DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Andy Lee traded to the Panthers

Again, more personal insults. LOL.......it's uncanny.

Now, this is a good post. You disagreed w/my take and did so in a polite way w/out all the stupid insults. BigWilly and Diam did the same thing. I'll address all 3 of you here:

I get your logic. It makes sense and you guys might be right.

I do understand that Lee is getting older and that the team will stink this year. I agree they are building for the future. I got no problem w/your logic in that regard.

However, I do not think it is a good idea to have a roster that is almost totally comprised of younger players.

Instead, I believe a team needs a mix of seasoned vets, your corp players, and the very young.

The Browns have been building through the draft forever. Each regime says the same thing. We lose players all the time. Guys like Sheard, Ward, Skrine, Gipson, Mack, and Schwartz should be part of that corp group. Guys like Lee, Kruger, Dansby, and Whit could be the wiser, seasoned vets.

But, we continually get rid of our corp players [and yes, some of them should have gone], but we always seem to have a young, inexperienced roster that does not know how to win.

So, here is what typically happens. The team struggles w/all the youth and new players. They lose a ton of games. People get restless and call for firings. Heck, we have NOT even played one game yet and people are already calling for Horton to be fired in the preseason forum. LOL man!!!

We have an owner who has been trigger happy. He blows things up. We start over. The new guys will come in and say that we have to build through the draft. The roster will be purged and people will say stuff like "we only won 3 games w/those guys."

It's a never-ending cycle, bro.

Furthermore, is it really a good idea to have so many contracts all coming due at the same time? What will be the narrative when that happens? Will we lose more good players? Will people say: "You can't blame the FO because there is no way they could pay all those guys at once?"

Cap, I am trying to think ahead. Staggering contracts is a good idea. Having a wide variety of experience on your roster is a good idea.

Again, I get your point. It makes sense. I am not asking you guys to agree w/me. But, I do think that my points are founded in logic, as well.

Thanks for the conversation.

I agree that having experience on a team is nice, but applying that to Lee is a bit of a stretch. The specialists are off by themselves most of the time and you generally only end up keeping one of each.

Right now we have a vet in pretty much every room (I think we've been doing all the linebackers together, and same for DBs.)

QB-McCown
OL-Joe
WR-Hawkins
TE-Barnidge
DL-Des.Bryant (though he is on IR now)
LB-Demario Davis
DB-Tramon

We don't have one for the backs, but that is one of the quicker transitions and the last time we signed a vet it didn't work out so well.

We are especially young, but I think that just means the vets we still have are going to have to step up on the leadership front.

Good point about having a vet in every room ... that appears to be an objective of the FO. At least keep one (good leader) vet

This is where I miss Atuyba Ruben...

I don't really remember hearing much about him on the cerebral side of things. Not that he didn't do it, but I remember him as more of lead by example type than a spreading knowledge type. We could use someone like him about now on the D-Line.

I was just reading a MMQB article about the last roster spot, and one of the players (A former Brown, Hayes Pullard, I think) talked about the biggest difference between college and the NFL being the mental stuff.

Link



I remember hearing about DD getting the Defense together after one of the preseason games to watch film on an off day, and Tramon was said to be a pretty cerebral guy, too. Desmond Bryant's academic background leads me to believe he's good in that area, too. Josh McCown's knowledge is often cited. Andrew Hawkins was studying at Columbia in the offseason, so he's another hitting the books kind of guy. The young TE's have talked up Barnidge in that area, too. Joe T. is Joe T.

I remember Desmond talking up a storm about rubin. Quiet guy. But I recall things like "I'd be eating lunch and he'd come up to me and say 'hey, let's go work on this aspect of your game' and always trying to help the room improve."

Obviously not a direct quote. But that's leadership. You don't need to be a screamer, high engine guy to be a leader.

All that I can gather, Seattle loves him too. Wish we would've kept him. He's better than Shelton and Meder at NT imo.

Why don't all you guys either put each other on ignore, or take these battles to PM. It gets really old, when I am interested in reading about ... you know .... football.

Your point is absolutely founded in logic, and I totally get where you are coming from. As I said, my preference would have been to keep the guy, and would have if the offer had been a 6th or a 7th.

All good, dawg.

Good to hear from you. I think it is good value when you consider we got the same guy coming off a Pro Bowl for 6th rounder (maybe 7th I can't remember). Secondly, as you stated about the Broncos punters/kickers who are good enough to make coin are going to be the first ones gone. When the team is ready to contend getting a pretty good punter should be a pretty attainable goal.

Let me ask you something, have you ever heard of a 4th for a punter? I haven't but I could be wrong. I've seen 5th,6th or 7ths for the really good ones, but never a 4th.....but again I could be wrong. That's part of the reason I say we got good value for him, because punters aren't valued as highly as other positions (not me saying that, but the market).

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I would trade anybody on this roster if I thought I was getting decent value for them. Heck I would trade Joe for the right price (and under normal circumstances that is blasphemy imo), because he will not be around when this team is winning again....if that happens.

This is a complete tear down and we are basically an expansion franchise again. I mean man there are 14 rookies who have a legitimate chance to make the roster, and a bunch of them will start.......next year more of the same as well. I don't envision this team being remotely successful for several years.

So when an opportunity comes to get something of potential value for a part that is useless to your future it makes sense to do so..........and I'm not nut hugging the FO either. Letting go of Swartz and others that were still young and in their prime for NOTHING was beyond dumb.

However, I can't kill them for getting a 4th rounder for a punter........pretty good move imo.

IMO if we had kept Sheard instead of Kruger last year we'd be better off at the position

I didn't make the statement, Sashi did.

Well of course I do. This FO is working on a complete rebuild. They know we won't be competitive this year and most likely next year. They're willing to ship out anyone they feel is older and that won't be at their prime or past there prime three years from now. If Joe Thomas wasn't iron clad insurance to protect the QB's blind side he wouldn't be around now either.

It's what you do when you rebuild. That's what makes the statement I quoted from Sashi so silly. He didn't mean a word of it. It's a nice sound bite, but what they are trying to accomplish with a rebuild makes this statement very inaccurate.

I still contend that when Sashi said that, he didn't "ONLY" mean the guys we had on the team at that moment.

I believe he's also referring to the guys that they add going forward that actually perform up to whatever standards they deem important.

Truth is, if a guy wants out, there is only so much the team can do before it gets stupid to keep him. Every team has that issue.

The fact is, he said it pre-combine. He did not qualify his statement. Now you can try to second guess the statement, qualify the statement and use semantics to twist that statement any way you wish to suit your thoughts, but he said what he said and the evidence since he stated that, do not support it.

And to me it's just common sense to see that this team is in rebuild mode. As such, you don't keep players now at a high price who you feel may be past their peak three years from now. That wouldn't be the smart way to go about things. So maybe you misunderstand me. I understand why they are doing what they are doing. I understand that's how things work when you re-build.

And that's also why it was a silly statement when he made it.

I agree with you. It's not a big deal to me, because I think press conference sound bites are overrated (as you said watch what they do is much more important).

This is a complete rebuild. I said earlier in the thread that we are basically a expansion team again and are trying to build from the ground up. Even on the Browns I can't remember a time when this many pups will make the team, and most will contribute. We will also have much more of the same next year. The sad part is this is the 2nd complete rebuild we have had in the last 6 years (H&H did it as well).

Maybe it works out and maybe it doesn't, but everybody needs to be prepared for a LOONG year of bad football......especially the first 8 games while these kids get their feet wet.

I wouldn't either Attack. The truth is we are at least two years away from being competitive. At that point Joe will be in his 13th year if he is still playing at all. IF you can get good value for him it makes some sense (and I can't believe I'm saying this) to make a move...but the picks better be good no bottom of the 1st,high 2nd round crap. I want a mid 1st rounder or better.

If you cannot build your team with a Joe Thomas in place, you simply cannot build a team, at all. Period. Those one or two extra picks aren't going to save you from your own incompetence.

He is the complete model of consistency and professionalism while being more solid and dependable than ANYTHING else in the organization, or league.

With JT, our LT spot is more consistent than:

Browns' ownership
GM's
Head Coaches
Quarterbacks
every other position on the team
U.S. Presidents

He's done it while being more durable than EVERY other player in the NFL.

If you think we MUST have those picks to get us better, then you simply don't know what you're doing.

The most likely scenario of a JT trade that I see is, near the trade deadline, a team with legitimate playoff chances but needs to shore up their LT offers a trade. Because this will be coming from a playoff quality team, a 1st round pick will be at or near the end of the round...I don't see a way around that. A team drafting in te first 2/3 of the 1st round isn't a playoff team, and isn't going to be looking to trade a high pick for an aging player. It's a now or never type of move.

I don't disagree with you nor Attack necessarily, but I also understand father time is coming for everyone, and Joe is not immune. In 2018/2019 (when if these guys are any good we can realistically make a playoff push)Joe will be in his 13th year in the league. Therefore, I am apprehensive in thinking he is part of a long term solution when quite frankly he very well could be retired by then.

The best example of what we are trying to accomplish (certainly not the H&H crapola of a few years ago..lol)is the Cowboys of the early 90's. They STUNK for two straight years. They also traded away valuable players (the obvious Hershal deal) and stockpiled picks. By year three things began to turn around and all of the picks they had obtained were the center piece of a team that won 3 SBs and a ton games. There were very few holdovers from the Landry days (and all those players weren't bad), but they went almost entirely young for two reasons imo. One out of necessity because they had to play/develop all of those picks. Two, they wanted to stink year two to get better picks/players.

I know no one in Berea will admit (just like they wouldn't in Dallas at the time) that we are tanking, but we are tanking..lol. For very much the same reasons as the Cowboys did we are taking this approach imo. The next two seasons will be horrible, but if these guys are any good (I have begun to have doubts) we will see some significant improvement year 3.

My point to all of this is if Joe is deemed not to be a part of what we will be in year 3 then why not move him for a good offer if one presents itself? Are we really afraid of stunting the growth of McCown/RG3?? I'm much more concerned about those guys stunting the growth of Coleman..lol.

We tried this under H&H as I mentioned and it failed miserably, and it might fail this time as well, but I have no doubt this is the strategy they are employing, and if that's the case trading Joe for a good return would certainly not deviate from the plan.

I thin part of it is nostalgia for people who would like to see JT get to compete in the playoffs at least once in his career.

With that said, hypothetically, we suck our way into the #1 overall pick... we take Deshaun Watson.... In his first couple years do we want JT protecting his left side or some other unproven rookie?

I'm all for the youth movement, I'm all for rebuilding.. but let's be smart about it.

Trading a solid player that you have now and is everything you could ever hope to have in that position because you don't know what he'll be when you think you might be ready to really be able to "want" skills like he has is kind of like LITERALLY shooting yourself in the foot now because you aren't planning to run a marathon until three years from now.

It makes zero sense except that you want to chase after draft picks - and the wistful hope of drafting... a Joe Thomas.

Agreed.....if Joe was entering his 8th year instead of 10th. The guy can't play forever, and this team is going to be bad for a long while.

To be honest, given Joe's age and the state of the team, the only logical reason to keep him is to ensure that development of whomever the QB long term turns out to be isn't stunted. He is also a veteran that can teach all of the pups to be pros. Those are valuable reasons no doubt, and they might be inclined to do keep him based on that.

However, banking on a 34/35 year old 13 year vet to still be playing at Pro Bowl level when your team is ready to compete surely isn't a realistic expectation.

The only logical reason to NOT keep him is if he wants out.

Nothing is guaranteed for anyone. You keep your good players while you have them. Look at Bridgewater.... based on him, we should trade RG3, Coleman, Gordon, and Pryor right now.


More than likely, Joe is retired after his 12th season. I'd be shocked if he signs another contract after this one unless he decides to chase some 'Ironman' kinda record like Favre.

Well, I do try and talk football. In fact, I explained my position quite well in about 5-6 posts above your complaint.

Why not comment on that post if you wanna talk football? Why pile on?

You were simply the one of all of those involved who I happened to click on. Nothing more.

...not impressed with the punters we picked up. Might miss Lee a bit more than I thought if this is what we can expect going forward.

One guy had a 26-yarder, other guy had a 14-yarder. Still, I feel good about the fourth-round pick we got for a three-time Pro Bowler.
We didn't have a problem, and now we do.

i think we'll pick somebody up after cuts

Why bother?

The better field position the other offense has, the less misery we'll need to bear witness to with our defense.

I'm actually beginning to love the Andy Lee trade... a lot.

Good job Hue message sent!!!!

"Amazing."

You can never pass up a shot. Pathetic.

I feel it's important to identify, since you are so steadfast in trying to discredit someone's post on a particular subject, that you feel the need to make these wild, unfounded claims based on your ongoing agenda.

Consider this returning the favor.

Thank you.

Now that you accomplished that particular mission, you can go back to your passion of pulling the wings off of harmless insects.

I can understand your frustration being on the other side of it all. Hopefully it changes the way you address posters in the future.