DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Browns Front Office...not ready for prime time...

I'm simply basing what I said on the evidence. It's not based on conjecture, opinion or hope.

It's the record of what has been seen to this point. A picture of what has been put in front of us. It's either a lack of patience or a lack of ability to put a FO and/or coaching staff together that achieves success.

I'm not a judge and this isn't a court room. But in our society, to judge a person on their previous record has always been a gauge of how we should temper our expectations moving forward.

Nothing in Halslams' resume as owner of the Browns indicates that he will be able to have the patience or knowledge to achieve success by allowing the new group to gut a lot of talent and achieve success.

Now is that some guarantee that he can't succeed? No it isn't. But we have enough indicators that dictate there's also no reason to have any form of high expectations that he can.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Just sayin'...

lol

It was in one of the articles this of-season, outlining why Mack might stay in Cleveland.

What I can't seem to get past is what as I perceive to be an obvious problem. That we have went through three regimes in five years.

Now I'm not sure which is true but one of these two options seem to be an issue.

1. Haslam has no clue how to put a successful "building" regime in place.

2. He doesn't have the patience to see things through.

IMO #1 is more the issue. He comes from a business that is given a product and all there is to do is market that product. And as such, he has the marketing issue down pat. But he has never actually had to build the product itself.

Now we can slice that and dice that any way you like. However, he came in preaching the "Steeler way" from day 1. So far we've seen nothing that resembles it.

I understand fans wishing to be positive and looking for the silver lining. I understand them looking for answers as to why we've seen all of this dysfunction over the past five years. But looking back at the past five years and the structure of our current FO, the lack of any real football experience from a "building a franchise or football experience side, I only see a continuation of what we've seen thus far. I see no evidence that our beloved Browns are any better off, in fact maybe worse off, then when Haslam bought this team.

That's simply combining what I've seen from his ownership thus far and IMO, based on the lack of experience in this FO, what I see moving forward. That's simply my take and what my opinion is based on everything to date. I believe I have a substantial amount of evidence to base that opinion on.

No.



Who is on first base!

List the major responsibilities of a General Manager and assign each to a current member(s) of the FO. It may become apparent. Don't get hung up on titles, mac...

Who is the Patriots GM?

Mac: Do you really believe that any of the responsibilities normally associated with a GM are being overlooked? Not being performed? I'm positive that all are covered and I could care less whether it's by Sashi, Berry, Sanganey or the homeless guy (although he would perhaps not be ideal). Must we have a traditional "general manager"? As long as the job is getting done and the process flowing smoothly...

Does it REALLY matter if someone has that title...or not? In the Patriot's setup, the GM's responsibilities are assumed by Billy B. Imagine that...it's not even part of the FO.

And that's the ONLY way we compare to the Patriots.

Too bed wee don't have anyone with the qualifications to fill BB's role. Not anywhere.

That is not germane to mac's point. Mac was talking "process"; you are talking "people".

I really wish you would STOP stating your opinions as facts.

People read it. They repeat it. Someone else sees it and it's repeated again. All of a sudden, your opinions are taken as factual.

I despise that you continually deceive people. Please stop!!!

I would say that Berry is doing most of the general duties of a GM. He is controlling the scouting departments and I would assume the scouting of free agents, obviously with the input of others. Then Sashi Brown is performing the "final say" portion of the GM position.

They have been saying all along that Brown is there to get everyone else doing their jobs on the same page, coming to a consensus, and then making a decision from there. I do not believe that he is performing all of the duties of a GM. A lot of that falls on Berry.

I believe there isn't a person with that title at the moment. I believe Sashi Brown has those responsibilities.

Sashi Brown is performing the duties of GM for the browns..

But your attempt at making it sound worse than it is is pretty good...

Anyone else feel like it is groundhog's day in this thread? I've felt multiple times in the past week or two that I've read the "new" posts before. I mean the arguments, the sarcasm, everything.

I would "suggest" that it may be one of (or a combination of, to a lesser or greater degree) Brown, Berry, or Saganey.

As I said before, you can slice it and dice it any way you wish. We've had Banner, Farmer and now whoever you wish to guess is actually in charge.

You had Chud, Pettine and now Hue.

This is all within a span of five years.

This is the third turnover in coaching and FO's.

Now if you don't see a trend here, I'm not sure what you're missing.

As I stated earlier, if it's not a matter of impatience, then it has been the lack of ability to hire the right people. What that leaves us with is that there has been zero evidence to date that can support that Haslam has any clue of how to hire the right people to build an NFL franchise.

Now that doesn't mean he can't change that, but I'm not going to just trust some great feelings or belief before seeing some kind of evidence to the contrary.

First, I want to make perfectly clear that this post is my own conjecture. Although I don't say, "In my opinion...", before each sentence it must be understood that all of this is just my own opinion, my view. There are a few indisputable facts sprinkled throughout but those are not the focus or even the evidence for my opinion. They are mostly just the accidential, chronological order of a few things, not intended as any basis.

I think the point, and I'm not saying you don't get it, is that Banner's fingerprints have been on every HC/FO situation until the firing of Pettine/Farmer.

Banner initially came in with Haslem recommended by well intentioned people trying to help. For whatever reasons that eventually culminated in Banner's firing. This then, currently, is the first time there has been a blow-up/re-boot/hiring that Banner has not been a part of.

So in that regard these are Haslem's first firings without Banner playing an integral role in it, (except for the actual firing of Banner himself, which still left Banner's hires intact). Also, this new regime is the first hirings without Banner's influence.

So for the first time since his ownership Haslem has made the decisions on his own, as the owner. Just like we can't lay the blame on the current FO for the mistakes of the past FO, neither can we string together the actions of the "Banner Era" and contribute them all to Haslem's doing. Yes, ultimately the responsibility falls to the owner but those responsibilities were being initiated and carried out by someone else. With Haslem's agreement? Probably. What does he know? He's not Jerry Jones.

In any company many times the owner is the one who must explain the mistakes of and take the responsibility for people who work for him. Haslem has eaten that.

In this case, other than agreeing to take on Banner by recommendation from others in the first place, all actions forward of that were not Haslem calls. Just as I'm certain he took part in those discussions I'm also certain he deferred to the football mind of the Banner Era for making tough, football decisions. Firing Banner was the first real Haslem call. Firing his hires of Pettine/Farmer was another.

This time it is all Haslem. Not the Haslem who hired and fired Shurmur, not the Haslem who hired and fired Chud, who hired and fired Norv, who hired and fired Horton, who hired Lombardi, who hired Farmer, who hired Pettine. All those things that now constitute a "trend" were driven by someone else.

By firing Pettine/Farmer Haslem has eliminated the final remnants of the Banner Era.

It is now completely on Haslem, effectively with no track record other than, as the owner, being responsible for everything that has preceded this. He can't duck the responsibility, but neither can he take credit for every move, every football decision that was made since he bought the team.

In that regard this is not the "same ole, same ole" Haslem. The blow up and rebuild of the HC/FO is the same ole, but the previous editions of same ole were initiated, controlled and driven by someone else.

And regarding "same ole", this is not that either. This is not someone who confidently thinks he knows how to hire a HC, making a list of people he knows and trying to get interviews with them. Haslem went beyond himself and hired professional head-hunters to help him find candidates who has the qualities required of successful HCs. With the desired help from others in the organization he made a hire. His first coach hire without Banner. To me that is significant as well as a deviation from everything leading up to this.

I don't bring Banner into this as a negative force. I don't being him into it at all. He was in it. He played his part. He did his things. He did some great things. He did some questionable things. But this is not about Banner. It's about during Haslem's ownership, in these years beginning on Oct. 25, 2012, this is the first time Haslem has not had Banner or any of his hires in the organization. That's it. That's the reason I mention Banner so often. Either he or his influence has been a part of this all along until now.

And that is the point I made in my first paragraph. This is Haslem's first attempt on his own. Nothing anyone else did is necessarily tied to him anymore.

He is on the clock.

Well, let's see, they've all been on the job for around 90 days or less in their current roles (I'm speaking of Brown, DePodesta, Berry and Jackson).

I'm not sure if this whole set up will work. Not at all convinced. But I'm open to trying anything at this point. Nothing and I mean NOTHING else that two different owners (Lerners and Haslam) has tried has produced a sustainable team on and off the field. Sustainable being the key word. What the heck good is a one year wonder?

There are basically two ways to look at things.

1. They've failed and they will never succeed so Haslam should do what the Lerner family did and sell the team.

2. Haslam doesn't strike me as a quitter, So the other Option for Haslem is to take the approach that "if at first you don't succeed, Try Try again"!

Taking option #1 doesn't guarantee that the next owner will have any more success than the last two owners did. (last three if you count Modell).

And if option #2 is the choice (and it's what we have and we can't change) Then which would you want, Haslam to keep wallering in the basement, or try ANYTHING to climb out.

For me, I'll take Option 2 and ask that since he's trying something fairly new, give it time. Let's see what happens.

I'm almost 100% sure we're going to be a horrible team for at least 1, but maybe even 2 more years. Although I would hope we'd see some improvement in year 2.

The final decision on every hire has been Haslams. Either he himself or one of his proxy's with his approval. The saying the buck stops here begins and ends with Haslam.

I believe you are trying to sidestep the fact that Haslam made the decision to hire Banner and okayed every move Banner enacted.

Haslam made the decision to promote Farmer, who was not Banner. I don't see a logical conclusion coming to the opinion that the owner, who approved all of this, can be switched to the man he himself hired and shared in the decision making all along.

It's a nice story and is a good way to try and circumvent reality, but IMO, holds zero merit. You can't put the blame on Banner by trying to absolve the person who put him in charge and agreed with.

I just can't find a logical way to share you opinion ddub.

Wasn't Banner's hire a condition of Haslam's purchase? I remember hearing that at the time.

Either way, saying that the owner is culpable for his manager's poor performance, or worse systemic dysfunction is disingenuous at best. That's like saying that you're the reason for the breaks going out on your car because you choose the dealership you bought it from. Yes, your insurance will be paying the bill but no one can truly say that you're at fault.

I don't know how I feel about Haslam in the final analysis but I believe that these are his first hires without outside influence.

I don't remember Banner being hired as a condition of ownership. I can't imagine anyone telling an owner who to hire. Although I suppose it's possible.

I just feel as if he's trying. Note I didn't say succeeding, just trying.

Nothing else was working so what the heck.. Go for it!

And I know you SO want to.

I don't have time to really dig into it, but a bit of searching says they were "paired by the NFL".

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/07/browns_sale_could_be_approved.html

No not that I'm aware of. I do know he was recommended to Haslam but in no way do I have any information that indicates he was forced to hire Banner.



No, actually, your brakes going out on you more than likely indicates you have been failing to do the necessary maintenance and seeing that your car has been properly maintained. Or, if you recently purchased the vehicle, that you failed to have the vehicle properly inspected. At any rate the fault for that falls on the shoulders of the owner. Same with a football team. It rests with the owner.



So he had outside influence to promote Farmer, hire Chud then fire him only a year later, hire Pettine, fire Pettine?

It's funny how I see many people who promote personal responsibility that seem to absolve Haslam of the exact same things they promote for others.

Now wait a second Pit, Haslam has taken personal responsibility for this land of Misfit toys we call the Browns.

He has admitted it's on him. He hired those guys, they didn't fix the problem, it's his fault and he knows it.

I'm not sure what people want him to do. He's not going to sell the team so forget that. That leaves him with trying again and again until he gets it right.

I specifically said that you'd be responsible if your brakes went out, but it's not your fault. I should have specified that I was talking about a new car. Analogy foul on me for sure...

I will also concede that he may not have been forced to hire Banner, but if it was suggested by the NFL that "this might be a good guy to have on board if you want your bid approved in a timely manner" that is strongly influencing the decision. Perhaps even coercing it.

So, I'm assuming the statement about personal responsbility has to do with my hammering Manziel on his decision making? If so and you can't tell the difference then I'm not sure I can make you understand but I'll give it a stab.

There's a world of difference between hiring the wrong people and actively drinking, not studying, abusing women, lying to people in authority, recklessly driving, and generally being an all around bad football player.

Hope that helps.

There's also a world of difference between hiring the wrong people vs being credited with every bad decision/move those people made.

As the owner the buck stops there. But those hires didn't sit on their hands waiting for the owner to tell them every move to make.