I'm going to begin this thread with the same post I made on the locked thread...

Folks can bash me all they want and it will not change my opinions on the Browns management.

About Haslam...I bought in at first, believing Haslam was the right owner for the Browns..he said all the right things, but the more I saw from him, it became evident that he was lost and nothing like I expected.

About Harvard...Harvard is fine academic school...one of the finest academic schools.

About our Harvard educated front office...
...Can anyone tell me what Sashi went to college for?
...Can anyone tell me what Depodesta went to Harvard for?

I'm guessing that 99% of those attempting to rip at me for my opinions, have not or cannot answer either of the questions above.

Making short, our front office might be academically smart...but they are way behind the average first year GM. Specifically, they are behind in "football experience".

It's obvious to me that many of you believe football experience doesn't matter...and I'm here say, football experience does matter and it is one of the basic qualities most owners look for when trying to fill their GM positions.

I believe the lack of football experience is already hurting the franchise and I have spoken out on some specific concerns...and I will continue to speak out.

...also, if Sashi needs the phone number to Prescott's lawyer, he can call me, I have it!

mac, I think it is too early to assign a grade to the front office.

Look, I disagree w/those who say "we are building it the right way" because I think it is too early to tell.

Likewise, I think it is too early to tell if that lack of experience means that the Browns can't succeed.

I think we should just judge each individual move on its own accord and wait for a bit to assign any summative evaluations.

Uhmmmmm............I really don't think I misspelled summative. That's annoying! LOL

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP REHASHING THIS FREAKIN THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

vers...what I'm not going to do is give our Harvard boys a pass on the choices they have already made.

Some will say hindsight is 20-20...but let me say this..every NFL front office looks at their draft via 20-20 hindsight.

If these new guys are to learn anything, they must look back on their own decisions and dissect each selection to judge their own performance.

Coaches do it...they judge their own performances to see where they need to improve...and they judge the performance of the players they are in charge of, making sure that they point out to their players where mistakes were made.

Every player on the team does it...they look back at their performance and see where they may have made mistakes.

There is no hope to get better if we do not judge our past performances.

So, why shouldn't I be able to look back and judge the performance of our front office?

I think I said that we should judge each move on it's own accord. I said it is too early to draw any summative assessments.

Sashi got a juris doctorate (law degree) from Harvard. Depodesta's degree was in economics. As far as I know, there are no degrees in scouting, and scouting is only a fraction of a GMs (or any front office executive's) job.

10 Things I learned about being a GM- Scott Pioli on the MMQB

There are random certificates one can get online for scouting and "GMing", but I couldn't find any academic credentialing process for them.

Both degrees have elements that are relevant to their jobs and are common amongst GMs.

Dealing with legal issues and resolving conflicts are part of a GMs job. It stands to reason that a law degree would help there. Another large part of law practice is assimilating information from various sources and fitting the various pieces together, also they deal with established precedent as it is the basis for our legal system.

As long as we have good scouts providing him with good information, I don't think Sashi's lack of scouting experience is a huge deal. (I'm not saying it's a good thing) I think an over reliance on the scouting/eyeball aspect can lead to problems. See Ray Farmer and his missing the forest because of his focus on the individual trees. Sashi can gain experience on the job. It's the only way to gain experience when you get down to it. It doesn't look like he drafted nothing but bums his first draft, does it? Law often makes one focus on the big picture which can come in handy at the top of an organizational structure. Scouts often get caught up in the micro. A big part of being a scout is sticking to your convictions, a GM has to bring together multiple opinions and approach them with an open mind. No scout is right all the time. Hopefully Sashi can determine the right scout to listen to more of the time than we've experienced in the past.

As for DePo, Economics is about more than money. It is about maximizing value, optimization, supply and demand, and other relevant topics. DePodesta is also about more than economics. He's about implementing and refining processes, and being willing to look outside prevailing paradigms. His first "GM" job was in baseball, but he was trying to get a football job when he was offered the baseball gig. DePo's title is strategy officer and that seems to fit his skill set. Moneyball worked in an uncapped environment financially in baseball. The principles should be more applicable in a league with financial parity. Unfortunately franchise QB has the highest demand and the lowest supply, so we find ourselves in a tough spot. One's best shot is probably the first pick in a draft, but even that doesn't guarantee anything.

Berry has a football scouting background and is working with experienced scouts. It's not like we are completely devoid of scouting experience.

There is no certainty in this working, but the experienced scout/football coach background hasn't worked for us (Farmer or Holmgren) either. I think not having the football/experience background has forced them to be more disciplined and stick to the processes they've put in place. I think if they can keep emotion and ego out of their decisions, we'll end up with better results over the long run.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the Browns are unsalvageable by anyone. We might not have enough talent to enable potentially good players to not get broken. I think resilience might be as important a trait as any in our draft classes this and next season. From initial reports, this last class demonstrates/exemplifies some of it.

Kindred played through the broken collarbone.

Nassib was a walk on and was told he'd never make the NFL by O'Brien.

Kessler went through NCAA sanctions and multiple coaching staffs and still had solid numbers.

Schobert was another walk on.

Higgins put up great numbers despite being labeled as too slow.

Coleman had a pretty rough upbringing:
Coleman's back story/Childhood Link

Shon Coleman went through his Leukemia ordeal.

mac, I'm much like Vers on this one.

I do share your concern about an overall lack of football experience in this FO. Their resume' is severely lacking in that regard. So while I have huge reservations about that, the evidence is sorely lacking for me to reach any such conclusion about the possibility of either success or failure from them.

I agree with you about Presott. Anyone can say what they wish, but looking at it objectively, Prescott is way ahead of Kessler at this point. Now does that project the future? Certainly not. But if they were looking to draft the most NFL ready QB of the two, Prescott is the current winner hands down.

Any draft takes three years to fully analyze. So drawing any conclusion at this juncture is far to premature. I just wonder if you hold the other 31 FO's to the same conclusion about passing on Prescott three or four times as you do the Browns? After all, it was only the Cowboys who drafted him at that juncture, none of the other 31 teams bit.

At this point this is my main concern with the front office:

Sashi Browns comments in regard to Griffin. First off I was strongly against the trade of the second pick. It is disturbing to me that they graded Goff ahead of Wentz. Then made the trade. I understood the reasoning behind the trade. They needed draft picks to refresh the roster. They had unproductive veteran players (their analysis) and felt they had to get younger.

However, since then Mr. Brown has said "they feel" Griffin is more than a temporary solution. That under Hue, Griffin can develop into their franchise quarterback??

Based upon what? Camp and pre-season games? Griffin has committed to the team and is doing what has been asked. I am sure in practice he looks good. He has some credentials.

But Griffin's slight frame, injury history, and overall results remain in question. He has yet to complete a 16 game season.

He has not proven a thing yet. Now he is gone for at least 8 games.

So where does that leave the Browns? Josh McCown at the helm which probably gives them a better chance this year. But now Griffin still remains a question mark for this year and next.

So instead of having Wentz and building around him they will still be in the quarterback line at the draft looking for an answer. Kessler was a wasted pick.

It leaves me with major questions about their ability to assess the quarterback position skillfully.

So now they have two first round picks and the question remains will they draft a quarterback? And if they do will they draft the right guy?

So...here's my "concern" If you will, about this whole thing.

Being critical of the FO is something we all do every regime change.

However, Im failing to understand how mentioning their Harvard education in a negative spin is productive?

I just don't get.

Haslam is trying something new.

Just to remind the board, just in case you guys forgot, we have had "football" guys with "football experience" run the FO.

and it didn't exactly work out.

So I dunno why them going to Harvard is used as a knock. Would you guys have felt better if they went to university of Phoenix?

Or cuyahoga community college?

Or MIT?

I don't get it.

Agreed.

(see? we can agree on some things)

Why do you always say "you guys?"




Not really. Banner was doing much the same thing and "you guys" hated Banner. Btw..........wonder who hired Sashi in the first place?




Great logic. So if one has a bad experience w/a dentist, he should not try other dentists and instead go to a car mechanic. Heck, they both use pliers and drills.

you guys = mac and the other posters who have used the harvard thing as a knock.

you say the same thing when you was on your mangini/banner holy crusade.

so yea, you guys.

anyway, yea, they did use other "dentist", just the experimental kind.

the tradition "dentist" wasn't working here in cleveland. So they went to experimental treatment, like so many american's do on a daily basis in real life.

let's give it more than 1 game.

Fire them all NOW!

Maybe we can get this guy talk is he's a football god if we are lucky he could serve as GM, HC, OC and ST perfect football guy.

This was published today in the PD.

"Browns head of football operations Sashi Brown stressed Friday that the Browns were still looking at him as their possible quarterback of the future.

"To be fair to Robert, he's young in his career in terms of his development as a quarterback,'' Brown said. "We'll develop him over time. He's under contract here two years, but we don't look at it as certainly just a two-year venture or a week-to-week venture.

"We're going to have to stick by him, put the right pieces around him and help him learn how to play that position as well.'
========================================================

That is very disturbing to me for the reasons I stated.

So... what about that response is surprising?

Are they supposed to announce that because RG3 got hurt game one, they are now dumping him from the roster?

Are they supposed to say because he got hurt that they were wrong about Robert and they are now dumping him from the roster?

To me it's only professional to voice continued support for a guy you named your #1 QB when he gets hurt. Personally I'm not going to give this any real weight unless McCown is doing well and they plug RG3 back in just because.

Methinks you smoked too much before you made that post.

the Browns front office struck out on 2 fronts.

1. in deseperation the FO signed RG3 despite his negatives out shining
his positives. they put all their hope on a QB made of glass.
their was a reason why 31 teams passed on him.

2. not drafting Dak Prescott.
I don't want to.hear 31 teams passed on him. baloney.
did teams like the Texans..Colts...Packers...Bengals..Steelers..Raiders
have a need for Prescott..no.
the fact is the Browns could taken him in RD 3...4. a franchise QB in the making at a bargain cost

3. not upgrading the oline after Schwartz and Mack left.

4.not upgrading the RB stable.
Crowell is a serviceable RB. but hes very one dimensional.

5. not adding a legit OLB in free agency that can rush the passer.

all.that cap space available in the off season and not even using
it to better the team

My prediction, and I don't know how I feel about this, is that after this season (correct me if I'm wrong) AJ McCarron becomes a free agent.

I predict that we go hard after him and sign him to be our #1. He knows Hue's system and he had a modicum of success in it when Dalton was injured.

After that signing, we don't draft a Qb in the draft.

I like the idea of getting Myles Garrett and Jonathan Allen ( or McDowel) to bolster the defense. But I hate the idea of not drafting a Qb.

great point.
I expect the Browns to over pay for him if they decide
to really pursue him

I think that they need to indeed, show A.J. McCarron the money. Really is talented but will not be starter as long as Andy Dalton is around the Bengals.

1. Desperation is not how I would describe the signing of RG3. To me it was a low-cost, potentially high-reward gamble. It appears to have failed, but it didn't really cost us much.

2. Dak was my choice if we weren't going to draft any of the top 3, so I'm with you on this point. That said, declaring him a franchise QB is premature.

3. They did address the OL after Mack and Schwartz left, they signed Bailey, installed Erving into the position for which he was drafted, and drafted 2 guys who played LT in college on power 5 teams. Bailey hasn't panned out, but I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the year, Coleman and Drango are our starting tackles (if the much discussed trade of JT happens.)

4. I would have liked to see another RB drafted too, but then Atkinson hasn't been with the team long enough yet to become part of the rotation. He might be an good addition.

5. Have you noticed Nassib and to a lesser degree Ogbah? They have already looked pretty disruptive.

It seems to me that you either don't understand the FO's plan or you have already judged it a failure before it has a chance to take hold. The plan is to build the team through the draft, not FA. It is a plan that appears to be working for Oakland, Jacksonville, and Tennessee, all of which have reached a point where adding a few key FA can make a real difference.

According to this McCarron's contract is through 2017.

Well then, I now predict that my last prediction will be wrong

I liked it...up to the point I discovered that page.

I liked it...right up to the point you discovered that page

lmao

So 31 teams passed on RGIII because he sucks but 31 teams passed on Dak because he is great.

20/20 is a good place to have vision from.

gm...31 teams passed on Dak because they were sure he was guilty of the DUI charge...

So Dak is already a franchise QB?
Hmmmmmmm......

lmaoay...

That phrase can be turned around, bro.

Go to the RGIII threads [before he was injured] and look at all the posts saying how good RGIII was. Heck, Swish and company were saying he was better than Bradford, despite RGIII being passed over by 31 teams and Bradfoprd actually fetching compensation in two major trades.

I think talent wise he is better than Bradford.

him being injured doesn't change that fact. both are injury prone QB's, correct?

when Bradford has been healthy, he's been average at best. no playoffs, and i think no pro bowls, correct?

RG3, when healthy, has lead his team to the playoffs, and a pro bowl appearance, correct?

so you can say what you want, at least my opinion is backed by stats and their accomplishments.

What is it that you are not getting?

The Eagles TRADED for Bradford. Do you remember that or not?

The Vikings then gave a first round pick and a 4th rd pick [which could actually grow higher] for Bradford.

RGIII was beaten out in Washington by not only Kirk Cousins.......but also by Colt McCoy. Yeah, that Colt McCoy.

RGII was then released by Washington. The Jets brought him to talk to him. They passed even though Fritz was signed yet. No other team even brought him AND they did NOT even have to make a trade for him.

But yeah..............the Mighty Swish is so freaking much smarter than the ENTIRE NFL!

if bradford was so good, why can't he stick to one team?

RG3 has been on two teams. bradford is already on this third.

if he was so good, why didn't philly keep him? why did they draft Wentz if he was so good?

if he was so good, why did the rams give up on him?

again, who lead their team to a playoff birth with a pro bowl appearance, and who didn't?

at this point they both suck. but atleast RG3 has shown a hell of a lot more when healthy than bradford has.

if FO's around the league were so smart, then why do YOU and countless others question their moves?

so you're allowed to question the moves FO's make, but i'm not?

Mac and Vers...

My post in the last thread was NOT an attack on you Mac. I simply pointed out that the way you always refer to the FO as "Harvard Guys" or Harvard whatever, this seems like you have a problem with them going to Harvard or being highly educated.

Mac I think you are entitled to your opinions just like anyone else here, I will also admit that on this particular issue I feel like you are beating a dead horse BUT it's your right to beat that horse all you want.

So I'm sorry if I in some way offended you by offering up my opinion and my point of view which I know is counter to yours. Since I don't think there are any real issues here (between us), I thought I'd just take a moment to clear things up.

With that said, this FO needs time and is doing a good job so far by my account. I like what I'm seeing out of them. It may not translate to the field this year but I still like it.

I never said Bradford was good.

This began on another thread where you scolded posters for pointing out RGIII's weaknesses and said something like: "you guys act like RGIII is as bad as Bradford."

I have been trying to point out to you that NFL GMs and coaches apparently think more of Bradford than RGIII. That does NOT mean I think Bradford is good. It just means your initial comment was whacked.

Ok and I just don't Agree. It's all good.

So you disagree that NFL FO's thought a lot more highly of Bradford?

Let's see. RG3 was paid average back up money while somebody paid a huge draft investment and huge salary for Bradford. If the league felt differently than that, RG3 would have signed a long term contract for huge money. Not a two year, back up money deal.

Vers/Pit - what r u doing? .. Just gotta make sure you know what your "debating" here ...

One QB was signed as a STREET FREE AGENT .. The other QB was traded for a 1st and 4th round pick ..

*LOL* ...

Why are u wasting your time .. If someone can't understand that you really think your getting through ...

J/C

Random thought I had- Do any of you think that "white privilege" plays into Bradford's popularity over RG3?

I mean I think a lot of Bradford's popularity is that he looks like what people think of as the "prototype" QB subconsciously.

Peyton Manning- 6'5", 230 lbs, white
Tom Brady- 6'4", 225 lbs, white
Sam Bradford- 6'4", 236 lbs

He looks like those guys on the hoof, and people seem to get caught up in that.

He hasn't shown their ability between the ears. Some of that may be the number of systems he has been in. He also hasn't shown their durability, which may also be stunting his growth.

Most NFL systems that teams use on offense are pocket passing-centric as far as the QB, that's not really RG3's forte. Doesn't mean he's not a better QB than Bradford (Doesn't mean he is either), but it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges. I like how they do it in high school/college recruiting. List pocket passers and dual threat guys separately. I think RG3 could be successful (assuming he could stay healthy), but he'd have to be in a system fitted for him, rather than trying to fit him into most systems. Since we haven't really had any time in any system long enough for our other players to get comfortable in it, we were one of the few places where it somewhat made sense to develop a system that could in places accentuate the skills he does have.

In our case Bradford had the same injury risks, but would have cost more than it did to get RG3 (money and picks). I really don't see why the Vikings thought Bradford was worth as much as they ended up giving. Shaun Hill is better by the numbers.

allow me to answer this question.

No, white privilege has absolutely nothing to do with this.

here's the problem: people are still in love with Bradford for no other reason that pure hype.

what's sad is that hype isn't even from the NFL, as he's been average at best.

his hype comes from 2008 season in Oklahoma where he threw for 4700 yards, 50 TDs and only 8 interceptions.

8 years year, this guy is living off the hype from THAT season only.

Same bradfords BEST ever season in the NFL came in 2012 when he had 3700 yards, 21 TD's, and 13 int. 124 yards rushing and 1 TD and a 82.6 QB rating

keep in mind, that year, bradford is in his 3rd nfl season.

that SAME year, RG3 is a rookie, post 3200 yards, 20 TD's and ONLY 5 INT, 815 yards rushing with 7 TD's and a 102.4 QB rating

oh, i forgot, a playoff birth, and pro bowl nod.

btw, sam bradford has never had a season with a QB rating higher than 90.9 he posted in 2013, which he only played 7 games.

so they're both ridiculously injury prone.

again, at least i'm basing my opinion on the play on the field. the stats and accomplishments in the nfl certainly back me up.

i'm not saying anybody has to agree with me, but so far nobody has came with an actual reason as to why Braford is better than RG3, other than it being based off of pure hype, and nothing else.

You are one of those people who can't ever admit to being wrong.

We have given you evidence. It's not about freaking hype. You and Grimm are living in fantasy land.

what evidence? the only evidence you given me is the fact that he got traded for a 1st rounder, to his THIRD team who in desperation mode because the QB that they ALREADY had as their franchise guy went down.

so are you gonna refute the evidence that i have laid upon you?

so far, i'm not the one who's wrong.

Are you saying that ALL NFL GMs, scouts, and coaches are dumber than you when it comes to evaluating QBs?

Are you saying being relegated to 3rd string in Washington AFTER that same team traded the farm to draft him is meaningless?

You made a dumb-ass comment. That is not a big deal. We all do that. However, you are unable to admit it and keep ignoring things in some lame-ass, desperate attempt to prove you are right.

Oh......send out a group PM to King, Rocket, CHS, and Lurker to back you up.

here's what Bradford and RG3 have in common.
both are 1st RD flops who are no longer with the team
that drafted them.
one day maybe the Browns front office will stop thinking
they are the smartest guys in the room and actually
draft a franchise QB instead of trying to sign another
teams failure to turn around the franchise.

you keep saying its a dumbass comment but you aren't telling me why.

2012 pro bowl, 2012 offensive rookie of the year, playoff birth, highest ever QB rating for a rookie QB, highest ever TD:int ratio as a rookie QB at 4:1

Sam bradford has none of that.

also, for the third time, if you're argument is boiling down to "well why did all the other teams pass on RG3"

then by your own logic, you should keep your mouth shut for here on out, as you aren't smarter than any of the GM's around the league, specifically the Browns, as you have been critical of past regimes on the QB situation.

either practice what you preach, or shut your freaking mouth.

He was 3rd string last year. Behind Colt McCoy. Do you REALLY think that Washington wanted to make him a 3rd stringer AFTER giving up so many picks for him?

I don't think I am smarter than the GMs from each and every team. But, I know I am way smarter than you!

Now, go smoke a bowl and kill even more of your brain cells.

smarter than who? the only knock you have is that the coach decided to bench him for the season.

your boy, however, TWO teams gave up on him.

let me repeat that. two teams gave up on him.

he got traded straight up for Nick freaking Foles. then, after throwing a hissy fit when philly drafted Wentz, he got traded ONLY after your favorite QB's very unfortunate injury.

the "smoke a bowl" rhetoric isn't cute, it isn't witty, it's a deflection cause you got nothing, son.

so again, i've refuted your evidence, so either refute mine, or kick rocks.

You must already be stoned out of your mind.

First of all...........I don't like Bradford. I have told you this several times. Of course, you probably can't remember because you have lost so many brain cells smoking all that "dope."

But here is something for your short-term memory. I was totally opposed to trading for Bradford when he was w/the Rams. I am so happy we did not make that trade. I do not think Bradford is a good qb.

What I do think is that RGIII is even worse. He was not benched by just one coach, as you falsely claimed, but rather by two successive coaching staffs.

He was passed over by all 31 teams and 30 of the teams did not even want to look at him...........and they didn't even have to trade for him. That doesn't ring a warning bell in your smokey head?

Look son, I was okay w/bringing the guy in. It was worth a shot, but I don't need some mouth like you telling me I can't criticize him......which is where this discussion began.

I got two words for you, Swishy................ T Rich. Remember that?

Remember Mangini?

yea, i don't either.

i've laid the evidence out that shows on the field that RG3 is better than Bradford.

That's my opinion. and so far, the numbers say i'm not wrong.

Uhmmmm............how were you able to mention Mangini if you didn't remember him? Let me guess............you're stoned again.

Your numbers are BS! What were RGIII's numbers the last two years? What were his numbers in week 1? Did you like that?

And yeah.........I said that in my Kirk Cousins voice.

what was bradford's #'s week 1?

can you remind me, again? i'm too stoned to remember.

what was it, 0 for 0, 0 yards, 0 TD's and 0 INT, right?

backup, or did he start? i can't remember.

Swishy..............I never said I liked Bradford. The argument was about RGIII. I know it was a long time ago for your drug infested mind, but yeah man...........you were upset because a few of questioned RGIII's abilities to read defenses, especially post-snap.

Btw------------who is TRich playing for now?

for somebody who's claiming to not like bradford, you sure are defending him to the death.

that's kind of a contradiction, but who am i to judge, ya know?

I don't care if anybody questions RG3's abilities. i simply made the observation that some of the same posters who blast rg3 as injury prone wanted to trade for an injury prone QB.

and then i laid the case as to why he's better than bradford.

but instead of keeping it pure football, you're saying nonsense about me being a druggie and stoner and blah blah blah.

so at this point, i'm just chalking it up to you not having any real argument for me tonight.

not really surprised. it is what it is.

hey, eric mangini has a job, right?

I am not defending Bradford. I am simply saying that your assertion that RGIII was way better than him was absurd.

and i don't agree with you.

now what? back to square one.

Uhmmmm..........you got a spare joint? I need one after that conversation.

i don't share joints with buzz kills, sorry.

j/c

Career Ratings

QB Rating
RG3-89.7
Bradford-81.0

INT %
RG3-2.2%
Bradford-2.3%

TD %
RG3-3.7%
Bradford-3.4%

Completion %
RG3-63.5%
Bradford-60.1%

AVG Yards
RG3-7.6
Bradford-6.5

I don't think saying RG3 is the better QB is without merit. Way better is a stretch.

Too bad RG3's career got derailed at the end of his rookie season. His rookie year stats are great. He got hurt and then Snyder and RG3 decided he should be a pocket passer which he's not. Then he was stuck as a square peg in a round hole for awhile. He's not for everyone, but when you can't do it the traditional way, you've got to try something. I wish Hue had put RG3 on the move more instead of trying to get him to stick in the pocket. People never tried to get Barry Sanders to play Jerome Bettis' style (I get that the timeframe isn't the best). I don't really get why they expect every QB to play like Brady and Manning. Different players have different talents. You've got to find a way to maximize them.

I've heard the running QBs get injured argument, but I'm not sure that the data really supports that conclusion (or if there is really even enough data to make a conclusion).

OMG.........another one.

So, you are saying that all the other GMs, scouts, and coaches in the NFL are dumber than you two?

This should go over well:

I should have stopped reading at that point.

Yeah........I remember you and others slaying him when he said Farmer texted the sidelines and that the Browns were dysfunctional.

He was sooooooooooooo far off on both of those.

He and Lombardi make Abbott and Costello look like serious actors...

Good one.

But, the fact remains...........he was right and you were wrong. Again.

No, I'm saying the scouts, GMs, etc. in the NFL are operating with a certain paradigm.

I'm not saying RG3 is great. I am saying Bradford isn't statistically better. Stylistically he may be preferred right now, but styles go in and out of favor. The game is constantly evolving.

For example, Urban Meyer seems to be in favor of mobile QBs and is seen as something of an offensive innovator. Could the NFL trend in this direction in the future? I know a lot of people say it won't, but there seem to be more and more of the mobile QBs coming up the college ranks.


As far as that article-

I wanted Wentz. He was my QB to get. I was okay with the trade down because there was some risk in his projection and I thought he would be throwing to the likes of Hawkins and Gabriel and still more QB than WR Pryor. If I knew Pryor would look good, Gordon would get re-instated and we could get Higgins in the middle rounds, I'd have taken Wentz.

As far as Kizer, La Confora is not someone I would go to for drafting advice. If I wanted someone to make catchy headlines and show off "20/20 hindsight," he might make the list.

You could have left your reply as hi-lighted, but no, you had to take a shot. This is precisely why I don't usually bother...

Then don't.

I think the fact who the GMs, coaches, and scouts prefer is hard to deny, no matter what you guys say.

On Wentz..........I was against drafting him and you were all in. Thus far, you look like you were right and I was wrong.

See how easy that is?

I forgot to hi-light, now corrected. It's getting late...

The preference is definitely there, and I can see how from their perspective he's the better fit for them. I think a lot of my preference for RG3 was based on being tired of seeing guys hold the ball too long in the pocket and getting killed. I thought Hue would put him on the move more and I'd at least see something a little different. Instead I saw RG3 hold the ball too long in the pocket and get killed. When he did finally get on the move he was either extremely unlucky or forgot he was supposed to avoid hits. In comes another injury replacement QB. Life as a Browns fan kinda sucks. At least knowing what bad looks like makes my other teams doing well seem a little sweeter.

I'm kind of bummed about Doctson having the achilles issue, too. I don't get to see if he looks better than Coleman for a bit.

waaay too early to tell if Wentz is going to be great or not. yes he did have a good game. but one game a career does not make. I mean there might be a reason why Goff was picked first...idk I'm all about throw Cody in there for the season and see what we have there. We already know what we have in Josh...great in the locker room. good mentor for Cody. But not the future.

On a newsy first week for quarterbacks, Browns fall further behind at the sport's crucial position

9/12/16

Tony Grossi
ESPN Cleveland
Editor's note: Tony Grossi covers the Cleveland Browns for ESPN 850 WKNR.
link

So the story of the NFL’s first week, as usual, was quarterbacks.

Most everywhere, there were young quarterbacks performing better than expected.

Carson Wentz wins his first game for the Eagles with 278 yards and two touchdowns.

Jimmy Garoppolo wins his first game for the Patriots starting for suspended Tom Brady.

Trevor Siemian wins his first game for the defending champion Broncos replacing retired Peyton Manning and departed Brock Osweiler.

Osweiler wins his first game for the Texans, his new team.

Jameis Winston gets his second season off to a winning start with four touchdowns and a 122.6 rating for the Buccaneers.

Derek Carr completes a Raiders rally past Drew Brees with a picture-perfect fade on a daring two-point conversion.

Even in defeat, some young passers impressed.

Dak Prescott had the Cowboys on the verge of beating the Giants until receiver Terrance Williams failed to run out of bounds to stop the clock for a makeable game-winning field goal attempt.

Blake Bortles of the Jaguars passed for 320 yards and threw a scare into the Packers.

Where are all the good young quarterbacks? They are out there, playing, developing, winning.

“I think there’s been a stigma that these young guys can’t come in and win games,” said Kevin Hogan, the rookie quarterback from Stanford the Browns signed to their practice squad. “And I think you’re seeing both in college and the NFL that these young guys are coming in and taking advantage of opportunities and bringing in some energy and a little bit more of a different dynamic to the offense.

“You saw it with Wentz and Dak and these other guys. Everyone has their own twist of something they can bring to the huddle.”

But the quarterback story in Cleveland is a recurring nightmare.

Robert Griffin, the latest of 25 Browns quarterbacks to start a game since 1999, breaks a bone in his shoulder running late in a 29-10 lost cause. He is out for eight weeks minimum. A re-evaluation in four weeks will determine if he’ll need surgery, which would keep him out all year.

So for the second time in two years, a veteran Browns quarterback is knocked out of the first game of the season. A year ago, it was Josh McCown with a concussion as he tried to helicopter over Jets defenders near the goal line.

Now the Browns will turn again to McCown, 37, to take over the team as the Ravens make their annual visit. McCown hasn’t played in a regular game since breaking his collarbone in Game 11 last year – against the Ravens.

And on and on it goes.

Teams throughout the NFL are securing their quarterback position with young arms. The Browns still don’t know who their future quarterback is.

They thought Griffin, at 26, was young enough and still on the ascent to give him first crack at the long-term job. They chose to use their prime draft position to collect future picks.

Griffin’s injury history was well known. His lithe body type does not hold up to the rigors of the position. They knew that.

All the more reason to use the No. 2 pick on a bigger, bolder prospect such as Wentz to groom. But we know now the Browns collectively did not consider Wentz a future “top 20” NFL quarterback.

The Browns used a third-round pick on Cody Kessler and then added Hogan to the practice squad. Coach Hue Jackson said they will get increased reps as the “next men up” in case McCown can’t stay healthy.

There are no plans to bring in another quarterback, Jackson said.

On Friday, Sashi Brown, executive director of football operations, said the Browns weren’t looking at Griffin as a short-term solution to the position. But now he is no solution – short- or long-term.

On Monday, Jackson was asked how Griffin’s injury affects the team’s thinking about the 2017 draft.

“I haven’t thought that far yet,” Jackson replied. “There’s Baltimore right around the corner here. That’s probably what’s totally on my mind. I’m sure it’ll be a conversation pretty soon.”

For the fourth time in five years, the Browns will enter the draft with at least two picks in the first round.

Everybody else is securing their quarterback position. The Browns have fallen even further behind.

j/c:

Don't mind me....just adding some fuel to the fire.


https://twitter.com/DawgsByNature/status/776403471016730624

Time will tell....

Yes, it is early, but based on early returns this is disturbing and doesn't bode well for our future.

It is rather unnerving

That's not a ringing endorsement

My biggest concern is, and it's been discussed on the radio, that Hue has been connected/rumored to wanting these four QBs this offseason.

1. Goff
2. Kaepernick
3. RG3
4. Kessler

That's not the most confident list and, I guess it's unfair to RG to assume he would have auto-failed this year, but the past is certainly a factor in judging him.

Very early on for Goff and Kessler. Hue too.

Factoring the major selling point on Hue was his ability to develop qbs and etc, yeah... early though but as of now, not looking no Bueno .

I mean, last I looked Goff was third on the depth chart, Kessler is just horrible looking and clearly has a long way to go and RGIII is the toy that's always broken.

I remember Hue praising Kessler because of his accuracy. He liked the fact that he could throw it in tight windows. From what I've read/seen thus far, he actually can't do it at this level.

The rap seems to be his arm isn't strong enough to zip it in those windows.

It's early...........Things can change.

I'm not holding out much hope, but I've been wrong before.

No doubt things can change. We really haven't seen him play. I was simply commenting based on things I have read. The book is far from finished. You have to plow through 5-6 chapters before you can tell the book sucks and you put it down.

Yeah exactly. And that's one area where it's VERY difficult to improve.

It's pretty much impossible to improve to any degree at this stage. Mechanics might help some, but his arm is what it is. He is going to have to change the way he sees things. He has to anticipate more rather than try to fire the ball in....Bernie was that type of QB. He didn't have a big arm.

But, it was a different era.

It is way too early to tell. Would you rather see Farmer and Company in there?

lol no

jc...

The good news for the Browns new front office...concerning the QB position...everything that could go wrong, already went wrong during the first week of the regular season.

1. The front office's first choice to fill the "franchise QB" role, GOT HURT and is likely out for at least 8 weeks. That in itself would not be a major concern but this QBs judgement concerning when to run and when to get down to avoid punishment played a major role in his ability to stay healthy and on the field, going back to his rookie season.
...was it a fluke or is there a good chance that this situation could repeat again?

2. In the first regular season game, our front office is forced watch the QB they passed over in the draft, beat the Browns 29-10. The QB that the Browns brand new front office (Depodesta) deemed as not worthy of a top 20 QB pick, lead the Eagles to a win over the Browns passing for 278 yds, 22 completions in 37 attempts, no ints, 2 tds and a 101 QB rating.

3. Also, the QB the Browns did draft in the 3rd round, Cody Kessler, was "inactive" for the game against the Eagles.
NOTE...A QB the Browns front office passed over, Dak Prescott, started for the Cowboys and had another strong game, in a losing effort.

So, should the Browns front office simply pass off everything that happened in week one as "woulda, coulda, shoulda"?...

...OR, should our front office take a hard look at "themselves"...the process they used and the judgements they made, in an effort to fill the #1 need of this franchise...A FRANCHISE QB?

IMO, The Boys need scrap the process they used to evaluate the QB talent available to them prior to the 2016 season. The way it all shakes out today, the Browns will need to continue their search for a "Franchise QB" into 2017.

...admitting they might have made an error in judgement or that they may have been wrong about a draft pick, is a very difficult thing to admit. Can the Browns front office set their personal egos aside and put the needs of the franchise first?

...For the Browns, 2016 looks to be another year wasted, another year without a franchise QB.

Just curious........why do you call them "The Boys?"

Some are upset over my use of Harvard Boys...so why not just The Boys?

LOL.......okay.

...just trying to keep folks satisfied

Bet the Boys still trade away a top pick or two in 2017 for even more later mediocre middle round picks. We'll see

The Browns regime has a long way to go to prove they know what they are doing.

There is more than one way to produce a winner. Most teams try to secure a "franchise quarterback" and then build around that guy. Think Oakland, Tampa, and Tennessee.

Others have tried by building a dominating defense, a strong run game, and low mistake offense.

At this point this regime has not built a thing. They have a bunch of young players who they still have to find out about.

I have serious doubts that Griffin will become anything more than a marginal player. The defense has a long way to go. So what do we have? Not much which is why we are what we are.

Hue I think can be a good coach. So maybe that is in place. Veterans like Thomas and Haden will most likely not be here before the Browns can establish anything so over the next couple they will need to be replaced.

I think Sashi and company know that. Which is why they have made the moves they have. Their plan is to acquire as many draft picks as possible.

That is all well and good "if" they can convert draft picks into productive players and they maintain stability in management.

So this year is a waste. Next year will be all about the next crop of draft picks. Then incorporating them into their system.

They are years away if all goes well and they score with the players drafted.

My posture as a fan is to try to just enjoy football in general and watch players I like. The Browns will be like seeds in the ground. I will watch to see if they grow.

That's kinda exactly what I meant by it not boding well for our future.

I *really* hope that it's all just much ado about nothing.

https://twitter.com/mlombardifoxtv/status/776461805723930625

Yes, folks. You read the twitter handle correctly...THE Mike Lombardi is back on the Twitter thing.

J/C ......

Man ..... it's one week.

Can you please leave my name out of your mouth?

But yeah, Bradford is all hype. Still riding his first overall pick wave. If he had Blaine Gabbert money would people still have love for him? I think he's the example of a sunk cost fallacy at this point. Maybe Norv can get his brain running, but that hasn't been seen yet.

So you are already deeming Wentz a franchise QB? A rookie with no game tape playing one of the worst defenses in the league? Ok......

If Jackson doesn't quit talking about greatness while losing his shine will wear off sooner rather than later.

Can our FO just shut up already?

Calling out Wentz like they did before the game was ridiculous, and they're showing no signs of slowing.

If they're trying to show confidence and positivity, they should talk about how we're eventually going to have a mediocre team. That's a lot more believable.

The FO didn't call out Wentz before the game. What the media latched onto was an excerpt from an interview with Tony Grossi in June or July. Now, they responded to the story and questions from the media but the 'not top 20' thing is from awhile ago, IIRC.

Here is the piece the media ran with:


http://dawgpounddaily.com/2016/07/30/cle...n-carson-wentz/

That's true. Hue Jackson also made a similar comment recently. Here it is:




Both probably should have kept quiet about their evaluations. No need to feed the bears.

Operative words in his statement - " at this time,"


They're focusing on building the other position groups first and are trotting out placeholder QBs, but took a flyer on a guy that kinda-sorta-maybe coulda developed into The Guy.


Errr.... that's one take, I guess. I'm probably giving them far too much credit with that take.

I wonder what the reaction would have been the Browns defense completely
shutdown Wentz and the Eagles?
the fact is a QB who this team passed on looked like a 5 yr vet
with very minimal reps in preseason.
I befuddled onbhow the Browns apparently thought more of Kessler over Prescott and Wentz.

jc...

Below is the July 30,2016 Grossi story being referenced.


No matter what happens this year, Browns' search for a permanent quarterback will intensify

Jul 30, 2016
link
Tony Grossi
ESPN Cleveland

Editor's note: Tony Grossi covers the Cleveland Browns for ESPN 850 WKNR.

Chief of strategy: Two general managers – one in baseball, one in football -- were having a conversation about their respective sports. The baseball GM – grizzled and crusty from examining players in the hot summer sun over decades – wondered why the football GM was so enamored with the quarterback position.

“Imagine,” said the football GM, “having Jim Palmer pitch every day.”

And that ended that discussion.

So I asked Paul DePodesta -- baseball’s “Moneyball” analytics maven, who left a 20-year career in Major League Baseball while still on the rise to try to turn around the fortunes of the Browns as chief strategy officer -- his philosophy on the importance of the quarterback in the franchise’s future.

The good news for Browns fans is that he responded like a football GM.

“There probably isn’t another position in all of team sports that I can think of that has the same level of import as the quarterback,” DePodesta said. “Exactly to what degree that is, we haven’t quantified that and I’m not sure that we need to. We just know that it’s really, really important and we have to get there, or we have to get to a level where we have a really productive guy at the position.

“There aren’t 32 of them in the world that I think can be quarterbacks of Super Bowl champion teams. Supply is short. Are there things you can do with the rest of your personnel or are things you can do schematically to help a quarterback? I think so. But at the end of the day, that quarterback still has to be a driving force of your team, especially if you want to be a consistent winner over time.”

So does finding a permanent quarterback, someone to end the parade of men who have started for the Browns since 1999 -- which probably will number 25 by season’s start! – consume DePodesta’s thinking like it consumes the team’s long-suffering followers?

“I think it’s a huge area of focus for us, not just now but I think it’s going to continue to be,” he answered. “Even if we feel like we have one, or we have two, we’re going to still try to find another one, because it’s one of those situations where it’s so important that you should never be satisfied with where you are at the position.”

The big bet: OK, so why Robert Griffin III? And why not the highest-ranked quarterbacks in DePodesta’s first draft – Jared Goff or Carson Wentz?

Why did the Browns sign Griffin, who had his one good year with the Washington Redskins four seasons ago, and turn their backs on Goff and Wentz?

Why did they not attempt to trade up with Tennessee to secure Goff? Why did they bypass Wentz and trade their No. 2 overall pick to Philadelphia to stockpile picks through 2018?

DePodesta disputed my contention that a. coach Hue Jackson was the driving force of Griffin’s signing, and b. signing Griffin for $15 million over two years, dictated their strategy to trade down in the draft.

“This wasn’t a hard sell on anybody,” DePodesta said of Griffin. “I think we all thought it was a really good idea. We were all excited about the opportunity. Here’s a guy just 26 years old, Heisman Trophy winner, No. 2 pick in the draft, but maybe most importantly, had success already in this league. Not necessarily last year, because he didn’t play, had some injuries just before that. But he’s had success and he’s still so young … hopefully, still has such a long career in front of him. Given the options available to us in the quarterback market this offseason, we felt he was a great choice.”

As for Goff and Wentz, the Rams and Eagles, respectively, gave up a boatload of draft picks to anoint them their franchise quarterbacks at No. 1 and No. 2 in the draft. DePodesta basically said the Browns thought lesser of both players.

Had Goff been available at No. 2, DePodesta indicated, it would have been a more difficult choice. But Wentz was not considered a top 20 NFL quarterback in the consensus opinion of the New Browns Order.

“We have to make judgments on the individual players and we’re not always going to be right,” DePodesta said. “But in this particular case, we just didn’t feel it was necessarily the right bet to make for us at this time. Again, it comes down to individual evaluation of a player. We will not always be right on those type of things.

“I think the hardest part, and where we have to stay the most disciplined, as much as you want a player, you can’t invent him if he doesn’t exist. In a given year, there may be two or three NFL-ready quarterbacks at the college level. In another year, there literally may be zero. There just may be not be anybody in that year who’s good enough to be a top 20 quarterback in the NFL.

“Even though you have a desperate need for one, you have to resist the temptation of taking that guy just because you have a need if you don’t believe he’s one of those 20 guys at the end of the day. I think that’s the hardest part, just maintaining your discipline because you have the need. That’s what we did this year.”

Search goes on: Even though DePodesta has confidence in the personnel department headed by Andrew Berry, he said he intends to familiarize himself more with the college game, and the scouting process, as he digs in for his first football season.

“I want to be more informed about [the college game],” he said.

He concedes that Browns scouts probably will be “front and center” – my words – at just about every game of every major college quarterback prospect this fall.

“Yeah. I think so. Absolutely,” DePodesta said. “It’s a primary focus of the organization and it’s going to continue to be regardless of how our quarterbacks play here.”

Well, that’s a start.

jc

It was gonna be tough for any FO coming in. Farmer burned the whole thing down. His drafts and LomBanner one are the reason there's no talent right now. There's almost nothing from these past three drafts, not one single good or above AVG player at his position. You can add Heckert's last TRich/Weeden fiasco to make it 4 in a row, but at least he hit it on the next 3 picks in that draft with Schwartz, Hughes and T.Benjamin. If a team had those three, they wouldn't trade them for the 3 Browns draft classes from 2013-15 COMBINED.

That said, the new FO botched their first draft. It was a weak class. There were maybe a dozen worthy 1st round picks. Wentz was a 1-1 talent. This will be Big Ben all over again.

Nassib and the safety look like fine players, but there was so much bad or meh tape on the rest they took that it's obvious that they don't watch much tape or if they do, they probably have a stat sheet covering their eyes.

I know there were those that were in love with Wentz and coveted him - Eagles included I guess.

But I don't think we can re-write history and suggest that the majority felt either Goff or Wentz were top talent in the mold of Andrew Luck and RG3 when they came out - Or even as good as Mariotta and Winston (Winston sure looks like he's going to be a stud).

At the end of the college season - it was a LOT of debate and opinion that I saw in the media .... that there wasn't a QB in the draft worth a top 10 pick.

To go from that - have all the hype of the combine's and draft and annual rise of certain players simply because of the importance of the position they play or freakish numbers at the combine ... and say Wentz was a universally considered lock is not accurate. . . . not only that. To crown him after one game is premature. Dak and Wentz looked very very good. But .... lets see them do it for a season. And against defenses not called 'the Browns'.

It was my pre-draft opinion based on what I saw. Do I need the media consensus for that? Wentz was the best college QB I saw since Roethlisberger. He was clearly better than Goff in my opinion.

Re-read the thread on that if you like

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1079716/9

So because you thought he was a stud, he was a cast iron lock ? Ok.

Which is apparently long enough to know completely that everything you're doing is wrong and needs to be changed.

DJ and 888...concerning the draft and picking the best QB available, everyone has there own opinion and some guys on this board are really good at it. Something else I've noticed is the accuracy some of these Internet draft sites.

I don't know all the resources the best internet sites have at their disposal but their ability to judge the QB talent is decent.

I agree everyone has an opinion. . . and I am happy to state that mine isn't better or more accurate than most fans. And there are folks that are better at player evaluation than me.

But there is a difference between a poster having an opinion - and there being a universal consensus that a draft class or particular player is worthy of a #1 pick. My recollection of Wentz shooting up the charts - many liked him and many thought it was a huge risk to take him at 2 overall. . . . and to crown Wentz after one game against the Browns? A little premature, no matter how convinced we might be of our opinion. jmo.

that...but look at what we do know after week 1.

...RG is hurt again and if our front office didn't consider a QBs durability before they decided to go that direction hopefully they will consider a QBs injury history going forward.

...Cody Kessler is a project.

...Josh McCown is our best QB and he is 37 yrs old.

...The Browns continue to search for a franchise QB...and that search will continue for at least another season.

How about this? You wait and then get out of the way so the rest of us can discuss the topic. It's a football message board. The intent is to talk about football rather than saying nothing and waiting.

Btw-------I haven't seen you and others making similar statements regarding Nassib and Pryor.

Frankly, I Think that guys like you think it is okay to praise a player early if he plays for the Browns, but any discussion that doesn't hold those particular qualifiers are off limits.

Pfffttttttttttt............

Good morning Vers. Happy Friday to you.

I see you got your bully pants on a bit tight today? Sorry about that. I see you also responded to me - so I had a look at what you wrote.

I have a few observations:

- Can you let me know where I indicated or inferred we can't talk about it or offer opinions? .... As a teacher I thought your comprehension would be a little better - however to help you, here is my full quote in context: "To crown him after one game is premature. Dak and Wentz looked very very good. But .... lets see them do it for a season. And against defenses not called 'the Browns'." ..... that doesn't say not to TALK about it for a season. It does not infer not to TALK about it for a season .... what it says is to wait for a season before we crown him. See how easy that is if you break it down and read in conjunction with other content within the post - you know, the sentence preceding it.

- Nassib and Pryor (and Ogbah ... and Duke and Coleman) ... others that I am high on, and especially Gordon who you loathe with a passion and I only wish him to succeed .... they all need to do it for a season. More than a season. They have shown positives and the outlook is promising. But the sample size is minimal. A phrase that I have used frequently.

- as for the rest of your non-football talk post... it's interesting how you continually refer to "you guys" and try to disparage, put down and bully others constantly ....... just like our last responses to each other where you lied about me "getting personal" - which was untrue and you were unable to provide proof which I asked for. (by the way responding to someone who lied about your post isn't "getting personal" - it's simply setting the record straight.)

Enjoy the rest of your Friday, Go Browns - here's to a win against the Ratbirds.

LOL at the comprehension part. I understand you perfectly.

RG3 injury issue is/was/will be a concern for sure.

Kessler is for sure a project. Was and is. I wouldn't expect different from a bottom of round 3 prospect. I think most would agree that Rnd 3 isn't the place to expect to find rookie QB's that start their first year. (Dak is fluke - if the Cowboys thought he was that good he would have been drafted higher - imo).

McCown - I am a big fan of Josh's - if we had lined up with him as a starter this year, I would have been happy enough. In many ways he is the perfect veteran for a team that is under a total rebuild. I think it's a little unfair to say he's better than an uninjured RG3 - the sample size on RG3 was way too small and he had some good passes dropped week 1, which had they been caught might have changed how we viewed his performance.

We absolutely need a franchise QB. And as per the previous posts on Wentz, I think its too early to tell if Wentz is the Franchise QB that we blew it by not selecting.

So you deliberately twist and manipulate my posts? That's pretty sad dude.

888...Dak was a fluke?

How can you say that...the man was projected to be the 5 to 7th QB drafted anywhere from round 2 to round 4. I'm sure that most teams ranked Prescott lower because they thought he was guilty of the dui...and yes, I think the Browns did that.

Why take Kessler over Prescott..when it was obvious to most judging the QB position that Prescott was more talented?

There was a good reason Prescott was ranked ahead of Kessler on nearly every draft board...yet the Browns passed over him to take Kessler, not because they thought Kessler was a better QB..but because Kessler had a squeaky clean record...problem is, those that missed on drafting Prescott "assumed" he was guilty of the dui and it would be proven in court, during the July trial, THAT PRESCOTT WAS NOT GUILTY of anything.

Jerry Jones waited because he knew he could. Something about the Cowboys when it comes to taking players who "appear to be" in trouble with the law.

Look at how the Cowboys landed La'el Collins...the Louisiana State Police announced that they wanted to talk to Collins in regard to the death of a former girlfriend.

The police said that Collins "was not" considered a suspect but the news came out 2 days before the draft. Collins went undrafted and became a free agent. A week later, the Cowboys signed Collins.

Looking at the Prescott and Collins cases, it's obvious that the Cowboys front office is experienced enough to check out potential draftees who are involved in legal situations. The Cowboys don't care what others think..they are willing to do their homework and take a chance on players who are involved with the law.

The Browns must learn from their mistakes...

The only problem with the Collins section of your argument is that Collins chose the Cowboys, not the other way around. Plenty of teams were offering him UDFA contracts, the Browns probably included.

Also, Do you know for a fact that the Cowboys would have taken Dak over Kessler if Kessler had been on the board at their pick?

What all actual NFL draft boards have you looked at?

Sure on a lot of internet draft guru's lists Dak was higher. But there is a reason they aren't NFL GMs, and they also don't have the same information as NFL GMs.

The Cowboys have also ignored red flags and had them blow up in their faces. See Randy Gregory and the Kraken (his real name randomly escapes me). Being willing to take a risk at a position of need in the 4th round doesn't mean they thought Dak's legal situation was a good thing/that he was in the clear. They may just have thought the rest of the QBs in the draft were complete garbage and wanted the one guy who had a chance of working out.

It wasn't proven that he was not guilty. It just wasn't proven that he was guilty. That's how the system works. You don't have to prove innocence. You just need to provide reasonable doubt. Can you please stop saying that it was proven that he was not guilty? Found not guilty is fine, but there is a difference.

Guilty or not, taking anyone with an alcohol story would have been a complete circus after what this team's gone thru the past few years. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would consider that the
Browns should even look at him... let alone pick him.

Interesting. So, what are your thoughts about the Browns welcoming back Josh Gordon?

In my opinion you just proved Dak is a fluke. . . . "he was projected as the 5th-7th best QB in the draft".

You simply don't have the top 5 or 7 rookie QB's starting game 1 and looking as good as Dak. He is a fluke. The idea that teams thought he was the 7th best QB in the draft and would look as good as he did in game 1. . . . makes no sense.

Why take Kessler over Dak ?? It's been discussed and you don't agree and you won't accept that after Gilbert, JM and Josh Gordon the need for less risk and more squeaky clean personalities was very real. . . does it look as if that was a mistake after one game of their rookie seasons - one a 3rd stringer the other looking good starting (for an injured Romo) ... yes. But it's early and a small sample size!

What's funny is that at this stage of the game, Dak is more NFL ready and producing. Yet people keep making excuses. lol

Speaking only for myself, at this point, Gordon is worth a shot. We would be nothing by dumping him,and maybe he has finally learned his lesson. I truly doubt it, but it costs us little to keep him, and we can always dump him at the end of the year if we want.

We already know that Gordon can be a premium, top of his position talent ..... if he keeps his head in the game, and stays away from the smoke.

We are, as many pointed out, trading the 53rd player on the roster for Gordon when he returns. He's worth that kind of risk.

j/c

This FO passed on using their #2 overall pick on a QB with question marks. They took a risk of being wrong in favor of multiple extra picks. Early returns are that QB may have been worth the pick.

Instead they continued to accumulate 15 players in 2016 (including acquiring Taylor in a draft trade), with multiple high picks in the next 2 drafts. With those 15 players they got 5 starters; Coleman, Ogbah, Nassib, Shoebert, and Taylor. I suspect Kindred and the other Coleman will become starters before the end of the year. If Thomas is traded, add Drango. If we finish the season with 7-8 starters out of one draft class, I would have to consider that a successful draft, even without solving the QB position. And we will have multiple extra chances in the next 2 drafts to solve it.

With all due respect, YTown............the argument that the other poster made [and there others who have said the same thing] was that we couldn't draft a guy who had off the field problems after the Manziel debacle.

Who in the hell has had more off the field issues than Gordon?

I see a double standard on the part of some fans.

Oh, and you and others won't and will go on a long rant about this and that's fine. I made my point and I'm done w/it.

On the other hand, Manziel was on our team at the time........with all of his issues having come to light.

Gordon was on our team at the time (not playing, I know) and not playing due to his issues.

How could the front office NOT shy away from a guy that may have issues? And it's not like we were the only team that shied away, remember.

When you're trying to deal with a Manziel AND a Gordon, why would you think about adding another possible problem?

Hindsight is 20-20. But at that time, I can understand the front office dropping Dak in the draft order.

You can't?

I never said that. I am saying that I believe some are simply defending the FO at each and every turn rather than judging each move on an individual basis.

The Browns cut Bess when he had a drug problem. Other teams cut players w/drug problems. The Browns could have parted ways w/Gordon this year, but chose to bring him in despite a long history of misconduct.

Thus, I don't know if I am totally buying they couldn't take a chance on Dak. Especially considering some of the qbs they liked including Kessler, Kap, and RGIII.

He's already here, he costs nothing in terms of draft picks or cash, and we can sever ties without any backlash if he doesn't pan out. It's a different situation as we're not utilizing resources and looking foolish taking yet another chance on a potential problem. We really have nothing to lose finding out if JG can return to glory.

That said, I wouldn't have had an issue if we let him go after the last infraction.

Okay, thanks for answering.

Dak Prescott

week 1...25/ 45 att, 55.6% comp, 227 yds. 1 pass over 20 yds. rating 66.4

why are we drooling over this guy? really? and that is with team 1 reps...smdh...Cody could match those numbers and he spent his time with the 3's


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?a...e&Submit=Go

What were Kessler's numbers in week one again?

Vers I could put up those numbers and i am 50...are you trying to say that the 23rd QB last week is who we should have gotten?

LOL......just trying to keep it fair, Dawg.

Personally, I was kinda hoping we would grab Lynch at the bottom of the first or top of the second.

I would have been okay w/taking Wentz at 15 or so, but that obviously had no prayer of happening.

yes I remember Lynch. I think we were one of the only ones to hope Lynch was drafted by us...I flip flopped around a bit but settled on Lynch...I think we both didn't think there was one QB in that draft worth a top ten pick...me I didn't one was worth even a first rounder..

My fear is we have to see Kessler this year .. And it appears he's next man up .. I thought for sure we'd sign someone today to try and get them ready to be the next sacrificial lamb ..

I would want NO ROOKIE playing on this years O ..

I hope Hue sticks to what he said about feeding Crow all day ... I doubt he will do it ... But it is our best shot at keeping QB'S alive even When we don't do it well .. And we won't do it well ..

For what it is worth..............I liked Hogan over Kessler before the draft. His mechanics are whacked, but he throws the ball well and is a great leader .

there's no doubt we'll see kessler this year ... and probably even hogan

j/c

What is the over/under in hours before someone names a corner of the endzone "Hogan's Heroes"?



"I know nut-thing!!"

over under? 2 games

I was also part of the Lynch bandwagon. I would have done the one trade down then taken Lynch with that pick. I would have been afraid that he would not have made it to #15

Vers - in my mind there are a couple of big differences between Prescott and Gordon.

1, They were drafted by different front offices. So the 2 front offices may have different philosophies.

2, Yes, both had issues before we drafted them. However, We had not had issues with players prior to Gordon. When Prescott was drafted we had experienced both the Gordon and Manziel sagas. It was a completely different atmosphere.

3, Fast forwarding to today, in my mind there is a big difference between supporting one of your own which Gordon is and trying to help him through his trials and tribulations vs bringing in a new guy with issues.

I am not condoning the drafting of Gordon nor Manziel.
I am neither for nor against the passing on Prescott.
My point is that comparing Gordon's and Prescott's situations isn't the right comparison

Jester, you are a level-headed man and this is in no way an attack on you. Okay?

I wasn't talking about the drafting of Gordon. I was talking about bringing Gordon back this year after his suspension. His sins are far greater than Dak's, thus I don't buy the argument that there was "no way the Browns could draft Dak."

I believe that people who say that are just making excuses for what seemingly is a poor evaluation of the available qbs. That is just my opinion and yes, it is early.

But, you know as well as I do............that Dak got a lot more love before the draft on this board than Kessler did. Heck, I only remember one dude mentioning Kessler and he was laughed at.

Not talking about drafting Gordon eliminates my point #1. However #3 is still very applicable. And #2 remains somewhat though less applicable.

As for who's sins are greater, that can be debated. Certainly Gordon's are more repetitive.But if you ask someone in MADD or who lost a loved one to a drunk driver, they will disagree with you on who's mistake was more egregious.

You are definitely right that it is early.
The argument that there was no way we could draft Dak may or may not have some validity.
I think there is some reasoning behind it but I also think that some people may be making excuses.

Again, I am not trying to justify keeping Gordon or passing on Dak.
I just don't think the two are as comparable as you think they are.

And I in no way would have looked at your post as an attack, rather just good discussion.

But speaking of Attack. Has AttackDog been around? I haven't seen him post lately but I certainly could have missed it.

Uhmmmmm Jester.............Gordon had a DUI while he was under suspension for substance abuse.

Attack pops in occasionally. I think he was here about 3 weeks ago or so.

Forgot about Gordon's DUI. Oopsie.

It's a lot to keep up with.

And I would have been against drafting Gordon after the Manziel situation .... but we did not draft him. We already controlled his rights, and we owe him guaranteed money, so it really is a completely different situation.

imagine if the Cowboys had just given up on Irving. Gordon is in my mind a top 3 WR this league talent wise. and if you saw any of the preseason games Gordon looked like he didn't miss a step.

<<sigh>>

I know that. Why do people keep saying that to me? Do you guys think I am stupid? Seriously?

I am saying that the Browns did not have to bring him back. They could have got rid of him, especially after he failed yet another test in March. How the NFL allowed him back in after that..........I don't know!

I ain't buying the rhetoric that the Browns could not draft Dak. I still think it was all about how they evaluated the qbs.

Heck, there are other qbs I would have taken before Kessler. It ain't limited to Dak.

How many colleges was Irvin kicked out of for drug use?

How many times was Irvin suspended during his first 3 years in the NFL?

Just wondering?

ok lol a question for a question.

Was Irving's drug of choice much worse then a semi legal "drug" in weed?

also back then I don't think they as strict as they are today...if Irving was playing today do you not think he would be suspended for drug use? coke?

could be wrong but I doubt it. I am an intellectual. lol

You did not answer the questions.

Oh, and Purple Drank is not exactly a semi-legal drug.

not really interested in the Dak convo...But I would def. be keeping Gordon. I wouldn't trade Gordon for 2 1st overall picks. talent like his is rare. that's all I'm trying to say. Dak numbers really not impressive at all to me in his game 1.

To each their own.

if I am playing "who I would have drafted" game. I would have like to see Carr drafted here.

What would it benefit the Browns to just dump Gordon for nothing?

How would it benefit the Browns from drafting Kessler over Dak?

Btw----------------do you guys even follow the conversation or just jump in randomly? LMAO

This conversation began w/someone saying we could not take Dak because he had a possible DUI.

This is why Vers hates Gordon he was draft by the FO after Mangini was fired.( Mike Holmgren and general manager Tom Heckert )

Still playing childish games, I see.

The Browns likely took Prescot off their board because of the DUI. They just survived the Manziel debacle, and wanted no part of bringing in another potentially similar situation. They did not want to addsuch a situation to the team.

Gordon was already on the team, and the team already had an investment in him, They already owed him future, guaranteed money, and it would not benefit the team at all to dump him for nothing.

That is how I see the 2 situations. You asked the questions, and I tried to answer. I thought that I was clear, but evidently not. Hopefully my answers have been clear this time.

LOL...okay.

And I still think that the reason they drafted Kessler over Dak and other qbs was because they [mainly Hue] had him rated higher.

there is a clear difference between judging talent and
developing talent
it's apparent Hue missed the boat with Kessler and Prescott.
Precott's resume at Ole Miss completely destoyed Kesslers at USC.
there's nothing that Kessler can do better Prescott.
Prescott reminds me of Big Ben in some ways.
if Hue wants to impress me let's see what he does with Kessler who is limited in his skill set.
Hue inherited QB in the pat who were already trending upward.
Kessler is his 1st project

Dak Prescott

week 1...25/ 45 att, 55.6% comp, 227 yds. 1 pass over 20 yds. rating 66.4

why are we drooling over this guy? really? and that is with team 1 reps...smdh...Cody could match those numbers and he spent his time with the 3's


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?a...e&Submit=Go
I

I felt a need to repost Dak's numbers from last week....really not that impressive.

It's just too early to tell. I think - despite the stats being pointed out above - Dak has looked promising. But it's 1 game of 1 season..... proof is in the long haul.

Based on one game of one season - the people that messed up the most would be the Rams taking Goff with the first round pick. If you want to argue the relative worth of a draft pick based on week 1 - the Rams should have taken Wentz or Dak. . . . Which might end up being the case. But the sample size is way to small.

this is what was said about Dak Prescott in the preseason
on this board
" it's preseason let's wait till the real games start in
the regular season....hes playing vs vanilla coverages now"
last time I checked the Giants defense has a secondary with guys with credible resumes. it wasn't a bunch of
cast offs or rookie free agents.
what's was Kesslers Stat line from last week?
a total of 56 yards walking with a clipboard in hand?

so your saying the guy with a 66 QB rating and one throw for 20 yards is the guy????? good grief

you mean the Giants who are dead last at 32 against the pass? against a rook with a sub par performance?... sorry I don't buy it.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?t...mp;d-447263-n=1

I'm not sure last year's stats are the best argument. The Giants went all out on fixing their D. Just saying.

I am using last weeks stats. oops lol I guess it auto'd to 2015 so last weeks they were ranked 20th...still nothing that says they're top ten pass defense.


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?a...e&Submit=Go

so a sub par performance against the 20th ranked pass defense last week...still Dak does not look any better to me at all.

Fixed that for ya.

You actually re-posted one of the most absurd posts in recent memory?

what's absurb is the out of now where obsession about Dak

What?

Actually the selection of Dak at the Kessler spot would have raised no eyebrows and would have been viewed as a good selection. Kessler went way higher than projected, and does not have the physical tools of Prescott.

What I am referring to is once the draft was over. Not one word about Dak until RGIII gets hurt and now Josh...but now seemingly out now where Dak is the main topic. I just don't understand it is all. and if I am dreaming and wishing Dak would not be the dream or wish. Thus far that dream is looking like Wentz.

101...yep, Kessler looks better than Prescott by a bunch...yea, I got it.

One more time...............on this very board BEFORE the draft, many posters talked about drafting Dak and I only remember one guy mentioning Kessler and that notion was quickly dismissed.

Cody Kessler can help answer the question of how much trust Hue Jackson deserves -- Bud Shaw's Sports Spin

http://www.cleveland.com/budshaw/index.s...er_index_topics

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Browns have shortened their starting quarterback rotation to Cody Kessler and a quarterback to be named.

It's their version of the old baseball battlecry, "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain" and an unfortunate take on what the Indians might be facing at Progressive Field in the postseason.

Hue Jackson didn't sound all that confident in discussing Kessler's probable start Sunday in Miami. The head coach also didn't sound particularly stressed.

"Still hasn't rocked my world yet," Jackson told reporters Monday after answering a similar question the same way a week ago when the Browns placed Robert Griffin III on injured reserve. "I'm still sitting here. This is pro football....I've been toughened before...if this was Week 14 and this was going on...but it's early."

Jackson knows, or hopes, he'll be judged on how much a team turned upside down improves over a 16-game season. So, in that sense, having early debilitating issues beat having late-season debilitating issues.

That's only fair. The organization and the head coach are in this quarterback mess together.

Is he the perceived QB expert? Sure. But if they signed off on his plan to sign Robert Griffin III and draft Kessler, they own it, too.

You didn't need a QB whisperer's feel for the position to know the risks of counting on two quarterbacks with injury histories to stay healthy behind an inexperienced Cam Erving and a new right tackle.

Browns quarterback roulette claims another victim

That those risks have come to roost so early isn't a crime that gets easily pinned on Jackson. What happens next, of course, is more of his doing.

He brought that focus on himself by drafting Kessler over other available quarterbacks, then doubling down and telling everyone, "Trust me."

It speaks well for him that he didn't try to back away from those words Monday (I know, how could he?).

"Here we go," Jackson said. "'Trust me.' Here we come. We'll see what that statement was all about."

There is an upside to playing Kessler, unless you thought McCown could lead a revival. It's the unexpected chance to see why Jackson wanted him in the first place.

Could over exposure harm Kessler's development? Sure. But the bigger harm is if at season's end the organization is doubting Jackson's expertise at identifying and evaluating quarterbacks based on the signing of RG3 and the drafting of the USC quarterback.

The Browns should've signed a veteran quarterback after RG3s injury. Now they are forced to sign one.

The fact Jackson didn't slam-dunk guarantee Kessler would start is based on that frantic search for a veteran now.

Jackson took some solace in the season's infancy, which could mean he expects Josh McCown might return before too long.

But even if McCown returns to wage more Monty Python sword fights, the bigger question will be whether this organization and this head coach have a credible plan at quarterback and whether they can be trusted to fix the position once and for all.

More of McCown won't tell us that. Seeing if Kessler was worth the draft pick and Jackson's "trust me" will.

It's not even week 3 yet and the media's already causing crap.

Well i know one thing.. I've already seen enough of Wentz to know we passed on the best prospect since we took Winslow over Ben. He tore us up last week and is throwing strikes tonight against heavy pressure. He's got "it" and we got Sh--.

Wentz has got hit quite a few times tonight and took some good shots
and he still is hanging in there and rifling the ball downfield
kid has poise. looks the Brownies missed another soluton to a 17 yr old
problem

Are the Bears a real NFL defense ?
just asking cause some were questioning if the Browns were a NFL dedense
last week.

I'd say they are pretty similar to us. We might have more talent, but they have actual NFL experience. Both are bad.

is there really anymore great defenses left in the NFL?
the Ravens defense looked very average
the Era of dominant defenses is way gone

Who won the Super Bowl last year and how did they do it?

I was in the Wentz camp. With LA likely to pick Goff, Wentz was ours for the taking and I liked it. But I also get why we chose to trade the pick, we got a lot for it and there was no guarantee that Wentz would stud out. It was a calculated gamble.

What, exactly, is accomplished by complaining about the fact we didn't draft Wentz, to wallow in misery? What's done is done. Let's move on.

If he is good, then it is a major strike against our team. That is worth discussing.

Agree 100%

The FO screwed the pooch on this one!

Wentz is the real deal and SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN CLEVELAND!

But the reality is, how good Wentz becomes has to be measured against what we end up with from all the picks we got, which we won't know for years. If we land a franchise QB in addition to a feature WR and another good player, it's a win.

How many first round picks would a team with no franchise QB trade for a franchise QB?

Until proven otherwise, this front office shouldn't get a pass for not picking a potential long-term QB. Picks are nice on paper, but they don't mean anything if you don't draft properly with them.

For those of you who say build the team, then get the QB; isn't that what teams like the Rams, Texans, Dolphins did? How well has that worked out for them those past seasons?

This is what we got for trading our of the 2nd spot in the draft:

Cleveland Browns netted nine players, three high picks with trades - Cleveland Browns Blog- ESPN
http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland-brown...th-draft-trades

All told, the Browns gave up a first, fourth and fifth-round pick this year and a fourth-round pick in 2017.

With the picks they acquired, the Browns gained:

WR Corey Coleman (first round, 15th overall)

OT Shon Coleman (third round, 76th overall)

QB Cody Kessler (third round, 93rd overall)

WR Ricardo Louis (fourth round, 114th overall)

S Derrick Kindred (fourth round, 129th overall)

WR Jordan Payton (fifth round, 154th overall)

OT Spencer Drango (fifth round, 168th overall)

LB Scooby Wright III (seventh round, 250th overall)

A swap of seventh-round picks on Day 3 led to the team acquiring cornerback Jamar Taylor from Miami.

They also acquired the Eagles' first-round pick in 2017, the Titans' second-round pick in 2017 and the Eagles' second-round pick in 2018.

Okay...so two of those players are current contributors? A few special teams players? What's with that OT they drafted in the 3rd round? Shouldn't he be playing if he's not hurt?

He is prone to injuries and saying a young man sucks because of it is a harsh view to take of one of our players.

I'm sure Hue didn't mean, "Trust me, he'll be ready to start week 3 with one week of reps."

Shon Coleman had knee surgery in January. They were bringing him along slowly.

IF people want to judge Hue based on how a 3rd round developmental QB plays starting week three instead of year 2 or 3 then they are idiots. Flat out idiots. At this point it's just gravy if he doesn't get killed out there. No coach in his right mind thinks, "Hey lets draft a QB in round 3 and start him game three after very little reps during preseason."

I mean come on people Bud is just a troll right now.

IF Wentz is a franchise QB, we'd need more than half of those guys to be major NFL players to even call it a wash.

Guys like Louis/Payton/Drango are dime a dozen, unless they REALLY progress

I think that Corey Coleman and Kindred are going to be stars in this league. Louis has a huge WR body, and really good speed. Yes he is raw, but raw doesn't automatically mean junk. The nice thing is .... with guys like Coleman, and Pryor, and Gordon (when he comes back) we don't have to force Louis into the offense without being ready. He can be a core special teams guy while he develops as a receiver. I don't know what he'll become, but the physical side is there.

You are washing out the draft class before they get a chance to learn, grow, and develop. I hope the Browns don't do that.

We also have 2 first round picks and 2 second round pick in next year's draft., and there are a number of very interesting QBs who will almost certainly become available. We will almost certainly be drafting at the top of each round, and should be able to add 3 or 4 major impact players. I suspect that the Titans will not be a top team this year, and their 2nd should be valuable.

Anyway, until we see how next year's draft unfolds, (at the least) we can't grade this trade. I like the (and I hate to use this word .. but) potential we have. I am impressed with what Wentz has done so far, but I am curious to see how he does against good defenses.

The season isn't over at week 2, and this trade isn't over quite yet either.

J/c

The real question is would Wentz look like a franchise QB behind our OL throwing to the receivers we thought we'd have during the draft.

There is the behind our OL part, where we are already down 2 QBs. Wentz wasn't known for making quick reads at NDSU. There's a good chance he'd be getting beat like a dirty rug during an old school spring cleaning.

Then there is the who did we have for him to throw to part. During the draft, we had a bare cupboard at WR. Pryor had something like 1 career catch and last we saw still looked like a guy learning the position. Gordon was still indefinitely suspended. Hawkins had been hurt a good portion of the season. Gabriel had regressed it appeared to me. Hartline had been injured and looked like he was starting to slow down. If we had taken Wentz, we wouldn't have Coleman.

If we knew Pryor would make massive improvement and Gordon would be back week 5, I would most likely have taken Wentz. However, at the time of the draft, neither of those things looked particularly likely. Hindsight can be 20/20, foresight only works in sci-fi and fantasy.

It looks like we have weapons worth throwing to now. Assuming there is a QB we like next year, he should have nice targets to make his job easier. We should have the ammunition to get whoever we like if we aren't at the top of the order somehow. Kessler still has a chance to surprise as well.

jc...On what the Browns gained with the trades, I look at it this way...

The Browns went into the draft with 10 picks...their 7 picks, most of those picks were the 2 or 3rd picks in each round...plus 3 compensatory picks.

Can't count Corey Colman as a gain because the Browns had a 1st round pick coming regardless..same with the 7th round pick, Scooby Wright.

Of the players gained from the extra picks, SS Derrick Kindred was the only major contributor.

The most valuable gains come with the Eagles 1st round pick in 2017 and the Titans 2nd round picks in 2017... and the Eagles 2nd round pick in 2018.

Who created the concern you suddenly have about the offensive line..who did that?

On who would a QB have to throw to...was the Browns WR corp from last year JUNK! Where did they rank in receiving?

I agree - an OL with Mack and Schwartz - and Wentz behind center .... would look pretty good based on how Wentz has performed. . . I think most would agree.

Mack wasn't going to stay. Period. So that changes the equation/discussion.

Hue went to Wentz's pro day and whether Wentz didn't have a good day or whatever it was. Hue and the FO took the deal to trade out of the #2 slot. End of story. Maybe they didn't think Wentz was ready - maybe they thought he was junk and they made a terrible misjudgment of talent - maybe they loved him but the offer of so many building blocks on such a crappy team was simply too tempting .... we don't know. We never will.

Small sample size - but it looks like we missed on a genuine opportunity for a Franchise QB .... I'll repeat - sample size is still small. But he definitely passes the early eye test in spades.

The FO has a plan - lets see how it unravels. The improvement from week 1 to week 2 was significant. Encouraging from young talent perspective and coaching perspective. . . Let's hope Kessler plays better than expected. But if he doesn't - do we need to discuss how the offense would look like with a fictitious line up again (and again and again)? We could play that game with Derek Carr, Cooper and Mack who are all in Oakland and who could all have been drafted by the Browns? Yeah - I know it was a different regime, and that regime failed more than miserably. But this FO hasn't failed yet... assuming they missed on a franchise QB. They made a choice on how to build the team and based on selections like Coleman, Ogbah, Nassib and Schobert I am encouraged. Missing on a franchise QB doesn't mean a catastrophic failure ... it's entirely possible that it's a win/win.... lets see how this years rookies develop and see how next year's draft plays out.

We went through 3 QBs every season when they were both here, too. Previous regimes created our problems by constant dysfunction. Who would honestly want to play here if given a choice?

And yes, our receivers were junk. The passing numbers may have looked decent as far as total yardage, but one of the biggest chunks was Barnidge who isn't a receiver and he played better than he had before or is likely to play again.

Also we had to throw like crazy due to playing from behind and racked up a lot of the numbers in garbage time.

j/c

so, idealistically, our offense COULD look like this:

Thomas, Bitonio, Mack, Greco, Schwartz

Wentz

Crowell/Duke

Barnidge

Gordon, Pryor, Coleman

Coleman was acquired with a pick (ultimately) via the Eagles trade ... we couldn't have them both. (Wentz and Coleman).... also remember Pryor was a total project who most would not have believed would make the team. Gordon was an unknown - and even now many or possibly most think he is going to blow it.

If we dont take Ogbah and WR was a priority (fair assumption based on the draft) Sterling Shepherd and Michael Thomas were available at the top of the second round.

To have both Wentz and Coleman would mean either we traded up to take Coleman or he fell to us in the 2nd and we wouldn't have Ogbah.

My bad. Forgot about that. Thanks guys.

grim...how many of those QB injuries were the fault of the Oline?

The Browns WRs in 2015 ranked something like 16th in yards gained and 12th in receptions.

You can spout all you want...try posting some freaking facts!

I'd say they were a function of the whole team.

Our top WR(#1) was Travis Benjamin at 40th in receiving in the league.
He averaged 60 yds a game. He's best as a number three receiver and deep threat. He made big plays on Manziel magic scramble plays for the most part. Take those away and he's not very good.

Hartline was our next WR(#2) tied for 83rd in the league in receiving with 43.6 yds a game. He made some tough catches, but they had to be because he often struggled to create separation.

Gabriel was our next WR (#3) at 157th in the league in receiving with 18.5 yards a game.

NFL.com Individual player receiving stats.

Our overall passing numbers were inflated by Barnidge's outlier of a season and Duke. Our receivers were poor.

How's that for facts?

edit: Also, Benjamin signed with SD before the draft. So 83rd in the league in receiving was our best returning WR.

Good read vambo, thanks for posting it...for those who didn't read it here is the link link


Concerning the QB mess...when the Browns signed RG3 on March 24th, some 17 days after he had been released and available to the entire NFL, the Browns' draft strategy began to take shape. No doubt in my mind that Hue and the Browns front office agreed on the idea that RG3 could be molded into the franchise QB the Browns were seeking, thus no need for the front office to draft one of the top prospects. I've been concerned about RG3s durability issues since he was a rookie and my concerns proved to be valid.

RG3's injury history...
...2012-ACL, LCL right knee
...2013-inactive for last 3 games due to injury concerns
...2014-dislocated left ankle, missing 7 games
...2015-week 2 preseason, suffered concussion, inactive entire regular season, released.
...2016-week 1 regular season, shoulder injury, out ?

I guess Hue and The H Boys never thought about the possibility that RG3 might have some durability issues. Now, both Hue and The Boys are forced to consider the physical characteristics of every QB candidate in the future, if they learn anything from this experience.

After just 2 games into the 2016 season the Browns front office is faced with another problem they likely never considered. The Browns are running out of QBs, with RG injured in game 1 and McCown getting the hell beat out of him by the Ravens defense in game 2, forcing Coach Hue to start his 3rd different QB in week 3 of the season.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN...?
I guess the analytics department didn't have a formula that could have predicted the possibility that something like this could happen. I became concerned about a situation such as this back on March 9th, when the front office failed to re-sign either of their free agent offensive linemen.

I watched Erving play OG last season and questioned his ability to fill the center position. Since Schwartz had not missed a game in his 4 seasons with the Browns, there was no one to consider as a possible RT. The Browns drafted a RT in round 3 (Shon Colman) but he had knee surgery for a MCL tear right after Auburn's bowl game on Dec 30, 2015. It's not know when or if he will be able to play for the Browns. The next best choice was Pasztor, who was a backup OG last season.

There have been costly misjudgements made by The Harvard Boys that eventually laid the ground work for the QB issues the Browns are experiencing today. When the Browns brand new analytics department failed to accurately calculate the value of "maintaining" a high quality offensive line, they set the franchise back years. The front office is responsible for the quality of the players they provide to the coaches, who then try to mold those players into a functioning team capable of competing in the NFL.

Something else the offensive line does...they protect the QB. The ability of your offensive line to protect your QBs can directly be linked to the quality of offensive line talent the front office keeps and/or drafts/or signs as free agents.

The Browns front office let some of the best offensive linemen in the NFL leave in free agency and it will be years before the talent level of the Browns offensive line reaches the 2015 level.

It was likely a blessing in disguise that The Harvard Boys did not draft the best QB available in the 2016 draft. The Browns would have ruined another QB prospect (Wentz) by putting him behind the offensive line our front office provided this year.

I hope the boys in the front office are getting the hang of this "football thing"...especially on the offensive side of the ball. The best performing QBs in the NFL, for the most part, have the best offensive lines to PROTECT THEIR QB.

If the Browns plan on drafting a QB in 2017, they better draft some offensive linemen too...at least a high quality center. Also, don't draft a little, slightly built QB...look at the most durable QBs in our own division and draft one with those physical characteristics.

Will these Harvard Boys learn anything from their own experiences...will they listen to suggestions...I doubt it.

I think it was dumb not to resign Schwartz, but the OL isn't the reason the QBs got hurt.

Mac not sure why the hate for Harvard but I would rather have Harvard guys than community college boys...just my opinion.

I'd rather have guys smart enough to draft the #2 QB when they're holding the #2 pick. Letting Schwartz walk was stupid. Signing RGIII was stupid. Passing on Wentz was stupid. Drafting Kessler in the third instead of Dak was stupid. Ergo, they're stupid. JMHO

I am sooooo tired of people making crap up in regards to the free agents. I posted an article just the other day that refutes your claim.

I don't know if I agree with that or with Schwartz.....but that doesn't matter to me any more. I did like Wentz and wanted to take him and not look back. I was cool with us not taking him until now. Somewhere along the way was said he wasn't a top 20 QB. Some think top 20 in the league. I don't think that. I believe the meaning was top 20 pick, but either way, he is looking to make that comment foolish....BE IT 2 GAMES. That could change and the comment holds. Some years back I wanted Berger Boy. Since that time he has done nothing but drink our whiskey and have his way with our women.



My only hope is we evaluated not only this crop of QB's, but next years as well and decided it is a QB in the next draft we want next year.


That said....picks are great, but at some point soon we need more players. I do agree we are going to need to spend some money to get players, probably some FA players in the mix as well.

To me it would have been good to get Wentz this year because we still don't have a QB and IMO are now another year behind the 8 ball.



Now we get to see the coach pick in Kessler. Coach told us to trust him, so I will. I expect we will see something at least kind of, sort of like Wentz.....though I don't really think we will......but I expect it.


For a long time a part of my sig was Expect to Win. While it may have been removed at one point, the attitude hasn't changed.

peen..............I like your post. A ton of good points. I do disagree in one area..................Mack flew back to Cleveland from California to meet w/the Browns about staying here. This assumption that there was "no chance" of him staying here is a fallacy made up by a poster or two and repeated over and over and over again until it has been accepted as the truth on there because it has been stated so many damn times.

I have had this debate before about demonstrating integrity on this board. We are posting things that many people see. Opinions are cool. They can be as whacked as whacked can be. However, stating things as fact that are outright fabrications are simply wrong. People read this, repeat it, and it gets repeated over and over and over again.

I think opinions and facts should be separated. It's called ethics and integrity.

"This is the only life I get to live," Mack said. "Life in football is even shorter. There are decisions that have to be made that are tough, but you only have so much time to play football.

"I felt it was time to experience a new city and team to make the best out of my football career."

Alex Mack's Difficult Decision to Finally Leave Cleveland

Did he say that BEFORE he left Cleveland?

And are you really going to make me re-post the article where both Mack and the Brown's FO said he might stay?

And if you call Mack a liar, then the FO are liars too, because both said they were trying to work out a deal.

"I felt it was time to experience a new city and team to make the best out of my football career."

^ So you are saying Mack LIED when he made the above statement? ^ But really meant he might stay?

"This was an extremely difficult decision,'' Mack said in a statement. "After careful consideration, I concluded it was time to start a new chapter in my life. "


http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2016/03/browns_alex_mack_signs_with_fa.html

Vambo I posted that article several times to no avail.

Yeah I hate when Vers makes things up...

Are you trying to start another fight?

I asked you a specific question. Did Mack make that comment BEFORE or AFTER he left Cleveland?

I also asked you if you saw the article I posted where both the FO and Mack said they were talking about a new contract.

I get that you don't want the truth to come out. But Vambo, I am not going to allow your untruths to win out on this particular issue.

Are you saying Mack LIED when he said...



"I felt it was time to experience a new city and team to make the best out of my football career."

and

"This was an extremely difficult decision,'' Mack said in a statement. "After careful consideration, I concluded it was time to start a new chapter in my life. "



...the truth is out he wanted to go!

I am asking you one more time...................did he say that BEFORE or AFTER he left Cleveland?

Mar 3, 2016
Pat McManamon
ESPN Staff Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
print
comment
Cleveland Browns center Alex Mack voided the three years remaining on his contract on Wednesday and is set to become a free agent.

Mack, who had $24 million left on his deal, can still return to Cleveland and could once again become the NFL's highest-paid center. Mack's agent, Tim Younger, said that Mack's return to Cleveland is a real option.

"Alex is definitely leaving open the possibility of returning," Younger said via email. "He enjoyed his visit last week, but this is the first opportunity he has had to truly choose where he will play next season."

Mack, 30, had to decide on the opt-out by this Friday, with unrestricted free agency beginning March 9. It is in his contract that he cannot be tagged.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/14884993/cleveland-browns-alex-mack-opting-contract

6 days later...

Published: March 9, 2016 at 01:33 p.m. Updated: March 9, 2016 at 04:22 p.m

The Atlanta Falcons agreed to a five-year contract with the three-time Pro Bowl center, the team announced Wednesday.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...-with-alex-mack

hope this helps...not sure what difference it makes if he said it before or after tho...Mack had every opportunity to stay. he chose to be else where. could have just played out his contract even.

He said it that's all that matters. He made the decision.

LOL..................sure.

sounds like Mack wasn't being very honest about coming back to Cleveland.

Yes sir when you are wrong you are wrong.

But did he say that before or after he left Cleveland?

Vers you are posting an article made on feb 26th. the two I just posted were from march 3, and march 9th.. Mack had no intention of coming back here

the truth shall set you free!!!

So you are saying that both Mack and the FO are liars?

I feel that Mack had no intention of signing here. I believe he didn't have want to be here, he was only here the last few years because of the Transition tag that we matched.

I don't have proof, he never came out and said it, he was the guy who always said the right things, however he body language and routes he took before, his agent saying "he can structure a deal the Browns can't match" were all telling signs to me. Will be the way I feel, and truthfully I don't blame him, the constant turnstile in the front office and coach can wear down any player.

You mean when they and he said he "MIGHT STAY" ?

OK let's put it in your terms he might have been telling the truth at that time but later he definitely stated he wanted to go.

You are assuming quite a bit. So, let's play the assumption game.

If Mack and others did NOT want to be here...........tell me why they did not want to be here. I will even provide some possible choices. Cool?

--They are degenerate human beings that were sent by the devil to screw the Browns?

--They were sick of the constant regime changes?

--They were sick of losing?

--They are idiots and not capable of conceptualizing how great our new FO is?

--It's a conspiracy theory designed by the NFL to keep the Browns down?

Other than choice number one, which is preposterous, how do the Browns look good in this particular situation?

He signed with another team...kind off says it all right there.

Pretty much spelled it out in my last sentence by stating I didn't blame him and I felt the constant changes in front office and coach wore on him and wanted to be somewhere more stable.

Mack had said, in the past, that he did not want to play his whole career on a losing team, and that the fact that the Browns kept changing coaches wore on him a great deal.

I don't have a link, but I do remember it.

im saying what might have been true in feb. was not true in march

What is your point?

Are you saying he is a liar?

I think that people sometimes say things, because they are legitimately conflicted.

I think that Mack enjoyed Cleveland, and enjoyed playing with the other members of the OL. However, that wasn't enough to convince him to stay, given all of the negatives associated with doing so.

jc

Prior to 2007: None left on team
2007: Joe Thomas!
2008-2009: Nobody left
2010: Joe Haden!
2011-2013: Nobody left. That's three straight years where we completely whiffed and have nothing to show for it.
2014: Bitonio and Kirksey. That was 3 drafts ago and all we have to show for it is a 2md and 3rd rounder?

that list of years ruined my breakfast. the years 11-14 are some of the WORST draft selections I've ever seen.

And 2015 doesn't look far behind

Concerning Mack and Schwartz...there is one universal language spoken in the NFL when it comes to re-signing your own players.

The Browns owner is one of the richest owners in the NFL...a billionaire many times over. If he wanted Mack and Schwartz to remain with the Browns, it would have been done.

Pretty simple stuff, folks.

The cap was increased to 155 mill and today the Browns lead the nfl in cap space available with $50 mill. If Haslam wanted his front office to keep Mack and Schwartz with the Browns, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE!

It really is "that simple".

Does it defy "common sense"...yep! Especially when your owner and front office claim to be building a winner.

Cal...the question becomes, how long can this franchise endure this level of STUPIDITY?

It is hard to believe that with the level of education the new guys have, how could they still make decisions that are so poor?

Maybe NFL experience does matter...but does NFL EXPERIENCE matter more than where you received your education from?

I believe there is little doubt that NFL experience in your front office where the "football decisions" are made, does matter more than where you graduated from.

Looking at the most successful franchises in the NFL, all are being run by a front office with years of nfl experience making football decisions.

The Browns have the least amount of NFL experience, in the entire NFL and that is the best excuse I can think of for judgments our Harvard educated front office have made.

With the benefit of hindsight you always make the right choices. That's very important to remember.

The fact that they let so many players go via FA is why they are where they are and you don't need hindsight to reach that conclusion.

Of all the things that I become most upset about thats the one that eats my guts out.

When they didn't go all in to retain players I knew this regime change would do only one thing. That is what needs to change until that happens will never get out of the basement.

I don't know who's contracts are up at the the close of this season, I have stopped keeping track but if they continue to place so little value on player retention they and we will continue to be losers.

I have been saying this very thing for years now, its nice to see that many folks have begun to understand where and why we go so wrong, on the other hand I was beaten relentlessly for this take.

Before the season started I said we would be worlds better had we made a move to get Bradford, again I was ridiculed for my take. But now after just one game playing for the Vikings to the last prognosticator they are saying the Vikings are a better team with Bradford then they were with Bridgewater.

One poster even said there was no difference between Bradford and RG3, at which point I dropped out of the discussion not because I was proven wrong but because that poster was so lost when it came to understanding the differences between Bradford and RG3.

A year ago I was all over getting Bradford. I knew he would have a tough year last season as he continued to recover from ACL surgery but look at him now, and I ask again do you really think RG3 is the equal of Bradford?

I said McCown was the better QB by miles from RG3 once again the fans on this board are so so lost it amazes me how folks who spend so much time talking football (hahaha) can know so little about it.

I keep saying it building a winner is easy and it is, keep your good players add in more good players replace players as better talent becomes available. Give the players time playing together and they naturally get better as individual units and as players.

In the NFL there is no such thing as rebuilding there is only building, and we try to re build instead of building and you end up with what we have.

Hue is a great coach and his staff are pro's let them build stop thinking it will reach its full potential in weeks when you compete against teams that have played together for years.

But as important as I think the fans understanding the build ideology is ownership has to understand it and work towards it. This is a tough go for ownership its hard to stay the course when everything says you headed to the bottom, but you must.

The real question isn't weather we have the right folks running things the real question is will they build and allow it to mature? So far I would say we are building towards losing but that can change but Haslim will be the deciding factor. He alone owns our record over the 4 seasons he has run this team....

When he understands building then perhaps we can get somewhere to date we have had zero luck and if anything Haslom doubles down every off season.... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

True, but this FO and owner want to build on their own foundation of selected youth, talent and skill sets that fit their scheme....whatever that is.

This is happening right before our eyes but it will require this season to tank.

j/c

My thoughts on the "no way" they were coming back discussion.

They were willing to hear the Browns, but unless the offer was ridiculous they'd rather play somewhere else.

It sucks, but I can see both sides.

The players would prefer to win.

The FO doesn't want to "overpay". While not everyone agrees on what overpaying would have been. The Browns didn't want to pay more than they would have made on the open market.

Whether this "economic" approach will work depends on their ability to draft. It should give the benefit of sustainability if it ever gets going.

BtoB...Bradford, RG3 or whomever the Harvard Boys decided to bring in, would have been doomed from the first snap. Bradford would have been beaten to a pulp, punished by the hits allowed by the offensive line that the Harvard Boys hacked together for 2016.

I'm going to say this again...YOUR SKILLED POSITION PLAYERS WILL NEVER PLAY TO THEIR POTENTIAL OR PRODUCE ON THE FIELD, IF THE OFFENSIVE LINE DOES NOT PROTECT THE QB AND OPEN HOLES FOR YOUR RUNNING BACK.

This might help those who are always focusing on the money aspect and the high cost of maintaining the best offensive line possible...

The Browns are spending the following amounts on their SKILLED POSITIONS players.
QB spending.....$13 million /yr
WR spending.....$12 million /yr
TE spending.....$ 5+million /yr
R/FB spending...$ 3 million /yr
(Skilled player)
Total spending=..$33 million /yr

If the Browns offensive line cannot protect their QB any better than they have, then all the money the HARVARD BOYS are spending on the skilled position players.. WRs, TEs and RBs...."IS WASTED".

It's rather obvious that the Harvard Boys put a very low priority on the offensive line, preferring to spend $7 mill per year of a FA QB, WHO LASTED ONE GAME, rather than spending roughly the same amount to sign their own FA RT. I'm sorry folks, but that make no sense to me what so ever. It is beyond stupid, not to spend the $7 mill p/y to lock Schwartz up. I guess the H Boys (Haslam+2 Harvard grads) believe anyone can play RT, even a backup OG.

Since the Browns Harvard educated front office doesn't like the idea of spending Haslam's money on the offensive line, the Browns franchise appears to be caught up in a catch 22 that they themselves created.

Browns fans...ALL WE CAN HOPE FOR, is that somehow, THE H BOYS figure it out...you don't spend $7 mill on a FA QB and stick him behind a cheap, crappy offensive line. It just doesn't work out very well, especially if The Boys took the time to study the injury history of the guy they just wasted $7 mill on.

Sticking with a similar theme, looking to the future just a bit, another learning lesson that should be easy for the H Boys to figure out...you don't draft a franchise QB and stick him behind a cheap, crappy offensive line. It's one of the best ways to ruin a good QB prospect...trust me, I know...just like most Browns fans dating back to 1999 know.

Just to drive the point home...the Eagles used the Browns pick to draft their franchise QB, Wentz. The Eagles front office understood that they had a responsibility to put the kid behind the best offensive line they could put together, regardless of the cost in cap dollars.

The priority for the Philadelphia franchise was not HOW MUCH DO THEY ALLOCATE FOR THE OFFENSIVE LINE...the Eagles did all they could to help their franchise QB to succeed. The Eagles didn't put artificial limits upon themselves when it came to spending. They did whatever it took to put the best Oline they could, in front of their franchise QB.

The Eagles spent 22.05% of their cap on the offensive line..$33,323,135. The Eagles were not even the top spending team when it comes to spending on the offensive line..that honor went to the Raiders, who built an offensive line for Derek Carr to play behind. The Raiders spent $37,297,853 on their offensive line which accounts for 22.86% of their cap.

Does anyone recognize the "trend"?

...the cost of building a playoff caliber Offensive Line is going UP...NOT DOWN!

The Browns went cheap on their offensive line in 2016, falling to 21st in spending on that group. Instead of doing all they could to prepare for drafting a franchise QB by locking up two of the best OLinemen at their positions, our highly educated, "book learned" front office went the opposite direction, laying the foundation for yet ANOTHER EPIC BROWNS FRANCHISE FAILURE.

You don't spend a high draft pick on a potential franchise QB, then expect that young QB to perform well behind the crappy offensive line that our inexperienced front office cobbled together, on the cheap.

That is where this franchise is heading !

I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself on the playoff teams trend.

The Raiders haven't started off like gang busters (I have their D in fantasy they've been awful), and the Eagles beat us and the Bears with the bad version of Jay Cutler.

The Broncos are spending ~$14.44 million on their OL this season, which is the 3rd least.

The Panthers are spending ~$25.32 million, which is higher, but still not in the top 10.

The key roster construction wise seems to be to have a balanced roster more than focus on the OL. Both Super Bowl teams from last season only are in the top 5-10 of a couple categories. CAR in RBs and QB, DEN in WR (Probably were in QB when Payton was there)

You need to have a plan and find players that fit. You also need to stick to a plan, so you aren't stuck with players that only fit the old plan.

Whether our plan is feasible (or what it really is) and whether we will stick to it, I don't know. Without the stick to it part, we'll never know if they could have worked.

Mac love ya man, as close as I can figure out all is making just over 14.3 mil. Now I don't know the cap hit. Did we have room to sign those guys? Hell yes we did and we would be better for it.

Mac in your opinion, what constitutes as "NFL experience"?

being in an organization for an extended period of time? or playing a position in the NFL?

Well, NFL experience can't possibly be seeing how your offensive line had given up 53 sacks in 2015 ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2015.htm ) and realizing that it doesn't make sense to break the bank to keep that Unit together.

I'll bet it's the Harvard education that shows through 2 games this season we've given up 6 sacks. That's an average of 3 per game. So at this rate, 3 sacks x 16 games = 48 sacks for the 2016 season.

The summation of my Doctoral Thesis on analytics is thus:

Why overpay two guys for 53 sacks when you can bring in younger talent for potentially 48? Let's say we repeat and give up another 53 sacks... maybe 58? We still don't come up shorter than if they had been retained.

This isn't to say that I think Mack and Schwartz are garbage. I don't. Clearly they are good players, but having said that, just what the heck is it people are so broken up about not retaining them for exactly? 53 sacks? Really?

McCown took 23 sacks all by himself, according to your link.

manziel played in 2 more games(10) than McCown(8) yet took 4 less sacks.

here's the part that kills me bro: all throughout last season, a ton of posters we're really on Schwartz because he constantly needed TE help on blocking since he's been on the team.

then, the reality is that Schwartz CHOSE to walk, he chose to look for another team for a bigger pay, even though we offered him a really nice contract, and now people are all of a sudden pissed?

at this point, the FO is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

you know what would've happened if schwartz was still on the team right now?

"omg, we played this crap lineman how much to allow these sacks on our QB?"

people keep complaining about the right side of our O line, but conveniently forgot that they've been complaining about our right side of the line since Schwartz got here.

then, the reality is that Schwartz CHOSE to walk, he chose to look for another team for a bigger pay, even though we offered him a really nice contract,

FLAT OUT LIE!

no it's not. He could have taken the Browns offer. but decided to peek else where.

^Truth.

I'm not convinced that had we retained Schwartz and Mack that we still wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

101...Let's take a look at the experience level of another new guy starting GM career in 2016.

Titans GM- Jon Robinson- age 40.
...played HS football
...4 yrs of college football
...1 yr..graduate assistant at his alma mater
...2 yr..grad assist. at Nicholls State
...1 yr..LB coach at Nicholls St.

NFL
...4 yrs..Patriots area scout
...2 yrs..Patriots regional scout
...1 yr....Patriots assistant director of college scouting
...4 yrs..Patriots director of college scouting

...3 yrs..Buccaneers director of player personnel
...1st yr..Titans GM

Jon Robinson's football experience is generally a typical example of a NFL GM..11 yrs experience in scouting, judging "football" talent, then 3 yrs at the executive level. Honestly, Robinson must be a pretty sharp because he advanced quickly with only 14 yrs of NFL experience before reaching the GM level.

Now, I invite anyone to list DePodesta's and Sashi Brown's NFL experience

Haven't we gone that route before, hiring guys with experience? The result was still the same.

The O line looking good and bad has far more to do with the QB reading the defense and getting rid of the ball then you can put into numbers. So while numbers are nice they hardly tell the real story.

The heart and soul of any offense is the QB. The FO and Hue brought in a dumb QB. RG3 is probably the most gifted athlete to ever play QB for the Browns but he is also probably the dumbest as well. He see's nothing and he anticipates less.

Plain and simple Hue let his ego get in the way of football. Like most coaches he THINKS he can fix RG3, but the truth is no one can fix stupid and RG3 is football dumb.

To sum up talking like you all KNOW what is wrong and how to fix it is ignorance and nothing more and to quote stats and to believe those stats hold the answers is even dumber. There I said it.

The great O lines in the NFL have QB's who know where to throw the ball and get rid of it as quickly as is humanly possible. Great O lines are almost myths, their as great as the QB running their offense. Read your stats you seem to put so much stock in and look at who gets rid of the ball the quickest it will tell you all you need to know about great O lines.

You're usually not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you you knocked that last post out of the park. If you could have just resisted that little paragraph where you like to build yourself up by putting others down it would have been perfect. By the way, there's a word for what you do. It's called insecurity.

The Browns oline is fine, and it's been fine for many years. Since Thomas was drafted you can argue that the oline has been top 10, and we still didn't win. This year I would say it's middle of the road, but it's certainly good enough to win with. The real issue over the years has always been the QB. RG3 is hurt because he made a poor decision. McCown is hurt because he holds the ball for an eternity. The oline is fine. The Browns need to solve the QB issue, and I, like you, am concerned about Hue's ego in all of this. He backed the wrong horse, and it looks like as of now it's going to set us back even further.

How is taking a flyer on RG3 setting us back?

We paid him nothing, and gave up nothing.

In a vacuum, taking a flyer on RG3 isn't an issue for me. However, the decision to go with him as opposed to Carson Wentz, IF he becomes a franchise QB, could be where the set back is justified.

We'll see if that ends up being the case.

I hate the way the team is performing right now. But then again, I've hated it for quite a while overall. The results just haven't been anything to brag about.

Yeah Yeah, we've had pockets of interesting and fun and good things happen, but 90%+ of the time since 1999, this team has been anything but good.

Whenever there was a regime change, I've tried to remain positive. But I admit, it gets harder and harder to do that.

Still, I don't see the need for post upon post, thread upon thread, bashing this front office 2 games into the season.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Honestly, I think there is more crossover in being a GM in a different sport than there is in simply being in the scouting department. The GM's job is about more than just scouting. In scouting, you are primarily looking at individual players and judging their talents and skills. As a GM you have to worry about contracts, legal issues, roster construction, in house discipline, trades, cuts, etc.

As long as you have a "scouting guy" with experience, which we have in Berry (he had a fast ascent similar to Robinson), and you have experienced scouts, and you are willing to listen to their input, you don't need a scouting background as a GM.

A scouting background doesn't hurt, but you also have a separate "head " of the scouting "department". The General Manager is over that, but he also manages other "departments". You can take different paths to the GM role through those different departments. At the top, you have to work with all of them. In the past, those different areas didn't work together very well. Sashi has experience in getting people to work together.



Link

Oh I am just fine with what I say and think. I am what you call a NYorker and we say it plain. You like sugar on top and you can't understand why I won't dress it up for you all when your just plain wrong. Whoops I did it again.

But go ahead take me up on my challenge go and look at QB's who have success and they all have a common trait. Let me give you all a hint it has zero to do with having great O Line. To your credit Rish you said it right our O line isn't great it is however good enough for a competent QB to operate behind.

The only truly must have for any O Line is a solid/great LT from there a good QB is the real difference maker. Like all things that doesn't mean you shouldn't be as good as you can be across the board.

But go and look it will settle this stupid (did it again) talk about how our bad O Line is costing us. I will say this too Irving is so bad he has cost us but thats a rare animal. If he weren't a 1st rounder I wonder if we wouldn't have moved on from him he is another dummy, just like RG3.

I am hopeful that Kessler can settle in he reads defenses worlds better then RG3. He needs to trust his instincts and yeah he will make mistakes as he learns hopefully???? But RG3 is a waste of time, I hate that he got hurt but its actually a gift for the team.

BtoB...I believe Hue was making progress with RG, but in the preseason you could see that RG was struggling with the first read...when to trust his judgement and when to pull the trigger.

Some QBs "instinctively" recognize the open receiver and the thought process is so quick, the defense doesn't come close to sacking the QB. For example, Tom Brady is so quick with his ability to read the first and second option, defenses rarely get close to him.

When a QB comes off his first read, which RG was doing a lot, by the next read, the fight or flight response kicks in and running QBs begin to scramble.

RG situation is compounded by the fact that the Browns Oline is collapsing quickly, not giving the QB much time to make the 2nd or 3rd read.

Mac whats wrong with RG3 can't be fixed. He is football dumb. Great athlete but dumb. The intangibles don't exist in his world.

I assume at some point will get another look at him but Washington didn't give up on him because they saw hope, they gave up because they saw no hope.

All of this doesn't make me right Mac but I feel I got this one nailed down. As of this moment I believe the sooner we move on from him the sooner will get better.

Hue in this instance I believe let his ego make him believe he could get RG3 on the right track, I disagree with Hue on this one, but will see...

grimm...can you list all the NFL franchises that have GM WITHOUT a background in football...how many are there?



I looked up Dick Cass job title and responsibilities as the Ravens president. He has no background in picking football talent and has no GM experience.

Dick Cass is a businessman, sports executive, attorney, and a consultant...much like Sashi.

Most of us Browns fans know exactly who is responsible for picking the football talent for the Ravens...GM Ozzie Newsome.

The Browns have already experienced the ability of this makeshift GM duo Haslam hired. They wouldn't know a franchise QB if they were looking right at him.

This front office needs to add someone with a strong background in football.

What is a football background?

Hue Jackson on Browns' woes: 'I'm not blinking'


If there's reason to panic in Cleveland, don't ask Hue Jackson to lead the parade.

The Browns coach on Thursday dismissed suggestions the sky is falling all over again, telling reporters the early season cavalcade of injuries are just part of the game.

"I'm not blinking ... I'm never going to do that," Jackson said, adding: "This organization depends on me having a positive outlook ... I've seen this before."

The Browns have been lashed by injuries, losing two starting quarterbacks in Robert Griffin III and Josh McCown before dazzling rookie receiver Corey Coleman broke his hand during Wednesday's practice. Promising third-round pass rusher Carl Nassib also broke his hand in Sunday's loss to the Ravens.

It's easy for fans to wonder if hell is being unleashed on the team all over again -- the first two weeks of the season have been ridiculous -- but Jackson's approach is exactly what the club needs.

If your coach loses his cool, players will follow. Jackson has inherited a team with plenty of holes and issues -- amid an ongoing battle with the seemingly irate football gods -- but he's been as advertised so far.

His approach should give Cleveland at least one thing to smile about heading into Sunday's showdown with the Dolphins.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ign=Twitter_atn

They all have football backgrounds, including the Browns. As far as not having a scouting background, Loomis of the Saints appears to have been on the finance side, Jerry Jones was never a scout as far as I know, Howie Roseman started on the business side.

Technically, the Browns don't even have a GM.

Here are the "official" titles from the Browns website.

Sashi Brown Executive Vice President, Football Operations
Paul DePodesta Chief Strategy Officer
Andrew Berry Vice President, Player Personnel
Ken Kovash Vice President, Player Personnel

We're trying a different set up. It's early. We'll see how it works.

It's only sustainable as long as Haslam allows it. He certainly can't blow it up after one year, or even two without looking like a complete moron.

It's possible the FO can grow and can make a decent decision regarding a QB in the coming draft. But if they pull this same, "We don't see him as a top 20 QB, we're trading down to gather picks" B.S. next year, that'll be tantamount to signing their resignation papers. Then, they're going to need to use a few high round picks getting the OL shored up, adding a playmaker, and getting major help in the secondary.

In other words, with all the picks they have, they'll need to put a franchise QB in place, make sure he's protected, has some weapons, shore up the defense, and show progress on the field. Or we're probably looking at another rebuild in 2018. If they'd been smart enough to retain Schwartz and draft Wentz, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the greatest issue facing them would already be addressed and one of the secondary issues wouldn't be nearly as urgent.

Now if they take Watson, Kizer or whoever and they flame out, they're going to look doubly stupid for passing on Wentz and we'll be sitting here pounding our heads against the rocks once again. It's ridiculously difficult to look down the road and see anything resembling promise or potential with the mess they've created, but they have about a year to get it right. So we'll see.

Cal, you should know Schwartz has sucked in Kansas City and Chief fans want him benched.

I'd like to see a link for that information.

For 4 years it seemed over 90% of the posts on this board concerning Schwartz referred to how bad he played, how disappointing he was, how he needed to be replaced. I would be shocked if less than 90% of the posts on Schwartz weren't negative. Then, after last season, everything changed once we didn't re-sign him. He suddenly became Larry Allen.

Its like the pretend thing with Alex Mack. After we drafted him the very first thing I remember about the guy was his whining about coming to Cleveland and how, after all, he was a "California" guy and we shouldn't expect him to re-sign here. It was a consistent grooming, one of him being too good for us and we just needed to accept it. Years of listening and reading this crap, but having a select group of guys defending him. He then sets us up for failure with the contract he and his agent devise with the Jaguars. He makes tens of millions of dollars, playing center, off of having a couple good years, mixed in with a some real time off, and has apologists on this board defending every BS move he makes, every BS thing that came out of his piehole. They still do.

The only beef I have with the front office concerning Schwartz and Mack is that they could have easily picked up Ryan Kelly or Nick Martin in the last draft and chose to stick with someone who many people had grave concerns about.

One of the two guys we drafted will help us forget about Schwartz quick. Possibly the biggest reason for me to root for Cameron Erving to develop is so I never have to read or hear about Alex Mack again.

Our offensive line sucks? Hey, our offensive line really sucked last year. Really sucked.

Schwartz and Mack, possibly the two most overrated offensive linemen in NFL history.

ChiefsPlanet Message Board

edit: found a couple of others but they are probably NSFW

Welcome to Cleveland Hue...I hope you are tough enough to endure these minor disappointments.

I'm hopeful that you will be "the one" to take control over this franchise and turn it around.

Savage was a scouting guy.


He sucked. Should have kept John Collins.

Most of the posts on that link were defending Schwartz because he was facing JJ Watt.

Wasn't that the main reason he and his agent thought he deserved $10,000,000 was because he could block the Van Millers and Watts of the league?

Exactly. When you seek the big bucks, you are expected to play like a big boy.

But the whole premise of the thread was what's wrong with him.

Click these at your own risk (questionable language-text) :

Post #9

Post #204

I was more showing that the sentiment is there amongst some Chiefs' fans than saying I agreed with it.

Schwartz got face raped most of the day. On one play Watt faked outside, went inside, and took his left (supposedly weak) arm and shoved Schwartz to the ground.

With one arm shoved a ****ing grown assed man, a "top 5 NFL RT" at that, to the dirt...

thanks for the link...yup not sorry he is gone.

It's the "Harvard Boys" fault he's playing poorly in KC!
Jimmy was up to something here.

Bernie Kosar!


Couldn't hurt!

Why not dream! ( I mean, if anyone is going to have no doubts about their motivations for the teams success, why not go with a guy, who has a history of the Browns being relevant.)

I didn't like the fact that both Schwartz and Benjamin has their best year in a contract year. Lol at them calling him Top 5, got to perform more than one great year to be ranked that high.

Face it, any owner in the nfl can name whomever they want to run and build their team.

Not every owner has the same goal or priorities for their franchise. All owners say they want to build a winning franchise..but when we see the type of people hired and exam their background, it says something about the priorities of the owner.

Of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2015, everyone of those franchises had a GM who came from a "football" background.

...said another way, 100% of the 2015 playoff teams built their winning franchise with the help of a General Manager who had years of experience playing, coaching, scouting and some with years as an understudy football executive.

I think it's fair to question what Jimmy Haslam is trying to build in Cleveland with a Harvard lawyer and another Harvard guy who made "moneyball" famous. Famous for building a baseball team on the cheap.

It's fair to question the judgement of management when they pass on a potential franchise QB...

Quote:

Well, according to Browns chief strategy officer Paul DePodesta (the guy Jonah Hill played in "Moneyball,") the team did not think Wentz has what it takes to be a top-20 quarterback in the NFL. And if there's one thing the Browns are really good at, it's evaluating quarterback talent.
"Even though you have a desperate need for one, you have to resist the temptation of taking that guy just because you have a need if you don't believe he's one of those 20 guys at the end of the day," DePodesta told Tony Grossi of WKNR-850 AM. "I think that's the hardest part, just maintaining your discipline because you have the need. That's what we did this year."


Read more: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/spor...l#ixzz4L5c6ulxr
Follow us: @nbcphiladelphia on Twitter | NBCPhiladelphia on Facebook

IMO, questioning the ability of the Browns front office to judge football talent, deserves to be questioned, based on their actions since taking over in January.

Is tanking a good organizational strategy or a cop-out? -- Bud vs. Doug




Is there anything really wrong with "tanking?"

By Bud Shaw, cleveland.com
updated September 23, 2016 at 11:24 AM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Here at cleveland.com we're unveiling something never yet attempted in the sports world -- sportswriters arguing on video.

We're calling it Prepare for List Off.

This bold new venture will come to you in easily digestible bits throughout the week, as cleveland.com columnists Bud Shaw and Doug Lesmerises each provide quick lists on a given topic, then explain why the other guy has it wrong.

This format may seem off-putting at first. Sports is typically a place reserved for long, serious discussions of important matters, the debate filled with nuance and respect for differing opinions.

But give us a chance.

Then tell us who got it right.

Our topic today is tanking -- teams setting themselves up for failure to better position themselves in the draft. Bud thinks it's a cop-out. Doug loves the idea.

We'll get better as we go. It can be difficult to blaze a new trail like this in an industry.

Watch the video, see whose list you like more, then come back and vote.

Want vote?...click this link and scroll down... vote

lol Mac is a pitbull on this topic.

Post deleted by Damanshot

Was Elway ever a scout? Yes, he watched film of opposing teams as a player, but I don't think he really evaluated individual players at every position the way a scout does.

Did they actually judge the talent or did they look at the scouting reports? They may have standardized some of the methodology and adopted a more numeric ranking system, but I think it is still the scouts who are "grading" the players. The may have shuffled things a little bit based upon positional value and team needs, but I don't think they were the ones saying who was good at what.

Honestly I think they did pretty well on "judging" talent. So far, the players we picked look like they belong in the league, and they could potentially be impact players. You could argue against Kessler, but he was always a developmental QB. You don't expect a franchise QB in the late 3rd round.

Maybe the scouts had Coleman with a higher score than Wentz. I liked Wentz, but a lot of my interest was projection based and off of items that are more subjective than objective.

Also, there is the fact that they work for an owner that is known to have a somewhat itchy trigger finger. Would you have wanted to hitch your wagon to an FCS QB with the team we'd have had around him? A guy who played on an FCS team which rolled along fine without him. His production as a passer didn't scream superstar. There was a lot to like with Wentz, but if you take a QB at 2 you are pretty much counting on instant greatness. How he'd handle the increase in speed was a real question mark. The Eagles expected to sit him, but he surprised them.

We already had a project QB in RG3, and he didn't need the pressure of a fan base yelling for the "future franchise QB." Did it blow up in our face? It looks that way a bit, but it's early and you can't really project injuries. Hue tried to instill in RG3 the need to stay healthy all offseason, but things happen.

That is a complete fabrication and not one person challenged it. Instead, they use posters from another board as sources for proving Schwartz stinks.

The reason nobody challenged it is because it is true.. People on here were banging on Schwartz as not being ready to start in the NFL....

No, 90% of the posts on this board did not reflect that position. Most people were very supportive of the guy.

And his high ranking came from PFF and not from people making it up.

It was definitely an exaggeration. (90%, etc.)

I provided links because someone asked for links. *shrug*

What was this thread supposed to be about? Who made the subject Brady's suspension nullified? (I'm not looking at you, Vers)

He also had these two gems in his post:



So again............it's okay if people make preposterous claims as long as it sheds a positive light on the Browns. However, point out a reasonable concern and expect to get bashed by multiple posters.

This board lacks objectivity.

So your complaint is that it wasn't 90%? Ok,, what was it.

Anyway, it did happen. Without a doubt it did happen a lot.

Perhaps not 90%... so when you say it was a complete exaggeration, you were,,,,,, exaggerating.

What are you talking about? I didn't say that.

I said his post was untrue and that no one called him on it.

Grimm...so you are down to questioning the qualifications of the GM of the SUPER BOWL winning team...we are making some headway, I guess.

Elway played for 16 yrs at the highest level leaving the game as a player in 1998. After leaving the NFL he became a Co-Owner of an Arena Football franchise for 5 yrs before being named the GM of the Broncos.

I believe 16 yrs as a player and 6 more years as the CEO, Co Owner of an Arena Football team qualified Elway as one of the 12 GMs in last season's playoff teams.

My comment about ALL OF THE TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFFS LAST SEASON was...

Quote:

Of the 12 teams that made the playoffs in 2015, everyone of those franchises had a GM who came from a "football" background.

Then I went on to say...

Quote:

..said another way, 100% of the 2015 playoff teams built their winning franchise with the help of a General Manager who had years of experience playing, coaching, scouting and some with years as an understudy football executive.

Grimm, ALL OF THEM...100% of the teams in the playofss last season, CAME FROM A FOOTBALL BACKGROUND.




grimm...the good news is, all of you folks that are in love with these Harvard Boys are down to ridiculous excuses such as the one above.

At least you seem to be admitting that the OFFENSIVE LINE the Harvard put together was very poor. Yes, the Harvard Boys sucked at judging OLine talent, also.

You used the word "and" rather than "or" which led me to believe you thought they all had scouting experience. I'm not questioning Elway and the job he's done, just his "background." In my earlier post, I specified that watching film as a player and as a scout is somewhat different.

Do you know what else was true of those teams in the playoffs? None of those teams were as bad as the Browns when the GMs got there.

The Lions may have been close, but none of them had the dumpster fire we have.

Most of them were not implementing new systems and coaching staffs.

Can we give the FO some time before we break out the pitchforks and torches?

This draft class looks better than the ones we got from "football guy" Ray Farmer.

Your background means very little, it matters how you do the job. Football guys fail as GMs.

I'm not in love with the "Harvard boys," but I haven't gotten to know them yet. They've had one offseason with a bunch of new faces and trying to implement a bunch of new processes. To me, it makes sense to see how things are working before making a huge investment in a QB. Sashi doesn't have a scouting background, and probably doesn't know if any of the actual scouts are good at evaluating QBs. If they are the ones who led us to draft Weeden, Manziel, etc., it would make me pause.

Our top OL pick is recovering from surgery. He could be a good player. They wanted to keep Mack and Schwartz at the right price. How does any of that say they can't evaluate OL? They didn't get them re-signed, but that doesn't mean they didn't know the caliber of players they were.

The O-Line actually hasn't played super bad. They've looked bad on individual plays, but when the other team sends an overload blitz the QB has to get it to the open man quick.

RG3 got hurt on a scramble.

I'm guessing McCown got hurt on a blitz. I like a lot about McCown, but he's not the quickest processor of information on the field.

Can our OL improve? Definitely. How do they get better? By working together, both the lineman with each other, and the line with the QB. Then there is the QB and WRs seeing things the same way which also takes reps and helps get the ball out quicker. Plus, the OL and the RBs have to get used to each other.

Malcolm Johnson looked terrible last year, but has made some nice blocks this year. Players can get better with time and reps.

What are the odds that this crap thread gets restarted for the 50th time after it's been locked?

Watched the game...but I can't stop thinking about the ability of Depodesta and Sashi Brown to judge football talent.

ANYONE CAN PLAY RT, right?...ANYONE!

After letting Mitchell Schwartz walk away in free agency on March 9, 2016, pulling the offer they had previously made to Schwartz...Sashi and Depodesta offered Austin Pasztor a one year contract on March 22, 2016.

Pasztor performance against the Dolphins exposed not only Pastor's ability but also the ability of the Browns front office to judge offensive line talent.
BTW, Bleacher Report ranked the top 35 RTs after the 2013 season...Pasztor just missed being ranked as the worst RT in 2013, ranking 34th.


Dak Prescott played yesterday, again exposing the judgement of the Browns front office to judge talent at QB, with Sashi Brown and Depodesta passing over Prescott and taking Cody Kessler in the 3rd round.

Also, Carson Wentz, the franchise QB of the Eagles who Sashi Brown and Paul Depodesta traded away, had another good game, leading his Eagles to their 3rd straight win, this time over the Pittsburgh Steelers...there goes that often used excuse some Browns fans rely on to defend the Harvard Boys, "Wentz hasn't played against top talent yet"...Wentz was deemed by Paul Depodesta as not top 20 talent among QBs.

These are some of the judgements made by the Browns analytics Harvard Boys in their short time running the show for the famous Jimmy Haslam.

There is more to this story..it goes on to talk about the kicking problems and mentions Phil Dawson

Cleveland Browns Scribbles: Problems at right tackle, kicker -- Terry Pluto (photos)

By Terry Pluto, ThE Plain Dealer
link
updated September 26, 2016 at 6:08 AM


MIAMI, Florida -- Scribbles in my Cleveland Browns notebook after their 30-24 overtime loss to Miami.

1. The one free agent the Browns allowed to walk away who has hurt the team the most is right tackle Mitchell Schwartz. Pro Bowl center Alex Mack had no intention of returning, but Schwartz was open to re-signing with the Browns. It never happened, as he went to Kansas City.

2. I bring this up because Austin Pasztor had one of the worst games by an offensive lineman -- ever. That's not a big stretch. Pasztor was flagged for three holding penalties. That's right, THREE. And he was flagged for two false starts. If you're counting, you need all five fingers to keep track of Pasztor's penalties.

3. Pasztor's five penalties cost the Browns 65 yards. He also allowed at least one sack. Several times, his man pressured quarterback Cody Kessler. I'm astounded the Browns stayed with Pasztor for the entire game. I'm not going to dwell on losing Schwartz. But I do think it's time for someone else to play right tackle, perhaps rookie Spencer Drango.

4. Heading into Sunday's loss, Profootballfocus.com rated Pastzor No. 64 out of 68 regular NFL tackles. You can say it's subjective, but Pastzor had a very rough game against Philadelphia. He allowed a sack and six QB pressures against the Eagles, according to Profootballfocus. They gave him "a clean sheet" in the game against Baltimore.

5. My thought is when a player is obviously having a terrible game on the offensive line, why not take him out? They do at other positions, including the defensive line. Pasztor's confidence was shot trying to block the quicker Dolphins -- and he made it worse with all the penalties.

has anyone seen how Schwartz has played thus far? I genuinely haven't noticed. Can't be much worse than our RT lol

So mac, are you ok with taking the blame away from the new FO re: Alex Mack knowing this? I mean if Terry wrote it, it's gotta be true, right?

Well that's a fresh new take. Maybe if you'd said it like that before, I might have been able to relate more.

memp...I've been very consistent on Alex Mack...once he opted out, WHAT DID THE FRONT OFFICE DO TO RETAIN MACK?

Unless you can find an offer from Sashi and Depo after Mack opted out on March 2nd, the Browns didn't try to keep Mack after he opted out.

Alex Mack Opts Out of Contract With Cleveland Browns

By Chris Pokorny @DawgsByNature Mar 2, 2016, 2:05p

Alex Mack has officially opted out of his contract with the Cleveland Browns, as first reported by Mike Garafolo of FOX Sports:

Mike Garafolo &#10004;@MikeGarafolo
Browns C Alex Mack has voided the final 3 years of his deal, source says. Will be a free agent next week but return to CLE still possible.
12:41 PM - 2 Mar 2016

Mack had until March 4th to make a decision, but ended up doing so two days early. Why? Garafolo says it is so the team could not use a franchise or transition tag on him again -- the deadline in doing that passed at 4 PM ET on March 1st. As for why he's opting out on March 2nd instead of March 4th, if he's seeking the most lucrative offer possible, it makes sense to give the rest of the NFL a couple more days to include Mack in their free agency plans.

Despite opting out, Garafolo and others -- including ESPN's Adam Schefter -- are hearing that Mack could very well still return to Cleveland if they are willing to pay up to make him the highest-paid center in the NFL:

Adam Schefter &#10004;@AdamSchefter
Alex Mack had 3 years, $24M remaining on deal and could once again become NFL's highest paid C. Return to Cleveland still "very possible."
12:46 PM - 2 Mar 2016

It makes sense for Mack to opt out because he only had $8 million guaranteed over the final three years of his deal. That means that a serious injury in 2016 could've cost him a ton of money in the long haul. Now, with a new deal in Cleveland or somewhere else, he'll get that financial security long-term again. If he's trying to beat deals that recent centers got, he might be seeking up to a 5-year, $50 million deal with half of it guaranteed.

Mack cannot sign a new deal until free agency begins on March 9th at 4 PM ET, when the new league year begins. He and the Browns can still work toward agreeing to terms on a new deal in the mean time, while other teams can begin negotiating with his agent on March 7th.
link

memp...while Mack and his agent left the door open for a return to Cleveland, the Browns would need to make Mack a better offer than what remained on the contract he opted out of.

Per year money and guaranteed money were factors...two areas the Browns had to compete in if they wanted Mack to stay...

I'm not aware of any offer the Browns might have made to Mack once he opted out and other teams could bid for Mack's services.

What would the Browns look like had they drafted Wentz and retained Mack and Schwartz?...or at the least, retained Schwartz?

This team, as bad as they have been, should have 2 wins in their 3 games.

Good lord, just found this...maybe some of you will feel better about admitting that the analytics boys screwed up bigtime, passing on Wentz...

this from twitter...

Quote:

Joe Banner &#10004;@JoeBanner13
only 3 games, but the Rams & Browns passing on Wentz has chance to be a historic error. Looks better than any rookie in yrs at similar point
8:02 PM - 25 Sep 2016

link

Not well but I'd take him over what we have.

They aren't coming back, guys. Jeez.

Take note of the paragraph in RED, toward the bottom of this story.



Cleveland Browns take steps forward in loss and Cody Kessler is 'conservative, unremarkable' in debut: National Perspective


By Chris Fedor, cleveland.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on September 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, updated September 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM
link


CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The wounded Cleveland Browns had a chance to win late in the game for the second straight week. And yet, they found a way to lose once again.

This time, it wasn't a questionable penalty or an interception that derailed their chances. It was their kicker, as recently-signed Cody Parkey missed the game-winner, sending the contest into overtime where the Browns' lost to the struggling Miami Dolphins, 30-24.

Here is a gathering of thoughts on the Browns from national writers and analysts:

CBS Sports hands out grades for every Week 3 game and despite a third consecutive loss, the Browns and rookie quarterback Cody Kessler fare pretty well.

"If the Browns were going to lose on Sunday, most people thought it would be because Cody Kessler threw seven interceptions. After all, the rookie quarterback was making the first start of his career. That didn't happen though. There was no meltdown from Kessler, who actually played well in Miami. The rookie quarterback went 21 of 33 for 244 yards and didn't turn the ball over at all during the game.

What Kessler did do though, was give the Browns a chance to win. With the Browns trailing 24-13 in the fourth quarter, Kessler engineered an 11-point comeback with two impressive drives in the fourth quarter that both went over 70 yards.

Hue Jackson is probably never going to attempt a field goal ever again after what happened to his team in Miami. Also, don't be surprised if Terrelle Pryor plays every single position on the field next week because apparently, he's good at everything. Grade: B-"

According to Pro Football Focus, Pryor (85.7 grade) deserves a game ball for his jack-of-all-trades performance while building on the preseason hype.

Tight end Gary Barnidge (81.7), left tackle Joe Thomas (80.2), left guard Joel Bitonio (77.0) and running back Isaiah Crowell (76.1) round out the site's five best offensive players from yesterday.

But how about Kessler's debut? It was "conservative and unremarkable but might be just what Browns need."

"While the Browns would substitute Terrelle Pryor in on several drives, Kessler wound up taking 36 dropbacks for a franchise reeling from the loss of its primary and secondary options. Kessler completed 16-of-20 aimed passes under 10 yards and, surprisingly, completed five-of-seven beyond 10 yards. The rookie quarterback from USC would top all quarterbacks from the 1 p.m. games with an adjusted completion percentage of 81.8 percent. With Josh McCown unlikely to play in Week 4 at Washington, Kessler could begin to solidify his job leading the Cleveland offense with another solid showing. Grade: 65.6."

Don Banks, formerly of Sports Illustrated, is contributing to NFL.com, writing his customary "Snap Judgments" about the league, including a snippet about the Browns' loss.

"The injury-decimated Browns played with a lot of pluck, climbing out of a 24-13 fourth-quarter deficit, but alas, it was another physical setback that helped produce this loss. Parkey missed three field goals, after being signed on Saturday to replace the injured Patrick Murray, who hurt himself in Friday's walk-through practice.

All you need to know about the Browns so far in 2016 was summed up wordlessly in that shot of both Josh McCown and Robert Griffin III standing on the Cleveland sideline on Sunday, with their left arms in matching black slings. A stylized version of that image should probably be the team's new logo."

Monday Morning Quarterback's Peter King doesn't pen much about the Browns. He has a nugget about Bill Belichick's place in NFL history, ranking second after Paul Brown.

King also calls Parkey the "Special Teams Goat of the Week" after his trio of missed field goals.

The other time the Browns are mentioned by King? When he praises the hot start of Philadelphia quarterback Carson Wentz. That's the telling view of Cleveland through three weeks.

"This has been an absurd ride so far. Wentz and the Eagles 34, Big Ben and the Steelers 3. The guy who was supposed to redshirt this season, the guy who wouldn't be playing right now if Teddy Bridgewater hadn't suffered a freak injury last month, 1,170 miles away, the guy who has every downtrodden fan in Cleveland vomiting (again) this morning because the Browns gave away the chance to draft him ... that guy is 3-0, with the wins coming by 19, 15 and 31 points, and just when is construction beginning on that statue, Sal?

Six months ago this week the Eagles locked onto Wentz. They told no one. But they spent a day and a half in Fargo at North Dakota State—on the practice field, in the classroom (for three hours) and out to dinner—and Philly's staid offensive coordinator, Frank Reich, was reaching for the right word after Sunday's game about that 36 hours studying Wentz."

ESPN's Pat McManamon believes the Browns took steps forward in the loss against the Dolphins.


Armando Salguero spoke about the Browns' kicking situation. He talks about how Parkey wasn't everyone's first choice and how the decision to take the cheap route cost the team.

"True story: After the game, league sources said Browns special teams coach Chris Tabor wanted his team to sign free agent kicker Robbie Gould on Friday when Cleveland's first-string kicker Patrick Murray sustained a knee injury. But Browns management decided Gould is too expensive and so they went with Parkey — who practically single-handedly lost the game for them."

swoosh...you completely miss the point...who is responsible for making these decisions?

Decisions that are costing the team WINS.

My major concern...going forward, I don't want these Harvard Boys in charge of Personnel, based on their performance so far.

BTW, as I have attempted to point out, dollars appear to be what drives many of the decisions the analytics boys make.

WHAT WILL "CHEAP" GET YOU?....it will get you the worst run franchise in the NFL.

Oh I agree with the cheap part bro.

But other than Schwartz, those other guys were gonna walk no matter what we offered them.

And reading the KC board, Schwartz isn't exactly giving these guys warm and fuzzies either.

His 5 penalties were not good, admittedly. However, we had 430 net yards of offense yesterday, and to imply that Pasztor, and the Oline in general, is poor, is simply ignoring their contribution to that total...

swish...if your front office is being run by the MONEYBALL GUY...how to build a baseball team ON THE CHEAP...why do people believe Haslam hired him?

I believe Haslam is not near as "well off" as people think and Haslam is facing some serious issues looking ahead...both financially and legally.

If Money Ball was about building a baseball team on the cheap...why do folks believe Haslam hired Depodesta?

It's not even a whole year bro. Just give it time.

It is mac's fault that we lost Schwartz and Mack.

My wife's hairdresser's paperboy knows them and said that they read this board.

They were both set to re-sign here but read what mac said about Haslam and the Harvard boys and thought twice.

Mack left after not getting Sashi to promise to hire more guys from Princeton or Cornell.

Schwartz asked Hue Jackson if we were ready for prime time and he said no, Deon Sanders retired.

Benjamin wanted us to change our uniforms to black and gold so we would be more like the Steelers and that would lead to wins.

Gipson wanted Haslam to invest in a time machine and go back in time to make that trade with Ditka. Haslam said that he couldn't do that but he could offer him rebates on gasoline at his nearest Pilot Flying J station.

Sashi had a plan and it would have worked too if it wasn't for mac and those meddling kids.

How in the hell is he rated so high?

shut up banner ... he revels in our misery

WHAT IS A "WIN" WORTH TO THOSE RUNNING THE BROWNS?

Did Browns’ Moneyball guys nix plan to sign Robbie Gould?

Posted by Michael David Smith on September 26, 2016, 10:43 AM EDT
link


On Friday, the Browns lost kicker Patrick Murray to a knee injury suffered in practice. On Sunday, the Browns lost in overtime after replacement kicker Cody Parkey missed three field goals, one of which would have won the game as time expired in the fourth quarter.

That raised questions about why the Browns chose Parkey over Robbie Gould, a free agent who has a good track record of kicking well for the Bears. And according to the Miami Herald, Gould is the kicker that Browns special teams coach Chris Tabor wanted to sign — except that the front office nixed the plan, saying Gould would cost more than Parkey. Gould has played 11 NFL seasons and Parkey is in his third, which means the minimum salary to sign Gould would be about half a million dollars more than the Browns are paying Parkey.

Cap space isn’t really an issue for the Browns right now, as they lead the league with $48 million available. Still, the Browns have made no secret that their front office will take a Moneyball approach, and they may see kickers as largely interchangeable and not worth a lot of money. (The Browns also made a move at punter that saved money a few weeks ago, trading away Andy Lee and signing the less expensive Britton Colquitt.)

However, the Browns are pushing back against that report, with a team source insisting to the Akron Beacon Journal that money isn’t the reason they signed Parkey over Gould.

“Money played no role in the decision,” the Browns source said. “It’s ridiculous to think that it would.”

Whatever the reasons that Parkey is the Browns’ kicker, the fact is that he missed field goals of 42, 46 and 41 yards on Sunday. Gould’s track record suggests he probably would have made at least one of those field goals, and if any one of them had been good, the Browns would have won in regulation instead of losing in overtime.

I trust Nate Ulrich over anybody when it comes to the Browns.

cal...68th would be the worst at the position. Pasz was 4 places away from the worst at a ranking of 64th.

But Pasz is cheap!

So is trolling the front office

If you believe that, then you probably believe that Jimmy didn't know anything about his Pilot Flying J rebate scam that just cost Jimmy $92 mill in fines and another $56 mill in settlements.

Believe what you want, but the Browns are being run on the cheap for a reason...and it's not because the owner is loaded with Billions....jmho

I believe I can flyyyyyyyy!

I believe I can touch the sky.

I think about it every night and day.

Spread my wings and fly away.

They are being run on the cheap to specifically torment you and allow these threads to continue even though everything has been rehashed ad nauseam.

The fine is nothing to Haslam. He is worth 3.7 billion - you don't think the NFL checked his finances before letting him buy a team?!? The 148M you mention above is 4% of his net worth, sure it hurts, but it won't break him anytime soon. Dee is worth 1.8 billion as well, I'm sure she'd help in a financial crisis, lol.

Browns source says money played no role in decision to sign K Cody Parkey instead of Robbie Gould


By NATE ULRICH Published: September 26, 2016
link


A Browns source said money wasn't a factor in the franchise's decision to sign Cody Parkey over the weekend instead of fellow kicker Robbie Gould.

The Miami Herald cited NFL sources who said Browns special teams coordinator Chris Tabor wanted his team to sign Gould after Patrick Murray suffered a left knee injury in Friday's walk-through practice, but the front office decided Gould was too expensive and went with Parkey instead.

"Money played no role in the decision," the Browns source said Monday morning. "It's ridiculous to think that it would."

Parkey went 3-of-6 on field goals Sunday in a 30-24 overtime loss to the Miami Dolphins. He missed attempts of 41, 42 and 46 yards. The miss from 46 yards came with no time left in regulation, and the Browns would have won 27-24 if he had made it.

Parkey signed a one-year, $525,000 contract, according to Spotrac.com. Gould would make $985,000 under the minimum salary for veterans with 10 or more credited seasons. Of course, Gould's asking price could be higher than the minimum.

The Browns have $57,309,161 in salary-cap space, according to the NFL Players Association.

The Browns source said the team chose to sign Parkey because he's young and made the Pro Bowl with the Philadelphia Eagles as a rookie in 2014.

The organization's thought was Parkey, if successful, could be a part of its future because he's only 24. Parkey missed most of last season with a groin injury and lost a duel this year in Eagles training camp to Caleb Sturgis.

Gould, 34, was cut by the Chicago Bears on Sept. 4 after spending 11 seasons as their kicker. He made the Pro Bowl in 2006.

Not to mention that the team itself brought in $347M in revenue last year.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/cleveland-browns/

If the Browns made an official statement denying that they went cheap on a field goal kicker...why wouldn't Sashi, Depodesta or someone else with the Browns legitimize the comment by adding their name as the source?

IMO, Haslam has money problems and this new strategy, this new 5 year plan is all about buying time to see if boost his bank account.

Haslam wants as many of the players on a rookie contract and he can claim that he is being handsoff while Depodesta pursues his Moneyball strategy.

Haslam wants Browns fans to believe that going cheap is Depo's idea the idea of going so cheap is not his idea.

So, why go cheap on a kicker and cost your franchise a win in the process?

Most you need to look into the spending that Haslam has been forced to pay...like $300 mill to Lerner that is due any day now.

Also, Haslam still has outstanding lawsuits to deal with...then he has to hope he does not end up in jail.

So you can say, with 100% certainty, that the other kicker would have made the kicks?


OMG!!! I hope he put that in his budget for the year! Those kinds of expenses can really creep up on you.

"The Truth" "The Truth" Some can't handle the truth.

"For four years it seemed"

"It seemed" The reason, as Daman acknowledges, is because most every guy still left, who The Crown Prince of the Thread Hijack has not run off the board, most every guy (90%) "it seemed to me" was probably guilty of being the ones who constantly, consistently trashed Schwartz. But, we will pretend. Its what we do.

I know that Mack apologists will take offense to my post. That's Ok. I realize there are two agendas on this topic. At least you're being consistent.

I will repeat my final point, so I can be "appropriately" challenged on it. "Our offensive line sucked last year." It sucked. Sucked! Sorry if that conflicts with anyone's agenda. At least this year we have runblocked well at times. Last year we were beaten up.

Challenge that!

mac, what is your end goal for this topic? What does it accomplish? So you want to reboot again before this FO has a year?

I have to kind of agree here, the general consensus on the board was that our line stunk last year despite what 'ratings' any websites ranked them at. I mean did we not have QBs get hurt last year?

1. There are conflicting reports on whether they "went cheap" on a kicker.

2. The kicker they did sign had a very good track record before his injury and was cheaper. Wouldn't it make it sense to sign a player that is good and cheaper than the alternative option(s)?

3. Is it possible that the front office just doesn't want to pay any significant amount of money for a kicker because they don't value the position and Haslam had nothing to do with the decision?

I disagree that most thought the line sucked last year. I think people knew what they had in Thomas and Mack and loved what they saw out of Bitonio in his rookie year.

I will say that many, many posters hated on Schwartz during his entire four years here. Partly because it was agenda-based for not liking Heckert and but also because he was compared to Joe Thomas at every turn. He was continuously called the weakest link on the line, which wasn't true and got better each year as a Brown. The only time I thought he struggled (even just a little) was in Norv's offense that had more seven step drops and time needed for deep routes to develop....but that would go for any lineman, really.

I may have overstated it...but there was a decent enough group that complained about the line. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the same ones bitching about this FO not resigning Mack and Schwartz (I didn't and won't keep track of who is bitching about what).

This whole thread feels agenda driven, mac is looking for any sort of reason to find flaws. Its what drives me crazy about this message board, everyone is so quick to declare pass or fail on anything.

Sorry I am not sure how to embed this one, but it is worth clicking.

Mac gets the reports from the game

Post of the year.


....."I'll be a Yinzer."

orlando...the Browns owner is a crook...you do realize that?

When he bought the team in 2012, he claimed it was the beginning of a 5 yr plan. Then 8 months after making his deal with Randy Lerner, Haslam's Pilot Flying J Hqts was raided by the FBI and IRS for rebate fraud.

The Browns owner has been forced to spend millions to settle lawsuits over the money his company stole from Trucking outfits.

During this time many of the Browns best players have been allowed to leave without the Browns trying to sign them to second contracts. Since the money issues with Flying J, Haslam has gone cheap as he could building the team into a winner.

Haslam is simply milking the franchise, going as cheap as he can until he dumps the team and moves on to next billionaire hobby, funding a NASCAR Team. Can't re-sign his players, but he can fund a NASCAR team.

Haslam hopes Browns fans will buy into the moneyball scheme because it gives him cover while Depodesta goes as cheap as he can...the basis for Moneyball...build a baseball team on the cheap.

I want an owner who dedicated to building the Browns into a winner...not someone milking the franchise until he dumps it.

So you don't know what Moneyball is?

"I'm looking to save money. The way I'm going to do that is sink money into building a new team facility and firing coaches and front office people every year (and then paying them not to work for me)."

The headline reads...

Browns deny a report they signed kicker Cody Parkey over Robbie Gould to save money: 'Absolutely ridiculous'

link


It WOULD BE RIDICULOUS, except that is what the Browns front office did...they signed the cheap kicker over the veteran...

...that is called, TELLING THE TRUTH.

The Browns got caught going cheap and now the front office and ole jimmy are peeved. If they find out which coach or player tipped off the media in Miami, that person is as good as fired.

...for telling the truth about the Browns cheap owner...lol

Too late

HAHAHAHHAA

Oh man! That was rich!

Can you show me where that money not spent on the cap goes directly into his bank account? That is possibly the only scenario that would make your post make any sort of sense.