Mike Carucci made me happy the other day in an article he wrote on the Browns defensive line.
...Well, Mike is a master of understatement, and said that some people might even call this group one of the better defensive lines in the league...jeez.
But at least it has begun to hint at a dawn on him that it's just barely concievably possible that Billy Winn might miraculously unseat the great Rubin at defensive end...as impossible as that sounds.
It's a little thing, but I know that Mike isn't among the lowlives who mine this blog for material that they use without attribution. Mike has a brain of his own, and I suspect even a sense of honor. It's nice to see that some other analysts can actually think.
But Mike still misses the broader point: He listed personel for a 3-4 defensive line, but this will be the UFO defense. I don't believe it will have any particular base.
Rubin, assuming his salary doesn't force some move, is one of the reasons. He's a very smart player with great instincts. The problem is that he's best suited to play a 4-3 DT or a 3-4 NT, and this team has a load of those.
Taylor is the top one, but Hughes and Kitchen are two more--Hughes more a DT than on the nose. Mike mentioned that they can play DE too. In a dire emergency, they could. Pray that nothing happens to Bryant, Bryant, Winn, Rubin, and Taylor all at the same time, because that's not a pretty thought.
The coaches will want to get Rubin on the field, and actually to use the slower, less talented Hughes where he can be effective.
I could go on: Kirksey and the new/improved Roberts can play ILB or weakside OLB. Mike still has Armonte Bryant at DE, but he may be standing up sometimes, and is first and foremost a passrusher who doesn't fit a 3-4 DE profile.
Sheard has been a 4-3 DE and 3-4 OLB who isn't great in coverage. Kruger is similar. Desmond Bryant can play defensive tackle, especially against the pass, or 3-4 DE.
Running a 3-4 base with this talent would waste it. There are too many defensive linemen, and also too many OLB's who can be 4-3 passrushing defensive ends.
Then there's Mingo. Finally, a coach has dared to (sort of) say it: Mingo can cover in space, and will some times be used in that role. Mingo could be the missing piece for a 4-3 linebacking corps, as he could remain on the field as the strongside linebacker.
Laugh at me now but believe me later, box-boy.
Anyway Mike wrote a good article, except for assuming that these coaches would play Armonte Bryant at 3-4 DE simply because the last coaches intended to.
On that: This is common sense. Armonte at that position is a cut, because there are too many of them on the roster. Armonte at 4-3 DE/3-4 OLB is depth at worst, because there is room for him there.
These coaches have made it clear that they want the best players, and to play all their best players, however they can do it. For Bryant and Rubin, a whole lot of 4-3 is that way.
Tony Grossi listed the top Browns in order.
Tony differs from many in listing Jabaal Sheard at number five. I'm not sure whether or not I agree, but I do notice that he has already been a starting and productive 4-3 DE, and that last season was his first as a 3-4 OLB. He should be better in both roles now.
Then, he lists BRYAN HOYER at 10!!! He writes that Hoyer will open eyes nationally! You GO, TONY! This is Tony bucking the trend and putting his rep on the line (sorta). It's about freaking time a local writer made a firm statement about this guy without three pages of disclaimers.
At 11, Desmond Bryant. Remember him? He's fixed now. He kicks ass.
OH! OH! At 14 Tashaun Gipson!!! "Joe Haden calls him the most underrated player on the team". WOW a writer who listens to a player?
Below that, it sort of doesn't matter, but I like Tony's rankings generally.
Especially Hoyer. It's not hard to compare him to Manziel by category.
At THIS point in time, experience is all Hoyer. He ran scout teams for the Patriots, meaning that he ran every system known to man vs. their number one defense. Jim Miller, when talking about Kelly Holcomb, pointed out that running scout teams is an excellent way for a quarterback to develop skills and learn to read defenses.
He also mentioned that Holcomb learned from Manning. Hoyer learned from Brady.
It goes farther back. Hoyer was a quarterback for Saint Ignatius all along, whereas Manziel was a wide reciever at his highschool. Hoyer played more college games. It's not even close.
Manziel is more athletic, but that's all he's got on Hoyer. Hoyer now has a strong arm as well. Hoyer has proven that he can read NFL defenses quickly (and not be fooled). He ran a more sophisticated highshool and college offense, while Johnny ran a sandlot team.
Among national analysts (Jim Miller and Solomon Willcotts excepted) the consensus calls Hoyer a seat-warmer at best for Manziel, but they're full of it.
I can't call them stupid, because they are actual experts who know their business. But they know that the Browns would become less boring with Manziel. They really don't care whether the Browns win or lose.
It's a chain, see? Because the Browns bore them, they don't research them. Because they don't research them, they think they'll still suck. Because they think they'll still suck, they think you might as well get the kid in there so he'll be ready when the Browns don't suck anymore.
If Manziel were the starter, THEN they'd actually pay attention to the roster. THEN they'd say "where did all THESE guys come from?"
No comments:
Post a Comment