DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Depodesta remaining silent...

Maybe they just agreed to keep things quiet untill DW's Press Conference ... Not everthing has to be a conspirisy

So analytics is involved in PR now?

"Point on the picture where analytics touched you..."

Dude - you sure have a H-On for Depo. WTF, man.

Did you get rejected from some Ivy League school back in the day or something?

Thanks thats a good one!

And when is Depodesta ever vocal? People act like he's some mysterious "man behind the curtain" because we never hear from him... "now the silence is deafening"?

C'mon man.


Here's where analytics fits in, and I'm sure he's on board:

"The Plan" was to build a contending team while we had young players on cheap contracts. The plan was in danger when Baker became a big question mark. The plan was about to blow up when we didn't sign Watson -- and Baker quit.

At that point there is a fork in the road... sign a crappy QB, try to compete, and most like "middle" the league for the next few years while we "re-plan". NOT being able to attract players, NOT being able to keep the good players we have. Embracing suckitude and pain; back to the drawing board style.

The approach to salvage the plan was to "go all in" and eliminate the long, painful process explained above.

You raise to ceiling to Championships and lower the floor to "crash and burn"... and in this league crash and burn is actually easier to recover from than withering in mediocre and false hope.

If you're going to go out, go out in a blaze of glory.

The owners, GM and coach are the voices of the team.

You are trying to make some point where there isn't a point. I would imagine if depo said anything, you would be goobering about that.

Yawn

Geez Mac, is there nothing you won't twist into a negative about analytics? LOL

You win.

Post of the year. I spit out my coffee.

In all honesty I don't think we'll ever know who did and who didn't support signing Watson "behind closed doors". It certainly wasn't those 22 massage therapists. But more to the point.....

What we do know is the very same people who have been preaching about how character is one one of the biggest factors of the Browns or themselves were either bold face lying or have decided to go with the company line now. (I include not only the FO but the fan base ithat statement) To date what we've seen in such circumstances are players who have paid the price for their infractions. Players for which they waited until the process played out rather than taking such a huge gamble. Giving someone a second chance after they have gone through the process and paid the price for egregious behavior is one thing, even then those were one year trial deals at bargain basement prices. This is an entire new level.

As far as recreating his image, that will be easier than you think it is. All they really care about is filling the stadium and TV viewership. That's where the bulk of the money comes from. As such all they really have to do is convince Browns fans. And as we've seen, people tend to believe anything and everything that favors what they want to hear and tend to make excuses and block out anything they don't. No Browns fan wants to think and believe their owner and front office are scum bags. With having a QB like Watson, they want with everything in their hearts to stay on the Browns bandwagon. They think their team has finally gotten it right from the standpoint of the player and this their chance to have that feel good moment of possibly winning a SB.

With all of that considered, it is not, has not and will not be hard to convince them to block out the reality of what has happened here. I don't think we'll ever know which people or if any people in the FO were supportive of this move. All we know for sure is that Haslam was because he's the one who signs the checks. He's the one who rubber stamps everything.

I wish I could take credit for it, but I'm pretty sure someone used this one before (analytics and everything).

To your point, that graphic with the pillars that's been posted/reposted a couple times was from the Sashi FO. I know there's a ton of overlap (in both the general approach and the people) between that iteration and this one, but they're not exactly the same.

Do you not remember what you write?

"Surely Depo and his analytics crew were "all in", supporting The Boss's decision to pursue an alleged sex offender, 22 times over...?"

To me, this entire episode has Haslam written all over it. (as you eluded to) I think it's very possible that Haslam said, "Get me a guy that can compete with Burrows...."

I really don't think that Depo went all in on this, thus his silence... I also expect that it won't be long before Berry and KS move on... Most GM's and Coaches don't appreciate having a player shoved down their throat.. (if that is indeed what happened)

So you know what you can do with what I assume you think was a "GOTCHA MOMENT"!

This is the pure football forum Mac. Not the fairy tale forum.

Only an absolute fool would go public with not being onboard with the decisions of the man cutting the paychecks.

The entire premise of the thread is just silly. Of course he's quiet. If he supported the move, there's nothing to say. If he didn't support the move, he's not going to say anything. This is where Berry, Haslam, and Stefanski talk, not the Chief Strategy Officer.

As for things they can do to repair his image, you're already seeing it on multiple fronts in tweets, podcasts, etc...

maybe we should start a thread about the Director of Security not commenting.

I explained it to you earlier. Depo doesn't speak for the team on such issues in the normal course of things.

Exactly... who cares if he says anything publicly... he doesn't need to.... the Owner (who cuts the checks) the GM (who traded for him and negotiated the contract) and coach (who will coach him) have all publicly made comments... there's no need for Depo to say anything... has he made public comments about any other player moves we've made?

Say what you want after the fact, but you put analytics into the mix.. I didn't.

So YOU know DW personally right, how many years have you been running with him. YOU know exactly how Browns use analytics. And you have never judged anyone in your whole life. Since you KNOW how the 22 civil suits will end up, please tell us......GO Browns!!!!

Depodesta speaks:



link

"We didn't talk to any of the victims but that doesn't matter."

"We didn't talk to the victims on the advice of our lawyers because there are ongoing legal proceedings" is quite possibly more accurate.

I'm not so sure the team had to spend a lot of time getting comfortable with DeShaun so much as they had to spend time getting comfortable with the idea of dealing with backlash from people that don't have the facts. Unfortunately, calling fans and media ignorant conclusion jumpers in a press conference wouldn't go over well. I'd have found that much more entertaining than the press conference that we got.

The accusers lawyer stated he would have been fine with the Browns speaking to the victims. I mean you can make all the excuses you like but if their lawyer gives you permission to talk with them, that can't be used as any defense moving forward. It does however give you legal, plausible deniability by saying you had no idea of the details of their allegations. I'm sure watson't accusers don't find this entertaining. But it's no surprise what some people consider entertainment these days. That's why reality TV is so popular.

Reeeaally?

You mean the accusers' lawyer is cool with the Browns talking to victims so he can cry foul and say they interfered with the investigation??

No way!!

Once he gives his permission for the Browns to talk to them, he could not use that against anyone in a civil case. He would have no grounds to do so at that point. I'm sure the Browns lawyers advised them not to talk to the victims because you can't be held accountable for things you don't know. Maybe you should look into what plausible deniability means. And the Browns attorney's made the right move to protect ownership from facts that may well be exposed later.

You used the original statement from the Browns to imply that they should be talking to the victims.

You doubled down by saying they were granted permission.

Now you shift the conversation to me not understanding plausible deniability.


Plausible deniability is the obvious first reason not to, especially during a civil case in which you played no role until long after it was in the courts.

Why are you suggesting they should?

Please find one other person on the planet that thinks that would be a good idea, or a goal post, whichever is more convenient.

I'm suggesting that if you want both sides of the story you talk to both sides of the issue.

It appears Roger Goodell thinks it's a good idea. The NFL actually has talked to some of them already.....

Roger Goodell indicates NFL could talk to more of Browns QB Deshaun Watson’s 24 accusers; no timeframe on possible suspension

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...-commissioners-exempt-list-unlikely.html

No reason to get your panties in a bunch over it.

Roger is obligated to.

His league has it's own standards, it's own "crime and punishment" system, and it's own set of penalties. As well as expectations by John Q Public for what kind of "sentence" should be handed out.

And the Browns would be stupid to look at Roger for cues anyway... He started snooping early on, before the case busted open to "22 women". There's testimony and statements from some parties claiming the NFL acted "brash" in their investigation and asked questions like "what were you wearing". Didn't look too good in the media.

So the NFL should use due diligence but the Browns who are paying him 230mil. and giving up three first round draft picks shouldn't? Got it.

He didn't say that. You do this all the time, and your pat reply is "It was a question." Followed by a statement in an attempt to make it sound like he did say that.

Does it ever cross your mind that maybe during a five month investigation, their idea of "due diligence" and yours met a crossroad?

Write a letter to Jimmy and tell him what he did wrong, you may even land a gig on the analytics team.

In some people's minds, due dilligence = setting your self up for accusations of loaded questions and witness baiting.

Have you heard of the NFL interviewing any of the accusers after they were accused of victim blaming? That happened in August of 2021, before the Browns started investigating.

"Could talk to more accusers" placates the masses but doesn't actually commit them to anything.

Buzbee is putting on a show, why would teams risk giving him material to work with? He already put the league's investigators on blast.