DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum cont...The Browns Front Office...ready for prime time?...

He didn't suck, he was just inconsistent, and was often, as a rookie, asked to block the other teams best pass rusher.

Basically he followed the normal trajectory of a draft pick, struggled and inconsistent his first year, gradual improvement to above average in year 3 followed by becoming pretty darn good in year 4...

Most places that is expected, here it is not and if you don't look like a 4 year vet in year 1 you are labeled a bust.

being inconsistent on o-line is sucking. there are things that can be done when a player is consistent to make things work... his first two years even with alot of help blocking with RBs and TEs he was pretty bad....

Um...I don't think anyone is saying this. I think the article, and the posters who are following up with comments understand, based on scheme, players could be better at one than the other.

Kinda like on the DL. Sometimes, players are better suited on a 43 than a 34, or vice versa. Some may be a better 0-tech than a 3-tech; or a 3-tech than a 5-tech.

Physical traits, exploiting technique strengths are why opinions vary on who fits better than others. One trick pony stuff, I don't see.

talented players can play in any scheme.. look at mack and JT. how many dif scheme did they play in. its a poor excuse. jmo

I'm not saying that. I'm saying players can be better suited for one scheme than another. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

But yes, if you can find a player that excels in anything/everything, then that player is truly great. To compare every offensive lineman to Joe Thomas' abilities (one of the best tackles to ever play the game) doesn't make much sense to me. And I agree with the article that said Mack was better suited in the zone scheme. Can he play others and be productive? Yes. But he was great in the zone blocking scheme.

j/c:

PFF ranks the Browns' roster 31st in the NFL

Even though Pro Football Focus really likes what the Cleveland Browns have done this offseason, the anticipated quality of talent on the roster plummeted compared to this time last year. PFF ranked all 32 rosters in the NFL, and the Browns came in at No. 31 overall, with only the San Francisco 49ers behind them. Here are some notes on what PFF said about the Browns:
•Their roster ranking was No. 24 in 2014 and No. 14 in 2015, so you can see how far they've plummeted in 2016 at No. 31.


•The Top 5 players on the Browns' roster are OT Joe Thomas, OG Joel Bitonio, OG John Greco, RB Duke Johnson Jr., and TE Gary Barnidge. Thomas and Bitonio were both in the Top 5 last year, but missing this year are C Alex Mack (free agency), SS Donte Whitner (cut), and ILB Karlos Dansby (cut).


•Which starting positions could use an upgrade? C Cameron Erving, ILB Demario Davis, ILB Christian Kirksey, and OLB Paul Kruger. I'd have to agree with all of those. We're casting blind hope that Erving will be a better fit at center and with an offseason to work on things, but he was a complete disaster as a rookie guard. The inside linebacker position has been generally weak for a long time now, remaining somewhat stable on the likes of veterans D'Qwell Jackson and Karlos Dansby. Davis now tries to fill that role at a much more affordable rate. Whether Kruger was misused last year or not, it's still remarkable how ineffective he was from a playmaking standpoint.


•Speaking on the Browns' quarterback situation, PFF said, "There are glimmers of hope for quarterback Robert Griffin III, who will get to work with Hue Jackson, but Griffin needs to show major improvement from the end of his tenure in Washington."


•PFF was blunt in their conclusion, saying, "On paper, [this] is an ugly looking roster." Considering how much they liked the Browns' draft class, though, they feel the potential is there for the roster to "turn around in a hurry."

The other teams in the AFC North were ranked as follows: Steelers (No. 4), Bengals (No. 6), and Ravens (No. 17). The Steelers and Bengals both improved from their rankings this time last year, while the Ravens also kind of plummeted (they were ranked No. 3 last year).

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2016/6/6/11871092/pff-ranks-the-browns-roster-31st-in-the-nfl

Not surprised by this assessment. It's what happens when you gut a good portion of the roster.

Thanks Memphis. I have no illusions about 2016. I think we will be lucky to win 5, I have predicted 4, but wouldn't be surprised if we win 2-3.

What I want to see is whether RG3 can be a better than average QB (again); whether Erving can play C; whether we can run on offense and stop the run on defense; which of the rookies and 2nd year players can be solid to impact starters; and if we look better as the season progresses. If all these happen, it will be a successful year no matter the record.

.

How many playoff games have the Browns won with JT, Mack and MS?

ok i am over it now ....Schwartz just flat out sucked glad he is gone. we drafted better than him. we are better off with him gone...was worse than Erving last year

No mac the Browns ASSUMED right he's GONE!

The two day period also allows teams to figure out the market for players. When the market set his value at lower than the contract we offered, we likely told him that we were going to have to revisit it. What we really should be concerned about is that they were going to OVER PAY him if he's just signed when he had the chance...

Dude. Drop the hate.

Do you not get that we don't have that foundation to be able to max a QB and keep the cap maxed like these teams you keep spewing.

Damn you're a bitter old man. It'll kill you.

I think that article was bizarre in how inaccurate it was. There was a plethora of false information in that article.

After reading the posts on the Cavs thread [they are in the Finals] and reading the posts about the Browns [they are perhaps the worst franchise in the NFL] I really am beginning to believe Cleveland fans are ignorant.

yup crying about the same thing for 40 pages is too much for me.
crying in your soup about something that is over an done with is way over the top. calling me ignorant is ignorance in itself. good job slick.

This is a point that I think too many of those hatin' on the FO for not signing him aren't being honest enough to consider, at least as a possibility. Maybe, just maybe, Scwartz is being given too much credit and is a tad overrated? I don't know anything about OL evaluation. BUT I'm not blind to facts.

-The hype was that a top rated RT was going to command $10+ mil a year.
-When the Browns didn't sign him he signed REAL quick with someone else and for less money.
-Unless someone has any info to the contrary, there was no bidding war for his services either.

All this adds up to Schwartz NOT being worth $10+ mil, NOT being worth the $7 mil original offer, and NOT someone who was in any kind of real demand during a time his position was rumored to be able to command top dollar.

Clearly the Browns weren't the only ones who didn't think the effort was worth it.

I was attempting to be a bit tongue and cheek with this whole idea that we're not willing to spend when we offered more than market dollars for his services. That's not to say that I don't think that he developed into a plus RT and really did want to keep him. I just think this assertion that the team is not willing to spend money is assinine and wanted to poke fun at it.

Oh, I get it. I always thought that he wasn't as bad his first couple of years as others did. I just wanted to expand on the assertion that the team wasn't willing to spend big money on him and point out the fact that apparently neither did any other team in the NFL.

Mac, I think you are seeing a simple cause/effect where the factors are more complicated. If we were talking about a group of teams starting with the same level of talent, then the amount of cap money spent, assuming it directly corresponds to the level of talent retained or acquired, can translate into a competitive edge. But because the Browns don't have very good starting talent level, spending big money on a couple of good players isn't going to make the significant difference a good team spending the same dollars would have. The Browns, due to the constant regime changes, have an abnormally large number of mismatched pieces. The article I posted yesterday, while I can't vouch for the accuracy of the assessment (because I don't know enough about the differences between a zone-blocking vs power-blocking to gauge it), does make a valid point that if someone like Schwartz has a skill set that doesn't match the system being installed, then paying big money to retain him isn't a wise move.

I don't know what broke down in those negotiations, or whose fault, but it's possible that they made an initial offer based on his past value, but reassessed it with input from coaches still learning their players. Maybe they realized his skill set isn't a perfect match with what they are trying to do and that changed the dynamic of the negotiation. I am not presenting this as fact, just one of the possibilities which I hadn't considered before reading that article.

But back to the point of this post. A good team spending all their cap money to maintain a competitive edge is one thing, a bad team trying to use all of their spending cap to gain a competitive edge is less likely to be successful. It could be wiser to build a solid foundation via the draft, and save cap space for a future when that foundation is in place.

stop Stop STOP! Please for the love of all that's holy, STOP!

Jimmy and Dee Haslam aren't cheap.... JUST STOP!

Browns invite 4 tryout players to minicamp

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/arti...01-68287057ee01

Cleveland bring in two TEs, K and RB on tryout basis


The Browns will take the field with most of their 90-man roster and four tryout players when the team’s three-day veteran minicamp begins this afternoon.

The four tryout players are:

TE Kevin Haplea - 6-3, 245 (Florida State)

TE Arthur Lynch - 6-5, 250 (Georgia)

K Patrick Murray - 5-7, 182 (Fordham)

RB Rajion Neal - 5-11, 210 (Tennessee)

Lynch and Murray carry two years of experience while Haplea, who had a brief stint with the Browns last season, and Neal have one.

The Browns will hold three practices over the next three days before breaking for the summer. The team will return at the end of July for the start of training camp.

wow, Arthur Lynch? He was a *baller* at UGA. I'm really surprised he hasn't stuck anywhere. I think he was with Miami.

I personally think the Browns should give me $40.5 million. They'd make the playoffs then as there's a direct correlation to amount of money spent on salaries to making the playoffs.

Or better yet, they could have just given Mohamed Massaquoi that money in 2012 then you'd hit the Daily Double of success, spending all your cap money AND spending it on our home grown talent! Superbowl baby! I mean it doesn't matter how they spend the money just as long as they spend it right?

I agree, and am excited. Art was a very good SEC player. Wow.

You are just incredible.. you just don't get it do you..

I think the key here is that our "best" players go on to be good players on other teams.. Teams that were already good,,

TJ Ward is a prime example, yeah, we probably should of kept him.. But it's not like he was a key signing on Denvers defense.. They already had Miller, Ware, Talib, Harris, Jackson, etc..

Jabaal Sheard has been very solid for NE. But he's not some great All Pro that we just let walk out the door..

Everyone loves Phil, but if that's your big point.. That we didn't pay a kicker.. Then you don't really have a point..

The reason we "let" solid players "walk" is because we are constantly changing systems.. If your new DC doesn't think a guy like Sheard fits, or wants a SS that can cover, he might not value what Sheard or TJ can do.. So retaining them is pointless..

As long as we make good picks (the real key obviously) and keep a system in place, you will more likely see the people that are still here keeping the good players they picked..

We should just give players on our team raises, that we are spending more against the cap and then we will be good.

Mac, why do you think it is Haslam? He seems pretty hands off during the process.

Mac, I absolutely agree, watching good players leave is disheartening to say the least. And I really wish the Browns could hire and stick with a head coach and front office. I get the anger and frustration.

But you use phrases like "let them walk" and "refusing to sign." This demonstrates how closed your mind is to other explanations for players not resigning besides the Browns refusing to keep them. Some were gone regardless, others were not worth what they were demanding. Some absolutely should have been resigned, and others weren't as good as the players who replaced them.

I am not a fan of Haslam, but I do not believe for one second that he is intentionally making moves to ensure a crappy team or siphoning money from the Browns to Pilot/Flying J. Nobody spends a BILLION dollars for a sports franchise to lose. What I do believe is that he has spent the last 4-5 years stumbling through bad attempts to build a winner. I also believe that this configuration has the best chance yet of succeeding.

Really?
I thought it was complete hogwash.
The author is more of a shill than a journalist.

Yeah man, that was kinda my point. LOL

I think Vers is saying the same thing?

Mac, it seems that you are convinced that Haslam is the evil overlord of the Cleveland Browns.. I don't think anything anyone can say will sway you from that belief.

For whatever reason you fail to consider reasoned opinions to the contrary. Not sure why and not sure what bit you on the weenie to get you so angry with Haslam.

Every single reason you've given has been discussed and refuted. Repeating your rants over and over and over and over again isn't going to make you appear smarter.

So let me appeal to the better Mac in you! stop, Stop STOP.