Seven Round Mock Draft

[Brown Warrior]

Originally Posted by Greythan

I simply don't understand the gnashing of teeth over Peterson.

Its flat out simple. If Heckert has Peterson the number one by a meaningful margin on his board when we are on the clock at six, we'll take him. Its what the great teams do: pick the best players. How quickly we forget how solid Heckert's first draft looks like (albeit after only one year).

Again, I don't see anyone pimping Peterson, but simply being rational. Stated another way, if we draft Peterson I won't be surprised. It will simply be a testimony to how strongly our staff feels about the pick.

It's just the wrong way to build a defense or team. It makes no sense on about a million levels. Replacing our #2 corner with Peterson won't move the dials or win more games.

Improving our pass offense is clearly the way to actually affect the bottom line. It's the single most important element of NFL 2011. Teams win doing nothing else well. If you're up to date, you know this and attack it with a vengeance.

And if you pass well and play with some leads, it's a much better idea to have a great pass rush than try to cover your way to victory. When a good QB has time, he'll dice you up. If we can't rush the hell out of the passer next year? Watch either Peterson or Haden get labeled a disappointment.

On the flip side, if we DO rush the passer well? Prepare to hear how Eric Wright really bounced back.

[Greythan]

Shep, you are boxing shadows here.

I am a supporter of getting a top flight receiver. I'm a supporter of getting a playmaker in our front seven; someone who can pressure the QB.

However, (and for argument's sake) if your big board has Patrick Peterson as the only player you see as worthy of the sixth pick, what are your options? Well, you could look to trade down. Barring that you have two choices: 1) throw BPA out the window and take the highest rated player at a top position of need or 2) bite the bullet and draft Peterson.

My belief is that the best franchises go option 2 every time. I suspect we won't see this happen as I believe one of the two WR's will be available and will grade out worthy of the sixth pick. However, if we end up with Peterson I won't bat an eye. I'm actually concerned for your reaction. You might want to keep some medication handy on draft day.

[Brown Warrior]

It really evolves into a philosophical conversation about building a team. In the end, I don't believe there IS a universal "best player available." It's so contingent upon positional value, scheme, and, of course, need. I appreciate Dimitroff having the balls to label himself a "needs drafter."

And there absolutely is no doubt that some positions matter more than others... or that successful offenses, defenses, and teams are built with a thoughtful architecture that evolves over time... but still stands on certain core principles: quarterback and DL, for instance... with a caveat for linebackers in the 3-4.

You put your dollars on quarterbacks, pass rushers, and pass protectors. You focus your most valuable draft assets on the 4-3 DL, not cornerbacks. The pass rush makes the coverage, not the other way around.

It's my strong, STRONG opinion that building a team around cornerbacks is counterintuitive to any considered NFL architecture. And when you draft one position in the top 10 in consecutive years, that's what you're building around.

To be more pragmatic: There are WRs and pass rushers commonly ranked in the top 10 and at least one of them will be available. At that point, for me, the conversation about doing something as radical as drafting CBs in the top 10 in consecutive years? It's over. Because there ARE highly-ranked players at positions of need (and impact) who will be available to you. Bam. It's over.

So you say, "Yeah, but we have Peterson ranked #3 and Jones ranked #7!" Who gives a shit? You have a #1 corner... but no #1 WR. And the passing game is the most important thing in the NFL these days while highly-drafted corners are NOT what the most successful teams are doing.

Based on what MIGHT be available to us, I'd have it like this:

1. Green
2. Quinn
2A. Jones
3. Fairley

And I'm not even crazy about Fairley, but at least it makes sense. It would never get that far because at least Quinn and Jones will be there.

Originally Posted by Greythan

Shep, you are boxing shadows here.

I am a supporter of getting a top flight receiver. I'm a supporter of getting a playmaker in our front seven; someone who can pressure the QB.

However, (and for argument's sake) if your big board has Patrick Peterson as the only player you see as worthy of the sixth pick, what are your options? Well, you could look to trade down. Barring that you have two choices: 1) throw BPA out the window and take the highest rated player at a top position of need or 2) bite the bullet and draft Peterson.

My belief is that the best franchises go option 2 every time. I suspect we won't see this happen as I believe one of the two WR's will be available and will grade out worthy of the sixth pick. However, if we end up with Peterson I won't bat an eye. I'm actually concerned for your reaction. You might want to keep some medication handy on draft day.

[Greythan]

The entire weight of your argument seems to stem from a "boom or bust" assumption around who you select with the first pick of the draft.

I absolutely believe you are over complicating things. I also think you are ignoring the recent history of this front office.

Going into last year's draft no one, I repeat no one, would have weighted our defensive backfield as worthy of our top 2 picks. And yet, Heckert & Co did what they did. Now you're going to tell us that we HAVE to use our first round pick on one of two positions? No way CB was on that list last year. So, why put on those blinders again this year? Its completely illogical.

Again, I don't think we'll take Peterson. But to be stomping around the board telling everyone how colossally stupid it would be to select him is silly. Especially based on last year's draft, not in spite of it. It remains a possibility.

[Brown Warrior]

Well, it obviously made more sense last year than this year. I didn't agree with it (still don't, would've waited)... but I disagree times a million after already drafting a #1 corner.

I'll let it go... but I feel really strongly about it. I'm not "stomping around" anymore than anybody else, but I do think my case is airtight, Your Honor.

Originally Posted by Greythan

The entire weight of your argument seems to stem from a "boom or bust" assumption around who you select with the first pick of the draft.

I absolutely believe you are over complicating things. I also think you are ignoring the recent history of this front office.

Going into last year's draft no one, I repeat no one, would have weighted our defensive backfield as worthy of our top 2 picks. And yet, Heckert & Co did what they did. Now you're going to tell us that we HAVE to use our first round pick on one of two positions? No way CB was on that list last year. So, why put on those blinders again this year? Its completely illogical.

Again, I don't think we'll take Peterson. But to be stomping around the board telling everyone how colossally stupid it would be to select him is silly. Especially based on last year's draft, not in spite of it. It remains a possibility.

[DaBrowns41]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

On the flip side, if we DO rush the passer well? Prepare to hear how Eric Wright really bounced back.

Considering our pass defense improved compared to 2009, despite less sacks and hurries overall, this statement is just your way of trying to prove your point. We could easily have a 55-60 sack season with excellent pressure, and Wright still fail to bounce back, or even Haden regress.

Wright's problem goes far beyond the lack of a pass rush. Our pass rush in 2009 was slightly better, but overall we were worse against the pass.

In 2010, we improved against the pass despite virtually no pass rush.

[Brown Warrior]

Originally Posted by DaBrowns41

Considering our pass defense improved compared to 2009, despite less sacks and hurries overall, this statement is just your way of trying to prove your point. We could easily have a 55-60 sack season with excellent pressure, and Wright still fail to bounce back, or even Haden regress.

Wright's problem goes far beyond the lack of a pass rush. Our pass rush in 2009 was slightly better, but overall we were worse against the pass.

In 2010, we improved against the pass despite virtually no pass rush.

I'm not sure, but I think you're making my point: We were good at interceptions (8th), bad at rushing the passer (25th) and medium overall in pass defense (17th).

It isn't obvious what we need?

[DaBrowns41]

Statistics only tell part of the story.

Not to mention, running the 3-4 defense without proper personnel isn't something that happens a lot in the NFL.

I think we're set up much better for the 4-3, albeit we'll still be pretty piss poor in getting to the QB if we can't get a potential stud at RDE.

However, with a draft as deep at DE as this, there's no need to reach at 6.

My point with your post was about Eric Wright. You were saying that with a pass rush, most likely Wright would be much better, and I was showing that despite a better pass rush in 2009, the Browns secondary was considerably worse than it was in 2010.