first year starting RBs are in the draft compared to QBs? Lets see, QB, Well there's Russell, Quinn, and, well thats about it. Running backs: Petterson, Lynch, Bush, Hunt, Pittman, irons, Leonard, etc... I mean look it, we're calling Lewis washed up and he's 27 years old?! Personally I was SHOCKED to discover his age earlier this offseason. I would have put good money on the fact that he was in his 30's! That's because he looks like he's 30 and plays like he's 30. Thats becuase RBs have such a short shelf life (average is around 3 years). With that in mind, why would you get a 3-5 year RB when you could get a 10-12 year franchise QB. All that said, it's simple, ask yourself this.... would you rather have QB: Quinn RB: Lewis ( plus an early 2nd round pick (alla Bush, Hunt, Pittman, etc..) or QB: Charlie Fry RB: Petterson, Lewis (for one year) To me, it's no brainer. Take Quinn and your future RB early in the second round (which is essentially a late first rounder) and have Lewis and the young guy split the carries this year and then he's ready for the full load come 2008. Lastly, i just think all of the discussion on this board alone is evidence to back this up. Most people on this board think that taking a first round RB would be stupid and would rather see us take a RB in rounds 2 or 3 (I am one of those people by the way... with the exception of Petterson at 12, that's just too much value to pass up at that position). So if we're so high on the Hunts and Irons of the world, which i think we should be, why wouldnt cleveland be? If you were a browns fan, wouldn't you want your team to get your QB AND RB of the future in this draft or just your RB of the future with charlie as your QB? thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Personally, I would take the QB. 1. Franchise QB's are EXPOTENTIALLY harder to get then good running backs. Agreed QB: QuinnRB: Lewis ( plus an early 2nd round pick (alla Bush, Hunt, Pittman, etc..) or QB: Charlie Fry RB: Peterson, Lewis (for one year) No doubt I would take the first pair. To me, it's no brainer. Take Quinn and your future RB early in the second round (which is essentially a late first rounder) and have Lewis and the young guy split the carries this year and then he's ready for the full load come 2008. (lastly, i just think all of the discussion on this board alone is evidence to back up what i'm saying. Most people on this board think that taking a first round RB would be studpid and would rather see us take a RB in rounds 2 or 3 (I am one of those by the way... with the exception of Petterson at 12, that's just too much value to pass up at that position) So if we're so high on the Hunts and Irons of the world, which i think we should be, why wouldnt cleveland be? If you were a browns fan, wouldn't you want your team to get your QB AND RB of the future in this draft or just your RB of the future with charlie as your QB? You sound as if you are trying to convince yourself that it's ok if we draft AP - or I am confused. I think you are right, if my understanding is correct: Draft picks 1-10 = No way a RB is a good pick in any one of these positions due to all the posts you mention, your reasoning, and my own little contribution: the fact that there are only 32 starting RB jobs in the NFL. There are a minimum of 3 times that many at the LB position. Why does that matter? - Teams need more LBs than they do RBs. Therefore they have to be "right" more times = they have more margin for error when picking a RB than they do in picking LBs; and they need more of them. Less margin for error means that they have to be drafted higher->assuming that the higher one is drafted, the less likely they are to be a bust. Therefore, if Draft Picks 1-10 are not a good place to take RBs, then what picks are? I would argue(and agree with you) that 10-20 are in play for RBs provided that we are talking about and AP type player. However, I would also argue that really RBs shouldn't be taken(as a guideline) before pick 20, for all the reasons you have mentioned. If we take AP with #12, I suppose that would be an exception to this reasoning. Now the question is: does AP provide the kind of potential, upside, whatever, that warrants Marv making an exception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jri111 Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 Agreed No doubt I would take the first pair. You sound as if you are trying to convince yourself that it's ok if we draft AP - or I am confused. I think you are right, if my understanding is correct: Draft picks 1-10 = No way a RB is a good pick in any one of these positions due to all the posts you mention, your reasoning, and my own little contribution: the fact that there are only 32 starting RB jobs in the NFL. There are a minimum of 3 times that many at the LB position. Why does that matter? - Teams need more LBs than they do RBs. Therefore they have to be "right" more times = they have more margin for error when picking a RB than they do in picking LBs; and they need more of them. Less margin for error means that they have to be drafted higher->assuming that the higher one is drafted, the less likely they are to be a bust. Therefore, if Draft Picks 1-10 are not a good place to take RBs, then what picks are? I would argue(and agree with you) that 10-20 are in play for RBs provided that we are talking about and AP type player. However, I would also argue that really RBs shouldn't be taken(as a guideline) before pick 20, for all the reasons you have mentioned. If we take AP with #12, I suppose that would be an exception to this reasoning. Now the question is: does AP provide the kind of potential, upside, whatever, that warrants Marv making an exception? you make all good points and i agree with you on most of them, but I don't think my reaosnsing/suggestions are as rigid as you may think. I'd I dont' have any problems with taking a RB in picks 1-10, as long as he's the type of player that you think would be worth it and that would fit your team. For example if you're a team set as QB and you're not dscredde with ohter needs (i.e. something like New Orleans last year) I have no problem taking a RB early in the draft. Now heres my thinking about the Bills: First, we're set at QB. I have all the confidence in the world in JP and think he becomes a top 10 QB this season. However, I think we have too many defensive needs (particularly at LB and DT) to just take the best RB available in the first round (for all the reaosns i mentioned originially). I like a lot of the second/third round RB's (especially Hunt and Irons), so I definitiely think we should go D in round one (Okoye, Willis, Puz are on my personal wishlist for round 1) that said...I would have NO PROBLEM with us taking a guy like Peterson at 12. I think he's that special RB that would be worth taking. (i would NOT take lynch though). Peterson is a top 5 talent, and if he does fall becuase of other teams needs, then I don't think you just ignore a gift that falls right in your lap. If something unexpected like this happens you take Peterson and then I think it becomes imperative that you try to get back into the first and get one of the best three LBs available (Willis, Puz, or Timmons). In the end it's all about value and where these players fall on the Bills draft board. IMO Peterson is worth the first round pick despite other needs. Otherwise you go def.in round 1 and grab your RB in round 2 or 3 (which is obviously the most likely senario) just my two cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Peterson is a top 5 talent, and if he does fall becuase of other teams needs, then I don't think you just ignore a gift that falls right in your lap. If something unexpected like this happens you take Peterson and then I think it becomes imperative that you try to get back into the first and get one of the best three LBs available (Willis, Puz, or Timmons). In the end it's all about value and where these players fall on the Bills draft board. IMO Peterson is worth the first round pick despite other needs. Otherwise you go def.in round 1 and grab your RB in round 2 or 3 (which is obviously the most likely senario) (especially Hunt and Irons), so I definitiely think we should go D in round one (Okoye, Willis, Puz are on my personal wishlist for round 1) just my two cents How about this?: (I haven't seen this posted anywhere - and I went onto some RaiderNation message boards to see if it had any credence. It turns out that this idea has a lot more fans than I thought) What if the Raiders decide that Russell is a poser? What if they take Quinn? Doesn't that mean that Cleveland will almost have to take Russell? If they don't, then someone will(Washington, Minnesota, Detroit). With everything else I have seen(and everything else staying the same) - that may make AP drop into our lap a lot easier than is currently expected. In that scenario I also gotta wonder about Calvin Johnson dropping. That would make for an interesting day to say the least. At this point I am most interested in taking the best of Marv's top 5(if available) in the first(or trading down), and doing whatever we have to in order to get Brian Leonard(as a result of trading down). Hopefully one of the three guys you mentioned(I am partial to Poz) will be part of that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jri111 Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 How about this?: (I haven't seen this posted anywhere - and I went onto some RaiderNation message boards to see if it had any credence. It turns out that this idea has a lot more fans than I thought) What if the Raiders decide that Russell is a poser? What if they take Quinn? Doesn't that mean that Cleveland will almost have to take Russell? If they don't, then someone will(Washington, Minnesota, Detroit). With everything else I have seen(and everything else staying the same) - that may make AP drop into our lap a lot easier than is currently expected. In that scenario I also gotta wonder about Calvin Johnson dropping. That would make for an interesting day to say the least. At this point I am most interested in taking the best of Marv's top 5(if available) in the first(or trading down), and doing whatever we have to in order to get Brian Leonard(as a result of trading down). Hopefully one of the three guys you mentioned(I am partial to Poz) will be part of that as well. i don't know. What would make cleveland want russell any more than Quinn? Actually I think it would be the opposite... I think they would want Quinn more: 1. I don't think you can discount the Crenel/Weis connection. Weis knows Quinn. He could be telling Romeo all of the positives about the kid that would increase their chances of taking him. 2. I know for a fact that Cleveland attended Quinn's pro day in full force, I'm not so certain on Russell, anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jri111 Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 Here's something new brewing that would scare me though.... http://rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL Lions Offense-TM- Lions Mar. 16 - 9:35 am et The Lions are reportedly being flooded with calls to trade down, and hope to do so at least once. Detroit's ideal plan, according to MLive.com, would be to trade down a few times, stockpile picks, and draft Gaines Adams. Considering the roster, getting quantity over quality sounds like a great idea. hmmm what teams would be interested in moving up that high? i would have to think most likely the Vikes and Houston trying to get in position to get Quinn. If that true that could mean major trouble for Cleveland if they did indeed want Quinn. If oakland goes with Russel and say the Vikes move into 2 to take Quinn, Cleveland is SOL at QB and would probably take AP. If the vikes or houston make a move like this the only hope of AP falling would be oakland taking Johnson. MAYBE then Clevland takes Russel (but even this isn't as likely as them taking quinn - see my post above). Interesting to say the least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 i don't know. What would make cleveland want russell any more than Quinn? Actually I think it would be the opposite... I think they would want Quinn more: 1. I don't think you can discount the Crenel/Weis connection. Weis knows Quinn. He could be telling Romeo all of the positives about the kid that would increase their chances of taking him. 2. I know for a fact that Cleveland attended Quinn's pro day in full force, I'm not so certain on Russell, anyone know? Other than the fact that the Raiders draft #1? If they take Quinn, it doesn't matter what Cleveland wants-> they are left with AP, Calvin Johnson, or Russell. That's what I'm sayin' IF the Faders take Quinn, a lot of things "we know" to be true get thrown out of wack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 The Lions are reportedly being flooded with calls to trade down, and hope to do so at least once.Interesting to say the least... Yep, and with Millen's draft record, the Lions almost have to trade down-> following the "more chances I get = less likely I !@#$ it up" theory. I'm not as concerned about one team trading down as I am if more do = our chances of trading down will be gone because there won't be anybody left to trade down with. And, with all the trading up(say 3-4 trades), NO ONE will be drafting for need = the top, real-deal, playmakers will be picked over by the time it gets to us = we will be picking some dopey guard at #1(or something equally annoying like another safety or a WR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 1. Franchise QB's are EXPOTENTIALLY harder to get then good running backs. 1. The hard part about a franchise QB is identifying if one coming out of college is the real deal. This is very difficult to accomplish as evidenced by the number of top 5 QB's that bust. There is at least a 50% chance that Quinn or Russell bust. The position that is even harder to obtain a stud at is Left Tackle. The Lions focus should be on Joe Thomas to anchor the left side of their line and to improve the run and pass game. The other option is to take the best player with the lowest chance of busting - and that is Calvin Johnson. Unfortunately for them - the Raiders will figure this out and not waste a pick on a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 The Lions focus should be on Joe Thomas to anchor the left side of their line and to improve the run and pass game.The other option is to take the best player with the lowest chance of busting - and that is Calvin Johnson. Unfortunately for them - the Raiders will figure this out and not waste a pick on a QB. Wow that would really mess up all the experts and make this even more interesting. If the Lions don't trade down, and take Joe Thomas, then I would see a feeding frenzy of teams trying to trade up. Assuming one or the other QB is gone, that still leaves 4 of the 5 top skill players on the board = Nuts. In that case, I can see where AP could slip through the cracks to us no problem. Hell, in that case just about anything could happen = lots of emotion and not much thought. Hopefully Marv is prepared for this and can take advantage of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I see Quinn before Peterson as a no brainer for the Browns. Although if Russell/Thomas go one two they will be morons to pass on Calvin Johnson and let him slide to Tampa. But one of the weird things about these choices and situations (bringing game theory into things) is that it is very likely someone else will be a complete idiot or at least do something marginally dumb. Your hope is that it isn't us. So even though the Browns should have Johnson > Quinn > Peterson on their draft board, I don't expect them to act that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts