DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Transactions

Frankly I have no idea why we would want Bailey over anyone.

We raided an awful Seattle OL, again, for a disappointing OL. We let Schwartz walk when he wanted to come back, with the deal they had on the table, before free agents could even sign anywhere.

*Sigh*

Just curious how many of the other 30 teams put an offer out to Schwartz?

I don't recall a bidding war why would that be?

Who knows?

It's likely that we offered him, and KC did, but he chose not to go anywhere else. His brother played in KC, so maybe these were the only 2 teams he really wanted to play for. Who knows? It's probably just as likely as any other theory. He really only spent 1 day on the open market before deciding that he wanted to return, only to be told "too bad".

Actually YTown, he was told too bad before the FA signing period ever began.

Really? I guess my memory is foggy, or I'm thinking of someone else. I thought we offered him, then he wanted to test the market, then he came back to take our offer and that was when he was told it's off the table.

If it wasn't him, who am I thinking of?

There's a three day window before the FA signing period begins where players can test the waters but can't be signed. Schwartz deal was pulled before the signing period began.

------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 7 at 12 pm, the two day window for teams and agents to discuss UFA contract offers began. Schwartz's agent did participate in the legal tampering period, but Schwartz decided to stay in Cleveland and the Browns were informed hours before the free agency period began at 4pm on Wed, March 9, 2016.

When Schwartz's agent contacted the Browns to convey Schwartz's desire to remain in Cleveland...Browns management said their offer was off the table.

Call it what you want..bait and switch, rescind, pulled the offer..no matter how you slice it, the Browns decided they no longer wanted Schwartz. At 4pm Schwartz entered Free Agency and was quickly signed by the Chiefs.

Schwartz and his agent operated according to league rules and for that, Schwartz was punished by the Browns.

So tell me, what do the Browns win for most cap space available?...anyone?


The legal tampering period...

Free agency officials kicks off at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday. But the courtship process can begin well before that under league rules.

Yes, we're talking about the so-called "legal tampering" period of free agency, or as the NFL officially refers to it, the negotiating period for prospective unrestricted free agents.

The NFL tweaked this phase of the league calendar for 2016, cutting this negotiating period from three days to two. The period began at noon Monday and ends at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday. Additionally, the league has loosened restrictions on how teams and agents can negotiate during this period.

We thought it might be helpful to to offer up a refresher on the specifics of the "legal tampering period". We provide information straight from the source, specifically an internal memo obtained by NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport.

During the two-day period, all teams have the right to negotiate "all aspects of an NFL player contract" with the certified agent of an impending free agent. Figures can be exchanged on a deal, but nothing can be agreed to or announced before the start of free agency on Wednesday.

There are restrictions to this process. A free agent is not permitted to visit with a team other than their current team. Furthermore, a player cannot be in contact with a team that is not their own. Only the agent can communicate on the player's behalf during this period. If a player acts as his own agent, he's out of luck -- the NFL does not allow communication with another team before Wednesday.

In the memo, the NFL also reminds teams that breaking the rules of the negotiating period could be considered conduct detrimental to the league as well as a violation of the league's anti-tampering policy. Translation: Play by our rules or we're coming for your wallet and/or draft picks.

So while the big announcements won't come until Wednesday afternoon, consider the next two days the process of prepping the meal and setting the table before dinner is served.

With that said ...How much better? with him and Mack the Browns were a 3 win team. So how many games would he have helped WIN? To justify his pay increase how many WINS would it take?

Why did no other team besides the Browns and KC make him an offer? Doesn't seem like he tested much of the market a lot of teams need help why no offers?

Watched Chiefs game the other night...seen a few this year. Literally just as I was thinking to watch for him, Gruden pipes in....'and it was Mitchell Schwartz' pull that made that long run possible'.

We can go round and round but he wasn't a bad player for us. Out of all we lost, I felt he was the best at the best price we could have retained but we didn't and now we still have a TON of cap and have to play crapshoot to get a RT in the draft or FA.

We need to keep the necessary pieces and get value when we can. I believe we missed on him more than any other FA.

There are 22+ consistent contributors on O and D so to say he is worth a win difference or more isn't feasible. We would have ran the ball better this year than we did without him. We would have protected our qb better and after multiple broken bones and concussions, it's hard to argue that we shouldn't have kept him!

Yes, it was only a 3 win team, but we also only went through 3 QBs instead of 5...wait, that really isn't a plus, is it?

Actually...

Rushing
With Mack and Schwartz:
Crowell 3.8 ypc
Johnson 3.6 ypc
Sacks 53

Without them this year
Crowell 4.5 ypc
Johnson 4.9 ypc
Sacks 62 (with one game to go)

So our QBs have suffered more so than our RBs

How would have Schwartz kept RG3 from getting injured on that sideline hit?

2015

Week 1 starter: Josh McCown.

Week 2: Manziel starts due to McCown's concussion.

Week 3: McCown starts due to improved health.

Week 9: Manziel starts due to McCown's shoulder/rib injuries.

Week 12: McCown starts due to Manziel's punishment for off-field behavior.

Week 13: Davis starts due to McCown's clavicle injury.

Week 14: Manziel starts due to Davis' poor play.

Week 17: Davis starts due to Manziel's concussion.

j/c:

So, now the rhetoric is that Schwartz stinks? LOL.....

If that's what you want to think you are entitled your your OPINION.

Schwartz is a good RT. We would have a better O-line had he and Mack stayed. However, with the qb play we've had this season it really wouldn't have made much difference. We need an upgrade of talent at most of our positions but none more than qb. Without a franchise type qb we are going to continue to spin our wheels.

I get that the Browns stink, but it isn't a good idea to lose your better players, regardless of how bad the other players are.

Sp why would New England let Jimmy G go?

Swartz liked playing in Cleveland. He liked the team, and he liked the fans. He got a huge bug in his ear from his brother about ignoring the fans and looking out for himself, which he ended up listening to Both he, and the Browns front office screwed up on this deal, and I think both sides will end up regretting it

I dunno, KC is going to the playoffs this year, hoping for a first round bye if they win and the Raiders lose this weekend. We won 1 game........

He is going to live 30, 40,50 years after football. What your bringing up won't matter that much in 40 years.

I don't know, bro.

It seems to me that playing on a winning team would be better than playing for a dysfunctional organization even 30 + years later.

Pryor sounded like he had no plans to resign with the Browns when interviewed yesterday. I won't fault the Browns if they can't keep him, just like Mack last year.

Mac - how many KC games have you watched and studied? I have not seen any - so my only guide to how well Schwartz has played is pro football focus - not sure whether you like them or not but I am sure I heard some NFL teams subscribe to them and if so they must be of some use regardless.

PFF has schwartz and Pasztor ranked 27 and 28 as Tackles ... 79.8 vs 79.1 .... based on that level of similar performance - exactly what would the Browns have gained by signing Schwartz in your opinion?

I don't know the level of injuries and change the KC O-line has experienced this year - but I find it hard to imagine that Schwartz has lost both starting Guards and the changes at C that the Browns have been through..... making his life that much easier on a better team - factor that in and I personally don't think we have lost much. . . . I was in favor of keeping Schwartz, but he's gone and I don't get why that move has been mentioned as often as it has by you as if it is the nail in the coffin of this FO.

That is silly, no offense. Thirty or 40 years from now, he might have a memory of playing on a Super Bowl team. And he might have discovered the fans in KC are pretty good, too. He is already over any regret he might have had about not staying in Cleveland. We are delusional for thinking it is a special place. Until we win again, it is a joke and quite possibly the Siberia of the NFL.

None of the above mentioned players were FA they were not asking to be traded or else, there was no reason to do anything with them at the time.

They were not in the same position as Mack, Schwartz...they were not asking for big money so why trade them? They made a reasonable attempt to keep Schwartz and Mack but at some point you have to decide does the cost out weigh the benefit?

Joe Thomas, Joe Haden, Bitonio, Barnidge, Shelton cost them no increase to keep were happy to be here.

Mack, Schwartz and the others needed to be overpaid to stay and really didn't want to stay.

You are wasting your time w/that guy.

Stop bullying and personal attacks please...mind your own business!

Where did I say anything remotely close to that?

During an interview yesterday, Pryor sounded someone who wouldn't resign here without us severely overpaying. That's my opinion on his comments. But just like Mack, it seems he is making plans to move on. The FO should try to resign him, but if they don't, that doesn't automatically mean they are being cheap.

Say hi to Mac.

C'mon Vers, you're better than that...

With this position - and with how vocal and how relentless you have been - it's all the more shocking that you maintain a position of neutrality towards the FO and are not calling for any changes to be made.

Personally I think the FO has cleaned house and laid the foundation to build the team the right way. We've been through the most painful part of the process at this stage - the future should be a steady and continuous improvement of team and win-loss record. . . . . The FO still needs to execute well and get their top draft picks right - they need to find some contributors in the middle and later rounds, even if they take a season or two to develop. It will be an interesting ride.

No. No I'm not.

Vambo went over the edge w/that stuff about my son and I. I'll never forgive him!