DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Browns got better when they learned to behave, economically speaking

I don't think Sashi gets to choose where those picks fall. He is welcome to make trades and such, I agree.

You need to take a look at that roster again. It's been pointed out to you multiple times. I guess replacing every QB and our top RB mean nothing along with three of our four top receivers means nothing. What do we have left from before? Higgins and Njoku? lmao

That doesn’t change what Sashi Brown was supposed to do. The two are mutually exclusive. Ray Farmer made his trades (and free agent signings) with one philosophy, Sashi Brown with a totally different one.

So having double digit picks in drafts previous to Sashi coming here doesn't mean he already had the ammunition to continue an already established trend?

Let me guess. The difference was that Farmer was supposed to be building the team and Sashi was supposed to be gutting it?

I am not sure what this means.



The overall plan of the team changed (partially because during Farmer’s time with the team we whiffed on so many picks). The main problem is that not everyone was on the same page during Sashi Brown’s time. If you’re going to bottom out everyone has to be rowing in the same direction. They weren’t, the coaching staff and Brown were fired.

What it meant was that if you start out by inheriting double digit picks it's not that difficult to keep that in place. What you're actually doing is maintaining the status quo. Then combine that with losing and you automatically get top picks in the draft. Now had Sashi inherited 7 picks going into his first draft and used some kind of special voodoo to turn that into 11 picks, that would be creating picks. Shuffling those picks around isn't the same thing. When you keep losing, keep shuffling picks you inherited when you got here, it's not some special magic. You just keep kicking the can down the road.

And if tanking was the plan, I would surely hope that our coaches and players never buy into that mind set. Actually, constant losing creates the exact situation we had when everyone was fired. Nobody likes losing and it causes dissension and friction within the ranks. As many times as we Browns fans have seen that movie I would think it would be easy for all to see how this movie ends.... every.... single.... time.

I'm not getting involved in your self-amusing arguments. You need to read what you wrote and read what I wrote and quit changing your argument.

So you're saying Sashi inherited 10-11 picks and turned them into 14 picks and that's not a big deal?

Tanking wasn't the plan, but it's amazing how many people try to convince themselves of that...

Mine is the same. We saw what Sashi did with double digit picks his entire time here. He kicked the can down the road and failed to do much of anything at the skill positions.

We got Baker because this team sucked so bad. Now according to you and your cronies it was Hue that sucked so bad. So according to your own take on who was responsible for all of the losing, it's Hue you should be giving credit for the Baker pick, and Dorsey for picking him. Not something Sashi did.

If tanking wasn't the plan then Sashi REALLY SUCKED!

You mean the guy that had 6.5 sacks, 2 pass deflections, 2 forced fumbles, and 8 stuffs as a backup in TB last season? That guy? I bet his replacements faired far better!

* Looks up stats on Zettel, Thomas, and Smith *

Then can't help but

It's also funny when people include 5th, 6th, 7th rounders of drafts as justification of bad choices and overall bad drafts when the % of these players staying on a roster for a significant period of time for any team drafted by any GM is so low. But you do you.

Genard Avery?

Agreed.

Played a lot of OLB standing up. Nassib still had better impact pass rushing.

I think Avery will be targeted as a replacement for Collins.

I would certainly give credit to Hue for the Baker pick... Hue saved us from having to trade up and use multiple picks to get the QB we wanted. Hue was far worse than any of us could have imagined.

I also think if we finish the season with the expected 3-4 wins, we could be drafting anywhere from 1-4 depending on the strength of schedules... and with the Giants drafting first and obviously not wanting a QB, with 2 of the next 3 picks, we had the ammunition to trade up with NY to get the QB we wanted... and we all know why we did.

Tanking implies that we were trying to lose... this is simply not true.

Well we had a pretty crappy team if he wanted to win. Did you see that QB room? Those WR's? If he was trying to put together a winning roster, he failed miserably.

I'm not sure "tanking" (where you're telling the team to lose) was the plan, but we definitely intended on not being very good. I think Sashi had 3 key duties when he was here:

1) Amass as many (top) draft picks in future drafts so that we had future draft capital.
2) Unload as much salary as possible, so that we had cap room to do a number of things in the future.
3) Make every move with the thought of having a competitive team in ~2020.

The overall goal was to aim for a competitive team by around 2020. That why I feel guys like Mitchel Schwartz and Joe Haden were let go. They would make the team better, which would help the team win what would be ultimately meaningless games. They would also tie down salary space, and by the team was ready to compete, they would be in their 30's.

Most of the core of the team right now is 26 and younger, and we have tons of cap space. Ultimately, Sashi did what he was supposed to do. I'm glad we have Dorsey too though. He's making all the right calls. I don't get why any show of approval for Sashi is a slight to Dorsey.

I'm not insinuating that the opposite of winning is tanking. They figured they weren't going to win, but the didn't expect to lose as much as they did. I think they were trying to win. I think they knew they were going to struggle. I don't think they were trying to lose. I suppose if you want to say by knowing they weren't going to win they were tanking, I guess that's your definition. It's just not mine.

And we played almost exclusively young guys. That was the key to the losing.

Somebody threw out there that you shouldn't throw in late round picks in the draft to evaluate whether a draft was good or not. They started by using the fifth round as an example. That's why the name Genard Avery was brought up.

We ranked as the second youngest roster in 2016, the first youngest roster in 2017 and the second youngest roster again in 2018.

So they figured they weren't going to win but decided to try anyway? You're either building a team to win or you're not. If, as you say, they didn't think they were going to win, obviously they understood they weren't putting a competitive team on the field.

And I could add Higgins. That still doesn't mean it's common place historically.

And that was with a bunch of third year guys on the roster! Thank goodness guys guys like Peppers, Njoku, Kindred, Schobert, BBC, Ogunjobi, Garrett, etc got valuable playing as young players. We’re going to have a bunch of very young players with lots of experience in 2019.

You clearly didn't read the article.

I read your post and responded to what was in it.

I see the confusion...

Trying to win meant they were trying to win each game with the roster they had. Tanking implies the opposite.

They knew going into this thing with the roster they had there was absolutely nothing they could do to win it all... Isn't that the ultimate goal, to win it all? So they devised a plan so that in 4-5 years they'd have a championship team on the field. And look, here we are 4 years later and we're talking about winning the Super Bowl. Yes, there are so many more details than just what I wrote here, but that's the nutshell. And that's precisely what is said in the article.

I think where the disconnect exists is between the FO and the coaching staff/team.

There's no way anyone can convince me the FO was concerned with winning. With a QB room of Kizer, Kessler and Hogan they weren't trying to win.

Now if you mean the players and the team, I would agree with you.

A few things I think that people get hung up on....


- Sashi Brown and John Dorsey did not hold the same position.

- When Sashi was hired he and Haslam publicly discussed adding a GM.


I believe the plan was to add the GM and retain Sashi, not fire Sashi to hire a GM. Haslam chose Hue over Sashi when it was decided they couldn't work together.



I feel like this much is pretty cut and dry.

I also feel that it is completely plausible if Haslam fires Hue instead of Sashi first, that Dorsey (or another GM) could still come on board and Sashi, Dorsey, and Berry are all still here...



I believe the timing of a lot things and how certain elements played out is remarkable and very pertinent to where we are today, who we have as GM, HC, and QB could not have been possible if come things played out differently (obviously).

We showed up on Sashi's doorstep in 2016 a complete mess of a franchise and we very well might come out 4 years later smelling like roses. It's an incredible story that cannot exclude Sashi as much as people wish to leave him out.


But we're not done. We still have to produce winning the ultimate trophy.

I never said the FO was concerned with winning the first 2 seasons of the plan, but it's blantantly obvious we should have won more than 1 game. Read the article, it'll clear it up for you.

So you mean to tell me all the players you were giving Sashi credit for really weren't Sashi's players at all!!!?

Say it isn't so!

That's exactly what we mean. The Front Office was planning to build a team for 2020 and beyond. That meant gutting the team and playing with a weak, yet very young roster that was getting experience that would help them in the long run. By no means were they telling the players and coaches to lose, which is usually meant when someone says "tanking".

And at 1-31 we were a complete mess when he left.




We're not done but Sashi is. And it shows.

I've not credited Sashi with acquiring players. I don't believe he was the talent evaluator. "Sashi players" is just a label used to discuss the acquired players before Dorsey while executing the same plan.

It's similar to if we elected a president for 4 years, he dies midterm and the VP becomes president but the plan for the most part remains the same.

I also believe that Andrew Berry has a strong influence on John Dorsey and player evaluations. I think in a year or two he's going to be highly coveted by some team(s) to be their GM.

No we weren't. We had huge amounts of cap space, a young roster, and tons of high draft picks. That's a new GM's dream. If you're telling me that Sashi had the same situation when he started, then I don't know what to tell you.

And this is where you're actually wrong. We are no where near the mess of a team he took over. And we didn't "un-mess" ourselves until Hue was gone...

Then guess what? 5-3.

You do realize we've been a very young team with a ton of cap and multiple draft picks for a very long time now, right? That didn't just magically happen after Sashi got here.

The only thing failing around here is your putrid excuses and false premise.