Cleveland Browns 2011 Super Awesome In-Season Thread

• Commander of Awesome

  

  DeyDurkie5;643094 wrote:That logic is dumb...because green went to georgia, where momass went, green is going to be bad?
  
  If green is avaliable, and we don't take him, i'll be extremely pissed

  
  lol PWNED.
• september63

  

  Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.
• rydawg5

  september63;643101 wrote:Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.

  
  I'm not a big Julio fan, but you never know with receivers.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  september63;643101 wrote:Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.

  
  How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Jones is the DEFINITION of a down-field big jump ball receiver. The Browns need a quick receiver who runs great routes. Think Steve Smith (Panthers), not Larry Fitzgerald.
• DaBrowns41

  september63;643101 wrote:Id take Julio Jones over AJ Green. Better offensive fit.

  
  Julio is a Braylon clone. Same physical mold, same type of player. Big time play maker, drops easy passes, but can catch the most ridiculous ones that should be dropped. Runs nice routes, but has a bit of a "me" attitude.
  
  I like Julio. But I don't want Braylon part two.
• thedynasty1998

  

  DeyDurkie5;643094 wrote:That logic is dumb...because green went to georgia, where momass went, green is going to be bad?
  
  If green is avaliable, and we don't take him, i'll be extremely pissed

  
  You are probably right, and I doubt the Georgia connection is a factor at all. But I'm saying as a fan, it is a connection that people might think about if AJ Green doesn't scceed right away. Also, you just don't know how some of those SEC guys will respond to the cold weather of the AFC North. I'm not sure if that is ever a factor when drafting, but I would imagine it would have to be. I think one of the SEC prospects this year already said something along the lines of wanting to play for a warm weather team.
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;643035 wrote:I said he wasn't the best.
  
  No, a starting QB is not a franchise QB. I'd say about 2/3 of the teams in the NFL do not have "franchise QB's":
  Miami, Buffalo, Cleveland, Tennessee, Oakland, Washington, Minnesota, San Francisco and Arizona.
  
  Ironic that all those teams are at the bottom of their divisions.

  
  With your first round pick in the NFL draft, you select either a good or bad pick. WIth first round picks, there are no "in betweeners"... if someone is producing "in between" and were drafted in the first round, that is a bad pick.
  
  Mack is producing at an elite rate, he was definitely a good pick.
  
  And yes, a starting QB is a franchise QB because he is a QB of that franchise. "franchise QB" is an overplayed term used by retarded media analysts to suck on the cock of Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc.
  
  Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.
• rydawg5

  SportsAndLady;643146 wrote:With your first round pick in the NFL draft, you select either a good or bad pick. WIth first round picks, there are no "in betweeners" if someone is producing "in between" and were drafted in the first round, that is a bad pick.
  
  Mack is producing at an elite rate, he was definitely a good pick.
  
  And yes, a starting QB is a franchise QB because he is a QB of that franchise. "franchise QB" is an overplayed term used by retarded media analysts to suck on the cock of Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc.
  
  Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.

  
  I uhh,, I uh,, umm... I agree with SportsandLady.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  SportsAndLady;643146 wrote: Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.

  LMAO, pwn of the day.
• OQB

  

  I really wish the Browns would've went after Boldin last offseason....he is a great short route guy that can catch the ball in traffic, but can also be a deep threat. Would've been a good fit in Cleveland.
  
  In a west coast offense, you're looking for route running, and the ability to seperate yourself from defenders. You don't nessesarily need a 6'5" 225 lb WR...you just need that guy who can do the little things right and make the guys around him better.
• shook_17

  

  OrrvilleQB;643446 wrote:I really wish the Browns would've went after Boldin last offseason....he is a great short route guy that can catch the ball in traffic, but can also be a deep threat. Would've been a good fit in Cleveland.
  
  In a west coast offense, you're looking for route running, and the ability to seperate yourself from defenders. You don't nessesarily need a 6'5" 225 lb WR...you just need that guy who can do the little things right and make the guys around him better.

  so would you rather have aj green or julio jones? jones does scare me a lil bit. good thing we're not in charge
• se-alum

  

  Let's not act like we don't need a downfield threat just because we will be running the WCO. You still have to take your shots downfield to keep the defense honest. I would love to get a good WR via free agency and go after a DE or CB with our first pick, but I don't see us getting that WR.
• thedynasty1998

  

  SportsAndLady;643146 wrote:With your first round pick in the NFL draft, you select either a good or bad pick. WIth first round picks, there are no "in betweeners"... if someone is producing "in between" and were drafted in the first round, that is a bad pick.
  
  Mack is producing at an elite rate, he was definitely a good pick.
  
  And yes, a starting QB is a franchise QB because he is a QB of that franchise. "franchise QB" is an overplayed term used by retarded media analysts to suck on the cock of Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, etc.
  
  Oh and lol @ you saying 2/3rds of the teams in the NFL do not have a "franchise QB" then list 28% of the league.

  
  Is producing at an elite level as a LB more valuable than producing at an elite level at C? I understand Mack wasn't a "bad" pick, but I think they could have got more value at that spot, especially considering they kept trading down and could have taken a number of guys ahead of him.
  
  I disagree about a franchise QB. A franchise QB is someone that you know will be your starter for years to come. A starting QB is not the same. And I said 2/3 and then decided to look at some teams. I didn't include teams like Cincinnati, Carolina or Seattle. Maybe it's not 2/3, but there is a big difference between teams with a franchise QB and those without.
• SportsAndLady

  

  thedynasty1998;643624 wrote:Is producing at an elite level as a LB more valuable than producing at an elite level at C? I understand Mack wasn't a "bad" pick, but I think they could have got more value at that spot, especially considering they kept trading down and could have taken a number of guys ahead of him.

  
  Please explain the difference between producing at an elite level as a LB and producing at an elite level as a C.
• thedynasty1998

  

  You are more of an impact player. You are more of a difference maker. You have more value.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Call Green Bay and offer Alex Mack for Clay Mathews straight up. I'd be interested to hear how quickly they hung up the phone.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  thedynasty1998;643665 wrote:Call Green Bay and offer Alex Mack for Clay Mathews straight up. I'd be interested to hear how quickly they hung up the phone.

  
  Why would we do that? We dont even know what defense we're playing, and they have a center. failanalogy.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Yeah I mean some teams need LB's and some teams need C's. The Browns at that time needed to upgrade their o-line, so they took a C. They don't want to get rid of Mack just like the Pack do not want to get rid of Matthews.
  
  Just because you do not hear lineman's name as much as you do LB's doesn't mean they do not hold premium value to a team. They are the ones who get the entire offense going, without them you do not have an offense. Just because you do not hear from the announcers "oh what a block by Mack" on every play does not mean he is not any less valued than our starting LB.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Interesting what you can find with a simple google search:
  

  Theoretically, NFL front offices should have figured out a rational pay scale—the more essential a player is to victory, the more money he'll take home each year. The most recent salary breakdown I've found is a 2005 data set (PDF) from the NFL Players Association. The figures below are in millions and represent the average salary of starting players at each position:
  
  Quarterback: 5.15
  Running back: 3.27
  Offensive tackle: 3.17
  Wide receiver: 2.97
  Cornerback: 2.75
  Defensive end: 2.54
  Middle linebacker: 2.30
  Defensive tackle: 2.06
  Offensive guard: 1.94
  Outside linebacker: 1.81
  Tight end: 1.79
  Center: 1.65
  Free safety: 1.39
  Strong safety: 1.27
  Kicker: 1.23
  Fullback: 0.84
  Punter: 0.69
  
  http://www.slate.com/id/2173817/

• ytownfootball

  

  What the hell does what they're getting paid have to do with how much they're needed?
  
  Amazing what using a little common sense can do.
  
  By your logic the best teams would employ 35 QB's a dozen RB's and a so forth...think about what you post
• Commander of Awesome

  

  ytownfootball;643689 wrote:think about what you post

  
  Good luck getting him to do that.
• Nate

  Pay rate has no direct correlation to player play performance.
• thedynasty1998

  

  ytownfootball;643689 wrote:What the hell does what they're getting paid have to do with how much they're needed?
  
  Amazing what using a little common sense can do.
  
  By your logic the best teams would employ 35 QB's a dozen RB's and a so forth...think about what you post

  Seriously? Guys are going to be paid based upon what NFL teams think of their value. They think QB's are the most important position, therefore they are paid more. They think punters are the least important, therefore paid the least.
  
  It's basic economics and common sense.
  
  Not sure how else I can prove that centers do not have as much value as some of the other positions that were of need to the Browns.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Nate;643703 wrote:Pay rate has nothing no direct correlation to player play performance.

  
  I understand it's not on performance, it's on value. That wasn't from one team, it was the entire NFL.
  
  How else can you explain why a RB would be paid more than a C, other than that they are more valuable?
• ytownfootball

  

  Value =/= Need