DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Free Agency

I think an issue in this discussion is that some people think Changing the plan and tweaking the plan are the same thing while others think they are different.

To me, if the plan is to drive to Florida:

Changing the plan is buying a plane ticket
Tweaking the plan is changing lanes to pass the car driving 50 in a 65 mph zone

For the record, I think the plan has been "tweaked."

Classic.

Classic.

What was the plan before it was "tweaked"? Do you have a link so I can learn? /purple

It's ok to jump on the FO bandwagon...you don't need an excuse to be welcomed.

JC I think 'tweaking" the plan has always been the plan.

I think the FO has a destination in view, and they have a roadmap. I think they are smart enough to know you just can't take it from N. Carolina to California on I-40 without missing a lot. You sometimes have to get off to take some side roads along the way.

I think the importance of winning games has helped to tweak the plan. You simply cannot lose that many games over an extended period of time and hope to be successful.

I think the meshing of the analytics guys and the coaching staff is a good thing. Again, other than certain posters like the one dude stalking me on this thread, I really don't see how anyone can think that is a bad thing.

Now, I'm done w/it because it's only going to get dumber as more become involved.

Great Post Willie

Yes. I am in the tank for the front office and would never criticize anything they do.

I won't speak to your intent with the usage of "tweak" but in the interest of objectivity I think your usage of the term may be giving the impression that you believe the FO had a hard and fast, concrete plan... and now they are changing the plan, even if just a little bit. Or that certain goals of changed.

The impression that I get from those who "oppose" your usage of the word is that The Plan itself is a little more broad than you give it credit for and that these moves simply fall in to the presumed built in flexibility of that plan.

Ultimately though, I think it's more a matter of semantics and a subjective way to describe things than it is a matter of who's "fact" is right or wrong.

Whether you are a lifter or a leaner, we all end up wiping our butt in the end.

You just had to go there didn't you

I think they do have a hard and fast plan. It just doesn't have to be a straight line. They have the flexibility to explore the side roads. It's just a matter of not wandering to far.

Sorry 'peen but that doesn't make sense. If a plan has flexibility built in then it isn't a hard and fast plan. The two are mutually exclusive by definition.

Clearly the plan was tweaked. Can't you tell? I mean they stopped purging the roster in 2017 so the plan has definitely changed and steered the ship in a different direction. Geez! Get it together man!

They also changed the approach of trying to get future high draft picks...just look at what they did in the first rou.....oh, wait.

Some people will say/think anything to talk themselves into liking what is going on, especially when they hated the approach from the get-go.

Talk on....talk on.

I don't agree.

I think the FO and staff are clever folk who like anyone who wants to succeed will learn something every day. They've had misses but the longer this is going on, the more cohesive everything feels. That's just me looking in - no science. Results and how our franchise, players develop and progress will be the litmus test.

However, plan or no plan, people who don't adapt to variables presented to them - even in day to day life - won't succeed at the task in hand, or at the very least, they won't complete it optimally.

Anything you do has to have contingency and options B,C and X built in.

Have you ever run out of toilet paper and not checked till AFTER....

Did some of you guys really think the Browns would be actively trying to tank for two years in a row? How much further could we have tanked?

Sorry

#notsorry

I thought it was pretty funny

Thank you! I should have added a to my last reply.

I thought you weren't going to lower yourself by replying to me anymore?

And if you had even a semblance of a clue, you would have noted that I said almost the same exact thing as WSU did. It was a point to show how dumb some people sound when they say things like that.

I think they have a series of Phases outlined:

Phase 1 being the laying down of a foundation for the culture they want to cultivate here. Last years Draft may not yield a lot of super stars, but the mental/emotional make up of the guys we did get is why this team didn't quit on Hue last year.

Phase 2 was solidifying the core of this team... the O and D lines. This year we went heavy in FA on the O and heavy in the Draft for D.

Phase 3 (next year) I believe is going to have more emphasis on the skill positions like CB and WR and we'll look at LB and RB.

As for QB? This FO isn't going to gamble on prospects particularly if it will be at the cost of being able to fill/upgrade multiple other areas. I don't think this is the classic build the roster 1st vs. get the QB first kind of thing either. I don't think anyone will deny just how much worth getting The Guy brings to your team, but I think this FO also understands the valuation of how much getting the wrong guy can set the whole organization back see Manziel

While I've generally been pretty understanding of some of this FO's not-so-popular moves, I will say that one incident that I've wondered about is this whole deal with Brock.

I have to think that when they made the deal to acquire him (i.e. a 2nd Rd pick) that they had something lined up at least in principle with a 3rd team to off load him. Why something like that would fall through, I don't know. Maybe that mystery team either addressed their need, or as it seemed the Browns were walking a fine line with that deal the other team felt uncomfortable being associated with it?

It just seems so out of character for this group to have been so indifferent to the acquisition of a player, to the level of not even bothering to put out the standard "We're excited to have him here and see how and if he can contribute to this team". Had we then unloaded him after it would have been easy to say "Well, that's just the nature of the business side of things, we feel trading Brock to X team gives us a chance to improve in other ways/areas". That indifference to me says that they had every expectation he wasn't going to be in Cleveland long enough to even earn hotel points... if he even made it to Cleveland in the fist place.

I suppose it is possible that they acquired him and assumed it would be easy to ship him off but that seems rather reckless and ill-prepared. If they had done this last year I would be more likely to buy in to that, but considering how well this off season has gone it makes it a little more difficult for me.


But just like the Age Old question "Mr. Owl, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?"

The world may never know...

Devil, I think you are spot on with everything except the QB.

I do agree there was a possibility of a trade after the Brock signing.

After that, Sashi/Jackson have provided three QBs who have some chance being the franchise guy. At the very least, one guy from this group can play the respectable starter until the supreme being is found. Any one of the three can get us to the playoffs...see Houston.

I don't think we are in dire straights to find a QB. Jury is out whether the three can take this team to the super bowl. That is ok in my opinion I can live with a few winning seasons!

Bottom line is a wining culture is needed. A steady crop of quality draft picks. Coaching staff who can develop. Once these three are established, I believe you can start thinking super bowl.

Reality, reason, and logic aren't real big w/many of you.

Maybe your expectations are set to high. Is it perfection or nothing? Sometime smaller victories lead to the bigger prize.

Isn't Houston paying a 2nd rounder to dump the QB, them then having a bad season, and that QB going on to have success such a good story?

The problem is, it involves the Browns.

And then it gets even weirder when they traded with us to grab their new QB.

Literally if they had done all that with any other team I would fully expect that team to make the playoffs with Brock and Houston to crash and give them a high pick to boot.

But. Browns. So. Who knows.

There is reality and there is burying expectations in a metric crap-ton of manure. Sure, manure can be a good fertilizer, but I don't think things work that way on a message board.

Do people get unrealistic in a positive direction fairly often? Yes, but it beats the alternative.

If we're as hopeless as you make it out at times, why even bother?



Getting back to Free Agency, did we ever fill the roster spot opened by Powell getting waived? Maybe we kick the tires on Jairus Byrd with a one year filler deal.

Yeah, more than any other year we must root against Houston ever week ... them having a bad season is HUGE for us. Imagine if they are something like 5-11 (maybe Watson doesn't turn out, they have bad luck, injuries, etc) ... that would garner us something like picks 8 and 40

Yes, it most certainly does. Besides, the grass is greener on this side of the fence...

I don't think it is hopeless. I have repeatedly stated that things are looking up. And what business is it of yours why I bother? You follow me around a lot. It's creepy.

I agree. You haven't said it's hopeless.

I didn't say why do you bother, I meant why should anyone bother if we were hopeless.

You occasionally do say that things are "looking up", but constantly post about people being too positive/hopeful. It can come off as people shouldn't have any hope, thus my hopeless comment. I tried to temper my comment with the "at times" to show that you don't always come off that way, but sometimes you do. I figured I would give you an opportunity to clarify because that is how I was interpreting some of your posts, but didn't really think it was entirely how you felt.

I'm sorry that someone posting maybe once a day on a public online message board comes off as creepy to you.

If you want to focus on how bad we've been in the past, have at it. I'd rather look towards how good we might be in the future. If that hope offends you, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't even respond to your posts except when you directly call me out. Take a freaking hike.

I respond to your posts when I have something to say like most normal human beings.

It is pretty nice out today, I might do that hiking thing. Doesn't look like I'm going to get anything worth reading on here from you any time soon.


Anyone else have any ideas of how we might fill the roster spot opened up by waiving Powell?

Probably another camp body or tryout-type player.... it's the bottom of the roster; we're not likely to be swinging for the fences with that spot. It'll be some other guy that won't stick past the first round of cuts in Training Camp.

I think the most shocking thing about the Tyvis cut is that we didn't sign anyone immediately. I haven't even heard rumors outside of the Maclin pipe dream.

Eh, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

It's worth noting, I suppose, but I would not classify it as "shocking" or even "surprising" in any way. He's "just a guy" - it's not like we waived Myles Garrett.