DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Free Agency

We had talent on this roster. And as poorly coached as we were, we still almost made the playoffs. It's true that Dorsey opened some holes that were left unfilled. He insulted the entire roster when he got here. Would you want to play for a team where the GM said you weren't a good player? McCourty didn't.

Some will attempt to compare rosters from pre-Dorsey to the one now and claim how much better it is. That's a very, very dishonest and deceitful comparison. Of course it's better, that was always the plan. There is no way we weren't going to have a better roster! We had 4 picks in the top 35! We had tons cap room! Do people not really understand what was going on, or are they just making things up to benefit their agenda. Ridiculous.

The irony is a lot of people claiming it's a tragedy Dorsey, Highsmith, Wolfe, etc are no longer here will also tell you we missed on the #1 pick in the draft. Blasphemy!

That's baseball, not the NFL.

You are so far off it's ridiculous.

The Jets were said to be tanking. The Dolphins were said to be tanking. This year the Panthers and Jaguars seem to be purging.

They are following the model that we gave them.

We didn't go 1-31 because the roster sucked. We went 1-31 because Hue Jackson sucked.

We went 1-31 because we spent most of it with a noodlearmed 3rd string QB who was supposed to spend his career holding a clipboard as our starter for a good stretch of that time.

It's easy to blame either side, but there were some factors outside of their control that contributed.

I have a question. First some background:

Some folks are saying that the new FO didn't have enough time to re-sign Schobert. They used that same argument when the Analytic guys lost free agents the first time they were in charge.

Let's say Joe signs w/Denver. Would the Bronco's have had more time or less time to sign Joe than the Brown's new FO?

No, they didn't have to, but that's what they were instructed to do. Given the choice of "middling" for the next how-ever-many years, or burning down the house, exterminating, getting rid of the stench... they chose the latter. Jimmy had a lot of extensive talks with Parcells, many said (and still say) that he sold Haslam on the idea.

"The boys" didn't go too far, they went just far enough. There was a decent foundation of mostly young talent and more draft capital than any team in history... and more cap space than any team in history.

Then Jimmy hired a "football guy" to use the capital. That was always the plan, Sashi was a placeholder for the job. Part of the process was getting the franchise to a place where we could actually attract a solid GM. Isn't it strange how 4-12 could never do that, but 1-31 worked wonders?

Dorsey walked in, saw the treasure, and spent like a drunken sailor. The problem with the drunken sailor, is that you can't constantly curse your shipmates and tell them to drink on their own tab when they brought you the treasure.

Snubbing the process and swimming against the grain of the very analytics that brought the process to this point is fine... as long as you get results. He didn't.

Telling the world your current players are trash is fine, as long as you enjoy the microscope it will put on all of your choices.

"Flexing your muscles" is fine, but only when it works... HE put Freddie on his shoulders.

And we're not trying to dig out. We're trying to use what's left of the "king's ransom" and dig in. We're trying to overcome the fact that "assembling talent" was only a small part of leading an organization. It seems that all of the things that leads to talent achieving on the field of play, were ignored, or sorely misguided.

Agreed. He made a few mistakes but the good JD did far outweighed the bad. Obviously the biggest mistake was hiring Freddie but at the time it looked like a good gamble because of how well we did in 2018. It sounds like JD just rubbed some people the wrong way and that's why he was asked to give up some power and then finally leave if what I've read is true. But I would have liked to see him get another year or 2. Same old stuff and I'll say the same old thing; I will support the new FO, give them a chance and hope they turn my Browns into a winner. But, I won't hold my breath.

If We Get A Starting TE OT S LB and IDL I Will Be Ecstatic ....

I can't speak for others. I don't necessarily share that opinion. But I'd imagine it is referring to the new regime assessing what they have in house to see which direction they want to take the team. Whereas Denver already knows and may have pinpointed Schobert as a possible signee as early as the previous season. Prior to last season, I'd imagine Berry had no idea he'd be working with Stefanski.

At least that's what I'd think, otherwise I have no idea why someone would say what you claim.

It's easier to sign guys for less when they aren't free agents.

Winning bidding wars is often counterproductive.

Joe has effectively been a free agent since we finished our last game. There's no practical risk for him to balance against a potentially gigantic reward now.

I agree. But hey lets see how the JV does.

j/c

So now we've devolved to the point it's Dorsey's fault that AB can't sign Joe?



It's hilarious. Now it's Dorsey's fault for AB's shortcomings. You just can't make this BS up! Well I guess you can because people are posting it.

The agenda agenda agenda guys will blame it on KJ cause that’s what they do ...

How is not signing Sho a shortcoming of Andy’s? .. i don’t see it ... lets wait and see how it plays out cause right know we have no clue what we offered and/or what Sho wants to sign now ...

Sating this is an Andy shortcoming at this point is as much an agenda post as those wanting to now blame KJ for not re0signing last year when it was “easier” ...

Lets also not forget .. Sho is right there with Higgs as far as being overrated on this board ... Sho’s biggest value to us is he’s the best we think we have .... seeing as how we only have 2 other LBers on the team right now and there both 2nd year guys that bar isn’t very high ...

I don’t want to create another hole but not at any cost like the sashiettes ....

I can't find that. Where are you reading that?

that's just false. I will prove it to you when he signs with another team for a nice payday and produces

Speaking of BS. ^^^^

It's funny how Pit's narrative shifts from "Berry didn't even offer Schobert a contract" to "He can't sign Joe".

I think Diam's statement is a little harsh to JS, but I agree with the idea behind it. I'm hoping we keep him here because we don't have anyone to fill his spot, but I'm also really curious what he ends up getting.

Seeing as how u are going to prove it in the future its an unknown not false ... ..

I wish him the best ... seems like a great guy and he is getting every single last ounce out of his talent ... gotta love guys like Sho ...

I hope your right bro ... GOOD LUCK AND GO SHO ....

PS. He may end up here .... it’s not a done deal that he’s gone ... its unlikely but not over ... kinda like its an unknown as opposed to being false ... ...

I see Denver is making a trade with the Jags and heard they are interested in Joe. They haven't been too good the last few years. I'll bet they become legit playoff contenders before us.

Being this close to the free agent market allows Joe Schobert to not sign an extension. It's apple and oranges.

I think more telling is the fact is that it seems like both John Dorsey and Andrew Berry (and their front offices) didn't/don't want to re-sign Joe Schobert.

It could also be on Schobert. He, for any number of reasons, might just want to test the market. Honestly, I wouldn't really blame him. I think his value is about as high as it's going to get, which coincides really well with his contract status.

You haven't been following along have you? First of all many posters were dogging Dorsey for not signing Joe. They made it sound like we couldn't live without Joe. How there was no plan.

Then the news came out that Berry said Joe had earned the right to hit the FA market. Suddenly it became the fault of Dorsey that Berry was in a position which made it far more difficult to sign Joe. The narrative suddenly became that Joe wasn't really that good after Dorsey was given grief for not signing the same player.

It's all over the board in many posts. See, I'm not trying to blame either Dorsey or Berry.

It seems neither Dorsey nor Berry believe Joe is worth his initial asking price. It may be as simple as they want a better LB against the rush.

Whatever the case may be Joe hasn't gotten better or worse since the season ended. The same player Dorsey wasn't willing to pay is the same player Berry isn't willing to pay.

Now it could be that the team and Joe come to terms. But let's not fool ourselves here, Dorsey was being villainized for not signing the same player that the very same people now either wish to claim is not worth the asking price or it's somehow Dorsey's fault that Berry is facing a much higher asking price than Dorsey was.

I'm not sure if the scenarios they are laying out is the hilarious part or the fact they're unwilling to admit that's what is happening is funnier.

IF Joe leaves, the only thing that is important is how he is replaced. Players come and go, move from team to team all the time. This isn't some major news that you lose players in the FA market. I think Joe is a good player. How he fits into what defense we will be running here probably has more to do with it than anything.

CHRIS SMITH
DL, UNSIGNED FREE AGENT

Free agent DE Chris Smith visited the Bengals today.

Smith played for Cincy in 2017, appearing in all 16 games, so there are obvious ties to the organization. The veteran defensive end spent some time visiting the Panthers this week as he makes his rounds ahead of free agency. Smith has 3.0 or fewer sacks in all six of his NFL seasons.

RELATED: Cincinnati Bengals
SOURCE: Adam Schefter on Twitter
Mar 4, 2020, 12:31 PM ET

Hey Homes, much of what you read about Dorsey not getting along w/others has probably been on here. People take a small bit of opinionated material and say it w/more conviction hundreds of times. Speculation becomes fact. LOL

I will say that there was probably friction between Dorsey's group and the Depo group? How could there not be? They were forced on one another. Wickersham's article and Bob Wylie's comments about the problems the FO created for the coaching staff in Albright's reports indicate that there are other candidates who might have been hard to get along with and might have been sniping at the heels of others.

Not asking you to believe me, Homes. Just keep an open mind that there is usually more to the story than some on here want you to believe.

You said:

I asked who said that? I can find any post that says that. And if your "following along", it seems like the majority of people are saying it's easier to extend a player than to sign him once he hits free agency. I mean, if you're going to lump all opinions together, that seems to be the prevailing thought. Would you disagree?

It seems that some like to take a simple thought and twist it... someone saying "it would have been easier if Dorsey would have signed him last year" is not blaming Dorsey, it's stating a FACT. It's been a fact in every sport for decades, not even really debatable.

It seems like you have a habit of cherry picking a bunch of individual posts and creating some imaginary narrative.

If one poster says "I hate blacks"
And another says "I hate whites"
The third says "I hate hispanics and asians"...

Should we then assume that many posters hate all races?

Wouldn't make sense, would it?

Seems like you and a few others spend a lot of time assembling a bunch of individual posts, calling them narratives and then complaining about them.

So, again, is there anyone that said it's Dorsey's fault that AB can't sign Joe? That seemed to be your great watershed moment, like we've "devolved" to some new level of stupidity.

Still can't find it.

I believe much of it dates back to his time in Kansas City.

The Kansas City Star reported that communication issues and friction within the front office were reasons Hunt fired Dorsey in KC. Dorsey also had his share of supports as well.

Here's the full article...

Sources: Communication, management style were factors in Chiefs’ firing of Dorsey
By Terez A. Paylor
June 25, 2017 03:40 PM

The Chiefs have compiled a 43-21 record the last four years thanks to the work of coach Andy Reid and general manager John Dorsey, all while publicly and privately painting a picture of internal harmony and teamwork.

They managed to stay unified and on message even during tough times, like the NFL’s tampering investigation into the free-agent signing of Jeremy Maclin that led to fines and the forfeiture of draft picks.

But behind the scenes, the Chiefs’ front office did not always run smoothly under Dorsey. Team chairman Clark Hunt’s decision to fire Dorsey was fueled, in part, by concerns about his internal communication and management styles, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to The Star on condition of anonymity.

As one of the sources said while describing how Dorsey had removed two front-office executives without much explanation: “John does stuff and doesn’t tell people why.” Another source said Dorsey’s management style “could wear on people.”

A message left with Dorsey seeking comment for this story was not immediately returned.

Dorsey’s firing was announced Thursday, the same day Reid received a contract extension. Both men had a year left on their contracts and report separately, but directly to Hunt. That structure will remain when a new GM is hired.

While sources have consistently maintained that Reid and Dorsey worked well together — “You never got the impression they were sparring,” one source told The Star — the two also had different approaches to their jobs.

While Reid has a reputation for being structured and process-oriented, Dorsey was described by those who know both men as looser.

“He goes with the flow,” one source said of Dorsey.

That style didn’t always mesh in situations outside of Dorsey’s undeniable strengths, picking and evaluating players. The other areas Dorsey oversaw were contracts and salary cap management — and the Chiefs have been in cap trouble for a while — in addition to the general, day-to-day management of the team.

“He’s not a big disciplinarian or big on chain of command,” a source said, “so people did what they wanted.”

“It’s more about his management skills,” another source added.

For instance, the typically stable Chiefs also made waves this offseason when Dorsey released director of football administration Trip MacCracken and director of pro scouting Will Lewis. Each man had been with the team for at least four years, and not only were their dismissals surprising, there weren’t many answers to be found, even inside the organization.

“Those decisions were totally John’s,” a source said. “That’s the kind of stuff he does.”

Sources also critiqued Dorsey’s management style, noting that while he was often friendly and jovial, the same tongue-in-cheek manner he used to win over most people over eventually wore on others.

“It could rub people the wrong way at times,” a source said.

Dorsey still has fans inside the Chiefs organization. They cited his passion for the game, constant availability and eye for talent as respected strengths.

“Loved working for him,” one source said. “Great dude.”

“He was always great to us …,” another source added, “You hate to see something like this happen.”

Dorsey also has a number of supporters across the league, as an overwhelming amount of league sources who dealt with him on a regular basis — approaching a dozen — told The Star.

“He was always a guy that would listen, was a pro, good to work with,” one league source said.

“One of my favorite people in 20 years in the business,” another source said. “Honest and straightforward. Man of conviction. Was shocked and sad to see the news.”

Multiple sources also called Dorsey a friend on a personal level, noting that it was not unusual for him to call just to say “hello,” even when on vacation.

“A consummate pro’s pro in negotiations,” one league source said. “Always up front and straight, and a super talent and football evaluator.”

Other league sources agreed with that notion, adding that Dorsey’s standing as an evaluator of talent remains peerless.

“He is a dyed-in-the-wool scout, loves the element of watching college players, loves breaking down film,” said Andrew Brandt, who spent 10 years as a Green Bay Packers vice president alongside Dorsey and writes for TheMMQB.com. “That always seemed like that’s what he was most happy, and most comfortable, doing.”

It’s a trait that, communication and management issues aside, many league sources believe will be difficult for the Chiefs to replace, especially on the heels of the club losing Dorsey’s talented and respected right-hand man Chris Ballard to Indianapolis five months ago. Ballard is now the Colts’ GM.

“I loved him,” one league source said of Dorsey. “Blunt, honest and a great talent evaluator. Losing him and Ballard in one offseason is insane.”

Brandt said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Chiefs prioritized talent evaluation, along with leadership and communication, with their next hire. The Chiefs are already over the projected 2018 salary cap, but there’s a widely-held belief around the league that whatever cap issues they have can be rectified in a year or two.

“We have this traditional version of an NFL GM coming from a scouting background, like John — and that’s the most popular GM model,” Brandt said. “Then there are a few coming from more of my background, which is from the financial side, about business and cap contracts. The third model is one Andy had in Philly, which is coach/GM.

“To me, the real underappreciated trait you want from a GM is leadership and communication, because the GM will be coming from one of those backgrounds and will need to communicate seamlessly with what he’s not an expert at. Teams sometimes rush to sign an expert in one area while maybe not taking into account the necessity for communication in other areas.”

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article158155634.html

I don't believe it's any easier to sign anyone at any point in time if you feel their asking price is well above what you are willing to pay. There has to be an asking price at which it seems reasonable to negotiate.

Even you seem to indicate that Dorsey had a better chance to sign Joe than Berry does. The actual evidence suggests neither man was willing to negotiate when they felt there wasn't a reasonable starting point based on what Joe's agents were asking.

Many is s subjective term. The narrative was posted by quite a few posters that Dorsey blew the opportunity to sign Joe. Yet Berry has followed suit.

Hopefully quite a few is a more acceptable term than many for you.

I agree and that is the article I was alluding to. That article was used as the basis that Dorsey was posted several times. Hell, I think I was the first one who posted it and that was long before the vultures started circling around Dorsey.

That article has been turned into people saying that Dorsey didn't get along w/others in Cleveland and it's been repeated so many times by certain deceitful people that most of the board believes that it's true.

I will maintain that the Dorsey group and the Depo group probably did not get along. They should have either kept the Depo guys and let them hire their GM or hired Dorsey and his guys and found new guys to head-up the Analytic department.

We can disagree w/which decision would have been wiser, but I'll never believe that it was a marriage built to endure the test of time.

That is why I always go back to Haslam and his meddling self.

Another thing about the issues in KC ... Andy Reid was involved there ... Andy was involved in two power struggles in Phili and was 1 - 1 ... hence why he was free for the KC job ...

Who really knows what happened in KC but Andy being a part of itt in KC fits in that equation ... how weighted it is ... who knows ...

Banner-Reid Power Struggle? You'd Better Believe It

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/sports/eagles/Banner-Reid-Power-Struggle-Youd-Better-Believe-It.html

I know u love Joe in the pass game .... please break his game down from an overall standpoint ... run/pass ... strengths weaknesses and intangibles ....

Unless you’d rather re-hash this years version of Kelly/Tim or DA/BQ again ... *L* ...

I think Joe is one of the team's better players.

Strengths:

--Pass coverage. He is very good in zone coverages because he can get a lot of depth quickly. He also can cover TEs and backs. He anticipates well and breaks on the ball w/some good speed. He has good hands and does intercept the ball.

--Intelligence: He is like the qb of the defense. He reads plays very well. He gets to the right spots in coverage.

--Athleticism: There is this misconception that he is not a good athlete and that he is an over-achiever. No, he is very athletic. You should check out the story on how he did a "cross bar dunk."

--He finds the ball and makes a lot of tackles.

--He is a 3-Down LBer. Those guys are becoming increasingly rare. Dude does not come off the field. That's invaluable.


Concerns:

--He lost weight to play the Mike in Williams' D. I imagine that has hurt his overall strength. He doesn't overpower anyone.

--He sometimes struggles to tackle after disengaging from offensive lineman. He would benefit playing behind block-eating DTs.

Intangibles:

He seems like a great guy and has the respect from other players around the league. Good work ethic and keeps his mouth shut.


Again, I am not bashing Dorsey or Berry. However, I have always thought that Joe is the kind of player you should keep.

I agree. Joe should be here long term.

Thanks for breaking that down. I appreciated being able to read it.

While we don't know what negotiations have actually taken place, or any numbers that were thrown out (if at all)... would you extend your last statement to say you would "back up the Brinks truck" to keep Joe? What if Joe is demanding top5 LB money (no idea what his demands are, just hypothetical).

Thanks .... appreciate it ...

Just curious not questioning ...

If joe is so good at covering lbers why has it been an issue for s few years now? ...

Berry just live with it bro.

J/c:

3 of Joe's INTs were off deflections: one off Albert Wilson's facemask, one batted back towards the LOS by Miami's TE, one Case Keenum pass tipped up into the air by the DL. 1 was a terrible desperation chuck into double coverage by Darnold. The other 2 were bad throws by Mason Rudolph: one behind a receiver who had a step or two on Joe and the other hit Joe between the numbers while he was sitting still.

I prefer he make the INT rather than not, but none of them were really examples of great coverage on Joe's part.

His best play in coverage was probably a deflection against the Rams that a safety picked.

His skills in coverage seem greatly exaggerated. He's not bad, but it feels like his grade is high more because someone else was more wide open elsewhere than because he was locking someone down.

He's solid, but not spectacular in coverage. He'd be nice to keep at the right price. He'll probably get paid like he's spectacular.