DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Baker 2

According to the FO, this did happen.

Bone - I agree. And we don't know what happened and what was and what was not said. It seems clear:

- If you didn't like Baker much you probably think the team/FO acted fine and had this conversation with Baker - and Baker's rection reinforces your belief that Baker is a crybaby, immature guy that isn't the right guy for the Browns.

- If you were in Baker's corner and felt like he played great in 2020 in taking us to and winning a play off game and did (literally) brilliant for 6 quarters when healthy this year before getting hurt and the rest of this season was a reflection of the injury, not Baker's real ability, then you probably think the FO screwed the pouch and messed up. By going after a guy of highly questionable character that you had the slimmest of shots to acquire you've burned the bridge with the QB we had on the roster who was already plenty good enough to win a SB with.

Personally I'd like to see Baker suck it up and play for the Browns this year, set himself up for next year. Don't do anything on social media and conduct all communication behind closed doors.

Some version of this may or may not have happened - and we have no idea what the feedback or reaction from Baker would have been or even if Baker was given an opportunity to respond. We only know one side of this claim and I am dubious about what was actually said.

@PeterBurnsESPN

The Browns needed to learn from the Seahawks.

Never throw the QB under the bus until the paperwork of a trade is signed.

Now all they’ve done is torpedo whatever value Baker would have on the market and created a toxic situation that I can’t see ending well for them

On brand

@WheelzFL

I thought the Browns were done being a clown franchise when they went to the playoffs but nope

All because they didn’t communicate with the man

Do you honestly think this is relevant at all if the Browns are actively looking to move on from Baker? This is a nothing burger.

Says a whole lot about the Browns Management.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...-watson-pursuit/ar-AAVc5DM?ocid=msedgntp

I guarantee you that nobody of any importance in Berea said that. They found a ding-dong that was ok with speaking out of turn and would get a rise out of being quoted in anonymity. And you know what? It's true... at least to the extent that Baker confirmed it with everything that came after.

-Baker is not in the extremely small group of QBs that have established themselves to the point their FO shouldn't be looking to improve at the position
-Look around at the other starting-caliber QBs on the move to see how a pro handles this situation. Then ask yourself what that means for Baker's reactions

Social media reactions are the barometer of what's going on with the FO?

Haha, ok. If you say so.

Not only that, but if your hottake requires ignoring or twisting what actually happened, then it's obviously a bad take. The Browns reportedly did communicate with Baker.

(1) FO approached his agents at the combine
(2) FO let them know they would be pursuing QB as a possible upgrade
(3) When that failed, Haslem offered to meet w. Baker at his home
(4) Baker writes something on social alluding to a divorce
(5) Baker refused to meet with ownership
(6) Baker demands trade

Who looks like they are trying to burn bridges?

1), Trade Baker to buddy boy for their 34th selection.
2), select a QB with selection.

I asked / mentioned this before. And not picking on you - but:

1. Who said they talked to Baker?
2. What did they specifically say to Baker?
3. What was Baker's reaction and feedback? Did they even give him the opportunity to give feedback?


We know pretty much ZIP ... in using this "they told Baker - everything should be cool" thinking, we are making some ENORMOUS and DUBIOUS assumptions.

To me that sounds entirely like spin and damage control by the FO. The same sort of media, marketing and damage control that the Browns apparently went to Watson with as part of their failed attempt to sign him.

Yes, I do believe they said "something". I do not have any faith that it was what some posters are assuming - that it was professional, well communicated AND AGREED ON by both sides.

The Browns now have a QB that doesn't want to play for them any longer. Just because they talked to a guy who really didn't want to play for them. Nice going Berry.

It's been pretty widely reported. I mean, sure... "sources" and all... but you also look at the MO of Berry, and the fact that he said they expect Baker to be the starter at QB1 but also treat the team like an expansion team every year and look to improve everywhere. No, I wasn't in the room when the convo happened, but it checks out, IMO.

This isn't the thinking. I'm guessing after they approached Baker's team and being transparent about their intentions, things weren't cool-- at all. It probably became awkward and unsettling on that side of the table and they didn't like it. But the Browns told them their intentions and what they planned to do. Considering far too often the comments from players saying they've found out they were traded and cut via twitter or the ESPN bottom line as opposed to team reps, I think this goes a long way more from what some teams do.

Bone - I actually am in agreement with this guy. And if Baker feels like he can't trust the FO and Stefanski ... in some ways more power to him if he turns down $18M to go fight for a contract elsewhere for a lot less.

I agree - I'd want Baker to STFU - handle business behind closed doors. Turn up and play - do well and then if he still feels the same way after the season, tell the FO he is not playing for the Browns under a franchise tag and not signing a new contract. I hate the social media bullcrap. But ... different era. Maybe Baker looked at OBJ and how he got out of town and learned a thing or two. All the folks supporting OBJ should be supporting Baker too - right?

Wouldnt it be ironic if Watson turned the browns down because he heard the adult comment and didnt want to get involved with a FO that would be stupid enough to make such a comment.

All of this is 100% complete conjecture and speculation. And that's my point. And as I said - I absolutely do not believe the Browns were transparent or were candid. Just like we don't know if Baker was transparent and said "if you do that and don't get someone, I won't play for you because clearly you have no belief in me" ....

If you say so!

I think you are only fooling yourself.

It's a slippery slope to start picking and choosing which "sources" reports you're going to believe and which you won't.

In what way am I picking and choosing what reports I believe?

I said we have no clue what was said. We don't. None. We have one side - the side that currently look like dumbasses - making a claim about how they did everything right, without any specifics. None.

Color me skeptical.

Modern society is already swimming in the mud at the bottom of that hill.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you believe the "adults" bit, but not the timeline of what the FO said to Baker.

I'm not saying what Baker should and shouldn't feel. It's his response that I have a problem with. Again... JimmyG, Matt Ryan, Tua, etc aren't robots or anything. But their responses are what is seen as a professional in the NFL.

No - I am not commentating one way or another on the 'Adults' comment/report. This is just in relation to the Browns FO and what appears to me to be spin control and damage control and making a vague, unspecific claim that they told Baker what they were going to do so it should all be ok ... I don't have a lot of faith in that claim. It's unspecific and lacking any sort of detail.

I don't know about the Mortensen report and claim and whether that holds any merit. The two things aren't connected from my perspective.

Someone else mentioned it the other day - confirmation bias. I do my best not to fall into that, but it is hard because it is human nature. As posted above, I am not picking and choosing - I am commentating on one report only.

All of this could have been avoided if -

1. Baker was a good QB.
2. Baker was a mature individual.

He handled the entire season last year so unprofessionally that a portion of the locker room was actually backing the "disgruntled WR" who wanted out of town. This disgruntled WR went on to another team and won a Super Bowl. A Super Bowl in which he was playing outstanding in, including catching a TD pass, until he got hurt. The "freelancer". The guy who couldn't get open anymore. Who ignored the playbook.

Your QB said he decides if he plays or not. He said he'll talk with his "camp" about shutting down the season and doing what's best for him. No team in any of those statements. No mention of coaches, FO.

He's a petulant child who also happens to not be very good at his job.

And we have people defending him and trashing the front office who has done nothing but afforded him every opportunity to succeed since they joined the team.

smh

In situations like this, pretty much all we have is to try to "read the tea leaves". All the parties involved have a vested interest in letting as little out as possible. I don't begrudge you your interpretation at all (it could very well be the YOLO moment that some say it is from the FO). I just think that the narrative I described lines up well with what Berry said about the QB position at the end of the season, and their MO in general.

I am happy we have a front office that is willing to leave no stone unturned to attempt to improve the team.

Just to play along..... the "adults" comment was very clearly put out to the media, with intent.
There was never ANY word at all that the meeting with Baker's people involved notifying them that the franchise would be looking to upgrade the position. Nope. That part was specifically left ambiguous at best. There was like one single blurb on TwitFace from one person about the FO meeting with his Agents at the Combine, and there was nothing more to it.



Anyway, the one thing that is missing here is: What did Baker's agents tell Baker about what the FO said??? IF the FO actually did come clean and was upfront, did Baker actually even know, at all, or was his agent "insulating him" from that info??

Either way, not matter where the fault, there was absolutely, 100%, a communication failure here. There can be zero doubt about that. Beyond that, it's nothing but a bunch of heresay on whose fault it may have been.