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

This would have been a nice year to just go 0.500. Playoff bound. lol

Those are legitimate questions.

You write as if Andrew Berry doesn't even exist on this team.

Lots of people do! It's like he's the forgotten man.

I'm not sure if they consider him the forgotten man. I believe what the perception is, and maybe rightly so, is that in the pecking order of power, he may be the diminished man. It does seem in the current power structure that he's fairly low on the totem pole.

I miss the days when I didn't even know who ran the team and just watched football..

All valid and great points to consider. It's why, imo, you don't want to bring in a young, up and comer to fulfill this role. In fact, I think it should be in more of a consultancy/advisory role that can help guide Sashi and Co., along. Someone that has had success in the game, but isn't looking for a full time job that would create strife within the FO. You want someone to allow you to keep the current plan and structure in place without sending shockwaves throughout the organization.

The two guys I would consider are Bill Polian or Gil Brandt. The have a wealth of knowledge and experience and at this point in the careers are not looking to advance their NFL careers by jockeying for power in the FO. This alleviates the concern of a power struggle.

Now, would either of these two actually want to spend their time in that role for the Browns, who knows?

I don't know if 7 yrs is enough experience to be the top talent evaluator of an NFL team. Berry has about half the experience of some of the young GM prospects.

To be honest, Berry's resume should be compared to present GM/Top evaluators of other teams, like Ted Thompson for example...who has 24 yrs of experience.


Andrew Berry...Total experience..7 yrs with the Colts...
...Scouting assistant-2 yrs (2009,2010)
...Pro Scout-1 yr (2011)
...Pro Scouting Coordinator-4 yrs (2012-2015)


Eliot Wolf...Total experience...13 yrs with the Packers.
...Pro Personnel assitant-4 yrs (2004-2007)
...Assistant director of pro personnel-4 yrs (2008-2010)
...Assistant director of player personnel-1 yr (2011)
...Director football operations-3yrs (2012-2014)
...Director player personnel-1yr (2015)
...Director football operation-8 months (2016)

While his points are valid, one also might want to consider the long list of reasons the current plan is doomed to fail.

Think about science. You from a hypothesis, conduct tests, analyze the data. That data is now used to form a new hypothesis if you discover your initial hypothesis was not correct.

Look, I understand that there are a lot of people that don't want to even consider that the plan may have flaws. I get that. I really do. However, the flaws are rather obvious and they aren't going away. It's possible to tinker w/the plan to overcome problems.

This way, we don't blow things up again, but we don't get stuck in a plan that is doomed to fail. As it is currently constructed, I believe the odds of it failing are significantly greater than of it succeeding, if some problems are not addressed and changes implemented.

How many years of "football experience" did Mike Lombardi, Phil Savage or George Kokinos have upon coming back to Cleveland?

Would you mind sharing why this plan is "doomed to fail"? If it's centered around Haslem has a trigger finger, then I'd agree it's a legitimate factor. Other than that, I'd enjoy hearing the definitive argument why this won't work. Additionally, if you agree that my above concerns are valid, if we added a "GM" mid-stream, how would we avoid repeating the points I mentioned?

This season is miserable, but the Browns' plan to rebuild can work

To think the Cleveland Browns are not burdened by their past would be ignoring reality.

The team's massive struggles since 1999 magnify its present struggles and eliminate any shred of patience. It's understandable for fans to lose faith after seeing little but schlock for 17 years, and it's frustrating for the team, which isn't trying to lose.

A miserable 0-12 season has been made even more miserable by the years of post-expansion misery.

But none of that means the Browns' rebuilding plan won't work. Losing in the past and losing this season does not guarantee more losing in the future. The failings of previous regimes doesn't guarantee the present one will fail. The only guarantee of failure is if owner Jimmy Haslam again loses patience and changes course. That will make a restart and another rebuild a certainty.

The Browns' new regime is off to a miserable start in terms of wins and losses, but the plan can still work. Here are a few factors to consider:

1. The Browns gutted the roster to rebuild the team

Yes, it hurt in the short term to let players such as Mitchell Schwartz and Alex Mack and Travis Benjamin leave. But the team committed to rebuilding with younger players, and it didn't make a half-baked attempt. The bottom line: The Browns went 3-13 in 2015 with those players and wanted to start fresh with new coach Hue Jackson.

2. The Browns told us about this ahead of time

The day the 2015 season ended, Haslam said he was embarking on a "multiyear rebuild." By that definition, this rebuild has not hit the first turn.

Multiyear means more than one, which means the team's intent this season was to lay a foundation with a new coach and new players while trying to win as many games as possible. Thus, this season was not totally about wins and losses.

The Browns didn't go half-hearted with their "reboot" (the word Jackson prefers). This roster was pared to the nails. Anyone who thought the roster as comprised could win six games was drinking spiked eggnog.

3. The team is building a new culture with its new coach

Jackson is the linchpin of everything the Browns are doing. He is the face of the franchise, the guy entrusted with building a culture that leads to wins. It hasn't happened yet, but Jackson is unwavering that it will, and the players have not abandoned him.

Pro Bowl offensive lineman Joe Thomas even called him exceptional.

Of course, Thomas also said this of the idea of a winning culture: "I'm not sure that I've ever believed in culture or anything like that. To me, that's just a matter of, do you have good players that play well? Then all of a sudden you have a winning culture."

Which is pretty much spot-on.

Which leads to …

4. The team has a bundle of extra draft picks

The Browns have extra first-, second- and fifth-round picks in 2017. They have extra second-, fourth- and sixth-round picks in 2018. They gave up a conditional fourth-round pick to the Patriots for LB Jamie Collins, whom they must sign. But if he leaves via free agency, they likely will receive a fourth-round pick as a compensatory pick.

If the Browns keep all of these picks, they will have four of the top 64 players in the '17 draft. That should be four new starters.

More picks increase the chances of success. These picks also could provide flexibility if the Browns decide to move up or (perish the thought) down in the draft.

The picks are the foundation of the team's approach, and the Browns have a lot of them. On paper, this is a good thing.

5. Lots of salary-cap room

At the moment, ESPN Stats & Information says the Browns have $82.7 million in cap space for 2017. A fair portion of that will be eaten up, but the Browns could be $40 million to $50 million under the cap when the offseason starts.

At some point, the team will use that cap room to improve the roster. It may be waiting for the right time -- such as the Cleveland Indians' acquisition of relief pitcher Andrew Miller before this year's World Series run -- but the cap space is there for the taking.

Some of these factors are intangible -- things like mental belief, approach and culture. But the draft picks are tangible, as is the cap space (though unused cap space pretty much is as useless as an egg on the sidewalk). There are opportunities for improvement.

The two most important parts of the equation are, (A) the Browns have to find a quarterback, and (B) they have to hit on their draft picks.

The quarterback is a given. Jackson admits it, saying he was brought to Cleveland to find that player.

The draft picks can't be wasted. Every year that happens is another year away from fixing the mess.

Johnny Manziel is a perfect example. The team misjudged him on and off the field, and as a result, the Browns wasted two years trying to see if he could play. Once those years are gone, it takes the same amount of time to find and groom another quarterback.

It's not hyperbole to say that drafting Manziel set the Browns back five years.

The addition of injury-prone QB Robert Griffin III has done little to help. That's another year wasted on trying to get him ready, and another year will be spent finding and developing the new guy.

There are many who feel the Browns blew it by not taking Carson Wentz. But the team likes the extra picks it acquired. Wentz can't be judged this soon in his career, nor can the trade. But if the Browns got that one wrong, it's another error.

A rebooting team can't afford errors.

Extra picks guarantee nothing. The Ray Farmer era included back-to-back seasons with two first-round picks. Those turned out to be CB Justin Gilbert, Manziel, NT Danny Shelton and C Cam Erving. Shelton has made great strides this season. The other three … eh.

Having the picks provides the chance. Using them properly defines success.

Yes, the Browns' approach can work.

They have to just get it right.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/...ebuild-can-work

I don't think the "plan" is destined to failure. I think it can work if the chips fall in our direction in the draft.
I would also like to lock up Kirksey, Pryor, Collins. not just hitting the draft picks but make them count...don't reach for a QB...BPA please.
there is more to it than the small sample I just stated. but I say stay the course...

Experience doesn't mean a person is good. If they are so good, why have they been scouts for 25 years?


I am not dismissing experience at all. Just saying if you are good enough to rise in the ranks, you shouldn't be expected to put in your 25 years before you get the chance to move up.

If you want a plan to work, you need to weak it along the way. It's stupid to "stay on course" with a plan that is not working. There's always room for improvement. If this organization is not going to improve the plan along the way, then it is doomed. Continuity for the sake of continuity is just as bad as blowing things up every year.

0-16 is not progress. This front office put together a team that can't win a game, I'm not sure how that is supposed to give us hope that they'll get it right in the future.

Is there anything out there that says they are not tweaking it as they move forward? I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't seen it anywhere, where the Browns Brass has said "we have a plan and by god we're not changing one single thing from year to year".

of course you tweak as you go. who is to say they won't add a tweak here and there from this off season to next off season?

When I say stay the course, I mean building through the draft and keeping our young up and comers that earned it.

from 3-13 last year to a complete rebuild and roster rebuild this year. of course the short term (this year) was going to be rough.

stay the course keep the FO and Coaching staff in tact. give these young kids time to grow and get valuable experience. if they make the same jump Shelton did, then we are building. and wins should follow.

gotta factor in the injuries we have had to the O-line. there are a few reason we haven't won this year and the plan is not one of them...unless you are counting the rooks having rook seasons. to say it's stupid is short sighted imo. give it time to grow.

the absolute biggest thing we need is to keep it all together and "hit" on a QB for once.

Greco and Bitiono will be back next year and I want to see more of Center Reiter...shoot bro we lead the league in rushing til Bitiono went down. ...anywhoo my two cents on it.

I know your were addressing Vers, Memphis, but I addressed a possible solution to this in my post above.

Not everyone has aspirations of becoming a GM or Director of Player Personnel for a variety of reasons.

1) They don't want the limelight
2) They don't want to deal with the politics of the position
3) Would not be comfortable doing press conferences in front of the media
4) Not good mangers
5) They love what they do
6) Enjoy life on the road and scouting young talent
7) Find satisfaction in what they do

If they have been a scout for 25 years they may certainly make enough coin to be completely satisfied with their career. If they have managed to remain a paid NFL scout for 25 years, they are like pretty good at what they do..

Just a different angle to consider.

Daniel Jeremiah used to be a scout and now works for the NFL Network. He talks about how being a scout is a miserable existence. There was a show on the NFL Network that confirmed his opinion. They are basically on the road by themselves the entire year and don't see much of their family.

Also, just from a quick Google search it looks like an NFL scout makes between $45,000 and $95,000. That is a pretty good salary, but definitely not life changing money.

Yep, DJ has talked about his experience (maybe it was his time as a scout for the Browns that jaded him, ha). He's a young guy with a big family. It's not for everyone. $45k -$95k is a decent wage, I never mentioned life changing money. Moving the Sticks is a great podcast, by the way. He's one of my favorite guests when Zac Jackson has him on the A to Z podcast.

I don't mind sharing and I have been raising these points via numerous threads for quite some time.

First of all, there are no easy answers. There are no guarantees that the plan will fail or succeed. If it was easily answered, there would not be any discussion. Haters like mac and homers/apologists like 101, tab, Vambo, Willie, etc, etc can wolf all they want about why the plan will work or not, but no one really knows. An intelligent person will consider all of the information and try to keep an open mind instead of drawing a line in the sand.

I think the plan has some good points, such as building through the draft, not overpaying for free agents, acquiring more draft picks, using analytics to aide in the building of the roster, training, practice details, play calling, etc. I like those points and want them to stay in place.

I also think there are some parts of the plan that made me use the phrase "doomed to fail." I think these points need to be considered and the plan altered to overcome them. Things to consider:

--Unlike baseball, the NFL does not have a minor league system to develop talent. Thus, when you draft a lot of players from one position, such as the Browns did this year w/WRs, you have nowhere to develop them. That means you have to put them on the PS, where you could lose them, or carry them on your roster, which is a problem because due to injuries, you need your entire roster to contribute during the season.

--Unlike baseball and basketball, football only plays one day a week. Thus, a loss is more significant. You have all week to dwell on it and the criticism from the fans and media can fester. In baseball, you don't have much time to dwell on the losses, because you have a game the next day. Look at your worst baseball teams and see how many games they win each year. At least there is some success.

--People can scoff at this all they want, but there is something to success breeding success and losing begets losing. How many times over the years have we seen the Browns play just well enough to lose? Heck, people are claiming that we should have won 2-4 games this year. Learning how to win or thinking here we go again is especially important w/a young roster. Who has won on this team? Even the great Joe Thomas hasn't ever reached the playoffs. Of course, he doesn't understand the winning culture angle. I think it is extremely important to have guys on your roster who have won before and who know what it takes to win. Winning is contagious and so is losing.

--Building off of that, I know for a fact that a coach can do all the right things. You can get your players to work hard, make sacrifices, be team first, put in extra time, etc........but, you gotta have some success [wins] in order for your players to continue to buy into what you are selling. Players begin to grumble when they are working harder than they have before and there are no positive results. And losing a locker room is deadly to a coaching staff.

--Dwindling attendance and an apathetic fan base is another negative. Milk posted a link about this on one of the earlier threads and the 76ers plan didn't take into account the hit of poor attendance and the Browns didn't either. No way can Jimmy, Dee, and even Sashi [business lawyer] be happy w/the lack of interest in the Browns. And it is likely to get much worse before it gets better.

--Building off of that point, what happens when ownership sees a crappy product on the field and lack of interest in the team despite an aggressive marketing plan? Do you think coaches will be given free passes for 3-5 years? Given Jimmy's past specifically and the impatience of owners generally, why would anyone believe that it will be different in terms of keeping coaches and FO types this time?

--I think the way the Browns have treated players and combine that w/their pathetic won/loss record, that it will be hard to attract quality free agents to the team when they actually do want to bring them in and to retain key free agents when their contracts are up. Heck, look at all the posters saying things like: "No way was Mack staying here." There are reasons why guys would not want to stay in Cleveland.

--I also think that having a lot of contracts expiring at the same time is going to make it tough to keep all the guys you want to keep. People will say things like "they couldn't re-sign everyone. Losing guys was expected."


Now, as far as your concerns about bringing in a GM, I will again say that they are legitimate concerns. They are very good points that need to be considered. And again, there isn't a set blue print on how to build the best team. If there was, it would have been discovered long before now.

I can say that during the interview process, you can make it clear that analytics will continue to be used and that Hue will be the HC for at least the next 3 years. I forget your third question, but I'm guessing that the Browns could also address that during negotiations, as well.

Obviously, that isn't full proof because you are dealing w/human beings. However, expectations can be clearly defined before you make the hire.

I hope that I answered your questions and that people will at least consider the validity of my points.

Good answers which lead to the logical question: Can FO commitment to"The Plan" withstand the external pressures of a demonstrated lack of success in the W/L column?

I don't know. I think the accumulation of losses---especially once we reach the mid-way point of next season is going to be tough to endure. That is why I would like to see some tweaking of the plan. I prefer that to a blow-up, because like I said earlier, there are parts of the plan that I really like.

I am a bottom line kind of guy .. It's all about Talent ON THE FIELD .. Is your or our FO capable of drafting that talent .. Answer that question and all others fall in place !

Cleveland Browns have Terry Talkin' blowing up front office again? -- Terry Pluto


By Terry Pluto, The Plain Dealer
on December 03, 2016 at 8:31 AM, updated December 03, 2016 at 10:39 AM
link

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland.com's Mary Kay Cabot wrote a very interesting column about the Cleveland Browns needing to hire an experienced NFL football executive.

It was the kind of story I wrote not long after Sashi Brown was promoted to vice president in charge of football operations. At that point, the Browns were looking for a general manager type, although he would probably not have that title.

That guy was hired. It's Andrew Berry, who basically is the player personnel director. The Browns also added veteran baseball executive Paul DePodesta as chief strategy officer.

My guess is most fans would have felt better about the new front office had there been a veteran football man in charge. But the Browns went in a different direction, with Brown/DePodesta/Berry.

The strongest football voice belongs to Hue Jackson. Part of the reason Jackson took the job was he knew he'd have influence with the front office. He also believed he could work for Brown & Company.

That's how owner Jimmy Haslam set it up:

1. Brown in charge, with DePodesta and Berry combining traditional football scouting with an analytics approach.

2. Jackson would be the main voice as the leader of the football team.

3. Brown's job is the make sure everyone works together.

Remember, the last two front offices splintered. There was a break between CEO Joe Banner and GM Mike Lombardi late in the 2013 season. In 2015, the split was between GM Ray Farmer and coach Mike Pettine.

I would have kept Banner as CEO and fired Lombardi. Farmer would have been Banner's assistant as the team headed into the 2014 draft. But that's me, and that's ancient history.

Instead, Farmer and Pettine were thrown together, both rookies in their jobs. They had no prior relationship with each other. Making that work was a long shot.

WHO IS IN CHARGE?

Here is the main issue with Cabot's idea: To bring in a strong executive, he will want (and need) real power. Basically, he would be taking Brown's job, even if Brown remained in some capacity.

The new football executive would then inherit Jackson, DePodesta, Berry, etc. So if he keeps Jackson, then it's another shotgun marriage -- much like Farmer and Pettine.

It wasn't Farmer who hired Pettine. After Pettine was hired to coach, Farmer was promoted to general manager. Talk about a way to instantly create trust issues, that was it.

I don't want a repeat of something like that.

Can the team add an older executive as a consultant -- of course. Cabot claims you can add this type of football executive without blowing up the structure. But the type of person she is looking for having "final say over all personnel decisions" also should want to bring in his own scouts and probably his own coach.

I've always preferred a strong general manager who hires the coach -- and they are in it together. When a general manager inherits a coach, they can say all the right things. But it's so easy for that relationship to fall apart under strain. If you bring in a strong football guy, then he has to be given permission to hire his own scouts, coach, etc.

It can't be a halfway move.

Cabot and I have disagreed before. The biggest was the 2012 when I loved Trent Richardson in the draft. Cabot thought it was an awful idea to pick the Alabama running back, and she turned out to be right.

So I know not everything I write deserves to be inscribed on a stone tablet for posterity.

As Cabot pointed out, there are reasons for doubt about the current football setup. But after one draft and 12 games, I'm not ready to make any major change of direction with the Browns.

ABOUT THE BROWNS

1. The real front office test is coming. Adding picks, cutting players and socking away salary cap room comes under the business heading of "asset acquisition." That's a challenge, but not the hard part.

2. The Browns have an NFL-high $50 million of room on their salary cap right now. It can go higher. As I wrote last weekend, picking up Terrelle Pryor and Jamie Collins is like adding two first-round draft picks. They probably would be among the top 10 players selected if they were eligible for the 2017 college draft. Now, the mission is to sign them.

3. The Browns appear to have 13 picks in 2017. Some of these are compensatory picks, that's why I'm a bit unclear. But this much is obvious: They have two picks in each of the first two rounds.

4. If the draft were held today, the Browns would be picking 1, 12, 33 and 47. That sets them up for a franchise-changing draft if they do it right. Somewhere in this draft is a good quarterback. Can they find him?

5. The Browns also need to add to the offensive line. I think they need a big-time center, be it a free agent or draft pick. The next Alex Mack is probably in this draft.

6. So it's time for the Browns to be very serious about picking players, not simply adding picks through trades. They did both last season, trading down twice to add picks and still select their top-rated wide receiver -- Corey Coleman.

7. The last four games are important because it will help give us a better idea of how the front office performed. Coleman is over his broken hand. He has 20 catches (three TDs) in six games. Let's see what he does in the cold of December on a losing team with an uncertain quarterback situation. That's a tough assignment for any rookie, but that's also life in the NFL.

8. Then there's Robert Griffin III ... we'll see.

9. The Browns are giving Jonathan Cooper a chance at guard. He was the No. 7 pick in the 2013 draft by Arizona. He had injuries and has been a big disappointment. He was waived by New England and picked up by the Browns. It's a long shot, but sometimes a player in this situation pulls himself together and has a decent career.

10. The Browns are going to look at Rashard Higgins, occasionally as a slot receiver. He caught two passes for 34 yards in the loss to the Giants. I think the rookie can be an effective receiver. The Browns need to find out.

Thank you for taking time to respond in a thoughtful manner. I understand your points but don't agree that it means we're doomed to fail. The attendance and losing portion don't really have much to do with the plan, that is unless, it convinces Haslem to cut ties with all of them, which is by far my greatest concern at this point. Well, that, and the FO hitting on draft picks because there is so much emphasis on it.

I think you are mistaken regarding the development angle....I think there is plenty of opportunity to develop them, but maybe not play them right away is more of a concern. Plus, we're talking about later round picks for many of those WRs... the chance of them hanging around, no matter the position, is small because if you are hitting on earlier round picks, those people are just pushed aside. That's a good thing. A thing we've not had in awhile, if ever.

The plan to me is simple and it is much of what you alluded to.....focus, at least for now, almost exclusively on the draft, have limited spending in FA, play young talent, retain the good talent already on the roster (recognizing they failed on Schwartz), and for pete's sake, find a QB . This approach, minus the commitment to analytics, reminds me of Heckert's plan. It really does. He missed on the QB part, but a lot of it has similar themes. This plan is weighted heavily on getting it right via the draft, which is why the accumulation of picks has been so important to them. The more picks you have, the better chance you hitting on players.

It's the "doom to fail" phrase that irked me because it concedes that this is a lost cause. I can't buy that just yet. We were a 4-12 team that cut overpaid/underperforming veterans (minus Dansby) and lost free agents (a couple we probably shouldn't have, Schwartz and Gipson) and are playing young players to, using your term, develop them. I have no clue if these players will pan out, but I like some of what I see. I just cannot buy the 'doomed to fail' narrative. Not yet. Signing Pryor and Collins will be huge, and if that doesn't happen, I will be concerned because we have the $$ to do so.

Good counter argument. I prefer these types of exchanges over things like rolls of toilet paper. LOL

Don't get caught up in the "doomed to fail" phrase. Like I said in my last post, there are no clear-cut answers. If there were, smarter guys than you and I would have figured it by now. Maybe Belichick has...

I worry about the plan failing not because of one single thing, but there are so many factors that when added together will cause Haslam to blow things up again. I think we both agree that how he reacts to the losing is the biggest concern.

I think this plan resembles Banner's plan more than Heckert's. Banner hired Sashi and he was using analytics long before they became popular in media and fan circles.

I really do see what you are saying about bringing in a GM. I need more time to think on that one, but I am certainly not a huge proponent of doing so.

I do think the plan needs tweaked, though. I think Haslam's patience will decrease as the number of losses increase. And I am not really talking about this year. Next year is my biggest concern and I think we both agree that we don't want to see another blow-up.

Anyway.........good discussion. That was/is enjoyable.

I disagree.

Banner dropped significant guaranteed money to players like Kruger and Bryant upon arriving. This year the Browns didn't even play the FO game. Neither did Heckert upon arrival. This year, Browns traded back twice to accumulate more picks this year. Banner went on record in a press conference (in a bad draft allegedly) that he had the chance to trade back with STL and didn't. Not a correlation to Heckert, but very different to this year's FO and Sashi.

Where I think this plan favors Banner more than Heckert is the analytics portion. Banner seemed more about data and Heckert more about what the eyes say.

Again, and I hate to mention it,..."doomed to fail" assumes you've already conceded that this won't work. For someone who says, repeatedly, you've not made a decision on this FO, this speaks to the contrary.

That was an epic post!

I think anyone who pretends to know the Browns' power structure is kidding themselves.

j/c

I think bringing in someone with experience will just muddy the waters. If that makes sense.

If you're bringing in someone who has the same views, then what's the point of bringing them in?

If you're bringing in someone with a different view, all you're creating is the in fighting we've come to know too well..

And that's not even talking about what "level" the would be on, Depp's? Equal to Brown? No thanks.

You want to bring in a football guy as a consultant? More than likely he's going to be in Haslems ear every time something goes wrong telling him how "his way" would be better..

I think it's silly to assume they have some sort on concrete set in "plan" that has no room for adjustment's..

I think we have a good coach. I think we need more talent. Not a crazy amount, because it honestly doesn't take "a lot" of talent to be competitive in the NFL.

We need a QB. As we always have. However you want to get one, do it.

As silly as it sounds, we are (in my opinion) one solid, not even great, just solid, draft away from being a "good" team.. But until we settle on a QB, we will continue to be at the bottom..

I don't care if you "settle" on Kessler as the guy going forward, you build your team and game plan around what he can do, and go from there..

Just pick someone, make them the QB, and try to build.

j/c

I doubt "the plan" ever remotely considered from the start of the season the ridiculous number of key injuries we would face.

The most disappointing thing to me this year is the likelihood that the number and severity of injuries has/will make it almost impossible to evaluate "the plan" without so many asterisks and qualifiers that it (the evaluation that is) is almost useless.

Like it or not...we must have faith in "the plan" at least until it can be reasonably evaluated...that's simply not going to happen this year.

I've explained my position to you twice now. If you don't wanna believe it and concentrate on that one phrase, who am I to stop you? Have fun w/it.

Thank you. I tried. Not sure it did any good. LOL

That makes sense.

Again, what worries me is that Haslam is going to blow this up [thus, my doomed to fail comment] if the huge amount of losses continue next year. And I think they will continue if we don't tweek things a bit. But again, it is just my opinion.




I can't agree w/this one.

What tweaks would you suggest?:

'Winning games' is already part of "the plan"...it's just not happening yet. That obviously cures a lot of ills.

Signing our own guys who fit the model is arguably also part of "the plan" except for the potential example of Schwartz not being signed. They appear to be working on deals with Pryor and Collins right now. If other guys want crazy deals, there isn't a guy worth giving that up for but for those two.

Over-drafting numbers at a position of need (WRs) last year was odd but not likely a pattern. They had no idea Pryor would improve so much. If Pryor had bombed out, we'd probably see more of the draftees - or another washed out vet.

The only tweak I can think of - other than NOT blowing things up again - is Hue getting an OC to call plays. I understand why he wanted to hold on to that this year...and it's probably a good thing given the crazy injuries we've had. That too may have already been in "the plan".

I guess another tweak would be to draft players with the high picks we have in rounds 1 & 2 and not trade down. That's four guys in a draft that could equal four starters. Then again, that may already be a part of "the plan".

I'd be tempted to "tweak" Tabor off the team, but I've thought that for awhile given our consistency in getting penalties called in the return game. I'd keep everyone else though.

We are 12 games into a 32 game overhaul. Things are going to stay ugly for awhile longer.

Why do you continue to ask me questions other than to advance your agenda? I told you. We are done having conversations because you don't wish to discuss, you want to dictate. Take it somewhere else.