Saturday, February 20, 2010

Browns Draft: Corrections and Rational Thoughts

RESPONSES TO DUMB STUFF I HAVE READ:



"I'm concerned about the right side of the offensive line": Womack filled in surprisingly well at right tackle (this from a guy who said Womack can't play right tackle).

All the same, I stipulate to Womack being less than ideal there, and that an upgrade would be in order. A guy named Capizzi who the Browns got from Pittsburgh is 6'9", used to be 315. He's athletic, and scouts felt he could play left tackle.

Entering his fourth season, he's at the stage where many offensive linemen emerge. The Stoolers, who are located in PA, dug him up as a left tackle for NCAA powerhouse Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Yeah, he was released. But he's athletic and 6'9" (he has the ability period).

Might not work out-might be a depth guy. But you folks pretend he and his potential don't exist. It's inconvenient to think that hard, aint it?

So yes, drafting a right tackle is a good idea. "I say we use #7 on a right tackle".

WOW! Let's draft a left tackle to play right tackle and pay him more than Joe Thomas! Brilliant!

In this draft, a right tackle can be found into the third round. An exceptional right tackle has the feet to play on the left side as well, but more commonly they're tall right guards.

And right tackle is not the right side. The Browns do NOT need a right guard. Hadnot's passblocking has improved, and changes in the blocking scheme favor him. Womack is a good right guard in any system. Typicly, a lot of fans throw out the baby with the bathwater, and mindlessly repeat crap they hear.

You can't fake it.

"We need a playmaking tight end". In other words, all those catches Devon Moore made were flukes. He just came into an unfamilar scheme and kept fluking. He was a wide reciever in college and is at least as fast as Jurevicious but that doesn't matter either.

After about eight games and 25 or so catches and a bunch of touchdowns, I trust it will dawn on some of you that we already have a playmaking tight end.

"We need a number one and number two reciever". OK here we go again: You've already got Robiskie in a grave and are shoveling dirt in his face because he didn't do anything as a rookie.

I know that, being a coach's son, smart and polished, we expected more up front. It didn't happen, therefore it never will? Jeez.

I'm pretty sure that at least part of Robiski'e problem is that he's not a fast-twitch athlete; he's not explosive. He's a glider, so it's hard for him to separate from cornerbacks who are often faster and always quicker than he is.

He's not alone. If he were a little guy, he'd be DOA, but Robiskie is 6'3", has good top-end speed and excellent hands. He can return from the offseason a little bigger and stronger and simply be a Jurevicious type. Jurevicious, of late Ohco Cinco, and other big recievers rarely get much separation, but they make the catch anyway because they can wall off, out-reach, and out-leap the defender.

Some clown after the season called Massequoi a number three or four reciever. Excuse me, but he was the X-reciever for the Browns, beat double coverage, and did what he did later in his rookie season. Don't tell me about drops--I didn't see any in the last six games, and those are all that count.

For vertical systems, you ideally want a Braylon Edwards (I mean if Edwards could catch)--type deep flyer to keep a safety back and open up the shorter stuff, but it looks a whole lot like the new Browns will be predominantly West Coast.

That's not a vertical system, and Massequoi is ideal for it. A lot of the yardage in a West Coast system is YAC, and that's Massequoi's game. Jerry Rice wan't even AS fast as Massequoi, and over 90% of his receptions travelled less than 15 yards in the air. (I'm not positive of/can't prove that, but the knowlegable reader won't try to pick a fight over it).

I would like to see better depth, and frankly Robiskie shoved to the third spot; A speedy/dangerous guy would be great...but the Browns don't NEED both a number one and number two reciever. If they can find an X-reciever who can knock Massequoi to Y, I'm all for it.

Hey how bout Randy Moss, that Fitzgerald guy, and Steve Largeant? Great! But coaches and GM's have to live on THIS planet.

"We need a big running back to complement Harrison": Hey Jerome! You're awesome, man! There. I just comlimented Harrison. Let's move on now.

But seriously, the Browns have one of the two best fullbacks in the NFL, James Davis will be back, and Chris Jennings weighs in at 218--a whopping five or six pounds heavier than Harrison!!!

I really like this one 245-pounder in the draft that they don't know if he's a running back or a fullback...sounds like Mike Alstott--that would be great, but the premise of NEED is false.

What do Emmitt Smith, Priest Holmes, Kiki Barber, Joe Morris, Barry Sanders and 30 or so other superstar running backs have in common? They were all shrimps who outlasted the big guys. They were smaller targets and instinctively avoided big hits.

You want a change of pace? James Davis is just a grinder; much stronger than his weight indicates, and he breaks tackles. Reminds me a lot of Earnest Byner. I mean, like a Byner CLONE! And Byner blocked for Kevin Mack!

Short yardage? Did you see what the Browns did the last five games? "Okay we're going to run. Harrison will get the ball and Vickers will lead-block for him, so all you guys just key on Vickers and try to stop us. Ready?"

That went for short yardage (no pun intended) too. A small waterbug can pick up tough yards too. He just does it a different way. THINK!!!

But like I said, that monster running back would be sweet...actually there are two of these in this draft, and niether will go in the first round.....

Thank God nobody is dumb enough to think we need defensive linemen. And I stipulate to needing a safety and a cornerback. ONE safety and ONE cornerback. Adams is excellent depth and a nickel back, McDonald may not be a starter but can fill in, and Furrey is okay too.

They could USE another safety who's better than Elam, but don't NEED one.

Poole? He says he's coming back, but I hate those concussions. I mean, you're re-injuring old damage, and compounding the damage each time. Poole is very talented (and you don't know what you're talking about if you think he isn't), but the concussions won't go away, and they make him unreliable, and for his own sake he ought to quit.

Have you ever heard Ken Norton or Joe Frazier try to talk? 'Nuff said--Brodney I love ya, but quit right now.

Correcting linebacker dumbness demands a whole separate blog, so I'll save that.

"We need a quarterback": Oops! That's NOT dumb--nevermind.

No comments: