DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Front Office...continued

I have watched a few Chiefs games and Schwartz has played very well. Announcers have noted that Schwartz has been the best and most consistent offensive linemen for the Chiefs. Same has been said about Mac in Atlanta.

If they can't even Win 1 game, then they would be right to clean house(the only time it would be justified)The previous firings of Crennell, Mangini, and god help me...Holmgren and Shurmur showed enough to be given more years...but this....this....really?


No one in the league would expect to survive an 0-16 season, and no one in the NFL is going to hold it against Haslam for cleaning house under an 0-16 season as it would be justifiable....im sorry but if they go 0-16 I don't want to see year 2, year 1 was impossible to stomach.

They got 4 games left...if they can't win 1 damn game then Haslam needs to clean house and can the damn anaylitic moneyball garbage and atleast try to get an NFL compentent Front Office.

Heck I would be ok with keeping Hue Jackson long as we canned Sashi, Depodesta and the rest of these front office clowns.

I think Hue is salvable coach...i think with good Front Office support he could win here...but he don't have a chance in Hades with Moneyball running the show...

Agree on the wall ... been preaching that for awhile now ... U weren't around but many were saying the 2nd half of the season would be better ... i said i didn't see it and one of the reasons was the rooks would hit the wall ...

We never had a shot with Mack ... he wanted to win ... that was his bottom line ... no probs with the FO on that one ... nuttin they could do ...

Schwartz was never as bad as Pastzor ... but thats irrleivent at this point ...

The FO messed up with Schwartz .. that is 100% on them .. when he came back they pulled the offer ... they decided to make an example of him ... STUPID ...

You'll never convince me otherwise bro ... worst case ... 1 LESS POSITION TO FILL TODAY ...

Hopefully Coleman can step up and be the man ... at this point we have no clue ...

Dude .. they tore the entire thing down ... witch i have NO PROBLEM WITH ... (vers .. have zero faith in the re-construction crew ... but i agree with tearing it down .. ) ..

I said it before the season started ...

HC - Lombardi
OC - Walsh
DC - Billicheck ..

Still would have been lucky to win 4 games ...

And i am no huge fan of Hues and have ZERO faith in the FO .. but they don't deserve to be fired after this year no matter our record ... if we went 0 - 16 next year .. thats an entirely different story .. NO WAY THAT HAPPENS!!!

Why not? It's (finally) guaranteed that it can't get any worse

They will find a way to win one. Circle the Cincy game in Cleveland.....I think they win that one imo.

Are you really trying to say bitono was the only reason we could run the ball?

Problem with cleaning house is no one respectable is going to go near this train wreck. We would be stuck with another rookie GM making rookie mistakes. Unfortunately, keeping Sashi is our "best" choice.

nope, not at all. I see you answered my question with a question. Ok i'll play along.

Bitiono was not the only reason we were able to run the ball so well, but he played a big part of it imo. Bitiono goes down and Bailey? steps in and Cam went down. now Greco has to slide over to play Center leaving the RG duties to someone else who is not as good as he is. So to review, we have two starters out and one playing a position that is not his. that is 3/5 of our line. When they were healthy we did lead the league in rushing. So that tells me that they were doing there jobs for the most part.
Even with the almighty Mack and god like Schwartz we couldn't do that...so in my mind the line was better than last years squad...so they must have talent to pull that off right?

Now I am not saying they are thee very best judges of talent, but seems to me are not that bad yet...but it is year one. Let's see how they do come next off season.

I disagree w/you about our offensive line. While it certainly hurt that the Browns lost Mack and Schwartz, the Browns OL is not the worst in football. Using stats to prove your point does not paint a complete picture.

I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that it's "obvious" that the FO doesn't value the offensive line. I think they clearly made a mistake with how they handled the Mitchell Schwartz situation but that doesn't mean they don't value the RT spot.

Joe Thomas-- Don't need to draft high for his spot.

Joel Bitonio- Don't need to draft high for his spot.

Cam Erving- Although not playing well this year, he just finished up a rookie year playing multiple spots. I'm not going to get into the Alex Mack situation....again. He was gone.

John Greco-- although I think he was the weakest link in the oline last year, there is certainly no urgency to replace him with a high draft slot.

Mitchell Schwartz-- a FO blunder that was potentially addressed with a third rounder.

What trends justify saying the FO doesn't care about the FO? One year of drafting? Would you have preferred we addressed the RT spot in our first or second round selections? Or center? Is that what you're suggesting? I think taking Shon Coleman in the third round is a decent draft slot commitment to the offensive line. However, the issue is, with ANY FRONT OFFICE, is hitting on those picks more than not. We'll see if that happens.

That argument is as dumb as the one made in my thread where people are saying Wentz sucks by using stats. There is so much more to picture than pure stats.

You are not factoring in the scores of the games. You are not factoring in how long the qbs hold the ball. You are not factoring in if the receivers are open are not. You are not factoring in the effectiveness of a ground game. You mention it, but you seemingly are ignoring how often teams pass the ball.

It's a biased opinion and you are using a raw stat to make an absolute evaluation. It's dumb and annoying.

I did argue your position. You simply chose to ignore it. Here it is again:

You are not factoring in the scores of the games. You are not factoring in how long the qbs hold the ball. You are not factoring in if the receivers are open are not. You are not factoring in the effectiveness of a ground game. You mention it, but you seemingly are ignoring how often teams pass the ball.

But how is it "obvious" the Browns don't value the offensive line?

The only thing that is obvious is that you are judging a long term plan halfway through the first season and that you understand bashing front offices better than you understand football.

Then I am not sure that you understand what the definition of "too long" is.



You must have a very short memory because Thomas, Bitonio, and Greco are 3 of the best o-line players that we have had since the expansion and we have them all on the same team. We might be adding Reiter to that list next year as well. Granted we were even better with Mack and Schwartz, but we are nowhere near the worst o-line.

In 99 the starting oline was:
LT- 36 year old Lomas Brown
LG- Jim Pyne - who was decent, but we only had him for two seasons
C- Dave Wohlabaugh
RG - Scott Rehberg
RT - Orlando "Zeus" Brown- took a penalty flag to the eye and didn't even make it through the first season.

Then I am not sure that you understand what the definition of "too long" is.

I was referring to "Too Long" by Browns standards...which is any amount of time past the first read..if our QB even gets to his first read.


Here is an example of a QB hanging on to the ball too long, but still having the time needed to complete his pass for a TD.



NOTE: click the video play button, then click the link "Watch on YouTube"





A Browns QB would settle for half that amount of time.


...and just so everyone knows how an offense like Dallas runs the ball and passes the ball like they do...this is as simple as I can make so everyone understands what the Browns front office needs to do...



NOTE: click the video play button, then click the link "Watch this video on YouTube"

Amazing! Pick one fluke play with blocking from the best o-line in football and set that as the standard to go by.

Any team in the NFL would be extremely happy with half of that 8 seconds that Prescott got on that play because 4 seconds is still about double what most QB's get. The NFL average is like about 2.28 seconds. None of our QB's are getting the ball out that quick.

This image is from the 2014 season. Open it in a new tab to see a bigger version.

I agree with both you and mac to a certain extent. Our OL is neither as good as some make out (including some analytics sites) or as bad as others make out. I do think our OL may lead the league in stupifyingly bad looking plays, and they are pointed to enough that they become the narrative on the OL. Maybe it just seems that way because I don't read other teams message boards looking for their lowlights.

The OL does have good plays, but people haven't been posting clips of them.

I honestly think our biggest problem is that we aren't particularly cohesive. For a new system with a bunch of new players, it is to be expected. Our timing is terrible. The QB and receivers don't seem to have it which makes the line need to block longer on pass plays. The line and the RBs don't have particularly good timing which causes TFLs because they aren't where expected. Individual people do the same "play" differently, so you don't just have to know the play, but how the other guys are going to run it. We don't have that at all. I think individuals can do their job, but they don't know how each other are going to respond to different looks.

It's not necessarily a problem with the "plan" exactly, it's just inevitable when there is so much new.

You can plug a rookie into an established system and it can work (See Dallas). If the rest of the guys see things the same way and know what to do, that's something the rookie doesn't have to worry about. We didn't have experience in this system, and we have a bunch of rookies. It's not super surprising that it often looks like an uncoordinated mess. We aren't a "well-oiled machine." We're more of a prototype that still has a ton of kinks to work out.

I wish we would get something working before we going adding more to the system. If we were an assembly line, we're kind of trying to get the Lamborghini at the end of the line, when I'm not even sure we've got the frame designed properly yet.

I don't know if it's fair to lay the blame at either the FO or the coaching staff. They both have some blame, but there were a ton of problems they were faced with in the first place which they had little/no control over.

Anyone would need time to overcome those problems and get the kinks worked out. They should have a better understanding of the issues now at least. New people would have to start that figuring out all over again, and constant turnover is one of the problems that needs to be overcome.

I had definitely been hoping for better, but there was a pretty big mess to take over and try to clean up. Time and familiarity should help some next year. How much remains to be seen.

mac, the Browns were leading the league in rushing until NE figured out how to stymie the Brown's offense. That wasn't about the OL, it was about the QB.

I am NOT saying our OL is great, but we've seen far worse here in Cleveland and there are far worse lines in the NFL.

We need to upgrade the RT spot and we certainly need a new center. However, we have three very good pieces in Joe, Bitonio. and Grecco. Pazstor would be a great 6th guy, but even if he is our 5th best linemen, that wouldn't be all that bad.

Do we need to get better? Yes.

Are we the worst in the league? No, not even close. And using a limited stat data base only clouds the truth.

You guy just don't get the plan.





It may or may not work out, but you have to give it time. I don't know how happy I would be going back to 5 wins a season.


Some act like that is the goal.



It's been said that Patience is a virtue. I believe in that. Let's wait and see how it pans out.

Peen, not sure how much NBA you watch, but I feel like these guys want to do what the 76ers have done. Acquire as many picks as possible by being bad. Replace old guys like with young guys and see what sticks.

Try to find a core of guys who will grow and learn to battle through tough times.

1964.

I was alive in 1964. The year I got a drivers license as a matter of fact..I worked at Uncle Bill's, stocking and pushing buggies. I think I made $1.35 per hour. Maybe it was $1.25 per hour, cant remember. I do remember that after putting in maybe 20-25 hours a week I took home maybe $19-$22 dollars a week.



I was proud when I cashed that $45 paycheck. I had money in the pocket.

Except at the start of the season Sashi said this:


link


This tells me going winless was never part of the master plan. They made some big mistakes in evaluating what they had and now are scrambling for answers. They do have a lot of draft picks next year so they have a chance to salvage this mess, but their failures this year gives me very little hope that they will succeed.

Sadly I would take the years of 4-5 win seasons over not winning at all.

Not me.

If you aren't first, you're last.

I think that long term this plan will lead to wins and if it takes some short term pain, so be it.

really peen i worked at the point from 67 70 making like 90 cents an hr and working 80-90 hrs a week

What makes you think this plan will work?

if we stick to building through the draft and keeping our own...why wouldn't it work?

I thought this a good read.

reasons: Doug Lesmerises

Sashi Brown, Hue Jackson, Paul DePodesta
Sashi Brown (left) and Paul DePodesta (right) made a plan and Hue Jackson (center) is in the midst of dealing with the first year of it. But you must understand what's happening here. (John Kuntz, cleveland.com)
Doug Lesmerises, cleveland.com By Doug Lesmerises, cleveland.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on November 23, 2016 at 9:00 AM, updated November 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM
0
shares
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Eleven losses into an 16-game season, many of the conversation points around the Browns continue to confuse.

If you disagree with this 0-11, your disagreement springs from March, not November. It revolves around choices in free agency, not losses on Sundays.

The points Joe Thomas and Terrelle Pryor made about a thinned-out offensive line letting Browns quarterbacks get hit? Valid. Those were smart criticisms, because they looked big picture, not just at the Sunday scoreboards. And no matter what Hue Jackson says, you want your best players in a lost season standing up and saying this is enough.

Players demanding accountability from the front office for the players in that locker room, while the front office looks to the future, can work together. It's healthy talk aimed at getting better.

It's part of how this winless season has value for the Browns, even if too many people are looking at it the wrong way.

But you can't sit down at this meal, then ask why the cook didn't replace the alternator in your car. Understand your surroundings. You can't refuse to acknowledge what you're dealing with.

Honestly, what are you pining for?

I've read some extreme reactions to this losing. It feels like people are longing for the good old days of 5-11 and 4-12 while staring down the barrel of an 0-16 season that is losing, but at long last, a different kind of losing.

Maybe everyone - fans and media - are just worn down. It's one thing to talk tanking in the spring, and another to live it in the fall. But this is it people. You should take it. But you have to understand it.

Here are 19 points to help you do that.

1. Jackson and the players are trying to win. They must. They are professionals and competitors and no one doubts their desire.

2. Winning this season is not the first priority of the front office. Is that really not obvious? You saw the four starters lost on the first day of free agency and the trades made to add future draft picks, right?

3. If you disagree with that idea and believe that every team every season should prioritize victory in the moment, then your argument ends there. You disagree with the whole idea.

4. Understand that 0-11 is the fruition of that idea, plus some bad injury luck. But you can't look at 0-11 as the failure of the plan when a season like this is part of the plan.

It's not about losing on purpose, it's about looking beyond 2016 from the start and not getting bogged down by the results of these 16 games.

5. The current 53-man roster includes 19 rookies and another 10 players with two seasons of experience or less.

6. Look at the 22 projected starters for Sunday's game vs. the New York Giants. How many are true starters for a winning team? Eleven, max. You aren't the only one who knows this. If you see it, the front office sees it.

7. Confused by the quarterback picture? Of course. Everyone's hurt, but the long-term answer almost certainly isn't here. A 37-year-old backup, an injury-prone free agent flyer and a third-round pick isn't a comprehensive quarterback plan.

You can't evaluate the quarterback future because it almost certainly isn't on the roster. But guess what drastic losing does? Enhances the chances of solving that problem.

8. The offensive line isn't playing well? Of course. Thomas and the injured Joel Bitonio are great NFL linemen. Other than that? Cam Erving, drafted by Ray Farmer, is critical here. Again, what Thomas and Pryor said about getting quarterbacks hurt is true. But there must be and will be new answers here next year.

9. This is a rebuild. This season is the re- part. Look for the build part next season, with the Browns holding 11 picks in the 2017 draft, including four in the first two rounds. Guess what those four picks are? Four starters. Plus there is plenty of salary cap room available.

10. Why does Jackson have to defend Sashi Brown for saying he's not focused on the wins and losses this year? We're all adults here (shout out to the kids reading this). We can deal in reality. Don't be offended by the words that express what anyone with eyes can see.

11. If you don't think Carl Nassib or Emmanuel Ogbah or Corey Coleman or Danny Shelton, etc., are showing signs of life as future players to count on, let's talk. Evaluating the young players who will be around is a huge part of this year. If the front office missed on some, or the coaches aren't developing them properly, then aim your analysis there.

12. If you're worried about guys who are clearly stopgaps missing tackles or blocks, what's your point? That they're not good enough? Or course they aren't good enough.

There are players helping to lose games right now who absolutely will not be here next year. So the poor performances of some of those players has nothing to do with the future.

13. Jackson isn't a winning coach this season, but he wasn't given a roster that could win. Evaluating him on the record makes no sense. Discipline, motivation, play-calling, second-half letdowns – all those are valid discussion points. But not the record.

Don't discount the frustration here. That's a real issues for the guys playing every week. Just keeping this team together may be enough to judge this season a success for Jackson. That's a price you have to pay for this plan, but they'll survive.

14. If you think the front office, one in place for 10 months and one that inherited a 3-13 team with no quarterback and a litany of failed first-round picks, has failed, what tells you that? It can't only be the record.

The play of the young players? Passing on Carson Wentz? OK, but you're walking out of the meal because you didn't like the font on the menu. You aren't even at the appetizers yet.

15. What are you pining for? What has been more successful than what's being tried now? Nothing.

16. It was suggested to me this week that a 5-11 or 4-12 record is better than 0-16 because it would mean you're closer to a winning record the following year.

What?

The Browns have been 4-12, 5-11 or 6-10 in 10 seasons since they returned. They have two winning seasons in that time.

17. If you think losing only leads to losing, then you have first-hand proof -- 5-11 leads to 5-11. What does 0-16 lead to? The Browns have never tried that, have never been willing to truly sacrifice a year of now with an eye toward the future.

That's what this is.

18. Many want to hold that historical lack of success against this group, that nearly two decades of 5-11 somehow makes 0-16 worse. If any group is ever going to succeed here, they have no choice but to ignore the past.

Fans, of course, can't do that. But you need to understand the decision makers can't factor in a past they weren't part of.

19. That doesn't mean this is guaranteed to work or that the front office deserves blind faith. We have no idea if this group can build a team.

But 0-11 that could be 0-16 isn't a sign they can't do it.

It tells us, definitively, that they're trying it a different way.



http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2016/11/the_browns_are_losing_of_cours.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Great article. I think this gives good insight to the plan.....now, they just need to hit on the majority of the draft picks, just like any regime.

Doug Lesmerises used to cover the Buckeyes exclusively for the PD. Very happy they've expanded his role to cover the Browns...I like his writing.