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

mac

Yes I have to admit I would liked to have kept Mack and Schwartz. benji and gibson were good. my only problem with this is that, Mack has already said he wanted to play for another team and gibson I truly believe we burned that bridge with him...and his play dropped off last year. So with that in mind Mack and Gibson in my mind were never coming back regardless of what we tried to do to keep them...Benji I liked, but to me Hawkins can step right into his role and be on par with his performace. I am ok with replacing Dansby with Davis and Moore for Gibson. so that leaves Schwartz whom I can't agree with losing. but it is what it is right now. I guess Cam is taking the center spot that fills Macks hole (whether he good at center or not). Kirskey slips in to fill the Craig spot at MLB. The only hole I see left is Whitner. My guess is Poyer goes there. to conclude I think we upgraded a couple of spots and took a step back in two spots.
let's see how and who we draft.

Grimm,

I saw a post stating the steelers retain their FA's and draft strong or something to that effect. I was merely trying to point out that they (the steelers) also let players go and bring in players from other teams

Benjamin is deep threat. Hawkins is a slot receiver who rarely goes deep. They are both wide receivers, but they do totally different things. Hawkins has never shown the ability to be the deep threat Benjamin was last year.



You think we upgraded a couple spots? Who and what? The only one that might be an upgrade at this point is Kirksey over Robertson and that is not clear at all.

Whitner was about average, it should be assumed his replacement is Ibraheim Campbell (who we know nothing about).

Dansby will be replaced by Demario Davis. Davis has never been as good as Dansby in his career.

Schwartz is tentatively being replaced by Austin Pasztor, who played well at the end of last season but is another unknown.

Mack and Erving. Enough said.

Benjamin has not been replaced.

Gipson will be replaced by Rahim Moore, who was just cut by the Texans and signed to a one year deal.

I am probably forgetting someone, but none of these are upgrades.

You are talking about Mack. Mack came out and said he wanted to play for another team. So to me he was gone regardless of what we may or may not have done to keep him. and Gibson I truly believe we burned that bridge with him...I liked Gibson a lot but I get the gut feeling he wanted out as well. His game did take a dip last year and I am hoping Moore or Poyer with play well enough for us. Benji I liked him as well, but I think Hawkins can do just as good of a job or maybe Gabriel. I hope that answers your question Verstile. Just the way I am looking at it at the moment...my opinion is subject to change tho.

I find it hard to believe that Davis will be worse at stopping the run as Dansby was last year...and he is bound to be a bit slowers this year as compared to last year that is why.

a lot of players are cut from teams and not because they are bad for numerous reasons. just because he was cut doesn't tell the whole story

and yup Hawkins or Gabriel can step into Benji's role imo.

Other teams already are picking brains of fired Browns scouts
Posted by Mike Florio on April 10, 2016, 1:25 PM EDT

The Browns arguably fired safety Donte Whitner too late. And they’ve arguably fired six scouts too early.

Per a league source, other teams already have begun to try to pick the brains of the six former scouts in an effort to learn more about Cleveland’s plans for the draft. According to multiple league sources, the six former scouts are Bobby DePaul, Mike Hagen, Matt Holland, Scott Aligo, Harrison Ritcher, and James Kirkland.

DePaul, the Bears former director of pro personnel, Hagen, Kirkland, and Aligo arrived two years ago, along with Charles Bailey and Ron Hill. Bailey and Hill remain with the Browns.

It’s not known whether the six former scouts are telling other teams anything about Cleveland’s plans, whether they are permitted to do so given the terms of their contracts, or whether they even know anything about the team’s plans. It’s possible that the current regime thinks so dimly of their work that the front office has no concerns about anything they may say to another team.

Regardless, it’s also possible they had (and still have) access to certain research and other information; two years ago, former Browns G.M. Mike Lombardi was spotted at the Scouting Combine with documents containing prominent Browns logos while working with the Patriots.

The easier course for the Browns would have been to keep the scouts on the payroll but give them little or nothing to do for the next three weeks, perhaps even telling them to stay home with pay.

Which, in fairness to the Browns, may be as a practical matter what they’ve done. From Cleveland’s perspective, the organization had a large staff of scouts, the team wanted to streamline the operations going forward, and the Browns wanted to be candid and honest with the departing scouts and give scouts whose contracts were expiring after the draft a chance to pursue new jobs. (Whitner may wonder why that mindset didn’t apply to him a month ago.)

Still, it’s the kind of unconventional approach that will make it even more clear that, until the Browns start winning, the jokes won’t stop happening. The overriding goal of the organization remains to start winning.

UPDATE 2:17 p.m. ET: In response to the observation that Whitner may wonder why that mindset didn’t apply to him a month ago, Whitner said on Twitter, “Yes I am wondering.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-browns-scouts/

When talking about the departure of Mack, Schwartz, Gibson, and Benjamin in free agency, I have seen several posters use the phrase that the Browns FO "let them walk." The use of this phrase implies that the members of the Browns FO responsible for player negotiations, passively, made no or minimal effort in retaining them. I wasn't party to those negotiations, and I assume nobody here was either. But I believe the Browns determined what they could reasonably offer them to stay and honestly tried to keep them within the limits of those determinations.

The phrase also assumes the players involved 1) would fairly consider any offers from the Browns, and 2) were motivated solely or primarily by money. I understand the money is the main motivator, but if a player doesn't want to stay, increasing the offer isn't going to help. Other factors, such as comfort with the organization and its direction, how well the organization's future matches theirs, family considerations, and living situations come into play.

From the player's perspective, what did staying with the Browns have to offer? As others have pointed out, and I agree, both Mack and Gibson had reason to be disenchanted with the Browns as employers. They have personal aspirations for their football careers. With the Browns going through yet another reboot combined with bad feelings, it is entirely possible that whatever the Browns had to offer wasn't going to keep them here.

Yet when posters say the Browns "let them walk", they seem to be saying the Browns could have and should have done more (read; offered more money) to keep them. I suspect there was nothing they could have reasonably done to change those player's minds.

As for Benjamin, I think money was the determining factor and the Browns weren't going to match the Charger's offer. Schwartz is a bit of a mystery, and it has been suggested that the Browns mishandled that. That could be true, but I honestly don't think they could have done anything to keep the other 3 players. And I think the use of the phrase "let them walk" is misleading and doesn't accurately describe what happened.

Oh wow! And here I thought he was talking about posters like Vambo who constantly attack posters who don't have the same "positive" attitude that he does. Personally, I find those types of posts irritating and think they stymie productive conversation.

But hey..........if y'all like those types of posts........to each their own.

Interesting. I have seen multitudes of posts that claim that none of those guys wanted to be here. I have seen a sickening amount of posts that say the new FO just got here. They somehow forget that Sashi was in charge of negotiating contracts for the last few years. I see a tremendous amount of posts making excuses for our free agents leaving. You did not mention any of those posters. Wonder why?

The NFL is a bottom line business. None of us are privy to exactly what went down. All we know for a fact is that those guys are gone. Spinning it doesn't change a damn thing. They are gone and the Browns are a weaker team because of it.

Please stop. There was no need for this...

Not directed at anyone in particular

I hear lots of whining.. Lots of complaining and a whole lotta doom and gloom..

No solutions being offered. I mean seriously, he hasn't coached a game yet and there are already rumblings of Hue Jacksons future.

SERIOUSLY.

Short of paying him silly money, there was no way to keep Mack. Get over it.

Schwartz, not one of us knows the truth as to what happened yet.. But I guess that doesn't stop folks from just making it up as they go along.

Gipson, had a PRO BOWL year and then a not so good year. Which player will he be going forward? Do you know? Do any of you know? The team should know something about that right?

Benji, Nice player who had a career year last year. That's it! Not the end of the world.

Cutting Dansby and Whitner, while sad in a way, is typical when you want to get younger. Only real complaint there is that it would have been better to let Whitner know his fate sooner. But then again, perhaps the idea was to keep him originally and then the thinking changed. not sure what would cause that, but usually, it's a cause and effect kind of thing Something happened or was thought of and a decision was made to release him.

The Thought that this front office is bad is at best, premature. Might end up being true. Dunno.

Have any of you ever met guys who were so smart that they were actually clueless?

Exactly, they are gone, and they're not coming back. Complaining about it now after the fact is not productive. Being upset in your initial reaction is fine and perfectly understandable, but going over it again and again is just providing more fuel for the factory of sadness. Supporting the FO could theoretically help Jimmy feel comfortable not blowing things up again. While the "staffers" are not all new to the team, they are new to their roles. Lets give them some time before breaking out the torches and pitchforks.



I dunno, Cam Erving has been working out.

We did lose a lot of old man strength.

Back to being slightly more serious, While we may be weaker in individual positions, I don't think the weaker team is evident yet. Hopefully without the schisms between FO, Coaching Staff, and players we will be a much stronger whole.

Always love hearing from the "positive posters." Always w/an uplifting, respectful, and unbiased take on their fellow posters. I guess it's because they are such "positive" people....

Yet another poster telling others how to post. Let me guess, making excuses for bad moves is productive?

Not sure how many of you understand that football is a business. Not sure how many of you understand how things got changed w/businesses during the course of America's history?

I wonder why Child Labor laws were created? I wonder why the minimum wage law was created? I wonder why putting fire escapes were mandated in multi-story buildings? I wonder why laws such as the Grandfather Clause were repelled and black citizens were finally given the right to vote? I wonder why businesses had to create safer working conditions for their employees? I wonder why monopolies were broken up? I wonder why businesses had to abide by environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act?

Let me guess..........because no one complained and all the positive people in the world had faith in that the businesses in this country would do the right thing?

Change occurs when people recognize an injustice or wrongful acts and they speak out on those issues. Change does not occur when people continually excuse the misdeeds of others.

The Browns have been practicing bad business under the leadership of Jimmy Haslam. Excusing it away and criticizing those who want change is only enabling future futility.

So why don't you stage a protest at the stadium or carry out a coup d'etat while you're at it?

Complaining on the internet still isn't productive. What change exactly do you think you're going to see? Those movements had goals. I don't see a goal for most of the complaints on the board. If you're goal is stability, how does complaining about the present help that?

Moving forward rather than dwelling on the past at least isn't counter productive.

Amen! I get so tired of seeing Woe is Me! Lets let this play out.

You are about the worst offender when it comes to being a Debby Downer type. You want a downer, think back to what Art Modell did in 1995. That is a downer. This stuff is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

So we lost a few players, So what. Happens to every team every year. Get over it.

I'm no more positive than most. I'm just a guy that chooses to look at both sides of things and when I don't know the details, I say so. Simple as that.

Seems as if that isn't the case with some folks.

Three posts in a row where posters rip other posters because they don't want to hear the opinions of posters who disagree w/them.

You guys sure complain a lot about other posters. Is that productive? Calling other posters names is productive? Dismissing alternative opinions is productive? Censorship is productive?

I don't see the critical posters resorting to name calling or telling people to stop posting. Just how "positive" are you guys?

First part is yes, when it's re-hashed over and over again. Second part is "Are You Kidding Me?" Your the worse offender on here when it comes to blasting posters.

No, I am not kidding you.

I try really hard not to resort to name calling. I might disagree w/opinions. I might point out when people are not telling the truth, but I try not to call people names.

And it can be hard at times. For instance, w/in the past couple of weeks, I have been called "an ass," a "liar," a "coward," "not a good person," referred to as mentally ill twice, "the biggest agenda poster on the board," etc, etc.

Reading one or two of those comments in isolation is one thing, but it is hard not to fight back when you hear them repeatedly. However, I think I have done an excellent job of not lowering myself to reciprocating w/similar name calling. Hasn't been perfect, but it's been pretty darn good.

I think your constant trashing of "positive posters" as you call them might have something to do with that

I am sorry but that part almost made me spit out my Mt Dew. again sorry but didn't expect that one. wish there was a little more respect on here for different opinions on subject matters

Of course.......

I imagine it has nothing to do w/the fact that I am on the minority side in most of these "discussions" and people don't want to hear strong, opposing viewpoints. Nah.........that has nothing to do w/it.

I laughed, too.............then, I started thinking.......what if a person really did suffer from mental illness. Poking fun at that would be extremely cruel. I think most of us have known a mentally ill person. It's a disease. An illness. Our society has gotten past the point of making fun of people who are mentally retarded, physically handicapped, sexual preference, race, etc.............yet, some people think it's okay to be insensitive towards the mentally ill.

It quite literally has everything to do with it. If you are positive or even remotely so, some on here will have words with you over the fact that you don't agree that the world is coming to an end.

And then negativity is all in the name of "Keeping it Real" but what is never discussed is that it's real according to WHOM? And is it based on fact or Opinion.

in other words, they (mr. negatives) can have an opinion, but others can't unless it agrees with them (mr. negatives)

And they are allowed to bash the hell out and argue the same issues for ever, but god forbid anyone fights back. Oh no.. That is not allowed.

Don't you hold the record for Board Suspension due to "Name Calling" on this and the other two old boards?

j/c

I believe many should talk to a judge to see just how much their views hold water.

"Hey, the guy committed assault three weeks ago. Why don't we just let it go? Forget about it. It's in the past."

See how that works for you. We've seen and witnessed total ineptitude for the most part since 1999. We've seen our team get weaker with even more holes to fill over the past month. Yet when people talk about it, we're negative?

It's odd how when you speak about that, you're suddenly negative. I go back to an old adage. "I don't make the news, I just report it." If these things sound and appear so negative, maybe you should point your disgust towards those who made the news, not those reporting it.

We ARE a weaker team now. We DO have more holes to fill now than we did before the Harvard guys took over. We DO need to hit on the vast majority of our draft picks now even more than before. The people in our FO ARE weak in football experience.

Maybe your focus should be more on who put us here rather than those telling you about it? Nah, that just makes too much sense. lol

The following is posted on the Hue thread Hue thread

I have my doubts also...



Report suggests Hue Jackson is a bad fit for Browns’ analytics staff

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 11, 2016, 12:18 PM EDT

The new front office executives hired by the Browns this offseason come from an analytics background, led by new chief strategy officer Paul DePodesta, who was an important figure in Moneyball and a longtime baseball analytics guru.

But the Browns’ new head coach does not come from an analytics background, and a new ESPN Magazine profile of DePodesta suggests that coach Hue Jackson is likely to clash with the analytics people in Cleveland. The profile quotes a former NFL executive describing Jackson as “a very bad fit” for the approach DePodesta wants to take.

That executive also said Jackson’s coaching staff will not be on board with the analytics department’s decision making, and predicted that there will be fireworks in the draft room.

“It’s not just Hue Jackson,” the former executive said. “When data overrides gut, the majority of his coaching staff will all be there screaming, ‘What the f— are these computer guys doing? They don’t understand football, they don’t understand the locker room. They’re killing us.'”

For his part, Jackson has said there’s a process and a plan in Cleveland and he’s on board with it. But if the Browns struggle this season, questions will surely be raised about whether the analytics approach is in fundamental conflict with Jackson’s traditional football approach.

It's not the opposing view point, as much as it is, complaining, just to complain. You have already stated that you like to "flip" viewpoints whenever you think it gets to one sided.....To me that means arguing just to argue, which is just a waste of time. You either believe in something or you don't. Flip floping don't make it right.

Of your 3 posts in a row, only the 3rd actually "rips" anyone.

My post was a rebuttal of your argument rather than an attack on you as an individual. It was a differing opinion which you claim you are open to.

The 2nd was another posters opinion not directed at anyone either.

The 3rd I'll give you, but I don't like being lumped in there while I'm making a conscious effort to be civil and stick to the argument rather than the individual.

My name is GrimmBrown. You're the one who labels me positive. I do try to be. Now there is irony.

As for the last bit, we all could use some introspection.

Idk Pitdawg...the only two real holes I can see right now are Mack and Schwartz...and Mack was not coming back, he came out and said so...soo that leaves the whole Schwartz thingy...which I still don't understand how that all happened. nobody does really...So everyone else we "lost" I think we got younger and faster...we either brought someone in or imo have someone already here who can play on par with the said "lost" people...idk it's just how it reads to me...

Come on, mac, don't interrup the bickering . . .

Maybe we've filled holes at HC, DC, OC, O-Line coach, and GM. Look there's 5 and we only lost 4. Fewer holes.

Wait, we're not just posting random arguments that don't really track with what the discussion has been about?

My bad.

The thread is supposed to be about this FO, not since 1999.

The "That's so Browns"/ lump everything together approach is exhausting to people looking for something to cling to. If we're bad, will always be bad because we have been bad, why should I bother?

Might as well fire Hue before the draft.

Hue wouldn't be here if that was the case.