Remember when the young asassin Melvin Guillard was on that roll in 2010. He was knocking guys out, people were saying that he was the dark horse in the Lightweight division and a future champ. And yet if you look at his opponents in 2010 none of them were good at what melvins weakness was, TakeDowns and ground control/sub game, a grinder if you will. In fact Melvin really didn't face one of those until he faced Jim Miller and lost after getting choked out ( i know he lost before that but Lauzons punch was probably a little lucky tbh) We are falling into the same trap with Matt Brown, and i really like matt brown, but this guy is not a title contender. Beating guys in the top 15-25 who are all predominatly strikers, ( a dont give me mike pyle either because while he is good on the ground he isn't very good at takedowns). Anyways when you look at it there are striking similarites. Matt lost a bunch of times before this streak, why? because he was fighting guys who had the ability to take him down and submit him and/or take him down and grind him out to a points win. Same with Melvin So what does the Ufc Do? They match them up with predominatly strikers who Brown/Guillard are better than at standup.And what happens? right on cue Melvin went on a streak and now matt is on one. So i would suggest not to jump fully on the Brown bandwagon, because we really haven't seen him against a grinder, who can take him down and submit him since he went on his streak. To Bad Fitch got cut because i would have liked to have seen Brown against him. Rory would probably starch him but that could potentially be fun as well Thoughts?