DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Alex Mack: Cleveland Browns going in right direction

Yup. He wanted to hit free agency following his Rookie deal to get the best contract for himself that he could get. The contract he talked the Jags into giving him was the best he could do, but he at least had them build it so that he guaranteed himself the Right to finally get himself a real long-term contract that actually takes care of him.

I still blame Norv Turners offense for making Schwartz look bad.

I'm not saying he's great, but many a Tackle has looked crappy in that offense.

That's a great point. Mack currently has zero guaranteed dollars on his contract.

I don't think it is 100% Mack returns. He is saying he wants to come back, but is it to get some kind of offer from the Browns. Unsure what teams will pony up $8-9 million for a center. I am not saying no one. Not many teams are committing dollars toward the OL. Of the ones who are, how many need a center.

I'm curious how this plays out for Mack. Having Erving makes it less demanding for Cleveland to pay Mack if he opts out. I originally thought Mack had a guaranteed contract next two years. Since he doesn't, Mack might take a pay cut to play elsewhere. It could very well be for a team with a lot less line talent.

I wouldn't count Erving out taking any position other than Joe Thomas's LT. Erving struggled with technique last year. He gets that cleaned up this off season. I think he will surprise a lot of people. He had his issues, but he kept moving. Right or wrong he hit someone each play! Kid has a high motor.

I've read recently a lot of college OL are struggling their first year in the NFL. It is unusual seeing guys coming into the league and do well.

If Mack does stay we should work some packages with Irving in. Maybe put Mack or Schwartz at tight end and see what the defenses do. It'd be interesting either way.

Except he was swinging something more like a pool noodle

Going to be interesting what we do on the OL.

Do we resign Mack and Tag Schwartz? That's alot of fettuccini on the OL.

Do we let Mack and Schwartz walk and go the route of Erving at C with a Garnett from Stanford at RG and go after Smith from Cincy for RT?

If memory serves me correctly, it was said, I think by his agent, that Mack wouldn't look kindly on a franchise tag. So they (the Browns) let him hit the market and he got this contract with the Jags. We only had one option at that point and that was to match it.

It's just my opinion of course, but I think Macks agent and the Browns played a game of Chicken and the Browns (farmer) flinched.

I fully expect Mack to leave unless by some freaky thing, Hue Jackson and of course the dollars can talk him into staying.

If you are referring to Farmer's flinch as giving Mack the tag, you should know he really had no other choice (except for which tag to give him). I mean, I guess he could have tagged Ward instead but then Mack isn't even here and the point is moot. Look, Farmer made some bad moves but he had to react accordingly because Mack wasn't signed the year before, for whatever reason...negotiations didn't go well, Banner didn't want to allocate top $$ to a Center, whatever. That was Banner's fault if you think Mack's is clearly gone.

Conversely, the situation w/ Mitchell Schwartz is just like Mack's in 2013, yet that blame (if you want MS back) is on Farmer. He could have gotten a deal done one year ago, but for whatever reason (I think distance in value was reported) it didn't happen. Now he could fall almost in the same position as Mack in 2014 and get a transition tag and let another team find a poison pill or offer a deal we wont' match.

Yes.

I think the best thing to do is to keep both Mack and Schwartz, although you can't tag Schwartz. The Browns have plenty of cap room and both guys are good players.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. I think he should have used the Franchise tag on him.

Why can't they tag schwartz?

I disagree because we would have surely lost him the following year.

I think we can, but the tag amount is nearly $13mil a year.

Nope, we could have tagged him again.. The cost would be out of bounds, but we could have.

anyway, under the deal we have now, we can lose him and not have the right to match. By that I mean, we can certainly throw out a crazy offer that matches or exceeds any offer out there, but he's under no obligation to accept it.

Not sure about the 13 million number, I'll take your word for it, but I can't think of an alternative that doesn't make my stomach turn.

Yes, the cost would have been 'out of bounds', hence he would have been gone the following year, because we weren't going to pay that cost especially after his injury. So it's either franchise tag him twice (the second being 120% or something like that) or get a deal (via transition)that would have at least been two years. Same amount of time, the latter for less money. No brainer IF I'm understanding correctly the two tags as it relates to Mack.

I think the transition tag was the correct action with Mack, and probably the correct action with Schwartz, although we may not have as much cap space as we did before. I didn't do a comparison between 2014 and 2016.

You are making lots of assumptions there. You don't/can't know what we'd have done in the second year. But him being here, under the tag, we'd have been at least able to talk to him about staying longer. Not sure we could have convinced him (actually I don't believe we could have) but we'd have had a chance at least.

Centers as good as Mack don't grow on trees. I'd do almost anything to keep him.

If it meant paying him through the roof until we find a replacement, then so be it. But there hasn't been an alternative placed in front of me that's better. In fact, nothing even close.

So you keep the good ones. No matter what. At least until you find a replacement.

The can tag Scwartz, but it would be stupid to pay him like a top LT.

Oh, ok, they can tag him, but you feel it's too much dough,, That I understand.., I was thinking there was something in his contract stating they can't.

Right. I didn't word that clearly earlier.

I am making one assumption: that if we franchise tagged Mack once, particularly based on the exponential increase in cost, we probably wouldn't have done it again. I think that is a relatively sound assumption.

Got it,, thanks

Agree that it's the best case scenario. If we can only keep one, I say it's Mack. No hesitation.

If I am choosing anchors to improve, the OL is it. Settle up with these guys. We sure overpaid for defense in bucks and draft picks. Square these guys away.

Then draft for hostility and ability.

Yep ... pay the men and be done with it because we're eyeing QB's at #2. If these guys aren't here we'll be forced to take an OLinemen at #2.

My new favorite quote

heck yeah.

Love it. As long as that hostility isn't in the form of the troubled Noah Spence lol.

We can also work to renegotiate the existing contract while he is still under contract.

A little off topic but depending on the ifs and numbers - imagine how much instant credibility would be given to this new front office if they're able to secure both Mitchell and Alex?

I would be, again depending on the #s, very pleased if that could get done.

We can but it has been widely reported that he plans to opt out. I don't know how the rules work but we are the only team allowed to talk to him at this point until he officially opts out right? So we COULD be getting some information on what he is expecting right?

The rules state that his agent can start negotiating a couple of days before March 9th.

The reality is that his agent probably already has 10 offers.

We can renegotiate the existing contract. We can offer him one dollar to now say his entire contract is guaranteed. We can tell him to pay us one dollar to guarantee his contract for the existing duration. Contract terms are changed all the time. All it takes is for the two side to agree on new terms.

Except he's not actually said a word. SO I wonder what these reports are based on. The guy is totally closed mouthed.. that's one of the reason I like him.

Hopefully, we're doing more than just gathering information.

He hasn't said a word, but his agent can communicate for him through the media.