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

sounds like Mack wasn't being very honest about coming back to Cleveland.

Yes sir when you are wrong you are wrong.

But did he say that before or after he left Cleveland?

Vers you are posting an article made on feb 26th. the two I just posted were from march 3, and march 9th.. Mack had no intention of coming back here

the truth shall set you free!!!

So you are saying that both Mack and the FO are liars?

I feel that Mack had no intention of signing here. I believe he didn't have want to be here, he was only here the last few years because of the Transition tag that we matched.

I don't have proof, he never came out and said it, he was the guy who always said the right things, however he body language and routes he took before, his agent saying "he can structure a deal the Browns can't match" were all telling signs to me. Will be the way I feel, and truthfully I don't blame him, the constant turnstile in the front office and coach can wear down any player.

You mean when they and he said he "MIGHT STAY" ?

OK let's put it in your terms he might have been telling the truth at that time but later he definitely stated he wanted to go.

You are assuming quite a bit. So, let's play the assumption game.

If Mack and others did NOT want to be here...........tell me why they did not want to be here. I will even provide some possible choices. Cool?

--They are degenerate human beings that were sent by the devil to screw the Browns?

--They were sick of the constant regime changes?

--They were sick of losing?

--They are idiots and not capable of conceptualizing how great our new FO is?

--It's a conspiracy theory designed by the NFL to keep the Browns down?

Other than choice number one, which is preposterous, how do the Browns look good in this particular situation?

He signed with another team...kind off says it all right there.

Pretty much spelled it out in my last sentence by stating I didn't blame him and I felt the constant changes in front office and coach wore on him and wanted to be somewhere more stable.

Mack had said, in the past, that he did not want to play his whole career on a losing team, and that the fact that the Browns kept changing coaches wore on him a great deal.

I don't have a link, but I do remember it.

im saying what might have been true in feb. was not true in march

What is your point?

Are you saying he is a liar?

I think that people sometimes say things, because they are legitimately conflicted.

I think that Mack enjoyed Cleveland, and enjoyed playing with the other members of the OL. However, that wasn't enough to convince him to stay, given all of the negatives associated with doing so.

jc

Prior to 2007: None left on team
2007: Joe Thomas!
2008-2009: Nobody left
2010: Joe Haden!
2011-2013: Nobody left. That's three straight years where we completely whiffed and have nothing to show for it.
2014: Bitonio and Kirksey. That was 3 drafts ago and all we have to show for it is a 2md and 3rd rounder?

that list of years ruined my breakfast. the years 11-14 are some of the WORST draft selections I've ever seen.

And 2015 doesn't look far behind

With the benefit of hindsight you always make the right choices. That's very important to remember.

The fact that they let so many players go via FA is why they are where they are and you don't need hindsight to reach that conclusion.

Of all the things that I become most upset about thats the one that eats my guts out.

When they didn't go all in to retain players I knew this regime change would do only one thing. That is what needs to change until that happens will never get out of the basement.

I don't know who's contracts are up at the the close of this season, I have stopped keeping track but if they continue to place so little value on player retention they and we will continue to be losers.

I have been saying this very thing for years now, its nice to see that many folks have begun to understand where and why we go so wrong, on the other hand I was beaten relentlessly for this take.

Before the season started I said we would be worlds better had we made a move to get Bradford, again I was ridiculed for my take. But now after just one game playing for the Vikings to the last prognosticator they are saying the Vikings are a better team with Bradford then they were with Bridgewater.

One poster even said there was no difference between Bradford and RG3, at which point I dropped out of the discussion not because I was proven wrong but because that poster was so lost when it came to understanding the differences between Bradford and RG3.

A year ago I was all over getting Bradford. I knew he would have a tough year last season as he continued to recover from ACL surgery but look at him now, and I ask again do you really think RG3 is the equal of Bradford?

I said McCown was the better QB by miles from RG3 once again the fans on this board are so so lost it amazes me how folks who spend so much time talking football (hahaha) can know so little about it.

I keep saying it building a winner is easy and it is, keep your good players add in more good players replace players as better talent becomes available. Give the players time playing together and they naturally get better as individual units and as players.

In the NFL there is no such thing as rebuilding there is only building, and we try to re build instead of building and you end up with what we have.

Hue is a great coach and his staff are pro's let them build stop thinking it will reach its full potential in weeks when you compete against teams that have played together for years.

But as important as I think the fans understanding the build ideology is ownership has to understand it and work towards it. This is a tough go for ownership its hard to stay the course when everything says you headed to the bottom, but you must.

The real question isn't weather we have the right folks running things the real question is will they build and allow it to mature? So far I would say we are building towards losing but that can change but Haslim will be the deciding factor. He alone owns our record over the 4 seasons he has run this team....

When he understands building then perhaps we can get somewhere to date we have had zero luck and if anything Haslom doubles down every off season.... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

True, but this FO and owner want to build on their own foundation of selected youth, talent and skill sets that fit their scheme....whatever that is.

This is happening right before our eyes but it will require this season to tank.

j/c

My thoughts on the "no way" they were coming back discussion.

They were willing to hear the Browns, but unless the offer was ridiculous they'd rather play somewhere else.

It sucks, but I can see both sides.

The players would prefer to win.

The FO doesn't want to "overpay". While not everyone agrees on what overpaying would have been. The Browns didn't want to pay more than they would have made on the open market.

Whether this "economic" approach will work depends on their ability to draft. It should give the benefit of sustainability if it ever gets going.

I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself on the playoff teams trend.

The Raiders haven't started off like gang busters (I have their D in fantasy they've been awful), and the Eagles beat us and the Bears with the bad version of Jay Cutler.

The Broncos are spending ~$14.44 million on their OL this season, which is the 3rd least.

The Panthers are spending ~$25.32 million, which is higher, but still not in the top 10.

The key roster construction wise seems to be to have a balanced roster more than focus on the OL. Both Super Bowl teams from last season only are in the top 5-10 of a couple categories. CAR in RBs and QB, DEN in WR (Probably were in QB when Payton was there)

You need to have a plan and find players that fit. You also need to stick to a plan, so you aren't stuck with players that only fit the old plan.

Whether our plan is feasible (or what it really is) and whether we will stick to it, I don't know. Without the stick to it part, we'll never know if they could have worked.

Mac love ya man, as close as I can figure out all is making just over 14.3 mil. Now I don't know the cap hit. Did we have room to sign those guys? Hell yes we did and we would be better for it.

Mac in your opinion, what constitutes as "NFL experience"?

being in an organization for an extended period of time? or playing a position in the NFL?

Well, NFL experience can't possibly be seeing how your offensive line had given up 53 sacks in 2015 ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2015.htm ) and realizing that it doesn't make sense to break the bank to keep that Unit together.

I'll bet it's the Harvard education that shows through 2 games this season we've given up 6 sacks. That's an average of 3 per game. So at this rate, 3 sacks x 16 games = 48 sacks for the 2016 season.

The summation of my Doctoral Thesis on analytics is thus:

Why overpay two guys for 53 sacks when you can bring in younger talent for potentially 48? Let's say we repeat and give up another 53 sacks... maybe 58? We still don't come up shorter than if they had been retained.

This isn't to say that I think Mack and Schwartz are garbage. I don't. Clearly they are good players, but having said that, just what the heck is it people are so broken up about not retaining them for exactly? 53 sacks? Really?

McCown took 23 sacks all by himself, according to your link.

manziel played in 2 more games(10) than McCown(8) yet took 4 less sacks.

here's the part that kills me bro: all throughout last season, a ton of posters we're really on Schwartz because he constantly needed TE help on blocking since he's been on the team.

then, the reality is that Schwartz CHOSE to walk, he chose to look for another team for a bigger pay, even though we offered him a really nice contract, and now people are all of a sudden pissed?

at this point, the FO is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

you know what would've happened if schwartz was still on the team right now?

"omg, we played this crap lineman how much to allow these sacks on our QB?"

people keep complaining about the right side of our O line, but conveniently forgot that they've been complaining about our right side of the line since Schwartz got here.

then, the reality is that Schwartz CHOSE to walk, he chose to look for another team for a bigger pay, even though we offered him a really nice contract,

FLAT OUT LIE!

no it's not. He could have taken the Browns offer. but decided to peek else where.

^Truth.

I'm not convinced that had we retained Schwartz and Mack that we still wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Haven't we gone that route before, hiring guys with experience? The result was still the same.

The O line looking good and bad has far more to do with the QB reading the defense and getting rid of the ball then you can put into numbers. So while numbers are nice they hardly tell the real story.

The heart and soul of any offense is the QB. The FO and Hue brought in a dumb QB. RG3 is probably the most gifted athlete to ever play QB for the Browns but he is also probably the dumbest as well. He see's nothing and he anticipates less.

Plain and simple Hue let his ego get in the way of football. Like most coaches he THINKS he can fix RG3, but the truth is no one can fix stupid and RG3 is football dumb.

To sum up talking like you all KNOW what is wrong and how to fix it is ignorance and nothing more and to quote stats and to believe those stats hold the answers is even dumber. There I said it.

The great O lines in the NFL have QB's who know where to throw the ball and get rid of it as quickly as is humanly possible. Great O lines are almost myths, their as great as the QB running their offense. Read your stats you seem to put so much stock in and look at who gets rid of the ball the quickest it will tell you all you need to know about great O lines.

You're usually not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you you knocked that last post out of the park. If you could have just resisted that little paragraph where you like to build yourself up by putting others down it would have been perfect. By the way, there's a word for what you do. It's called insecurity.

The Browns oline is fine, and it's been fine for many years. Since Thomas was drafted you can argue that the oline has been top 10, and we still didn't win. This year I would say it's middle of the road, but it's certainly good enough to win with. The real issue over the years has always been the QB. RG3 is hurt because he made a poor decision. McCown is hurt because he holds the ball for an eternity. The oline is fine. The Browns need to solve the QB issue, and I, like you, am concerned about Hue's ego in all of this. He backed the wrong horse, and it looks like as of now it's going to set us back even further.

How is taking a flyer on RG3 setting us back?

We paid him nothing, and gave up nothing.

In a vacuum, taking a flyer on RG3 isn't an issue for me. However, the decision to go with him as opposed to Carson Wentz, IF he becomes a franchise QB, could be where the set back is justified.

We'll see if that ends up being the case.

I hate the way the team is performing right now. But then again, I've hated it for quite a while overall. The results just haven't been anything to brag about.

Yeah Yeah, we've had pockets of interesting and fun and good things happen, but 90%+ of the time since 1999, this team has been anything but good.

Whenever there was a regime change, I've tried to remain positive. But I admit, it gets harder and harder to do that.

Still, I don't see the need for post upon post, thread upon thread, bashing this front office 2 games into the season.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Honestly, I think there is more crossover in being a GM in a different sport than there is in simply being in the scouting department. The GM's job is about more than just scouting. In scouting, you are primarily looking at individual players and judging their talents and skills. As a GM you have to worry about contracts, legal issues, roster construction, in house discipline, trades, cuts, etc.

As long as you have a "scouting guy" with experience, which we have in Berry (he had a fast ascent similar to Robinson), and you have experienced scouts, and you are willing to listen to their input, you don't need a scouting background as a GM.

A scouting background doesn't hurt, but you also have a separate "head " of the scouting "department". The General Manager is over that, but he also manages other "departments". You can take different paths to the GM role through those different departments. At the top, you have to work with all of them. In the past, those different areas didn't work together very well. Sashi has experience in getting people to work together.



Link