DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum offensive linemen

I don't remember it that way, but OK,, the point is, it doesn't land on Sashi Brown and Paul Depodesta. The damage was done before they were in control. Which by the way, is all I was trying to point out.

LOL Ok, I'll give you that

I don't know if we can say he drafted poorly with Erving. On other players he definitely whiffed (Manziel, Gilbert), but Erving was thrown into a pretty jacked up situation. He played LT and C in college and we primarily played him at G in games after having him practice everywhere and never really getting reps with the ones until injuries hit. Plus, his OL coach had been dismissed early on.

Outside of the high snaps, Erving has looked much better this year. (Not a very high bar was set, but still)

Can we try to focus this thread on the people we have here instead of going down the Schwartz/Mack rabbit hole again?

Anyone have any idea what Hue was thinking on the playcall in the play cfrs embedded? We had 3 TE's in the formation, and not a single one touched a defender as he left the line. There was no RB, so effectively there was no threat of a run.

Leaving Greco one on one with Cox and Pasztor one on one with Graham seems like a recipe for disaster in an obvious passing situation.

I wish I could see what the CB to RG3s right was doing because it definitely looked like he had a lot of space in that direction. It does make me question his processing speed both pre and post-snap or perhaps it's his overall awareness. Or maybe the CB was out there waiting.

I believe that was me. Yes, whether it was Banner or Lombardi (my money is on Banner) th past FO not being able to extend Mack, for whatever reason, one year before is eligible FA (TJ Ward falls into this too) Farmer was cornered into tagging one of them....he chose Mack. Could Farmer have not agreed to the contract Mack accepted as part of the transition tag? Sure, but we would not have had him for the last two years. Could Farmer just franchise tagged him in 2014? Sure, but we probably would have had him for only one year and tagging him for two consecutive years would have made zero financial sense.

To be fair, however, Farmer did the same thing that Banner did only w/ Schwartz and others. Thus, I'm of the same opinion now with the current FO as I was when Farmer took over in 2014. A very small window to get things done. Farmer chose to tag a FA, this new FO did not. However I think many here felt that with the players entering FA this year, tagging would not have made sense for many of them.

I think Mack was gone regardless. There were always rumors that he didn't like it here. Then negotiations went sour (plus we stink).

I think Schwartz would have stayed if handled differently.

They moved on. Something that others refuse to do.

It's water under the bridge. There is no way Mack was going to remain a Brown. Everyone knew this during the 2015 season that Mack was leaving in FA and he wouldn't except any deal from our FO. Everyone knew that. Besides he wasn't 100% all season long and it would have been a gamble to break the bank on him anyways. Where the heck were you?

I love opinions being stated as fact.

It really makes them come true if you get enough people saying the same thing.

Sashi: Hello, Alex. This is Sashi. I know you are going to opt out of your contract but we'd really like to sit down with you and discuss any way to keep you in a Browns uniform.

Alex: Thanks but no thanks. I've been waiting to get out of town for the past two years. I want to go to a winner and it's clear this is going to be a rebuiling year(s). There probably isn't any amount of $, that will realistically be offered from you that will get me to stay. Best of luck.

Sashi: ........

See? I can make wild, one-sided speculative arguments too.

Speaking of Alex Mack:

Sashi shouldn't be blamed for losing Mack. Farmer guaranteed that when he drafted Erving.

Dang. mack grading out well so far

Not sure if this would under wild speculation or not?

Mac would be happy to read that the Browns did something to try and retain Alex Mack then?

LOL..........no, he'll probably ignore that part.

Just as others will ignore the fact that Mack was considering staying in Cleveland.

Not an opinion, facts are facts.

Like Mack I'm moving on from this subject. I suggest you try it.

And, yet, they still lost. And they even have a "good" QB in addition to Mack.

I don't think not having Mack is the reason we lost.

Failure to recognize mistakes leads to repeating the same dumb mistakes over and over.

Just look at the Browns ownership since they have returned. Fire this guy. Fire that guy. Blow up the roster each time you fire guys. Always starting over. Lose more. Do the same damn things over and over and over.

There you go again. Turning my words around to deflect the intent of my message.

Where in the hell did I say the reason we lost was because of losing Mack?

I wasn't so much replying to you as to the stat for Mack.

It's hard to get my general resignation across in a post.

Actually the biggest problem with the Brown's since the return has been in the draft. This draft could get more people fired but it's too early to tell. We'll see

I'll note what he did that was fundamentally correct;







..

Yeah how I remember the reporting of everything playing out is once Schwartz's agent came back to the Browns and said "we want that deal we turned down earlier" the Browns said "no", Schwartz got all mad and signed with KC. It was reported at that time that Mack would have stayed if Schwartz stayed, but once Schwartz moved on Mack did, too.

I remember it being reported that he had until the FA deadline to accept the offer and when he went to sign, the Browns pulled the offer.

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2016/3/9/11186896/report-browns-pull-offer-to-rt-mitchell-schwartz

http://www.wkyc.com/sports/nfl/browns/re...hwartz/74672522

https://dawgpounddaily.com/2016/03/09/report-cleveland-browns-pull-offer-mitchell-schwartz/

There are several more if you'd like. Of course the Browns FO denied it.

While I'm a little surprised we are re-hashing this AGAIN, those are all essentially links based off the same tweets on March 9th.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2016/03/mary_kay_cabot_on_what_happene.html

1. Mitchell Schwartz: The Browns made Schwartz an offer shortly before the NFL Combine that was far below what he felt he could get on the open market. Sources said it was somewhere in the $7 million-a-year range. His agent, Deryk Gilmore, told the Browns that the former second-round pick would test free agency. Schwartz' goal was about $8 million to $10 million a year, taking into account the growing importance of the position against the Von Millers of the world. When Schwartz opted to test the market, the Browns assumed he was gone and turned their attention to other players.

But Gilmore told cleveland.com Thursday that Schwartz wanted to return to Cleveland and wishes he could've stayed. His fiancee is from here, he purchased a house here and he's entrenched in the community. After testing the market, which wasn't good for right tackles, Schwartz went back to the Browns in the hours before free agency and ultimately planned to accept their pre-combine offer. But they were informed by Cleveland that the offer no longer stood, at least not at $7 million a year. It may have been posturing on the Browns' part, but any hopes of reaching a deal were apparently dashed when NFL Network reported Wednesday morning that the Browns had pulled their offer.

The 'nonsense' Mitchell Schwartz endured en route to new deal
The 'nonsense' Mitchell Schwartz endured en route to new deal
Mitchell Schwartz wanted to return to the Browns, but the club rescinded its offer Wednesday, which was believed to be about $7.5 million a year.

Feeling Cleveland was no longer an option, Schwartz opted to sign a five-year, $33 million deal with the Chiefs, including about $15 million guaranteed. His brother, Geoff Schwartz, congratulated him on the deal after the "nonsense'' he endured during the day, presumably from the Browns. NFL Network's Mike Silver reported that the Browns didn't negotiate in good faith.

In the end, the Browns had moved on before Wednesday when Schwartz opted to test the market without engaging with their $7 million offer. For Schwartz' part, it's common for a player to shop a team's number in hopes of making more.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Ultimately, he didn't, at least not in terms of yearly average. The $6.6 million a year average makes him the second-highest paid right tackle in the NFL, but it's short of the payday he was hoping for. The Browns now have to hope that Austin Pasztor can step in, or they need to find a replacement. Bottom line: It didn't have to come to this. The Browns were willing to pay Schwartz $7 million a year, more than he's getting from the Chiefs. His $15 million guaranteed from Kansas City is more than what the Browns were offering, but a deal could've been struck had things not gotten ugly on Wednesday. It's unfortunate for both sides.

As well as ignoring the fact that we didn't just "let players walk".

What do you call it if you don't keep them?

The FO lost, or
Another team paid more, or
The player wanted to leave.


"Letting them walk" assumes the FO didn't even make an attempt to keep them and they just waved goodbye.

You know that.

No, I don't know that. And I never said they didn't make an attempt. Hell, I posted an article that referenced that they did make an attempt, at least on the surface.

It's a bottom line business. The guys are either here or they are not.

You seem to have a problem seeing both sides of a debate. It's like you gotta win. Hell, you asked me about mac and I admitted that he would ignore it. I also referenced the other side. That wasn't good enough for you and you felt compelled to take another cheap shot.

Congrats!

Where do I have a problem at looking at both sides of the debate?

mac, I posted that article because a lot of people keep saying there was no way that Mack would re-sign here and the FO had no chance of retaining him. I think the article refutes those numerous claims by posters, unless they want to call Mack and the FO liars.

I did acknowledge that you probably would ignore the fact that the FO di make an attempt to keep him because you seem as stubborn as the other side.

It would be nice if we could all just really try and find the truth rather than championing some ridiculous cause.

Well, I thought I just pointed that out in that very same post you quoted.

Look, I don't want to argue about it any further. I can understand the position of both sides, but I think the truth is in the middle.

I have no clue if that's true with this new FO. I will say that it seemed, in drafting Erving, that the Browns knew that Mack wasn't planning on coming back and Farmer wanted his replacement. At least at the time, Erving was expected to be drafted around that area, so it certainly wasn't a surprise to me he was picked where he was, not necessarily that it was the Browns making the selection.

That said, what Farmer did and what the new FO attempted to accomplish were two different things.

You don't think the phrase "letting them walk" embeds a negative perception that the FO didn't try to keep those to-be FAs?

Well, if that's the case, it sure as hell changes the tone of your past posts. This is good to know. Thanks.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. But no, that is not how I mean it. They obviously made an attempt. It's right there in black and white. Same w/Schwartz. They had an offer on the table.

Again, I am a bottom line type of guy. They either retained them or they didn't.

Seriously, there could be a plethora of reasons. We have already discussed a couple of them, but there are others, such as:

--players sick of the Browns changing regimes again

--the constant losing

--the direction of the new FO

--players not wanting to have to go through another rebuild

I don't know the answers. I just think there are a lot of possibilities that could factor into what really happened and I have a hard time w/people stating things [on either side] as factual.

All I know is that those guys are gone and we regressed as a football team because of it.

Note: I should say that I was not in favor of re-signing Benjamin. He had a good year, but it was his only good year and it was in a contract year. I was fine w/the Browns letting him walk. LOL.......sorry, had to get that in there.

This is progress. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Again mac, we really don't know if they created the problem or not.

I think they failed w/Mack, Scwhartz, and Gipson.........but, it's wrong to assign all the blame to one party.

You get that, right?