DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns News Continued....

I watched the three shorts. Freakin' awesome -- thanks for posting!

#1. Imagine a well-calculated move that feeds no conspiracy theory with the Vrabel addition! So glad to have him and see how he's already paying dividends. There is nothing more important in any business than a fresh set of trusting eyeballs to walk in and question things (in a good way) that you've long taken for granted.

#2. New kickoffs should be exciting. This is when you're thankful to have the addition of a Vrabel... and a Bubba Ventrone. All teams starting with a clean slate, ours is smarter than most of them. So many things we haven't even thought about, just from the perspective of the kicker, "hangtime means nothing".

#3. Things that never cross your mind as a fan (at least not mine), the thought and planning that goes into gameday officiating crew. "Making sure your offensive players gloves match the jersey color of the opposing team".

Good stuff.

Kevin Talks well and I like listening to him speak.

However, if it wasn't for Goldhammer and Kevin saying good question.

I feel the looks Kevin was giving Rizzo, there may have been a finger flip.

LOL

I know you get lots of thank yous for posting material.

I don't have Twitter or the X thing, not a social media person

I enjoy these posts, oh ! and by the way. Thank you !

I do have some xxx , but I don't think I can post those interviews

LOL just having fun !

That might not be the right thing to say

LOL

London?!? Might end up being Saudi Arabia (pack sunscreen)!

The dude realized he might be on the outside looking in.

We knew, he knew, everyone knew that weight was an issue on his draft day. You get thrown into the rigors of your first NFL season and you can't really change that significantly. First offseason was always going to be the litmus test imo.

I read an article that said that DT seems to be a position where many players "need a year". We'll see on Ika.

Might be. Dark colors tend to make people look slimmer.

True. And he could have tucked his Fa-Doop-Doop under his shorts.

I agree.

I have said for many years on this board that the only thing worse than a blown pick is sticking with a blown pick. Blown picks happen, just a fact of the business. Sticking with them is a choice.

Being a fairly high choice, if he doesn't pan out in camp this year, I could see us cutting him then sticking him on the practice squad for a year if he clears waivers. I'd be OK with that if it happens.

Thinking about the D scheme, too...Has Schwartz ever prioritized a true nose kind of guy? It seems like he's more prone to having the gap attackers.

I don't know. It doesn't seem like he does. I think he likes active DT's who can penetrate over those who anchor and hold their ground.

At least in todays NFL, guys who can neutralize two blockers don't work when 60-70% of the time you only have two LB's on the field.

Overall, I do not think so. In a draft interview with Kevin Stefanski, he made reference to the defensive interior and the types of guys they want when discussing the Michael Hall selection. In short, they lean towards guys who can be 3-techs and 2i-techs with pass disruption ability. No 0 tech was referenced. I know that's not from Schwartz's mouth but clearly, Stefanski knows that defensive identify and scheme.

I'm not sure they see Ika as a true nose guy. I think they see him as more of a pocket collapser/battering ram. I think they want him to play like more of an Albert Haynesworth, Ndamukong Suh, Jeffery Simmons type DT (All guys on teams that Schwartz has coached.) Brute-force guys. Guys that can reset the line of scrimmage in short yardage situations while also making QBs uncomfortable by compressing the pocket.

I've said it about other positions, but I think it also applies on the DL. The "team" likes giving themselves different stylistic options, so that they can try to exploit matchups.

Could of swore he was gone.

Andrew Berry Details Why Browns Did Not Retain Joe Flacco

May 2, 2024
By Earnest Horn
@earnest_horn
link

After Deshaun Watson’s season ended against the Baltimore Ravens, the Cleveland Browns signed former AFC North rival quarterback Joe Flacco to a contract to close out the 2023 regular season.

The Browns can credit the then-38-year-old quarterback with salvaging their playoff aspirations as he led the team to a postseason berth.

Browns GM Andrew Berry addressed the questions surrounding why the team did not re-sign Flacco this season to continue serving as Watson’s backup during an interview on “The Ken Carman Show with Anthony Lima” on Thursday.

Berry’s candid answer was that Flacco’s performance – which included two pick-six throws in a stunning 45-14 playoff loss – did not have an impact on Cleveland’s decision to sign quarterbacks Jameis Winston and Tyler Huntley this offseason.

“I can tell you Anthony (Lima) that we don’t really overreact to any individual performance (because) if that was the case, we would throw out our entire defense,” Berry said of the unit’s showing in the playoff loss.

Lima followed up that question with one directly pointed at Winston’s signing, asking if Berry brought in the former Buccaneers and Saints signal-caller due to his age (30) compared to Flacco as a now 39-year-old athlete.

Berry noted that age was not the only consideration, telling Lima that he took multiple factors into account in signing Winston to a contract in March.

Costs and performance were the other factors Berry outlined in making this decision, adding that both Winston and Flacco were “great” quarterbacks.

Berry concluded that Winston made the most sense for Cleveland due to other roster moves the team made.

The "Andrew Berry Details Why Browns Did Not Retain Joe Flacco" piece literally offers zero detail on why the Browns did not retain Flacco.

I read the post twice and the only thing I could get out of it was they didn’t resign Joe because of his age but even so it’s vague. I believe his age was a factor and Joe can go from very good to very bad in an instant as we saw in the playoff game.

I've heard but can not verify that the ground the current stadium is built on will not support the weight of a domed stadium. So the only current options I've seen given are a 1 billion dollar renovation of the current stadium or a new dome stadium in Brooklyn Park.....

Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam say stadium options are $1B renovation or new $2B dome outside city

https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports.../95-c9de4dc8-99e8-4e81-89b7-58f657265145

I'm not sure that investing 1 billion in an old stadium and not having a dome is something I wold consider a wise investment.

I hope the city of Cleveland and Jimmy Haslam can get together and bring the new stadium project to fruition. I don’t want to see a repeat of what happened in 1995.

Because you are still going to have a 30 year old crap stadium on valuable property that gets used less that half the year.

Look, you have some age on you just as I do. We can put on a $1000 suit and look pretty spiffy, but no matter what it's still an old body.

I don't think it has teeth that sharp. No doubt there is the letter of the law. There is also the concept of " Spirit of the Law" and moving the team 10 miles away, even more wouldn't pass the spirit of the law.

I don't know how far the boundary might reach, but certainly more than moving the team 10 miles. I would think anywhere in Cuyahoga County would be fair game, maybe even a bit further. 20-30 miles maybe? That would put you in areas of Lorain, Medina, and Summit County.

The ideal is for the county, and cities of Brookpark and Cleveland to work out annexation of the parcel. Nobody lives in the area, so no citizens will feel any tax impact of moving from Brookpark rates to Cleveland rates. In return, work out a deal where Brookpark will receive some portion of the revenue generated by the city of Cleveland from the stadium project. We are talking 180 acers here. It's not like Brookpark would be giving up half their city, and the area is a dead zone.

Getting some tax money without providing any services might be a carrot they would find agreeable. There are ways to divvy up the taxes. One city gets hotel, the other restaurant, or whatever.

I said that's what I heard but can't verify it. I would like for someone to either verify it or dispel it myself.

The problem with building the dome on the
stadium is that they used the foundation from the old stadium and it can’t handle the additional weight. They could tear down and rebuild from scratch I would imagine but they would need a place to play for a few years.

Thanks P. With your additional information I found this which adds some context. It's part of a larger article.....

The site is also a landfill on reclaimed submerged lands, subject to legal ownership by the State of Ohio rather than the city of Cleveland which has been an ongoing dispute between city and state for decades. That century-old landfill isn’t stable. It’s a mix of trash and fill dirt. To stabilize it for the construction of external structures to support a new roof would require lots of legal maneuvering just to build the costly foundations. FirstEnergy Stadium itself was built on the 92-year-old foundations of the old Cleveland Municipal Stadium. Local history aficionados say those foundations were merely old utility poles driven straight down into the landfill.

The Browns already know renovation of an open-air stadium that was poorly designed, quickly built and not easily or cheaply remedied is not the ideal situation. Over the next year, the Browns will have a conversation with the community on what to do about it. Renovation will involve greater compromises than a new stadium. Those compromises may be acceptable to city officials and the general public. We don’t yet know if the compromises will be acceptable to the Browns.

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/03/30/browns-city-want-you-to-rule-out-fes-renovation/

You're welcome but it was as much self serving as anything. I had been wanting to know the answer to why nobody seemed to consider a dome in the current location myself. As I said before I had heard it couldn't be done but had nothing concrete to base it on. I guess the foundation and soil where the current stadium is located is the answer.

No doubt that the Haslams, and now all owners for that matter, want this concept, but I cannot wrap my head how this translate in Brook Park.

There are already three of these concepts in the greater Cleveland area that serve affluent to upper-middle class areas.

Crocker Park: serves Westlake, Bay Village, Avon, Avon Lake and Rocky River

Legacy Village: serves Beachwood, Gates Mills, Shaker Heights and University Heights.

Pinecrest: serves Pepper Pike, Orange Village, Moreland Hills, Hunting Valley and Chagrin Falls

Outside of the 8 home games, why are people from any of these communities spending any amount of time in Brook Park?

If the mixed used stadium/retail/work/living/dining were on Lake Erie, that location on the lakefront would attract people.

I think refurbishing the existing stadium is meh, but the overall concept in Brook Park is bizarre to me, unless it was a dome stadium and that was it.

Truist Park has 81 homes games and, to my understanding, is located in a more affluent to upper-middle class area. That is not Brook Park.