I'm allergic to "whatever it takes" when it comes to signing free agents, but aside from that, this article by Ryan Rosco (Factory of Sadness) makes a lot of sense.
Well... he also identifies guard as a position of need, which is also wrong. Guard is solid, but I can't quibble with Ryan that a right guard who's in the same class as left guard Joel Bitonio would be very cool, especially since they could help mask the inevitable screwups of a probably inexperienced starting center, yet to be named.
For that matter, John Greco is a servicable center, but that's all. If he needs to play there again, it will be because the two young guys both flopped.
Greco is a very good guard, by the way, but he's over thirty now, and has seen his best days.
Ryan is one of those guys who doesn't think much about age. I hope the two elite guard candidates he mentioned aren't expected to be released because they're as old as Greco, because that would make this a dumb article.
A lot of these guys also ignore systems. It is absolutely NOT etched in stone that Hue Jackson's offensive line coach won't run zone schemes. Most of the best offensive linemen fit all schemes, but zone guys are more athletic and can be lighter and less powerful.
That brings up "whatever it takes". You don't pay ANYBODY too much, EVER. If you do, Joel Bitonio is next, saying that he should be payed more than the new guy, and soon you have made yourself a big mess.
If the 2017 Browns run a predominantly zone run blocking scheme, right guard becomes less important.
Indeed, the inside and outside zones are very frugal, because non-bulldozer offensive linemen cost less, and draft lower, than the bigger, stronger guys. It's possible to have a top five running game without one "name" offensive lineman. This is one of the reasons why teams like Seattle and Atlanta run it.
Even more than last season, this year's personnel favor zone. Joe Thomas is a superior athlete, both young centers are zone guys, Bitonio is fine either way, Greco was a top five guard under Kyle Shanahan (seviceable otherwise), and while Coleman is more a power/man type tackle, Erving is a better zone type.
Hue might be stubborn about this, but he should run a zone-heavy scheme.
Now here is the horrific article which I suspect inspired Ryan to write his pretty good one. I include the link because at least they gave Cody Kessler his props, which was refreshing.
This writer writes for Number Fire, a very cool analytics site, and cites in-depth numbers a lot to support his case. But he is untrained, and ignores a ton of relevant factors, plus rationalizes. You can't do that, ok?
This guy says that the Browns should rebuild the offensive line before they get a quarterback (you know pick one from the quarterback tree in the back yard?)
Cody Kessler ranked 7th among active quarterbacks without sacks, but 17th including sacks, per Number Fire. The writer concludes that Kessler didn't have enough time to throw.
...although, per Number Fire, Kessler also ranked very high in not getting rid of the damn ball. BUT, the writer points out, so did Griffin and McCown, which indicates a "systemic" failure uhhh...
Well, maybe the receivers had trouble getting open-I don't know, but it obviously had nothing to do with his protection. Holding the ball is a universal spinal reflex for all quarterbacks. They can't stand giving up on a play.
Most of them got away with it in college, so it's wired into them, and it's hard to coach back out of them in the pros, especially since the coaches themselves don't want them to give up too soon.
But it is up to the quarterback to avoid sacks. In many cases, blockers are assigned to defenders, and like Jim Miller says, the quarterback is responsible for one of them, meaning that if this guy comes, nobody will block him.
The quarterback must hit the hot read (the receiver must also see it and be where he's supposed to be). Or, he can avoid him and buy time. But he still has to throw it away to avoid the sack.
Sometimes, they reach him too fast, or he has no safe lanes, but 75% of the time, he can get rid of the damn ball or make it to the line of scrimmage.
For the Browns quarterbacks, more than half their sacks in 2016 were their own fault. You can't brush that aside with a big word (not even "systemic"). This is lazy analysis. Where I came from, it gets people killed. I'm glad this guy does football.
There's more. The writer never even mentions that both starting guards hit injured reserve, and center was a revolving door. If any one lineup started three consecutive games all season, I'd be surprised.
He wants the Browns to hammer offensive line as if Shon Coleman and Rango don't even exist, not to mention Cam Erving, who returns to his best position (tackle).
I've rarely seen an analysis this sloppy and shallow. The writer is a great statistician, but a lazy analyst. And in conclusion, the offensive line could be upgraded, but will be serviceable in 2017 as-is.
And I've got to say this again: Franchise quarterbacks don't grow in trees. If they did, the tree would be in the top ten area.
This Washington Post contributor Neil Greenburg says that maybe the Browns shouldn't address their quarterback this season at all. I saw the title and thought I'd have somebody else to pound to mush, but Neil, unlike the Number Fire guy, is a real analyst.
He points out the weak draft crop, historical statistics in re top five busts, Garopollo's limited history, and yes, Rodney Kesslerfield, who looks like at least a decent starter in only his second season.
My only problems with this article are the now-obligatory mention of the Browns many many needs (I estimate twenty two starters based on the coverage) early on, and this:
This writer seems to agree with most blockheads: He eliminates Watson and Kizer because they look like they'll need one or two years to develop. R E B U I L D I N G DO YOU U N D E R S T A N D?
He considers Trubisky ONLY because he may be able to start as a rookie, but correctly cites his lack of college experience (and game film). (Mike Mayock extolls Tubisky's virtues, but says he'd be "scared to death" to risk a high draft pick on him...or anybody else in this draft.)
But this was a great, well-researched and thought out article, and Neil Greenburg has a new fan. (I won't give up on the Number Fire guy either. I was pretty dumb myself before I enlisted).
Speaking of Number Fire, here is a great article on Terrelle Pryor as a wide receiver. Joe Redemann, who looks like anything BUT a geek, clarified for me who Terrelle really is:
Joe likens him to a Kelvin Benjamin with afterburners. Terrelle was just average in his combine 3-cone drills, and will probably never be explosive out of his cuts, which also describes Kelvin.
You can click to his article, but basicly he sounds like me in re TP's extant status as a number one wide receiver, and his almost infinite potential as he truly masters his new position.
Also, in referring to the Browns quarterbacks and offense. Julio Jones is all-planet now, but didn't he have Matt Ryan? How would Terrelle Pryor have done in THAT offense in 2016, in Julio's place? -snap-snap- is any of this sinking in yet?
After reading Josh McCown's comments on Jimmy Garopollo, I'm temporarily back on the Jimmy G express. Re-signing (not franchising) TP matters here, a LOT. This would tell Jimmy he will have a big-play (and clutch) weapon to throw to. It would also tell him that this regime isn't as incompetent as the previous ones were (see what the soft-spoken diplomat Joe Thomas said about letting young talent go).
Jimmy's model is the Patriots. Check out what they've done.
They turned smurf slot receivers into superstars. They let Wes Welker go (to obscurity) and replaced him with an oft-injured cheap journeyman (Amendola) and a converted quarterback (Edelman: Seventh Round) and never missed him.
They standardized two tight end offenses too, and all of this was ahead of the curve, and intended to compensate for perennially low draft picks (tight ends and smurfs were cheap, see?).
Jimmy will like Hue Jackson. Everybody does. I just wonder: Can he be like Belichick, and pioneer new things?
Think about it: Right now, defenses are signing and drafting players to solve microbe slot guys and two (real) tight ends.
Maybe, just maybe, Hue has already started "being Bill". Didn't they just draft Seth DeValve and FOUR big wide receivers? Only one slot smurf guy is left (kept over the better/younger guy because for vedderrunnn leaddershibb don't get me started).
Hue is unmistakably moving away from the Patriot model, so he's at least not a copycat, and at least an original thinker, which is very promising.
Hue had no smurf depth behind Andrew Hawkins (who might be traded or released soon). Based on the last draft, he's going to phase the smurfs out altogether. It appears that he wants only big, tall, physical wide receivers, and 3 and 4 wide sets; a spead offense.
That does resemble his historical MO, sorta, but so does everything else. He's always maxed out the talent he's had to work with; he was a coordinator and not a Head Coach with a voice in personnel decisions, you see? This is different, ok?
The Kessler pick was telling, as well. Kessler is best suited to a West Coast, timing, horizontal passing system, and so is each and every wide receiver (and DeValve) they drafted.
He insisted on one real lead-blocking fullback. I haven't figured all of this out yet (just started to now in fact), but generally speaking, defenses built to stop two tight ends and smurf slot guys are not built to stop four big wide receivers and running backs who can catch too.
Defenses all have "nickel cornerbacks", right? These are always little shrimps, and almost every defense has at least two microbe cornerbacks active, and keeps drafting them, right?
Well, what if the "slot receiver" is four or five inches too tall and 20 or so lbs too big? This is what I've heard called a "mismatch" (correct me I'm wrong).
What if, of your eight or so cornerbacks, only 3 or so are 5'11" or taller, and every single opposing wide receiver is 6'2" or taller? (Well except for Crow or Duke, but not except for Rodney Atkinsonfield).
I'm getting into the weeds here, but I can't stop without correcting a couple misconceptions:
A zone blocking scheme does not neccessarily exclude a blocking fullback, H-back, or two-back, unless you are a copycat blockhead utterly devoid of imagination.
Running back is absolutely NOT a need on this team. They might draft one, but only on a best available basis, if a trade-down deal can't be worked out. Ditto linebacker (unless he's a Williams hybrid).
YOU ALL STAND CORRECTED.
THIS JUST IN: Myles Garrett pleaded to Jerry Jones to trade up from 28 to first overall so they could draft him. Believe it or not, this in itself doesn't bother me a lot.
What bothers me is that he is mentally impaired. He thinks Gramps Romo should be part of the trade, and doesn't seem to understand that Dallas would need to gut two drafts to make that kind of move.
I don't want anybody that dumb on my team. Who's going to tie his shoes for him and fill out his forms? No time for that!
No comments:
Post a Comment