A “real possibility” the Browns select Mike Evans at No. 4 overall


El Gigànte

CBS Sports’ Dane Brugler reports that there’s a “real possibility” the Browns select Texas A&M wide receiver Mike Evans at No. 4 overall in next week’s NFL Draft.

The 6-foot-5-inch Evans is universally regarded as a top 10 talent due to his size and ability to catch any football thrown within 10 yards of his hands. Many credit Evans with the numbers racked up by Johnny Manziel, with most mocks have him going No. 5 to Oakland or No. 7 to Tampa Bay; he’s currently ranked No. 7 on ESPN.com’s Big Board and is ranked No. 2 amonst wide receviers by WFNY’s Joe Gilbert.

Evans is one of the biggest freaks in the draft. The 6-5, 231-pound receiver is a former basketball player that uses his body to go and get the ball in the air. The former Aggie is the best when the ball is in the air and he goes up to get it at its highest point. This ability will make him an immediate red zone target for the team that drafts him.

As competitive as his collegiate quarterback was, Evans is right alongside him. He’s a plus blocker who has a bit of a mean streak.  He consistently gets in position and has the ability to keep feet moving even as defenders drape themselves over his giant frame.

Rotoworld’s Josh Norris agrees with Brugler, slotting Evans to the Browns in his most recent mock. The Browns are continually linked to several players with the overriding theme being players who can step in and contribute immediately.

(Photo: Thomas Campbell – USA TODAY Sports)

  • Steve_Not_Chad

    Kanicki is loving that photo.

  • Harv 21

    I would not be sad if this happens. I will be sad if a division rival grabs Evans because see that coverage guy above? That’s a Buster Skrine size guy, a determined player who can “polish his technique” every day and this is still gonna happens and ain’t a thing he can do except hope the QB sucks.

  • eldaveablo

    I love this for two reasons – 1, I think Evans will be a great Pro. 2, it’s clear to me that no one has any idea what the Browns are going to do with this pick. I think I have heard 10 different names in this slot ranging from Watkins to Carr. Nice job by the front office. Just please don’t pick Carr. I would be happy with just about anyone, but Carr.

  • woofersus

    I’m a big Mike Evans fan. Watkins only edges him ever so slightly in my mind as most favored WR in the draft, but it mostly comes down to preference and style.

  • Harv 21

    I don’t like Carr so high either. Would also be sad with an OL because I don’t see the line so sub-par that a tackle or guard will change the win total in the near future. Hopefully they won’t be at #4 again anytime soon. If you have that pick and there’s not a guy they feel strongly is a legit QB, they need a guy who will impact the outcome Sundays in the ’14 season. Offense, defense, doesn’t matter to me.

  • The_Real_Shamrock


  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Evans would seem like a better running mate with Gordon then Watkins but I don’t know about a WR at #4. I definitely don’t want a QB there.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    They need an OL for not only Hoyer’s protection but possibly a rookie QB not to mention Ben Tate. Selecting either Matthews or Robinson is, for me, the safest and best route. OR take the best defensive player available whether it’s Clowney or Mack or perhaps one of the CBs.

  • RGB

    Too late.

  • eldaveablo

    I wouldn’t be crazy about an OL pick this high, but I could talk myself into it based on best player available – maybe. I would easily take Clowney, Mack, or Watkins over any OL out there. But if those three are gone, I could understand (but not “like”) an OL pick. I’d definitely go Evans before an OL.

  • MrCleaveland

    In other news, there’s a “real possibility” that the Browns will not select Evans at No. 4.

    Stay tuned to this station for more “real possibilities.” We’re down to less than a week, folks, so the “real possibilities” will be coming fast and furious.

  • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

    brugler among the late ones ‘catching on.’
    anyway, this would be good.

  • Harv 21

    I hear, and heard an argument yesterday that Matthews would not be waste at right tackle because the left/right distinctions are blurring as the defensive pressure continues to become more exotic and unpredictable. And last year we saw how many left ends split wide and blasted right by Schwartz and disrupted every QB who played, despite not coming from the blindside. Still, a legit RB will slow some of that and they better not wait til Day 2 for a WR. Because we’re just one more Josh Gordon “error in judgment” from the nightmare of not even having a legit #2 receiver in a passing league. This team better not be dependent upon Josh Gordon’s off-field decisions.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    They added Hawkins and Burleson still have Benjamin not to mention Cameron at TE the WR corps is in the best shape it’s been in a decade. That being said I’d expect them to add a WR sometime I just don’t think #4 or #26 might be the spot.

    As far as OL goes I thought this group needed an upgrade either at RG or RT. The fact Mack will be back helps decrease my pessimism but Matthews at RT and Schwartz at RG is as tantalizing as Evans or Watkins at WR. Just depends which you like more IMO.

  • Harv 21

    “best in decade”? Good one. If Gordon parties once they’ll be a lot closer to Darren Chiavarini and Andre Davis territory than Braylon/ Joe J. in ’07, they’ll have wasted a rich WR pool and remember, Gordon’s next offense isn’t necessarily for one year, it’s a minimum one year. We may not see that dude in Cleveland again. He may be a dangerous receiver but he’s also a total moron for placing the Sword of Goodell/Damacles directly over his head.

    Whether at 4 or 26, I think we best take a wide.

  • Daniel Van Meter

    Only if Matthews and Watkins are gone by no. 4

  • mgbode

    ESPN continues to pump up mid-round picks as potential 1st rounders. They swear it has nothing to do with just throwing new names out there to generate page clicks.

  • nj0

    So it’s not a fake possibility? Or a real impossibility?

  • nj0

    Mel Kiper is the most prolific writer in American fiction.

  • saggy

    i’m betting he doesn’t really catch the ball at its highest point. that would mean the QB never puts an arc on it. i hate that term.


    Such an easy fix, too, by simply noting that the receiver catches the ball “at HIS highest point” meaning he’s going up as high as he possibly can to get the ball.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Please remind me of when the Cleveland Browns had a better WR corps then Gordon, Hawkins, Burleson, Benjamin and Cameron because I don’t remember it.

    You keep saying if Gordon get suspended as a reason to use a top pick on another WR and I just think that’s faulty logic. You could say that about the QB, CB, LB or LT minus the suspension part. It’s called depth not need.

  • mgbode

    yes. the term has become popular this draft season and it is definitely annoying.

  • @TheDeePagel

    I wonder how many catches Gordon has made at his “highest” point?