PFF giveth, and PFF taketh away.
I get why they rank the Browns secondary 27th:
Joe Haden played badly last season, and their formulae must use those numbers.
They're defaulting Pryor to strong safety, and he was actually very bad in coverage last season (he's an intimidating hitter and run-stopper).
I don't even know who they're guessing will be the free safety, but it's not Jason McCourty or Kai Nacua, and none of the others project well to that particular position.
But this is a "garbage in, garbage out" situation.
Upon further reflection, Calvin Pryor actually looks like he may be the hybrid DB/LB, while Peppers plays strong. These coaches feel Peppers can cover.
Peppers wasn't great in coverage in college, but then he spent most of his senior season at linebacker.
Haden had both sides of his groin messed up and surgicly repaired at the end of 2016. He's still young, and there's no logical reason to expect him not to return to form.
Jason McCourty is the last resort free safety, which literally means that free safety will be in good hands, no matter what.
The 2016 Browns were also embarrassed in coverage as the result of a lack of pressure on opposing quarterbacks. When a quarterback has over three (let alone five) seconds to throw, don't look at the secondary.
We don't know where Peppers, Pryor, and McCourty will play yet, so it's too complicated to guess where the 2017 secondary will ultimately rank. But it will be somewhere above 27th.
USA Today ranks the front seven 23rd and the linebackers 19th. Why bother commenting on that?
When PFF or Numberfire makes a mistake, at least it's usually a "data entry" issue. With USA Today, it's data in, garbage out.
They should stick to inventing Trump conspiracies. Bet they got the Browns offensive line ranked 17th.
Peter Smith wrote up the Browns tight ends, which USA Today might rank 21st or something...hey think Joe Thomas is in their top ten tackles?
Sorry. Anyway it's always nice to hear from Peter. His article speaks for itself, and as he often does, he educated me around the edges.
But first, I have some minor corrections to make: Seth DeValve does lack the height to be a conventional in-line tight end, but Pete overstates that.
He could do it against a lot of 3-4 defenses, and a few 4-3 defensive ends. We're talking about maybe 1.5 inches here--no need to overthink it.
Pete again refers to "Hue Jackson's power blocking scheme", and I'm not sure where he and everybody else gets that. Hue Jackson's blocking scheme is the whateverworksbest scheme.
Like most teams, the Browns will no doubt run a mix of zone and power, and I have personally advised Hue to run more zone. He hasn't got back to me yet.
Anyway, Peter does understand the schemes, because he discussed DeValve and Njoku making zone-type blocks, as well as lining up as Y's to set up trap blocks (I should have realized that stoopid-stoopid-stoopid).
While (in my own opinion) both can block in-line (at least sometimes), DeValve is verticly-challenged, and Njoku isn't very big or strong at this point. Niether is ever likely to be an elite in-line blocker, but both should excel blocking in space (including traps).
Randall Telfer is the real in-line blocker here. Peter hopes he can develop into at least a solid receiver as well. I think he's not giving the guy enough credit. He was given few opportunities in 2016, but he can catch the ball and move the chains.
Peter thinks like me: If a tight end can't catch, just stop screwing around and put a spare center or tackle there instead.
Peter gives UFA Brad McNamara a better shot than the returning JP Holtz.
For now, I'll take Pete's word for Holtz being a "space" player with little in-line potential, and accept his logic: If that's true, McNamara has the edge over him.
I've ignored this guy so far, but I can always count on Peter Smith to rub my nose in these guys.
McNamara has great height and reach, and actually did a lot of blocking in a run-oriented college offense. Pete says he needs to get stronger. He's a good wall-off blocker, but can't push people around yet.
He's ahead of where the embryonic Telfer was at the same point as a receiver. He's not like DeValve or Njoku, but he knows how to exploit his size and reach, and has good hands.
Peter must have read my Blog, since he expects the Browns to carry four active tight ends. He also expects a ton of two tight end offenses.
It's true! Peter Smith does not expect Seth DeValve to collect splinters! He's just as crazy as me!!!
Going a little deeper (Peter didn't have all day), a smart Head Coach prefers real tight ends over mislabelled wide receivers.
You don't kick a Winslow out of bed for eating crackers, but you'd prefer a Gronk instead. You want that guy to be able to block large people when not running patterns. You want a REAL tight end.
Then, if you decide you want a two-tight end base offense, you keep two backups, so you don't have to flush a bunch of plays out of your playbook the first time two of them get dinged.
Peter Smith was blunt, as usual. Njoku needs a lot of work on his patterns, and isn't as strong as he should be. DeValve is short. But he was objective.
Objective is fair.
I don't care about Armonty Bryant or Johnny Manswell. If you do, see a shrink. Or a gossip columnist.
It's tough to predict how many cornerbacks and safeties Gregg Williams will keep on the roster.
As with the linebackers, these guys are important on special teams, so there will be a surplus.
I am warming up to Channing Stribling, a 6'2" beanpole cornerback who excels in man coverage. Another Sashi Brown UFA.
You can't coach height, and this guy is a ballhawk, too. And this brain crust looks down the road a piece: After a couple years with Hans and Frans, this guy might mutate into an exceptional coverage safety.
That's just a potential side-road; another long-term option-window. It's much more likely that Stribling remains at cornerback. Man coverage skills are at a premium there, and once he's pumped up a bit, he could match up with the skyscrapers.
Do you see why I sound like a cheerleader? USA Today ranks Myles Garrett, Jamie Collins, Danny Shelton, Kirksey, Ogbah and company 23rd and I'm not supposed to go nuts?
Show me a positive article on the Browns that's that idiotic. There are none! Even with MKC and lately even Pluto, Cody Kessler, Atkinson, Nassib, Louis, Gordon etc get dissed! Am I supposed to just let that go?
And (excluding the columnists I just mentioned, Pete Smith and several others) what tf does ANYTHING prior to 2016 have to do with this front office, or these coaches, or the players they have signed and drafted?
Every reference to "all those quarterbacks" or analysis of a draft Ray Farmer had is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Who cares? What kind of idiot are you to think it has anything to do with this regime?
And it's all negative! The boobs at USA Today call a front seven featuring three first, a second, and two third round picks among the projected starters twenty third? Under Gregg Williams?
Jesus they somehow pretzelize Gregg Williams' high standards into a negative! Jamie Collins and Kirksey starting from scratch? Myles Garrett...well how tf is he supposed to screw up?
I read their fkng comments--they're irrational. I can't stand this crap!
Those dumbasses just checked the stats from last season, bumped stuff up ten percent, and filled up some space with fuzzy words to sorta justify it!
It's bullcrap! I was a real intelligence analyst--nobody gets how this dumbassitude ohmmm...ohmmm...
Anyway at least USA readers will lose some money on bets and won't DIE because of this article, and if they buy what USA Today is selling, that's natural selection, so I don't mind that either ohmmm....ohmmm...
Oh god. They are allowed to vote. We're doomed.
Sorry. Negativity is not objectivity. Believe it or not, most people don't get that. Patriots fans are pretty objective, because they're on cloud nine looking down at the rest of us. They feel benevolent, compassionate, and indulgent.
A lot of Browns fans, and Jets fans, and Niners fans think that admitting "we suck" is being objective. They think pissing on any spark of optimism for the future is objective.
I'm glad to say that the majority of Browns fans aren't like Black Cloud, and feel optimistic, because (objectively) they should. I am no longer ashamed of being from Cleveland. I now know that intelligent life exists in Cleveland.
It's objective to say that at this time, the Browns have no proven franchise quarterback. It's objective to doubt each of the contenders, for various good reasons.
It's objective to be a little nervous about the right tackle (but not much). It's objective to...ok I'm sorry all this hand-wringing over the wide receivers is irrational (I won't redundate why yet again here).
You can wonder about who will play free safety. You can wonder if Joe Haden is sliding. You can wonder if C Coleman or Tretter can stay healthy for once. All that is objective.
Expecting rookie players to screw up, Kessler not to go as deep as Kizer, etc is objective.
Ranking this front seven 23rd, saying Kessler can't throw deep, decrying the depth at wide receiver, predicting fewer than six wins, predicting that Jabrill Peppers won't even start, coloring Joe Haden washed up, calling Bitonio/DeValve "injury-prone", and predicting a defensive set-back due to a scheme change from Horton to Williams etc are all negative, pessimistic, and irrational.
Predicting that the Steelers will take the Division is rational. Predicting the 2017 Browns to finish behind the Bengals and Ravens is irrational.
I'm coming out of the closet here:
I hereby predict that the 2017 Browns will sweep the Bengals and at least split with the Ratbirds. And also that niether the Ratbirds or Ben Gals will win more than nine games in 2017.
I reserve the right to adjust these predictions as I get more data from week to week (usually on mondays).
Talent says the Browns finish second. Inexperience, referees, and screwups might drag them down to third in the Division, but the basement?
That's insane.
I don't care how many of you are making fun of me. You are all still just as wrong. Baaah! Baah!
No comments:
Post a Comment