DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Savage says D.A starting QB in 08- Crennel to extend

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I was thinking that, but then it hit me how that cannot be true: Anderson knows he won't be nearly as successful on a team with receivers who are not Braylon Edwards or Kellen Winslow.

---

Can't believe i'm saying this... but uh... I don't think its Braylon and K2 who he doesn't want to leave...

He knows he won't be nearly as successful on a team without an OFFENSIVE LINE like the Cleveland Browns...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If we tender DA the 1st and 3rd...and no one takes him off our hands...then he leaves as a UFA the following year...what round draft pick do we get as compensation for losing a player to free agency?

Nothing, because we picked him up for free? A 6th - where he was oringinally drafted? Something better due to the 1st & 3rd tender?

I have no clue where to even start researching that.

---

If I'm wrong, I pretty sure someone will correct me but:

If we high tender him, meaning that if another team wants him, they have to make him a formal contract offer.. at that point, we have a choice to make, we can match it and retain DA for another year, or we can say,, good luck to DA and bid him farewell.. then we get a 1st and 3rd.

Or we could High Tender him, let him find his market worth, match whatever is offered to him and make it a long term contract,, then he's ours for the length of the contract.

Or we could just trade him outright if someone is willing to give something worthwhile for him..

But if we high tender him, and match the money for one year, then he's a free agent next year and we get nothing for him,.,, NOTHING.. just like SD got for Drew Brees. I hope they DON'T do this one...

My hope is they sign him to a long term deal, then let him and quinn fight it out in camp as to who the starter is.. then we got two very good guys that are more than capable of starting.. What a wonderful position to be in.

Of course, if he doesn't win the starting job, then I supposed that after we are 100% sure of Quinn, DA could be traded away during the year or next off season.

Point is, there are more options then people generally speak of.

---

Quote:

---

Hey, I have a favor to ask, could you maybe break your longer posts in to paragraphs.. they become easier to read..

---

LOL!! This is funny, coming from "The Comma King" himself. Although,,,,,,,,,, you did only use two in that whole sentence. Are you feeling okay?

Quote:

---

Savage didn't rule anything out, including at least listening to trade offers for both Anderson and Quinn. But he stressed that the Browns want both young quarterbacks back

---

Quote:

---

"Sitting here today, we want to go into next season with both (Anderson and Quinn)," Savage said. "We don't want to do anything to derail us from having a good season next year, and the quickest way to do that would be to have injuries at the quarterback position and not having anybody ready to go."

---

Quote:

---

"Am I saying both quarterbacks are off the market for 2008? Yeah, I'm saying that. But obviously there are some things that have to be done before you can know that."

---

Quote:

---

In one sense, I hope I'm wrong. I don't think it's easy to win with Two good QB's,, you almost need that if you want to win when an injury occurs. I would think unless you are lucky, it's harder with just one.

You have to ask yourself, if Payton Manning (mr ironman) had gone down in about 6th or 7th game of the season,,, what would have happened with Sorgi as the starter. Scary isn't it?

Or does anyone think that the Pats would be undeated if Tom Brady (another Mr. Ironman) had gone down and either Matt Cassel or Matt Gutierrez had to step into the breach.. and if it was early enough in the season,, would they even be going to the playoffs let alone be undefeated.

---

Please note; *sarcasm inserted*

So you wish to use the example of the two MOST successfull teams in the NFL and tell us just "how wrong" they're doing it?

Here's what they DO have!

No QB contraversy. Every player on that team knows who their "leader on the field is". They know who it will be next week and next year. No uncertainty. Total continuity.

Since they just happen to be the two BEST teams in the league, I think they MAY be onto something!



JMHO

Quote:

---

On one hand u don't want anyone to get the impression that Anderson's NOT gonna be the Starter next year...That could conceivably give any team interested the idea that a High Tender Compensation package is way to much...Doesn't sound good when the team he PLAYS for doesn't think enuff of him...lol...

---

Check

Quote:

---

On the other hand...U don't wanna name him the 2008 STARTER when u intend on negotiating a potential Long-Term Contract...U do that and u just added MILLIONS to said negotiations...

---

Check

Quote:

---

I would be SHOCKED if we signed him to a long-termer...Literally shocked...His agent's gonna want Starters Money...And BIG Starter Money...Knowing what we have in him as of right now...And knowing Quinn's waiting in the wings...We WILL NOT committ long-term to Anderson at this point...

IF by some wild ass chance we do give him a BIG ONE...U best believe the next play is Condon DEMANDING a Quinn TRADE...

This is simple if u ask me...Savage is playin' Anderson up...He has ZERO intentions of signing him Long-Term...Unless it's at Savage's dollars...

---

We can stop right there, because it's set and match

I don't think we could agree more here, dude.

I was WRON......WRO......possibly mistaken when I called Anderson someone who, at best, could become a competent backup in this league. He's elevated his game to marginal starter, which is further up the food chain than I ever gave him credit for. BUT, since week four, I never saw a scenario where we did anything BUT slap the high tender on Anderson and play the "wait and see" game.

That's STILL the only scenario that makes sense at this point. Why? Because we don't have to do anything else!

It doesn't hurt Quinn AT ALL to sit for another year. NOT ONE BIT.- CHECK

If Anderson beats out Quinn, which is NOT a given at this point, regardless of the obvious posturing that Savage is offering right now, and goes on to have a season where he improves on all the things that need serious work, he'll have earned this big, fat contract that his agent OBVIOUSLY wants right now.-CHECK

Anyone REALLY think (outside of Brown to the Bone) that Anderson's agent is willing to accept a team-friendly contract to stay? Anyone think that Anderson's agent doesn't want a HUGE contract in the neighborhood of what the Texans gave up for Schaub? To sign anything less than that lets the Browns determine Anderson's fate, as they could ship him to the highest bidder in a year without hurting the cap. No idiot agent on this planet would be dumb enough to accept that kind of deal, UNLESS he felt that his client's "breakout" year was a sham

Now.....If Anderson fails in '08, Quinn has taken over and Anderson becomes a guy we no longer need. He'll move along to some team that has ZERO ability at the QB position, where he can battle it out with the likes of Chad Pennington and Rex Grossman for the gig. No harm to the Browns, no foul.

Finally, for the most part, does anyone really deep down in their heart-of-hearts believe that a team is going to give up a 1st AND a 3rd for Anderson? Truly? I sure don't, and neither do you. If a team is willing to go that route, then we let Anderson go and we laugh all the way to the National Bank of the NFL Draft. In Savage's eyes, we'll have hoodwinked our 1st round QB one year early and actually GAINED a 3rd round pick in the process.

Not a bad turn of events

Sure, we'd offer Anderson a contract.......A SAVAGE contract, not a contract that guarantees Anderson the starting gig for the next 5 years. Again, I'd expect the team to do no less if they had an ounce of sense, just as I'd expect Anderson's agent to want FAR more than that if he has an ounce of sense.

Logic makes this pretty cut and dry to me.

Now, one thing I wanted to add about RAC. I said I've not been in his corner from day one. That's not exactly true. I didn't mind his hire when we made the move, though he wasn't my first choice. However, I quickly lost faith in him when I saw a guy that i felt was over his head. My mind hasn't changed just because of a 10-6 season.

Let me ask you people a question: Who do you think had the most impact on the turnaround of the team? Romeo Crennel or Rob Chudzinski? If both guys were on the market right now, which guy would get the most attention as a head coaching candidate?

That's why I feel an extension for Crennel is premature.

Quote:

---

Romeo Crennel or Rob Chudzinski? If both guys were on the market right now, which guy would get the most attention as a head coaching candidate?

That's why I feel an extension for Crennel is premature.

---

Quote:

---

Coma coma coma coma coma chameleon…..

---

Should we now refer to you as Boy Dawg

Quote:

---

Ummm, which guy owns 3 Super Bowl rings and has like 30 years of coaching experience in the NFL?

---

Hehehe...You know that one is full of holes dude He had rings and that experience before we hired him, and prior to that, he didn't really get a sniff as a head coaching candidate. He was also a dead-man walking, but all of a sudden, he's this great head coach that everyone would want?

If Crennel hits the market, I believe he's a recycled coach that gets a few looks, but that most teams would view as nobody special, while they'd look at Chud as a wunderkind who's offense got the Browns to a 10-6 record with Derek freakin' Anderson as the QB.

The Rats allready wanted to talk to him, and the Browns quickly locked Chud up. I don't believe that all those rings and that experience mean as much as it appears on paper for RAC. That experience is invaluable, but the HOT names right now aren't old coaches with rings and experience, they are young guys who are innovative. Chud and Garret are hotter names than guys like Crennel and Mooch would be.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In one sense, I hope I'm wrong. I don't think it's easy to win with Two good QB's,, you almost need that if you want to win when an injury occurs. I would think unless you are lucky, it's harder with just one.

You have to ask yourself, if Payton Manning (mr ironman) had gone down in about 6th or 7th game of the season,,, what would have happened with Sorgi as the starter. Scary isn't it?

Or does anyone think that the Pats would be undeated if Tom Brady (another Mr. Ironman) had gone down and either Matt Cassel or Matt Gutierrez had to step into the breach.. and if it was early enough in the season,, would they even be going to the playoffs let alone be undefeated.

---

Please note; *sarcasm inserted*

So you wish to use the example of the two MOST successfull teams in the NFL and tell us just "how wrong" they're doing it?

Here's what they DO have!

No QB contraversy. Every player on that team knows who their "leader on the field is". They know who it will be next week and next year. No uncertainty. Total continuity.

Since they just happen to be the two BEST teams in the league, I think they MAY be onto something!



JMHO

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Coma coma coma coma coma chameleon…..

---

Should we now refer to you as Boy Dawg

---

I'm just not sure if he means coma or comma.



Because there's one HELLUVA difference!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Coma coma coma coma coma chameleon…..

---

Should we now refer to you as Boy Dawg

---

I'm just not sure if he means coma or comma.



Because there's one HELLUVA difference!

---

Quote:

---

Let’s not forget that Buffalo gave up a first round draft pick for Bledsoe….

---

Oh, I'm not forgetting. I'm not advocating "giving DA away"

BUT, if I could find a "salary cap strapped team" who would deal a current big time D player and a high second, I'd take it in a heartbeat!



That's the great thing about the salary cap. Those who find themselves "in a bind" must make deals they "really don't WANT to make".

I mean, if you NEED a QB and don't have the money to sign one, you must unload a big $$$ contract somewhere to have cap space.

There are teams out there that come to mind under that scenario. Those who have a little $$$ but need a lot of help. Time will tell.

Quote:

---

Good god Man ... like U I am stil not sold on rAC .. but sheesh .. can u JUST ONCE try not to be so obvious in your attempt to sway people ..

---

Where's the fun in that?

It's really an honest question.

Set down the crystal ball and the "what-if" scenario's, and just ask yourself the question: Which guy would you take?

There's nothing loaded about that question. We all know talent plays a role in things, but that knife (butter or otherwise ) cuts both ways. All the talent in the world doesn't make Anderson Joe Montana, which brings Chud's offense back to the forefront.

Here's another way to put it: Who are you more excited about extending: Chud or RAC?

Be honest.....

Quote:

---

Here's another way to put it: Who are you more excited about extending: Chud or RAC?

---

You did it again, but ok.


Chud since it may have been the difference between losing him or not.

RAC's under contract so he cannot make a move. He's secure here. There's no real excitement in extending him. That would be saved for a couple of years down the road.

But Chud could easily have left the team and for that reason I am more excited that we were able to keep him by extending him.

Now, if it were a choice between the two, at this point I would choose RAC.

We can get Cam in here with basically the same offense, but the team has taken on the personality of their head coach, something you want if that personality is consistant, and have become a team-first oriented mind-set. That is possibly the most important hurdle they've had to overcome. Before RAC, they wanted to be that but just couldn't muster the belief to do it.

I love this Tom Landry quote: "Leadership is a matter of having people look at you and gain confidence, seeing how you react. If you're in control, they're in control." To me, that pretty much summerizes RAC's consistancy. Even keeled, controled. Not too high. Not too low. No excuses (in-house).

I'd hate to lose Chud. Really be bummin' if that happened. But he doesn't set the tone for the entire team like the HC does and I like very much how the tone has been set and how the players have bought into it.

So there.


btw...Loved the PT Barnum pic. Perfectly timed and right on the money. You couldn't have said it better in a 5 volume set of explanations.

Quote:

---

Who would I hire tiday for our football team .. RAC ... I do not want to put the fate of this team in a guy who;s been an OC for 1 year

---

Quote:

---

That's great Phil, but I'm not worried about home runs, I'm worried about touchdowns.

---

Quote:

---

*sarcasm inserted*

---

Where,, I didn't see it,, where did it go

Quote:

---

So you wish to use the example of the two MOST successfull teams in the NFL and tell us just "how wrong" they're doing it?

---

Quote:

---

No QB contraversy. Every player on that team knows who their "leader on the field is". They know who it will be next week and next year. No uncertainty. Total continuity.

---

Yeah, as long as Brady and Manning are healthy and able to play,, no problem. I agree with that.

But that wouldn't work around here... not for the Browns fans.. you see, neither Brady or Manning is perfect every game.. *sarcasm inserted*

Quote:

---

I myself don't know that RAC sets the tone.....Savage is the face of the team.....not RAC.

---

Quote:

---

Savage traded our qb after the 1st game...the qb the HC chose to play.

---

Quote:

---

Savage hired Chud....after insisting we terminate MO.

---

Insisting we terminate MO is something no one knows. That's never been said and can only be surmised, especially if one wants to believe it.

Did he insist we make major changes in the offensive coaching staff? Word is, (note the Roger Brown inpersonation ), that it is true. But again, in his latest presser, he gives RAC credit for seeing the same thing and being fully on board with making those changes.

Do even I think that RAC was a bit resistant with that at first? Yes. Loyalty is a virtue not a disease. But kudos to anyone, who upon hearing a good arguement contrary ones own opinion, gets on board and helps in the planning of making the change. And I don't for a minute believe that RAC's job was in jepordy if he didn't.


because...

Quote:

---

...he gets players to play...that is why he is here....it isn't because of his ability to innovate or make great decisions.

---

Quote:

---

There's no real excitement in extending him.

---

I would think there would be if everyone believed he was such a great part of the success And in case anyone might suggest that was taken out of context, if Chud were under contract for another year or two, then extended, wouldn't that excite you? It would me. Extending RAC doesn't. And I can quote you on that

Quote:

---

but the team has taken on the personality of their head coach

---

Bah, hehehe. If this team took on his personality, we'd be just like the Pats, and we're far too opinionated for that. The vast majority of teams buy into the "team first" mentality. Only loser organizations like the Raiders and Ravens don't. We weren't like that WITHOUT RAC.

To this point, the only thing I can say about RAC is that he's calm. His "consistency" has actually been inconsistent gameday management.

As unpopular as it seems, I think we're awash in the giddiness of a 10-6 record and looking at ways to quantify the happy feelings.

This team is taking on it's OWN personality, not RAC's. IMHO RAC has nothing to do with how Lewis carries himself, as he's always been this way. Same for Winslow and his work ethic, same for Jurevicius and his work ethic, same for Steinbach, same for Thomas, same for Anderson, same for Davis, the list goes on and on. These weren't bad characters who've suddenly adopted a new way of doing things. The very reason Winslow and Edwards are happy has to do with moving the chains and getting balls thrown to them.

This looks to me as though we've won some games and are justifying the coach when the same things we've seen that are bad are still bad, and the same things we've seen that were good are still good. Kinda like that arguement that says if a QB is on a winning team, he's a winner. That didn't wash with Couch and it didn't wash with Dilfer.

I continue to take a very skeptical wait and see with RAC, but he looks like a middling-coach that ISN'T the kind of guy who can force his will on a team. I think he's just like the Dave McGinniss's and Dick LeBeau's of the world; guys that are well-loved by their players, but not the kind of dominant presence to take the team all the way.

Now that I've gone off the deep end with my negativity, I enjoy the debates with you and most of the rest, Dub, hehe. It gives me something to do while we wait to see how Savage can fix the defense, so we can prove or disprove the theories that surround RAC (or is it RAC that surrounds them ).

Quote:

---

I myself don't know that RAC sets the tone.....Savage is the face of the team.....not RAC.

---

Quote:

---

But right now it is undisputedly Romeo Crennel who is the face of this franchise.

---

I have to disagree.

Down here in Texas, the face of the Cowboys franchise isn't the head coach, it's the owner, it's TO, and it's Romo, despite all the pressers and articles about Philips.

In New England, it's Bellyache because of his dominant personality and grip on the franchise, despite the star power of Brady.

I've talked to dozens of football junkies in the sports bars this season. When they talk about the Browns, none of'em mentioned RAC. They barely know who he is. Truthfully, they mentioned Chud's name a ton, which came as a shock to me, because he's "just" our OC.

In this case, I believe that y'all (perfect time to insert that ) are too close to "ground zero." Around the country, RAC doesn't get the press because he isn't a dominant personality in that regard.

The Browns went out of their way to make Edwards the face of the franchise, and he is. He's the one doing commercials, he's the one doing fundraisers, and he's the one playing the quotes. McNabb was the face of the Eagles before TO came along, then it became TO, despite the heavy-hand that Andy threw on the organization. Gruden is the face of the Bucs because of how he forces his personality on the team.

There are players and coaches that I dislike far more than RAC who I identify as the face of their respective franchises. Remember, the Browns went out of their way to make Edwards the poster boy. RAC, in fact, doesn't WANT to be the face of the organization. That's just his Agent talking

RAC needs a talent infusion on defense to tell us whether or not he's the answer. His people were stripped away and replaced. Those replacements on offense know what the Hell they are doing. It'd be easy to say "yeah, but they couldn't have done it without talent!" and while true, it's the same arguement as saying a QB like Brady couldn't do it without talent. The only problem?

He still has to make the reads and throw the damned ball.

So while talent plays a role, the offense put up some big numbers, and nobody here can say that Carthon (*puke*) could have done it. These were Savage's selections, not RAC's. Oh, I'm sure Savage "consulted" with RAC, much in the same way he "consulted" with him before signing Baxter, hehe.

I'll say it again just to appease some few posters who would jump on this if I didn't spout it out: I like the fact the players love RAC and play hard for him, but I don't believe he has control of this team the way many want to believe. If I were a player, and witnessed all of his people being shipped out then replaced by the GM, I'd question it as well.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. Yet there are enough issues surrounding RAC that gives me plenty of reason to question things. I see nothing wrong with letting him prove himself one more year before talking extensions, since he's signed for two Afterall, we had a magical season when it came to injuries and schedules. Extending him now feels like a rush to justify his hire, and to create a perceived sense of continuity, just like we did when we extended Davis.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I myself don't know that RAC sets the tone.....Savage is the face of the team.....not RAC.

---

Ask anyone who is not a Cleveland Browns fan who Phil Savage is?

---