DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Haden: Why the Steelers and Why He Was Released

...certainly to us. You either believe in the process or not. I'll hitch my wagon to their horse rather than what is posted on here by most...

That seems to be a contradictory statement because "most" on here have hitched their wagon to their horse.

I think Haden no longer wanted to be part of a rebuilding process. It's all he's known since being drafted.
I think it affected his ability and attitude
Maybe in the eyes of the front office they were counting on him
To be a team leader captain and Haden they felt did not possess those traits
So they tried to trade him no avail
Asking him to take a pay cut they knew he would say no
So they released him
Think about they released him knowing a team like Pittsburgh
Would swoop him up fast
A team that has owned the Browns since the return
Haden makes the Steelers better not worse

Nothing odd at all Mac. The formula is to tank again for a better draft in the off season, just as it has been for the past 2 years. Get rid of older players who might add too the win total lower the salary cap hits from the vets while developing a young group of players that will be ready in a year or 2 to take the team up the food chain.

The only help Haden would have been was to help the team win when the plan was to lose.

Now other teams are doing the very same thing in their own way. The draft is IMO the key to the future so why not do all you can to stack the deck in your favor when the best you can do is win just enough to be out of the running for players that in few years of drafting can take the team maybe to the top of the food chain.

Historically we have been bad but never bad enough to get top prospects and generally speaking out of the running for a QB that can make all the difference I can go with this if it gets the results in the end and you know what we have tried it the other way, this may actually work.

Hate the ride mac all you want but at this point being a Browns fan means your along for the ride like it or not.

Not saying your not right, but lamenting it in every post isn't likely to change it from what it is. I think everyone has gotten the message your putting out at this point don't you think?

I can't recall any time Haden has made the difference between a win and a loss. I believe every season since drafting Haden the team has had double digit losses with the exception of one season with 9. To say that keeping Haden would have resulted in more wins is being shortsighted, IMO.

I don't recall him ever making a game changing play that lead to a win.

The simple thing to say is that he was a part of losing, lets face it.

Not hearing his named called on Sunday meant he was doing his job.

Odd though that you would say this and yet there were plenty of teams that couldn't wait to get Joe under contract that should be IMO what tells you about Joe not the part about him being on a losing team.

Many a great player played on losing teams in fact I know one sure fire 1st vote HOFer on the very same losing team, do you? Lets get rid of him too, following that logic

That's my list as well. Now I know there were circumstances with the agents involved with Schwartz and Pryor, but I still consider all of the above net losses in the rebuilding effort.

You said we would lose more without Haden. How much more can we actually lose? When has he ever made a game changing play to win a game? He's made plays no doubt, but not when it matters most.

I think with or without Haden we win about the same number of games. That's really the point. You made an argument that his absence would affect win totals. I am searching for evidence that would support that.

I can get on board with Schwartz and Greco. Can't get on board with Pryor. Pryor would be here if he wanted to be here. That's really the main difference between him and the other two.

I agree with you. I think his agent screwed things up. I think the same about Schwartz's agent.

That being said, I still think we'd be a better team if they were both here right now.

That's probably why there was a line of teams clamoring for his services don't you think?

Here is something missing from your argument Rish, we have a very young and shallow secondary and we just let go a corner who has 2 pro bowls under his belt who has admittedly been hurt (according to him) and you think we win the same.

I will admit that there truly is no way to know, but if the plan isn't to weaken an already suspect secondary than what is the plan? Ask yourself that question!

Now follow along here a bit OK? If Joe is fully healthy (as he claims) and assuming at 28 (I think) he is, than does he make our secondary better or worse? And if he does make it better than will or won't that improve our chance to compete and win.

The obvious answers are there if you seek them! Now you may wish to believe that isn't what motivated the moves but given all we know (plenty of cap) and a real need for secondary help, then please do explain why we would release a accomplished player like Joe (all be it coming off 2 sub par seasons) if the plan isn't to shed salary and weaken the team to insure a better draft position?

We are tanking again, if Kiser does the unthinkable than we won't need to draft at the top of next years draft, if we need to think about a better option than Kiser than every lose will improve our position in the draft.

Joe simply was a victim of the Browns need to help shape the draft in our favor.

The Joe of preseason was not a healthy Joe.

I cant remember the last time I thought he was healthy ... or his "old" self

That's not what he or his coaches said.

I don't know how much is true or not but there isn't any other logical reason for the Browns to let him go and if the Steeler's and several of their players including Antonio Brown and Ben both hearing that Joe was available went to Steeler's management and said hey we gotta get this guy, well I take that over chat board experts (I am pretty sure you understand).


I allow what they think; to shape my opinion and I couple that with what I have seen the Browns do just this past season, and I put that with this secondary isn't very good and I arrive at TANK!

And to insure or give themselves a better chance of making sure that all goes down according to plan they send Joe packing.Its just that simple like I said before.

In your arrival at TANK you must have made a detour around us spending $60 mil on Zeitler, $51 mil on Bitonio, $32.5 mil on Britt and $17 mil on Tretter.

I don't think Haden is very good anymore. Maybe that's the bottom line. Secondary is my favorite position group on the field. I love corner and safety play. I watch Joe all game. Sometimes I actually miss the play because I'm watching what Joe does. Is he playing off or at the line? Does he jam? Does his guy get off the line? Where are his eyes? Where is he when the receiver makes his break? Does he look smooth or off balance?

To my untrained eye, Joe just isn't very good anymore. I take no joy in saying this. I dream of having a shut down corner. QB, Pass Rusher, shut down corner ... three most important positions on the field. Joe was supposed to be that for us. I think we are a worse team because that never materialized.

I've said this already. If Joe goes on to have a great season, I'll be happy for him. But I don't think the odds of that happening are very good. And if he does turn it around, I would argue it wasn't going to happen here...that there are other factors in play. Focus, determination, happiness. I would say all those will be making a difference in his play.

The Joe I saw even in preseason actually looked clumsy and more than a step slow. Could the secondary use his experience and the talent he has left? I would agree with that. But let's say Joe is better than the other guys. I would say it's very small incrementally and it has less to do with ability and more to do with experience. Let's get BBC and a couple of the other youngsters that experience. That's likely to pay off more in the long run than giving that playing time to Joe.

Now if Joe were incrementally better than those guys by a large margin, then I could understand the money argument. I'm just not seeing it. Again, that's to my untrained eye.

Rish, how old is McCourty?

McCourty is 30
Taylor is 26
Boddy-Calhoun is 24
Jordan is 24

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/cle/roster/

You keep believing what you want. But do tell me how do you watch Joe's play closely from Vegas?

Thanks Jest. I thought he was older than Haden, but Rish doesn't believe the move was about money. LOL

Ok, I will.

As to the answer to your question, I have a really wide TV.

McCourty was already going to play a lot, no? I don't see Joe's leaving changing that much.

You are not even making sense.

Which part?

One of the things I noticed about rookie Joe Hayden was that on deep pattern coverage, he'd sometimes get beat by a move a WR made, and use his speed to close at (or just before) the ball. That became a habit for him. He still plays like that, but the closing speed hasn't been there for 2 or more years.

I think he was always a handsy DB, but it got more pronounced with each year. And last year, it looked to me like his touchy-grabby technique was there to just keep him (barely) in the play. I know he was playing hurt, and that he's supposed to be 100% again, but 100% of today's Joe is still a 3 years older version of the 100% Joe we saw last.

I didn't like to see this happen, but I can't get too busted up about it. Ask me again in DEC. If he tears it up this year and looks strong this winter, I'll know Browns FO messed up.

haha sorry but the "I have a really wide tv." made me laugh outloud

Do I really need to explain that to you? Honestly

As I recall and that may be the reason your asking, the Browns were intent on getting Matt Trubisky (remember him) in this past draft when Chicago swooped in and took him with their pick!

Would you make the sort of investment in Trubisky the Browns were prepared to and put him behind the O line we had from a year ago?

I can't believe the responses; guys really?

I truly am sorry and I know this no matter how I frame it will come off the wrong way (don't want to hurt anyone's feelings). I simply can't believe the things people allow themselves to believe, or can't remotely understand.

Then they try to push horse manure at me and try to sound smart saying it (I have a wide TV). Really? SMH

Not a single employee of the Browns said that at anytime before or after the draft.

And you wouldn't. Why would they ever say they targeted or didn't target a player they hoped to get after their 1st pick was gone? Especially essentially telling a player like Kiser later that he was an after thought. Not good business IMO.

Perhaps (likely) my perspective is by knowing a little something about the Browns and their predicament to a degree. Desperate to land a top QB prospect but not wanting to pass on a once in a decade player like Garret, I think its easy to see or think the Browns intended on making a move for Trubisky if they had a chance, that is.

But your right sort of

Like I said I agree but we have tried winning as much as possible and just fell out of the area of the draft that would land us top prospects especially when it has comes to the QB position, minus Couch.

In other words it may make you feel better (not sure) that we win 5-6 games vs winning 1 but what the 5-6 wins does it insures you will draft in the 5-10 area where you can get a top safety/WR/Dlinemen, but not a top QB or in some instances a top difference maker.

We know these things don't we Mac?

So these folks have developed a plan, a long term plan to pile up picks and bring in better talent thru numbers (yes Mac your right) of picks. Than develop that talent as they go forward.

Like I said I don't disagree your right they are ditching talent to insure losing purposely. And the really odd thing sort of is the press has been saying the Jets and the Bills are doing likewise.

I don't know if this is going to work, but past regimes soundly failed while trying to win 4-5-6 games maybe, just maybe this will work. And if it does will both be over joyed.

Like I said this is the ride we are on, I believe it to my Bones!!! LOL

I believe the FO is eschewing short term gain (i.e. a few wins) for long term success. It is the right way; dynasty, here we come...

You don't want to discuss my TV?

As long as we are talking "smart", is this like that time you got into a debate on Hoyer's ball placement on a particular play and posted a picture to support your claim that Hoyer was accurate when it actually supported the opposition that he wasn't? Are we at that level of smart right now? I remember that being a lot of fun.

Are your posts really a combination of facts and conclusions you have reached based on those facts? LOL. My favorite all time sig.

You guys are slow to the draw today. Im surprised Pits favorite reporter's piece isn't in this thread yet.

Keep watching your wide screen Rish it brings real perspective and actual expertise to your posts. If I had only known about wide screens I might have gotten myself one too...

As for smart I would never say that and mention you....

Not many people would.

I believe a coaching staff and the players always do their best to win. That's their job and I believe they take it very seriously.

However, I do believe that the decisions made by the FO can make that goal much more difficult or much easier based on their decisions. Now people can debate whether those decisions are accidental or purposeful all they wish. But the fact remains that whether the FO is taking the attitude of building for tomorrow or winning this season will certainly impact those decisions.

It's ridiculous, IMO, to even think we are tanking. JH would still be here if he took a pay cut. I think he could have helped us this year too but his production and injuries didn't equal what he was being paid. Even he should have realized that. It was his prerogative to refuse and he did. I don't hold his decision against him and wish him well except against us.

Ahh, so the plan was to go all in on a QB that we could have drafted with the #1 overall pick and decided not to. We planned on drafting him by trading up to some unknown spot in the first round, certain that all those teams drafting in the top 5 would let him pass for us and some team was willing to trade the pick.

When that didn't happen, despite spending $150 million and drafting a QB in the second round, we just decided it would be best to tank the season hoping that there will be a QB out there for us next year.

Despite already having enough draft capital to get one in next year's draft, we still need to tank for some unknown reason. Despite the fact that we could go 0-16 after 1-15 season and that would just kill ticket sales and still not get the 1st overall pick because other teams are tanking this year, that is the plan.

I got ya.

You have it all figured out.