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

I think Pryor overvalued his stock and when he signed with the Skins it was a 1 year deal to try get big $$$ next year. He will be Cousins primary target where here in Cleveland he wasn't the primary with Coleman coming back. And am not holding my breath, but you never know what's going to happen with Gordon. Which would only take away more numbers from Pryor.

I believe Sashi Brown made a solid effort to get Pryor signed but Prior thought he could get more else where.

Regarding letting Alex Mack and Schwartz walk, well they weren't part of the regime that was started under Sashi and Hue Jackson. I think with Free agency they've done an admirable job in restocking the Oline.

Only time will tell as no one knows what type of year Pryor will have or Kenny Britt. At the close of the year let's discuss this as hindsight is 20/20.

you would have a lot more credibility if you would be more honest. you wonder if we did not sign Pryor because of a lack of expertise or lack of desire. for some reason you could not include the other very obvious option. tp wanted to have a show year with a high quality qb like cousins. he sees a better chance of racking up big stats with cousins than with Kessler. big stats, he hopes will lead to a four year 11 million per year contract a year from now. you may not agree with that possibility but to not at least consider it a possibility is foolish.

Really? These are the only two options available?

How come you didn't reference the Bitonio, Collins, and Taylor extensions? Sashi seemed to have the 'expertise' to get those done.

Both good and bad in 1+ year, but you only want to focus on the bad. That's called an agenda.

I run into this issue all the time when talking about the Browns with friends... Not re-signing Pryor means the front office is a failure. The other deals are irrelevant and an anomaly because they don't help prove how they really operate...

Same thing when people complain about a poor draft from the Browns a year ago. I say ok, fine, what could the Browns have done differently to have made it a good draft... I get crickets.

Jamar Taylor most improved cornerback of 2016

Browns sign Jamar Taylor to 3 year extension worth $15 million

Or Pryor didn't want the Browns?

You say the same crap over and over.

Mike Williams is going to be way better than Pryor.

We offered Pryor the most money. Nobody offerd more, so we had no need to up our offer just because he wanted more. Apparently nobody else thought he was worth what we offered, except for him and his agent. So much for a hometown discount. He wanted us to pay a hometown premium. Screw him.

Had he signed somewhere for more money, I might get your point, but he didn't, so you really have no point in your beef except you show to be trolling the board because you don't like the front office for whatever reason your mind conjures up.

It because the guy is agend driven. He just likes to [censored] people off with his blabber.

And I also notice he bumped this in to another thread continuation....lol.

What a joke.

Why wouldn't the Browns need to draft another receiver even if they had signed Pryor?

Drafting Williams who is a cheaper option for longer period for the Browns and potentially a much better WR than Pryor would be fine for me... I wants to sign Pryor and was sad we didn.t... It seems that he wants to have a huge pay day or bet on himself for one year... Browns wanted a long term deal... It didn't work out...

Only move I really didn't like was letting Mack walk...

I usually avoid these threads, but I popped in to see if there was anything new being said. Nope.

It's been the same crap for a few months now.

Just like the Garoppolo Thread

I agree.

The money Pryor wanted was ransom, not contract value. He could be here but chose not to honor his publicity negotiating. See ya. Not a FO fail IMO. Just flushing.

Mack didn't want to be here either. He took less money to go elsewhere. In both the cases of Pryor and Mack, I DON'T want a situation where we have to pay well over market value to get a guy to stay. Do you really want to have a player who's mindset is, "Well, I don't really want to be here, but I guess I'll stay just for the money."?

I think the only one the Front Office messed up on was Mitchell Schwartz. They gave the guy an offer, he explored other offers, and when he came back, they pulled the offer that they had given him.

Mitchell Schwartz turned down more money to play for less elsewhere too.

He bet on himself and lost, just as it may happen for Pryor he may have a similar season as last season just to find no one will offer him as much as he turned down.

That's not at all correct. Scwartz came back to sign the offer the Browns had made him and the Browns reneged on that offer. He came back before the FA signing period even opened to sign the deal.

Mac tries to slant everything in a bad light which I don't find fair at all. I believe overall they have done a good job and given fair offers to players that left, like Pryor.

But it seems you wish to try to paint them as perfect. They're not.

He did? Do you mean during the 2-day window where agents can negotiate and have a deal agreed upon but not "officially" sign or before that?

If it's before that, that's news to me. I thought Schwartz's situation was very similar to Pryor's...searched the market during the 2-day window and found he wasn't worth what he thought. Came back and asked for the contract the Browns offered before FA.

He's no better than mac ... just on the other side of things so his opinions are more popular ...

Actually ... he's worse than mac .. mac don't make things up ... i don't read direct posts from Vambo so all i see is when someone responds to him and quotes it ..... so i don't read a lot of what he posts ....... so I'm not sure what bad info he gave out this time ... but based on his history of what i read ... theres a good chance it had zero truth in it ..

On Wednesday morning, the first day of free agency, a source told cleveland.com that Schwartz planned to return to the Browns because their deal was the best and he wanted to remain in Cleveland.

But when Gilmore went back, the original deal was no longer there. The Browns thought Schwartz was gone when he didn't engage with the original offer, and moved on. They would've taken him for less, but not the $7 million. Kansas City's offer was the best one remaining.

"I'm not getting into a back and forth,'' said Brown. "Looking forward not driving in the rear-view mirror. We did have discussions with every single one of our guys. And we always will.''

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

So Mitchell Schwartz didn't turn down the Browns best offer but decided to bet on himself and lost no one else would offer him more and ended signing for less.

What part of that is made up?

It's quite easy actually. The NFL changed its rule to allow players agents a window to look at other possibilities before the FA signing period begins. There's nothing wrong or improper with it.

The Browns decided to try and penalize Schwartz for exercising that option. As such, the Browns pulled their offer. Schwartz didn't refuse to sign it. The Browns pulled it.

So he did sign the original offer when it was first made to him?

Waiting is now refusal? Yeah, it was a bad move on his part, but you don't need to make things up.

My understanding was that the offer was on the table until the start of the FA period at which point it would no longer be there as originally presented.

What is being made up, CHS?

The whole Schwartz 'refused the offer'. Geoff Schwartz has stated that the Browns pulled the offer when Mitch wanted to sign.

I don't know the timeline, but I "assume" the time limit had expired...

U mean LIE? ...

Cause that would be BS .... these players are GROWN MEN who hired THEIR agent ... your entire premise is BS ... but if u want to play that game .. at least be honest about it ... the player is in charge ... they HIRE the agents and they sure as all hell can FIRE them ...

Does anyone even know what the word AGENT means? ... it should be self explanatory ... good lord .. I'm gonna regret opening up that can of worms ... *L* ...

I'm a fan of personal accountability ... appearantly most on here aren't ....

Some of u never cease to amaze me ...

Schwartz falls on our FO ... saying anything else is just DENIAL ...

TP is just one of those things .... it happens ....

ASS-U-Ming almost always works out well ... good strategy .... ..

Every time i read that article about Mitch and it says the Browns "moved on" ... i wonder what it is we moved on to .... what was a GAPING HOLE last year and a HUGE QUESTION MARK at BEST this year .... WTF did we move onto? ... CRAPPY RT PLAY???? ... WOOOOHOOOO ...

HOPEFULLY, MAYBE we have someone to play it this year ... HOPEFULLY, MAYBE aren't good words in the NFL .... *LOL* ...

I looked at it like you are selling a used car. I offer you $900 for it. You tell me you're going to shop it around because you think you can get much more than my offer.

You shop it around and the best offer you can get is $700, so you come back to me saying you'll take the $900. I tell you, sorry, the $900 is off the table. Why should I pay you $900 when the best you could get otherwise is $700? If you take that as an insult and don't want to negotiate with me then fine, go get your $700. You should of sold it when I made my offer the first time.

I've always kinda seen it like that.

In terms of how the two situations went down, business-wise, I agree with you.

The Schwartz debacle is probably on the FO. They pulled their offer, which was a dumb move. Who knows what they were thinking.

Pryor was different. Pryor wanted a different deal, the FO (allegedly) didn't want to give him a 1-year deal. I would've preferred to have Pryor here on that contract, but I understand the rationale that they don't want to renegotiate with him each year until he can command top dollar.

Further, I also think Pryor, upon realizing the 1-year deal was the path he was going to take, didn't want to be in Cleveland anymore. If you're going to take on that risk ("bet on yourself"), and use the next year to further bolster your argument that you're a top WR talent, then you definitely want Cousins throwing you the ball vs whoever we end up putting out there each week. I think it makes perfect sense, and I don't fault the guy one bit.

Would it ease your sensibilities if I substitute "expectation" or perhaps "believe"?

IMO Pasztor wasn't crappy...he had a bad game against Miami, but played no-worse-than average for the year. He was still not as good as Schwartz though.

The descriptor of "Crappy" goes to Erving...then Alvin Bailey...Bailey being second only becasue he played less.

We don't "know" what happened with Schwartz...but we know that the FO isn't cheap and they DO value their own. The signings of Taylor, Collins, Bitonio, & Crow's tender & the offer to Pryor sure make me lean towards giving the FO the benefit of the doubt on Schwartz.

I really think the FO was bound and determined to NOT set a precedent for getting played by the FA and their agents...which in the Schwartz case turned out to be like biting off your nose to spite your face.

Are u the guy walking everywhere or the guy with a vehicle he doesn't want and no money ... small but important detail ... *LOL* ...

ref·use1
rəˈfyo͞oz/
verb
verb: refuse; 3rd person present: refuses; past tense: refused; past participle: refused; gerund or present participle: refusing

indicate or show that one is not willing to do something.
"I refused to answer"
indicate that one is not willing to accept or grant (something offered or requested).
"she refused a cigarette"
synonyms: decline, turn down, say no to; More