DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Phil Savage commenting on how the Browns are doing

Quote:

---

Toad, you've never been this bad, really....and I consider you a good poster, even when I disagree....but this is as bad as I've read ya

making apologies for EM.....wow

1. the guy inherited a much better prodruct than Savage/RAC...yet he does MUCH worse....read: I didn't expect him to make the POs...but there is no excuse for being the trash can of the NFL with the guys he inherited...NO FREAKING WAY...we went from 22nd to 28th power rank team to 30th to 32nd (being in the teens in 2007 with much of the same roster just HEALTHY)

2. he inherited one of the YOUNGEST teams in the NFL...yet he decides to tore it down COMPLETELY....it's like saying: "eff it, I want my own draftees in"...he refuted to coach the young talent he inherited....best example: ILB position...we had 2 mid-round prospects from Savage in Bell and Williams...what does he do? He drafts his own projects in Maiava and Veikune....anybody tell me with a straight face that Williams would NOT have helped more this year than Veikune...it's all pissing match with EM...he has a long documented history of these issues.....jesus, guy must have a really, really small wiener, seriously

3. The money excuse is lame...yes, Savage compromised a lot of $...but there stil was enough left (Savage esp. did that not likely to be earned trick which I doubt Mangini even uses)....Mangini AGAIN opted for quantity OVER quality in FA.....Royal is still partying over the money he got from the moron, same with Womack and StClair....nobody forced him to sign those bums....he could have gotten 2 decent players for the money he gave those bums....like Birk or Holt.....or re-signed Friedman for minimum who looked no worse than Womack at G

---

We'll just call it a gentlemen's bet and see what happens.

Quote:

---

there are maybe 10-15 FA max that I would label above AVG or better...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And yes, if they do it right they will again do what Savage did and bring in some FA's next year and actually start the rebuilding process. So far all we've seen, and rightfully so, is the tear down. (the givaway season) I distinctly remember Savage saying mid-season '05 that he wished he could fast-forward to the end of the season so he could get started.

---

See...that'S the problem....no FA will come here...cause Mangini isn't Crennel and Kokinis isn't Savage....and we look much more hopeless than the Browns in their 1st year....so, even if you think their plan is right....their EXECUTION has not even a CHANCE....and then there's the inability to evaluate talent (draft AND FA)....I really think these guys are clueless...and I have lots of examples to back that up

---

Quote:

---

But, he needs to consistently draft guys who will help build the team and get a few playmakers to continually improve the talent level each year. It is how the Steelers, Patriots, Colts and others remain competitive, but it is a tall task to execute.

---

Quote:

---

Might I suggest you go back to Savage's very first year, review the moves he made, then compare them to what we did this year.

You'll find that the moves are rather similar.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

btw:

ProBowl LT
ProBowl NT
ProBowl ST

above average CB
above average G
above average WR
above average TE
above average ILB

IS NOT "a pile of crap with little talent"....Romeo had Jason Fisk at NT and Shelton at LT and Andra Davis as best player, lol and won/overachieved 6 game...what was that then?

---

You know as well as I do that Edwards and Winslow had no future here and had to go. It was just a matter of time for both. Sooner is as or better than later.

Now recompile your list. That's 6 players, one of which is nothing more than a special-teamer.

Sorry, this team was crap with it's only two really talented offensive players soon-to-be ex-Browns.

This is a rebuild. The sooner everyone accepts that this was the plan, the sooner it'll make sense.

'Dubia...........Don't believe that Mangini told Lerner one thing to get the gig then turned around and rebuilt everything just the opposite way. They HAD to tell the press and the public they could win with this bunch. There was no decision regarding that to make. This was the gameplan all along. It's ugly and it hurts, but is this really that much different than what Savage did? Not really.

---

Quote:

---

Gary Baxter 6 years $30.5million contract. That seems pretty splashy....went after Andruzzi right away and offered him much more than NE was willing to match. Then, offered Russell more than MIN was willing to match on a restricted contract.

---

Yes, Baxter was a high-priced signing.

But look at what he did regarding the offensive and defensive lines compared next to what Mangini has done:

Offensive line moves for Savage:

Cosey Coleman (2 years, $3 million) and Joe Andruzzi (4 years, $9 million). Both contracts were for rather humble money.

Offensive line moves for Mangini:

St. Claire (3 years $9 million) and Womack (unknown details, but you know it's not big money).

So both guys cut more expensive players and replaced them with cheaper players of equal talent.

Defensive players:

Savage signed low-money guys in Jason Fisk, Ben Taylor, Matt Stewart, Russell, and Ray Mickens.

Mangini signed low-money guys like Barton, Bowens, Kenyon Coleman, Elam, and Poteat..


In short, with the exception of the Gary Baxter signing, Savage went with cheap parts to make cap sense while he rebuilt the team.

In short, Mangini went with cheap parts to make cap sense while he rebuilt the team.

Keep in mind the trades that both guys have made:

Savage traded Ekuban and Myers to the Donks for Droughns.

Mangini traded Winslow and Edwards for picks and spare parts.



Both sets of moves were designed for the future, not the present (Keep in mind Savage was looking to turn over the roster, just like Mangin). Both guys ran with the same plan.

Now, read this about the future cap space:

Quote:

---

Projected 2006 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team

1 Cleveland Browns $31 M Considering the lack of star power in Cleveland it should come as no surprise that they are in excellent cap shape. With the well publicized front office discord that occurred at the conclusion of the season, it will be interesting to see if the team is willing to spend some money this off-season -- and if so, how will they spend it?

---

Browns rebuilt to be in great cap shape going into 2006

Going into 2010, we've dumped Edwards and Winslow. The two next guys with the biggest cap hits are Corey Williams (about $8 million) and Anderson (also about $8 million).

Mangini has made moves to put us in great shape for 2010........just as Savage did in 2005.

If people can get past how bad we're playing in this very moment and look to the future, they'll see the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

If people can get past how bad we're playing in this very moment and look to the future, they'll see the bigger picture.

---

Couldn't have said it better, froggy.

Quote:

---

If people can get past how bad we're playing in this very moment and look to the future, they'll see the bigger picture.

---

Quote:

---

If it doesn't, we're screwed, and all my peace-keeping will have been wasted typing.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If it doesn't, we're screwed, and all my peace-keeping will have been wasted typing.

---

The salary cap era has had what I believe is an unintended consequence (if it is intended it's genius).

Team A - Spends less than 30M than average and is awful.

If I told you Team A was the Indians here's what most people would say. "Dolans are cheap and are killing our ability to be competitive.

If I told you Team A was the Browns here's what most people would say. "Browns are in great position and were really smart this year."

I find it amazing. I was a psychology major and this stuff interests me.

Me.....

Lerner could have spent more money this year and put a better product on the field. I'm still paying over $100 a seat to watch the most pathetic Browns team play every week.

There's cap management which is a future issue. And then there's saving money so the owner doesn't have to pay it. Being at the cap and spending is good. Being under the cap perpetually....well that's bad.

And with blackouts coming, and the cap potentially being a thing of the past watch what happens around the league. Teams are going to be spending less as a whole than they did in 2009.

Guess where ticket prices are going. Clue....not lower.

---

Quote:

---

. I lift my arms.............what more did you expect?

---

Quote:

---

If I told you Team A was the Indians here's what most people would say. "Dolans are cheap and are killing our ability to be competitive.

If I told you Team A was the Browns here's what most people would say. "Browns are in great position and were really smart this year."

I find it amazing. I was a psychology major and this stuff interests me.

---

I think most fans actually realize the economics of MLB, and realize that the Indians can't spend like other teams, ending up as one of the middle-ground teams who can't spend money unless the young kids turn great and the stands are packed.

When it comes to the Browns, fans would also have to realize that we weren't going anywhere this year to make that statement, and in the NFL, teams often have to go backwards before they go forwards. That's the salary-cap at it's best (and worst). I've got another point, but your next statement makes a good jumping-off point for it:

Quote:

---

Lerner could have spent more money this year and put a better product on the field. I'm still paying over $100 a seat to watch the most pathetic Browns team play every week.

---

I do agree he could have spent money and put a better product on the field. I blasted Mangini when free-agency opened and it became very apparent after the first few days that we were in full-on rebuilding mode. Afterwards, I understood what he was doing and accepted it for what it was.

Now, I'm NOT a psych major, but do have some psych classes under my belt. Lemme see if I can remember something from my Social Psych class...........

You, my Hawaiian dawg, have a ............damnit, I can't remember the exact term............it's the relationship theory where the two parties have a short-term relationship where both sides aren't concerned with nurturing and responsibilities towards one another, but rather more interested in equitable returns on it. A quid pro quo situation where if one side isn't getting enough out of it, the relationship turns sour. Ah...just remembered it: Market-price relationship.

That's you, Hel You're giving him your money and not getting anything back. It's working for him, not for you *L* ergo, you aren't inclined to accept the belief that not spending money benefits the team, and subsequently yourself, going forward.

Now that I've put you on the couch, that'll be......hmmm......how much should I charge? Let's keep it at a number that you should be comfortable with:

$100.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If I told you Team A was the Indians here's what most people would say. "Dolans are cheap and are killing our ability to be competitive.

If I told you Team A was the Browns here's what most people would say. "Browns are in great position and were really smart this year."

I find it amazing. I was a psychology major and this stuff interests me.

---

I think most fans actually realize the economics of MLB, and realize that the Indians can't spend like other teams, ending up as one of the middle-ground teams who can't spend money unless the young kids turn great and the stands are packed.

When it comes to the Browns, fans would also have to realize that we weren't going anywhere this year to make that statement, and in the NFL, teams often have to go backwards before they go forwards. That's the salary-cap at it's best (and worst). I've got another point, but your next statement makes a good jumping-off point for it:

Quote:

---

Lerner could have spent more money this year and put a better product on the field. I'm still paying over $100 a seat to watch the most pathetic Browns team play every week.

---

I do agree he could have spent money and put a better product on the field. I blasted Mangini when free-agency opened and it became very apparent after the first few days that we were in full-on rebuilding mode. Afterwards, I understood what he was doing and accepted it for what it was.

Now, I'm NOT a psych major, but do have some psych classes under my belt. Lemme see if I can remember something from my Social Psych class...........

You, my Hawaiian dawg, have a ............damnit, I can't remember the exact term............it's the relationship theory where the two parties have a short-term relationship where both sides aren't concerned with nurturing and responsibilities towards one another, but rather more interested in equitable returns on it. A quid pro quo situation where if one side isn't getting enough out of it, the relationship turns sour. Ah...just remembered it: Market-price relationship.

That's you, Hel You're giving him your money and not getting anything back. It's working for him, not for you *L* ergo, you aren't inclined to accept the belief that not spending money benefits the team, and subsequently yourself, going forward.

Now that I've put you on the couch, that'll be......hmmm......how much should I charge? Let's keep it at a number that you should be comfortable with:

$100.

---

LMFAO

I can boil it down for the non-academics.

I could use a kiss or a tub of this: