DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum cont..:.Re: Browns Big Brain front office - not ready for prime time...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-will-continue/


Haslam knows that, until things change, the jokes will continue

Posted by Mike Florio on March 26, 2016, 7:12 PM EDT

Zz1kNGUzY2ZlZjUzYTVlNzgyYmRhNTFmYTI4ZjI4MTFlMQ==
AP

The NFL is the ultimate zero-sum game. For every winner, there’s a loser. For every good team, there’s a bad team.

For most of the past generation, the Browns have been among the bad teams in the NFL. Owner Jimmy Haslam knows that, until this changes, the Browns will be the butt of jokes.

“Until we start winning, people are going to make fun of you,” Haslam said this week at the league meetings in Florida, via Nate Ulrich of the Akron Beacon Journal. “So it’s our job to get the right people in place to hopefully turn this thing around like we all want to see, and we’re cautiously optimistic we’ve done that.”

The right people may be in place behind the scenes. But whether the right players are in place is a different issue, especially with receiver Travis Benjamin, safety Tashaun Gipson, center Alex Mack, and tackle Mitchell Schwartz departing via free agency.

“We all knew they were good players,” chief strategy officer Paul DePodesta said in Florida, via Ulrich. “We want to get to that point where we have enough of a critical mass of our core guys that it makes sense to retain them all. . . . That day, I think we all felt like, this is going to be our hardest day, and if we can get past this, then it’s looking up from here, which is good. I think we’ll be in a position going forward to go retain a lot of those guys.”

Haslam had similar views.

“We had a plan in place, and I think you have to look at those situations individually,” Haslam said. “[They’re] good players who made good contributions to the organization, but we have a plan in place, and we’re not going to panic and knee jerk over things.”

So how long will it take to turn things around?

“I think it’s multiple years,” Haslam said. “On the other hand, we have a very competitive head coach who wants to win every game. But the key theme to take away is that we feel really good about the group we have in place. They’re working together extremely well, and we’re going to be very patient with them and give them time to develop the plan we put together.”

The real question is whether Haslam will have the patience to see the current plan through. It’s easy to commit when the record is 0-0. If/when the losses mount, will Haslam lose faith in his latest new-look front office and coaching staff?

The answer won’t be known unless and until the struggles of past years continue into 2016.

mac, much of what you're saying is true. This constant change does nothing building a football team. Having a great OL wins no doubt, but team overall is a mess.

This team has nothing constant. Successful teams have players retiring with another ready to take his place. We see every season when injuries occur. Second and third talent tier is low rate.

Key question do you continue investing in current players or gut it trying to setup some kind of revolving door system? I believe you can say "yes" to both. There are pros and cons for each.

Biggest issues Browns have it lacks any identity or blue print. We fans have no clue what are the key components. We look elsewhere saying Browns needs this guy to be successful like that team.

I thinks the Harvard guys chose to start with a clean canvas. Again, you can argue for or against if it is the best option. For now, it is the plan. Going this route puts heavy pressure on Haslam to not blowing it up. It will take at least two years to get respectable. Mangini took this approach. We saw Holmgren trying the "add to it" approach. In both cases, it simply needed time which nobody has patience.

Back to your original thought why do we need a strong OL? I'm not saying we don't need. Simply asking having an a strong OL does what to meet what objective?

To the top...

In case you missed it ddub, which I doubt that you did, I said it depends on one's point of view.

You miss understood. Based on what you are seeing the Harvard Boys build, what objective does having a strong OL resolve? Right now I don't know any objective. Hard criticizing their plan if it is unknown. Equally hard understanding what they are doing too.

I don't post often enough, but I am totally in favor having a strong DL and OL. I think you can do a lot with little play makers having those positions fortified. I don't know what the Harvard Boy's objective.

One thing I do know you don't need first/second round talent across the board to be strong. I am a believer in balance. Team end of last year was heavily invested in OL personal. They drafted a first round player with no place to play.

What I didn't approve Cleveland got nothing in return for Mack and Schwartz. Balancing project resulted in lower the quality of the OL. Waiting until the last month resolving contract issues was stupid. Again I have no idea who's call was to wait to sign both. If Farmer, they resolved this issue from reacquiring.

I haven't seen them build anything.

Over 40+ years of studying the game, I've seen how important a strong OL is for run blocking and protecting your QB. Without a strong OL, both will suffer.

But I must ask, what have you see the Harvard boys build?

bugs was actually objective in that post. He addressed both sides of the coin.

Except we're not getting nothing for Mack and Schwartz. We'll get compensatory picks.

Oh brother.........

Pitt, we agree.

I'm simply pointing out it is hard to knock, to a point, these guys until we see something. They let Mack and Schwartz walk. Ok, what is the plan? We don't know. Maybe, debatable, they make it work.

Again, there are a lot of unknowns here. I totally get yours and Vers argument. They are not helping themselves. I'm taking a different path. I'm a wait see. I'm not a negative person. I prefer to see the positive. Right now the Harvard Boys are making it difficult, but I like to see what they got. It's so screwed up anything they do maybe a improvement!

You and I disagreed about blowing it up. You stated it can't get much worse. I was against it stating it will get ugly. So far, I don't think it is as ugly as I thought. For starters, they didn't hire another rookie coach. Actually, hiring Hue gave me an ounce of hope.

Vers, thanks, it was exactly my pont.