DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Free Agency - Cont’d

Who is it that's saying that FO was awesome? Or is this yet one more statement that is arguing against something no-one ever said?

I get the allure of Peters for us right now. He's older, but he'd come in and be solid if unspectacular, and not cost any draft picks. He'd also come in and more clearly be a stopgap. Williams clearly wants to be "the guy" for at least a little while.

We don't know the conversations that are or are not happening between Cleveland, 'skins, and Williams. If it were me in Berea, I'd be looking at what we can/can't afford, in terms of trade and $$ capital, and looking to hammer on the skins and Williams to get what I want... all the while keeping an eye on Peters as a plan B. I think we absolutely need to have at least a 1-year stopgap at LT while we develop our LT of the future.

I prefer Williams as long as the cost makes sense. We have to be aware of the young'ins that we're going to have to pay soon.

If Trent was 26 or 27 and at the peak of his career, you'd have a point.
He is not.

He is a band-aid at that point. He is NOT a long-term answer for the team. THIS is why Peters makes more sense. He already *knows* he is at the point of his career where he is a band-aid. He can be brought in on a one or two year deal that will be eminently affordable AND our team doesn't have to give up anything for him.

Conversely, Washington wants to be well-compensated in any trade for their 7-time Pro Bowler, AND that 7-time Pro Bowler that just sat out of football for a year wants to be the highest paid LT in the NFL.


Even if we get him for dirt cheap in terms of draft capital (a 4th), and he is reasonable about his contract, he STILL isn't a long-term solution. He is at best a two year placeholder. Period. Thus, we STILL need to draft a replacement LT highly.

And as for the injury argument... it doesn't matter WHY he misses games, he missed all of those games. The ones missed for substance abuse are still missed games, and also point to him being one strike removed from another long suspension.

So, unless you can talk Williams into the same contract dollars that Peters would agree to, and unless you can get the Redskins to only take a 4th for him, he simply is not worth it..... and even if you do all of that, we STILL need to draft the LT while we're picking high enough in a year loaded with LT's to do it.

J/c

So Randall to LV ... that kinda makes sense

Seeing a one year, $3.25M deal for Randall.

Ouch! Probably not what he thought he would get this time last year.

I agree and believe the FO has done a stellar job of front end loading the contracts of the players we have signed. That's my main point about Williams. First the Browns can front end load his contract. Second they can add in performance incentives, roster bonuses, and other pay for play incentives to sweeten the deal but also protect the franchise. They can even add in guarantees for like year 1 and 2 with the front end loading. Look, getting a Pro Bowl caliber LT is going to cost the Browns. However, with 40 million in cap space they have the funds to easily pull off the deal. Second, by front end loading the contract they free up that money in years 3 and 4 not to mention that the cap will increase every year also. IMHO, signing Williams to a best in class deal is easily within the Browns cap and will not effect signing our young guys with contract renewals.

Going back to Peters for a moment, I hear all the talk about Williams injuries which I proved was bunk but Peters has missed 12 games due to injury the last 4 years which is 3 more than Williams. Peters is 38 while Williams is 31. While Williams has been a Pro Bowler every year between 2012-2018, Peters has not made the Pro Bowl since 2016. Peters is at best a 1-year stop gap which would require the Browns to draft a LT in this draft which I'll talk about in a minute. Williams would allow the Browns to skip this year and maybe even next year of addressing LT with a high pick or they could use a later round pick that wouldn't actually be forced into service for 3-4 years after being mentored by a perennial Pro Bowl LT.

Now the draft: there are 4 OT's deemed to go in the first round with 1 early 2nd or possibly very late 1st. The Browns have the 10th pick but many of the teams in front of them have OT needs too. In addition, there are some teams with draft capital that could or should move in front of the Browns to get a OT.

Let's review: the Giants at #4 are considered to be drafting an OT in most mocks. The consensus is they draft Wills from Alabama with this pick. Wills played RT the last 2 years at Alabama so he doesn't meet our need anyway.

Arizona at #8 are also deemed to draft an OT in most mocks. The consensus is they will take Wirfs from Iowa with their pick. Wirfs is also planned to be a RT for the Cards with the left side already being manned by Humphries who also just signed a long term deal. Again, though he has some LT experience, Wirfs played 29 games at RT and 4 at LT at Iowa thus is a player that does not meet our needs because he's not a LT.

Jacksonville is picking #9 and is also in the need of an OT but most mocks also have Tampa trading into this spot to get ahead of the Browns for an OT to protect Brady. Either team though has their eyes on OT Thomas from Georgia. For the Bucs or the Jags, the plan for Thomas is to be a RT. However, Thomas played the last 2 years at LT after a Freshman year at RT so moving to the other side is an option. Considered the best pass blocker in the nation, Thomas is smaller of the talked about OT's at 6'5" and 315 lbs and has had problems run blocking straight up. He might be an answer for the Browns but will he be there at #10? The mocks say no and the Browns do not have the draft capital to move up.

The Browns pick #10 and the only OT left on the board is Becton from Louisville. Just a quick note, a number of the mocks have LB Isaiah Simmons Clemson available at this spot. Becton is a mountain of a man 6'7" and 364 lbs. Having started 12 games at RT and 21 games at LT, Becton is interchangeable. Becton will need to work on his pass blocking at the next level but his pure size and strength make him a viable run blocker at either position. The draft overview says that the biggest concern with Becton is his weight that creates an obvious low-floor scenario. Without discipline that he prioritizes his weight, quickness will diminish and make him unserviceable as a LT. This pick would be a huge gamble since he's already starting at 364 lbs.

Late 1st round picks or early 2nd round would be Josh Jones OT Houston and Ezra Cleveland OT Boise State. Jones a LT at Houston is a developmental project in need of substantial technique work. To be clear, he needs plenty of work with his pass sets and footwork, but most of his issues appear to be coachable. He's a good fit for a move-oriented rushing attack and has the traits and talent to become a future starter if he continues to develop with coaching.

Ezra Cleveland, a 3-year starter at LT for Boise State. Athletic left tackle able to make all outside zone blocks in the run game, but in dire need of additional mass and functional strength. Cleveland has issues anchoring and redirecting edge pressure. Cleveland has the athleticism to play swing tackle for a zone-based offense but needs to get much stronger to hold up as a starter.

Neither one of these last two are ready to walk in and anchor the LT position as a starter. It might even take a trade up to get either one of these projects. That leaves Becton at #10 who will have potential weight issues in the very near future without serious discipline in controlling his weight.

This brings me full circle as to why the Browns need to pull the trigger on Williams. Yes, he will cost us but we have the cap space and taking a project in the draft is not the answer especially where the one that looks to be available to us could very easily eat his way out of the position sooner than later.

You've done a nice job presenting your case. I'm still more thinking along the lines of Prp and go with Peters on a 1-2 yr deal though. But your opinion on TW is very valid.

On what grounds do you come to this conclusion?

Ezra Cleveland is the strongest of all the top OTs' in this years class.

Yeah, I echo this post. It's not that I so much disagree with steve... moreso that I understand the hesitation of committing to Williams, given the little of what we know that it would take to get him in here and playing for us.

The comments on Ezra Cleveland came straight from the scouting combine report written on NFL.com. I just don't make up stuff. This is the scouting feelings from his time at Boise State and the combine. Right or wrong, and you may difer in your opinion, the scouting report is what it is so I have to give some credence to the report.

There rarely are. I think it was Savage who said something like if you draft a LT high and they can't make it there, they can usually play RT, and if not there they can end up playing guard.

It usually doesn't end up a totally blown pick like drafting a QB who can't play or a receiver who can't catch. You may not get your 10 year LT, but you are still going to get a player who can start somewhere on the line.

Terez A. Paylor
@TerezPaylor
·
11h
The Chiefs have reached an agreement with TE Ricky Seals-Jones, a source tells m

I think that's a really great fit. Ricky is a good receiving TE and with Kelce getting all the attention, Ricky will make some plays even if his touches are going to be limited. I'd bet he has a pretty high YPC at the end of the season.

So, I've been posting a lot about the Browns getting Trent Williams. I've tried to put together a reasonable reason why the Browns should pull the trigger based on value, sound business, and team. You are free to disagree but I think I've put forward a compelling argument.

Value: I think that offering 38-year old Jason Peters as a stop gap for a year or two due to low cost (I suspect between 5-7 million per year for 2-years) and adding a first round draft pick (approx. 22 million guaranteed for 4 years) is not a sound value. Money wise, the Browns are looking at an investment of approx. 34 million for 2 players that have low ceilings. Peters at age 38 is suspect in it self. The so called rookie class of 4 OT's going in the top 10 picks comprise of 2 RT's in Wills and Wirfs. Thomas is a LT but there's only a 10% at this time he'd be available at #10. That leaves Becton who is a LT and a monster of a man but being age 20 and weighing 364 lbs already, gives great concern about his weight going forward. Becton will have very little wiggle room in managing his weight going forward and presents the lowest ceiling of all the OT's due to his weight. Later in the round or the 2nd, Cleveland and Jones appear to be projects but would cost less and decrease the likely hood of success to 33%. Williams on the other hand is only 31. Anyone trying to use his age as a discussion point is mute if you're considering a 38-year old Peters for 1-2 years. Williams value out weighs all of the above. Williams is 1-year removed from 7 consecutive Pro Bowls. He is arguably the best LT in football.

Sound Business: Williams should be good for 4-5 years for the Browns. Even if he performs below Pro Bowl level, he instantly provides a huge upgrade to the position now and in the future. Financially, the above case shows that the investment in Peters (2-years) and a #10 picked rookie (4 years guaranteed) would require a financial outlay of 34 million give or take. Williams cost during years 1-2 would be comparable if we paid him 18 million per year. However, rookie contracts are front end loaded to protect the cap. I would suspect that a #10 pick would have a fully guaranteed 4-year contract paying about 2.5 million per year with a 12 million signing bonus. Actually, Peters and a OT rookie would cost 20.5 million year 1, 8.5 year 2, 2.5 million year 3 and 2.5 million year 4.

Business wise, how do the Browns make this work? The value is there without question - the question is the cost. As with the rookie contract, the key is to front end load the contract so that in years 3-4 the Browns have the option to move on without any dead cap money or making sure that they do not harm the cap going forward if Williams performs as expected. First the trade: the Skins are looking for a 2nd round pick. That might be within reason considering the value of Williams. The Browns then must sweeten the pot. The Browns could and should offer a 3rd round pick for Williams. Adding a player will almost certainly get the deal done. I suggest the Browns offer Vernon as the player. Here's why, Vernon was not the player we needed last year opposite Garrett. Yes, I know he was injured but in the games he played he only logged 26 tackles and 3.5 sacks. At 15.5 million, those are some pretty poor stats. In 2020, Vernon will be in the final year of his contract and is scheduled to be paid another 15.5 million. Additionally, Vernon will not be resigned by the Browns next year so right now they are looking at a 1-year rental for 15.5 million. The money is not guaranteed and there's no dead cap money involved. Trading Vernon and a 3rd round pick (which we have 2) will get the deal done and free up 15.5 million immediately to use on extending Williams. Bear with me, trading Vernon, not signing Peters and not drafting an OT at #10 gives the Browns 44.5 million in comparable money to spend on Williams. The contract I suggest is 14 million per year for 4-years. 2 million per year for games played bonuses and an 8 million signing bonus. This makes the total deal of 72 million if he achieves all the bonuses but 16 million of cap savings in year 4 if the Browns cut him. The only year the Browns will actually be paying new money is in year 3 of 11.5 million if they cut him in year 4. The Browns would guarantee years 1 & 2 totaling 40 million with bonuses and gives the Browns an out in years 3 & 4. In real money, drafting an OT at #10, signing Peters as a stop gap for 2-years and keeping Vernon would cost the Browns approx. 44.5 million compared to Williams costing 40 million with a front end loaded contract. However, in years 3 & 4, the max cost is 16 million per year which would be extremely cheap if Williams is still performing at a Pro Bowl level. Bottom line, proven Pro Bowl LT to anchor the offensive line vs a 38-year old LT coming off injury and a 50/50 shot on a rookie LT. Remember, there's basically no cost to the Browns in years 1 & 2 getting Williams instead of Peters, a rookie, and Vernon.

Team: The LT concern is immediately addressed. In fact, the Browns would be considered as having one of the best offensive lines in football. There is an immediate upgrade at the position over who they have, Peters, and/or a rookie. Mayfield's blindside will finally be protected (something he has never seen in Cleveland). You bring a veteran presence to the O-line. LT doesn't need to be addressed in the early rounds or could be delayed a year or two, The Browns can now use their draft capital on the defense which is needed badly. It will definitely send a message to the team that the FO is playing to win now - we are no longer in rebuild mode. The Browns bookend tackles should be set for 3-years plus.

I lean the same way - but I 100% understand the question mark over Williams attitude and motivation.

From a risk perspective - rolling with a value trade for Williams (4th and 5th round pick? - a 3rd round pick?) - I think you have to improve the back up LT position as insurance, but at 10 there is a lot of options including trading back a few slots and taking the top LB or one or the top 2 safeties. . . . .

1. if Williams is a complete bust (mentally or injury) we lose a butt ton of $$$$ (contract needs to be written to protect cap space) and we play 2020 season with a sub-par LT.... With the improvement elsewhere on the OL I think we can survive and win games.

2. if Williams stays healthy (mental/physical) but has diminished skills, I think the floor is still an average probably above average LT which is still an improvement and gives us a really solid OL.

3. if Williams stays healthy and still has high skill set for the position, we potentially have one of the best OL's in the NFL. (And in any of these scenarios we have the results from the draft capital spent).

Nope, I shall not be muted.
Peters: either one year or a two year deal, but he is only here for one.
Williams: Unless you can get him to accept a two year deal, is out of the question to me. He wants BIG money and it is his last real contract and that will require a much longer deal, but there is little chance you get more than two years out of him.

Why the disconnect? Simple: Peters still going at his age is NOT normal and CANNOT be looked at as what to expect from Williams. The simple fact is that, by far, most top tier, best of the best, future-HOF LTs are done after 10-12 seasons and when they drop off, it is usually rapid and precipitous. Peters is an exception, not the rule. That means that regardless of which veteran you sign, you need to be taking a LT in this draft to start grooming to backfill. That part is an absolute given. So, you are either drafting a LT and signing Peter's, or you are drafting a LT and also trading for Williams.

I keep waiting to hear that Jameis Winston has signed on to be Lamar's backup. Imagine the Jimmy's Seafood endorsement opportunities.

Browns show interest in Jadeveon Clowney with possibly best offer yet for edge rusher, per report
Add the Browns into the mix for Jadeveon Clowney

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/brown...her-per-report/

14 mins ago
The Cleveland Browns are entering the Jadeveon Clowney sweepstakes. Per ESPN's Jeremy Fowler, the Browns have shown interest in Clowney and some people around the league believe Cleveland got closer with Clowney than the other suitors. Whether this gives Cleveland the inside track to land Clowney remains to be seen, but the Browns have certainly checked in on the defensive end's asking price.

Cleveland already has Myles Garrett and Olivier Vernon at defensive end and signed Adrian Clayborn to a two-year contract earlier in the week, so the Browns aren't needy of pass rushers. Garrett had 10 sacks and 39 pressures before serving his six-game suspension that ended his 2019 season, but Vernon had just 3.5 sacks in 25 pressures in 10 games and can be cut to create $15.5 million in cap space. The Browns could certainly use an extra pass rusher opposite of Garrett, which is where Clowney comes in.

Clowney has 32 sacks in six NFL seasons with 80 quarterback hits, 252 pressures and three Pro Bowl appearances. He has also graded out exceptionally well via Pro Football Focus, specifically over the past two seasons. He finished with 31 tackles, three sacks, four forced fumbles, 13 quarterback hits and 47 pressures in 13 games, but was hampered for the majority of the second half of the season with a core muscle injury, explaining why the sack numbers are down. Clowney had surgery on the core muscle injury, which shouldn't affect him for the 2020 season.

Clowney has reportedly lowered his asking price from north of $20 million per season to $17-18 million which may have been why the Browns have entered the mix. The Titans and Seahawks are also interested in Clowney, even though Seattle will have to maneuver cap space as they are currently have $14,825,497 in cap space (per Over The Cap).

Cleveland has the most cap space in the NFL at $43 million and can create much more by parting ways with Vernon, so signing Clowney to a massive deal won't be an issue. The Browns certainly have the finances to give Clowney want he wants and emerge as the winner of the sweepstakes.

I don't know how I feel about cutting Vernon, especially after what we gave up to get him. Still a dumb trade IMO.

I Have read somewhere that Garrett and Vernon have the ability to move inside on certain pash rushing plays. Wouldn't adding Clowney and keeping Vernon make more sense if this is true?

Yes. I want to keep Vernon as I think he's a very good DE. He can anchor one side of the line and let MG run havoc. Potentially adding Clowney makes it very interesting. Having Clowney and MG on the same side or with MG inside and Clowney outside - with the speed and quickness off the snap that MG has .... But I'd be fine with not landing Clowney.

I think they'd like Clowney if the price was right. I think they'd like Griffen if the price was right too.

There has been too much going on regarding the other DE slot not to think this FO would prefer to move on from Vernon and his contract. The question is if they will be in a position to do so. Or restructure. Or have to stay the course.

The more and more these DE remain on the market, I can only assume that means the price goes down. That's a good thing for us, it seems if that is the route they'd like to go down.

Jc

If we get Clowney for the right price thats a great pickup

Yes, it most certainly was.

I would think that Clowney would be a 1 for 1 swap-out for Vernon. We sign Clowney and cut Vernon.

Yup. I think the only reason Vernon is still on the roster is because we haven't found an adequate replacement. If/when we do he's going to be cut (or traded).

On the most recent Nate Ulrich podcast he said he talked to a source about Browns players being discussed in trades. The source said that the only Browns player he's heard in trade talks is Olivier Vernon.

Here is a link to the podcast:

https://omny.fm/shows/cover-2-a-podcast-...ns-moves-this-o

And Nate Ulrich has a pretty good pulse on the Browns, if you ask me. He is really good.

I would agree.

I agree it makes sense on the one hand ... but it's doubtful we will spend all of our cap limit. Why not try to keep both if you can.

And man - if we end up cutting Vernon after one injury hit season that trade will not look good under any light.

12 games played in 2017
11 games played in 2018
10 games played in 2019

Vernon has a cap hit of $15.5. That is ridiculous considering the injuries.

This doesn't take into account games when he wasn't 100%. yet still went on to the field. (Kudos to him, I suppose)

I think Vernon could be worth his contract if health wasn't an issue. The fact remains the he can't stay healthy and he probably isn't going to be with the team beyond this season anyways.

If they can essentially swap his contact with someone else +/- a couple million, I don't know why the team wouldn't do this with someone they perceive to be more reliable and can stay on the field.

But I guess my issue with a Clowney signing is I don't think he is worth $17-$18M he and is team is asking for.

But why? If you need the cap space ... sure, that'd be a no brainer. If you can get trade value (unlikely) again no brainer. . . . but if you don't need the cap space, why get rid of a good player who has no off field issues if you don't have to? Doesn't even save future cap space.

Can't you roll over cap space?

Even if you couldn't, the "just because you have cap" argument never made sense to me. Bad contracts are bad contracts. Why would an owner commit to them as it hurts his/hers and the organization's bottom line.

Clowney would be an upgrade over Vernon if only because of injury issues. Vernon is a very good player but if he can't stay on the field what good is it. That was the knock on him in NY and it has continued here. It won't get any better as he gets older.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm about 60/40 in favor of keeping Vernon and not signing Clowney. Mainly because of the financial issues long term with other big re-signings looming over the next several years.

Anyway found this article which examines the potential transaction.

Browns need to be cautious, prudent in pursuit of Jadeveon Clowney

Jeff Risdon
28 minutes ago
Several reports are floating around now, bringing the whispers many have heard quietly for weeks into the mainstream cacophony: The Cleveland Browns have legitimate interest in signing free agent EDGE Jadeveon Clowney. ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler and The Seattle Times’ Bob Condotta both reported the interest on Saturday.


bcondotta
@bcondotta
Browns have recently been mentioned as a potential suitor for Clowney. Sounds like they may be making a serious run. But as Fowler notes, nothing appears imminent. https://twitter.com/JFowlerESPN/status/1246493073103781890 …

Jeremy Fowler
✔
@JFowlerESPN
From @SportsCenter earlier: Cleveland Browns have shown interest in Jadeveon Clowney, and some people around league believe Cleveland got closer with Clowney than other suitors, though nothing ultimately happened from recent talks. Seattle's offer hasn't been what Clowney wants.

16
1:45 PM - Apr 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See bcondotta's other Tweets
Fans are probably quite excited at hearing Clowney’s name. He still carries significant recognition and cache value from being the No. 1 overall pick in 2014. His crushing hit on Michigan RB DeVeon Smith while at South Carolina remains one of the biggest college football highlights of the last decade.

Here’s the reality check, from someone who covered Clowney’s 2017-2018 seasons in Houston and watched most of his NFL snaps before and after it, including last season in Seattle.

He’s not better than the Olivier Vernon who played in Cleveland in 2019. He’s certainly not worth paying more than Vernon is due to make in 2020 even though Clowney has already lowered his contract expectations.

Here’s how Clowney and Vernon stacked up last season, the first year with new teams for both veteran pass rushers.

Snaps Sacks QB Pressures
(Per PFF)

PFF pass rush
grade

Overall PFF
grade

Vernon 508 4 24 75.7 80.4
Clowney 712 3 43 76.7 80.8


Clowney did generate more pressure per pass rush snap in Seattle than Vernon did in Cleveland. But the grades are almost exactly the same and Vernon converted more of those pressures into sacks. Clowney hit the QB just two more times than Vernon (13 to 11) in over 200 more snaps, per Pro Football Reference. The Browns just signed Adrian Clayborn, who had four sacks, 39 hurries and a 76.7 PFF pass rush grade in less than 450 snaps for just $6 million for 2020.

There are two days to interpret that information. Either Clowney isn’t as good as advertised or the $20 million a year he was asking for, or Vernon is better than Browns fans — most of whom want him shipped out of town on a high-speed train — think he was.

Where Browns GM Andrew Berry and his staff really need to be mindful is in the economics of the situation. If they want to bring in Clowney and replace Vernon, it’s somewhat justifiable from a football sense. While they’ve been very similar players for the last few years, Clowney is over two years younger. Clowney has missed just five games in the last three years to Vernon’s 15. But the money must matter, too.

Vernon is in the final season of a contract he signed years ago with the New York Giants. He will earn $15.5 million in 2020 and then he’s a free agent. No future obligations are due Vernon, which is important for a Browns team that needs to come up with contract extensions for Myles Garrett, Baker Mayfield, Denzel Ward, Nick Chubb and (maybe) Kareem Hunt in the next 12-18 months.

Clowney earned $15 million in 2019, a figure split between the Texans and Seahawks. He got dealt because he wanted more from the Texans than the franchise tag figure, and he didn’t re-sign with the Seahawks for the same reason. This past week, Clowney dropped his long-term contract demands to $17-$18 million per season from the $20 million per year he was previously seeking, according to ESPN’s Dianna Russini.

That’s simply not a worthwhile swap, especially considering the rate Clayborn — again, a more effective pass rusher than either Clowney or Vernon — just signed for with the Browns. The cap room beyond 2020 is more important than a literal handful of extra QB pressures Clowney might (might!) generate this fall.

Now if Clowney agrees to sign a one-year deal for the same money Vernon is making, it’s a smart move. But that’s about the only way the Browns’ pursuit of Clowney makes sense.

Link

IF the Browns would sign Clowney, I wouldn't expect it to be a long term deal.

I don't suppose there's any chance the Redskins would be interested in Vernon? It looks like they run a base 3-4 defense, so I assume Vernon would have to play OLB.